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

Old December 24th, 2018 #521
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:





Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on anti-Russia accusations in the US



20 October 2018 - 12:17



The US government, in an ongoing campaign to frighten the US and international public with tales of “Russian hackers and bloggers”, has accused yet another Russian national of attempting to influence US voters. Spreading blatant lies about the mythical “hand of Moscow” for over two years – since the last presidential election – Washington is now trying to play the same card ahead of the upcoming election day: Americans will elect a new Congress on November 6.

We have said a number of times that this is a disgraceful smear campaign. It is dictated by a desire of some US politicians to get an advantage in inter-party squabbles and at the same time to pressure Russia. They are using unscrupulous tactics to achieve this, including blatantly fabricated criminal cases with a laughable evidence base.

We realise that Washington is cooking up a pretext to impose their notorious sanctions against our country once again. The United States clearly overestimates its own capabilities. By displaying hostility towards Russia and contempt for the rest of the world, they will only get an increasingly tougher response.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378651






15 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone, J. Bio - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373408

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with President of the Republic of Guinea A. Conde - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373422

Meeting of G. Karasin with the Ambassador of Kazakhstan to Russia I. Tasmagambetov - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373988

Meeting of E. Ivanov with the Ambassador of Palestine in Moscow A.Nofal - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374012

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of Malaysia to Russia Mat Dris Yakub - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374032


16 October 2018

Speech by A. Lukashevich at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in response to the report of the head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo, Y. Brote, Vienna, October 11, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374135

Meeting of S. Vershinin with UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Yemen, M. Griffiths - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374383

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a delegation of high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel headed by Deputy Director General, Director of the Eurasia Department A. Ben-Tsvi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374702

On the consultations of I. Morgulov with the special representative of the US State Department on North Korean policy S. Bigan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374718

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the special representative of the US State Department for North Korean policy S. Bigan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374778

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of the State of Brunei Darussalam in Russia, Heini Hashim - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374788

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with a delegation of high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel headed by Deputy Director General, Director of the Eurasia Department A. Ben-Tsvi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374889


17 October 2018

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in the Russian Federation Ko Ko Shein - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377176


18 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Managing Director of the European Foreign Service for Africa K. Verwake - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377447

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Leader of the Lebanese Communist Party H. Haddad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377480

M. Zakharova's answer to the question posed during the “video bridge” of the Sputnik news agency regarding the alleged kidnapping of people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377515

On the consultations of S. Ryabkov with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Plurinational State of Bolivia M. del Carmen Almendras - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377677

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Secretary General of the Indian Ocean Commission Hamad Madi Bolero - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377818

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a delegation of deputies of the People’s Council of the Syrian Arab Republic for relations with the Russian parliament - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377828


19 October 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the appointed Ambassador of Denmark in Moscow K. Söndergord - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378401

Meeting of V.Titov with the head of the EU Delegation to Russia M. Ederer - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378478

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, October 18, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378517

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with President of Eritrea Isaias Afevorki - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378585






Non-personal events:





On the Sixteenth Session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the New START Treaty



18 October 2018 - 19:40



The sixteenth session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the U.S.-Russia START Treaty was held in Geneva from October 10-18, 2018.

The U.S. and Russian delegations continued the discussion of practical issues related to the implementation of the Treaty.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377851






15 October 2018

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams between the ministers of foreign affairs of Russia and Gabon - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373432

About the 140th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Romania - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3373658


16 October 2018

On the visit of the Russian interagency delegation to Riyadh - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374083

About the consultations of the Russian interdepartmental delegation in the UAE - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3374399


17 October 2018

About the consultations of the Russian interagency delegation in the Sultanate of Oman - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377128

About the ceremony of awarding the insignia of the Order of the Companions of Oliver Tambo of the Republic of South Africa - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377138

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams between the ministers of foreign affairs of Russia and Rwanda - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377186


18 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the intensification of foreign interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Macedonia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377776

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the development of the situation around M. A. Bochkarev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377870


19 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the release of Mikhail Bochkarev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378626


20 October 2018

About the consultations of the Russian interdepartmental delegation in the Syrian Arab Republic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378666

On the consultations of the Russian interdepartmental delegation in Qatar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3378676

On the first youth forum of Russian compatriots of the Republic of Kazakhstan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395424
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2018 #522
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 17, 2018



17 October 2018 - 20:50







Terrorist attack at Kerch Polytechnic College

We start today’s briefing with tragic news coming from Kerch. Much has already been said by the leaders of the Russian Federation, our President, executive officials and legislators, and our citizens.

Law enforcement agencies have initiated an investigation. According to the latest reports, Russia’s Investigative Committee reclassified the incident as killing of two or more people by a generally dangerous method.

I would like to express condolences to the victims’ friends and families on behalf of the Foreign Ministry top officials and all employees and wish a prompt recovery to the injured as well as strength and courage to their families as they go through these horrible minutes. We are with you, we share your pain. This is grief.

I would also like to say that we are receiving words of support for our country from our foreign colleagues and partners, from leaders of foreign countries, diplomats and the public. We appreciate the sincere words of condolences and support we hear.

We are also being asked if there are foreign nationals among the victims and the injured. Information on the presence or absence of killed or wounded foreign nationals and other information can be requested or reported by calling the hotline telephone numbers:

Russian Emergencies Ministry’s hotline, Kerch: +7-3652-55-09-05

Russian Embassy’s Consular Department, Kiev: +380-44-280-14-12

Russian Foreign Ministry Office in Simferopol: +7-3652-24-82-17

Our request is to pay attention to the actual facts and verified information from law enforcement bodies.

The above hotline numbers can be used to check if there were children and foreign nationals among the victims. We will look into this information and keep you posted.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Madagascar Eloi Maxime Alphonse Dovo

On October 20−22, Foreign Minister of Madagascar Eloi Maxime Alphonse Dovo will arrive in Moscow on a working visit.

On October 22, the foreign ministers of the two countries will hold talks at the Foreign Ministry. During the talks they will address a wide range of issues in traditionally warm Russian-Malagasy relations with a focus on the priority areas for further development. The officials will exchange views on current issues on the international and regional agendas, including the settlement of the conflicts in Africa, with a focus on the situations in the African Great Lakes Region, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and the Horn of Africa.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Russia-Africa Public Forum

On October 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Russia-Africa Public Forum organised by the World Association of Foreign Alumni of Russian Universities and African Business Initiative Union. Prominent Russian and African political and public officials, representatives of academic circles, the business community, and student and youth organisations are invited to the forum. The event will provide a platform to exchange views on the current issues of developing relations between Russia and various African countries, the current state of relations and the prospects for further development in the political, trade, economic, humanitarian and cultural fields, among others.

The forthcoming forum is viewed in the context of preparing for the Russia-Africa Summit, the importance of which President Vladimir Putin stressed during the 10th Anniversary BRICS Summit in Johannesburg in July.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the opening ceremony of an exhibition dedicated to the 190th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations with Brazil

On October 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the opening ceremony of an exhibition of archive materials dedicated to the 190th anniversary of establishing Russian-Brazilian diplomatic relations being prepared by the Russian Foreign Ministry with the support of the Embassy of Brazil in Moscow. Representatives of the diplomatic corps accredited in Moscow, academic and cultural circles, the media and public organisations are invited.

The exhibition will display documents and photos describing the history of relations between the two countries, the foundation of which was laid by a decree signed on October 3, 1828, on appointing the first Russian envoy to Brazil.

Today, the two countries are connected by strategic partnership relations as formalised in 2000. Brazil is Russia’s important partner in Latin America and the Caribbean Basin. Our countries enjoy productive cooperation at major international venues, including the UN, the G20 and BRICS. Cooperation in the trade, economic, investment, scientific and technical fields continues to grow. Contacts in civil society are consistently expanding.



Update on Maria Butina

We continue to watch the situation with Russian citizen Maria Butina who was arrested in the US on fabricated charges of acting as “a foreign government agent.” Russia qualifies her as a political prisoner.

On October 10, Russian Embassy diplomats in Washington made their regular visit to Butina in prison. After she was transferred to a general detention facility in late September, thanks to our efforts, the prison administration’s attitude towards Butina improved, she is not being subjected to the humiliating procedures we spoke about and is well-treated. We note that. Maria is allowed to leave the cell more often, take walks outside, communicate with other inmates and read books in Russian. This has generally helped stabilise the moral condition of our compatriot.

At present, Butina’s lawyers are preparing for the next court hearing, which is scheduled for November 13 of this year. We continue to insist on the absolute innocence of this Russian citizen.

Once again, we state our demand that Maria Butina be released and that she has become yet another victim of so-called “American justice” and is in fact a political prisoner due to the Russophobic hysteria reigning in Washington, D.C.

The next scheduled consular visit with Maria Butina in prison will take place today.



Developments in Syria

The situation in Syria remains complicated. There are continuing efforts to implement the memorandum on stabilising the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone, signed after the September 17 talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Sochi. All radical groups should have left the demilitarised zone by Monday, October 15. After an earlier withdrawal of heavy weapons, some militants did leave the zone, but terrorists from the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham group, formerly called al-Nusra, refused to go. Members of al-Nusra managed to unite a number of other Al-Qaeda affiliated groups, including Hurras al-Din and the Turkistan Islamic Party. In this way, the terrorists established a joint command centre with the aim of continuing their provocations. We hope that our Turkish partners will carry out their obligations under the memorandum and ensure its full implementation.

We remain concerned about the situation in northeastern Syria where the United States and their Kurdish allies are trying to establish quasi-state governance agencies to replace the Syrian government’s legitimate authority. The work of these agencies can hardly be called effective, and their arbitrary rule triggers protests among the local population. There are a growing number of armed and terrorist attacks by ISIS militants and members of new illegal paramilitary units, emerging as a result of discontent with self-appointed “rulers.”

The other day, at Al-Bahra refugee camp for internally displaced persons, ISIS militants captured several hundred civilians who had been abandoned by Kurdish forces. Most of the hostages originally came from towns on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. They had managed to escape those communities in the hope of evading arbitrary terrorist violence, ruthless air strikes and artillery attacks by the US-led coalition that supports the Kurds.

US forces support Kurdish units in a rather strange, unprofessional and clumsy manner. Quite often, the indiscriminate and violent US actions do not yield the desired results. Last Saturday, the Syrian media reported the use of phosphorus munitions by the coalition’s aircraft near the city of Hajin where women and children were killed as a result. It should be noted, for the sake of objectivity, that the United States did not sign an additional protocol to the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons that list phosphorus shells as weapons of mass destruction and ban their use. However, the US military could not but comprehend the dreadful consequences of using such weapons in residential areas.

We would like to note the following positive aspects. Efforts to restore normal life continue in areas controlled by the Syrian government.

On October 15, the Nasib checkpoint opened on the Syrian-Jordanian border, thereby restoring passenger and freight traffic along an international motorway linking Beirut, Damascus and Amman. It is hard to overestimate the significance of this event in the context of resuming economic activity in Syria, as well as its ties with neighbouring countries. Hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees who have received temporary shelter in Jordan can now return home. We would like to make a separate statement underscoring the substantial and diverse contribution of Russian service personnel to reactivating this checkpoint, as well as the Quneitra checkpoint on the Israeli-Syrian demarcation line, established by the UN under the relevant agreement of May 31, 1974.

According to media reports, after protracted delays, the United States has finally agreed to provide security guarantees for a humanitarian convoy, organised by the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, in the 55-kilometre zone around America’s illegal Al-Tanf military base. It should be recalled that our Western colleagues made hysterical demands for humanitarian convoys and consignments to be allowed into other Syrian regions. And now, when it comes to a territory being illegally controlled by the US, the entry of UN humanitarian convoys becomes very problematic. The convoy, which was organised a while back, is to deliver long-awaited medical, food and other aid to residents of the Rukban camp for internally displaced persons. We hope that this humanitarian project will be implemented in the near future.

At the same time, official Syrian authorities are not allowed to enter the US-controlled zone around Al-Tanf, and this seriously complicates the situation in southern Syrian regions. This territory, which is virtually occupied by the United States, becomes a safe haven for terrorists and radicals and hampers the voluntary and safe return of tens of thousands of people who have been holed up at Rukban camp for many months to the places of their permanent residence.



Situation around the White Helmets

As more Syrian regions return back to a normal way of life, people are not worried anymore about the safety of their relatives as well as their friends and are starting to reveal what they have gone through.

Shocking details are being brought up about the activities of the White Helmets, which many in the West consider heroes and even saviours, but who in fact are humanitarian aid pseudo-providers. It is frightening to consider what people had to go through in these territories.

It is obvious not only to us that the White Helmets have completely discredited themselves as an authoritative data source; they were promoted as such by the West, together with what has been advertised in London as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

It is gratifying to know that both the political establishment as well as the general public of the sponsoring countries of these NGOs have an increasing number of those who doubt the viability of the further funding of the White Helmets.

It is only too obvious that the White Helmets activists will continue doing their criminal jobs so long as it is required by their creators and sponsors. An example is the developments in the Idlib de-escalation zone, where there might be another staged chemical attack by Syrian troops. Independent journalists, doctors, bloggers such as Vanessa Beeley and Richard Labeviere, members of the organisation, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, not only exposed the White Helmets, but also published shocking facts that prove that they deliberately harmed the health of civilians in Syria just for the sake of getting an interesting piece of footage to later be used as propaganda material.

Locals say that, for instance, in Aleppo, where things are getting back to normal, those who want to join the White Helmets do not need to be able to provide first aid, but should have recommendations from the local office of Jabhat al-Nusra. The information about the White Helmets’ admirable altruism turned out to be exaggerated. Most of its members were not volunteers, but received a monthly pay package. Even after joining the organisation, they did not bother learning basic medical skills, for they were not paid for doing this. However, military training, including shooting and mine and blast training were obligatory.

It is interesting how those who praised this organisation and raised initiatives to award it with international prizes, those who made them equal to the great human rights defenders, people who gave their lives in the fight for peace, are feeling now. I remember that the entire world presented the organisation as an example of humanism and kindness. It would be fascinating to know what their supporters feel now when they hear the stories of people from liberated districts about members of the White Helmets who using weapons prohibited the real doctors from treating the wounded until the propaganda photos had been taken. We have repeatedly spoken of another inhumane activity of the White Helmets: the illegal black transplantation market, which bloomed for many years under their protection.

This activity is to be investigated. I believe that the facts which will be discovered and presented to the court and the public will shock everyone.

Several months ago now, nobody in the West even gave the working methods of the White Helmets a second thought. We remember it all too well how this summer during the liberation of the Syrian territory, members of the White Helmets with the active support of their sponsor’s diplomatic and financial aid hurried to evacuate themselves from the combat zone in southern Syria and went to Jordan.

It has been three months since these events, but the White Helmets still favour Jordan as a place to hang out. Naturally, they can move to the Netherlands, Germany or Great Britain, but for some reason their western patrons and creators, who initially promised their charges the chance to eventually land up in Europe in three weeks, as they said, have not yet fulfilled their promises . What is stopping them? No funding for tickets? Maybe it is hard to receive visas? Or is there something else?

Hundreds of activists and their families are living in a camp near Zarqa, isolated from the entire world. Their legal status has not been defined yet. All this makes you think that they are not needed in the West, in trouble-free countries. Maybe because their patrons saw the personal records of their charges that they have nourished and financed for so many years, and they have no desire to accept them in their countries. It makes sense as it is one thing to commit crimes in Syria but it is something completely different to go to Europe after what has happened. In addition to this, being interviewed, the White Helmets might talk just a bit too much about their activities and spill the beans about their sponsors. They will need to survive and many (probably, from the point of view of those who are unwilling to give them shelter in Europe), not fully aware of the situation, can reveal what they did and whose money they used.

We will continue to monitor the situation and share with you new facts about the “humanitarian” activities of the White Helmets and other such groups together with all those remaining in Syria who keep getting in the way of the peaceful process of bringing back to normal the life of the civilians.



Update on the Russian crew members of the Temeteron tanker arrested in Libya

On October 9, the Tripoli court issued a ruling on the case of the Temeteron tanker crew arrested in Libyan waters on June 28, 2016 on suspicion of oil smuggling. Two Russian citizens, Captain Vladimir Tekuchev and First Mate Sergey Samoilov, and Second Mate, Ukrainian citizen Alexander Kodymsky, were sentenced to four years and three months in prison and a fine of about $10.5 million to compensate for “the damages.”

As of today, Russian diplomats are verifying the details of the ruling and the appeal procedure, and are going to provide the necessary assistance to our citizens.

Since the Russian sailors’ arrest in Libya, the Russian authorities have repeatedly appealed to the Libyan side for their release, including Foreign Ministry top officials and law enforcement agencies. This is a priority issue on the Russian-Libyan agenda.



British media accuse Russia of providing armaments to Khalifa Haftar’s forces

The British media have published reports on “Russian interference in Libya,” including weapons supplied to the Libyan National Army commanded by Khalifa Haftar.

We have already stated repeatedly at various levels that Russia is facing an all-in information war. Various factoids are freely thrown about. Unfortunately, the British media play a leading role in this. These allegations are made on a wide variety of issues, and now the international public has been served up insinuations about Russia’s interference in Libya.

I don’t think that those who have chosen this anti-Russia line will settle down. They don’t follow a path of logic or facts. We can see other methods used here. There is no point in starting a serious debate over this. We believe it isn’t necessary. Instead, we will continue to publish such articles in the fake news section on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

Speaking of Libya, I would like to stress that Russia has acted in strict compliance with the decisions of the UN Security Council regarding this country. Our practical steps focus on cooperation with all responsible Libyan parties in order to implement the roadmap proposed by UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative and Head of UN Support Mission in Libya Ghassan Salame. We will regularly update you on our efforts in this area.



Outrages committed by Ukrainian nationalists celebrating the Ukrainian Insurgent Army’s anniversary

I believe all of you followed the absolutely outrageous events that took place in Kiev on October 14, when groups of militant nationalists from the Right Sector, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and other groups organised a series of provocations to mark the anniversary of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which became notorious for its atrocities against civilians during World War II.

These radical nationalists were once again searching for “the enemies within” and a mythical “fifth column” among Ukrainians. To intimidate citizens, they marched with torches, chanting neo-Nazi and xenophobic slogans, down the streets of several Ukrainian cities. The most large-scale rally was held in Kiev, where radicals attempted to destroy monuments dedicated to the heroic history of the Ukrainian capital. They included the monument to Gen. Nikolai Vatutin, who was in charge of the operation to liberate Kiev and got killed by accomplices of the Nazis. Moreover, the radicals also vandalised an office of one of political forces by throwing stones and smoke canisters into the building.

Radical nationalists still feel at ease and unchallenged in Ukraine, which has attracted the attention of many international organisations. The current Ukrainian government openly supports this behaviour, de facto allowing such atrocities. All of this is done in the name of combating the mythical “Russian threat.”

It is obvious that by fuelling the neo-Nazi, anti-Russian and other nationalist sentiments, the Ukrainian leaders are striving to shift focus from vital problems, namely, the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and the current situation in the country in general. Of course, this is being used in the context of the political campaign; they are trying to secure more votes with the help of such barbarous methods. It is not accidental that on the same day, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was trying to frighten the public with yet another “Russian aggression,” now around the Sea of Azov.

Regrettably, there is less and less hope that Ukrainian authorities will find the strength to switch from the policy of destruction, which only exacerbates the division within society, to overcoming the differences existing within it. In any case, I think that sooner or later, the Ukrainian people will give their own assessment of these actions.



Draft resolution of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly “Glorification of Nazism: Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”

The delegation of the Russian Federation with other sponsors plans to introduce the traditional draft resolution, “Glorification of Nazism: Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly.

This initiative arises from our deep concern with the emergence of various extremist groups such as neo-Nazis and skinheads who resort to acts of violence against people with different skin colour, people of different religions, and immigrants. One cannot but be disturbed by the recent surge in xenophobic and racist incidents amid the migration crisis in Europe. These groups are often inspired by the very ideology and practice that actually prompted the international community to establish the United Nations to deal with such outrages. That was 70 years ago. The world should have learned at least some lessons from history.

The resolution condemns the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of Waffen-SS through building monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations to glorify the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism. It particularly emphasises that the erection of monuments in honour of the SS, organised marches and similar actions defile the memory of the countless victims of Nazism, have a negative impact on the younger generation, and are absolutely incompatible with the UN member states’ commitments. The sponsors of the resolution cannot ignore the fact that some countries are persistently trying to raise those who fought against the Anti-Hitler coalition or collaborated with the Nazis to the rank of national heroes and heroes of national liberation movements. We are confident that this is not about political correctness but about the most blatant cynicism and blasphemy with regard to those who freed the world from the horrors of National Socialism.

The draft emphasises that such actions cannot qualify as the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and to freedom of opinion and expression, but constitute a clear and obvious abuse of that right. Moreover, such acts may fall within the purview of Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which requires the parties to the Convention to prosecute the perpetrators.

The draft resolution also takes into account a number of conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) on modern forms of racism, Tendayi Achiume, formulated in her latest reports to the UN HRC and the UN General Assembly on the matter now raised by the Russian initiative. In particular, the Special Rapporteur pays considerable attention to the problem of using information and communication technologies to spread various racist and misanthropic ideas, the ideology of Nazism and neo-Nazism.

The Russian Federation and other co-sponsors cannot remain indifferent to the expanding practice of holding annual memorial events attended by public officials “in honour” of the Nazi Waffen-SS legionnaires, despite the tens of thousands of lives of people of different nationalities on their conscience from WWII. It is impossible to calmly look at how monuments to Waffen-SS legionnaires are erected on the former sites of memorials to the Soviet liberator soldiers and how days of liberation from Nazism are declared days of mourning. Veterans of the Great Patriotic War (WWII) are not permitted to wear their combat decorations, while the police protects the marches of Nazi veterans in full dress with orders and medals earned for the extermination of civilians.

Negotiations on the Russian draft resolution are scheduled for late October – early November. We are counting on a constructive dialogue with other delegations as well as on their motivated involvement. We are confident that it is a problem and that its solution should contribute to the consolidation and rallying of the UN member states.



Draft resolution on information security submitted to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeatedly mentioned in his interviews that Russia was going to submit a draft resolution on information security to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee. On October 12, such a draft was officially provided to the General Assembly for consideration.

This resolution is aimed at ensuring that the international community adopts rules on countries’ responsible conduct in the information space and is focused on exclusively peaceful uses of information and communication technology, non-use of force or threat of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, respect for state sovereignty and prevention of conflicts in this area. It is also designed to protect the digital media from slanderers, rabble-rousers and the actions of some countries which are taking advantage of their technological edge and want to impose their will on other states.

Notwithstanding vigorous opposition by such countries, as of October 16 the Russian draft already had twelve co-authors, representing a quarter of the world’s population.

Currently, an increasingly intense discussion is developing in the UN regarding the Russian initiative which is aimed at ensuring the peaceful interaction of all states in information space.



United States denies visas for participation in UN events

We have repeatedly pointed out the deplorable situation regarding the issue of visas to our citizens by US consular agencies. Actually, the issuance is still blocked.

We drew attention to those statements, which, as you remember, were made by a US consular service representative in the Russian Federation. It was a proposal involving a kind of competition in granting visas. We replied that we were ready. We suggested that the time limits for issuing visas and processing applications be brought into line and of course simplifying the visa application form. Our suggestions have gone unanswered.

In practice, the waiting time for mandatory visa interviews at the US Embassy is 300 days, which on a massive scale disrupts travel for business, cultural, scientific, sports and humanitarian purposes as well as just for friendly contacts. People have to settle their urgent daily issues but just cannot do it.

The US authorities are also purposefully obstructing the normal work of Russian diplomatic and consular missions, for many months and sometimes for more than a year, by delaying entry clearance to new employees. Express visa refusals have become the norm. This also applies to the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN in New York, although under the agreement on locating the UN headquarters on US territory, Washington assumed an obligation to provide unimpeded operational conditions for the United Nations Organisation itself and the foreign missions accredited to it.

Russian citizens assigned to participate in specialised events at the UN headquarters constantly face delays in the processing of their visa applications or visa refusals. This appears to be an effort to silence our country’s voice. Another example of such US policy is the still pending visa issuance, requested way back in July, to a Russian Foreign Ministry employee who was expected at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee session which has been going on since the beginning of October.

Moreover, US authorities have recently, for no reason, denied entry to a Russian citizen officially appointed to the UN Secretariat. Prior to that, they delayed in responding for a whole year, creating problems for the Secretariat because of the vacancy remaining unfilled for such a long time.

We would like to emphasise that this issue is a concern not only to Russia but also to other UN member-states. The United States is overtly abusing its privilege of accommodating the headquarters of a world (not regional or someone’s private) organisation. Washington is manipulating visas to exert pressure on other countries, arbitrarily deciding whose representatives should be allowed to take part in UN activities and who should be denied access. What we see is a flagrant arbitrariness and an absolutely inadmissible violation of international law. It is high time for the world community to focus attention on this.



Statement by US Ambassador to Armenia Richard M. Mills

We noted a statement made by US Ambassador Richard M. Mills who is completing his mission in Armenia, at the American Chamber of Commerce in Armenia on October 9. The statement came to our attention mainly due to its straightforwardness.

Richard Mills said that for the past decades, the US Government and the US Embassy in Yerevan have purposefully supported certain groups in the Armenian society and certain representatives in the Armenian Government. The ambassador spoke about interference with the domestic affairs of a sovereign state without a hint of uneasiness – on the contrary, he was proud of it. Because the interference was allegedly justified and necessary for a good cause, “to make Armenia a fairer, more transparent society.”

Following this Ambassador Mills realised what he had done and corrected himself by saying that the recent political changes in the republic were “Armenian-led and Armenian-driven movements.” He also spoke about “the power of the Armenian people to affect change and persevere”. However, it was too late for him to explain himself because the first part of his message was already оut in the open.

The ambassador also gave a detailed lecture on how the Armenian political system functions and also recommendations on economic development. For example, Mr Mills said the following: “I am concerned about signals I am hearing that some in Government see the IT sector and related high-tech sectors as where the Government’s limited resources should be focused. I’m aware of resources that have been shifted away from sectors like wine production, tourism, and mining for this reason.” So let гs make it clear, shall we? Is it right or wrong to interfere with the domestic affairs of other states?

His address culminated in a farewell order to his “civil society and media friends” to keep watching the government in a vigilant and uncompromising manner. There, Richard Mills threw in the news that it is to “strengthen civil society and the media” that a significant part of the $26 million in US funding to be provided next year is intended (in addition to the recently provided $14 million).

Today I started the briefing by commenting on the situation with Maria Butina who did not bring any sacks of cash to the United States nor did she tell the US Government how to spend its resources. She was in no official capacity there rather than a representative of the civil society. However, Maria Butina is now in an American prison. She is being humiliated and dragged through the mud in front of the entire world. But what kind of liberties do American ambassadors take all over the world?

Besides hitting the democracy which they are constantly defending, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, in addition to hitting civil society, they are striking themselves directly by exposing the hypocrisy that has been going on in US politics, at least over a period of the past few years.

All this clearly demonstrates the current policy of Washington which is obtrusively interfering with the internal affairs of other countries.



Cannabis legalisation in Canada

On October 17, the Cannabis Act, or Bill C-45, entered into force in Canada.

We are convinced that it runs counter to the fundamentals of the international drug control regime. Russia is an active member of the international community that counters drug distribution and tries to prevent drug trafficking. We have received questions on this, and, of course, we must comment.

First of all, we should speak about the infringement of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs of 1988, under which a member state must take measures to prohibit the production, export and import of cannabis, except cases when it is necessary for medical and research purposes. In addition, Canadian law does not define marijuana as a psychotropic substance in compliance with the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

Ottawa’s “drug-liberal actions” do not conform to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties either, under which the Canadians must comply with the adopted international legal obligations and have no right to refer to national laws to justify their failure to observe the provisions of an international agreement. The pacta sunt servanda principle has not been annulled yet.

Despite obvious legal clashes, the Canadian leadership continues to promote the idea that the legalisation of recreational cannabis will protect people’s health and welfare. Ottawa prefers distorting key anti-drug tenets and ignoring the destructive outcome its actions will have for international legal drug control and especially for Canada’s population.

We believe Ottawa’s logic of selective compliance with legally-binding documents is unacceptable, hypocritical in its essence and goes against the tasks to protect “the rule-based world order” proclaimed by the Canadian authorities and actively promoted by some Western political powers.

By deliberately destroying international drug control, the Canadian government will create the world’s largest commercial drug market, which, despite all the assurances and the planned measures to prevent marijuana’s export outside the country, will sharply increase its trafficking to other states, including those that strictly comply with the above-mentioned conventions. It is likely that Russia and other countries will have to take additional measures to prevent attempts to smuggle cannabis from Canada.



New restrictive measures against the RT channel in the US

This week, we learned that the RT TV channel has been removed from two cable television broadcast networks in the United States (Comcast Chicago and Spectrum), whose coverage area includes New York, New Jersey, San Diego, Los Angeles and Chicago.

In one case, this decision was based on the 2018 John McCain Amendment to the National Defense Law Act, which allows distributors to refuse broadcasting Russian content without giving reasons. In another, it was based on a change in the broadcasting strategy: the operator claimed that the distribution of the television signal in the internet era was inexpedient. At the same time, the available information indicates that the operator never cancelled the contracts with the rest of the channels.

Obviously, this part of the ongoing ousting of the RT and other Russian media, that offer an alternative view on world events and voice inconvenient facts for official Washington, from the American information landscape.

We are closely monitoring the developments of this situation. We state that such separate measures are links in one chain. This ideology, the stratagem put in practice, contradicts the US statements on being committed to freedom of the media.



Alleged Russian hacker attack on the Islam Channel

Recently, the British media published another series of strange, wild and absurd accusations about the Russian special services’ alleged hacking attack on the Islam Channel TV channel.

First of all, we would like to note that instigating speculations regarding Russia's actions has become mainstream for the UK media. After escalating the hysteria around the Skripal case and endlessly planting false stories in order to maintain the anti-Russian sentiment among locals, the media needs to speculate even more.

Our Embassy in London directly discussed the accusations with the heads of this channel. It turns out that in 2015, Islam Channel’s computers were hacked out of some archive information. The investigation of the case was carried out by representatives of the British intelligence’ cybersecurity services, who had unlimited and uncontrolled access to the channel's servers in the course of the following five months. As a result of the investigation, it was stated that the Islam Channel was subject to a professional hacker attack, which was most likely to be “organised by a state” (the name of the state was not mentioned).

The channel’s management learned about the “Russian version” of the incident from the media in early October. Can you imagine, the UK intelligence services carried out a whole investigation, had unlimited access and contacts with the channel’s management, but failed to provide the channel with such valuable information. And now, after several years, such sensational statements are made. The channel’s management was very surprised by these articles, which was noted in the corresponding statement. The channel accepted our position on Russia’s not being involved in the hacker attack sympathetically, noting how senseless and absurd these speculations were.

In general, it is obvious that London simply used the past attack on the channel in the information campaign against our country.



FAN ID holders may enter Russia visa-free until December 31, 2018

The end of the year is only a few months from now, so I would like to remind the foreign media and their audience that those who received a FAN ID card for World Cup 2018 can enter Russia visa-free on multiple occasions until December 31, 2018.

The Russian Foreign Ministry site has a section (http://www.mid.ru/fan-id) with information in six languages, that describes how FAN IDs can be used.



Simpler visa requirements with some EU countries remain an issue

Our discussion with the EU on liberalising visa requirements was very intensive until 2014. Thus, in 2006 Russia and the EU entered into an agreement on facilitating visa issuance which provided, in part, that several categories of people shall be granted visas with up to a five-year validity period. Subsequently, the possibilities of further visa facilitations were worked out. Substantive work to adopt visa-free requirements between Russia and the EU was performed during this time.

However, in March 2014, the European Union, referring to its concerns, took a unilateral decision to freeze the visa-free dialogue with Russia and refused to continue negotiations on further visa liberalisation. This step that affected the interests of both Russian and EU citizens sharply narrowed the possibilities for serious progress in this area. Moreover, pursuant to the advice of EU institutions, a number of EU countries imposed a ban on visa issuance to Russian citizens living in Crimea altogether. These countries were not at all confused by the fact that such visa discrimination constitutes a gross violation of the basic international and EU principles of human rights.

Russia remains committed to the transition to visa-free travel with the EU states not only because it evidently meets the interests of our countries and peoples but also because such a policy of non-obstructing humanitarian contact and ties has been entered into many Europe-wide documents particularly effective in the OSCE space. This is not just an empty dream. It has long been put on paper and formulated as a global objective, a goal we need to move towards.

In the context of today’s challenging realities we continue to explain to our European partners the need for resuming the visa dialogue on a variety of platforms. Specifically, in the framework of the joint committee for monitoring the implementation of the above agreement we follow the line of continuing the work on the document to update it and make visa procedures simpler. We believe this process can only take place on a mutual basis.



Our view of the statements made by George Kent, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, in Baku

The position of Russia as a country that co-chairs the OSCE Minsk Group is well known. It is reflected in joint statements by the presidents of Russia, the United States and France in 2009-2013, by heads of foreign policy agencies of the three countries as well as by the co-chairs themselves. These statements are available on the OSCE website.

The co-chairs are considering visiting the region soon (additional information will be published soon). During their meetings with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan they intend to specify the parties’ positions and discuss which specific steps can be taken to activate the process of a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, including the understandings reached recently in Dushanbe.



The Center for Russian Language and Russian Culture opened at Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

The Department of Languages, Literature and Culture of the Black Sea countries at Democritus University of Thrace held an opening ceremony for the Centre for Russian Language and Russian Culture of the Russky Mir Foundation on October 9.

The foundation, supported by the Russian Consulate General in Thessaloniki, supplied the center with thousands of books and multimedia and presentation materials.

One of the centre’s objectives is to support the university’s Russian language programme and to expose those who are interested to Russia, its history, traditions and literature. It will undoubtedly promote broader cultural, educational and scientific exchanges between Greece and Russia.

We are grateful to the university administration for its efforts to strengthen Russian-Greek humanitarian ties. Areas of specialisation like the “Russian Language, Literature and Culture” course have been taught at the University since 2000, and the demand for Russian is constantly growing.

We welcome the opening of the centre, now the second one, in Greece. We are sure that it will make a contribution to mutual understanding and friendship between our peoples. We would like to wish the centre success, and everybody studying Russian, new experiences and achievements.

We have another area with information on cultural and humanitarian cooperation. Specifically, the Days of Russia are currently being held in Japan. We wanted to tell you what a rich program Moscow has prepared and is implementing. But I think, given today’s events, we should post this information separately on our information resources page. I do understand that this is the result of many people’s hard work, but I just cannot talk today about someone’s joy when other people are experiencing such grief.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Representatives of Turkey, Russia, France and Germany have been talking about preparing a summit on Syria since September. Why is it stalled? Is this due to the problems in Idlib and difficulties with removing terrorists from the region? Or is this due to the reluctance of your European partners? In your opinion, what are the prospects of building this quartet?



Maria Zakharova:

Usually we do not comment on summits. It is the responsibility of the Presidential Executive Office spokespersons. The Executive Office has already commented on the four-party meeting in the format you described. There is a statement by Aide to the President on Foreign Policy Yury Ushakov. I would like to refer you to his comments.

Summits, especially on the matters unrelated to earlier scheduled protocol and agreed visits, multilateral agendas regarding international organisations and forums, formats handling current global matters are held not for the sake of protocol and, with all due respect, not for the attention of the media but for achieving specific results as well as for working out decisions to be adapted and approved at the level of heads of state.

Holding a summit on this matter requires thorough preparations and certain developments on the ground. I do not think that it has anything to do with reluctance, impossibility or lack of agreement. On the contrary, it should be assumed that there are many nuances to consider. If this meeting is to happen all the details must be discussed.

As concerns the level of foreign ministers and special representatives of the above states who are responsible for the Syrian settlement, they are maintaining a continuous dialogue. They have telephone conversations and exchange delegations to address many practical matters.



Question:

Is it possible to create a quartet similar to the Astana format but with European participation?



Maria Zakharova:

Some of the existing formats are efficient while the others, unfortunately, could be more helpful – for example, Geneva. There must be a realistic foundation for discussing and developing a new format. It is important that the existing formats bring results.



Question:

Yesterday US Department of State Special Representative for North Korea Steve Biegun was in Moscow. The Foreign Ministry released a rather reserved comment on his visit. Could you tell us more about the topic of the talks between the special representative and deputy foreign ministers Igor Morgulov and Sergey Ryabkov? Did they discuss North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s possible visit to Russia? Why did Mr Biegun meet with two deputy ministers?



Maria Zakharova:

Igor Morgulov is the deputy dealing with Asian affairs while Sergey Ryabkov is responsible for contacts with the United States. This explains the logic of the two meetings. As concerns our reserved comment, it was a press release. It was the information we provided. I cannot offer you any more details.



Question:

What about Kim Jong-un’s visit?



Maria Zakharova:

This is a summit, a top-level meeting. Once again, it is not the responsibility of the Foreign Ministry to comment. It is within the authority of the Presidential Executive Office.



Question:

What do you think about Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin’s statement regarding the cancellation of the Russia-Ukraine agreement on the joint use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait?



Maria Zakharova:

This is something new. Did he speak about this today? I did not notice. I think that there is no point in responding to every statement made almost daily by Kiev because all these statements follow the Russophobic course. We have already expressed our opinion on the destructive processes in the context of destroying the canvas of our bilateral ties. Obviously, all this does not only damage the bilateral relations in theory but hits both nations. I do not think that there is any sense in commenting on Pavlo Klimkin’s statement to that effect.



Question:

US National Security Advisor John Bolton is due to visit Russia in late October. Is a meeting between him and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov being planned? Could you give us some details of the upcoming talks? Will the matter concerning the return of Russian diplomatic property be on the table?



Maria Zakharova:

I can tell you about his possible contacts with Foreign Ministry officials. The other executive structures can make their own comments and this is what they will actually do, I believe. His meeting with Minister Lavrov is being considered. If an agreement is reached, we will make a separate announcement in that regard.

As for the range of problems on the table and whether matters concerning Russian property are among them, this topic has not been removed from the agenda and is brought up regularly during contacts with our American colleagues at all levels. These are diplomatic notes that our embassy in Washington forwards to our colleagues in the US Department of State.

By the time of our next briefing, we will have updated the statistics on how many enquiries were forwarded regarding the possibility to visit our own property and how many times this subject was raised. We will give you the facts. The matter has never been off the table. We brought it up and will continue to bring it up during each of the contacts with the American side.



Question:

The Spanish newspaper El Pais published an article whose author analysed a whole number of foreign media and drew the following conclusions: “The EU is witnessing a rapprochement between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. This scares Europe. It fears that it might stop playing an important role in global affairs. This strengthens global tendencies towards a rapprochement with Russia, which, on top of everything else, is the biggest supplier of energy resources. Europe acknowledges its secondary role in global politics and wants to make friends only with those who are strong.” Could you comment on this rhetoric in the foreign media?



Maria Zakharova:

I have not seen that article. I will read it. There must, of course, be analytical material in the media, or else they will stop being the media. It would be wrong to enter into any debates with the author of that article without reading it and being in somewhat different capacities. Let me read that article and then comment on it.



Question:

Staffan de Mistura has said that he will resign as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Syria in late November for personal reasons. Does the Foreign Ministry have any comment on that?



Maria Zakharova:

We definitely appreciate his contribution as a professional, a specialist and a diplomat to the Syrian settlement. This is a person to whom the warring parties and the international mediators were lending an ear. Of course, he met with different assessments, but that is understandable. It is impossible to win everyone’s approval in such a complicated matter. The Russian side, diplomats at all levels worked with Staffan de Mistura more than closely. As regards his further activity and matters regarding his functioning in that capacity, these are matters of the future. So far, it is premature to discuss them.



Question:

What do you think about the demolition of the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army in Warsaw?



Maria Zakharova:

Unfortunately, the general trend is obvious. Demolition of monuments not only changes the appearance of cities, towns and villages, it represents the rewriting of history, editing history textbooks post factum. This is an issue of manufacturing history, a mutation of historical memory.

It is very sad. Even more so, given that this affects monuments which are dedicated not to some political event, action, figures or measures, but to ordinary people. These people gave up their lives not because they had strong political beliefs, but because they understood their personal responsibility for the fate of other ordinary people. Back then they did their best to save Europe, other young people and their families from fascism, Nazism and all the evil which plagued Europe at that time.

The worst thing is that political views keep interfering with history. All the politics, all the political prejudice makes people forget about the fate of actual people – and many of these monuments are covered with the names of actual people – and this cannot be tolerated. After all, Poland is devoted to all the democratic values which we hear about so often. We have heard on so many occasions about human rights and respect for the protection of basic modern European values. Why then? All these words are reduced to nothing by the actions which are accompanied by the silent, and sometimes not so silent connivance of Warsaw’s authorities or regional authorities.

We will, once again, comment on this particular incident, but it represents a trend. We have often heard Polish politicians and officials say that these are just isolated cases. No, this is not about isolated cases, this is about a political strategy. Again: a political strategy. And it is no coincidence that it is happening at this time. Sadly, this is when the last actual participants in the war are leaving us: they are the veterans, the people who can tell us the truth and simply uphold the honour of other people to whom these monuments are dedicated. The veterans are few in number now, and their voice gets weaker every day, simply because nature works this way. This is the moment when neither veteran organizations, nor individual veterans are strong enough, even not physically strong, to attend rallies and defend the remembrance of their fellow soldiers – and we are witnessing this dishonourable insult, rewriting history and, most importantly, a desecration of the memory and fate of specific people. It is true that Russia and Poland have both differing and same views towards our past and the problematic issues of our mutual history, but there are lives of specific people who did not fight for politics: they fought shoulder to shoulder with Polish soldiers for freedom, including the freedom of Poland. Their memory, their fates and the fates of their families are completely neglected and forgotten in Warsaw.



Question:

Last week, Russian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Mikhail Bocharnikov said that branches of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and the National Research University - Higher School of Economics would be opened in Azerbaijan soon. How do you describe Russia-Azerbaijan cooperation in education?



Maria Zakharova:

In a positive way only. This is very important element in our bilateral cooperation. I would like more examples of this to take place. This requires effort, and efforts are being made.



Question:

My question concerns the upcoming election in Donbass. We cannot help but note the United States' and Ukraine's strong desire to prevent this election from happening. First Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Irina Gerashchenko told a briefing in Kiev that the Ukrainian delegation's key argument when addressing all groups will be the demand that ‘Russia and its puppets immediately stop the preparations for this fake election on the occupied territories of Donetsk and Lugansk.’ Can you comment on this statement? Do Ukraine and the United States have the right to insist on canceling the election in Donbass?



Maria Zakharova:

By puppets they mean those with whom they signed the Minsk Agreements at the negotiating table. This is how their attitude has changed towards the people official Kiev signed a joint action plan with. I think this says a lot about the Kiev regime and its true intentions regarding the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. If someone wants to actually implement the Minsk Agreements, then the people living in Donbass should be called fellow citizens, citizens of Ukraine and part of its nation, but not puppets. But this is how they actually treat them. Next time, when Kiev accuses the Russian Federation of non-implementation, as they like to say, of the Minsk Agreements, they should be reminded of this. Stirring more hatred towards its own people will lead to no good, all the more so as we are talking about the revival of the Ukrainian state and the Ukrainian nation. These statements are arrows aimed at the wounded Ukrainian state.



Question:

When commenting on yesterday's Su-27 crash, Russian State Duma deputy Alexander Sherin expressed concern about the presence of a US pilot among the crew, saying this is common practice in cases when representatives of different countries intend to take part in actual combat operations. What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think of this closeness between the Ukrainian and US military?



Maria Zakharova:

I think you are mistaken, and what we see here is not closeness but some other form of interaction, where there is a big brother, Washington, and those it controls; I actually think the word puppet is more suitable when talking about these political figures in Ukraine. In this case, delivery of different kinds of armaments and talks about it, allocating additional funding, constantly stepping up the rhetoric regarding Ukraine's admission to various blocs, using the words and notions that have a clear idea and picture of a military or forced scenario when speaking about Ukraine - this all has nothing to do with a respectful attitude to this state and nation. There is nothing worse for Ukraine at its present stage than pushing it to new belligerent solutions to the intra-Ukrainian conflict.

We have already mentioned today what all this is aimed at. Definitely not at Ukraine getting a chance to restore its normal life and solving its problems. Sadly, all this only aggravates them.



Question:

My question is on northeastern Syria, specifically so-called Syrian Kurdistan. You and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the situation was threatening Syria’s integrity, considering that since 2012 and after Damascus lost control over the territory, there have been different governing bodies there. It was also repeatedly stated, even here in this building, that the Kurds had the right to self-determination. What is the source of threat today - the Kurdish authorities or the US military bases?

You also mentioned the role of the Geneva format. The UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura is now in Damascus to participate in the forming of the Constitutional Committee. In your opinion, will he be able to launch the committee before the end of his term?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot answer the second question. It is not a matter of guessing but that of practical efforts.

Now, what is Russia concerned about, the US military bases in the region or the establishment of Kurdish governing bodies? We are open about this matter and constantly talk about it. The fact is that the authority of official Damascus is being abolished in those territories. The legitimate authorities are being prevented from carrying out reforms and exercising their powers there. This is the problem. Of course, the American presence is illegitimate in the region; it adds to the instability and is part of a strategy that is not aimed at reuniting and restoring the country or solving its problems. This is a destabilising factor. Give me at least one example of how the presence of US troops on the ground helped to stabilise the situation politically. They helped in no way. To stabilise the situation politically, you have to engage in and encourage an inclusive dialogue. It is necessary, not to divide the ethnic groups in Syria into different categories, but on the contrary work towards reunification [of the country] and development of a new constitution based on different views, create political parties and various associations, and start building a new country in political terms. I don’t think you can give me a single example of how the US military are contributing to this process. This is not because you do not know something, but because there are no such examples. Even more so, all of this is happening against the backdrop of efforts to prevent Damascus from controlling its own territory. Nobody is against or denies the existence of local self-government authorities. We are talking about an integral state, and this is as an integral state that the global community sees Syria in the future. An integral state means that the national capital can exercise its power throughout its territory and in all regions.



Question:

How proactive is Russia in helping to maintain dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus? In his recent statement, Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem said that they would regain control over the region by force and did not envisage any dialogues for the time being.

To what degree is Russia interested in the continuation of this dialogue considering that the Kurds have never said they want to secede from Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

That would be strange. We all talk about (and this is the position of Russia and all the main players, at least the position stated publicly) Syria being seen as an integral, secular and free state where people of different faiths, ethnicities, political views etc. can exercise their rights. But the focal idea is always the same: Syria must be an integral state.

As for the dialogue, Russia will, of course, facilitate it and encourage it in every way. This is our original stance.

Speaking about Mr Muallem and his statements, I cannot comment on this particular quote because I have not seen it. But I saw other statements coming from Damacus, including those made by Mr Muallem, who said that the war against terrorism would continue. I think that he was most likely referring to the use of force against militants and terrorists. We cannot deny the legitimate government the right to implement their strategy and policies throughout the country. Moreover, right now we can see that Damascus has regained control over most of the national territory (more than 90 percent). We can see that the rebuilding effort is in full swing. A dialogue is the way to remove e numerous problems which, as you rightly noted, are still in existence. The question is whether the US military is helping this dialogue or encouraging the Kurds to do something else in their areas? This is still an open question.



Question:

Novaya Gazeta reported yesterday that citizens of the Russian Federation and of Vietnam were arrested, not just detained, in the Czech Republic. They have allegedly tampered with the residence permit issuance system. Vietnamese law enforcement agencies are already dealing with the matter while their Russian colleagues aren’t yet. What can you tell us about this situation?



Maria Zakharova:

We saw this publication. We took note of the news about the detention of several, as was reported, citizens of Russian origin in the Czech Republic on suspicion of committing unlawful acts. I would like to say that the Russian Embassy in the Czech Republic is in contact with the law enforcement agencies in this state and is in the process of ascertaining the details of the incident, including the allegation that the detainees are Russian citizens. As soon as we have more information, we will share it with you.



Question:

The United States has long been threatening to impose the toughest ever sanctions on Iran on November 4, the goal of which is to nullify Iranian oil sales.

The other day, the Israeli media, including the most progressive ones, elaborately hinted that Russia was trying in some way to help Iran avoid the negative ramifications of these sanctions. In this regard, a large energy contract between Russia and Iran is being prepared, in accordance with which Russia will buy Iranian oil through the Caspian Sea and thus contribute to the process of leveling the effect of the sanctions. What do you think about the United States’ attempts to abandon the nuclear deal and introduce more hard-hitting sanctions? How true is the rumour that a major energy agreement between Russia and Iran is in the making?



Maria Zakharova:

With regard to our view on the United States leaving the JCPOA, we have given statements on this several times. We have released a corresponding statement, and Minister Lavrov and all Russian political figures have talked about this, because, as you rightly noted, this concerns not only politics, but also the economy, international stability, and a vast number of other aspects of international life, plus the foreign economic activity of our country and other states. We see that these are destructive actions, which are made in opposition to the vision of the situation by the international community and directly contradict international law, as enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution, which is a binding document. This was no longer just an agreement between several countries, but a binding document of global importance. All these subtleties of the Russian position were well known. All materials are available on our website. We see nothing constructive in the short term and even more so in distant future. We see that this situation is already creating additional tension in the region, leading not only to political and military-political destabilisation, but also to economic one.

The foundation that this agreement laid, namely, the removal of military-political concerns, opened the way to good interaction in the economic, financial and energy spheres. This interaction is already underway. European companies began to cooperate with their Iranian partners. I’m not even talking about us. You are aware that this interaction was, unfortunately, marred by the imposed international legal sanctions. However, in the contexts that we were legally able to implement, we did so completely freely, being fully aware of the importance of lifting the embargo across a variety of areas.

Accordingly, the US decision was not totally unexpected. We knew where it was going. I think that the new administration made such statements during its campaign, when it was putting together its election programme. When it was effectively done, we knew it was a well-considered, from the domestic political point of view, decision, but which is destructive for the international agenda.

I think - I will allow myself a bit of a political analysis - November 4 is not a random date. Preparations for the US elections are in full swing. The parties have stocked up an entire arsenal of far-reaching accusations and a variety of flamboyant statements. I think that this may be part of an internal political strategy and struggle that is already beyond all reasonable limits. I’m saying this not because I’m going to evaluate internal processes, as they have long since ceased to be internal.

With regard to the agreements, I will clarify this matter with the experts and let you know the answer.

You said that Russia wanted to help Iran avoid the consequences. The issue here is not about helping Iran specifically. Since we are talking about the energy sphere, the world today is entirely interdependent. This is not a matter of “saving” a bilateral market situation, it is much broader. Look at the concerns expressed by the European bodies, the EU, and other countries, because everything that major businesses and the energy sector were looking for as they drafted the JCPOA and in the early phases of its implementation has to be curtailed now. Moreover, threats are coming from the United States about additional unilateral sanctions, etc. Of course, this represents a direct impact on major businesses, which also, to put it mildly, has a destructive effect. I will find out if there are any available agreements and let you know the answer.



Question:

Anna Akopyan, wife of Armenia’s acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has launched an initiative called “Women for Peace” as a way to call for peace in our region. Many Russian women have visited the Nagorny Karabakh region to call for peace. They include author Lyudmila Ulitskaya, Moscow hospice director Nyuta Federmesser, State Duma deputy Svetlana Zhurova, and others. What is the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stance on the initiative?



Maria Zakharova:

We take a positive view on any initiative that actually aims to achieve peace.

As for this one, neither its sponsors, nor participants have contacted the ministry, so it’s hard to have an opinion about its goals. No one has shared information with us, and all we know about it we have learned from the media. In principle, the success of campaigns like this one depends on support and understanding from all parties to the conflict, as a conflict it is.



Question:

We would like you to comment on the incident that took place at the General Consulate in Istanbul, namely the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Many countries have made their positions clear on this.



Maria Zakharova:

But it hasn’t made the situation any clearer. I can tell you sincerely and frankly that I have been following the updates both professionally and personally, because this is about a member of the media, and one of the most grievous accusations that has been recently levelled at a country and a diplomatic institution. We are following up on this.

I would like to remind you that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already given his comment, calling for more facts to be revealed. I can say once again that, first, it is law enforcement that should act as the principal source of information. Second, we welcome the joint effort announced by Saudi Arabia and Turkey to investigate.

As for many politicians having commented on this, as you said, I can say that the many comments that have been made failed to add clarity. I believe we should focus on what law enforcement has to say, all the more so since, as far as I understand, the parties have joined forces. I would prefer the world to learn the truth and the political declarations to follow, not precede, the verdict rendered by law enforcement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3377309
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 29th, 2018 #523
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at Russia-Africa Public Forum, Moscow, October 22, 2018



22 October 2018 - 11:52







Colleagues, friends,

All of us agree that it will be impossible to elevate the entire range of relations between Russia and African countries to an entirely new level unless the public at large takes the most energetic part in these efforts. There is demand for more intensive cultural, humanitarian, academic and youth exchanges, as well as general contacts between people. It is hard to overestimate the role of this in strengthening friendship, trust and mutual understanding between nations. For example, many Africans have in fact discovered modern Russia for themselves while taking part in the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi in the autumn of 2017 or while visiting Russia as fans during the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

I consider it absolutely necessary to maximise the potential of public, cultural and business diplomacy in the interests of strengthening and expanding the traditionally friendly and mutually beneficial ties between Russia and African states.

I would like to sincerely thank the organisers of the current Forum, including the African Business Initiative Union and the World Association of Foreign Alumni of Russian Universities. Your efforts have made it possible to bring together representatives of political, public, academic, business and youth circles of African states in Moscow. This is a wonderful opportunity to discuss topical issues of Russian-African cooperation and to outline specific and forward-looking aspects of cooperation and joint work.

Russia's ties with the African continent go back centuries. In the 15th-17th centuries, Russian merchants and pilgrims visited Egypt. In the 19th century, famous Russian traveler and diplomat Yegor Kovalevsky conducted geographical and geological research in East Africa. By the way, he was one of the first to pinpoint the correct geographic location of the source of the White Nile. Prominent Russian researcher Vasily Yunker made a significant contribution to the study of Central Africa. He was the first to draw a detailed map of the region. Outstanding Russian poet Nikolay Gumilyov also contributed greatly to African studies. Nikolay Leontiev left a deep imprint on the memory of the people of Ethiopia. During the first Italian-Abyssinian war, he led a detachment of Russian volunteers in the anti-colonial fight and contributed to the modernisation of the Ethiopian army. Prominent Russian diplomat Pyotr Vlasov stood at the beginning of official relations between Russia and Ethiopia in 1898.

Our country did not stain itself with the crimes of colonialism. On the contrary, it helped, in every possible way, the peoples of the continent attain their freedom and sovereignty by providing comprehensive assistance and support in developing statehood and strengthening the economic independence of the African states. We are proud of our common achievements in political, economic, cultural and other spheres.

Africa is an important partner for Russia, a participant in the emerging and sustainable polycentric architecture of the world order. Our relations with the states of that continent are valuable in their own right and should not be subject to the fluctuations on the international arena. We are aware that our African friends hold the same views. Relying on the accumulated experience of productive cooperation, Russian diplomats seek to pursue a consistent policy for deepening the range of Russia-Africa relations. We are doing this based solely on the principles of international law, equality, and consideration and respect for the interests of each other. We have managed to achieve significant results.







We maintain regular contact at the highest and higher levels. Relations between our parliaments, as well as the exchanges between our respective ministries and departments, including, of course, foreign ministries, are expanding. Trade and economic exchanges are improving, although not at the pace we would like to see. Projects in the military-technical sector, as well as programmes in healthcare, education, and culture are underway. I am convinced there will be more efforts in these and other areas.

I am pleased to note that the positions of Russia and the overwhelming majority of African countries on the key issues of our time are similar or very close. Both we and our African friends are consistent supporters of strengthening democratic and just principles of international life, respect for the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world, and the right of the people to determine the models and approaches to socioeconomic development.

Moscow is interested in close foreign policy coordination with its African partners in the UN and other multilateral venues. In particular, we support further deepening of the BRICS-Africa dialogue. We attach great importance to strengthening peace and security in the region which is the most important component in ensuring the sustainable and dynamic development of the African states and maintaining global and regional stability.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia will continue to contribute to the development of a strategy for practical peacekeeping operations on the continent, while invariably adhering to the African solutions to African problems principle formulated by the Africans themselves.

In closing, I would like to say that your forum will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the overall efforts to achieve the comprehensive strengthening of ties.

I am pleased to note that two more major events - the Russia-Africa Parliamentary Forum, as well as the Russia-Africa Business Forum - will soon take place. I am confident that these events will set the stage for a comprehensive Russia-Africa summit in the foreseeable future, to which we will contribute in every way. Most importantly, we need to provide it with specific mutually beneficial content.

Thank you and I wish you every success in your work.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3380575






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of Madagascar Eloi Alphonse Maxime Dovo, Moscow, October 22, 2018



22 October 2018 - 11:55







Mr Minister,

Friends,

We are sincerely happy to welcome you in your new capacity in Moscow. It has been our professional and personal pleasure to work with you over the past 15 years during your time as head of the diplomatic mission of Madagascar in the Russian Feratideon. We hope that your appointment to this new high position will make it possible to ensure continuity in our ties and to elevate them to a new level.







Our political dialogue is developing very well. In March 2018, President of Madagascar Hery Rajaonarimampianina visited Moscow. Our leaders also met in July on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg. In July, former President of Madagascar Didier Ratsiraka visited Russia, and I had the pleasure of speaking with him. These contacts are a proof that all the key political forces in Madagascar are determined to expand partnership with the Russian Federation. We appreciate this, and we reciprocate. This also concerns our cooperation on the international scene, at the UN and other international organisations, as well as the need to expand our trade, economic and investment ties. I hope to discuss all these issues with you today.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3380607






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Madagascar Eloi Alphonse Maxime Dovo, Moscow, October 22, 2018



22 October 2018 - 14:19







Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held a substantive discussion.

Madagascar is our long-time partner in Africa. Today, we have reaffirmed our mutual desire to step up cooperation in all areas.

We have stated our joint interest in expanding trade, economic and investment ties. Promising avenues, charted by us, include geological prospecting, healthcare, personnel training programmes, tourism, the transport infrastructure and military and technical cooperation. We have agreed to assist business circles in establishing and strengthening direct contacts.

We have exchanged opinions on key contemporary issues on which our positions either coincide or are very close. Our countries consistently advocate the democratisation of interstate contacts that should hinge on international law and respect for the peoples’ aspirations to independently determine their own future. Obviously, we have noted that there is no alternative to the settlement of any conflicts by peaceful, political and diplomatic methods.

We positively assessed the level of cooperation at the UN. Russia is grateful to its Malagasy partners for their unwavering support of our initiatives, primarily the resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, as well as the projects on promoting transparency and confidence in space, and international information security.

We see eye to eye regarding the settlement of various conflicts in Africa, primarily in countries such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic, and the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa.

We are unanimous in our belief that the Africans themselves should play the decisive role in solving their problems or, as they say, provide African solutions to African problems. The international community should provide necessary support to the African Union and subregional organisations in their efforts to stabilise the remaining conflict areas. Russia reaffirms its commitment, including as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to continue to contribute to strengthening peace and stability in Africa.

In this regard, we have also discussed reforming the UN Security Council. We are supportive of the African Union’s consolidated position on this matter. We believe that under-representation of the developing regions of the world is the main flaw of the UN Security Council. So, we will push for any reform to, first, be based on broad consent and, second, by all means, to address the issue of representation for Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Russia welcomes the integration processes unfolding in Africa and supports the African states’ efforts to boost the effectiveness of regional interaction mechanisms. We see this as an important component in ensuring the dynamic development of all states in that region.

Among the initiatives that are designed to strengthen ties between Russia and Africa, I would like to mention the Russia-Africa Public Forum, which opened today, at the opening of which Mr Minister and I had the pleasure to speak. We confirmed our commitment to promote ties in other areas.

We are pleased to note that the Russia-Africa forum will be held at the parliamentary level in the near future, followed by a Russia-Africa business forum. All of that will serve as important steps for laying the way to a full-blown Russia-Africa summit, as discussed at the meeting of the BRICS member countries with their African partners in Johannesburg in July.

We touched upon a number of other international issues such as, above all, the Middle East and in particular, the situation with the Syria crisis settlement. In this connection, we noted the increasing importance of forming a broad anti-terrorist front in order to effectively combat this universal evil. The corresponding services and law enforcement agencies of Russia and Madagascar are improving and increasing the effectiveness of interaction on anti-terrorism and combating drug trafficking and organised crime.

I would like to thank my colleague for good talks and the invitation to visit Antananarivo.







Question:

Today, you will meet with National Security Adviser John Bolton. Prior to his visit to Moscow, President Trump announced US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. How will Trump's decision affect the talks between Moscow and Washington that were scheduled to be held during the meeting of the presidents of Russia and the United States in Helsinki? It is expected that, by mutual agreement, Syria, North Korea, the Iranian nuclear programme and other issues will be discussed during the talks.



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to the US position on the INF Treaty, I have not yet seen President Trump’s decision. I heard about this intention and a rather contradictory reaction, including in the United States itself. Some support this plan, while others believe it is the wrong thing to do and call for not destroying the remaining vehicle for limiting strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons. Still others believe that this statement is not about withdrawing from the treaty, but a proposal to revise it (I think Senator Bob Corker said this), so at this point it won’t be productive to read tea leaves. We will wait for official clarification from our US colleagues. If John Bolton is ready to do so, then we will, of course, listen to what he has to say and then assess the situation. If they plan to do so through other channels, we will also be ready for such contacts and will then determine our position proceeding not from plans, but from clearly stated decisions.

The INF Treaty follows the procedure described in it, which indeed provides for a possibility of withdrawing from it, but this procedure has not been used yet.

Regarding our cooperation with the United States on other matters, in particular, the regional affairs that you mentioned (Syria, the Korean Peninsula, the Iranian nuclear programme), such talks are not formalised. These subjects are on the agenda of our dialogue. As you may be aware, we have a “deconflicting” channel on Syria. We would be willing to pursue more substantive cooperation in looking for ways to resolve the Syrian conflict as efficiently as possible, above all, to start the refugee return process, to begin political talks and to ensure the final elimination of the remaining “terrorist internationals” in Syria. However, the United States is not ready for such comprehensive cooperation.

Recently, fairly productive consultations on the Korean Peninsula between Foreign Deputy Minister Igor Morgulov and Special Representative of the US Department of State for North Korea Stephen Biegun were held in Moscow.

Our position on the Iranian nuclear programme is well known. The United States has officially decided to withdraw from it, and we consider this a big misstep. The other participants in this agreement share this viewpoint. I am talking about the European Union and China. Intensive talks are now underway between those who remain parties to the agreement in order to prevent a serious negative effect from the US decisions on the economic ties of the other countries with Iran.



Question:

As a follow-up to the INF Treaty, what does Russia think about US threats to revise the terms of the START Treaty or not to renew it altogether after 2021?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to the INF Treaty, as I said, commenting now on this situation and any hypothetical consequences is not a very productive thing to do. To reiterate, this decision has not yet been made. We were just told about the intention to do this. I mentioned a rather contradictory reaction in the United States and, of course, you heard about the reaction in the leading European capitals, such as Berlin and Paris. There were only hasty and eager statements in support of the allegedly adopted US decision on withdrawal from the INF Treaty from the NATO spokesperson. She was in a hurry to emphasise loyalty to any decision that might be made in Washington. The UK Secretary of State for Defence also said something along the lines of support for any and all actions by the United States, but he is also known for an approach that lines up strictly with what is said from across the ocean.

The other capitals express alarm. Of course, as we have said more than once (President Putin recently confirmed this at the Valdai forum in Sochi), any action in this area will be met with counteraction, because strategic stability can only be achieved on the basis of parity. Such parity will be maintained in all circumstances. We are responsible for global stability. We hope the United States will not give up its share of responsibility, either.

I presume that such an approach should also be applied to a START-3 Treaty. We have repeatedly, and President Putin has said this, expressed our willingness, as envisaged by the treaty itself, to renew it after 2021 when the first 10 year term expires, but of course, we will be ready to talk with the United States on what needs to be done.

There are matters both with regard to the INF Treaty and the START-3 Treaty that must be discussed non-publicly in accordance with the procedures laid down in each of these treaties, including as part of established special expert intergovernmental mechanisms to discuss any issues that may arise.

We formulated our approaches with regard to the INF Treaty and START-3 quite a long time ago and did so specifically. We are interested in the United States providing us with their responses. In turn, we will respond to the questions that the United States has for us. To do so, we need to use the mechanisms that exist in accordance with these documents.


***


Colleagues, in closing, I have a pleasant mission. As was mentioned earlier, the Minister has worked for almost 15 years as an ambassador here. He made a truly invaluable contribution to developing our cooperation across all areas, and was always prepared to do his best to overcome challenges and to develop interaction projects that were beneficial for our citizens, peoples and countries. We decided to award the Minister with the Russian Foreign Ministry’s badge of distinction For Contribution to International Cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3380753






Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with the Assistant to the US President for National Security Affairs John Bolton



22 October 2018 - 21:24







On October 22, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov met with Assistant to the US President for National Security Affairs John Bolton who is in Moscow on a working visit. The parties exchanged opinions on current international issues including the situation in Syria and in Afghanistan, the state of affairs in Ukraine and the Korean Peninsula. Prospects for cooperation between the two nations were discussed including in the interests of settling regional conflicts, effectively countering of terrorism, and in maintaining strategic stability.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3381126






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Executive Secretary of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Stergomena Tax, Moscow, October 23, 2018



23 October 2018 - 13:22







Ms Executive Secretary, colleagues, friends,

Welcome to our meeting which symbolises a new phase in relations between Russia and the Southern African Development Community.

The last document on cooperation between Russia and your organisation was signed in 2003, and over the 15 years our cooperation has reached a new level, as was mentioned in the memorandum that we signed today.

The new, more specific and promising quality of our cooperation is corroborated by the fact that another important event is currently taking place in Moscow, an investment forum organised by the SADC embassies.

We are also pleased with the fact that representatives of the SADC countries took part in the Russia-Africa Public Forum, which was held in Moscow yesterday. The Russia-Africa Parliamentary Forum will be held soon followed by a business forum.







We are convinced that these events will help raise the level of our cooperation with the Southern African Development Community and Africa as a whole to new heights.

We are ready to discuss today all the existing plans to deepen our partnership across all areas.

Welcome!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3381760






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with the Astana Three negotiating group, Moscow, October 24, 2018



24 October 2018 - 12:36







Colleagues, friends,

We are glad to welcome you at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I value this chance to meet with the main engine, the motive force of the Astana format, which implements agreements reached at the summits. There were three summits: in Sochi, Tehran and Istanbul. It is now our turn to arrange the next summit. I hope that everything that is necessary will be done to ensure that this new leaders’ meeting will represent a further advance in the Syrian settlement.

All objective observers acknowledge that the Astana format is the most effective mechanism for making progress on all strands of the endeavour to overcome the Syrian crisis. It is obviously for this reason that the Astana format is a target for attacks on the part of those who think about their own geopolitical plans in this region rather than the interests of the Syrian people.







I hope that during your stay in Moscow we will be able to assess the situation, as it looks at the moment, and to coordinate additional steps towards advancing the goals that were set by our leaders and directly formulated as being necessary for the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

I am very glad to see you. I hope the conditions for your work in Moscow are good.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382332






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during his meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan Chingiz Aidarbekov, Moscow, October 26, 2018



26 October 2018 - 13:07







Mr Aidarbekov,

We are glad to welcome you to Moscow. I would like to personally congratulate you now on your appointment to the high post of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic.

We had a very good relationship with your predecessor. I am confident that we will ensure continuity, as our Presidents require. Their contacts set the tone for our alliance and strategic partnership. Over the past years, our relations have risen to a qualitatively new level.

This year, the Presidents have already met four times. The heads of government have met three times. And this is the fourth meeting of foreign ministers. We are trying to translate such intensity into the language of practical actions, into the implementation of various projects in trade, economic, investment, defence, military technical, cultural, and humanitarian spheres. Our industry-specific agencies are also cooperating very closely. The mutual affinity of our citizens is very high; therefore, providing the most comfortable conditions for contacts between people is also a very important and essential part of our work.







Today, during your first foreign visit in a new capacity, as I understand it, we will have a good opportunity to discuss the state of our bilateral relations and issues relating to our cooperation as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the United Nations and other international platforms.

Thank you again for accepting our invitation, and I look forward to a productive conversation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383693






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo



26 October 2018 - 17:29







On October 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo at the initiative of the US side.

The officials discussed topical issues on the international agenda and bilateral matters in the context of preparations for the upcoming contacts between the presidents of Russia and the United States.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384241






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of an exhibition dedicated to the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Brazil, Moscow, October 26, 2018



26 October 2018 - 18:04







Mr Ambassador, Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, friends,

We have gathered today on a remarkable occasion which is the opening of an exhibition of archives from the foreign ministries of Russia and Brazil timed to coincide with the 190th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between our countries.

On October 3, 1828, Emperor Nicholas I signed a decree appointing well-known Russian diplomat and researcher Frants Borel the first Russian envoy to Brazil. It is symbolic that Brazil was the first Latin American country with which the Russian government established diplomatic relations. In fact, Brazil served as a “window” for Russia to this unique region. We have come a long way since then and accumulated considerable experience of constructive interaction. Copies of the agreement on establishing diplomatic relations are on display at the exhibition.

Our relations continue to expand incrementally. A regular and trust-based political dialogue is maintained at all levels, including the highest. Bilateral sectoral cooperation mechanisms are functioning effectively, and trade and economic exchanges are expanding. Importantly, we are not resting on our laurels, but are instead seeking new and more advanced forms of cooperation, including in the investment, research and technology sectors.

Our interaction in international affairs is based on coinciding or similar approaches to the key challenges of our time. We closely coordinate our moves at key multilateral venues, primarily, the UN, the G20 and, of course, BRICS, which is an association of a new type, and is an important element in the emerging polycentric architecture of world order which is more just and democratic.

The unifying feeling of friendship and affinity between our peoples, our genuine reciprocal interest in the history, culture and traditions of the other are enduring factors that underlie further improvement in bilateral ties. By the way, there is the charter of the Association of Friends of the Soviet Union among the documents on display, which was created at a time when official contacts between Moscow and Rio de Janeiro were interrupted.

An unparalleled cultural project – the one and only Bolshoi Theatre ballet school outside Russia in the city of Joinville – is being successfully implemented in Brazil. Its graduates perform on the Bolshoi Theatre stage in the Russian capital and collaborate with other renowned international ballet troupes. We welcome and support young Brazilians’ interest in studying at the Russian universities. A love for the number one sport – football – also brings our nations closer. This summer, numerous fans from Brazil visited our country for the World Cup and were able to see for themselves what modern Russia is like.







Colleagues, friends,

According to a Brazilian saying, a friend is not the one who says “go forward,” but the one who says “let's go forward together.” We see mutual interest in moving forward along the path of deepening Russian-Brazilian strategic partnership.

I note with satisfaction that, in addition to representatives of the diplomatic corps, science, culture, media and the general public, we have here a group of diplomats from Latin American and the Caribbean States who are in Moscow to attend professional development courses at our ministry’s Diplomatic Academy.

Now, please, go ahead and enjoy the exhibition. I’m convinced that it will be of great interest to the Ministry’s employees and numerous other visitors.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384260






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Syrian opposition's High Negotiations Committee Head Nasr al-Hariri



26 October 2018 - 20:18



On October 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with the Syrian opposition's High Negotiations Committee delegation headed by Nasr al-Hariri.

During the conversation the parties had a frank exchange of opinions on the situation unfolding in Syria and around it, stressing the need for prompt political settlement of the Syrian crisis.

The Russian side reaffirmed that it is committed to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria and is determined to contribute to establishing an effective inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue based on UNSC Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

On the same day, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov also had extensive consultations with the High Negotiations Committee delegation headed by Nasr al-Hariri.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384384






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Moscow. Kremlin. Putin TV programme Moscow, October 25, 2018




28 October 2018 - 15:00







Question:

Why did US National Security Adviser John Bolton come to Moscow?



Sergey Lavrov:

To talk. There are many matters we need to discuss. We appreciate it that it is US National Security Adviser John Bolton who is especially proactive regarding ties with his colleagues in Moscow.



Question:

Is this a joke?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not at all. Actually, we have meetings with Mr Bolton more often than with our other colleagues. He was here in July, and now he is back again. In between, he met with Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in Geneva. We believe that it is important when such a high-ranking official takes interest in the practical matters on our bilateral agenda.



Question:

But it is surprising that only the US National Security Adviser meets with Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin. Are there no other officials in the US administration? Can only Mr Bolton take the responsibility?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not know what is taking place there. This situation is probably indicative of something. Maybe they have divided the responsibilities or have decided that Secretary of State Michael Pompeo will be responsible for North Korea, primarily the preparations for the next summit. Nobody else appears to be deeply involved with foreign policy. Defence Secretary James Mattis and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu met on the sidelines of the ASEAN events in Singapore, where they shook hands and expressed readiness to communicate. End of story.



Question:

However, you had a meeting with US National Security Adviser John Bolton. You have known him well for quite a few years I think?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we first met in the late 1990s, when I was still working in Moscow before my appointment to New York. I was a director of the department of international organisations– they were called directorates back then, while Mr Bolton was responsible for matters related to the UN at the State Department. Later we met at the UN when I was Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN and he was an Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.



Question:

He delivered bad news in 2001, when he told us that the Americans were pulling out of the ABM Treaty.



Sergey Lavrov:

This does not mean that the messenger is to blame. The decision was made by the US administration. In reply to our warning of the dangers of pulling out of the ABM Treaty, US President George W. Bush told President of Russia Vladimir Putin that this decision is not spearheaded against us and that they do not see us as a threat. They said that if we decided we should take any response measures as well, they would not consider them to be spearheaded against the United States either. This is how it all began.

During a meeting with the National Security Advisor to the US President, President Vladimir Putin said, when the discussion turned to arms control, that this fairly bad cycle started with the US leaving the ABM Treaty, which forced us to start manufacturing weapons to ensure parity and this precluded the deployment of the US global missile defence system to jeopardise our security and the very existence of our strategic nuclear deterrent forces. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty has not yet been officially announced, but the intention was expressed. We could see from the talks in Moscow, including during President Putin’s meeting with National Security Advisor John Bolton, that this decision has been made and will be formalised either very soon, or 30-45 days from now. Then, the six-month countdown will begin, which is stipulated by the INF Treaty, and after the six months following the official submission of the termination document, the treaty ceases to be valid for the initiating party and the other party. We discussed this openly and pragmatically, without emotions. Indeed, this is a negative development, and the President said as much several times yesterday in other speeches. At the news conference with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, the President said that it would be bad if the current sentiment in the US administration affects, first, withdrawal from the INF Treaty, and second, makes the parties to the START Treaty, which expires in 2021, wonder whether they should renew it or not. Should this scenario materialise, there will be no legal framework for curbing an arms race. When he talks about the arms race, President Putin always emphasises that we will be forced to respond to adverse changes in the strategic situation. However, we will never do so using the costly methods the Soviet Union did, which went to the extreme, severely undermining its economic and financial resources.



Question:

You and John Bolton talked for 90 minutes. He has not brought you any olives. We have not received any olives from the olive branch the American eagle is holding.



Sergey Lavrov:

Actually, we prefer gherkins to olives.



Question:

I cannot imagine John Bolton bringing us any gherkins.

What can be the subject of a 90-minute long conversation with a person who built his career on the assumption that nothing must be allowed to contain the military potential of the United States, and who has always been against all these treaties?



Sergey Lavrov:

You should talk with anyone who holds his post, who is trusted by his superiors and who pursues their line. It is rumoured that John Bolton played a key role in convincing President Donald Trump to withdraw from this arms control treaty. I do not know about the inner workings in Washington. Still, I believe that Secretary of State Pompeo and Defence Secretary Mattis were involved in this discussion. This is obvious to me. It is a fact that the decision has been taken and is being implemented. I repeat that the situation was discussed in the Kremlin without any undue emotions; we did not talk about who had set the ball rolling. We are grownup people who know that our opinion concerning the situation differs from that of the Americans, who say that the main reason for their decision is our failure to comply with the INF Treaty.



Question:

You have even supplied them with the technical specifications of the missile.



Sergey Lavrov:

It has been said for years that a missile specified as the 9M729 has been tested for use at a range that is prohibited under the INF Treaty. They have been telling us about this for years. Initially, they did not even identify the class of the missile they were referring to, saying simply that we have allegedly tested it and that we must tell them why we did this and stop doing this. Since then, we kept asking for facts in all possible formats, including at the Special Verification Commission that was established to monitor the sides’ compliance with the treaty. If they are sure that we flight-tested a missile in violation of range specifications, this can only mean that their satellites have spotted the missile’s flight. We wanted to see the photographs to see what they meant. In this manner we fought for each little minor detail. First they gave the missile’s number. Then they said we held two tests, told us the days when these tests took place, and said that they had been launched from Kapustin Yar.

A week ago, barely a few days before the Americans announced their decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty they had sent us, through their embassy in Moscow, a long list of questions of concern to them. We received the list, at long last, in reply to our request that they tell us about their concerns and why they think we violated the Treaty. We have forwarded the list to the Defence Ministry and other Russian agencies, which are to analyse the list and prepare an answer in response to the Americans’ concerns.



Question:

It took them several years after your first request for such a list? Are they slow thinkers?



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe they fear that the provision of this information would compromise their sources. I am not involved with these matters professionally; I can only speculate. But it appears that several days after sending us a list of detailed questions to which we could respond in any way – we have started preparing our answers, they announced that they are withdrawing from the treaty, list or no list. This does not facilitate a stable dialogue and predictability.



Question:

Considering the Foreign Ministry’s fantastic openness and your readiness to answer any question, why wasn’t there any news conference this time? Journalists were not allowed to attend.



Sergey Lavrov:

How do we always act in such situations? We suggest a traditional plan to our guests: first, we show them how the talks begin, followed by the talks themselves and afterwards a meeting for the press. John Bolton was the guest of Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, and he spent an entire day with him. They, too, had no contacts with the press, except filming and photographing his arrival. Nevertheless, considering the tremendous interest of the Russian media, as regards Mr Bolton’s talks in Moscow, we suggested to him starting the dinner (the format of the meeting) in armchairs in our mansion’s hall, exchanging introductory remarks and probably responding to the remarks of correspondents, as is customary in the United States. They are invited before the talks, and they can shout something like: “Mr President, what do you think? …” This happens often.



Question:

Yes, I remember, someone shouted something to you, and you cut her short.



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t remember that. Yes, this probably happened during talks with Rex Tillerson.







Question:

We have written down all the moves.



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe, you will remind me later on.

This time, they asked us to avoid any verbal and visual contact, except filming how Mr Bolton enters our mansion; and this is exactly what we did. It took us 90 minutes because, apart from dinning, we, first of all, noted that it was necessary to promote the presidents’ agreements somehow. During his news conference on the results of the talks, Mr Bolton agreed to work on the matter of terrorism and to see what we can do to maintain cybersecurity; he also said it would be necessary to establish a business council. All these three aspects were coordinated in Hamburg 18 months ago, in July, on the sidelines of the G20 summit when presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump first met and had a lengthy conversation.

Unfortunately, we made no headway on terrorism, cybersecurity and the business council until the last few minutes when Mr Bolton confirmed that President Trump wanted to implement all this, and that we will work on this. We welcome this, but we want to prevent a situation like the one that shaped up after Hamburg and Helsinki when the Washington administration disavowed a principled agreement on a number of important matters (that is, not some specific agreement but merely an agreement to reactivate channels for examining various topics), although President Trump supported such approaches. We will see how everything works out this time.

Returning to the subject of strategic stability, participants at the Kremlin meeting also noted that Russia and the US had perceived dialogue on all its aspects to be very topical, as confirmed by Mr Bolton’s visit. As you can see, the ABM Treaty has been terminated, all our attempts to streamline some coherent dialogue with the United States and NATO, even though such a treaty is lacking, so far meet with no response, the INF Treaty will soon be terminated, and the future of the START 3 agreement remains unclear. In this connection, speaking to what extent deeds meet words or vice versa, I recall a proposal to resume the format of strategic dialogue at the level of deputy foreign ministers. I would like to point out that, in June, my deputy, Sergey Ryabkov, sent this proposal to new US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson. Since June, she has been unable to clarify specific dates for holding such consultations. I asked Mr Bolton to help answer this question more quickly. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also promised me to do this when we talked to each other in Helsinki, and later spoke by phone in August. I reminded him about this in September, at a meeting of foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Perhaps, Mr Pompeo’s hands are tied by other urgent affairs. Therefore I hope that Mr Bolton will send such a message, no matter what.

As I already said, we did not take any offence. To be honest, holding on to resentment hurts no one but you. President Vladimir Putin has said very clearly that we understand that this is their decision, and that we are unable to influence these decisions. We have voiced our arguments, and we hope that they kept our arguments in mind while making their decision. But if they are deciding to scrap all international documents in the field of arms control in such a way, they should say what they are planning to do in this sphere. It would be pointless to act in an uncontrolled and non-transparent manner when one party would once again be unaware of the other party’s actions. Mr Bolton has said “No,” and that they realise the need for transparency here, as well as a certain degree of trust and predictability. As for the INF Treaty, they are asking why it is impossible to involve China, India, Pakistan and Iran in this process.



Question:

And didn’t they want to ask China, India, Pakistan and Iran about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is what we told them. Eight, nine or, maybe, even ten years ago, between 2007and 2008, together with the United States we submitted a proposal to the UN. We suggested that all countries in possession of shorter-range and medium-range missiles join the INF Treaty and make it universal. We received a negative response. Frankly speaking, we expected nothing else, but we wanted to take advantage of all the opportunities for universalising the Treaty. Today, we told Mr Bolton that, in any event, it is necessary to discuss control in the area of strategic and non-strategic arms of any country with the relevant state.



Question:

Actually, John Bolton said he had only brought the arrows, not any olives. President Putin says the Americans keep pressuring us while we do not respond in any manner, and that time is needed to calm down and come to one’s senses. US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker has said that Russia will see additional sanctions come into play every month or two months. There are lingering problems with our consulates and embassy offices in the United States. They have not returned our property to us, and the situation is unclear. What do we expect them to do? They are pulling out of all the agreements. They do not even like the mail. What can this mean, actually? Are we just watching, wondering what else they will do?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we are not forcing friendship on them. We know that they are the largest power on the planet. We would like to have normal businesslike relations based on mutual respect with all countries, including the United States. We have sent ideas on developing mutual relations to the United States more than once. This was done at the level of the President, the Secretary of State and the Security Council Secretary. They know that we are willing. We are willing to discuss any issues in our bilateral relations, as well as serious international matters, and that we are willing to do this based on equality and mutual respect. If there is any area where the Americans are willing to talk with us equally and respectfully, we are ready for this. We have asked them to outline issues of interest to them. They have indicated an interest in strategic stability in this situation. They do not want us to have distorted expectations of their practical actions. Vladimir Putin asked John Bolton directly what they planned to do, because we remember what took place in Europe in the 1980s and the outcome of those actions, with Pershing and Pioneer missiles. That class of missiles was later destroyed, but this reduced Europe to a nervous wreck.



Question:

They are nervous again this time.



Sergey Lavrov:

The Europeans are getting nervous. We can see their reaction [to the news]. My German colleagues, Heiko Maas, phoned me yesterday to express their concerns.

When we worked on the INF Treaty and the Pershing missiles were removed [from Europe], the negotiations involved all NATO countries. Many NATO members say now that the future of the INF Treaty should be discussed with them as well. I do not know what they will do about this at NATO, but John Bolton, for one, has said openly that the United States is primarily focused on Asia where it would like to compensate for the ‘unfair’ lack of intermediate- and shorter-range weapons there.

As you know, Washington mentioned China when it made public its intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty back before Bolton’s visit.



Question:

Yes, it did, but there are some questions left, especially for the Americans who change their position all too frequently.



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree.



Question:

Well, I understand this. Is John Bolton going to do anything to return our US diplomatic property to us? To make sanctions at least a bit sensible, to have some logic? Is he going to drop his questions on “Russia’s interference” in the election and speak about their interference in our election? Or is it more like he comes, doesn’t listen to anyone, states his position, smiles beneath his grey moustache and leaves?



Sergey Lavrov:

Reddish, I would say (laughs). I believe they understand that this situation is not normal. We have said this many times to Michael Pompeo, and I repeated to John Bolton that we should take elementary steps (forget sanctions for now, it is a different topic, and in any case we will find ways to minimise their damage and end our dependence on what we are blackmailed with), we have to make it comfortable for diplomats to work again: to stop sending both countries’ diplomats away, issue diplomatic visas in time instead of postponing this for months as is happening now at the initiative of our US colleagues (we are responding reciprocally, of course) and look at the property situation. We should at least begin by allowing Russian diplomats in the US and US diplomats in Russia to visit the seized or expropriated facilities, whatever they call them. They will think about it. We have made a proposal and now it is for them to decide.

Of course, we have spoken about visas for citizens who are not diplomats; for those who want to visit the US and Russia as tourists, scientists, athletes, as part of exchanges and so on. Now Russian citizens have to wait up to 300 days for an interview in Moscow and Yekaterinburg and 50 days in Vladivostok, which is way too long. Our US colleagues say that they had to send all consular employees away. We did not demand that and asked them whether this means that only those trying to interfere in our domestic affairs are left? Because we have seen US diplomats at the opposition’s public events many times, including the informal opposition with its calls for regime change and so on.

Our US colleagues continue to try to brush it all off as a joke, and say that relations will normalise and “everything will be alright” but nothing in response to clear examples of interference. We respond that we don’t just have suspicions about them, but also about their Ukraine Support Act passed in 2015. According to it, the US Department of State is ordered, not advised, to spend $20 million per year to promote democracy in Russia, including by financing Russian nongovernmental organisations that speak in favour of “democratising” all spheres of life. This law exists. Although the Americans acknowledge it, they try not to interfere. All the organisations that receive funding under this law are being checked right now. Of course, if these grants are used for what is envisaged by the law, that is “promoting democracy” in Russia, it means changing Russia’s domestic policy.



Question:

Not because we are not democratic. We are democratic, just not in the US way.



Sergey Lavrov:

Exactly. There was a funny moment when John Bolton mentioned the interference during his dinner with me. I told him that Russia was not only accused of interference in the US, Spain (Catalonia) and Brexit, but also of everything that is happening in the Western Balkans: we “tried to stage a coup” in Montenegro. It is funny that we were bluntly criticised for our “attempts” to do the same in Macedonia and prevent that country from voting to join NATO and the EU based on twisted wording of the referendum’s question that goes against Macedonian laws.

We found examples that we remained silent on while the Macedonian referendum was being prepared, and that NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and representatives of the European Commission visited Macedonia’s capital, Skopje, at the time to publicly and bluntly demand that Macedonian voters choose their future, say “yes” in the referendum to join NATO and the European Union by “only” changing their country’s name. This sly phrase violates many things; moreover, according to Macedonian law, only one question may be put to a referendum, when there were three.

Later, after this referendum fell short of the required turnout and failed, several days ago the Macedonian parliament voted to initiate the procedure to change the constitution, nine votes were lacking (because the opposing party voted against it), and it was publicly acknowledged in Macedonia that they were obtained partly by blackmail and partly by promises not to investigate. And three deputies were even released from arrest. They only needed several more votes, and, according to them, there were some mischievous deputies who were stirring the pot. They were locked in their offices, and their mobiles were taken away. The US ambassador was in the parliament building all the time, and he was not simply present there. I told John Bolton all this, and he chuckled and said that “it is a very difficult country.”



Question:

Good answer. I see. And a very short question in closing. You have been engaging with the US political elite for many years. Now we are in a very difficult period and many things depend on personal contacts and the quality of the Western elite. What are they like compared with their predecessors?



Sergey Lavrov:

Different. There is a rule that my own observations support: of course, they are motivated to promote the party line, including literally the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, and the party line if they work for the Administration.

There are people who will publicly follow the party line even if it has an anti-Russian angle, but then in private conversations try to come to an agreement on how to resolve crises in some areas. There also are others who speak harshly both in public and during direct contacts. However, in many cases, I would even say that in most cases, when they retire and begin their academic careers, they change and use their experience of interacting with us, if nothing else, to analyse the situation and in their work at think tanks; they become more objective and motivated to seek out agreement between such countries as Russia and the US.

Better late than never. Still I believe that US society is not interested in Russophobia. It is being aggressively foisted on them through fabrication, false accusations and fake news about Russia; but the society is beginning to realise that this is all artificial pressure and that it would be better to have simple, honest negotiations with Russia on equal terms. We don’t have to claim to be friends.

If John Bolton’s visit and talks with President Vladimir Putin result in an understanding that we must get back on the same page on the dialogue on strategic stability and look for some new vehicle for agreement on the current situation as part of this dialogue, it would be really positive.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384450






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


24 October 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany H. Maas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382527


27 October 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with Turkish Foreign Minister M. Chavusoglu - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384440
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 29th, 2018 #524
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:





Statement by Mr.Andrey Belousov, Deputy Head of the Russian Delegation in the First Committee of the 73rd Session of the UNGA on «Other Weapons of Mass Destruction» Cluster, New York, 24 October, 2018



25 October 2018 - 11:24



Unofficial translation



Distinguished Chair,

Distinguished colleagues,

The Russian Federation is taking vigorous efforts to strengthen the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons (BWC) which must be considered as a reliable instrument aimed at reducing the threat of use of biological agents as weapons and contribute to international cooperation in the biological sphere for peaceful purposes.

In order to achieve this goal the efforts of the international community must be consolidated on the basis of a constructive agenda. For this purpose the intersessional process established by the States Parties to the Convention should serve as a tool to examine a wide range of specific issues.

The BWC GGE session, attended by experts from over 100 states, was successfully held in Geneva from 7 to 16 August this year. The group considered specific proposals to improve the implementation of the Convention. There is a hope that some of them will be adopted by consensus at the 2021 Ninth Review Conference. Among the initiatives – the Russian one to employ in the framework of the Convention the mobile medical, and biological units to provide assistance in case of the use of biological weapons and to investigate such cases as well as to combat infectious deceases of different origins. In August the Russian delegation presented a new working document to follow up this initiative. Particular attention from different countries was given to the engagement of mobile units that could be rapidly deployed at the site of the use of biological weapons and provide assistance in suppressing the pocket of infection and in treating the victims. We regard it as a real mechanism for the implementation of Article VII (Assistance and protection from biological weapons).

The Russian Federation believes that all the BWC States Parties should do their utmost to support the intersessional work conducted within the Convention and to facilitate the convergence of positions of delegations. It will accelerate the adoption and implementation of measures that can decrease the threat of use of biological weapons. Indeed, there is no viable alternative to the intersessional process within the framework of the treaty with 182 States Parties. All decisions should be taken as a result of negotiations between its States Parties.

Therefore we regard unacceptable any attempts to impose the drafts which were elaborated in the lack of transparency and inclusiveness. It is even more unacceptable to amend any BWC provisions on such a key issue as investigation in connection with the complaint of any state regarding the violation of the Convention including potential allegations of any use of biological weapons. In this respect Article VI of BWC clearly defines the key role of the UN Security Council in initiating and conducting such investigations. There are in fact no other options. The attempts to undermine the BWC regime by trying to project the sad and condemnable "experience" of politically motivated investigations of chemical weapons use hi Syria will be doomed to fail. We will not allow any mayhem and manipulations in the biological sphere that threaten to pull apart the OPCW that used to be a successful international organization.

Currently the BWC regime is facing additional tests due to the buildup of foreign military medical and biological activity in the territory of the former Soviet Union. In this regard, we proposed to improve the format of the confidence building measures within the Convention in order to increase transparency and contribute to the confidence of the parties in its implementation. As a matter of principle, we call upon those whom it may concern to abandon their attempts to militarize the public healthcare.

We hope that all sane forces will be able to unite on the basis of a constructive program of actions aimed at cooperation in order to strengthen the В WC. Russia will do its utmost to contribute to this goal and cooperate with all the interested parties.

The Russian Federation fully supports the existing international regime of the prohibition of chemical weapons. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) is one of the most successful international instruments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Russia not by word but in deed is a faithful CWC participant – Russia was among the first to sign the Convention on 13 January 1993 and to start implementing it immediately. The elimination of all chemical weapons stockpiles possessed by the Russian Federation was carried out under the strictest international control This effort- consuming process was completed ahead of schedule in September 2017 and on 11 October 2017 the Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat certified the final elimination of chemical weapons in Russia.

We call upon other states, first of all the US that initiated the process of chemical disarmament, to follow our example and take efforts to complete the process of chemical demilitarization as soon as possible.

We note with satisfaction that 193 states are currently Parties to the Convention. At different levels we urge the countries that remain outside the CWC to join it without delay. It is a vital need that all States Parties fully implement all provisions under the Convention, with bringing their national legislation in compliance with this international treaty.

Despite this today we are witnessing excessive politicization of chemical weapons issues by certain countries. In particular, we consider as illegitimate the decision by the Special Session of the Conference of the State Parties on granting the OPCW Technical Secretariat attributive functions (i.e. "to track down the perpetrators" of the use of chemical weapons) that are inappropriate for such a bureaucratic body. This decision goes beyond the mandate of the Conference and interferes with the exclusive prerogatives of the UN Security Council under Articles VI, VII, VIII and XII of the UN Charter. The ideas contained in this decision threaten not only the CWC but the entire system of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Under these circumstances we believe it is important to preserve the OPCW unity and the CWC integrity to prevent the substitution of the Convention's goals and its reformatting in lite of parochial political interests. We hope that the states that conduct independent international policy will seriously assess the recent developments in the OPCW and, during the forthcoming CWC Review Conference, will stand against the implementation of the decisions that so odiously and destructively affect the system of international relations based of the UN Charter.

Russia has repeatedly and consistently called for the establishment of an impartial and highly professional international mechanism under the UNSC auspices that would investigate all cases of "chemical terrorism" in the Middle East without any exception in strict compliance with the high CWC standards.

It is absolutely unacceptable to adopt in international fora any sanction measures against Damascus which are based on unjustified allegations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces. The insinuations around the Syrian "chemical files" undermine the efforts taken in Geneva (as it is envisaged by the UNSC resolution 2254) and in Astana to ensure political settlement of the crisis with all Syrians engaged.

Against this background we are seriously concerned about the engaged and nontransparent activity of the OPCW fact-finding mission of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Its reports are based on the materials and evidences obtained in a remote mode, basically from the opposition groups. The investigations have been conducted with gross violation of the CWC provisions without going to the sides of the alleged incidents and observing the key principle of sequence of actions in preserving the "chain of custody". We also do have questions regarding the staff composition of the FFM, which was until recently formed exclusively from the representatives of the western or pro-western camp. All these issues undermine confidence in the results of the work of the mission and is an evidence of the long overdue need for reforming its principles and organizational methods of work.

With all seriousness we consider the operative information that the Syrian militants prepare new provocations with the use of chemical agents or other toxic materials. Everyone is aware of their real goals – to provoke new missile strikes on the Syrian government and military facilities by the US and its allies and thus to prevent the restoration of effective government control over the territories held by the terrorist groups.

We resolutely condemn the unfounded accusations by the UK regarding the involvement of Russian citizens in the incidents wilh toxic chemicals in Salisbury and Eimsbury. The claims of London that only Russia allegedly possesses "the technical means, practical experience and motives" to commit such acts does not absolutely correspond to the reality and actually is aimed at inducing the international community into an error.

The total refusal of the UK to cooperate in any way on this matter despite the multiple requests from the Russian Federation to cooperate calls into question the objectivity of the British investigation, which growingly acquires the form of open farce. The acts taken by the British side in connection with these incidents do not only contradict the CWC but also the international obligations of London in such areas as Consular Law, legal assistance in combating crime and respect for human rights.

We are still ready to engage in bilateral consultations with the UK on the basis of existing international legal instruments.

Thank you for attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382883






Statement by Mr.Andrey Belousov, Deputy Head of the Russian Delegation in the First Committee of the 73rd Session of the UNGA on «Outer Space» Cluster, New York, 24 October, 2018



25 October 2018 - 11:28



Courtesy translation from Russian



Mr. Chairperson,

Weaponization of outer space would have a significant destabilizing effect on international peace and security. For this reason preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and keeping it free of weapons of any kind remains one of Russia's foreign policy priorities.

We approach this task and the issue of security of space activities in general with utmost responsibility. This is demonstrated at various dedicated multilateral fora, above all, at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) and within the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. However many things we have to deal with as part of our work do not appear promising.

The CD remains deadlocked for already two decades. As a result we fail to launch the negotiation process on PAROS, specifically, on the draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT), proposed by the Russian Federation jointly with the People's Republic of China.

This year in Vienna negotiators failed to reach agreement on key aspects of the safety of space operations.

Still, there are positive signs as well. A good example here is the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on further practical measures on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which has been established this year. The first GGE session held in August in Geneva gives hope that governmental experts will be in a position to fulfill their mandate, which is to prepare recommendations on the elements of a multilateral legally binding instrument on PAROS, including preventing the placement of weapons in outer space.

Besides, consensus seems to have been established within the international community with regard to the development of transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (TCBMs) in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate UN GGE. Every state seems to support the idea, at least verbally. Another story is that States, as it turns out, have different views regarding the way of effectively realizing the potential of such measures. The work over the set of guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities presented a good opportunity to reach this goal. However, it turned out to be impossible to elaborate the TCBMs issue in the context of this document to the full extent.

The trend, characteristic of the United States, to further toughen its national regulation of military aspects of space activities is a contrast to this background, which we may, with some reservations, characterize as positive. Here I refer to such things as establishing – way beyond any reasonable measure of sufficiency – of self-defense in outer space concept that has nothing in common with the criteria characterizing Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such radical concept of self-defense is complemented by a rigid regulation in the U-S, of operational activities in outer space in general. It should be also noted that the U.S., in particular recently, is methodically imposing on the international community the view that outer space has become a contested environment. It would be helpful to know what developments prompt to make such conclusion. Maybe we are just being prepared to accept that outer space is to become an arena for confrontation?

1 would like to draw attention to the fact that the U.S. operational documents regulating space operations and special military directives in this regard have been for a long time providing for the use of preemptive and anticipatory measures in outer space on the basis of subjective assessments, This is what makes such approach dangerous in a very fundamental way.

It remains to be seen how such countries as, for example Russia and China, should plan their space activities if the U.S. national documents provide for the application of self-defense in response to a broad range of motives – starting from the defense of the U.S nation, its forces, national commercial assets, up to that of persons and their property, and, in general, in case of "infringements on United States rights".

Given the abovementioned, it is not surprising that the U.S. National Space Strategy announced this March characterizes outer space as "a warfighting domain". Continuing the policy towards ensuring the U.S. "space dominance" does not contribute to a constructive dialogue on strategic stability at all.

Equally disturbing is the financial support of the relevant US projects. For example, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019" directly allocates significant funds from the U.S. budget to develop a space-based ballistic missile intercept segment. It even determines a specific timeframe when weapons are to be placed in outer space – by 2030. Exactly by that time the development of the appropriate interceptors is to be finalized.

If this trend continues, the work at all the negotiation tracks pertaining to outer space will end up with no results and return to zero level. It will not become possible to enhance safety and security in outer space. Besides, it will hardly be possible in these circumstances to ensure the observance of the principle of direct interrelationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms. This principle, being fundamental for the entire arms control system, is reflected in the 2010 START Treaty.

The Russian Federation together with the like-minded States works hard in order to evade such scenario. For the current UNGA session we have prepared a number of constructive initiatives aimed at addressing the task of PAROS.

First of all, it regards the appropriate UN GGE on PAROS that has proceeded to its activity this August. We appreciate that the Group's work was joined by the representatives of the States that had opposed our resolution. We consider it as evidence of the States' readiness to share responsibility for keeping outer space free of weapons. Given that the GGE will continue its work next year we propose to adopt at this UNGA session a draft procedural decision with a view of keeping the appropriate item on the UNGA agenda.

At the current First committee we have also tabled a draft resolution "No first placement of weapons in outer space" (NFP). The resolution has already established itself within the UN as a traditional document. It does not run counter to national interests of States. The document is meant to promote mobilization of the international community in support of the multilateral initiative/political obligation not to be the first to place weapons in outer space, put forward by Russia back in 2004. Last year, two more states joined it – Suriname and Guatemala. Thus, the total number of the NFP full-scale participants reached 19.

Finally, we are presenting another traditional draft resolution "Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities" that this year was submitted on behalf of two initial co-authors – Russia and China. Importantly, the work on TCBMs is being carried out at various fora. This year, the first discussions on the subject took place within the UN Disarmament Commission. We hope that at the current session the draft resolution on space TCBMs will be approved by consensus.

At the current First Committee we expect our three resolutions be approved by consensus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382897






22 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the President of the Republic of Djibouti I. Helle - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3379028

Meeting of I. Morgulov with ambassadors of the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3380987

Meeting of I. Morgulov with a senior official from New Zealand at the East Asian Summit and the Regional Forum on Security of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations E. Mann - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3381022


23 October 2018

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the Director-General for Multilateral Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia F.A. Ruddyard - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3381850

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with French ambassador S. Berman - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382204

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Deputy General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - the High Command of T. Naji - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382214


24 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Senior Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Special Political Issues H. Jaberi-Ansari - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382541

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau in Moscow S. Intchasso - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382551

Meeting of S. Vershinin with A. Kenes, Director General for Political Affairs, Belgian Foreign Ministry - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382689

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Federative Republic of Brazil to Russia A. Salgado - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382719

Meeting of I. Morgulov with Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Indonesia to Russia Mohamad Vahid Supriyadi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382751

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Egypt in Moscow I. Nasr - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382816

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Namibia in Moscow N. Che Kamati - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382826


25 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the appointed Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Moscow, Dani Kalume Numbi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383096

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the official representative of the Ansar Alla Hussite Movement M. Abdel Salam - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383212

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Cuba in the Russian Federation, H. Penalver Portal - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383350


26 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Secretary General of the Syrian National Youth Party for Creation and Change B. Ibrahim - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384061

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Russia U Young-geun - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384231

Meeting of G. Karasin with Armenian Ambassador to Moscow V. S. Toganyan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384281






Non-personal events:





Comment by the Information and Press Department in response to a question from Reuters News Agency regarding Russia’s relations with Africa and the CAR



22 October 2018 - 15:48



The tenets of Russia’s policy towards African countries are set forth in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation approved by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in 2016. Specifically, it stipulates that “Russia will expand multidimensional interaction with African States both in bilateral and multilateral settings by improving political dialogue and promoting mutually beneficial trade and economic ties, stepping up comprehensive cooperation that serves common interests, contribute to preventing regional conflicts and crisis situations, as well as facilitate post-conflict settlement in Africa.”

Alongside political, trade, economic and humanitarian cooperation, the Russian Federation provides multi-faceted assistance to its African partners in settling internal conflicts and fighting the terrorist threat, which has been gaining momentum on the African continent in the wake of the well-known changes in Libya. The instruments that are used to this effect comprise political and diplomatic methods, including Russia’s capabilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as well as military-technical cooperation. In doing so, Russia acts within the strict limits imposed by international law and based on the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions.

Regarding military cooperation with African countries, it is important to note the growing popularity of the International Military-Technical Forum and the International Army Games, which are regularly held in Russia. Every year, there are more and more participants from African countries and beyond.

Russia has military-technical cooperation programmes with a number of African countries, and helps them equip national military forces with modern weaponry. Special emphasis is placed on assistance in creating mission-capable army units that can effectively counter terrorist groups operating in many African regions. As has already been said, all these undertakings are carried out in keeping with the applicable international norms and rules.

Russia promotes a comprehensive policy to strengthen relations with African countries in various spheres, including through mutually beneficial trade, economic and investment partnerships. Cooperation in developing mineral resources is an important component of these efforts. Russian economic operators have been actively involved with African countries lately with joint projects in Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Ethiopia and South Africa. However, this is only one aspect of trade and economic cooperation. Other promising areas include high technology, infrastructure construction, agriculture and energy.

We strongly believe that the key to resolving the multiple problems Africa is facing is not competition but broad and multilateral partnership, primarily catering to the interests of the Africans themselves. So far, it has to be recognised that Western European Countries and the United States are not ready to interact along these lines and view others operating in Africa merely as competitors.

The Russian Federation closely follows developments in African countries and contributes to shaping the strategic course of the international community towards Africa, as well as practical measures to strengthen peace and stability. This approach applies to the Central African region.

Taking into consideration the currently challenging situation in the Central African Republic, its President Faustin-Archange Touadera asked Russia for assistance in strengthening the country’s national armed forces and security services. Guided by the traditional friendship and cooperation between Moscow and Bangui, Russia decided to provide its partners military-technical assistance for free, while acting strictly in keeping with the requirements under the sanctions regime established by the UN Security Council. In late January and early February 2018, a shipment of firearms and munitions was delivered to the country, and 175 Russian instructors were assigned to train the CAR military, with the consent of the UN Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2127 (2013) concerning the Central African Republic. More than 1,000 members of the Central African military have been trained so far. We remain committed to providing Bangui with the necessary assistance in restoring its national armed forces, and intend to send 60 more instructors to CAR and a second shipment of military products, upon informing the relevant UN Security Council Committee.

The Russian Federation seeks to use the available opportunities to facilitate the negotiating process in the CAR in order to find ways to overcome the protracted crisis in that African country. On August 27-28, 2018, Khartoum hosted talks chaired by the President of the Republic of the Sudan Omar al-Bashir, also attended by Russian mediators, between the leaders of major Central African armed groups to find ways out of the country’s internal crisis. These contacts resulted in the signing of the Khartoum Declaration, which clearly stipulates the adherence to the initiative of the African Union to establish peace and promote reconciliation in the CAR, as well as the readiness of the opposition to engage in a peace process with the central government. It has to be emphasised that the assistance provided by Russia is consistent with the efforts to steer the crisis situations on the African continent out of the deadlock according to the African Solutions to African Problems principle as articulated by the African Union.

We understand that Russia’s assistance to the Central African Republic has been closely followed internationally. Some countries seem to resent Russia’s involvement in the Central African settlement. This position is counterproductive, especially in the current situation, when the Central African “field” needs like never before that all international “players” work together for stability in this long-suffering nation, instead of pursuing competition and zero-sum games. Russia hopes that our partners adopt an adequate view of the military and political situation in the CAR and renounce far-fetched pretexts designed to artificially slow down the strengthening of the country’s security forces. In this connection, we express hope that the United States reviews its approaches preventing the approval of Russia’s application to the UN Security Council Committee 2127 on the delivery of the second shipment of military goods to the CAR. This will help the legitimate CAR government to continue its efforts to restore control over the entire country in the interests of lasting peace and security in this African country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3380949






Statement by the Russian delegation in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on "Nuclear Weapons" cluster, New York, October 22, 2018



23 October 2018 - 10:57



Unofficial translation



Distinguished Chair,

Distinguished colleagues,

Russia is committed to the noble goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. By implementing its obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) we achieved a radical reduction of Russia's strategic arsenal to the level of less than 15% of the maximum indicators of the times of nuclear arms race.

We are prepared to go along this way with the understanding that all further steps must be taken by all countries possessing the military nuclear potential. A realistic approach in this area implies the step-by-step process of nuclear weapons elimination with the strengthening of international security and stability and greater assurances for all its participants in their own safety and security. These principles are not peculiar to the Russian position only. They are consistent with the balanced consensus arrangements earlier reached within the NPT review process, under which the nuclear disarmament must be carried out «in a way that promotes international stability, peace and undiminished and increased security».

We are against any hasty or simplified measures in such a complex and sensitive area as nuclear disarmament. In this context we believe that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is an untimely and inefficient instrument, especially when we try to apply it to solve the urgent problems of international security.

Instead of promoting nuclear disarmament the TPNW undermines the NPT regime. Even now before it has entered into force, the TPNW created additional dividing lines between the States Parties to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The existing global problems, however, require consolidated efforts of the international community at large.

The nuclear weapons is a deterrent to specific external threats. As long as they exist, many countries obviously will not be able to accept a total and unconditional abandonment of such weapons. Therefore, the Russian Federation has repeatedly called for creating appropriate conditions that would allow us to take practical measures to free the world from nuclear weapons. In moving towards the nuclear-weapon-free world we need to take into account the existing strategic realities. Let us emphasize in particular certain developments that are the result of the long standing and systemic efforts of the U.S.:

development of global Ballistic Missile Defense;

refusal to abandon the potential deployment of weapons in outer space;

numeric and qualitative increase of imbalances in conventional weapons;

development of the Prompt Global Strike concept.

We are especially concerned with the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review which actually provides for the substantial increase of the role of nuclear weapons in military planning. This document has announced the creation of low-yield nuclear weapons that would lower the threshold of the use of nuclear weapons. The NPR also envisages a return to the concept of a "limited nuclear war". In essence the U.S. military thinking in nuclear field has rolled back a half a century when it was believed that a nuclear war was admissible and could be won.

Washington explains its policy towards large-scale strengthening of its nuclear potential by the reference to an alleged growing role of nuclear weapons in Russian doctrine. Nevertheless, neither the military doctrine nor the statements of political or military leadership of the Russian Federation contain such assumptions. Actually we reduced the role of nuclear weapons to the historic minimum.

We are concerned very much with the situation around the START Treaty. The President of the Russian Federation has confirmed our principled readiness to study the possibility of the Treaty's extension. However, it cannot be done without addressing the remaining questions regarding the U.S. compliance.

We took note of the statement by President Donald Trump concerning possible US withdrawal from the INF Treaty made on 20 October, 2018. The Russian Federation will follow very closely the evolution of US approaches to this disarmament instrument which is vital for the global as well as European security.

The practical implementation of the statement by the US leader would be another shortsighted and extremely dangerous step by the United States for international peace.

The withdrawal from the Treaty would prove once again that the US political and military authorities prioritize their foreign policy goals by obsessively striving to ensure the US total military superiority over the rest of the world. But they are least concerned about such issues as strategic stability, international peace and global security.

We are also seriously concerned with the U.S. groundless accusations of Russia of the non-compliance with the INF Treaty in spite of justified claims of Russia against the American side in its respect. We are prepared to work together with our U.S. colleagues on the entire set of problems regarding the INF. We hope that we will be reciprocated.

On the whole, a more active Russian-American dialogue on the issues of strategic stability and international security is a priority task of a global scale. The relations between the two major nuclear powers cannot simply remain in the state to which they have been currently brought to. This is extremely dangerous.

We have conveyed to our partners, including at the highest level, our proposals to launch comprehensive arms control discussions.

The progress in nuclear disarmament would promote the stability of nuclear non-proliferation regime based on the NPT. The NPT attainability is one of the Russian foreign policy priorities.

A guarantee of its success is the careful treatment of the NPT and responsible attitude to the balance of interests contained therein and obligations taken by all its Parties. Reaffirmation of those principles and of the permanent value of the Treaty and its essential historic role is the minimum that we simply must ensure during the current review cycle. It becomes particularly important given the 50th anniversary of the NPT entry into force that we will mark in 2020.

Unfortunately, we are approaching the final stage of the current NPT review cycle with a zero result with regard to the implementation of the 1995 resolution on establishing in the Middle East a zone free of the nuclear weapons and other WMD. Russia as one of the three co-sponsors of that resolution is seriously concerned with a lack of progress in addressing the tasks it assigns.

We believe that the UNGA draft decision on convening the Conference on WMDFZ submitted by the League of Arab States is a step in the right direction. We urge the State Parties to treat this document with all seriousness. This draft is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East and does not contradict the interests of the States of the region. Russia is prepared to support this decision.

We regard the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a universal and effectively verifiable international instrument on the comprehensive ban of nuclear tests, which has no and could not have any alternatives. The obligations contained in the CTBT are a reliable guarantee of international security and stability.

The entry into force of this treaty should not become a hostage to a position of any of its State Party. A shortsighted policy of certain states can lead to a situation when the CTBT simply ceases to exist. However, not all the states are ready to objectively assess the current situation. We call on all parties responsible for the future of the CTBT to join this Treaty as soon as possible and so as to demonstrate their commitment to the goals of strengthening the regime of nuclear non-proliferation.

We consider as a serious mistake and a blow to the NPT regime the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) which was the result of painstaking and difficult compromises. Russia intends to comply with its obligations under the JCPOA and, together with other Parties, to seek effective mechanisms to protect the trade and economic cooperation with Iran from the U.S. exterritorial sanctions. We call upon the U.S. to abandon the policy of pressure against the countries that develop legitimate economic cooperation with Iran and not to hamper other Parties to JCPOA from fulfilling their obligations under this unique deal.

We positively assess the work of the high level Expert preparatory Group on the treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT) established in accordance with the UNGA resolution 71/259. The 2017-2018 discussions led to the adoption by consensus of the final report that confirmed the remaining differences with regard to the parameters of the potential treaty. We note that the conclusions of the Group can serve as a food for thought for potential negotiations in the CD but they do not define positions of States.

The FMCT negotiations must be conducted only at the Conference on Disarmament within its balanced programme of work and in accordance with the document CD/1299, i.e. on the basis of the "Shannon mandate". An attempt to avoid the abovementioned mandate or to move the negotiations to other fora would most likely disrupt the entire process or create a treaty without participation of the countries that would ensure its efficiency.

We consider as a lost opportunity the unwillingness of the South-East Asian States to sign in 2012 the Protocol to the Bangkok Treaty to provide security assurances to the participants of the NWFZ. Russia is open to consultations with the countries of the region on this issue.

We attach great importance to the final international and legal formalization of the NWFZs in Central Asia and Africa and we call on the U.S. to ratify as soon as possible the Protocols to the Semipalatinsk and the Pelindaba Treaties.

Finally, let me emphasize that Russian Federation continues to be open to a dialogue on the whole set of urgent issues of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Thank you for attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3381378






Press release on a Foreign Ministry Collegium meeting



26 October 2018 - 12:46



On October 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chaired a meeting of the Foreign Ministry Collegium, which addressed aspects of comprehensive development of cooperation in the Black Sea region.

The Collegium noted that the regional situation had seriously deteriorated in recent years along with an increase in military risks associated with the moves of the US and its NATO allies, the region’s fragmentation and continued negative trends in relations among the local countries. The participants stressed the importance of maintaining stability and security in the region of the Black Sea exclusively by the littoral states, also by building confidence and using the existing formats of interaction in the military political sphere.

They pointed out the need to expand diverse multilateral and bilateral cooperation in the environmental, transport, energy, cultural, tourism and other areas to overcome the existing problems and to ensure the ongoing socio-economic development of the Black Sea region in the interests of its peoples.

The participants explored the possibilities for more efficient use of the potential of existing multilateral interaction formats in the region, primarily the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation, a unique group working on a common economic agenda in the region, and the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution.

They called attention to the expediency of intensifying joint work with the Black Sea countries, first of all Turkey, and on other platforms, as well as interaction with other partners, including the EU, in the extent that would meet Russia’s interests. In this context, they considered the prospects for working on the Joint Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea in accordance with the Burgas Declaration adopted by Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine on May 31, 2018.

Special attention was paid to cooperation at the local and regional level, to encouraging contacts between the scientific and expert communities, as well as representatives of the general public, and to also developing cooperation in various fields, as is done in other European regions such as the Baltics and the North European countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383629






22 October 2018

On the fourth meeting of the Russian-Indonesian Working Group on Countering International Terrorism - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3380927

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the situation in the Republic of Macedonia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3381036


23 October 2018

On the meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission of the Russian Federation on Council of Europe Affairs - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382033

On the presidential election in the Republic of Cameroon - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382224

Statement by the Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Consultative Commission on Open Skies, Vienna, October 22, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382234


24 October 2018

On the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Jamaica on reciprocal visa-free travel of citizens of September 27, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382318

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on holding parliamentary elections in Afghanistan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382517


25 October 2018

On the meeting of the heads of delegations in the Russian-Chinese Commission for the verification of two sections of the state border - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3382873

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with Trident Juncture-2018 NATO military exercise - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383336


26 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the adoption on first reading of the draft laws on the transformation of the Kosovo Security Force - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383525
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 29th, 2018 at 04:48 AM.
 
Old December 29th, 2018 #525
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 25, 2018



25 October 2018 - 18:09







Good afternoon,

I think you remember how the last briefing began. I’d be remiss not to revisit that subject today and not to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who responded to our national tragedy at the Kerch Polytechnic College.

We have received vast amounts of condolences, words of support and genuine and sincere sympathy for our country, the bereaved families and the wounded.

Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to ordinary citizens, representatives of the ruling circles, journalists, and international organisations. Thanks for your sincere words of support.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan Chingiz Aidarbekov

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Foreign Minister of the Kyrgyz Republic Chingiz Aidarbekov in Moscow on October 26. This will be the first contact between the two foreign ministers following Mr Aidarbekov’s appointment to this position on October 17.

The ministers will discuss the schedule of events at the highest and high levels, a number of key issues of multifaceted bilateral cooperation and exchange views on the critical issues on the international and regional agenda.

The Russian Foreign Ministry is confident that the ministerial meeting will help implement the agreements reached at the highest level and further promote Russia-Kyrgyzstan relations within the intensive political dialogue reflecting the high dynamics of alliance and strategic partnership between the two countries.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Syria’s chief opposition negotiator Naser al-Hariri

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Naser al-Hariri, head of the Syrian opposition’s High Negotiations Committee, is scheduled to take place in Moscow on October 26.

We hope that a detailed discussion of the developments in and around Syria will take place, with an emphasis on finding the earliest possible solution to the crisis in the county by political means, via an inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the results of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

The priority topics for discussion include efforts to create the Constitutional Committee, the final eradication of terrorists in the Syrian Arab Republic, cooperation in restoring the destroyed socioeconomic infrastructure, the creation of conditions for internally displaced people to return to their homes and massive repatriation of Syrian refugees from abroad.

During his visit to Moscow, Naser al-Hariri will also hold consultations with Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Lamberto Zannier

OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Lamberto Zannier will be in Russia on October 28–30.

The High Commissioner’s visit to Russia includes meetings with federal authorities in Moscow, such as a meeting with senior officials of the Ministry of Education, the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Cultural Cooperation, and the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs. In addition, Lamberto Zannier will take part in the second Protect the Future international conference organised by the Russian Jewish Congress.

On October 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will have a meeting with Lamberto Zannier to discuss the situation with the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, the Baltic countries and Moldova as well as to inform the High Commissioner of the measures Russia takes to support ethnic minorities.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a Business Council meeting

On October 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Business Council. To continue the discussions that took place at the meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia held this July, it is planned to dedicate the event to increasing the effectiveness of political and diplomatic support for Russian business projects aimed at boosting high-tech exports. The participants will also discuss ways to strengthen the positions of Russian producers on foreign markets.

The meeting will be attended by senior officials from the Foreign Ministry and other interested ministries as well as heads of leading business associations and large Russian companies.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the upcoming 6th World Congress of Compatriots

The 6th World Congress of Russian Compatriots Living Aboard will kick off in Moscow on October 31. The event is held under the auspices of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad and the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will address the plenary session on the opening day.

I would like to give more details about the content, programme and participants in this event.

Each of the preceding congresses has been a milestone in the development of Russia’s relations with our compatriots living abroad, unveiling ever more opportunities and prospects for further collaboration. Russian community activists and eminent representatives of the Russian diaspora will take part in the congress this year. Overall, 415 delegates from 98 countries are to attend. Russian authorities, including the heads of regions, ministries and agencies, the leaders of Russia’s traditional religions, NGO members, journalists and scientists, are expected to take part in the congress.

The format of the forum comprises plenary sessions and five themed sections, including Protecting Compatriots’ Rights and Legitimate Interests, Preserving Russian Identity: Support for Russian Language Education, The Role of Youth in Consolidating the Community, The Media Representing Russians Living Abroad in a Contemporary World, and Russia’s Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries and Compatriots.

As part of the event, the most active representatives of Russian communities abroad, whose activities have been invariably directed at enhancing ties with their historical Motherland, preserving and supporting the Russian language and the Russian culture, will be awarded the Honorary Compatriot Badge and the Certificate of Merit of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad.

Relations with the millions of Russians living abroad have been noticeably increasing over the past three years. Our work with compatriots living abroad has elevated to a new level of partnership and close interaction in important areas such as protection of the rights and legitimate interests, promotion of the Russian language, and attracting young people to the public compatriot movement.

Despite anti-Russia sentiments and Russophobia being spun around the world, our diaspora today is stronger and more united than ever. Our compatriots living abroad are open to dialogue and make considerable efforts to promote cooperation between their countries of residence and the Russian Federation.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the presentation of the Moscow Region

On November 1, a presentation by the Moscow Region will be held in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Reception House as part of the assistance programme for the regions of the Russian Federation in promoting and strengthening cooperation with foreign countries and the business community. The Ministry has been holding similar events since 2007.

The Diplomatic Corps accredited in Moscow, federal and regional authorities, business community representatives and Russian and foreign media representatives will take part in the presentation. We invite all of you to attend.

The event is designed to present the Moscow Region’s economic and investment potential and also to explain the regional authorities’ plans to further boost business ties with their foreign partners. Different projects will be presented in which business people and stakeholders from foreign countries could take part.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Governor of the Moscow Region Andrey Vorobyov are scheduled to address the audience.



Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with OSCE Secretary-General Thomas Greminger

On November 2, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary-General of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Thomas Greminger are scheduled to meet in Moscow.

The meeting is expected to highlight, above all, important matters on the OSCE agenda ahead of the upcoming session of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan on December 6-7. For this central OSCE event, Russia is preparing draft resolutions on such pressing problems for the OSCE member states as anti-terrorism, the fight against the drug menace, ensuring the language and education rights of citizens and free access to information for the media and the public.

There will presumably be exchanges on topics with unifying potential that deal with all three dimensions of the OSCE (military-political, economic-environmental and humanitarian), as well as expressions of support for OSCE efforts aimed at promoting the settlement of regional conflicts, including the work of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

Also expected to be touched upon during the talks are matters regarding the activity of specialised OSCE institutions (the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Representative on Freedom of the Media) and the OSCE’s field presence in a number of post-Soviet countries and on the Balkans. The sides will lay out their viewpoints on administrative, budget and staff aspects of OSCE activities.



Mikhail Bochkaryov’s release from a Norwegian jail

As you know, on September 21, an employee of the Executive Office of the Russian Federal Assembly’s Federation Council, Mikhail Bochkaryov, was detained in Oslo on absolutely fictitious espionage charges. On November 19, as we already reported and shared our assessments, he was released from a Norwegian jail. The Russian citizen is now in Moscow. Meanwhile, the Norwegian Police Security Service has announced that it will continue investigating this so-called case.

As was repeatedly stressed by Russian officials, we cannot see Norway’s actions as anything other than a provocation and an unfriendly move. From the very beginning, we drew attention to the false nature of the accusations brought against Mikhail Bochkaryov. Up to now, there has been no apology from the Norwegian side, including from the country’s parliament that provoked the incident. Similar actions undoubtedly clash with the interests of promoting the development of Russian-Norwegian relations and will inevitably lead to negative consequences, including for our inter-parliamentary contacts.



Update on Maria Butina

We are carefully monitoring the situation with Russian citizen Maria Butina, who was arrested in the United States on false charges of acting as an “agent of a foreign government.”

Last week, diplomats of our Embassy in Washington met with her. We were pleased to learn that Maria’s conditions in prison are gradually improving. For example, she was allowed to do some work at the local library. We are sure that regular access to books and news media will give our compatriot a morale boost at a time when her name is being tarnished, and an atmosphere of hatred has been created around her, making her almost a symbol of the Russophobia spread by a number of US political circles. We are working to have Maria Butina transferred to a new cell soon, since hers has become very cold with the onset of autumn weather.

At the same time, it is puzzling that the court considering the case of the Russian citizen has not yet provided the court materials to Maria Butina, despite the fact that the next hearing is scheduled for November 13. Unfortunately, this is yet another reason to doubt the impartiality of American justice.

For our part, we maintain the complete innocence of Maria Butina, who was arrested only for her Russian passport and who is undeniably a political prisoner. We demand her immediate release. We will continue to make every effort to protect the rights of our compatriot and secure Maria’s return to her homeland as soon as possible.



Update on Kirill Vyshinsky

On October 23, it was reported that the Kherson City Court ruled to extend the detention of head of the RIA Novosti -Ukraine website Kirill Vyshinsky until November 4.

This professional journalist, who was arrested under entirely fictitious charges of high treason, continues to be held.

We are calling on the international community to respond to Ukraine’s flagrant violation of its international obligations to uphold media freedom. We expect competent international bodies and non-governmental organisations not just to confine themselves to the statements or brief messages on social media we are accustomed to, but rather to bring this situation under control and remind Kiev regularly of the need to meet its obligations, given that these people have signed onto them and regularly speak of their commitment to stand up for their values, in particular, freedom of the media, freedom of speech and the safety of journalists. We unequivocally condemn the repressive policy pursued by official Kiev in respect of a member of the journalist community.

These issues will be brought up and discussed by official representatives of the Russian Federation, in particular, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his forthcoming meetings with representatives of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of which I spoke earlier.

We demand that the Ukrainian authorities release Kirill Vyshinsky without delay.



Update on Syria

The situation in Syria remains tense.

Despite the overall successful implementation of the Memorandum on the Stabilisation of the Situation in the Idlib De-escalation Zone, which was signed after the talks between President Putin and President Erdogan in Sochi on September 17, terrorists continue to stage armed provocations in Idlib from time to time. On October 20, illegal armed groups in northwestern Aleppo fired 37 mortar bombs at residential areas killing two locals and wounding 10. The positions of the government forces are shelled by Nusra and allied al-Qaeda offshoots from time to time in northern Hama and southeastern Idlib zone.

In this regard, I’d like to remind everyone that the ultimate elimination of the terrorists throughout Syria is one of the top priorities of the stakeholders in the Syrian settlement. The members of illegal armed groups who are confronted with a choice of whether to comply with the requirements of the Memorandum of September 17 or to continue their alliance with Nusra and al-Queda should keep this in mind more than anyone else.

The situation in northeastern Syria, where the Americans are still trying to dally with the separatist-minded Kurdish groups continues to cause concern. The same is going on in southern Syria, the At-Tanf region, where US forces openly occupy the territory of the sovereign Syrian state. According to incoming information, the militants who have “found shelter” in the 55-kilometer “exclusive zone” arbitrarily established here by the Americans, are demanding that the civilians who want to leave it, pay an exit fee of $2,000 per person.

According to Syrian sources, the US-led international coalition, which, a week earlier, was caught using phosphorus ammunition near ​​the village of Hajin, delivered an airstrike on a mosque in the village of es-Sousse in eastern Deir ez-Zor province on October 23, killing about 70 people. In this regard, the Syrian authorities sent messages to the UN Secretary General and the President of the UN Security Council calling for an independent and transparent international investigation into these incidents.

Also, October marks exactly one year since the “liberation” of Raqqa by the coalition forces. The city was, in fact, wiped off the face of the earth with dead bodies lying everywhere as a result of massive air strikes and artillery attacks. Notably, 80 percent of the city is not suitable for living because of this.

On the bright side, we would like to note that efforts continue to restore normal life and to create proper conditions for bringing more internally displaced persons and Syrian refugees to their homes in the areas controlled by the legitimate Syrian government. After the Naseeb border crossing on the Syrian-Jordanian border opened, hundreds of Syrians started returning to their homes from Jordan, in addition to the Syrians returning from Lebanon every day.



Resignation of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura

The UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura announced his intention to resign in late November during the October 17 meeting of the Security Council.

In this context we would like to stress, which has already been repeatedly done by us including at the briefings, that the Russian side has remained in close contact with Staffan de Mistura within various bilateral and multilateral formats throughout his entire tenure.

The Special Envoy’s involvement in implementing the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, in which he personally participated, was of crucial significance. We recognise his contribution to this process.

We reaffirm our commitment to work constructively with Staffan de Mistura’s successor to be appointed by the UN Secretary-General. According to the basic principles of UN mediation practices, we believe the new candidate for Special Envoy should be acceptable to the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, and his performance should be neutral and impartial, in strict compliance with the United Nations Charter and UN Security Council decisions.



Allegations of Russia overstating the threat of ISIS in Afghanistan

We regularly, practically at every briefing, touch on the topic of Afghanistan both in response to your questions and to current developments in the country. We were surprised to see statements in the media made by people who are dubbed experts and even officials that Russia is “overstating” threats, in particular with regard to ISIS in Afghanistan.

We do not consider our assessments of the threats emanating from ISIS in Afghanistan to be exaggerated. ISIS members continue to reinforce their positions in the northern provinces of the country, conducting aggressive propaganda among the local population. They regularly commit large-scale terrorist attacks. We also repeatedly have drawn attention to flights by unidentified helicopters carrying weapons and new recruits to their bases. This is odd since Afghan territory is teeming with US military and NATO representatives. It is impossible to imagine a helicopter, not an automobile, moving around Afghan airspace without any identifying marks.

Those who have flown into Kabul can imagine how controlled the airspace is in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine that helicopters carrying weapons and recruits could move about that airspace unimpeded in the area of the terrorist organisation’s activities and operations.

All that is happening in close proximity to the borders of the Central Asian states which are our close neighbours and allies in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Extremists, meanwhile, do not hide that they are set on bringing down the secular governments in those countries and establishing the so-called Caliphate.

Unfortunately, we have to constantly refute insinuations concerning our contacts with the Taliban movement. I would like to stress again that the main objectives behind these contacts are ensuring the safety of Russian nationals in Afghanistan and contributing to the national reconciliation process in that country. By the way, the United States and some other nations also have regular contacts with the Taliban. We hope those contacts are made in the interests of promoting the peace process in Afghanistan.



Russia’s position on the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty

Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as representatives of the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry, MPs and representatives of the Russian and international public have commented on this issue. If we speak about the international community’s initial response, it resembled a shock.

Considering the large number of incoming media questions, we have analysed them and prepared a comprehensive answer with additional explanations on this issue.

We are deeply saddened and gravely concerned about the statement by US President Donald Trump on intending to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and to start developing weapons systems banned by the Treaty. We believe that this would become one of the most dangerous mistakes among Washington’s recent moves to withdraw from a number of international agreements and organisations. Taken together, these steps appear to be frantic attempts by the United States to slow down historical processes which it is unable to control and is striving to obtain dominant positions in various areas, including the military sphere. All this merely serves to make international relations more turbulent.

The wrecking of the INF Treaty would be a very dangerous move and would have a devastating impact on international security and strategic stability. These US actions are fraught with the serious risk of involving entire regions in a new arms race. At the same time, it seems to be a purposeful implementation of a previously charted line. Long before announcing its intention to withdraw from the Treaty, Washington launched military programmes under far-fetched pretexts, which, if continued, would run counter to the letter and spirit of the INF Treaty. And the list of these projects continues to expand.

We firmly believe that these destructive actions of the United States will not be supported by the international community which is committed to maintaining security and stability and which is interested in strengthening the current arms control regimes. This is proved by the initial statements that have been made and by the response of experts and analysts in the international media.

We urge all those who understand their responsibility for the destinies of the world to send an unequivocal message to Washington about the danger of the plans it has announced.

In turn, we are also determined to continue working with the US. However, one gets the impression that the movement of the United States towards withdrawing from the INF Treaty is largely determined by the reluctance of certain forces in Washington to reach equitable agreements with Russia and by an ambition to guarantee military superiority in every area.

Even as it wrecks the Treaty, the United States is conducting an all-out propaganda campaign and is trying to convince everyone that this move was provoked by Russian violations. This is absolutely unacceptable because it is not true. The US side has so far failed to present us with any evidence for substantiating its claims. They remain mere assertions and are obviously a provocation. We reiterate that Russia has unfailingly honoured the Treaty’s provisions.

We would like to remind you that we have shown utmost patience and restraint for many years, while noting direct and obvious violations of the INF Treaty by the United States. Unlike our US colleagues, we informed them of these facts. Today, we are forced to issue a very stern warning to Washington that if the US side wrecks the Treaty we will be forced to respond. As President Putin has already stated, we will respond instantly and symmetrically.

As we have repeatedly noted, although the Treaty is not ideal in the modern security context, it, nevertheless, retains its value. We are ready to work on maintaining its viability. To achieve this, we need a responsible partner, who is interested in continuing dialogue for the benefit of global stability and security. A solution to the problem can be found only through candid, equitable and constructive dialogue. We hope that Washington will eventually come to realise this.

We have also received a number of questions regarding US politicians’ statements on this initiative. For example, we have been asked to comment on the possibility of China joining the INF Treaty, as well as on the Russian side’s alleged tests in violation of the Treaty. I would like to answer these questions in a comprehensive manner.

The United States has launched a campaign accusing Russia of violating the INF Treaty. This campaign is unprecedented in terms of its unsubstantiated nature. For the past several years, the US has been declining to submit any objective data that has prompted Washington to decide that the Russian-developed 9M729 land-based cruise missile, which has completed flight tests, exceeds the Treaty’s range limitations.

For our part, we have repeatedly confirmed that Russia’s missile programmes are fully in line with our obligations under the INF Treaty. This also concerns the 9M729 cruise missile, and we have displayed maximum possible transparency with regard to this missile. For example, the Russian Defence Ministry has reported its launch (when the missile covered its maximum distance) in the media, also specifying the distance. These parameters meet the INF Treaty.

We also provided the US side with all the necessary explanations via the relevant dialogue channels. If the United States disagrees with the information that has been submitted, then it would be logical to expect it to raise specific questions. However, all we have seen is references to certain classified data. This approach resembles purposeful efforts to block the efforts to resolve this issue.

We have also noted that the US side actively promotes the Chinese factor in the context of the INF Treaty.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has commented on this issue, discussing it in detail during an interview recorded today for the Rossiya-1 television channel’s Sunday programme. We announced this interview, some of its excerpts will be broadcast and posted on the Foreign Ministry website already today.

The question of China’s possible involvement in hypothetical new agreements dealing with shorter-range and medium-range missiles, which were mentioned by US President Donald Trump, should not be addressed to us.

I would like to remind you that some time ago, Russia called on the international community to universalise the INF Treaty’s obligations. At that time, this initiative did not receive broad support. In principle, we remain committed to discussing any constructive ideas that would strengthen international security and stability. But mutually acceptable consensus-based decisions are needed here. And such decisions are incompatible with Washington’s attempts to dictate its will and blackmail others.



Russia’s reaction to the US threatening to withdraw from the Universal Postal Union

We are preoccupied with the US’s intention to withdraw from the Universal Postal Union.

As you know, the Universal Postal Union is the main international platform for postal service cooperation, which develops the organisational and functional parametres for the world’s entire postal exchange system. There are no missiles there. The union’s main responsibilities include promoting global postal services and increasing post volume with the latest technology, products and services, and generally improving client services.

As far as we can tell, Washington’s decision was prompted by economic considerations, in particular, by how the Universal Postal Union’s rates affect post-related US companies and the US postal infrastructure in general. However, we believe that the US administration’s ambition to force the union work mostly by its rules is counterproductive, because it “distorts” the common postal space.

We believe that international organisations should reflect the interests of all members, and that any conflicts must be resolved through talks rather than ultimatums and financial blackmail. In addition, the effectiveness of these methods has been questioned many times. Examples can be found in the history of the United States. Memories of Washington slamming the door on UNESCO in the early 1980s, then quietly returning 20 years later, and then leaving it again, are still fresh.



NATO’s plans to hold Cyber Defence Exercises

Reports of NATO’s plans to hold Cyber Defence Exercises are sad but not surprising. These intentions are in line with the Western states’ concept of using technological advantage to impose their will on the rest of the world.

While the UN General Assembly First Committee is discussing Russia’s draft resolution on the rules for the responsible behaviour of states in the information space – this resolution aims to use information and communication technologies only for peace and to prevent conflicts in cyberspace – the Western states are increasing their cyber potential.

It is noteworthy that representatives of the US administration, when commenting on their intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, said that the treaty does not correspond to today’s realities and the participating countries are not equal, so something new must be created for an equal and responsible approach. However, at the same time when Russia has proposed new approaches to behaviour in cyberspace that would correspond to today’s realities, the West tests the skills that are necessary for war in the digital environment. Such actions expose and explain Western diplomacy’s passivity towards developing a universal code of behaviour in cyberspace, which is designed above all to protect it from conflicts involving information and communications technologies.

We believe this policy poses a threat to the overwhelming part of the international community which stands for a peaceful digital environment. For our part, we count on the support for our resolution from the states that do not want the information space to be transformed into a test range for new cyber weapons.



UK Government’s response to the parliamentary committee’s inquiry on fake news

On October 23, the UK Government published a response to the Disinformation and Fake News inquiry prepared by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the Parliament.

The document is interesting for its analysis of the campaign on “Russia’s interference” in the information space and the democratic processes led by the Western media. In its response, the UK Government confirms that it has no evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia, to influence UK electoral processes. The government did not respond to the question on the number of episodes of Russian “influence” in UK politics investigated by the responsible agencies.

The most interesting fact is that the authorities’ response did not satisfy the committee’s Chairman Damian Collins, who announced publically that he was disappointed that an opportunity to resolve the issues of “harmful and misleading content being spread.”

First, the UK executive power has constantly talked about Russia’s interference in everything over the past few years (especially this year): interference in the UK’s internal processes, policy and security. After such a massive information campaign by senior executive officials, the legislative power became interested and requested information that could confirm this.

The UK Government’s response shows that the British executive power can provide no facts to their parliamentarians in this case.

This entire story is aimed outside and for the usual domestic users, but when the time comes to answer before the legislative power, and the answer can also be used to undermine this disinformation campaign, no facts are presented. A congenial scheme.

As you can see, the UK Government that conjured up the myth of Russian hackers and disinformation specialists from nothing, has in fact backed itself into a corner. British politicians have taken so many efforts to exaggerate this lie that now it is almost impossible to explain to the public how hackers interfere in elections in various countries but have no influence on the situation in the UK.

Logically, this is a dead end. But I think it might serve as a good lesson in the future.



Collapse of an escalator in the Rome metro

On October 23, at 7.30 pm local time an escalator collapsed at the Repubblica metro station in Rome. According to the latest reports, 16 Russian CSKA fans were injured in the accident and taken to hospital. They came to Rome to watch their club’s match with Roma in the group stages of the Champions League. Later, another two Russian nationals were taken to Rome hospitals for treatment of injuries they suffered in skirmishes with Italian fans.

The injured were taken to six Rome hospitals. Diplomats from the Russian Embassy in Italy promptly went to the hospitals. The Embassy established a hot line for the families of fans, made a list of Russians taken to hospital and managed to establish contact between the injured and their families in Russia.

After being alerted to the accident, the Embassy promptly set up a fast-response team, launched a hot line and ensured that all necessary information is provided through the media and relevant Foreign Ministry departments. Russian diplomats immediately went to each of the seven hospitals in Rome where the injured Russians were taken. Thanks to the Embassy’s prompt actions, the identity of each injured person had been established within six hours of the tragedy, that is, by 3 am on October 24. Diplomats established contact with most of them and made a detailed list of Russians taken to hospital in Rome. Throughout the night and the next day the diplomats stayed at the hospitals and helped Russian fans with interpretation and translation and handled consular, organisational and other issues.

The Embassy assigned diplomats to stay permanently in contact with six Russian nationals who continue to receive treatment after the accident in order to sort out their problems.

The Consular Department of the Foreign Ministry is providing assistance to the CSKA Football Club leadership to help the relatives of the injured arrange their travel to Rome. The Italian Consulate-General in Moscow said it was prepared to expedite the issue of visas.

Russia believes it is necessary to establish all the circumstances of the accident. This is of principle importance because of the reports about the allegedly improper behaviour of Russian fans that led to the escalator giving way. We are calling for an independent examination of the accident to prevent anything like this from recurring in the future.



US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Palmer’s visit to Skopje in the context of the implementation of the Prespan Agreement

Speaking in Skopje on October 22, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Palmer leveled yet another unfounded accusation at Moscow regarding its allegedly obvious interference in the political process in the Republic of Macedonia.

We would like to remind you that it was the United States – not Russia – who as recently as October 19 pushed a decision through the Parliament of this country to launch the procedure to amend the Macedonian Constitution in line with the Prespan Agreement, resorting to unseemly practices to do so, like blackmailing, threatening and bribing members of parliament. Incidentally, the US ambassador in Skopje was inside the Macedonian Parliament building [on this day] and directly managed the process. At the same time our partners are reticent about the sentiments of the majority of the population in Macedonia, who, as is known, oppose the Prespan Agreement, which can be clearly seen from the outcome of the failed September 30 referendum.

Russia’s position on the issue of renaming the Republic of Macedonia remains unchanged. Russia believes that a long-term solution should be found by the countries involved – without anyone bringing pressure to bear on them and dictating any artificial timeframes and conditions – on the basis of broad public support and in full compliance with the law and UN Security Council Resolution 845.



Days of St Petersburg in Lebanon

We would like to draw your attention to an important upcoming event in Russia-Lebanon relations. From October 31 to November 7 the Lebanese Republic will host the Days of St Petersburg cultural programme.

Concerts with the participation of children’s and youth groups from St Petersburg, the Most Beautiful Country exhibition organised by the Russian Geographical Society, discussions about contemporary Russian literature and new works by St Petersburg writers, video presentations together with other events will be held in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, and other cities as well.

The initiative is aimed at supporting cultural centres of the Russian diaspora in Lebanon and introducing Russia’s northern capital to people in Lebanon. It is interesting that the project is initiated and organised by NGOs, namely the St Petersburg-based regional public organisation Russian-Arab Cultural Centre and the Culture and the World Centre of Cultural Programmes autonomous non-profit organisation. This shows the developing cultural ties between the peoples of the two friendly countries that have always played an important role in comprehensive Russian-Lebanese interaction.

Four our part, we welcome this cultural event, which will undoubtedly facilitate the further strengthening and development of relations between the Russian Federation and the Lebanese Republic. We hope that it will be covered extensively in the Russian media.



First China International Import Expo

On November 5-10, Shanghai will host the First China International Import Expo. Its partners are the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development as well as the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.

It is expected that the expo will bring together over 1,000 participating companies from 130 countries.

The Russian Federation will be a special guest at the event. The Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Economic Development and the Russian Export Centre are preparing the Russian programme at the expo.

The Russian exhibition will feature the country’s trade and industrial potential, as well as the most important projects that are being implemented with our Chinese partners. The image-building exhibition will include joint Russia-Chinese projects in the oil and gas, nuclear energy, transport, logistics and other areas.

On the sidelines of the expo there will be meetings with potential Chinese partners, presentations, seminars and roundtable discussions that will allow Russian participants to learn about the trends and demands of the Chinese market, and will provide new opportunities for the development of business relations.



Demolition of Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army in Warsaw

The demolition of one of the most famous monuments of gratitude to Red Army soldiers is being concluded in Warsaw’ Skaryszewski Park. It was installed in 1946 at the burial site of 26 Soviet soldiers killed in September 1944 during the liberation of Poland’s capital. Later, their remains were moved to the memorial cemetery on Zwirki i Wigury Street.

We are witnessing another attempt on the part of the Polish administration to revise history when it comes to the events of the Second World War and to erase the pages related to the decisive role of the Red Army in the liberation of Poland from Nazi invaders. It has become a routine thing to accuse the Soviet troops of “inactivity” during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, although the violent battles near the Polish capital did not stop for even a day, and we lost over 200,000 men at the front there.

The destructive anti-Russian policy regarding memorials is not only immoral, but is also a blatant violation of international and legal obligations. Its devastating effect on bilateral relations is inevitable.



Russia and Iran prepare energy agreement given the risk of toughened US sanctions

We confirm Russia’s principal stance on the illegitimacy of US unilateral sanctions. We are taking measures to minimise their negative impact on Russia-Iran trade and economic cooperation.

The interaction with Tehran in the energy field has traditionally been one of the key matters concerning bilateral economic affairs. There are many agreements in this field, in particular, within the Russia-Iran Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation. Among the most important energy projects are the construction of the Sirik Thermal Power Plant in southern Iran and the construction of the second and third power units of the Bushehr nuclear power plant.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

As we know, the US President’s National Security Advisor John Bolton is touring the countries of the South Caucasus after his visit to Moscow. Both in Azerbaijan and Armenia, he, as a representative of a co-chair country of the OSCE Minsk Group, has already made statements on Nagorno-Karabakh. Specifically, that the conflict should be settled peacefully and that it is up to the countries themselves to find a solution. Can you comment on the fact that Bolton flew to the South Caucasus immediately from Russia and on his statements regarding Nagorno-Karabakh?



Maria Zakharova:

Frankly, I see no reason to comment. Countries carry out their own independent foreign policy and contacts. The way sovereign democratic countries schedule their diplomatic contacts has nothing to do with Russia.

As regards Nagorno-Karabakh, I have not seen Mr Bolton’s statements. Naturally, a peaceful settlement is something that meets the interests of all participants: both the OSCE Minsk Group and the conflicting parties. This is what we always adhere to and it has always been the main goal.



Question:

The Baku Humanitarian Forum opened today. As you know, it was established eight years ago by the presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia. Can you comment on the fact that this initiative from Azerbaijan and Russia has become a practical and an authoritative platform for humanitarian cooperation with other countries showing interest in it?



Maria Zakharova:

We welcome any development of bilateral humanitarian ties and contacts that paves the way for the promotion of multilateral cooperation, all the more so if they achieve such a level and bring such results.



Question:

Recently, Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe said that his country will only sign a peace treaty with Russia after the territorial dispute is resolved. Two questions in this connection. When and where will new rounds of Russian-Japanese talks be held? And what, in general, is the Foreign Ministry’s position on Japan’s stance?



Maria Zakharova:

Our position on the matter is well known both to you and the Japanese side. We have repeatedly noted recently that any statements should be in tune with the existing agreements; a number of them have been reached recently. As for the contact schedule, I will clarify and we will be able to provide it to you. I have no specific information at this time.



Question:

Two weeks are left before the US congressional elections. What are your expectations in that regard? How will the US policy towards Russia change? Will it change if the Republicans strengthen their position or, on the contrary, if they lose seats and the Democrats take power?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding elections to US legislative bodies, or elections to the legislative bodies of other countries, these are internal processes in those states. We take it as a premise that we do not change our position in favour of a normal and mutually respectful dialogue in the development of relations. As regards the upcoming vote and who will win – it is up to the Americans, the American voters and, probably, to experts and political analysts, who can and must analyse the situation before, during and after. It is not up to the foreign ministries of other states to express conclusions or preferences. We respect the choice of the American people, who exercise their democratic will through a vote when electing either a president or the legislature. This is an internal matter for the United States. Again, we favour the development of normal, mutually respectful and full-format relations with the US.



Question:

The European Parliament approved a resolution calling on the EU to tighten its sanctions against Russia in the event of an escalation in the Sea of Azov. Can you comment on that?



Maria Zakharova:

This is yet another propaganda card that is being played by our Western colleagues. If you look at statements by American officials, European officials – and now by members of the European Parliament – they are all identical and are devoid of any factual base. They are an example of political propaganda. Apparently, criticising Russia over the problems of the Minsk Agreements and our country’s failure to implement them is no longer possible due to the absurdity of this postulate. Everyone understands that they are being blocked or have already been blocked by the Kiev regime. A fresh topic was needed – and it was invented. Therefore, in this case it is just a propaganda move.

We have already spelled out our position on the matter. You can find it on our website.



Question:

Next week, co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group will be in Armenia, as it was announced, to prepare for the next meeting between the foreign ministers of the opposing parties. However, Elmar Mammadyarov commented from Baku that since the change of power in Armenia the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement has been stalled. A number of experts say that during the next meetings and discussions, the participants may propose certain updates to the notorious Madrid Principles regarding matters concerning a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Is this true and can you offer any comments about this?



Maria Zakharova:

As concerns amending the principles themselves, frankly speaking, this is the first time I have heard of this. What is your question based on? If you are referring to specific statements can you make them available to us? Perhaps you are talking about experts’ predictions, which is a different story. After all, we are relying on official information and I do not have any.



Question:

New York Times published an article saying that US President Donald Trump has several personal iPhones tapped by China and Russia. There is very little insight on Russia but with regards to China, it says that they are not only listening in on the information that the President shares during his calls but also piece together a list of people that the US leader speaks to regularly in order to influence US politics and the President’s policies. There is very little information and details about Russia in the article. The newspaper refers to anonymous sources. Perhaps you have more details?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, I do. This is another example of a ridiculous absurdist theatre. It seems that we found ourselves in a kingdom of crooked mirrors. When the New York Times reports eavesdropping on several of the US President’s cellphones, as you said, without referring to specific sources or relying on official data, I do not know what to make of it. At the same time, there is official evidence of the fact that the US intelligence brazenly wiretapped, for example, Angela Merkel’s phone. If the United States and the US media, in particular, are so sensitive about this subject, what could be more interesting to them than the use of surveillance equipment by American politicians for spying on their partners in NATO, for example? However, for some reason, neither the New York Times nor any of the other newspapers gave so much attention to it than to never-ending leaks and references to anonymous sources regarding alleged interference by Russia, hacking, intrusion etc., without any solid proof whatsoever.



Question:

We really hope and believe that you believe in public diplomacy. A Latvian family is facing a troublesome situation after it opened a Latvian restaurant in the Russian Crimea. Latvian officials did not particularly like it, to put it mildly. This family is being threatened with criminal prosecution and even imprisonment by the Foreign Ministry and security services. The restaurant owner Viktorija Sisoljatina is all by herself fighting against this persecution. She cannot afford expensive lawyers. She started a social media flashmob about friendship between the Latvian and Russian peoples with hashtag #LatviansAndRussiansTogether. Do you think public diplomacy has a chance here to improve this negative spin on the events? And perhaps you agree with her and would support her with this hashtag?



Maria Zakharova:

I will look into this story. If the facts are as you present them, if the officials are indeed using force to destroy a person’s business that is not violating anything or breaching any laws intentionally, why not support it? Once again, we will make sure to review this story.



Question:

What is Russia’s opinion of the new developments in the murder case of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi? If it is proved that the Saudi authorities are involved will it influence Russia-Saudi relations?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, I would like to welcome Al Jazeera to this briefing. Fingers of one hand would be enough to count the times you have attended any of our briefings. I really do hope that this matter and the fate of one person is not your only concern. Perhaps, you would be interested in hearing about the fate of Syrian civilians and children who, unfortunately, have been killed for years in Syria. We speak about this here on a regular basis. Do come and visit us more. We will share this information with you and will be glad to answer your questions.

As concerns your question about the journalist’s fate, I do not think that I need to repeat myself once again. I announced our view at the briefing two weeks ago. Russian officials and President Vladimir Putin, in particular, also expressed their opinions. This incident has been fully addressed.

But if we do not close the question yet and rather summarise what has happened, it should be noted that there needs to be an investigation. As I have already said, at this point political statements must give place to an objective, comprehensive and unbiased investigation. When this investigation is complete according to all procedures and applicable law, we will be able to offer our views and make political statements.

We welcome the joint probe started by the parties, specifically, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.



Question:

US National Security Advisor John Bolton recently said in Moscow that he had shared with the Russian side the information the US has on the Jamal Khashoggi murder. Are there any details available?



Maria Zakharova:

Frankly, I cannot say the Russian side was informed of anything significant on the issue. The US involvement in this story is completely understandable – he was a journalist who worked for the American media after all. It is also clear why John Bolton raised this issue, as a representative of the country the journalist worked for. Unfortunately, this indisputable fact seems to constantly get lost amid the general array of statements we hear.



Question:

Yesterday, the Interfax agency reported that the next Moscow format meeting on Afghanistan will take place in Moscow on November 1 and that Kabul and the Taliban will take part in it. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I have seen references to specific dates. I can say that at the moment, the process of agreeing the dates, modalities and participants of the next Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan is still underway. I do not have a date or a list of participants that I could share with you. The same applies to the possible participation of the Russian Foreign Minister in this event. Therefore, as soon as this issue is agreed and we have the details, we will certainly update you. For now, I cannot confirm this information, because the process is still ongoing.



Question:

Today, NATO started its largest military exercises in the last sixteen years, with two non-NATO countries participating, Sweden and Finland. Moreover, reports say the NATO countries will not only use the military infrastructure of these countries for the exercises, but also involve their armed forces, warships and aircraft. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry consider this a normal situation, given that the governments of Finland and Sweden have previously declared their commitment to a policy of non-alignment with military blocs?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian side regards everything that happens, as you just said, as a focused NATO effort to draw Finland and Sweden into the practical activities of the North Atlantic bloc, including the regular participation of their military contingents in NATO exercises, as well as the use of NATO members’ forces in military manoeuvres conducted in Finnish and Swedish territories. This is a clear position, which has not changed. This policy line does not contribute to the strengthening of stability and security in Northern Europe or on the European continent as a whole.

This policy, this approach comes with a real risk of a deterioration in the regional situation. On the whole though, given that NATO is led by the United States and therefore, both from the perspective of personnel policy and the ways and methods of making and adopting decisions, all of this fits into the mainstream US policy of undermining security in Europe. This is just a small part of the bigger picture. Compared to the entire picture, this piece is really small. As for its impact on security and irreversibility of processes – this is a debatable question. I think it will have a serious impact.

We view the actions of the North Atlantic Alliance as an attempt to use the military-political potential of Finland and Sweden for the realisation of their own short-term objectives of containing Russia under completely far-fetched and fictional pretexts. We assume that they also understand this in Helsinki and Stockholm, and are aware of the real threats and where these real threats to European security come from - certainly not from Russia.



Question:

Serbian Defence Minister Aleksandar Vulin said today at an international forum in Beijing that his country faces a serious threat, called “Greater Albania.” What in your view are the chances of implementing the idea of ​​“Greater Albania” in the context of separatist Kosovo’s attempts to create its own army and establish borders with Serbia?



Maria Zakharova:

I think this issue warrants a long article, or even a study. Let's split it up. As regards Kosovo, as you know, we do not recognise such a state. Moreover, as we have repeatedly said, we are concerned about the trends that have been developing there lately. With the total incapacity of this territory as a state entity, it is being injected with armaments. Therefore, we cannot help being concerned by its understandable and undisguised claim for weapons, because the statehood claimed by that entity was never achieved.

As for our assessment of the Serbian Defence Minister’s statements, about the quantity and quality of threats to that country, I would leave it up to the Serbian side. They have the right to say where they feel these threats are coming from.



Question:

At the Beijing Xiangshan Forum in China, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Fomin said that the drones that attacked Russia’s Khmeimim base last January were controlled from аn American Boeing P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft. What would be your comment? Will there be any response?



Maria Zakharova:

We can only confirm this information. It is absolutely verified and was provided by our military experts. We have repeatedly voiced our concern over the incident. Of course, we will communicate our concerns during contacts with our American partners, including military and political contacts.



Question:

The United States announced its intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty shortly before John Bolton’s visit to Moscow. During his visit, he met with President Vladimir Putin, Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. However, after all these meetings, apparently, the decision did not change. As we can see, the withdrawal process has started. What do you think is the reason? Russia failed to convince the United States? Was there insufficient proof that we do not possess the missile in question? Or do they simply refuse to hear any arguments?



Maria Zakharova:

You probably did not hear my earlier comments. I have already covered this matter. I think I gave a clear assessment. It was not a spontaneous decision that was made ahead of John Bolton’s Moscow visit but a planned military and political course that has been implemented by Washington for the past several years. For a long time, we were engaged in public debates with the United States and a number of its representatives. The decision did not come to us as a surprise.

Of course, the question of when, how and in what manner the news was announced remains to be answered by our US colleagues. Specifically, the decision was presented as possible rather than final. But it is a matter of their current political style.

Repeatedly, several times a month, we addressed this topic and spoke about the fact that we understand where this is going. We offered specific examples and encouraged the United States to provide evidence if they have actual concerns. As always (based on the political style of the past years), no evidence was provided. Answering your question, I can repeat once again that this is a course and strategy that have been in place for a long time.

If you ask me why this course was not changed during John Bolton’s visit, I do not think that he was in Moscow to change it.



Question:

If the missile in question does not breach the treaty in terms of its range, perhaps it would be reasonable to reveal its technical parameters to the public?



Maria Zakharova:

What does this have to do with the missile? The missile was mentioned by several media outlets and experts. We received a question and, therefore, had to comment. But the United States is now talking about China rather than the missile. We can reveal China to them, here it is on the map; it is our neighbour. The arguments are changing every month, with more new issues being made up. You are right. A while ago it was a missile. Then it was Russia’s non-compliance with other aspects of the treaty. Now it is primarily related to China. The strategy is in place and the arguments are being selected based on the occasion.



Question:

Poland is currently hosting the Warsaw Security Forum. Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz claims that Poland is concerned about Russia potentially stepping up its military presence in the Baltics through the Nord Stream 2 project. I can give you a direct quote: “’The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has a military dimension as it gives Russia the opportunity to patrol the area of the Baltic Sea,’ Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz said.” Would you comment, please?



Maria Zakharova:

It was not only Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz that expressed his views on the matter. Polish President Andrzej Duda also made a statement. Specifically, Poland has voiced its concerns about the alleged threats hiding in the construction of Nord Stream 2 at different levels. It is not clear how an additional (additional, I want to stress this) gas transit channel to Europe threatens European energy security. What is happening is diversification of energy supplies. As we understood and still understand, this is the intention of the European Union, whose member is Warsaw.

As concerns economic aspects, I would like to remind you that Nord Stream 2 is almost 2,000 km shorter than the current Ukrainian option. The estimate transit cost of the new gas pipeline will be several times lower than that of the Ukrainian route. I think this information is publicly available but I would like to repeat it in response to the statements by our Polish counterparts. Nord Stream 2 is based on modern technology that significantly reduces the risk of accidents and curbs greenhouse emissions. Many concerns that we heard earlier were taken into account.

There is an absolutely clear understanding that the opponents of Nord Stream 2 are not motivated by the issues of Europe’s energy security or environment rather than by their own benefit and their own role. This is a different story.

We always said that each European country has the right to buy pipeline or liquefied gas wherever it finds necessary. In this case there is no need to mislead or deceive anybody. If somebody buys a more expensive product to the detriment of its own economy and interests, that is a purely political decision.

In our opinion, we are witnessing a typical attempt to politicise cooperation. The source is not Moscow. Based on the quotes you read out and the statements that I have seen, it is Warsaw.

As concerns gas transit via Ukraine (the option also discussed in Warsaw), Russia has repeatedly stated that gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine will continue if the Ukrainian route is economically attractive. It is also necessary to settle the notorious dispute between the business entities involved.



Question:

President Putin told US National Security Advisor John Bolton that he had had a fairly fruitful meeting with US President Donald Trump in Helsinki, according to both presidents’ opinion. Did John Bolton say anything in response, react to that in any way or did he just ignore it? I understand it was a conversation with the President but John Bolton also talked to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other Russian high-ranking officials. Did he offer any explanations at the meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov? Why are things the way they are?



Maria Zakharova:

As you rightly said, the President’s agenda lies outside our competence. Indeed, the US delegation had talks at the Russian Foreign Ministry. It is no good to retell literally or indirectly what happened behind closed doors. We have shared in great detail our overall assessments regarding the results of the meetings and specific issues without giving direct or indirect quotes. It could have been picked up that they are having a tough time in Washington now.



Question:

According to your estimates, where does Russia have really influential Russian communities abroad, without counting former Soviet republics, where the situation is different?



Maria Zakharova:

Influential in what way? If you mean domestic politics in foreign countries where our compatriots live, the Russian Foreign Ministry does not have it on its agenda. We do not recruit compatriots into “shock brigades” to influence the domestic political developments in the countries they live in. Our task is to assist them in solving their problems. It can be anything – from learning Russian (you have been working in the United States for a long time and you know how the interest in learning Russian skyrocketed in the past ten years), resolving passport, citizenship and visa issues, to supporting their initiatives in the community, compatriots’ media, culture and humanitarian projects. We do render this assistance. Experts from the Foreign Ministry’s Department for Work with Compatriots Living Abroad would give a better account of where and how well our compatriots are consolidated in terms of their entity.

A congress of the Russian-language media was held recently in New York, in Brooklyn, to be exact. I cannot say that the community is dissociated. There are problems, including those caused by the situation in Ukraine. There are divisions also within the diaspora as the situation in Ukraine is a highly painful issue. But the Russian communities in the United States, Canada, and European countries such as France and Germany are strong, numerous and vibrant. We see it because we constantly talk to them. This is as far as the Western world goes.

One more example. I take it Argentina is not included in your question; however, it is also located in the west, one way or another. I was there a year ago with consultations on information issues and met representatives of our diaspora. It is very well structured in accordance with the internal organisation of public life in Argentina. It is a choir of diasporas. The country is organised via the life of diasporas, it has always been like that in Argentinean history. Our Russian diaspora raised specific, practical issues before the Russian side connected with children’s education, Russian school and interaction in different areas.



Question:

How would you comment on Oleg Sentsov winning the Sakharov Prize?



Maria Zakharova:

An absolutely politicised decision has been taken. I am unaware of the reasons behind it. But the fact that it was based on a politicised approach is clear even without knowing the mechanics of how this decision is made. If you have more detailed, specific information about how the decision was made, please share it, we are all eager to know.

When I am told or asked about “film director” Sentsov, I ask if anyone has watched his films. Practically no one has watched them. What are the grounds for awarding these prizes is an open question. We should ask the organisers what they were guided by. For example, why was Oleg Sentsov chosen rather than Nadezhda Savchenko? She suffered more. Her situation now is incomparably more severe than that of Oleg Sentsov because she returned to her home country, where she was betrayed. I don’t think you should be smiling. She was initially actively called back, supported, cheered as much as Oleg Sentsov is cheered now. They ran a real experiment on the person and her conscience. And later she was betrayed in a cynical and tough way.



Question:

Regarding the INF Treaty. Late last night Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, speaking on Channel One, said that Russia will submit a draft resolution to support preserving the Treaty. Has Russia submitted this draft?



Maria Zakharova:

This work has been launched in the UN General Assembly First Committee.



Question:

You spoke about universalising the INF Treaty. I understand that Russia has always advocated this idea, but it does not impose this idea or insist on it. I think it is a very passive attitude. Don’t you think that a unique opportunity exists today: first, you would resolve problems with the United States, and then extend the Treaty to other regions?

For example, a missile issue also exists in relations between Japan and Russia because in the past few years we have been voicing our intention to deploy a ground-based US missile defence system that would shield the country from North Korean missiles. And Russia’s response to this has been very negative. However, it would be possible to address various issues using the INF Treaty, if we turn it into a universal document. What do you think about this?



Maria Zakharova:

As for Russia’s passive behaviour, I would like to remind you of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The situation is very similar. As you may remember, the United States also decided to unilaterally withdraw from the Treaty at that time, citing different reasons. These reasons changed as time went by: first, Iran allegedly threatened the United States, then it stopped threatening it, and then this threat reappeared, etc.

Let us remember how actively the Russian Federation tried to prove the completely inappropriate and impracticable nature of US arguments favouring a unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The Russian side did this at every level, including the state level, the level of the academic community and public organisations.

A hotel in Moscow not far from here hosted a large conference involving Russian military personnel, experts, scientists and representatives of political and academic circles. They used facts, arguments, statistics, and computer diagrams to prove that, first, none of the US arguments hold water. Second, this creates a real threat to international peace and stability because the current security system is being disrupted and violated. And all this lasted several days. This is an example of how the Russian Federation held a conference, open for all participants, on its territory. Those unable to attend it received materials from the conference. This is just one example of our proactive and responsible approach. At the same time, we realise that every country has its own opinions. This is all the more true of such countries as the United States, where diametrically opposite decisions are often made after the change of administrations, and they are proclaimed as national ideas, interests and policies.

We realise perfectly well that they have a right to adjust their position, but I wanted to use this specific example to show you that we are always proactive in the context of retaining current treaties in the interests of maintaining international security and stability. We are not passive. The problem lies elsewhere. We conducted very proactive work providing information on and explanations of this treaty that you just asked me about. Interviews, articles and answers to questions were published regarding each US statement, and we presented our statistics, facts and arguments. During all the talks we had, we raised this issue with the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence. Of course, the presidential agenda also included this issue. But the problem lies with the desire of the United States to withdraw from more and more international agreements, rather than with us and our position. What does Russia’s passive attitude have to do with the US withdrawal from the Universal Postal Union (I have mentioned this as an example today)? This concerns all countries and the whole world, and this is motivated by the current position of the United States and its administration. Therefore I certainly cannot accept this.

Speaking of the future of the global security system or the INF Treaty’s future, I believe the whole world should sit down and think about what the future will look like if this Treaty is wrecked through the desire of one side. Today, I said that we are ready for work aiming to maintain and impart even greater security and stability in the world. To be honest, we don’t see such prerequisites today, as evidenced by Washington’s statements.

There are many examples similar to that regarding the ABM Treaty and our proactive position, and, to my mind, it would be interesting if I cite some of them next time.



Question:

On Saturday, Turkey will host a summit on Syria involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Turkey. Could you comment on this, and could you say what we can expect from this meeting? How important can cooperation become at this stage?



Maria Zakharova:

The meeting itself is within the remit of the Presidential Executive Office. Speaking of the importance and relevance of dialogue, it is highly important, regardless of specific levels and formats, because it involves the countries that play a considerable role in the resolution of the crisis in this region.



Question:

The Pakistani authorities recently closed several non-profit organisations in charity and healthcare, which were engaged in anti-government activities in Pakistan. It is important to note that nine of those organisations were US-based, and three were from the UK. Based on Russia’s experience, what are the implications for Pakistan, which is trying to pursue an independent policy? Does Russia not regret that, despite international pressure, it has chosen to defend its sovereignty and made similar decisions?



Maria Zakharova:

Based on your concern for Pakistan’s independence (I would start there), it is because of Pakistan’s independent decisions that I do not think it possible and appropriate to comment on its domestic issues. If such a decision was made inside the country, it probably means the issue was agreed on within Pakistan. It has nothing to do with the Russian Federation. This is a matter of your internal agenda. If the case is somehow related to the Russian Federation, please tell me, because I do not know anything about this.

If you are talking about Russia’s experience, unfortunately, we really have encountered, especially in recent years, some strange activities by NGOs affiliated with Western countries, in particular, the United States and a number of European countries. Those organisations were engaged in activities other than what was officially declared. This, indeed, happened, I can confirm this. This applies to NGOs and, unfortunately, a number of media outlets.



Question:

Did Sergey Lavrov and John Bolton touch on the US intention to create a quasi-state in Syria during their meeting? What was America’s position, given that Bolton announced an agreement with Moscow to coordinate actions in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

They certainly discussed Syria. Russia laid out its approach once again. I think the Americans already know all about it, as a dialogue is maintained regularly, in particular, on the Syrian issue, regarding the future of that state as a whole, sovereign and independent country. This was our original position.

We publicly express this position, and it is addressed to all – our American partners and any other interested parties. This is the principled position of the Russian side in the context of the Syrian settlement – the unacceptability of dividing the country and the creation of enclaves on its territory not controlled by Damascus, the official legal authority. We talk about this regularly.



Question:

Leader of the Batkivshchyna Party Yulia Tymoshenko said that if she won the presidential election, she would take Donbass back. She said she would achieve peace, but on Ukraine’s terms and would “return Donbass to Ukraine,” with Ukrainian laws reinstituted, the territory demilitarised, and the 2 million refugees coming home. Do you think it is possible to return Donbass to Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

Fulfilling the Minsk Agreements remains a possibility. Why invent other schemes? Ukraine itself has subscribed to the Minsk package as a realistic roadmap for “the return of Donbass,” as you said, or for the “resolution to the domestic Ukrainian conflict,” as the international community says. The Minsk Agreements are there; they just need to be implemented. Perhaps, the Ukrainian politician you mentioned spoke in the sense of disagreeing with the policy pursued by Kiev on this issue, but this question is better asked elsewhere.



Question:

My question is about Donald Trump’s initiative to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Commenting on this initiative, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg came close to accusing Russia’s behaviour of being the problem. He almost said that was the reason the United States made this decision.



Maria Zakharova:

He probably did not hear that the US President was talking about China.



Question:

If you will allow a quote, he said that “all allies agree that the United States is in full compliance... the problem, the threat, the challenge is Russian behaviour.”



Maria Zakharova:

I have a piece of advice for the NATO leadership. I will allow myself to give advice, including to Jens Stoltenberg, to actually study in more detail the statements made by the President of the United States. Many statements were made, but maybe it would make sense to read and figure out all the concerns expressed by the American side before blaming the Russian Federation again.

One more thing: Jens Stoltenberg maintains a regular dialogue with the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry. If NATO had specific facts, if NATO, in expressing what he calls the allies’ will, had any information regarding Russia’s alleged failure to fulfill its commitments, he could have handed them to the Russian side himself, not delegated by anyone, simply by showing some initiative. No such materials were forwarded to us even though the latest meeting took place just recently.



Question:

Allow me to ask to clarify your answer regarding Nagorno-Karabakh and John Bolton. Is it possible to say that there is complete mutual understanding between Russia and the United States on a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, and that both countries are looking in the same direction?



Maria Zakharova:

At the moment, given the digital diplomacy actively promoted in the United States, I would not risk talking about complete unanimity of positions on issues we used to be unanimous on previously. Everything changes so rapidly, several times a day. Answering your very specific question in part concerning the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, we do subscribe to a “peaceful settlement,” as this wording fully corresponds to Russia’s approach.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3383326
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 2nd, 2019 #526
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Lamberto Zannier, Moscow, October 29, 2018



29 October 2018 - 17:36







Mr Zannier,

Lamberto,

We meet in Moscow once again. We are pleased that you remain among the active supporters of democratic values in the OSCE space. This is your first visit to the capital of Russia as the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. We worked together closely when you were the OSCE Secretary General. I hope this cooperation will continue.







It is deeply unfortunate that the problem of national minorities is subject to so much politicisation. Some OSCE member countries regard the problem of national minorities on the basis of their political preferences instead of objective factors. Of course, considering all the accompanying factors, we would like for your work as the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to be as focused as possible on the exercise of the powers and rights envisaged under the political and international legal obligations of the OSCE member states.

I have no doubt that your rich experience and political wisdom will see to the success of your mission.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3385119






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings to the organisers and participants of the second Protecting Future Moscow International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, Racism and Xenophobia



29 October 2018 - 17:53



I warm-heartedly welcome the organisers and participants of the second Protecting Future Moscow International Conference.

Russia was historically developed as a multinational country where representatives of various cultures, religions and ethnic groups live together. The strengthening of the interethnic and inter-confessional world and a society of consensus remains an unconditional priority of our state policy.

Today we see dangerous anti-Semitic, nationalistic and chauvinistic trends as well as other forms of racial and religious intolerance increasing in a number of countries, including in the European Union. Misanthropic ideas are promulgated openly; radicals and neo-Nazis are stepping up their activities; many attempts are being made to split societies along ethnic and linguistic lines. We see this as a direct threat to the fundamental values of democracy and human rights and a serious challenge to international and regional security and stability.

Russian diplomacy will continue to counter these destructive trends. We welcome the expanded cooperation in this area, including the Jewish communities in Russia and other states.

I wish you a productive conference and all the best.


SERGEY LAVROV

Moscow, October 29, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3385205






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Suleiman Frangieh Jr, head of the Lebanese Christian Marada Movement, Moscow, October 30, 2018



30 October 2018 - 15:07







Mr Frangieh,

Friends,

We are delighted to welcome you to Moscow, especially since this is your first visit to the capital of Russia, as far as I know.

Russia wants to see Lebanon remain a sovereign, territorially integral and independent state. I am convinced that the political forces you represent, which constitute an important part of Lebanese society, are of the same opinion and also want the Lebanese, regardless of their ethnic and religious convictions, to come to an agreement on all of the complicated domestic issues.

Being a sincere friend of Lebanon, Russia welcomed the May parliamentary election, which put an end to the drawn-out political crisis that lasted for two and a half years. As you are now forming a new government based on the outcome of that election, we would like to learn your views on the possibility of achieving this goal, on which hinges stability in Lebanon and the Lebanese people’s ability to choose their future independently and without foreign interference.







We would also like to talk about your views on the situation in the region, primarily in regional countries, first of all Syria. For our part, we are ready to tell you about Russia’s efforts to bring about a settlement to the Syrian crisis as soon as possible.

Once again, welcome.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386229






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei



30 October 2018 - 18:59







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei on October 30.

The ministers discussed cooperation between Russia and Belarus within integration organisations as well as current issues of bilateral relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386546






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 6th World Congress of Russian Compatriots Moscow, October 31, 2018



31 October 2018 - 13:03







Colleagues,

Friends,

I would like to greet all of you to the 6th World Congress of Russian Compatriots and declare the event open.

Pursuant to the law On the Russian Federation’s State Policy Toward Compatriots Living Abroad, Moscow hosts representatives of a multimillion and multiethnic Russian World every three years in order to discuss pressing problems concerning its functioning and to draw up future plans.

We attach great importance to these major assemblies that can help better understand what kind of a life Russian people living abroad are having and coordinate with you our joint steps aimed at further integration of our efforts as well as the implementation of beneficial endeavours in a variety of fields for the sake of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of our compatriots living abroad.

Currently, there are associations of Russian compatriots functioning in more than 100 countries. Their contribution to the creation of conditions for learning the Russian language and making Russian cultural achievements more popular can hardly be overestimated. Not only the Russian Orthodox Church but also other traditional religions open places of worship. We are happy that the process of consolidation and self-organisation continues. We are ready to assist it in any way possible and boost our efforts in this sphere.

I would like to point out the presence of delegates from Syria, with representatives of the younger generation among them, in this very hall. You have managed to preserve your touch with Russia during the hard times of the intra-Syrian conflict. We will continue to support you in every possible way we can when it comes to your noble efforts in promoting the Russian language and disseminating unbiased information about our country in all strata of the Syrian society. Your participation in this congress is proof that life in Syria is returning back to a peaceful way of life. Russia will go on making its contribution to the settlement of the Syrian crisis on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, decisions taken in the Astana format and results of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Friends,

Problems have not eased in the world since our previous meeting. It is a fact that severe pressure has been put on Russia. The instruments used towards this end vary from economic sanctions to the build-up of military activity near our borders. The anti-Russia information campaign has grown to unprecedented proportions.

Many of you have suffered from the consequences of these negative trends in your countries. Attacks on the Russian language and education are increasing in some countries. Persistent attempts are being taken to sow discord in the compatriots’ organisations, including their youth divisions. I am glad to say that these attacks have failed. These Russophobic policies have been countered with the growing unity of our compatriots’ movements and solidarity between their organisations. I would like to use this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all our compatriots, both the citizens of Russia and also other countries, for their invaluable support in holding the presidential election in Russia. We see this as vivid proof of the inseparable bonds connecting you to your homeland.

Large-scale socioeconomic development plans are being implemented in Russia. We know that Russian communities abroad, including young people, would like to contribute to these efforts. We welcome and support their desire.

Of course, this calls for new formats of cooperation. In particular, the time has come to hold a serious discussion on the methods of how to strengthen cooperation between business structures in Russia and similar organisations created by our compatriots outside Russia. Now that the strength of the international economic architecture based on WTO principles and the values of fair competition has been put to test, it is especially important to develop direct ties between economic operators.

The Russian regions are working with compatriots and have proposed new unique forms of such interaction. The Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad not only analyses this experience but is also promoting it. We hope to continue to build up our joint efforts in this sphere.

Another job is to improve the operations of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad. We know about your ideas and will do our best to help you implement them.







Early this year, the Government Commission adopted a comprehensive action plan for 2018-2020 to implement the State Policy toward Compatriots Living Abroad. The number of people involved in these actions has greatly increased compared to previous plans. For the first time ever, NGOs will be involved in this work. The Federation Council and the State Duma are doing a lot towards formulating our policy. The Russian regions are increasing the effectiveness of their contribution as well.

The Government Commission has prepared proposals on enhancing the effectiveness of our joint efforts. They will be discussed in detail at this congress, including at the meetings of its working groups.

Today, the range of matters linked with supporting the wellbeing of foreign compatriots so that they can retain their Russian identity is acquiring great significance. This is particularly important in those states where the Russian language and Russian education are being persecuted, where history is being rewritten, where Russia’s achievements and victories are being deleted from school textbooks, where false information is being spread about Russia and where Russophobia is being actively promoted.

The task of enriching modern national culture with the Russian World’s achievements remains topical. It is important to strengthen the multiethnic and multidenominational nature of our communities, including through streamlined dialogue between ethnic groups. A serious job lies ahead here, and it should involve ministries and agencies as well as compatriots’ organisations. Participants in a workshop dealing with ethnic identity will also discuss this aspect.

We would like to note with satisfaction that the number of events, held by compatriots’ youth organisations, continues to increase. Their participants voice numerous new and unconventional ideas that are discussed at forums in Russia and elsewhere. It is gratifying that young people are keeping up with the times. The most advanced information and communications technology is being used in the interests of establishing mutually beneficial contacts as well as implementing ambitious and trans-border initiatives.

We consider it important that young compatriots be worthy members of their societies, and that their rights be guaranteed in the countries where they are residing. At the same time, they should continue to love their native language and culture and have a feeling of involvement in the life of Russia, their historical Motherland. We have launched several pilot projects, including those utilising the potential of our regions. These projects will help our young compatriots see for themselves how modern Russia lives. A separate special section of the Congress deals with this subject.

Printed and online Russian-language media, established by compatriots themselves, remain an intransient factor of uniting the Russian World. They help establish horizontal contacts and spread objective information about this country. We are grateful to all those who invest their strength, knowledge, energy and financial assets in preserving and expanding these information platforms. I am confident that experts will exchange experience and ideas, as regards prospects for expanding media work, during our Congress’ meetings.

We will continue to focus on defending the rights of Russian-speaking journalists falling victim to discriminatory policies and often facing undisguised blackmail and threats. We will continue to proactively demand that such multilateral venues as the UN, the OSCE as well as the Council of Europe respond to these matters.

Colleagues and friends,

The Russian community abroad is not only multiethnic and multireligious but also multifaceted. Therein lays its strength and wealth. Even those, not taking part in the activities of the entities of compatriots, are making favorable contributions to the common cause: they have a desire to preserve their native tongue within their families, they encourage their children to love their homeland and they promote an unbiased image of our country and maintain professional contacts with their Russian colleagues. I am sure that such people are always welcome in the coordinating councils of the country, serving as an important unifying link.

Our congress has put together people who are not indifferent to the destiny of the Russian world, seeking to give a helping hand to its ancestral land and working for its progressive development as well as an atmosphere of stronger trust and partnership in international affairs.

I would like to reassure you: protection of your legitimate rights and interests remains an unconditional priority of the Russian leadership stipulated in the Russian Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Vladimir Putin.

I wish you all the very best and I hope that your discussions will be productive. I also wish you every success in your noble and highly demanding activities.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391714






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Moscow Region’s presentation, Moscow, November 1, 2018



1 November 2018 - 18:10








Mr Vorobyov, ladies and gentlemen, Your Excellency, colleagues,

I am happy to welcome you to the Moscow Region’s presentation. Representatives of federal and regional authorities, the diplomatic corps, Russian and foreign business executives and the media are all here.

The Moscow Region is among the most dynamically developing regions in the Russian Federation. This is due not only to its convenient geographical location, its close proximity to the capital, but above all, to the consistent efforts of the regional leadership headed by Andrey Vorobyov, which has been working for comprehensive modernisation.

The Moscow Region confidently holds a leading position in industrial production. Its key industries include energy, instrument engineering, radio-electronic, aerospace, food processing industries, and construction. The region is home to major industrial facilities such as the Demikhovo Machine-Building Plant, Metrovagonmash, the Zhukovsky Machine-Building Plant, and the Zagorsk Pipe Plant. This list is far from complete and could be extended indefinitely. Growth can also be seen in agriculture, trade and services.

The Moscow Region is also an important transport hub comprising an extensive system of federal motorways and railways, as well as the three largest international airports in Russia – Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo and Vnukovo.

The Moscow Region has created favourable conditions for doing business and ranks first among other Russian regions in investment appeal. Industrial parks and three special economic zones (SEZ) are successfully operating here, including the Dubna SEZ, which is recognised as the most effective in the country.

The Moscow Region boasts high research potential. Eight of the 13 Russian science cities are located here. Many of them are widely known in Russia and beyond. For example, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna has firmly established itself as one of the world's leading nuclear research centres. And the town of Zhukovsky is known for hosting the annual MAKS international aviation and space show, immensely popular in Russia and abroad.

The region’s international ties and foreign economic relations are expanding and deepening with countries in Europe, Asia, and America. A number of large foreign companies have been operating in the region for years, and lucrative joint business projects are being implemented.

The region traditionally attracts many foreign tourists. Among the most visited places are Sergiyev Posad with its Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra monastery – a place of pilgrimage for many Orthodox believers, and Kolomna, known for its Kremlin castle built in the 16th century. The Moscow Region is the origin of the world-famous Pavlovo Posad shawls, Gzhel ceramics, and Zhostovo metal painting. The secrets of these traditional Russian crafts are carefully cherished and passed down from generation to generation.

The Moscow Region is also known for its nature parks and reserves – Losiny Ostrov, Serebryanny Bor, Zavidovo, and the Prioksko-Terrasny Reserve.

Many prominent Russian writers, scientists, public figures, and military leaders are associated with the region, including the big names of Russian and world literature including Anton Chekhov and Alexander Blok.

I am confident that today the guests of this presentation will have a chance to get a closer look at the region’s multi-faceted potential, its glorious history, rich traditions and culture.

I would like to wish the regional leadership, and personally Governor Andrey Vorobyov, and all the residents of the Moscow Region good health, prosperity and new successes. And to the participants of the presentation – have an interesting evening, and all the best.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394578






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’ opening remarks at the meeting with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, Moscow, November 2, 2018



2 November 2018 - 10:44







Mr Secretary General,

Colleagues,

Welcome to Moscow. This is our forth meeting this year, which underscores the great importance we attach to the development of cooperation within the OSCE, as well as to the bolstering of its role in the Euro-Atlantic area. We fully support your resolve to draw up a positive agenda at the OSCE and use this Organisation, unique in its way, for the restoration of trust and establishment of partnership in Europe. To this end a lot is to be done also in terms of long overdue reforms in the OSCE with a view to correcting the imbalance in its work that has been evident for a long time and provide for objectivity and impartiality as required by the fundamental documents of our Organisation.







It is essential that we discuss all this at our meeting today, given that in just over a month we will meet in Milan at the annual meeting of foreign ministers, where all these issues as well as other matters will be given priority.

Our meeting today is very timely. Thank you for accepting our invitation. We hope to have a constructive discussion.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395114






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, Moscow, November 2, 2018



2 November 2018 - 14:10







Ladies and gentlemen,

My talks with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger were held in a constructive atmosphere and were very meaningful, just as all the meetings we had before. This was our fourth meeting this year.

Russia has consistently advocated enhancing the OSCE’s role in international affairs and strengthening its prestige as a venue for productive and equal dialogue and interaction.

Mr Greminger and I agree that the constructive potential of the OSCE must be used to restore trust in the Euro-Atlantic region, prevent new dividing lines and help eliminate existing dividing lines and find collective answers to common security challenges. We also reiterated our commitment to the strategic goal of the OSCE countries, that is, the implementation of the 2010 Astana agreements on creating a comprehensive, cooperative and indivisible security community.

It was in this spirit that we discussed preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, which will convene in Milan on December 6-7. We also talked about the managerial and budgetary aspects of OSCE operations. For our part, we emphasised the importance of continued OSCE reforms, which include the drafting and adoption of its charter, as well as smoothing out the existing subject, geography and personnel imbalances. We called for strengthening the OSCE’s role in the efforts against terrorism, drug trafficking and cyber threats. We confirmed the need for the OSCE and its institutions to give more attention to freedom of the media and journalist rights.

In addition, we would like the OSCE to help promote large unification projects, including the alignment of various integration processes in the common Eurasian space. Moscow believes that one of the OSCE’s key humanitarian priorities should be the protection of traditional values and the fight against neo-Nazism, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic sentiments, as well as attempts to rewrite history, which are causes for concern given the growing evidence.

We also held detailed discussions on the performance of specialised OSCE institutions, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Representative on Freedom of the Media. Russia believes that the operations of these must be balanced, transparent and based on strict compliance with their mandates without double standards.

We pointed out shortages in the monitoring of elections by ODIHR observers. In addition, we believe changes in the methods and practices of the ODIHR are long overdue, as it should be guided by the interests of all member states without exception, and should avoid one-sided approaches.

We take a positive view of the OSCE’s role in the efforts to find solution to the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, the Geneva Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus, as well as OSCE activities in the Balkans. We talked in detail about the possibility of a political settlement in eastern Ukraine, in light of the lack of alternative to the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. We considered methods to enhance the efficiency of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, whose work Russia is supporting actively. We also pointed out to the OSCE Secretary General that the Kiev government continues to try to hinder the implementation of the Minsk agreements and urged him to take a closer look at the situation and to provide an objective and principled assessment of Kiev’s destructive efforts to legislate large-scale infringements on language, educational and religious rights and freedoms. I would like to repeat that such actions contradict Ukraine’s international commitments, including its obligations within the OSCE framework, as well as Ukraine’s Constitution.

We will continue the talks during a business lunch. I am grateful to Mr Secretary General and his team for the open, business-like and substantive talks, which will certainly be useful for our preparations for the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Meeting to be held in Milan in early December.







Question (addressed to Thomas Greminger):

Today, we are marking International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. And today, our journalist colleagues have gathered near the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow to protest the illegal detention of Kirill Vyshinsky who was arrested on May 15 in Kiev for alleged high treason. His term of detention has been extended several times, including yesterday, through December 28. No evidence of collaboration with the secret services was ever found. As OSCE Secretary General, what will you do to protect this journalist’s rights? Do you intend to demand his release?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Thomas Greminger):

I would like to add that Kirill Vyshinsky was only arrested for his professional commentary, for describing events, for expressing his opinion of these events and for telling the truth to those who want to know what is happening in Ukraine at a time when that country’s media space has been wiped clean of any Russian media outlets.

We have noted that, according to Mr Greminger, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir, has once again expressed regret that the court has extended Mr Vyshinsky’s arrest through December 28. We have also drawn the attention of our OSCE colleagues to the fact that the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media responds differently to various situations regarding the violation of journalist rights. We have submitted a diagram comparing various phrases expressing the negative attitudes used by Harlem Desir to describe the violation of Russian journalists’ rights, on the one hand, and those of journalists from other countries, on the other. We don’t want to accuse anyone of anything, but we are urging all OSCE institutions to act without double standards. When we see flagrant violations of fundamental rights, including those of journalists or any other person, an adequate response is required.



Question (addressed to Thomas Greminger):

Don’t you think it unfair that the West deliberately hushes up glaring human rights violations in Ukraine? The Western press says nothing about this Russian journalist’s arrest while they publicise the arrest of a Ukrainian film director in Russia. The Western press also says almost nothing about the deportation of Russian journalists, including my Channel One colleagues. At the same time, your Organisation pretends that nothing is happening. At most, the OSCE issues routine comments stating its concern, but with zero results.



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Thomas Greminger):

While replying or responding to your comment that the OSCE releases statements and expresses concerns with zero results, I would, nevertheless, like to note that the OSCE has no other mechanism for requiring member-countries to honour their obligations, except to persuade them. But of course, countries that can decisively influence the behaviour of the Kiev authorities have much more leverage in preventing gross human rights violations. Besides the examples you mentioned, there are many more.

Mr Greminger has noted that Kiev is informed about these issues during confidential conversations. We know that this is so. OSCE representatives and those of leading European countries are doing this. They are doing this quietly in the hope that the power of persuasion, influence, economic and other leverage that influences Kiev (that the West wields) will produce results. But Kiev leaders get a feeling of complete impunity because the West is reluctant to openly discuss it. Our Western colleagues are reluctant to openly discuss this matter because, in their time, they supported the illegal coup in Ukraine and presented it as a democratic revolution. They quickly grew to understand the gist of Ukrainian developments, but they find it very hard to disavow their position, now that they have openly supported democracy. This would be a loss of face. The situation resembles a phrase from “Little Prince” by Antoine de Saint-Exupery: “You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.” Rephrasing this thought, it turns out that the West is now responsible for those who see its unconditional support for any of their actions as a right to impunity.



Question:

For quite some time, the United States has shown disregard for arms control agreements: first the ABM Treaty, now the INF Treaty. Is Russia communicating to its American colleagues ​​the need to get off this dangerous path and begin working together to strengthen the arms control and stability system? What are the prospects for cooperation between Moscow and Washington in arms control?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, in recent years, Russia and the United States, as the two leading nuclear powers, have built up ever more controversy on strategic stability. The previous channels for settling these disagreements, still formally existing on paper, have not been used for some time, which certainly creates an unacceptable situation from the global security perspective.

We regularly remind our American partners of the need for dialogue on the entire range of arms control issues. We did this with Barack Obama’s government, and continued doing so from the first days the Donald Trump administration took office through contact with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in the first months of the new government’s work. We have made proposals at subsequent meetings with Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, and at talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, starting with last year’s meeting in July in Hamburg on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

We have repeatedly proposed using these channels that have gone unused, and to start a dialogue on all aspects of strategic stability, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Or rather, the latter is not technically a treaty now that the US has unilaterally withdrawn from it, but a situation that is arising from the consistent deployment of the global US missile defence system.

Regarding the INF Treaty, the President of Russia has repeatedly said that we are interested in preserving it. We regret the US’s declared intention to withdraw from this treaty and expressed our willingness to reconsider the situation, but, as we understand it, the US decision is final, and will soon be announced officially. After a six-month countdown, the decision to end the INF Treaty will become a reality.

We have also said more than once, and President Vladimir Putin mentioned this, both publicly and during meetings with US President Donald Trump, that we are ready to consider the possibility of extending the New START Treaty for five years after its ten-year term expires in 2021. However, it is clear that, for this opportunity to be realised, existing problems with implementation need to be resolved. We have talked about this too.

Regarding missile defence, the problems associated with the deployment of elements of the global US missile defence system in Europe, and now in the Asia-Pacific Region, certainly directly affect strategic stability. So they should not be left out of any honest professional discussion.

Regarding other factors that also directly affect strategic stability, I would mention our concern about the danger of turning outer space into a theater of armed confrontation. This subject has been growing more alarming of late. Here, too, an in-depth professional and responsible conversation is needed, otherwise the situation threatens to spiral out of control, and then, as some experts say, stability and security will be forgotten.

Russia has made other proposals relating to conventional weapons, those we have promoted in relations with the United States, in the Russia-NATO Council, including very recently (at the regular meeting the day before yesterday), at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has launched a so-called “structured dialogue” on military-political security issues.

During his previous visit to the Russian Federation, we gave Mr Greminger our Defence Ministry’s proposals containing a number of specific steps aimed at preventing incidents in the course of military activities in Europe and increasing confidence and transparency in military affairs. All these suggestions remain valid. As we understand Mr Greminger, at least in the OSCE, there is an opportunity to initiate a sensible dialogue on these.

Of course, this does not negate the need to restore the channels for discussion of all these problems between Russia and the United States, given the weight and importance of our two states in matters of global strategic stability. We used to have direct channels of communication between the military of our countries, specialists from various agencies under the foreign ministries, and the 2 + 2 format meetings of defence and foreign ministers. We are interested in resuming these formats. When the fuss over the upcoming elections in the United States subsides and the people in charge of strategic stability in Washington can look at these issues more responsibly, without being overwhelmed by their domestic political problems, we expect to still be able to start the process that I am sure will be welcomed by all states interested in security and stability on our common planet.



Question:

A question for Sergey Lavrov and Thomas Greminger. On the eve of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in December, what can you tell us about the developments concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, considering the political processes that are now taking place in Armenia and the Dushanbe agreements between President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan? Can you comment on Armenia’s effort to involve self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh in the talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

With your permission, I will be the first to answer because Russia is one of three co-chairs in the OSCE Minsk Group and it is in this format that fairly intensive efforts to find ways for defusing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been made in the past few years.

As far as I know, according to the agreements reached at the Dushanbe meeting by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, the two countries should stay in communication, and their foreign ministers will meet, and both states should be ready to work with the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. We welcome these agreements although, of course, we understand that until the current somewhat tumultuous domestic political processes in Armenia are complete, it will hardly be possible to discuss in real earnest specific options for overcoming this crisis and ensuring a full Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. That said, contact during preparations for early parliamentary elections in Armenia in December has been planned. The co-chairs visit the region and meet with the leaders and foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is important to maintain this contact in order to seriously discuss the settlement of the crisis as soon as the circumstances allow.

As for Mr Pashinyan’s numerous statements on the need to involve Nagorno-Karabakh in the talks, we have already commented on this. This issue should be agreed by the parties to the conflict themselves. At one time, Nagorno-Karabakh representatives took part in the talks between Baku and Yerevan. This practice was changed at Armenia’s suggestion and talks have been held only directly between Armenia and Azerbaijan for many years.

Naturally, we assume that Yerevan considers Nagorno-Karabakh’s views in its negotiating positions but a change in the current bilateral format requires agreement from both sides. To our knowledge, such an agreement does not exist. I would abstain from requiring preconditions to start discussing the essential issue of a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395354






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


29 October 2018

Greeting by S. Lavrov to the organizers and participants of the Congress of the bicentennial of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384543

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the former President of the Republic of Cyprus D. Christofias - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384932


30 October 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with a group of participants and guests of honor of the second Protecting Future Moscow International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, Racism and Xenophobia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386079

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain M. Moratinos - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386465


31 October 2018

S. Lavrov's answer to the media question on the sidelines of the World Congress of Compatriots, Moscow, October 31, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391685

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3392102


1 November 2018

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams between S. Lavrov and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Yemen, H. Al-Yamani - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3393866


2 November 2018

On the exchange of congratulatory telegrams between S. Lavrov and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Malawi E. Fabiano on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394966
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 2nd, 2019 #527
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:





Statement by Mr. Vladimir Yermakov , Head of the Russian delegation to the First Committee of the UNGA 73rd session, on organizational and procedural issues: «The U.S. as a host country has not so far given a visa to a member of the Russian delegation»



3 November 2018 - 12:15




Dear Mr. Chair, Dear colleagues,

Our distinguished American colleagues have invented a new procedure – a “new disarmament instrument”. Now they have started to “disarm” delegations of their dialogue partners. Our American colleagues prove to follow some very interesting logic.

If you obediently follow the instructions from Washington and blindly support any American whim, it is only natural for you to get a visa for participation in the UN events.

The case is totally different, when you do defend your country's sovereign interests and they, which is clear, should not necessarily coincide with the U.S. ones. Then you get problems with obtaining the U.S. visa to take part in the UN events in New York.

It is already for 4 months that Washington has been dragging the issuance of visa to a key figure of the Russian delegation to the First Committee - the head of section of the Russian MFA, in charge of the issues related to the First Committee.

We have an impression that Washington does not understand that the aim of the First Committee meetings is to look for mutually acceptable ways to strengthen international security, and not to blindly follow any American order as the so-called U.S. allies have been doing recently.

I would like to recall that the right to host the UN headquarters was given to the U S. in the middle of the previous century when it pretended to be a responsible state. The U.S. took upon the obligation to contribute by all means to our collaboration in this common global organization. One of the basic functions of the host is to issue visas to all the official representatives of delegations to the New York events.

But how does it look like in the reality? The U.S. is grossly violating its obligations. Washington shuts off the access to the UN to the representatives of certain delegations whose opinion it does not like. Is not it “a very strong and decent stance of a great power"? In fact, it turns out that the U.S. has suddenly decided to determine unilaterally which member states do deserve a place in the UN and which do not.

Does it mean that today's U.S. position is so weak that the American diplomacy lacks stamina, wisdom, analysis and intellectual force to follow the norms of the international law or, at least, the fundamental rules of decent behavior in the interstate relations? Does it mean that the only thing that Washington retains in its arsenal is the grave violation of general human rules and the use of such dirty methods as denial of visas to the representatives of states going to attend the UN events?

We ask our American colleagues, as well as the Chairman of our forum, the
Secretariat of our common organization and the UN Secretary-General - does it mean that the fundamental principles of our Organization have no longer any meaning for the U.S. as one of its founders?

During the recent 4 weeks we have been maintaining the direct contact with the Head of the U.S. delegation and with the leadership of the Department of State. We have also contacted the UN Secretariat and the Chairman of this forum.

Once again we call on the American side to change its mind and promptly issue the visa to their colleague - the young Russian diplomat, Mr. Konstantin Vorontsov, a key figure of the Russian delegation to the UN GA First Committee.

We request the UN Secretariat to report this gross violation of the UN Charter to the UN Secretary-General and record this request in the protocols of the First Committee of the UN GA 73 rd session and put this issue under control. We call on the UN Secretariat not to turn a blind eye at the ongoing violations and to ensure the unimpeded access to the United Nations office in New York for the representatives of its member states.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3398997






29 October 2018

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of Japan to Russia T. Kozuki - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3385250

Meeting of A. Grushko with the special representative of the Government of France for the development of relations with Russia J.-P. Schevenman - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3385273


30 October 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the delegation of the Kurdistan Democratic Party - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386099

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Ambassador of India to Russia V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386475

Consultations of I. Morgulov with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK Xing Hon Chol - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386485

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the Ambassador of Sudan in Moscow Nadir Yusif Eltayeb Babiker - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386566

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Deputy Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria R. Ramsay - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3389778


31 October 2018

M. Zakharova's answer to the question of “Russia Today” about the adoption by the European Parliament a resolution “On the growth of neo-fascist violence in Europe” - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391490

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Qatar in Moscow F. Al-Attiey - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391788

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt M. Elbadri - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391816

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain A. Al Khalifa - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391836

Meeting of S. Vershinin with First Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel A. Ushpiz - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391926

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the executive director of the international NGO "Sheikh Group" S. Sheikh - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3392047

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the First Deputy General Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel A. Ushpiz - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3392061

Meeting of S. Vershinin with UN Assistant Secretary General - Military Advisor on UN Peacekeeping Operations Carlos Umberto Loitey - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3392082

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the representative of the leadership of the Syrian Front for Change and Liberation, the head of the "Moscow Platform" of the Syrian opposition K. Jamil - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3392092


1 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with First Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel A. Ushpiz - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394413

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of India in Moscow V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394459

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the State of Kuwait in Moscow A. Al-Advani - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394687

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates in Moscow M. Al-Heyili - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394697

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the delegation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394717


2 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Permanent Representative of Yemen at the Arab League R. Al-Akbari - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395214

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the delegation of the Lebanese party "Kataib" headed by its chairman S. Zhmayel - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395651

M. Zakharova's answer to the question of the Business FM radio station regarding the situation of Russian citizens in Cyprus - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395878

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of Iran in Moscow M. Sanai - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395963

Speech by D. Balakin at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, November 1, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3396000






Non-personal events:





Joint Statement by China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States



29 October 2018 - 12:45



UNGA 73, FIRST COMMITTEE
THEMATIC DEBATE
(NUCLEAR WEAPONS)



We, the nuclear weapon States recognized by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty, in all its aspects, fifty years since its signature.

This landmark Treaty has provided the essential foundation for international efforts to stem the threat that nuclear weapons would spread across the globe, and has thereby limited the risk of nuclear war. It has provided the framework within which the peaceful uses of nuclear technology – for electricity, medicine, agriculture and industry – could be promoted and shared, to the benefit of humanity. And by helping to ease international tensions and create conditions of stability, security and trust among nations, it has allowed for a vital and continuing contribution to nuclear disarmament.

We pledge our full and continued support for the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which plays a critical role in NPT implementation, both in promoting the fullest possible cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear technology and in applying safeguards and verifying that nuclear programmes are exclusively for peaceful purposes. We emphasise the need to further strengthen the IAEA safeguards system, including the universalisation of the Additional Protocol.

We remain committed under the Treaty to the pursuit of good faith negotiations on effective measures related to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. We support the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all. We are committed to working to make the international environment more conducive to further progress on nuclear disarmament.

It is in this context that we reiterate our opposition to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We firmly believe that the best way to achieve a world without nuclear weapons is through a gradual process that takes into account the international security environment. This proven approach to nuclear disarmament has produced tangible results, including deep reductions in the global stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The TPNW fails to address the key issues that must be overcome to achieve lasting global nuclear disarmament. It contradicts, and risks undermining, the NPT. It ignores the international security context and regional challenges, and does nothing to increase trust and transparency between States. It will not result in the elimination of a single weapon. It fails to meet the highest standards of non-proliferation. It is creating divisions across the international non-proliferation and disarmament machinery, which could make further progress on disarmament even more difficult.

We will not support, sign or ratify this Treaty. The TPNW will not be binding on our countries, and we do not accept any claim that it contributes to the development of customary international law; nor does it set any new standards or norms. We call on all countries that are considering supporting the TPNW to reflect seriously on its implications for international peace and security.

Rather, we urge all States to commit to the continued success of the NPT: to ensure compliance, to promote universalisation, to ensure the highest standards of non-proliferation, and to respond to ongoing and emerging proliferation challenges, wherever they occur. In this context our five countries reiterate our commitment to continue our individual and collective efforts within the NPT framework to advance nuclear disarmament goals and objectives.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384609






Comment by the Information and Press Department on statements made by US National Security Adviser John Bolton in Armenia



29 October 2018 - 13:37



At a recent briefing, the Foreign Ministry’s Spokesperson commented on the “farewell” speech made by former US Ambassador to Armenia Richard M. Mills before he left Yerevan. He publicly instructed the leaders of the receiving country on economic policy matters and promised lavish funding to local NGOs for controlling the government.

It appears that there can be no greater impudence that cannot be discerned from direct interference in domestic affairs. But this is not so.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton who visited Yerevan the other day demanded openly that Armenia renounce historical clichés in its international relations and hardly bothered to conceal the fact that this implied Armenia’s traditional friendship with Russia. He also said that he expected Nikol Pashinyan to voice initiatives on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement after the national parliamentary elections. Naturally, he did not forget to advertise US weapons that Armenia should buy instead of Russian weapons.

Incidentally, not all of John Bolton’s statements in Yerevan deserve to be criticised. In his October 25 interview to Radio Liberty, he made a wonderful comment: “I think that’s really fundamental to Armenia exercising its full sovereignty and not being dependent on or subject to excessive foreign influence.” It would be good if John Bolton thinks over the meaning of his own words.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3384686






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the outcome of the UNGA First Committee vote to consider Russia’s draft resolution on the INF Treaty




29 October 2018 - 21:17



We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of the vote in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on the issue of submitting for consideration Russia’s draft resolution in support of the INF Treaty. It is puzzling that work on the document, the importance of which can not be questioned, has been blocked under such a far-fetched procedural pretext. There is no merit to the attempt to justify the refusal to hold a substantive discussion of Russia’s initiative by citing the expiration of the deadline for submitting drafts given that these are force majeure circumstances, which prompted us to turn to the international community for assistance to keep the INF in place following unexpected US statements on its plans to unilaterally withdraw from the Treaty.

As a result, the matter was never meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, 55 countries, in fact, opposed the very idea of ​​ the First Committee even considering the possibility of maintaining the viability of the INF Treaty, although it is clearly a central element of the global architecture for nuclear missile control. The states that regularly complain from high tribunes about the “lack of progress on nuclear disarmament” and show themselves eager proponents of observing international treaties look particularly out of place on that list. However, in this case, for some reason they choose not to notice that the INF Treaty is in direct jeopardy as a result of Washington’s short-sighted and destructive actions and that such developments may now have a negative impact on the START Treaty.

Regrettably, a number of states abstained from voting or avoided it altogether. Clearly, they are not fully aware of what is going on. This Treaty concluded by Moscow and Washington is directly related to maintaining international security and global strategic stability, as well as the normal functioning of non-proliferation agreements. All of that concerns not only the direct participants of the INF Treaty, but each international community member as well. The collapse of a disarmament agreement has never served to strengthen collective security.

We are grateful to all those who demonstrated an independent position and a responsible approach to strengthening arms control mechanisms, stability and security, showing their readiness to work with the draft resolution proposed by Russia in order to support the viability of the INF. With an eye towards continuing political and diplomatic efforts to support the Treaty, we look forward to further constructive interaction with these countries. We are convinced that it is not too late for those states which are not ready to take concrete steps in order to preserve the INF, to reconsider their approach and join in this work.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3385313






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



3 November 2018 - 12:23



The new wave of anti-Iran sanctions announced by Washington is aimed at undermining the consistent efforts taken by the signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme to preserve this agreement.

The course pursued by Washington to demolish international legal instruments of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control is cause for deep disappointment and increasing concern. The situation in the area of global security is deteriorating. The United States has now dealt another powerful blow to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, bringing it closer to collapse while hypocritically talking about the need to strengthen it.

We reject any unilateral sanctions bypassing UNSC decisions, especially when they are applied extra-territorially and concern the interests of third countries, as is the case with US restrictions against Iran. If Washington, as it claims, is indeed interested in negotiations with Tehran, the policy of sanctions pressure aimed at diminishing Iran’s economic and defence potential as well as undermining the internal political situation there must be revised immediately. Many years of experience show that it will be impossible to reach concessions with Iran by using pressure.

The JCPOA fully justifies itself. It has proved to be effective. The IAEA regularly confirms that Iran strictly complies with its obligations. The verification and control measures provided for in the Action Plan are applied in full. This in itself is reliable proof of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme.

The international community must not allow such a significant achievement of international diplomacy to collapse at the whim of just one nation, which openly violates the norms of international law. We are confident that the JCPOA, unanimously approved by the UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015), has a sufficient margin of strength. The agreement’s participants are absolutely capable of overcoming any emerging issues.

We will do everything necessary to preserve and expand international trade and economic and financial cooperation with Iran despite the US sanctions.

We resolutely condemn the new destructive actions of the United States.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399007






29 October 2018

On the results of the presidential elections in Brazil - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3385303


30 October 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the terrorist act in the capital of Tunisia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386089

On the meeting in the Russian Foreign Ministry of a working group on the return of underage Russian children to their homeland from Iraq and Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386287

About chemical provocations in the Syrian Arab Republic - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3386556


31 October 2018

On the fourth round of the Russian-Japanese negotiations on the establishment of joint economic activities in the southern Kuril Islands - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3391846


1 November 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the situation around the facilities of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo of the Republic of Serbia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394677

On the adoption by the UN Security Council of a resolution extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394707

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with anti-Russian stuffing in the Western media - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394797


2 November 2018

About the 32nd meeting of the World Coordination Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395237

Invitation to the Foreign Ministry of Russia of the Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus in the Russian Federation L. Markidis - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395818

On the meeting of the anti-drug Regional Technical Group of the Istanbul Process - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395892

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the latest provocations of the White Helmets in Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3395953

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the launch of the OSCE "Moscow Mechanism" for the Russian Federation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3396015


3 November 2018

On the second meeting of the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3398970

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the terrorist act in Egypt - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399017

On the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution “The necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399040
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 2nd, 2019 #528
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 1, 2018



1 November 2018 - 20:34







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's visit to Spain

On November 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be on a working visit to Madrid at Spain’s invitation. He will meet with Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation of Spain Josep Borrell for substantial talks.

The agenda will include the range of items in bilateral relations, as well as the two countries' interaction on the international arena on the most pressing issues of the world's politics.

Russia and Spain have maintained an active political dialogue both at the top level and as part of the foreign ministries' contacts. To make the dialogue more intensive and to expand the range of issues discussed, the parties plan to sign a Plan for Political Consultations between the foreign ministries of Russia and Spain for 2019-2020.

During their talks, Mr Lavrov and Mr Borrell will review developments on the European continent and compare notes on bilateral interaction at leading international organisations, including the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the OPCW. The sides will discuss the current state of Russia's relations with the EU and NATO in terms of possibly facilitating normalisation. They are also expected to exchange opinions on issues of strategic stability, the Middle East settlement, and developments in Syria, Libya and Ukraine, as well as a number of other issues on the international agenda.

Trade and economic links, which are showing positive dynamics despite the existing external restraints, play an important role in developing Russia-Spain relations. In 2017, trade totaled about $5.3 billion. This year, the growth has continued. The Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Industrial Cooperation, whose meetings take place on a regular basis in both countries (Madrid, 2015 and Moscow, 2017), has been cooperating on a consistent basis.

Particular attention will be given to humanitarian and cultural cooperation. Our countries have vast experience in implementing major joint projects in this area. In 2011, reciprocal years of cultural exchange in Russia and Spain were held, while in 2015-2916, the Year of Language and Literature took place. The Year of Russian-Spanish Tourism in 2017 boosted tourist traffic between the two countries considerably. Last year alone, a total of 1.12 million Russian tourists visited Spain, and 118,000 Spanish citizens visited Russia.

The ministers will discuss plans for the reciprocal Year of Education and Science in 2019-2020, which includes youth exchanges. This large event will promote the implementation of a number of important projects to strengthen the positions of the Russian language and Russian education and science in Spain's cultural, scientific and educational space, and to improve mutual understanding between our nations in general.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the forthcoming November 7 session of the Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue

On November 7, Moscow will host a meeting of the Russian members of the Coordinating Council of the Russia-France civil societies forum Trianon Dialogue under the chairmanship of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

This event has been organised on the eve of the second session of the Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue in Versailles (France) on November 27. It will be attended by the Russian Foreign Minister and his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian.

The first session of the Coordinating Council took place in St Petersburg on May 25 during the official visit of President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron to Russia.

The Trianon Dialogue forum was established at the initiative of the presidents of Russia and France to promote bilateral cooperation through representatives of the respective civil societies.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the forthcoming November 8 joint session of the CSTO Foreign Ministers Council, Defence Ministers Council and the Committee of Secretaries of the Security Councils

A joint session of the Foreign Ministers Council, Defence Ministers Council and the Committee of Secretaries of the Security Councils of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) is scheduled to take place in Astana on November 8 ahead of the CSTO Collective Security Council meeting. Russia will be represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev.

The participants at the joint session, chaired by Foreign Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov, plan to exchange views on the implementation of the decisions adopted by the previous meetings of the CSTO Collective Security Council and compare opinions on the readiness of the documents submitted for consideration by the heads of state of the CSTO countries, in particular, the declaration of the Collective Security Council, statement by the heads of state of the CSTO member countries on coordinated measures against participants in armed conflicts on the side of international terrorist organisations, as well as a number of other documents on CSTO activities, including those on military cooperation, crisis response, the struggle against international terrorism, illegal migration and legal procedures for the granting of CSTO observer and partner statuses.

The CSTO foreign ministers drafted a statement on the pressing issues of countering illegal migration.

Foreign Minister of the Kyrgyz Republic Chingiz Aidarbekov is expected to present the CSTO’s priorities during its Kyrgyz chairmanship (the rotating chairmanship will be transferred from Kazakhstan to Kyrgyzstan during the CSTO Collective Security Council meeting).

The participants also plan to exchange views on urgent issues of international and regional security and practical aspects of consolidating the cooperation of the CSTO member states within the organisation and on the world scene.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in talks with Mohamed El-Amine Souef, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Comoro Islands

On November 8-10, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Comoro Islands El-Amine Souef will pay a working visit to Moscow. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with him on November 9.

The foreign ministers plan to discuss pressing issues of the further development of traditionally friendly relations between Russia and the Comoros in the political, trade, economic, humanitarian and other areas. They will also conduct a detailed exchange of views on international and regional issues of mutual interest with an emphasis on preventing and defusing crises in Africa and the Middle East, struggling against piracy in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean and countering terrorism and extremism.



Situation with Maria Butina arrested in the United States

Officials from the Russian Embassy in Washington regularly visit Russian citizen Maria Butina, who was arrested in the United States three and a half months ago under far-fetched and politically motivated charges.

Thanks to the Russian diplomats’ efforts to have her detention conditions improved, Maria has been transferred to a more comfortable cell. At least it is a warm cell. Her meals have become more diverse, and she has been allowed to buy products in a local store. The prison administration’s behaviour towards our compatriot has become more civil. We acknowledge this.

However, we have also taken note of a recent item published by Associated Press, which claims that Maria Butina was “operating as a secret agent for the Russian government” and was likely spying for it. This new mud-slinging campaign is designed to create a biased attitude towards Maria in American society and to foster new concerns over the alleged Russian interference ahead of the November 6 congressional elections.

As for Maria’s trial on trumped up charges, the hearing has been moved from November 13 to December 6. Nevertheless, active preparations for the trial are underway. Her lawyers hope that their line of defence will help them expose the groundless accusations against Maria.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry of Russia is doing its best to convince the US authorities to put an end to the lawless actions against Maria Butina. We demand her immediate release.



Situation with Kirill Vyshinsky arrested in Ukraine

Ahead of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, we continue to demand the unconditional and immediate release of head of RIA Novosti Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky by the Ukrainian authorities. He was detained without a court decision on charges of treason in May.

We support the public comment by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir, who expressed the hope that Vyshinsky would be released on November 4. However, the latest information from Ukraine indicates that Kiev has not heeded his appeal. Kirill Vyshinsky’s detention has been extended for another month. Journalists have the right to freely express their views and opinions. Under no circumstances should they become targets because of their professional activities.

We urge the concerned international organisations and human rights NGOs to be more resolute in their actions and to denounce all forms of Ukrainian authorities’ pressure on media outlets, such as legal prosecution and physical violence.



Developments in Syria

The situation in Syria remains complicated.

Terrorists from al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda affiliated groups remaining in the Idlib de-escalation zone continue their insolent attempts to torpedo the implementation of the Russian-Turkish memorandum that was signed in Sochi on September 17. Radical militants continue to fire upon the positions of Syrian government forces in the south of the Idlib province and also in the northern and western districts of Hama. Their rocket and mortar attacks hit residential areas in western Aleppo almost daily, killing and wounding more and more civilians.

The situation on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River also remains unstable. Last weekend, ISIS militants launched a series of sudden and powerful strikes against units of the US-backed Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces, killing over 70 Kurds and wounding over 100 more. As a result, the Kurds were forced to retreat from their positions in Al-Susa and other neighbouring communities, secured by them earlier. The Kurds hastened to blame their US allies for the incident, claiming that they did not receive any air support from them. It should be noted that, despite the counter-terrorist operation of the US-led coalition and Kurdish forces east of the Euphrates River, the civilian population continues to relocate there on a large scale and ISIS militants continue to abduct and kill people.

A humanitarian disaster is unfolding at Rukban camp for temporarily displaced persons in a 55-kilometre zone near al-Tanf, southern Syria, which was arbitrarily established by the United States and virtually occupied by it. Mortality rates have increased considerably there, due to food and medication shortages. A UN humanitarian convoy, due to have reached the area on October 25, was delayed until October 27.Following this, the UN then decided not to send it at all for security and logistic reasons. In this connection, we could not help but note critical opinions of US actions in Syria, voiced by independent US analysts last week. For example, analysts from the American Conservative magazine have noted that, despite the US administration’s active attempts to blame Damascus for the critical situation at Rukban, the problem is rooted in US presence and a decision which was made forbidding the legitimate Syrian authorities to enter the above-mentioned zone.

Raqqa has also stained the reputation of the United States and the coalition it leads. The United States’ promise made over a year ago to restore the city which they destroyed is barely fulfilled only the water supply system has been restored on the outskirts of the city. Mine disposal operations have not been launched in Raqqa, and they are not removing any of the rubble either. There is no electricity and the local infrastructure does not operate either.

Nevertheless, the situation in Syria also has some positive aspects. Temporarily displaced persons continue to return back to their permanent places of residence, and Syrian refugees are also being repatriated. On October 27, 175 Syrians returned back home from Lebanon via the Talkalakh and Jaydah border checkpoints, while 325 more people returned home from Jordan via a recently opened Naseeb checkpoint. About 800 people have entered territories, controlled by the Syrian Government, from Idlib via the Abu al-Duhur checkpoint.

Homs governor Talal al-Barazi has promised that the damaged infrastructure and important social facilities will be restored in Palmyra over the next two months, and that local residents might start returning back in the next few days or so.



James Mattis’ remarks on Syria

We have to revisit our regular column, US Officials’ Remarks. US Secretary of Defence James Mattis told the US Institute for Peace in Washington on October 30 that “certainly if it wasn’t for the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, the Iranian regime giving full support to Assad, he would have been long gone. And when that support was not even sufficient and Mr Putin came in, we see the reason that I think eventually Assad will have to be managed out of power.”

We would like to remind Mr Mattis that if it wasn’t for Russian support, Syria as a member state of the United Nations would have been long gone, with a terrorist caliphate flourishing in its place. Before Russia’s Airspace Forces came in in late September 2015, ISIS controlled 70 per cent of Syria’s territory and had every chance to extend its influence throughout the region, primarily to Iraq, by seizing major oil provinces there. Regrettably, the anti-ISIS “coalition” that the Americans hastily put together in the summer of 2014 could not boast remarkable achievements at that moment.

We are equally perplexed by his comment on the prospects for elections in Syria: “I don’t think any election run under the auspices …of the Syrian regime is going to have any credibility with either the Syrian people or with the international community.” In principle, the Americans are masters at putting into doubt the results of legitimate elections; they are fond of sniffing out “foreign meddling,” even if the elections are held in their own country. But why run so far ahead in one’s visionary revelations? In UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the international community has clearly formulated what kind of elections should crown the political settlement in Syria – free and fair, supervised by the UN and conforming to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, granted the right to take part in the ballot. Wouldn’t it be better to take effort to help them advance towards the elections, instead of engaging in pre-emptive and ungrounded criticism of Damascus?

And, of course, his claims that Moscow is seeking “to divert it [Syrian settlement] into Astana Process or Sochi” instead of working through the Geneva process are nothing other than sheer resentment. Russia is contributing greatly to the efforts to achieve Syrian crisis settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, while the Astana negotiating format established by the guarantor countries has worked in close coordination with the UN since inception. Astana has never been positioned as a replacement for the Geneva process. On the contrary, it is a venue designed to incentivise the Geneva talks and increase their efficiency. Hopefully, the groundwork that has already been done and is consistently being improved by the Astana Three will be fully used for a final settlement of the years-long bloody conflict in Syria with Washington’s direct and, what is most important, constructive involvement.



Developments in the Gaza Strip

The situation in the Gaza Strip has seriously deteriorated once again. On October 26, some 30 rockets were fired from Gaza at the Israeli territory, damaging infrastructure in Israeli settlements near Gaza.

On the same day, the Israeli Air Force attacked 80 Hamas and other Palestinian targets. The media have reported significant damage to the city infrastructure and buildings. Another escalation happened against the backdrop of the tensions that have persevered on the border of Israel and Gaza since May. During protests on October 25, the Israeli military killed five and wounded over 80 Palestinians. On October 28, an Israeli drone strike killed three Palestinian teenagers near the border fence between Gaza and Israel to the east of Khan Yunis. On October 29, one Palestinian was killed when the Israeli police dispersed a protest on the coast near Gaza City.

Moscow is concerned about these developments, when ill-judged and hurried decisions lead to an increased risk of a large-scale armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip, which can result in new casualties among civilians on both sides and a deteriorating humanitarian situation on the Palestinian territory.

Once again, we urge both Israel and Palestine to exercise restraint and take urgent measures to prevent another armed confrontation with unpredictable and tragic consequences.

At the same time, as we have repeatedly said, in order to stop violence, it is necessary to restart a peace process using a two-state formula of the Palestine-Israel settlement based on the decisions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative. The recently adopted unilateral decisions that bypass the international legal ground of Middle Eastern settlement are not helping to achieve this goal, and in fact are making it less and less attainable.



Developments in the Central African Republic

Recently, there appeared publications in foreign media about the alleged statements by representatives of some Central African armed groups about their withdrawal from the Khartoum Declaration, signed on August 28, 2018 with the assistance of Sudan and Russia. At the same time, as if in opposition to this move, it was said that militants were ready to support the African Initiative for Peace and Reconciliation in the CAR prepared by the African Union, as well as the actions of the European Union to promote the peace process in this country. It was also noted that the CAR government was asked to withdraw the internal security forces and other representatives of the CAR government from the areas controlled by the armed groups. These materials were published not only without taking into account the opinion of the Russian side, but also without any facts or evidence.

As later developments showed, such publications disseminated by some media were nothing but fakes. This fully applies also to the planted stories about the alleged ultimatum delivered by the militants to the Russian experts in the CAR. Representatives of Central African armed groups, whose signatures allegedly appear on these statements, have denied their complicity and confirmed their adherence to the political obligations they took under the Khartoum Declaration. The thing is that these fake news were on the first pages of all search engines and news aggregators for over a day. This is a shining example of how one fabrication and the further citation of fake news without the use of trusted sources can lead to the spread of misinformation.

It is obvious that the authors of these fabricated publications aimed at creating an impression that the efforts of Russia and Sudan are incompatible with the work of intermediaries as part of the African Initiative for Peace and Reconciliation in the CAR.

As we have repeatedly said, Moscow highly values the role of the African Union in establishing a comprehensive dialogue between the government of CAR and armed groups, and monitors the activity of the African initiative intermediary group, in which Russia is an observer.

Being sincerely interested in the stabilisation and prosperity of the states and peoples of Africa, Russia will support the decisive steps of the African Union to lead crises on the continent out of the deadlock in accordance with the “African solutions to African problems” principle.



Outcome of the Russia-NATO Council meeting

The Russia-NATO Council meeting was held on October 31 to discuss ways to ease military tension between Russia and NATO and to prevent dangerous incidents. The participants also provided briefings on NATO’s Trident Juncture 2018 exercises and Russia’s Vostok (East) 2018 drills.

The Russian delegates emphasised the importance of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty for European and global stability. They pointed out that Russia was interested in preserving the viability of the treaty and remained firmly committed to it, while strictly complying with all of its provisions. We said we were ready to deal with the circumstances of concern to the United States quickly and in the broadest possible way. We also presented our years-long concerns about US compliance with the treaty.

We also exchanged opinions on the situation in Afghanistan in light of regional terrorist threats, as well as on other matters of international security.



The possibility of US withdrawal from the INF Treaty

We deeply regret and are seriously concerned over the US intention, as announced by President Donald Trump on October 20, to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to start developing weapons prohibited under the treaty. We see this intention as one of the most dangerous mistakes made by Washington, which has pulled out of a number of international agreements and organisations, including the ABM Treaty.

The termination of the INF Treaty would be a most dangerous step that would have an extremely negative effect on international security and strategic stability. This could involve several regions in the world into a new arms race. In other words, the situation with the INF Treaty concerns not only Russia and the United States but also the rest of the international community.

We urge everyone who feels responsibility for global stability and security to send a clear signal to Washington about the danger of its plans. Logic suggests that these plans that Washington has should not meet with understanding in states that are committed to maintaining global security. We infer this from comments made by official representatives of a number of countries and the subsequent response from experts and analysts, which we monitor in the international media.

Russia has submitted a draft resolution to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly condemning the United States for its intention to pull down the INF Treaty. We are grateful to the countries that have supported us in this, demonstrating an independent stand and a responsible attitude. As for the other countries, they have in fact neglected the opportunity to speak up in favour of preserving a crucial element of the arms control system.

As it braces up to destroy the INF Treaty, the United States has launched a massive propaganda campaign claiming that its decision was provoked by Russia’s alleged violations of the treaty. This claim is not true to fact and any attempts to shift the blame to Russia are absolutely unacceptable. The United States has not taken the trouble to provide any coherent evidence in support of its grievances. All of its assertions are unsubstantiated and openly provocative. We would like to say once again that Russia has always strictly complied with the provisions of the INF Treaty.

The United States is making these groundless allegations to cover up its own, direct and obvious violations of the treaty, which we pointed out repeatedly in the past few years. We have not received any intelligible answers to our concerns.

Overall, it looks as if Washington’s intention to pull out of the treaty is dictated by a striving to ensure its own military superiority in all spheres and to get an absolute freedom of action for this purpose. There are other facts pointing in this direction, such as the Pentagon’s increasing military activity in Europe.

A recent example is the delivery of the largest batch of munitions in 20 years to a US military base in Germany. This is the largest amount brought since the NATO bombing attacks on Yugoslavia. We wonder what would happen next, if the INF Treaty is terminated. In all evidence, ground-based Tomahawk missiles, which are currently prohibited under the treaty, will too turn up in Europe…

We have to issue a most serious warning to the US side: If they pull down the INF Treaty, we will have to respond. As President Vladimir Putin has said, the response will be immediate and equivalent.

We said more than once that the INF Treaty, although not ideal, is still valuable. We are ready to work to maintain its viability. But to do this, we need a responsible partner who is willing to keep up the dialogue. A solution to this problem can only be found through an open, equal and constructive dialogue. We hope Washington will at last realise this.



The US record of violating or dissolving key international treaties

It is no secret that the modern globalised world is increasingly dependent on the quality of states implementing international agreements that regulate relations between countries. This is of particular importance in fields such as human rights, the environment, and, of course, disarmament and WMD prohibition.

The United States and the Western political circles, the self-styled architects of the “new world order,” constantly violate or drag their feet on the signing of fundamental international agreements. For example, the US ratified the 1948 Genocide Convention only 40 years after its signing. It has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The United States has repeatedly violated principles of the UN Charter. For example, that state launched an armed invasion of Grenada in 1983. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/8 described the US action as a gross violation of international law. In 1986, the US made an assault on Libya and invaded Panama in 1989. Both misdeeds were condemned by the UN General Assembly which qualified them as violations of international law.

The International Court of Justice also denounced US violations of the UN Charter. It passed a well-known verdict on Nicaragua vs. the US in 1986, stating directly that the United States had violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty and the norms on non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and non-use of force.

The irresponsible attitude to the UN Charter on the part of the United States and its allies, translated into the bombing attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In March 2011, the US spearheaded NATO’s intervention in Libya, which led to that country’s complete disintegration. An illegal interference in the form of illegitimate air strikes and arms supplies to nongovernmental armed groups spurred on the growth of radical sentiments in Syria, which eventually helped the emergence of a global community of militants and terrorists. America’s absolutely ill-conceived, short-sighted and illegal actions in Iraq as well as the region as a whole have in some way or other facilitated the emergence of the Islamic State. The consequences of US interference in Libya and Syria are amazing in their scale.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1970 and supported by practically all countries with the exception of Cuba, India, Pakistan and Israel. The treaty outlined a strategic goal, the renunciation of nuclear weapons. Apart from other things, it provided for nuclear states pledging not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. The US claims that it “performs” its NPT obligations but the worrisome situation linked to Washington’s failure to comply with some key provisions of the treaty is still there. The United States continues to engage NATO’s European non-nuclear countries in so-called joint nuclear missions. These “missions” include elements of nuclear planning and skill enhancement drills in how to use nuclear weapons, drills involving non-nuclear NATO countries’ carrier aircraft, air crews, airfield infrastructure and ground support services. All of this is a direct violation of NPT articles 1 and 2. In 2002, certain high-ranking US military officers went on record as saying that they allowed the use of nuclear munitions against non-nuclear states or terrorists.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has been discussed over a period of four decades and signed in 1996. It bans all nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes, in all environments – underground, ground, water, air and outer space. The Treaty was signed by 44 countries possessing nuclear infrastructure. The US and China signed but failed to ratify it. For over 20 years, it was not possible to bring this crucial international treaty into effect. Given that the non-treaty countries take their cues from the United States in the matter of joining the CTBT, Washington’s stagnant stance is the main obstacle standing in the way of tuning the Treaty into a valid international legal instrument.

In 1972, the USA and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) that created a mutual assured destruction system. Neither the USSR, nor the USA could attack each other, for a response was sure to destroy the aggressor. Thus, a missile attack automatically became an act of suicide, with the so-called “strategic balance” being established between the two superpowers. This agreement was signed at Washington’s initiative. In 2001, US President George Bush declared that the Americans were unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement. The formal pretext for this step was that the United States wanted to secure itself against missile attacks from so-called “rogue countries” and terrorist groups. This could be taken for granted, if we didn’t see their strategic planning aimed at avoiding international commitments in the spheres where it was important for them to assure their total domination. This is a strategy. Therefore, their explanations that Russia allegedly is failing to live up to its commitments under some or other treaties are just subterfuges. Today I will familiarise you with the real history of US politicians’ behaviour in the area of international law.

Since then, the US efforts to put in place an antimissile system have most adversely affected the international security system, aggravating relations not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also in the Asia Pacific region, emerging as one of the most serious obstacles to the further stage-by-stage nuclear disarmament and creating dangerous prerequisites for a resumption of the nuclear armed race.

The next point is the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which prohibits the development, production, transportation, diffusion and use of chemical weapons, as all of us well know. Apart from this, it provides for the creation of a complex and total international surveillance system. The US played a key role in drafting and signing this agreement. But it was and is doing its best to avoid international inspections as likely to threaten their national security interests. We have been hearing this explanation from Washington for many years. Some other countries have followed in the footsteps of the US.

The next agreement, Biological Weapons Convention, was signed in 1972 and came into force in 1975. It banned the development, production, stockpiling and acquisition of biological agents that could be used as weapons and of biological weapons proper. The Convention included a special protocol that banned the use of even tiny quantities of deadly microorganisms or toxins for research purposes. The US was rather a reluctant participant in efforts to reach an agreement on the Convention, while some senior US officials were in principle against the signing of the protocol as it would likely damage the interests of US microbiological research companies. In July 2001, Washington declared that it would not abide by the protocol until it was amended.

The next document is the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The aim of the Convention was to reduce industrial atmospheric emissions causing the so-called “greenhouse effect.” The “greenhouse effect,” in turn is believed to be one of the main causes of the global climate change. The US signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1992, but in 2001, the then US administration refused to comply with its provisions, saying that there was no unambiguous proof of the relationship between global warming processes and the amount of gaseous emissions. The Bush administration believed that implementing the Convention put the US industry in a quandary while not helping to fight the “greenhouse effect.”

I think it makes no sense to reiterate the information concerning the Paris Agreement. All of you know what has happened to it.

In assessing compliance with the obligations under Vienna Document 2011 (VD11) on confidence and security-building measures, the United States keeps reiterating the same accusations against Russia, citing “selective implementation” and “insufficient transparency.” However, this US dissatisfaction with Russia boils down to some vague concerns from 2014 in connection with “Russia's implementation of the document, including in relation to Ukraine.”

By groundlessly accusing Russia of “arming and training separatists in Eastern Ukraine and conducting joint military operations,” the United States and NATO countries have seriously discredited the role of this document as an instrument of objective control of the military activities of the OSCE member states.

The United States and its allies have repeatedly circumvented the restrictive provisions of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) through the NATO expansion everybody knows about. At the same time, they in every possible way avoided the renewal of the regime of conventional arms control (CAC) in Europe proposed by Russia in accordance with the new military and political realities on the continent. The most vivid confirmation of this, for example, is their refusal to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (adapted CFE).

In August 2018, the United States froze cooperation with Russia under the Treaty on Open Skies. Practically from the very moment of the signing of this document, Washington has been ignoring its requirements to work out special procedures for the aerial observation of its islands and territorial waters. Thus, for a long time a significant part of US territory was simply inaccessible for observation, which was a gross violation of the foundations of the Treaty. Only at the end of 2015 did Washington meet Russia’s requirements. However, the procedures for the Aleutian Islands still provide no possibility for the flight crews to rest there, which may adversely affect flight safety and significantly limit Russia’s ability to observe this part of US territory.

On August 31, the US authorities demanded the suspension of the work of the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco, the trade mission in Washington and its branch office in New York until September 2. After this, the buildings belonging to Russia were seized. According to many legal experts, these actions of the United States with respect to Russian diplomatic property are illegal because they violate the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

At the October 3 briefing, Assistant to the President of the United States for National Security Affairs John Bolton said the US was withdrawing from the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which allowed Convention violation disputes to be settled by the UN International Court of Justice in the Hague.

US President Donald Trump said Washington is withdrawing from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, which we have already talked about today.

This is a far-from-complete list of examples of how the US treats international law, international agreements. They are actually manipulating these documents depending on the current political situation and predominant interests in Washington.

Therefore, when we are told that the US is withdrawing from some agreement because we are not complying with something there – this is not true. Such excuses will not work.

This is just a small list of how they joined and withdrew from international agreements; signed but not ratified them; signed, ratified, but not complied with them; or modified agreements in their own way and taste. It can be expanded.



Statements by National Security Advisor to the US President John Bolton on Russia-China military and technical cooperation

We have noted the statements made by National Security Advisor to the US President John Bolton at the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington about the use of Russian military intellectual property by our Chinese partners.

In this relation, we would like to say the following: Russia-China military and military-technical cooperation has been developing very successfully and shows the special trust-based nature of our bilateral strategic partnership. It seems to be haunting some, and these statements prove it. It is not the first and probably not the last clumsy attack aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and China. They will not succeed.



United Kingdom’s WTO obligations after Brexit

We noted publications by some British media alleging that Russia is “blocking” the mutual approval of Great Britain’s future individual tariff obligations in the World Trade Organisation, which will be the foundation of London’s participation in the multilateral trade system after Britain leaves the European Union.

We note that the agreement with all interested members of the WTO on the parameters of a candidate joining the organisation or a review of a permanent member’s obligations is a practice explicitly provided by the organisation. It is a long process during which the conditions for entering the market are outlined.

It is quite natural that our country has begun bilateral consultations with Great Britain about the possibilities and conditions for the Russian economic operators’ access to the British market following Brexit.

By the way, many other WTO members have begun or will soon begin similar consultations, including the largest WTO economies.

Thus, the reports about Russia’s alleged hindering the discussion on the conditions of London’s future participation in the WTO are absolutely incorrect. We are ready to review the list of tariff obligations provided by Great Britain if it complies with WTO rules and respects our business interests. Russia is only trying to make its British partners aware of its position in relation to the future multilateral and bilateral trade obligations of Great Britain in the WTO.

We again urge the British media to deliver measured, objective and correct information when they report on our country or any other state.



French Government spokesperson’s statement to Russian media and the situation with Le Figaro

The other day, French Government spokesperson Benjamin Griveaux said that there were two media outlets that he refused to see in the Elysee Palace press room, RT and Sputnik, because he did not consider them to be media but propaganda tools. To say we were surprised to hear this would be an understatement.

Mr Griveaux, as polite people we will refrain from excessively dramatising the situation; we will try and be constructive even when we see a real problem, specifically a problem with censorship in France, attacks on the freedom of speech, attempts to influence the media, and the incessant circulation of unreliable information in the local media. We have always been rather careful. We either sent letters to news desks explaining why the information they had published was unreliable, or we took the initiative to promptly provide the correct data. We have always been very considerate in our relationship with France but after your statement, Mr press secretary of the French Government, I will respond today with some of our own considerations.

Neither the Foreign Ministry through diplomatic channels nor RT or Sputnik journalists have received any specific and fact-based accusations with supporting evidence (for example, articles by RT or Sputnik with a highlighted phrase, a word or a date). France and specifically Benjamin Griveaux have never come up with any specific complaints against Russian media or substantiated arguments in favour of their views. If they have these facts we would really like to see them.

Without a doubt, another batch of unfounded accusations against Russian journalists are not so much disconcerting as shocking. We are confident that this is the result of French authorities’ reluctance to hear alternative information sources. In which case, please be so kind as to tell us about this directly. The problem is not RT or Sputnik allegedly being propaganda media outlets. Unlike Mr Griveaux, we, on the contrary, seek to provide the French media with firsthand information in order to avoid misunderstanding and diffusion of misinformation. Paradoxically, some French media outlets are proactive in shirking this opportunity. I repeat, there are many things that we try not to make public and to resolve in a confidential manner, demonstrating a respectful attitude to the profession and an understanding that all kind of things may happen. This was been the case until today, when the French Government spokesman made his statement.

As you well know, not so very long ago we organised Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s joint interview by some French media, including RT France (Russia), the Paris Match magazine and Le Figaro. The Russian minister found time for a detailed talk with the journalists (images from that meeting are available on the Foreign Ministry website; the interview was widely quoted by other media). The purpose of the interview was to convey our vision of the situation in bilateral relations and international affairs to the French audience. Despite numerous requests from other media outlets and a very busy schedule, Sergey Lavrov assigned much time precisely for this meeting with the French journalists.

But something really amasing happened later. The interview was published by RT France and Paris Match on October 18 (as was originally intended by arrangement with all the three media outlets). However, it has not yet appeared in Le Figaro! What I mean is that the French newspaper was given an exclusive opportunity to ask the foreign minister any questions (and the edition even sent its deputy editor-in-chief as the interviewer) but eventually decided against publishing the answers to their own questions. Both the questions and answers are available on the Foreign Ministry website.

We decided to publicise this matter not only because of Press Secretary Benjamin Griveaux’s statement. There is another reason. The fact is that the Internet users started discussing the situation and it was not Russian but French users.

Even the popular French economist and blogger Olivier Berruyer drew the attention of his Twitter readers to the fact that Sergey Lavrov’s interview was missing in Le Figaro. So, even the French public is perplexed.

For our part, we sent an official request to Le Figaro asking for explanations but have not received an answer yet. As we understand from some incoming unofficial comments, the publication was cancelled due to [the violation of] certain “ethical norms,” namely, Moscow’s “failure” to let the paper’s local correspondent, Pierre Avril, to attend the interview.

Can you, the journalists present here, who attend Sergey Lavrov’s news conferences and ask him any questions you like, believe that the Russian Foreign Ministry denied a French own correspondent access to an interview?

Originally, the matter of whether this respected journalist or any other person representing Le Figaro apart from Deputy Editor-in-Chief Yves Threard was not raised or discussed with the Foreign Ministry although we had held several meetings with RT France, Paris Match and Le Figaro.

Pierre Avril himself did not signal his intention to be present at the interview either. Neither did we receive any requests to put this journalist on the list of interviewers.

The French correspondent arrived at the Foreign Ministry without prior notice at the last minute and insisted on entering the building which, like the foreign ministries of other countries, is a high-security facility. Moreover, the French journalist behaved disparagingly vis-à-vis the Russian National Guard officers who were guarding the entrance and respectfully reminded him about the need to obtain in good time a permit for entering the ministry in keeping with the established procedure known to any foreign correspondent.

I repeat, the format of the interview was agreed upon in advance with all the three participants and originally implied personal attendance of only one representative from each of the three media outlets, that is, without Pierre Avril.

The interview itself followed a previously coordinated scenario, and Le Figaro’s Yves Threard freely asked Sergey Lavrov his questions in front of the cameras.

Considering these facts, we believe that if Pierre Avril thinks he has the right to call the situation I’ve described a “denial of access,” then it is a blatant lie.

Or are we witnessing an act of censorship or self-censorship? Is this a sign of some internal squabbles at Le Figaro? Perhaps, the French officials themselves, who do their best to avoid meeting with the Russian press, should find this out before accusing Russia of propaganda, censorship and what not? Mr press secretary, here is a concrete example of what is going on in your own country. I wanted to tell you about this without the cameras and the public, but you’ve forced me to.

Lately, RT alone got over 70 (!) interview denials from French officials. I mean, Russian officials give interviews to French media and freely communicate with them. But it is Russia that is accused of practicing censorship and pressurising the media! Our media outlets are declared propaganda mongers. Russian media in France file a request in order to provide a platform for French officials to state their point of view on air. And these offers get rejected. And this is not qualified as censorship or pressure on the media. The form and methodology of denials are very varied, from glib excuses (for example, busy schedule) to a flat “no” without any explanation. There is no doubt that in France we are facing political put-up job approved from on-high and designed to create a certain toxic atmosphere around RT and Sputnik. Occasionally even arranged interviews were cancelled and so we do not rule out that pressure was brought to bear on members of the French political elite with regard to their contacts with the Russian media.

I would also like to dwell on the personality of Le Figaro’s Pierre Avril. In all the almost ten years (which is not a short term at all) that he’s been working in Moscow, the French journalist has very rarely attended Foreign Ministry events and did not express any interest in interviewing the ministry’s senior officials. The question is: what does this man write about?

Here is just one example. In July 2016, the Foreign Ministry Press Centre organised a press tour for foreign correspondents to the Republic of Crimea. The main aim was to let them attend a briefing given by the Foreign Ministry spokesperson at the Artek children’s camp. We really wanted to show the media how the infrastructure of this major facility had been restored within a very short amount of time. We wanted to give foreign journalists an opportunity to visit Crimea, talk to Artek managers and, since they were there, attend the briefing.

After we announced the trip, requests started coming in from those who wanted to participate as well as requests for arranging additional meetings and visits to sites and facilities in Crimea. Specifically, we were asked to show the Crimean Bridge (everybody said at the time that the bridge would never be built) and the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet facilities. Unlike Artek, these sites were included in the trip upon journalists’ requests.

Pierre Avril, who refused to participate in the majority of the press tour events, said at the last minute (it must be his stock in trade to do everything at the last minute) that he wanted to attend a meeting with the Sevastopol Governor and visit the Black Sea Fleet facilities. Naturally, we responded to his request and made the necessary arrangements.

So, what did Pierre Avril do next? He published an article titled “Moscow Exhibits its Fleet on the Roadstead of Sevastopol” (“Moscou exhibe sa flotte dans la rade de Sébastopol”). Its key message was that, with the NATO summit approaching, Russia allegedly is flexing its muscles and sending other states a signal illustrative of its militaristic sentiment. Moreover it used foreign correspondents to do the job. Pierre Avril literally begged us to put him on the list of visitors but later claimed that he had been practically dragged to Crimea by force and made to look at Russian warships against his will.

It is incredible how the reality can be readjusted so much. This is simply mean! Yet, we dealt with that matter in a composed manner, without presenting any ultimatums to the French side or accusing them at official levels of using the media for propaganda.

Unfortunately, this is not the only article that shows Pierre Avril’s approach to covering events.

Going back to the theme of ungrounded accusations from the French Government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux against the Russian media, we would like to note the following.

Le Figaro’s refusal to publish the interview with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is direct proof that the French authorities and society do not accept a different point of view on Russia, among other things, and do their best to minimise the French audience’s exposure to the Russian point of view on a number of bilateral and international topics. In so doing, they are trying to accuse foreign media, including Russian outlets, of engaging in propaganda. This is very unfortunate. It is a case of manipulation.

Regrettably, this unprofessional and unacceptable policy deprives French people themselves of an access to truthful information. Undoubtedly, this discredits the notion of journalistic ethics and tarnishes the reputation of France’s oldest and most influential newspaper, Le Figaro.

And now, I would like to address the French Government’s spokesman, Benjamin Griveaux. Do you think that after such boorish behaviour towards the Russian side and Russian journalists, the French journalists will be allowed to attend media events at Russian government agencies ad infinitum? Our patience is not endless.

We are ready to discuss and solve problems based on mutual respect and without ungrounded accusations. We understand that the French leadership apparently holds some personal grudge against Russian journalists. However, this is not a pretext for engaging in manipulation, as I have just said.



Russian fishing boat Nord detained in Ukraine

On October 30, Russia was finally able to exchange seven crew members of the Russian fishing boat Nord for seven Ukrainian fishermen from the YaMK-0041 seine boat detained off the coast of Crimea for poaching. The Russian citizens are now back in Crimea.

Captain of the Nord Vladimir Gorbenko remains in Ukraine on charges of “violating the procedure for entering the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine” and “illegal fishing.” The case is awaiting trial. The efforts to have the captain released from custody will continue.

According to the Russian Embassy in Kiev, the Ukrainian agency for the identification, search and management of ill-gotten assets obtained through corruption or other crimes put up the seine boat for sale on an online auction, which will take place on November 7, with the starting price set at over 1.6 million hryvnia. Let's wait and see who has the nerve to buy the illegally seized property of a Russian shipowner.



Remarks by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin

We reviewed Mr Klimkin’s remarks regarding dual citizenship. He recognised the need to discuss this issue in Ukraine. However, he explicitly stated that Ukrainians holding Ukrainian and Russian passports will not be part of the discussion, further suggesting that they should be ready to comply with the requirement to renounce Russian citizenship.

It is surprising to hear the Foreign Minister of a country that declares its adherence to certain standards in the sphere of human rights and democratic freedoms make such discriminatory statements. This is a blatant infringement on the rights of Ukrainians based on citizenship and ethnic background. This is yet another proof of the low level of legal awareness of the incumbent Ukrainian authorities.



The alleged spotting of an unidentified submarine in the Swedish territorial waters

We have taken note of publications in the Swedish media about a foreign submarine spotted in the territorial waters of that country near Stockholm this summer, which were eagerly circulated by certain politicians and experts alluding to the “Russian trace.”

Let’s leave this media hype that has been artificially stoked for several decades now on the conscience of those who are trying to keep this story afloat.

Myths about Russian submarines in Swedish territorial waters are nothing other than a propaganda ploy used to stir up the fear of Russia among the public and to keep the story about the “Russian threat” afloat.

This approach does not serve the interests of improving stability and security in the region, nor does it contribute to normalising Russia-Sweden relations, which have already deteriorated in recent years. Clearly, the forces behind such bogus stories fear the restoration of a mutually respectful dialogue between Moscow and Stockholm.

The absurdity of the submarine speculations was acknowledged, albeit with a time lag, by the Swedish military, who chose to distance themselves from the fantasies of the reporters and would-be experts who specialise in creating scandals out of the blue and see Russian submarines everywhere they look. There are ancient Greek myths, and now there are Swedish myths about Russian submarines. Many generations have now been raised on both.



The first Youth Forum of Russian Compatriots in Kazakhstan

The first Youth Forum of Russian Compatriots in the Republic of Kazakhstan dedicated to the 90th birth anniversary of Chingiz Aitmatov and the 20th anniversary of Astana was held in Astana on October 20.

The forum was attended by about 100 young delegates from all regions of Kazakhstan, including school and college teachers of the Russian language and literature, journalists, historians and columnists, as well as representatives of the academic and cultural circles, the Cossacks and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Prior to the forum opening, the participants observed a minute of silence to commemorate those who died in the Kerch tragedy.

The forum had four plenary sessions, namely, Chingiz Aitmatov: Writer and diplomat; Celebration of the 20th anniversary of Astana; Preserving historical memory: Victory Volunteers public movement; and Media in the new information space.

The participants elected the Youth Council of the Russian Compatriots in the Republic of Kazakhstan and adopted Regulations on the Youth Council and the Forum Resolution.



The second Global Forum of Young Diplomats

The Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats will host the second Global Forum of Young Diplomats, Together into the Future, in Sochi on November 12-14. The agenda includes approving the Charter of the International Association of Young Diplomats, developing new formats of youth expert cooperation, drafting the horizontal diplomacy concept, and discussing important international matters and economic diplomacy. High-ranking guests are expected at the forum.

The Global Forum of Young Diplomats is the result of five-year efforts by the Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats seeking to organise and hold similar events that are traditionally attended by proactive young foreign ministry employees. The discussions held behind closed doors allow to focus on the current agenda and exchange views on the most important international matters in an open and impartial manner.

This year, 120 delegates from over 60 countries are expected to attend.

For accreditation, please call the Information Service of the Council of Young Diplomats at 7 (916) 487-4354.



Unveiling memorial plaque to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna in Darmstadt

On November 1, Darmstadt in Germany’s Land of Hesse hosted an official ceremony of unveiling a memorial plaque to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, nee German Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt and by Rhine, in her birthplace. This initiative was jointly implemented by the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society International Public Organisation and the Darmstadt City Hall, with the active support of the Russian Embassy in Berlin and the Russian Consulate General in Frankfurt-am-Main.

Chair of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society Sergey Stepashin, Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev, Darmstadt Mayor Jochen Partsch, representatives of the Orthodox Christian clergy, and Russian and European representatives of cultural and academic communities attended the ceremony.

The memorial plaque is the first joint international project in the history of Russian-German cultural relations that aims to perpetuate the memory of a member of the House of the Romanovs. As you know, the history of Russian and German imperial houses is closely intertwined, and both of them are linked by genuine blood bonds.



Russian Film week to open in the Czech Republic

On November 5-11, the Czech Republic will host the New Russian Film festival. Sponsored by the Russian Embassy and Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation, its main partner, the event will be held under the patronage of President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman and will become the largest recent Russian film festival in that country.

During the festival, over 20 films, including documentaries and animated films, will be presented in Prague, Jihlava, Olomouc and Zlin. The festival’s full programme will help local audiences gain an insight into various aspects of Russian culture and traditions. Many prominent Russian cultural figures will visit the Czech Republic. Cosmonaut and two-time Hero of the Soviet Union Viktor Savinykh, who served as a prototype for the main protagonist of the feature film Salyut 7, will take part in the festival’s opening ceremony.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Public attention is currently focused on the South Caucasus because of the elections in Georgia and Armenia. What are Russia’s expectations in connection with the outcome of these elections and future relations with these South Caucasus states? How might the results of the elections influence security in the region?



Maria Zakharova:

Armenia will not hold elections proper. It will be a completely different procedure.

As for the elections in Georgia, they are an internal political process, which is not over yet. Observers have provided their assessments. It is an internal affair of Georgia.

What I can say on the matter is we regret that anti-Russian statements have been made during the election campaign, which is ongoing. This is regrettable and cannot help normalise bilateral relations. The people of Georgia must be able to make an objective choice freely and without any external pressure. They must be able to make a choice of crucial importance for them and their country’s future in a normal atmosphere. We will provide answers to all questions after they have voted.



Question:

How important is mutual understanding among Caucasus nations for Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

There can be no two opinions on that axiomatic matter. It is very important for Russia to develop full-scale relations with these countries in all spheres. We have said so time and again.



Question:

President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced the launch of a military operation against the Kurds in northern Syria. The Turkish artillery is shelling the Kurds’ positions. At the same time, ISIS units have launched an offensive and have pushed the Kurds from their positions on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. It appears that Ankara is coordinating its operations, at least against the Kurds, with international terrorists, although Turkey is part of the peace process in Syria, in particular, in Idlib and in other regions. How will Russia react to such situations?



Maria Zakharova:

The assessment of military operations and the situation on the ground should be provided by the defence agencies’ military experts based on concrete data.

As for the situation with the Kurds and their political movements, parties and organisations in Syria, you know that we have always called for involving them in the political process. We sent out warnings about the danger of supplying weapons in circumvention of Damascus or encouraging any activities, including military actions, without coordinating them with the legitimate Syrian government, considering that the goal is a political settlement.

Speaking about the fight against terrorists, these efforts must be coordinated with the government army. You know about our position on this matter. We have been very active in this sphere, advocating the involvement of the Kurds, rather than their separation or isolation, or the formulation of any unrealistic goals or promises. First of all, we have always relied on the practical results of our analysis of the situation, and second, we have always called for the political involvement and coordination of counterterrorism operations, including between the Kurds and Damascus.



Question:

The Russian Government has imposed counter sanctions on a number of Ukrainian individuals and legal entities. How, in your view, will the West respond to this move? What is the objective of these counter sanctions, in terms of foreign policy?



Maria Zakharova:

The Government has provided an explicit explanation. Some 90 minutes ago, we heard additional comments from the Presidential Executive Office. Dmitry Peskov answered all questions to this effect. I have nothing to add. He said that these were, regretfully, symmetrical measures. Call it as you like. This is a move in response to Kiev’s actions.

As for the West’s reaction, I believe that people preaching an essentially global sanction-based ideology, should understand this, the more so as this is not our initiative to impose sanctions but rather a retaliatory measure. Russia seems to have long been holding back from taking such measures but the existing regime in Kiev has just gone too far for us not to respond to the unfriendly moves we have witnessed of late.



Question:

Are preparations being currently made for the Moscow format on Afghanistan that involves Taliban representatives?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, they are. Practical work is currently in progress on this matter. I cannot tell you when exactly this is going to happen but I believe I will be able to provide you with concrete information in the not too distant future. I myself have been looking forward to this for a long time now. I would like to repeat it again that the date of the meeting, its format, participants, and the venue for it have to be one hundred percent approved by all parties involved before they are announced. As soon as this is done, we will certainly inform you. I strongly hope that we will do this within the next few days or so.



Question:

This week, Moscow hosted the International Conference on Combatting Anti-Semitism, Racism and Xenophobia entitled Protecting the Future. At the same time, a steady rise in manifestations of racism and Russophobia in some European countries and former Soviet republics cannot but raise concerns. What steps need to be taken to counter this?



Maria Zakharova:

Various steps can serve this end. Here we are talking about the moves that a state is expected to take, otherwise we are likely to slip into theorising. Of course, these steps include cooperation between public authorities, on the one hand, and civil society, NGOs and public figures, on the other, as well as developing a new methodology or improving the old tools that help check the spread of xenophobia, racism and other forms of intolerance. Of course, they include the improvement of the legal framework for actions both within the country and on the international arena, which is precisely what Russia is doing. As you know quite well, many years ago Moscow initiated the adoption of a resolution on the topic you just mentioned by the UN General Assembly. We see that the number of contributors to this resolution is steadily growing from year to year, along with the number of countries supporting it, although it was not plain sailing for us at the beginning. Even those countries which showed concern, in particular, over anti-Semitism-related matters, were not in any hurry to support this document. The situation changed a few years ago.

Here is another example, which demonstrates how to make the approach global. This involves initiating and holding more public events organised around this theme, such as conferences and exhibitions, increasing public awareness, through the media, of the relevant measures that are being taken in a country, as well as of international cooperation on this matter. Of course, I believe that tolerance to similar phenomena should be zero at all levels of executive and legislative authorities. Public statements should send an explicit and unambiguous message – and that not only in theory but also in practice. Unfortunately, manifestations of racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, Russophobia and related intolerance happen rather frequently around the world and this is why it is important to make clear and unambiguous statements that such phenomena are unacceptable. This answer is brief, although this theme is vast.



Question:

US President Donald Trump decided to send up to 15,000 soldiers to the Mexican border. How do you think this will affect regional security?



Maria Zakharova:

Will they build a wall? Make a human shield? These questions just lie on the surface. I saw a short report, but I don’t know what exactly they will be doing there. We need to ask the American side to clarify what exactly these people will do there – build a wall, become a human shield, or something else. I do want to hope it will not lead to more violence and bloodshed.



Question:

Britain has followed Canada in legalising marijuana. What do you think this will lead to?



Maria Zakharova:

I felt no emotion except for concern caused by this trend we are witnessing. We talked about this, in particular, citing the example of Canada. I will again ask the experts for materials specifically on the UK decision. However, our position, which you know well, has remained unchanged.



Question:

Shortly before the elections in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, a number of Western countries and international organisations began saying that these elections do not correspond to the Minsk Agreements. Can you comment on this? How does Moscow generally feel about the elections in the DPR and LPR?



Maria Zakharova:

We have seen many statements by our Western colleagues regarding this matter, both in the media, and even during UN Security Council meetings. I would like to repeat that the decision on holding elections of the heads of the self-proclaimed republics and their People’s Councils lies with the people of Donbass themselves. As you know, the elections at this level were announced after the assassination of DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko, killed in Donetsk as a result of the terrorist attack no doubt aimed at destabilising the region. It is important to keep in mind that his signature stands under the Minsk Agreements.

It is obvious that in the current circumstances, the elections scheduled for November 11 are prompted by the need to fill the “power vacuum” after Zakharchenko’s death and to prevent an exacerbation of the situation, which could adversely affect not only the life of the region, but also the entire Ukrainian crisis resolution, also amid the Kiev-imposed blockade of the region and the threats of using force voiced by the Ukrainian leadership.

As for the legitimacy of the elections, something we have also read and heard a lot about, we assume that they are not related to the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, which regulates local, i.e., municipal elections. People just need to live, to improve and regulate their own lives and maintain order in the region under conditions of the blockade and the constant threat of the use of force by the Ukrainian authorities.

On October 30, this issue was raised during a meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to Ukraine, initiated by Great Britain, Poland, the United States, Sweden, the Netherlands and France. At the insistence of Russia, the event was held in an open format so that everyone could hear the truth, and not a distorted and one-sided interpretation of the situation in Donbass.

We also proposed inviting the chairs of the central election commissions of the DPR and the LPR because there were so many statements regarding the elections. What could be better than getting information directly from the source, asking them questions, or possibly accusing them of something, but hearing some reaction in response? However, our Western colleagues blocked this initiative by refusing to give them an opportunity to explain their motives for holding the elections. So there is an accusation, but the accused do not have a chance to present the facts or at least to explain their motives. We believe that these countries’ refusal to give the floor directly to the representatives of Donbass leaves no doubt as to the bias of the Western approach. What were they afraid to hear? What could these people from Donbass say that would be so terrible to hear within the walls of the UN headquarters? Please note that during procedural voting, half of the council members did not support this line.

So this is clearly an attempt to use the discussion in the UN Security Council as a veil for the total and shameless sabotage of the Minsk Agreements by Kiev. We regret that Washington and the European capitals, which stood behind the coup in Ukraine in 2014, have never stopped giving Kiev new encouraging signs and indulgences for the current Ukrainian leadership's anti-Russia domestic and foreign policies. Moreover, the Ukrainian people are suffering the most from these actions, which have already led to economic decline, social degradation and fratricidal war.

Nevertheless, we will continue our consistent diplomatic efforts to improve this unacceptable situation.



Question:

Social media and the Arabic segment of the internet are filled with reports that Russian security services allegedly knew about the incident in the Saudi Consulate in Turkey and handed over the information to the Turkish security services. What comments would you make concerning such allegations and this stovepiping?



Maria Zakharova:

It is horrible that a tragedy – and from the official statements that were made we already know it was a tragedy – is accruing so many political conspiracies and insinuations as we are witnessing right now. From the very first days, our country stated that in this case only one thing is required – an impartial and comprehensive investigation of this tragedy. We proceed from the premise that there must be an investigation, after which political evaluations can be made. There can be differing opinions of the person, his activity or personality but we must understand that what happened is a tragedy. Instead of providing conditions for an impartial and objective investigation, a massive and equally tragic campaign is unfolding around the circumstances of this case, although there is no official information regarding the circumstances.

There have been a huge number of allegations. We have read all kinds of theories. But we believe there must be an investigation. When the investigation is over, respective conclusions and evaluations will follow. Please do not take these allegations into account. I think there will be more of them. Therefore, the importance of a thorough and prompt investigation increases.



Question:

A couple of days ago now, the United States called for the Arab coalition to stop air strikes on Yemen. What is your opinion of this request? Is Russia ready to provide a platform for direct contacts when it comes to Yemen?



Maria Zakharova:

Not only are we ready but we have repeatedly said that the situation in Yemen is a horrible modern humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our very eyes. We offer regular assessment of this crisis. Consistently, without changing our stance, we have been saying that it is extremely important to move to a political settlement of the situation as soon as possible in order to end this crisis. It is necessary to help the people to survive and restore their country.

Certainly, as a member of the UN Security Council largely involved in foreign policy on the international arena, Russia is addressing this problem too and providing all possible assistance for implementing the approach that I described. If there is a need for Russia to intensify its efforts, I think we will consider this and act accordingly.

Here in this very room, we often call for the international community to pay close attention to the real problems rather than make up imaginary challenges and threats that do not exist. Yemen is a real problem. We can see how much effort and energy the Western society spends on inventing non-existent problems, from Salisbury to Amesbury, constantly playing different cards in the context of the Syrian crisis settlement, drawing attention to what does not exist. At the same time, they seem to ignore what is happening in Yemen. The scale of response is incommensurate. We have been bringing up this subject on a regular basis and will continue to do so.



Question:

My question is about a statement made by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday evening as he spoke at the Policy Exchange think tank. His statements sounded a tad undiplomatic and contained accusations against Russia.

In this regard, is it safe to assume that the UK is moving away from the international language of diplomacy? What does Russia think about the prospects for establishing a dialogue with London? The British Foreign Secretary said they would very much like to find a way to bring Russia back to the negotiating table. Is Russia willing to take the first step and have a meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

At this point, British officials and diplomacy are, unfortunately, mutually exclusive notions in most cases. What they are doing is, for lack of a better word, nothing short of sophisticated rhetoric. It is completely unclear what London means when it states its desire to bring Russia back at the negotiating table. With regard to the Salisbury incident alone, Russia has sent dozens of documents with proposals to London to begin a discussion, or at least to provide some information. That’s a specific example of a proposal to start the negotiating process. We got nothing in response. So, again, this is twisted rhetoric in the sense that it is already beyond the limits of cynicism. Although, unfortunately, we are accustomed to this in the context of the statements that we keep hearing from London.

I have repeatedly pointed out that, despite the ongoing over-the-top Russophobic attacks and the show of disrespect towards Moscow by a number of British politicians and officials, we have stated on every occasion that the value of bilateral relations in the context of promoting ties between our nations is so high that despite the unfriendly rhetoric coming from the current British authorities with regard to Russia, we keep the door open and use every opportunity to remind them of the need to build normal relations. Everything that has ever been blocked in bilateral relations has been blocked by the UK. They need to show some courage and admit this.



Question:

A meeting between President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is underway. What do you think Chancellor Merkel will come up with in her talks with President Poroshenko? In light of the fact that she is gradually withdrawing from the political scene, there is much speculation about whether Germany will stick to its politics.



Maria Zakharova:

First, I’m not sure she would agree with what you just said. Second, I think that it is not correct to comment on the talks while they are still underway.

In the context of the European states and Germany’s participation in the dialogue with Ukraine, Moscow believes that it is important, first, to have Ukraine fully implement, or at least revisit, the issue of Ukraine’s compliance with the Minsk agreements. Second, it is important to unblock the humanitarian situation and resolve security issues in Donbass. As we have stated here today, it was indeed blocked by the Kiev regime. Third, there are issues that must be dealt with right here and now, such as the spread of nationalism in Ukraine, manifestations of xenophobia and intolerance, and be dealt with on a national scale. After all, on earlier occasions we have witnessed developments that even Kiev described as the actions of “isolated” groups. Today, however, we see these “disparate” and “isolated” groups actually controlling the situation on the ground. The authorities are unable to counter this with any ideology that would curb the growth of the nationalist sentiment.

This is literally about just a few points that lie on the surface. From our perspective, the Western handlers, who have supported everything that has been unfolding in Ukraine’s political arena for so many years, would do the right thing if they pose these questions to Kiev now.

I believe that in this particular instance and in the future, the Western leaders should use the format and the possibilities offered by direct dialogue with the Ukrainian leadership to raise the issue of Kirill Vyshinsky. These people talk so much and so often about freedom of speech, respect for journalist rights and human rights in general. Here’s a specific case where they can put all their knowledge and skills into practice. For six months now, this journalist has been under arrest solely and exclusively for his professional activities. What could be a more egregious act of human rights violation? That’s the shortlist.



Question:

What can you tell us about the appointment of a new Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

Along with other UN Security Council members, Russia has supported the decision made by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to appoint a Norwegian diplomat, Geir Pedersen, as Special Envoy for Syria.

We are counting on an impartial and constructive approach for the benefit of the Syrian settlement. I would like very much to hope that he will be primarily guided in his actions by the interests of the long-suffering Syrian people.

Of course, it is too early to talk about the steps that are being taken, since he was appointed just a few short days ago. We know Mr Pedersen as an experienced diplomat. However, he will need to accomplish quite a lot in this position.



Question:

The OSCE Minsk Group has been engaged in mediation for a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement for over 20 years now. Russia is doing much in this regard as well. Since, unfortunately, the conflict hasn’t yet been resolved, what steps, do you think, should be taken to bolster the Minsk Group’s mediation efforts?



Maria Zakharova:

Its effectiveness must be improved. How do we go about that? I think it’s up to the special representatives who deal with these matters to do all the thinking and take the practical steps.

The steps are known and include the negotiating process, contacts with the parties and progress based on existing agreements. This is all part of the diplomatic routine.

However, if you are talking about the specific steps planned by Russia for the near future, I have no such information. However, I will go ahead and clarify this for you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3394727
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 6th, 2019 #529
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais, November 5, 2018



5 November 2018 - 22:00




Question:

What is your opinion of the Russian-Spanish bilateral relationship, and what priorities would you like to discuss during your visit to Madrid?



Sergey Lavrov:

The people of Russia and Spain share a centuries-long history. Evidence of this are several dates we marked recently, including the 350th anniversary of the first Russian Embassy led by Pyotr Potyomkin, a courtier of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and the 40th anniversary of the resumption of diplomatic relations between our countries.

Madrid is a major partner for Russia in Europe today. A regular top-level political dialogue is contributing to the friendly atmosphere in our bilateral relations. Trade is growing consistently. Last year, it increased by 20.6 per cent to $5.3 billion. This positive trend continued this year as well. The Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Industrial Cooperation, which will convene for its 10th meeting soon, is working productively.

Our humanitarian cooperation is growing stronger. The Year of the Russian Language and Literature in Russian in Spain and the Year of the Spanish Language and Literature in Spanish in Russia were held successfully in 2015-2016. We continue joint preparations for the Cross-Year of Education and Science in 2019-2020.

We are also promoting tourist exchanges. Success in this sphere was largely due to the Cross-Year of Tourism held in 2016-2017. Over one million Russians visit your hospitable country every year. I am happy to say that the number of Spanish tourists in Russia is growing as well. Last year, some 120,000 Spanish tourists visited Russia.

Contacts between our foreign ministries have become more intensive. Over the past few years, my Spanish colleagues visited Moscow twice. We also met at various multilateral events. I look forward to meeting my new counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation Josep Borrell, with whom I hope to hold a detailed discussion on the key bilateral, European and international topics.



Question:

Economic cooperation between Russia and the EU has suffered a serious setback because of Ukraine and Crimea, which led to sanctions and countersanctions. What, in your opinion, should Russia do to move away from the state of confrontation? What is your country willing or able to do to achieve this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The current state of Russia-EU relations cannot be regarded as normal. I think our Spanish partners agree with this too. The mythical “Russian threat” is being imposed on the Europeans mostly from the outside. As before, the main irritant is the European Union’s shortsighted decision to introduce – at the direct command from Washington – unilateral restrictions against Russia. Interestingly, the Americans themselves are sustaining no losses. By inertia, the European bureaucracy has also frozen the majority of dialogue mechanisms of practical cooperation that had proven their effectiveness in the past.

The business circles in Europe are the closest to objectivity in their assessment of the situation. A report issued by the Eastern Committee of German Economy in August is highly indicative in this regard. It recommends revising the EU strategy on Russia and launching full-scale economic cooperation.

Sources name different figures of losses the EU states have sustained due to these sanctions. According to some estimates, we can say this sum exceeds 100 billion euros. The important thing is that European politicians should at last see the light.

We have repeatedly said that we are ready to abolish the countermeasures. But it is the EU that should take the first step in this direction, as it was the first to start the spiral of sanctions. We hope that common sense will eventually prevail. After all, objectively, the sanctions are benefitting neither Russia, nor the EU.



Question:

In 2015, President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement on joint actions to ensure safety of flights over Syria. This agreement proved its efficiency for three years. Will it remain in effect and if so, will it be adjusted?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have indeed reached an understanding on the need for interaction to prevent conflicts in the air between Russia’s Aerospace Forces in Syria and the Israeli Air Force. I am referring precisely to an understanding rather than a written agreement modelled on the October 2015 Russian-US Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the Course of Operations in Syria.

Regrettably, the Israeli side did not always deliver on its obligations, primarily where it concerned notifying the Russian military of their combat operations in Syria. In a number of cases, this put into jeopardy the lives of Russian servicemen: a case in point is the Israeli bombing raid on facilities in the environs of Palmyra in March 2017.

We warned them that this attitude could lead to tragic consequences; these signals were conveyed through all channels and at the top level. Simultaneously we stressed that the use of force was unable to resolve Israeli security concerns and could only foment regional tensions.

Nevertheless the practice of delivering strikes at targets in Syria was continued. It is this that led to the tragic downing of the Russian Ilyushin Il-20 reconnaissance plane with 15 officers on board. I will not go into detail of this tragedy. The details are known and specialists are well aware of the reasons. After the September 17 incident, we could not leave everything as is. Russia’s response was reserved but resolute.



Question:

Russia’s allies in Syria are President Bashar al-Assad, Iran and Turkey. But there are also US and European NATO forces, as well as the armed opposition in Syria. Can all of them unite to fight Islamic radicals and to restore peace in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

In our opinion, this would be the best solution, which we have long been advocating. Terrorism is a global challenge that can only be neutralised if we join forces on the basis of international law.

President Vladimir Putin, in his address at the UN General Assembly in September 2015, put forth the initiative on creating a broad UN-led anti-terrorist front. Unfortunately, our Western partners did not support it, which is regrettable because terrorists are threatening all members of the international community without exception. Nobody will be able to sit it out in a safe haven.

I would like to add that the status of the military presence in Syria of the countries you mentioned is far from equal. For example, the Russian military have been deployed in Syria at the request of the legitimate government. The Americans entered the country without the permission of its government, which runs contrary to international law and actually amounts to foreign occupation of a sovereign state.



Question:

Do you believe US President Donald Trump’s declared intention to improve bilateral relations? If so, why do you believe it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Donald Trump has declared his intention to normalise Russian-US relations more than once in public comments and during bilateral contacts. I believe that he really wants to improve the atmosphere for our dialogue and find points of contact on many issues, and this is not because he has a special feeling for our country. The incumbent US President is a pragmatic man who holds America’s interests above everything else. And he knows that stable and predictable cooperation with Russia would certainly benefit the American people more than useless confrontation.

There are very many global issues that concern the interests of both Russia and the United States. As the world’s largest nuclear powers, we bear special responsibility for strategic stability and global safety. There are other spheres where we will have to work together, from the fight against terrorism and other challenges to the settlement of regional crises, the development of trade and economic ties, as well as the issues of the environment and climate.

It is common knowledge that the United States is going through a difficult stage in its internal development, which is having an effect on normal interaction. The Russian card is being actively used in the political infighting and Russophobic sentiments are being whipped up in Washington. We hope the US elite will eventually settle their internal problems and their infighting will no longer poison the Russian-US ties. This would allow us to resume full-scale cooperation and help improve the international situation.



Question:

Do you think it is possible to identify and settle concrete problems in relations with the United States, such as disarmament, despite the atmosphere of general mistrust that is the worst since the Cold War?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are ready to work pragmatically to find solutions to the problems that have complicated our relations. First of all, we are ready to launch a constructive dialogue in the spheres where the interests of Russia and the United States objectively converge and where there is an opportunity to achieve positive results. However, identifying and settling concrete problems has so far been impossible because of the US position.

For example, we have long proposed dealing with the numerous irritants in bilateral relations, such as the unacceptable situation with the arrest of Russian citizens in other countries upon US requests, or the situation with Russian adoptees in the United States. Many of them can be settled if there was good will on both sides. However, Washington has evaded looking for solutions, citing an unfavourable atmosphere in bilateral relations and the situation in Ukraine and Syria.

Our joint work is being seriously hampered by the internal political problems in the United States. Regrettably, even the Russian-US disarmament talks, which are vital for global stability, have been made hostage to this infighting. It is notable that the Republican administration has announced the intention to pull out of the INF Treaty ahead of the November 6 midterm elections to Congress. It likely hoped to strengthen the positions of republican candidates in this way.



Question:

Ideology was the main cause of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West during the Cold War. What is the main reason for the Russia-West differences now?



Sergey Lavrov:

In brief, the main reason is the striving of some Western countries to preserve their leading international positions at all costs, to continue to force their will and values on everyone and to attain their mercenary goals at the expense of other members of the international community.

These sentiments are especially strong in the US political establishment, which is stubbornly refusing to accept the objective realities of the nascent polycentric world order and continues to see the United States as the one and only global leader whose orders all other countries must follow.

Logically, they see Russia’s independent foreign policy and independent stand on the main current problems as a threat to the US and, on a broader scale, to Western domination. This is why unilateral economic sanctions and other restrictions have been applied against Russia, including the military build-up near our borders and the unprecedented anti-Russia information campaign.

We would like to hope that the Western capitals will eventually see that this is a dead-end track. For our part, we have always been and remain open to a constructive and pragmatic dialogue and relations based on international law and mutual respect and in the best interests of each other.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399090






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks and answers to media questions at the news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and International Cooperation of Spain Josep Borrell, Madrid, November 6, 2018



6 November 2018 - 17:53







Mr Minister,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very pleased to be in Spain and continue our dialogue with our Spanish partners. By tradition, our bilateral relations are constructive and based on mutual respect. As we noted today, their roots go back ages.

Last year we marked the 350th anniversary of the first visit by a representative of our land to Spain, and in two years we will observe the 500th anniversary of the start of the correspondence between Charles I and the then Moscow Prince Vasily III.

No doubt, in the current difficult situation in Europe and the circumstances in which our relations with the European Union and NATO are developing, which was mentioned by the minister, our ties with Spain are fairly positive and are making headway in all areas The 2009 Declaration on Strategic Partnership remains a solid foundation of our contacts and relations.

We were pleased today to note the growth of trade for the second year running. Last year it exceeded five billion dollars and is likely to increase this year.

The Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation that held a meeting in Moscow last year is actively working. It will hold a meeting in Madrid this year or in the beginning of next year.

We conducted an overview of issues for the intergovernmental commission to discuss. Energy Minister Alexander Novak co-chairs it on Russia’s behalf. Today our colleagues informed us that the new government of Spain has also made its decision – it will be co-chaired on Spain’s behalf by Minister of Industry Reyes Maroto. We are all for that decision.

Both countries have positively assessed the performance of the Business Council that resumed its work several years ago. We consider it to be a very important mechanism for direct dialogue between entrepreneurs of both countries.

We are also pleased to mention that the bilateral Interdepartmental Group on Countering New Challenges and Threats with an emphasis on counter-terrorism has started its work. On July 3 it held a regular session in Madrid. Now we are preparing for its next meeting in Moscow. We hope that these contacts will lead to success of the joint efforts to conclude an intergovernmental agreement on counter-terrorism cooperation. Its draft is now being reviewed by our Spanish colleagues.

We have agreed to step up work on other aspects of the contractual basis of our relations. In particular, we are finishing up work on a document for mutual recognition of driving licenses and an agreement on mutual recognition of education documents. I think both documents will foster more comfortable conditions for contacts between our citizens.

Our cultural and humanitarian ties are making headway. The cross year of science and education will be next year, following cross years of language, literature and tourism. We have also decided to redouble preparatory work and step up the coordination of the events planned for the year.

We welcome regular intensive contacts between our foreign ministries. Today we have signed a plan of consultations for 2019−2020. Naturally, we discussed key international issues, paying attention to the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. The challenge of reaching settlements in Syria, Lebanon and Libya will require serious additional efforts.

We have also discussed opportunities for our cooperation at different venues, including the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

We have also exchanged views, as my colleague has already said, on the current status of Russia-EU relations. Both sides are sincerely interested in normalising relations. However, we obviously cannot ignore such a serious destabilising factor in the Euro-Atlantic as expanded NATO activities in areas that are essentially on Russia’s borders.

We also have a common interest in cooperating in the Council of Europe. As you know, this organisation is undergoing a crisis caused by the flagrant violation of its Charter that requires equal representation of all its member states in the Parliamentary Assembly and all other bodies of this pan-European institution.

We have also spoken about Ukraine. Like Spain, Russia believes that there is no alternative to honoring the Minsk Agreements. Responding to the interest expressed by our partners, we described in detail, citing facts, the destructive line pursued by the Kiev authorities in their determination to subvert their own commitments.

In general, I consider such talks fairly useful. We will continue our foreign policy dialogue at all levels. I have invited the Foreign Minister of Spain to pay a reciprocal visit to the Russian Federation at his convenience.

Thank you!







Question:

Brussels is working on a special mechanism for trade to circumvent the restrictions invoked by the US sanctions against Iran. Will this help promote independence from US financial institutions? If this mechanism goes into effect, will Moscow support it?



Sergey Lavrov:

US actions against Iran are absolutely illegal. They flagrantly violate UN Security Council resolutions. The forms in which they were announced and are carried out are bound to cause great disappointment. We believe that nobody has cancelled the norms of international law and international communication. It is unacceptable to pursue a policy based on ultimatums and unilateral demands in our era.

Regarding the basics of what was announced and how it will affect trade and economic ties with Iran, I would like to note that we believe that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was signed in 2015 and unanimously approved by the UN Security Council will be valid for those who remain a part of this deal. After the US withdrawal from the plan, the Europeans, Russia, China and Iran itself have confirmed their participation. Now the JCPOA joint working group is developing mechanisms that will make it possible to continue implementing the provisions, primarily concerning economic ties with Iran, without US participation. This is not an easy task. You have seen what unacceptable methods have been used to exert pressure on SWIFT operators. However, experts are actively dealing with this issue. They understand that counter measures are possible and will be found.



Question:

Several Western countries have accused Russia of the attempts to influence the elections in the US. Can you comment on this please? What do you think about NATO’s military activities on Russia’s borders?
Sergey Lavrov: This is not interesting at all and nor is it new. These accusations have been made against us since 2016. In this context, those who make these accusations mention not only the elections in the US, but the referendum in Catalonia, recent elections in Sweden and our alleged involvement in the Salisbury case. Not a single fact has been quoted to support these accusations although whenever we are suspected of anything we suggest discussing professionally the grounds for these accusations at the negotiating table. Thus, we have forwarded several official notes to our British colleagues with a request to fulfil their commitments under international agreements that can justify their accusations against us and a demand to present our citizen who has been held somewhere for half a year with her father who is also a Russian citizen. We received an official reply that we will not be told anything because this is a matter of UK national security. Not a single fact confirming our involvement in any elections, be it in the US, Catalonia, Macedonia or Montenegro has been cited.

I spoke with the minister about this today. He said that some Russian media go beyond their journalistic mission and are involved in unacceptable interference in domestic electoral processes in other countries. I told the minister, as I am telling you now, that we prefer to discuss such issues professionally rather than with a microphone, if there are questions for Russian citizens or the Russian media. We do not want our relations with Spain, our good friend, to go awry. We want these concerns not to be silenced but to be presented based on specific facts. I reminded my colleague that we have repeatedly suggested to our European and US partners establishing bilateral working mechanisms on cybersecurity issues. We will have to deal with this for the foreseeable future. Cyberspace is being used for very diverse purposes, including questionable purposes. We stand for discussing emerging issues through dialogue. It seemed to me that our Spanish partners are interested in the idea of establishing a working group on cooperation in ensuring cybersecurity.

As for NATO’s military activities on our borders, Russia is worried about this because it is creating a threat to our security. They crudely violate the Russia-NATO Founding Act that compels the parties to abstain from permanently deploying significant armed forces on the territory of new members. We are seeing brigades deployed in the Baltics and the US global missile defence system in Romania and Poland. Polish leaders have come up with an initiative to permanently deploy US divisions on a base on their territory.

The US has announced its intention to walk away from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, something that is bound to evoke concern. It is clear that all steps undertaken by our NATO colleagues to build up their infrastructure and military presence on Russia’s borders are bound to cause reciprocal measures, primarily in the military technical area.

However, this does not mean that we are interested in escalating tension. Quite the contrary, we are suggesting that they back their interest in de-escalating tension by practical actions and, to begin with, resume full-fledged contacts between the militaries. Regrettably, our NATO colleagues are trying to avoid this subject but I believe that eventually reality will compel them to do this.



Question (addressed to Josep Borrell):

Did you discuss the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty? What do you think of it? Do you know how to solve this problem?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Josep Borrell):

I can only welcome what has been said just now. When the US declared its intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty, US National Security Advisor John Bolton was on a visit to Moscow. We gleaned from contacts with him – during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin and talks at the Russian Security Council and the Russian Foreign Ministry – that the decision had been taken. What remains to be decided is when specifically to launch the procedure of US pullout from this Treaty.

The Treaty was signed by the USSR and the USA and it primarily concerns our two countries. But it is clear that at the time it was characterised – and this assessment was repeatedly confirmed – as a cornerstone of global security and stability. There are no indifferent people among serious politicians where the case in point is what is happening to this Treaty and its fate.

When the US intention was made public, we, given the Treaty’s truly global importance, suggested that the emerging situation should be discussed at a UN General Assembly session and submitted proposals on holding a discussion on this matter. Regrettably, the proposal was turned down. Many parties, particularly small countries, were simply reluctant to pick a quarrel with the Americans. But the surprising thing was that all the EU countries voted also against discussing this topic at the UN General Assembly session. I hope the European Union’s position is unrelated to the essence of its approach to the content of the Treaty.



Question:

Russia-US relations are strongly dependent on the domestic political situation in the United States. Do you expect our relations to improve after the upcoming midterm elections?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I said, all charges that we meddled in the past presidential elections or will interfere in the current elections have proved empty verbiage. No one has presented us with concrete facts, despite our numerous requests to that effect. This concerns the presidential election held two years ago. It is obviously for the same reason – the lack of any facts with regard to the midterm elections – that US officials have already stated that there is no evidence of any Russian interference in these elections.

Their outcome will be decided by the American voters. We are not just confident, we know for certain that domestic political perturbation has a direct bearing on relations between Washington and Moscow. Our ties, contacts and global security partnership, which is so eagerly awaited by many countries, have fallen hostage to domestic political squabbles in the United States. I will not engage in guesswork as to how the outcome of these elections will influence our relations in the future. We should first wait until the returns are announced. First of all, we would like the internal situation in the US to calm down for Washington to be able to focus on some positive international steps aimed at promoting equitable cooperation.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

You have mentioned the territorial integrity of Spain and Ukraine. What is your position on Crimea? You have also said that the EU, Spain and Russia should conduct a constructive dialogue. Could Spain contribute to the revision of the sanctions or do something else to change the situation that has developed because of Crimea and the Skripal case?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Josep Borrell):

This is getting a bit repetitive, but every time I am invited to speak on Ukraine and Crimea I have to yet again point out the root causes of the situation.

I would like to remind you that on February 21, 2014, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the leaders of the opposition signed an agreement on the settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis, which provided for an early election simultaneously with the creation of a national unity government. That document was signed by representatives of France, Germany and Poland on behalf of the European Union. Barely a day later the agreement was trampled underfoot by the opposition. Germany, France, Poland and the EU as a whole did not utter a word or made any gesture to demonstrate their disagreement or to indicate that anti-state and anti-constitutional coups are unacceptable. The EU simply accepted the fact that radical forces seized power in Ukraine.

The first thing the new authorities did was to abolish the law that guaranteed the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. One of t the armed coup leaders, Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the so-called Right Sector, a radical neo-Nazi organisation, announced that ethnic Russians do not belong in Crimea, because Russians would never think or speak like Ukrainians and would not honour Ukrainian heroes, who, to him, include Nazi collaborators Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich. Dmitry Yarosh said this is why Russians in Crimea must be eradicated or deported. Next, he sent armed hoodlums to storm the Supreme Council of Crimea. This is when the Crimean authorities called for a referendum. The referendum was held, and everyone who wanted to get first-hand information had the opportunity to go there to monitor the process. Many Western NGO representatives and cultural figures were in Crimea and could see how the referendum was held. Russia could not but recognise its results and respond to Crimeans’ decision to reunite with Russia.

In the past few months, laws were adopted in Ukraine on education and on Ukrainian as the only state language (the latter law has so far been adopted in the first reading), which stipulate that Ukrainian shall be the only language of tuition at schools and also prohibit the use of any language other than Ukrainian at work, in everyday life, in shops, fitness clubs, cinemas and theatres. The only exceptions concern the EU languages. This is open discrimination of only one language, Russian, which is the language of the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people. I have written personal letters on this subject, including to High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, as well as senior officials of the UN, OSCE and the Council of Europe. So far nobody, not even the EU leaders, has reacted to these letters in any manner. We still do not know what the EU thinks about Ukraine’s attitude towards a large share of its population or how this relates to the Ukrainian Constitution, which seals the authorities’ duty to protect the rights of national minorities, including Russian speakers. Not to mention the numerous European and international conventions to which Ukraine is a party and which oblige it to ensure the language, education and other rights of all national minorities. I repeat that we are still waiting for a reaction from the EU leadership, to which we communicated our concerns.

You also asked about the Skripal case. I have nothing more to add. I have said what we think on this score. If there are any concrete facts, we are ready to discuss them. As for now, our main requirement is that London give us access to the Russian citizen and her father. Sergey Skripal has dual citizenship, Russian and British, whereas his daughter only holds Russian citizenship. It is unacceptable that we have been denied access to her for over six months and our request for proof that she is alive have not been heeded. I believe there is nothing to discuss here until the UK revises its arrogant position.

As for the sanctions, I have said that Spain is one of the countries that are aware of the abnormal situation in Russia-EU relations. If the EU is ready to start acting to improve this situation, we will certainly reciprocate. But it was not us who started this. I would like to remind everyone that the sanctions were adopted for the free expression of Crimeans’ will in the face of extermination threats from terrorists. The sanctions were also imposed on Russia because Donbass refused to recognise the anti-constitutional armed coup. I do not accept these decisions by Brussels as justified.

In my opinion, those who want to normalise relations with us and who are aware of the counterproductive situation must take the first step within the EU and to coordinate their future relations with Russia.

We know that the EU takes consensus decisions, but consensus is usually a midpoint, a compromise between two extreme positions. So far, the EU consensus on Russia is based on the lowest common denominator, that is, the position of a Russophobic and very aggressive minority. As I said, we will reciprocate as soon as the EU takes the first step towards normalising relations with us. I am sure that this will benefit all EU member states and Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400181






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 17th Meeting of Heads of Special Services, Security Agencies and Law Enforcement Agencies that are Foreign Partners of Russia’s Federal Security Service, Moscow, November 7, 2018



7 November 2018 - 14:07







Colleagues,

I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak at a meeting of heads of special services, security agencies and law enforcement agencies that are foreign partners of Russia’s Federal Security Service. Your annual meetings have become a useful format of interaction aimed at enhancing security of all our states and citizens.

Harmonising your efforts is important at this point. The world is facing numerous challenges. The surge in international terrorism is of particular concern. Despite significant successes in fighting ISIS and other such groups, the terrorists continue to pose major threat to all countries without exception. They adapt to changing realities and diversify their sources and channels for obtaining financial and logistical support for their activities, including through strengthening ties to drug trafficking and organised crime.

It was already mentioned today that three years ago, at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, President Putin invited the nations to form a universal front to counter this global scourge. For the time being, however, geopolitical ambitions, hidden agendas, double standards, and oftentimes the attempt of some to use radical groups to achieve selfish ends in the international arena are still standing in the way of truly collective, coordinated actions.

Currently, the armed gangs in Syria and Iraq have seen their opportunities to regularly eke out their “budget” severely undermined. However, the resistance of the terrorists in this region is not completely broken. One of the reasons is the continuation of external material support for the radicals, including weapons.

Russia has repeatedly pointed to this problem. We held an international conference, Countering the Illicit Arms Trafficking in the Context of Fighting International Terrorism, in Moscow in September, which was attended by 132 representatives from 25 states and 10 international organisations. The conference laid the foundation for the development of common approaches to fighting the illegal supply of arms to terrorists, and helped narrow divides in the positions of states in the sphere of antiterrorism in general. We will continue to work consistently toward strengthening our cooperation in this important area.

Having suffered a military defeat in Syria, the terrorist groups are building new footholds, recruiting networks, and sleeper cells in other countries. They continue to take advantage of both the continuing fragmentation of the international community and the fact that not all states have taken the necessary legislative and law enforcement actions at the national level.

Foreign terrorist fighters returning in large numbers to their countries of origin or third countries are one of the most dangerous consequences of such a policy. The terrorists are making a special effort to go to countries whose legislation and law enforcement practice makes it hard to prosecute them.

The problem of foreign terrorist fighters requires a comprehensive solution that involves international law. It is critically important to ensure that no one evades justice who is involved in terrorist activities as set forth in the corresponding UNSC resolutions. We urge everyone to engage in active, good-faith international cooperation, including on matters of reciprocal legal assistance, timely sharing of information on the whereabouts of persons involved in terrorism, and their extradition.







We should continue to focus on countering the spread of terrorist and extremist ideologies as well.

The states and their competent authorities have a decisive part to play in resolving these issues. International antiterrorism cooperation should be built strictly on the basis of universal legal norms, the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions, which underlie the activities of the corresponding bodies of the UN Secretariat.

Russia maintains a reserved attitude towards any initiatives that do not take these key principles into account. I am referring, in particular, to the concept of “counteracting violent extremism” (CVE) promoted by a number of states. The problem here is not the name or the term itself, but the content of this concept, which not only ignores the antiterrorism legal framework agreed upon by the UN, but also allows for interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of supporting civil society in the face of authoritarian regimes whose actions are allegedly the root cause of the spread of radical sentiment. Those behind this concept are, in fact, ready to justify extremists and to justify their exemption from criminal responsibility. Clearly, one cannot agree with that.

Russia has an unparalleled and successful history of countering terrorism and extremism. At some point, we actually had to fight these threats in our country, which were supported from the outside, all by ourselves. However, not only did we defeat the terrorists, we also consolidated our successes by adopting a set of legislative, political, and socioeconomic measures with a focus on improving interethnic and inter-religious social harmony. Civil society institutions and religious figures were involved in this work. As a result, a nationwide anti-terrorism system has taken shape.

Based on our experience, Russia is ready to participate in developing universal cooperation standards in countering any extremism as the forerunner of terrorism. Important results have already been achieved in this area.

Last June, the states parties to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation signed the Convention on Countering Extremism which contains well-considered joint approaches to combating extremism as a source of terrorism, including in its non-violent form, and provides for cooperation even at the stage of preparing and organising attacks against laws and traditional values ​​of the society concerned. The Convention imposes on the participating states the obligation to counter the spread of extremist ideology and to suppress public support and incitement to terrorism. We invite all our foreign partners to study this document with an eye towards possible accession. The Convention is open to signing by any state.

Colleagues,

I have already mentioned earlier that the attempts by certain forces to use various radical groups to incite extremist sentiment and destabilise the domestic political situation in a particular country run counter to our attempts to build honest and effective cooperation on the antiterrorism track. Unfortunately, such destructive practices remain in effect. The support provided by some players in the Middle East to the notorious White Helmets is a case in point. Under the guise of pseudo-humanitarian activities, this organisation is carrying out blatant provocations and staged incidents in order to create a pretext for the illegal use of force against sovereign states.

We urge all the countries and non-governmental organisations that work in hot spots to prevent any interaction with extremists and strictly follow the rules of international humanitarian law and the UN-approved principles of waging an uncompromising fight against terrorism.

Colleagues,

The international community has at its disposal many effective levers for antiterrorism cooperation. I am convinced that the results of your discussion will contribute to their more effective use for the benefit of our nations in order to strengthen global and regional security.

Thank you and I wish you every success in your work.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400807






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the joint meeting of the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers, CSTO Council of Defence Ministers and CSTO Committee of Security Council Secretaries, Astana, November 8, 2018



8 November 2018 - 14:26







Question:

Can you say for certain that President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump will meet in Argentina?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is an agreement to this effect. I have no other information at the moment. Moscow and Washington have publicly confirmed this.



Question:

Can there be any surprises, as it sometimes happens?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can only tell you what I know now. Moscow and Washington have publicly confirmed this. There is an agreement on this score. Members of the Russian President’s Executive Office have said everything there is to say about this meeting.


***







Question:

Which of the long list of issues will be given priority at the Putin-Trump meeting?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a contrived question, because there are many issues on the meeting agenda. The presidents will discuss whatever they think necessary.


***


Question:

Has the candidate for the post of the CSTO Secretary General been chosen, or are the discussions ongoing?



Sergey Lavrov:

The presidents are discussing all issues.


***






Question:

Did you discuss the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with your colleagues?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we held in-depth discussions on this issue at a meeting of the foreign ministers yesterday. We have a common position, according to which the INF Treaty is a vital tool for maintaining international security and stability and, hence, that it should be preserved. By the way, we adopted a statement to this effect at the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Almaty back last summer. Today we will submit to the heads of state a draft declaration that covers all aspects of the CSTO competence. It includes a provision on the importance of preserving the INF Treaty.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403279






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the meeting with Mohamed El-Amine Souef, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Comoro Islands, Moscow, November 9, 2018



9 November 2018 - 12:01







Mr Minister, сolleagues,

We are glad to welcome you to the Russian Federation. As far as I know, this is your first visit to our country, and we hope you will enjoy it.







Our countries have traditionally friendly relations, which were established after the Comoro Islands gained independence. We cooperate in the UN and other international organisations very closely, share a common interest in specific steps towards combating various threats, including international terrorism and drug trafficking. We would like to actively promote trade and economic cooperation – we have a whole range of interesting, promising areas of focus, which we will be discussing today as well. We hope to consider in detail the issues that we touched upon during out brief contact in New York this September.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403868






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the second meeting of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan, Moscow, November 9, 2018



9 November 2018 - 12:53







Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

I would like to begin by thanking you for accepting the invitation to come to Russia for the second meeting of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan. This format is designed to coordinate the development of an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue towards promoting the process of national reconciliation and the restoration of peace as soon as possible in the long-suffering Afghan state.

This process is in the best interests of the people of Afghanistan, who suffer numerous casualties and hardships every day. All countries in the region and the international community as a whole sincerely want to see the revival of a peaceful, independent and prosperous Afghan state free from terrorism and drug trafficking.

Afghanistan’s problems can only be settled politically, through the attainment of national accord and with the involvement of all parties to the conflict. In this context, we welcome the delegations of the Afghan High Peace Council and the Taliban. Their presence at today’s event will greatly contribute to the creation of favourable conditions for the launch of direct talks between the government, the Taliban and representatives of broad public and political forces in Afghanistan.

Russia as the organiser of this event sees its role in working together with its regional partners and Afghanistan’s friends to help launch a constructive intra-Afghan dialogue. Clearly, there are many obstacles we will have to overcome on this path, including the sides’ mutual complaints and mistrust.

We hope that responsible politicians will not be guided by personal or group considerations but by the interests of the people of Afghanistan. We deeply empathise with the suffering of the Afghan people, and we are resolved to do everything in our power to help them turn a new page in the history of Afghanistan.







Colleagues,

All our countries are facing the threat of international terrorism, one of whose targets is Afghanistan. ISIS as the spearhead of terrorists, supported by its foreign patrons, has tried to turn Afghanistan into a bridgehead for its expansion into Central Asia and the whole of our vast region. Our countries and the multilateral organisations active in the region must help the people of Afghanistan foil these plans and root out the terrorist threat.

Russia stands for the preservation of a unified and indivisible Afghanistan where all of the country’s ethnic groups will live happily at peace with each other. I do not doubt for a second that this approach is shared by the other participants of the Moscow format and that all of us are acting in the fundamental interests of the Afghan people. We must not think in terms of geopolitical games, which can only make Afghanistan an area of international rivalry with grave consequences for the people of Afghanistan and their neighbours.

I hope we will have a serious and constructive conversation which will justify the expectations of the Afghan people.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403878






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Comoros, Mohamed El-Amine Souef, Moscow, November 9, 2018



9 November 2018 - 15:48







Good afternoon,

Our talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Union of the Comoros are finished. The talks were held in a friendly atmosphere and were very useful. We have confirmed mutual resolve to continue to promote our bilateral cooperation in many spheres and to work together towards more fully using its potential. There is considerable potential for cooperation in fishing, renewable energy, the provision of fresh water, and agriculture. We have agreed to help our business communities establish direct ties and exchanged opinions on international issues, reaffirming the identity or similarity of our views.

Russia and the Comoros hold similar views on achieving global and regional stability. We agree on the need to pool international efforts to find solutions to common challenges and threats, which must be done on the basis of international law.

We spoke up for settling the numerous conflicts around the world, including in Africa, exclusively by political and diplomatic methods. We share the opinion on the positive cooperation that has developed between our delegations at the UN. We expressed gratitude to our Comorian colleagues for supporting Russian priorities in combating the glorification of Nazism, as well as international information security and non-placement of weapons in outer space.

We held an in-depth discussion on the situation in Africa and the possibility of settling regional conflicts, primarily in the Sahel-Saharan region, or more precisely, in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Horn of Africa and South Sudan.

Moscow firmly supports the principle formulated by the African countries, “African solutions to African problems.” The Africans themselves must discuss ways to settle conflict situations, while the international community should provide assistance to the African Union and sub-regional African organisations with the coordinating role of the UN. Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council will continue to actively contribute to these efforts.

We also discussed counterterrorism in light of the need to join forces to combat this global evil. We pointed out that the memorandum our law enforcement agencies signed several years ago is having a positive effect on our cooperation. Under the memorandum, Russia is training law enforcement personnel for the Comoros.

We are satisfied with the results of our talks. I would like to express gratitude to my colleague and to give him the floor.







Question:

What can you tell us about the Comoros decision to withdraw its recognition of Kosovo’s independence? Did you discuss the issues of Mayotte during these talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

Naturally, we welcome this step by the Comoros. Let me recall that flagrantly violating international law in 1999, Western countries – NATO members, Washington and its allies – bombed Yugoslavia for two and half months. Nine years later they recognised the unilateral proclamation of independence by the Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo in a bid to legitimise their aggression in retrospect.

Russia will continue to work persistently for the implementation of UN Security Council decisions, notably Resolution 1244 that records the territorial allegiance of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo to Serbia. Any further steps on settling this obviously unstable situation should certainly be based on respect for Resolution 1244 and should proceed from the resolution’s provisions.

We have welcomed the dialogue to find mutually acceptable solutions that Belgrade and Pristina have held in the past few years. We supported the role that the European Union began to play as a mediator in this dialogue. However, the EU’s efforts have fallen short because Pristina is refusing to abide by the intermediate agreements in this respect.

In particular, I am referring to the need to establish a Community of Serb Municipalities, and Pristina’s desire to from its own armed forces in crude violation of Resolution 1244. In the process, Pristina is obviously being pushed from the outside, in part by the United States.

Of course, the decisions of some countries to revise their positions on Kosovo’s recognition, to withdraw it or abstain from taking a decision on it, testified to their responsible approach while relying on the standards of international law. We certainly welcome these steps.

As for the second part of your question about the Island of Mayotte, let me recall that a referendum on the independence of the Comoros was held in 1974 by UN decision. According to the terms of this referendum, the final decision was meant to apply to all four islands. However, as distinct from other states, France decided not to recognise the results of the referendum as determined by the UN General Assembly. France has refused to recognise the independence of Mayotte and continues retaining it illegally, despite the numerous UN General Assembly resolutions on this issue.

We noted today that in 1975 the Union of the Comoros was admitted to the UN with its entire territory of four islands. The UN General Assembly Resolution is a foundation for approaching this issue in the context of international law. Let me put it this way: the countries that organised the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and of Mayotte from the Comoros, and made many attempts to change the regimes whenever they felt like it in violation of international law, are blatantly displaying double standards. I am hoping that those in future discussions of international relations today will abandon this practice once and for all.



Question:

Austria suspects a former Austrian army officer of spying for Russian intelligence. Chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz has threatened to take reciprocal measures and demands a clear-cut answer from Russia. Federal Minister for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs of Austria Karin Kneissl has cancelled her visit to Moscow scheduled for December2-3. How will Russia respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

I just learned about this before the start of this meeting and, to be honest, this news was an unpleasant surprise for me. According to the established practice, going way back, if a country has concerns or suspicions about the actions of another country (i.e. involvement in some processes) that are seen as a threat, it is supposed to directly ask the other country for an explanation in accordance with international law. However, regrettably, in recent times our Western partners have made a rule of resorting not to traditional diplomacy with its decency but rather to microphone and megaphone diplomacy, accusing us publicly and demanding explanations on issues we know nothing about.

Again, it is necessary to follow the standards that were developed during the creation of the practice of international relations. We will invite the Austrian Ambassador to the Foreign Ministry today and will emphasise at our meeting with her what methods should be used if they have questions for the Russian Federation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404241






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


9 November 2018

On the telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey M. Chavusoglu - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404610


10 November 2018

On the telephone of S. Lavrov with the Federal Minister of European, Integration and Foreign Affairs of the Austrian Republic K. Kneisl - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406308
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 6th, 2019 #530
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:





Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna Mr. Mikhail Ulyanov at the 5th intersessional meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna, November 7, 2018



8 November 2018 - 17:28




Madame Chairperson,

Distinguished colleagues,

I would like to start by welcoming at our meeting Mr. Viroj Sumyai, President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). We highly appreciate the role of the Board in the implementation of the UN drug control conventions. We would like to once again congratulate the INCB on the occasion of its 50-th anniversary.

In his statement Mr. Sumyai touched upon a very topical issue, which is of grave concern to Russia and to many other Member States of the United Nations. This was confirmed today in the statements of China on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group of states and Singapore on behalf of the ASEAN Member States. I am referring to the decision of Canada to legalize the production, distribution and use of cannabis for non-medical purposes. We already discussed this matter at the CND intersessional meeting on 25 June 2018. At that meeting almost 20 countries clearly pronounced themselves for the strict compliance of all Member States with the UN drug control conventions. Many delegates directly appealed to the Canadian side to abstain from bringing the new bill into force. Regretfully Ottawa openly ignored those appeals. On 17 October 2018 the legislation came into force.

Advocates of the free flow of narcotic drugs in Canada are celebrating their victory and call on the government not to lose the momentum and proceed further with legalizing as the next step heroin for example. Canadian press is actively discussing different aspects related to the implementation of the new law, including calculating the amount of drug dollars which are to come to state treasury as taxes on the production and distribution of cannabis. International legal implications of the decision are left out of the public eye. There is nothing surprising about that: the Canadian side has no desire whatsoever to publicly admit the fact of a fundamental breach of the international law.

Meanwhile from the international legal perspective, which is directly related to the mandate of our Commission, we have to deal with a blatant violation by Canada of its international obligations undertaken upon acceding to the UN drug control conventions.

I would like to remind that these international treaties allow the production and use of narcotic drugs, including cannabis, exclusively for medical and scientific purposes and not for the so-called recreational purposes, which will be from now on practiced in Canada. In practical terms this means a violation of a whole range of provisions of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that after the adoption of this legislation it will be extremely difficult for the Canadian authorities to implement Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that Member States shall take all appropriate measures to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs. Although technically the new legislation legalizes the use of cannabis for individuals over 18 years of age, this narcotic drug will intrinsically become more accessible for teenagers. They can easily get it from their peers, and the authorities will not be able to effectively prevent it from hapenning. That was precisely the reason for Mr. Sumyai to raise particular concern in his statement on behalf of the INCB on 17 October 2018 over the consequences of the new legislation for the health of Canadian citizens, in particular the youth.

Equally important is to stress that the new policy of Ottawa contradicts the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which the Canadian side is obliged to perform in good faith its international legal obligations and has no right to invoke its internal legislation as a justification for its failure to perform the international treaty. Nobody has gone back yet on the principle of «pacta sunt servanda».

One should add to this "bunch" of legal violations the fact that this new Canadian law contradicts the fundamental international political commitments including the 2009 Political Declaration and the Outcome Document of the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem. Against this background one can hardly take seriously the appeals of Ottawa to build a «rules-based world order». Since it is precisely Canada who defies these rules in a barefaced manner.

The decision adopted by Canada in fact opens the «Pandora box» by introducing selective approach towards the implementation of the UN drug control conventions. There exists real danger that some other countries may follow the example set by Canada, which would lead to the erosion and even dismantling of the whole international legal foundation of our fight against narcotic drugs.

By consciously destroying the international drug control regime the Canadian government is creating in the countiy the biggest commercial drug market in the world, which regardless of all the assurances that cannabis will not cross the national borders, will inevitably facilitate the increased inflow of this substance to other countries including to those which contrary to Canada strictly adhere to the letter and spirit of the above mentioned conventions.

It makes the new legislation even more cynical that Canada along with other 52 states is currently a member of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and logically should contribute to enhancing the effective implementation of the United Nations drug control conventions, instead of undermining them. Even more so the adoption of the new law coincided with the preparation for the review of the global drug control strategy in 2019. As stipulated in the operative paragraph 36 of the 2009 Political Declaration the international community should among other things take stock of the progress made in implementing the commitment to significantly reduce the illicit cultivation of cannabis. In this context Canada will not only have to report on a huge increase of the cannabis production but also to acknowledge the fact that such cultivation has become part of the national drug policy.

This brings us to the following question: How should we handle the situation that the Canadian authorities have put all of us into? Should we close our eyes on it as if nothing had happened? This attitude of burying our heads in the sand will inevitably lead to new gross violations of the international legal drug control obligations with all its negative ramifications for the international cooperation in the fight against drugs. UN conventions provide for a wide range of measures, should their legally binding provisions be violated. We believe that the CND Member States together with other members of the international community must consider the possibility of their application under the circumstances. We are convinced that this matter should be also discussed at the ministerial meeting in March next year. We consider it to be our duty together with the INCB to help our Canadian counterparts to return into the realm of international law.

Moreover, the current situation brings us to the conclusion that from now on we should more carefully examine the fact of compliance or non-compliance with the UN drug control conventions when electing new members of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. We must ensure that from now on the Commission will be comprised only of those States that impeccably comply with their international obligations and have no intention to play in the Commission the role of the Trojan horse.

Thank you for the attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403466






6 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Qatar in Moscow F. Al-Attiey - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399695

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia in Moscow R. Krimli - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399799

Consultations of S. Ryabkov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador A. Teran - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399862

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Djibouti in Moscow M. Kamil - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400161

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Denmark in Moscow K. Söndergord - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400171

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with Iranian Ambassador to Russia M. Sanai - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400249

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Syria in Moscow R. Haddad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400285


7 November 2018

Telephone conversation of M. Bogdanov with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates A. Gargash - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400989

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Political Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Austria A. Marshik - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3401114

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the delegation of the leadership of the Progressive Socialist Party of Lebanon - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3401132

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Political Director of the Federal Ministry of European, Integration and Foreign Affairs of Austria A. Marshik - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3401142


8 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Head of the Representative Office of the Political Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Damascus A. Abdelhadi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403189

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq H. Hammoudi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403269

Consultations of G. Karasin with the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova T. Molchan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403414

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the delegation of the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403505

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the chairman of the movement "Palestinian National Initiative" Mustafa Barghouti - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403515


9 November 2018

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, November 8, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403681

Meeting of O. Syromolotov with the delegation of the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404367

Consultations A. Grushko with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey F. Kaymakji - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404566

Telephone conversation of I. Morgulov with the special representative of the US State Department for North Korean policy S. Bigan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404576


11 November 2018

On the working visit of the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mikhail Bogdanov to the Republic of Sudan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406357

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with former First Vice-President of the Republic of South Sudan R. Machar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406367






Non-personal events:


6 November 2018

Russia-Iran Consultations on Syria in Tehran - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399218

Meeting of Russian representatives with Syrian President B. Assad - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3399789

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the terrorist attacks in Iraq - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400022


7 November 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the hostage taking in the Republic of Cameroon - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400586


9 November 2018

On the signing by the Russian Federation of the Council of Europe Convention on Combating Crimes in Cultural Property - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404210

Summoning to the Foreign Ministry of Russia Ambassador of the Republic of Austria J. Aigner - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404512

On the 39th session of the Joint Control Group on the implementation of agreements with China on building confidence in the military field and on the reduction of armed forces in the border area - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3404530

On the development of the situation in Yemen - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406329


11 November 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the detention in the USA of Russian citizen A. A. Malkevich - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406347
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 6th, 2019 #531
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 8, 2018



8 November 2018 - 16:28







Second round of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan

As previously reported, on November 9, the second round of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan will take place in Moscow at the level of deputy foreign ministers and related special representatives. Invitations to attend the event have been sent to participating countries – Afghanistan, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the United States. President of Afghanistan Mohammad Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai has made a decision to send a delegation of the Afghanistan High Peace Council. For the first time, a delegation of the Taliban's political office in Doha, Qatar, will take part in an event of this kind. Coordination of a final document is not planned.

The meeting will be opened by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at 10:30.

We reaffirm our position on the lack of alternative to a political settlement in Afghanistan and the need for active coordinated efforts by Afghanistan's neighbouring countries and regional partners in this arena.

The announcement on the event and accreditation for journalists is available on the Foreign Ministry's website at http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3400922

We invite you to take part in the event. Please bring your passport.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's upcoming meeting with Foreign Minister of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev

On November 11-13, Foreign Minister of the Republic of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev will be in Moscow on a working visit.

During the talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his South Ossetian counterpart scheduled for November 12, the officials will have an extensive exchange on key issues on the bilateral agenda, strengthening South Ossetia's positions on the international stage, and interaction as part of the Geneva discussions on security and stability in South Caucasus.



Update on Maria Butina

We are constantly monitoring the situation involving Russian citizen Maria Butina, who was arrested in the United States on July 15 on fabricated charges. The United States' unfounded persecution of Butina is a black spot on the reputation of the country, which consistently presents itself as a guarantor of human rights but in fact put our compatriot in prison for her Russian passport. Once again, we consider Maria Butina a political prisoner.

Staff members of our Embassy in Washington visit Butina on a regular basis. She has not expressed any health complaints lately but she feels indignant over this outrage committed against her.

We will continue demanding that the US authorities free Maria Butina and see to her prompt return home.

On October 4, Russian diplomats visited her in prison again. Maria did not complain of any health problems. Owing to the efforts of the Russian Embassy in the US, the conditions of her confinement were improved.



Update on Syria

The situation remains relatively calm in most of Syria. Armed clashes have been observed only in the enclaves where terrorists are still present, such as Idlib and southwestern Syria outside the towns of Hajin and Sousse, from which the Americans and their Kurdish allies have been trying unsuccessfully to drive out the remaining ISIS formations for months now, as well as on the al-Safa volcanic plateau, where the Syrian government army is conducting mop-up operations against the terrorists.

The Russia-Turkey Memorandum on the Stabilisation of the Idlib de-escalation zone of September 17 is ongoing. Despite progress in creating a demilitarised strip under the Memorandum along the borders of this zone, it is too early to talk about the completion of the work that needs to be done. Nusra and its allies stage daily provocations, such as the shelling of residential areas in western Aleppo, undertaking desperate attempts to breach Syrian government troop positions on the southern flank in the direction of the town of Hama and conducting raids in the Latakia Mountains. About 200 such incidents were recorded in October.

Hostilities flared up near the Syrian-Turkish border east of the Euphrates River on October 31, with cross-border exchanges of fire between the Turkish military and the Kurdish self-defence units, which, however, stopped after the Turkish and US military started joint patrols of the town of Manbij west of the Euphrates River and US and Kurdish military units started joint patrols east of the river.

The legitimate authority was strengthened in the areas controlled by the Syrian government, and some infrastructure, destroyed during the hostilities, was rebuilt. Efforts were made to return the area to a peaceful life. Internally displaced persons and refugees from abroad continued to return to their homes. About 1.5 million people have returned since earlier this year, including about 250,000 Syrians who had found refuge in the neighbouring countries. The opening of the Naseeb checkpoint on the Syrian-Jordanian border in mid-October made it possible for about 6,000 Syrians to repatriate from Jordan. There’s a steady flow of refugees returning home from neighbouring Lebanon.

At the same time, the economic difficulties faced by Syria are affecting this process. These difficulties are the result not only of the massive destruction caused by the armed conflict, but also the severed economic ties between the country's western provinces and its eastern regions, where quasi-state administration bodies are being created in violation of Syria’s constitution and its sovereignty with the support of the illegal military presence of the United States and radical Kurdish politicians.

The Syrians continue to feel the negative effects of unilateral financial and economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies. The situation is particularly difficult in healthcare. According to the World Health Organisation, there are significant problems with access to skilled medical care. This is due not only to the slow recovery of medical institutions, but also shortages of medicines, primarily for cancer treatment. On top of that, commercial deliveries of medicines to Syria are extremely difficult due to restrictions imposed on bank transfers.

We would also like to note the consequences of other actions by the United States, or rather, the coalition they are leading. Last week, in its letters to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council President, the Syrian government provided tragic statistics of civilian casualties caused by bombings of Raqqa by the US-led coalition during what was said to be “liberation from ISIS.” This is difficult to look at. It’s hard to believe, especially given the hysterical reaction that the United States and other Western countries and non-governmental organisations have expressed in relation to the rights of the Syrians. Nonetheless, I’m compelled to make this data public.

Over 4,000 dead bodies were found, mostly women, old people and children, when clearing up the debris caused by airstrikes in the ​​Al-Hadiqa Al-Baida district, the Ar-Rashid Stadium and the local zoo. In addition, a mass grave with over 2,500 bodies was found on a farm near a pediatric clinic and the National Hospital. Another burial ground with 1,500 bombing victims was uncovered in the Panorama area. The letters noted that only 2 percent of the debris had been cleared in Raqqa at this point, which was almost razed to the ground. Water supply is partially restored only on the outskirts of that city, and mine clearing hasn’t even started.

All of this is in stark contrast with the information provided in a number of recently released reports by various Western NGOs on the situation in Raqqa. For example, a material by REACH (www.reach-initiative.org) prepared on the occasion of the anniversary of Raqqa “liberation” from ISIS shows a rosy picture of the city being rebuilt which, unfortunately, is at odds with the tragic reality which was witnessed by the people who began analysing what really happened in this area.

On November 3, after several days of delays, the necessary guarantees were finally obtained from the United States that the US military, rather than their wards from among armed gunmen, will ensure the security of a UN humanitarian convoy consisting of 72 trucks. The humanitarian supplies were delivered to Rukban Camp for internally displaced persons located inside the “exclusive” 55-kilometre zone created by the Americans on Syrian soil around their illegal Al-Tanf military base. Outside this zone, the security of the column was ensured by the Russian and Syrian militaries. Despite the initial setback, we highly appreciate the result of this joint operation, which made it possible to somewhat postpone the humanitarian disaster threatening the residents of this 60,000-strong camp, who were actually deprived of normal contact with the outside world. Clearly, one-time efforts, no matter how large, cannot resolve the problem of these people who found themselves on a territory actually occupied by a foreign power.



UN joint report on mass atrocities committed by ISIS on Iraq territory

We have taken note of the joint report of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the mass atrocities committed by ISIS on the territory of Iraq, which was published on November 6.

The UN investigators managed to uncover over 200 mass graves located in areas of Iraq formerly controlled by the aforementioned terrorist group between 2014 and 2017. These shocking facts that have been published serve as further evidence of mass atrocities committed by ISIS against the civilian population, which the UN rightly classifies as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We call for a comprehensive and impartial investigation into the facts presented in the report and for bringing those responsible to justice. We agree with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Iraq Jan Kubis’ statement on the necessity of establishing the exact circumstances of these civilians’ deaths. In this regard, we believe it is important to support the report’s recommendations to the international community for assisting the Iraqi authorities in the matters of exhuming, transporting and identifying the human remains.



Update on Libya

National reconciliation remains the main item on Libya’s domestic agenda. This is a hard goal to achieve. Due to the persisting confrontation between the main military-political forces, the situation is not only far from stable but it even shows signs of further aggravation.

Regrettably, for the time being the intentions of the major Libyan leaders to act in harmony, orienting themselves to the preparation of the presidential and parliamentary elections on December 10, which they announced at the Paris conference last May, are rarely backed by practical steps.

The inability of the Libyan sides to agree on a relevant legal framework for a national expression of will is a stumbling block. As a consequence, House of Representatives sessions in Tobruk on discussing laws on a constitutional referendum and the elections are continuously postponed for lack of a quorum.

A very weak security situation, even in the capital, remains another serious obstacle to the preparations and holding of the elections. Thus, armed clashes in Tripoli from late August to late September of this year led to the death of over 120 people, mostly civilians, and heavy damage. The presence of ISIS and al-Qaeda militants, that are being joined by extremists from Syria and Iraq, is a source of serious concern.

In this context, it is very important for Libyan military organisations and security forces to unite as soon as possible to mount any effective struggle against terrorism and organised crime.

We believe there is no alternative to an inclusive intra-Libyan dialogue and that for all of its drawbacks, the Libyan political agreement signed in Skhirat, Morocco in December 2015, is the only legal foundation for establishing viable central bodies of government in the country.

We believe the responsible Libyan sides that are directly involved in the process of national reconciliation and the building of a new Libya will display maximum goodwill and the badly needed ability to find mutually acceptable solutions to disputed issues, which would help overcome the lack of unity. We assume that they would facilitate the unity of the Libyan people for implementing national goals.

In this context, foreign support for the political process in Libya is called upon to play an important role but should be rendered with strict respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is crucial for such assistance to be coordinated and closely tailored to the UN Action Plan for Libya. We would like to hope that the Italian Government-initiated international conference on Libya, to take place in Palermo on November 12 and 13, will contribute to this goal. Russia’s participation in the forum is envisaged.



A joint statement by Germany and France on the disappearance of an OSCE Special Monitoring Mission drone

We were dismayed at the joint statement by Germany and France, issued on November 1, on the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine’s long-range drone that went missing on October 27 in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine (near the town of Nizhnekrynskoye, the Donetsk People’s Republic). With reference to the SMM data, the statement peremptorily points at Russia and the so-called separatists it supports as those responsible for the incident.

Revealingly, the authors of the statement brought forward these unfounded accusations prior to the results of an official investigation into the incident. As far as we know, the OSCE SMM has already contacted representatives of the Donetsk People’s Republic, who pledged all the necessary assistance. It should be borne in mind that, on October 22, the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics forwarded official requests to the SMM to be notified in advance about the flight routes of OSCE drones and to equip these drones with flashing beacons. This is necessary because Ukrainian troops increasingly use attack drones as combat aircraft against civilian targets in Donbass.

It is worth mentioning that since the deployment of the OSCE mission in Ukraine in 2014 this is already the ninth such incident involving a long-range drone and that five of them were lost over the area controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, our Normandy format partners preferred to ignore those cases of lost drones.

We are urging France, Germany and others to refrain in the future from publicly exacerbating the situation with anti-Russian undertones prior to thorough and transparent investigations into incidents occurring in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine.



Introducing criminal liability in Ukraine for illegal border crossings

Kiev continues its policy of fighting fictitious foreign enemies. Reports have recently emerged that President Petr Poroshenko has signed a law on the introduction of criminal penalties for illegally crossing the Ukrainian border. In accordance with the amendments introduced in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, this action will now be punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, and three-five years for repeated violations. The legal justification for criminal prosecution contained in the law (entrance with intent to inflict harm on Ukraine and the use of allegedly forged documents when crossing the border) provide the Ukrainian authorities with vast and unchecked opportunities for a liberal interpretation of the adopted law and a potential case against any citizen. Considering how easily the status of “Ukraine's enemy” is assigned without cause, the charge of “inflicting harm on Ukraine” can be applied to any person.

Kiev is not hiding the fact that these steps are aimed primarily at achieving political goals and at representatives of Russia, whom the present Ukrainian regime calls an “aggressor country,” following their own logic. It appears that the Ukrainian authorities' imagination is starting to wane; they cannot think of anything new to justify their own failed policy and the lack of progress in achieving peace for their citizens. Previously, restrictions were introduced individually; then they began using them against groups of people, such as artists, journalists, cultural figures and others. Now, to avoid even minimal scrupulosity, Kiev has decided to act on a larger scale and has begun introducing restrictions that can easily be applied to large groups of people, particularly, Russians who intend to visit Ukraine.

We see this as another attempt by Kiev to continue stirring up anti-Russia hysteria in Ukraine ahead of the presidential election under the far-fetched pretext of protecting the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.



The Ukrainian Security Service’s violent actions against Yelena Berezhnaya

Not only people entering Ukraine are exposed to violence from local authorities but also those who live in Ukraine and are citizens of that country become targets for the Ukrainian security services.

As the presidential election in Ukraine draws closer, tensions are running high. Although all election programmes and statements are touting unprecedented freedom of speech that Ukraine allegedly guaranteed to all, in reality local politicians are sparing no effort to nip any dissent in the bud and neutralise the most troublesome figures. All available means are being used. Now the list of such figures includes human rights activists who are shedding light on the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The other day the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) carried out one such act of intimidation – this time against well-known civic and human rights activist Yelena Berezhnaya who speaks publicly about what she thinks is happening in her country, with a focus on the nationalists’ no-holds-barred behaviour. I read quite a few statements by Ukrainian officials and politicians, who accused Yelena Berezhnaya of maintaining some “close ties” with Russia and who counted her trips abroad and the like. If only these people could tear themselves away from what they are writing and saying at least for an hour and simply read and analyse what Yelena Berezhnaya is writing and saying, they would understand that she is working for the benefit of only one country and that country is Ukraine. She is seeking to alert people to the threat that neo-Nazism poses in what was once a quiet and peaceful country where people from various ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds could get along.

There is particular cynicism in the timing with Yelena Berezhnaya – it happened right before a meeting by the monument to General Nikolay Vatutin that was to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Kiev from Nazi invaders where she was supposed to speak.

Ukrainian security service officers stormed into the woman’s flat and searched it, without producing any documents verifying that their actions were authorised. As if that were not enough, security service officers caused her bodily harm after which she was taken to hospital. On the same day SBU officers distinguished themselves once again, summoning the leader of the Ukrainian Union of Leftists, Vasily Volga, for interrogation.

Similar punitive actions in respect of those who think differently, as well as attempts to intimidate anyone who dares to voice an opinion different from Kiev’s official propaganda have, unfortunately, become a routine phenomenon in today’s Ukraine. The Ukrainian authorities are set to obstruct as much as they can the activities of those who oppose the outrages committed by extremists and is prepared to stand up for real values like human rights rather than pseudo values.



The Czech Foreign Ministry’s statement on the occasion of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists

On November 1, the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic issued a statement on the occasion of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists. We respect different points of view, listen to them, make conclusions and respond. But this is a special case I would like to comment on.

What draws attention is the fact that when commenting on the situation, the Czech Foreign Ministry singled out the states where it believes journalists to be under intense pressure. For some reason, together with Saudi Arabia, the list of “offenders” includes such countries as Russia and several other states, while Ukraine and all Western countries are not mentioned. And all of this is happening amid the current situation in the state that is situated on the same continent and in the same cultural space as we are, the state that signed all the obligations that are in effect on the European continent.

Unfortunately, this is the policy of “double standards.” But I am not focusing on the Czech Foreign Ministry’s statement; I used it as a prominent example.



Russia, Japan and UNODC’s project to build a dog training centre in Afghanistan

Last year, Russia, Japan and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) decided to implement a joint project to build a dog training centre in Afghanistan, which will become a functional department of the Afghani Interior Ministry’s Anti-Drug Police. This initiative aims to boost the potential of Afghanistan’s police in countering illegal drug trafficking.

The project was approved at the highest level during President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s talks with Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum on September 10.

The project is financed by voluntary investments from Japan and the UNODC. Russia’s in-kind contribution consists of training Afghani dog specialists and administrative and maintenance staff as well as providing dogs that are adapted to the climate and sanitary conditions in Afghanistan.

The project will be implemented in several stages.

The first stage, which will take three years, includes building the dog training centre in Kabul and conducting a safety risk assessment. At the same time, experts will undergo training at the Rostov School of Working Dog Breeding of the Russian Interior Ministry.

On October 1–31, 15 Afghani employees who will work in the administration and management of the future centre studied there. In the future, it is planned to train dog training experts with dogs that will become the foundation of the Afghani Interior Ministry’s Anti-Drug Police.

If this stage is implemented successfully, the number of dogs and the area where they work might be expanded, in particular, to the international airports of Kandahar, Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif.

On November 12, the opening ceremony of the project will take place in Vienna. In particular, it will be attended by Deputy Foreign Ministry Oleg Syromolotov and UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov.

We invite you to attend this event.



Russia’s position on the issues of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

On December 10-11, Marrakech, Morocco will host an intergovernmental conference that will adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. This document is an important step towards developing long-term comprehensive international cooperation on regulating migration flows and enhancing interstate coordination on the issues of migrants and the mobility of people.

Russia supports the adoption of a Global Migration Compact. The Russian delegation took an active part in intergovernmental consultations in New York on developing this document. Many of our remarks were considered, although we still have concerns.

Thus, we consider the promotion of the concept of “shared responsibility” to be an attempt to lay some responsibility on the shoulders of others because the current complicated migration situation is largely a consequence of irresponsible interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states in the Middle East and North Africa. In this context, the countries that took an active part in this interference should bear the brunt of responsibility for this, including the consequences of migration.

We also consider it inappropriate to link climate change issues and the natural disasters provoked by climate change with migration because today there is no evidence and universally recognised scientific data on a direct connection between climate change and migration, as well as the primacy of environmental factors that might force people to move.

We assume that this Global Migration Compact is not a legally binding document, but in fact is a political declaration that allows its participants to pursue their national priorities by using provisions in the compact that can help them resolve migration, security, economic and humanitarian issues.

In this context, Russia intends to make a statement that interprets its position during the adoption of this Global Migration Compact in Morocco.



The likelihood of US sanctions against Russia

We are watching with interest the show that continues to play out in the US. The US Department of State reported to Congress the other day that Russia was not abiding by the US law on chemical and biological arms control and allegedly should be “punished” for this.

Let me remind you that as early as August, Washington announced an intention to use the sanctions envisaged by this law against Russia in connection with the supposed poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal in London. It is unclear whether this poisoning actually took place because nobody has seen the victim. We saw only Yulia Skripal on the screen but had no opportunity to talk to her. Despite this, they invited us to take the non-existent blame upon ourselves, as they repeatedly did in the case of the invented “Russian meddling” in the US elections. We were urged to confess of what we had not done. They even threatened us with new sanctions. Now they are launching the procedure to introduce them.

What can I say? We have become used to this attitude. It is nothing new for us. We also understand the reasons behind it: They go on with their Russia containment policy and, of course, there is the host of domestic political problems in the US. I think these days we are seeing yet another upsurge in antagonism, a split in society and in political forces, and the impossibility to find common ground for consolidation. This is exactly why, in keeping with the best traditions, an external enemy is needed and a feint of diverting attention to an external threat. And this threat is already in existence, given how much money and effort has been put into anti-Russia propaganda.

Since 2011, the US has imposed various restrictions and bans on Russia 62 times. New excuses are found with the passage of time. We understand that new sanctions may follow that will be adopted with the same ease and irresponsibility as before. Regrettably, this approach has become routine for the US, but this is not an indicator of its power but largely a sign of its impotence in resolving real problems facing Washington, including international problems. This approach is aimed to divert attention from the impossibility of taking any steps to deal with the issues on the agenda.

Naturally, it is impossible to intimidate Russia with ultimatums. But the professional level of the US politicians that make these statements is frightening. This country had destroyed its arsenal of chemical weapons long ago, as was duly verified and confirmed by OPCW representatives. Meanwhile, the US has not yet fulfilled its commitments to destroy its chemical stockpiles and is continuously postponing the completion of this process. I am sure that those who spoke about the need to punish Russia for failure to comply with the US law on control over chemical and biological arms are simply unaware of this. If so, we can remind them.

So, the Americans should apply this law to themselves. Is this absurd compared to what is being said as regards Russia? Yes, this is absurd. What is scary, therefore, is the level of people who invent and promote these sanctions.

We are calling on the Americans to do exactly what I say – apply their own law to themselves and punish those in the US who urge terrorists in Syria to stage provocations involving the use of toxic chemicals with a view to laying the blame on Damascus. Washington’s attempt to divert the world’s attention from its own sins and real crimes will not work. History has proved this more than once.



Tweet by the US Department of State

Yesterday, the US Department of State posted a tweet with a map of Russia, which US diplomats use to cast doubt on Russia’s concerns about the expanding global military presence of NATO and the US, in particular.

The material contains an intriguing paragraph explaining that the map may be used in conversations with everyone who believes that NATO is surrounding Russia. The map shows the Russian Federation and the nearby countries that make up the alliance and have common borders with Russia. The logic is that Russia has borders with just several NATO members and has nothing to fear. I wonder whom this is intended for. For kindergarten children? Although it seems that today’s children have better analytical abilities than those who make up such fakes.

I would like to show another material prepared by RIA Novosti in 2015: an infographic that shows the military presence of only one NATO member around the world: the US. It shows military bases all over the globe and directly near our borders.

I believe that this material will be useful for everyone who works on NATO issues and the expansion of the US’ military presence in the world as well as Russia’s concerns about this. Of course, we will draw the attention of our colleagues at the Department of State to this map, just to broaden their horizons.

While US President Donald Trump fights fake news at CNN, he seems not to notice that his administration’s Department of State continues to produce it on an industrial scale.

We would like to remind everyone that Russia regards the expansion of NATO, the moving of its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders and the buildup of its military activities in the regions located near Russian borders negatively, as actions that violate the principle of equal and indivisible security, deepen old dividing lines in Europe and create new ones.



Article by former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby

I would like to say in connection with the US intention to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, on which we have commented before, that the advocates of putting more weight on nuclear weapons and expanding US nuclear capabilities have become more active in the United States. We would like the online resources of the US Department of State to pay more attention to this trend, for example, to the statements made by some of its former high-ranking officials who used to be associated with US defence policies – or shall we say offensive practices? The need for this course has always been justified by the mythical Russian threat.

This course, which we regard as extremely alarming, has been presented in a recent Foreign Affairs publication by former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby. Mr Colby does not just call for building up the US nuclear capabilities but also to “prepare to conduct limited nuclear operations.” We wonder where these “limited nuclear operations” could be waged. On which continent will, or rather could, this strategy be applied?

It is notable that this is not a private opinion of a retired military man. Similar ideas can be found in the updated US Nuclear Posture Review, which was published in early February 2018. Moreover, Washington has announced its plans to create nuclear charges and their delivery vehicles for use within the framework of this strategy.

It appears that US analysts are seriously considering the concept of a limited nuclear war. Some of them probably believe that the United States and its allies can “come out on top” in such a war.

This is an irresponsible and extremely dangerous policy. We firmly believe that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and that it must never be waged.

Remember the Fukushima tragedy. It was not the result of using nuclear weapons for destruction but an accident caused by a natural hazard at a nuclear power plant. Look at the area on the available online maps. It was a localised disaster, which not only the Japanese government but the international community rallied to clear up. Very many countries, including the United States, helped Japan. We should look where we succeeded and where we failed, instead of thinking about the pinpoint use of nuclear weapons. This is playing with the devil.

Provisions to this effect have been also sealed in the effective Russian-US agreements on the reduction of the nuclear threat, such as the 1971 Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War and the 1973 Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War.

It would be marvellous if the US State Department posted these agreements on its website instead of posting fake maps with false allegations. By the way, I would like to point out to our colleagues from the State Department that there is no Crimea on their map.



Russian membership in the Council of Europe

We have taken note of what the Council of Europe’s press secretary Daniel Holtgen has said in a comment to RIA Novosti reporters on November 1, following his talks with Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov and Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland. We do not consider that his comment is accurate. I would like to say the following on this score.

The Russian Federation is interested in continued cooperation at the Council of Europe. However, we have to say that the Council is experiencing a deep institutional crisis provoked by PACE’s discriminating decisions regarding the Russian Federal Assembly delegation.

We have been consistently working with members of constructively minded member states at the Council’s Committee of Ministers to find a solution to this situation.

We hope that our European partners share our views on the imperative principle of equality of all member states at the Council’s statutory agencies. We believe that Russia’s participation in the Council’s work is equally important for European countries and Russia.



Another anti-Russia provocation in Montenegrin newspaper The Victory

A few days ago, a provocative article was published in the Montenegrin pro-government newspaper The Victory containing more absurd allegations of Russian interference in the internal affairs of Montenegro. The author claims that the presence of a diplomat from the Russian Embassy in Podgorica at a meeting of the constituent assembly of the municipal committee of the True Montenegro opposition party does not correspond to diplomatic practice.

This is certainly an anti-Russia fake planted with the purpose to dictate to Russia’s official representatives with whom they should keep contact and which public events they should attend. This is an obvious attempt to force local politicians and public figures to limit their communications with Russian diplomats.

The Prime Minister of Albania calls to vote for a particular candidate in the presidential elections in Montenegro; the US ambassador in Podgorica encourages Montenegrin citizens to go and vote in the parliamentary elections; the US ambassador in Skopje actually controls the process of forcing the decisions in the Macedonian parliament after the referendum on this collapsed – but all these actions are different of course. They are called “fighting for democracy.” But when a Russian diplomat receives an official invitation to attend an event and does attend, without violating ethics – this is called “intervention.”

We would like to remind the castigators of “Russian imperialism” and “experts” on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 that the daily work of diplomats around the world is “ascertaining by all lawful means the conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State.” Attending public events having received official invitations is exactly about that.

Russian diplomacy has always strictly followed the fundamental principles of international relations. We will continue to do so in the future, despite the use of double standards by the champions of “true democracy” ignoring the facts of their own direct intervention in the internal political processes of independent states.



The book ‘Munich 1938: Falling into the abyss of World War II’

Much of what we talked about today would sound strange and more like fiction unless we regularly turn and take a look back at history. In this regard, I would like to say a few words about the recently published book, “Munich 1938: Falling into the abyss of World War II.”

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Munich Agreement – a sad, tragic and shameful page in the history of European democracies. In the West, as recent months have shown, they either try to forget it completely, wipe it out of their own interpretations of world history, or shift the emphasis in such a way as to completely neutralise the important role of countries such as Great Britain and France in what is now described as “appeasement of the aggressor.” I don’t think I have to explain about the consequences of that policy, which brought the world to the brink of an existential catastrophe and put humanity on the brink of survival. Everybody knows about this. The important thing is that history does not forgive the forgetting of its lessons. Those who dare to forget will face new ones.

Understanding this truth is extremely important, so I am calling your attention to this book – a collection of articles compiled and edited by Veronika Krasheninnikova.

The authors, respected experts and researchers, offer their analysis of past events, the international situation in the late 1930s – early 1940s, and also provide a general retrospective of the history of international relations.

The book exposes the Western concessions to the Nazi regime – the connivance at remilitarising Germany, non-interference in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, the silent acceptance of the Anschluss of Austria, the abandonment of cooperation with the Soviet Union to form a collective security system in Europe. The latter suggests particularly bitter parallels with modern realities. Today the world is failing to return to the rails of collective security, plunging into the abyss of its division according to the friend-or-foe principle.



Recommendations to Russian citizens planning to visit the Indian state of Goa

The New Year break and the holiday period are just around the corner. Many people have already been planning their travels abroad. This information is intended for Russian travel operators, citizens and the media specialising in this particular field.

Please, pay attention to all the information concerning consular matters that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs posts on its official website as well as on its social network accounts. Our consular portal and our Consular Department’s accounts in social networks are in perfect working order. All the required information appears there promptly. I am also calling your attention to the Zarubezhny Pomoshnik (Assistant Abroad) special app which people can download onto their smartphones, tablets or computers. It provides general information on foreign countries as well as updates on the political situation, climatic conditions and natural phenomena in this or that country. The plus point is that this app has an alert button that can be used should Russian citizens find themselves in a crisis situation. To use this app registration is first required.

Information on the specifics of entry, visa issuance and the conditions on staying in various countries is also available on our site and via the app. As an example, I would like to quote our recommendations to the Russian citizens who are going to travel to the Indian state of Goa.

“Considering that in October this year the Goa authorities declared that nonresidents visiting local government medical facilities should now pay for treatment, the Russian Consulate General in Mumbai recommends that Russian citizens who are planning to visit this state should get medical insurance to cover them for the entire period of their anticipated stay.”

Such practical information is of utmost importance and is especially handy for anyone planning to travel abroad.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

What will be the format of the Moscow consultations on Afghanistan? Will it be a roundtable discussion? Will delegates from the Afghan government and the Taliban sit down at the same table? Will they interact with each other directly during the talks? You mentioned the countries invited to the consultations. Will all of them, including the United States, be there tomorrow?



Maria Zakharova:

Journalists asked about the US attendance or non-attendance even before this briefing, back yesterday night. It is an intriguing question, considering that the Americans refused to attend these talks before. News agencies have posted different speculations. At this moment, the United States is expected to attend the talks as an observer country and should be represented by a member of the US Embassy in Moscow.

As for the first part of your question, the consultations will take place at President Hotel. It has a large hall with a round table. As for whether contacts between the Taliban and the Afghan delegation from Kabul will be direct or indirect, you should better put this question to them, possibly via the embassy. Better to ask these questions on the spot.

We are doing all we can to, first, discuss all the aspects of an Afghan settlement and ways to move forward, and, second, to create the necessary atmosphere for bilateral and multilateral talks in Moscow. As for the format of this particular meeting and the number of bilateral and multilateral side events it will include, we cannot be sure at this moment. Right now we are making the necessary preparations. Come to the open part, which will have an address from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. After that, the meeting will continue behind closed doors. There will also be a photo opportunity. I would like to say once again that we are still working on the details. Everyone is welcome. Just receive an accreditation and have you passport with you.



Question:

Presidential aide Yury Ushakov has confirmed that President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump will hold a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, and that these talks will be attended by their foreign ministers. Could you make any preliminary comments or statements on this subject?



Maria Zakharova:

I may not comment on what my superiors say. But I don’t question statements made by members of the Presidential Executive Office. If Yury Ushakov said so, this is how it will be.

As for senior Foreign Ministry officials’ attendance, the Foreign Minister traditionally accompanies the President on major international visits. If I learn about any plans for ministerial meetings on the sidelines of this event, I will duly let you know.



Question:

Mid-term elections were held in the United States this week. Will their outcome influence Russia-US relations?



Maria Zakharova:

To tell the truth, it is an internal affair of the United States, as we have said more than once to confirm our positon on this subject. It may be strange to do this every year, but considering the atmosphere created by the United States, or rather US politicians and members of various political movements, we have to say again and again that it is the domestic affair of the United States.

We don’t believe we should comment on this, because it concerns the internal affairs of another sovereign state. Russia does not interfere in these affairs. We can only wish success to the newly elected and still serving members of Congress. We hope they will find the time to consider ways to normalise relations between our two countries despite the complicated political situation at home. It is what we really want, because the matter concerns our peoples. We make no secret of this interest. We have every reason to believe that our bilateral relations can develop on the basis of mutual benefit and respect.

I would also like to say that we strongly hope to see the end of the Russophobic campaign that has been ongoing for the past few years, with fake stories about alleged Russian interference in the US elections and some Russian hackers. Unfortunately, we fear a new series of these allegations is upcoming. On the other hand, it seems to me that the American people, including many politicians, have become aware of the absurdity of totally unsubstantiated accusations of alleged Russian interference in US affairs. We hope this campaign will not continue and that our partners will abandon the practice used, in part, during the Obama administration, when in reply to our requests for facts they sent us printouts or screenshots of social media accounts. And then they refused to do even that because the information is available online.



Question:

How does Russia estimate the influence of the renewed sanctions against Iran on Russia-Iran cooperation, first of all, as regards the Syrian settlement and the North–South Transport Corridor project?



Maria Zakharova:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov already spoke about this in detail during his news conference with Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell in Madrid. The transcript is posted on the website. Please, familiarise yourself with it.



Question:

I would like to ask you about what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen given that it currently holds presidency in the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. We are also concerned about the fate of our colleague Jamal Khashoggi, who went missing at the Consulate in Istanbul.



Maria Zakharova:

He is not missing anymore. It has been officially announced that he is dead. It is incorrect to say that he went missing because his death was officially confirmed. As for the circumstances and the final wording, that’s the business of the investigators.



Question:

I would like to continue. The West has imposed sanctions against Russia when there was nobody killed, I am referring to Salisbury.



Maria Zakharova:

I have to correct you here. We do not know what happened in Salisbury. You are saying that nobody has died there. Do you have such information? We do not. We saw Yulia Skripal just once on television in a period of the past six months. She briefly appeared on the screen, and we do not know who was making the video and who wrote her script. We have not seen Sergey Skripal and I believe you have not either.

If you say that no one died there, then you must have reliable information, so please share it with us. We have no clue as to what happened to Skripal. His relatives, Russian representatives and British journalists are not allowed to see him, even those who are hand-fed by Downing Street. We do not know where this man is and what has happened to him. We can only repeatedly demand on the daily basis to be given access to him. We do not want to make any speculations or statements based on numerous leaks and manipulations of the media, which the official government of the United Kingdom is engaged in. We want to receive official data.



Question:

They are both alive and kicking, but the sanctions have been imposed nevertheless.



Maria Zakharova:

We do not know whether they are alive and in good health. This is what I am talking about. You made a comparison and said that there was a man who was killed or lost, and here the people are alive. We do not know whether they are alive and in good health or not alive and not in good health. We do not have such information. We do not know what has happened to them.



Question:

I somehow can’t read the map of the NATO-Russia border.



Maria Zakharova:

We will send a copy to you, so that you will be able to study it. This map was published by RIA Novosti in 2015. At the next briefing, we will provide the precise figures for the NATO bases and the number of US troops deployed on the border with Russia and around the world. We will certainly do this job. The US Department of State has published this tweet very recently. This is why we did not provide our own information – we just couldn’t do it within two hours – but instead took the data that was available via the media. But next week we will certainly provide our official figures on the number of NATO bases around the world and directly on the Russian border.



Question:

Turkish artillery is shelling Kobani and is threatening Syrian Kurdistan. What is Russia’s attitude to these Turkish actions?



Maria Zakharova:

We hold that Syria is a unified state with a legitimate government, which is conducting a counterterrorist operation to liberate the remaining parts of the national territory from the members of terrorist organisations and militants.

We also believe that in accordance with the norms of international relations and state system, a legitimate government has the right to conduct such operations in its national territory – we all remember that the terrorists were bleeding Syria white for many years.

Of course, such operations must be conducted with due regard for human rights and the fundamental standards related to the protection of civilians. You know that we have called for launching an internal political dialogue more than once and for encouraging close interaction with all political groups, parties and associations in order to preserve the national integrity of Syria and destroy the remaining terrorist strongholds. This must be done in a consolidated manner. We hope that these efforts will create the main, or additional, basis for the consolidation rather than for the further division of Syrian society.



Question:

It has been reported that SWIFT has discontinued service to Iranian banks and designated Iranian financial institutions. Will Russia and Iran cooperate in this sphere, especially since it has been announced that the Central Bank of Russia has created a system of its own that is similar to SWIFT?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia maintains cooperation in this sphere with many countries. Regrettably, the US and, in general, Western blackmail and threats, which have been made in the past few years, to disconnect not only Russia but also other countries from payments systems and to freeze their accounts have made the world wonder if settlements in Western currencies and payments systems are reliable.

You know that Russia is negotiating practical agreements with a number of countries to make mutual settlements in their national currencies. Frankly speaking, we don’t see why this dialogue should be limited to the countries with which we are already discussing this possibility.

The reason and pretext for this dialogue was the actions of our Western partners. We lived in a globalising world and believed that globalisation, even despite its drawbacks and the questions raised by analysts and anti-globalists, offered quite a few advantages and benefits for the development of individual countries, regions and the entire world. We kept moving in that direction until the West (the Western community or individual countries) launched a policy of pushing certain countries out of the system of international relations, including currency and financial relations, even though these countries were acting legitimately and in accordance with the law of competition. The West did this by arbitrarily changing the rules of the game. Russia primarily saw this as an extremely alarming sign.



Question:

Could you comment on the news that Archbishop Ambrose was denied entry to Ukraine to attend commemorative events at the invitation of the Kiev Theological Academy?



Maria Zakharova:

I already spoke about this today. Ukraine has been conducting this alternative viewpoint purge for a few years now, intervening in the life of the real, rather than invented, civil society. Everything is put under control of the Ukrainian security officials who dictate the rules of the game, rewrite Ukrainian laws, and enforce their own instructions. The Constitution of Ukraine together with its laws are one thing, but the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) instructions are something completely different. They can cancel an entire legal field in Ukraine with one piece of paper saying that, for security reasons, they have to “prohibit this,” “expel that person,” “deny entry to a group of people,” “seize something,” or simply break into someone’s flat or house and beat whoever it is up and then arrest them. This is all simply done with the stroke of a pen.

Therefore, I do not consider this “news,” as you said. Unfortunately, this is just another manifestation of what was news a few years ago, something we pointed out urging our Western colleagues and international organisations to address. However, unfortunately, there has been no progress; these things have not been noticed. Many even justify the Kiev regime, saying that for the sake of national security, they have the right to do so.

However, there is another point of view, but unfortunately it emerged too late: all this goes against the basic principles of the lives of normal people – not just with the theory or with high requirements in the field of human rights.

Intervention regarding religious affairs is yet another manifestation of harsh state policy in the sphere that the executive branch should not even touch.



Question:

There have been reports in the Norwegian media about cases of inappropriate storage of radioactive waste recorded in that country. Is Moscow aware of this and is there a risk of leaks or contamination of the environment?



Maria Zakharova:

We have seen these reports. They mentioned inadequate storage of radioactive waste at the main national storage and disposal facility in Norway – Himdalen 50 km from Oslo. Two serious breaches have been recorded (or at least publicised): the erroneous placement of eight containers with a radioactive acid in the repository in 2013-2014, which, due to its chemical properties, can destroy the containers over time; and nine containers placed in conservation in 2014 exceeding the permissible limit for the concentration of radioactive americium-241.

Although Norwegian experts say there is no danger of contamination, cases of negligent storage of radioactive waste cause us concern. We expect that the Norwegian authorities will conduct a thorough investigation and take all necessary measures to prevent possible environmental consequences.

Taking into account the long-term experience of cooperation on nuclear and radiation safety between the two countries’ relevant agencies, Russia is ready to assist its Norwegian colleagues in resolving the problems encountered in the management of dangerous radioactive waste.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3403436
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 7th, 2019 #532
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to organisers and participants of the fourth meeting of the Russia-Islamic World Strategic Vision Group



12 November 2018 - 10:45



I warmly welcome the organisers and participants of the fourth meeting of the Russia-Islamic World Strategic Vision Group, which is being held in Makhachkala.

Russia and Islamic countries have a long history of fruitful cooperation based on their loyalty to the fundamental principles of international relations, which are sealed in the UN Charter: respect for the unique identity of the world’s nations and their natural aspiration to freely choose their own socioeconomic development models.

Your meetings, which bring together prominent government officials, public figures and religious leaders from Russia and many Muslim countries, contribute to the strengthening of mutual understanding and inter-civilisational and inter-cultural dialogue. You have achieved a level of confidence that allows you to discuss current matters in a constructive manner.

This time you will focus on urgent issues, such as precluding the spread of extremist ideology among young people. I am confident that this forum will help strengthen collaboration in youth policy and education and result in the launch of joint projects in this sphere. This forum is also an opportunity to learn more about Dagestan, which is home to many ethnic groups.

I hope that your discussions are fruitful and I wish you all the very best.


Sergey Lavrov

Moscow, November 12, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406558






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks at talks with Foreign Minister of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev, Moscow, November 12, 2018



12 November 2018 - 14:35







Mr Medoyev,

I am happy to welcome you to Moscow. We hold regular meetings at the level of ministers, deputy ministers and other foreign ministry officials. We appreciate the cordial relations that have developed between our foreign ministries. This proves that we generally see eye to eye on a whole range of issues.

Today we will be discussing the implementation of the agreements our presidents reached last summer. I believe we can report considerable progress. We are preparing to hold a meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission this week. Last week, representatives of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry met with their South Ossetian counterparts in Moscow. We are strengthening the legal framework of our relations. More than 100 documents have been agreed upon and implemented. We are also finalising a number of important intergovernmental agreements that directly concern our citizens, that is, Russian citizens living in South Ossetia, making it simpler for them to travel and giving them access to health insurance services. I believe this will benefit our bilateral relations.







We will also discuss the further coordination of our actions in foreign policy. The next round of the Geneva International Discussions on the South Caucasus will be held soon, and representatives from South Ossetia and Abkhazia will attend as equal participants to discuss key regional issues.

I am confident that we will continue to pursue a coordinated policy to ensure the reliable security of our allies in this important region.

Once again, welcome to Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407227






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Russian cultural centre and an Orthodox church in the Republic of Singapore, Singapore, November 13, 2018



13 November 2018 - 15:32







Madam President,

Mr Putin,

Allow me to thank you for your participation in the groundbreaking ceremony for the Russian cultural centre and an Orthodox church. I would also like to express sincere gratitude to the leaders of Singapore for their decision to allocate a site for the construction of this complex in the very centre of your wonderful city.

This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. During the past half a century, Russia and Singapore have become much closer despite the distance between us. We have amassed unique experience of cooperation in different areas and determined the ways of its further development.

Constructive political dialogue at the top level and regular contacts between the parliaments, ministries and civil society representatives have made it possible to create a firm foundation for expanding the entire range of our ties: from trade and investment to science and education. I would like to emphasise the consistent consolidation of our high-tech cooperation.







Cooperation between our foreign ministries is also making steady headway. We appreciate Singapore’s constructive role in developing relations between Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Symbolically, the declaration announcing Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership will be approved tomorrow under the Chairmanship of Singapore. Major new agreements have been drafted for the state visit of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, which started today.

We are seeing the growing interest of the Singaporean people in Russia’s history and culture. The Russian diaspora in Singapore, which already consists of several thousand people, is playing a tangible role in developing personal contacts. We are happy to welcome its representatives here today. The construction of the cultural and religious complex in Singapore is bound to promote humanitarian ties between our nations.

We hope that the future complex will become a hospitable Russia House for all those who are interested in the history and current life of the homeland of Leo Tolstoy, Pyotr Tchaikovsky and Yury Gagarin. It will become yet another major place of interest of this versatile city.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408040






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings on the 100th anniversary of the Russian Union of Journalists



14 November 2018 - 19:09



On behalf of the Foreign Ministry and me personally, I would like to convey our heartfelt greetings on a singular date, the centenary of the Russian Union of Journalists.

Established in a turbulent revolutionary period, your union has covered a long path, all the while doing its utmost to encourage the creative development of several generations of journalists and reporters, many of whom are recognised as the best in their profession in Russia.

It is notable that the union has contributed a great deal to the consolidation of the Russian media community and helps preserve and strengthen its traditions. We appreciate your efforts to build up international cooperation. Your work to promote high professional standards and the journalistic values of honesty in the current complicated international situation deserve our deepest respect.

The Foreign Ministry will continue its constructive cooperation with the Union of Journalists to maintain trust and mutual understanding among nations. Of course, we will also do all we can to protect the interests of Russian media professionals working abroad.

I hope you will have a constructive discussion.

All the best.


Sergey Lavrov

November 14, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3409035






Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Business Council, Moscow, November 16, 2018



16 November 2018 - 17:40







Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you at the regular meeting of the Business Council at the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation.

Today, we have agreed to discuss a range of issues related to ensuring effective political and diplomatic support for our companies’ operations abroad and bolstering Russian businesses’ positions in foreign markets.

We began this discussion in July, at a meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia attended by the Government’s ministers responsible for economic issues, the leadership of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, and representatives of major companies. We considered the priorities that we see in this area today at the plenary session devoted to economic diplomacy. I would like to once again thank everyone for their active, lively and informal involvement in that plenary session during Russian envoys’ meeting. I think it was very helpful for a clearer understanding of the current tasks.

In addition to the Russian Federation’s Foreign Policy Concept, our foreign economic activity is still regulated by Presidential Executive Order On National Goals and Strategic Objectives of the Russian Federation through to 2024. This document stipulates the main targets such as the qualitative increase in non-oil exports and establishing Russia among the world’s top five economies.

It is satisfying that Russian non-oil business is quite widely represented in the world today. Russian Railways is implementing a number of large projects in various parts of the globe, from South America to the Pacific Ocean. Kamaz products are highly valued both in the CIS and in Africa and Asia. Phosagro remains the main supplier of fertilisers in the Indian, South American and other markets. The supply of agricultural products and food is increasing. There is also a growing demand for Russian engineering products.

Understandably, we must keep in mind that competition in foreign markets will continue to increase, while the unprecedented pressure on Russia will also continue. As you know, the most unfair business practices are being used against us, including the extraterritorial application of national legislation. Their goal is clear; President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this more than once. They want to oust large Russian companies from their markets, to limit our foreign economic activity, and ultimately – this was all but said out loud, with no attempt to hide it – to try to contain our country’s socioeconomic development.

We can see that the United States is showing special zeal for that. Blackmail and ultimatums have already become Washington’s hallmark – not only with regard to Russia, but also their own allies.







It is clear that in these conditions we must continue to enhance our interaction with our partners and like-minded people in the EAEU, SCO, BRICS, and other colleagues. We must make maximum use of the opportunities arising from our country's participation in various integration projects in the Asia-Pacific region, the new locomotive of the global economy. The most recent ASEAN meetings with its partners, which took place in various formats in the last two days in Singapore, have revealed enormous opportunities here.

We must certainly continue our energetic efforts to further build on the geographical diversification of Russia’s foreign economic relations, primarily through the deepening of cooperation with other Asian countries, as well as South America and Africa. Russian embassies in these countries are counting on companies’ increased attention to dynamic markets and regularly make specific proposals on this score. We can see that these proposals are of increasing interest to Russian economic operators.

It is also important to continue working to expand payments in national currencies in trade operations.

At multilateral platforms, including the United Nations, G20 and WTO, we continue to point out the negative impact of sanctions on the modern global economic order based on the principles of free trade and fair competition. It is obvious that our approaches are shared by the overwhelming majority of members of the international community.

In our dialogue with Western countries, we will continue consistent efforts to depoliticise trade and investment ties. This concerns our relations with Europe and the United States. Moreover, European officials understand that the confrontational policy towards Russia is counterproductive, and do not want to suffer multibillion-dollar losses as a result of a downward spiral of sanctions.

The current agenda includes the early completion of the transfer of management of Russian trade missions to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, as well as improving inter-agency coordination, including to avoid duplication of functions. Further modernisation of trade missions that have proven to be effective, especially in developing countries, is highly relevant. We are also discussing with the Economic Development Ministry the possibility of increasing the number of its foreign offices as part of our Embassies.

We will continue to render all possible assistance to various initiatives and undertakings of our economic operators abroad. At the same time, it is obvious that the most important component of success is business leaders’ own energetic work and initiatives coming from them, because they know better than anyone else the advantages of certain countries and projects. In the highly competitive modern world, to achieve tangible results, it is not enough to offer quality goods and services. It is important to work creatively and to take the initiative, to combine efforts, to concentrate resources in breakthrough projects and, importantly, to increase information support for their activities.

We will make every effort to help you in these initiatives. I expect that in the course of this discussion we will thoroughly consider these and other topics that are of interest to you.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3411276






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Serbian newspaper Srpski Telegraf, November 17, 2018



17 November 2018 - 09:00




Question:

President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic said after his talks with President Vladimir Putin that he got what he wanted in Moscow. Does this mean that Moscow will support Belgrade’s idea of a settlement with Kosovo based on the delineation of the border between the Serbs and the Albanians?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our position on Kosovo is public knowledge. It is based on international law, primarily UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We invariably support our Serbian friends’ efforts to protect their legitimate interests in Serbia both at the bilateral level and at international organisations. We will be ready to hold constructive discussions on whatever settlement variant Belgrade chooses. But speculating on the essence of potential scenarios would be inappropriate.



Question:

What practical steps could Moscow make to help resolve the matter of the southern province?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has been the most consistent and loyal ally of our Serbian friends during the Kosovo settlement process. I believe that the best assistance on our part is the support we give to Belgrade’s positions, which are based on compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244, on the international stage. We have been doing this at the UN, including the UN Security Council and many other bodies, such as UNESCO, Interpol and the World Customs Organisation. We will continue to act in this vein.



Question:

Presidents Vucic and Putin plan to meet soon. What topics will they discuss above all, and what results can we expect from their meeting? What will be the main issue on the agenda of Vladimir Putin’s visit to Serbia?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian and Serbian leaders talk regularly. The last time they met was in Moscow on October 2, 2018. The agenda of the upcoming visit is very intense, as usual. This is not surprising. Relations between our two states have moved to a higher level of strategic partnership, which has been sealed in the declaration the presidents of Russia and Serbia signed in Sochi in May 2013. Our truly fraternal peoples are united by common cultural and spiritual roots and sincere feelings of friendship and mutual sympathy. We especially value the close ties that exist between the sisterly Russian and Serbian Orthodox churches.

Our trade and economic cooperation is improving. We are working to implement several large joint projects, primarily Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) in which Gazprom Neft has invested some EUR 3 billion. Russian Railways has done a great deal to modernise Serbia’s railway infrastructure. Some of its new facilities will be completed in 2021. We have ambitious plans in Serbia’s gas transportation and distribution system, industrial cooperation and interaction in high technology. For example, the Russian IT company Yandex has started operating on the Serbian market.

We see interest for educational exchanges between Serbian and Russian universities. We will do our utmost to promote this.

In other words, there are many topics our leaders can discuss. We believe that the results of the upcoming top-level talks will help strengthen the multifaceted ties between Russia and Serbia.



Question:

Milorad Dodik has openly expressed hope that Republika Srpska and Serbia would unite one day. Do you think his dream will come true?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia, just like the Serbian authorities and Milorad Dodik, is among the most consistent advocates of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which recognised the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We stand together in upholding the equal rights of all the three constitutive nations and the constitutional status and broad powers for both political entities – Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We firmly believe that the entire range of responsibilities for the developments in the country should be turned over to the national governments in accordance with their competence. The time has come to curtail the elements of foreign supervision, or more precisely the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has become obsolete. The mission of the international community should be to help the Bosnian parties expand the range of common interests and search for their own compromise solutions to problems, as well as withdrawing foreigners from the country’s Constitutional Court. As far as we know, this is also the position of Milorad Dodik, who has been elected the Serb member of the three-person Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.



Question:

Western officials are alarmed by the warm relations between Serbia and Russia. What are they afraid of and why are they trying to separate Serbia and Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

After the Cold War, Western states refused to work together to create the architecture of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic area, which Russia strongly advocated. Instead, they chose a dead-end scenario of expanding the geopolitical area under their control and creating new dividing lines in Europe. For example, they trampled international law underfoot in 1999 when they bombed Yugoslavia for two and a half months, after which the West, seeking to legitimise its aggression, recognised Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence.

One result of the Western anti-Russia policy was the armed coup which Washington and several European countries orchestrated and supported in Kiev in February 2014. The upshot is that Ukraine, which had everything necessary to become a successful and prosperous country, was pushed into a bloody civil discord.

It appears that the West has not drawn any lesson from the Ukrainian tragedy. Repeated attempts have been made to turn the Balkans into yet another anti-Russia foothold. The regional countries are being forced to choose between Moscow and Washington with Brussels.

We know that serious pressure has been put on Belgrade to curtail its mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia. Our Serbian brothers have confidently resisted this pressure. We highly appreciate Serbia’s independent and multifaceted foreign policy, which, we believe, meets the fundamental interests of your people.



Question:

Serbia and Russia are implementing major economic and energy projects. Are new investments on the agenda? Will Turkish Stream be built via Serbia?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is true that energy cooperation is among the priorities of our bilateral cooperation. The leading Russian companies, including Gazprom, maintain close ties with their Serbian partners. They have ambitious joint plans. Practical steps are coordinated at the Russian-Serbian Intergovernmental Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technological Cooperation.

We are satisfied with the progress of Turkish Stream in the two-line format. Several scenarios are being discussed to extend the gas pipeline across Europe, in particular via Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary towards the Baumgarten gas distribution hub.

At the same time, we have learned our lesson from South Stream and would not want to see a repetition of that situation. We will only start working on the extension after we receive firm guarantees from the concerned EU organisations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3411347










Almost no events in which persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia participated or its non-personal statements which were translated.





Personal events:


12 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Chairman of the Supreme State Council of Libya H. Mishri - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406377

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Libya G. Salamé - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3406723

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies (Parliament) of Libya A. Saleh - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407627

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Vice-Premier of the Government of National Accord of Libya A. Maitig and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the National Transitional Council of Libya M. Siala - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407637

Speech by O. Syromolotov at the launching ceremony of the trilateral project of Russia, Japan and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime on the construction of a cynological center in Afghanistan, Vienna, November 12, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407647


13 November 2018

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a special meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in connection with the convocation of a special meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the will of the residents of Donbass, Vienna, November 12, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407856

Consultations of S. Ryabkov with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan E. Ashikbayev - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408288


14 November 2018

On the consultations of the State Secretary and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Grigory Karasin in Moscow - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408957

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs R. Dicarlo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408967

Consultations of S. Vershinin with UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs R. Dicarlo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408977

Meetings of M. Bogdanov with the leadership of the United Arab Emirates - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3409025


15 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Minister for Presidency of the United Arab Emirates M. Al Nahyan - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3409528

Consultations of V. Titov with the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland M. Anttonen - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3409683


16 November 2018

Speech of the representative of the Russian Federation in the Third Committee of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly Director of the Department for Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs R. Alyautdinov on amendments to draft resolution A/C.3/73/L.53/Rev.1 “Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to the escalation of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, New York, November 15, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410521

Speech by the representative of the Russian Federation, Director of the Department for Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia R. Alyautdinov during the voting on the draft resolution of the Third Committee of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly "Combating Nazism glorification, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to the escalation of modern forms racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance "(A/C.3/73/L.53/Rev.1), New York, November 15, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410563

Consultations of G. Karasin with the leadership of the European Foreign Service in Brussels - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410636

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, November 15, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410727






Non-personal events:





Comment by the Information and Press Department on the statement made by US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale



13 November 2018 - 20:01



We have taken note of the remarks delivered by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale at the conference of the Middle East Institute held in Washington on November 8. He said, in particular, that Russia allegedly “continues to destruct Afghan-led peace negotiations with the Taliban.”

These are puzzling statements, considering that Russia, acting together with its regional partners, has been working consistently to help launch the process of intra-Afghan reconciliation.

We have reported that on November 9 Moscow hosted a successful second meeting of consultations on Afghanistan and the first such meeting attended by delegates from both the Afghan government and the Taliban. By the way, that meeting was attended by an American observer. The delegates said after the meeting that a big step had been made towards launching a direct peace dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban.

We view Mr Hale’s statement as a clumsy attempt to shift responsibility for his country’s adversities in Afghanistan and failure to find a solution to the Afghan problem onto Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408437






12 November 2018

Joint report for the media of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the German Foreign Ministry - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407549

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the escalation of the situation around the Gaza Strip - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3407559


13 November 2018

On holding the XXIII meeting of the Working Group on Interaction between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408278


14 November 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the situation around the Gaza Strip - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3408919


15 November 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Eritrea - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410404


16 November 2018

On the Russian-Turkish consultations on Syria in Ankara - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410491

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the adoption in the Third Committee of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly of a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410573

On the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Cuba on mutual visa-free travel of citizens of May 22, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410746

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the issue of returning Russian children from Iraq and Syria to their homeland - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3411333


17 November 2018

About the so-called “Memorandum of Understanding” between the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the “mechanism to facilitate the investigation of crimes in Syria”, created by UNGA Resolution 71/248 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3411371

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding unscrupulous political speculations in some EU countries in the context of commemorative events on November 11 in Paris - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3411389
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 7th, 2019 #533
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 15, 2018



15 November 2018 - 19:01







Meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Business Council

On November 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Business Council, which was rescheduled from October 30. The participants plan to continue the discussion of economic issues from July’s meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia.

They will focus on increasing the efficacy of political and diplomatic efforts to promote Russian business projects aimed at increasing high-tech exports as well as ways to bolster the position of domestic producers in foreign markets.

The meeting will be attended by senior officials of the Foreign Ministry and other interested ministries, as well as heads of leading business associations and large Russian companies.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Russian International Affairs Council general meeting

The non-profit Russian International Affairs Council will hold a general meeting on November 20. Its members will sum up the results of the council’s performance in 2018 and endorse a plan of work for the next year.

The meeting will be attended by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. By tradition, the Foreign Minister will share his assessments of the international situation and give a brief account of Russian foreign policy priorities.

The Foreign Ministry highly values the current formats of cooperation with the council – one of the leading Russian organisations specialising in gathering information and drafting recommendations on major issues of foreign policy and international relations. The demand for this work is growing given the rapid pace of developments in regional and world affairs.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's visit to Belarus

On November 20-21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will travel to Belarus on a working visit to attend a joint meeting of the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministry collegiums. The programme will also include a meeting with Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei.

During the talks, the officials will discuss a wide range of issues related to Russian-Belarusian foreign policy cooperation with an emphasis on implementing the provisions of the Joint Statement by the Presidents of Russia and Belarus of June 19. Particular attention will be devoted to integrated cooperation within the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and coordinated actions at international platforms, including preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, which will take place on December 6-7 in Milan. The sides will also share their views on major global and regional problems.

The meeting will also focus on joint efforts to counter attempts to falsify the history of the Great Patriotic War and revise the results of WWII, cooperation to ensure that integration processes in Eurasia are complementary so as to align the construction of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as developing a Greater Eurasian Partnership with the involvement of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The foreign ministry collegiums of Russia and Belarus will discuss cooperation in international information security at international negotiation platforms and the role of the two countries’ foreign ministries in promoting cultural cooperation and the countries’ shared cultural heritage outside Russia and Belarus.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's November 21 meeting with South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Lindiwe Sisulu

On November 20-22, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Lindiwe Sisulu will visit Moscow to attend the 15th meeting of the Joint Russian-South African Intergovernmental Committee on Trade and Economic Cooperation as it co-chair.

On November 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Ms Lindiwe Sisulu. They will discuss the state of and prospects for the bilateral strategic partnership with emphasis on boosting investment ties, and cooperation in science and technology, cultural exchange, and other spheres. The sides will compare notes on the pressing issues on the international agenda with account of the results of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg on July 25-27 and South Africa’s election as a non-permanent member of the UNSC for 2019-20.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's working visit to Italy

On November 22-23, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to the Italian Republic. The programme will include talks with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Enzo Moavero Milanesi, and a brief meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. Mr Lavrov will address the Rome MED: Mediterranean Dialogues international conference and hold a number of bilateral meetings on the sidelines of this event.

Italy is one of Russia's major political and economic partners in Western Europe. Despite the unfavourable international situation, Russia-Italy ties remain stable. The countries are maintaining an active high-level and top-level political dialogue, and developing comprehensive interaction between their parliaments, judicial authorities, ministries and departments, regions, scientific institutions, universities and educational institutions, cultural organisations, and civil societies.

The trade and economic sector has seen some positive trends. After bilateral trade decreased 2.5-fold in 2014-2016 (from $53.8 bln in 2013 to $19.8 bln in 2016), trade volumes continue to grow for the second year in a row. During the first eight months of 2018, it increased by 14.8 per cent to $17.4 bln. A lot of credit here goes to the work of the Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial, Currency and Financial Cooperation. Its next regular meeting, as well as the forum in support of small and medium businesses chaired by Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov and Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Enzo Moavero Milanesi, is scheduled for December 17-18 in Rome.

During the talks between the two foreign ministers (talks were last held in Moscow on October 8), they will have an in-depth exchange on a wide range of issues on the bilateral agenda, primarily in the context of the results of Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte's visit to Moscow on October 23-24.

Considerable attention is expected to go to discussing international issues, including European security, settlement of regional crises in Syria and Libya, implementation of the Minsk Agreements in Ukraine, and the developments around the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as the issues on the OSCE agenda, with account of Italy's chairmanship in the organisation that concludes in 2018.

The officials will also consider prospects for further strengthening cultural cooperation, in the context of this year's Russian Seasons festival underway in Italy, including over 380 events staged by Russian museums, theatre companies, and music groups.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to Portugal

On November 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Lisbon at the invitation of the Portuguese partners. He will hold talks with Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva and will have a meeting with President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.

Russian-Portuguese relations are based on mutually respectful partnership and constructive interaction. The two countries maintain a regular top and high level political dialogue. In June this year, President of Russia Vladimir Putin held talks with President of Portugal Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who visited Russia within the framework of the FIFA World Cup. Over a period of the past two years, Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva has visited Moscow twice.

During their upcoming meeting, the two ministers plan to hold in-depth discussions on the entire range of bilateral relations and also to discuss cooperation on the main topics concerning international politics. Seeking to intensify political dialogue and expand the range of subjects on the bilateral agenda, the parties intend to sign a memorandum of understanding on political consultations between their countries’ foreign ministries.

The ministers will also talk about improving economic cooperation, which has been developing positively lately. Bilateral trade reached $1.44 billion in 2017 and continued growing in 2018.

The Joint Russian-Portuguese Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Technical Cooperation, which is co-chaired by Russian Economic Development Minister Maxim Oreshkin, has been very active. A regular meeting of the commission is planned to be held in Lisbon on December 6-7. The participants will focus on the joint projects in high technology and innovations as well as the implementation of the new fundamental intergovernmental Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation, which came into effect in 2017.

The foreign policy topics on the talks’ agenda include the analysis of Russia’s relations with the EU and NATO. The sides will also exchange views on the situation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya, the Middle Eastern settlement, as well as the developments in Latin America and Africa.

In light of previous Russian-Portuguese interaction during elections to UN bodies, the parties will discuss their future actions in support of their countries’ candidates and representatives at future elections at international organisations.

Considerable time will be devoted to discussions on cultural and humanitarian ties. Russia and Portugal regularly hold various cultural and educational events, festivals and performances by music groups. The number of schools where Russian is taught is increasing in Portugal. Interest for the Portuguese language and culture is growing in Russia, too.



Events involving Maria Butina

We are pressing ahead with the work to free and bring back home Maria Butina, who was arrested by the US authorities under an absolutely far-fetched pretext and is, therefore, a political prisoner.

We note with satisfaction that the purpose-oriented efforts made by the Russian Embassy in Washington have had a favourable effect on our citizen’s incarceration conditions. She can now attend rehabilitation sessions, have meetings with visitors, and also call relatives. We will follow the developments.

Nevertheless, our fellow citizen is still under lock and key. She had to celebrate November 10, her birthday, in a US prison without relatives and friends. Russian Embassy employees attempted to bolster up her spirit on that day by visiting her and wishing her the warmest greetings. Kind regards to her were also posted on the Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts.

We will continue giving Maria Butina all possible assistance. We urge the US authorities to end her ungrounded criminal persecution and free the Russian citizen.



Update on Syria

The situation in Syria remained relatively stable during the last week.

Sporadic fighting continued to be recorded in places with residual terrorist presence, primarily in Idlib, where the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic cut short several attempts by Al-Nusra militants and certain groups of their loyalists to penetrate into Aleppo. Militants continued shelling Western Aleppo. An alarming development is that illegal armed groups posing as “moderates” would come to Al-Nusra’s aid, when the government forces responded to its provocations. We have to state that the real disengagement in Idlib has not been achieved despite Turkey’s continuing efforts to live up to its commitments under the Russian-Turkish Memorandum of September 17.

The Americans have resumed intense air attacks against terrorist-held villages on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, including, as reported by local residents, with the use of white phosphorous munitions. Syria’s SANA agency reports that these indiscriminate strikes killed or wounded 60 civilians at al-Shaafa south of the town of Hajin. In this connection, the Syrian Foreign Ministry sent two letters to the UN Secretary-General and to President of the UN Security Council, which urged “ending such attacks, investigating these crimes, and punishing the culprits.”

In the context of the humanitarian situation, efforts continued to implement the Russian initiative to facilitate the comeback of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons. During November 13 alone, over 1,000 people returned back to Syria from neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon (and the number of returnees from Jordan continues to grow: Over 9,000 people have passed through the Naseeb checkpoint since it became fully functional). Apart from that, over 200 internally displaced persons returned back to their places of permanent residence in Syria on the same day.

Also on November 13, Russia carried out a humanitarian operation in Aleppo Province, issuing 450 food packages weighing a total of 1.9 tonnes to local residents. As of today, the Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides has conducted 1,991 such operations, with the total weight of deliveries exceeding 3,100 tonnes.

We cannot overlook the dramatic humanitarian situation persisting at the Al-Rukban camp for internally displaced persons located inside the “exclusive” 55-kilometre zone the Americans have created around their illegal military base in the Al-Tanf area. The arrival to the camp, on November 3, of the long-awaited UN humanitarian convoy has certainly made life for local residents easier but failed to solve the problem as a whole.

We think it absolutely unacceptable that the Americans, despite preliminary understandings, used the Mahavir as-Saura (Partisans of the Revolution) armed gang to provide for the convoy’s security inside the “exclusive zone.” That the Americans and the militants they control refused to allow Syrian Red Crescent representatives to the camp has also raised questions. Do they have something to hide?

Clearly, no amount of humanitarian convoys can solve the problem of Al-Rukban and its 60,000 inmates. What is needed, as we have repeatedly said, is a radical crisis settlement in the area of Al-Tanf.

An important development in this connection is that Geneva recently hosted a trilateral Russian-US-UN meeting that focused on the situation at the camp.



Update on Yemen

The developments in Yemen continue to cause grave concern due to the ongoing escalation of armed confrontation.

The most recent epicentre of fighting is the area of the Red Sea port of Hodeidah controlled by the Houthi movement, Ansar Allah, which is currently the main gateway for humanitarian supplies to Yemen. According to the available information, over 400 people were killed on both sides during the storming of that city by the Yemeni troops loyal to the current President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi with the support of the so-called Arab coalition. Street fighting continues in the city, which is detrimental for the situation of its civilian population. In particular, the media previously reported 54 children blocked in the Hodeidah Central Hospital.

The situation in the northern and northwestern governorates of Saada, Taiz, and Al Jawf, as well as around the capital city of Yemen, is no better, with trench warfare accompanied by intense raids by the coalition air force on Ansar Allah positions, including those located in residential areas.

Moscow considers it necessary to once again urge all parties to the intra-Yemeni conflict to strictly observe the international humanitarian law. More victims among the civilians in Yemen and further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in that country, which is already on the verge of an irreversible catastrophe, must not be allowed to happen. It is extremely important to ensure the unimpeded exit of refugees and victims from the areas of hostilities, as well as regular access to humanitarian aid for all those who need it.

It is also essential to create conditions for the continuation of UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths’ work to promote the resumption of direct intra-Yemeni negotiations aimed at the early resolution of a protracted conflict. We firmly believe that a broad mutually respectful dialogue incorporating the views of all the leading Yemeni political forces is the only way to restore peace and stability in that long-suffering country, and to achieve a fair and long-term settlement. For our part, we are ready to further contribute to the implementation of this priority task.



Latest allegations of Russian interference in US elections

Midterm elections to US Congress usually attract less interest than presidential elections. This is logical: foreign policy, even with the system of checks and balances, is the competence of the US president.

But the picture was completely different this year. A considerable part of the US political establishment and the local media it instigated raised a cry over the alleged Russian interference in the routine battle between the Democrats and the Republicans. At this rate, Russia will soon be accused of interfering in scout troop leader elections.

Let us talk about facts now or, more precisely, about what American political analysts say on this score.

The preventive countermeasures were planned and implemented with great care.

On the eve of the polling day, November 6, Facebook, alerted by a tip-off from the FBI, took offline over a hundred accounts that allegedly posted misinformation about the midterm elections.

Our partners overseas did not even investigate the tip-off. Why bother? The tall tale about pro-Kremlin trolls has worked before, hasn’t it? Dozens of US media outlets reported, citing “independent analysts,” that over 400 accounts in the American internet segment posted “Russian propaganda” and that over a hundred of them were controlled by Moscow, of course. As usual, no proof was provided.

This is nothing new. However, these allegations sound incongruous even to the American people, who can see for themselves what is really happening. You can try to brainwash people with myths about the pro-Kremlin influence, but they can see what happened during the election campaign and directly at the polling stations. Yet I believe that few people in the United States took notice of the statements made by some US officials responsible for organising elections. These officials said that the hacking attempts, if any, were not made from outside but from inside the United States. Here are the facts.

Massachusetts’ Secretary of State Bill Galvin reported “minor efforts” to hack into Massachusetts’s elections and voter resource website, adding that “they don’t appear professional or overseas.” The domestic connection was also traced in Georgia. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said they had opened an investigation into the Georgia Democratic Party in connection with an attempted hack of the state’s voter registration system. Raffi Krikorian, the chief technology officer of the Democratic National Committee, said they saw no successful hacking attempts in the midterms.

Indicatively, an increasing number of commentators say that the Americans themselves are the main generators of hatred and intolerance online. According to experts from the Atlantic Council, which can hardly be suspected of pro-Russia sentiments, “the scale and scope of domestic disinformation is much larger than any foreign influence operation.” A similar conclusion has been made by Harvard University researchers, who reported a hike in anti-immigrant rhetoric online.

There is no reasonable explanation for the recurring myth of “Russian interference” in all kinds of American elections. If the voice of reason is silent, maybe it is time we listened to the voice of the Americans themselves?



US officials’ statements on Nord Stream 2 project

In recent days, we have noted some activity from American officials concerning the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. The statements by US ambassadors to the EU Gordon Sondland, (https://themoscowtimes.com/news/sanc...oy-warns-63481, https://ria.ru/economy/20181113/1532678965.html) and to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra (https://nltimes.nl/2018/11/08/dutch-...mbassador-says, https://nos.nl/artikel/2258269-ameri...-niet-uit.html) are classic examples of America’s unceremonious intervention in the affairs of the European Union. Their general tone suggests that Washington intends to make every effort to hinder the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. They even went so far as to issue blatant threats against European capitals. Mr Sondland said, and I quote: “If that philosophy is not adopted and Nord Stream continues, then the president has many, many other tools at his disposal – I'm not going to go through the litany – to try and curb and stop the project.” His colleague in The Hague promised that no exceptions will be made for any companies that potentially can be affected by the sanctions – meaning the biggest players such as Shell, Van Oord and Boskalis. There will be no special treatment for anyone. The logic of the American side is as flawed as it is primitive: whoever is not with us is against us.

What is this, if not direct and overt interference in the affairs of other states, based not only on the desire to influence, but also to intimidate?

By the way, a word about logic. Despite the visible flow of negativity from Washington, Russian liquefied natural gas is still successfully flowing in the opposite direction. At least three tankers filled with LNG from the Yamal LNG project have recently reached the Everett terminal on the American coast.



US and NATO military activity near Russian borders

At our last briefing, we quoted a State Department tweet saying that claims about NATO encircling Russia were untrustworthy. For our part, we said that, on the contrary, the reports were accurate. We showed videos, and promised to provide supporting facts (http://www.mid.ru/da/press_service/s.../id/3403436#14).

We are closely monitoring the build-up of NATO force s near our borders – unlike the US State Department which does not follow the process or thinks that it does not even exist.

The command echelon of the US-led alliance is not concealing its plans to strengthen its military capabilities in Europe, including by creating new command and staff posts, logistic support systems, and related infrastructure. There is a steady rotational – and actually permanent – US military presence in states bordering on Russia.

The scale of war games held close to our borders has been growing according to plan. Since October, numerous forces and assets involved in a series of major military exercises have been massed in the Baltic region and in northern Europe. They complement units already deployed in the “eastern” flank of NATO countries. These actions objectively lead to the militarisation of the region, generate new risks and aggravate military and political confrontation.

The large-scale Trident Juncture exercises wound up a short while ago. It is openly declared that the manoeuvres are aimed at sending a signal to Moscow that NATO is ready for a collective defence “in the event of a threat from the East,” a threat which is a fake and a phantom. (Later, I will dwell on where there really is a threat.) The same anti-Russia logic underlies the US and NATO Anaconda exercises launched on a large scale in Poland and the Baltic area on November 7. Moreover, the games are expressly offensive in nature. All of this represents the largest military onslaught since World War II.

In particular, we noted one fundamentally new element. The Pentagon demanded among other things that the forces involved in the exercise drill evacuate residents from the “conflict zone,” that is, from populated localities adjoining the Russian and Belarusian borders. It is worth noting that they did the same in Europe a few decades back. I think no one needs to be reminded of the facts of history.

NATO and its individual member states are building up a military presence along the entire Baltic Sea – Black Sea arc.

Four multinational NATO battalions are deployed in Poland and the Baltic countries, and a multinational brigade, in Romania. The formation of NATO’s permanent naval task force in the Black Sea is still on the agenda. The United States is sending additional contingents and equipment to Europe. Multinational military drills and reconnaissance activities are being intensified. Thus, a coalition force numbering between 10 and 12 thousand officers and military personnel is deployed on a so-called steady “rotational” basis, but in fact permanently, in regions lying close to Russia’s borders. Moreover, this figure does not include the US forces permanently deployed in Europe or the national armed forces of Central and East European countries. Poland, for one, is implementing plans to increase the strength of its territorial defence force to 200,000 within the next few years.

The military and civilian infrastructure is being assiduously modernised to enable a rapid build-up of the above-mentioned multinational force. A logistic and rear support system is being created, with forward-based arms and equipment depots deployed in Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. Old command and control structures are being adapted to new requirements and new ones are being formed.

Almost three decades after the end of the Cold War, we are witnessing NATO consistently shifting its fortified borders further and further east, each time attributing its steps to the need for self-defence.



Main military facilities in regions neighbouring Russia that are used in the interests of NATO member states

The data listed below include elements of the NATO and US command and headquarters infrastructure, facilities that have been officially certified for use during NATO activities, as well as those being used in the interests of contingents from two or more NATO countries (but not directly perceived as NATO bases). This list does not include details of the military facilities of the national armed forces of NATO member countries on their respective territories.

Latvia: Riga (NATO Force Integration Unit); Adazi (a multinational NATO battalion, 1,293 officers and soldiers; a unit of a US armoured brigade), an air base in Lielvarde (a unit of a rotational US combat aviation brigade). A military base in Luznava and training grounds in Skrunda and the Aluksne and Daugavpils municipalities are being upgraded.

Lithuania: Vilnius (NATO Force Integration Unit); Rukla (a multinational NATO battalion, 1,100 officers and soldiers; a unit of a rotational US armoured brigade); Zokniai Airport in Siauliai (aircraft involved in a NATO mission to patrol air space in the Baltic region: Four fighters of the Belgian Air Component); Mumaiciai (US weapons and military equipment depot); training areas in Pabrade, Kairiai, Kazlu Ruda, Rokai.

Estonia: Tallinn (NATO Force Integration Unit); Tapa (a multinational NATO battalion, 987 officers and soldiers; a unit of a rotational US armoured brigade); Amari Air Base (aircraft involved in a NATO mission to patrol air space in the Baltic region: Four fighters of the German Air Force).

Poland: Szczecin (Headquarters of the Multinational Corps Northeast); Elblag (Divisional Headquarters of the Multinational Corps Northeast); Bydgoszcz (NATO Force Integration Unit and Joint Force Training Centre of the Combined Joint NATO Task Forces); Poznan (US Army Europe's Division-Level Tactical Headquarters); Lublin (Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade / LITPOLUKRBRIG Headquarters); Zagan, Drawsko Pomorskie, Torun, Swietoszów, Skwierzyna, Bolesławiec (headquarters and units of a US Army’s rotational armoured brigade); Orzysz and Bemowo Piskie (a multinational NATO battalion, 1,093 officers and soldiers); Powidz (United States Air Forces in Europe are establishing a logistics hub in Europe, and a unit of a US Army combat aviation brigade is deployed there); Redzikowo (an Aegis Ashore US/NATO missile-defence system element is under construction there); training centres in the Biedrusko, Giżycko and Wędrzyn communities.

Air bases are being modernised in Lask, Malbork, Mińsk Mazowiecki, Mirosławiec, Swidwin and Poznan (Krzesiny). Engineering works are underway at the naval bases of Gdynia and Swinoujscie and in Gdansk port.

There are about 3,000 officers and soldiers in the US contingent (including a unit which is part of a multinational NATO Battalion).

Bulgaria: Novo Selo Training Area (Sliven, a unit of a rotational armoured brigade, US weapons and military equipment depots); the Koren Range (Haskovo), Graf Ignatievo Air Base (regular deployment of aircraft for patrolling Bulgarian air space) and Krumovo, Bezmer Air Base and Aitos Logistics Center Air Force Base (US weapons and military equipment depots) are being modernised. The infrastructure of Varna Naval Base and the Burgas Naval Base is being expanded in the interests of the naval forces of NATO countries.

Hungary: Székesfehérvár (NATO Force Integration Unit); Papa Air Base (NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability consortium and an unfinished logistics hub) and Kecskemet; Varpalota Training Area (a unit of a rotational US armoured brigade); the Bakony Combat Training Centre is being upgraded.

Romania: Bucharest (Multinational Division Southeast Headquarters); Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base (rotational units of an armoured brigade, a combat aviation brigade, a US Marine Corps (USMC) rotational unit, the Air Force Passenger Transit Centre, US weapons and military equipment depots, regular deployment of aircraft for patrolling Romanian air space: Five Canadian Air Force fighters; Craiova (the Multinational Framework Training Brigade Southeast is being established, with about 2,500 officers and soldiers); Deveselu Air Base (Caracal, Aegis Ashore element of the US/NATO missile-defence system); Feteşti; Air Base Câmpia Turzii; an airfield in Otopeni; Constanta port; Medgidia (weapons and military equipment depot); the Babadag, Melina (Smardan) and Cincu training grounds are being upgraded.

Slovakia: Bratislava (NATO Force Integration Unit); the Sliac, Kuchyna and Malacky air bases, as well as Training Centre Lest, are being modernised in the interests of the NATO states.

The Czech Republic: Air bases in Caslav and Námest’ nad Oslavou and an airfield in Pardubice.

Norway: Sola Air Base in Stavanger, Vaernes Air Station in Trondheim (USMC rotational unit); Bardufoss (Logistics centre for deploying a USMC rotational unit); Trondheim (USMC weapons and military equipment depots).

Turkey: Izmir (Allied Land Command), Incirlik Air Base; the Kahramanmaras and Adana provinces (NATO’s Operation Active Fence to shield Turkish territory against missile threats from Syria).

Serbia (Kosovo): Camp Bond-Steel of the US Armed Forces; multinational KFOR (Kosovo Force) contingent numbering about 3,900 officers and soldiers.

The US troop contingent numbers about 670 officers and soldiers and is part of KFOR (Kosovo Force).

Georgia: Krtsanisi (NATO–Georgia Joint Training and Evaluation Centre); Sachkhere (Sachkhere Mountain Training School).

Ukraine: Yavorov (International Peacekeeping and Security Centre).

The US contingent includes about 300 officers and soldiers.

Moldova: Chisinau (Training centre for the Moldovan Armed Forces’ Alexandru cel Bun Military Academy).

Germany: Stuttgart-Vaihingen (Headquarters of the US Armed Forces’ European, Africa and Special Operations Commands); Wiesbaden (Headquarters of the US Army Europe and Seventh Army commands); Ramstein Air Base, Ramstein-Miesenbach (Headquarters of NATO Air Forces, US Air Forces in Europe, the Third US Air Force, a facility for controlling missile-defence units and elements of the US Armed Forces’ European Command); Ulm (NATO’s proposed Joint Support and Enabling Command); Uedem (Combined Air Operations Centre); Filseck (2nd Cavalry Regiment of the US Army); Grafenwoehr (173rd Airborne Brigade units, a training centre and a forward-based US Army weapons and military equipment depot); Hohenfels (Joint Multinational Readiness Centre); Kaiserslautern (US Army Patriot surface-to-air missile battalion); Illesheim (headquarters and units of the US Army’s rotational combat aviation brigade); Boeblingen (US Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa Headquarters); Duelmen, Mannheim and Miesau (forward-based US Army weapons and military equipment depots); an air base in Heilenkirchen (NATO’s AWACS early-warning aircraft) and Spangdahlem; garrison-command headquarters in Ansbach, Wiesbaden, Kaiserslautern, Garmisch-Partenkirchen and Stuttgart-Vaihingen.

The US contingent numbers about 38,000 officers and soldiers.

Italy: Naples (Allied Joint Force Command Naples, Strategic Direction South Hub Naples, US Naval Forces Europe-Africa and the US Sixth Fleet); Vicenza (Headquarters of US Army Africa, the 173rd US Airborne Brigade); Naval Air Station Sigonella, Sicily (rotational USMC unit), Aviano; Livorno (a US weapons and military equipment depot).

The US contingent numbers about 12,000 officers and soldiers.

The Netherlands: Brunssum (Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum); Leeuwarden Air Base; Eygelshoven (US weapons and military equipment depot).

Belgium: Mons (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe/SHAPE, Allied Command Operations, Special Operations Command and NATO’s proposed Cyber Operations Centre); Brussels (US Army Garrison Benelux One Team); Chievres Air Base; Zutendaal (US weapons and military equipment depots).

The United Kingdom: RAF bases in Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Alconbury and Fairford (USAF strategic bombers are regularly deployed there), Crowton, Menwith Hill, Feltwell, Molesworth, Welford and Waddington (NATO AWACS early-warning aircraft).

Iceland: Keflavik Air Base (NATO aircraft are regularly deployed there).

Spain: Morón Air Base (a rotational USMC unit); Naval Station Rota (the US Navy’s guided missile ships are permanently deployed here); Torrejon Air Base (Combined NATO Air Operations Centre).

Portugal: Lajes Field in the Azores.

Greece: Souda Bay (naval base, air base and weapons and military equipment depots); air base in Heraklion; Nea Makri military base.

Cyprus: Sovereign UK military bases: Royal Air Force Akrotiri, Episkopi Garrison and Dhekelia.

The British contingent includes about 3,500 officers and soldiers.

Afghanistan: Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, Laghman (NATO Resolute Support Mission, 16,300 officers and soldiers); US Armed Forces Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (8,000 officers and soldiers).

Standing NATO Maritime Group One and Standing NATO Mine Counter Measures Group One operate in the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. In turn, Standing NATO Maritime Group Two and Standing NATO Mine Counter Measures Group Two operate in the Mediterranean Sea (five-eight warships from each of the NATO countries’ navies). NATO Forces conduct Operation Sea Guardian in the Mediterranean Sea, and they are also deployed in the Aegean Sea to monitor and collect information on illegal immigration.



Methods used on inmates of CIA secret prisons

On Tuesday, a US court declassified a number of materials that shed light on the brutal interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists in CIA secret prisons (posted on the American Civil Liberties Union official website, www.aclu.org). The documents were made public at the NGO’s request.

The disclosed reports contained information on medical experts’ involvement in the implementation of the CIA Detention and Interrogation programme. They describe methods used to “loosen the tongues” of Al-Qaeda members. In 2007, 97 terrorist suspects were recorded as subjects of the programme (most of them were subsequently kept in Guantanamo Bay prison).

The new materials reveal that the interrogation methods were to a certain extent experimental. They basically relied on the American SERE military training programme (survival, evasion, resistance and escape). The combination of interrogation techniques also took into account the prisoners’ individual characteristics – to avoid bringing the subject to a state where obtaining reliable information became impossible. For these purposes, sensory deprivation (audio, visual, etc.), lack of sleep, artificial stimuli that create a feeling of imminent death, immobilisation and noise exposure were used. At the same time, according to the results of numerous experiments, preference was given to simulated drowning as the most effective means.

In addition to the psychological impact on prisoners, the use of psychotropic substances was also considered. The CIA tried to develop a drug that would make the interrogated person disclose information easier. Midazolam, also known as Versed, was found to be the most suitable for this purpose. However, the project was abandoned because of side effects: it caused amnesia, which hampered the investigation. So instead of the “truth serum,” they resorted to rough physical treatment. As soon as it became obvious that the prisoner was not cooperating, an effective individualised punishment was conceived on the spot.

It is noteworthy that for the legal justification of these interrogation practices, the CIA used the Department of Justice regulations that said only acts causing lasting emotional damage or threatening imminent death qualify as torture. As a result, none of the methods that CIA used were recognised as torture in accordance with US laws and international legal obligations. The only exception was simulated burial (later excluded from the list of permissible methods). In addition, the Department of Justice found no legal obstacles to the use of special interrogation techniques in CIA prisons outside the United States.



Law on Ukraine’s contiguous zone adopted by the Verkhovna Rada

On November 8, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada adopted in the first reading a law on the country’s contiguous zone. The right of states to adopt legislation on the contiguous zone is stipulated in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Russian Federation adopted a law to this effect, Federal Law No. 155-FZ On Internal Waters, Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, on July 31, 1998. However, the norms of national legislation and their application must not contradict international law.

In particular, the delimitation of the contiguous zones of Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea must be agreed upon by the parties in accordance with international law, including effective bilateral agreements.

We would like to draw your attention to two vital elements concerning the status of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov.

Russia has complete sovereignty over the Kerch Strait as the only coastal state in that region. As for the Sea of Azov, it is considered the joint territorial waters (part of the national territory) of Russia and Ukraine as per the effective bilateral agreements and general international law. This status of the sea has been sealed, in particular, in the 2003 Treaty of Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. This treaty is of unlimited duration and cannot be terminated unilaterally by either side.

Therefore, we believe that the Ukrainian law on the contiguous zone is inapplicable to these sea areas.



Situation with the Myrotvorets site

We have taken note of the German Foreign Ministry’s statement regarding the addition of the personal data of former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to the Myrotvorets database.

You probably know that Germany has at long last said officially that something is wrong with that Ukrainian site and that it should be taken down. This statement was made after Mr Schroeder was added to the Myrotvorets database.

I doubt that Russian books for children are popular in the West, but this situation reminded me of a story about Neznaika, translated as Dunno, who thought he had learned to paint and painted portraits of all his friends. Every one of them liked the others’ portraits, but when they saw their own pictures they demanded that he take them down because the pictures were not like them at all.

Getting back to the situation at hand, the majority of Western countries believed only recently that everything was absolutely fine with the Myrotvorets site, which was established years ago. But their reaction is completely different when the site’s administrators set their eyes on these countries’ politicians, journalists and public organisations or their representatives.

It should be said that Russia has proposed at respective international venues more than once that this online resource must be taken down because of its illegal operations. We also urged Western countries to put pressure on the Kiev authorities to put an end to the illegal activities against the media.

However, it is a fact that our Western partners often shut their eyes to the persecution campaigns waged by Kiev against disagreeable media outlets and dissent. Our partners only react when they themselves or their interests become the targets of such actions.

What can I say? Are we glad that Berlin has at long last spoken up on this score? Yes, we are. Are we happy that this has been done based on considerations of the moment? No, we are not. We believe that principles must sometimes have priority over short-term considerations. If the West, including German NGOs, media and officials, are truly committed to freedom of speech, condemn any pressure on the media and civil society, let alone repressive methods, they must pay attention to such projects as Myrotvorets.

Of course, we would like the international community to take practical and consistent measures, rather than only act when this is convenient, to adjust Kiev’s actions to the standards of international law and its own obligations.



Seizure of RT correspondents’ passports in Nigeria

On November 7, in Yenagoa, Nigeria’s Bayelsa State, two RT correspondents Natalya Karachkova and Dmitry Tararako, who were filming a news video on an environmental issue, had their passports confiscated by the country’s migration officials. The only complaint voiced by representatives of the Nigerian authorities was that the journalists allegedly had the wrong category visas and did not have permission for filming. The correspondents, however, presented all the necessary original documents, including permission for filming, which had been coordinated at the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Information. Thus, all formalities and requirements for the journalists’ accreditation on the territory of Nigeria had been observed. These requirements are publicly available.

This situation is unacceptable. This is not about a planned inspection or an attempt to point out violations in the documents, but a seizure of documents, and for an extended period.

The Russian Embassy in Nigeria is taking every effort to settle the situation. A demarche on this matter was delivered to the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We are constantly monitoring the situation. If there is no positive outcome regarding the RT journalists, a diplomatic representation will be made to Nigeria’s Ambassador to Russia.



All-Turkish Forum Memory Watch

As you know, we take every effort to preserve the historic memory of the Great Patriotic War and fight attempts to rewrite history. Today, this work is particularly relevant due to the unprecedented scope of falsifications.

Organisations of Russian compatriots abroad traditionally make a considerable contribution to the preservation of memory of heroic deeds in the national history, including the St George Ribbon and the Immortal Regiment campaigns. Members of these organisations, as volunteers, engage in military memorial work, including caring for monuments and gravesites, and help war veterans. This is constant work. We also often receive requests for help and assistance.

In this regards, we would like to note the work of the Coordinating Council of Organisations of Russian Compatriots in Turkey and the World Coordination Council of Russian Compatriots (WCC) on organising the first All-Turkish Forum entitled Memory Watch: Immortal Leningrad on November 11-13. The forum took place in the Russian Embassy building in Ankara, with the efforts from the Russian diplomatic mission and local non-commercial organisations of our compatriots (Association of Russian Culture and Association of Russian-Speaking Youth) and with assistance from the Russkiy Mir Foundation. Igor Pykhalov and Yelena Lelina, historians from St Petersburg who were invited to take part in the event, told the forum participants about the history of the defence of Leningrad, as well as about modern monuments dedicated to the Siege of Leningrad. Reports on the immortal deed of Leningrad were presented by compatriots from Ankara, Istanbul, Manisa and Antalya.

Following the forum, the participants adopted a resolution stating their commitment to continue the tradition of organising such patriotic events with the participation of specialists from Russia. The themes of future forums will be the Heroic Defence of Sevastopol, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Kursk Bulge.

The forum attracted over 70 people – compatriots from eight non-commercial organisations and five Turkish cities, students of the school named after Hero of Russia Andrey Karlov at the Russian Embassy, and students of Russian language courses and the Russian department at Ankara University.



7th St Petersburg International Cultural Forum

The 7th International Cultural Forum is taking place in St Petersburg between November 15 and 17. This major annual international event brings together thousands of culture professionals from all around the world, including outstanding theatre, opera and ballet artists, renowned directors and musicians, public figures, representatives of authorities and business, as well as academic communities.

This year there will be a large-scale programme, with a number of new Russian and international productions: shows, concerts, exhibitions and many other events for the general public.

More information can be obtained via the forum’s website https://culturalforum.ru.



Cooperation between Caspian states

We are satisfied with the rapid development of cooperation between the five Caspian states, which is largely due to the constructive results achieved at the Fifth Caspian Summit held on August 12 this year in Aktau, Kazakhstan. The participants adopted the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea and signed a number of intergovernmental documents and protocols.

The decisions taken by the Caspian leaders in Aktau are being steadily implemented. The Caspian countries have launched the ratification procedure of the convention. There will be a meeting of the High-Level Working Group at the level of deputy foreign ministers. It has been established to monitor various aspects of Caspian cooperation. The first meeting of the working group will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan shortly.

Interdisciplinary cooperation has been given a fresh boost. In the period since the Aktau summit, Russia has completed the domestic procedures that are required for enforcing the intergovernmental agreements on cooperation in the economy, transport and the prevention of incidents in the Caspian Sea. According to the available information, the other Caspian states are also working towards this end.

Considerable progress has been made at the October talks on a draft protocol to regulate the five countries’ joint fight against poaching, as per the provisions of the Communique of the Fifth Caspian Summit. The 3rd meeting of the Coordination Committee on Hydrometeorology and Pollution Monitoring in the Caspian Sea was held in a business-like atmosphere in Turkmenistan in late October. A second meeting of the intergovernmental Commission on the Protection and Rational Use of Biological Water Resources of the Caspian Sea will be held in Azerbaijan before the end of this year.

We note increased interest in Caspian matters among the academic community. The 11th International Economic Forum, Caspian Dialogue 2018, was held successfully at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) on November 14. The Shirshov Institute of Oceanology is preparing to hold in late November an international roundtable discussion on the future of the Caspian Sea and related research and projects.



Russian policy on relations with the new government of Iraqi Kurdistan

Regional parliamentary elections were held in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq on September 30. Their final results were announced on October 20. As expected, the victory went to the oldest Kurdish parties – the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which will have 45 and 21 seats in the parliament, respectively. A new government is being formed in the autonomous region.

Moscow has traditionally had solid friendly historical ties with Iraqi Kurdistan. We maintain regular and direct political contacts with the region’s authorities and agencies. Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov has recently held a meeting in Moscow with a KDP delegation to discuss the future of Russian-Kurdistani cooperation.

We hope that all Kurdish parties will join forces to form without delay a new, effective and viable government, which will work with the Iraqi federal authorities to overcome the current differences between Erbil and Baghdad.

We would also like to say that Moscow has always consistently advocated the achievement of national accord in Iraq in the interests of all Iraqi citizens regardless of their ethnic origin or faith, as well as preserving the country’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.



Opening of the Foreign Ministry’s Office at the City of Masters Masterslavl

On November 12, Moskva-City hosted the opening of the Foreign Ministry Office at the City of Masters Masterslavl.

Everyone interested will have an opportunity to delve into the history of the diplomatic service, join in a diplomatic role playing game, and even head a diplomatic mission.

Young visitors will get familiar with technical aspects of the diplomatic profession, including how to prepare a diplomatic bag (the Office will provide valises and genuine sealing-wax) and issue visas. They will also learn about the subtleties of the art of diplomacy and diplomatic etiquette, as well as what makes an effective negotiator. They will learn how to address world problems and answer tricky media questions at a briefing (there is even a miniature press centre on the premises), which can be watched live on a special screen – just like adults do in real life.

Apart from that, children and teens will be able to participate in many other interesting things like attending workshops, trying on the ambassadorial uniform, perusing archive photographs, and looking through latest issues of International Affairs and Diplomatic Journal.

We will be glad to welcome young diplomats and future ambassadors at our Office.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

I would like to thank the Foreign Ministry on behalf of our readers for its heroic peacemaking activities which we regard as a contribution to Russia’s sovereignty.

On November 6, President Emmanuel Macron of France, speaking live on Radio Europe 1, said that we needed a common European army. He expanded on this point while addressing TF1 Channel, where he said that they were not vassals and should have a European army. Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany went on record as saying the same thing. President of Russia Vladimir Putin noted that this European desire was normal in a multipolar world format. At the same time, your counterpart, Heather Nauert, declared that the US would not allow the weakening of NATO positions in Europe. Can Russia help Europe strengthen its military sovereignty? After all, this will only strengthen peace.



Maria Zakharova:

I think there should be a different relationship here. If I can get philosophical for a moment, it is not peacemaking that contributes to sovereignty but Russia’s sovereignty that contributes to peacemaking and generally to activities aimed at achieving peace and cooperation the world over. I think this is the right way of thinking about it.

As for the heads of European countries saying that a united Europe would like to have armed forces of its own, the issue, as you rightly said, is the sovereign right of states to decide how they should organise their defence policy. States and unions of states have this sovereign right. Of course, we proceed from the premise that this is precisely a defence policy.

As far as the US reaction is concerned, I was updating you for 20 minutes or so, earlier today, on the deployment of NATO forces and the infrastructure used by NATO, or more precisely by the US, the country that leads and controls that organisation. I also spoke about the presence, strength and deployment of US armed forces in Europe. Who do you think will be pleased with Europe starting to say that its states are not vassals in a country that continues to build up its presence in Europe? I don’t think that the mass of arms and equipment they have as well as their military contingents are an indicator of cooperation. Their function is to control Europe. This is a 24/7 performance meant to show who is the boss and who is responsible for their future. Many analysts say as much. Statements that we heard coming from European capitals can please no one in the United States because the US has an agenda and plans of its own with regard to Europe.

As for Russia-EU military and defence cooperation and interaction, as well as cooperation between Russia and individual member-states and other European countries, we are always open to it. I think our military experts are better qualified to talk about this, but we also regularly update you on the subject. Let me give you a few examples. We hold joint military exercises and are ready for openness and interaction in this area. We also inform our partners, even those that don’t reciprocate, about upcoming exercises. We do this in order to remove concerns in a number of countries. We call for more intensive cooperation between secret services and defence ministries, between counterterrorism agencies, bilaterally, and at the international organisations we belong to. We repeatedly offered NATO the assistance of the CSTO and SCO in dealing with its objectives. You know well that we worked together quite successfully within the framework of Russia-NATO dialogue until this dialogue was blocked by the alliance.



Question:

Is the Foreign Ministry involved in the implementation of the OPEC+ and Nord Stream projects?



Maria Zakharova:

It certainly is. Unfortunately, projects that were meant to operate exclusively within the infrastructure, financial and economic landscape, including in the energy industry, become overgrown with political “chaff” and intrigues, sometimes even confrontation as they advance to a larger scale stage. Over the past few years, this has become known not only to narrow specialists. Today I cited an example of open political pressure that one country places on others. Logic suggests, of course, that these projects should be built without the Foreign Ministry’s involvement, or our involvement should be limited to assistance in the preparation of documents, in legalisation and the search for partners.

But, alas, this is not the case. We can see that in recent years, there has been a fierce debate around energy projects with Russian participation or those that Russia has directly initiated with the involvement of international participants to defend its own interests.

This subject is raised regularly at international organisations and in the course of our bilateral meetings. The Russian side repeatedly tries to persuade its partners that this issue really needs to be brought back on the track of financial and economic negotiations. We point out the underlying political motives, we produce facts to disavow the statements we hear from our partners that these energy projects will only put Europe in a difficult position or threaten the energy security of certain countries. We have to do this explanatory and diplomatic work at the Ministry leadership level, our embassies, and the Central Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We make public statements and conduct purely diplomatic work; this accounts for a good share of our diplomatic activity.

We indeed provide some direct assistance in the implementation of these projects, as I said, help with paperwork, receive delegations, organise meetings between government agencies and representatives of major businesses, help find investors, and involve organisations in various aspects. Our embassy is also is engaged in this work.



Question:

You touched on the cybersecurity issue. Today, the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service’s sources noted a major hacker attack directed against their website. Various official spokespersons in Russia say these actions are conducted from other countries.



Maria Zakharova:

Our leadership and the Information and Press Department receive monthly updates about the number of attacks against information and media resources, including those of the Foreign Ministry. These numbers run to hundreds of thousands rather than dozens, hundreds or thousands of incidents. We trace their origin. We have repeatedly drawn the attention of our Western partners to this information and have told them from which countries these attacks are conducted. Unfortunately, this is now a routine matter, rather than just one isolated incident. In some cases, our information resources could not be accessed. Therefore we were forced to protect ourselves and to strengthen our information security.



Question:

UK’s Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab announced his resignation this morning and said that he cannot support Prime Minister Theresa May’s ideas on exiting from the European Union. Notably, Theresa May’s draft document mentioned joint sanction policies of London and Brussels. How can you comment on this situation?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly commented that, just like the UK’s relations with the EU, Brexit is a domestic UK affair. This is a question of how politicians, representatives of the ruling elite and the British political establishment assess the actions of their government.



Question:

Could you comment on a statement by Hashim Thaci to Kosovo’s media that Russia should change its attitude towards Kosovo? On what conditions could Russia modify its position?



Maria Zakharova:

I have not seen this particular statement. Everything boils down to international law here. So far, no one has abolished UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which remains in force. This resolution determines the Russian side’s attitude towards the Kosovo issue. At the same time, we realise that the concerned parties are in talks.

Various decisions that can be made should meet the interests of the people of Serbia. This is a sufficiently universal formula. There is no point in searching for formulas that would make Russia change its approach.



Question:

In its recent report, the Federal Customs Service estimates January-June 2018 trade between Iran and Russia at $950 million. They say some Russian companies are leaving Iran. Do our countries have an action plan for maintaining growth trends and for expanding bilateral trade?



Maria Zakharova:

All political assessments of bilateral economic relations have already been made. Russia strives to cooperate with Iran, it does not declare any unilateral sanctions, like the ones that have been introduced and are being expanded by the United States. Analysts voice positive assessments of Russian-Iranian cooperation prospects. There is room for improvement. Russia has extremely openly stated its position on this matter.

Speaking of specific economic operators, I think it would be better to ask them.



Question:

The presidents of Russia and Turkey agreed in Sochi that the Idlib de-escalation zone should start operating. However, Turkey has not honoured its obligations. Are there any specific deadlines for launching this zone?



Maria Zakharova:

Certain dates were stipulated, but, as I have already said, the Turkish side has failed to completely accomplish various tasks. We have noted this, but we continue our work in this area.



Question:

Editor-in-Chief of USA Really Alexander Malkevich was detained in Washington on November 9. He was interrogated by members of the secret service for several hours. Then he was handed a notice about the need to register his publication as a foreign agent but no specific accusations were presented. Why do you think the American authorities are so interested in the Russian media? Why is such an outrage allowed?



Maria Zakharova:

To begin with, I should mention that the detained person is first deputy chairman of the Russian Civic Chamber Commission on the development of the information community, the media and mass communications. As you know, we defend all journalists that are charged with unfounded accusations but in this case our partners should remember that he is a representative of the Russian Civic Chamber.

We have already expressed our serious concern on this score. A relevant commentary was published on the Foreign Ministry website on November 11. The hours-long interrogation to which FBI agents subjected Malkevich for doing his job as a journalist, is yet more proof of the campaign of pressure exerted by the US authorities on the Russian press or any independent opinion, be it on the US or other countries.

The number of people involved in interrogations and investigations is stunning. One gets the impression that he is a member of a terrorist group or bandit formation. The demand presented to our journalist and public figure almost at gunpoint to register the news agency he heads as a foreign agent is much in the same vein.

The information that differs from the mainstream in the US is acquiring a status of “persona non grata.” One gets the impression that people are being intimidated using the examples of others. They are shown what will happen if they continue doing their job as heads of news agencies, journalists and other media employees that do not support the mainstream in the US.

All accusations made during this investigation are limited to the concept of Russophobia and “Russia’s meddling in the US elections.” Just today I have cited examples of how US officials intimidate other countries, proceeding from the political, financial, economic and strategic situation in Washington.

We would like to advise the US authorities to ponder over their actions as regards the Russian media, representatives of civil society, public agencies and NGOs. We demand an end to the practice of such interrogations, power pressure and the use of strong-arm mechanisms regarding those who have what US law enforcement consider an alternative opinion. We believe this is unacceptable.



Question:

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis’s son claims he was sent from the Czech Republic first to Moscow and then to Crimea by a Russian-born employee of his father’s company. Does the Foreign Ministry have the information on him crossing the border of the Russian Federation? Is there information on his visit to Moscow and stay in Crimea?



Maria Zakharova:

I saw reports about this. Our initial analysis suggests that this is likely to be a bogus story, a provocation made for some domestic political purposes.

We have also read comments made by Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis himself. He denied all this. I don’t have any additional information. If we receive it, we will certainly let you know but our initial view is that this is simply a bogus story.



Question:

This Tuesday the Rossiya Segodnya press centre hosted the news conference “Russian women and children in Middle East prisons and camps: Their situation and possible liberation.” The participants spoke about women who joined ISIS. They said that the Foreign Ministry is helping to secure their release. What difficulties or challenges is the ministry facing in this work?



Maria Zakharova:

This work is very difficult. If I understand you correctly, you are talking about children and women arrested in the Middle East and North Africa on charges of terrorism.

We have spoken about this a lot and had a detailed analysis of a number of cases, court rulings and so on. Speaking about difficulties, first, they concern the need to verify that they are Russian citizens (without going into the detail of the investigation, because it does not fall within the purview of the executive power or the Russian side). Sometimes passports and all the documents are lost. There were cases when they were not lost but destroyed on purpose. It is very difficult to confirm if they are Russian citizens or not. But we are working on this.

The next thing is family ties. We need to determine whether these people are members of the same family or not, if they have relatives in Russia, and again if these relatives have Russian citizenship – that is the second set of issues we are dealing with.

The third large set involves direct communication and cooperation with these people. Many of them, even if their Russian citizenship has been confirmed, refuse to communicate with Russia. Conversely, others want to return or want their children to return.

These are the three sets of the most difficult issues we have to resolve.



Question:

I would like to ask you about the groundbreaking ceremony of the first Russian Cultural Centre plus an Orthodox church in Singapore. Is it important for Russia to promote Russian culture abroad? How does the public in these countries feel about these activities?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the event you have just mentioned: we have posted the statement which was made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with his views on this event.

As for promoting Russian culture abroad, this is really a sweeping matter. We attach great importance to it for a number of reasons. It is difficult to say which of these are more important. I will provide several aspects why Russian culture should be promoted.

First and foremost, a huge number of compatriots one way or another are living abroad. They see themselves as part of the common Russian cultural space. They want us to remember them. They want to learn Russian and they want their children and grandchildren to speak Russian as well. They try to be active members of the Russian cultural community. They want to be involved in everything that takes place in Russia, including in terms of its development and culture.

There are very many associations, foundations and NGOs that are working outside Russia – this is the second part of my answer to your question – to maintain bilateral cultural ties. Some of them were formed by our compatriots. But others were created by those who have no direct ties of blood with Russia or Russian citizens but want to develop cultural relations with Russia.

A Russian delegation led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has recently visited Madrid, where Mr Lavrov presented a state decoration to Dolores Tomás Silvestre, a Spanish collector who supported Soviet and Russian artists for years and who has recently donated many of her paintings to Russian museums. She does not simply have an interest in Russia but believes that it is part of her life and her mission.

Apart from everything else, culture, educational projects, research and sports are the integral parts of the humanitarian sphere, which we can use to tell people more about our country and to build bridges between individuals and whole nations. This is the essence of international relations. They are not only about preventing crises. The main task, which we have been neglecting recently, is to promote contacts among people, nations, and citizens from various countries and regions. Culture is a marvellous medium for the development of such contacts.



Question:

This question is related to yet another accusation against Russia by the current Ukrainian authorities. After President Vladimir Putin made an exhaustive comment today on the West’s reaction to the elections in Donbass, Verkhovna Rada Vice Speaker Irina Gerashchenko posted a statement accusing Russia of trying to destabilise the situation in Ukraine. She linked it with the renunciation of the proposal to convene an extraordinary meeting of the trilateral Contact Group in connection with the elections in the DPR and the LPR. She declared that Russia had assumed full responsibility for the “pseudo elections” in Donbass and any destructive consequences, that it is betting on the failure of the peace talks and is impudently demonstrating that no progress will be made in these talks until the presidential election in Ukraine, at which Russia hopes to see a winner other than Petr Poroshenko. How can these accusations be countered?



Maria Zakharova:

You said, and rightly so, that evaluations had already been made. They were made before the elections in Donbass because there were questions and it was clear that the elections had been scheduled. Russia did not hide its attitude and openly explained its position. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made several open statements on this issue.

You mentioned a statement by a Ukrainian politician that Russia had assumed full responsibility for the elections in Donbass. I would like to correct her. You have to be honest and say that Russia in principle has assumed responsibility for the destinies of people whom many in Kiev would simply like to destroy. This is exactly why Ukrainian armed forces tanks were sent to Donbass to suppress any dissent and eliminate people who did not accept the constitutional coup that took place in Ukraine. At that time Russia indeed took responsibility for the destinies of these people by supplying them with food, medication, the basic necessities and all the humanitarian relief we sent. Kiev claimed that these were all but disassembled tanks that were transported in heavy trucks in the guise of humanitarian relief. Later, everybody calmed down. As a result, many convoys (about a hundred) have been sent to Donbass.

You have to be specific and say that this is the responsibility for the people who could have been killed. I do not see any other reason for the country’s leaders sitting in the capital to send tanks to these regions and open fire at civilians. The only reason was to suppress these people morally and psychologically, prevent them from living according to the laws that were not abrogated by any legal authorities and then to just start destroying them. I think you know this better than me. Many of you have been to the region and have seen everything with your own eyes. You saw how the people lived there. If it were not for Russia, it would be horrible to imagine how they would exist today.

I would also like to recall what the Kiev authorities do not want to remember or even know – how many people were received by the Russian Federation and the Russian people and what support was given to them when the Kiev regime decided it was okay to open fire on civilians. A number of people have remained in the Russian Federation while others have returned to their historical homeland in the hope that peaceful life will fall into place, all the more so since the Minsk agreements were signed. If Kiev starts issuing statements about this, it is necessary to recollect courage and analyse in real earnest what has been happening in Donbass during all these years.

Now I would like to talk about the declaration of the will of the people of Donbass and Russia’s motives in assessing these elections. The leaders of some districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions were elected on November 11 of this year. The current leaders – Denis Pushilin (Donetsk) and Leonid Pasechnik – were elected to the top positions. The voter turnout was unprecedentedly high – almost 80 percent.

The elections were organised under the universal and equal right to vote as guaranteed by item 7.3 of the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and by the basic standards of democracy. The Kiev authorities do not want to hear this, but we will tell them about the unanimous opinion of the many observers from over 20 countries, including OSCE member states.

On the whole, voting took place in a calm atmosphere and without violations. The absence of excesses was reaffirmed by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM). Its personnel did not act as observers at these elections but continued monitoring the situation in the unrecognised republics under their mandate.

Now I would like to say a few words about motives. After the assassination of Alexander Zakharchenko, the potential “vacuum of power” created a real risk of total destabilisation in southeastern Ukraine. This could have negatively affected the sustenance of life in Donbass and the process of settlement in general against the backdrop of the Kiev-imposed trade and economic blockade and Kiev’s continuous threats to use force. The elections made it possible to avoid this scenario. Now the people’s elected officials have a mandate to address the practical goals of supporting a normal life in these regions and carrying out the social functions that have been stubbornly neglected by the Ukrainian authorities.

It is essential to approach the results of the election in Donbass with understanding, respect and consideration for the totality of all factors. We assume that it was held outside the context of the Minsk Package of Measures, item 12 of which is exclusively devoted to local elections. We hope the newly elected leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk will continue the dialogue with Kiev in the framework of the Contact Group on settling the crisis in southeastern Ukraine in accordance with the Minsk agreements.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3410247
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 12th, 2019 #534
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the general meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, Moscow, November 20, 2018



20 November 2018 - 15:24







Mr Ivanov,

Colleagues, friends,

Thank you for inviting me to the annual general meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC). Our dialogue in this format has become a good tradition. I recognise so many familiar faces all around me.

The Foreign Ministry highly appreciates our fruitful cooperation with RIAC, which is a key Russian research centre and brain trust dealing with international matters. A combination of your members’ intellectual capabilities is especially important today. I doubt that we need to speak in detail about the current international situation. President Vladimir Putin devoted a large part of his remarks to this topic at the conference of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia in July this year and also on other occasions.

The international fever has not gone down since then. The historical West is still violently opposed to the objective rise of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order. Clinging to the principles of unipolarity, Washington and some other Western capitals appear unable to constructively interact with the new global centres of economic and political influence. A wide range of restrictions are applied to the dissenters, ranging from military force and unilateral economic sanctions to demonisation and mud-slinging in the spirit of the notorious “highly likely.” There are many examples of this dirty game. One of them is the idea of giving the power of persecution to the OPCW Technical Secretariat in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the UN Security Council privileges as well as contrary to the opinion of the majority of CWC states.

This has seriously debased international law. Moreover, attempts have been made to replace the notion of law with a “rules-based order” the parameters of which will be determined by a select few.

We are especially concerned about the activities of the US administration aimed at destroying the key international agreements. These include withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran nuclear deal, the declared intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), an open line for revising the settlement principles in the Middle East, as well as sabotaging the Minsk Agreements on overcoming the internal Ukrainian crisis. The trade wars that have been launched contrary to the WTO principles are rocking the global economic architecture, free trade and competition standards. The US establishment, blindly believing in the idea of their exceptionalism, continues to appoint rivals and adversaries, primarily among the countries that pursue an independent foreign policy. Everyone can see that Washington is a loose cannon, liable to act incongruously, including regarding Russia where any steps taken by US President Donald Trump to develop stable and normal channels of communication with Moscow on the biggest current problems are promptly blocked by those who want to continue or even strengthen the destructive approach to relations with Russia, which developed during the previous US administration.

Overall, it looks as if the Americans and some of our other Western colleagues have forgotten the basics of diplomacy and the art of dialogue and consensus over the past 25 years. One result of this is the dangerous militarisation of the foreign policy thinking. As RIAC Director General Andrey Kortunov recently pointed out at a Valdai Discussion Club meeting, the Clausewitz formula can be changed to a mirror image, “Politics is a continuation of war by other means.”

Russia is a consistent supporter of the development of international life based on the principles of the UN Charter. We are a serious obstacle in the way of different destructive undertakings. Maybe this is why we are accused of so many “mortal sins” and presented as a “revisionist” power. In reality, we are being punished for our independent foreign policy and our renunciation of the actions of real revisionists that are aimed at the unilateral revision of the norms of interstate communication as written in the UN Charter and the basic instruments of international law that they would like to replace with their own rules.

We oppose these trends with a creative international agenda and put forward uniting initiatives aimed at the effective resolution of common urgent problems – from the creation оf a global antiterrorist coalition to the establishment of a Eurasian architecture for peace, security and comprehensive cooperation to the ensuring of a system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic Region. We facilitate the political settlement of many crises and conflicts, in particular, in Syria. It is largely owing to our efforts that a resolute blow was dealt to the terrorists in that country. The disintegration of its statehood was prevented and conditions were created for the return of refugees and political stabilisation in accordance with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi on January 30 of this year. Let me emphasise once again that this is exactly where the guarantors of the Astana process negotiated the realistic terms for implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254 with the participation of the delegations of the Syrian Government and the opposition.

The overwhelming majority of states share Russia’s positions on interstate communication. They consider Russia a reliable guarantor of global stability and a balance in the world order that is now taking shape.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has emphasised more than once that we will uphold our sovereignty, ensure national security and defend Russia’s honour and dignity in any course of events. We will continue pursuing peace-loving neighbourly foreign policy and will remain open to constructive cooperation with our foreign partners in all geographical areas and in any format based on mutual respect, predictability and negotiability. This fully applies to the United States, the West as a whole and such agencies as the EU and NATO, all the more so since many countries in Europe realise the futility of this line towards confrontation with Russia that has been imposed on them.

I am convinced that common sense will eventually prevail. We will probably never be absolutely the same. There will always be differences in our approaches to these and other problems. But let us uphold our positions through dialogue rather than threats and ultimatums. Let us compete in good faith.







Colleagues,

Today the role of qualitative analytical support for Russian foreign policy is tangibly increasing. I am pleased to note that the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), which has established itself as an effective instrument on the second track of Russian diplomacy, is making a large contribution to the resolution of this task. The range of issues on its agenda is being expanded. Most materials are practical and required in daily activity.

We are grateful for efforts to explain the Russian position to the foreign public at large. I would like to mention its work on the internet that has allowed it to significantly increase its audience, as I understand it, to three million people. The Council is stepping up its media activities and enhancing its prestige as a high quality source of information on international relations and the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.

The Council is distinguished for its cooperation with its foreign partners. It has established and is broadening its partnership in different parts of the world, including the CIS, the Asia and Pacific Region, BRICS and the SCO countries, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. We appreciate your efforts to facilitate the creation of an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding in the Euro-Atlantic Region. We hope you will make a similar contribution in Latin America and Africa.

The Council’s educational activities, its role in the training of experts in international relations and the promotion of student exchanges have received broad recognition. We support its dialogue with the youth and the use of the creative potential of promising young researchers.

The RIAC’s activities in the outgoing year, which are likely to be discussed today, deserve high marks. It is based on the professionalism of its members and their efforts to achieve tangible results.

I would like to wish you further success.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413324






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint meeting of Russian and Belarusian foreign ministry collegiums, Minsk, November 21, 2018



21 November 2018 - 10:50







Mr Makei,

Mr Rapota,

Colleagues,

Today we have met for a traditional joint meeting of Russian and Belarusian foreign ministry collegiums. These events are an important part of our close and friendly interaction based on two-year programmes of coordinated foreign policy actions.

Next year we will mark the 20th anniversary of the Union State Treaty. In this connection, the High Level Group of the Union State Council of Ministers, which met in Minsk on November 14, has instructed the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus to hold joint collegium meetings to discuss the implementation of the Union State Treaty. I think we can discuss the implementation of the current Programme of Coordinated Foreign Policy Actions at the next meeting of our collegiums, which will be held in Russia, and also sign a new programme for the next two years and submit this for the approval by our heads of state.

Russia and Belarus are allies who coordinate their actions on the international stage. We are also working consistently to enhance the prestige of integration associations within the CIS and to create a Euro-Atlantic architecture of equal and indivisible security and collegiate resistance to new challenges and threats based firmly on international law.

We attach great importance to the preservation of our common history. This is why we are seriously concerned about the dangerous trend of distorting the events of the Great Patriotic War and World War II. Attempts are made again and again to justify or even glorify Nazis and their henchmen and to revise the decisions of the Nuremberg Trials. It is alarming that these attempts to falsify history have been compounded by Russophobia, which has almost become a state ideology in some European countries.

In this situation, we must work together, as Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei has pointed out, to continue to consistently combat these destructive plans, using all the available political and legal instruments for this purpose. What we need is a comprehensive approach, which means combining the potentials of our diplomats, MPs, the academic community and the general public. Today we will map out the steps we must take to improve our coordination in this sphere. We discussed these topics at a meeting with Mr Makei yesterday evening. We have agreed, in particular, to prepare a series of special events on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II.







Moscow and Minsk are working energetically to improve the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and strengthen its ties with other countries and their integration associations. Our focus is now on the alignment of the EAEU and China’s Belt and Road initiative in accordance with the decision taken at the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in November 2015. The EAEU and China signed an agreement on trade and economic cooperation in Astana on May 17, 2018. We continue to draft a Russia-China Eurasian Economic Partnership Agreement, which will be open for signature by all EAEU states and other interested countries.

In this context we should start implementing President Vladimir Putin’s initiative on creating a Greater Eurasian Partnership comprising EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN countries. This association will be open to all other countries on the Eurasian continent, including EU states. This partnership can eventually become the framework of a common trade and economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast ensuring economic connectivity in this part of the world.

I would like to express my support for the idea of developing close ties between the secretariats of the concerned integration associations, which Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei has put forth. I believe that the OSCE could become the venue for discussing initiatives on harmonising various integration processes.

International information security, which we will be discussing today, is becoming a priority topic on the global agenda. Russia and Belarus see eye to eye on this topic and have been working together regarding this on the main multilateral platforms, first of all the UN. We are grateful to our Belarusian friends for traditionally co-authoring Russia-proposed draft resolutions of the UN General Assembly on the rules of responsible behaviour of states in the digital sphere and on combating cybercrime. Our bilateral relations are based on the Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation in International Information Security.

We will also bring up humanitarian cooperation today, including close coordination of our actions at multilateral culture, research and education forums, as well as human rights venues. One of the clear priorities is our work with young people. Our presidents discussed this subject at length at the Fifth Forum of the Regions of Russia and Belarus, which was held in Mogilev in October. The Union State of Russia and Belarus must offer the youth in Russia and Belarus the broadest possible opportunities for professional, educational and cultural development. I hope our foreign ministries will find a way to contribute towards this.

I am grateful for the traditional hospitality accorded to us upon our arrival in Belarus.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413748






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko on the sidelines of the joint meeting of the collegiums of the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministries, Minsk, November 21, 2018



21 November 2018 - 14:31







President Lukashenko,

Thank you for this opportunity to meet and listen to your assessments of our work. We have just held a joint meeting of the collegiums of the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministries. We meet every year. We had a very useful conversation on the problems of joint efforts to counter the falsification of the history of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, on the topics of cyber security and the development of integration with the EAEU, the SCO and other structures in the large Eurasian space, and on the issues of our common culture and its promotion abroad.







Yesterday I discussed in detail with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei our other bilateral issues, including equal rights and the need to balance them out, which you have just mentioned. We believe it is necessary to fully implement our agreements both as regards businesses and citizens. We have resolved many problems, but we still have to work on some issues. As a foreign office, we will do everything to help our relevant structures reach agreements.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414121






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei, Minsk, November 21, 2018



21 November 2018 - 15:19







Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to once again express our heartfelt gratitude to Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei and all our Belarusian friends for organising our work so well and for the traditional Belarusian hospitality.

This year Belarus hosted a number of important bilateral events, including a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus held in Minsk in June, the fifth Forum of the Regions of Russia and Belarus held in Mogilev in October, and a meeting of the High Level Group of the Union State Council of Ministers, which met in Minsk in November and was co-chaired by deputy prime ministers. We welcome the proactive and constructive position of our friends on strengthening Russian-Belarusian integration at all levels. On December 13, the Union State Council of Ministers will meet in Brest to consider decisions that are vital for deepening our integration.

We have a positive view on our integration cooperation within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). We have agreed to continue to promote and strengthen the union’s foreign relations, including with the SCO, ASEAN nations and China, as part of aligning Eurasian integration and China’s Belt and Road initiative. These efforts have produced the first practical results. Our ultimate goal is to create what President Vladimir Putin has described as a Greater Eurasia project, which would be open to the member states of the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN, as well as possibly EU countries, if they would like this.

During a joint meeting of the foreign ministry collegiums, we also discussed a very important matter concerning the joint fight against efforts to distort the history of the Great Patriotic War and to revise the outcome of World War II. We agree that any attempt to glorify Nazis and their henchmen must be cut short.

We also held an in-depth discussion on the role of our foreign ministries in building up humanitarian cooperation. We have agreed to continue our efforts to consolidate the common cultural and spiritual landscape and to promote our common historical legacy.

We have decided to boost contacts between young people at various venues. Russia will continue to provide support, including via the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), to the initiatives of the Belarusian communities outside our countries on marking the end of the Great Patriotic War and holding Days of Slavic Culture and other events.

Our agenda also included a topic relating to international information security. We spoke about our close cooperation at the UN to promote important initiatives on the rules of responsible behaviour in the digital sphere and on combating cybercrime. Both initiatives have been approved by the relevant UN General Assembly committees and will be soon presented for adoption at a UNGA plenary meeting.

We also discussed other aspects of our close interaction at the UN, including its human rights dimension. We talked about our relations in the context of preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, which will be held in Milan in early December, as well as interaction with the EU and other European organisations.

We also compared notes on military-political security in Europe and the rest of the Euro-Atlantic region. We expressed our concern over the rising tension in Europe, largely because of NATO’s military build-up near our borders and Washington’s declared intention to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). This has faced us with new security challenges to which we must respond at the level of both the Union State and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

Today I have reported on the results of our meeting to President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. He reaffirmed his high appreciation of our foreign ministries’ cooperation within the framework of the programmes of coordinated foreign policy actions of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.

We will continue to closely cooperate based on the plan of consultations we have just now signed and the decisions we have included in the protocol of the joint meeting of our foreign ministry collegiums.

In conclusion, I would like to extend my best wishes to the television crews present here on World Television Day.







Question:

The other day, the OPCW turned down the Russian proposals on a more balanced approach in the organisation and approved an expanded budget for imparting attributive functions to the Technical Secretariat. In the context of these events, how do you see future cooperation between Russia and the OPCW?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Foreign Ministry and the Russian delegation, which attended the meeting of the conference of states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, have already commented on this unhealthy and dangerous situation. The situation is alarming. Contrary to accepted norms, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and international laws on the Convention’s documents, the decision to vest the Technical Secretariat with the functions of establishing and appointing blame was made during a vote and in violation of current procedures. By vesting the Technical Secretariat with functions that are the direct prerogative of the UN Security Council, the concerned parties are launching an offensive against the foundations of international law.

It is hardly surprising that our Western colleagues are now using the term “international law” less often. They speak about some “rules-based order.” The CWC, that clearly and unequivocally prescribes the actions of the OPCW, is what international law is all about. It can only be changed under the procedures stipulated by the Convention: the proposal of an amendment, discussion, approval and ratification.

Considering the way our Western colleagues deal with this issue today, how they are changing the very essence of the Convention by railroading decisions and by voting on them (and we know that this process was accompanied by a number of moves, including blackmail and bribery), this is no longer international law, but is rather that very “rules-based order.” Our Western colleagues would like to establish this order at their own discretion, without heeding the opinions of others in any way. Our supporters very clearly outlined their position in their joint statement at the conference of states parties to the convention. This substantial group includes 27 states, and this statement emphatically rejected the actions of the Western countries.

At this point, we will have to analyse the current situation and our subsequent relations with the OPCW. I don’t think we need to rush to any conclusions. Today, we need to make a sober evaluation as to how the Chemical Weapons Convention, the most important tool in international law and that for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, can be saved, and whether it is even possible. We will ask the advice of our allies from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation who also made a joint collective statement at yesterday’s meeting, and we will discuss the next steps in this situation.



Question:

Today, we are witnessing a dangerous trend towards a devaluation of the generally accepted norms and principles of international law. There is an unprecedented lack of trust in the world. What is your vision of a future global and regional security system? Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have outlined the risks facing international law amid the West’s efforts to retain its dominance in international affairs by artificial means. This is sad, because it would be in the interests of the entire international community to jointly work out approaches to modern threats rather than align others with its own vision and unilateral approaches. These risks are persisting, and more than that, they are growing.

I mentioned the attempts to turn a universal instrument of international law, the CPCW, into an obedient tool for advancing Western policy through interference in what is a UN Security Council prerogative. Something similar may happen with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC), which was adopted, ratified, and came into force many years ago. But Russia and a number of other countries that practice a responsible approach to the biological weapons issue, biological non-proliferation and the destruction of biological weapons are still unable to create a BWC verification mechanism to evaluate how well the member countries are performing their obligations. The main reason we have been unable to create this mechanism is the position of the United States that peremptorily blocks all proposals to create this kind of structure, as put forward by Russia and other countries back in the early 2000s. Currently, the United States, acting through the UN Secretariat, is promoting an initiative to create a certain structure and endow it with powers that conceivably should be available to an interstate or an intergovernmental mechanism. Again an attempt is being made to pressure international officials in order to promote its own approaches in circumvention of legitimate procedures. This is a worrisome practice.

There are many examples of this in other areas as well. We will continue to talk openly about this and put questions to our Western partners. They are attempting to avoid a serious discussion of this topic but I am confident that they will fail to drag this matter out or sweep it under the carpet. They will have to respond to the legitimate concerns in Russia and in many other countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414179






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of the joint meeting of the collegiums of the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus, Minsk, November 21, 2018



21 November 2018 - 16:16







Sergey Lavrov:

To begin with, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and I discussed the general state of our relations in the context of the agreements that were adopted at the level of the President and the Supreme Council of the Union State. We also discussed past and future undertakings within the framework of our bilateral relations as allies and partners. A number of events of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the heads of government will soon take place in Minsk. In early December, St Petersburg will host an EAEU summit and an informal CIS summit. Decisions and agreements are being drafted for these events. We reviewed the progress of this work.

I also told the President about the results of this morning’s joint meeting of the collegiums of the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus. It was devoted to a number of vital issues of our foreign policy coordination, including efforts to counter the falsification of history, harmonise integration processes in Eurasia, and promote cultural contacts and cooperation in other areas. We also reviewed a very important question on the minds of many – the problem of ensuring information security.

In addition, today Mr Lukashenko and I discussed issues bearing on the implementation of the agreement on ensuring equal rights of the citizens of Russia and Belarus in all areas of activity.

On the whole, I am very grateful to the President of the Republic of Belarus for the attention he pays to the cooperation of our foreign ministries and the development of relations within the Union State.



Question:

You agreed that it was necessary to continue creating equal conditions of work for businesses and citizens of Russia and Belarus. In what areas are we still behind? What problems do we have in this respect?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for businesses, these issues are considered by the Ministry of Economic Development and the Finance Ministry. We as the Foreign Ministry are in charge of issues linked with equal rights of citizens even in such areas as health resort treatment. There should be no difference in the approach to spending on hotel accommodation, when Russians travel in Belarus and Belarusians in Russia, or to medical services and insurance when a citizen of one country needs medical aid in the territory of the other. Many issues have already been settled. There are fewer issues where we are seeking equal rights. That said, the work certainly must be completed.



Question:

State Secretary of the Union State Grigory Rapota has said recently that Russia and Belarus are completing work on the mutual recognition of visas. But there is also a proposal to establish a Krasnaya Gorka checkpoint. We see this as a contradiction. Could you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are responsible for the talks on the so-called visa agreement. The last round took place several days ago at the level of the delegations. Each delegation is interagency. I believe yet another landmark will be reached in late November – early December, when experts again are due to review the remaining issues, this time as a joint working group (I think some technical issues remain outstanding). Serious progress was made at the last round. The Council of Ministers of the Union State is scheduled to hold a meeting on December 13, at which we hope to submit this agreement for signing.







Question:

Will we need these checkpoints after the signing of the agreement?



Sergey Lavrov:

To be honest, I am not in the know on the checkpoint issues. I know that the agreement that is being prepared should satisfactorily remove all concerns of both sides.



Question:

Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said recently that NATO would be glad to accept the Republic of Belarus, if it follows the road of Ukraine and Georgia. But this is impossible under Lukashenko, because they have to support the opposition. He essentially urged the overthrow of the regime in our country. What do you think about such statements and why are they made at all?



Sergey Lavrov:

Rasmussen has a long established and accurate reputation. I would not be surprised in your place. I heard that he is now working as a voluntary advisor to the Ukrainian President, so he is hardly likely to make reasonable statements.



Question:

Could you comment on the statement by High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini to the effect that Russia should not inspect ships in the Sea of Azov, which was made against the backdrop of threats of new sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is already a kind of a mania that gripped our EU colleagues fairly long ago. They believe that the Black Sea is their domain, ignoring the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation in which they have observer status. EU officials have long said that the Black Sea and the three seas (Black, Baltic and Adriatic) are an area where the tune is set by the EU.

As for the specific situation in the Sea of Azov, I have not heard any EU statements expressing concern when Ukrainians detained our fishing vessels illegally just because they had called at Crimean ports. They completely ignored all international laws, including the law of the sea.

As for the Sea of Azov, I would advise the EU to read the 2003 Russia-Ukraine treaty before sounding the alarm and asserting anything. It will be abundantly clear from this treaty that inspections of vessels by all means fit in into the effective agreements between Kiev and Moscow, which define the status of the Sea of Azov as the territorial waters of the two states.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414293






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Lindiwe Sisulu, Moscow, November 21, 2018



21 November 2018 - 19:27







Madam Minister,

My dear Lindiwe,

We are happy to welcome you to Moscow.

Today we have a good opportunity to review our cooperation under the agreements reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa in Johannesburg last July. At that time, our leaders reaffirmed their desire to continue promoting our partnership based on long-time traditions linked, in part, with our cooperation during the struggle of your people against apartheid and colonialism. Of course, this is highly symbolic now that you are celebrating the centenary of Nelson Mandela’s birth together with us and all your friends. I would like to convey special gratitude to our friends in South Africa for their attention to our common history. I know that a monument with the names of Soviet servicemen who died in the struggle for the liberation of southern Africa, including in Angola and Mozambique, will be unveiled in Pretoria in the near future.

Now we have a very positive agenda, which is confirmed by your participation earlier today in a regular meeting of the Russia-South Africa Combined Intergovernmental Committee on Trade and Economic Cooperation, which was also attended by Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation Dmitry Kobylkin.

We maintain very substantive cooperation in high-tech and have signed an agreement on the use of nuclear energy for oncology treatment.







We have a working group on space exploration.

Representatives of your provinces regularly visit regions of the Russian Federation. Our MPs maintain close contact. We are looking forward to seeing your representatives at a conference to be held by the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the near future, in the first half of December.

The Young Diplomats Forum attended by representatives of your foreign ministry took place in Sochi a week ago.

Naturally, today I hope to discuss in detail our continuing close cooperation at international organisations. Yesterday, we acted as one in the OPCW to uphold the immutability of the convention signed and ratified by all countries. Now that international law and the international system based on the results of World War II are being subjected to very serious trials, foreign policy coordination is much needed, both in bilateral relations and through BRICS.

I can certainly assure you that students at my alma mater, MGIMO, are very much looking forward to your lecture tomorrow.

Welcome.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414517






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Italian news agency AGI, November 22, 2018



22 November 2018 - 15:00




Question:

How would you assess Russia-Italy relations? What are your expectations of Italy in light of EU’s sanctions against Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our relations with Italy have traditionally been constructive and multifaceted. They are on the rise now. Our cooperation has been given an additional impetus at the top-level talks held in Moscow in October.

Russia and Italy maintain close ties in trade, the economy, energy, research, culture and the humanitarian sphere. Despite the anti-Russia sanctions campaign launched by Brussels, some 500 Italian companies and banking organisations continue to work in Russia. We are providing whatever help we can to them. For example, on October 24, Vladimir Putin and Giuseppe Conte had a highly constructive meeting in Moscow with the heads of Italy’s largest companies such as Enel, Pirelli, Maire Tecnimont, SNAM and ANAS, following which the sides signed a large package of B2B agreements. Their practical implementation is on the agenda now.

We appreciate that our Italian partners have not curtailed their cooperation with Russia despite a very complicated situation in Europe. This principled position objectively helps maintain trust and improve the situation on the continent we share.



Question:

What is the importance of the Mediterranean region for Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Mediterranean has a special place in Russia’s foreign policy due to Russia’s traditionally close ties with a number of countries in the region and the existence of numerous seats of tension there such as Syria, Libya and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Because of the short-sighted actions to replace undesirable governments and impose alien development scenarios on the regional countries, a large part of southern Mediterranean has turned into a hotbed of terrorism and illegal migration. This is a serious security threat to the international community, including Russia.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia is working together with the other regional players to find effective solutions to regional problems. In particular, terrorism has been defeated in Syria thanks to our military and diplomats. Syria is rebuilding peaceful life and creating conditions for the return of refugees to their homes. It is a highly relevant and important issue for Italy, which has been virtually flooded by migrants. We urge Rome and our other Western partners to join the infrastructure restoration process in Syria more actively and without setting any preconditions.

We are firmly committed to building up international cooperation in the Mediterranean based on the values of partnership, respect for each other’s interests, collective search for responses to common challenges, as well as the settlement of disputes by political and diplomatic means. We see this as a guarantee of sustainable development, well-being and prosperity of all countries in the region without exception.



Question:

What are Russia’s priorities in energy cooperation with Italy? What might be the consequences of the likely suspension of Ukraine gas transit after 2019?



Sergey Lavrov:

Energy is a strategic area of our versatile cooperation. President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte discussed this topic in detail during their talks on October 24. Russia remains a major supplier of natural gas to Italy, providing about 35 per cent of Italy’s gas needs.

The Italian business community has a stake in joining Europe-bound gas delivery projects. Saipem is involved in the Nord Stream-2 project. Opportunities for enlisting Italian companies to build gas transport infrastructure as part of the southern route of Russian gas deliveries to European countries are being studied at the corporate level.

The agreement on the transit of Russian natural gas via Ukraine is due to expire next year. President Vladimir Putin has instructed the Ministry of Energy and Gazprom to study possibilities for its extension. In September and October of this year, Brussels hosted consultations of Russian, Ukrainian and EU experts. In this context, I would like to stress that Russia did not say that it would discontinue gas transit through Ukraine after 2019. But the amount and terms of transit should be agreed at relevant talks on the pragmatic and market basis.



Question:

What are you doing to help settle the conflict in Libya? Are you cooperating with Italy in this respect? Do you plan to create Russian military bases in Libya similar to the ones you have in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has been actively contributing to the UN-led efforts to launch an intra-Libyan political process since the start of the conflict, so as to put an end to civil discord there. Our goal is to help the Libyans overcome their differences and reach firm agreements on the parameters of national reconciliation. At the same time, we firmly believe that foreign interference in the Libyan conflict, let alone a military intervention, is absolutely unacceptable.

We welcome the steps taken by various international and regional sponsors of a settlement in Libya, including Italy, with which we maintain close contacts on the Libyan subject. We have supported the initiative advanced by Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte to convene the International Conference on Libya in Palermo on November 12-13, where Russia was represented by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

Russia is not taking sides in the internal Libyan conflict. We believe that Libya’s future must be determined by the Libyans themselves. We are convinced that there is no alternative to an inclusive intra-Libyan dialogue and that the Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat in December 2015, even though not perfect, provides the only realistic basis for giving a future-bound push to the country. Our work on this track proceeds in this spirit and the belief that there is no alternative to preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Libya.

This is what the parties discussed with Chairman of the Presidential Council and Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord of Libya Fayez al-Sarraj and head of the Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar on the sidelines of the Palermo conference.

In light of this, any parallel with Syria are untenable. The Russian military are present in Syria in full compliance with international law at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian authorities. Libya has to regain its statehood first.



Question:

What are the forecasts for the developments in the United States, considering the November 6 mid-term election results, and the prospects for establishing real partnership with Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are certainly following the developments in the United States, since they have a direct impact on that country’s foreign policy, which in turn affects the general background for our bilateral relations. The results of the November 6 congressional elections did not come as a surprise. Their results seem to reflect the complex differently vectored processes underway in American society. I do not consider it appropriate to comment in more detail. We are talking about the internal affairs of a sovereign state. We do not interfere in those on principle, even though we are being regularly and unreasonably accused of this.

I will only say that Moscow remains committed to establishing normal constructive relations with Washington. However, at this stage, they still remain hostage to the rivalry among the American political elites, who hardly ever stop short of playing the “Russian card” for their own purposes, including electoral ones. At their prodding, the media are cultivating distrust of our country and fueling anti-Russia sentiments. I am not even talking about the ever-expanding bans on cooperation with Russia. This obsession with anti-Russian sanctions has become paranoid in the United States.

As a result, the foundation for our relations built in the preceding decades and severely destroyed during Barack Obama’s government, continues to erode. The huge cooperation potential remains unused, which hampers the resolution of many pressing issues on the bilateral and also on the international agenda.

Meanwhile, Russia and the United States, in possession of the world’s largest nuclear potentials, have a special responsibility for upholding global security. Therefore, the US leadership’s striving to reshape – and in fact to eliminate – the existing international arms limitation regime makes us perplexed and concerned.

In October, President Donald Trump, in an effort to secure greater license for the US in projecting military power, announced his intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty. There are others in the US political establishment who are also questioning the extension of the New START Treaty expiring in 2021. We consider these policies short-sighted and dangerous. The revival of the “peace based on mutual assured destruction” philosophy does not meet the realities of the 21st century. Will the US’s (and NATO’s) and Russia’s security increase if we start looking at each other through a nuclear barrel sight again?

Meanwhile, the number of threats and challenges that require our countries to work together – from terrorism to regional crises and climate issues – is not decreasing.

I repeat: Moscow is open to building a mutually beneficial partnership with Washington. However, it should be based on the principles of mutual respect and consideration of interests. So far, we do not see this understanding from our American partners. Nevertheless, we hope that common sense will prevail in Washington in the end. This would benefit the interests of not only the people of Russia and the United States, but also the entire world community.



Question:

What are the chances that the highly probable victory of populist forces in the European Parliament election in 2019 will contribute to building a more constructive cooperation between Russia and EU countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

The outcome of the May 2019 European Parliament election will reflect an expression of the European voters’ will. It is for them to decide which political forces to vote for. We do not interfere in these processes.

Unfortunately, the current European Parliament for the most part takes a very negative stance in regard to our country. Full-format inter-parliamentary cooperation has been frozen (meetings of the Russia-EU Parliamentary Cooperation Committee have not been held since January 2014). The European Parliament organises numerous anti-Russia events and regularly adopts resolutions replicating absurd anti-Russia accusations.

I would like to hope that the newly-elected European Parliament will reflect the fundamental interests of the European voters. It is my understanding that they should primarily seek genuine good-neighbourliness in our common European home.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415220






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with President of Iraq Barham Salih, Rome, November 23, 2018



23 November 2018 - 15:09










I would like to convey best wishes from President of Russia Vladimir Putin and to congratulate you on my own behalf on assuming the office of President after the formation of new government structures following a general election. We are very glad that the process has been successful, unlike in some other countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419171
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 12th, 2019 #535
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Rome, November 23, 2018



23 November 2018 - 19:14







Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank our Italian hosts for their hospitality and very fruitful joint work.

This is my second meeting with my colleague, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy Enzo Moavero Milanesi, in less than two months. This reflects our reciprocal commitment to developing dialogue on bilateral issues and international agenda in accordance with the agreements that are reached at the top level. In particular, this concerns the issues discussed during Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte’s visit to the Russian Federation on October 24 and his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

We shared opinions regarding the schedule of upcoming contacts. Enzo Moavero Milanesi has already said that on December 17, the Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial, Currency and Financial Cooperation will hold a meeting, with the Forum of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses of Russia and Italy hosted on its sidelines. It will be a good follow-up to the meeting with Italian business leaders during Italian Prime Minister Conte’s visit to Russia when he and President Putin met with the heads of leading Italian companies operating in the Russian market.

Naturally, we spoke about our priorities in combating terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and other modern challengers and threats. We underscored the need for further active interaction between our respective agencies in these areas.

We have good regular contacts between our foreign ministries. We agreed to continue consultations on the topics of mutual interest.

One of the major components of our relations is cultural and humanitarian contacts. The Russian Seasons will go on in the Apennines until the end of the year. The event has already featured exhibitions from our largest museums’ collections, and tours by the best theatres and musicians. We have expressed in turn our gratitude to the Italian side for the exciting event programme held by Italy at the 7th St Petersburg International Cultural Forum on November 15-17.

Overall, our both countries are interested in continuing cooperation along the civil society lines. In this connection we pin great hopes on the activities of the Russian-Italian Forum-Dialogue, which is a useful tool in helping to enhance contacts between our people.

We discussed the preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting, which is currently under Italy’s chairmanship. The OSCE Ministerial Council meeting will be held in Milan in early December. We expect that substantive decisions will be taken there, including on efforts to combat terrorism and drug trafficking. Russia will also promote agreements regarding the protection of ethnic minorities’ language and education rights as well as the need to provide free access to information for the media and the public, under the current obligations.

When discussing regional politics, we paid a lot of attention to overcoming the Libyan crisis. We believe it is important to look for generally acceptable approaches that would allow the Libyans themselves to determine their future through a national dialogue. In this regard, we confirmed the positive assessment provided by the international Conference for Libya, which took place in Palermo on November 12-13, where Russia was represented by Prime Minister Medvedev. We are ready to keep contributing to the efforts seeking to create a proper environment for a speedy resolution of this crisis and other regional crises.

In this context, we discussed Syria and I informed our Italian colleagues about the efforts undertaken by Russia, Turkey and Iran as part of the Astana process in order to create a proper environment for suppressing violence, overcoming humanitarian challenges, having refugees return to their homes and, of course, for an early start of a political process based on UNSC Resolution 2254. In this regard, we talked about our efforts to finally form the constitutional commission in accordance with the resolutions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi in January. A meeting of the three guarantors of the Astana process – Russia, Turkey and Iran – with the participation of UN observers in Astana on November 28−29 will come as the next milestone in these efforts.

We also touched upon an issue that is now acquiring a systemic nature and is a major challenge to international law. I’m referring to certain countries’ focus on creating “attribution mechanisms” within international organisations which, contrary to the existing conventions would give the secretariats of these organisations the right to determine the parties responsible for particular violations. This is clearly beyond the mandate of the multilateral organisations operating on the basis of statutes and their existing mandates. They must strictly follow these mandates, without trying to assume some extraneous functions.

Of course, we discussed Ukraine. We share the belief that there is no alternative to implementing the Minsk Package of Measures. Although, of course, we can see the differences in the positions of the EU, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other hand, in terms of specific ways of moving towards this goal. I think that with the help of a dialogue like the one we had today with our Italian colleagues, we will be able to work out a policy that will lead us to the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements, which were approved by the UN Security Council.







Question (translated from Italian):

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has congratulated Italy on holding the international Conference for Libya with the support of Russia in Palermo. Italy now plays a highly important role in stabilising the situation in Libya. It was noted that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev who attended the Conference had suggested a multilateral format similar to that used for Syria. Will the Russian Federation and Egypt, for example, provide military support in Libya? Could you also say a few words about Jamal Khashoggi and US President Donald Trump?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t quite understand what Jens Stoltenberg has to do with Libya. But, of course, all current Libyan troubles are linked with NATO’s aggression in gross violation of a UN Security Council resolution.

Today, we have noted the need to heed the current status quo while trying to resolve crises in Libya and other countries of this long-suffering region. In no way must we forget about the causes of fratricidal wars plaguing the region, as well as rampant local terrorism, illegal arms sales and an unprecedented influx of immigrants into Europe, etc.

Regarding the meeting that took place in Palermo, we supported the initiative to hold this event. This was noted during the visit to Russia by Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte who had a meeting with President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

Since the very beginning of the Libyan crisis, we noted the need to negotiate and work with all the parties to the domestic Libyan conflict, including Tripoli and Tobruk. Representatives from both sides have repeatedly visited the Russian Federation as part of the efforts to create favourable conditions for nationwide dialogue and reconciliation. During the early phase of the Libyan crisis, some countries tried to side with this or that political force. But I am confident that everyone now realises that this approach has no future. Today, the efforts of all external players wishing to help achieve a peace settlement in Libya aim to maintain communication with all key parties to the conflict. This was confirmed once again during the conference in Palermo, hosted very successfully by Italy, and whose participants added another brick to the foundation of our common work. Conference participants noted correctly that it would be counterproductive to set artificial deadlines for any particular stage of the political process, be it elections or something else. First of all, Libyan actors themselves should determine how they would live together in their own country. Only after such understanding is reached, it would be possible to talk about democratic procedures for establishing new institutions of state authority.

Speaking of your request to say a few words about Jamal Khashoggi and US President Donald Trump, I don’t understand what exactly you mean. We have already spoken about Jamal Khashoggi. We have noted the need to complete the investigation as soon as possible. We are noting that the Saudi Arabian side is conducting this investigation and cooperating with the Turkish authorities. We look forward to the final verdict to be passed as soon as possible.



Question:

In recent weeks, Kiev and Brussels have been fomenting tension in and around the Sea of Azov. They accuse Russia of illegal ship inspections and a military build-up in the Sea of Azov. Why has this topic surfaced precisely at this time? Don’t you think that the focus on Russia in connection with the situation in the Sea of Azov is a contrived affair?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have explained our position in detail in a Foreign Ministry Statement that was issued a few days ago. We have cited concrete facts and urged the parties concerned to refrain from being guided by certain politicised and artificially invented estimates. The legal implications of this situation are taken care of in the 2003 Agreement between Russia and Ukraine, which defines the Sea of Azov as internal waters of Russia and Ukraine. Both sides have the right to conduct inspections. The procedure for these has been described as well.

I can assure you that this is the absolute truth: Since April of this year, not a single captain or a ship inspected by the Russian Federation has complained. A thing of no small importance is that we did not hear our European colleagues, who are currently worried over this sufficiently artificial situation, voicing any concerns, when Ukraine absolutely illegally, in violation of all and everything, was seizing Russian ships, detaining their crews and declaring an intention to auction off the ships themselves. At that time, I repeat, no one of those who are now so concerned with the immaculacy of events in the Sea of Azov expressed any worries. I don’t see any other explanation than the desire to invent yet another pretext for bringing pressure to bear on the Russian Federation.

Let me also remind you that the Kerch Strait is not subject to any regulation by international law. It is a Russian strait. It is only logical that we had to step up our border guard and military presence there after officials in Ukraine repeatedly promised to start preparations to blow up the Crimean Bridge across the Kerch Strait. Neither did we hear any coherent response to these statements made by Ukrainian officials from our Western partners, who are now expressing concern over the absolutely legitimate Russian steps in the Sea of Azov. These have caused not a single complaint from captains of the inspected ships. All the inspections were in full conformity with the established norms.



Question (for both ministers, via interpreter):

Did you discuss sanctions? What is Italy doing to ease the sanctions regime, since it was said before that it should be cancelled? Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said during his visit to Moscow that the sanctions are doing great harm to Italian companies. Mr Lavrov, what do you expect Italy to do about this? How negative is the effect of the sanctions on Russia?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Enzo Moavero Milanesi):

I will take up where Enzo Moavero Milanesi left off when speaking about international law. I believe there was a coup attempt in Gambia several years ago. The US Department of State made a powerful statement on that occasion (one can surely find the quotation on the internet), saying that the United States strongly condemns any attempt to seize power through extra-constitutional means.

But when a coup was carried out in Ukraine in February 2014 – it was not an attempted but a successful coup staged against the legitimate President of Ukraine – the United States did not say anything. And neither did the EU, although France, Germany and Poland acted as the guarantors of the agreement that was reached between the opposition and President Viktor Yanukovych one day before the coup. The opposition forces, led on by radicals and nationalists, staged a coup and said that the agreement [with Yanukovych] was no longer valid.

And everyone remained mum. But Russia did not remain silent, because, as you may know, the new Ukrainian government immediately adopted a law prohibiting the Russian language. The radicals who were attacking the legitimate bodies of power and organisations publicly announced that the Russians must be driven out of Crimea because they would never think like Ukrainians or honour Ukrainian heroes. And they named these heroes – Bandera and Shukhevich, Hitler’s accomplices who were among those condemned at the Nuremberg Trials. It is how that story began.

Of course, we want international law to be respected. However, the US State Department takes one stand on Gambia [and a different stand on other similar cases]. A legitimate president was overthrown in Yemen and for the past three or four years now the international community has been calling for bringing him back and allowing him to resume his powers. But when a coup was carried out in Ukraine, it was accepted as if it ought to have been so. It was for a reason that we said – I also spoke on this topic – that some of our Western colleagues were retreating from the classical definition of the term “international law.” They now use the term “rules-based order” more often. It is a very interesting thing. Look at the situations where people avoid mentioning international law and instead talk about a rules-based order.

In the case of Ukraine they clearly were not guided by international law but by the rules they themselves invented. If they do not like the forces that attempted a coup in Gambia, they demand compliance with international law. But if they like what the radical nationalist opposition did in Ukraine, they apply rules of their own invention and want the subsequent order [in Ukraine] to be based on these rules.

Therefore, we believe that the sanctions are a purely political action, which, in the case of the Crimean residents, is designed to punish them for the free expression of their will. This amounts to gross violation of the human rights convention and other human rights covenants. I think that lawyers can easily prove that this is so based on these texts.

On the other hand, we know that the sanctions are a fact of our life. We did not start this ball rolling, and we will not appeal to our colleagues in Europe or elsewhere to cancel the sanctions. Of course, these sanctions are harming all sides. According to experts from the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations, the overall damage from the sanctions has reached some $100 billion. Italian agricultural producers have calculated that they have lost EUR 3 billion from problems with Italian agricultural exports to Russia. There is such information, yet nobody can be sure about the precise figures.

We have drawn one conclusion from all this. When politically influenced decisions are taken to punish Russia or, as is the case with US sanctions, to weaken a rival – the United States has imposed sanctions against Russia, China and Europe – the main purpose of these sanctions is to prevent the rivals from receiving economic benefits when the United States considers this unfair. The conclusion we have made is very simple: we must learn – and we have largely learned – to live under these conditions. We must be able not to depend on those who have been proved unreliable trade or economic partners. Of course, we see that the attitude to this is far from unambiguous in Europe. We see that quite a few countries, including Italy, regard this as abnormal and have called for revising this situation. We welcome this approach, yet we cannot be the first to meet our colleagues halfway. They must make a decision themselves.

Meanwhile, while developing our economy so as not to depend on those of our partners who have proved to be unreliable, we are working on the joint projects that can be implemented in these conditions with our other colleagues who are ready to cooperate with us. One of these is, definitely, Italy, with which we maintain very close cooperation in energy as well as several other sectors. We discussed this today. But the main event will take place in a few weeks, when Rome hosts a meeting of the Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial, Currency and Financial Cooperation.

There are opportunities for promoting cooperation between Russia and Italy. We will make the broadest possible use of them. We are also implementing a number of important and interesting projects with other countries despite the sanctions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419635






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and replies to media questions at the Rome Med 2018 - Mediterranean Dialogues, Rome, November 23, 2018



23 November 2018 - 23:29







Thank you very much. Just this morning I was told that I’d better speak English. I wanted to speak in Russian for the introductory part of my statement for the benefit of the Russian media, but I understand that the Russian media is not very popular in Europe these days, so I will stick to English.

First of all, thank you very much for inviting me once again, which means that we still have something to discuss. It’s encouraging. I believe that the Mediterranean Dialogue, the meetings in this format are very much in demand. The Mediterranean, which is the cradle of the world’s civilisations and world religions, is now a huge hotbed of international tension, the source of very, very dangerous challenges, including terrorism and drug trafficking, illegal migration, other forms of organised crime. And certainly we are very concerned by a very fast process of Christians, the Christian presence being reduced drastically. And this is happening in the countries where from times immemorial representatives of various confessions lived together in peace. And this, of course, is a direct result of the attempts to impose upon the people of the Middle East and North Africa the values that are foreign to them, the values and the recipes of how they should live in their own countries. Not only these countries but the entire international community is paying a very high price for such reckless politics, including the countries that having violated the international law, the principles of the United Nations Charter provoke chaos and anarchy on this huge geopolitical space. And sometimes it is my impression that the lessons of Iraq, Libya, Syria are not really taken into account by those who try to continue those arrogant policies in this region.

We know how the world order, the international law, the fundamental international agreements are being ruined. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran is one example. The INF Treaty – Intermediate Forces Treaty – is under threat. The principles of open trade, of WTO are also under attack, and quite aggressive attack. And in general – I have spoken about this today with my Italian colleague – there is a trend to substitute international law as we have known it, as we still know it, I hope, by something which our Western diplomatic “creative” friends call “rules-based order.” I really don’t understand why international law as a principle which has been with us for very many decades and centuries is now not a popular principle to guide us in international relations. And the attempts are very clearly made, in the context of this logic of rules-based order, to privatise multilateral global institutions, institutions of global management, and the case in point is what is happening in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, where our Western colleagues are pushing through an approach which in direct violation of the Convention of Chemical Weapons attempts to give the Technical Secretariat – it is called the Technical Secretariat – the functions to attribute guilt. The Convention provides only for this Organisation to establish whether a chemical substance, a prohibited chemical substance, has been used or not. If you want to give this Convention additional functions, there is a way provided for by the Convention itself. Propose amendments, negotiate amendments, adopt amendments, ratify amendments. Yes, it takes a bit longer but sometimes easy does it. And international life cannot be steered by the ideas and policies of those who live only through the prism of their domestic electoral cycles.

By the way, similar attempts were made in relation to the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons. In the UN Secretariat some people would like to create a mechanism which would be deciding who violated the Convention and who did not. I want to remind you in this regard that for about fifteen years, actually soon after the Convention entered into force, we were among those who actively proposed to establish a verification mechanism under the Convention itself. This was categorically rejected by basically the United States. I don’t even remember what administration was there in the White House, it was about twenty years ago. And this is, unfortunately, the situation now. So instead of going through the way of international law and negotiating a verification mechanism in the context of the Convention itself, people want to authorise some group of experts appointed I don’t know by whom and the UN Secretariat to do this job.

Of course, another example of the attempts to substitute international law with rules-based order is what we witness in the Council of Europe, where a small but very aggressive group of parliamentarians is directly undermining the statute of this unique pan-European organisation, especially the principle of the statute which guarantees equal rights for all member states in all organs of the Council of Europe. Maybe we were not listening too well – it was more than four years ago, in March 2014 – to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who was at the time Secretary-General of NATO. He stated that the unified will of the members of NATO is an extremely powerful source of international political legitimacy. So this was, I believe, one of the first hints that people would like to forget about international law as we have known it for centuries and millennia and introduce some rules which will be based on the exceptional political legitimacy of groups like NATO. I think that comments are not necessary on this one. Now, by the way, Anders Fogh Rasmussen is functioning as councillor-advisor to President of Ukraine, and I don’t believe that his advice is really going to be helpful to resolve theses crises on the basis of the Minsk Agreements and the Security Council Resolution which endorsed the Minsk Agreements.

There is another one in line with this issue between international law and rules-based order. Our French colleagues recently announced an initiative which they call the European Initiative on Intervention, which was explained as being something they want to develop inside the European Union and NATO, or rather, I am sorry, outside the European Union and NATO because the EU and NATO, in the French understanding, are too cumbersome in adopting decisions. So we are still asking our French colleagues what they mean actually and how this initiative, the European Intervention Initiative, how it relates to the international law, whether we can see a situation when one more instrument of surgical intervention would be invented for the African continent because African crises and African peacekeeping was mentioned as something which require a much more robust approach. But the term “intervention” itself is rather telling. And I was wondering if some other country maybe outside the EU and NATO would announce an initiative using the word “intervention,” how NATO and the EU would react. I don’t think you need to dwell upon it for too long.

International information security is something which the United Nations has been discussing for about ten years trying to develop universally applicable and universally accepted rules of responsible behaviour in cyberspace. Yes, it’s a long process but conventions cannot be negotiated easily, and the international rules, universal rules, cannot be negotiated easily. But instead of concentrating on this work inside the United Nations, there are new very dubious initiatives which allow for violation of state sovereignty and which dilute the role of states in ensuring cybersecurity in general.

I would also mention the attempts to regulate the media. There are not only proposals but also legislation introduced in some European countries to declare that certain media could be included on the white list, and certain media should not be allowed to inform the public about their view on one or another event. I don’t believe it is very democratic, frankly, I don’t believe this is in line with the principle which was proclaimed in the early 1990s by the OSCE, which demands that the media and the public must have unlimited access to information. That was international law, of course. The idea to blacklist and whitelist media outlets is a rule on which they want to base new order.

So we are close to a situation when have to really say a very firm “no” to the attempts to revise and fragment international law. The realities of the 21st century demand that we get back to the basics, to the United Nations Charter without any dubious interpretations, and they demand that we get back to the restoration of the role of the United Nations as the only universal organ of managing international relations with the Security Council being the organ responsible for international peace and security. We have to get rid of the inertia and the initiatives which are rooted in the 19th century colonial and imperialist philosophy. Because otherwise it will be impossible to try to resolve crises and conflicts in the Mediterranean region. Only on the basis of international law can we resolve the situation in Syria, with Resolution of the Security Council 2024, which is a very solid foundation. In a nutshell it demands that everything must be done by the Syrians themselves on the basis of mutual consent between the government and the opposition. And it is with full respect of this principle of mutual consent among the Syrians that Russia, that Turkey and Iran initiated the Astana process, which evolved into the Sochi Congress of the Syrian Dialogue and which decided to create the Constitutional Committee, the formation of which is now being finalised.

It is also only on the basis of international law that we can resolve the crisis in Libya, which was ruined by NATO bombings in gross violation of the Security Council resolution. As you remember, the Resolution only spoke about declaring a no-fly zone meaning that the aviation, the Air Force of Gaddafi cannot fly, and they were not flying. But instead of ensuring the no-fly zone, NATO bombed the Gaddafi troops and helped the people with a very bad reputation, armed by some Europeans in violation of the Security Council embargo and also by some regionals, to help these people to topple the government of Gaddafi and then to start creating trouble throughout Africa. The very same people who toppled Gaddafi with the weapons of you know who, they later were threatening the government in Mali, when they moved down south and created a huge risk to Bamako.

So for Libya it is also absolutely clear that this here up principle that Libyans themselves must resolve the crisis and that all of them must be part of inclusive dialogue is absolutely indispensable. It is on this basis that Russia participated in the conference in Palermo, where the Head of the Russian Government was the chief delegate from my country. And, of course, to ensure stability in this Mediterranean region, including Libya, including Syria, including Iraq and other countries that influence the Mediterranean region, would be impossible without a solution to the oldest regional problem. I mean the Palestinian problem. And it must be solved on the basis of the United Nations resolutions and on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative. But here as well, the international law embodied in these resolutions, is being substituted by some rules which are not universally accepted and which would only make the situation worse, ff I understand anything about how the Palestinian issue is evolving. Russia would continue to support the efforts, including the efforts of Egypt, to help Palestinian reconciliation between Ramallah and Gaza and we will certainly be supportive of the need to restore direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis, and we reaffirm our proposal made a couple of years ago to host a meeting between the leaders of Palestine and Israel in Russia without any preconditions.

Of curse, we cannot ignore the situation on the other side of the Mediterranean, I mean the Balkans. The countries of the region are being pulled into NATO without trying to ask the people whether they want this or not. The referendum as a means of direct democratic statements by the people is not very popular. At the same time the public opinion in those countries is really being aggressively pressured and the number of Western leaders who campaigned in Macedonia during that referendum is really amazing. The heads of government, ministers, the Secretary General of NATO, High Representative of the European Union were directly arguing in favour of something which is challenged inside Macedonia. And there was no fuss about direct interference in the domestic matters of this country.

Anyway, I am getting close to the end of my introductory remarks. We believe that all these problems can only be resolved collectively. And we shouldn’t forget about a very useful contribution which the OSCE might make in this sense. We are satisfied, and I state with pleasure, that the Italian chairmanship in Office for the OSCE is paying increased attention to the entire complex of issues related to the region, and the Italian chairmanship suggested considering in the forthcoming Ministerial Meeting in Milan the Declaration on the Mediterranean Dimension for the OSCE, and we support this initiative. We want the Mediterranean region to get back its historic role of a bridge between civilisations and we want to help ensure peaceful development and prosperity of this region. I believe if we act together and we don’t have any hidden agendas, if we don’t apply double standards, we can do this.







Question:

You mentioned Libya. The recent conference in Palermo marked the progress in the efforts to stabilise the country. My question to you is what Russia can and is ready to do to help to stabilise the situation? What role do you want to play in the future of Libya and are you considering a military presence, like in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

On the last one – of course, you should make a difference. In Syria, we are there on the basis of a request from the legitimate government, a member of the United Nations, unlike some other participants of the situation in Syria. On what we can do on the Libyan settlement: we are not claiming that we want or can play a leading role. It’s for Libyans themselves to agree how they want to get out of this mess. From the very beginning of this crisis though we have been talking to all Libyan figures, both in Tripoli, in Tobruk and elsewhere, and this was not actually what some other external actors were doing. Some of them were putting their support on one Libyan group, some on the other group. We thought this was not right, and we have been, just like in Syria, by the way, we are talking to everybody in Syria, except ISIL, of course. And just like in Yemen we talked to everybody. And I am gratified that these days the approach of other important outside players is the same as we believe should be applied, namely that people understand the need to have an inclusive dialogue on Libya among Libyans themselves. The efforts by France in May was a step in the same direction, and now the Palermo conference made another step bringing together the key figures. I think this is the only way. I have already mentioned that I don’t believe in any idea of artificial deadlines, be it on Libya, be it on Syria. Nobody says, “Let’s have a deadline on the Palestinian issue,” right? But somehow on Libya people might try to set a deadline. On Syria our good friend Staffan de Mistura is being pressured to announce a deadline and to say. “This is it.” Why? The substance is much more important than artificial deadlines. So we are not pretending to know everything about Libya, we are not pretending to play a key role. We support the efforts of the neighbour-states – Egypt, Algeria. We believe that they should be encouraged. And, of course, the United Nations Special Envoy Salamé has ideas that I think go in the right direction. They certainly require finetuning on the basis of the specific attitudes of various Libyan players, and certainly the Arab League could be very important in helping to resolve this crisis. Just like the Syrian crisis, for that matter. I think it was a mistake of the Arab League to expel Syria from its ranks. Now I sense the understanding among the Arabs that Syria must be brought back to the Arab family.



Question:

I see your point of not setting artificial deadlines. But on the other hand, if you don’t set deadlines, the crisis can go on endlessly. I mean like in Syria, the last deadline for which Staffan de Mistura insisted was the Constitutional Committee, if I am not wrong. If you don’t have this Constitutional Committee, how do you go out of the crisis? There must be a way of putting a kind of pressure on the actors, mainly on the Syrian government.



Sergey Lavrov:

Gently, putting pressure gently. Staffan is a facilitator. The resolution clearly says that there must be a Syrian-owned Syrian-led process. Until the Sochi Congress in January this year nobody was talking about any deadlines. The Geneva process was non-existent for ten months before December 2016, when Russia, Turkey and Iran initiated the Astana process. And the process was for the first time organised in a way that provided for the government and the armed opposition to sit down at the same table. When I discussed this with my Saudi colleague, he said this is an absolutely right approach because it is much more important and productive to talk directly to the people who fight you on the ground. This is not to say that we don’t recognise the need to work also with the emigrants who left Syria, who live in foreign capitals. But they cannot be the only representatives of the negotiators with the government as they tried to present themselves. So what the Astana format did was the first actual step to wake up the United Nations process, which was very dormant as I said, and to initiate direct dialogue between the government and the broadly represented opposition. Then we managed to convene the Sochi Congress on the Syrian National Dialogue, which decided to create a constitutional committee. Before that nobody was lifting a finger, including those who are now saying, “Where is the Constitutional Committee? It must be efficient tomorrow.” It takes time. It is much more important to have a functional and mutually acceptable constitutional committee than to have an artificial deadline in order to ruin the Astana process. Those who insist on Staffan setting a deadline and say “This is it, this is my list, I don’t care what you think,” they only want one thing – to ruin the Astana process and to come back to some regime change logic. By the way, when ISIL was close to the outskirts of Damascus in August 2015, nobody was calling on the opposition to start negotiations with the government. But after the situation changed on the ground, everybody is calling on the government to start negotiations. Bias in this kind of issues is absolutely counterproductive. And such approaches demonstrate not only the double standards but they reveal that people who promote such approaches just think about their own geopolitical games, not about the fate of the people, who are in need of help to get out of the crisis.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, whenever I hear you or when I hear Russian decision-makers, there is always stress on the need to support the states in the region and that the state is the primordial thing. But my question is what is the rationale of having states if they kill and torture and imprison thousands of their own people? What’s the rationale of keeping these kinds of states? And this goes to my second quick question…



Sergey Lavrov:

That what about which country?



Question:

In the region in general. Syria, the policy of supporting the state instead of supporting their population or civil society. And now that you are one of the most respected countries in the region, can you ask your friends to be slightly less violent to their own population? Thank you.



Sergey Lavrov:

The states must not be violent against the population, this is their obligation under great many international legal instruments. And I hope these legal instruments will not be substituted by those who want to forget about international law and to introduce rules-based order not really understanding that others do not believe in the rules imposed upon them. There were attempts in the past, not once, to impose your own rule. There was even a term “new order.” And we know what was the outcome of these efforts. Regarding authoritarian regimes being governments of the states members of the United Nations vis-à-vis the citizens of their own countries, I already said what is the principle which we apply: there are international obligations on human rights, and you cannot use your sovereignty to avoid your commitments with respect to human rights and freedoms.

On the other hand, we have to be realistic, we have to take the picture in its entirety. If you are obsessed with human rights and don’t give a damn about the stability of countries, if you don’t give a damn about the right to life, which is a human right, by the way, not to mention economic and social rights, then I am afraid you are one-sided. Yes, Iraq, Libya – Iraq more than Libya – were considered, rightly so, authoritarian regimes. But the right to life risks and violations were maybe hundred of thousands less than after the people’s “revolutions” happened in Iraq and Libya with foreign intervention. Ask the Libyans how they used to live. Ask about the educational rights. Ask about the economic situation which they enjoyed. They will tell you. So you cannot say “Forget about everything, bring freedom to the people.” And you cannot say “Forget about the human rights and be respectful to any government that is sitting in the capital of a country.”



Question:

Saudi Arabia, and particularly Prince Mohammad bin Salman, has been in the news in recent times but not for good reasons. Now would Russia support an international investigation to find out exactly what had happened with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, actually who ordered it because the initial results suggest that it was an assassination and that Mohammad bin Salman was directly involved. And secondly, if it is established that Mohammad bin Salman personally gave the order or was involved, would this have any qualitative impact on the Russian-Saudi relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

Questions based on hypothetical speculations – if and when established and so on and so forth – I already answered this question today at the press conference after the negotiations with the Italian Foreign Minister. We take note that the Saudi investigation continues, we take note that they cooperate with the Turkish authorities, and we want the results of this investigation to be presented. To speculate on what happens next is not my business, frankly. I told you that we are waiting for the results of the Saudi investigation in cooperation with the Turkish authorities. If you have some other ideas, it’s your right. We prefer to respect the principle of subsidiarity, which is applicable to any legal situation in the world.



Question:

Will Russia continue to support Bashar al-Assad if his continued presence in power is going to block reconstruction? And as a quick follow-up, do you see eye-to eye with Iran on this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Well, I don’t think there is any pair of two countries that see eye-to-eye on one or another issue, on anything for that matter. This is true for Russia, for Iran, for Turkey. We all have our presence in Syria, we have created a platform which we call the Astana process in spite of the fact that don’t have a hundred percent the same positions, absolutely, but we united for the sake of the Syrian people, not for the sake of playing geopolitical games. We want Syria to be calm, to be stable, we want the borders of Syria to be secure so that none of its neighbours feels uncomfortable. On Bashar al-Assad – we repeatedly stated that we are not supporting any political figure in Syria. We respect the Security Council Resolution, we respect the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012, where it is clearly stated that the process must be Syrian-led and Syrian-owned and that only the people of Syria can decide the fate of their own country. And the method of such a decision to be taken is embodied in the Resolution itself: elections. Constitution and then elections, and it will be for the Syrian people to decide whether they want somebody to stay, whether they want somebody to go and whether they want somebody to come.

As regards the link between Bashar al-Assad staying in power and the outside assistance, I just wanted to quote something which you basically pronounced. The State Department recently made an official statement. And you know, of course, that the Americans repeatedly confirmed that the only reason for them to stay in Syria is to eliminate the remnants of ISIL. So the State Department stated a couple of days ago the following, “To defeat ISIL it is necessary to stop Iranian influence in Syria and there must be – to defeat ISIL – radical changes in the Syrian regime and in the role of Iran.” In other words, the United States justifies its presence in Syria by the need to fight ISIL, and they say it is impossible to defeat ISIL as long as Bashar al-Assad and Iran are there. It’s a very weird logic I would say and I hope you don’t share it. And I hope everybody is committed to the principle of the Syrian people themselves deciding the fate of their country through elections observed by the United Nations, mind you.



Question:

The very last question. When my wife, who happens to be Russian, has an argument with me, she often says «Ты не уважаешь меня» - you don’t respect me. It seems that this kind of perception could be translated to Russia as a whole, its self-consideration in the sense of its position in the world. The question: Does Russia feel not respected enough on the world stage?



Sergey Lavrov:

I wouldn’t say so. I would say, you know there is another Russian saying: “You are afraid of me, then you respect me” – «Боишься – значит уважаешь». There is such a saying in Russia but I’m not saying that we want to get respect through scaring everybody. Not at all. All that we want is a mutually respectful dialogue, and this is the only basis on which we would talk to anyone. If our Western friends – the Americans, the British – who steer this Russophobic action, imposing Russophobic actions on quite a number of countries who don’t want this but have to say “Yes” out of solidarity, if they keep saying OK, Theresa May said this recently – and they presented it to us as a huge shift in their positions – she said recently – “Yes, we want to normalise relations with Russia; yes, we want to have normal cooperation on many issues, we can do quite a number of useful things together. But Russia first must recognise that it was wrong.” The same is being told to us by the United States: “We will cooperate with you but please admit your guilt and commit yourself to not repeating these bad things again.” I hope that those who are interested in Russian policies, domestic and international, you follow the dialogue which we have through microphones with the Americans and the British – Salisbury, Amesbury, election meddling and what have you. They say, “We have actual facts that you did it.” OK, if you have facts, come to us, put the facts on the table. Let’s discuss that. Maybe indeed we have done something wrong for one or another reason. They say, “No, no, no, we are not going to give you any facts. First, it’s very confidential information, and second, you know yourselves that you did it.” I am not joking. This is what Rex Tillerson told me after I asked him to elaborate on his statement that they have undeniable facts that we meddled in the election. He laughed and said “Ask your special services, they know what I mean.” By the way, recently my good friend Timo Soini, Foreign Minister of Finland, said that they have undeniable facts that Russia tried to meddle with the GPS signal during the Trident Juncture training manoeuvres. First my question is: Why all this is being first announced to the media? If you have some concerns, normal polite people raise a direct question, “Look, I don’t like what I heard. This is what I know. Can you explain this?” I mean if you have a problem or suspicions regarding your wife, I mean you ask her directly, right? You don’t go to the media and announce your concerns.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419721






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article published on November 24, 2018 in the Portuguese Público newspaper headlined “Russia and Portugal: Cooperation for Constructive Development”



24 November 2018 - 10:00



Ahead of my visit to Portugal, I would like to share with the readers of the Público newspaper, one of the most popular media outlets in your country, some ideas on relations between our two states and the situation in Europe in general.

Lisbon is our good international partner. Russian-Portuguese ties are based on the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of July 22, 1994. Our joint efforts have achieved tangible results. Our political dialogue, including at the top level, has been making progress. On June 20, Moscow hosted talks between President Vladimir Putin and President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Contacts between the two foreign ministries take place on a regular basis. Their further expansion will be facilitated by the implementation of the Memorandum on Consultations between the two Foreign Ministries that my Portuguese counterpart Augusto Santos Silva and I signed at our meeting.

Trade shows positive dynamism, with a promise to exceed $1.5 billion by the yearend. The Joint Intergovernmental Commission for Economic and Technological Cooperation is making a useful contribution to this work. Its next, seventh, meeting to be held in Lisbon in two weeks’ time will focus on cooperation in the field of hi-tech and the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement on economic and technological cooperation, which came into force last year.

Russia was represented by over 200 companies and startups at a regular international Web Summit held recently in Lisbon. The first Russian-Portuguese business forum, New Opportunities and Challenges in the Innovation Sphere, was held on the sidelines of the event. I am quite sure that these meetings should take place on a regular basis.

Cultural and humanitarian exchanges as well as contacts between people are being intensified. Between December 2017 and February 2018, the Museums of the Moscow Kremlin hosted a unique exhibition, Masters of the Ocean. Treasures of the Portuguese Empire of the 16th-18th Centuries, the most comprehensive display of such exhibits ever organised outside your country. In October 2018, the Week of Russian Culture was successfully held in Portugal.

We welcome the Portuguese people’s interest in learning the Russian language. It is taught at the universities of Lisbon, Porto and Aveiro. The Centres of Russian Studies at the universities of Coimbra and Minho are their much needed assets. In turn, the language of Luís Vaz de Camões is taught at the main universities and linguistic institutions in Russia, including at my alma-mater, Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

Today, an increasing number of Russian tourists are discovering Portugal and are familiarising themselves with its rich and original cultural-historical heritage. An infatuation with football is also strengthening the sympathy between our two peoples. Last summer, numerous Portuguese fans came to Russia for the 2018 FIFA World Cup and could see with their very own eyes, as the saying goes, how modern Russia and its citizens fare. I think they felt the difference between the real picture and what we can occasionally read in a number of biased media.

Regrettably, the unhealthy situation in our common continent remains a serious obstacle to the further strengthening of Russian-Portuguese cooperation. The Ukraine crisis, resulting from the geopolitical games played by the US and its soul mates in a number of countries as well as from the European bureaucracy’s blindness, has destroyed the atmosphere of trust that the responsible leaders of Russia and the key European states spent years to create. Moscow was deeply concerned with the fact Brussels not only waived its principles and values by turning a blind eye to the armed coup in Kiev, which toppled a legitimately elected president, but also obeyed an order from Washington and joined its anti-Russian sanctions. So, what do we have now? The architecture of the Russia-EU dialogue has suffered serious damage; European producers are losing billions of dollars; the Kiev regime is waging a war on its own people; a new conflict has emerged in Europe. But the US is sustaining no losses. Moreover, the United States is profiting from the situation to whip up dangerous military activities near the Russian borders and encourage an arms race in our vicinity, where, as we all hoped, there is no room for a new Cold War. The European nations’ security is in thrall to an overseas subversive policy.

The tension between Russia and the West, which have surged in recent years and come at a high cost to international stability, are not our choice. We are still in favour of a common space of peace, equal and indivisible security and large-scale economic cooperation being formed in the Euro-Atlantic area and Eurasia, where the interests of all states, both members and non-members of various integration associations, would be taken into account.

From this perspective, it is good news that a growing number of Europeans realise that a confrontational course towards Russia lacks prospects. They seek to pursue a pragmatic policy and are unwilling to sacrifice their citizens’ wellbeing and a peaceful future of the European home to the narrowly selfish interests and ambitions of the extra-regional players. We hope that wisdom and sheer commonsense will eventually prevail and our relations with the European Union and its member-states will be restored based on genuine neighbourliness, integrity, predictability and openness.

Russia and Portugal are approaching an important milestone. Next year, we are planning to mark the 240th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. We will have to draft and implement a programme of events dedicated to this memorial date. There is a saying in Russian: “Water never flows under settled stones.” As far as I know, the Portuguese for it is “À raposa dormente não lhe cai galinha no ventreо” (A chicken will not get of its own accord into a sleeping fox’s stomach). I hope that, based on the accumulated experience and not succumbing to the influence of time-serving political considerations, we will continue to promote our forward-looking bilateral agenda and work together to expand and diversify ties and create favourable opportunities for the implementation of promising as well as mutually beneficial initiatives in various spheres for the benefit of our peoples.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419739






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Portugal Augusto Santos Silva, Lisbon, November 24, 2018



24 November 2018 - 17:30







Ladies and gentlemen,

The Foreign Ministry is very pleased with the businesslike and informative talks with Foreign Minister of Portugal, Augusto Santos Silva, which confirmed the fact that our partnership meets the interests of both countries.

Portugal is our longtime partner. Next year, we will mark the 240th anniversary of diplomatic relations, which we agreed to do with a number of special events in Russia and Portugal.

We noted that, despite the fairly complicated situation in Europe and across the globe, our relations with Portugal continue to develop steadily in accordance with the main provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1994.

We have substantively reviewed the main bilateral matters based, primarily, on the outcome of the talks between our presidents in Moscow in June. We expressed mutual interest in promoting our relations across all areas, including inter-parliamentary relations.

We welcomed the positive dynamics in bilateral trade, which will exceed $1.5 billion by the end of the year. We expect that the meeting of the Mixed Commission on Economic and Technical Cooperation, to be held in Lisbon a couple of weeks from now, will help us find additional avenues for expanding our investment, trade and economic exchanges in general. We operate under an intergovernmental agreement on economic and technical cooperation, which entered into force last year and, of course, creates additional opportunities for bolstering our ties.

We also agreed to hold regular meetings between high-tech companies and annual meetings of the Russian-Portuguese business forum on innovation, which met during the international Web Summit in Lisbon for the first time last month.

We agreed to expedite preparations for a number of new contracts and agreements, including the intergovernmental Social Security Agreement which will cover, among other things, pension issues, as well as the Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Education, Qualifications and Degrees. This is an important matter for the citizens of our countries given the interest of the Portuguese in the Russian language and the interest on the part of Russians in visiting this beautiful country.

According to our Portuguese friends, the number of tourists from Russia reached 145,000 last year. We hope this number will continue to grow.

We also focused on supporting cultural cooperation with various festivals, as well as museum and exhibition exchanges. We noted that the exhibition, Treasures of the Portuguese Empire of the 16th-17th Centuries, held earlier this year, was widely popular with visitors at the Kremlin museums. We are pleased that the Days of Russian Culture held in Cascais, Portugal, last month were also of great interest to the Portuguese public.

Our ministries maintain close contacts. Today, we signed a Memorandum on Political Consultations, which Mr Silva mentioned. This document will provide a more systematic approach to our consultations and, in general, the dialogue between our foreign ministries. Today, we agreed to continue cooperation at multilateral platforms, primarily, the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. We exchanged views on a variety of issues on the agendas of these organisations.

We are interested, and see the same interest on the part of Portugal, in improving the situation in the Euro-Atlantic area. Unfortunately, the buildup of NATO military activities near our borders, the threat of violating the NATO-Russia Founding Act with regard to the non-stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members on a permanent basis remains a serious obstacle on the path to achieving this. Of course, when discussing relations with the European Union, we deplored the fact that, at the initiative of Brussels, almost all existing contacts and dialogue channels, including over 20 sector-specific dialogues and the work of the Partnership and Cooperation Council at the level of the Russian Foreign Minister and the High Representative of the European Union, were frozen. In a situation where EU members start reflecting on the need to rethink the architecture of European security (you are aware of the initiatives taken by the leaders of France, Germany and other countries), I believe it would be unforgivable if Russia and the European Union remained estranged in a situation where, on the contrary, they need to talk more in order to be fully aware of what the other partner is contemplating and what to do next in Europe in order not to create threats and risks for the people living on our continent.

We discussed the situation in Ukraine as well and confirmed the lack of alternatives to implementing the Minsk Package of Measures. We exchanged assessments of the situation in the Middle East, including Syria and Libya. We touched on a number of important issues on the African agenda, including resolving the situation in the Central African Republic, where, as you may be aware, our instructors are working, and Portugal is the main supplier of troops to the UN mission. I think this subject will also be discussed as part of our exchange of opinions and consultations.

I’m sincerely grateful to my colleague for the hospitality extended to my delegation and to me. I confirmed our commitment to meet regularly. Now it is Augusto Santos Silva’s turn to visit Russia. We will try to make sure that our hospitality is in no way inferior to the Portuguese.







Question:

How will Russia respond to the United States possibly withdrawing from the INF Treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have stated our position with regard to the intentions of the United States more than once. We believe this to be a rash move. For many decades, the treaty was recognised as a cornerstone of international, regional and global stability. Russia is interested in maintaining it. When we heard about US plans to withdraw from the INF Treaty and received confirmation from a representative of the administration in Washington that this decision was essentially final, we tried to convince the Americans that it is important “not to slam the door” but to consider the matters that need further discussion so that the treaty can remain valid.

In addition to consultations through bilateral channels, we have prepared a draft resolution in the UN Security Council calling on Russia and the United States to keep the INF in place. Unfortunately, this initiative failed to gain traction, including jointly by all members of the EU or NATO. Although individually, almost every European capital sounded the alarm that the United States could bury this treaty. Unfortunately, our partners were unable to muster enough unity to speak in favour of preserving this critical document at the UN.



Question (addressed to Augusto Santos Silva):

Some EU countries decided to expel Russian diplomats in the wake of the Skripal poisoning. Portugal didn’t join them. Can you comment on this? Is the question still open?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will nevertheless outline my point of view, since Russia is being accused without a single fact to back up the accusations. All this talk about “highly likely” and that only Russia had motives, etc., exposes the absolute lack of any foundation for the approach that the British leadership is trying to promote in the international and European arenas. The fact that a country that has taken it into its head, and officially announced its decision, to leave the EU but is demanding that everyone do what the UK wants in their relations with Russia does not add credibility to the EU or its members. Those who succumbed to British provocations in connection with the expulsion of Russian diplomats, were unable to explain, in their conversations with us, what facts the UK presented to them, in addition to what was said publicly in the spirit of “highly likely.” The UK offered nothing to its partners. They were simply forced to comply with this Anglo-Saxon colonial demand.

Our questions are very straightforward unlike the explanations provided by the British. Our question of the day is: where is Yulia Skripal? Where is her father? They have not been presented to the public for many months now. The other day I heard someone say there was a television film about the Skripals. The journalist was quite meticulous about gathering the facts, both hard and circumstantial. The film did nothing to clear up the situation. Importantly, the film doesn’t say a word about the whereabouts of these poor people, the Skripals. I cannot rule out the possibility that the journalist who made this film didn’t even try to get access to them. Since access was not provided, as we can see from the fact that not a word was said about them, no access was provided. This means that the British government and special services have something to hide.



Question:

Your colleague started by talking about joint efforts to combat international terrorism. However, a little earlier, the Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces, Nick Carter, said that the threat from the so-called Islamic State has diminished significantly after the caliphate was actually destroyed. At the same time, he said that in this situation Russia poses a greater threat to the West than Islamic terrorists, noting that London and the allies need to unite and focus on that threat. Is there a red line for you and Moscow in such statements?



Sergey Lavrov:

We cannot tell anyone to be careful about revealing their intellectual and political abilities. I heard about this statement, and I have also heard many statements of this kind from UK Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson. We have no way of influencing the British Government’s decisions regarding whom they trust with leading their armed forces. I hope they review these decisions for sanity.

Speaking about this gentleman’s remark that Russia is now posing a greater threat to Britain than ISIS, the statement is trite. A similar statement was once made by former US President Obama when he addressed a UN General Assembly session. Ebola was next on that list of threats, which was effectively taken care of with our help. However, ISIS remains a problem, but was destroyed on the territory controlled by the Syrian Government. However, hotbeds of resistance are still there, mostly on the territory controlled by the United States on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River at the town of At-Tanf. The United States’ presence there is illegitimate on two counts. First, its presence there is illegal and, second, they have created a control area with a radius of 55 km without running this decision by anyone. The notorious Rukban camp is located in this area. This 55-kilometre area is also home to several thousand gunmen who, for reasons unknown, are viewed by the United States as an untouchable group which allows the Americans to justify their continued presence, including in this particular area of Syria.

The remarks about ISIS that we are hearing from the US Department of State are somewhat different from what Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces Nick Carter said. The State Department said the other day that ISIS had not yet been defeated and that the main prerequisite for doing so is a regime change in Syria and the withdrawal of Iranian and pro-Iranian units from the country. This corroborates my hunch that the Americans use ISIS as an excuse to perpetuate their military presence in Syria and consider it almost an ally in their fight against the Syrian regime. Again, the main goal is to topple the regime, not to defeat ISIS. Excuses like this do not add credibility to our US colleagues and show that, in addition to what they publicly declare as their main goal – the destruction of terrorism in Syria – they have a hidden agenda that is quite different.



Question:

Portugal and Russia share more than a love for football, but also long-standing historical relations of which today’s meeting is yet another strong confirmation. What areas in Russian-Portuguese relations are of primary importance?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think we have answered these questions. To reiterate, we have a mutual interest in promoting our relations across all areas without exception. With regard to bilateral contacts this is, of course, a political dialogue, including at the high and top levels, trade, economic and investment cooperation and interaction in innovation, culture, education, language support and much more. Of course, foreign policy interaction is part of it. The memorandum that we signed today contains an agreement to hold regular consultations on countering terrorism. This, as my colleague said, is a critical area today that includes overcoming new challenges and threats. In the same document, we agreed to hold regular consultations on specific issues, including cyber security. We strongly welcome this approach by our Portuguese friends, because in order to understand what is happening in cyberspace, we need regular professional contacts and consultations. I believe this can serve as an example for other countries that are concerned about developments in the cyber sphere, but avoid discussing it at a professional level, preferring the “microphone” level instead.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419861






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions for the programme “Moscow. Kremlin. Putin,” Moscow, November 25, 2018



25 November 2018 - 15:00







Question:

We hear from the Americans that they are opposing the Nord Stream 2, including the Turkish Stream project because it allegedly infringes on the interests of Ukraine and its citizens. Do you think there is a real concern for Ukrainian citizens behind this?



Sergey Lavrov:

A lot has been said on this matter, including by serious European leaders who see the fundamental interests of their countries in strengthening energy security. Those who support any anti-Russia steps solely for the sake of showing some wrongly interpreted solidarity with their allies are primarily concerned about pleasing the United States, or rather, not the United States proper, but the US lobby trying to torpedo any constructive undertakings in relations between Moscow and Washington.



Question:

Has the preparation of the meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump started at the expert level?



Sergey Lavrov:

Members of the Presidential Executive Office have already spoken about this.

Organising the meeting does not require that much effort because all previous contacts between President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump involved the development of relevant documents, which, I would say, systematised the current state of relations and showed the gaps that have opened since the Obama administration destroyed the lion’s share of all channels of dialogue. These documents indicate to our negotiators what initiatives should be put before the presidents. They do not contain any sensational news. It is necessary to begin normal, professional and non-politicised work, free of any ideology, in areas that are vital for the interests of Russia and the United States, and equally important for the interests of the entire international community – the fight against terrorism, organised crime, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and cyber threats, where a lot of far-fetched statements are dumped into the public space. So far, our Western partners do not seem too eager to begin professional verification of assessments and an exchange of experience.

Russia and the United States are certainly vital to the success of efforts to resolve a vast number of conflicts, which, unfortunately, are not becoming fewer in the world. Syria is probably the most acute and relevant example and incidentally, a good opportunity for combining our efforts, as is the Korean Peninsula, in contrast to many other situations.

Russia and the United States have influence on various aspects of most situations, including in Syria and on the Korean Peninsula. It is very important to use this influence beneficially, not detrimentally. It is necessary to take steps that will achieve results, not try to transform the situation into a confrontational debate to gain some short-lived internal political dividends.



Question:

Unfortunately, after each meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, Russian-American relations only got worse. Is there a danger that they will deteriorate again?



Sergey Lavrov:

We cannot guarantee that the internal political forces in the United States that are using every means to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency will not resort to new provocations. Quite the contrary. Surely there will be attempts at new provocations, as well as attempts to destroy our relations, but this does not negate the need for dialogue. We are ready for this dialogue and when the president of a great country is ready to talk with the president of another great country, I think it is our sacred duty to make every effort to bring about such contact. Moreover, there have recently been some shifts towards the restoration of channels of dialogue at other levels, in particular, between the security councils of Russia and the United States.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419913






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


20 November 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with participants of the Stanford American-Russian Forum - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413453


23 November 2018

Meeting of S. Lavrov with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan T. Cono - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419556

Meeting of S. Lavrov with Iranian Foreign Minister M. Zarif - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419601

Meeting of S. Lavrov with the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria S. de Mistura - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419615
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 13th, 2019 #536
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Most personal and non-personal events have not been translated to English.





Personal events:





Statement by Director of the Department for European Cooperation Andrey Kelin at the Meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, Strasbourg, 21 November 2018



22 November 2018 - 16:02



Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Secretary General,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Finland takes over Chairmanship from Croatia at a crucial moment for the Council of Europe whose 70th anniversary we intend to celebrate next May. In circumstances when the entire European architecture is challenged, we believe that attempts to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the Council of Europe are rather dangerous. Today of all days, the cooperation of 47 European States via a unique system of convention mechanisms is of high demand. Our shared goal is to lead the Organization out of the institutional crisis while preserving this unique pan- European mechanism of human rights protection in Europe.

The Russian Federation rejects unlawful discriminatory measures against our MPs. They were deprived of their key powers. High officials of the Council of Europe, including many judges to the European Court of Human Rights were appointed in the absence of our voice in the Assembly. This questions the legitimacy of their decisions concerning Russia. The elections of the Secretary General are to take place in June next year and the non-participation of Russian deputies will evidently have far-reaching negative effects.

In our view, it should be obvious for all that the Assembly due to its division cannot on its own find solutions capable of ending the crisis. We highly appreciate the attempts made by a group of wise members of PACE to find a way out in the framework of the so called "Nicoletti process" and Ad-hoc Committee with the participation of our parliamentarians. But the Assembly did not support them. At the autumn session it was not able to adopt even modest changes to the Rules of Procedure. Russian proposals supported by a number of CoE member states were not included in the final draft on amending the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.

As the crisis deepened, it became clear that without an active role of Committee of Ministers the situation cannot be remedied. In September a reliable legal opinion was drafted by CoE lawyers. It contains reasonable conclusions in compliance with the international law. If the Committee of Ministers finds the strength to support this document, we can move forward.

In the current situation we call upon the new Finnish Chairmanship and all responsible member states of the Council of Europe to do the utmost to jointly overcome the crisis in our Organization as soon as possible. We believe that the PACE norms regarding the suspension of credentials can be fully brought into compliance with the Statue by the ministerial session of the Committee of Ministers in Helsinki on 17 May 2019.

We often hear about violations by Russia of its statutory obligation to pay contributions to Organization's budget. However, statutory obligation were violated first when our parliamentarians were striped of power. One can clearly see legal connection between these two obligations. Let me remind you that during the three years of our parliamentarians' absence in the Assembly hall, we regularly paid all our contributions. The sole purpose of suspending the payments was to draw your attention to the intolerance of the state of affairs in PACE.

Dear colleagues, the Russian Federation seeks to remain in the Council of Europe but the circumstances may arise in such a way, that we simply have no other choice but to radically reconsider the nature of our relations with Strasbourg. The discrimination against member States on political grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Croatian Chairmanship for effective work and wish success to the new Chair - Finland who in the following six months will have to be an anti-crisis manager of our Organization. A lot will depend on the effectiveness of your efforts in that period.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415373






Statement of the Head of the Russian Federation Delegation, Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs V.Yermakov at the Meeting of the State-Parties of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons on Item 7 of the Agenda “General Exchange of Views”, Geneva, November 21, 2018



22 November 2018 - 19:17



Mr. Chairman,

I congratulate you with your election to this important office. You can rely on the support of the Russian delegation.

Dear colleagues,

Russia advocates a complete implementation of the CCW provisions without any exceptions. Our Convention is unique because this consensus instrument in the field of arms control ensures the balance between humanitarian concerns and legitimate security interests of states to the fullest extent possible and in the most efficient manner. It is this quality of the Convention that secures its status of a source of humanitarian law. The maintenance of such balance is particularly relevant and in demand against the backdrop of the growing number of attempts of certain countries and civil society representatives to use humanitarian concerns and quite often to use their own made-up concerns as an absolute and single sufficient condition to introduce restrictive and prohibitive measures in regard to certain kinds of weapons.

The efficiency of the process of further strengthening of the CCW and its five Protocols depends on the rate of its universalization as well as unconditional and honest fulfillment by all states of their obligations. We welcome those countries that became full-fledged members of the CCW in 2018. We call on the states that have not done so to accede to the Convention and its Protocols.

The Russian Federation facilitates the implementation of the CCW in all ways possible. We are rigorously committed to the existing mechanism of the compliance with the Convention and its Protocols including the decision on its strengthening adopted at the CCW Review Conference in 2011 and reaffirmed at the CCW Review Conference in 2016.

Russia timely submits annual reports on the Convention in general and on AP-II and P-V. The Russian inter-agency delegation actively participates at all the annual events of the CCW and its Protocols.

The actions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the mine clearance and the disposal of any explosive devices in Syrian cities of Palmyra, Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor made a significant contribution into the fulfillment of the AP-II and P-V. Besides, with the help of the Russian sappers there were accomplished large-scale operations on the mine clearance in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, autonomous province of Kosovo, Nicaragua and South Ossetia. The operations were executed in a very professional and selfless manner despite all risks of this job for our military and civilian specialists. We presented the updated information on these efforts in the course of AP-II and P-V conferences.

We reaffirm that we are ready to exchange experience and know-how gained through our activities in the field of humanitarian mine clearance. We invite all interested countries to develop cooperation on this track including through the International Anti-Mine Centre of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation established in 2014.

Dear colleagues,

The Meeting provides us with a great opportunity to exchange views and outline joint efforts for the future. We hope to have a professional discussion on all issues of the agenda.

We find important the topic of the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) that at this stage pose the gravest humanitarian threat. We think it is necessary to continue considering this issue within AP-II in the format of Group of Experts that has proved to be efficient, including by coordination of efforts with other international initiatives in this field in line with relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly. We proceed from the fact that the work on the IED within the CCW has to comply with the scope and objectives of the CCW.

At the same time we maintain a skeptic and in certain cases negative approach towards a number of issues being elaborated within the CCW. Thus, we are still against the resumption of the independent expert work on Mines Other than Anti-Personnel Mines (MOTAPM). Such mines are fully legitimate defence tool. Any attempts to present the use of the MOTAPM as a ‘particular humanitarian threat’ are far from reality. We are convinced that the existing humanitarian concerns related to the MOTAPM can be resolved within existing rules of the international humanitarian law, in particular the AP-II.

Humanitarian concerns expressed by a number of states related to the use of incendiary weapons and the subsequent calls to review provisions of Protocol III are far-fetched. We call on member-states to focus their attention on more urgent matters, first of all on an honest and better fulfillment of the existing provisions of the Protocol.

As before, we maintain a reserved attitude to current discussions at the CCW platform on the issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). Despite the establishment of the specialized Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) of the CCW and elaboration of the important consensus report of the GGE upon the outcomes of the work done in 2018 we still consider the LAWS topic to be extremely ‘raw’ and theoretical. We still have doubts about further prospects of the GGE in the absence of functioning samples of such systems, established basic specifications and definitions of the LAWS as well as significant discrepancies in the approaches of the participants of discussions to this matter.

We do not find it necessary to draw up additional rules or to launch independent expert work in regard to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. We think that this problem has to be solved through the honest implementation of the existing rules and an active employment of the political means of conflict settlement.

Mr. Chairman,

We will provide more details on the Russian position concerning other issues in the course of topical discussions.

I want to highlight another issue. We are deeply concerned about the situation around financing of the CCW events as well as the future of the Implementation Support Unit (ISU). We favour the retention of the ISU with the direct financing and control of its activities by the CCW State-Parties i.e. our control. In order to fix the financing of its activities within the CCW we call on State-Parties to make their annual contributions timely and in full.

As possible measures to fix the financial situation we suggest postponing the date for signing of contracts with the ISU officers and CCW spring events until later period in a course of a year and to establish a contingency reserve for unforeseen expenses.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415655






Statement by Georgy V. Kalamanov, Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the IV Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference, the Hague, 21 November



23 November 2018 - 16:51



Unofficial translation



Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Director General,

Distinguished delegates,

On behalf of the Russian delegation I am delighted to welcome you, dear Mr. Chairman, to such a responsible post. We are confident that your solid leadership will make the Fourth Review Conference of the CWC a success.

We reckon that States Parties are determined to discuss agenda items in a constructive manner. Our starting point is that we have three major goals to address: recover the credibility of the Organization, strengthen and universalize the CWC. We believe the common aspiration for concrete results would help us review the implementation of the Convention over the last 5 years in a comprehensive and unbiased way, and highlight key points in the OPCW work for the future 5-year period. We are convinced that the States Parties should address all OPCW issues, no matter how complicated, in good faith, guided by a consensus-based approach.

Sadly, we have to admit that there are a number of problems. The times our Organization is going through are far from being the best ones due to a deep rift among its members. We are facing politicization and even confrontation in the work on the Syria’s "chemical files" as well as on the UK-inspired "Skripal case", and now also on politically motivated "attribution" which is being literally imposed by a number of Western countries to the rest of CWC States Parties.

We have stated more than once and hereby reaffirm that the decision to authorize OPCW Technical Secretariat to “identify the perpetrators” of the use of chemical weapons is unwarranted. By acceding to the Convention, the States Parties entered the Organization with a clear-cut mandate of this essentially administrative body, namely: technical assistance to national chemical stockpile destruction programs, control over chemical industry to prevent the production of chemical weapons and unchecked traffic of its precursors. I would emphasize, the OPCW itself and its Technical Secretariat are assigned to a purely practical task on this matter, that is implementation of the relevant verification procedures.

Now, we are told that a purely technical organization must be urgently vested with quasi-prosecutorial functions. That kind of transformation of the Convention, if I may say so, directly affects the fundamental principles and provisions laid down in this international treaty, while entailing fundamental changes in the powers of OPCW Technical Secretariat.

Those actual amendments, affecting the very essence of OPCW work, are proposed to be adopted in circumvention of CWC Article XV. As we all know, it clearly states that the Convention may be amended only by an Amendment Conference. Besides, this Article provides that amendments may be adopted only if no State Party casts a negative vote.

Thus, making a decision on the "attribution" issue in the OPCW by voting at the CSP is a destructive step with regard to the chemical disarmament and non-proliferation regime which has been evolving for decades. Moreover, that implies the upright encroachment on the exclusive prerogatives of the UN SC as the sole international authority responsible for war and peace issues.

To support this destructive initiative, we were requested to approve the Draft Programme and Budget of the Organization for 2019 with a 2.4 mln. euro increase in total allocations, specifically budgeted for the illegitimate "attribution" purposes, in contravention of the previous agreements on zero growth of the OPCW expenditures. We believe that diverting resources for purposes not envisaged by the Convention, is absolutely inadmissible, particularly when the programs of technical assistance to developing countries under CWC Article XI remain persistently underfunded.

As a State Party and one of the founding fathers of the CWC, Russia considers the earliest global elimination of chemical weapon stockpiles to be an imperative. That is exactly why our country, in spite of the unprecedented scope and complexity of the relevant national program, has fulfilled its CWC obligations three years ahead of schedule and destroyed the huge stockpiles of the former USSR, amounting to 40,000 tons. We are grateful to those States, which provided assistance in completing this mission, as well as to the OPCW Technical Secretariat for longstanding close cooperation.

We urge the USA to speed up the elimination of the declared stockpiles as much as possible. In our view, the partners have opted for too lax timelines for the completion of their programme, in spite of the fact that the US side has all the required financial, scientific, technological and industrial resources for the earliest accomplishment of that task.

We commend the implementation of comprehensive decisions by the UN Security Council and the OPWC Executive Council that jointly made it possible to successfully move out the chemical arsenal from Libya and destroy it abroad. I would like to commend the positive role of the OPWC Technical Secretariat in that work and the States sponsors' contribution to this operation.

We welcome the completed elimination of chemical warfare remnants in Iraq that dated back to the rule of Saddam Hussein.

It is evident that the elimination of the Syrian chemical warfare potential under strict international control with the heavy fighting still continuing in that country is a critical milestone in the history of the Organization. Such a result would not have been possible without the interaction between all States Parties to the Convention as well as without the political will and dedicated efforts of the Syrian authorities.

However, with the work on the Syrian track being in progress, interaction of the OPCW Technical Secretariat with official Damascus ran into systematic failures on a number of issues.

Thus, there has been actually a stalemate in the assessment of the initial Syria's declaration under Article III of the CWC. The number of absolutely unsubstantiated claims against Damascus has increased from 4 to 22 items in four years. We are very concerned that the more information the Syrian government provides to the OPCW, the more questions it is asked. It should be understood that with the lapse of time and facing the long-running armed conflict, Damascus is simply unable to respond to the most of queries. We believe we have to be realistic, since this state of affairs can not last forever.

We suppose that the OPWC Technical Secretariat and Syria need to conduct a final review of the remaining issues on the initial declaration. We welcome the mutual willingness of both sides to overcome differences. They should put aside all politically motivated claims and rely solely on expert analysis.

It is obvious that the time has come for a drastic revision of the Terms of Reference of the OPWC Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which define the framework for interaction between Damascus and the Mission. The latter's mandate should be fully brought in line with the provisions of the CWC.

The FFM’s shortcomings in question are as those: unbalanced geographical basis of staff recruitment; selective approach when dealing with witnesses’ testimonies, including unjustified disposition to obtain information from opposition sources, as well as structures implicated in the data falsification and close ties with foreign intelligence services; reluctance to carry out field visits under the pretext of security risks, although the relevant guarantees from the Syrian government have been repeatedly provided. The inevitable implications of such approaches have been a violation of the “chain of custody”, that is the fundamental principle envisaged by the CWC when conducting investigations.

We still maintain that the adoption of the Draft Decision of the OPWC Executive Council on improving the FFM's work, submitted by Russia and Iran back in the 86th session of that governing body in October 2017, could have rectified the situation. Unfortunately, it had not gained sufficient support. We propose to take it from the table again.

We are concerned that the US and British chemical weapons have been found in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Panama. We believe it is necessary for the OPWC Technical Secretariat to step up its supervision over the responsibilities of the CWC States Parties to timely declare abandoned or old chemical weapon, when it is found on their territories. We suppose that late or incorrect submission of such declarations is unacceptable.

We are deeply concerned over the developments following the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury and the actions of the British authorities. The U.K., without any evidence, has accused Russia of involvement in the use of toxic substances on its territory. At the same time, London, without any explanation, refuses to act in the realm of international law and to cooperate with Russia in the framework of the CWC and through legal authorities in order to clarify the circumstances of the incident. That obviously has raised numerous questions, including with regard to the activities of the laboratory of the U.K. Ministry of Defense in Porton Down. At this point, we consider it appropriate and even necessary to bring the discussions on this issue within the OPCW to an open format.

Since a detected chemical agent in the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents is beyond the scope of CWC and classified by the West as “Novichok” it prompts immediate action on the part of the OPCW. In particular, the relevant OPCW Schedules on Chemicals should be reviewed in a comprehensive manner with regard to nerve agents. In this regard, we would like to draw colleagues' attention to the relevant initiative taken by the Russian Federation back in May 2018. Our experts analyzed specialized literature and found out that nearly a thousand chemical compounds of that kind should be considered by the OPCW with a view to their eventual inclusion in the relevant schedules.

We cannot ignore numerous facts indicating that terrorists have the necessary capacity to use industrial chemicals for military purposes as well as to produce full-fledged military grade chemical warfare agents. We urge the CWC State Parties to focus their efforts on addressing the growing threat of chemical terrorism to fulfil their existing obligations under the Convention. We highly appreciate the decision taken by the OPCW Executive Council in October 2017 in this regard. And yet, we emphasize that the CWC, as stated in the outcome document of the Third Review Conference, is not a counter-terrorism treaty. In this context, we believe that the Russian initiative to elaborate an International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism – with the OPCW playing an important role in its implementation – put forward at the Geneva Disarmament Conference is more relevant than ever before.

The Organization should keep up with the time. Its tasks are naturally evolving with the Possessor States completing the destruction of the declared stockpiles. Still, the decisions to include additional issues to the agenda of the OPCW governing bodies should not contradict the CWC and overlap with the competence of other international institutions. First and foremost, this relates to incapacitating chemical agents and chemical weapons that were previously owned by Hitler's Germany and dumped in the Baltic Sea.

We would also like to recall the Russian initiative proposed at the Third Review Conference as to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which is still relevant. We collectively call on those States that have not yet signed the Protocol to do so immediately and on those States that have reservations to the Protocol to withdraw them. The latter applies, in particular, to the United States who has reserved the right for reciprocal use of chemical agents in military conflicts.

We believe that it is important to facilitate the implementation of Article XI concerning economic and technological development of the OPCW State Parties for the application of chemistry for purposes not prohibited by the Convention as well as to assist developing countries in building national industrial capacity. We deem the existing restrictions in trade in chemicals introduced by a number of Western countries as well as artificial barriers within export control regimes to be unsubstantiated.

Following the suit of other international organizations, clear rules for the election of the OPCW Director-General of the Technical Secretariat should be elaborated. They should provide for fair geographical rotation and the establishment of the credentials commission comprising the representatives of all regional groups to ensure transparency and supervision over the elections.

The decision-making process of the Conference of the States Parties also needs revision. The existing vote counting de facto allows the minority to impose its will on the majority. Hence it is flawed and contradicts the principle of consensus envisaged in the CWC.

We believe that the Organization also needs a careful and calibrated approach to its human resources policy. We understand the need to maintain the human resources capacity of the OPCW Technical Secretariat. Meanwhile, it is relevant to recruit new specialists, including from developing countries, while preserving continuity of expertise and specific knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to assure you that the delegation of the Russian Federation seeks to constructive and goal-oriented work at the Conference, close cooperation with you and, of course, with all delegations in order to yield positive results.

We ask you to circulate this address as an official document of the Fourth CWC Review Conference.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419386






Statement of head of Russian delegation Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Georgy Kalamanov at the 23rd Session of the Conference of the States Parties to Chemical Weapons Convention on item 8 (presentation of Russian-Chinese draft decision “Preserving the integrity of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”)



23 November 2018 - 17:03



Unofficial translation



Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Director-General,

Distinguished Delegates,

First of all, we are compelled to reiterate our principled position regarding the illegitimacy of the Decision made at the Fourth Special Session of CSP in June that was voted on and provides for entrusting the OPCW with improper attributive functions that infringe on competences of the UN Security Council.

We still believe that attribution is not provided for in the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, goes beyond the scope of responsibilities of the OPCW as a whole and the Conference specifically. We are convinced that any initiative to change the regime of the Convention have to be adopted in accordance with the order outlined in Article XV of the Convention proper.

Without prejudice to the aforementioned position we would like to express the following opinion. We have acquainted ourselves with the proposals of the Technical Secretariat prepared in implementation and in development of the abovementioned decision. We note that concerns that we expressed have proven to be relevant.

Our position on specific provisions of the Program and Budget document for year 2019 has already been voiced in the Executive Council.

Proposals prepared by the Director General in implementation of pp. 20 and 21 of the June decision that have been disseminated just the other day also raise a lot of questions. In particular, the idea that the Technical Secretariat plans to undertake all those activities without due control from OPCW governing bodies. States Parties are only supposed to be informed on the steps taken by the Technical Secretariat – those being far-reaching and requiring additional funding.

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China have developed and submitted draft decision “Preserving the integrity of the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” which to our mind provides the only possible way out of the situation at hand when assessments of legitimacy of attribution in OPCW are drastically different.

The situation is that several delegations categorically reject the possibility of attribution in OPCW. Implementation of pp. 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the decision made at the Fourth Special Session in the view of Russia, China and a lot of other States Parties may directly involve cornerstone provisions of the Convention and therefore undermine confidence in activities of the Organisation and its bodies as well.

In this regard Russia and China propose to charge the Executive Council with forming an open-ended group of experts (and include specialists on international law, first and foremost) that would consider the activities and proposals of the Technical Secretariat to implement the aforementioned Decision. This experts group would provide its reasoned conclusion whether attributive activities are in line with provisions of the Convention. The Chair of the group would prepare an outcome report and present it to the governing bodies of the Organisation.

Only with conclusions drawn by respected specialists can we have a discussion if it is legal to launch an attribution mechanism in the OPCW.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419423






Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the Fourth Review Conference in response to the USA, United Kingdom and Canada accusing Russia of not observing its obligations under Chemical Weapons Convention



24 November 2018 - 17:07



Unofficial translation from Russian



Distinguished Mr. Chair,

We consider absolutely unacceptable the groundless accusations voiced in the statement of the United States that Russia is in violation of its obligations under Article I of the CWC pertaining to alleged involvement of Russian nationals in use of a nerve agent in Salisbury. Such statements have absolutely no bearing on the facts and are effectively aired to influence the international community. The refusal of the United Kingdom to cooperate in any form with Russia on the “Skripal case”, which would be in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC only underlines the emptiness of the accusations. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom has addressed the Technical Secretariat with a request to confirm the outcomes of its own national investigation, which contradicts the goals and objectives of technical assistance provided to a State Party under subparagraph e) of paragraph 38 of Article VIII of the CWC. As follows from the presented materials on the assistance provided in connection to Salisbury and Amesbury cases, we have to state the politically motivated nature of the undertaken measures.

On April 18, 2018 at the meeting of the Special Session of the Executive Council Russia announced that the problem of the “Novichok” family is the problem of the Western states. It was in violation of Article I of the CWC that the chemical laboratories of the Western countries researched the structures of over a hundred chemical compounds. Such activities were carried out in the United States, as well as at the Center of Excellence created under the auspices of NATO in Czech Republic. At this center all leading Western countries conducted their research.

The Russian Federation has officially submitted to the OPCW Technical Secretariat a document including about a thousand of new chemical compounds that were proposed to be introduced in the CWC Control Schedules. These proposals include, inter alia, 400 chemical compounds that were developed in the United States, patented as chemical weapons before the signing of the Convention yet not present in the Schedule at the final stage of work on the Convention. That is what constitutes a grave violation of international obligations under the Convention! In light of this, the proposal of the United States, Canada and the Netherlands to include only two compounds in the Schedules of the Convention looks absolutely insufficient as far as undertaking measures for strengthening the Convention goes.

Mr. Chair,

Recently for some reason the United States has been taking on the role of solemn custodians of the Convention. Pointing out to other States Parties at their alleged transgressions against the Convention. But what of the United States itself? We would like to specifically point out that the observation of its obligations under the Convention by the USA is fraught with cherry-picking. Any provisions of the Conventions that do not coincide with the US interests are effectively ignored by Washington.

As an example, the US Congress has made 28 reservations in the process of ratification of the Convention, that allow to circumvent its provisions.

Specifically: prohibit on export of any chemical samples taken in the United States; limit the inspections in the USA carried out by the OPCW experts pertaining to identifying activities prohibited under the Convention at the request of another State Party; keep in force the Executive Decree no.11850 of April 8, 1975 allowing the use of riot control agents in war, which is also prohibited under Article I of the CWC. The United States is practically the only state keeping a reservation on the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 1925, that provides for a possibility to use chemical weapons in retaliation.

It is also worth mentioning that in 2003-2011 the US and British specialists found in Iraq over 4.5 thousand of chemical artillery shells, rockets and air bombs and covertly destroyed them without verification by the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The main reason for covering up the situation was the apparent unwillingness to expose the involvement of the United States in the past chemical warfare program of Iraq. Notably after the journalist investigation carried out by the New York Times it was revealed that the CIA had implemented a whole program of buying from the population and individual militants undetected, abandoned and stolen chemical items form the stockpiles of Saddam Hussein.

A report on such unusual method of destruction of stockpiles was submitted by the United States to the OPCW only in 2009 to convince the Executive Council of the Organization that the undertaken measures “fully complied with the spirit of the Convention. In turn, the Technical Secretariat then refused to investigate due to alleged “emergency in the situation” and the fact that the CWC lacked the provision on destruction of chemical weapons in combat environment.

Thus the United States and the United Kingdom committed a major violation of the CWC requirements and avoided any assessment of their actions by the international community. The overall volume of detected, destroyed in the field and exported to the USA chemical weapons cannot be properly assessed.

We also question a large number of munitions with allegedly unknown chemicals being destroyed in the United States. We are asked to show trust: apparently those are very old munitions. But we all not that old adage: trust, but verify! It may turn out that under the label of unknown equipment one could hide the traces of undeclared activities in military chemistry.

The United States has likewise not presented all available information on the locations, types, quantities, as well as data on abandonment and state of abandoned chemical weapons.

The United States has not recognized the origin of seven air bombs and one air spray tank with phosgene and cyanogen chloride abandoned by Pentagon in Panama, even though the experts of the OPCW Technical Secretariat as early as 2002 confirmed that they originate from the USA.

A substantial amount of abandoned chemical weapons with CA and CS left by the United States dating back to the Vietnam was found in Cambodia. The OPCW special mission identified that it came from the USA. Yet Washington is silent on that one.

Under the pretext of fighting terrorism in Syria the United States illegally deployed its military contingent. The true reason for American military presence in the region, however, is abetting extremist groups active in Syria to prop up the US political interests. It is those groups that are behind provocations with the use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun and other numerous chemical-related incidents. To create beneficial informational background we see active use of terrorist-affiliated NGOs such as “White Helmets” that have been repeatedly exposed for preparing staged incidents with the use of chemical weapons, for example, in Duma. Time and time again we have informed both the OPCW Executive Council and the UN Security Council on the invalid nature of these allegations. Thus the United States essentially condone chemical terrorism.

It is therefore explicitly evident that the United States accuses Russia and other countries to shift the focus of attention from its own sordid affairs. We call upon the United States to cease and desist from deceiving the international community. Instead the USA should better recognize that it has to take steps to render its activities in conformity with the CWC requirements.

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

We would ask to circulate this statement as an official document and publish it on the OPCW website.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419842






19 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Moscow S. Ugboy - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3411920

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of the State of Israel in Moscow H. Koren - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3412137

Interview of A. Shulgin to the TASS news agency, published on November 18, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3412485


20 November 2018

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with New Zealand's Ambassador to Russia I. Hill - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413189


21 November 2018

Meeting of A. Grushko with the Ambassador of Croatia in Russia T. Stanichich - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414131

Meetings of M. Bogdanov with the leadership of Iraq - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414535


22 November 2018

Meeting of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia E. Ivanov with the Ambassador of Iran to Russia M.Sanai - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415116

Speech by M. Ulyanov during the session of the IAEA Board of Governors under the agenda item “Inspection and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Light of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)”, Vienna, November 22, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415635


23 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with a delegation of the Council of Leaders of Christian Churches of Iraq - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419362

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of India to Russia V. Varma - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419452

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Iraq in Moscow, H. Hadi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419476

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the appointed Ambassador of Sierra Leone in Moscow M. Yongavo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419486

Meeting of G. Karasin with Ambassador of Belarus to Russia V. Semashko - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419509

Speech by M. Ulyanov at the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, Vienna, 22-23 November 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419691

Speech by M. Ulyanov at the session of the IAEA Board of Governors under the agenda item “Application of IAEA safeguards in the DPRK”, Vienna, November 22, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419701








Non-personal events:





Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian MFA on Russia’s Approach to the French Initiative "Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace"



20 November 2018 - 14:52



Unofficial translation



At the opening of the Global Internet Governance Forum, President of France Emmanuel Macron announced a new French initiative to ensure international information security (IIS) – "Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace".

51 States, 50 international and regional organizations, over 170 private companies and corporations joined the document.

From our point of view, the core message of the document – the need for ensuring peace and security in the global information space – is in line with the spirit of Russia’s approaches to ensuring IIS enshrined in its key initiatives on this issue that have recently been approved by the First and Third Committees of the 73rd session of the UN GA. We believe that the initiatives by Moscow and Paris should be used in a constructive manner by putting the discussion thereof into the agenda of the Russian-French dialogue on IIS.

At the same time we note that the Paris Declaration contains a number of questionable provisions. For instance, we see the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime of 2001 (the so-called Budapest Convention) being imposed on the international community as an "essential" international legal instrument for combating cyber criminality, while this document actually establishes the principle of violating State sovereignty which is unacceptable for the majority of countries. The multistakeholder approach to digital space proposed by France provides for putting States and non-State actors on an equal footing and thus dilutes the key role of States in ensuring cyber security.

A number of the document’s provisions could be interpreted as an acknowledgement that a military confrontation between States in cyberspace is acceptable, including with the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The initiative puts forward a controversial idea that the existing international law is applicable to the use of ICTs which has not gained wide international support.

In our view, it is crucially important to prevent conflicts in information space and ensure exclusively peaceful use of ICTs. Russia has consistently promoted this approach to IIS on all key relevant international fora. This year we have managed to enshrine it in Russia’s resolution titled "Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security" adopted on November 8, 2018 following the vote by the First Committee of the 73rd session of the UN GA. The resolution contains a draft code of conduct of States in digital sphere which, inter alia, seeks to ensure respect for State sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs of States, and to prevent the deepening of the digital gap between them.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413302






Comment by the Information and Press Department on new US anti-Russia sanctions



21 November 2018 - 10:55



Washington continues to introduce sanctions against Russia at an accelerated rate. Their recent expansion was the eleventh during the last three and a half months, while the practice itself is increasingly becoming a matter of routine. But the main reasons for the sanctions lie in America’s domestic political discord, where each of the parties involved seeks to score points by any means, including on the international arena.

The result is awkward. Their attempts to charge Russia with complicity in supplying oil to Syria, whose armed forces have fought against terrorist aggression for more than seven years, look like a statement in support of the terrorists and at the same time suggest a wish to hamper the restoration of that devastated country where many residents are without light and heat. Does the US really want this?

Moreover, in trying to pressurise Russia, Washington repeatedly demonstrates its inability to force our country to change its independent international line. US politicians should abandon the illusion of America’s “omnipotence,” of which they have convinced themselves. Self-delusion is a dangerous thing.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413762






Foreign Ministry statement



21 November 2018 - 19:50



The Russian Federation is seriously concerned about Ukraine’s continued attempts to aggravate the situation in the Sea of Azov. The latest act of fomenting tensions between Russia and Ukraine is hindering the restoration of bilateral relations and contradicts regional and international security interests.

Russia regrets that Kiev’s confrontational policy of destabilising Russian-Ukrainian relations has been supported by some countries, including EU members.

Russia roundly rejects any accusations of aggressive or illegal actions in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. Since their reunification with Russia, the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol have been an integral part of the Russian Federation, which exercises its sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the maritime areas adjoining the Crimean Peninsula in accordance with international law. Russia’s actions over there are consistent with international law, intended to protect its national security, and proportionate to the extremist threats to Russia, including the threats from Ukraine.

The Sea of Azov is the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine, where only Russian and Ukrainian vessels enjoy the freedom of navigation. The Kerch Strait is not and has never been an international waterway as per the spirit of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), and therefore any claims concerning the right of transit or innocent passage for foreign vessels are inapplicable in the strait.

The inspections of vessels conducted by the Coast Guard of the FSB Border Service in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait are legitimate and justified. The increase in the number of these inspections since April 2018 is due to the need to tighten security in the Kerch Strait following the opening of the first stage of the Crimean Bridge, rather than to the desire to put political or economic pressure to bear on Ukraine, as per an interpretation presented by Kiev, Washington and Brussels.

The Russian Coast Guard’s actions are not discriminatory: 48 percent of the vessels they inspected between April and October 2018, or 720 out of 1,492 vessels, were transiting to or from Russian ports. Contrary to what Ukraine says, the Russian Coast Guard also inspects ships flying the Russian flag.

The overwhelming majority of inspections – 93 percent – are conducted at the anchoring grounds located near the entrance to the Kerch Strait from the Black Sea or the Sea of Azov at the time, when sea convoys are formed for transiting the Kerch-Yenikale Canal (KYC). As a rule, these inspections do not exceed three hours. Any possible loss of time is due to the specific procedure for sailing via the Kerch-Yenikale Canal, its size and complicated hydrometeorological and navigation conditions. Vessels are rarely stopped for inspection in the Sea of Azov and then only for compelling reasons.

Contrary to statements made in Kiev and Brussels, Russia is not building up its military presence in the Sea of Azov. Russian armed forces deployed there are mostly used to guard the Crimean Bridge.

Meanwhile, the actions taken by Ukraine, which has announced a decision to set up a naval base in Berdyansk and systematically closes off some areas in the Sea of Azov for artillery live fire exercises, are leading to the militarisation of the Sea of Azov.

The Russian Federation is open to a constructive dialogue on the situation in the Sea of Azov and would like to warn Ukraine against any attempts, in violation of international law, to revise the current status of the Sea of Azov as the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine. In this connection, we urge Kiev to refrain from any reckless actions to unilaterally delineate a new state border in the Sea of Azov, which Russia will not recognise.

The Russian Federation is warning everyone that the responsibility for possible further aggravation of the situation in the Azov Sea-Kerch water area lies with Ukraine and the states that support its provocative actions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414549






Joint Statement on behalf of Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, State of Palestine, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe, the Hague, 20 November



23 November 2018 - 16:56



“UPHOLDING THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION’’

We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC), committed to achieving the goal of freeing the world of chemical weapons, strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances.

We commend the contribution made by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to freeing the world from that type of weapons of mass destruction.

We emphasize that integrity and comprehensive universality of the CWC are of critical importance for achieving the object and the purpose of the Convention and maintaining international peace and security.

We consider the inviolability of the fundamental CWC provisions, as well as the operating principles of the OPCW, its principal and executive bodies, such as the Conference of the States Parties (the CSP), the Executive Council and the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW, to be an indispensable prerequisite for ensuring further effective functioning of the OPCW as one of the most successful multilateral mechanisms in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We believe that the decision of the Fourth Special Session of the CWC CSP of 27 June 2018 to delegate authority to the OPCW Technical Secretariat that is not provided for in the Convention, as well as the proposals by this OPCW administrative body to assume attribution functions to identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons go beyond the scope of the CWC.

Such decisions and proposals which in view of the technical nature of the OPCW are of principal importance must be considered solely in line with Article XV of the Convention.

The disunity among the States Parties to the CWC due to the politicization of the problem of the use of chemical weapons significantly reduces the efficiency of our Organization’s work, as it prevents us from focusing on common and genuinely pressing tasks that are set out in the Convention and have been successfully performed for many years.

In light of the above, we call on the States Parties to the CWC to cooperate with each other in a constructive manner and seek to restore the spirit of consensus in the OPCW for the sake of integrity and universality of the Convention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419404






19 November 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the introduction of new restrictions on Cuba by the USA - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3412447


20 November 2018

About Russian journalists "Russia Today" in Nigeria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3413266


21 November 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the terrorist act in Kabul - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3414367


22 November 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the aggravation of the situation around Kosovo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415131

Russian-Swedish consultations on the situation on the Korean Peninsula - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415396


23 November 2018

Statement of the Member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization at the 23rd session of the Conference of the States Parties to the CWC “On strengthening the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and depoliticizing the work of the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419442

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the delivery of a note by the Russian Embassy in Lithuania regarding the unsatisfactory situation with Russian war graves in this country - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419462

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the aggravation of the situation in Kosovo - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3419587
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; January 13th, 2019 at 04:08 AM.
 
Old January 13th, 2019 #537
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 22, 2018



22 November 2018 - 12:17







Tenth International Forum of NGOs in Official Partnership with UNESCO “Science as a common good of humankind”

On November 26-27, Moscow will host the Tenth International Forum of NGOs in Official Partnership with UNESCO “Science as a common good of humankind.” The event is sponsored by the Russian Peace Foundation, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the UNESCO Secretariat.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to address the Forum’s official opening ceremony.

Forum delegates will focus on the role of science in digital space, relations between science and civil society, science and ethics in a modern world. The event is to involve prominent Russian and foreign scientists, heads of research and development institutions, representatives of universities, outstanding medical specialists, as well as experts on humanities from about 100 UNESCO member states.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office for the Transnistrian Settlement Process Franco Frattini

On November 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will have a meeting with Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office for the Transnistrian Settlement Process Franco Frattini. The officials are planning to exchange views on issues included on the agenda of the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Meeting on the Transnistrian settlement in Milan, as well as some other matters of mutual interest.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado

On November 26-28, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado will pay an official visit to Russia.

The foreign ministers of both countries will hold talks on November 26. They are planning to exchange opinions on a wide range of matters relating to bilateral affairs and to focus on consolidating political dialogue, expanding trade and economic and cultural-humanitarian ties.

Particular attention will be given to comparing positions on topical matters concerning international and regional affairs and prospects for cooperation at multilateral venues, primarily the UN, with due consideration for electing the Dominican Republic as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2019-2020.

The visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado heralds a new stage of the more intensive development of our bilateral ties and highlights the consistent expansion of Russia’s multi-vector cooperation with Latin America and the Caribbean.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's visit to France

On November 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit France. His agenda will include talks with French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian, and their joint participation in the second meeting of the Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue in the Palace of Versailles.

Pressing issues of bilateral cooperation will be addressed, including the preparations for the 24th meeting of the Franco-Russian Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Council scheduled for December 17, the implementation of agreements reached during the top-level talks in May and July this year, and carrying out joint projects in the cultural and humanitarian sphere.

As regards the international agenda, there will be an exchange of opinions on important issues such as developments in Syria, Libya and Yemen, the prospects for settling the conflict in Ukraine, preservation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme, the future of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, strengthening European security, and the preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council on December 6 and 7 in Milan.

During the meeting of the Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue civil society forum, the ministers will take part in a discussion on measures to facilitate direct contacts between the Russians and the French to boost friendly ties between the two nations.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's working visit to Switzerland

On November 27-28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be on a working visit to Switzerland.

The Minister will take part in the Geneva Conference on Afghanistan hosted by the UN. The event focuses on international assistance to the process of national reconciliation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as the Afghan government’s implementation of the reform programme, and support for regional economic initiatives and mechanisms oriented towards Afghanistan. The conference is expected to draw representatives from about 70 countries and 28 international organisations.

On November 28, Sergey Lavrov will have talks in Geneva with Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland Ignazio Cassis. During the bilateral meeting, the ministers will discuss issues relevant to Russian-Swiss relations, as well as major international issues of mutual interest.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Italian news agency AGI

As we announced earlier, on November 22–23 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to Italy to take part in the fourth Rome MED: Mediterranean Dialogues international conference. Details are available on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.

We would like to inform you that at 3 pm today (1 pm Roman time) the Foreign Ministry’s official website will publish Mr Lavrov’ interview with AGI, an Italian news agency.



Update on Maria Butina arrested in the US

We continue to closely follow the situation around Russian citizen Maria Butina in the United States. Let me remind you that the US authorities have been keeping her incarcerated for more than four months under a far-fetched pretext.

Diplomats from the Russian Embassy in the United States visit Maria Butina regularly. As of today, she spends a lot of time studying the materials of her criminal case in order to prepare for the court hearing scheduled for December 19.

We will continue to take all the necessary steps to secure Maria Butina’s release from prison. Our compatriot has fallen victim to anti-Russia sentiments, which unfortunately have picked up a lot of steam in Washington. The character of the charges proves that she is in fact a political prisoner.



Syria update

In the past week, the situation in Syria generally remained stable, with persisting hotbeds of conflict in the areas with terrorist presence.

The situation in the country’s northwest, in Idlib, still causes greatest concern. Late last week, the militants of the Al-Qaida-affiliated illegal armed unit Hurras al-Din made a large provocation and assaulted the Syrian government forces position in the area of Joureen. Eighteen soldiers died in repelling the attack. Such bloody provocations prove that there are still obstacles to establishing a demilitarised zone in Idlib, despite considerable efforts by the Turkish side to implement the September 17 joint Memorandum with Russia. We continue to cooperate closely with our Turkish partners. Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu discussed the situation in Idlib with his Turkish counterpart Hulusi Akar in Sochi the other day.

The US activities in Syria cause continuous concern. The aircraft of the US-led so-called coalition have been launching intensive strikes on the suburbs of the ISIS-occupied city of Hajin in the Trans-Euphrates area for a long period of time, resulting in massive civilian casualties. Last week, we reported that the bodies of 50 victims were found in Al-Shafa to the east of Hajin. Last weekend, 40 more people died, most of them women and children, in another coalition airstrike on the village of al-Buqaan.

According to the Syrian media, the coalition’s air force once again used white phosphorus bombs. Americans keep denying it with the same obstinacy as in April, when they claimed that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma. No evidence to that effect has so far been presented, though.

Washington betrays its lack of interest in an early settlement of the Syria crisis by retaining its illegal military presence on Syrian territory and by its other actions, in particular, by thwarting efforts aimed at socioeconomic recovery of the country and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons. For example, the US Treasury issued a statement on November 20 on imposing tough restrictions on two Russian companies “suspected” of oil product deliveries to Syria, bypassing unilateral US sanctions. Washington warned that the same would happen to anyone else who dared to violate the US sanctions regimes. It appears the Americans want to leave war-town Syrians without such a vital resource as fuel. What about concern for human rights and civilians? It used to be claimed that everything that the United States and the US-led coalitions and other nations sponsored in Syria, the Middle East and North Africa was in the interests of the civilian population. Now we can see what the situation really is regarding concern for civilians.

And now, about positive developments. Recently, the Syrian General Staff announced the completion of the military operation and the establishment of full control over the Al-Safa volcanic plateau, ISIS’s last stronghold in the south of the country. The area of 380 sq km, with a very difficult terrain, was cleansed of all terrorists.

The implementation of the Russian initiative on assisting the return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons continues. Their inflow, mostly from neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon, has reached the rate of 1,000 (from 800 to 1,400) people per day. The Syrian authorities report that the number of families who returned to Deir ez-Zor Governorate since its liberation from terrorists has reached 195,000.

The Syrian authorities are restoring the socioeconomic infrastructure destroyed by the war and continue their efforts to create worthy conditions for the return of their citizens to their homes. Thus, as of November 21, in the mountainous area of Latakia, 400 of the 1,500 houses destroyed during the war have been rebuilt.

On November 28-29, the next 11th Astana format meeting on Syria will be held in the capital of Kazakhstan where Russian, Iranian and Turkish officials will share their opinions on the situation in Syria and the settlement in that country in general. The meeting, as always, will be of a practical nature.



Situation around al-Rukban camp for internally displaced persons

The al-Rukban camp for internally displaced persons remains a sore spot on the map of Syria, with tens of thousands of people living there in extremely difficult conditions. The Russian Foreign Ministry and Defence Ministry provide regular coverage of the situation in the camp.

Indicatively, this camp is located inside a zone around al-Tanf that was illegally established by the United States and which is virtually occupied by it. A large US military base has been deployed there, on the territory of a sovereign UN member-state, under the pretext of fighting ISIS and for “deterring” Iran. It is located in a strategic region where the borders of Syria, Iraq and Jordan merge and where the Baghdad-Damascus motorway is located. According to numerous reports, militants are being trained there. Extremists from various paramilitary terrorist units are feeling quite at home in the al-Tanf sector.

In early November, UN agencies delivered humanitarian relief aid to al-Rukban camp with the consent of the Syrian authorities and with the active assistance of the Russian side. The required consultations were also held with the United States for ensuring the convoy’s safe passage. At the same time, as has already become customary, the US side arbitrarily interpreted these agreements. For example, members of an illegal paramilitary unit were instructed to guard the convoy inside the US-controlled zone, and Syrian Red Crescent representatives were denied access to the camp. Of course, we consider this to be unacceptable.

Meanwhile, the situation in the camp continues to deteriorate. Syrians staying there live in terrible conditions, they are deprived of normal food and have minimal access to medication and medical help. Waste is not being collected, and there is no sewage system there. Crime and violence are rampant in the camp. Children are being recruited into illegal paramilitary units. Indicatively, entrance into the camp and exit from it are limited and are only possible on a paid basis and with due permission from a paramilitary unit. Naturally, all this evokes the most profound concern.

It would be nice if several major Western media outlets, including US and European publications, contributed honest, straightforward and open special reports about the developments at the al-Rukban camp, without trying to justify US actions in this area.



OPCW's attributive mechanism

The decision of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (The Hague, November 19–20) to increase the OPCW budget for 2019 by 2.5 million euros to support its so-called attribution powers (a legal term) has triggered a highly negative reaction from us.

Firstly, in accordance with the OPCW main budgeting document, its General Director and Head of its Technical Secretariat – I would like to specifically stress the word “technical” – now has an illegitimate right supported by relevant funding to determine or, more precisely, “appoint” those responsible for carrying out or financing terrorist acts with the use of chemical weapons. He or she is now authorised to hand down this verdict personally, to either an individual or an organisation, or a sovereign state.

In the case of a person or an organisation, this action can qualify as direct intervention in the internal affairs of the UN member countries. In the case of a sovereign state, it appears that OPCW – an organisation technical in nature – has in fact vested itself with powers that only the UN Security Council enjoys on legal grounds. That is, what we are witnessing is a direct infringement on the prerogatives of this international body and, as a result, the actual collapse of the entire system of international relations built after World War II.

In theory, we have mentioned many timed that such plans exist. We have called attention to relevant statements and trends that we monitored. Now our partners are getting down to business and practical action.

Secondly, as we have already said many times, this decision with far-reaching negative consequences is totally in conflict with the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. As a reminder, in accordance with the mandate given to the OPCW Technical Secretariat under the Convention, this technical entity can only investigate relevant incidents and draw conclusions as to whether toxic substances have been used or not. At least that's how it acted earlier, for example, in relation to such crimes in Syria.

With its increased budget, the Technical Secretariat is now expected to focus on identifying the perpetrators in that Middle Eastern country. Yet, neither the methods of this work nor its modalities have been disclosed. The states parties were not even involved in drafting the terms of reference for the special attribution group established within the Technical Secretariat. Everything was done to ensure that the states parties to the Convention make the decision that the limited group of countries needs blindfold.

In this regard, there is a reasonable concern that under the cover of beautiful phrases about ending impunity for using chemical weapons (a statement everybody agrees with), bypassing the CWC and international law, a non-transparent mechanism is being formed, whose activities can be used in an arbitrary manner by a group of politically engaged countries.

Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that its conclusions could be used as a pretext for the use of force – again bypassing the UN Security Council. We have already witnessed such actions in 2017 and 2018, when the western trio attacked Syria, grossly and deliberately violating international law.

The United States, Great Britain and France are fully responsible for undermining the OPCW. They have achieved the desired result (99 votes for the attributive budget) only thanks to a massive disinformation campaign and unprecedented political and financial pressure on a number of countries, with the connivance of the Technical Secretariat. The OPCW is not oblivious of the situation. We regret that countries holding equidistant positions have not found ways to resist the Western countries’ provocative venture this time.

Blackmail and ultimatums based on unsubstantiated accusations have become the hallmark of Washington, London and Paris. At the same time, the results of the OPCW voting have unequivocally demonstrated that not all participants share the Western countries' approach to its role, goals and objectives that is not based on international law.

The actually forced unlawful decision on attribution has dealt a crushing blow to the OPCW, exacerbating the split among the member countries of this once successful organisation, which has now become a prize in an overt political fight. We have been witnessing this for the past few years – the most serious disagreements over the Syrian chemical dossier, the trumped-up Skripal case, and now this attribution.

Together with our allies and like-minded people, we will oppose this destructive policy frankly aimed at eroding the foundations of international law and multilateral agreements. At all platforms, we will continue to explain convincingly, with facts, the destructive nature of the attempts to use the most serious matter of fighting the use of chemical weapons for political purposes.



150th anniversary of the Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight

On November 29-30, at the International Humanitarian Law Conference, there will be celebrations to mark the 150th anniversary of signing the St Petersburg declaration renouncing the use, in time of war, of certain kinds of explosive projectiles. We could ignore this historic date, which concerns only highly specialised experts. But I think this historical material is very relevant today, including in the context of what I said earlier, as a paragon of our Western partners’ attitude to international agreements and international organisations. These nations hold up as an example a chain of consistent actions by our country, which allegedly prove the illegitimacy of Russia’s conduct, an aggressive approach, failing to comply with international law. This is not true. Let us rely on the facts.

The above document, which was drafted and proposed for international consideration by Russia, marked a crucial milestone in the development of international humanitarian law and became the first multilateral international document restricting the rampant design of new kinds of weaponry. For the first time ever, the issue of introducing new munitions was considered not only from the point of view of military expediency but also from the standpoint of humanism.

The Declaration was adopted following an international conference held in St Petersburg in October 1868 at the initiative of Dmitry Milyutin, the then head of the Ministry of War of the Russian Empire. Taking part in the conference were delegations from 18 states (Austria-Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Persia, the North German Confederation (i.e., Greater Prussia), Russia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, the Ottoman Empire, and Württemberg).

An intriguing note. A moment that is very important in order to understand what was said earlier. The only nation that ignored the invitation of the Russian government to participate in the conference was the United States. Meanwhile, the archival materials contain evidence that the British envoy insisted that the Declaration should state that it is mandatory only for the signatory nations. Moreover, the Declaration was to be considered void if “a power which did not join the Declaration takes part in a war with two parties to it.” We can only guess what considerations were motivating the British back then. However, even then, they showed signs of loyalty, albeit unintentional, to their brothers across the ocean. How close those policies are to the current international situation.

It is also important to recall that Russia’s idea to limit particularly cruel weapons was supported and also developed further by a group of countries headed by Prussia (Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Bavaria, Switzerland, the Ottoman Empire, Württemberg). They proposed to extend the ban to all military munitions that could be considered barbaric.

However, at this point Britain joins the game again. By supporting the Russian proposals on the whole, the British government referred to scarcity of armed forces and the need to fill in the gap with “scientific achievements” and improvements in the military sphere. Fyodor Martens, an outstanding international law specialist, commenting on Britain’s stance, wrote about the way the British were reasoning, “on this ground England cannot strip itself, to its own detriment, of those weapons she owes to the inventive spirit of her people” (Collection of Treaties and Conventions signed by Russia with Foreign Powers, Vol. 4, Part 2, 1849-1878, St Petersburg, 1878, Page 957.)

After holding the 1868 conference in St Petersburg, Russia continued its humanitarian mission and became the initiator of the world powers’ meeting at the Brussels Conference of 1874 and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

I would also like to draw your attention to the excellent media project prepared for the 150th anniversary of the St Petersburg Declaration by our colleagues from TASS news agency together with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It features a vivid account of the document’s history, backed up by photos of archival material and the major actors, as well as a detailed description of the process. It is available at https://declaration1868.tass.ru/



Forty-five years since Russia joined UN peacekeeping operations

In late November, it will be 45 years since Russia began participating in the UN peacekeeping operations. Let me remind you that on November 25, 1973, during a ceremony in Cairo, 36 Soviet officers were handed the blue berets of the military observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO), deployed in the Middle East. That is how the glorious chapter of our country’s participation in the UN peacekeeping operations began.

In March 1992, in accord with a decision by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, the first Russian contingent of 900 “blue berets” took up combat duty as part of the UN forces in former Yugoslavia.

Over the past years, our military contingents served in UN peacekeeping missions in Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. At present, they are deployed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Colombia, Cyprus, South Sudan, the Middle East, the Abyei Area, Kosovo and Western Sahara.

The rich experience of our specialists in maintaining peace and law and order, providing urgent aid and rescuing people during emergencies is still in high demand. Irrespective of external circumstances, we will continue this important work, making our fair share of contribution to promoting peace on our planet.

I would like to add that the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations in New York is planning to hold a number of information events on this subject. We will make sure we keep you updated.



Remarks by High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini on the Sea of Azov

We have taken note of the remarks made by High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini at the press conference following the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on November 19 and her reply to a media question about the situation in the Sea of Azov.

To begin with, we do not understand the logic of our EU partners’ selective approach to Russia’s legitimate actions in the Sea of Azov and complete disregard for Kiev’s provocations in the region. In particular, we still know nothing about the EU views and position on the seizure of the Russian fishing boat Nord by Ukraine in the Sea of Azov on March 25, although we have been very insistent on this matter. You may remember that the Ukrainian authorities detained the ship’s crew for some six months on far-fetched pretexts and that the ship’s captain is still in Ukraine and is facing a prison term. In this situation, we wonder if the EU’s concern for human rights takes priority over politics and whether this concern is real or a mere declaration.

In response to the EU request, we have discussed the situation in the Sea of Azov several times at different levels. I would like to point out that we are talking here about a professional exchange of views based on facts and statistics rather than the EU’s unilateral “clear messages” to us, as Federica Mogherini has, regrettably, presented the situation to the media and the public.

Russia’s position is based on strict compliance with the bilateral agreement on cooperation in the use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, which Russia and Ukraine signed on December 24, 2003. This agreement seals the international legal status of the Sea of Azov as the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine.

Under this agreement, the Russian Coast Guard has the right to inspect vessels in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait for a number of reasons in keeping with the current legislation. These inspections are non-discriminatory and are conducted not only on the vessels that fly the flags of Ukraine or other countries but also on ships flying the Russian flag. According to statistics, the Russian Coast Guard has inspected more Russian than Ukrainian ships in the first nine months of this year. I hope the EU has the relevant data at its disposal.

It should be said that the delay of ships before entering the Kerch Strait towards or from Ukrainian ports is not connected with border control. The matter concerns the specific procedure for transiting via the Kerch-Yenikale Canal due to the size of the canal and complicated hydrometeorological and navigation conditions. This explains the obligatory pilotage, for which purpose ships form convoys, which takes time. We hope that the concerned EU agencies and Brussels are aware of this. By the way, the majority of ships are not inspected in the Sea of Azov but while they are waiting to go through the Kerch Strait. I must stress that this procedure for transiting the Kerch-Yenikale Canal is nothing new. It was used before the construction of the Crimean Bridge, including when Ukraine controlled the canal. The EU has probably forgotten this fact.

For our part, we are concerned that Ukraine is using “information noise” about the alleged militarisation of the Sea of Azov to foment tension in the region. Kiev has declared the intention to create a naval base in Berdyansk and to unilaterally delineate a new state border in the Sea of Azov in violation of international law. There is speculation about attracting NATO forces to the region. Our EU partners, who have refused to comment on this situation, should know that these activities by Ukraine have a negative effect on the situation in the region and, consequently, lead to our reply measures taken to protect the safety of Russian citizens and strategic infrastructure, including the Crimean Bridge, especially considering the threats that have been expressed not only by Ukrainian radicals and fringe groups but also by Ukrainian politicians.

We have brought the above arguments to the attention of the EU, the last time during the consultations State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin held with Secretary General of the European External Action Service Helga Schmid in Brussels on November 15.

We believe that these consultations have largely eased the EU’s concerns. To strengthen this understanding, we have agreed that Russia and the EU will regularly exchange their data on the shipping situation in the Sea of Azov.

In light of the above, we see no reason for Brussels to take its cue from the confrontation advocates in Kiev or to dramatise artificially the situation in the region. As for plans concerning “measures to support the affected areas in Ukraine”, as Federica Mogherini has said, we are not aware that the Commission is doing this. We hope that the EU will act responsibly and transparently in compliance with international law and the principles of European security and with due regard for the status of the Sea of Azov and current realities in the region.



Release of Radoslaw Sikorski’s book Poland Can Be Better. Behind Polish Diplomacy

I recommend our partners in Brussels to get acquainted with the recently published book written by former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Polska może być lepsza. Kulisy polskiej dyplomacji (Poland Can Be Better. Behind Polish Diplomacy). This is a very interesting book, especially for our Western partners and for those who want to understand, in particular, what actually happened in Ukraine and how it can be qualified in terms of international law.

In particular, he brings out into the open the real, not the front side of Western policy towards Russia, and also reveals the mechanics of what has taken place in recent years in Ukraine.

Sikorski says that the Polish-Swedish brainchild, the EU’s Eastern Partnership, was originally intended to establish an anti-Russian guardianship over Ukraine, which turned into the Maidan coup. These are not our assessments, but those of the former Foreign Minister of Poland. He also describes how, under his leadership, Polish diplomacy tried to drive a wedge between Moscow and Minsk – this is also an interesting sketch. In fact, our assessments of destructive actions of the West are confirmed, about which we have spoken to our partners, but they tried to convince us otherwise. It is a pity that Sikorski manifested such frankness only after his resignation.



Comments by Czech Foreign Minister Tomáš Petříček on Russian-Czech relations

We have taken note of the statements made by Czech Foreign Minister Tomáš Petříček, who, in an interview with the Czech newspaper Denik N, suggested that “Russians could use” the 50th anniversary of the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia marked in the Czech Republic this year “to apologise for the events of 1968.”

I would like to remind the newly appointed head of the Czech Foreign Ministry about the provisions of one of the fundamental documents of Russian-Czech relations, namely the Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic of August 26, 1993. The preamble of this treaty speaks of the parties ’desire to “finally draw a line under the totalitarian past connected with the unacceptable use of force against Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the continued unjustified stay of Soviet troops on Czechoslovak territory.” This position was subsequently repeatedly confirmed by the top leadership of our country.

The minister’s statements about the foreign policy of Russia and his vision of interaction with our country that were made in the above interview contrasted with the Czech Republic’s intention and readiness to cooperate with Russia and develop friendly relations in the interests of the citizens of our countries based on the aforementioned Treaty. We would like to proceed from such constructive prospects in our bilateral relations with the Czech Republic.



Return of displaced persons from Bangladesh to Myanmar

We note with regret that the start of the return to the Rakhine State of Myanmar of displaced persons temporarily on the territory of neighbouring Bangladesh scheduled for November 15 has not taken place. This marks the failure of the agreements between Dhaka and Naypyidaw reached at the end of last month that paved the way for an effective settlement of the problem, including its humanitarian aspects.

We have information that the refusal of the first group of repatriates to return back to Myanmar was the result of pressure and threats of physical violence on the part of extremist elements active in the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar (Bangladesh), including the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. It is worth recalling that this particular organisation is directly responsible for the aggravation of the situation in Rakhine State in 2016-2017 which provoked an exodus from Rakhine of Muslims and representatives of other religions. Obviously, the actions of these radical extremists are aimed at fomenting the crisis around Rakhine State and the Muslims living there to provide a pretext for continued external pressure on the Government of Myanmar and interference in that country’s internal affairs.

We are puzzled by the fact that these plans are de facto supported by official representatives of some Western countries and international organisations which claim that the conditions are not safe enough for the repatriates to return. One gets the impression that certain external forces are pursuing their own agenda whose true aims are far removed from any concern about the interests of displaced persons who have long been in temporary camps, and which seek to prolong the conflict situation around Rakhine State.

For our part we welcome the commitment of Bangladesh and Myanmar to continue a direct dialogue to settle the humanitarian crisis and these countries’ readiness to revisit the matter of the start of the return of displaced persons. We hope that they will continue constructive cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Development Programme in keeping with the earlier agreed understandings.

We think it is important to give an early start to the repatriation process while at the same time taking steps, with the assistance of the international community, to improve the conditions of acceptance and accommodation of returnees and to ensure the legitimate rights of all the ethnic and confessional communities in Rakhine State.



Experts visit Richard Lugar Research Centre in Georgia

We have taken note of the earlier announced visit on November 14-15 of the Georgian Lugar Public Health Research Centre by a group of international experts. It is notable that the Georgian Health Minister David Sergeyenko told journalists before the start of the visit that its aim was “to confirm what we know only too well anyway— transparency and compliance with international conventions.” And indeed, according to the Georgian media, the international experts unambiguously confirmed the strictly peaceful and transparent character of the Centre’s activities.

However, on closer inspection, the only official document containing these optimistic conclusions is the report on the Lugar Centre website. The report is unsigned, has no names of foreign experts, no names of the countries and organisations they represented. The self-styled document stresses that all the members of the Centre’s staff had confirmed to the unnamed experts the exclusively peaceful character of their activities. Apparently the guests felt it would be superfluous to inquire why the US Army Medical Research Directorate was working under the umbrella of “a peaceful Georgian medical institution” and what kind of research it was conducting there.

Russia is still expecting Washington and Tbilisi to provide clarifications concerning the true character of the Lugar Centre activities. Such look-see excursions do not make the situation any clearer.



Election of new Interpol President

We would like to make the following statement in connection with the election of a new Interpol President on November 21.

The pre-election period saw an unprecedented campaign of disinformation, pressure, and slander unleashed, sadly, with a push from the US, against the Russian candidate for the post, Alexander Prokopchuk. In its anti-Russian frenzy Washington even departed from its principle of non-disclosure of preferences in elections to international organisations and, through the State Department, openly committed itself to preventing the election of the Russian representative.

In effect, what happened was gross interference in the internal affairs of an independent international organisation which positions itself as a depoliticised and strictly professional community. We consider such actions to be inadmissible and damaging for the reputation and authority of Interpol.

By the same token, we would like to say how much we appreciate the states which, in spite of undisguised pressure, spoke in favour of Alexander Prokopchuk’s professionalism, experience and competence.



Denmark’s new foreign and security policy strategy

We have taken note of the Foreign and Security Policy Strategy 2019-2020 adopted by the Danish Government on November 15. The document, purporting to seal the list of concrete initiatives and focal areas of Denmark’s foreign policy in the short term devotes considerable space to countering Russia’s “aggressive” actions.

The fact that our country practically tops the list of perceived threats to Denmark highlights the presence within the Copenhagen establishment of anti-Russian sentiments and veritable phobias. Meanwhile the Danish strategists seem to be unconcerned about real traditional challenges such as international terrorism, drug trafficking, and climate change.

It looks as if the current Danish leadership, prompted by short-term considerations that run counter to its own interests, is ready to forego the traditionally good Russian-Danish relations. Copenhagen’s unconstructive behaviour limits the opportunities for our two countries to interact in addressing really pressing matters.

A banal interest is apparent. Copenhagen needs speculations about the so-called Russian threat to justify increased spending on defence and build-up of NATO’s military presence in the Baltic Sea area mentioned in the Strategy. Such a bellicose scenario is unlikely to strengthen regional security.



Disrupted GPS navigation in northern Norway

We have noted the recent statements made by Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen who has once again accused Russia of jamming the GPS navigation signals and allegedly creating problems for civil air traffic in northern Norway.

Some Western politicians have become accustomed to blaming Russia for all sorts of incidents, without providing any evidence and without requesting official comments from Russia. Considering the Russian Federation’s unprecedented openness in the military sphere, our Norwegian partners could obtain competent answers to everything in question which is of interest to them, if they wanted to. I would like to draw the attention of the Norwegian media to the fact that we did not receive any official inquiries.

One cannot help but think that the Norwegian Defence Minister needs all these ridiculous stories to divert public attention from a scandal involving the Royal Norwegian Navy’s brand-new frigate Helge Ingstad that collided with an oil tanker in a maritime blunder on November 8 and sank near Bergen, western Norway.

According to the Automatic Identification System (AIS), the frigate, equipped with missiles, was on an intercept course with the tanker, and its transponder was not operating. This is why the tanker’s crew failed to see the frigate. The frigate’s transponder was switched on right after the collision, making it possible to pinpoint its exact location.

But for the disastrous scale of potential environmental damage that might have been caused by the 60,000 tonnes of crude oil spilling out of the tanker, this incident could be perceived as something curious.

This is the second such incident of late, fraught with serious environmental risks, on Norwegian territory. Earlier in November, the public learned about the inadequate storage of radioactive waste at Norway’s national nuclear repository in Himdalen, 50 kilometres from Oslo.

Apart from the incident with the frigate Helge Ingstad, the military exercises Trident Juncture 2018 involving the Joint NATO Response Force was marked by some other dangerous incidents. Let’s go on from anti-Russia fake news to authentic data.

On October 17, at least four people were injured after a Caiman anti-submarine warfare helicopter crash-landed aboard the French Navy’s amphibious assault ship Dixmude.

On October 22, several crew members were injured in an accident aboard the USS Gunston Hall that later withdrew from the exercises.

On October 26, a fire started in the engine room of the Canadian Royal Navy’s frigate Halifax, with the ship’s crew having to extinguish it.

On October 30, the Canadian Royal Navy’s frigate Toronto was cast adrift for about six hours after its electric generators stopped operating and posed a hazard to shipping. The corvette Erfurt of the German Navy also withdrew from the exercises the very next day after its steering gear developed a malfunction.

We would like the Norwegian authorities to do their very best to prevent such incidents from harming the North’s environment and safety, in the first place. By the way, those in Copenhagen who have listed the threats to their country in the relevant strategy should also think about this. They should no longer try and blame external forces, including Russia, for their own irresponsible actions.



Historical documentary exhibition Russia and Tajikistan: The Path of Friendship and Creation opens in Dushanbe

Today, on November 22, the historical documentary exhibition, Russia and Tajikistan: The Path of Friendship and Creation is being opened at the National Museum of the Republic of Tajikistan. The exhibition was arranged by the Russian Presidential Executive Office with the support of the State Archives, the Russian Embassy in Tajikistan, and Tajik partners. The event is timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the founding treaty on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tajikistan.

Tajikistan is one of Russia’s key partners in the region and holds a special place in the foreign policy of our country.

Details about today’s event will be posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry and our Embassy websites.



Groundbreaking of the Alley of Space Exploration Founders and erecting busts of Konstantin Tsiolkovskly and Herman Potocnik Noordung in Slovenia

On November 29, the Cultural Centre of EU Space Technologies (KSEVT) in Vitanje, northeastern Slovenia, will be the venue of the groundbreaking ceremony for the Alley of Space Exploration Founders. The Russian Embassy has been working on the project in close cooperation with Slovenian partners.

The first busts to be erected in the alley are those of the Russian and Soviet scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, a champion of the theory of space exploration, and his contemporary, Austrian-Hungarian missile engineer of Slovenian descent Herman Potocnik Noordung.

President of the National Council of Slovenia (the parliament’s upper chamber) Alojz Kovsca, Hero of Russia space pilot Yury Baturin, Russian Ambassador to Slovenia Doku Zavgayev and Slovenian government ministers are among the honourary guests at the event. Also, a delegation from the Kaluga Region will participate in the ceremony as Tsiolkovsky’s life and work were closely related to it.

The Vitanje Centre widely known across Europe closely cooperates with Russia. It was a venue for a number of large-scale scientific and practical conferences with active participation of respective Russian institutions.

Setting up the Alley of Space Exploration Founders will not only elaborate the architectural tradition set forth in April 2017 by erecting a monument to Yury Gagarin at the entrance to the centre, but will also contribute to further expanding international relations in the field of hi-tech.



SWIFT cut off from Iran and cooperation with Russia on the matter

We regret to state that the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) succumbed to illegitimate anti-Iran sanctions imposed by the Trump administration in November and, according to reports, cut off some Iranian banks and credit organisations including the Central Bank of the country from using the common system of financial communications. We did not hear that such a decision was authorised by the UNSC or another international legal organisation.

Inaction of the European authorities causes bewilderment as they once again allowed for extra-territorial use of the sanctions pressure on the operation of a purely financial structure under the Belgian jurisdiction.

Regarding cooperation between Russia and Iran in the inter-bank sphere, it is progressing consistently and effectively on the platform of the respective working group within the framework of the bilateral intergovernmental commission on trade and economic.

Without getting into specifics, I can say that Moscow and Tehran have been consistently working to safeguard their legal trade and economic relations and projects from external influence, and they started this work long before the JCPOA was concluded in 2015. It is routine work on risk management. Its key elements are securing reliable and protected channels for financial communications as well as increasing the share of mutual payments in national currencies.



Updated information for Russian nationals on Foreign Ministry’s site about visa-free entrance to foreign countries

In preparation of the New Year and winter holidays we continue to freshen up information relating to Russians going abroad.

We have posted updated information for Russian nationals on our official website and via social networks about visa-free regimes for entering foreign countries. I would like to once again draw attention to the Ministry’s resources which will be of considerable help to journalists, the general public as well the tourist agencies as they make itineraries. We have information regularly updated at the consular portal, Foreign Ministry’s accounts in the social networks and the respective section on the official website.

We spoke a number of times about the Zarubezhny Pomoshchnik (Assistant Abroad) mobile app designed by the Foreign Ministry’s Crisis Management Centre which issues recommendations in case of emergency situations. It can be installed on a laptop, tablet or smart phone so as to always have the maximum amount of useful information about the country where our residents are heading to. Thanks to the alarm button they can stay connected in any situation anywhere in the world. Besides this app has data dealing with crime, terrorist threat levels and how to enter and leave a certain country.

This app is both useful and practical for those planning to travel abroad and it is updated on a regular basis.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Some time ago, Azerbaijan came up with a peacemaking initiative and suggested, through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), exchanging prisoners with Armenia based on the all-for-all principle. The international group planned to hold a bilateral meeting, but Armenia refused to do the exchange. What does Moscow, as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, say to this?



Maria Zakharova:

We welcome any bilateral agreements that seek to settle the conflict which is our key goal. However, agreements presume consent and efforts to achieve it. The initiatives are nothing short of wonderful, but they need to be worked through so as to make them actual agreements.



Question:

The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia are expected to meet in Milan at the upcoming meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council. How likely is this?



Maria Zakharova:

We would welcome such a meeting if the parties agree to hold it. However, such decisions are the sovereign right of every state.



Question:

Following the ASEAN summit in Singapore, Prime Minister of Japan Abe stated that he had reached an agreement with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on concluding a peace treaty on the basis of the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, under which Russia will transfer, if it is signed, two Kuril Islands to Japan. What can you say about this? Is signing a declaration and transferring the islands a possibility and why would Russia do this?



Maria Zakharova:

Given the importance of this matter, I will provide a brief overview of the current situation in Russia-Japan peace treaty talks. On November 14 in Singapore, President Putin and Prime Minister Abe agreed to speed up the negotiating process based on the Joint Declaration of 1956.

This document is more than just well known. It represents a legal basis underlying post-war Russian-Japanese relations. It was ratified by members of parliaments of both countries and deposited with the UN as an international treaty. The declaration ended the state of war between the Soviet Union and Japan and ensured the restoration of diplomatic relations. So, referring to it is more than a natural thing to do in this context.

This matter is not just about any specific agreements regarding the timeframe for resolving the peace treaty problem. A long and difficult negotiating process is underway. It is important to keep in mind that its outcome should not be at odds with the national interests of either country.

In addition to this, I would like to note that the Declaration was signed amid specific historical and geopolitical realities. However, later Japan refused to honour the commitments under this document. Also, the current international situation is fundamentally different from the time before 1956. It is important to understand how Tokyo interprets the Declaration today in terms of full recognition of the outcome of World War II, including the legitimacy of the southern Kuril Islands being part of the Russian Federation based on its outcome. It is unclear how the military alliance between Japan and the United States may affect the agreements that will be achieved during the talks.

These are just some of the questions that come to mind. Clearly, there’s much to be done to improve mutual understanding and trust, and to create a new quality of Russian-Japanese relations that would help us resolve the most challenging bilateral problems.



Question:

On Wednesday, Secretary of Defence James Mattis stated that the United States hopes that Russia will demonstrate its willingness to return to compliance with the INF Treaty. This will be the most acceptable scenario for Washington. What is Russia’s position on this matter? Please comment on this statement.



Maria Zakharova:

Moscow is still waiting for Washington to show some respect for international law in general. With regard to the accusations that were addressed to Moscow in violation of the treaty that you mentioned, we have many times provided qualified statements - publicly and through bilateral channels, as well as in multilateral formats - that it was misinformation and suggested opening a serious discussion on this matter.



Question:

On Monday, Finland’s Foreign Ministry expressed concern over the disruption of the GPS signal in the north of Finland during the NATO military drill in Norway. Can you make any comments about this? What will follow and will there be any discussions on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already commented through our Embassy. During the meeting which took place in the Foreign Ministry of Finland and contacts with colleagues, the Russian side stressed that flight safety is as important for Russia as it is for Finland. We drew attention to the fact that we had not been given any information about the disruption sources being allegedly located in Russia. We also emphasised that a substantive expert level dialogue is needed with the relevant services of the countries in the region for a professional review of such situations.

Russia expressed willingness and readiness to hold the dialogue and answer all the questions that have arisen. Now we are expecting a corresponding response and steps from Finland. Nobody rejects normal expert talks. The question is why practical cooperation should be re-routed to “megaphone diplomacy” and endless ungrounded accusations without ever producing facts for the public or via bilateral channels. If you have facts, let us launch a real dialogue. If those facts may be brought to the knowledge of the public, and for some reason Finland thinks it must be done via the mass media, we can agree to that approach as well. However, everything should be based on facts and there are none. Only accusations.

Today I already mentioned to you about similar allegations we hear from Denmark and Norway. The situation is the same. There are no facts, only accusations. The question is what the next steps will be best addressed to the officials at the Foreign Ministry of Finland. For our part, we are not only ready for a normal constructive dialogue but we also have a strong desire to work in exactly that sort of format rather than discover new groundless and empty accusations via newspapers, television programmes or through internet pages.



Question:

How could Soviet and Russian diplomacy have allowed the infringement of the country’s national interests when NATO began to advance eastward? Did this happen under Eduard Shevardnadze or Andrey Kozyrev?



Maria Zakharova:

At the previous briefing, when we commented on NATO’s eastward expansion, I quoted public statements made by Mikhail Gorbachev on this matter. He said the assurances received were subsequently violated by those who had given them. The Western community and NATO leaders, not individuals but countries and political systems that made up this block and are involved in its development, did everything to deceive not only the USSR and the Soviet people but also the international community. This is not a matter of NATO’s interaction with a particular country. This was a colossal mystification, a global-scale deception. Back then the people of the countries, both the average person on the street as well as experts and journalists, had high hopes for the future of the world, they liked to think that after a bipolar world confrontation, qualitatively new times would follow when there would be no dictatorship of one political system, one association of countries, or one nation. When international relations would be built on absolutely new principles, with due account of past experience, primarily that of the 20th century with its two world wars and the cold war. But that did not happen. Hopes were also pinned on the disarmament negotiations, overall negotiations on the future of our planet that were held between the leading countries, in particular, between the United States and the USSR.

I think we must speak not so much about the assessment of the political leaders of the USSR or of the new Russian state as about the fact that it was a deception of the entire international community. It is hard to say if it was deliberate or not. I think the answer should be sought in memoirs, but at present we have what we have – the international community has been deceived.



Question:

A meeting has taken place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly the other day, with the majority of countries calling for expanding the UN Security Council. If we look at the permanent UN Security Council members, three of them are NATO countries. Therefore, the United States has an advantage. China does not always support our resolutions. It turns out that we are outnumbered, to some extent. Do you think it would be justified to increase the number of permanent UN Security Council members by including Brazil or India? This would create a certain balance, and we would no longer be outnumbered.



Maria Zakharova:

This subject is infinite. I can provide some additional materials dealing with our position, and our website also contains a lot of information. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has formulated Russia’s approaches to reforming the UN Security Council in detail.

In brief, if implemented, the UN Security Council reform should improve the Council’s work and strengthen this body that is directly responsible for international stability. Therefore it would make the world a safer place. This implies a more efficient UN Security Council. Its reform should not lessen the Council’s ability to perform any of its functions. We should keep this approach in mind and implement it while analysing possible reform scenarios.

We should remember that, unfortunately, our partners sometimes corner the UN Security Council and drive it into a blind alley. This is achieved by the domination of narrow political interests of one group of countries or even those of one state. In any event, work is proceeding, one way or another.



Question:

What do you think about the new round of peace talks on Yemen, scheduled to be held in Sweden in December? What is your opinion of the overall current humanitarian situation in Yemen?



Maria Zakharova:

At our previous briefing, we provided an extremely detailed assessment of the humanitarian situation in Yemen. Its text is posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

Regarding the upcoming talks, we believe that any attempts by the international community to contribute to resolving the very acute humanitarian crisis should be praised. I cannot comment on specific results because this event has not yet taken place. I will specify the level of Russia’s representation.



Question:

On Tuesday, Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu met with Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar to discuss the situation in Idlib. Has Russia modified its position on the Idlib de-escalation zone during these talks or after them?



Maria Zakharova:

Russia reaffirmed its position.



Question:

Why is it that Russian authorities voiced their readiness to negotiate the Kuril issue now? Are more active talks linked with Russia’s pre-bankruptcy state due to sanctions? Is it possible to cede the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan in exchange for lifting sanctions? Why is it that Russian authorities state their readiness to hold talks on the Kuril issue just at this moment? Can the Japanese side’s promise not to allow the deployment of US military bases in the event of a possible transfer of the South Kuril Islands serve as legal grounds for ceding the islands to Japan?



Maria Zakharova:

This is not so. Your question contains information that is not true.

I have just commented on the status of the talks, their historical basis and the current context in great detail. I can provide you with this material separately.

Today, we can see how countries withdraw from treaties, how they annul them, and how they no longer honour the obligations signed by their leaders on behalf of the entire state, nation and people. They are doing this after a split-second decision, not to mention verbal agreements not backed by any written documents, etc.

Unfortunately, the international community and the currently leading states are showing a very bad example by wrecking international law. Several years ago, the concepts of international treaties, agreements and commitments were taken very seriously. Indeed, this could guarantee the preservation of positions and development along pre-set lines. Today, the lax attitude with which heads of state annul their commitments under international treaties jeopardises agreements. In any event, this is a trend, and this is very sad.



Question:

In his 2016 interview, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the Russian Federation does not deal in its territories. Has the official Russian position changed by 2018? Can one expect that Russia’s jurisdiction over the Kuril Islands will not be disrupted in any way?



Maria Zakharova:

No, it has not changed. One can hope that the Russian Federation remains committed to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2016 statements. As I see it, the quotation you just reminded us about remains topical. It would be more appropriate if you asked the Presidential Executive Office about this.



Question:

US President Donald Trump has thanked the global market for lower oil prices and called for going lower. What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about statements that encourage producers to push oil prices down?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that a legally elected president of a sovereign state is free to make any statements on his country’s economic, financial or energy policy. This is how I see it in this particular case. One must take a very responsible stand on energy security, especially since it is not the concern of any individual country but an international issue.



Question:

This week MGIMO and MSU universities hosted a series of events about Azerbaijani poet Imadeddin Nasimi and the Decorative Art Museum presented an exhibition based on a famous Azerbaijani poem, The Seven Beauties. What is the Foreign Ministry’s opinion of such exchanges that are aimed at promoting cultural ties between Russia and the post-Soviet countries?



Maria Zakharova:

We view this as a positive development of bilateral cultural relations.



Question:

Two weeks ago you commented on the UN Global Compact on Migration. Since then, several EU states have said they will not join this document. Israel has recently said the same. The government of Estonia, whose media I represent, has been polarised over this issue. The countries that join this compact can be obliged to house refugees.



Maria Zakharova:

Russia’s foreign policy is consistent both in the long and short terms. Therefore, the comment on this issue, which we issued two weeks ago, remains relevant, which is not the case for many other countries.



Question:

Do you have any comments on yesterday’s joint statement of the defence ministries of Ukraine and Britain on increasing military-technical cooperation?



Maria Zakharova:

Two sovereign states have the right to develop bilateral relations in any sphere, including in armaments and defence. But it does not work entirely in this manner. We believe that the international community, which is involved in conflict settlement in Ukraine one way or another, should make statements that will help settle rather than foment the conflict. It is one thing if conflict settlement is the goal of UK-Ukraine cooperation, but if they only want to build up their military ties, which can have a negative effect on the situation in Donbass, this may raise questions.



Question:

Kazakhstan has announced that the possibility of involving more observers in the Astana format may be considered soon. Do you have any information on this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

If you are asking about observers, this is a routine diplomatic process. Observers are always welcome. The issue of changing the format, though, is not on the agenda.



Question:

Regarding anti-Russia sanctions: We know that the United States has imposed sanctions 64 times against Russia over the past eight or nine years. How many Western or American officials are on the Russian sanctions list?



Maria Zakharova:

Regrettably, we had to reply both symmetrically and asymmetrically to US restrictions against Russia and Russian officials, private individuals and legal entities. It was not our choice but a countermove, which is an integral part of current international relations.

As for the total number of people on our stop lists, I do not have the precise figure at hand. I will request this information. But once again, we have never initiated such actions towards the United States or any other country. We regard this policy as absolutely illegitimate.



Question:

In Minsk yesterday, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia and Belarus were concerned about the strengthening of NATO’s potential on the eastern flank. Could Russia install the latest missiles President Putin has spoken about, in Brest, for example, in order to scare the US if it pulls out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)?



Maria Zakharova:

Such a question should be addressed to the Russian Ministry of Defence. We do not want to scare anyone. We seek to draw the attention of the world community to the fact that the United States and those who willingly or unwillingly support its policy are deliberately dealing a colossal blow to the system of international security and strategic stability. This is not only about the security of the Russian Federation, but about what is happening in the world in general and about the future of all international relations.

Unfortunately, the situation is the opposite of what you said: it is the other side, the United States that is trying to scare us. Indeed, it is not just trying to scare us, but is deploying additional contingents (we have cited the statistics) and is doing it systematically within a set paradigm. At the same time, propaganda and disinformation media accuse Russia of alleged aggressive moves. Manifestation of an aggressive approach and intimidation is not part of our arsenal of methods and actions. This is not our choice. Russia has lived through many horrific, devastating and bloody wars – the Great Patriotic War, two world wars, including on its own territory and not of its own will. The wars were started by many of the current leading powers. Russia has never permitted itself any intimidating or provocative behaviour, let alone aggressive behaviour, in international relations because it knows only too well what war is.



Question:

Five years ago Iran was used as a pretext. Is it still the case today?



Maria Zakharova:

Iran is still used as a pretext, being blamed for everything. In this case, the Iranian threat is used to justify not NATO expansion, but the building of the European segment of the missile defence system.

As you know and as the Iranian officials and public opinion know, Russia has always rejected such accusations hurled at Iran. We argued that the attempts to justify the expansion of missile defence and the building of facilities in Europe by the Iranian threat are groundless. Moscow has hosted conferences on the subject and presented its case. We said that we interpret NATO expansion and the building of missile defence as a threat to peace and world stability and not as a matter of bilateral concerns.



Question:

The Speaker of the Crimean Parliament Vladimir Konstantinov has said that the events in Ukraine may develop into another Maidan. He says that the signals coming from Ukraine show that the country is heading towards collapse, which we will witness and it may take the form of another Maidan. Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expect new large-scale unrest in Ukraine? What would be Russia’s stance?



Maria Zakharova:

You think there is no unrest there now? This is a very unrealistic assessment. Disturbances are happening on a large scale and the consequences for Ukraine are dire. We do not use cliches and do not speak in memes, but present our analysis of what is happening in national politics, or rather “anti-politics.” We have given our assessments and forecasts of what manipulation of religious communities in Ukraine may lead to and repeatedly mentioned the law on language and many other phenomena in modern Ukraine. All these are manifestations of unrest, as you put it, and in fact of the dire consequences of the unconstitutional coup in that country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3415081
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 22nd, 2019 #538
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening ceremony of the 10th International Forum of NGOs in Official Partnership with UNESCO, “Science as common good of humankind,” Moscow, November 26, 2018



26 November 2018 - 12:36







Mr Sergeyev,

Colleagues,

Friends,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are meeting on a very important occasion. I am grateful to the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Peace Foundation for inviting me to speak at the 10th International Forum of NGOs in Official Partnership with UNESCO.

Amid the current situation on the international arena, your meetings contribute to the promotion of a positive, unifying agenda, and the search for answers to the numerous challenges of our time, as RAS President Alexander Sergeyev has explicated in his presentation. And ultimately, they strengthen the atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding between nations.

The relevance of today’s theme is hard to overestimate. It is “Science as common good of humankind.” The world is now going through a phase of rapid change; it needs the efforts of all those who are interested in ensuring sustained and stable development, including, of course, representatives from the academic community and the general public, more than ever.

The term “science diplomacy,” already used here today, is becoming not just a figure of speech, but a very popular form of promoting ideas on which the development of all humankind depends.

It is clear that UNESCO is an important contributor to resolving the problems we all face, and the most important humanitarian pillar of modern architecture, capable of effectively mobilising international research potential for the benefit of all states without exception. This especially applies to cyberspace, artificial intelligence, genetics, and many other areas where there are real risks of discoveries put to other than peaceful uses.







We appreciate the fact that you came to Moscow for the 10th International Forum of NGOs for science in official partnership with UNESCO. We see this as recognition of Russia’s significant role in achieving sustainable development goals. Our country will continue to actively participate in the world community’s efforts, including through the UN, the G20, BRICS, the SCO, UNESCO and other multilateral platforms.

We are pleased to welcome UNESCO Deputy Director-General Xing Qu, who will take part in your work.

As always, we firmly adhere to the assumption that the prosperous future of humankind is inseparably linked with building a more equitable and democratic polycentric system of global governance. Only in this way can we ensure equal and indivisible security for everyone in international relations without exception. We will continue to maintain a regular mutually enriching dialogue with the research and expert communities, as well as with other representatives of civil society. We will also encourage the undertakings of science and public diplomacy as much as possible.

Friends,

I am convinced that the upcoming discussions will be constructive, open, and friendly, and will contribute to the advancement of promising initiatives aimed at building up broad humanitarian and scientific cooperation for the benefit of the citizens of all our countries. We can’t wait to hear these ideas and are ready to study and develop them for use, now in official diplomacy.

I would like to wish you productive work, successful creative activity, and may all your plans be realised.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420294






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado, Moscow, November 26, 2018



26 November 2018 - 12:41







Mr Minister,

Friends,

I’m delighted to see you once again. We spoke earlier in Russia when you visited Sochi with a delegation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2016. We regularly meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

We appreciate the friendly relations that are developing at the level of political dialogue, as part of the contacts between our ministries and agencies, as well as on educational, cultural, humanitarian, and tourist tracks. We note that there are good prospects for increasing economic cooperation.







On the international agenda, our cooperation will become even denser in connection with the election of the Dominican Republic as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. I congratulate you once again. We will focus on close interaction.

I hope to discuss all these topics with you today.

Welcome.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420312






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado, Moscow, November 26, 2018



26 November 2018 - 14:51







Ladies and gentlemen,

I have held constructive talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado. We have known each other for a long time. This is not his first visit to Russia. In November 2016, he took part in a ministerial meeting involving Russia and the quartet of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Sochi. At that time, meeting participants approved the roadmap of our cooperation formalising a permanent mechanism of political consultations. I would like to once again thank Mr Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado for his personal contribution to drafting this document. At that time, the Dominican Republic presided in CELAC.

The Dominican Republic is a promising partner in the Latin American and Caribbean region. We were happy to note the dynamic development of diverse Russian-Dominican ties, and we agreed to continue our work to expand and deepen them still further.

Our countries are interested in streamlining and expanding the bilateral contractual and legal framework. We have just signed an intergovernmental agreement on terms for eliminating visa formalities. Another step has been taken toward turning Latin America and the Caribbean region into a zone of mutual visa-free travel by private individuals. The Dominican Republic has already become the 25th country (out of 33) with which we have signed such agreements.

I am confident that this will facilitate the development of human contacts, especially cooperation in the tourist industry. The Dominican Republic ranks among the most promising tourist destinations for Russian citizens. In 2017, 230,000Russians visited that country, a 75 per cent increase on 2016. There is an office of the Dominican Republic’s Ministry of Tourism in Moscow. We conduct this work based on a special agreement.

We are interested in supplementing our effective political contacts with expanded economic cooperation. There are some promising plans in the area of agriculture and energy, including green energy. We have agreed to help establish direct contacts between business communities, to provide them with all-round support and to encourage them to take part in various fairs and exhibitions.

We have impressive potential in education exchanges, professional training, as well as cultural and humanitarian ties. We provide Dominican citizens with government grants for studying at Russian universities. The 3,000-plus Dominican graduates of Soviet and Russian universities have established the Association of Graduates of Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Cuba that also promotes our cooperation between civil societies.

Dominican police participate in anti-drug courses at the Russian Interior Ministry’s Training Centre in Managua and courses for employees of emergency services of Latin American and Caribbean states at the Regional Russian-Cuban Centre training fire-fighters and rescuers in Havana. We are particularly glad that Dominican diplomats regularly attend the annual specialised thematic courses organised by the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

We will be glad to see Dominican representatives at various events next year. I mean the St Petersburg International Legal Forum (SPILF) and the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which had so-called specialised Latin American segments during the four previous years.

In the foreign policy cooperation area, we are equally committed to the norms and principles of the UN Charter and to peaceful political and diplomatic methods to settle all conflicts.

We have reviewed the key issues on the agenda of the UN Security Council, where the Dominican Republic will work as a non-permanent member in 2019-2020. We have discussed in detail matters requiring additional focus.

Testifying to our intention to closely coordinate our steps at the UN Security Council and other bodies is today’s signing of the Memorandum of Intent on consultations between our ministries at international multilateral venues, involving both countries’ permanent representative offices and delegations.

We traditionally devote significant attention to our cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as to Russia’s ties with CELAC and sub-regional structures of this important region of the world. We are grateful to the Dominican Republic for its invariable support for our contacts and its striving to fill them with practical content.

I am grateful to Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado for his cooperation.







Question:

From Russia’s point of view, which rules of international maritime law has Ukraine violated as a result of yesterday’s incident with the Ukrainian ships? What arguments is Russia going to use? What will you do during the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council? Are new Western sanctions expected in this regard? How will the introduction of martial law in Ukraine affect the situation in Donbass?



Sergey Lavrov:

This incident was a definite provocation. Everything that needs to be said about it is in the statements of the border service of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB), and in comments by the Foreign Ministry’s official representative. Beyond key provisions of international maritime law, rules of common law were also violated, including the UN Charter, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and other international legal instruments that require all states to respect the sovereignty of other states. The fact that such a violation occurred, and the dangerous methods used – maneuvering in a narrow strait – could have created and indeed did create risk for regular ship movements in this area.

Regarding what we plan to do at the UN Security Council meeting, we entertain no illusions, knowing that the West has taken a position of blind support for President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko and his regime. On the other hand, last evening’s statements and EU appeals to Russia and Ukraine to show restraint, at least suggest some new ideas. If Ukraine is being addressed on a par with Russia, it means that Kiev, in the eyes of its Western sponsors, actually did something they do not approve of. I hope the Ukrainian authorities will draw the necessary conclusions from this.

At the same time, we cannot be happy that the EU is still trying to cling to certain arguments for which there is no reason. I heard a statement by the European External Action Service that the EU expects Russia to stop inspecting passing vessels. Apparently, we are already talking about the Sea of ​​Azov, because yesterday's incident occurred in the Black Sea, close to the Kerch Strait. We are being urged to stop inspecting ships, although this is being carried out in full compliance with existing agreements, including with Ukraine. These inspections have not led to a single complaint from any inspected vessel. I have talked about this and would ask our colleagues in the European Union to pay attention to the factual side of the matter, not to confuse the Sea of ​​Azov with the Black Sea, and not to create a problem where there is none.

More on calls for Russia to stop inspections. When Ukrainian officials directly, openly, and publicly called to blow up the Crimean Bridge, for some reason I did not hear Brussels urging them to restrain their representatives and stop calling for terrorist acts. So, this is a multifaceted issue.

I do not think we have seen all the repercussions of yesterday's provocation yet. You already know that Ukraine has launched the process to introduce martial law. Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council Secretary Alexander Turchinov said this means that the elections will not be held as scheduled. Interesting things are happening there. I think we are unlikely to get bored watching how this Ukrainian government plans to steer its way out of a situation that people are perceiving more and more negatively.

As for the sanctions, we have long ceased to worry about them. Of course, sanctions are always bad. It is difficult to comment on such a policy, when incidents like yesterday’s make the side whose sovereignty was violated an object of new sanctions. But we can hardly hope to be able to influence people entirely obsessed with finding new reasons to put pressure on the Russian Federation.

Regarding the escalation in Donbass, I can say that yesterday there were disturbing reports. Representatives of the DPR and the LPR have not confirmed them, but we still need to carefully monitor what is happening there. If martial law is declared in Ukraine, radical socialists, knowing their habits, will feel like their hands are untied. Violations of international humanitarian law have been frequent there even without martial law, with residential and social facilities being shelled, and civilians killed. We strongly urge Kiev’s Western sponsors to calm those who are trying to use the military hysteria to earn political dividends for the upcoming elections and other events in Ukraine.



Question:

Do you consider the violation of the Russian border by Ukrainian ships to be a provocation ahead of the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires?

Yesterday Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko called on the member countries of the Budapest Memorandum to join together to protect his country’s sovereignty and security which are allegedly under threat from Russia. Could this be the beginning of direct confrontation?



Sergey Lavrov:

When Ukraine was planning this provocation – and nobody doubts that the top leadership approved this, issuing direct instructions – they must have calculated the additional benefits that they want to extract from this situation. First of all, they expected the United States and Europe to rush to take the side of instigators as they always do.

The G20 Summit in Buenos Aires is approaching, while at the same time about a week and a half ago at the UN General Assembly Ukraine proposed a draft resolution on the militarisation of the Sea of Azov, where it criticises what it calls “the militarisation of the Sea of Azov.” It is important to them to provide whatever facts they can collect to corroborate the fluff they have circulated at the UN.

It is hard to say what considerations they were guided by when they were planning this provocation and what they were seeking to gain as they pursue a policy that is leading Ukraine straight down the path of radical nationalism. It is radical nationalists and neo-Nazis who today rule the roost in Ukraine, the latest evidence of which was yesterday’s outrageous action outside the Russian Embassy in Kiev that was pelted with smoke bombs. I would not say that police officers did nothing, but they were not particularly enthusiastic about putting an end to this bedlam.

I heard that Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko has called on the member countries of the Budapest Memorandum, which was signed by the leaders of the United States, Russia, Great Britain and Ukraine, to join together to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Budapest Memorandum is about the agreements concerning Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons that remained on its territory after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The signatories to this memorandum pledge not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and observe all the OSCE principles without exception. We remain fully committed to honouring these obligations. What the Budapest Memorandum does not provide for is a commitment of any of its signatories to put up with, regard in silence or much less support an unconstitutional armed coup d’etat. The OSCE principles that Ukraine, among other countries, has signed onto under the Budapest Memorandum unambiguously prohibit transfers of power such that occurred in Kiev in February 2014. The people who took power in flagrant disregard of one of the key principles of the Budapest Memorandum should have remembered this and should not have tried to shift the blame to someone else. They should behave more uprightly because even Kiev’s Western sponsors sometimes feel uneasy about the ideas the Ukrainian leaders wrap their interests in.



Question:

Last year the international community accused President of Syria Bashar al-Assad of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun and did so immediately, without waiting for facts to emerge or for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to investigate. Why aren’t we seeing a similar reaction today, after the chemical attack in Aleppo?



Sergey Lavrov:

Perhaps I am not the right person to ask this question. Let me remind you that in Khan Shaykhun, the US at first asked us to help secure the Syrian Government’s consent so that international experts could visit the air field from which the plane that carried out the counterterrorism operation against the militants took off. According to the US, this plane carried bombs with toxic substances. Only 24 hours after the request was made, we reached an agreement with the Syrian Government that approved the experts’ visit to the site. As soon as we did this, the Americans said: “Thanks, but we don’t need it.” Sometime later, they attacked the air field. Sometimes they don’t need to understand what happened, if they already have a predetermined position on who is an “acceptable extremist” and who should be subject to efforts at regime change.

If you wonder why there are no statements from Washington now, RT has an office in the US, and you can address your question there, although those who follow what you are doing will use it as another chance to say that US domestic affairs are being interfered with again. They will respond that the US position is formulated in the US and there is no reason to try to understand it.

I am trying to be ironic, because in fact it is sad when our Western partners begin to filter information even at the legislative level, which happened in France. But this is a matter for a separate conversation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420700






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and a response to a media question during a news conference following talks with Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian, Paris, November 27, 2018



27 November 2018 - 17:23







Ladies and gentlemen,

We had very good talks. The Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian has just reviewed in detail the subjects we covered. I would like to add a few words to that.

To reiterate, we regard France as an important and traditional international partner. Our bilateral relations continue to develop under the agreements reached at the highest level. The presidents meet frequently. As my colleague said, French President Macron had been in Russia three times (in May and twice in July to attend the World Cup). On November 11, President Putin took part in celebrations in Paris of the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.

I would like to note that we are seeing positive trends in economic cooperation. Trade is up and growth may be about 20 percent by the end of the year. The Russian-French Council for Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Issues chaired by Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin and Minister of Economy and Finance of France Bruno Le Maire will meet again in Paris in mid-December.

As has just been said, we are very pleased with our cooperation in the cultural sphere. The programme of cross years of the Russian and French languages ​​and literature announced for this and next year is being successfully implemented. We focus particularly on promoting such a joint initiative of our presidents as the Russian-French forum of civil societies, Trianon Dialogue. Once we are done with the talks, Mr Le Drian and I will take part in the second meeting of its Coordination Council.

We reviewed our relations in the international arena. We pointed out the need for the full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures to reach a settlement in eastern Ukraine. Russia is very concerned about the Ukrainian authorities violating the language, education and religious rights and freedoms, especially language and education rights, of ethnic minorities. We hope that our fact-based appeals to the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE which set forth specific facts of the discrimination of ethnic minorities in Ukraine by the incumbent Kiev authorities, will not just be heard. Countries that have influence over the Kiev authorities should force them to comply with their international commitments.

We are pleased that the meeting of the Normandy format political directors took place in Berlin yesterday. Regrettably, although the talks can be considered useful, they again failed to adopt any formal decisions with regard to the agreements that our leaders reached back in 2015 at the Normandy format summit in Paris, where a compromise formula on the interconnection between the holding of elections in Donbass and the granting of a special status to this territory in full conformity with the Minsk Accords was elaborated. Alas, this formula will have to once again be discussed, because Ukrainian leadership representatives were not ready to accept it at this stage. A new meeting of experts is due in December. Another topic that was addressed by the Normandy format leaders in person and that is being totally sabotaged by the Ukrainian authorities is the disengagement of forces and hardware at Stanitsa Luganskaya, where this has been failing to happen for two years since a relevant agreement was reached in Berlin by the presidents of Russia, Ukraine and France and the Chancellor of Germany.

We answered our French colleagues’ questions about the incident in the Black Sea. For some reason, the European Union’s statements refer to the Sea of Azov. Evidently, they don’t closely monitor this matter as a whole and take their cues from some comments that are not based on facts. We stressed that the incident was intentionally provoked. The two Ukrainian security service officers, who were on board these craft, are testifying and their testimonies are available to the media. In my view, it should be utterly clear to everyone, how and why this happened. The Ukrainian vessels could have used the experience they have. In September, when they asked for permission and notified [the Russian authorities] about their passage from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov, they were provided with a pilotage service and it worked smoothly. There are many conjectures as to why they chose a different path this time. All those who understand what I mean and how the domestic political situation develops in Ukraine can draw their conclusions.

We had a useful discussion on the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa, including with regard to the need for an early political settlement in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Russia, together with other guarantor countries of the Astana process, is working hard to complete the formation of the constitutional committee in line with the understandings reached at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in January of this year. We have a stake in promoting top-level contacts that took place in Istanbul on October 27, when the presidents of Turkey, France, and Russia and the Chancellor of Germany met to discuss our shared interest in the practical progress towards the attainment of the goals set by UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We have confirmed to our French colleagues our readiness to go on with the practice of joint humanitarian deliveries to the Syrians.

We touched upon the subject concerning the situation involving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for addressing the Iranian nuclear programme. In this respect, we share a common position: we are in favour of the remaining parties to this plan, including Iran, France, Germany, the UK, Russia and China, keeping their commitments under this crucial instrument and working out measures that will not bury it because of the consequences of the United States’ unilateral withdrawal and its threats to countries which will continue to maintain economic ties with Iran.

We talked about the situation in Libya, Yemen, and the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and reaffirmed the proximity of our approaches.

We agreed to continue cooperation on African issues, including on the CAR developments, where the UN mission mandate to stabilise that country was recently extended, as well as on other issues on the agenda of the UN Security Council.

We pointed out the alarming trend that is evident in the international arena, in particular in the OPCW, where the Technical Secretariat has been vested with the attribution functions in gross and direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is a direct infringement of the UN Security Council’s prerogatives. I do not think that the Security Council members, especially the permanent ones, have an interest in this trend taking shape.

We paid special attention to the situation in the Euro-Atlantic, including Russia's relations with the EU and NATO. Both relationships are at the freezing stage. We have reaffirmed our interest in resuming full contacts, especially between the military. It seemed to me that our French colleagues share this approach.

We discussed the preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan, which involve a number of important initiatives, including Russia’s initiatives to combat terrorism and drug trafficking, to uphold the language and educational rights of ethnic minorities and reaffirm the OSCE commitments to ensuring unhindered access to information by journalists and the public.

As for the Euro-Atlantic, we reaffirmed the interest that President Vladimir Putin mentioned earlier with regard to the ideas being discussed in Europe and the new approach to building its security architecture, including those expressed by French President Emmanuel Macron. Initiatives to create an EU army are being discussed. France has announced the European Intervention Initiative. We would like to discuss all this in a comprehensive manner, keeping in mind France’s and other European countries’ statements about their interest in developing a security system together with the Russian Federation. We are ready for this. We agreed that the entire scope of issues will be discussed by our experts in an inter-agency format so that after the expert consultations, we can resume the 2+2-format meetings of our foreign and defence ministers.

I am sincerely grateful to our French hosts, especially the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian, for organising our work and for the traditionally warm French hospitality.







Question:

US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo called on the leaders of Russia and Ukraine to begin direct negotiations to resolve the situation around the Kerch Strait, and Germany offered to mediate the dialogue. What does Moscow think of these proposals? Is the situation bad enough to warrant the help of a mediator? Is it possible to break off diplomatic relations with Ukraine, given that such ideas have been voiced by some in that country?

The British Integrity Initiative project confirmed that part of its funding was provided by the British government. What was Moscow’s reaction to that information, given the anti-Russia nature of the project?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the incident at the entrance to the Kerch Strait from the Black Sea, yesterday the situation was discussed in a telephone conversation between President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at her initiative. Certain understandings have been reached that will be implemented in the near future. I do not see the need for any mediation. I think this is a purely practical issue. If the Ukrainian side, like its partners in Europe, is interested in avoiding similar incidents in the future, it is obviously necessary to send a very strong signal to Kiev. This should be done, not by Russia, but by those who maintain very close contacts with the Ukrainian authorities, so that such provocations do not happen again. In practical terms, I think, technicalities, if any, can be discussed at the level of the two countries’ local border authorities. As I said, in September, they made very good use of the existing procedures.

As you know, yesterday we requested a meeting of the UN Security Council. Ukraine also supported holding such a meeting. I think it would be useful for everyone to hear the truth about what happened. But the outcome, I repeat, will depend not on the UN Security Council, the OSCE or other organisations, but on whether the sponsors of the Ukrainian leadership are willing to reprimand them and warn them that it is unacceptable to play with fire like this.

As for the Integrity Initiative project, if the material released into the public space is true (I’m not sure about this, but many people who have read the document professionally say so), then this is disinformation against Russia in the territory of sovereign states paid for by money from the British government. If this is true, the conclusion is unavoidable. This entity’s only goal, as is evident from the comments, is to defame the Russian Federation in the eyes of the public in other countries.

We are watching with concern a number of initiatives being implemented, not even covertly, but publicly, in the West, including in Europe. For example, they are generated by the well-known Reporters Without Borders group, aimed at working out certain indicators of trust in journalism, white lists, etc. The fact that many governments in Europe are beginning to support this approach leads to very unpleasant thoughts that we are dealing with a kind of political censorship. Of course, we would not want the global information content moderated through the prism of one-sided political criteria and political motivation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422359






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue civil society forum, Paris, November 27, 2018



27 November 2018 - 19:38







Mr Le Drian,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

First of all, I would like to express gratitude to our French partners for organising an exclusive tour of the parts of the Palace of Versailles that are not usually open to visitors.

I am honoured to offer greetings to all the participants of the second meeting of the Coordinating Council of the Trianon Dialogue civil society forum.

This joint initiative was advanced by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron here in Versailles, during their meeting in May 2017, and is aimed at strengthening trust and mutual understanding between our nations. Our presidents have high hopes for its implementation. Evidence of this is their meeting with the members of the Coordinating Council, which was held on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum and was on the agenda of President Macron’s visit to Russia.

It is obvious that what you are doing is very important, especially in the current situation. Your contribution is truly invaluable. Relations between our countries have always been multifaceted. As permanent members of the UN Security Council with a special responsibility for international peace and security, we must clearly identify priorities in our relations and the common challenges that are facing our countries and the rest of the world. Regrettably, a close coordination of our efforts to combat common threats such as terrorism and other kinds of organised crime has been hindered by the crisis of confidence that has developed in the Euro-Atlantic regions as the result of a zero sum game played by some of our Western colleagues. This crisis has, obviously, had a negative effect on Russian-French ties, which our forefathers and we have been working patiently for decades to strengthen. We continue working on this, and we do not want our relations to fall victim to the large-scale anti-Russia campaign, which was not orchestrated in Europe but which Europe has joined. Part of this campaign is the information war that has been imposed on the international community and has reached a stage where we need to start a new détente.

We are especially concerned about the attempts to discriminate against some media outlets and the use of government agencies and means to regulate public access to information, such as legislative initiatives advanced at the national level and internationally outside the framework of universal bodies such as the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. I strongly hope that these efforts, which definitely cannot promote the freedom of speech, will not result in any kind of political censorship. I hope that no obstacles will hinder our civil societies’ access to information.

I believe that the Trianon Dialogue, which was established to build bridges and search for common approaches to the multitude of problems facing our people, could discuss the issue of access to information and cooperation in the sphere of security, including cyber security. By the way, we are developing dialogue with our French colleagues on this issue, which some politicians claim to have poisoned Russia-West relations. There is no doubt whatsoever that the subject of information security in all its complexity deserves the attention of not only states, which bear the brunt of responsibility for cyber security, but also citizens because it directly concerns their right to access and be able to analyse news.

However, Russian-French cooperation continues to develop in many spheres from the economy to culture, despite problems between Russia and the West. This is what we discussed today at the talks with Jean-Yves Le Drian.

Our bilateral trade is growing consistently. Despite the tightening of the sanctions, over 500 French companies are working in Russia to their benefit, as far as I know. I am sure that the regular meeting of the Russian-French Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Council (CEFIC), which will be held in Paris in mid-December, will produce agreements on the further development of our cooperation in these spheres.







Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian spoke about the regular nature of our political dialogue, including at the top level. I mentioned the working visit President Emmanuel Macron made to Russia in May, when he also attended a meeting of the Coordinating Council. In July our leaders enjoyed a match played by the French national football team. A few weeks ago, President Vladimir Putin attended the ceremony held in Paris to commemorate the centenary of the end of the First World War and the inaugural meeting of the Paris Peace Forum. I hope that this forum, which is planned to become a regular event, as far as I know, will not only benefit our bilateral relations but will also help mobilise the efforts of our civil societies and states to strengthen international law and find truly collective decisions based on respect for the sovereignty of states and other principles of the UN Charter, including the principle of non-interference in others’ internal affairs.

We also try to find points of contact with our French partners on the international stage. In July, we conducted a joint operation to deliver humanitarian aid to Syrians at the initiative of our presidents. In October, our presidents took part in a four-party summit meeting with the leaders of Germany and Turkey in Istanbul. That meeting helped keep up the Syrian settlement process, which was given momentum in Astana and at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in January this year, where concrete actions for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 were mapped out.

The next meeting on Syria will be held in Astana on November 28−29, when we hope to make big progress towards completing the work to form the constitution committee comprising representatives of the Syrian government, the opposition and civil society.

The main part of our relations is probably the feeling of sincerity between our people based on our intertwining cultures, which no changes in the political climate can get in the way of. It would not be an exaggeration to say that people in Russia appreciate everything associated with French history, culture and traditions. I know that despite the Western attempts to demonise Russia, the French people still maintain a sincere interest in Russia and its rich culture and historical heritage, as well as the traditional values of the multinational Russian society. I view this mutual affinity, respect and sympathy as our common legacy and a solid foundation for boosting our cooperation.

We believe that the main goal of the Trianon Dialogue is to advocate a positive and future-oriented bilateral agenda, primarily by promoting contacts among our people. The more the Russian and the French people communicate with each other, the more objectively will they view our societies. I believe that best evidence of this is the good impression that the French and all other fans took home with them from the World Cup when it comes to Russian hospitality. More frequent and stable contacts at the personal level will help reduce the number of reasons and pretexts for speculation and attempts to burden our relations with contrived problems.

Mr Le Drian and I are delighted that the Trianon Dialogue has not only participated in various meetings and conferences, such as we are having today, but has also advanced its own initiatives. We welcome and will support these efforts at the level of citizen diplomacy. I would also like to mention the phenomenon of academic diplomacy, when historians discuss the most ambiguous pages in our shared history and European history as a whole to our common benefit.

We would like the Trianon Dialogue to give more attention to involving young people in the process of cross-enrichment and joint work.

I am sure that now that you have settled the basic organisational tasks with the help of our governments, the Trianon Dialogue has the wherewithal to become a major and truly cementing element of interaction between the Russian and French societies.

We wish you all the best. You can count on our support.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422478






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversation with RT France and Sputnik France journalists as part of his visit to the RT France office, Paris, November 27, 2018



27 November 2018 - 20:27







RT journalist:

Welcome.



Sergey Lavrov:

Your office is quite a place. So it turns out that French sovereignty is being undermined by these beautiful ladies.


***


RT journalist:

Our colleague happened to be in the midst of action in Paris on Sunday. He was actually tear-gassed, after which he was hit by a water cannon.



Sergey Lavrov:

I heard that water helps when mucous membranes are exposed to tear gas, so the fact that the water cannon came after the tear gas was the right sequence.


***


RT journalist:

We are not allowed in the Élysée Palace as a matter of principle. But today was an exception.



Sergey Lavrov:

What matters is who watches you, and not where you are allowed to go.

On December 6-7, Milan will be hosting the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting. We prepared a number of initiatives for this event, and one of them consists of reaffirming word for word the commitments assumed by the parties at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in 1990, when Perestroika and fraternisation were in full play. Back then, we committed ourselves to providing that the media and the public have unimpeded access to information. This means that in terms of these commitments the media who do not have access to information are viewed as “disadvantaged” (limited in their rights). We will see how they respond.



RT journalist:

The most interesting part is that in this situation we did not receive an outright refusal, neither orally nor in writing.



Sergey Lavrov:

You are simply denied access?



RT journalist:

We have an SMS telling us that they will decide on a case-by case basis what we can and cannot attend. We were allowed in once, while Sputnik was not granted access even a single time.



Sergey Lavrov:

Aren’t you even more “brash” than RT?



Sputnik journalist:

I would not say so. No one gave us a single example of our “brash” attitude. Neither did we receive any formal refusals, we are simply not allowed in.



Sergey Lavrov:

I gave a firm promise to Jean-Yves Le Drian that when he reaffirms once again that you are not a media outlet but a propaganda tool, there will be no vengeance on our part against French journalists accredited in Moscow. After all, we are polite people.







***


(in English)

Sergey Lavrov:

You have a great atmosphere in your office. To be honest, the working environment feels quite casual.



RT journalist:

Usually we have a working and a very messy environment. But just because the minister is here we are so excited.



Sergey Lavrov:

Normally it’s the other way around. You do not do anything until your boss comes, and then you start imitating activity.



RT journalist:

In general I think that we are very lucky, because we have a very motivated team. The only thing that worries us is the new fake news law.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, I mentioned this today to Jean-Yves Le Drian. He did not comment on it. It is not only a matter of French national legislation, but also of international initiatives coming from Paris, as we discussed today, aimed at whitelisting certain media outlets, leaving others outside of the platforms. This declaration was drafted by Reporters Without Borders. It is being picked up by a number of governments. I asked today the question why matters related to universal approaches to news, be they fake or not fake, are not being discussed in a universal format, within the OSCE for Europe or the United Nations, if it is about a global approach.

Besides, we do not understand the attempts to regulate the internet outside of the international frameworks. There is a Declaration on Information and Democracy, as well as the Paris Call, adopted at or immediately after the Paris Peace Forum (November 11-14, 2018). The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has been discussing issues related to internet governance for many years. Certainly, the Americans are not very eager to discuss this with anyone, being the place where the internet was born and where the internet is still regulated, basically.

I understand that to discuss and negotiate something in a universal context where all kinds of views are represented is much more difficult than to do something that you like and then to try to sell it by different means. But something which has been labouriously negotiated is much more sustainable than something that you try to sell unilaterally. We will see how it evolves.

I wish you all the best.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422520






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings to organisers and participants of the international roundtable entitled “Future of the Caspian Sea: Scientific projects and research”



28 November 2018 - 10:06



I cordially welcome the organisers and participants of the international roundtable entitled “Future of the Caspian Sea: Scientific projects and research.”

Ties between the academic communities have become firmly established as an important component of the versatile cooperation between the Caspian countries. Government and public structures as well as the business community feel that there is a need for Caspian research.

The aim of your scientific conference, which many authoritative specialists attend, is to look for optimal solutions to common vital problems. Its packed agenda makes it possible to hold detailed discussions on a wide range of pressing Caspian matters, from economic development to preserving the unique ecosystem and biodiversity of this body of water.

I am confident that this forum will be held in a friendly atmosphere and will facilitate the intensification of multilateral cooperation within the Caspian Five. Recommendations formulated as a result of the roundtable will contribute to the effective implementation of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea signed at the Aktau Summit this summer.

I would like to wish you all productive discussions and all the very best.


SERGEY LAVROV

November 28, 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422643






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Geneva International Conference on Afghanistan, Geneva, November 28, 2018



28 November 2018 - 14:22







Mr President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

Today’s meeting offers a good opportunity for assessing the performance of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRA) over the last four years and for analysing the political processes under way in that state. And, of course, the international community can reaffirm its readiness to continue rendering support to Afghanistan in its bid to become a peaceful, independent and self-reliant state free of terrorism and drug related crime.

We regard its October 2018 parliamentary elections as an important stage in the emergence of Afghan democratic society. At the same time, we cannot but pay attention to the numerous voter complaints about the organisation of voting: the election returns have not been announced to this day and remain uncertain. The elections to provincial and county councils were not held. We hope that the necessary conclusions will be drawn during the preparations for the presidential elections, when these take place.

We are still gravely concerned over the continuing deterioration of the military political situation in that country. We consistently proceed from the assumption that the Afghan crisis can be settled solely by political means. It is necessary to launch a broad inter-Afghan inclusive dialogue involving the IRA Government, the Taliban, and the entire spectrum of public as well as political forces.

Guided by these aims, Russia organised, on November 9, the second meeting of the Moscow Format consultations with the participation of Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asian countries and Taliban representatives to create favourable conditions for arranging direct negotiations between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban. Pursuant to President Ashraf Ghani’s decision, Kabul was represented by a High Peace Council delegation. A thing of importance is that all the participants at the meeting unanimously spoke in favour of closer cooperation in the fight against the Islamic State’s Afghan wing, which is a threat to security not only in Afghanistan but the region as a whole. We will continue interacting within the Moscow Format with regional partners and other parties concerned, helping to launch an inclusive inter-Afghan dialogue.







Russia will continue contributing to the strengthening of Afghanistan’s statehood. We think that stabilisation is predicated on building up the combat capability of the national armed force. Russia and Afghanistan have an intergovernmental agreement on military technical assistance, under which preferential and gratuitous aid is rendered to Kabul.

As an additional economic support measure, Russia has introduced a zero customs duty on Afghan imports.

We continue rendering large-scale assistance in personnel training, with over 800 Afghan students getting an education at Russian universities on grants that we provide.

250 Afghan military and police officers are trained at educational establishments of the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Interior Ministry.

Afghan law enforcers are also trained as part of the anti-drug projects that Russia implements jointly with Japan, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and the OSCE. A unique Russian-Japanese project to create a dog-training centre in Kabul was launched under the aegis of the OSCE on November 12. With Russia’s financial assistance the UNODC is implementing a programme to organise a food zone in the Badakhshan province, the aim of which is to expand areas free from the cultivation of drugs.

The revival of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan requires a joint effort by the entire world community, including Central Asian states and the vast Eurasian space as a whole. We will continue promoting the intensification of Afghanistan’s interaction with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, including as part of the restored mechanism of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group.

We hope that the people of Afghanistan will soon reach the goal of ending the fratricidal war and will successfully implement a large-scale programme of reforms. We will render the most active assistance to its effort to achieve these aims.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423104






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s responses to media questions during a joint news conference following a meeting with Head of the Federal Department (Minister) of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland Ignazio Cassis, Geneva, November 28, 2018



28 November 2018 - 18:37







First of all, I would like to once again thank Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland Ignazio Cassis and his staff for inviting me here for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Geneva International Conference on Afghanistan.

We discussed in detail our relations, which have always been constructive and pragmatic and based on mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.

We are enjoying steady growth in trade. We welcome the consistent build-up of Swiss investment in Russia and Russian investment in Switzerland. Today, we confirmed our course of encouraging the business community to continue increasing cooperation between Russian and Swiss businesspeople. New solutions in trade and economic cooperation are being drafted for the next meeting of the Mixed Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation to be held in Bern on December 4.

As my colleague Ignazio Cassis mentioned, we noted with satisfaction the resumption of contact between our special services in the form of a meeting which took place in Moscow in mid-November. We only welcome this, because we can consider each other’s concerns through professional channels based on concrete facts a much better way to discuss them than through public statements that occasionally lead to confusion and misunderstanding. We welcome Switzerland’s commitment to start a professional and businesslike discussion of any concerns that may arise.

We maintain an intensive and productive dialogue between our respective foreign ministries. Today, we reviewed the statistics of consultations between the foreign ministries on various issues on the international agenda. I believe, I’m afraid I might make a mistake here, but we do not have another partner country with which we hold consultations this often.

We reiterated our gratitude to our Swiss colleagues for the effective representation of the interests of Russia in Georgia and providing a venue for holding the Geneva discussions on stability and security in the South Caucasus.

We exchanged views on the unhealthy situation in the Council of Europe caused by the desire of a number of countries to ignore the basic and fundamental provisions of the statute of that organisation and on preparations for the next meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan in early December.

Our friends were interested in knowing more about the incident that occurred in the Black Sea, not the Sea of ​​Azov, where Ukrainian naval ships attempted to enter the Kerch-Yenikale Canal in violation of existing security rules. We mentioned the documents that were made public following the inspection of the violating ships by the Russian border guards. They clearly indicate that this was a pre-planned provocation designed to provoke a scandal with an eye towards achieving geopolitical goals and resolving certain domestic problems that Kiev faces.

With regard to international issues, we talked in detail about Syria. We told our partners about the efforts undertaken by Russia as a nation and as part of the framework of the Astana process. Along with Turkey and Iran, Russia facilitated a dialogue between the Syrian government and the armed opposition groups. Another meeting began in Astana today and will run for two days. Based on the outcome, I hope we will obtain more reasons to move towards resolving issues in the area of military-political stabilisation, boosting humanitarian aid, providing assistance in upgrading the infrastructure that is necessary for the returning refugees, and of course, as part of the political process in our preparations for talks in Geneva sponsored by the UN.

We discussed the situation in Afghanistan. We provided a detailed report on the recently held regular meeting in the Moscow Format, which has become the first platform where representatives of Kabul and the Taliban sat at the same table.

We drew our Swiss colleagues’ attention to the alarming trend that is arising due to the actions of several Western states that want to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments with certain actions which lack consensus support and are aimed at undermining prerogatives, including those of the UN Security Council. As an example, we spoke about the abnormal situation in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and similar intentions regarding the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC), and several other cases.

We hope that Switzerland, a country known for its respect for international law, will carefully study these developments and draw conclusions for its practical foreign policy.

We will be glad to continue the preparations for the opening ceremony of the renovated Swiss Embassy buildings in Moscow. We will hold a reception and talks with Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis on the occasion.







Question:

The US Department of State recently called on its European allies, among others, to uphold the sanctions regime against Russian due to the situation in Ukraine. Does this basically encourage Kiev? Is this fraught with new provocations by Ukraine?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think it reflects Washington’s desire to encourage the actions of the Kiev regime and even to instigating provocative acts. This is sad. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this recently.

There is a backlog of many facts which reveal that Washington and some European capitals are ready to indulge the whims of Kiev. I would very much like the US Special Representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, to act as a real envoy to try to achieve, mainly, an agreement between the conflicting sides – Kiev on the one hand and Donetsk and Lugansk on the other. So far Kurt Volker has only acted as a fierce protector of the provocative acts by the Kiev regime.



Question (translated from French, addressed to Ignazio Cassis):

You talked about some contentious issues, such as spying on Swiss territory. Earlier reports have indicated that up to a quarter of the diplomatic corps is engaged in this activity. Now you claim the situation has improved. How exactly? Which systems are you talking about? You already mentioned Director of Swiss Federal Intelligence Service NDB Jean-Philippe Gaudin’s visit to Moscow, but what will follow? Did Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offer any guarantees?



Sergey Lavrov (follows up on Ignazio Cassis):

Indeed, we learned from the Swiss media this summer that the Swiss government had some suspicions regarding Russia’s activities on the confederation’s territory. Let me reiterate that we learned about this through the media and felt some bewilderment in view of the well-defined, friendly and pragmatic relations we have always enjoyed with Switzerland. We are ready for a professional discussion on any concerns our Swiss colleague might have. But in this situation we were not approached through official channels, the information appeared in the media. This means that someone in the Swiss government who was overwhelmed with suspicions leaked it to the media.

We were very surprised by this. This indicates that someone was more interested in a media scandal than a detailed explication. When I met Ignazio Cassis in New York, he raised the issue. I told him straight out that we do not understand why such an approach had been used and recommended using existing and more efficient channels. We are happy that the Swiss side used this approach. In the middle of November a respective official came to Moscow and met with his us. As far as I know, the results of the meetings were acceptable to both parties. We need to continue communicating via these channels without the political hype.

Russia has been accused of many things in several different countries in recent years. But no solid facts have been presented in any of these cases. Everything is done in UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s style with her charge of “highly likely.” Out of all the established facts of espionage I am aware of at least one that has been admitted by everyone and yet it is not talked about. I mean the Americans spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel including tapping her telephone. This is an objectively established fact. However, those who are preoccupied with espionage activities are not inclined to talk about something that rests on a universally acknowledged truth.



Question (addressed to Ignazio Cassis):

You have just mentioned that there are legal and illegal actions. Would you explain the difference?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Ignazio Cassis):

This is what I have said. When the German Chancellor’s phone was listened in on, the Americans did this without permission from German intelligence services and courts.



Question:

Today President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani said that the road map was ready and a special group for talks with the Taliban was established. What is Russia’s position on this issue? How can this influence the Afghani settlement process?



Sergey Lavrov:

If President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani is really creating a special group to hold talks with the Taliban, this means that the logic that Russia promotes within the Moscow Format consultations on Afghanistan is effective. We will support a direct dialogue between official Kabul and the Taliban. Of course, this dialogue cannot be sustained in a vacuum. It should have international support. I believe that the Moscow Format, which unites all Central Asian states, China, Pakistan, India, Iran and Russia (by the way, the USA is also invited), is ideally suited to provide international support for a direct, inclusive intra-Afghanistan dialogue, in which, of course, the country’s prominent political forces should take part together with the government and the Taliban.



Question (via interpreter):

You mentioned complaints against Russia. But Ukraine has provided facts – the coordinates and the precise location of its ships when the Russian side opened fire. According to these coordinates, the Ukrainian ships were in international waters. Will you contest these facts?

A high-ranking EU official has said today that the Kerch Strait must be open for navigation. Does Russia agree?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will contest the so-called facts provided by Ukraine, because our Coast Guard has recorded its own facts and has published them online. According to these facts, even if we forget about what happened in Crimea in March 2014, the Ukrainian warships entered Russian territorial waters in an area that was officially recognised by all sides, including Ukraine, as the territorial waters of Russia even before 2014.

As for the Kerch Strait, Ukraine knows the rules for navigating this tricky route very well. Back in September, Ukrainian warships transited from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov via the Kerch-Yenikale Canal. They had sent a proper notification to our Coast Guard. The security authorities in the Kerch Strait provided the Ukrainian ships with a pilot, which is an obligatory condition for moving through the strait. Therefore, it would not be correct, putting it mildly, to say that Ukraine had not been informed about the required procedure.

Our Coast Guard officials and investigators have interrogated the officers of the Ukrainian Security Service who were on board these ships and who oversaw that provocation. We have also found the documents – they are available online – that clearly show that the commanders of these warships were instructed not to notify the Kerch port authorities of their intentions but to move stealthily into the Sea of Azov in violation of the accepted rules. Nobody who has read these documents will have any doubts that it was an outright provocation.

Its goal was to remind the West about Ukraine, because Europe has obviously grown tired of the Kiev regime and government. Maybe America is not yet tired of Ukraine; I wouldn’t know. Another goal was to resolve internal political problems. Poroshenko’s rating is disastrously low.

I have already explained the procedure for transiting via the Kerch Strait. The Ukrainians know the rules very well, because they have used them before and have not had any problems with moving into the Sea of Azov.

We respect international law. The Crimean referendum was held in full compliance with the principle of self-determination, the right of nations to self-determination. Foreign observers monitored the referendum. These observers, although they did not represent foreign governments, wanted to know what was happening. And they saw that the Crimeans expressed their will absolutely freely and that they voted for reunification with Russia. This made the Kerch Strait the internal waters of Russia.

I understand that some of our Western colleagues are disappointed since they had not been able to create a naval NATO base in Crimea. But this cannot be helped. Such is the course of history, and such is the will of the Crimean people. Mr Cassis has done today what the EU, NATO and Washington do, urging Russia and Ukraine to take measures to de-escalate the situation. I believe that these calls, in particular to Ukraine, are clear proof of Kiev’s guilt for this incident. If there were even the slightest opportunity to get Kiev off the hook, our Western colleagues would not have addressed their appeals to Ukraine. They would have only addressed them to Russia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423366






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, November 30, 2018



30 November 2018 - 17:20







Question:

What do you think of US President Donald Trump’s behaviour?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is not in my place to judge presidents’ behaviour. I assume that Donald Trump, in his characteristic manner, posted a tweet from which the entire world learned the news. I doubt that this step will help in resolving a whole range of important international issues. Of course, love cannot be forced. If the domestic situation and the pressure from Russia-haters such as Ukraine and its sponsors prevent the US President from building a normal relationship with the Russian President, which we have repeatedly supported, we will wait for another opportunity.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424821






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview and answers to questions for the programme “Moscow. Kremlin. Putin” on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, December 2, 2018



2 December 2018 - 15:15







Question:

It was a highly unusual G20 summit, with very many factors. I don’t remember Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel having to overcome so many obstacles just to get to a meeting. The death of President George H.W. Bush cast a pall over the event. And then there is this strange situation with presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump and the US president’s reaction to the incident in the Black Sea.

What are your feelings over this? Have these events spoiled the G20 meeting or prevented the participants from implementing the agenda?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that all these circumstances have had their effect on the events that are taking place in Buenos Aires. However, they have hardly had any serious effect on the agenda.

Just as it happened in 2008, when the G20 convened at the top level to discuss the root causes of a crisis that had spread to nearly all the countries, we are now amid a period of transformation in the global economy. There is, first of all, the digital transformation, an unprecedented rise in protectionist policies, up to trade wars, the sovereign debts of many countries and a shadow over the future of free multilateral trade, as well as many other factors. There is also the problem with the reliability of reserve currencies and the obligations of the countries that have them. It is these factors that influenced the preparations for the summit and discussions at it.

I have not mentioned the sanctions, the restrictive, prohibitive or punishing duties and tariffs, all of which created a serious and contradictory background for and influenced the essence of the discussions. It is good that a final declaration has been adopted. This is better than nothing. However, all the sharp angles which I mentioned have been smoothed over. But I don’t think this is connected to the circumstances we were talking about.

Anyway, the G20 has made rather useful decisions. We have outlined our position on the digital economy and the need to start adjusting the labour and education markets to it. We have also put forth our views on the situation when it comes to food security. Russia as a major grain producer is playing an increasing role in these matters.

There was also a thorough discussion on migration, refugees and approaches to this new problem. I would like to say in this connection that we have rejected the attempts to force the “concept of equal responsibility” on the G20 and the international community as a whole for the refugees who fled their homes, for various reasons, in the hope of finding a better future in foreign countries. We clearly pointed out to our colleagues that the root cause of this unprecedented wave of migration in Europe and other countries is the irresponsible policy of flagrant military interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, primarily in the Middle East and North Africa. The most serious factor is, of course, the aggression against Libya, which has destroyed the country and has turned it into a black hole for the transfer of illegal weapons, drugs and organised crime to southern Africa. The northbound transit, above all via Libya, has brought migrants to Europe where they have become a major problem, including for the EU.

Another subject on which Russian delegates spoke actively here is the fight against terrorism. We drew the international attention to a new phenomenon of the so-called foreign terrorist fighters who return back to their home or other countries after completing criminal jobs in Libya, Syria, Iraq or some other places. It is vitally important to trace the movement of these dangerous people. Several years ago, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) created a database of foreign terrorist fighters. This database involves 42 security services from 35 countries, including G20 members, such as the BRICS countries, Turkey and South Korea. The UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), Interpol, the CIS Anti-Terrorism Centre, the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS) and other international organisations have joined this database. We actively promoted this experience at the G20 summit where it aroused keen interest.



Question:

Have you managed to bring across to our European partners the truth on what really happened in the Black Sea (and not in the Sea of Azov, as they usually write)? Have they finally heard our position?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think they could not but hear it because President Vladimir Putin, while meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, personally explained “in lay terms” how all this happened, how the provocation had been planned and how its execution was attempted, as well as how responsibly the Russian border guards performed their functions trying to prevent any undesirable incidents. Regrettably, the [Ukrainian] agents provocateurs (and the provocation, carried out by two craft and a tug, was controlled by two Ukrainian Security Service officers) did their best to fulfill the order, which was found after the Russian border guards stepped on board these fire-support craft. It said in no uncertain terms that they should secretly penetrate the neutral waters, perform a breakthrough under the Crimean Bridge without giving any previous notice or hiring a pilot, and sail through the Kerch Strait to the Sea of Azov. President Putin personally told his interlocutors about this. I did not hear from them a response that would be based on different facts.



Question:

It is important to note a totally different level of cooperation between Russia, India and China. One gets the impression that this time a unique mutual understanding took shape within the G20 between the three countries that together account for one-third of the world population. They have a totally different point of view than, for example, America and its partners, whom it is easier to call “satellites.”



Sergey Lavrov:

It was the first Russia-India-China summit (RIC Group, as we call it) since 2006. The leaders of our three countries have agreed that this format should be maintained, including by holding regular summits in addition to ministerial and expert contacts that, basically, have not been discontinued during these years. What unites our countries was emphasised at the RIC meeting. This is primarily the striving not to allow the disintegration of multilateral universal organisations that are based on the UN Charter and the principles enshrined in it, such as equality, respect for sovereignty, and non-interference in internal affairs. Generally, an intention was voiced to defend the foundations of the multilateral, open economic and trade system. Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi clearly spoke out against the sanctions that were increasingly often used in this sphere by the United States in the hope of enhancing its competitiveness and getting unfair competitive advantages.

As I said, the [three] leaders have agreed to continue holding summits, while instructing their foreign ministers to prepare for the RIC leaders proposals on how to make this cooperation more effective and promote it in new spheres.



Question:

Is there any hope that these three countries – Russia, India and China – will have a common understanding and will vote unanimously in the UN Security Council?



Sergey Lavrov:

India is not yet a full member of the UN Security Council, but it was elected several times as a non-permanent member for two years. We have identical views on the overwhelming majority of subjects. It is notable that our countries’ positions often overlap not only in the UN Security Council but also during voting on matters of fundamental importance at the UN.

Another example has to do with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and concerns a scandalous process which the West has launched in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). When the Western countries proposed giving the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat the prerogatives that actually belong to the UN Security Council, India, Russia and other like-minded countries unanimously voted against this. The BRICS countries co-authored a statement in which they sharply criticised such inappropriate actions and demanded that all states respect the CWC and their obligations under it. I have mentioned BRICS for a reason, because President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of China Xi Jinping and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi have said that these three countries are the driving force behind such organisations as BRICS and the SCO, which India has recently joined. We are connected geographically and politically, share common views on the key aspects of the world order, want all disputes to be settled peacefully and would like to have a free, open and fair trade and economic system, which, taken together, makes us allies in these matters.



Question:

Presidents Putin and Trump have held a short meeting after all. As for US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was he evading you, or did he have to meet with you?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, I did not pursue him, and he did not try to meet with me. To be quite frank, I do not even know if he is here, because I have not seen the full US delegation. US National Security Adviser John Bolton said in a conversation with Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, who deals with political matters, that they [the US administration] would like to resume and normalise our dialogue. We are ready to do this as soon as our colleagues are.



Question:

As far as I know, there have been very interesting discussions on Syria. Has Russia managed to move the Western countries towards the realistic Russian view on the Syrian problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t know how close we have managed to move them towards our position, but it is becoming increasingly clear that they don’t have any alternative strategy or tactic on this matter. Likewise, it is becoming clear that unacceptable things are taking place on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. The United States is trying to create quasi-public structures there, investing hundreds of millions of dollars so that the people could resume a normal peaceful way of life in these regions. At the same time, they refuse to rebuild the infrastructure in the regions that are controlled by the Syrian government. It is becoming obvious to everyone that the developments on the eastern bank of the Euphrates run contrary to the general commitment to Syria’s territorial integrity as sealed in a relevant UN Security Council resolution, although the United States has been trying to present its activities there as a temporary solution.

The US activities on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and in other Syrian regions where it has special forces and advisers include playing the Kurdish card. It is a very dangerous game, considering that the Kurdish question is very acute in several countries apart from Syria, such as Iraq, Iran and, obviously, Turkey. President Putin discussed this matter at a meeting with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the last day of the G20 session. They have confirmed their commitments regarding the Idlib de-escalation zone. We pointed out that not all extremists have heeded the demand to leave the 20-mile demilitarised zone, despite the active and consistent operations of our Turkish colleagues. We have coordinated further moves to ensure compliance with the agreement on the demilitarised zone and also to prevent the extremists from sabotaging this crucial agreement, which all sides welcomed.

The third aspect of the Syrian subject is the political process. The overwhelming majority of countries agree that the Constitution Committee, which is being created at the initiative of the three guarantor countries of the Astana process as per the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi, is the only viable method to start implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254, under which all Syrian sides must hold negotiations to coordinate common and mutually acceptable views on life in their country and on its future development. This is exactly what is stipulated in the above-mentioned UN Security Council resolution. After they reach this understanding, they should adopt a new constitution and hold elections based on its provisions. However, as I have said before, no reasonable alternatives have been proposed over the past years to the initiatives advanced by the three Astana countries on combating terrorism, creating conditions for the return of the refugees and internally displaced persons back home, providing humanitarian aid and launching a political process.



Question:

When the death of President George H.W. Bush was announced, President Putin expressed his condolences in a very emotional message. George Bush Sr. believed that one of the worst mistakes of his presidency was failure to prevent the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Did you meet with him? What are your impressions of him?



Sergey Lavrov:

I did not meet with him often, but we did meet. I believe that George Bush Sr greatly contributed to the development of the United States and ensured that his country responsibly played its role in the world, considering its weight in international affairs.

I remember very well how President George H.W. Bush visited Moscow, I believe it was in 1991, and then he went to Ukraine where he encouraged the Soviet republics’ political forces to act responsibly and do their duty by preserving the country rather than create huge, tragic problems for millions of people who became citizens of different states the next morning after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Mr Bush was a great politician. I believe that every word that will be said about his achievements reflect the people’s true attitude to this man. However, one comment among the great number of condolence messages can be connected to your question about the link between President Bush and the demise of the Soviet Union. I watched CNN and Fox News on the day he died, and I heard a commentator say that George Bush Sr made history by helping Mikhail Gorbachev soft-land the Soviet Union. In fact, George Bush Sr never did that; he simply wanted to protect the millions of people who had lived in one country for decades or even centuries from political games. This is what we can say confidently about him.


***






Question:

Do you think there is a connection between the provocation in the Kerch Strait and the US cancellation of the planned meeting between our presidents?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories. However, there have been too many coincidences, when a provocation that takes place ahead of a major event is used for fanning hysteria over sanctions. British Prime Minister Theresa May has demanded that Brussels further worsen its Russia policy, even though Britain has almost exited the EU.

We know our partners very well, and we have masses of questions about the adequacy of their approach to serious problems. There are very serious and very real threats. The fight against these challenges cannot be improved by making sacrifices to immediate geopolitical considerations.



Question:

When will President Putin and President Trump hold a full-scale meeting after all?



Sergey Lavrov:

I won’t even try to guess.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3425025






The following events are not displayed in the English version.


27 November 2018

Telephone conversation of S. Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany H. Maas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422492


29 November 2018

Welcoming address of S. Lavrov to the organizers and participants of the International Conference "The 150th anniversary of the St. Petersburg Declaration on the prohibition of the use of certain explosive shells during the war: new contexts, former significance" - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439187
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; January 22nd, 2019 at 03:59 AM.
 
Old January 22nd, 2019 #539
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s briefing on developments involving the INF Treaty, Moscow, November 26, 2018



26 November 2018 - 16:02







Introduction

After US President Donald Trump’s public statements about Washington’s intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty unilaterally, politicians, diplomats, and other related experts, as well as the entire world community have been focused on this matter. The world is increasingly aware of the risks and threats this rash decision could entail not only for regional but also for global international security and stability as a whole.

At this briefing, we primarily would like to provide an opportunity for the broader public to get a first-hand, undistorted idea of the Russian approaches to the INF problem in their entirety. It is of no less importance for us to provide the world public with a real picture of developments involving the INF Treaty. This is of fundamental significance, given that the information space is filled with dishonest interpretations, idle speculation and clearly false information.

For example, the United States has begun accusing Russia of violating the INF Treaty with even greater zeal as part of its propaganda campaign meant to justify its decision to denounce the treaty. Apart from engaging in unscrupulous attempts to create a false impression that Russia’s alleged non-compliance with the INF Treaty is a firmly established fact, the US Department of State is seeking, no less brazenly, to downplay the importance and validity of Russia’s years-long concerns about the implementation of the INF Treaty by the United States itself. Moreover, unreliable information is being planted about the development and content of the parties’ dialogue on their claims and counterclaims.

In this case, the US is using its traditional trick, which it has been employing more and more often in recent time. Fabricated charges are immaterial and therefore do not need, in Washington’s view, to be confirmed, while it is extremely difficult to refute them by reason of their being divorced from the facts. The situation being what it is, the allies and closest partners of the United States have to support it out of political loyalty and Euro-Atlantic – or other – solidarity.



Significance and disadvantages of the INF Treaty

Approaching the 30th anniversary of the INF Treaty, I certainly must first say a few words about the Treaty itself. We believe three decades is a long enough period to try to give an assessment that can claim to be objective.

There is no doubt that back then, the Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States on the elimination of their intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles was a major milestone in building a Euro-Atlantic security architecture in the new historical period. It was a landmark agreement, which later played a major role in reformatting the geopolitical landscape in Europe and interstate relations between the key players in this region.

Specifically, following the implementation of the INF Treaty, an entire class, or more precisely, two classes of nuclear weapons were removed from the arsenals of the parties: intermediate-range ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles having ranges from 1,001 to 5,500 km, and shorter-range missiles, i.e. with ranges from 500 to 1,000 km. In addition, the launchers of these missiles, the relevant support structures and equipment, and operational bases were eliminated.

There are varying schools of thought as to whether the agreement fully provided an equivalent mutual benefit to the parties. This probably warrants an expert discussion. However, there is no doubt that the INF Treaty made a significant contribution to the strengthening of international security and stability. It was also an important step towards nuclear disarmament.

Yet, that agreement was still a product of its era. It largely reflects the realities of the late 1980s. A distinctive feature of the INF Treaty is its indefinite term. The sponsors of the INF Treaty rightly believed at the time that this would work to increase predictability and ensure restraint in the military-political sphere in the foreseeable future.

However, life does not stand still, and over time, the immutability of the Treaty as it was drawn up and executed, more than once gave reason to reflect on its compliance with the changing security conditions. At different times, these questions arose among politicians and experts from Russia, the United States and other countries. As events unfolded, including in the area of ​​missile proliferation, it became increasingly clear that the Treaty regime needs strengthening.

That is why, in October 2007, Russia put forward an initiative to make the INF obligations multilateral, and in February 2008, presented a framework for the relevant international legal agreement that would be open for wider accession. However, this initiative was not supported by states with significant missile capabilities. Washington, after first showing some enthusiasm about our idea, quickly lost interest.

At the same time, the main problems and risks for the Treaty turned out to be connected with the long-term actions of the American side contrary to their commitments under the agreement. We consider this topic fundamentally important regardless of the future of the INF Treaty.

Furthermore, some provisions of the INF Treaty are insufficiently clear and may give cause for misinterpretation. The decisive factor here is the good faith and political will of the participating countries to keep the agreement viable. This approach should certainly be mutual.

Be that as it may, given the whole range of factors affecting security and strategic stability, Russia remains fully committed to the Treaty as an important element of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. We advocate the preservation of the INF Treaty given the American side’s strict compliance with it.

In this context, we are ready to reaffirm, with full responsibility, that we reject any speculation on our alleged violations of this Treaty.



US claim - 9M729

The groundless and unfounded accusations made against us by the United States and the presumptuous manner in which they were publicly voiced are absolutely unacceptable.

As you are aware, the US claims with regard to Russia are based on allegations to the effect that a Russian ground-launched cruise missile was tested for a range that is banned under the INF Treaty for this class of missiles. The United States explains that it provided us with “more than enough information,” including “an exhaustive amount of detailed data.” This allegedly allowed Russia, almost from the outset, to fully understand what the problem was all about and also see the technical subtleties needed in order to immediately begin to address it. Furthermore, the United States claims that for a long time Russia denied the very fact of having this missile, which Washington allegedly consistently and clearly pointed to. As a result, they say, the United States “forced” us to acknowledge its existence and provided “convincing evidence” of Russia’s “violations.”

All this is absolutely inconsistent with reality and is an obvious attempt by the United States to distort reality. It appears that Washington decided to take advantage of the fact that, in view of the confidential nature of the Russian-American expert dialogue, public comments from our side did not necessarily contain certain details. Given the aggressive behaviour of the United States in the information space regarding the INF Treaty, we are now willing to reveal certain details.

From the perspective of formal logic and taking into account the experience of several decades of Russia-US cooperation in the sphere of missile control, it is absolutely clear that in order to start a substantive investigation into the issue raised by the US, the United States was required to provide information on three key aspects. First, to name the missile causing suspicions. Second, to identify specific test launches during which, in the opinion of the United States, we failed to comply with our obligations under the INF Treaty. Third, and most important, to provide objective data which were used to conclude that the range of the missile flight during the test exceeded the range permitted under the Treaty. Only a comprehensive consideration of these three elements would open the way to a professional analysis of the situation by specialists and the elimination of possible ambiguities.

We were entitled to such a serious approach to discussing the problem by Washington from day one, that is, five years ago. So, we consistently and patiently requested the aforementioned information from the United States. However, Washington opted for a fundamentally different path. Initially, we heard only vague allusions from the United States. Then, we were provided with minimal and utterly generalised data to which they began to add, once a year, bits of information to fit the picture painted by the Americans, which remained, nonetheless, blurry.

With regard to indicating a specific missile in the Russian arsenal, initially, the US simply referred to an allegedly available ground-launched cruise missile with a 500-5500 km range, which was allegedly confirmed during tests at the Kapustin Yar testing ground.

A while later, we received a message that Washington was ready to name, and they later did name, Russian enterprises involved in the production of the missile that caused a “problem” for the United States. Primarily, the issue was about Novator, a well-known developer of many missiles of various designations which were already in service or being developed.

A couple of years later, the United States indicated the type of chassis of the launcher which carries the ground-launched cruise missile in question. But they named a universal chassis, on the basis of which an entire family of launchers for missiles of various types and classes has been developed and is being modernised and designed.

At some point, the United States circulated the SSC-8 index in the public space, which they assigned to the missile as part of their own classification. Notably, they did so by way of a media leak. We have received no meaningful clarifications regarding this index. Nevertheless, the United States continued to use this designation until December 2017.

We were also given a “screen shot” from a commercially available satellite imagery website, which showed the contours of the launcher elements and were provided with the coordinates of the corresponding site at the Kapustin Yar testing ground. It was there that, according to the United States, the tests of the Russian missile in question were carried out. We explained to the Americans that test launches of missiles of various designations and different classes were carried out in the specified area using various types of launchers. The INF requirements were fully complied with.

In the course of many years of discussions, the United States stubbornly refused to tell us about the testing instances that, as we understand, raised questions in Washington. They continued to refer to an extensive period of several years, during which, they believed, the “wrong” missile had been allegedly tested. At some point, we were even asked to designate the dates for all tests of missiles of this class during this long-term period in order for the United States to choose the dates of “questionable” launches. Of course, we didn’t comply with such an intrusive approach.

Thus, for a long time we were asked to put together, of our own accord, a “puzzle” of scattered elements received at different times, and then to name a missile, which, according to the United States, is inconsistent with the INF Treaty. That is, in fact, to confess to a violation that we never committed.

Of course, we did not disclose to Washington sensitive information about Russian missile development for the sake of their senseless attempts to identify among them a missile on the basis of its alleged inconsistency with the INF Treaty. We told the Americans that we were not going to engage in reading tea leaves. We know our weapons perfectly. We also know that none of them violate our obligations under the treaty. We continue to insist on this.

Our consistent requests to provide key data on the subject of the US claim along with the facts to support it were ignored by the Americans. In response, we have been hearing the same old phrase year after year – we have reliable information, but we will not disclose it.

Only in December 2017, the Americans finally pointed to the missile in question in the Russian arsenal and came up with Index 9M729. Moreover, they again demonstrated lack of substance in their dialogue with us when they first made this index public at a closed expert event (without our participation), after which it was widely quoted by American NGOs on their Twitter accounts. Only then was this information confirmed to our ambassador in Washington. However, this was done just a few days before the session of the Special Verification Commission under the Treaty. Perhaps, the goal was to thwart preparations of the Russian delegation for it at the last moment.

However, this did not prevent us from responding substantively. We told the Americans that the Russian Armed Forces do have a 9M729 ground-launched missile in service, which is an upgraded version of the Iskander-M system missile. Mostly its warhead was upgraded. We informed the United States that the 9M729 missile was launched at its maximum range at the Kapustin Yar testing ground on September 18, 2017 as part of the West-2017 exercises. It covered less than 480 km. We emphasised that the specified missile, as well as its previous versions, was not developed or tested for the range banned by the Treaty.

After the United States finally focused the discussion on a specific missile with the 9M729 index, a “technical” information exchange ensued, during which we received several questionnaires. Many questions focused on things that were far from Russia's obligations under the Treaty and were reasonably perceived by us as an attempt to get a glimpse of our progress in rocket technology. Nevertheless, we considered it possible to allow in good faith some transparency with respect to the 9M729 missile, even though it does not fall within the scope of the INF Treaty because of its range. In doing so, we largely went beyond what is required of us under the INF Treaty.

In particular, we informed the United States that the timeframe it previously specified for testing activities regarding the 9M729 missile was incorrect. We provided the actual timeframe and clarifications on Washington’s erroneous ideas about the types of launchers that were used in testing.

The nature of the US questions led us to believe that the United States was engaged in some kind of a “creative search.” We noted that they never once specified their suspicions regarding the range of the 9M729 missile and continued to refer exclusively to the maximum range of 500 to 5500 km under the Treaty. In addition, they assumed that Russia could carry out tests of a missile with a smaller amount of fuel than provided for by the design. For our part, we highlighted the specifics of the fuel system of our missile, which preclude such experiments.

In turn, Russia has consistently continued to ask the United States to provide the necessary specifics regarding its claims. In the end, the Americans did share the dates of the test launches that caused their suspicion. However, this was done not only five years after the beginning of this debate, but also five days prior to President Trump announcing his intention to withdraw from the Treaty. Notably, at the time of this announcement, we had our responses to the most recent US questionnaire regarding the 9M729 missile almost ready. Clearly, the United States was no longer interested in obtaining our substantive response to their questions. This once again showed us that our efforts at transparency have no impact on the decisions taken by the United States, and that they have taken all their decisions a long time ago, and are only waiting for Russia to plead guilty.

Let's summarise this part. Of the three key technical data blocks requested by Russia several years ago, the first one (clear designation of the missile) was presented less than a year ago, the second (namely, the launch dates) was indicated a month ago, and the third most important element related to factual substantiation of the US claims was never received by us. Thus, in the course of a five-year discussion of this issue, we were not presented with a single piece of evidence of our violation of the Treaty.

It is difficult for us to judge what exactly triggered the US charges against us. Given the constant references by the United States to certain “classified information,” this could be both an obliging adjustment of intelligence to meet political demands, or erroneous assessments of the intelligence agencies themselves. We are well aware of precedents for either case. In any case, references to “classified information” cannot be the basis for a productive dialogue. Addressing serious matters in the sphere of arms control does not work that way.

Overall, the evasive manner in which the conversation was conducted amid the provocative US public campaign accusing Russia of violating the INF Treaty tells us that the true goals of the United States are far from strengthening the Treaty’s viability.



Russian claims: armed UAVs

In turn, we have displayed maximum possible patience, while demanding for many years that the United States itself remedy obvious violations of the INF Treaty.

For example, this concerns the problematic issue of US unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with strike potential. We raised the issue for the first time in the early 2000s at the INF’s Special Verification Commission when the United States tested its first offensive Predator UAV that hit targets with missiles. This heralded the creation of a US weapons system, unequivocally covered by the INF Treaty.

The thing is that certain types of armed UAVs completely match the definition of ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs), as stipulated by the INF Treaty. Under the Treaty, a GLCM denotes a ground-launched cruise missile serving as a weapon-delivery vehicle. The very term “cruise missile” denotes an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. Whether or not this suits our colleagues in Washington, the relevant INF Treaty provision was formulated in this manner, and the parties therefore cannot and should not ignore this aspect.

At the same time, we don’t focus solely on legal nuances, and we also try to look deep inside the issue. In effect, a new class of weapons has essentially been developed, and this is a substantial factor. This class of weapons has nearly the same combat potential as GLCMs and can accomplish tasks similar to those previously accomplished by ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

In turn, the United States presents armed UAVs as part of another class of military systems, noting that, unlike cruise missiles, UAVs do not use launchers and return to their permanent bases after completing missions.

Therefore the United States is trying to remove an entire class of weapons systems, similar to intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles (in the terms of the INF Treaty), from the scope of the INF Treaty using a method that does not meet its provisions. This approach obviously runs counter to the Treaty’s goals, especially if we consider the impressive size of the fleet of armed UAVs currently wielded by the United States.

It would be appropriate to recall that, while defining the term GLCM, the Treaty makes no mention of launchers, as well as their one-time or multiple use. Therefore the US position runs counter to the letter and spirit of the INF Treaty and amounts to a unilateral and bad-faith interpretation of Treaty provisions.

Despite our longtime appeals, the United States stubbornly refuses to address this matter within the framework of the Treaty, virtually ignoring the Russian concern.

Instead, the US side has recently started pointing to the development of armed UAVs in Russia. This allegedly confirms the fact that, in reality, Russia shares US approaches towards this issue. This is not so, if only because Russia does not deploy systems of this class that are banned by the Treaty in terms of their range. Regarding current research and development projects, we can counter our US colleagues’ logic with regard to their own military programmes: The INF Treaty does not ban research and development projects. Russia will make hypothetical decisions on the further development of UAV systems with due account of its unsuccessful 18-year-long attempts to resolve this issue with the United States in the context of the INF Treaty and Washington’s actions to prepare to withdraw from the Treaty.



Russian claims: target missiles

Another problem that remains unresolved has to do with the large-scale programmes by the Pentagon to use the so-called target missiles during what is presented as missile defence tests. This is one of the longest standing concerns Russia has had regarding the INF Treaty, since it dates back almost 20 years. The essence of this objection is that in terms of both compliance with the Treaty, as well as out of practical and technical considerations Russia has every reason to suspect that under the guise of these programmes the US is working on maintaining and developing technological, industrial and to some extent combat capabilities of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles that are banned by the INF Treaty.

Using tests of missile defence information systems as a pretext, the Pentagon has carried out multiple launches of various target missiles, which are de facto missiles systems with a range between 500 to 5,500 kilometres, without intercepting them with missile defence assets, but instead covering the whole missile flight cycle, i.e. from the launch to the impact of the reentering payload. Moreover, this payload has all the features of re-entry vehicles and sometimes includes manoeuvring re-entry vehicles, deception targets, etc.

When developing the so-called targets for its missile defence system the US creates, first of all, missiles that are identical to those falling under the scope of the INF Treaty in terms of their range, speed, control mechanisms, as well as weight and dimensions of the re-entry vehicle. As a matter of fact, a missile of this kind becomes a target only when it is targeted by a launched interceptor missile, but quite often this is not the case. This device must be viewed as an ordinary ballistic missile during its production, transportation and operation by the armed forces until the moment when it is launched as a target missile for an interceptor.

Nevertheless, the US claims that target missiles are not weapon-delivery vehicles since they are not tested as such and for this reason their use does not fall under the ban imposed by the Treaty, subject to complying with the corresponding restrictions it stipulates. Among other things, they claim to be using booster systems of this kind only for “research and development purposes to test objects” other than the booster systems themselves.

We cannot agree with this argument, since launches of target missiles that are not intercepted are equivalent to testing weapon-delivery vehicles. Therefore, we have every reason to regard activity of this kind as tests of the booster systems themselves and precisely as weapon-delivery vehicles, meaning intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles as per the INF Treaty.

The US has failed to comply with a number of other Treaty provisions as well. In fact, mobile units that have all the markings of the banned mobile launcher mechanisms are being created for some target missiles apart from fixed launchers that are authorised for such booster systems.

Moreover, in violation of restrictions set forth by the Treaty, in some cases target missiles are launched outside of the launch sites declared under the INF Treaty and without notifying Russia as per the Treaty.

The US has clearly got lost in its own data transferred to us as part of technical data exchange. For example, to a question on whether booster system HERA was launched within the range exceeding 500 kilometres we received two contradictory responses.

The US has not made any attempts to meet us halfway regarding its target missiles.



Russian claims: Мk-41

Another Russian complaint about US actions was also formulated many years ago, though not as long as the previous complaints. This problem became apparent 10 years after the work of the INF’s Special Verification Commission was curtailed in 2003 due to the counterproductive course of the Americans who refused to continue discussions on Russia’s concerns about armed UAVs and target missiles. This is why this matter, which emerged in 2013-2014 and is of the greatest concern for us within the context of the INF Treaty, was raised by us in the bilateral format.

I am referring to the deployment of the Мk-41 universal vertical launcher as part of the Aegis Ashore missile systems in Europe, allegedly for purely anti-missile purposes. However, contrary to the INF Treaty, the Mk-41 system can be used to launch ground-based Tomahawk intermediate-range cruise missiles and other strike weapons. We see this as a direct and flagrant violation of the INF Treaty.

As it is known, in accordance with the Treaty the US had destroyed its land-based infrastructure for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were created within a single programme as a universal missile system that could be launched from different platform. The ground- and sea-based Tomahawk missiles were largely identical with nearly no external differences. This subject became a contentious one at the INF talks. US delegates agreed that land-based Tomahawks could be considered as sea-launched missiles when on ships and vice versa. At the same time, they argued that the key element in this case is not the missile itself but its launcher.

The problem was ultimately settled thanks to a compromise understanding that the complete destruction of the land-based infrastructure for the Tomahawk missiles would reliably prevent their deployment on land while preserving the sea-based variant.

But today, several decades later, the US is actually restoring this land-based infrastructure contrary to the INF Treaty and the understandings reached during its elaboration that allowed the sides to agree on the relevant provisions in the form in which they have been incorporated in the text.

Consequently, we cannot accept the US argument that the Aegis Ashore launchers have never been used to test the land-based cruise missiles prohibited under the INF Treaty and that therefore they cannot be essentially regarded as launchers for land-based cruise missiles in the Treaty’s context. In light of the above, the transfer of the Tomahawk cruise missile launchers from ships to land definitely results in their shifting to the category of land-based cruise missile launchers.

Another US argument is that the Aegis Ashore launchers are not equivalent to but are fundamentally different from the sea-based Mk-41 launchers. This argument contradicts the initial information provided by the US military as well as by the designers of the Aegis Ashore system and those who tested it. They pointed out then that the land- and sea-based launchers were “nearly identical”.

We are not convinced by the US presentation of the Aegis Ashore launchers as incapable of launching Tomahawk missiles. The external physical characteristics of these launchers seem the same. The potential absence of certain elements of the sea-based Mk-41 launcher in the Aegis Ashore systems, which the US points out, does not have any decisive significance in this case. First, we are unable to reliably verify the allegedly considerable differences between the sea- and land-based launchers and we cannot be sure that these hypothetical characteristics will not be changed in future.

Second, the parts which the US claims to be absent in the Aegis Ashore launchers as compared to the sea-based Mk-41 launchers are insignificant from the viewpoint of the system’s structural integrity, whereas corresponding changes could be reversed within a short period of time. Consequently, the absence of these parts is not a sufficient reason to say that a system initially designed to launch intermediate-range cruise missiles with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km cannot be used in other missions. Therefore, we consider the sea-based Mk-41 launchers and the Aegis Ashore launchers to be identical.

This matter is important not only from the viewpoint of the legal framework but also for strategic reasons. It concerns the deployment of the US missile and anti-missile infrastructure near the Russian borders with support from the US allies in NATO. Moreover, this infrastructure is being established in a region where it never existed before. The situation is further complicated by the US announcement of plans to restore the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile capability, possibly by reintroducing nuclear Tomahawks. This means that such missiles could in future be supplied to the Aegis Ashore systems. These are extremely destabilising steps which could not remain unanswered.

Just as in the case of our other concerns, the US has not made any constructive moves regarding the matter of the Mk-41, not to mention any practical proposals on the settlement of this subject.

To sum up, we have to say that no positive changes have taken place over the past years in the US position on any of these Russian complaints. The American side refuses to seriously consider our concerns.



US preparing to withdraw from INF Treaty

Now that we have sorted out the substance of mutual claims in the context of the INF Treaty, let us go back to the topic of US withdrawal from the Treaty. Having stated it publicly, the US has confirmed its intention in the bilateral format as well. We understand it is now only a question of time.

It has to be said that Washington has been preparing this step in a fairly open and methodical manner, so it did not come as a surprise to us. The US Congress has over the past years been actively preparing the legal framework, needless to say, under the pretext of alleged Russian “violations.”

The same pretext was used, among others, by the US Administration to introduce amendments to its military-political doctrine, designating Russia, along with China, as the main geostrategic threat.

Long before unveiling the plans to pull out of the INF Treaty the US announced the launching of several military programmes, some of which are highly provocative and are clearly aimed at destroying the Treaty. Indeed, according to the media, the Pentagon had prepared a confidential report to Congress back in 2013 presenting options for new missiles in the event of withdrawal from the INF Treaty. Work on many of the proposed projects has long been under way.

For example, a programme was launched with Congress approval to build a ground-launched cruise missile exceeding the range stipulated under the Treaty. Ballistic missiles are being developed for ground complexes with an initial declared range of 499 km. Apart from the fact that this parameter is by itself provocative in the context of the INF Treaty, it was also openly declared that the range could be further increased “if necessary.” R&D has been announced to be in progress on a ground-based missile with a glide re-entry vehicle with a range of about 2,000 km and a “hybrid” system combining an artillery piece and some missile-like projectiles with a range of 1,600 km.

Some of these programmes definitely violate the INF Treaty. Others have yet to be analysed thoroughly as details become known, though it is clear that they run counter to the spirit of the Treaty and some of them to its goals and tasks.







Real reasons for US withdrawal from the Treaty

Meanwhile the statements by some US officials and numerous State Department propaganda materials plug the line that Washington is being forced to withdraw from the Treaty in response to alleged Russian “violations.”

This sounds particularly odd against the background of the rhetoric coming from other American agencies, including the National Security Council, and the statements by the US President which name the real reason for the move more forthrightly. Behind the glib language of our American colleagues one can clearly discern the US desire to get a free hand and an opportunity to use an unlimited range of military instruments for a full-scale projection of force and military-political pressure on all the key geopolitical opponents of the US in strategically important regions. Washington lays special emphasis on the Asia Pacific Region where, in the Pentagon’s opinion, it is becoming increasingly difficult to marshal sufficient military capacity to brazenly assert American interests.

In this context, we note that the new US nuclear doctrine justifies the project of recreating the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile capability by citing the alleged need to react to Russia’s “non-compliance” with the INF Treaty. However, the majority of “hawkish” experts build the case for such US weapons by pointing not to Russia, but above all to the Asia Pacific Region.

Incidentally, this means that as far as Russia is concerned the dumping of the INF Treaty would greatly complicate the security situation in two strategically important regions, in Europe and the Asia Pacific Region. This surely gives cause for concern.

In addition to seeking to gain military advantages in the main theatres there is yet another reason prompting the US to withdraw from the INF Treaty and take other destabilising steps in the strategic sphere. This reason is Washington’s overriding reluctance to discuss this and other issues on the basis of equality and respect for the legitimate interests and concerns of the other parties. Unfortunately, an allergy to painstaking diplomatic work and negotiated decisions has become a hallmark of the policy of the US which tends to react in an increasingly nervous and impulsive manner to its waning dominance in the emerging polycentric world.

American defence industry corporations are active supporters and obvious beneficiaries of the scrapping of the INF Treaty. In addition to landing massive domestic military contracts they hope to expand the international market, not least by undermining the competitive potential of Russian defence enterprises. Washington feels that their overall weakening could slow down the modernisation of Russia’s armed forces. These are the tasks that prompt the growing sanctions pressure on our defence enterprises allegedly as “punishment” for the production of weapons that fall foul of the INF Treaty.

It is worth noting that the US propaganda campaign accusing us of violating the INF Treaty dovetails with Washington’s overall strategy of bringing political, military and economic pressure on our country and its “containment.”

The United States evidently sees as another priority the strengthening of the links with its allies, which have loosened somewhat. It is hard to think of a more convenient pretext for rallying in the face of a common threat posed by the Russian missiles which allegedly exceed the range stipulated under the INF Treaty, and therefore are allegedly targeted at the key countries of “Old Europe.”

We have noted media reports to the effect that the US has for years been urging its NATO allies, not without success, to develop options of a military “response” to alleged “Russian violations” of the INF Treaty. These include the option of “expanding nuclear deterrence.” We would like to issue a warning: such a development would be an extremely destabilising step which we would have to take into account in our own military development.



Russia's efforts to support the INF Treaty

It is clear in this situation, that Russia's ability to prevent the collapse of the INF Treaty is small.

It is also regrettable that our efforts within international platforms to form a broad coalition of countries to jointly advocate the salvation of the Treaty have not yet gained a sufficient number of supporters. In particular, our attempt to submit a draft resolution supporting the INF Treaty for consideration by the First Committee of the UN General Assembly did not receive adequate support. We are completely bewildered that some countries, while advocating the Treaty in words, used some far-fetched procedural pretext to refuse to substantively discuss the Russian document, which focuses on a constructive call for the preservation and strict observance of the INF Treaty.

We took note that almost all NATO and European Union countries opposed our draft. It was their vote that blocked any consideration of the document. This approach makes one doubt the sincerity of statements in support of the Treaty voiced by many European capitals and their awareness of the seriousness of the situation.

At the same time, we are grateful to those countries that considered it important to join our efforts in the First Committee, especially our allies in the CSTO.

We would also like to draw attention to the joint statement on the INF Treaty adopted on June 11 by the CSTO foreign ministers. It expresses collective concerns regarding US military programmes that are carried out without due regard for their obligations under the Treaty, and calls for efforts to resolve problematic issues. In the CSTO Collective Security Council Declaration, adopted on November 8 at the top level, the member states expressed concern over the announcement of the US intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty and called for maintaining the treaty. As a reminder, two other CSTO member countries are parties to the Treaty alongside Russia – Belarus and Kazakhstan.

We have also appreciated China’s support of our draft resolution on the INF Treaty, as they are fully aware of the motives behind the US decision. After all, it is hard not to notice Washington’s obsession with linking the “Chinese factor” also to the INF Treaty. The awkward attempts to drive a wedge between Russia and China are visible and obvious. We will not allow this, of course. Moreover, Washington’s potential flexing of its nuclear muscles in the Asia-Pacific region without INF Treaty restrictions would pose many shared challenges to our two countries.

At the same time, we do not intend to speculate on the topic of Beijing joining hypothetical agreements in this area which have been grossly planted by the US. We are adamant that any attempts at blackmail are unacceptable – these issues can only be resolved through consensus and consideration for the legitimate interests of all parties.

Based on our contact with our Chinese friends and public statements by China’s representatives, we know that Beijing fully shares our fears about the disastrous consequences that are possible with the collapse of the INF Treaty.



Consequences of abolishing the INF Treaty

Our concern is linked not only to the dramatically growing risks for regional and global security. These risks are largely self-evident; after all, it is clear that the main threat is about entire regions sliding into an arms race, which this time will be multilateral and at a new technological level.

The fact that the destruction of the INF Treaty can provoke an accelerated erosion of the entire arms control and non-proliferation architecture also causes grave concern. For example, the concept of the New START Treaty is being undermined at a time when the treaty is undergoing a test of strength as it is in view of its lax implementation by the US, which in addition is intentionally creating vagueness with regard to extending this agreement.

The international community is yet to assess the full extent of the negative impact that the scrapping of the INF Treaty will have on prospects for further nuclear arms reductions and the effort to ensure the stability of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In this context, we cannot but draw an analogy with the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty undertaken by Washington some time ago to the detriment of strategic stability and in spite of appeals by the overwhelming majority of countries. The destructive consequences of this step for our bilateral relations with the US, interaction with NATO countries and international security as a whole have not been overcome to this day.



What is next?

Much depends on what the US will do next, that is, after its announced withdrawal from the INF Treaty. If Washington goes ahead with deploying its newly developed weapon systems in various regions, the growth of dangerous tensions in the world will become inevitable.

We will be unable to ignore the potential deployment of new US missiles in territories from which they will present a threat to Russia and its allies. Should these deployments take place, the Americans will acquire a considerable additional potential for delivering strikes at targets deep in Russia’s territory. For us, this potential will, in fact, be strategic. We would not want to push things as far as new “missile crises.” We’ve lived through all that and are confident that not a single country will benefit from developments following this scenario, while general security will certainly lose.

If, however, Washington rethinks its destructive approaches and displays readiness for a constructive and truly substantive dialogue on possible coordinated steps to settle the mutual grievances over the INF Treaty, they will not have to persuade us. Although, as was mentioned, the Treaty is not ideal in the current environment, it still preserves its value and we are ready to work on maintaining its viability. Russia is open to any mutually beneficial proposals that take into account the interests and concerns of both sides.

We firmly believe that, given the existing realities, it would be radically counterproductive to destroy one of the key arms control mechanisms. The credibility crisis would reach truly unprecedented proportions and would even further complicate the prospects for launching any system-wide discussion of strategic problems and arms race prevention, a discussion that meets the interests of Russia and the US as well the world community as a whole. We still subscribe to the view that a comprehensive, equitable and result-oriented dialogue is long overdue, given the backlog of problems in this sphere. Our proposals on this score were conveyed back at the Russian-US summit in Helsinki in July of this year. We would like to hope that Washington will after all display the political will and respond to our initiative in a constructive way.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420936
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old January 22nd, 2019 #540
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Most personal and non-personal events have not been translated to English.





Personal events:


26 November 2018

Telephone conversation of M. Bogdanov with Acting Prime Minister of Lebanon S. Hariri - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420234

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Palestine in Moscow A. Nofal - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420250

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the appointed Ambassador of the Republic of Madagascar in Moscow Ing Vahom Zafilahy - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420664

Meeting of S. Vershinin with the Ambassador of Iran to Russia M. Sanai - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420728

Meeting of G. Karasin with heads of diplomatic missions of Central Asian states in the Russian Federation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421039

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the appointed Ambassador of Ethiopia in Moscow A. Tegen - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421505

Conversation of S. Vershinin with Director of the Third Political Department of the German Foreign Ministry F. Akkermann - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421495

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the representative of the leadership of the Syrian opposition Front for Change and Liberation, the head of the "Moscow Platform" of the Syrian opposition K. Jamil - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421515

Speech by M. Ulyanov at the session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East, Vienna, 22-23 November 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421557


27 November 2018

Speech by A. Lukashevich at a special meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the Ukrainian military provocation in the Black Sea and violation of international law, Vienna, November 26, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421681

Speech of Acting Permanent Representative D. Polyansky during a meeting of the UN Security Council convened on a reciprocal initiative by the United States and Ukraine to discuss the incident in the Kerch Strait - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421707

Speech by D. Polyansky before procedural voting at the UN Security Council meeting in connection with the violation of the state border of the Russian Federation in the Kerch Strait region by the Ukrainian Navy - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421717

Speech by D. Polyansky after a procedural vote at a meeting of the UN Security Council in connection with the violation of the state border of the Russian Federation in the Kerch Strait region by the Ukrainian Navy - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421727

Meeting of G. Karasin with the co-chairs of the Geneva discussions on Transcaucasia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421945

Meeting of S. Vershinin with UN Special Envoy for Myanmar K. Schraner-Burgener - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422291


28 November 2018

Welcoming words by G. Karasin at the “Russia-Kazakhstan round table”: horizons of strategic partnership ”, Moscow, November 28, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422965

Meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry of G. Karasin and First Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia A. Gorovoy with the ambassadors of the CIS member states - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423222

Speech By M. Ulyanov at the parallel event of the industrial development Council of the United Nations industrial development Organization (UNIDO) on the issue holding global summit of production and industrialization (Yekaterinburg, July 2019), Vienna, November 27, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423246

Speech by M. Ulyanov at the opening of the 46th session of the Industrial Development Board of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna, November 26, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423339

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Sudan in Moscow N. Babicker - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423537

Consultations of A. Grushko in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423631


29 November 2018

Speech by A. Pankin at the International Conference on Humanitarian Law "150th anniversary of the St. Petersburg Declaration on the prohibition of the use of certain explosive shells during the war: new contexts, former significance" on the theme "Russia's historical contribution to the formation and development of humanitarian law", St. Petersburg, November 29, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3439197

Meeting of I. Morgulov with the Ambassador of Afghanistan in Moscow A. Kuchay - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424133

Meeting at the Foreign Ministry of M. Bogdanov and Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation G. Kalamanov with President, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the African Export-Import Bank B. Orama - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424143

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Mauritania in Moscow S. Taleb Amar - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424225

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Morocco in Moscow A. Lesheheb - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424235


30 November 2018

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Minister for Social Equality of Israel G. Gamliel - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424708

Speech of A. Lukashevich at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in response to the reports of the head of the SMM in Ukraine E. Apakan and the special representative of the OSCE in the CG for Ukraine M. Saidik, Vienna, November 29, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424733

Consultations of A. Grushko with the Deputy Secretary of the Vatican on relations with states A. Kamilleri - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424767

Meeting of O. Syromolotov with the Director General of the General Directorate for Multilateral Relations and International Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba R. Reyes Rodriguez - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424801

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the Ambassador of Egypt in Moscow I. Nasr - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424875

Meeting of M. Bogdanov with the personal representative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Lebanese Republic Z. Shaaban - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424885







Non-personal events:





Foreign Ministry Statement



26 November 2018 - 14:45



The Foreign Ministry hereby issues a strong protest against the gross violation of the rules of peaceful passage in the territorial waters of ​​the Russian Federation in the Black Sea by Ukrainian naval ships, that took place on November 25, 2018. Russia has lodged a demand for an urgent UN Security Council meeting to discuss the current situation.

Russia has repeatedly warned the Kiev regime and its Western patrons about the danger of inflating artificial hysteria in connection with the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait. Clearly, this is a well-thought-out provocation that took place in a predetermined place and form and is aimed at creating another hotbed of tension in that region and a pretext for stepping up sanctions against Russia. Clearly, all of this was also designed to distract attention from the domestic political problems that exist in Ukraine. This assumption is further corroborated by Kiev’s plans to impose martial law in the country, a move which is odious in the light of the upcoming presidential elections in the spring of 2019.

We are also outraged by the Ukrainian radicals unleashing another attack on Russia’s diplomatic missions, and the damage it caused. We demand that Kiev bring those responsible to justice and ensure the unconditional inviolability of the Russian Embassy and Consulate Generals in Ukraine in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

We are hereby issuing a warning to Ukraine that Kiev’s policy, pursued in coordination with the United States and the EU, that seeks to provoke a conflict with Russia in the waters of the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea is fraught with serious consequences. The Russian Federation will firmly curb any attempts to encroach on its sovereignty and security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420678






Comment by the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department on the chemical attack in Aleppo



26 November 2018 - 17:09



On November 24, Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists located in the Idlib de-escalation zone attacked several residential neighbourhoods in Aleppo, including Khalidiya, al-Zahraa and Nile Street, using shells filled with toxic substances. According to available information, as a result of the attack 73 civilians, mostly women, children and old people were hospitalised with symptoms of acute chemical poisoning (asphyxiation, nausea, damage to the upper respiratory tract, etc.). Eight of the injured are in serious condition. In addition, significant material damage was caused.

Moscow strongly condemns this terrorist attack against Aleppo’s civilians. We have repeatedly issued warnings and tried to draw the attention of the international community to the Idlib militants’ attempts, assisted by the White Helmets activists, to organise provocations involving the use of chemical weapons. According to our information, several dozen tanks with toxic substances, presumably chlorine, were delivered to the province of Idlib for this purpose at the end of October. The last such delivery to villages in close proximity to Aleppo took place on October 30.

In connection with the shelling of Aleppo, the SAR Government sent letters to the UN Secretary General, the UN Security Council Chairman and the OPCW Director General calling for immediate action to investigate the incident and send experts to the scene. It is necessary to make every effort, in the shortest possible time, to find and bring to justice those who have used toxic substances over all these years to intimidate peaceful Syrians.

Without a doubt, the barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo deserves unconditional condemnation and should not go unpunished. We expect that the international community, which has repeatedly declared its categorical rejection of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, will properly respond to this attack. We presume that the OPCW, as the main international body authorised to substantiate the use of toxic substances, will conduct a timely and professional investigation in full compliance with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421029






Joint Statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey on the International Meeting on Syria in Astana, 28-29 November 2018



29 November 2018 - 12:05



The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format:

1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;

2. Highlighted that these principles should be universally respected and that any action that might violate them and undermine achievements of the Astana format should be avoided;

3. Rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighboring countries;

4. Discussed the current situation on the ground in Syria, took stock of the recent developments following their last meeting in Sochi on 30-31 July 2018 and underscored their determination to strengthen their trilateral coordination in light of their agreements;

5. Examined in details the situation in the Idlib de-escalation area and reaffirmed their determination to fully implement the Memorandum on Stabilization of the Situation in the Idlib De-escalation Area of 17 September 2018. In this regard they expressed their concern with the ongoing violations of the ceasefire regime, and declared that, as guarantors of the ceasefire regime, they would step up their efforts to ensure observance with it, including by enhancing work of the Joint Iranian-Russian-Turkish Coordination Center. They stressed the importance of a lasting ceasefire while underlining the necessity to continue effective fight against terrorism. They also emphasized that under no circumstances the creation of the above-mentioned de-escalation area should undermine the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic;

6. Reaffirmed their determination to continue cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL as designated by the UN Security Council. They called upon all armed opposition groups in Syria to completely and immediately dissociate from the above-mentioned terrorist groups;

7. Strongly condemned any use of chemical weapons in Syria and demanded that any reports in this regard should be investigated promptly and professionally in full compliance with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction and by the OPCW as the main international competent authority to establish use of chemical weapons;

8. Underlined their firm conviction that there could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict and that the conflict could be resolved only through the Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process in line with the UN Security Council resolution 2254;

9. Reaffirmed their determination to step up joint efforts to launch the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, that would enjoy support of the Syrian parties, in accordance with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and decided to intensify their consultations on all the levels to finalize its establishment at the soonest possible time;

10. Welcomed the successful development of the "pilot project" within the framework of the Working Group on the release of detainees/abductees and handover of the bodies as well as the identification of missing persons. The release of the detainees on 24 November 2018 constituted a step forward in implementing confidence-building measures between Syrian parties to contribute to the viability of the political process and normalization of the situation on the ground. In this regard they reiterated their commitment to further advance the efforts of the Working group;

11. Emphasized the need to continue all efforts to help all Syrians restore normal and peaceful life as well as alleviate their sufferings. In this regard, they called upon the international community, particularly the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies, to increase their assistance to Syria by providing additional humanitarian aid, restoring humanitarian infrastructure assets, including water and power supply facilities, schools and hospitals;

12. Highlighted the need to create conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to their original places of residence in Syria. They reaffirmed their readiness to continue interaction with all relevant parties, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other specialized international agencies, in particular in the context of rendering assistance to preparing and convening the International conference on Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs);

13. Expressed their appreciation to Mr.Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary-General Special Envoy on Syria, for his efforts to seek peaceful solution for the Syrian crisis and for his constructive interaction and cooperation with the Astana format during his mission;

14. Expressed their sincere gratitude to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, His Excellency Nursultan Nazarbayev and the Kazakh authorities for hosting in Astana the 11th International Meeting on Syria;

15. Decided to hold the next International Meeting on Syria in Astana in early February 2019.


Astana, 29 November 2018




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424004






26 November 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with the glorification in Lithuania of the leader of the “forest brothers” A. Ramanauskas-Vanagas - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3420220

Summoning Chargé d'Affaires ai of Ukraine in the Russian Federation to the MFA of Russia - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421259

Meeting in the Russian Foreign Ministry of a working group for the return of Russian minors to their homeland from Iraq and Syria - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3421274


27 November 2018

On the opening of the 46th session of the Industrial Development Board of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422454

On the next meeting of The Russian-Palestinian working Committee on the Middle East - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3422506


28 November 2018

About the round table at the Russian Foreign Ministry on freedom of expression in the digital environment - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3423198


29 November 2018

Russian assistance to Zimbabwe - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424153


30 November 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia in connection with another Great-Albanian provocation - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424342

About the crash of a pleasure boat on Lake Victoria in Uganda - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3424718
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; January 22nd, 2019 at 07:01 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.
Page generated in 3.10592 seconds.