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

Old November 14th, 2020 #181
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video statement on behalf of the CSTO member states at the UN General Assembly high-level meeting to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the UN, Moscow, September 21, 2020



22 September 2020 - 02:49






Mr Chairman,

Your Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of Collective Security Treaty member states: the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Russian Federation.

Today, we are marking what is truly a momentous occasion. The foundations of our shared global home, the United Nations, were laid 75 years ago. Looking back, we admire the determination demonstrated by the founding fathers of the universal organisation to build a democratic system of international relations. They came together in a shared aspiration to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war, reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, establish conditions for a world order of justice and promote social progress.

Years later, some are inclined to take this landmark achievement for granted. However, it has to be remembered that every step in this direction was a real feat, and Victory over Nazism was the most important of them all. The free nations came together in the face of a horrible tragedy, laying the foundation for putting into practice the ideals that once seemed to be a utopia.

Against this backdrop, attempts to revise history and denigrate the role played by the nations that made a decisive contribution to Victory over fascism are totally absurd. The memory of those who fell during this dark period is sacred. All of us have to be mindful of the lessons of history, honour the exploits of the liberator soldiers and ensure the preservation of monuments erected in their glory.

Unfortunately, the Cold War that started soon after the UN was established prevented it from fully unleashing its creative potential. New hope was born only 44 years later, with the fall of the Berlin wall as a symbol of the geopolitical confrontation between two irreconcilable systems. This was not just about preventing military confrontation, but also overcoming mistrust, inequality and reigning in neo-colonial aspirations, as well as promoting constructive cooperation for the sake of building a shared future.

It is unfortunate that today military conflicts continue unabated in various regions, supplemented by a number of challenging threats the world is facing today: international terrorism, drug trafficking, cybercrime, and climate change. This year, another major challenge was added to this list: the coronavirus pandemic that sparked grave socioeconomic and other crises. In this context, the Russian Federation believes that the UN Secretary-General’s call for a global ceasefire in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic to be extremely timely, and the CSTO member states unanimously supported it.

With every year, responding to these and many other global issues is becoming increasingly challenging, especially as the international community is becoming increasingly fragmented. We believe that this is largely attributable to the fact that some countries are not willing to account for the legitimate interests of other states. They are seeking to impose concepts and standards like the “rules-based world order,” while attempting to meddle in the domestic affairs of other states, using unilateral sanctions in violation of the UN Security Council prerogatives, and exhibiting intolerance and hatred.

However, history runs its course. New economic growth centres are affirming themselves on the international stage, the demand for settling armed conflicts by exclusively peaceful means is growing, and connectivity is on the rise. The world is tired of dividing lines, of separating states into friends and foes, and demands stepping up all-encompassing and inclusive mutual assistance and cooperation. In other words, the goals articulated 75 years ago at the founding of the United Nations are becoming increasingly relevant.

This makes it even more important to reaffirm our commitment to the UN Charter and the universally recognised norms of international law, emphasise that there is no alternative to genuine multipolarity and step up collective efforts to find solutions to global issues with the UN playing its central coordinating role.





Mr Chairman,

This anniversary provides us with an occasion to outline the contours of the organisation’s future operations.

In today’s world, the UN must remain an effective structure carrying out coordinated work strictly in keeping with its Charter. We cannot allow the mandates of the main bodies within the UN system to be diluted or have their responsibilities overlap, since this would only set us back from achieving our goals. In its day-to-day operations, the UN should take into consideration the experience of regional organisations like the CSTO.

Peacekeeping operations account for a lion’s share of UN’s achievements. Today, there are high hopes for these operations like never before since they are expected to resolve urgent problems and bring about lasting solutions.

Settling conflicts exclusively by peaceful, political and diplomatic means within the framework of internationally recognised negotiating formats and based on international norms must remain among the main objectives for the international community.

Expanding cooperation in fighting terrorism and its links with organised crime remains an absolute priority. Ensuring international cyber security is becoming increasingly important with the development of information and communications technology that are used to further terrorist, criminal and military ends.

We need to stave off attempts to weaken arms controls, disarmament and non-proliferation frameworks for the sake of global stability. Special attention must be given to fending off transnational threats, including the deployment of foreign terrorist fighters to conflict zones, chemical and biological terrorism, as well as ensuring that outer space is used for peaceful purposes.

The organisation must remain focused on facilitating development, which is an indispensable condition for strengthening peace. It is essential that the decolonisation process, which is complicated by the determination of the former colonial powers to maintain their influence in a new environment, is brought to an end.

Mr Chairman,

To conclude, I would like to emphasise that the future of the organisation is in the hands of its member states. Just like in 1945, we need to cast aside our differences and come together for the sake of delivering on common objectives based on equitable dialogue and the mutual respect for one another’s interests. The UN offers all the necessary conditions to this effect.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4344756






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with the newspaper Kommersant, published on September 22, 2020



22 September 2020 - 11:02







Question:

US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea has said that they offered Russia a good deal and if Russia accepts it, Washington would agree to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which will expire in February 2021. Is there anything positive for Russia in the US offer?



Sergey Ryabkov:

It would certainly be a good deal for the United States itself. Ambassador Billingslea is right in this sense. As for Russia, there are no grounds for making any deal in the format proposed by our Washington colleagues. We believe that the three points advanced by the United States as preconditions for extending the New START are too far-reaching and do not include any positive elements. The offer made by the Americans does not look like a good deal.

For our part, we more than once described a balanced and mutually acceptable framework for future agreements in this sphere during our contacts with the American negotiators. Aware of the difficulties on the path forward in light of how widely different our approaches are, we proposed extending the New START as it was originally signed.

We do not want any unilateral advantages, but we will not make any unilateral concessions either. A deal may be possible if the United States is ready to coordinate a new document on the basis of the balance of interests, parity and without expecting Russia to make unilateral concessions. But this will take time. We can have time to do this if the treaty is extended.



Question:

The United States claims that the sides must coordinate the parameters of a future treaty already now by adopting a framework agreement, which must include the three provisions of concern to them, as you said. First of all, they want the agreement to cover all types of warheads, including tactical, with a system of inspections that will automatically register all warheads going from and to the plants. At the same time, it is not ready to withdraw its tactical weapons from Europe, as Russia demanded. Is this acceptable to Moscow?



Sergey Ryabkov:

These are different questions and it would be conceptually wrong to mix the widely different aspects of this multifaceted situation.

As for the practice of the sides’ permanent on-site inspections at the plants you have mentioned, it has long been abandoned and there are no grounds at all for renewing it. We understand that the Americans would like to resume that old practice by repacking old methods in a different way in the new documents. We held in-depth discussions on this matter during meetings with Marshall Billingslea, and our experts groups discussed it as well. The Americans know very well that there is nothing interesting for us in this proposal.

As for the US idea of controlling all types of warheads, our logic when it comes to this differs seriously, if not dramatically, from the American. We believe that delivery vehicles are at least as important as warheads for the purpose of arms control. Here is a simple example. Just imagine a cannon with five cannonballs (this is a metaphor from the days gone by). Would it be the same if the cannon had ten instead of five cannonballs? The difference is important, of course, but not as important as if we said that we had two cannons and five cannonballs. Two cannons can fire simultaneously. This is exaggerated logic, but I am using it to show that the delivery vehicles and launchers are equally, if not more important than the warheads.

The Americans, who have focused entirely on warheads, are keeping a window of opportunity open for themselves so as to be able to increase their delivery capability. Consequently, there is no parity in this sense, and we therefore do not see this proposal as attractive.

Moreover, the United States has refused to withdraw its non-strategic weapons, that is, free-fall or gravity bombs, from Europe. It is not ready to liquidate their storage infrastructure, so as to be able to quickly redeploy these weapons in Europe if Washington hypothetically agrees to pull them out. The Americans refuse to discuss all aspects of our position on the need to remove this factor, which has direct influence on our security.

Therefore, there are no reasons why we should take part in discussions on non-strategic warheads. The ideology of arms control as it was practiced by our countries during the past decades radically differs from the current US proposals. At the same time, the Americans have not provided any arguments that can convince us to change our approach.



Question:

The second US demand is to strengthen the verification and transparency regime. Marshall Billingslea has more than once said that the New START has serious verification flaws. He said that the treaty gives Russia advantages in this sphere, whereas the United States is not satisfied with the amount of information it receives.



Sergey Ryabkov:

The verification regime of the New START has been adjusted precisely to the goals of the treaty. The regime is quite sufficient for ensuring reliable certainty of the developments. The treaty ensures high-level predictability, and there are no reasons to change anything in this sphere. It is just impossible to imagine any additional measures in this sphere that would be in keeping with our security interests. Therefore, the statements made by Marshall Billingslea amount to a request which, he believes, must be granted because this meets US security interests. We are ready to negotiate. But this is a very complicated matter and very many aspects of it must be clarified.

In any case, there can be no returning to the practice of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The current treaty meets the requirements and the spirit of the time. Now that relations between our countries are very tense and lack mutual trust, I believe that the intrusive verification measures proposed by the American side are unacceptable.



Question:

Third, the United States insists that China must join the treaty that will replace the New START and that this arrangement must be formalised in a framework agreement with Russia. I have read what you told news agencies, that what Marshall Billingslea said was a deliberate distortion of Russia’s position. Ambassador Billingslea said that Russia and the United States agree that a future nuclear arms treaty must include China. Does this mean that Moscow is against separately mentioning China unless the agreement includes a provision on involving Britain and France, which have nuclear weapons as well, in the arms control process?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Beijing’s “obligation” to join the talks is an issue on which we and the Americans have completely different positions. We believe that China should take a decision on this matter separately as a sovereign state. We are aware of every detail of China’s position, which has not changed for a long time. We can understand it and believe that it is a logical position. China is not ready to join trilateral talks with the United States and Russia. We respect its position, but if China shows interest in this format at any time in the future, we will not object, of course. But there cannot be any obligation in this respect. We will just accept any decision China makes as a given. As for the format of the future talks in general, we have clearly indicated that Britain and France as the closest allies of the United States should join them.



Question:

Considering all these differences, I can presume that there are minimal chances of adopting such a framework agreement before the November election in the United States. However, your American colleague has warned that the price of admission would go up after the election, which means that Washington will lay down additional conditions for extending the treaty.



Sergey Ryabkov:

This reminds me of a scene from The Twelve Chairs [by Ilf and Petrov – Ed.], where the main characters sold tickets to see the Drop when there was no charge. Exactly the same situation. You can set any price, but it is not a fact that those who stand or not stand at the entrance will be ready to pay it.



Question:

It seems there has been progress with regard to Russia’s concerns about the conversion of US strategic systems (Moscow had previously said it might not be about any real reductions in ballistic missile launchers for Trident II submarines and B-52H heavy bombers, but rather about re-equipment, and that can be easily reverted to the original configuration). Have any solutions been found?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I was actually surprised this topic has been covered by the American side. We are in the midst of a discussion on this point, and the matter has not been completely cleared. Yes, there is some progress. But, unfortunately, it is not yet clear when the bilateral consultative commission on New START can meet. COVID-19 is putting limitations on our plans. We are working to appoint a date.

As for the problems with the potential conversion of the ballistic missile launchers for Trident II submarines, I can confirm that there is some progress. Yet, taking into account the entire combination of factors, I would prefer not to discuss the details now. There are some remaining questions about the conversion of American heavy bombers – something we have talked about and continue to talk about when we point out that it was illegal for Washington to artificially exempt a significant part of its strategic delivery vehicles from accounts. I don’t know whether we will find a way to reach an agreement in the time that remains, but we are making significant efforts to this end.



Question:

How do you assess the US statement about being ready to begin the reverse conversion of its strategic systems the next day after the expiration of the New START Treaty, if the parties fail to agree on its extension?



Sergey Ryabkov:

This confirms what we are saying: the methods the Americans use in the implementation of the treaty provide them with a significant reversal potential. We have always pointed this out; it is our major concern. A similar situation developed with the now defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). We have repeatedly pointed out that the MK-41 installations can be used to launch cruise missiles (not just interceptor missiles), but the United States did not react to this. And 15 days after the INF Treaty expired, they carried out just such a launch, materially confirming that we had been absolutely right.



Question:

According to Marshall Billingslea, the United States is in any case reluctant to extend New START for five more years. What is the minimum renewal period acceptable for Russia?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We would prefer a five-year extension of course. But if the US is not ready for this – which we regret – a shorter period is possible. But, reasonably shorter. If the New START extension period the United States would be willing to agree is shorter than it would take to agree on anything serious with them for the future, this would be a bad solution. Yet, something is better than nothing.

But again, we are not going to pay their asking price even for a five-year extension, let alone for a shorter period.

We are not determined to prolong the treaty at any cost. We are interested in trying to reach a different agreement on a reciprocal basis, but so far, there is no such readiness on the American side. So by and large, there is no difference when we fail to reach an agreement – right now or a short period after the current New START Treaty’s expiration.



Question:

Joe Biden promised to extend New START for five years if he wins the election. So hypothetically, would it be possible to turn it around in the two weeks after the inauguration of the new US president, scheduled for January 20, before February 5?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We are holding consultations and will continue working on it with full awareness of responsibility for what is happening and the need to focus the political will right now. We are not playing solitaire and trying to guess which cards they will have on their hands in a given situation. We can see that many important events converge at some point in time, such as the inauguration of the President of the United States. It is largely immaterial who that president will be and none of our concern. We will work with the person sworn in on Capitol Hill on January 20 and try to find solutions with them. Accordingly, we are not wasting our time but keep focusing our efforts to finally reach our colleagues in Washington and encourage them to look for solutions rather than impose one-sided approaches on us.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4348327






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the TASS news agency, Moscow, September 22, 2020



22 September 2020 - 18:15






Question:

Our team just returned from Belarus; we have worked there for over a month. Belarus is an urgent issue now. We closely followed statements from Moscow. It was announced more than once that Moscow supports the idea of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko carrying out constitutional reform. If we support this, there must be an idea of when it should happen. Is it a matter of weeks, months, half a year, a year?



Sergey Lavrov:

We support this idea because it was actually proposed by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. We also support it because there is an obvious need for a specific, inclusive venue for a national dialogue in the Republic of Belarus.

As for a time frame and the content of this initiative, as well as who might participate, this must be decided by the Belarusians themselves, and in this context, a dialogue between the government and society in the broad sense of the word is really much in demand.

Mr Lukashenko said that he wants to involve not only official institutions like the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus but also the All-Belarus People's Assembly. This is probably a step that would now be needed for organising a national dialogue. However, it is up to our Belarusian neighbours to make specific decisions on this.



Question:

If this idea is carried out (obviously, a national dialogue is a fragile undertaking), do you think it could have a negative effect if one day Lukashenko announces his intention to run for a new term?



Sergey Lavrov:

Once again, it’s up to Belarusians themselves. I think the first step that is logical for any constitutional reform, is to make the relevant changes and have them approved at a national referendum. This is how it is done everywhere and, as far as I know, this is what is being planned in Belarus. All other issues must be coordinated by the main political forces of the republic under constitutional law like in any other country. These requirements would lay out how an election should be organised.



Question:

Ukraine is our other neighbor. You said last week that the Minsk agreements probably won’t be implemented under the current Ukrainian administration. What will we do in this case – withdraw from the talks or wait another four years? Or, maybe there are alternative options?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is no alternative to the Minsk agreements. This is regularly confirmed by all the participants in the process: France, Germany and the EU. Importantly, the EU said the other day through its High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell that there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements and that they must be fulfilled in full. We completely agree with this. Kiev must realise that this is a clear signal that it is unacceptable to turn the Minsk agreements upside-down and change the succession of them by giving priority to the de facto occupation of separate districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions that have proclaimed themselves the people’s republics.

Under the Minsk agreements, the Ukrainian government has the right to establish control over the entire length of the border as a final step when all the other settlement provisions are implemented. This applies to amnesty, the inclusion of Donbass’ special status in the Ukrainian constitution and the holding of elections based on the foundation that will be agreed upon by Kiev on the one hand and Donetsk and Lugansk, on the other, as envisioned in the Minsk agreements.

Statements by officials to the effect that the Minsk agreements have become obsolete, that they must be revised and more parties must be involved in fulfilling them are an obvious departure from the requirements that were made, in part, by Brussels on the full implementation of the Minsk agreements.



Question:

I cannot help asking about the US. They will soon hold an election as well. Do you think a colour revolution could take place in the US if one of the sides does not recognise the results of the election?



Sergey Lavrov:

It’s not for me to judge. There is a joke that the US will never have a colour revolution because it doesn’t have an American Embassy. Every joke has some truth in it.

Threats and assumptions can be heard, and it is possible that one of the sides will refuse to recognise the results of the election. You know how US President Donald Trump comments on the forthcoming mail-in vote by directly accusing those who would be counting the votes of the intention to distort the results.

There are many suppositions and speculations about the election, but I won’t comment on them or predict anything. We have emphasised many times, including by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, that we will work with any leader that is chosen under US law. Incidentally, there are many questions about this law. There are still debates on why it happened in US history more than once that a nominee who received a majority vote of US citizens, eventually lost the elections because the votes of the Electoral College are distributed in a different way and do not reflect the ratio of the direct votes by the citizens. But this is an American problem. This is the US Constitution and law.

However, we would not want a leading global power like the US to fall into a deep crisis and have any instability in addition to the alarming manifestations of violence and racism that are now observed in different US cities and states.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4348843






Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s answer to a media question about the outcome of the Belgrade-Pristina expert dialogue round



22 September 2020 - 18:45







Question:

What do you think about the inconclusive outcome of the Belgrade-Pristina expert dialogue round that took place in Brussels on September 17 this year?



Alexander Grushko:

There was no meaningful discussion this time either, because of the obstruction by the Kosovars. They again refused to discuss the formation of the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo (CSMK) despite Belgrade’s demand that this key issue be given due attention. Pristina has long pursued this line, openly subverting its commitments on establishing the CSMK since 2013. Judging by everything, the European Union is unable to influence the Kosovars.

Pristina’s intractability and its refusal to conduct a constructive exchange of views with Belgrade on the modalities of the CSMK cast doubt on the effectiveness of the negotiating process when Pristina openly ignores what it itself signed. Will Brussels, authorised by the UN to be a mediator in this process, insist on the Kosovo authorities implementing the agreements signed with EU participation? This question remains open.

We believe the Kosovo issue can be resolved only on the basis of international law, primarily UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The settlement must be endorsed by the UN Security Council because it is a matter of ensuring peace in the very fragile Balkans region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4348963






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Russian sailors captured in the Gulf of Guinea



23 September 2020 - 11:45



The Russian Foreign Ministry expresses its most serious concern at the increased frequency of pirate attacks on ships travelling via the Gulf of Guinea with the aim of taking hostages and obtaining a ransom for their release. According to the Russian Embassy in Nigeria, 27 Russian sailors have been abducted by pirates over the past 18 months. Thanks to the persistent efforts of the Embassy’s diplomats, and ​​coordinated action by the Nigerian authorities and representatives of the ship-owning companies, 22 Russian citizens have been released.

However, three sailors from the merchant ship Rio Mitong (sailing under the flag of the Comoros) and the Djibloho, owned by the Government of Equatorial Guinea, captured by pirates in May 2020, continue to be held captive. The situation of these Russians is of particular concern because the process of their release has been delayed, and the pirates periodically put forward new ultimatums. We are making every effort to have the sailors released as soon as possible.

On September 8, during another pirate attack in the Gulf of Guinea, two more Russians from the Water Phoenix refrigerator ship belonging to the Dutch transport company Seatrade Groningen were taken prisoner by pirates. Hard work is underway to establish contact with the kidnappers.

This said, navigation in that part of ​​the Atlantic has become extremely dangerous and poses a real threat to the lives of those working on contract as part of ship crews in that region. We urge all interested parties, authorities and law enforcement agencies in the Gulf of Guinea states to consolidate their efforts and take effective preventive measures to curb pirate activity.

At the same time, once again, we call on our compatriots to carefully weigh all the risks associated with working on ships bound to travel via the Gulf of Guinea. When making a decision, it is extremely important to consider the potential consequences of being captured by pirates, including the most drastic ones. We also assume that recruitment and employment companies operating in Russia recruiting sailors will react appropriately to the high degree of danger to shipping in that region of the Atlantic.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4349147






Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation regarding Russia's reciprocal list of representatives of EU member states and institutions that are denied entry to the Russian Federation



23 September 2020 - 16:17



The European Union has recently taken a number of unfriendly steps towards our country and Russian citizens. Acting once again in circumvention of existing international legal norms the EU has continued to expand its sanction toolbox and apply it under contrived and at times absurd pretexts.

The Russian Federation has repeatedly cautioned the EU against such a destructive approach. However the European Union has ignored our proposals to engage in a substantive, professional and fact-based dialogue and continues to resort to the language of sanctions.

In response to the actions of the European Union Russia has now decided to expand its reciprocal list of representatives of EU member states and institutions that are denied entry to its territory. The number of the relevant Russian listings has been brought to parity with that of the existing EU list.

The corresponding restrictions are being introduced under Federal Law No. 114-FZ on the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry to the Russian Federation of August 15, 1996.

In line with standing diplomatic practice the EU Delegation in Russia has been formally notified regarding this step by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Russia reserves the right to undertake appropriate measures should the EU persevere with its policy of confrontation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4349296
__________________
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 November 14th, 2020 #182
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, September 23, 2020



23 September 2020 - 18:51






Coronavirus update

Unfortunately, the coronavirus situation is developing in line with the disappointing forecasts that have recently been made by some of the world’s leading epidemiologists and the World Health Organisation itself. We are witnessing an explosive increase in the incidence of the virus with signs of a second, and in some countries, a third wave of the epidemic. The number of those infected is over 31.7 million around the world, so the heavy burden on medical institutions persists.

The fall back to the extremely unfavourable epidemiological situation seen today in a number of countries, which is comparable to late May, cannot help but raise concerns. For more than six months, the pandemic has remained a trial, like a serious test, for all countries without exception.

Russia, while being actively involved in international efforts to counter COVID-19, recognises the leading role of the WHO as a coordinating body which unites every country’s potential to combat the pandemic and makes a significant contribution to promoting the latest medical technology to develop a reliable vaccine and medicines to stop the negative trends of the pandemic. Cooperation between Russia and the WHO is being discussed at the meetings with WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge, who is in Russia on an official visit until September 24.



Russia’s humanitarian aid to Central Asian countries in combating the coronavirus

At previous briefings I have talked about Russian aid to some Central Asian countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. I want to add to this information.

To date, we have sent 700 test kits for 70,000 tests plus the reagents, and six non-contact thermometers to the Republic of Tajikistan. It was decided to send another 500 test kits for 50,000 tests to Tajikistan in the near future. The Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare as well as the World Health Organisation held a joint mission in Tajikistan in May. In June, Russia supplied laboratory equipment to the Gafurov District, Sughd Region, in Tajikistan, where the second republic’s virus treatment laboratory was opened, which makes it possible to test up to 200 people a day for the coronavirus. Six specialists sent by the Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare have been working in the country since July to help it set up PCR laboratories that are needed for COVID-19 diagnosis.

We have supplied Turkmenistan with 690 test kits for 69,000 tests and reagents for preparing specimens for 60,000 tests to raise the level of preparedness for the coronavirus infection and have offered related consultations.

In total, Russia has sent 5,245 test kits for performing 524,500 COVID-19 tests as well as reagents like RIBO-prep and REVERTA-L for 541,500 tests to Central Asian countries without charge since February. At the same time they received 16 non-contact thermometers. We are supplying lung ventilators, oxygen concentrators, non-contact thermometers, personal protection equipment, medicines, antiseptics, food, fuel and lubricants. The mobile laboratories provided pursuant to Russian Government instructions serve as the basis for the virus testing in these partner countries.

The Russian medical workers have been sent to the Central Asian countries on several occasions to give practical and consultative aid and to open PCR laboratories to diagnose the coronavirus. They have made a strong contribution to combating COVID-19.



Evacuation flights completion

For the past six months we have been providing regular and detailed information on our programme to assist Russian citizens in returning home. This programme was designed to assist those who were cornered in other countries due to the coronavirus pandemic and total transport closures. Information on this has been available on our website for several months. The media also ran many stories both positive and challenging due to objective difficulties.

After reviewing this programme over the past six months and the results of the work done to pursue the set tasks, the emergency response centre to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus on Russia's territory decided to end the evacuation flight programme on 21 September. The last flight under the evacuation algorithm will be made from Larnaca, Cyprus to Moscow, Domodedovo, on 25 September. I think that will be a special flight.

As a reminder: national borders were closed one by one all over the world in mid-March. Passenger transport practically came to a complete halt. Hundreds of thousands, and we speak not only about people from Russia, then millions of other countries’ nationals around the world were stranded in foreign countries, away from home, without knowing their fate. Among them were tens of thousands of Russian citizens. Each had a reason for going abroad; each had their own circumstances, but, Russia’s authorities did everything in their power, and sometimes more, to give their compatriots the opportunity to return home.

As you know, everything that happened in this respect was unprecedented. The world has never been in such a situation. And the decisions made to bring Russian citizens home were largely being taken for the first time. We developed a process and adopted algorithms. This entire effort started from scratch. It wasn’t just our country, nobody had experience with this. It is important to remember this.

The Foreign Ministry’s specially established coordination headquarters started operating on March 17, 2020. Its specialists focused on the evacuation of organised tourist groups and also helped private individuals return home to Russia.

Concerted efforts by the Federal Agency for Tourism, tour operators and carriers made it possible to quickly return about 190,000 Russian tourists by around the end of March. It became necessary to draft a special algorithm for accomplishing the second task. Introduced on April 7, the algorithm combined highly important factors, such as a striving to prevent the “importation” of the coronavirus infection from abroad and a striving to support and repatriate Russian citizens abroad.

National ministries and agencies, including the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, the Ministry of Transport, Rospotrebnadzor, the Federal Security Service’s Border Service and the Interior Ministry, as well as public institutions, volunteers and benefactors, helped implement the algorithm. We would like to thank them all. I would like to separately mention the federal and regional commissioners for human and children’s rights, the Presidential Human Rights Council, deputies and senators. It is also important to note the efforts of the regional authorities that managed to quickly adapt to the unprecedented conditions and displayed maximum possible flexibility for repatriating their residents and preventing the spread of the coronavirus infection in their regions, while complying with all the existing restrictions.

In all, over 312,000 people took advantage of the opportunity to return home during the pandemic.

Russian carriers alone have conducted over 570 evacuation flights since the algorithm’s introduction on April 7. This implies shuttle flights from Point A to Point B. These flights often merged into more complicated routes for streamlining logistics and evacuating as many compatriots back to Russia as possible. There were also numerous special flights for rotating sailors or employees of foreign production facilities, as well as foreign carriers’ flights for expediting the repatriation of Russian citizens, and lots more.

There were over 250 such flights. Nor should one forget about nominal flights in late March when regular flights still continued; however, they were already counted as evacuation flights.

These flights encompassed many regions. Evacuation flights covered virtually all continents, including Latin America and even Africa. This amounted to over 70 countries and about 100 departure points. Russian diplomatic missions and the Foreign Ministry’s central administration studied special transit plans whenever it became impossible to directly evacuate compatriots.

Foreign Ministry officials accompanied passengers 24 hours a day at every leg of various routes, regardless of jet lag or time zones. They did this, although they were exhausted and despite difficulties, and they addressed diverse matters, including financial and immigration aspects.

Foreign citizens could also use evacuation flights under existing sanitary-epidemiological restrictions. We launched particularly constructive cooperation with CIS countries that repeatedly thanked us for helping repatriate their citizens.

We are also grateful to everyone who helped us. We implemented the most active mutual assistance plans while repatriating Russian citizens from the CIS, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

The conclusion of evacuation flights means that the current algorithm, linked with a special procedure for compiling passenger lists, the timeframe of flights and formulating the pricing policy, will be terminated. According to the emergency response centre’s explanations, aircraft returning back to Russia after freight, freight-and-passenger and transit flights will be used on a commercial basis as an alternative to evacuation flights. They will be used apart from more or less regular flights from 11 countries, namely, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Tanzania, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, the Maldives, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and the Republic of Korea (as of September 27). How to book tickets will be specified soon. At the same time, all current sanitary-epidemiological norms, including COVID tests for foreigners and the need to fill out the required documents upon arrival, remain in force.

In elaboration of the emergency response centre’s recommendations, I would like to note that, in the current situation, the risks of new transport restrictions and new lockdown measures still persist.

This is fraught with the prospects of becoming indefinitely stranded abroad and being unable to leave the territory of any specific country. We are urging everyone to plan their trips in the most responsible manner and to do their very best to prevent the above-mentioned risks. For example, people should buy high-quality and long-duration medical insurance policies for themselves and their families. Nor should they travel without return tickets, and they should also reserve contingency funds needed to cover their expenses while staying abroad in case of an emergency situation.

In conclusion, I would like to express hope that the evacuation programme, due to end this week, will go down in history as an unprecedented and, most importantly, one-time event. All of us, including Russian citizens and compatriots experienced bitterness, pain and sometimes the lack of understanding over a period of the past six months.

However, all this was completely compensated by the joy of coming home and reuniting with families, the joy of children who saw their parents after a long period of separation. As I see it, none of us wants to experience all this over again. There are more pleasant and more important reasons for being happy.

The global pandemic situation remains tense. We often discuss this, and we should not forget about it. The chances are that the lessons, learned from the “first wave,” will make it possible to draw the right conclusions and prevent a repetition of these events.



Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s working visit to Russia

........................................................................................................


Informal meeting of Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation member states

........................................................................................................


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Deputy Prime Minister of Cuba Ricardo Cabrisas

........................................................................................................



Foreign Ministry Statement on Russia’s parity-based list of representatives of EU member states and European institutions banned from entry to the Russian Federation

The European Union has recently made a number of unfriendly steps in relation to our country and Russian citizens. As before, bypassing the accepted international norms, the EU continues to expand the scope of its sanctions and apply them under far-fetched and sometimes even absurd pretexts.

The European Union has been repeatedly cautioned about this destructive approach. However, the EU has ignored our invitations to a substantive, professional and facts-based dialogue and continues to speak the language of sanctions.

In response to the European Union’s actions, the Russian side has made a decision to reciprocally expand the list of representatives of the EU member states and EU institutions that are banned from entry to the Russian Federation. The number of persons on the Russian list has been brought to parity with a similar list drawn up by the European Union.

The restrictions were introduced in accordance with Federal Law No. 114-FZ on the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry to the Russian Federation of August 15, 1996.

In line with standing diplomatic practice, the Foreign Ministry has formally notified the EU Delegation in Russia regarding this step.

If the EU perseveres with this policy of confrontation, we reserve the right to take appropriate response measures.

I would like to emphasise that this step was caused by the increasingly open manifestations of the EU’s confrontational policy with respect to Russia. We reserve the right to take further measures if Brussels takes the path of further increasing sanctions pressure on our country and Russian citizens.



Situation around Alexey Navalny

We are all witnessing how the West, Western leaders, officials, integration institutions and associations led by the respective Western states have launched a massive misinformation campaign concerning the situation with a Russian citizen, Alexey Navalny. The German political elite has expressed concern over what had happened in an aggressive manner. In particular, Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about an “attempt to silence” Navalny. German parliamentarians mention the “aggressive regime” in Russia that is allegedly trying to advance its own interests by using violence and breaking international law.

On September 4, foreign ministers of Germany and France, Heiko Maas and Jean-Yves Le Drian, said in a joint communiqué that they were “both appalled by this attack on Mr Navalny, which constitutes a most serious blow to the basic principles of democracy and political pluralism.”

The policy of hardline accusations was quickly picked up by other Western countries. In particular, French President Emmanuel Macron qualified the incident as “attempted murder” and demanded that Russia “urgently shed light” on “the circumstances of this attempted murder and who is responsible.” The French President even used the UN platform to make public comments on the matter.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in unison with his European colleagues, threatened to impose more sanctions on Russia for the alleged use of a chemical weapon against Alexey Navalny.

We consider this kind of rhetoric unacceptable. There is no and can’t be any evidence to support Russia’s involvement, no “Russian trace,” as they put it, in what has happened. We have to state with regret that it is not the first time the US diplomacy has built its position on unconfirmed rumours. I would say the US State Department is the agency that is most vigorously engaged in public speculation.

Once again, the United States and its European allies, for purely political reasons, have deliberately aggravated their relations with Russia, preferring a policy of escalating system-wide confrontation to constructive partnership. Unfortunately, this pattern of behaviour is increasingly becoming their new normal.

Washington is not showing even the slightest interest in moving away from its stereotypes. Had it been otherwise, instead of groundless accusations and threats against Russia, they would have long advised their German colleagues Washington continues to exert strong pressure on to satisfy the repeated requests from the Russian Prosecutor General's Office for legal assistance and for the documents Russia has requested. None of the public statements made by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contain any such calls to the German authorities. At the same time, we are registering endless calls from the American side at different levels to the German side, such as to halt the Nord Stream 2 project. Isn't that interesting?

In this context, I would like to clarify how things stand in reality using a few specific facts as examples. As I said, the German authorities have still not responded to the official requests of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office to provide practical support to the Russian law enforcement agencies in their pre-investigation inquiry into the facts concerning Alexey Navalny’s emergency hospitalisation in Omsk on August 20. A corresponding request was sent to Germany’s Federal Office of Justice on August 27 and September 14 in line with the European Convention on Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 and the Protocols thereto.

Berlin has still not provided any biological samples from Alexey Navalny or the results of their tests, which German military doctors believe contain traces of the so-called Novichok class poison; they have not provided any information about the nature of the treatment the Russian citizen received in the Charite clinic in this connection. The German side gave no assistance in organising a meeting between investigators from the Russian Interior Ministry and Mr Navalny.

All of the above evidence is crucial for the aforementioned pre-investigation check, which cannot be completed; according to the Russian legal procedure, it is an indispensable precondition to opening a criminal case with regard to the alleged poisoning of Navalny – something the German side keeps insisting on as an ultimatum. Russian law enforcement agencies have repeatedly confirmed their readiness to consider and take into account all the data and materials available to the German doctors that they believe is evidence of a crime committed against a Russian citizen. But Berlin does not seem to be in a hurry to share them, while simultaneously declaring the need for immediate action on the Russian side. The situation is grave, but Moscow has neither grounds nor intentions to take Berlin’s word for it. This must be understood.

On the whole, it seems that our German counterparts are using deliberate tactics and intentionally wasting time in responding to the Russian Prosecutor General's Office’s requests, citing various excuses each time we remind them about it. We believe this is all being done, among other things, to keep the idea of Russia’s alleged unwillingness to clarify the reasons that caused Navalny's dire health condition afloat in the international information space. We would like to declare with full responsibility that such statements are false. While waiting for the information requested from Berlin, the Russian Ministry of the Interior has even extended the timeframe of the mandatory pre-investigation check, while simultaneously carrying out a scope of investigative actions and intelligence-gathering activities. About 200 people have been questioned. We would like to emphasise once again that the key to completing the investigation lies with the German authorities. In this case, everything depends on Berlin. I would very much like the German media to put special emphasis on this.

Statements by German officials are also in line with this counterproductive policy, as they suggest the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the only authority Russia should request for the relevant biomaterials and documents. Now I would like to ask our German colleagues a direct question: does this mean the German side is refusing to respond to requests from the Russian Prosecutor General's Office for legal assistance? This is not a rhetorical question and we would certainly like to hear a clear answer.



US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s statements on the formation of a coalition against Nord Stream 2

We have taken note of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent interview with the German Bild. I’d like to emphasise what I’ve just said. Our US colleagues are going all-out to brainwash Berlin. They have been doing this regarding Nord Stream 2 for many years in different ways: first, their previous ambassador led the way, then the media, and now the US Secretary of State has joined in.

In this interview Mr Pompeo again expressed doubt that Nord Stream 2 will be built at all. I’m tempted to ask him how this project is the United States’ concern. We can look at the map to see where the US and Europe are located. In principle, the answer to this question is obvious. First, the Americans consider everything to be their business. Second, they are particularly concerned about the projects from which the Europeans get direct benefits.

We denounce the appeals to create some coalition against a pipeline in which German and other companies have already invested billions of dollars. By investment we mean not only big capital, transnationals, business flagships and industrial giants but also the investments based on the daily labour of millions of people from different countries. They are the ones who create a real product that later on allows large companies to invest in projects. Mr Pompeo, have you thought about these people, about their future? Or are they unworthy of consideration?

Such statements by Secretary of State Pompeo only reflect the real intentions of Washington, which is trying to take hold of the West European gas market by unfair competition and tie this region to future supplies of its expensive LNG. All this is perfectly clear.

For our part, we reaffirm our strong determination to remain reliable suppliers of energy resources for our partners in Europe. Let me repeat what I have said today. The quality of our cooperation has been tested by decades, not by interviews of US Department of State representatives or statements by politicians that will be forgotten tomorrow. The names of countries and political systems have changed but our energy cooperation with the Europeans has always remained at a high level. We have never let them down.



Statement by the European External Action Service on a verdict by Russian court

We have to state with regret that the practice of distorting facts with a view to misleading the world public is becoming a brand identity of EU diplomacy.

Speaking about recent examples, I would mention the recent press release by the European External Action Service (EEAS) on the verdict issued by the district military court in Rostov-on-Don in a case of seven individuals accused of involvement with a political organisation.

We consider it important to clear up this issue and to do so publicly. The matter deals with the participants of the Crimean cell of the Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. They received different terms in prison for the proven terrorist crimes. Contrary to Brussels’ allegations, their political views, nationality or ethnic origin have nothing to do with the court’s verdict.

This is not the first time we are seeing attempts by our Western partners to divide terrorists into good, bad and moderate guys. Regrettably, residents of the EU countries who have first-hand experience of the horrors of terrorist attacks know what tragic consequences such attempts have.

We resolutely denounce any actions undermining or eroding the efforts of the international community to counter the terrorist threat.

To conclude, I’d like to say that by virtue of its mandate the EEAS is responsible for implementing a common foreign policy of the EU member countries. Since 2003, the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir have been banned by law in Germany, which has always declared its unflagging commitment to the supremacy of law and national judicial procedures. It would be interesting to hear what Berlin thinks about such overt attempts by EU diplomacy to put the said terrorist group on the same footing with a political organisation. This is not a rhetorical question. Or do the ends justify the means and it is possible to simply ignore obvious transgressions of one’s own law when it comes to politicised attacks on our country?

We still hope to receive an answer to this question.



Hearings resume in Assange case

Over the past few days, we have been alarmed to see the developments around the resumed court hearings of the case on extraditing Julian Assange to the United States. The British justice system continues a longtime policy of persecuting the famous journalist, unleashed by Washington.

This September, a London court resumed hearings on Assange’s extradition to the United States. The judge will have to decide whether Washington’s request meets the British-US extradition agreement that does not call for extraditing persons charged with so-called political crimes. The human rights community, the concerned experts, Julian Assange’s colleagues and journalists are convinced that the US-instigated campaign is politically motivated. They fear that a positive decision will be made on the US request. It appears that they have every reason for saying this.

Since Assange’s arrest in April 2020, the US side has brought up an entire array of new serious charges against him, including the organisation of efforts to hack into government computers and a collusion to obtain and disclose information which is reportedly important for national security. Additional provisions of the US lawsuit were made public in June 2020.

At the same time, no one notified Assange’s defence counsels about this. We would like to ask our US and British colleagues: What does this have to do with human rights, democracy and freedom? European agencies could also speak their mind on this score.

Moreover, according to our sources, lawyers were unable to speak with Assange for several months, under the pretext of the coronavirus lockdown. Predictably, the London court turned down a request to deny the new charges.

The journalist who did not commit any crimes has been staying at a maximum-security prison in London for 16 months now. However, doctors are alarmed in connection with his extremely weak physical and mental health, undermined by years of living in isolation at the Embassy of Ecuador to the United Kingdom.

We have repeatedly stated our position regarding human rights and ethical aspects of this case which is turning into an open farce. We believe that Julian Assange is being subjected to rude political short work with elements of torture and efforts to exhaust him. They are accusing the journalist who published authentic information of espionage. As is known, Assange himself never engaged in espionage, and he published information provided by informants from among former US Army service personnel. As a journalist, he has the right to protect his sources of information. I believe that our Western partners know this only too well.

Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dunja Mijatovic, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and former OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir, insisted that the British authorities abstain from extraditing Assange. Most specialised human rights organisations continue to slam the journalist’s persecution.

The professional community unanimously agrees that the inhuman treatment of the Wikileaks chief concerns all journalists without exception and seriously undermines the future of investigative journalism. This persecution of media representatives sends a message to those making short work of undesirable journalists that their actions will go unpunished. This concerns persons following the example of Mafia organisations that ordered the murder of Caruana Galizia, the famous author of an anti-corruption blog, in Malta.

We are urging international agencies and human rights organisations and the professional community to continue exerting every effort to simply save the life of Julian Assange and defend his honour. On the whole, this implies a challenge to the entire professional journalist community.



Latvian Saeima passes first version of a bill banning St George ribbons

The other day, members of Latvia’s Saeima passed the first version of a bill banning the use of St George ribbons. Apart from monuments, the European Union is now fighting ribbons that symbolise WWII and the Great Patriotic War.

We resolutely condemn yet another attempt to revise history and to virtually contest the results of WWII that are not subject to revision.

In effect, this provocative idea is also directed against those Latvians who fought shoulder to shoulder with representatives of other nations for the liberation of Europe and Latvia from Nazi enslavement.

Instead of bowing low to them for a chance to live in peace, members of the Latvian Parliament who have made a legislative motion to ban the St George ribbon symbolising Victory are insulting the memory of these people.



47th anniversary of Guinea-Bissau’s independence

........................................................................................................


Independence Day of the Republic of Botswana

........................................................................................................







Answers to media questions:



Question:

The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stated that Russia or the Soviet Union have never developed, produced or stockpiled toxic chemicals under the Novichok brand, which has become a popular name in the West. However, a number of Russian media outlets, including national media, have published an interview with Leonid Rink, Dr. of Chemical Sciences, who was part of the Novichok development team. Mr Rink said in an interview that a group of specialists worked on Novichok. He said that the Soviet Union or Russia didn’t have a programme for developing chemical weapons named “Novichok,” but claims that the military gave this name to the agent.

Also on September 15, Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin said “it was destroyed” when answering the question on whether Russia is stockpiling Novichok.

Tell me, please, has Russia or the Soviet Union ever developed and produced Novichok, or did this agent exist, but under a different name? What is the Foreign Ministry’s official position on the existence of the Novichok toxic agent in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

You correctly noted that we had repeatedly stated that, unlike the Western countries, neither the Soviet Union nor Russia had ever carried out R&D projects codenamed Novichok. I can only reaffirm that Russia’s position and the state of affairs regarding this matter have not changed.

With regard to numerous deliberations on this matter by private individuals and inaccurate interpretation by the media of the statements made by representatives of the Russian authorities, we believe it is unnecessary to comment on them. I just reiterated our stance to you.



Question:

In his video message on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the UN General Assembly, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that Russia is trying to return to a division of spheres of influence in the world. He also accused Russia of aggression against Ukraine. What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about these statements?



Maria Zakharova:

We are not surprised by yet another bellicose remark by the President of Ukraine and his attempt to scare the world with Russia as a threat to the international community. This is an old and tired cliché, which is still popular. Of course, we reject and condemn the phantasmagoric accusations of the top “servant” of the Ukrainian people about Russia’s alleged plans to re-divide the world. However, it should be noted that by talking about Russia’s attempts to re-divide spheres of influence, Vladimir Zelensky admits that he believes his country is in the sphere of someone else’s (clearly, not Russia’s) influence.

Here’s something else that caught our attention. In his remarks, President Zelensky is clearly proud that the Ukrainian SSR was one of the founding countries of the UN as an independent entity.

Here’s a brief historical overview. We would like to remind Mr Zelensky that Ukraine owes this to the Soviet leaders of that period. The Soviet period was the high point in the prosperous life of that republic, when, thanks to major investments by the Soviet Union, it went from a predominantly agrarian land to a centre of unparalleled industrial and high-tech production and took a dignified place in the family of Soviet peoples.

Thus, no matter how much Mr Zelensky would like to rewrite history and forget about our common roots, the truth will always prevail.



Question:

India refused to take part in multinational military exercises in Russia for no reason. Nine countries take part in these exercises, including China and Pakistan. What does Russia think about India’s decision not to take part in these exercises and the tensions in Ladakh and Northern Kashmir?



Maria Zakharova:

I have regularly commented on the second question. All of my answers remain applicable. In this case I can only reiterate them.

As for the military exercises, you should address our colleagues from the Defence Ministry.



Question:

I’d like to ask you about the US pressure on sovereign countries as regards the implementation of energy projects. Today, you talked about Nord Stream 2 and statements by US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in an interview with Bild. Is there a real risk that some energy projects will be given up, including Nord Stream 2, because there are ambitious attempts to stop them and establish some special coalition for this purpose? We heard today that the ships that are part of building Nord Stream 2 were denied insurance. What is Russia’s response to this conduct? It is clear that Russia is not afraid of these attempts, but other countries are worried and have withdrawn from the project. What needs to be done to complete the construction of the pipeline?



Maria Zakharova:

You talk about the risk. How can it be otherwise? If the United States, one of the world’s largest powers in many areas, is undermining the project, is that a risk or not? I think this is a risk that shows that US political forces spare no money, opportunities or conscience in its all-out bid to prevent this project from being completed. The beginning was fairly innocuous. It was expressed at talks and by statements that mostly emphasised the benefits of the US proposal in the market. However, it ended with direct threats and blackmail. And this is just what the public can see, but I’d like to emphasise that there is also an underwater part of this US campaign, which is not evident to the public. It can be seen by the experts dealing with these issues.

Who is more threatened by the risks you asked about? Of course, the attacks are targeted against the project, the investments and the European countries – not only their government associations but also the nations that were supposed to receive a benefit, certain dividends from Nord Stream 2.

I would like to mention one more aspect that will certainly take a loss. I’m talking about global competition, the foundation of free competition in the current world order. The world economy has been built on this for many years and even decades. For decades, we heard US statements (sometimes they were very loud, even too loud in the early 2000s) about the impossibility of using political instruments for resolving strictly economic issues. You might recall that this was an American concept. The US said that the economy must be free of politics, not to mention pressure, threats and blackmail.

Now all of this is turned upside down. It is the US that is using its arsenal in an anticompetitive struggle to push through its interests. These actions are creating a threat to the entire global economic model. The use of blackmail, threats and subversion to promote one’s goods and services is unacceptable, and not just for individual states. These are the rules that all states must abide by. At any rate, nobody has cancelled these rules. These are not just theoretical rules and traditions of the past few decades. They were followed for years at all global venues, as well as informal and government forums. Now they are threatened by these absolutely illegal US actions.



Question:

Intra-Afghan talks have been going on for the second week running. However, Taliban attacks on government and foreign forces have become more frequent. The UN and the EU have called on the Taliban to cease fire during the talks. What is Russia’s position in this situation?



Maria Zakharova:

Indeed, we have recently seen an increase in the Taliban’s armed activity against the Afghanistan Government forces. However, after the Taliban and the United States signed a peace agreement in February, there were no attacks against foreign forces. We assume that the Taliban is trying to stick to the understandings reached with the Americans.

As for the upsurge of fighting with Afghanistan military units, we think this could be primarily attributed to the protracted process of agreeing on the procedural matters for the intra-Afghan talks in Doha. In this context, we are calling on both sides to complete the technical aspects of this work and start substantive talks on the national reconciliation agenda.

That said, we are sure that a lasting ceasefire should be a key issue for discussion during the first round of intra-Afghan dialogue.



Question:

Is Russia planning to participate in the WHO mechanism called COVAX, which is meant to arrange equitable vaccine access for all countries?



Maria Zakharova:

We are closely following the WHO initiatives in combatting the coronavirus and often comment on them (practically every week of late). Russian representatives took part in several meetings on the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator. On September 10, Russian Healthcare Minister Mikhail Murashko participated in the first meeting of the ACT Accelerator Facilitation Council. He represented our country at the online vaccine summit organised by the WHO and the UK this June.

The COVAX mechanism is part of the ACT initiative, which provides for the development, production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as for the financing of these activities. Russia has been hard at work in these areas. One of the results was the registration of the first COVID-19 vaccine called SPUTNIK V. We are making efforts in coordination with the WHO to re-qualify the vaccine for export. And new vaccine preparations created by Russian scientists are also going to be available soon.



Question:

Would you address the quoting of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov by Azerbaijani media and government entities following today’s meeting with the Azerbaijani side?



Maria Zakharova:

As for the correctness of quoting the Russian minister, I would forward these questions to the sources of that information. I am not going to dwell on this issue.

Regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, I can say the following. Today’s meeting with the Azerbaijani side focused on the previously mentioned basic principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement, including the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh status issues and the liberation of the areas around it. You are well aware of our position on this matter. Please rely on this position rather than on various interpretations that are made not by the Russian side.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4349458
__________________
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 November 16th, 2020 #183
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the new expansion of US Department of the Treasury sanctions list



24 September 2020 - 11:16



In connection with the US Department of the Treasury’s new restrictive measures imposed on Russian individuals and legal entities, we note the following.

Having invented an enemy in the person of Russia, the US government machine continues to invest colossal efforts in persecuting our companies and citizens purportedly involved in some sort of interference in the electoral processes in the United States. As always, no evidence has been presented to support this.

We have repeatedly stated that we have never interfered in any internal political processes in the United States and have no intention of doing so. We have proposed discussing any existing concerns at the negotiating table in a professional and non-politicised manner. Unfortunately, we have seen no reciprocal interest from Washington yet. Instead of a normal dialogue, the US prefers to keep afloat the idea of the Russian threat, speculating on it in the pre-election political infighting and trying to rally US allies around the anti-Russia agenda.

There is perhaps just one thing that makes the recent sanctions wave different from the previous ones. According to the US Department of the Treasury press release, this time America imposes sanctions, among other things, for communicating with Russian federal executive bodies, including the Russian Foreign Ministry. No further comments are needed.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4349626






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech during a UN Security Council high-level summit titled, “Maintenance of international peace and security: Global governance post-COVID-19” Moscow, September 24, 2020



24 September 2020 - 17:47






Mr Chairman, heads of state, Mr UN Secretary General, Mr Chairperson of the African Union Commission, colleagues, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to President of the Republic of Niger, His Excellency Mr Mahamadou Issoufou, for hosting today’s UN Security Council debate on the highly important issue of global governance in the post-pandemic era.

The coronavirus pandemic has been a catalyst for transforming international relations. Not only is the strength of states and integration associations being tested, but global governance mechanisms, primarily the UN, are being tested as well. It is important to learn the lesson of current developments in a timely fashion and draw the proper conclusions in order to ensure a peaceful, secure and stable future for humankind.

The interdependence and interconnectedness of all states without exception in all spheres of public life is the most important thing that the crisis has brought to light. Russia has long drawn attention to the transborder nature of modern threats, including international terrorism, the risk of uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cybercrime, drug trafficking and much more. Now these threats can be aggravated by pandemics like the current one, our calls for the joint development of responses to global challenges have become even more important.

This year's developments have shown that no one can simply fence themselves off from such threats. The coronavirus infection has affected everyone, which means that we need to deal with its aftereffects together as well and put aside our fleeting differences.

Unfortunately, our common misfortune has failed to smooth out the differences between some states. On the contrary, it has exacerbated many of them. The very moments of crisis that we observed in international relations earlier have resurfaced. A number of countries are increasingly tempted to look abroad to find those who are responsible for their problems at home. There are obvious attempts by individual states to use the current situation to promote self-serving and fleeting interests and to settle scores with unwanted governments or geopolitical rivals.

In spite of all this, the practice of imposing unilateral, illegitimate sanctions persists, which undermines the authority and prerogatives of the UN Security Council. We have repeatedly drawn attention to the need to lift restrictions which, in the context of the pandemic, affect vulnerable groups and limit their access to food and healthcare. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has also called for suspending these measures in the current situation. We strongly support his initiative.

President Putin’s proposal to introduce “green corridors” that are free of sanctions and trade wars, which he advanced at the April G20 summit, remains on the table. Regrettably, the states that use the policies of illegal sanctions continue to turn a deaf ear to our reasoning and, even more regrettable, to the basic needs of ordinary people all over the world.





I’m firmly convinced that international efforts to overcome the crisis must be coordinated and carried out with the UN playing the central coordinating role. It remains the universal and single platform for dialogue. Its importance in the global architecture amid the pandemic has only increased.

In this regard, we consider the frequent attacks on the UN system in general and its specialised agencies to be absolutely unjustified. This is primarily true of the World Health Organisation. According to the overwhelming majority of countries, the WHO has acted professionally at all the stages of the crisis and has taken timely and effective proactive steps in close contact with all member states.

Of course, the international healthcare system’s capacity needs to be strengthened and taken to a new level. Russia has already made a significant contribution to this work as the first country in the world to develop and approve a coronavirus vaccine, the Sputnik V. We hereby reiterate our willingness to establish epidemiological cooperation with all states and international organisations that might be interested in doing so. The day before yesterday, speaking before the General Assembly, President Vladimir Putin offered free vaccinations to the UN staff. This is in response to our UN colleagues’ request. Russia, as President Vladimir Putin emphasised, could not leave this request without attention. He also suggested organising a videoconference with all countries that are developing and producing a coronavirus vaccine. This proposal remains on the table.

The current pandemic turned out to be a global shift, a black swan, if you will, which has confronted us with a choice: to close down and blame others for our troubles, or to emerge from the crisis as a team and join a common effort in the name of a prosperous future for all countries and peoples. Despite the obvious choice, the second path requires strong political will and strategic thinking.

We believe this is worth starting through a candid and open dialogue, primarily between the permanent members of the Security Council who, under the UN Charter, bear special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Russia came up with an initiative to convene a summit of the Group of Five with this goal in mind, which President Putin mentioned in his speech yesterday before the General Assembly. An in-person discussion between the leaders of the principles underlying state-to-state interaction, and ways to overcome the most pressing problems of humankind would be an important step towards consolidating collective principles in international affairs and restoring global strategic stability during the post-pandemic period. We strongly believe that this meeting should be held as soon as possible, the international epidemiological situation permitting.

It is important to reinforce existing communication formats based on the principles of equality, cooperation and consensus including the G20, BRICS and the SCO. We are convinced that the organisations that provide flexible responses to emerging challenges without detriment to the UN-centered nature of the international architecture hold the future.

In October, Russia will chair the UN Security Council. We will do our best to ensure well-coordinated and effective work in this main UN body based on the constructive interaction of its members and relying on international law, primarily, the UN Charter’s goals and principles.

Once again, I would like to thank the Nigerien chairmanship for this highly constructive initiative.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350026






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, September 24, 2020



24 September 2020 - 18:02






Mr Minister, friends,

We are pleased to welcome you to Moscow again.

We have been meeting regularly over the past four months. Today is our third meeting. These numbers reflect the intensity and trust-based nature of our dialogue on bilateral affairs and our interaction in the international arena.

Everything that we are discussing remains under constant personal control of our presidents. We share the understanding of how we should be moving forward with regard to bilateral cooperation projects and to our joint actions in the international arena (in particular, at the UN), including, primarily, the situation related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme (JCPOA).

To our great regret, the situation around the JCPOA is escalating. Our US colleagues are trying to promote unacceptable, unilateral, illegal and illegitimate ideas that are not supported by the UN Security Council.





We are working with all JCPOA participants who remain committed to this important document. Our meeting today will help outline additional steps in this area.

We will review other items on the international agenda and focus particularly on the Syrian settlement in terms of initiatives and decisions that are being taken as part of the Astana process and are aimed at promoting the necessary actions that will ensure full implementation of UNSC Resolution 2254.

It is important for us to exchange our conceptual views on ways to counteract the very alarming trends on the foreign policy front, including at the UN, where we can see the attempts to undermine the key foundations of international law and to promote approaches that question universal formats, which have for many years been used to promote dialogue on important matters of our time.

Once again, welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350040






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, September 24, 2020



24 September 2020 - 18:57






Ladies and gentlemen,

We held regular talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif. As always, they were confidential, sincere and informative.

We discussed bilateral cooperation, as well as the regional and global agendas. We reaffirmed the importance of continuing intensive political dialogue, including at the top level. This reflects the high level of our partnership.

We acknowledged our close interdepartmental contacts that we continue in all areas. We also praised the exchange of experience and close cooperation of our specialists in countering the COVID-19 coronavirus infection.

We confirmed our mutual striving to further enhance trade and investment ties. Needless to say, we are faced with the US’s illegal unilateral sanctions and other US pressure on Iran. These sanctions are aimed at isolating Iran economically, which is a gross violation of international law and World Trade Organisation (WHO) parameters.

We agreed to continue implementing large joint investment projects, primarily in energy, including nuclear power, transport and industrial cooperation. In this respect, we have allocated a big role to the Russia-Iran Standing Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation. We agreed to hold the regular meeting of this important commission in Russia before the end of the year. The dates will be fixed with the specific epidemiological situation in mind.

We have identical or very close positions on key global and regional issues.

Naturally, we discussed in detail the situation regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. We emphasised that Moscow and Tehran, as well as the entire international community are categorically opposed to any US demands to introduce some indefinite arms embargo and invoke the “snapback” mechanism to reimpose the former UN Security Council sanctions resolutions on Iran, which were cancelled by Security Council Resolution 2231 in 2015. The latter remains fully valid in this respect.

Moscow and Tehran believe that the US’s illegal initiatives and actions cannot have any international legal implications for other countries and cannot commit any state to limit its legal cooperation with Iran.

Iran continues its constructive cooperation with the IAEA. We confirmed today that the only way to preserve the JCPOA lies through its consistent and full implementation by all parties involved, with account of assumed commitments and in strict accordance with the terms and the timeframes fixed in 2015 and confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

In this context, we reaffirmed that in less than a month, the last restrictions on cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, contained in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, will expire. The remaining restrictions concern military-technical cooperation with Iran. They cease their action on October 18.

We also reviewed our cooperation in the Astana format on settling the situation in Syria. We reaffirmed our willingness to continue this cooperation in the Russia-Iran-Turkey format, including to support a political settlement process at the sessions of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, as well as regarding the continued struggle against the remnants of terrorism on Syrian territory. We also share the position according to which any attempts by external parties to remain on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian authorities, not to mention attempts to pursue separatist attitudes in Syria, are absolutely unacceptable and constitute a crude violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, as well as a transgression of other fundamental principles of international law.

I am very grateful to my colleague and friend for today’s joint work.







Question:

You said that in response to the US claims Russia had taken a very firm position regarding the efforts to activate the mechanism for settling disputes. In a month, the restrictions on cooperation with Iran in the military and technical field will be lifted, and the remaining participants are insisting on preserving the JCPOA. Do you think the US threats to impose sanctions on the countries which will cooperate with Iran in the military and technical field after the arms embargo is lifted will influence Russia’s position?



Sergey Lavrov:

We, just like Iran, have repeatedly and clearly stated our position. This position completely coincides with that of the European parties to the JCPOA. The UN Security Council has considered the United States’ proposal and decided by 13 votes out of 15 that it is unlawful and has no legal, political or moral grounds.

We know that the United States said that, despite the will of the entire global community, they believed the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran could be reimposed by Washington at will. These attempts have no prospects. The fact that the United States has threatened to impose sanctions on those who defy the American interpretation of the current situation serves as further proof of Washington’s desire to move like a bull in a china shop, putting ultimatums to everyone and punishing everyone indiscriminately because, in my view, the incumbent US administration has lost its diplomatic skills almost for good.

Nonetheless, we are continuing to maintain our dialogue with the Americans, trying to make them listen to reason and to explain to them that an approach to international law like this has absolutely no prospects, but I do not know if our efforts will be successful. I am aware that the Europeans have also made similar attempts, but we also see how arrogantly Washington is treating any appeals to it to get back to the agreements based on international law.

It was announced that all those who did not agree to Washington’s interpretation of the current situation as the one that takes all of us back to the need to resume the sanctions against Iran would be punished by the United States and subjected to additional economic and other restrictions.

I can only speak on behalf of the Russian Federation. Russia definitely will not build its policy taking into account these aggressive and unlawful demands that have no legal force. Hopefully, other countries cooperating with Iran will take a principled approach and be guided by their national interests rather than the need to obey the directives issued from overseas.



Question:

In the interview with Sputnik news agency Mohammad Javad Zarif mentioned the preparations for an Astana format meeting between the Syrian Government and the opposition. What is the point of this if the Constitutional Committee is now at work? Who is expected to be invited to this event?



Sergey Lavrov (adding after Mr Zarif):

In addition to what my friend said I would like to recall that the Astana format was adopted to overcome the insurmountable deadlock in which the attempts of our UN colleagues to launch intra-Syrian dialogue in Geneva had stuck. When the UN negotiators repeatedly postponed the meeting between the government and the opposition in Geneva and the situation looked hopeless, Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed to use their potentialities, their contacts with different political forces in the Syrian Arab Republic to break the impasse and the stagnation in our UN partner’s work. It was at the initiative of the Astana Three that the Syrian National Dialogue Congress was convened in Sochi. The congress adopted the documents that proclaimed the commitment of the government and the opposition to create a Constitutional Committee and to conduct a constitutional reform. This is the creation of the Astana Three. We are responsible for what we formed. I consider it natural that Russia, Iran and Turkey continue to closely follow the work of the Constitutional Committee, all the more so since it is encountering some tension and problems that must be overcome. Permanent close oversight over the Constitutional Committee’s work, moreover, in close contact with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen who is in charge of this work, is useful for the cause, which over the past few weeks was confirmed during our contacts with UN officials.



Question:

Alexey Navalny has been discharged from the Charite Hospital. Have our attorneys contacted him? Have his relatives or family got in touch with the Russian mission? Will law-enforcement bodies talk to him to clear up questions caused by his poisoning?

What do you think about the risks of this political story for the Nord Stream 2 commercial project?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already expressed our opinion on who should cooperate and how the situation regarding Alexey Navalny should proceed.

The Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation sent inquiries to its colleagues in France, Germany, Sweden and the Organistion for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). It requested them to fulfill the commitment that is fixed in the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. This convention has several protocols that fully meet the requirements of this situation. Using this solid international legal foundation via our Prosecutor-General’s Office, we requested information that our German colleagues, as well as French and Swedish partners must submit to us, considering that the Germans told us that together with their French and Swedish colleagues they double-checked the tests that were carried out after Alexey Navalny was admitted to the Charite Hospital. We have received no answers for the time being. Moreover, we are hearing public comments, including those made by German officials that sound fairly absurd. One of their ideas is that the accident with Mr Navalny took place on Russian territory, so “we won’t help you with anything, investigate it yourselves but we demand that you admit you’re guilty.” This is simply unbecoming for any country to voice such ideas, especially for such a large and respected country as Germany.

We haven’t received so far any reply from The Hague that is home to the OPCW headquarters. Initially our German colleagues said to us: “We cannot tell you anything because this is now an international rather than Russian-German case. We have an international agency – the OPCW. You should address it.” We addressed it practically right away. They took us for a ride for several days, saying they had received no inquiries. The heads of the OPCW Technical Secretariat where the leading positions are occupied by citizens of NATO countries (I have to admit this) were trying to reassure us they had nothing to do with this.

Later on, when it transpired that they were involved (moreover, they even visited the Charite Hospital and took Mr Navalny’s tests), they began to apologise, saying this was a misunderstanding. We asked them whether they could tell us now what they think in this context and what conclusions they had made. This is what they replied: “You know, the Germans addressed us, it was their inquiry, so go back to them, they must reply to you.” So, the Germans send us to The Hague and The Hague sends us to Berlin.

This is quite an interesting case if we consider the Western “commitment” to international law. This is why we cannot yet say anything about the conclusions of our Western colleagues. That said, our doctors who saved Mr Navalny in Omsk, shared all their conclusions with their German colleagues.

As for a meeting with Mr Navalny, a week and a half ago we officially requested consular access to our citizen from the German authorities. We haven’t received any reply. We hope that our partners will eventually understand that there is no point in talking to us from a “superior position.” They don’t even bother to answer our legal questions that are based on the international convention and just arrogantly demand some repentance from us.

As for Nord Stream 2, I think we should simmer down regarding this. We are seeing how the US on a daily basis is trying to humiliate in public the EU, primarily Germany. US officials demand that Germany should become aware of its happy lot and the need to enhance its energy security. They imply renunciation of Nord Stream 2 and a decision to buy much more expensive US LNG.

I believe (this is my personal opinion) that this question if a matter of honour for Germany, in all aspects and dimensions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350105






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the informal meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, Moscow, September 25, 2020



25 September 2020 - 18:50



Mr. Chairman,

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

I am thankful to the Romanian side for organizing this meeting today, and, in general, for the effective year-long "crisis management" of the BSEC under severe conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a welcome development that at this difficult situation we keep intact the tradition of an informal dialogue on the margins of the UN General Assembly sessions, even though it is held via videoconference. Against the backdrop of the UN's 75th anniversary it underlines our commitment to the basic principles of its Charter. We hope that the next UNGA resolution on the ВSEC-UN cooperation will reflect a number of innovative ideas in this regard.

Indeed, there are no doubts about the relevance of the theme of the discussion – overcoming consequences of the pandemic – proposed by the Romanian Chairmanship-in-Office. The disease has posed a drastic challenge to all of us and put under threat the long-term achievements of our countries in accelerating of their social and economic development.

It is only through a joint effort, international solidarity and coordination that we can cope with the complex threats of the pandemic affecting all aspects of people's lives. Optimization of supply chains, fragmentation of international communications and digital transformation of the world economy increase the role of regional cooperation in ensuring the smooth functioning of the key trade centers and preserving transit flows.

Previously, we repeatedly called for strengthening the practical potential of the BSEC in the area of health and epidemiological protection of population and territories. In this regard we share the idea of elaboration of medical protocols to facilitate international transport, trade and tourism. Similar approaches were discussed recently by the Ministers of the Foreign Affairs at the G20. We stand ready to take part in that process in our common region. We are also open for cooperation in the use of the Russian vaccine against coronavirus that was underlined by the Russian President Vladimir Putin in his address to the 75th UN General Assembly.

Since the start of the pandemic Russia has provided assistance in fighting this dangerous disease to 39 countries. The Black Sea Region has been given a special focus. Russian test systems to diagnose the disease were shipped to Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and Serbia.

In the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union, measures were taken to intensify the activities of the Council of the Heads of Health and Epidemiological Authorities (more than 12 meetings of the Council have been convened since February this year). The Member States regularly inform each other of recommendations and best practices. In that context, the BSEC comprising countries of both the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union could catalyze the process of consolidation of anti-coronavirus efforts of those integration entities.

Economic cooperation in the Black Sea Region could further gain from business engagement and projects implementation. The Russian 1 mln US dollars contribution to the BSEC has made it obvious. The private sector initiatives that have got the needed finance turned into really promising mechanisms, such as the Black Sea Cuisine brand and region-wide e-commerce platform to be run by the Globalrustrade company. All that have already begun to benefit our citizens, consumers and small and medium enterprises, and to create new sources of income.

Along with fixing the mechanism of rotation-based chairmanships the ВSEC needs to ensure an effective management of its Secretariat. What is required is a fresh innovative approach to addressing the backlog of the problems and added dynamics. A number of countries have nominated their candidates for the post of the BSEC Secretary General. The candidate from Russia is Ambassador Vladimir Zaemskiy, an experienced world-class professional and manager able to give momentum to non-politicized cooperation in the BSEC and increase the relevance of the Organization in the current challenging environment.

We assume that the forthcoming elections will be conducted in a legally impeccable and transparent manner, and in-person at a meeting of the Council before the end of the year in presence of the candidates to provide for their direct communication with the Member States. But before that we should refine the election procedure.

We express the willingness for close collaboration in seeking consensus on all stated issues.

Thank you and take care.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350856






Comment by the Information and Press Department on discrepancies and inconsistencies in the situation around Alexey Navalny



25 September 2020 - 19:10



The Russian Federation has been acting in the most transparent manner in the situation around Mr. Alexey Navalny from the very beginning. At the request of relatives, he was promptly granted permission to travel to Germany for medical treatment, which he did without hindrance, once the doctors at the Omsk hospital managed to stabilize his condition. Moreover, Russian doctors passed on to their German colleagues the data they had collected on the patient's health condition and were ready to continue to work together for the sake of his speedy recovery.

Unfortunately, in response we received a categorical refusal from the German government to cooperate in establishing the truth about the situation with Mr. Alexey Navalny. In fact, from day one Berlin switched to “megaphone diplomacy”, launched a broad smear campaign baselessly accusing Russian authorities of allegedly poisoning the Russian citizen. The Euro-Atlantic allies, as well as NATO and the European Union headquarters became actively involved in the situation, demanding an “independent international investigation” under the auspices of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Surprisingly, unlike the Russian toxicologists, the doctors of the «Charity» hospital immediately found the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors in the analysis of the Russian citizen, claiming that he was poisoned. After that, German military experts from the Military Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology in Munich promptly became involved and, in the atmosphere of ongoing anti-Russian hysteria in the West, came to a quite predictable conclusion that Mr. Alexey Navalny was «exposed» to a chemical agent from the «Novichok» group.

Germany's actions were so well-coordinated that a lot of questions started to surface about whether we are dealing with another staged mystical use of chemical weapons, though now not in Syria and the UK, but in Russia. A number of facts lead to such thoughts, namely: the immediate involvement at the highest level with requests to expeditiously take the blogger to Germany for treatment; the presence of Bundeswehr representatives and specialized vehicles of the German Ministry of Defense during his transportation; involvement in the situation of the top military and political leadership, declaring that the aforementioned «patient» was their «guest». All these organizational issues seem to have been part of a plan to politicize this incident with the clear aim of accusing Russia of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Contrary to its obligations under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 and its two Additional Protocols, the German government is actively opposing the pre-investigation check of the Navalny incident in Russia, thus hindering the efforts to establish truth under Russian law. Evidence of this is the categorical refusal to cooperate with the Russian law enforcement agencies and medical institutions, ignoring legitimate requests of the General Prosecutor's Office and appealing to the «expert» potential of the OPCW. The latter is also understandable, since, ironically, once a quite successful and credible international structure, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for the chemical demilitarization of Syria, has essentially been turned by the Euro-Atlantic allies into a tool to promote their geopolitical agenda in the Middle East and beyond.

The fact that the German side concealed the information about a bottle with alleged traces of highly toxic chemicals, that had been taken by Mr. Navalny's entourage from the hotel room in Tomsk in violation of criminal investigation procedures, and the subsequent unauthorized transportation of this object to Germany, suggests the whole story is politically motivated. Obviously, such evidence is quite questionable from a legal point of view. In line with this goes an amateur, in terms of chemistry and toxicology, presentation of the evidence in the video footage – all associates of Mr. A.Navalny involved, Bundeswehr representatives and German doctors wear no protective suits, mandatory in such cases. There are also questions as to why people around the «poisoned» Mr. Alexey Navalny in the hotel, at the airport and on the aircraft felt perfectly normal. Logically, they should have been seriously affected, but apparently, in a happy coincidence, that was not the case. Summing up, everywhere on the verge of fantasy amazing things happened.

Berlin’s blatant disregard of the requests from the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance constitutes a direct violation of paragraph 2 of Article VII of the CWC, which obliges all States-Parties to provide such assistance. Furthermore, demands that the German government and NATO allies have been putting forward since early September, 2020 for Russia to «facilitate» an investigation under the auspices of the OPCW serve no other purpose than to undermine the basic principles of the CWC and constitute an attempt to use this international body to interfere in the internal affairs of a State-Party to the Convention, that has direct jurisdiction over all the events in Tomsk and Omsk.

The detection and identification by the laboratories of Germany, France and Sweden of highly toxic chemicals, called «Novichok» in the West, is the evidence in itself that they have long been well-known, studied and produced on high-end technological equipment in a number of NATO and EU countries. In some of them, for example the US, patents were issued for the military use of this group of chemicals, which is very telling by itself, as well as in the context of the situation around A.Navalny.

The close attention to this class of toxic chemicals is confirmed by a scientific article, published earlier this year, by experts from the US military chemical laboratory (Aberdeen, Maryland) on the research of the properties of «Novichoks». In particular the scientists indicated that they synthesized these types of chemicals (A230, A232 and A234). In any case, this fact refutes any possible arguments that such technologies should only be associated with the USSR or Russia.

The role of the OPCW Technical Secretariat in this situation is quite questionable. Of particular significance is the fact that since the OPCW Director-General Mr. Fernando Arias received information on the alleged "poisoning" of Mr. Alexey Navalny from the German side on September 3, 2020, the Technical Secretariat has taken some "preparatory measures" in anticipation of a request from Germany and has been maintaining permanent contact with Berlin. This circumstance clearly exposes the warped judgment and political bias of the Technical Secretariat that has never mentioned its active cooperation with Berlin when communicating with Russia's Permanent Mission to the OPCW.

It soon turned out that the OPCW experts «independently» took biosamples from Mr. Alexey Navalny on 5-6 September, while the official request for technical assistance under Article VIII, subparagraph 38(e) of the CWC was sent by Berlin only on September 12-13, 2020. Therefore, the Technical Secretariat began "assisting" in this politically biased matter without a proper mandate. Furthermore, the German government claimed having already sent the samples to the OPCW in its statement of September 14, 2020, while the Technical Secretariat itself confirmed to us its involvement in this process for the first time on September 17, 2020.

The media statement regarding Germany's request for technical assistance issued on the OPCW website on September 17, 2020, indicates that the Technical Secretariat has overstepped its mandate and violated the CWC. Article VII of the Convention provides for no role of the Technical Secretariat in pre-investigative and investigative proceedings carried out by the States-Parties within the framework of their legislation, in this case, for the alleged use of chemical weapons by individuals or legal persons. Therefore, the Technical Secretariat has gone beyond its mandate by providing technical assistance to the German side under subparagraph 38(e) of Article VIII of the CWC in relation to the "alleged poisoning of Mr. Alexey Navalny". Berlin needs no assistance from the OPCW to analyze samples in the OPCW-certified laboratories, which Berlin itself confirmed through its bilateral cooperation with France and Sweden without any "mediation" of the OPCW.

Furthermore, the OPCW Technical Secretariat was not authorized to disclose any information concerning technical assistance without the consent of the Russian Federation since, in accordance with the CWC Confidentiality Annex (subparagraph 2(c)(ii)), any information obtained by the OPCW in connection with the implementation of the Convention can be released only with the expressed consent of the State Party to which the information refers. The Technical Secretariat was well aware that the situation with Mr. Alexey Navalny directly involves Russia, however, its leadership that had long become embroiled in political intrigues opted once again to ignore its obligations and kept on with the travesty for a while by hiding its involvement in the situation with the Russian citizen at Berlin's behest.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350818






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu



27 September 2020 - 13:08







On September 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu. They exchanged views on the developments in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.

The ministers pointed out the importance of ceasing hostilities without delay and stabilising the situation along the contact line. They also expressed condolences to the victims’ families and friends.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350950






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article titled Global Cybersecurity and Russia’s International Initiatives on Combating Cybercrime for the magazine External Economic Relations, Moscow, September 28, 2020



28 September 2020 - 12:10



The coronavirus pandemic, which has changed the lives of billions of people within a matter of several weeks, has become a real test for humankind. It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty when the pandemic will end. It would be logical in this situation to digitalise many aspects of everyday life, including state governance, business activities and education. The sphere of international ties has responded to this trend as well. It therefore makes perfect sense that ensuring reliable international information security (IIS) has moved to the top of the global agenda.

The situation in this sphere is far from ideal. Moreover, the international community is facing a real cyber pandemic, which can be seen not just in the invasion of the privacy of ordinary people throughout the world. We are deeply concerned about acts of cyber terrorism, that is, the increased number of hacking attacks on healthcare, fiscal and education establishments and international organisations recorded during the pandemic. Cyberattacks, which have been identified by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as one of top five global risks, are threatening the successful operation and very existence of entire industries. The figures are self-explanatory. According to the WEF, in 2019 alone the cost to the economy of cyberattacks was $2.5 trillion and the figure could reach $8 trillion by 2022.

Information and communication technology (ICT) is being widely used to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Some countries are openly discussing their alleged right to deliver preemptive cyber strikes on their potential adversaries, including their critical infrastructure.

The absence of a universal international code of conduct in the cyber sphere is jeopardising the sustainable socioeconomic, scientific and technical development of absolutely all states without exception. Humankind risks being drawn into a dangerous large-scale cyber confrontation, which could not be limited to any local area due to the cross-border nature of modern communications and the interdependence of national economies.

It is high time the international community drew the necessary conclusions about the use of ICT for regulating state cyber activities in a civilised manner, without hindering progress or infringing on fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Russia’s guidelines for supporting IIS take into account all aspects of this problem. We distinguish three groups of threats: military-political, terrorist and criminal ones.

It bears repeating that more than 20 years ago, in 1998, speaking at the United Nations, Russia was the first to warn the world about the risks posed by cyberspace, then in its early development, and to propose specific solutions for countering those risks. Our stance remains unchanged today and is as follows:

– All states without exception must be involved in resolving and discussing this global problem. It is also important to consider the opinions of other stakeholders (businesses, civil society and the scientific community);

– It is only possible to find a universal solution through talks under the auspices of the United Nations;

– The main objective of these negotiating efforts is to prevent conflict in the information space and to ensure that information and communications technologies are used solely for peaceful purposes. In this context, it becomes increasingly important to promptly reach agreement on rules of responsible conduct for countries to secure, in the digital environment, the principles of respect for sovereignty, non-interference in domestic affairs, non-use of force or threat of force, the right to individual and collective self-defence, respect for the primary human rights and freedoms, and equal rights for all states to participate in internet governance.

Unfortunately, a number of countries oppose this inclusive course with a different logic that substitutes fighting for equal and indivisible cybersecurity with a barely disguised intention to impose its own rules. In this way, they wish to preserve their technological advantages and continue taking unilateral coercive measures when it comes to ICT, and to ultimately arrogate the right to assign responsible parties in cyber incidents. Eventually, all this could turn the global information space into a new battleground.

For example, some are strongly against developing international legal instruments that would prevent the use of information technologies for strictly military and political purposes and would clarify which cyberattacks could be qualified as an armed assault and, therefore, be subject to Article 51 of the UN Charter on countries’ right to self-defence. They do not support the idea of strengthening the role of this world organisation in regulating political issues related to the use of information and communication technologies, including the establishment of international cyber arbitration or another permanent body dealing with international information security under its aegis. They deny the importance of involving the UN Security Council in analysing and settling international incidents and conflicts related to the use of ICT. They dispute the right of countries to sovereignty in ensuring national information security and over the information and communication infrastructure located on their territory.

With this in mind, it is particularly telling that Russia’s principled approaches are the ones being most widely supported in the world. The 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in 2018 adopted our resolution by an overwhelming majority of votes. The resolution not only outlined an initial list of rules of conduct for countries in the information space but also created an effective negotiation mechanism under the auspices of the UN in the form of an ad hoc working group with an open composition to find practical solutions to the international information security issue.

Acting on a parallel track, Russia initiated the drafting of a comprehensive international convention to counter the use of information and communication technology for criminal purposes within the UN framework. In this context, a draft resolution Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purposes was submitted to the 74th session of the UN General Assembly. In all, 47 states co-sponsored the document. Approved by most Asian, African and Latin American countries, the resolution called for the establishment of an ad hoc intergovernmental expert committee with an open composition to draft the above-mentioned convention, with due consideration for existing international documents, as well as national and regional efforts to fight cybercrime.

The international community’s receptivity to the Russian initiative shows that the conclusion of such an agreement is a demand of the times, an awareness of a new reality linked with the rapidly increasing role of the information and communication technology and the challenges arising in this connection.

Russia will continue working to expand bilateral and multilateral cooperation on the entire range of topical matters of international information security, including in the interests of countering threats that arise during the large-scale use of the information and communication technology for military and political purposes. Our priorities include efforts to help draft and approve international acts regulating the use of the principles and norms of international humanitarian law in this area, the creation of favourable conditions for establishing an international law regime for the non-proliferation of information weapons, the drafting and implementation of multilateral programmes helping overcome information inequality between industrial and developing countries.

We are urging our partners to borrow the best aspects of the relevant experience for uniting the international community against the coronavirus pandemic and to creatively use this know-how in the cybersphere. It is important not to shelve pressing matters, not to engage in a political tug-of-war, but to focus on practical work and to pool efforts.

We are convinced that the 75th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly, opening in September, is called on to become a good opportunity for creating the foundations of an effective system of international information security. We hope that its participants will contribute to this work while developing solutions aimed at ensuring a stable post-COVID future for humankind.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4350978
__________________
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 November 23rd, 2020 #184
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 Vice President of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cuba Ricardo Cabrisas Ruiz, Moscow, September 28, 2020



28 September 2020 - 16:36






Esteemed Mr Cabrisas,

Friends,

We are happy to welcome you to the Foreign Ministry of Russia. We appreciate that whenever you come here to discuss the issue of economic cooperation, you always visit us.

This year is full of very important anniversaries – 75 years since the Victory in World War II, 60 years of Russian-Cuban diplomatic relations and, of course, 40 years since the flight of the Soviet-Cuban crew of Yury Romanenko and Arnaldo Tamayo Mendez, which we won’t forget. It took place in September 1980.

During this visit to the Russian Federation you have a very intensive programme: a meeting with Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko, busy talks with the Co-Chair of the Russia-Cuba Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation Yury Borisov, meetings with the ministers of industry and trade and energy, the head of Rosaviatsiya (the Federal Agency for Air Transport) and representatives of Russian companies that operate in Cuba.





I hope that here, at the Foreign Ministry, we will discuss the key issues of foreign policy cooperation that are distinguished by genuine strategic partnership and alliance as regards the processes that are unfolding in the world.

Russia and Cuba belong to a group of like-minded countries that uphold the foundations of international law, and the norms and principles of the UN Charter, primarily as regards the need to ensure the equitable cooperation of all states, respect for their sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs and settlement of any problems exclusively by peaceful, diplomatic means without unilateral coercive measures, be they sanctions or other illegal restrictions.

The overwhelming majority of the international community shares these ideals of justice. In this respect, Russia and Cuba are on the right side of history.

I am convinced that your visit will raise our relations to a new level and be marked by specific agreements that will help strengthen our strategic partnership.

Welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4352506






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a question from Prensa Latina news agency



28 September 2020 - 16:54



Question:

The United States is toughening its sanctions pressure on Cuba. In light of the coronavirus pandemic spreading around the world, the traditional vote on a resolution to lift the US embargo against Cuba at the UN General Assembly has been postponed from November 2020 to April 2021. What is your position on the toughening of the US embargo against Cuba?



Sergey Lavrov:

We condemn Washington’s inhuman and illegitimate policy on Cuba. The illegal sanctions pressure imposed on it is infringing on the natural inalienable rights of not only Cuban but also American citizens and is in flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

This has become especially clear now that all countries should be displaying political will, wisdom and foresight amid the spreading coronavirus infection, abandoning the practice of trade wars and sanctions to join forces in the fight against this common threat based on mutual understanding, solidarity and support.

Regardless of this, Washington has yet again acted in accordance with its belief in its exceptionalism and all-permissiveness, exacerbating anti-Cuba hysteria and continuing to toughen the trade, economic and financial blockade of the island despite the international condemnation of these activities, as is evident from the almost unanimous vote of the UN General Assembly on the draft resolution on ending the US embargo against Cuba.

I would like to point out once again that Russia is always prepared to provide whatever support the Republic of Cuba, which is our strategic partner and friend, may need.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4352566






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Twitter’s biased approach to the RIA Novosti account



28 September 2020 - 19:15



We consider the decision of the Twitter social networking service’s management to forcibly downgrade the search results’ status of the RIA Novosti agency’s account as yet another act of discrimination and censorship with regard to Russian media outlets. This violates the fundamental democratic principles of freedom of expression and equal access to information.

As a result of this unfriendly act, users who are not subscribed to the RIA Novosti page were unable to find it in the platform’s Russian or any other segments.

The biased actions of the American IT Corporation continue the politically motivated campaign launched earlier by Twitter and Facebook to label the pages of Russian media outlets as affiliated with the state.

In August 2020, a similar action was taken with regard to the RT television channel. At the same time, such measures are not applied to Western media resources that are financed by the government. It appears that they are implementing a purposeful line, prompted by Washington, to oust Russian media outlets from the international information space.

We urge the Twitter management to revise their policy that limits the audience’s right to access to information and to renounce the use of anti-democratic tools of unfair competition between American mainstream news outlets and alternative media sources.

We hope that specialised international and human rights organisations will respond properly and objectively assess the restrictive actions of the USA IT Corporation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4358590






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Yonhap News Agency (South Korea), Moscow, September 29, 2020



29 September 2020 - 00:00



Question:

On September 30, 2020, the Republic of Korea and Russia will mark 30 years of diplomatic relations. What is your view of their current state and prospects? Are there any plans for President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the Republic of Korea in the near future?



Sergey Lavrov:

Having started basically from scratch, over the past 30 years, our countries have accumulated substantial experience in productive cooperation in politics, trade, the economy, science, technology, humanitarian sphere and other areas. Today we can confirm with confidence that we are bound by truly neighbourly, friendly relations based not only on mutually beneficial practical cooperation but also on the affinity between ordinary Russians and South Koreans.

The two countries have established a regular political dialogue, including at the highest level. South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s state visit to Russia on June 21‒23, 2018, was an important event. We are going to start discussing issues related to President Vladimir Putin’s possible visit to the Republic of Korea as the sanitary and epidemiological situation normalises.

The Republic of Korea is among Russia’s key trade and economic partners. Our bilateral trade is approaching the milestone of $25 billion.

We attach particular importance to the cooperation within the Russian-Korean Interregional Cooperation Forum, which will be held for the third time in the Republic of Korea next year.

Our cultural and humanitarian ties are developing actively. Outstanding performers of classical music, Russian theatres and ballets tour your country invariably with great success.

We are strengthening tourist exchanges. Last year, over 270,000 Russians visited South Korea and around 430,000 Koreans travelled to Russia. This steady growth of tourist flows is largely due to the 2014 Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Korea on Mutual Visa Waiver.

We scheduled a large-scale joint project, the Year of Mutual Exchanges, to mark the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations. Unfortunately, due to the coronavirus pandemic, many of the events under this project had to be postponed. However, we are still looking forward to holding them in 2021.



Question:

Despite the fact that, since the establishment of diplomatic relations, cooperation between the two countries has developed consistently and we have achieved certain progress, many note that the potential of this cooperation has not been fully realised yet. In your opinion, what do both parties need to do in order to realise this potential to the full extent?



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree that we have not fully taken advantage of all the available opportunities over the past three decades.

One of the bottlenecks in our bilateral economic links is their investment component. For example, Russia is currently implementing only seven projects in Russia’s Far East, worth a total of 2.4 billion roubles, using the resources of South Korean companies. At the same time, we have noted an outflow of South Korean capital from Russian regions in the past years. In my opinion, the preferential capital investment regime, currently in place in Siberia and Russia’s Far East, offers good opportunities for reversing the negative trends. The priority development areas and the Free Port of Vladivostok offer foreign investors, including investors from South Korea, some of the best conditions in the Asia-Pacific Region when it comes to such industries as healthcare, port infrastructure, ship maintenance, tourism and agriculture. Many of these industries are included in the Nine Bridges, the nine priority areas of trade and economic cooperation between our countries proposed by President Moon Jae-in in 2017.

I must also mention the potential of trilateral economic cooperation between Russia, South Korea and North Korea that remains unfulfilled. Our country has continuously supported initiatives involving the three countries, including the integration of Korean railways with the Trans-Siberian Mainline, as well as transit supplies of pipeline gas and electricity to South Korea via North Korea. These projects not only serve the economic interests of the three countries but can also make a sizeable contribution to strengthening peace and security on the Korean Peninsula.

We believe it is important to launch practical measures in this area and not wait until the international sanctions against North Korea are lifted. The first step could be the establishment of transit shipments of Russian coal via the port in Rajin to the Republic of Korea involving interested South Korean companies under the Khasan‒Rajin project – considering that this project has been released from the UNSC sanctions.



Question:

The talks on the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula ended in a deadlock in February 2019, after the failure of the Hanoi summit between Kim Jong-un– and Donald Trump. How, in your opinion, can the negotiating process be moved off the dead centre? What measures should each of the sides involved take?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has been invariably in favour of continuing the general negotiating process to resolve the entire set of problems on the Korean Peninsula, including the nuclear issue. We were supporting the efforts undertaken by Pyongyang, Seoul and Washington to normalise the intra-Korean and US-North Korean relations and were assisting our partners in the context of their constructive initiatives.

At the same time, it is important to pass from words to deeds and to the practical implementation of the agreements that have been reached. There were many of them in past years: The Joint Statement by the DPRK and US leaders in Singapore, and the Panmunjom and Pyongyang declarations by President Moon Jae-in and DPRK State Affairs Commission Chairman Kim Jong-un. Regrettably, when it came to implementing their provisions, it turned out that the sides were not ready for that. There were demands to “take the first step” or make additional concessions, as well as requests to put off the implementation of “as yet unrealisable,” for some or other reasons, points. Quite logically, this has caused a certain loss of interest in subsequent contacts.

Nevertheless, the situation around the Korean Peninsula remains relatively stable and the states involved are not refusing to engage in a dialogue. We continue efforts to convince the partners to simultaneously take so far small, if real, steps towards each other. We are convinced that South and North Koreas, just as the US and the DPRK, should focus on normalising bilateral relations and strengthening mutual trust rather than attempt to solve the entire backlog of the subregion’s old problems all at once and entirely between themselves. The latter is a task for all the states involved and it can only be achieved by joint effort, given a respectful attitude to each other’s legitimate interests. The well-known Russian initiatives on Korean settlement are aimed at getting this multilateral work started.



Question:

In 2017, Russia and China drafted a roadmap for a comprehensive settlement of the Korean Peninsula’s problems and encouraged all negotiating parties to implement it. Last year they proposed a new, improved initiative on this issue. Can you speak about the details of the ideas in this action plan?

What is the negotiating parties’ attitude to it? Does Russia still believe that international sanctions against North Korea should be eased to make the resumption of negotiations possible?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, in 2017 the foreign ministries of Russia and China issued a joint statement that included the main provisions of the proposed roadmap for the settlement of the Korean Peninsula’s problems and invited all the other concerned countries to join in its implementation. Although the United States, the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan refrained from officially joining in the implementation of our initiative, it can be said that the subsequent events largely followed the path set out in this Russian-Chinese document. The first proposal put forth in the joint statement calls on North Korea to announce a moratorium on the testing of nuclear explosive devices and ballistic missile tests, and on the United States and the Republic of Korea to refrain from large-scale joint exercises. The second proposal calls for developing regular bilateral contacts in order to normalise relations between the United States and North Korea and between the two Korean states.

Despite certain problems on these negotiating tracks, we believe that, in principle, we have approached the third stage in the implementation of that document, that is, the resumption of multilateral cooperation aimed at resolving the entire complex of the Korean Peninsula’s problems. Guided by this logic, in 2019 we launched the development of an action plan in which we outlined the future joint moves of the concerned states in four dimensions: military, political, economic and humanitarian. We believe that steps can be taken simultaneously so as to achieve progress in the settlement of various problems without artificially linking them to each other. These moves can entail efforts in various formats. For example, we believe that it is the Korean states themselves that must find the final political solution to the Korean Peninsula’s problems with UN assistance. Given the comprehensive nature of the document, all these actions can complement each other, allowing the concerned parties to move forward together despite difficulties that may arise in any sphere.

By the way, one of measures proposed in that document is the gradual lifting of sanctions against North Korea. We do not believe that negotiations should be suspended, because there is no alternative to them, but we can also understand the reasoning of our North Korean partners. The said UN Security Council restrictions were adopted after Pyongyang held nuclear tests and test launched long-range missiles. When North Korean leader Kim Jong-un announced a striving for denuclearisation and proclaimed a moratorium on testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in 2018 – and he is still complying with it, we should have acted constructively to meet Pyongyang halfway, including by gradually easing the sanctions.

I would like to note that our colleagues have shown interest in the new Russian-Chinese initiative. They readily discussed it and put forth their own ideas regarding this problem. Of course, it was extremely difficult to include different and sometimes diametrically opposing views in one document. However, we worked with our Chinese partners to revise the roadmap so as to take into account the views of Washington, Seoul and Pyongyang. We forwarded the revised version to the concerned countries late last year. The coronavirus pandemic has had a great impact on our work on the new draft document, but we, just as our other partners, are resolved to resume it when we can relaunch full-scale contacts.



Question:

In what way can the Republic of Korea and Russia collaborate amid the COVID-19 pandemic?



Sergey Lavrov:

The pandemic has highlighted the importance of more active bilateral contacts in healthcare. The international community has expressed its appreciation for the efforts taken by the Republic of Korea’s Government to contain the spread of the coronavirus infection. In Russia we are working energetically to control the spread of the novel coronavirus infection as well. I am sure that both sides would benefit from exchanging their experience in combating infectious diseases.

Regrettably, the pandemic has changed our bilateral exchange plans. Some events, including the celebration of the 30th anniversary of our diplomatic relations, had to be postponed until epidemiological normalisation. However, modern information and communication technology allows us continue to communicate with our partners, as is evident from the bilateral events held online, including the intersessional meeting of the co-chairs of the Russian-Korean Joint Commission on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which is to take place in late October. Since the Republic of Korea is a partner country of the Open Innovations International Forum in Moscow, we hope that South Korean representatives will attend the forum’s sessions. In other words, important bilateral issues can be addressed in a planned manner even in the current complicated conditions.

I hope that the agreement reached recently to resume regular flights will help bring our bilateral ties to the pre-crisis level in the near future. Our plans for next year include, in addition to the Cross Year of Mutual Exchanges I have mentioned, the implementation of events planned within the framework of the Cross Year of Cultural Exchanges coordinated between our culture ministries, as well as the Russian Seasons project in the Republic of Korea.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4352418






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Yemen Mohammed Abdullah Al-Hadhrami



29 September 2020 - 17:09







On September 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Yemen Mohammed Al-Hadhrami at the latter’s initiative.

The foreign ministers discussed in detail the developments in the Republic of Yemen where an acute military-political and socio-economic crisis has persisted for over five years. They noted the need to de-escalate the inter-Yemeni conflict and develop an inclusive negotiating process with a view to ensuring a comprehensive and effective solution to the problems accumulated during the years of armed confrontation. Support was expressed for the efforts of the UN and Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Yemen Martin Griffiths.

In this context, Mr Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s intention to continue doing everything possible for the return of long-awaited peace and stability in Yemen, and to use contacts with all involved and interested parties, including the UN Security Council, for this purpose.

The foreign ministers expressed mutual interest in fully restoring diverse Russian-Yemeni bilateral ties that have a rich history as the situation in Yemen moves towards stable normalisation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4361027






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Navalny’s situation



29 September 2020 - 21:11



We have noted the nervous comments by a number of leaders and government representatives of some Western countries as regards the situation that was created with their direct participation around the groundlessly alleged “poisoning” of Russian blogger Alexey Navalny. We cannot help but be surprised at the repeated demands that Russia needs to “clear up” this scandalous case.

We have given repeated and detailed explanations of our position on this issue, including explanations in connection with three requests from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office for legal assistance to the Russian side in determining the presence of evidence of a possible crime. Under Russian law this is an obligatory requirement to open a criminal case. Berlin has not responded to a single request so far except to say that they continue to review them. They have suggested, several times, that we address the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for an explanation. In turn, its directors tell us to address the German Government.

Not only do our inquiries for Berlin remain unanswered, but there has been no response to the inquiries of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in the context of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which have been addressed to the authorities in Sweden and France. In violation of the universally recognised rules of criminal procedure, the Germans sent samples for testing in their laboratories.

In this situation violations were also made by the OPCW Technical Secretariat that made public the fact of rendering technical aid without our direct consent.

Let’s recall that as is clear from Berlin’s statements, this accident took place in Russia not Germany. But express consent is mandatory, as is stipulated in the OPCW Confidentiality Annex (item 2, c/ii).

Considering the political bias that the heads of the Technical Secretariat have demonstrated more than once, we have no doubt that the report that it is now being drafted on rendering “technical aid” at Germany’s request, will fix the presence of traces of the so-called Novichok agent in Navalny’s biological samples that were taken by the Technical Secretariat in the course of a covert operation that was carefully hidden from us by all of the participants.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4363281






Comment by the Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department on Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas’ remarks at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly on September 29, 2020 on the Alexey Navalny situation



30 September 2020 - 18:49



We took note of German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas’s remarks that included accusations, threats and ultimatums against Russia regarding the situation with Alexey Navalny, which he made on September 29 during the general debate of the 75th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly.

The fact that Germany used the high UN rostrum to express groundless claims about the alleged use of a chemical warfare agent prohibited by the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons against Mr Navalny for the purpose of poisoning him appears provocative. We take these public fabrications as a continuation of Berlin's openly hostile anti-Russia policy on the so-called poisoning of Mr Navalny, and an attempt to shift responsibility for their reluctance to interact with us on this matter to others while hiding behind the backs of allies and international bodies.

This attack looks particularly cynical against the background of Germany, which initiated this campaign, ignoring three inquiries by the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia for legal assistance, in part related to providing evidence of a “poisoning.” We have not received a response to our questions for the Charite Clinic’s doctors. Our proposals to have medical associations exchange opinions were rejected. Our initiative to conduct a joint inter-parliamentary investigation was rejected as well.

As you may be aware, the West often claims that it is impossible to do business with Russia “as usual.” For our part, we have come to realise that in terms of Germany and its EU and NATO allies’ conduct, it is impossible to deal with the West until it stops using provocations and fraud and starts behaving honestly and responsibly.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4363782






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the movement of foreign mercenaries to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone



30 September 2020 - 19:30



According to incoming reports, militants from illegal armed units are being moved to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone from Syria and Libya to take a direct part in the hostilities.

We are seriously concerned about this development that not only escalates tensions in the conflict zone but also creates long-term security threats for all countries in the region.

We urge the leaders of the interested states to take effective measures to prevent the use of foreign terrorists and mercenaries in the conflict, and we call for their immediate withdrawal from the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4363834






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell



30 September 2020 - 19:32







On September 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell at the EU’s initiative.

The officials discussed the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. They emphasised the need for an immediate and complete ceasefire, and maximum restraint by the parties to the conflict and other countries. The officials expressed support for the September 27 special statement by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group with an appeal to the conflicting sides to stop further escalation. They emphasised the central role of the co-chairs in the talks on a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh in the context of discussions at special sessions of the UN Security Council and the OSCE Permanent Council on September 29.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4363816






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to the organisers and participants of the Milestones of German-Soviet Relations discussion forum, Moscow, October 1, 2020



1 October 2020 - 15:30






Colleagues,

I am delighted to welcome the Russian and German academic community representatives who have gathered in Moscow for this expert discussion marking the 30th anniversary of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

It can be confidently stated today that the Two Plus Four Treaty made a significant contribution to ending the Cold War and demonstrated that Europe is not destined to remain the ground for bloc divisions. It is only natural that in 2011, the treaty was officially included in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register.

Thirty years later, it should be recalled that it was our country that played the key and pivotal role in restoring Germany’s unity as expediently as was possible – something that certain allies of the Federal Republic of Germany were opposed to.

As a logical outcome of the Two Plus Four Treaty, several forward-looking fundamental agreements were signed between the Soviet Union and Germany, the core agreement being the Agreement on Good Neighbourliness, Partnership and Cooperation that was initialled in Moscow on the same day and signed two months later in Bonn. In November 1990, the Meeting of the CSCE Heads of State and Government approved the Charter of Paris that documented the ending of the “era of confrontation and division of Europe.” Those events marked the elimination of barriers for building a truly common European home without any dividing lines and opened up the way for Russia-Germany relations to reach the level of a strategic partnership.

Throughout all these years, our country has done its very best to secure positive trends and to create an area of peace, equal and indivisible security, extensive economic and humanitarian cooperation across the space from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Numerous Russian initiatives were aimed at achieving this goal, including the proposal on signing a European Security Treaty in 2008.

Unfortunately, as a result of a short-sighted policy of NATO-centrism and geopolitical games in pursuit of unilateral advantages, Europe is currently going through a serious crisis of trust, while the large-scale and multidimensional potential of the Russian-German cooperation remains unfulfilled.

Moreover, Berlin is currently setting a course for containing Russia. We hear groundless accusations, ultimatums and threats. Some German politicians have clearly forgotten about the historical purpose of our countries in European and global affairs. The tension can be overcome for the sake of Russia’s and Germany’s core interests, for the sake of building the foundation for cross-border communications aimed at cooperation and jointly confronting real challenges faced by the humankind. There are still chances to preserve these prospects. A lot will depend on the maturity of civil society representatives and their ability to carefully and honestly defend the truth and to pass their knowledge and experience to younger generations.

I wish you every success with your work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4365040






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu



1 October 2020 - 18:33







On October 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu.

Sergey Lavrov and Mevlut Cavusoglu thoroughly discussed the recent escalation of tension in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Both ministers expressed serious concern over the ongoing armed confrontation and supported an immediate cessation of hostilities. They emphasised that the involvement in the conflict of militants and illegal armed groups from other regions was totally unacceptable and highlighted the need for extremely balanced steps designed to provide political and diplomatic assistance to Baku and Yerevan.

Sergey Lavrov and Mevlut Cavusoglu reaffirmed their readiness to closely coordinate the actions of Russia and Turkey to stabilise the situation and bring the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution process back to a peaceful negotiation track as soon as possible.

The Russian side highlighted the efforts undertaken by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, including the Joint Statement of the Presidents of Russia, the United States and France of October 1, 2020.

The two ministers also touched upon the current bilateral agenda and agreed to maintain further contacts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4365581






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the situation with Alexey Navalny



1 October 2020 - 18:35



Given the situation around the “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny that Berlin and its Euro-Atlantic allies are saying has taken place, on October 1, a proposal was forwarded to the top officials of the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), through the Russian Permanent Mission at the OPCW, to consider the possibility of sending Secretariat experts to Russia to cooperate with Russian specialists on this issue.

We are looking forward to receiving a positive response to our proposal. We expect our cooperation with the above specialised international organisation to be effective and to allow us to look carefully into the rather inconclusive circumstances leading up to what happened.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4365591
__________________
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 November 23rd, 2020 #185
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 1, 2020



1 October 2020 - 19:06






Update on the coronavirus pandemic

The coronavirus situation is becoming increasingly alarming and shows signs of becoming worse. The number of infected people in the last month alone has increased by 9 million people to a global total of over 33.7 million as of September 30. More than a million people have died since the outbreak of the pandemic.

This surge in the incidence of COVID-19 is happening during the season of exacerbation of acute respiratory viral infections, which greatly increases the risk of them overlapping. This resurgence in the spread of this dangerous pathogen is forcing countries to re-impose lockdowns, albeit locally and for shorter periods than at the outset of the pandemic. However, this will not pass unnoticed by these countries’ economies and social spheres. In fact, the lockdown has already led to major disruptions in industries related to tourism, passenger transport, aircraft manufacturing and many others.

Today’s global challenge can only be overcome through the combined efforts of the international community, which should focus on more than just searching for or developing advanced high-quality diagnostic tools and effective medications. Russia has made strides in developing a safe and reliable vaccine and is willing to start broad cooperation on this with foreign stakeholders.

I said that we should focus on more than merely developing the corresponding medications, and I would like to point out that I’m also talking about interaction in this sphere. It is important to not only engage in scientific research and promote it, but also to stave off unnecessary developments in the international media, specifically, waves of smear campaigns, which, unfortunately, are being used full-throttle to discredit Russia’s efforts in this area. Planted articles are being published and ideas are being generated that the international media promote in order to discourage the international community from obtaining information about our achievements in combating COVID-19 or efforts from Russia, or about Russia. So, in addition to developing medications, it is critical to put a stop to these terrible misinformation campaigns that are designed to discredit these efforts.



WHO Director-General’s initiative to involve member states in testing COVID-19 vaccines

Russia is proactively involved with the WHO on fighting the pandemic by offering financial, institutional support and sharing expertise. In particular, Russian specialists joined Solidarity, an initiative designed to facilitate the exchange of scientific data on COVID-19. It is with great interest that we are reviewing the proposal by the WHO Director-General on a new element of this effort that consists of holding international clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines.

This is a noteworthy initiative, but we need to weigh the legal implications, as well as how it can be implemented at a practical level. Russia’s specialised agencies are currently looking into this matter in order to understand whether we should join it.



Humanitarian assistance to Zambia

On September 21, a Russian humanitarian shipment arrived in Lusaka for assisting the Government of the Republic of Zambia in its efforts to fight the novel coronavirus pandemic.

During an official ceremony, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Zambia, Alexander Boldyrev, handed over reagent testing kits, for carrying out 5,000 PCR tests, to Zambia’s Minister of Health Chitalu Chilufya.

In his remarks at the ceremony, the Zambian Minister of Health expressed his sincere gratitude to the Government and people of the Russian Federation for their timely support, and noted that this act of solidarity testified to the solid and friendly relations between the two countries.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with members of the Association of European Businesses in Russia

..................................................................................................



Russia’s Presidency of the UN Security Council in October 2020

In October 2020, Russia will hold the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the main body of the universal organisation for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council schedule in October will be fairly intensive.

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York Vasily Nebenzya will describe it in detail today.

I will provide a broad outline for the Security Council’s plans in October. One of the central events will be the ministerial debates on the Persian Gulf situation. The topicality of this issue is determined by the growth of crisis in the region, in part, against the backdrop of Washington’s heavy pressure on Iran and its efforts to undermine the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme and Security Council Resolution 2231. The goal of the meeting is to discuss in detail ways of building interregional relations based on the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation and reciprocal consideration for each other’s interests. We are convinced that the updated Russian concept on collective security in the Persian Gulf could become a reliable foundation for creating an atmosphere of trust and a genuinely inclusive security system in the region.

Another major event in the Russian Presidency programme is the annual open debate on the topic “Women, Peace and Security.” Symbolically, this is an anniversary year for this – in October it will be 20 years since the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325. It laid the foundation for the discussion of relevant issues in the Security Council, that have become an area of focus since then. Following the discussion, the participants plan to adopt a document based on agreed-upon approaches to promoting the role of women in the processes of peaceful settlement and peacemaking efforts.

Other important items on the Security Council agenda in October include the monthly discussion of the political and humanitarian aspects of the situation in Syria, developments in Kosovo, Middle East peace process, and events in Yemen and the Golan Heights. The Security Council will also assess progress in an inter-Sudanese settlement, normalisation in the African Great Lakes region, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali and Colombia. In addition, the Security Council plans to extend the mandates of the UN Integrated Office in Haiti and the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara.

As a permanent Security Council member, Russia will do all it can to ensure well-coordinated, constructive and effective work in the interests of establishing a fair and equitable world arrangement based on the UN Charter, as well as the standards and principles of international law.



Syria update

We noted the intention of the Dutch Foreign Ministry to launch court proceedings against Syria over alleged, serious human rights violations perpetrated by the Syrian authorities. It is hard to believe that the Dutch did not start with Iraq, where the occupation by the US and other countries from the so-called US-led coalition left millions of civilian casualties. There were so many casualties there that no one even bothered to count them. Still, as you can see, it is Syria that the Netherlands decided to act on.

In our opinion, this is definitely a cynical initiative especially considering the recent scandal in the Dutch parliament caused by the publication of leaks in the media showing that the country’s government financed armed groups operating on Syrian territory that the Dutch Public Prosecution Service itself designated as terrorist organisations. The Syrian Foreign Ministry responded to this with a harsh statement. We believe this response to be appropriate. Like Syrians, we believe that by taking destructive steps of this kind, our Western partners undermine international efforts to promote a Syrian settlement.

In this context, I cannot fail to mention the recent visit by the US Secretary of State’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement, Jim Jeffrey, to the northeast of the Syrian Arab Republic. Once again, Washington has clearly trampled on international law, since this high-ranking foreign diplomat visited Syria without the consent of the country’s government. According to the statement released by the US Department of State on this trip, the United States claims that to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict under UN Security Council Resolution 2254 it is working with all Syrians opposed to the Assad regime. This was a visit by an official US representative to a sovereign state. This logic definitely raises eyebrows. After all, this resolution by the international community is designed to facilitate dialogue between the Syrian Government and the opposition, instead of inciting intra-Syrian conflict.

No matter what Jim Jeffrey said during his trip on efforts to preserve Syrian unity, facts point to the actual objectives that the United States is pursuing east of the Euphrates. Let’s look at these facts. Guided by its geopolitical interests, Washington is consistent in its policy to further separate this region with its rich natural resources from the rest of Syria. Our US partners found a sophisticated way to finance Kurdish separatism by exploiting the local hydrocarbon reserves, with US oil companies plundering them as predators under the cover of the US military.

The counterproductive line, adopted by certain external actors, to pit the Syrians against each other affects the Constitutional Committee in Geneva. Having resumed its work in August after a long break, we regret that it had to place its work on pause, after the Syrian delegations failed to agree on the agenda for the next round of talks, which were scheduled by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen to begin on October 5.

There is another important issue. The Foreign Ministry released a statement on it yesterday, when we voiced our concern over reports that fighters from northern Syria are being recruited in great numbers and transferred to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. The corresponding videos and photos can be seen on social media, along with lists of victims among the mercenaries stating their allegiance to one Syrian anti-government group or another. We view this as further evidence of the fact that territories that have remained outside the control by the legitimate Syrian authorities continue to create threats endangering Syria and beyond.



Update on Nagorno-Karabakh

We are very concerned about the ongoing escalation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that started on September 27. The exchange of weapons fire led to massive destruction of the military and civilian infrastructure and numerous casualties on both sides, including the civilian population. We call on the parties to use restraint and to stop the bloodshed. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed or wounded.

Russia enjoys diverse and friendly ties with Azerbaijan and Armenia; Russia is home to numerous Armenian and Azerbaijani communities. We do care about what’s happening in the region.

We firmly believe that a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the only way to bring closure to this situation. Resolving regional problems can only be achieved through political and diplomatic efforts.

Russia, acting both as an individual nation and as part of the OSCE Minsk Group, has been making, since the very first hours of hostilities, every effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire and to resume the peace process. President Vladimir Putin discussed the situation with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan over the phone on September 27 and 29. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov remains in contact with his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts. A telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu took place as well.

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs (Russia, France and the United States) issued a statement condemning the use of force and called on the warring sides to immediately cease hostilities and to resume talks in order to identify a final solution to the conflict. As of now, they continue to make joint efforts aimed at de-escalating the situation.

The situation on the line of contact was discussed by the UN Security Council and the OSCE Permanent Council on September 29, with a special emphasis on the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs’ central role in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.

The bloodshed must be stopped immediately. Against the background of these dramatic events, we consider any bellicose statements or actions by third parties counterproductive and irresponsible. These statements and actions can add fuel to the escalation, destabilise the situation in the South Caucasus and have unpredictable consequences.



Appeals by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Ford to give up cooperation with Russia on nuclear power engineering

We are compelled to reply to statements by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Ford at Washington’s Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in which he allowed himself to make direct accusations against Russian and China of using second-rate nuclear technology as an instrument of political pressure on our partners.

Regrettably, the current US administration continues building walls instead of bridges. This aggressive rhetoric and attempts to label other’s efforts conceal the tiring desire of the US authorities to artificially gain advantage for their companies in the highly competitive nuclear energy market. The analogy with energy, high technology and arms is perfectly obvious in this context.



Moving the Alexander Baranov monument in Sitka

We have closely followed the situation on moving the monument to the first Governor of Alaska and the ruler of Russian lands in North America, Alexander Baranov, from the central square of Sitka to the city’s historical museum. As we noted before, we feel some regret about this decision that was made as part of the US’s large-scale campaign on eliminating monuments and revising national history.

The Sitka city authorities said more than once that the sculpture would be moved “in a respectful and positive manner,” and that museum visitors would have the opportunity to see the exposition devoted to Russian America. According to available information, the monument is now at the museum and a befitting pedestal is being made for it.

We will, of course, have to see that the sculpture is presented properly, without any distortion of his personality and historic mission. We will follow the further developments. When the epidemiological situation subsides, we plan to send an interdepartmental delegation to Alaska to meet with the regional and city authorities and representatives of the public, scientific and museum communities. We hope that as a result we will manage to coordinate mutually acceptable parameters for cooperation on preserving and promoting common cultural and historical heritage.



NATO wargames in the Far North

We note that the holding of the naval wargames by Britain, the US and Norway in cooperation with the Danish Air Force in the Far North in September were a source of serious concern. These exercises were supposed “to support freedom of navigation.” However, we are convinced that these wargames as well as the general buildup of NATO’s military presence in the high latitudes by no means facilitate the strengthening of peace and stability in the Arctic. On the contrary, they only contribute to the escalation of tensions in the region.

Unfortunately, we see that London prefers to focus primarily on the military-political aspects of the Arctic. Thus, in 2018, Britain was the first non-Arctic country to proclaim a national Arctic military strategy. British military personnel regularly take part in NATO exercises in the high latitudes. We believe that if Britain focused not on military buildup but on opportunities for constructive cooperation in the Arctic, it would be a much bigger contribution to the promotion of peace and stability in this region. The joint statement of the foreign ministers of the Arctic Council member states, which was adopted in Rovaniemi, Finland in May 2019, was written with this goal in mind. As a reminder, Britain has only observer status with this forum.



The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul

Russia continues to watch closely how the situation around the former Hagia Sophia cathedral and museum being converted into a mosque open for worship is evolving. Recognising Turkish authorities’ sovereign right to this cathedral, we would like to note that managing a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site means, in the first place, a distinct responsibility for ensuring the integrity of this landmark of Eurasian civilisation.

We believe our Turkish partners will show respect for the feelings of Orthodox Christians from all over the world, who will always see the Hagia Sophia not only as part of world cultural heritage but also as one of the greatest Christian holy places placed under the protection of the international community and the Republic of Turkey. We believe measures being taken by Ankara will allow it to ensure free access to the site for tourists of all faiths, as well as the integrity of the Christian art work located inside the cathedral.

In this connection, we attach special importance to the monitoring mission of experts from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) to assess the condition of the cathedral. We expect the mission due to visit Istanbul in October to present its analysis and conclusions as soon as possible, providing an unbiased assessment of the condition of the cathedral building and the numerous valuable mosaics and murals of the interior.



Ukrainian special services to persecute VKontakte social media users in Ukraine

We were shocked to hear Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Alexey Danilov say that the Ukrainian security forces will track down and list the VKontakte social media users, who, he believes, must be held responsible for using the site. So much for freedom and democracy in Ukraine.

As you may be aware, along with other Russian social media and websites such as Odnoklassniki, Mail.ru and Yandex, VKontakte was blocked for three years in Ukraine in 2017 by then President Poroshenko. The hopes that he might have taken Russophobia, total censorship, and fighting dissent with him when he left office have not materialised. In May 2020, President Zelensky, seemingly a modern person and an advanced social media user, extended the sanctions until 2023.

Now, Ukraine’s special services will focus on Ukrainians who believe that access to information is important. This approach is reminiscent of the worst practices of totalitarian regimes, a battle that the Ukrainian authorities are so vocal about. This is about ignoring international human rights, in particular, to the free flow of information and unfettered access to it. By leaps and bounds, Ukraine is headed towards building nothing short of a police state. At the same time, Kiev shamelessly declares its adherence to European values ​​and principles.

We call on international human rights organisations, institutions and Kiev’s Western patrons to break their silence and properly assess the gross human rights violations in Ukraine.



Kiev’s Sixth Administrative Court of Appeals ruling on the Nazi symbols used by the 14th SS Grenadier Division “Galicia”

On September 24, the Sixth Court of Appeals in Kiev overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and recognised the symbols of the 14th SS Grenadier Division “Galicia” as legal and as not falling under the description of the symbols of national socialist totalitarian regimes. Thus, according to the Ukrainian court ruling, “Galicia” and other SS units are, in fact, no longer criminal Nazi organisations. Great! So, you block the VKontakte social media site and at the same time declare that Galicia does not fit the description of a national socialist totalitarian regime. That is, using VKontakte is not acceptable, but walking around with the “Galicia” insignia is okay. Someone please ask Mr Zelensky how this is even possible.

As you may be aware, 14th SS Division volunteers were guilty of brutally killing many thousands of civilians and partisans. In particular, they killed more than 500 Polish civilians in the village of Huta Pieniacka, at least 250 Poles in the village of Podkamien, and people from dozens of other towns and villages in Poland and Ukraine. These collaborators were involved in the mass killings of women and children, as was the case in the village of Zabuze. Those criminals took part in killing not just Slovak partisans, but also the Slovak civilians who supported them.

The European countries’ praise of democratic values ​​in Ukraine is puzzling at a time when official Kiev and various Nazi organisations created with its tacit approval, and often direct support, glorify the atrocities of the SS during WWII when they wiped out entire families in Eastern Europe. Importantly, in 2016, the Polish parliament qualified the crimes of the 14th SS Division “Galicia” against the Polish population as genocide.

You can be sarcastic about this, but you still need to adopt a principled position on this matter. We are outraged by the above ruling of the court of appeals. We call on the Kiev authorities to stop whitewashing the atrocities of Nazi criminals, henchmen and collaborators, and finally do something to curb the country’s national radicals’ outrageous behaviour as they continue to openly promote Nazi ideas. We are asking the UN General Assembly and other international agencies to step up their efforts to combat the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism.



Anniversary of the Munich Betrayal

On the same subject, and as a reminder (we will regularly discuss this) of our shared past connected with the Second World War, I would like to say a few words about the Munich Betrayal.

There has hardly been a more outrageous precedent in the history of diplomacy of trampling on international law and the universally recognised ethical norms than the conference of the four powers: England, France, Germany and Italy, hastily convened in Munich on September 29 and 30, 1938. This went down as one of the most shameful and tragic pages in history, and it paved the way for the Second World War. There was no meaningful debate, since the conference was meant to formalise a deal that its participants agreed upon in advance. A draft, proposed by Benito Mussolini, who in turn had received it from Berlin, served as a starting point. Representatives from Czechoslovakia, and the USSR who had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, were not invited to the conference. The Czechoslovak delegation arrived in Munich but did not take part in the negotiations, and was just informed about the outcome post factum.

Hungary and Poland bear their share of responsibility for the partition of Czechoslovakia. During the period of the Czechoslovak crisis they adopted a clearly pro-German position, and then made their own claims for Czechoslovak territory.

In essence, the policy to appease Adolf Hitler culminated with the Munich conference as a prelude to the outbreak of WWII. It definitely set the aggressor loose.

An extensive body of research and documents have been published on the Munich Agreement, also known as the Munich Betrayal. The USSR/Russian Foreign Ministry alone published seven collections of documents dealing with that period. Let me mention some of them: The Year of Crisis; Documents on the History of the Munich Betrayal; The USSR in the Struggle for Peace on the Eve of the Second World War; the 21st volume of the USSR Foreign Policy Documents series, and these are just a few titles.

It could seem that everything is abundantly clear. However, we are witnessing attempts to produce false interpretations of what happened during this period that have little in common with searching for objective truth. In a number of publications, authors persist in their efforts to justify the Munich Betrayal, distort the true objectives of its masterminds and diminish its role as one of the key links in a chain of events that led to the outbreak of the Second World War. We view publications of this kind as attempts to undermine the long-held views on the war, twist the main events to one’s benefit and create a new version to suit one’s political agenda in an attempt to go as far as equate the responsibility of the USSR and Nazi Germany for what happened back then.

The policies of specific states in the period between the two world wars may be subject to various interpretations. Still, to most people, the Munich Agreement, whereby England and France, with the backing of the US, gave the green light to Nazi Germany to partition and then invade Czechoslovakia, is clearly synonymous with the policy of betrayal and pandering to the aggressor.



Awarding Great Patriotic War veteran Mikhail Podgursky with a Norwegian medal

We were pleased to note the ceremony to award Great Patriotic War veteran Mikhail Podgursky with Norway’s state medal for the participation in the defence of Norway, which was given to him on behalf of the King of Norway. The ceremony took place at the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow on September 18.

We are grateful to Norway for its considerate approach to our common memory of WWII events related to the liberation by Soviet soldiers and officers of East Finnmark in the course of the Petsamo-Kirkenes Offensive in October of 1944. Of course, our shared history brings together the Russian and Norwegian peoples.

In the year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Victory, we are calling on everyone to not forget the horrifying lessons of that tragedy, when, overcoming their disagreements, people from different countries joined forces to achieve one goal – defeat Nazism. It is very important that today people keep the memory of that war in their hearts.

The great Victory is one of the most important events in world history, as well as a spiritual value and a moral guide for many generations.

We wish Mikhail Podgursky good health and longevity!



Celebration of National Day of the People’s Republic of China

On October 1, the Chinese people celebrate their National Day, the 71st anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Having been through serious trials caused by the novel coronavirus infection, China is celebrating its national holiday against the backdrop of impressive socio-economic achievements and the further consolidation of its status in the world arena. We are happy to see the successes of the friendly Chinese people.

The Soviet Union was the first to recognise the birth of the new state and established diplomatic relations with it as early as October 2, 1949. We are pleased to say that our current ties with China are the best in our history. The intensive and trust-based meetings between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping are the main driving force behind our dynamic bilateral ties. Following the June 2019 Russia-China summit, the participants stated that relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation were entering a new era.

This year, the two countries celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II, during which we were allies in fighting Nazism and militarism. Russia and China firmly counter any attempts to falsify history and revise the outcome of World War II.

We consistently strengthen our ties in the practical areas that meet the long-term interests of our nations. The mechanism for regular prime minister meetings plays a tangible role in promoting our ties.

The new large-scale programme for holding Russia-China years of scientific, technical and innovative cooperation, which was launched this year at the decision of the heads of state, is called on to give fresh impetus to cooperation in science-based and innovation related areas.

Our countries’ approaches to world affairs are identical or very close. As a result, closely coordinating foreign policy efforts and acting in a united front, our countries make a big contribution to the promotion of a constructive agenda at leading multilateral venues, primarily the UN and the Security Council, the SCO, BRICS, the G20, the East Asia Summit and in the Russia-India-China format. They also facilitate a search for effective ways of resolving current global and regional issues.

We jointly support the building of international relations on the principles of mutual respect, justice and mutually beneficial cooperation, the equitable participation of all states in global governance, observance of international law, equal and indivisible security, mutual respect and consideration for everyone’s interests, renunciation of confrontation and conflicts and the creation of a more just and rational polycentric international order.

I would like to sincerely congratulate our Chinese colleagues on their National Day.



Celebration of Independence Day in the Federal Republic of Nigeria

..................................................................................................


Republic of Guinea marks 62 years of independence

..................................................................................................


Kingdom of Lesotho Independence Day

..................................................................................................







Answers to media questions:



Question:

US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea said in Japan on September 29 that the ball is now in Russia’s court in the New START talks and that the US proposals would benefit both sides. Do you agree with this view? Regarding this, what will Russia do next?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to point out that Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov has provided a detailed comment on the possibility of extending the New START in an interview with a Russia television channel. He said that the treaty represented a balance of interests between the two great powers, did not affect the defence capability of either the United States or Russia and provided a solid basis for normal, predictable and pragmatic bilateral relations. Moreover, any failure to extend the treaty would create a vacuum. We have been working for the past 50 years to create an atmosphere of culture in negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia. We have coordinated a huge amount of verification procedures. We have reached a high level of mutual confidence in this sphere. All of this will be destroyed overnight. In short, we have already answered your question. I would like to add that there is a great deal of useful information in Ambassador Antonov’s interview and that we fully support his statements.



Question:

My question concerns the continued US military biological activities in the post-Soviet space, in particular Georgia, and the new facts revealed by Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva.

It has transpired that the United States is planning to invest $160 million in biological weapons research and to turn Georgia and the notorious Lugar Research Centre into the largest biological research centre in Europe and Central Asia. The documents that have been made public provide grounds to believe that the United States is creating bacteriological (biological) weapons. In light of the novel coronavirus pandemic and the current aggravation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which hosts similar dual purpose facilities, can it be said that a verification mechanism should be added to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)? Could Russia put forth this initiative in the interests of global biological security?



Maria Zakharova:

We comment on this matter whenever we get new facts regarding it. You are citing an investigation on which we have already commented. Detailed information regarding this matter is available on our website. We will certainly analyse any new facts, data and information as soon as we receive them. At this moment, I can tell you that we have announced our position regarding the so-called military biological laboratories in the post-Soviet space more than once. We are deeply concerned about the US activities in this sphere. Frankly speaking, we do not expect them to make any breakthroughs in this research. But we believe that the international community must closely monitor these activities.



Question:

Yesterday, the Foreign Ministry voiced concern over the redeployment of mercenary militants from the Middle East to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. Did this information come from the media, statements by the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia, or do Russian security services have their own authentic information?



Maria Zakharova:

We have this information. This is what we know. This information is available, and it was submitted to the media as materials from social media and the relevant publications. But when we issued our comment on October 1, which was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website, we certainly had our own facts and information.



Question:

Your statement has the following phrase: “An appeal to the leaders of the concerned states.” However, you did not mention these states.



Maria Zakharova:

No, we are not only talking about Russia’s position, and today I did not mention only Azerbaijan and Armenia. You may have noticed that I also mentioned the OSCE’s Minsk Group and its co-chairs. There are also some states which are either concerned or which consider it possible, necessary and important to make statements on this score and to exert certain efforts. There are many such states. Apart from separate countries, there are international organisations that bring together various states. Consequently, our appeal is addressed to everyone. Today, I mentioned the relevant states.

Before that, I noted that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had telephone conversations with his Turkish counterpart. Therefore, Turkey was also mentioned.



Question:

My question was more specific. I asked a question about the redeployment of terrorists and militants. You did not specify who is redeploying them and how.



Maria Zakharova:

On the whole, this comment underscores our concern over these facts. I would rather not go into details at this stage.



Question:

During his visit to Greece, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Russia of destabilising the region, especially Libya, and said that it was spreading misinformation about the pandemic and trying to control the Orthodox Church. Mike Pompeo also noted that he agreed to foster closer cooperation with Greece in order to overcome the negative Russian influence. How can you comment on these statements and possible new agreements with Greece on strengthening the US military presence?



Maria Zakharova:

We don’t see the US position as something new. To what extent does this approach meet the interests of Athens? This is a good question, and one should address it to Greek leaders. We are concerned about Washington’s plans to expand its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean region because they are openly directed against Russia. No one conceals this fact. These plans reflect the aggressive US policy and they certainly do not help strengthen peace and security in this region.

The energy sector was also discussed there in detail. We have never claimed the right to monopolise supplies, and we have never played the role being ascribed to us. We emphatically oppose the politicisation of cooperation in this sphere. Consumer countries alone should make their own choice under the logic of free competition, economic expediency and profitability.



Question (retranslated from English):

Could you comment please on the current situation in the Ladakh area on the Chinese-Indian border?



Maria Zakharova:

We continue to monitor the state of affairs on the Chinese-Indian Line of Actual Control. We welcome the de-escalation agreements reached by the foreign ministers of China and India during their talks held in Moscow on September 10. We respect the sides’ desire to act independently in this matter within the framework of the multi-level mechanisms for bilateral dialogue they have formed and to avoid any interference from outside forces. We hope that both states as responsible members of the international community will be able to find mutually acceptable peaceful ways to settle the tension as soon as possible.



Question:

On August 26, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov had a telephone conversation with member of the Politburo of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Qais Abd al-Karim (Abu Layla). The officials discussed the situation emerging in the context of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. The DFLP leader welcomed the proposal to organise another all-Palestinian meeting in Moscow. Have they agreed upon any dates for an intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow? What Palestinian factions is Moscow contacting on this matter?



Maria Zakharova:

We are confident that the restoration of Palestinian unity on the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is an important prerequisite to arranging direct, constructive Palestinian-Israeli talks. In this connection, we welcome and support the timely unifying steps undertaken by the leading Palestinian political organisations and movements, including the September 3 teleconference that President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas held with the heads of 14 main Palestinian factions, as well as talks between representatives of FATAH and HAMAS held in Istanbul and Doha just the other day.

For our part, we confirm Russia’s principled readiness to consolidate the positive trend emerging ahead of the planned Palestinian meeting in Moscow. We are maintaining relevant contacts with the Palestinian leadership headed by Mr Mahmoud Abbas as well as with all the leading political forces. The leaders of FATAH, HAMAS and other Palestinian parties and movements have expressed an interest in attending the event.

Regrettably, it is still premature to speak about the specific timeframes for the unification forum in Moscow on account of the persisting sanitary and epidemiological restrictions. We intend to organise it as soon as the situation gets back to normal.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4365684
__________________
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 November 25th, 2020 #186
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 the organisers, participants and guests of the BRICS Film Festival



1 October 2020 - 20:28



Please accept my warmest greetings to the organisers, participants and guests of the 5th BRICS Film Festival.

The strategic partnership of the five BRICS countries is successfully developing in all areas across the board, from politics and economic cooperation to science and culture. Its humanitarian component invariably plays a special role. It is no coincidence that one of the priorities of the Russian chairmanship is working to improve the living standards and the quality of life in our countries.

The BRICS Film Festival makes a valuable contribution to the common effort – although a relatively new initiative, it has already won recognition among cinema lovers and the public in general. It is hard to overestimate its importance for developing professional contacts, promoting national films, and, ultimately, strengthening our five countries’ prestige in the global cultural landscape.

I am certain that the festival’s eventful programme will help consolidate friendly ties between our citizens even more. I wish the organisers and participants every success in their creative work and all the best, and may the audience members keep bright, unforgettable memories of the event.

SERGEY LAVROV
Moscow, October 1, 2020




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4365769






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the EU’s restrictions on Belarus



2 October 2020 - 18:06



We noted the EU’s October 2 decision to adopt new restrictive measures as regards Belarus. A comment declaring response measures has already been released by Belarusian officials.

We see that instead of displaying restraint, which is so vital for stabilisation in Belarus, the European Union has once again resorted to the instrument of sanctions. This approach is unilateral and illegal. It undermines the prerogatives of the UN Security Council and leads to the further erosion of international law.

We think this step is an instance of open and unacceptable pressure on the Belarusian authorities who are trying to stabilise the domestic situation. Once again, the EU did not say a word of support for the constitutional reform aimed at liberalising Belarus’s political system through a national dialogue. This is something that needs to take place not in the streets but in the framework of national law with the involvement of all strata of Belarusian society.

Representatives of the EU and its member countries repeatedly mention lack of geopolitics in their positions. However, the EU’s decisions, its language of threats and other actions regarding Belarus point to the contrary. They are obviously violating one of the key principles of the UN Charter and the OSCE Helsinki Final Act – non-interference in internal affairs.

Instead of playing a constructive role and facilitating stabilisation in Belarus, the EU decided to follow in the wake of some of its members that want to further stir up the internal political situation in Belarus. We urge the EU to think about the dangerous consequences of this policy.

We note that per our allied commitments, the list of Belarusian response sanctions that entered into force today will be automatically applied in the Russian Federation as well.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4366068






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif



2 October 2020 - 18:51







On October 2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The foreign ministers discussed in detail the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. They expressed serious concern over the continuing large-scale military hostilities and the involvement of militants from illegal armed units fighting in Syria and Libya in them. They urged an immediate ceasefire, de-escalation of tensions and prevention of provocative bellicose rhetoric.

Mr Lavrov emphasised that Russia will continue its mediation efforts, both as an individual country and as one of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, in support for settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through political and diplomatic means.

The foreign ministers noted the important role that the countries in the region, especially Azerbaijan and Armenia’s neighbours, can play in creating conditions for returning to the negotiating table as soon as possible.

The diplomats reviewed urgent bilateral issues and agreed to keep in touch.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4366082






Comment by the Information and Press Department on statements by Permanent Representative of the United States to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva Robert Wood on Russia’s initiatives to prevent an arms race in space



2 October 2020 - 19:00



There is growing concern regarding the professional credentials of Permanent Representative of the United States to the Conference on Disarmament Robert Wood. On October 1, 2020, during a briefing hosted by the Foreign Press Association at the United Nations Office in Geneva he said that he did not know what Russia’s initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space were about. As a reminder, for 40 years Russia (and earlier the USSR) has consistently advocated the drafting of a multilateral legally binding instrument that would prohibit the deployment of weapons of any kind, as well as the use or threat of force in outer space.

We have repeatedly submitted draft agreements to this effect in the UN General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament. In June 2014, an updated draft treaty prepared by Russia and China was presented at the Conference on Disarmament on preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space, and the use and threat of force against space objects. This happened in Robert Wood’s presence, but he seems to have forgotten this.

We are committed to continuing our proactive, results-driven efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space. We intend to submit the draft resolutions “No first placement of weapons in outer space” and “Advancing transparency and confidence building measures for outer space activities” during the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, and call on all UN member states to support and co-sponsor them.

We hope that common sense will prevail in Washington, and that the United States will join the international community in its efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space instead of undermining them with half-baked initiatives, like the one on establishing some kind of standards for “responsible behaviour” in outer space.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4366096






Joint Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group on the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh, Moscow, Paris, Washington, D.C., October 2, 2020



3 October 2020 - 09:44



The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (Igor Popov of the Russian Federation, Stéphane Visconti of France, and Andrew Schofer of the United States of America) released the following statement today:

The Co-Chairs strongly condemn the continued violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone as well as against targets in the territory of Armenia and Azerbaijan away from the Line of Contact, and express our alarm at reports of increasing civilian casualties. Targeting or threatening civilians is never acceptable under any circumstances. The Co-Chairs call on the sides to observe fully their international obligations to protect civilian populations.

The Co-Chairs also stress that participation in the escalating violence by external parties undermines efforts to achieve lasting peace in the region.

Recalling the October 1 statement of the Presidents of the three Co-Chair countries, the Co-Chairs once again call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the resumption of substantive negotiations, in good faith and without preconditions.

The Co-Chairs also call urgently for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to enable the repatriation of remains of fallen serviceman in coordination with the OSCE and ICRC.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4366201






Comment by the Information and Press Department on statements made by German officials during Bundestag debates



3 October 2020 - 14:04



Hysteria over the Alexey Navalny case is being revved up in Germany. This time anti-Russia statements have been made during the recent Bundestag debates.

We have taken note that the latest portion of far-fetched and groundless accusations and threats made by the highest-ranking German politicians against Russia included a paradoxical idea of Russia’s alleged unwillingness for dialogue with Germany within the framework of the existing specialised bilateral mechanisms.

We regard such statements as outright lies. We would like to point out in this connection that the German side continues to consistently disregard all of Russia’s proposals for practical interaction aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the alleged “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny within the framework of legal support and consultations based on CWC provisions.

Neither has Germany responded to the initiative for conducting a “constructive and objective investigation” of the incident put forth by the heads of the State Duma and Bundestag friendship groups. We have not yet received any response to our deputies’ letter proposing joint Russian-German parliamentary control over the investigation of the Navalny incident.

On September 28, 2020, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office drew up its fourth request for legal assistance in this connection, which has been delivered to the German side. We continue to insist that Germany respond to these requests.

No answers have been provided to our questions at the level of political dialogue or through diplomatic channels. The Russian Embassy in Berlin has received the German Foreign Ministry’s refusal to grant consular access to Alexey Navalny.

The analysis of the situation must also take into account the opinion of German doctors. The German doctors who came to Russia were given free access to Alexey Navalny and the results of his treatment at the Omsk Hospital and signed the documents on the patient’s transfer into their professional care.

We would like to recommend to those who have inspired this provocation campaign aimed at demonising Russia and undermining bilateral ties that they come to their senses. For our part, we remain ready for an open and honest dialogue on the Navalny incident based on facts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4366258






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean‑Yves Le Drian



5 October 2020 - 17:17







On October 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian.

During the conversation, the two ministers engaged in a detailed discussion on the developments in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, expressed their serious concern over the continuing large-scale hostilities and called on the conflicting parties to achieve a full ceasefire and de-escalate the tension without delay.

They stressed the importance of further coordinated efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs as per the joint statement by the presidents of Russia, the United States and France.

Sergey Lavrov pointed out that any attempts to make a political issue out of the so-called Navalny case, including within the OPCW, were unacceptable, and reminded his counterpart that Russia has not yet received a reply to an official request submitted to Paris by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation as part of an international mechanism for legal assistance.

The two foreign ministers also discussed a number of topical matters on the bilateral agenda.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368274
__________________
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 November 25th, 2020 #187
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 questions during the meeting with members of the Association of European Businesses in Russia, Moscow, October 5, 2020



5 October 2020 - 20:56





Mr Vanderplaetse,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to address once again the members of the Association of European Businesses in the Russian Federation. First of all, I would like to congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your association. We appreciate your efforts to promote our economic, investment and trade ties, laying a solid foundation for building good relations between us and the countries you represent.

Here at the Foreign Ministry we value opportunities for dialogue with European entrepreneurs aimed at pushing forward a pragmatic, politics-free and mutually beneficial agenda. At the end of the day, these efforts are designed to improve the wellbeing of the people in Russia and in your countries. Holding regular meetings in this format has become a good tradition, testifying to our mutual commitment to keeping this dialogue going.

Since our previous meeting last year, in fact more than a year ago, the overall global environment has not become any easier, seriously affecting business activity. For many years now, the problems of international terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime have been escalating around the world. Regional conflicts continue unabated and their number is growing. Recently, the coronavirus infection emerged as a new and a very serious challenge for all of humanity. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it changed the lives of billions of people overnight. Today, no one can say with certainty when the pandemic will end. I will not elaborate here on how the interruption of global supply chains affects global trade. Unemployment is on the rise in many countries. All this weighs on the global economy, which will have to go through a lengthy and probably challenging recovery.

Speaking broadly, in the global context, the pandemic has yet again highlighted what we have long been talking about, that all countries without exception are interconnected, regardless of their geography, size and the level of economic development. All of them have been affected. This is how the pandemic has shown again that cross-border issues cannot be disregarded in this globalised world.

We believed that the conclusion was obvious, that the common tasks and challenges should bring all of us together based on the universally recognised norms of international law. Regrettably, this has not happened so far. Quite to the contrary, some of our Western colleagues led by the United States have tried to take advantage of the novel coronavirus crisis to promote their narrow interests even more energetically and to settle scores with their geopolitical rivals. The appeals by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to suspend the illegitimate unilateral sanctions at least during the pandemic, primarily to allow the delivery of medicines and medical equipment as well as the necessary financial transactions, have fallen on deaf ears. Likewise, they have paid no heed to the initiative, put forth by President Vladimir Putin at the online G20 meeting, for setting up green corridors free from trade wars and sanctions to supply medications, food, equipment and technologies. This attitude to unifying initiatives is seriously poisoning the atmosphere of international cooperation and increasing the lack of mutual trust, damaging not only ordinary people, who have been affected first of all, but also the business circles. You know this better than anyone.

These alarming trends have also affected Russia-EU relations. There are hardly any positive achievements to speak about. Since 2014, when the European Union flagrantly violated its own pledge to guarantee the agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, it has not just accepted the coup but has actually been encouraging those who seized power in Ukraine illegally and in violation of the Constitution. In particular, the EU has turned a blind eye to the fact that the coup plotters’ policy is based on Russophobia, and that they threatened to oust Russians from Crimea and tried to browbeat the Russian-speaking regions which refused to recognise the coup and said they wanted to sort out the situation. They were denounced as terrorists, even though they had not attacked anyone, and the army and Ukrainian security forces were sent to fight them. As I said, they have been designated terrorists for refusing to recognise the coup.

Since then, the EU, probably becoming aware of its negative role in these processes but still trying to shift the blame onto someone else. Since 2014, it has ruined the multilevel architecture of interaction between Brussels and Moscow, from summit meetings to over two dozen sectoral dialogues. The programme of four common spaces has been abandoned. To this very day, the normalisation of our relations is being artificially conditioned on the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Moreover, they say openly that it is the Russian Federation that must do this. Meanwhile, our Ukrainian colleagues have announced once again through their leaders, as you probably know, that the Minsk agreements should be preserved as the basis of the EU and US sanctions against Russia. This is their logic.

Of course, we will insist on the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, which has been approved by the UN Security Council, but we will not do this because we want the EU to lift its sanctions. We will do this above all in the interests of the fraternal Ukrainian people, who are suffering from what has been recently going on in Kiev and other parts of their country.

Restrictions are still retained on Russian economic operators’ access to external financial markets. European producers, too, continue to sustain multi-billion losses. The other day, we became aware that Sweden has taken yet another discriminatory step. A Swedish company, Quintus Technologies AB, has refused to supply spare parts for GAZ Group’s industrial press, under an absolutely far-fetched pretext. Allegedly, the equipment is of a military nature and has a dual purpose. This is absolutely artificial logic. This press has been in use since 2009, and never before, including the entire period of crisis in our relations after the coup in Ukraine, have the Swedish regulators entertained any doubts. Judging by all appearances, this is by far not the last example, where the wish to curry favour with those who lay down the West’s geopolitical line prevails over commonsense and own interests. Of course, this will also affect Swedish businesses that cooperate with the GAZ Group and the company’s employees.

Regrettably, we have to state that the EU agencies continue their shortsighted policies. In particular, this refers to the EU member countries that have proclaimed themselves “frontline” states. Their mood is also “frontline” and they pursue “frontline” policies. Let me note that in July, the EU set into motion, under an absolutely far-fetched pretext, its 2019 framework for unilateral sanctions against violations of certain “rules” in the cyberspace, which rules have not yet been coordinated on a universal basis. Invented last year, this generic regime, as they decided, should be “test-driven” in practice over Russian citizens. Without providing any real evidence, they have accused them of launching a cyber attack against the headquarters of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague. Created in 2019, this regime is not the only one of its kind. The EU has spawned, also within its “inner circle,” yet another generic regime punishing violations in the field of employment of toxic chemicals, or, to put it in a nutshell, the use of prohibited types of chemicals that are chemical weapons. It is intended to be used in specific situations. I have no doubt that they will be attempting to apply this regime to the situation involving Alexey Navalny. Moreover, there is no need to “test-drive” or discuss the facts for this on a universal basis either.

Our French colleagues, again unilaterally, have established the so-called “partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons,” a structure outside of the UN or any universal and generally approved international legal framework. But a narrow circle of soul-mates will establish so called “facts,” whereupon a unilaterally created EU organisation intended to punish those who are allegedly guilty of violations will approve sanctions, based on these unilaterally established “facts.” All of this is sad and makes one think that our Western colleagues’ talk of the need for everyone to respect the rules-based order is not just a figure of speech or a synonym of the need to respect international law, but a conscious policy to substitute unilateral and illegitimate actions for the universal international legal framework that requires a consensus of all states in order to approve relevant conventions.

We are interested in establishing the truth regarding Alexey Navalny. That said, this is an outrageous situation that is unfolding following the exact same scenario as in the so-called Skripal case, when accusations were made without presenting any evidence. As you are aware, Russia’s Prosecutor-General’s Office sent requests under the 1959 European Convention for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters to the relevant agencies in Germany, France and Sweden, where the required tests were allegedly carried out. Under the protocols to this convention they were asked to share information on the results of these tests. We were told that no action will be taken under this convention, which in itself is a violation, and that the results were handed over to the OPCW. They told us to wait for this organisation to release the results of its tests. However, the OPCW informed us that they continue investigating this matter and the samples they collected (it is unclear who collected them and when). We were told that once they are finished, they will communicate the results to Germany, since the request came from there, leaving it to Germany to decide whether to share this information with us. This is a travesty of common sense, and I believe that everyone understands this, including our Western colleagues who deny our requests that are based on a binding international convention. It seems that their Russophobic fervour is so strong that it prevents them from exercising good judgement.

We regret that trade and economic cooperation is becoming increasingly politicised. I have just cited some examples. Trade and economy have always been viewed as a safety net in relations among nations. Nowadays though, things seem to have shifted into a somewhat different phase. I remember so well that in 2014 German businesses called on the European Union and its agencies not to place politics above the economy in its approach to Ukrainian affairs. At the time it was German Chancellor Angela Merkel who said that there are cases when politics must be above economics. This is regrettable.

We are now witnessing another example. The European Commission has drafted a report with a long title: Report on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the Russian Federation for the Purpose of Trade Defence Investigations. You probably understand what this is all about. The document is clearly biased and can lead to new restrictions on the access of Russian goods to the EU market. You know that this will definitely prompt us to reply. In particular, this report presents regulatory measures that are totally legitimate, including in energy, transport and labour resources, as distortions in the Russian economy. We also have questions regarding another EU initiative. I am referring to the key element of the European Green Deal, the so-called carbon border adjustment mechanism. Brussels said that it will be enacted not later than on January 1, 2023 in one form or another. For now, we are looking into what this initiative actually means. We do hope that this mechanism would not contradict the World Trade Organisation (WTO) norms and will not lead to “trade protectionism on climate issues.” We would like to avoid having to take retaliatory measures. I believe now is not the time for trade wars, even in the current politicised environment.

I will not elaborate too much on the games with Nord Stream 2. It all started quite a few years ago when the EU retrospectively amended the gas directive within its Third Energy Package just to make it harder to carry out this project. This ran counter to all legal norms and established practices approved by all countries. It was with great difficulty that compromises were found. This did not prevent things from going awry afterwards. When the end of the project was on the horizon, a new factor emerged in the form of the heavy hand of the United States that stated its open and unscrupulous intention to derail this project for Russia and the Europeans in order to force the US LNG on the Europeans. They are franticly creating LNG capabilities. Washington claims that these measures are designed to support US producers. This is a gloves-off approach free from any ethical boundaries. They do not seem to be concerned with the fact that higher costs for buying expensive gas will undermine the competitiveness of entire European manufacturing sectors. In fact, this suits the US.

Politicised energy cooperation is yet another blow at the foundations of what we call European security. Energy is the area of cooperation dating back over 50 years. We recently marked the anniversary with our Austrian colleagues. Energy was always left outside any forms of confrontation during the Cold War. Our joint energy programme and cooperation have survived the dissolution of some states and the formation of others; they have always served the long-term interests of all European nations, including the Russian Federation.

Protectionism and other barriers and restrictions will only aggravate the economic situation, which is already complicated. By the way, we noted that the BusinessEurope Confederation of European Business recently published recommendations aimed at protecting European businesses amidst sanctions-related restrictions. The document directly states that the weaponisation of the sanctions policy to pursue economic interests is unacceptable. It may seem obvious but as things go nowadays, it takes a lot of courage to say something as obvious as this.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Russian leadership is implementing measures to support the public and businesses in the face of COVID-19 related problems. We are doing everything we can, considering certain minimum requirements of the epidemiological authorities, to help return foreign workers to Russia, which you are well aware of. You have made respective requests and requests continue to come in. We will continue to process them promptly. We expect that, according to the forecasts made in Russia and foreign capitals (including multilateral institutions), the depth of the economic decline in our country will not be as significant as in many other countries, including the eurozone.

Our potential for countering infectious diseases is becoming increasingly more effective. We have learned a lot while taking practical measures to fight this challenge. Relying on our past experience in countering various pandemics, we managed to develop a series of test systems to diagnose the coronavirus and launch the production of drugs to treat it efficiently. As you know, we registered the Sputnik V vaccine. Registration of one or two more vaccines developed by the Vector Research Centre is being finalised. We support sharing experience in this area and cooperating with all interested countries because it is important for overcoming the consequences of our common emergency once and for all. As you know, speaking at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly via videoconference, President Vladimir Putin proposed an initiative of holding a high-level online conference involving the states interested in cooperation on developing coronavirus vaccines. We hope to receive a constructive response to this important proposal.

Before concluding my opening remarks, I would just like to say a few more words about the main subject on our agenda today: as we have already seen more than once, economic interdependence can be both a boon and a bane. I don’t really think that anything good will come out of this if the EU continues to see its partners as some “appendages” of the Eurocentric world. The world that was based on the central role of Europe has become history, not regrettably or happily but objectively. The drivers of economic growth and political influence are now in the East. The new polycentric reality calls for new approaches in politics and the economy. The “leader-follower” relationship is no longer tenable. What we need now is respect for the fundamental principle of equality.

Nowadays we must help the global economy through this difficult period and ensure its consistent post-COVID development. This goal should unite all of us, because this is about the welfare of all nations. We call for finding new growth points in order to overcome the global recession. It is crucial in this respect to combine the potentials of the various integration initiatives that are being implemented throughout Eurasia. This is the objective of President Putin’s initiative on the Greater Eurasian Partnership based on the universal principles of international law and transparency and open to all countries of our huge common continent without exception. You are aware that we are actively promoting dialogue on this subject within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), as well as in relations with ASEAN nations. While doing so, we point out that we would like all countries of our common continent to join this process, both members of regional associations and the unaligned countries. This means that the EU countries could also take a look at this initiative with regard to their own interests, the interests of European businesses, including the possibility of easy access to the rapidly growing markets and new transit routes within the framework of this project. We have a starting point for launching this work in earnest. I am referring to the contacts created at the technical level between the European Commission and the Eurasian Economic Commission. We would like these contacts to break out of the restrictions of technical and regulatory issues. We would like our discussions to move over to a political level and to acquire a political vision of the development of Eurasia, which will become a global economic driver – there is no doubt about this.

We firmly believe that it is in our common interests to prevent the appearance of undesirable dividing lines in the new economic spheres created by the new technological paradigm. Energy and industry are becoming ever greener and all spheres of human activity, including the work of economic operators, are being digitalised. It is our strong conviction that this calls for combining efforts rather than trying to play zero sum games again, as was the case in the past. We are ready for cooperation on the broadest possible basis.

Thank you. I am now ready for the interactive part of our meeting.







Question:

There is a saying in my native German language that smart people give way in a dispute. What steps would Russia be ready to make in this regard? What opportunities do you see for giving an impetus to this process and putting it back on a more constructive trajectory? What mechanisms and measures do you see for shielding small islands of cooperation from the collateral damage caused by geopolitical rivalry?



Sergey Lavrov:

As far as I can see, the way you used this German saying (smart people giving way in a dispute) suggests that you are certain that the West will never give way.

I also see this in the way many of the ongoing developments are unfolding. In particular, this refers to the complaints we hear. Russia invariably owes something regardless of the international matter, be it Syria, Libya or Belarus. The same goes for Alexey Navalny, any cyber affairs and poisonings. But no evidence is presented. Moreover, when we question their claims and findings, in this case I am referring to the Bundeswehr laboratory, or to the Porton Down laboratory in the Skripal case, they see this as an insult. But no evidence was presented. Our German colleagues are now telling us that this is our problem and that the poisoning took place on Russian territory, so they don’t know anything. Go ahead and open a criminal case, but we will not give you anything, they tell us.

By the way, I remember a rather gruesome episode in our relations with Germany when there was a problem in 2016 with Yelizaveta Fesenko, a Russian underage girl. She disappeared and the search continued for quite a long time. She later resurfaced and said that she had been raped. It turned out that she had not been raped but Germany still opened a criminal case on child sexual abuse charges. One of the defendants received a suspended sentence. But when we tried to become involved to help the girl (apart from a German citizenship she also is a citizen of the Russian Federation) and asked our German colleagues to explain what happened, we faced an outpouring of resentment, including a statement by then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who said that Russia should not interfere in Germany’s domestic affairs or use this incident for propaganda purposes. This is a similar case. Something happened to a Russian national on German territory. When we asked to explain what had happened they told us that it’s not our business and asked us not to interfere in their domestic affairs. When now we asked our German colleagues to share their findings after analysing Alexey Navalny’s test samples, they referred us to the OPCW. The OPCW referred us to Germany, arguing that it was Germany that filed the request, while Russia should have had the same findings as Berlin. However, the doctors in Omsk passed on to the Germans the results of all the tests they ran and everything they did. When the Germans came to transport Alexey Navalny to Germany, they signed papers confirming that they received all the information. Moreover, Alexey Navalny’s spouse signed a document assuming responsibility for all the consequences of his transfer to Germany, since our doctors were not convinced that this was safe. It is true that they did not find any traces of weapon-grade toxic substances. They honestly said so. Let me draw your attention to the fact that the Charite clinic did not find any toxic agents from the so-called Novichok group in Navalny’s samples either. It was the Bundeswehr clinic that made these findings. We still do not know whether the French and the Swedes collected the samples themselves or the Germans simply passed on these samples to them. The fact that our partners are trying to keep this secret, muddying the waters, is a matter of serious concern for us. We want to get to the truth and will pursue this objective. I don’t know what to do with this. Now we are being accused of the developments in the Central African Republic, and they are trying to pin the blame for something that happened in Mozambique on us as well. We stand accused of everything no matter where it occurs.

When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his deputies and other members of the US administration travel around the world, they openly call on their partners during news conferences in Africa, Greece or elsewhere to stop cooperating with Russia and China. These statements are being made officially and unceremoniously, for everyone to hear. It is difficult for me to say now what concessions we can make when it comes to this situation.

As your board chairman has already mentioned, it is good that the ties with the EU are being revived. Yes, they are indeed being revived, but only in specific areas, such as Syria, Libya and Africa – we have recently held such consultations. However, we do not see a systemic approach to our relations on the global and hugely important political plane.

High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell is a good friend of mine. We spoke with him earlier this year on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. In June, we talked for two hours via videoconference. We discussed all topics in great detail. There is a common understanding that we need to review the situation, at least so as to see if the EU policy based on sanctions is really effective. This is for the EU to do. In our opinion, it is a flawed policy. Sanctions damage both those against whom they are applied and those who apply them. You are aware that we are trying to abandon all forms of cooperation that can strengthen our dependence on Europe, including in the fields of technology and agricultural goods. I believe that we have achieved good results with this. We are probably doing this because we are no longer sure that our European partners will honour their commitments. I have cited the example of Nord Stream 2. It would seem that the EU’s Legal Service has long analysed this project and concluded that it is good and does not contradict any EU norms. Nevertheless, the question has been reopened and the rules have been changed. Is this how reliable partners act? Moreover, this is being done contrary to the fact that companies from the five respected “old” EU members were fully interested, and continue to be interested, in the Nord Stream 2 project. But politics has prevailed over business.

Of course, selective dialogue is underway on some specific matters, as you mentioned. We are not abandoning it. But we can see that the EU has been trying to preserve the five guiding principles and only to modernise them (and they are based on the fact that the normalisation of EU’s relations with Russia is conditioned by the implementation of the Minsk agreements by Russia, not by Ukraine). While these futile discussions are underway in the EU and the very aggressive and loud Russophobic minority is preventing any efforts to reassess relations with Russia, very serious analytical processes are gathering momentum in Germany. As far as we know (this information is based on German media reports), experts close to the German Government are developing what they describe as “a new Eastern policy,” which actually amounts to removing the remaining positive parts on our agenda. Their main arguments, as cited by the press, are that strategic partnership is a thing of the past; that the Partnership for Modernisation, which used to be a symbol of our cooperation with Germany and subsequently with the EU as a whole, has not materialised; and that Russia refused to become an ally for the EU and NATO and hence became their opponent when it comes to fundamental political and ideological aspects of the new international order. I have already said that our Western friends want the new international order to be based on rules rather than international law, and on rules invented in a narrow circle of confederates.

As for selective cooperation, the circles close to the Government who are formulating a new agenda say that such cooperation will be possible only after Russians mend their ways. Amid mental stagnation in Brussels, these processes are gathering momentum first of all in Germany. Geopolitical analysts have probably seen that Germany is becoming the lead player in ensuring a strong and lasting anti-Russia charge in all processes underway in the EU.

We have seen this before. The first sanctions were adopted after an absolutely transparent referendum was held in Crimea and nobody questioned their outcome – US representatives told me so immediately after the referendum. Nobody doubted then, and nobody doubts now, that it was a sincere desire of the Crimean residents. But as soon as this happened, we were told in a quite superior manner that Russia should know that there would be no “business as usual.” We replied that yes, there will be no “business as usual.” You yourself have ruined your standing and reputation when you were spit in the face – excuse my French – by those who terminated the agreement guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland. We know very well that there will be no “business as usual,” but we are nevertheless ready to look for spheres of constructive interaction. But take a look at the current situation. Just a small but telling example regarding Nord Stream 2: the Swedish authorities have cancelled their companies’ permit for cooperation with GAZ. There are more examples of this kind too. The question now is not that there will be no “business as usual,” but that there may be no reliable basis for doing business with Europe in the long term and we cannot be sure that our European partners will honour their commitments. I am not talking about companies. They want to do business, but it is the politicians who are ruling over business now. This is the problem. As I have already said, there is no lack of goodwill or desire to develop normal relations on our part. Just read President Putin’s message of greetings to Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel on Germany’s reunification. It clearly says everything. But goodwill cannot be unilateral. It is said that he who is smarter and stronger should take the first step. We probably have grounds to believe that our partners are strong and smart. I really do hope that they think about us in the same way. If there is goodwill on both sides, we can turn the tide. But we do not see any reciprocity so far.



Question:

We have noticed these concerns regarding the recent trends that you mentioned, and the articles claiming that the partnership has come to an end. We share these concerns. As an association, we agree that it takes two to tango.



Sergey Lavrov:

These days, some prefer breakdancing and you don’t need a partner.



Question:

Let’s hope that partner dancing will not go out of style. As an association, we adhere to the principle of independence. We communicate both with Brussels, by voicing our concerns with the current situation, and with officials in Russia. I was very happy to hear your greetings on our anniversary. This year we marked 25 years. We planned to organise a conference using the motto “Russia and Europe in the world of tomorrow: looking back on the past to move towards the future.” How do you see Russia and Europe in the world of tomorrow? What are the most promising areas for continuing the cooperation that has not always been easy but has undoubtedly been productive over these 25 years? What are the key areas for you?



Sergey Lavrov:

We spoke about this at length today. If we talk about specific areas, these include, of course, the digital economy, the green economy and everything related to the new types of energy (the Russian-Italian-French thermonuclear reactor project). We have many hi-tech projects with Germany. There is mutual interest. But, again, the political course pursued right now, mainly by the United States, is aimed at preventing any mutually beneficial, promising and competitive economic projects in Europe to be carried out without the American involvement – be it Russia or China. This has been stated openly. Politics is the art of the possible but perhaps, in the current circumstances, the economy is also the art of the possible. As long as the leaders of your countries are capable of protecting the core interests of European businesses, as long as they can protect your competitiveness and as long as they can withstand this pressure.

But, of course, besides the economy, we are deeply concerned about the military and political situation. It is not improving in Europe and, on the contrary, it is becoming more disturbing. By the way, there have been many reports, analysis pieces and articles recently marking the anniversary of the German reunification. Russian television filmed a two-hour documentary, The Wall, which came to a rather sad conclusion: the Berlin Wall was never destroyed; it simply became virtual and moved to the East very close to the Russian border, despite all the promises and assurances. I will not comment on this film right now. I hope you watched it. If you did not, I recommend it because you will understand a lot about the current conditions for the Russia-Europe relations, how the Russian leadership and Russian people remember the times when – and we all know this very well – Russia played the decisive role in the German reunification, by making a huge sacrifice. I am not exaggerating. The withdrawal of our troops was conducted in absolutely cruel and inhumane conditions. We know the real (financial) cost Germany paid for this. We also know that, not that our Western colleagues tried to persuade the Soviet leaders against it but they asked whether they [the Soviet leaders] had thought carefully and whether everybody needed a united Germany. You know the outcome. I find the manner used by some representatives of the German leadership in communication with the Russian Federation not only unacceptable but fully indicative of the fact that the era everybody considered a historic victory of Germans and Russians and eventually the victory of the entire Europe is now completely forgotten. This is unfortunate. I really hope that this anomaly goes away. It cannot reflect the Germans’ true attitude towards Russia. Speaking of which, in a recent public opinion poll, half of the German people across the Federal Republic of Germany, including Western Germany, expressed a positive attitude towards the Russian people. I think the number of people in our country supporting cooperation with Germans will not be less than that. Our historic victory is in overcoming all phobias and focusing on the constructive process in the interests of our nations. Of course, it would be a crime to lose it.



Question:

I would like to get back to the issue of highly skilled professionals returning to Russia. We are very grateful for the help we received from the Government of the Russian Federation and, in particular, from the Foreign Ministry. We know that the rules currently in place, the Government Directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020, is greatly appreciated by our members because it opens a channel for returning highly skilled professionals. However, on the other hand, this process is still complicated and there are many unresolved matters. What are the prospects of relaxing the border crossing regime, especially ahead of the New Year days off?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already spoken on this matter multiple times. The Foreign Ministry will play a secondary role there. Public health is the top priority. Therefore, the epidemiological and sanitary authorities are calling all the shots. We have an Emergency Response Centre headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova, the Federal Supervision Service for Consumer Protection and Welfare, the Healthcare Ministry and the Federal Medical-Biological Agency. All these experts are working on the best measures to protect our citizens and our visitors from the danger of contracting the coronavirus.

It is in the interests of the Foreign Ministry to establish contacts as quickly as possible. As you are aware, the aviation authorities are also interested in this – as are the airline companies which are suffering losses and hoping to resume air services as quickly as possible. Once again, the decisions are up to the epidemiologists.



Question:

I can see that Russia is trying to shut itself off from the rest of the world by demanding that production facilities be more localised. We invested about 2 billion and are one of the largest companies. Seventy percent of our products will not be considered Russia-made products in two years. I am urging you to do everything you can to make sure that Russia does not isolate itself from the rest of the world and cooperates with Western companies. Do not force us to resort to localisation which puts us at a disadvantage and which will seem rather strange after we invested 2 billion.



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree with the idea that we should not destroy the global forms of cooperation and build barriers. If we look at localisation as a barrier, this logic probably applies here. But again, we need to remember about the strategic goals set for our economy by President Vladimir Putin and the Government. To a great extent, they have to do with the events in our relations of the past six or seven years and with the fact whether the West demonstrated itself as reliable and capable of negotiating in relations with us.

When it comes to localisation, we are not alone. For example, India is rather actively pursuing its Make in India policy and I think it is much more demanding than the localisation policy in the Russian Federation. Overall, I understand your production-related concerns and assume that these issues should be raised with the Government Foreign Investment Advisory Council that is in charge of these matters.



Question:

The Government of the Russian Federation adopted new rules that prevent us from investing for the next two years. We do not know whether we can invest in the future because in two years there will be no benefits in this for us.



Sergey Lavrov:

The Foreign Ministry is interested in continuing pragmatic and mutually beneficial economic cooperation; therefore, let’s agree that following this meeting, following our discussion, your chairman, the Director General, will send me a proposal outlining the steps which, in your opinion, would allow our cooperation to continue on a mutually beneficial basis.

I know that you cooperate with the GAZ Group. I meant exactly the same thing that you are talking about when I said that some small European countries are trying to run before the American hounds because the seizures by the United States were once again extended. The Americans are thinking about themselves, too. Many American jobs depend on continuing this cooperation. Our Swedish neighbours decided that they will be more American than the Americans themselves.



Question:

When we discuss relaxing the border crossing regime for highly skilled professionals, please do not forget about their family members because it is a major part of their lives here. I would like to ask you to consider this issue.



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, their comfort is important. We will make sure to support requests concerning their family members as well.



Question:

We are witnessing the US administration purposefully dismantling the international relations system that took shape after World War II. How much have they managed to accomplish in this regard? Is this an irreversible process? What can we expect from the upcoming election?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I mentioned earlier, the current international relations system is collapsing under the banner of the “rules-based world order.” It became part of the political vocabulary, or narrative, in modern parlance, about three to four years ago. We took note of it immediately. When we began to talk about this term which was proposed to be included in the declarations of international forums, we were told that “this is the same as international law.” When we proposed replacing this term with “respect for international law,” we were told, by hook or by crook, that “we need to use some fresh language.” And then everything that I was talking about came to the surface.

Two parallel processes are underway that are directly related to the erosion of the system that was created after World War II, which suited everyone, made it possible to avoid another world war and, as we all hoped, would be ridding itself of confrontational components after the Cold War ended. We have already talked about the Berlin Wall and everything that followed and what we are witnessing now.

There are two obvious areas where this system is being eroded. The first is the privatisation of the existing international organisations’ secretariats. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is based on the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), is a case in point. It was adopted unanimously (any convention can only be adopted unanimously) and is binding exclusively for the countries that have ratified this Convention, 193 in all. The OPCW is one of the most universal organisations. The Convention can only be amended by way of talks, and the language must be agreed upon by a consensus, after which the amendments are adopted and ratified. Under the convention, the OPCW Technical Secretariat (TC) has the competence to conduct a probe in response to an inquiry by any CWC member country. This should be done by an onsite visit by the experts to a location designated by the corresponding party to take samples that are then taken to certified labs. Then, a report is compiled which says whether a substance prohibited by the special lists attached to the CWC was found in these samples. That’s all there is to it. The OPCW Secretariat began to grossly violate the Convention. For example, in Syria, they were making decisions and compiling reports without onsite visits. They just said that they managed to get samples from, say, Great Britain or France (there was such an episode in Khan Shaykhun), since it was “unsafe” for them to go there. We insisted that, under the Convention, they must go there themselves. The answer was “it’s unsafe.” Then, we asked the British and the French, since they were able to obtain the samples in unsafe circumstances, to use their contacts to ensure the safety of the OPCW inspectors so that they comply with the convention. We were told there was nothing they could do, and it’s “classified.” The Syrian government was accused of airstrikes using bombs filled with toxic agents. This “classified” information was used to conclude that a poisonous agent was used in Khan Shaykhun. End of story. Nobody knows who took these samples, or who took them to which laboratory, because it’s “classified.”

There are many questions. When we started asking them and stopped accepting such reports in the UN Security Council (only the UNSC can decide who is right and who is wrong under international law and the UN Charter), our Western colleagues at the OPCW convened an extraordinary session of all parties to the Convention. They put to the vote a proposal that, in addition to what is allowed for the OPCW Technical Secretariat under the Convention (to determine whether a prohibited poisonous agent was used or not), it should also be authorised to identify the perpetrators and to carry out the attribution. Less than half of the countries members of the convention voted in favour of the proposal. The rest voted against it or abstained. However, according to the rules of procedure, the decision was declared adopted. Thus, instead of an international law instrument, which any universal convention is, we got an instrument of the “rules-based order.” Of course, we will not be paying for the portion of the Secretariat’s activities that focuses on these purposes. China and a number of other countries are doing the same, but that doesn’t make the problem disappear. This is an outright privatisation of the Secretariat, which can now be seen in the way the senior officials of this body (Western countries hold the posts of Director-General and his “right hand”) react to our inquiries on many issues (Syria, Navalny, etc.). Concurrently, privatisation is carried out in less aggressive forms, when the Western employees of the respective secretariats conduct blatantly one-sided policies at the UN organisations.

The second area is about the propensity to move “inconvenient” matters outside the UN system. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that our French colleagues had created the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. We asked why we can’t discuss this at the UN or the OPCW, which they are trying to manipulate. Why do this somewhere else? We were told that this is just a “group of like-minded people.” Today, I spoke on the phone with my French colleague, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian, and asked him why they were not responding to a request filed by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russia regarding Alexey Navalny’s tests. Mr Le Drian told me they were waiting for the OPCW to respond. The OPCW has not yet responded (today is October 5). However, already on September 24, our French colleagues initiated the distribution, among their closest partners at the very same organisation in The Hague, of a draft statement by the countries participating in the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. The draft of this statement is already saying that, as confirmed by the OPCW Secretariat, Mr Navalny was poisoned with Novichok. The Secretariat has not confirmed or said anything. We have an official letter from the OPCW Director General Fernando Arias Gonzalez saying that the process is still underway.

This “privatisation,” as we call it, creates quite serious problems in other areas of the universal institutions’ work as well. Instead of once again provoking scandals at the conferences of the parties to the relevant universal conventions, they are now making decisions in a narrow circle of “like-minded people” and then present this as an example of multilateralism. This approach forms the basis of the Franco-German initiative for a new multilateralism, which they are promoting and which was proclaimed not so long ago. It was stated that the EU is an example of multilateralism. We asked again why multilateralism is being considered outside the framework of the UN multilateral organisation. There’s no answer, but we know it. There will be more cases like this. Along with this International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the French have created a similar partnership on the freedom of journalism and information in cyberspace.



Question:

The impact of geopolitics on de-globalisation. Modern equipment has a very broad built-in functionality for data collection and transmission. At the same time, requirements for a mandatory local hosting are being tightened, in particular, with regard to data collection and transmission. Some forecasts say that by 2030, many countries will close their markets to each other. What do you think could promote the opening of a common economic space?



Sergey Lavrov:

For 15 years, if not longer, we have been actively promoting the initiative (it has gained a large number of supporters now) to figure out how the internet should work so that everyone feels comfortable. This question was raised at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), an organisation dealing with all forms of information and communication technologies, and in the UN, where it was proposed to agree on the rules of responsible behaviour in the information landscape. It is about international information security. At the same time, we are promoting initiatives at the UN to combat crime in cyberspace. There is one part that relates to processes affecting national security, and the other is crime proper – drug trafficking, paedophilia, pornography, and so on. But things are moving with difficulty at the ITU. All these years of discussions have led us nowhere. The Americans do not seem interested in making this topic the subject of agreements. The discussion continues, but you know how the internet is governed, how it all works. It suits them. The Americans are actually pushing forward the idea that there is no need for any anti-cybercrime conventions or rules of conduct to ensure security in the information landscape. There is international law and it is applicable. This also reflects our Western partners’ policy to declare cyberspace an arena of potential confrontation, including the possibility of hostilities (and the outer space for good measure).

As we have seen from hours of discussions with the Americans and other Westerners, they are reluctant to introduce new regulations and cite applicable international law because the West again wants to reserve some extra rights. I mentioned the partnership to protect freedom in cyberspace. If it is established that someone has violated “freedom in cyberspace,” they will not have to prove anything to anyone, because international law is already in place. The Americans are primarily interested in Article 51 of the UN Charter (the right to self-defence and the possible use of weapons). They do not hide this and want to reserve the right to strike. More precisely, not reserve, but actually obtain the right to use military force in response to what they might consider an encroachment in cyberspace that affects their national interest. You can implicate just about anything there.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed reopening the existing channels on cybersecurity issues. On October 2, Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev met with US President Trump’s National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, who said that so far, Washington has not seen any Russian interference attempts in the 2020 United States elections. Well, they kind of expected Moscow to interfere, but “Mr Patrushev assured them they won’t.” What the Russian Security Council Secretary proposed – we actually lived through all this many years ago with the Obama administration, and later it resumed with Donald Trump – was a proposal to sign a deal on non-interference in each other’s affairs, including in cyberspace, concerning elections or other processes. The US does not want to, because they really interfere in our internal affairs. After Kiev events in 2014, they passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which explicitly ordered the State Department to spend $20 million a year to liaise with Russian civil society, to support certain “independent” and “non-governmental” organisations. You are certainly well aware of this. Indeed, a cutting-edge sphere like cyberspace and information and communication technologies in general, where progress is rapidly gaining momentum, is a field for competition. Look at what is happening with 5G networks now, how the Americans prohibit Europe and the rest of the world from cooperating with China; look at how these policies affect the atmosphere of international relations. Consider artificial intelligence. I think competition will continue, as we are seeing a new industrial revolution – or rather, not an industrial, but a technological one.

If we consider the US policy line they are pursuing today, it is difficult to predict how and when it will end, whether it will even come to a close in our lifetime, because anything’s possible. Who knows what will happen on this planet in 50-100 years. There are many people who believe the current US policy line is irrevocable, and from now on, they refuse to put up with it. The most interesting thing is that they actually achieve their goals in some cases. As we say, might is right. But it seems to me that the United States should and will try to pay more attention to its internal problems. I would say what we can see there now has very deep roots. There are many forecasts that any empire will reach a crisis at some point and become smaller and quieter. As Vladimir Vysotsky wrote, “it goes at random, all over the place, and downhill.”

I am not trying to make any predictions about the US elections now; I do not want to be blamed again for supporting someone or not supporting someone else. Vladimir Putin has said many times that we will work with anyone they elect. We are watching the squabbles between Democrats and Republicans. No silver lining, of course. Destabilisation in the United States is unlikely to do any good to any of us. We are actually all interested in the United States being a responsible player in the international arena; but for that, they should at least have some internal stability, which is now being tested. We want them to be a responsible player, which means they should follow the rules, not those invented by them, consistently rather than occasionally, and not change those rules at their whim or use loopholes (like we say, every law has a loophole). This is rules-based order. Unfortunately, the trend is quite steady – they have left the UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, and withdrawn from nearly all treaties; now the last one, the New START, is going to die. The conditions they set are absolutely unilateral and do not take into account either our interests or the experience of many decades, when arms control was enforced to everyone’s satisfaction and was welcomed by all countries. I cannot rule out that the World Trade Organisation will be next. They are also complaining about it, as I understand it, and continue blocking the dispute resolution body, preventing the appointment of the necessary participants for a quorum.

This question causes everyone’s concern, but I have no answer to give you. Some expound on how empires grow old and new ones emerge, like when you all play together as kids, and there is always the main bully in the sandbox who hits the younger ones. But later, when they grow up, they get even. This probably happens in different forms on a bigger scale, like centuries-long cycles.



Question:

As you may be aware, Turkey and Libya have certain agreements regarding the Mediterranean Sea. We’re amid an abnormal situation, where Turkey, a NATO member, has a run-in with Europe, where most countries are NATO members as well. Clearly, in addition to the economic interests, there are geopolitical and military reasons as well. What’s your view about a potential increase in the number of clashes in this region and Russia’s role?



Sergey Lavrov:

Here, too, we need to look through the lens of geopolitical interests. The situation in Libya, Syria and a number of other countries is far from being alright, but hydrocarbons are among the factors that clearly influence politics. At least what the Americans are doing with oil having illegally occupied the eastern coast of the Euphrates River in Syria and making a decision allowing their company to produce oil. Together with the Kurds, they are trying to “cobble up” a Kurdish autonomy, which will have quasi-state functions. It is well known that they are also trying to talk the Turks into not objecting to the idea of creating such autonomy, assuring them that the Americans will ensure the Kurds’ loyalty. Flirting with a country’s territorial integrity is a gross violation of international law. In this case, this applies not only to Syria, but also to the Kurdish problem, which can be so explosive that the current situation will appear much less serious. It affects a number of countries in the region. An invitation to separatism and its active promotion can end very badly. This is being done by a distant overseas country, but the countries of the region and Europe will have to deal with the consequences. We are not far away from there, either. So, we have come up with an initiative to develop a security concept in the Gulf with the participation of all Arab countries, Iran, the League of Arab States (LAS), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the UN Security Council permanent members, and the European Union.

The time has come when too many problems have piled up in and around the Gulf, including the Middle East and North Africa. We need to sit down and talk.

The Americans are also departing from international law and moving to the rules on which they want to establish the world order, I mean a Middle East settlement. They are turning the Arab Peace Initiative upside down, which proclaimed the creation of the Palestinian state followed by the normalisation of relations between the Arab countries and Israel. Now, the process has reversed.

We welcome any agreements that normalise relations between the states, but we cannot agree to this being done to the detriment of the Palestinian people’ interests which are enshrined in numerous consensus resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.



Question:

More than a year ago now, President of Russia Vladimir Putin met with President of France Emmanuel Macron in Bregancon. How would you assess the results of that meeting? I know that recently in Lithuania, President Macron said he would continue cooperating with Russia because it is crucial for Europe. What do you have to say on this score?



Sergey Lavrov:

In August 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron had a very good and productive meeting in Bregancon. France is the only state whose government responded to Vladimir Putin’s address circulated in autumn 2019, when it became known that the INF Treaty had finally “died.” That long letter went to all NATO members and a number of other states, in which Vladimir Putin spelled out the history of the issue, explained how important the INF Treaty was, how its termination would increase the risks and wipe out any control over such missiles, and proposed to declare a voluntary moratorium. He said that Russia has already announced it and will not build or deploy any such missiles until such US-made systems are deployed in some part of the world. The President of Russia asked his NATO partners to consider the possibility of a counter moratorium without concluding any agreement – just pure goodwill, similar to the previous nuclear test ban. Only a few of them even bothered to respond, usually “thank you and we’ll read it later.” Some just declined. French President Macron was the only one who actually wrote he was ready to discuss the proposal, and who noticed that we were not just proposing two counter-moratoriums in that letter – a Russia-NATO and a wider one – but we were ready to discuss specific ways to verify compliance. Western Europeans as well as our American colleagues said the “cunning” Russia was proposing a moratorium when it allegedly had such missiles in Kaliningrad. They believe our Iskander systems violate this Treaty, but never provided a single fact that proved it. If they say that an Iskander missile has been tested at a prohibited range, then obviously, they should have satellite images, but they never showed any, just as they have not shown any satellite images when it comes to the Malaysian Boeing shot down over Donbass. They have some pictures, but they just don’t show them to anyone. So Vladimir Putin proposed, if they have any such concerns, to discuss what verification measures we can agree upon to make everyone feel comfortable. The only one who responded to that was Emmanuel Macron.

Unlike our selective cooperation with EU’s Brussels on specific conflict matters, sporadically, from time to time, what we have with France is a stable dialogue, including the two-plus-two format with the foreign and defence ministers. In September 2019, our French colleagues were in Moscow. We also established cooperation in more than ten working groups on various strategic tracks. The working groups on combating terrorism and cybersecurity met recently – these topics should obviously be of interest to everyone, but the Americans and most other Westerners, including the Germans, have shown little interest in cooperating on them, to put it mildly.

Emmanuel Macron also makes critical statements. We can hear those. We also have some questions for France. I have just mentioned some of the steps they are taking that undermine the legitimacy of universal organisations, attempts to isolate some issues to be addressed by a narrow circle of participants they find comfortable. But we are having a dialogue, whatever disagreements we might have cannot be a reason to refuse to discuss serious matters, and limit interaction to some selective, elective topics, as the European Union does.



Question:

The international community failed to prevent two global catastrophes in the 20th century: the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Today we are witnessing the escalation of a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in which Turkey has become involved. Do we have any mechanisms for preventing genocide in the 21st century?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention), which is effective. Genocide has been denounced as a crime against humanity. There are different types and forms of genocide. What is happening today to the Russian language and Russian education in the Baltic countries (in Latvia and Estonia), in Ukraine and several other places clearly amounts to infringement on the fundamental rights of a very large group of people.

One of the topics we discussed with Josep Borrell was discrimination against Russian speakers, in particular, in Ukraine. We regularly raise the question of the Baltics with the EU. They seem unable to do anything, and it even looks to me as if they are unwilling to do anything about it. They only speak in favour of naturalisation. The process is underway, they claim, adding that everything will be just fine, in time. Nothing good is taking place there though. And in Ukraine they adopted several laws on education and language, following which they have adopted amendments that stipulate exemptions for EU languages, which has placed the Russian language in conditions of double discrimination, even though the Ukrainian Constitution stipulates the protection of national minority rights. And it directly mentions Russians.

We have informed the EU that there are Hungarian, Bulgarian and Polish communities in Ukraine and called on them to join forces to protect the rights of the national minorities at the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. We sense a trend in each of these countries to settle the problems of their national minorities in Ukraine unofficially, and they don’t care what happens after that. I asked Josep Borrell if Brussels would support this policy. Absolutely not, he replied, adding that they would equally protect all national minority languages and that the EU would never be content with exemptions for their minorities. But these exemptions have already been made. A law prohibiting primary school tuition in any language other than Ukrainian was to become effective as of September 1. A three-year exemption has been approved for the EU languages, but not for the Russian language. I asked Josep Borrell why this was so. He answered that they were working on this problem.

I don’t think a repetition of genocide in its classical form is possible today, but regrettably, discrimination trends will be gathering momentum. Speaking about Karabakh, we maintain contact with Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as with Turkey and Iran as their neighbours. Today I had a telephone conversation with [French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs] Jean-Yves Le Drian, during which we also spoke about Karabakh. The presidents of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France and the United States – have made a very strong statement. We are now preparing a statement of the three countries’ foreign ministers. However, what we need is not only statements but practical moves that can be made to end the bloodshed and resume negotiations.

You have mentioned that Emmanuel Macron said in Vilnius that cooperation with Russia was crucial for finding solutions to problems. We fully share this view. He also met with Svetlana Tikhanovskaya there; she has met with a number of high-ranking officials from EU countries.

This has jogged my memory regarding a situation, I think it was in 2017, when Jean-Marc Ayrault held the post of foreign minister. In March 2017, Marine Le Pen came to Russia at the invitation of our parliament. She met with President Putin. Mr Ayrault criticised that meeting between the President of Russia and the leader of a large French party. He interpreted it as “an attempt to interfere in the election process.” “We would like to understand if this is so. France is not interfering in Russia’s internal affairs, and we hope that Russia will not interfere in our affairs either,” he said. This is how he commented on President Putin’s meeting with the leader of a French political party who had been invited to visit Russia by our parliament. Now look at the [Western] reaction to what is taking place in Vilnius and other places. This is double standards.



Question:

First of all, I would like to point out the importance of [foreign] professionals returning to Russia so that they can resume their operations here. As for our exports to Russia, we would like to say that we account for 25 percent of them, and we would like to continue to increase our share. We can see great potential here, in particular, when it comes to raw materials. We should start with renewable materials and discuss recycling. We also need to coordinate certification issues and think about improving the furniture industry in Russia so as to be able to export more IKEA products from Russia.



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope your products will not be designated as military or dual-purpose items, as was the case with Sweden’s Quintus Technologies, and that you will continue to supply us with affordable, solid and reliable furniture.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368405
__________________
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 November 25th, 2020 #188
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Ceyhun Bayramov



5 October 2020 - 21:03







On October 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov. The two ministers continued to discuss the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.

Sergey Lavrov expressed serious concern over the ongoing hostilities at the line of contact and the growing death toll among civilians.

The Russian party emphasised that a ceasefire must be negotiated as soon as possible.

The minister said Russia jointly with other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group would continue to facilitate the resumption of the negotiating process based on the fundamental principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process. Mr Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to hold a meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Moscow with the participation of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368415






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan Abdulaziz Kamilov



5 October 2020 - 21:10







On October 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the country that holds the CIS presidency this year.

The two foreign ministers discussed the agendas and preparations for CIS events in October 2020.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368429






Joint statement calling for a ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh



5 October 2020 - 21:15



The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France Jean-Yves Le Drian, and Secretary of State of the United States of America Michael R. Pompeo, representing the Co-Chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group, condemn in the strongest terms the unprecedented and dangerous escalation of violence in and outside of the Nagorno-Karabakh zone.

The Ministers stress unconditionally that recent attacks allegedly targeting civilian centres – both along the Line of Contact and on the territories of Azerbaijan and Armenia outside the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone – and the disproportionate nature of such attacks constitute an unacceptable threat to the stability of the region.

Recalling the October 1, 2020 statement of the Heads of State of the three Co-Chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group, the Ministers call once again upon the conflicting parties to accept an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.

The Co-Chairing countries are determined to exercise fully their mandate, entrusted to them by the OSCE and the international community, with the contribution of the Minsk Group member states. As such, they will firmly continue to advance their engagement with the sides, and urge them to commit now to resuming the settlement process on the basis of existing core principles and relevant international documents well-known by both parties.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368439






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides



6 October 2020 - 13:31







On October 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides, at the latter’s initiative.

The ministers discussed topical subjects concerning bilateral and regional affairs, including the settlement of the Cyprus dispute, stressing it was necessary to comply with the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368678






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif



6 October 2020 - 18:21







On October 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The foreign ministers expressed Moscow and Tehran’s serious concern over the unprecedented escalation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. They stressed the danger posed by the involvement of radical fighters from unlawful military groups from Syria and Libya. The ministers stated that there was no alternative to a diplomatic settlement that must begin with a ceasefire with no preliminary conditions.

Mr Lavrov noted Russia’s extensive efforts, both individually and as one of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, to establish peace in the region as soon as possible.

The ministers agreed to stay in contact.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4368937






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the developments around Alexey Navalny



6 October 2020 - 21:52



We noted the fairly predictable and prompt response with which German officials agreed to the publication of a report on the results of a study on Alexey Navalny’s bio materials on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) website. These results were received shortly before, probably, timed to the beginning of the OPCW Executive Council session.

Thus, this essentially fantastic story, initiated at Berlin’s prompting by its Euro-Atlantic allies in cooperation with the heads of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, received a continuation under the pre-planned conspiracy scenario.

Following the military laboratories of Germany, France and Sweden, now another two laboratories appointed by the OPCW Technical Secretariat, which are, judging by everything, also linked to the military-political structures of the Euro-Atlantic community, have confirmed the presence of certain cholinesterase inhibitors in Navalny’s bio materials. It is stated that these inhibitors are similar in their structural characteristics to two chemicals controlled by the Chemical Weapons Convention but as distinct from them, are not included on its lists.

The Russian Federation intends to distribute its vision of the situation on Germany’s cooperation with the OPCW Technical Secretariat, at the current session of the Executive Council. It will present the chronology of backstage manipulations by the main actors in this play to the participants of the Chemical Weapons Convention. We would also like to remind you that the inquiries sent by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation to the German authorities in accordance with the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters remain unanswered and are supposedly still under review.

We hope the upcoming efforts of the Russian specialists and their OPCW colleagues will make it possible to develop calm, depoliticised cooperation and avoid further escalation of tension around this issue.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4369006






Article by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov «Russia – Laos: 60 Years of Friendship and Partnership» for Lao mass media, October 7, 2020



7 October 2020 - 10:00



This year, our countries celebrate a remarkable anniversary – 60 years since the establishment of their diplomatic relations.

It is symbolic that that commemorative date coincide with the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory. The defeat of Nazism and, generally, the end of the Second World War gave a strong impetus to the decolonization process in Asia, including the national liberation struggle of the Lao people. As a result, as early as September 1945 Laos declared its independence, though it took several decades of intense struggle and political and diplomatic efforts to safeguard it. The Soviet Union actively participated in the 1954 Geneva Conference which put the end to the French aggression against peoples of Indochina, and was a guarantor of the Laos neutrality in the years that followed. No wonder that the Soviet leadership positively responded to the proposal of the Lao government which was formed in August 1960 to establish official relations.

From the very start, our bilateral ties began to acquire concrete practical substance. Thus, one of the first steps in that context was the air bridge between Hanoi and Vientiane established by the Soviet Union to provide assistance to patriotically minded forces in Laos.

There is a saying in Russia: have no friend – find one, found a friend – treasure him/her. After the proclamation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic in 1975 we were there to provide support to the young State. We supplied it with cars and trucks, fuel, food and consumer goods, with everything that was in deficit in the country devastated by many years of the civil war and foreign interference. As early as 1978, Russia helped to build in Vientiane a hospital and a policlinic equipped with up-to-date facilities. Russian professionals shared with Lao colleagues their experience in the areas of agriculture, forestry, healthcare, education, etc., worked side-by-side with them to rebuild roads destroyed by the war, erect bridges and carry out geological prospecting work. Dozens of economic and social facilities were built, including a polytechnical school to provide training in major technical skills and the Lao-Soviet Friendship Hospital, which still yield significant benefits to the Lao people seeking to bring their motherland to the track of dynamic development and prosperity.

Today, Russian-Lao ties are characterized by their multidimensional nature. The parties continue to advance their political dialogue, including, first of all, at the highest level. Presidents of the two countries talked to each other during the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II organized in Beijing in 2015. In addition, the President of the Russian Federation V.Putin met with the Prime Minister of the Lao People's Democratic Republic T.Sisoulith on the margins of the Russia-ASEAN summits in Sochi in May 2016 and in Singapore in November 2018. In September 2017, the head of the Lao government made an official visit to the Russian Federation. Contacts have also been maintained between parliaments, political parties and youth and public organizations, including friendship societies.

Our common undisputed priority is the promotion of trade and economic cooperation, implementation of major joint projects, including in the area of hydropower generation, creation of an enabling environment for unleashing the potential of cooperation between small and medium enterprises in areas such as exploration and extraction of mineral resources, polygraphy and pharmaceuticals. A significant role in promoting practical cooperation between the two countries has been played by the Russian-Lao Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. At its 15th meeting held in Moscow in July last year, the Commission defined key objectives in the implementation of existing agreements and charted plans for the future.

Special attention in the context of our bilateral relations has been paid to the education. We are proud that many Lao citizens who studied in Russia now hold senior positions in the government and other branches of power of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. Among them are the Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith and my counterpart Saleumxay Kommasith, Foreign Minister of the country. It is no wonder that Vientiane was the venue of the regional forum of graduates of Russian and Soviet universities attended by more than one hundred delegates from 15 countries which was held in November 2019. We hope that the baton will now pass to the younger generation, especially taking into account that the number of state-financed scholarships reserved by Russia for Lao students for the period of 2020‑2021 increased almost threefold (to 92) as compared to five years ago.

The Russian public highly appreciated a truly brotherly attitude of Lao people towards the 75th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, a very significant event for Russia. We view that as an important contribution of Laos to the preservation of the historical truth and rejection of any attempts to falsify history.

Our States closely cooperate in the international arena. A key to their successful foreign policy coordination is the coincidence or proximity of positions on practically all major issues on the global and regional agenda. What brings us together is the commitment to the formation of a more equitable and democratic multipolar world order based on the principles of the UN Charter, and the respect for the right of peoples to their own indigenous development models. Russia looks forward to strengthening its dialogue with Laos as an active member of most of the regional structures, including the ASEAN Regional Forum on Security and the East-Asian Summit, with a view to promoting initiatives aimed at creating an architecture of equal and indivisible security in the Asia-Pacific Region, supporting sustained growth in all regional countries and ensuring an interrelated character of various integration processes taking place in Eurasia. Taking this opportunity I would like to congratulate the colleagues with their professional holiday, the 75th anniversary of the diplomatic service of Laos.

We also intensify our military exchanges. Last year, Laos hosted, for the first time, the Laros-2019 joint military exercises. Since the year 2018, experts of the International Mine Action Center of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have been carrying out humanitarian demining operations in the Bolikhamsai and Xiangkhouang provinces in order to clear the country's territory from unexploded ordnance, the heritage of US bombardments in 1964‑1973. The Russian public positively reacted to the delivery to our country of 30 T‑34 tanks in January 2019 which was a gift from the Lao government.

Our Lao friends can always count on us in time of need. In August 2018, an airplane chartered by the Russian Ministry of Disaster Management brought humanitarian assistance to Laos designated for people affected by a major flooding resulted from a dam burst in the Attapeu province. In May this year, Laos was provided with 1000 Russian-made test systems to address the spread of the COVID‑2019. And we intend to continue that way.

In 60 years, we managed not only to preserve but also to strengthen the traditions of friendship, solidarity and mutual support. Today we face new ambitious tasks in strengthening our cooperation in a comprehensive way and in bringing it to new frontiers. I am confident that working together we will be able to achieve significant progress in every area for the benefit of our countries and peoples and in the interests of peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4369025






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to the participants in a roundtable discussion as part of the CSTO Days, Moscow, October 7, 2020



7 October 2020 - 12:48



Greetings to the participants in the roundtable discussion CSTO: Strategic Development Objectives.

Your meeting offers a good opportunity for engaging in an informal and interested exchange of opinions on a wide range of topics related to the role, performance and prospects of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. This discussion has special significance today, considering the persisting tension in international affairs, with member states facing multiple cross-border challenges and threats, including the coronavirus pandemic.

It is clear that only international law and above all the UN Charter provide a pathway to effective solutions. The basic principles of interstate relations enshrined in the UN Charter remain relevant today. As such, it is critical that our countries remain proactive in countering any attempts to revise the international legal architecture arising from the outcomes of World War II and attempts to replace it with a Western-centric “rules-based international order.”

I am certain that the CSTO will continue serving as a model of genuine allied relations. I wish you fruitful discussions and all the best.

SERGEY LAVROV




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4372188






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov



7 October 2020 - 17:10







On October 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov.

The two ministers considered items on the bilateral agenda in pursuance of the agreements reached by President Vladimir Putin and President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov.

The officials also discussed important areas of cooperation in the regional and international formats, including cooperation between the five Caspian countries.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4372436






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the joint statement by the French and German foreign ministers on the situation with Alexey Navalny



7 October 2020 - 20:36



The statement by the two ministers, which is unacceptable both in content and tone, points to the outright reluctance of Paris and Berlin to consider the facts that were set forth by Russian representatives more than once. Instead of properly cooperating with the Russian Federation with a view to clearing up the circumstances of the incident with the blogger, the German and French governments have now turned to threats and blackmail against us. They are urging the European Union to approve new sanctions against Russian individuals and legal entities, simply brushing aside their own commitments under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. All inquiries by the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office in line with the convention are being ignored.

We have repeatedly told our colleagues that it is unacceptable to disregard our numerous inquiries via different agencies. There is no response. Apparently, they are bogged down in behind-the-scenes intrigues. Russian requests for explanations sent both through bilateral channels and to the OPCW Technical Secretariat are being overtly sabotaged.

By all appearances, now France and Germany are heading the anti-Russian coalition that is taking shape in the European Union, contrary to the earlier statements by Paris and Berlin on their commitment to partnership with Russia.

For our part, we reaffirm that if our colleagues are willing to revise this course towards confrontation and give up their attempts to dictate to us, it is still possible to normalise our dialogue. If they are not willing to do this, we will draw our own conclusions. At any rate, we do not consider it possible to conduct “business as usual” with Berlin and Paris.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4372528
__________________
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 November 25th, 2020 #189
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 8, 2020



8 October 2020 - 21:25






Update on the coronavirus pandemic

The current global situation regarding the coronavirus infection continues to follow an alarming trajectory. As of October 7, the total number of infected people surpassed the 36 million mark. Pressure on public healthcare systems and socio-economic sectors is growing. Apparently, in the short-term perspective, the sanitary-epidemiological situation will be determined by a second wave of morbidity and a constant trend towards the spread of this extremely dangerous pathogen. The measures taken in different countries to counter the pandemic are acquiring a long-term character. They affect our normal lives to one extent or another.

In connection with the growing aggravation of the sanitary-epidemiological situation in the world, including at traditionally popular tourist destinations for the Russian people, we would like to address all Russian tourists with a strong request to carefully plan any foreign travel. As we have noted, in these conditions, the probability of tougher quarantine restrictions in foreign countries is growing. They may include partial or complete interruption of transport connections. I will give just a few examples: Poland has banned air travel with 29 countries for two weeks; Finland has toughened restrictions on its national borders, and many countries keep their skies closed. We note the growth of coronavirus cases among Russian citizens that are now vacationing in Turkey. Thus, deaths were recorded for the first time in early October. Regrettably, there are such examples and they are not sporadic. Fifty Russian citizens there have been hospitalised with COVID-19.

Under the circumstances, it is important for the world community to continue consolidating a response to this virus. The WHO plays a key, constructive role in coordinating international efforts, and the Russian Federation is a long-term recognised partner. We actively cooperate with the WHO in order to effectively counter the pandemic on a global scale and regularly provide them with our expertise, and financial, personnel, technical and other resources for resolving a broad range of urgent medical problems.

On October 2 of this year, four new letters of intent were signed with the WHO, one of them on Russia’s contribution of over $15 million to support priority healthcare actions, including the countering of the coronavirus. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed gratitude to Russia and noted that our country was and remains a state that renders valuable healthcare assistance to the WHO and the international community.



Russian specialists organise COVID-19 patient treatment in Uzbekistan

On October 2, a second group of Russian medical workers completed its two week mission to assist their Uzbek colleagues to counter the coronavirus infection (the first group worked in the republic from August 16 to September 16). Fifteen leading Moscow hospitals, as well as three children’s and two infectious disease clinics sent various specialists: infectious disease doctors, intensivists, X-ray specialists, pulmonologists, general practitioners and nurses specialising in anesthesia (35 people in all). The team was fully equipped with everything required for this mission, including personal protective gear.

In Uzbekistan, the Russian doctors met with leaders in Tashkent, and the Qashqadaryo, Surkhandarya, Namangan, Andijan, Fergana and Tashkent regions, as well as the leaders of local healthcare agencies with a view to drafting a package of measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the country. The Russian specialists evaluated the situation on site and consulted their Uzbek colleagues on the methods of treating coronavirus patients in Russia and reorienting medical facilities to treat COVID patients. They also inspected hospitals with coronavirus patients. In addition, Moscow doctors received patients, took part in daily rounds and worked in “red zones.” They were in touch with their Uzbek colleagues, adjusted treatment methods and advised them on medical therapy and pulmonary support for patients. A team of emergency physicians examined patients in serious condition in resuscitation units. In all, the Russian doctors examined about 5,000 people.

The activities of Russian specialists were highly praised in Uzbekistan. Their Uzbek colleagues noted their professionalism, working skills and efficient cooperation with local medical personnel. The head of the group, Konstantin Pokrovsky, and intensivist Irina Machulina were awarded the badge of Outstanding Health Worker of the Republic of Uzbekistan.



Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod’s upcoming visit to Russia

........................................................................................................


Official visit to Russia by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan

........................................................................................................


Upcoming visit to Russia by Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy Luigi Di Maio

........................................................................................................


Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Valdai Club event

........................................................................................................



Appointment of Russian Foreign Minister’s Special Envoy for Syrian Settlement

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has appointed Director of the Middle East and North Africa Department Alexander Kinshchak his Special Envoy for Syrian Settlement.

The diplomat will represent Russia during bilateral and multilateral contacts on Syria, including as part of the Geneva and Astana formats for facilitating settlement in Syria under UNSC Resolution 2254.



Russia’s contribution to multilateral cooperation in healthcare, Russian experts’ participation in the work of WHO expert bodies

For decades, the Russian Federation and the WHO have closely cooperated on major projects at the global, regional and national levels to build and develop stable healthcare systems in the world. Russia is a WHO donor in a number of areas. Key areas include combating infectious (tuberculosis) and non-infectious diseases, maternity and childhood protection, and promoting health-related information in the Russian language.

During his visit to Moscow in September 2020, WHO Regional Director for Europe Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge discussed new prospective areas of cooperation, such as digital medicine.

The WHO values the opinion of Russian experts highly. Our specialists have long and successfully been involved in the work of WHO expert bodies and special missions. These contacts have become more extensive due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Representatives of the Russian Healthcare Ministry and the Federal Supervision Service for Consumer Protection and Welfare have participated in several WHO missions across the world. Their professionalism was highly praised by WHO senior officials.



Increasing Russia’s contribution to the United Nations World Food Programme fund for humanitarian food assistance to African countries

Following the outcome of the Russia-Africa Summit (October 23-24, 2019), the Government of the Russian Federation decided to increase Russia’s donation to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) for humanitarian aid to African countries by $10 million starting in 2020.

Pursuant to the Government Directive No. 2382-r of September 18, 2020, this year Russia will provide humanitarian aid to the following five African countries in distress: Burundi, the Central African Republic, Djibouti, Sierra Leone and Somalia.

The countries listed above are among the world’s least developed states and are frequently affected by natural disasters (continuous droughts and torrential rain). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic aggravates their economic situation even further. Disrupted supply chains, and difficulties with import-export limit these countries’ development capabilities. Large population groups are affected by undermined food security.

The WFP is an essential multilateral channel for Russia to provide food assistance to foreign nations in need. The WFP’s efficiency, authority and non-politicised activity determine our choice in favour of joint humanitarian work on the African continent under this programme.



Russia’s candidate for the post of Secretary-General of the Organisation of Black Sea Economic Cooperation Vladimir Zayemsky

Russia attaches great significance to the strengthening of the Black Sea region’s economic potential and the development of comprehensive interstate interaction on a broad range of industry-specific matters. We believe that the main mechanism in this sphere is the Organisation of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), which comprises 12 Black Sea nations.

The BSEC will mark its 30th anniversary in 2022. Throughout these years, it has proved its relevance. At the same time, inter-regional trade in the Black Sea region has declined over the past few years from 18 percent to 13 percent of the total trade turnover. In order to reverse this negative trend, we need to abandon political stereotypes and focus on promoting a unifying economic agenda, which can be a vital factor of strengthening general stability in the Black Sea region. We should start the implementation of our practical agreements, in particular, on the construction of a ring road around the Black Sea, sea transportation routes, one-shop-stop services and simplified trade procedures, as well as the implementation of business initiatives. These current objectives call for more energetic actions on the part of the BSEC Secretariat, which has slumped into inertia, especially amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.

As you are aware, the next three-year term of the BSEC Secretary General begins next June. Russia has nominated its candidate for the post, Ambassador Vladimir Zayemsky, an experienced diplomat with a long professional career and broad competencies in the fields of bilateral and multilateral relations, and a Vice-Rector of the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy with a PhD in Political Science. When nominating a candidate for this post, we intentionally chose a person with practical knowledge of multilateral diplomacy and interstate integration. We believe that our candidate will be able to act without bias and to look at BSEC’s problems in a different light but also in a highly professional manner. We have no doubt that our candidate, if elected, will find effective solutions to the problems facing the organisation, enhance its functioning in a depoliticised manner and strengthen the spirit of cooperation in the interests of all BSEC member states.

We do hope that our BSEC partners will support our candidate.



Release of Russian crew members from hijacked Rio Mitong and Djibloho vessels

As we have reported earlier, the dramatic story of the Russian crew members from the vessels hijacked by pirates in Nigeria has ended successfully after nearly five months in captivity.

On October 5, three Russian crew members from the commercial vessel Rio Mitong and the research vessel Djibloho, which the pirates captured on May 9 at Malabo and Luba anchorage, respectively, in the territorial waters of Equatorial Guinea, were released.

On October 6, the Russian sailors plus the kidnapped citizens of Ukraine and Guinea were moved, thanks to the intervention of Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, to a safe place from which they will return home.

They had been kept in a tent camp near Lagos on the ocean coast, without any medical assistance or even enough water and food, with little hope of returning back home alive. The Nigerian pirates threatened to kill them unless a ransom was paid to them.

The captives collected rainwater and also drew some water from a well. This dramatic story deserves to be staged. The inmates’ plight was videotaped and made public by the pirates themselves. In the video, the emaciated Russians say that they have nothing to eat, no water or medicine, that they are all suffering from malaria and are hanging on by their fingertips in the hope to be rescued.

Their relatives did their utmost to bring this happy end about. The pirates threatened to start killing the sailors one by one unless they received a ransom.

Our sailors have been released thanks to the persistent combined efforts of the Russian embassies in Abuja and Yaounde, the authorities of Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea and the shipowners’ representatives.

Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, who knows African realities because he has companies functioning in Guinea and Nigeria, responded to the plea of the sailors’ relatives. During the many years Deripaska’s companies were working in Africa, they have come across large-scale epidemics, such as the Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea, other problems and even operations to release hostages.

We would like to express our deep gratitude to all those who have helped to release our compatriots from captivity. We hope that our sailors will return home already this week.



Nagorno-Karabakh update

Russia, both in its national capacity and as a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, continues to undertake vigorous mediation efforts aimed at achieving the immediate cessation of hostilities in and around Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the resumption of the peace talks based on existing fundamental principles and relevant international documents.

The recent joint statements on October 1 by presidents of the three OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries and by those countries’ foreign ministers on October 5 have confirmed that Russia, the United States and France are unanimous in their approaches.

Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the current situation with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan; the same topic was touched upon during a telephone conversation with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is in constant contact with his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts.

Various strategies are being considered. Among other things, we have offered to provide a Moscow venue for a meeting between the foreign ministers of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs also participating. We are holding consultations with the parties with regard to possible dates for the start of negotiations in this format.



UN Security Council meetings on the Syrian chemical dossier

We would like to highlight several events held at the UN Security Council where participants discussed the so-called Syrian chemical dossier, which was fabricated by Western countries. In particular, we are referring to the Arria-formula meeting held on September 28 by Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN, where Ian Henderson, one of the most experienced OPCW inspectors, with 12 years on the job, Theodore Postol, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Aaron Mate, an independent journalist, gave their expert assessments of the absolutely unacceptable situation that has recently developed at the OPCW. Their Western opponents were unable to make any defence against the well-grounded arguments presented by the speakers about the supplementary political agenda in the OPCW's work in Syria and the unsatisfactory methods used by its Technical Secretariat and special missions on Syria. So they opted to just slip into their favourite anti-Syria and anti-Russia rhetoric as per usual.

I have another example. As President of the UN Security Council, Russia invited the first Director General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat to the October 5 open meeting of the council on Syria’s chemical demilitarisation. Brazilian Jose Bustani had been ousted from his post under pressure from the United States and its allies for his independent position on important matters on the OPCW agenda. Yet, Western countries again showed reluctance to even listen to the unwanted assessments by this recognised professional and manipulated the situation procedurally to prevent those present from watching Jose Bustani's video address.

In a word, the political and legal nihilism the Euro-Atlantic allies in the OPCW are constantly resorting to has by now migrated to the UN Security Council platform. It's sad to watch.



OPCW Technical Secretariat’s report following the examination of Alexey Navalny’s biomedical samples

The Russian Federation intends to request that Germany shares the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s full report, which it has at its disposal, on the results of the analysis of blogger Alexey Navalny’s biomedical samples by two OPCW designated laboratories. This information, together with the answers to four requests sent to Berlin by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation, are needed to complete the pre-investigative inspections as required by Russian law and the generally recognised criminal procedure norms in order to understand whether the situation with Alexey Navalny contains any possible evidence of crime. It is only with such evidence that a criminal case can be instituted.

Taking this opportunity, we would like to reiterate the requests that we have already voiced on numerous occasions: to return physical evidence that was illegally taken out of the Russian Federation to the Russian law enforcement agencies, provide Russian law enforcement agencies access to Maria Pevchikh for interrogation as the immediate witness of what happened in Tomsk and Omsk, as well as enable Russian medics to collect biomedical samples from Alexey Navalny on their own.

As long as our requests remain unfulfilled, we will proceed from the premise that all this is merely a pretext for increasing pressure on Russia through sanctions. This is to say what is going on behind the scenes at the OPCW Technical Secretariat.



Alexey Navalny’s meeting with Human Rights Council special rapporteurs

We have taken note of the reports in the foreign media on Alexey Navalny’s meeting with UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnes Callamard and Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan. During this meeting, the Russian national allegedly asked them to carry out an international investigation into his poisoning. Here is what we would like to say in this context.

In late August 2020, Russia received a request from the Human Rights Council special rapporteurs mentioned above to comment on the situation around Alexey Navalny. The Russian Federation requested information to this effect from the relevant Russian agencies, including the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation, despite the fact that assisting these subsidiary bodies of the Human Rights Council is a recommendation rather than a legal obligation for states.

The Russian investigative authorities have not been able to complete the procedural inspections, which is due to the fact that Germany, France and Sweden have not been willing to assist them in determining the circumstances of the events in a full, objective and comprehensive manner, as set forth in the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of April 20, 1959 and additional protocols to it dated March 17, 1978 and November 8, 2001. Russia has sent six requests for legal assistance to Germany, France and Sweden under the convention and its additional protocols, asking them to question Alexey Navalny, his doctors and accompanying persons, provide copies of medical records on his examination and on his treatment in Berlin, the results of the analysis of biomedical samples and other objects, as well as toxicological tests on biomedical samples carried out in France and Sweden.

Unfortunately, instead of collaborating on establishing the truth and facts regarding what happened to a Russian citizen, officials in Paris and Berlin opted for adding political overtones to the case and focused on threats and blackmail, including through international platforms. We consider behaviour of this kind to be unacceptable and irresponsible.

For our part, we do hope that the Human Rights Council special rapporteurs will also send their requests regarding what happened to Alexey Navalny to Germany. I hope that they have all the information on this case that we have shared with the media, and they will carefully study it.

We will continue calling for the most extensive and objective effort to clarify the circumstances of this case.

Alexey Navalny has claimed that “no investigation is being carried out,” which was the main reason why he reached out to the special rapporteurs. We view this as yet another example of twisting the facts and an attempt to manipulate public opinion. In reality, pre-investigative inspections are continuing as per the current procedural norms, as confirmed today by the Russian Interior Ministry’s Criminal Investigation Division in Transport for the Siberian Federal District. By the way, this document presents a detailed account of how these inspections are being carried out and what is hindering their progress. They should definitely acquaint themselves with this information.



US plans to deploy strike weapons in outer space

We have taken note of Washington’s latest statements on the possible deployment of strike weapons in outer space. These statements are fresh proof of the US’s aggressive policy in space, which is aimed at achieving military superiority and even total domination in space. Repeated US statements on plans to deploy weapons in outer space and use it as a theatre for combat operations are a direct continuation of the US doctrines in this sphere, which are set forth in the Defence Space Strategy and the Spacepower document of the US Space Command.

To justify its moves, Washington has used the traditional clichés about the alleged space threat from Russia and China. It is part of a deliberate US disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting Russia’s activities in outer space and our initiatives to prevent an arms race in space. Our American colleagues have again tried to misrepresent the situation so as to draw international attention away from the very real threats created in space by their own space militarisation efforts.

We reaffirm our commitment to the principles of non-discriminatory access to and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Our activities are not threatening the space objects of other states and are not in violation of the norms and principles of international law.

Unlike the United States, we are not hatching plans to achieve superiority in space, whether by launching strike weapons into orbit or using outer space as a theatre for combat operations. Evidence of this is a number of proposals that Russia has advanced with support from a large group of like-minded nations. They include the drafting of a binding multilateral document to prevent an arms race in outer space, based on the Russian-Chinese Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT), as well as the globalisation of the political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in outer space. We will continue our active and results-oriented work towards this objective.

We again call on Washington to be reasonable and avoid reckless moves fraught with extremely negative consequences for the entire international community, including the United States itself. A military confrontation in space would directly undermine international security and strategic stability.



Anti-Russia statements by Pentagon chief Mark Esper

We have to comment on the yet another anti-Russia statement made by Pentagon chief Mark Esper during a visit to the American military cemetery in Carthage, Tunisia, on September 30.

He claimed that Russia conducts “malign, coercive and predatory behaviour which undermines African institutions” meant to “exploit resources throughout the region” while “expanding its authoritarian influence.” He also urged African states to reorient their policies towards the United States, which can allegedly guarantee “a more secure, stable and prosperous Africa.”

The question is what stability and prosperity Washington has in mind. Is it the Libyan scenario, when NATO’s illegal military intervention plunged the country into chaos and made it a source of regional instability and a seat of terrorism and violent extremism?

We would like to remind Mr Esper that Russia never interferes in the internal affairs of other states. This is a fundamental difference between the policy of Russia and the United States, which is using force, economic instruments and propaganda to unceremoniously force its will on others, believing that it has a right to tell others how they must live and with whom to cooperate.

When the US policy towards other countries results in the destruction of their statehood and cultural traditions and ultimately their collapse, Washington tries to close this chapter and begin anew by erasing the results of its activities from the memory of its own people and the international community. There is a long list of such examples.

Our American colleagues must admit that their neocolonial efforts to force their will on sovereign states have been rejected by the absolute majority of states. We are sure that African countries can take decisions bearing on their future without external prompting. They know their own history very well, and they remember who supported them throughout the 20th century and who was plundering them in the 20th century and before that. We will never tire of reminding our colleagues, including in the US, about this.



US Department of Homeland Security report

We have noted a recent homeland threat assessment report released by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Russia is included in the list of threats that country faces at present. It is argued that we can allegedly use ICT capabilities we have to undermine critical electoral infrastructure in the US, as well as to try to influence voter preferences.

Why didn’t they add some figures in that same report, right next to these accusations, disclosing spending from the American budget, the money that has been allocated for decades for the protection and maintenance of information and communication technologies, critical American electoral infrastructure and so on? Where does this money go if, as they allege, one country can undermine all that? And a whole report has been written on this subject.

It is regrettable that the US Administration, for reasons of a purely opportunistic nature, spends significant human and material resources on stirring up anti-Russia sentiment among US citizens and the international community.

Instead of the dogged attempts to denigrate Russia and portray its approaches to security in the information landscape as anti-America policies, we would recommend that our colleagues in Washington re-read Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement of September 25, in which he proposed resuming US-Russian cooperation on international cybersecurity. That statement says it all. Moscow is expecting a reaction. I do hope that it will be constructive.



US Congress considers new act fighting foreign interference in US elections

A bill to “deter foreign interference” in United States elections was submitted to the US Congress House of Representatives on September 30.

So many reports, so many resolutions, documents, statements, and petitions in the United States are printed every day basically repeating the same thing over again: “Stop interfering in the elections. Let’s not allow other countries to interfere in the American elections.” If this has been the main topic on the agenda for the past few years, it is high time they just stopped wasting the paper it is printed on and saved their breath. Reading such statements, one clearly sees that serious people cannot write anything like this.

The sponsors of this new masterpiece propose imposing severe economic restrictions on our country, including a ban on transactions with government bonds, as well as new sanctions against leading banks and companies in the fuel and energy sector.

The question arises: Do you want to preserve and protect your electoral system from external interference or do you just need an excuse to further restrict Russia’s activities in certain areas that are unrelated to your elections, but you are persistently trying to link the two matters?

The topic of Russia’s alleged interference in the US elections has been kept afloat for years, and lawmakers in Washington have not calmed down. They never tire of producing more anti-Russia initiatives in attempts to “punish” our country and other states for some dreamed up influence on US electoral processes. We keep commenting on these claims. We note their fabricated and unsubstantiated nature.

Unfortunately, such tools continue to be used in the ongoing political infighting in the United States. It has become a factor on the US domestic agenda. It is clear that someone is simply trying to earn themselves extra points in the election race. But in this context, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain a meaningful dialogue with Washington.

Nevertheless, we still hope that, once the sides are done with pre-election squabbles, common sense will prevail, and Capitol Hill will reach a consensus, not on the mythical threat of Russia’s interference, but on understanding the need to start tackling America’s own complex problems.

In simpler terms, so that you understand – it is not Russia that is interfering in your elections. It is you that deliberately drag the whole world into your electoral processes.



US interference in Nicaraguan elections

The forum, Nicaragua: Are Free and Fair Elections Possible? held by the State Department is a new egregious example of US interference in sovereign states’ internal affairs.

In particular, it was reported that the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States had received, from the Nicaraguan opposition, a draft electoral reform which they supposedly planned to present to the current government of Nicaragua for its consideration.

Why is the US so deeply interested in this topic? We do not even have to ask, given the attitude of the United States and its political establishment towards its neighbours in the region – the Latin American countries.

It appears that the new legislation was presented to a third party and the general public – for discussion and, apparently, approval – even before it was submitted to the interested party. That was exactly what happened. Moreover, it was accompanied by threats of new sanctions if the government in Managua did not comply with the demands.

I would like to ask our colleagues in Washington: Have you tried to imagine the same strategy applied to youself? Day after day you chase the spectre of external interference in your electoral process, while at the same time dictating your prescriptions to sovereign states, threatening to “punish” anyone who doesn’t suit you for some reason.

The United States is systematically undermining the internal political situation in many states, and Latin America is no exception – just another confirmation. We condemn this practice.

We believe conflict resolution should be approached on the basis of international law – in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Haiti or anywhere else – not on some “rules” someone invented, which are constantly changing, are not documented anywhere and are outside both legality and morality. We can see no alternative to reconciling internal political differences through an inclusive dialogue of all parties, regardless of their ideological frameworks.



Washington’s restrictive measures against certain countries due to insufficient efforts in countering human trafficking

We have noted an order of US President Donald Trump that is being disseminated among the US expert community on extending restrictions with respect to several governments due to their insufficient efforts in combating human trafficking. According to a document published on the website of the White House on October 1, the prohibition on funding cultural and educational exchanges with Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Syria has been extended.

We confirm Russia’s principled opposition to the concept of “modern slavery” being promoted by a number of Western countries to the detriment of the fight against human trafficking. We find this concept clearly counterproductive and politicised. We consider that the attempts by the United States to promote this idea are a tool for unsubstantiated criticism of sovereign countries.

The Russian Federation is interested in a comprehensive and overarching discussion of the problem of human trafficking. We support a constructive and meaningful dialogue within the framework of various platforms, and promote a balanced approach, which means focusing on all aspects of this multidimensional phenomenon.

Developing tangible practical cooperation, well-functioning direct contacts between competent police departments, immigration services and border control agencies in the countries of origin and destination of “human commodity,” sharing experience and organising expert meetings on the most pressing unresolved issues constitute the primary components of international cooperation in the area of combating trafficking in persons.

We believe that any country-specific projects on combating human trafficking must be carried out only upon request of the countries in question. We believe that every state has the right to determine its own most suitable national mechanism for countering human trafficking.

Therefore, situations when a certain country proclaims its right to issue judgments on others while considering itself more or less advanced in the area of combating human trafficking, firstly, are not helping to solve this problem in general and, secondly, are not in line with the nature of modern international relations in a multi-polar world.



Instagram labelling the accounts of Russian media outlets as controlled by the state

On October 6, following the example of Twitter and Facebook, Instagram joined the practice of arbitrarily labelling the accounts of and publications by Russian media outlets as “state-controlled.”

This coordinated discrimination by American monopolists of the social media market against the most popular Russian media outlets confirms their political bias in favour of official Washington’s foreign policy stances.

Currently, the label – or, if we call things for what they are, the stamp – which the Instagram administration hypocritically calls a “warning,” has been applied only to the accounts of RIA Novosti, RT and their news products. As it was the case with Twitter and Facebook, Western state-funded media outlets have not been subject to such labelling.

The social network’s administration tries to justify these apparent double standards by referring to the fact that it determines state affiliation of a specific media outlet based on “assessment against a set of criteria developed for this purpose.” Needless to say, the criteria used for such moderation remain anything but transparent to us.

However, the most striking thing is that, as seen from the clarification given by Instagram for its new labelling practice, its administration took it upon itself to make decisions not only about the degree of independence of any media outlet’s editorial policy but also about whether such media outlet serves public interests.

Of course, it could be suggested that the arrogant presumptuousness of the IT giant’s senior management, which allows them to see themselves as universal judges and guardians of common good, comes from the illusion of American “exceptionalism.” However, as experience has shown us, these measures have a much more trivial explanation. IT corporations have to take these unpopular and anti-democratic restrictive steps under the political pressure of the American establishment that forces them to follow its political course for discrediting Russian media outlets and pushing their content out of the global information space.

It is disappointing that on its tenth anniversary, Instagram chose to please American Russophobes by introducing censorship against Russian media, which is not nearly the best gift to its multi-million Russian – and global – audience.

We call on Instagram’s administration to revisit its policy restricting users’ right to free access to information. It should be reminded that any moderation of online content must be transparent and must not restrict access to any source of information based on its political or other beliefs and other characteristics that may lead to discriminative attitudes.

We hope that specialised international agencies and human rights organisations will respond in due course and give an impartial assessment of the activity of American social media.



On the appeal process in Vilnius with regard to events of January 13, 1991

The second round of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal’s sessions with regard to the tragic events that occurred in Vilnius on January 13, 1991 concluded in the Lithuanian capital last week.

Russia’s official position on this matter is well known. We see the statements that were made in this regard and the shameful trial initiated by Vilnius as a continuation of a flawed policy aimed at falsifying history and settling historical scores with Russia by the Lithuanian government.

We consider the ongoing trial, which grossly violates the fundamental principles of international justice, a serious blow to the image of Lithuania as an EU member and a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We are convinced that the dead-end approach chosen by the Lithuanian political establishment is at odds with the national interests of Lithuania and the Lithuanian people, who are interested in restoring neighbourly relations with Russia.



The Nuremberg Lessons scientific and practical forum

November 20 marks the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, which is the most important trial in the history of humankind. It resulted in the sentencing of the masterminds and perpetrators of such heinous crimes as mass terror and murder, genocide and the horrifying destruction and looting of vast territories.

In this regard, on November 20-21, the Victory Museum on Poklonnaya Gora will host the Nuremberg Lessons International Scientific and Practical Forum, which will be one of the key events of the Year of Memory and Glory.

The topics of panel discussions will bring together, at the interdisciplinary level, matters of preserving the historical memory of the importance and the role of the Nuremberg process in building modern world order, addressing national security issues and the patriotic and moral education of younger generations.

The panel discussions will be used to summarise the experience that brought to justice those who initially escaped retribution for their war crimes, and the practical use of international criminal law provisions formulated by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Round table discussions will be held as part of theme-based panels and will focus on rationalising the historical importance of the Nuremberg trials and the role the Soviet Union played in bringing war criminals to justice, as well as on the exchange of views on critical historical and modern aspects for using the Nuremberg Tribunal rulings. How the historical memory of the Nuremberg Trials in modern museum and media space is represented and reflected in works of art, and their inclusion in educational programmes and modules of moral and patriotic education of our youth will be part of the discussion.

Ministries and departments, leading research institutes and non-government associations will organise theme-based sessions and discussion panels. In conjunction with the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Foreign Ministry will host a theme-based panel entitled “Nuremberg’s Legacy in International and National Law,” which will bring together renowned Russian and foreign international lawyers with extensive scientific and practical experience.

Everyone interested in this matter, primarily, representatives of Russian and foreign media are encouraged to cover this scientific and practical forum. For accreditation, please contact the press service of the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

(Yu. Grigoreva is the contact person, phone: +7 (499) 449-81-07, email: [email protected]).



Afghan Peace Settlement

Unfortunately, almost a month after the opening ceremony for the intra-Afghan negotiating process in Doha, the parties are still embroiled in consultations on procedural issues. It appears that the situation has reached a dead end, which cannot but cause concern for us. With dialogue in Qatar treading water, hostilities continue in Afghanistan and dozens of people die every day.

We reiterate our call to the delegations of Kabul and the Taliban to coordinate technical procedures as soon as possible and start substantive talks. We look forward to a reduction in violence in Afghanistan in the context of the ongoing peace process.



Mali update

We continue to closely follow the developments in Mali, and note the following in this regard.

At the end of September, in accordance with the requirement of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which is carrying out a mediation mission in Mali to transfer power from the National Committee for the Salvation of the People (CNSP), established by the military, to a civilian government, former Defence Minister Bah Ndaw and former Foreign Minister Moctar Ouane were appointed, respectively, transitional President and Prime Minister of the republic. The head of the CNSP, Colonel Assimi Goita, took over as Vice President. On October 5, a transitional government was formed, to include, in addition to the military, representatives of all major Malian political parties and movements.

We believe those recent appointments to be a step in the right direction, and evidence of the country’s gradual return to a constitutional track. In this context, we welcome the lifting of previously imposed ECOWAS sanctions against Bamako on October 6.

We hope that the interim Malian government will take all necessary measures to attain the main objective – to reinstate, as soon as possible, a civilian government in Mali on the basis of an inclusive national dialogue and after a short transitional period, to hold free and democratic elections assisted by ECOWAS and the African Union.

We do hope that the people of Mali, with whom we have a long-standing relationship of friendship and solidarity, will be able to successfully overcome this difficult period in their history. We are interested in the further progressive expansion of the entire range of mutually beneficial Russian-Malian ties.



Statement by the French Human Rights Ambassador and the German Human Rights Commissioner on the sentencing of Russian citizen Yury Dmitriyev

We have noted the September 30 joint statement by Germany’s Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Assistance Bärbel Kofler and France’s Ambassador at large for Human Rights François Croquette in connection with the guilty verdict by the Supreme Court of Karelia against Russian citizen Yury Dmitriyev. His sentence was increased as per the Criminal Code article on sexual violence for a crime committed against his underage adopted daughter.

We regard this German-French demarche as an act of interference in the internal affairs of the Russian Federation and an attempt to cast doubt on independent Russian court rulings.

We would also like to point out that Berlin and Paris have no grounds whatsoever to consider the sentence brought against Dmitriyev solely through the lens of his prior human rights activities. This has absolutely nothing to do with it. His merits in the study of political repression in the former Soviet Union are not being questioned by anyone.

All issues regarding his conviction lie exclusively in the sphere of criminal law. In this regard, we consider Bärbel Kofler’s and François Croquette’s calls for the release of Mr Dmitriyev, who was convicted on pedophilia charges, as unethical and immoral. We cannot accept the fact that official representatives of countries in which, as in the entire civilised world, the protection of children and minors from sexual crimes should be a legal and value priority, can make such statements.

We have heard similar inappropriate comments not only from Berlin and Paris, but also from other countries where foreign ministers and other officials have taken the liberty of uttering such fabrications. In this regard, in the near future, we will invite representatives of those countries’ embassies to the Russian Foreign Ministry. Invitations will be sent to the ambassadors of those states that make such inappropriate statements alleging that the case is politicised and expressing support for Dmitriyev, trying to protect him from law-enforcement overreach. We will invite them to ask questions. Perhaps they simply lack the relevant information. We will fill this gap.



The 20th anniversary of the Declaration of Strategic Partnership between Russia and India

On October 3, we marked a landmark event, the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Strategic Partnership between Russia and India. The document laid a solid foundation for the contemporary development of the entire array of bilateral relations in the polycentric world, in which our countries share common stances. One of the world’s first partnership initiatives of our countries has been included in the vocabulary of contemporary diplomacy and is now widely popular in the international practice.

We prioritise the close coordination of Russia and India’s foreign policy efforts, as well as boosting trade, economic, investment and financial interaction, deepening high-tech cooperation, including in the military and technical sector, plus expanding cultural and humanitarian ties.

This anniversary year is marked by the challenging fight against the novel coronavirus infection, which dictates us to search for innovative ways of cooperation, including in medicine and pharmaceuticals. Our active interaction as regards the prospective joint production of the coronavirus vaccine reflects the strategic nature of our relations. We intend to improve cooperation in the traditional areas such as energy and space exploration, and also focus on such promising areas as cooperation in the Far East and the Arctic, as well as infrastructure construction and interconnection.

It is believed that a country cannot have eternal allies and permanent enemies. Only interests can be eternal and permanent. Russia-India relations disprove this approach, being a unique example of century-long friendship based on equality, mutual benefit and unwavering consideration for each other’s national interests.



The 40th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Syria

On October 8, the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Syria will mark its 40th anniversary. This agreement is among the few such documents signed by the USSR that retains its relevance today because it is recognised both by the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic.

We can say safely that Russia-Syria relations have survived the test of time, including thanks to the careful approach to their contractual legal framework that was manifested during the steep turns of history. This gives us grounds, despite the current complex developments in and around Syria, to feel optimistic about the future and see broad opportunities for maintaining and improving our fruitful interaction with this friendly country in all areas of our interested partnership.



The 58th anniversary of Uganda’s independence

........................................................................................................


Independence Day of the Republic of Fiji

........................................................................................................


The 52nd anniversary of independence of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea

........................................................................................................







Answers to media questions:



Question:

How would you comment on the statement by US President Donald Trump on the upcoming withdrawal of the majority of US troops from Afghanistan? How can this influence the course of intra-Afghan talks in Doha?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already commented today on the standstill in intra-Afghan talks.

As for the statements by US President Donald Trump about the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan, the deployment of additional troops, or replacement, I think we should judge by specific facts and not by statements. If the troops are withdrawn, we will comment on this. We are already accustomed to the fact that for decades statements are made, which are then either cancelled, or not implemented, or implemented in a different way. As soon as they start taking real steps, we will comment on this.



Question:

The EAEU Intergovernmental Council meets in Yerevan on October 9, despite the martial law imposed in that country. Won’t these talks thwart the Foreign Ministry’s efforts to stop the hostilities?



Maria Zakharova:

As you may be aware, the upcoming meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council is a scheduled event and will be the fifth meeting of the major EAEU body this year. The participants will review the current Union’s operations (the discussion of these issues can hardly be postponed to a later date) and the association’s strategic development. The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement was not included on the agenda.



Question:

In connection with the change of political leaders in the United States and Kuwait, will Russia try to resume, with renewed vigour, consideration of the exchange or release of Russian citizens held abroad, such as Viktor Bout, Maria Lazareva and Konstantin Yaroshenko?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t think we should speculate on the outcome of the US elections. First, they need to effectively take place, then (based on the statements made by US politicians, representatives of various parties, including officials) we will need to wait for them to accept the outcome. Only then can we deal with bilateral relations. I think it’s simply impossible to talk about this before the actual fact.



Question:

In connection with the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh involving Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the protests in Kyrgyzstan, did the Russian citizens who reside in these countries turn to the Russian embassies or directly to the Foreign Ministry for help? Will anything be done in this regard?



Maria Zakharova:

In connection with the pandemic, our embassies around the world have been in contact with the Russian citizens in many countries for six months now, as they were dealing with their problems, such as repatriation, assistance in returning to their homeland and resolving a large number of relevant issues such as issuing papers, helping to solve family matters, and financial issues. Our foreign missions remain in permanent contact with our people on as-needed basis in all countries around the world. We deal with these matters every day.

If someone needs to contact a foreign mission, they can do so. Many of our foreign missions – embassies, consulates, consular departments – are open during the hours the local authorities are open in connection with the pandemic, lockdown and restrictions. Our citizens write, call and come in person to our embassies in various countries every day.

Of course, the number of calls and inquiries increased as the above conflict aggravated.



Question:

On October 7, Head of Artsakh Arayik Harutyunyan sent a proposal to the OSCE about creating an international anti-terrorist coalition in connection with the efforts to settle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Has Russia received it? Did you have a chance to read it?



Maria Zakharova:

If this proposal was sent to the OSCE, then this international organisation is the one who should receive it. But I will check with our experts who are dealing with this matter.



Question:

The trial of a Russian citizen accused of killing Zelimkhan Khangoshvili has started in Berlin. The prosecution continues to insist that the murder was ordered by the Russian authorities. What is Russia’s position on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We are led to believe that a certain political decision has been made in Berlin regarding the verdict that will be passed by a German court on Russian citizen Vadim Sokolov accused of the murder, in 2019, of Shamil Basayev’s close associate and one of the terrorist leaders in the North Caucasus Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, who lived in Germany under a fake name, and special services of the Federal Republic of Germany were aware of it. It is naive to count on independence and objectivity of the German justice, which previously granted a refugee status to that person. All roles in this staged process have been assigned. There’s no doubt that the blame for the fatal attack on Khangoshvili – a man who made himself many enemies during his criminal career, including in the criminal world of different countries – will be laid, as already stated in the press, on the Russian government agencies. For more than a year now, this idea has been methodically implanted in the German society with the help of a targeted media campaign reinforced by the German political elite’s regular statements.

Germany’s unfounded accusations of the Russian state agencies’ involvement in the murder of Khangoshvili are based, according to the German media, on pseudo-probes conducted by the notorious online publication Bellingcat, which was repeatedly caught red-handed when distributing false information which was later refuted.

The fact that the Khangoshvili case was political from day one is unambiguously corroborated by the decision of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to expel two diplomatic employees of the Russian Embassy in Berlin in December 2019 under the far-fetched pretext of alleged failure of the Russian law enforcement agencies to cooperate in investigating the crime committed in the German capital. As you may be aware, the Russian competent agencies have been in close contact with their German colleagues since August 2019. They have responded to a request for international legal assistance and are willing, despite the aggressive politicisation of the case by official Berlin, to continue to provide the German police with the necessary assistance. Comprehensive clarifications on this matter were given repeatedly through diplomatic channels, as well as within the framework of a bilateral political dialogue, in particular, during the Russian President’s meeting with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in Paris on the sidelines of the summit of the Normandy Four leaders on December 9, 2019, as well as during Vladimir Putin’s news conference on its outcome.

In principle, the Khangoshvili case fits into a whole series of crude anti-Russian provocations, which also include the story revived a few months ago with so-called Russian involvement in the cyberattack on the Bundestag in 2015 (there were different opinions on this development, but we regularly covered this issue and provided our arguments), as well as the events related to Russian blogger Alexey Navalny, promoted purposefully by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany as part of the policy of confrontation with our country. Berlin’s further adherence to this policy is fraught with the collapse of Russian-German relations, as well as exacerbation of tensions in Europe, which Russia’s leaders repeatedly pointed out.



Question:

Will you please comment on the decision of the Polish anti-monopoly regulator to fine Gazprom and five other countries involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project?



Maria Zakharova:

This gas pipeline project is nagging at our partners, including the Americans with whom Warsaw is closely connected.

This is obviously another politically driven attempt to put pressure on the Russian gas exporter, which has been reliably supplying natural gas to European clients for many years. It is not at all surprising that Warsaw is using questionable methods, including those that fall outside Poland’s jurisdiction, to hamper the construction of Nord Stream 2.

This decision of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), which is intended to please Washington and which is using EU funds to put pressure on other countries’ companies, is apparently rooted in a desire to create an alternative gas hub for reselling US LNG to Eastern Europe.

It is regrettable that Warsaw (in contrast with the name of the body that made the decision) is acting in its own mercenary interests, which have nothing to do with competition or consumer protection, and acting contrary to the principle of fair competition and the interests of European consumers. In fact, it is undermining Europe’s energy and environmental safety.



Question:

I have a question about the Russian-US talks on strategic stability and arms control held in Helsinki. The US negotiator has said that the meeting has yielded “important progress.” Can you tell us about the essence of that progress?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already commented on this subject. As we said, a regular meeting was held in Helsinki on October 5 within the framework of the Russian-US strategic dialogue. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov represented Russia, and his American counterpart was US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea.

They continued the discussion of the current stage of bilateral interaction in the sphere of arms control and its prospects. The Russian side informed its American colleagues about our views on a new strategic equation that would take into account the most important aspects of national security and strategic stability. We again called on the United States to extend the New START Treaty without any preconditions while we are coordinating such an equation. We believe that this should be done for the longest possible period, that is, five years.

In our opinion, Russia’s position presented in Helsinki constitutes a balanced foundation for further efforts. We hope that the American side will analyse our proposals in a constructive manner and will accept them.

However, it would be premature to say that we have made a big step towards a tangible result. There is still much to be done to bring our positions closer together and to find possible points of agreement. We are ready to do this. At the same time, I would like to say that our American partners may see the fact that we are talking as “important progress.” It is indeed possible, if we look at the matter from this angle.



Question:

Several days ago, President of Latvia Egils Levits submitted to the Saeima (parliament) a draft law on historical Latvian lands, which has a provision on the “preservation of the cultural and historical heritage and the historical memory of the former Abrenes County,” that is, part of the Pytalovo District in Russia’s Pskov Region. What does the Foreign Ministry have to say on this matter?



Maria Zakharova:

The President of Latvia has indeed come forward with this initiative in parliament. Citing the invalid Russian-Latvian Peace Treaty of 1920, Clause 25 of the annotation to this draft law states that this county is “the legitimate territory of the Latvian state” and that the Latvian state was illegally deprived of the county during the so-called Soviet occupation.

Our position on this subject is well known. All border questions between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia were settled once and for all in the Treaty on the Russian-Latvian State Border, which came into effect on December 18, 2007.

I would like to remind you that before signing the treaty the Latvian government adopted the so-called “explanatory declaration” that contained a reference to the 1920 Peace Treaty, which we interpreted as a territorial claim to the above mentioned Russian lands. The revocation of that declaration by Riga was our condition for signing the border treaty.

Therefore, we regard the Latvian president’s attempt to question the existing legal realities in a legislative initiative as strange and, to all practical purposes, provocative.



Question:

Can you comment on the idea that Armenia has the right to appeal to the CSTO for assistance in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?



Maria Zakharova:

Exhaustive comments on this topic have already been provided by the Russian leadership.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4373061
__________________
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 November 28th, 2020 #190
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 questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Denmark Jeppe Kofod, October 9, 2020



9 October 2020 - 15:00






Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held talks with Foreign Minister of Denmark Jeppe Kofod. We have many urgent issues on our bilateral agenda, including some that have piled up since our last meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September 2019.

We noted that relations between Russia and Denmark have a long tradition of neighbourly ties and mutual respect. They have never been marred by war or conflict since the Treaty of Love and Friendship was signed in 1493. The permanent Russian diplomatic mission opened as early as 1700 and became a full embassy in 1893. This is one of the oldest diplomatic, contractual relations that the Russian Federation has with a foreign partner.

Regrettably, we have to state that our political dialogue has been less regular in the last few years. There have been no heads of state and government meetings since 2011, and the considerable potential of inter-parliamentary cooperation is not being used. Today, we agreed it would be good to restore contacts between our MPs and between different departments, which are currently, in fact, somewhat “frozen” and not just due to the coronavirus infection.

We were pleased to note that the dialogue between our foreign ministries has not been interrupted at the levels of deputy ministers, or territorial departments and units responsible for regional and international issues.

We used to have sizable trade volumes but this has been dropping since last year. This year, the situation was made worse by the coronavirus, of course. But there are positive signs as well. Danish companies working in Russia – there are about ten of them – actively localise their production on our territory. This includes Carlsberg, Rockwool, Novo Nordisk, Danfoss, Grundfos, and Idavang. Other companies that are not yet represented in our country are interested in doing business in Russia. We welcome this.

We agreed on the need, epidemiological situation permitting, to convene the Russian-Danish Intergovernmental Council for Economic Cooperation. The last session took place in Moscow in February 2018, and the next one is scheduled to be held in Copenhagen. I hope it will be good for developing practical steps aimed at restoring the uptrend in trade and considering other avenues for deepening mutually beneficial economic and investment cooperation.

We are grateful to our Danish colleagues for agreeing to establish the post of Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation in Greenland. A prospective candidate has been approved. We are now in the process of completing the formalities.

We also welcome positive developments in the cultural area. Our partners have responded to our proposal to hold a large-scale project entitled “Russian Seasons” in Denmark in 2022 to present Russian culture to the Danish public. A similar programme has already been implemented in a number of other EU countries.

Our cooperation in education is going well with 22 Russian universities participating in various international events hosted by their Danish colleagues. More than 20 Russian regions also cooperate with partners in Denmark.

In general, if our Danish colleagues are open to cooperation, we are ready to promote cooperation across all areas.

We covered in detail the regional and international agendas. In 2021, Russia will chair the Arctic Council. We focused on this common region of ours.

We also talked about security in the Baltic Sea region. We drew our partners’ attention to the unsettling increase in NATO military activity in the immediate vicinity of Russian borders. We emphasised that we do not see in this part of Europe, as, in fact, in Europe in general, any problems that call for a military solution. We reaffirmed that we stand against confrontation and for the establishment of a constructive dialogue, including between the military departments and the military in general, both as part of bilateral relations and as part of interaction between Russia and NATO. We noted the numerous proposals seeking to normalise the situation and to build confidence in our common region that Russia has sent to NATO, including proposals to move the exercises away from the contact line between Russia and NATO countries, as well as an agreement to decide on a minimum distance, which must always be respected by the navy and the air force. We have not received any response from NATO to these constructive proposals so far.

We also reminded our Danish colleagues that we have long been proposing to conclude with them a bilateral intergovernmental agreement on the prevention of incidents at sea covering the maritime space between our countries and the airspace above these waters. We hope that, like our other neighbours with whom we have concluded such agreements, Denmark will consider our proposal, which will undoubtedly help improve trust between our states.

We discussed the crisis in eastern Ukraine. Here, we have a common position that this must be overcome by way of implementing the Minsk agreements in full and in the form in which they were approved by the UN Security Council. In this regard, we drew our colleagues’ attention to the statements coming from Kiev at the highest level about the need to revise and rewrite the Minsk agreements, both in substance and in terms of the sequence of actions. This is unacceptable. We expect our European colleagues, primarily France and Germany, as co-sponsors of the Minsk Package of Measures, not to let such provocative statements go without a tough public response.

We also talked about other international and regional issues. We will continue this discussion over a working breakfast, which we will have as soon as we finish the news conference.

I think we had a very productive conversation. I am grateful to my colleague for this, and I now call on him to speak to us.







Question:

What does Russia have to say about the position of the Western countries, including Denmark, on the election in Belarus?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think their position is somewhat discrepant. It is not easy for the EU to formulate common evaluations that are published.

We see (and this is no secret, it is taking place before our eyes) that by and large there are two conflicting trends. The first one is being fueled in every way by the countries that are direct neighbours of Belarus, primarily, Lithuania and Poland. They have taken an aggressive position, appealing to the past when there was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. These countries are obviously tempted to reclaim additional geopolitical space. They are doing this by attempting to prevent Belarus from staying with Russia. Belarus has to be pulled away from Russia. But, as far as I know, they are in the minority in the EU.

The other trend is promoted by responsible, serious states. They believe that the EU must not repeat the mistakes made in Ukraine, including the last mistake in 2014. This is fueled, in part, by the understanding of what I said in my opening remarks, notably, that the Ukrainian leaders do not want, and probably cannot fulfill the Minsk agreements signed with the active involvement of EU leaders – Germany and France. These two approaches clash; they are not compatible, and this is why the EU comes up with well-rounded general statements that make the existence of the still silent majority between these two approaches obvious. This majority is very reluctant to burn the bridges and make statements that will not turn into actions later on.

As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, the initiative made by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko to conduct constitutional reform, is a good opportunity for launching a nationwide dialogue, during which all strata of Belarusian society can agree on how to develop their state further.



Question (translated from English):

I would like to ask you to speak in more detail about Russian-Danish relations in the context of incidents in the Baltic Sea, violations of airspace and the participation of Danish ships in exercises in the Barents Sea?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can confirm what I have already said. We are interested in a stable and safe situation on our border with all neighbours, including Denmark.

Incidents occur. We remember the uproar in August when we were accused because a Russian warplane violated Danish airspace for a few minutes. Let me repeat that our military strictly follows international standards. To avoid misunderstandings, we suggested to our Danish neighbours signing an agreement on preventing unintentional incidents on and over the high seas. If such an agreement were concluded we would have a mechanism for responding to any concerns and suspicions on either side. Let me emphasise that we have such agreements with all our neighbours in the Barents Sea except Denmark. We also have with all of our neighbours, including Norway, Sweden and Finland, stable mechanisms for military contact.

We have made this proposal to Denmark many times. Our Danish colleagues are still thinking about it. We talked about this today. I think that if there is sincere interest in deescalating tensions and overcoming confrontational trends in the atmosphere of our ties, it is necessary to be guided by specific actions. We haven’t seen many actions, including by NATO. We suggested a package of measures on reducing tensions to NATO, which include military exercises and maintaining certain distances between warships and warplanes and the use of military aircraft transponders. However, NATO turned this down pointblank. We have nothing to hide. Several balls are in our neighbour’s court. We are waiting for a response.



Question (translated from English):

Could you comment on the request for an honorary consulate in Nuuk?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are asking what explains our request for Denmark to agree to the appointment of an honorary Russian consul in Greenland? This is a strange question to me.

We are neighbours. We want to cooperate. We have fairly stable economic and cultural ties with the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The Danish leaders are well aware of this. The fact that our request to support the nominated Honorary Consul in Greenland was fulfilled rather promptly shows Copenhagen’s interest in developing our relations. We appreciate this.



Question (translated from English):

You talk about trust between Russia and the EU, but the EU is expected to come up with new sanctions against Russia in connection with Alexey Navalny’s poisoning. Where will this take bilateral relations in your opinion?



Sergey Lavrov:

Relations between Russia and the EU are rapidly degrading. We are seeing how the well-known fairly aggressive Russophobic minority is being supplemented by the attempts of serious, old European countries, including Germany, to lead this movement, so to speak. We are upset about this, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Our position is open and honest. All these years we have been telling the EU that we didn’t understand the reasons that have prompted them to throw out cooperation mechanisms since 2014. I’m referring to summits, sessions of the Permanent Partnership Council (PPC), and some 20-odd sectoral dialogues. All this was our agenda, the fabric of our cooperation. Or take four common spaces, the Partnership for Modernisation and many other things.

The EU severed all these ties after France, Germany and Poland mediated in Ukraine in February 2014. They reached an agreement that was signed by then President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. France, Germany and Poland affixed their signatures to this agreement to put the EU’s entire authority on the scales just to find out on the following day that the opposition broke off this agreement, not giving a damn about the commitments assumed by the three European countries and, hence, the EU as a whole. The EU did not say a word to denounce this action. In effect, it supported this move although, having staged an anti-constitutional state coup, the new authorities immediately declared their intention to pursue an anti-Russia policy. They announced the need to cancel the laws that guaranteed the rights to use the Russian language and the need to expell Russians from Crimea. The EU accepted all this tacitly, to say the least. Due to its own inability to stop the abuse of its reputation, the EU imposed sanctions against us just because we supported justice and those who refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine and Crimea. The sanctions against us were introduced and all channels of cooperation were suspended for this reason.

We are hearing announcements, threats and warnings to the effect that the Foreign Affairs Council will introduce sanctions on Monday. Certain characters to be punished for poisoning Alexei Navalny are already being mentioned.

We are no longer surprised by the fact that the EU acts arbitrarily. We are required to conduct an investigation. No facts are provided to us. Claiming that this case is no longer bilateral, but international, Germany sent it to the OPCW. “They told them everything, they know everything there.” We file an inquiry with that organisation. First, they lied to us that Germany’s request had not been received and later admitted that it had. They reviewed the request for a month. In the end, they released a fairly short and dry statement to the effect that the discovered substance looked like something. They did not say “Novichok,” but the agent is not on the list of banned substances. When we asked if they could clarify what they had found and where the results of the analysis were, we were told that the request came from Germany, so this is a “German case,” and we need to “go to the Germans.” We went back to the Germans, and again, round and round the story goes.

Our colleague mentioned many times the need to respect international law during our talks today and here now. We completely agree with that. Unfortunately, Germany neglects its obligations under international law. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has sent four inquiries in accordance with the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Under this convention, these inquiries must be acted upon. Instead, what we hear are excuses and absurd claims that Russia should investigate this crime itself. We cannot investigate a case in which we have no facts.

Our investigating authorities have interviewed about 200 witnesses. They could not get a clear answer from the people who burst into the hotel room in Tomsk after Mr Navalny checked out. There are no explanations as to why they took things from the room, which, as far as I know, were later quietly sent to Germany and are now being touted as proof that the poisoning had taken place. If this is material evidence, then it is all the more important that we investigate this matter together. But to do so, we need the facts that the Germans flat out refuse to provide.

We proposed working together, but our initiative was arrogantly dismissed. We are very worried about the resurgence of arrogance in Germany. This is a bad thing. We hope the sensible voices that can be heard in the FRG will prevail, and Germany will act responsibly.

We have filed an official inquiry with the OPCW. If they are unable to show us what they did in response to Germany’s request, we ourselves filed an inquiry with them. We invited their experts to come here, sit with us and sort out the facts that we have on our hands. We cannot do more physically. We need interaction.

The fact that sanctions will be imposed without any proof and even without completing the investigation, which Germany and other European countries insist upon, and which we cannot carry out without their assistance, does not surprise us. We saw a similar approach a couple of years ago on the poisoning in Salisbury. By the way, just like Navalny, the Skripals are doing fine. Both are alive and in good health. They just don’t let them appear in public, just like Navalny. Back then, sanctions were imposed without any effort to establish the truth. The British authorities said it was “highly likely,” that there were serious reasons to believe that this was done by the Russians. This assumption was used to push the overwhelming majority of EU members to expel Russian diplomats. The Americans were also misled as to how many diplomats Europe would send home. I’m sure you remember this. Since then, I have repeatedly asked my European colleagues in one-on-one conversations (I will not give any names, but I have talked to several people) whether the British gave them anything confidentially besides their publicly released “highly likely” statement. They told me no, they didn’t show them anything, but promised to complete the probe soon and share the facts. I took the trouble of revisiting this issue on a later occasion and asked the same colleagues from Europe, “Did you get anything from London?” They looked down and said: “No, nothing so far.” I’m sure that most likely it will be the same scenario this time, which continues to cause more questions than we can answer.

If those who loudly accuse us and demand that the guilty be punished continue to operate on the premise that they are civilised countries – Germany, France, Sweden, the whole EU – and you don’t believe what we are saying, I’d be remiss not to point out that no one should talk to Russia or any other state, for that matter, in this tone of voice. This is nothing short of megalomania and total disrespect for the people they call partners.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4376570






Statement by the foreign ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia



10 October 2020 - 02:53



In response to the Statement by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and in accordance with the agreements reached by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, the following steps have been agreed:

1. A humanitarian ceasefire is declared for 12 pm on October 10, 2020 to exchange prisoners of war and other detained persons, as well as the remains of the dead, in accordance with the criteria of the mediator, the International Committee of the Red Cross.

2. Specific parameters of the ceasefire will be agreed subsequently.

3. The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia are launching substantive talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs to reach a peace deal as soon as possible on the basis of core settlement principles.

4. The parties reaffirm that the format of the negotiating process is to remain unchanged.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4377004






Comment by the Information and Press Department on statements made by Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas in the Bundestag on October 7, 2020



10 October 2020 - 13:56



The anti-Russia propaganda attack over the Navalny case is gathering momentum in Germany. The latest portion of accusations, threats and insinuations against our country was made by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in the Q&A session in the Bundestag on October 7, 2020.

In addition to traditional ultimatums, Mr Maas has decided to ask the German MPs a few questions about the Navalny case which he does not consider to have been answered yet. Since the Minister deemed it possible to voice his concerns not through diplomatic channels but in parliament, we will answer his concerns publicly as well, so as to avoid a possible distortion of our statement by the German side.

First of all, we would like to officially reaffirm that all of Russia’s chemical weapons have been destroyed under strict international supervision. That complicated process ended on September 27, 2017. On October 11, 2017, the Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat certified the final destruction of chemical arsenals in Russia. As for the chemical warfare agent which has been designated as Novichok in the West, information on its structure and mass spectrum was first found in the mass spectral database of the American Institute of Standards in 1998 (NIST 98). It is indicative that data on the agent had been provided by the US Army Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Centre. Later on, a class of toxic agents that do not fall within the CWC scope was formed based on the said compound. In addition to the United States, about 20 Western states have been conducting research on this toxic agent. Therefore, Novichok is a purely Western brand. About 140 variants have been synthesized and are available in these countries. It does not exist in Russia.

Second, the tests of biological samples collected from Alexey Navalny in Omsk have not revealed any proof of his alleged poisoning by a chemical warfare agent. Doctors at the Charité hospital have not found it either, but experts at a German military laboratory did – nearly a week later.

Third, we would like to point out once again that a criminal investigation into the case of Alexey Navalny can only be initiated on the basis of established facts of a crime committed. To launch this procedural process, we must have access to the results of the patient’s tests proving his alleged poisoning, which the German side has refused to provide. We cannot launch an investigation merely on the basis of statements about the alleged crime submitted by the injured party or his legal representative. They can only be used for a pre-investigation review.

In this connection, we have to correct the statement made by the German Foreign Minister. The four requests for legal assistance forwarded by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to the German side, which have not been answered despite Mr Maas’ assurances, concern not only the results of tests and access to the injured party for an interview, contrary to what the minister told the Bundestag. It is equally important to clarify the practical circumstances of this case, in particular, the circumstances under which the water bottle, which allegedly contained traces of the toxic agent, was taken out of Russia, an interview of Maria Pevchikh, a resident of the United Kingdom who was accompanying Alexey Navalny, and other vital related elements, such as explanations of the false bomb alert call made from Germany when the plane carrying Navalny made an emergency landing at the Omsk airport. We insist that Germany honour its obligations under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and protocols to it. The German side must explain itself despite its stubborn reluctance to do this. Its previous excuses are unacceptable and unconvincing.

As for Mr Maas’ premise that Russia’s complaints against Germany and the OPCW are nothing more than “absurd allegations,” this rhetoric is outrageous and wide open to criticism. We merely expect to receive legal, technical and organisational assistance in the bilateral Russian-German format and at the OPCW platform in the interests of a comprehensive, objective and unbiased investigation into all circumstances of the incident involving Alexey Navalny. We would like to find out who stands behind this carefully orchestrated anti-Russia provocation. But what we receive in response to our requests is aggressive rhetoric and unashamed juggling of the facts.

We once again call on Germany to start close, open and honest cooperation with Russia on the Navalny incident.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4377199






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu



11 October 2020 - 14:55







On October 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu at the initiative of the Turkish side.

The two diplomats exchanged opinions on the developments in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone following the trilateral talks that took place in Moscow on October 9 ̶ 10. They noted the need to strictly comply with the terms of the Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia of October 10.

The Russian party confirmed its readiness to continue active intermediary efforts aimed at reaching a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement with regard to the terms of the Moscow statement.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4377255






Statement by the Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation, Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Ermakov at the General Debate in the First Committee of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, New York, October 9, 2020



12 October 2020 - 11:22







Mr. Chair,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you with the election to such a high position in the UN anniversary benchmark year.

We wish you success in organizing the work of the current difficult in every respect session of the UN GA First Committee when we all have to work in extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and related unprecedented restrictions on the activities of the delegations at the UN Headquarters.

You can rely on constructive cooperation of the Russian Federation.

We propose to consolidate joint efforts not to let the global disaster, which the humanity has faced, to divide us but, on the contrary, to promt us to find mutually acceptable ways to reduce international tensions and prevent exacerbation of existing threats and challenges and emergence of new ones. It is important to overcome the deficit of trust accumulated in recent years and increased risks of the destabilizing arms race as well as uncontrolled drift toward a dangerous military confrontation in various parts of the world. There is a need to reverse deliberate destructive actions, based on foreign policy egocentrism of one State to dismantle the carefully constructed system of international agreements. This system has become our common achievement and has been a reliable guarantee of peace and international security for many decades..

The most recent negative development, which undermines the regional security, was the US decision to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty under the false pretext of Russia's alleged "violations" of the Treaty. We explore all possible options of the evolving situation. Our future policy will depend on actions of our partners.

Nobody can neglect the consecutive steps taken by the US and its allies to toughen their defense and security doctrines and make them more aggressive. The role of nuclear arms is being increased while the threshold for their use is being lowered as well as relevant weapons programs are being developed and implemented. A new hardline competitive approach is being actively imposed, which only aggravates the atmosphere of distrust and reduces the predictability, including in the nuclear missile sphere.

Unlike the United States, the Russian Federation is well aware of its responsibility for international security, global and regional stability. Our policy for preserving the peace is consistent. We believe that pursuit of confrontational models aimed at transforming the international relations to suit the spirit of "great power competition" and "peace through strength" concepts should be stopped. In our work, we act openly. We consistently promote political and diplomatic initiatives and implement measures with a view to prevent the deterioration of the situation in the area of security and stability and to preserve and strengthen the arms control architecture.

The most pressing objectives in this field include the extension of the Russia-US New START Treaty. We are ready to extend the Treaty without preconditions and invite the US to do it without artificial delays. The extension would be a reasonable step, which would buy us time to consider future approaches to arms control.

After the United States destroyed the INF Treaty, Russia made a unilateral commitment not to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range ground-launched missiles in those regions of the world until similar US-manufactured systems are deployed there. We call on all members of the international community to support our efforts to prevent the deployment of new missiles in various regions of the world and follow a constructive and balanced policy aimed at strengthening international security and stability.

Mr. Chair,

Nuclear disarmament remains as one of the priorities of the international agenda. We are committed to the ultimate goal of building a world free from nuclear weapons and make a significant practical contribution to achieving it. No doubt, nuclear disarmament can be reached only through step-by-step approach and based on the principle of equal and indivisible security for all, taking into account all factors affecting the strategic stability. They include the unconstrained deployment of the US global missile defense, development of high-precision strategic non-nuclear offensive weapons, lowering of the nuclear threshold in doctrines with parallel increase of the low-yield nuclear-weapon stockpiles, the prospective deployment of strike weapons in outer space, absence of mutually acceptable universal instruments to manage imbalances in conventional weapons and attempts to reduce the defensive potential of other countries using illegitimate methods of unilateral pressure bypassing the UN SC.

The international community should pay the most serious attention to those problems. Without solving them it is impossible to achieve the level of international security conducive to further steps in nuclear disarmament.

It is time to seriously reflect on how to make the nuclear disarmament process multilateral. Such a dialogue should involve all States with nuclear military capabilities. There is a need for a consensus approach without any enforcement. Other imperatives are equality and mutual consideration of the interests of all parties involved.

Mr. Chair,

This year marked the 50th anniversary of the entry into force of the NPT – key international legally-binding instrument in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and a pillar of today's world order.

All NPT State Parties need to do their utmost for the forthcoming Review Conference to contribute to strengthening of the Treaty and not to increasing tensions within its framework.

We note the central role of the IAEA as an international organization that has the mandate and competence to verify compliance with non-proliferation obligations under the NPT via application of safeguards and contributing to the exercise of the rights of States to peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Russia attaches great importance to creating nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) in the world and provides security assurances to States that concluded NWFZ agreements and adhere to the letter and spirit of these agreements. We support the early resolution of the issue of the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDFZ) in the Middle East as stipulated by the resolution of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

We reaffirm our commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to address the international community’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. Unfortunately, this achievement shared by all countries was put at risk by the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. Irresponsible and false are the US statements about the actual «snapback» of the earlier lifted UN SC sanctions against Iran. As is known, the rest UN SC members rejected the illegitimate claims of the US side. The policy of "maximum pressure" has failed.

Russia has consistently supported the earliest entry into force of the CTBT and strict compliance by all the State Parties with the main obligations under the Treaty.

We fully support the international regime banning chemical, biological and toxin weapons, consistently advocate its universalization and strengthening.

Of serious concern is the totally unacceptable situation in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The desire of certain States to make the work of this once-successful multilateral structure serve their geopolitical interests led to the OPCW being literally split.

We consider the strengthening of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) regime as a priority objective for the international community. We stand for the resumption of the work on a legally binding protocol to the Convention with an effective verification mechanism and establishment in that regard of an open-ended working group. We urge support for Russia's initiatives, which are aimed at consolidating institutional foundations of the BTWC, on creation in the framework of the Convention of mobile biomedical units and a scientific advisory committee, and on upgrading of confidence-building measures. We will work toward the adoption of relevant decisions at the forthcoming 2021 BTWC Review Conference.

We highlight the need for updating the principles and procedures of the UN Secretary General mechanism for investigation of the alleged use of chemical and biological weapons that has not been done since their approval in 1990. To that end, we intend to submit a relevant draft resolution for consideration. We expect your support and co-sponsorship.

Mr. Chair,

The actions aimed at ensuring "dominance, military superiority up to the total supremacy in outer space" are extremely destructive. In accordance with the U.S. doctrines, some other Western countries and NATO as a whole, increasingly consider outer space as an arena for combat operations, including offensive ones. At the same time, the mentioned group of countries cynically attempts, here, at the UN, to initiate debate about some "responsible behaviour" in outer space. We should not fall for such tricks.

Against that background, the U.S. continues to block negotiations on a legally binding treaty on prevention of an arms race in outer space. Another illustration of cynicism is the fact that above mentioned intentions to conduct combat operations in outer space, including those of offensive nature, are presented as allegedly in consistence with international law, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, governing the peaceful uses of space. To legitimize hostilities in outer space, a proposal to focus on development of some standards of behavior subjected to serve priorities that are unacceptable for us has been put forward.

To prevent the arms race in outer space we need to conclude a relevant legally binding instrument with participation of all space-faring nations. It should provide for a ban on placement of weapons in outer space and use of force or threat of force against outer space objects. An important step to that end is international initiative/political obligation of no first placement of weapons in outer space. We submit for the consideration of the First Committee draft resolutions “No first placement of weapons in outer space” and “Transparency and confidence building measures in space activities”. We expect support and co-sponsorship.

International information security (IIS) ensuring is a priority of our diplomatic activity in the UN. In 2018, owing to common efforts the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) – the first inclusive, genuinely democratic and transparent negotiation mechanism – was established under the auspices of the Organization. As the mandate of the current Group expires in March 2021, our key objective is to preserve this discussion format and ensure continuity of the IIS negotiation process within the UN. In this regard, we intend to submit for consideration of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly Russia's updated traditional draft resolution on IIS, providing for convening a new OEWG in 2021 for a period of five years, with its mandate unchanged. We call on all UN Member States to support our initiative and become its co-sponsors.

Mr. Chair,

There is a growing need to consolidate the international community on a basis of a creative and constructive agenda that will contribute to better sustainability of the current arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation system.

This objective would be achieved through strengthening of the existing and development by consensus of new treaty regimes in the sphere of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. We submit for the consideration of the First Committee a draft resolution "Strengthening and development of a system of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements". Its adoption would be an important contribution to the creation of conditions for successful conduct of a number of significant events in 2021 – the NPT, the BTWC and the CCW review conferences and the extension of the New START Treaty. We await for overall support and co-sponsorship.

We believe that the UN and its multilateral disarmament machinery should play a pivotal role in strengthening the system of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation agreements. Recently, some negative trends that affect the UN disarmament triad effectiveness have been taking shape. The 74th session of the UN GA demonstrated the higher politicization of discussions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, drifting away from a meaningful dialogue as well as the attempts of Western countries headed by the United States to transform the UN venue into a tool to exert pressure on "undesirable" States.

Then, for the first time in many years, the United States introduced an ideological element into the work of the First Committee by dividing the UN Member States into "democratic", allegedly strengthening the arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation system, and "autocratic", which allegedly intend to dismantle it. We consider it to be a very dangerous step with a view to disunite the world community and distract its attention from real international security issues caused by the US irresponsible actions.

Additional destructive factor in the context of the First Committee and the UNDC is the unlawful actions of the U.S. authorities that refuse to issue visas to the leading experts of the Russian delegation. Washington blatantly violates its obligations under the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement and ignores a number of key provisions of UNGA resolution A/RES/74/195. "Visa mayhem" unleashed by Washington led to the UNDC work being paralyzed for the second consecutive year. We call on the United States to show responsibility and take measures to resolve the situation with a view to comply with its obligations in ensuring unhindered and nondiscriminatory access for representative of the Member States to the UN Headquarters.

Continued degradation of the situation in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation urges joint actions of all States realizing their responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. For our part, we will continue efforts for greater effectiveness and coherence of activities of the First Committee, UNDC and Conference on Disarmament (CD). To that end, it is necessary to resume the substantive dialogue on the most important agenda issues and depoliticize the discussion.

In this regard, we recall our constructive initiative presented at the CD in March 2016 to overcome a 20-year-old standstill in the negotiation work of the Conference. It is necessary to start without delay the elaboration of an international convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. It would help re-launch the negotiation process in the CD in accordance with its mandate.

In general, it would be very useful for all of us to recall, in the year of the UN's 75th anniversary, life-affirming origins of our global Organization, refrain from confrontational approaches and return to productive equitable cooperation on the entire range of issues of international peace and security ensuring.

Russia proposes a constructive unifying agenda. We expect support of all States.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4377537






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, Moscow, October 12, 2020



12 October 2020 - 13:26






Mr Mnatsakanyan,

Friends,

We have met to hold planned talks. Your visit, which was coordinated a long time ago, is taking place amid the serious efforts to defuse tension in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone in which many members of the international community are involved.

We spent last Friday and part of Saturday in this building together with you and our Azerbaijani colleague. An important agreement has been reached at the initiative of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. However, we can see that it is not being honoured in full and that hostilities have not stopped. We hope that our contacts with you and our Azerbaijani neighbours, including at the level of our defence ministries, will help us to ensure full compliance with the agreements that have been coordinated in the trilateral format.





Of course, in addition to this most important key matter we will be also discussing the entire range of our bilateral collaboration, the participation of our countries in various integration associations and our interaction on the international stage, including at the UN and the OCSE.

We are delighted to see you. Once again, welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4377662
__________________
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 November 28th, 2020 #191
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 during a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, Moscow, October 12, 2020



12 October 2020 - 18:44






Ladies and gentlemen,

I am happy to welcome Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, who is on an official visit to Moscow. His visit was planned some time ago – as a gesture of response after my talks and meeting with him in Yerevan in November 2019, and also with a view to reconfirming our positions on all aspects of our relations, including bilateral, regional and international issues.

That said, we met just two days ago in Moscow at the trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, which was held at the proposal of President of Russia Vladimir Putin due to the sharp aggravation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Since the very first exchange of strikes, Russia has been doing all it can, both in the bilateral format and as a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, for an immediate de-escalation of the conflict and a return to the negotiating table. The presidents of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group adopted a joint statement. The foreign ministers of the co-chairs made a trilateral statement. The special representatives for Karabakh settlement issued a statement as well. After a series of telephone conversations with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed an initiative for a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons and talks on all aspects of a settlement.

On October 9-10, Moscow hosted a trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, which made it possible to reach a ceasefire agreement with a subsequent resumption of talks with OSCE Minsk Group mediation. This was published and distributed at the UN and the OSCE. We hope the adopted decisions will be strictly fulfilled by both parties.

Today, we discussed these issues in detail and exchanged views on the next steps. This does not mean that the problems will be resolved quickly or simultaneously. We understand that a political negotiating process is required, but it would be a mistake to delay the resumption of this process. As far as we know from our Armenian friends, the next steps will be discussed at a meeting between Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Bilateral issues made a significant part of our talks today. We maintain a dynamic political dialogue, including at the highest and high levels. Under inevitable coronavirus restrictions, we managed to foster our contacts via distance format. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan have already talked seven times this year, according to our records. And the heads of government have managed to meet in person three times. On October 9, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin completed his trip to Yerevan for a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council whereby he met with Nikol Pashinyan.

In the midst of this global disaster, the COVID-19 pandemic, our countries once again display a paragon of fraternal and allied interaction. At our Armenian friends’ request, we have provided test kits and reagents, as well as medical equipment, without charge. Virologists from the Russian Ministry of Defence have been working in Armenia since April of this year under an agreement reached at the highest level.

We worked closely to help each other return our citizens who were stranded abroad at the height of the pandemic. Almost 10,000 people returned to Russia on 79 so-called evacuation flights from Armenia.

Based on last year’s results, we see that trade has increased by a record 26 percent, up to $2.5 billion. In spite of the general decline in the world economy caused by the pandemic, we have managed to avoid a drop in trading volume this year. In the first seven months of 2020, trade has been practically the same compared to the same period last year. With Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, we have agreed that our foreign ministries will assist in measures which promote trade, economic and region-to-region cooperation. This includes the 20th anniversary meeting of the Russian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation in Yerevan, after the lockdown is lifted. As soon as the epidemiological situation permits, we will also hold the Eighth Russian-Armenian Inter-Regional Forum with delegations from dozens of Russian and Armenian regions.

In terms of cultural and humanitarian cooperation, we are satisfied with the programme of cooperation between our ministries of culture for 2019-2021. We are gratified that 2020 has been proclaimed the Year of Alexander Griboyedov in Armenia.

We consider Russian language studies in the Republic of Armenia important. Six affiliates of Russian universities and Russian-Armenian University operate in Armenia. In all, over 3,500 students study there. Armenian citizens are given Russian grants to study at Russian universities (about 200 grants every year). In all, more than 5,000 Armenian citizens study at Russian universities, including over 2,000 under Russian federal grants. About 2,000 Armenian students attend Russian secondary vocational schools.

We also discussed the international agenda – the range of foreign policy cooperation in the EAEU, CSTO and the CIS and the coordination of positions in the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the Organisation of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). We reviewed the plan for consultations between the Russian and Armenian foreign ministries for 2020-2021, which allows us to clearly compare and coordinate our foreign policy moves.

The talks were constructive and trust-based. I am grateful to my colleague and his delegation. The results of this meeting will help us further develop the allied relations between Russia and Armenia and create an atmosphere of sustainable partnership and confidence, which are needed in our uneasy times.







Question:

After Azerbaijan’s strong aggression against Artsakh, which was accompanied by the deliberate targeting of civilian residential areas, the population and the infrastructure, when so many cities and facilities have been destroyed, as Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan noted, what course can the process for a peaceful settlement assume? How can earlier drafted options be developed? Or will we have to follow a completely new course?



Sergei Lavrov:

“We will follow” – who do you mean? We and Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan reaffirmed in our opening statements our commitment to the agreement reached on Saturday night. This agreement clearly states the need for an immediate ceasefire for humanitarian reasons and monitoring it. The sides are to exchange prisoners, detainees, and the bodies of the dead, and start a resumption of the political process under the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group in line with the principles of settlement that were drafted in this framework. This is the position of Russia and Armenia. If you are suggesting that “we will follow” a different course, I would like to understand whom you mean by “we.”



Question:

What will Russia do as a mediator in monitoring the full-scale implementation of the agreements reached overnight on October 9 and 10 of this year?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will confirm that the issues of monitoring compliance with this ceasefire are very important. Verification or ensuring control of the ceasefire “on the ground” was discussed in President Vladimir Putin’s telephone conversations with his colleagues in Baku and Yerevan before the Moscow meeting of the three foreign ministers. As you know, in our joint statement, adopted overnight of October 10, we made a special point that the mechanisms of control over a ceasefire would be drafted separately.

Obviously, the drafting of these verification mechanisms cannot be delayed, considering the serious nature of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and around it, the urgent problems of prisoners and detainees and the need to return the remains of the deceased to their families, relatives and friends. The work on these issues is going on with Russia’s participation, and with the co-chairs rendering feasible assistance. The International Committee of the Red Cross, with which we are also in contact, is ready to join these efforts as soon as the situation “on the ground” is stabilised.

As for Russia’s continuing participation in the settlement process, we will be actively involved in this, both as one of the third co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and simply as a close ally and strategic partner of our neighbours. I think that our joint overnight vigil, which produced a very important document, was not in vain and we will still be able to overcome the situation “on the ground” very soon. At any rate, we are interested in this just as much as the confronting sides “on the ground” are.



Question (to both ministers):

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said that Turkey must play a more active role in settling the conflict both in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group and in other formats. Do you think Turkey’s more active involvement in the OSCE Minsk Group will facilitate a peaceful settlement, and how would it do this? Is it possible to discuss any new format given that, following the Moscow talks, both Azerbaijan and Armenia reaffirmed their commitment to the invariability of the format for the talks?



Question (to Sergey Lavrov):

Mr Lavrov, does Russia continue to maintain contact with Turkey on this issue? What is Turkey’s position on it?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are right; you answered your own question by saying that the joint statement reaffirms the invariability of the negotiating format. The OSCE Minsk Group brings many countries together, but it delegated the authority to conduct talks and to mediate to the three co-chairs: Russia, the US and France. All statements made recently by the world’s capitals emphasise the commitment to the mandate of the three co-chairs. This is what we are involved in today with our French and American colleagues, whose special representatives are now in Moscow. They will meet with Zohrab Mnatsakanyan. Last Thursday, they met with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bairamov in Geneva.

In addition to the invariable negotiating principles and formats, we confirmed in the trilateral statement our commitment to further efforts to reach a political settlement based on the principles drafted with the participation of the co-chairs. I would like to emphasise that President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev welcomed the Moscow agreements reached during our overnight work.

Replying to the question about our contacts with our Turkish colleagues, I will say that I contacted Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and told him that we rely on the support for our efforts. On Sunday, we spoke again by telephone and he confirmed the support of the Moscow document. Now, we need to make it work in real life. This is what we are doing how.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4378166






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the protection of national minorities’ rights by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic



12 October 2020 - 20:08



We regret to point out the unwillingness of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights to take note of systemic infringements on the rights of Russian speakers in some of the Council of Europe countries.

In particular, Dunja Mijatovic remains conspicuously silent about the outrageous situation with human rights in Ukraine, where the authorities are consistently infringing on the rights and interests of a sizable Russian-speaking community. We have not received any response to our numerous appeals to the Commissioner, which included concrete examples and evidence of Kiev’s policy of language discrimination and coercive Ukrainisation of all spheres of life in the country.

The Commissioner made a statement on the protection of national minorities’ rights only once, in a comment she made a year ago (on October 29, 2019) where she attempted to equate the language policies of different Council of Europe countries, in particular, Kiev’s policy of squeezing the Russian language out of its education system, community life and media with Russia’s efforts to promote the development of both the Russian and the minority languages in the country.

We believe that this approach runs contrary to the principle of impartiality inherent in the Commissioner’s mandate and urge Dunja Mijatovic to finally take active measures to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, bearing in mind that the Kiev authorities see a tolerant attitude towards their policies as an exemption, and that this example is being emulated in some other European countries.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4378212






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrel



13 October 2020 - 14:36







On October 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation initiated by the EU with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell who spoke about the outcome of the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting held on October 12.

The Russian side, in turn, pointed out that fomenting anti-Russia sentiments in the EU and creating new irritants in relations with Russia under far-fetched pretexts ran counter to the goal of stabilising the situation in Europe. It was noted that these relations could only be based on equality and mutual respect of each other’s interests. In order to achieve this, some countries that set the tone in the EU should abandon approaches based on adopting a position of superiority and admit that there is no alternative to a candid fact-based dialogue.

A number of important international matters also came under review, including the actual state of affairs in implementing the Minsk Agreements to resolve the internal crisis in Ukraine, and the goals of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in accordance with the Moscow statement by the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, as well as the situation around the Republic of Belarus.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4380321






Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Geneva-Moscow, 13 October 2020



13 October 2020 - 18:19



The Co-Chairs note with alarm the continuing violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Co-Chairs call on Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to take immediate steps to execute in full the obligations of the sides according to the October 10 Moscow statement, in order to prevent catastrophic consequences for the region.

The Co-Chairs reiterate that civilian casualties are unacceptable under any circumstances. The Co-Chairs call on the sides to implement the humanitarian ceasefire immediately to allow the return of remains, prisoners of war, and detainees, and appeal to the sides to agree urgently upon a ceasefire verification mechanism.

Following conversations with Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov, the Co-Chairs are working with the sides on the substantive issues of the Nagorno-Karabakh political settlement process in order to reach a negotiated solution.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4380609






Press release on awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the UN World Food Programme



13 October 2020 - 19:46



On October 9 of this year, the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) for its efforts to combat hunger and improve conditions for peace in conflict areas. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a message of congratulations to WFP Executive Director David Beasley on this occasion.

Relations between the Russian Federation and the WFP have been developing dynamically since the early 2000s. The scale of our cooperation is growing, its geography is expanding and the quality is changing. Today, the WFP is the main multilateral channel through which Russia renders food assistance to the needy populations of other countries. From 2003 to 2020, Russia’s total voluntary contributions to the WFP Fund have exceeded $450 million.

We actively cooperate with the WFP on projects that are at the junction of humanitarian aid and development, including school meals. Such projects have been launched in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and since 2020 in Cuba and Nicaragua. In all, $95.1 million have been allocated for this purpose in 2010-2023.

In January 2020, a project worth $20 million was started in Syria.

Russia gave 355 KAMAZ lorries to the WFP as a voluntary contribution.

We intend to further develop constructive cooperation with the WFP.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4380669






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the presentation of the Valdai International Discussion Club analytical report “History, To Be Continued: The Utopia of a Diverse World,” Moscow, October 13, 2020



14 October 2020 - 02:06






Mr Lukyanov,

Colleagues,

There is no need to say that you are flattered by my participation – this is in our interests: you cannot be left on your own, since otherwise you will dream up something else, and later we will have to, as you said, exist in a new reality and sort out the mess.

But, joking aside, thank you for inviting me. I always look for ways to attend events organised by the Valdai Club, especially on the occasion of the publication of what I think is a very interesting, provocative and, as always, unconventional report, which is worthy of being studied and gives much food for thought. Let me welcome all the participants in this session. It is clear that Valdai’s intellectual and creative energy is inexhaustible. This is a good pretext to discuss, as it follows from the report’s title, what world we live in and how history is set to continue. I can state with certainty that the report is on the whole optimistic.

We should not focus only on the ways in which the world is likely to change in the foreseeable future, but also on whether we will be able to influence this change. Our position with regard to what is going on in the world is basically the same as the formulas used in the report: the “volatility” and “impulsiveness” of international life. We have been saying for a long time that the world is going through profound transformations, with the global balance of power being reshaped. There is no doubt that the substance of the modern epoch is an objective process of formation of a more democratic, multipolar international order. It is a difficult and long process. It will probably take an entire epoch.

Thus far, we can see that the rise of new centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence and these growth and influence centres’ sincere desire to establish mutually beneficial and equal relations with all others are running into resistance from a group of Western states, which are neither ready for, nor used to sharing their privileged position in the international hierarchy. This standoff is behind the state of turbulence and uncertainty described in the report.

As I said, the clash between the old and the new will take, judging by all appearances, an entire historical epoch. The sign of the current juncture is that the maximally selfish behaviour of certain state leaders is increasingly influencing real events on the international arena. A case in point is that a well-known, very rich and well-armed country bought up, at an early stage in the pandemic, or administratively redirected to its own havens cargoes with protective gear against COVID 19 intended for others. Of course, there are numerous examples of this sort and we cannot rejoice at the loss of the culture of dialogue and compromise and generally the skill of listening to others. Often there prevails the desire to issue accusations, ultimatums and demands. We believe that today, as never before, it is important to try to return to the sources and basics of diplomacy, to the painstaking, protracted, occasionally thankless, but eventually effective search for points of contact and compromises, and to the coordination of positions. We are ready for this work and are ready to conduct it with all our partners without exception.

It is encouraging that the report includes a forecast, even though Fyodor Lukyanov has described it as utopian, that in 2045 the UN will celebrate its 100th anniversary. Despite criticism, which is quite often reasonable, the organisation is serving its purpose. It is thanks to the UN that a catastrophic conflict between great powers has been prevented. Even though it has quite a few obvious drawbacks, since human products and ideas tend to be flawed, yet there is no alternative to it. In our opinion, the UN-centred architecture based on the results of WWII still has a margin of safety and untapped creative potential, first of all when it comes to maintaining a global balance between the leading international players.

It is also obvious to us that it is in the interests of the entire international community to remain committed to the fundamental principles of international law sealed in the UN Charter. It is often noted indeed that these principles have been violated, and quite frequently. But we don’t abandon traffic rules only because of regular road accidents, do we?

I believe that what we need now is something different: we must work to ensure that all countries strictly comply with the norms and principles of international law and their obligations under international conventions, and to prevent the erosion of international law or its replacement with the rules-based order promoted by our Western partners, who even avoid using the very phrase “respect for international law.” There are quite a few examples. We can see that these “rules,” as I have pointed out more than once, are being created in a narrow circle of the so-called like-minded people without any consideration for the opinions of the international community or the universal norms of international law formalised in the UN Charter, numerous universal conventions and the statutes of specialised agencies. Like traffic rules, international law has been written in blood, as we are well aware, including the blood of those who fought during WWII and who defeated Nazism. This doesn’t make it any less significant. Quite to the contrary. I believe that those who do not respect international law are risking a great deal.

I would like to cite a quotation by Dmitry Mendeleyev, who not only arranged the periodic table and allegedly invented popular drink recipes, but was also an accomplished philosopher. He pondered the importance of non-violent sustainable development. He wrote in one of his works, The Cognition of Russia: Cherished Thoughts, which was published in 1905: The idealists and materialists see the possibility of change only through revolutions, while realists say that real change only happens through gradual evolution.” This may look like a self-evident thought, but it is more important in the current international environment than ever before. For all intents and purposes, it is now crucial for politicians to remain true to realism.

The world is becoming increasingly diverse and competitive. It is hard to argue with this. It can no longer be governed from any one centre. Ironically, as Fyodor Lukyanov has already said, the novel coronavirus pandemic has become a marker of equality of all countries in the face of this common evil. It has all of a sudden shown that people in the countries that regard themselves as the beacons of the free world and democracy are as vulnerable to this disease as everybody else. We would like to hope that they will draw the right conclusion from this “discovery,” which has hit us all, both the West and the developing countries, as well as Russia, like a ton of bricks.

We are not going to force our position on anyone, but we are trying to use this medical challenge as an opportunity for developing constructive cooperation, and not only in combating the disease. We are grateful for the positive views on our coronavirus vaccine and medicine expressed in a great number of states – actually, dozens of countries have done this. I believe that this is a good example of how we should really join our efforts even in the most difficult situations and try to avoid the temptation to take advantage of the current problems to gain unilateral benefits.

This year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory and of the United Nations. We strongly believe that it is more important now than ever before in the past decades for the leading countries’ heads to show wisdom, foresight and political will. In our opinion, the first to do this must be the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. You are aware of President Putin’s initiative to hold an in-person meeting of these five countries’ leaders. We hope that it can be held as soon as the sanitary and epidemiological situation allows. As of now, we maintain contact with our partners, discussing the summit’s concept and agenda, including some details of the potential final documents.

One more thing I would like to mention is environmental protection and adapting to the climate change. It is thoroughly addressed in your report, and with good reason, as I see it. Environmental and climate problems are no less significant today than economic or political ones, because it is human habitat that we are talking about. The Earth is our common home, which has become especially obvious in this age of globalisation and interconnectivity. We believe that we must take a non-political approach to this package of issues. Instead of turning the green agenda into yet another sphere of confrontation, mutual accusations and underhanded competition, we must use it to bring our nations together. The green agenda must not be an end in itself or a source of fortune for the corporations, which often use people’s environmental idealism for purposes that have little in common with environmental protection.

To conclude my address, I would like to say once again that it was very interesting to see how the Valdai Club leaders see the global situation and the scenarios of its further development. As Fyodor Lukyanov noted, the authors of the report did not spare words so as to help themselves and the readers to fight cognitive inertia, which is a vital condition for ordinary human activity, let alone success. The title of this report, History, To Be Continued: The Utopia of a Diverse World, has reminded me about a recent online joke according to which [Turgenev’s] Mumu is a utopia and [Nekrasov’s] Grandpa Mazai and the Hares is an anti-utopia. Of course, there’s a grain of a joke in every joke. But we would certainly choose an anti-utopian scenario, which we like much more. Unfortunately, there is no Grandpa Mazai to save humankind. As another saying goes, If you need a helping hand, it’s at the end of your arm. We are ready to look for mutually acceptable solutions together with all those who need a helping hand as well.

Thank you.







Question:

How expedient is it to battle for multilateral organisations that are past their prime?



Sergey Lavrov:

I remember the report has special speculations on this topic: the UN is a good thing, but for a revival of its spirit, it is not at all mandatory to hold on to the “letter” (judging by all appearances, the letter of the UN Charter that was written in the first half of the last century); all our reasoning should centre on the understanding of what is good and what is evil. You put all of this into the mouth of an imagined UN Secretary-General, who will rule the organisation in 2045, the year of its 100th anniversary. Incidentally, you have given him a name that reflects, if I understand it correctly, either Burmese, or North Korean, or generally Korean traditions. I do not overestimate my linguistic or historical abilities.

But let us go back to what you said – good and evil. Is sovereign equality of states good or evil? I think it is good. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another, peaceful settlement of disputes, the principle of great power accord – all of this is the letter of the UN Charter and is written in black and white. I do not think that mankind should give up these principles despite the prospects for the modification of the structure of international organisations. Otherwise we will again find ourselves in a period of imperialist wars, colonial domination and other inequality on the international arena.

During your opening remarks, you mentioned that modern institutions were becoming inefficient and losing their importance and meaning. I would like to know what led you to this conclusion. The thing is that the only obvious and universal reason for making generalisations of this kind is, as I see it, the US policy starting from the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. After that, there was a relatively long pause, followed by an across-the-board demolition of all arms control and non-proliferation instruments: the INF Treaty, the Treaty on Open Skies, and the START-1 Treaty that will go the same way soon. These form the international legal infrastructure of stability, which actually the entire world community definitively regarded as good and not evil.

I am also referring, apart from international treaties and agreements, directly to multilateral organisations – both the UN, and the specialised agencies it has created, and, of course, the Bretton Woods institutions (the IMF and the World Bank Group). The US has withdrawn, if I recall rightly, from UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council, and has announced that it will pull out of the World Health Organisation (WHO). In my view, the US is also studying in a detailed and concerted manner a possibility of leaving the WTO, whose operations it has impeded for a number of years now. It uses the filibuster to block personnel appointments to the agency that deals with the resolution of disputes, thus preventing it from acquiring a quorum needed for disputes to be in fact resolved based on the WTO and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

One can also recall instances, where the United States simply does not want to implement any treaties that at least in some way restrict Washington’s free hand internationally, be it economic, trade, investment or any other sphere. The levers used are obvious, sanctions, threats, ultimatums, and so on.

Yet another trend that also gives food for thought from the point of view of the existing institutions’ viability is the following. Our Western colleagues are seeking to privatise these multilateral international organisations, as is manifested in the activities of the UN Secretariat, to mention just this body. I will not dwell upon this, but everyone is well aware who takes and how the key decisions are made and who exerts the decisive influence on the position of the Secretariat, which must be absolutely impartial and reflect the approaches of the international officialdom that takes an oath of impartiality and rejection of directives coming from any government. This also transpires in the activities of specialised agencies.

I have repeatedly cited examples of how, in fact, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has been “raped.” In a direct and gross violation of all rules, the West has insisted on an illegitimate vote, following which it declared that the OPCW Technical Secretariat would from now on be vested with the UN Security Council’s functions and have the right to identify those to blame for various situations, where there were reasons to assume that CWC-prohibited chemical weapons had been used. Before the West “violated” this universal document, the Technical Secretariat only had the right to establish the fact of use or non-use of a prohibited chemical in response to an application from any CWC member state.

When they fail to organise and rush a “privatisation revolution” through legitimate organisations, topics are taken outside of universal discussions and various partnerships are established, as our French colleagues did by creating a partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons and a partnership against human rights violations, although there is the UN Human Rights Council, a legitimate and universal agency. But, in all evidence, not everything is working out there to the benefit of our Western colleagues. They want to have a venue where they will decide who should be punished based on their own rules rather than international law. Established outside the universal organisations of the United Nations, these partnerships create structures to fit their own needs and interests, which will punish those whom these people will identify as culprits.

The EU is actively following in the footsteps of the US, increasingly relying on the threat of sanctions. Brussels has created two mechanisms to punish those, who, in its opinion, will use chemical weapons and violate human rights. All of this is outside of the UN Security Council and in no way tallies with the principles of the UN Charter. If this is understood to be a new reality, then, in my view, we must fight it. Good and evil will not disappear anyway. I am convinced that not only the spirit, but also the letter of the UN Charter are absolutely fine for the modern-day world, if we want it to be a little bit more democratic and just.



Question:

When you are engaged in everyday diplomacy, you have no time to make analogies or reflect on which periods of time are similar and which aren’t. Still, do you have a feeling that we are living in a time that is a repetition of other periods that we either remember or don’t, but just know about from textbooks or fiction?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is this good formula, a belief about how many times history repeats itself and in what form. Karl Marx was probably unaware of this, but it can repeat many times. I would say the most distinctive feature of our time is this – everyone understands that a redistribution of power is taking place, and this is exactly what our Western colleagues are fighting so adamantly, clinging to their centuries of dominance. For the sake of justice, I agree that over those past centuries (half a millennium in fact) a fierce fight for a place in the sun, for being King of the Mountain, was certainly very relevant. I agree with Dominic Lieven that humankind’s nearly unlimited ability to invent new deadly technologies is hardly reassuring. In this sense, probably, that closing phrase of his cannot be simply ignored.

Once in the midst of ‘perestroika’ one of our politicians was asked at an election campaign meeting: “Why is our life so bad?” He replied: “But is it? Our grandchildren will envy us for the life we had.” There is a homely truth in that of course, but I would prefer some lesson to be learned from the bloody wars of the past. Alas, there is another wise maxim: history teaches nothing.



Question:

So, if we are in for such terrible events in the future, and will not see heaven for another 25 years, if at all, as our report tries to explain – if things are so bad, maybe Russia should, as they say now, self-isolate during the period of these terrible shocks and entirely concentrate on itself, abandoning or minimising any foreign policy ambitions? As they say, do not get angry, but focus. And let others fight their battles for global dominance or whatever prize there is.



Sergey Lavrov:

I think this is another homely truth here. But it is not about self-isolating and ceasing to take care of the outer perimeter, which is of key importance from our security perspective. There is a lot of debate about this. One of the founders of Valdai Club and the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Sergey Karaganov, recently spoke on television about what stance we should take in this respect. Some of his ideas are questionable, but I do agree with some political analysts (this is not my invention, but they just instinctively guessed the feeling we are starting to have) that we must stop considering our Western colleagues, including the EU, as a source of assessment of our behaviour that we need to follow, or measuring ourselves with the same yardstick. They don’t know Russian arshins, they have inches. I think we need to stop looking over our shoulders at them.

Look at what happened at the recent EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, all the moralising and lecturing there, statements that Russia missed its chance to explain what happened to Alexey Navalny. More conceptually, not so long ago, a couple of weeks ago, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen stressed how important it was to shed the illusion that Russia under the current government will be able to regain the status of the EU's geopolitical partner. That was a drastic statement from the highest official in the European Commission. It seems to me that we need to stop looking back at these assessments.

Today I spoke with the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell for more than an hour; we got deep into detail. I told him frankly and I said so publicly: if the EU is arrogant enough to declare, with this sense of unconditional superiority, that Russia must understand there will be no “business as usual,” well, Russia wants to understand whether there could be any business at all with the European Union under these conditions. I will not go into detail, although there is a lot that could be said, about the EU behaving in an absolutely inappropriate, unacceptable manner, with regard to the same Navalny incident. This is the case with the statement that as many as five EU countries have already established the truth, and that our attempts to ask them to provide the facts that led them to those conclusions are outrageous and we cannot even question them. Remember the great actor and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger playing that tough guy in films who always, every time someone tried to express doubt, just said, trust me. Even so, I trust him more than I trust the European Union, which is now trying to use the same approach. I mean use it as a rule, and not within the framework of international law. We would like the EU and Germany to follow international law in the situation with Navalny. There is the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and the protocols thereto. We are referring to those. We ask Germany to fulfil its obligations under these international legal instruments. But Germany says, you have international law, but we have a rule. And the rule is that if we do not trust them, the blame is on us.

In the last twenty years, we have always had self-esteem. But those people who are responsible for foreign policy in the West do not understand the need for mutually respectful communication. So we should probably stop communicating with them for a while. Moreover, Ursula von der Leyen declares that geopolitical partnership is not working with the current Russian government. So be it, if that’s the way they want it.



Question:

If institutions are giving way to multilateral cooperation, what should we do about the so-called near-abroad? How can we resolve problems, especially since their number is growing?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is probably correct to monitor the current trend where, although we do need the multilateral organisations, despite the fact that they are facing a crisis (I have mentioned the attempts to undermine them or to replace their universal framework with some “rules” created outside the UN Charter and its very system), they should of course be complemented with more flexible forms of interaction, without a rigid structure or conventional documents. A relevant example is the G20. It is a network structure that is becoming institutionalised without losing flexibility. It does not have any written or ratified rules, but it reflects our views on the development of a multipolar world, which we are discussing now. The G20 has risen to the summit from the level of quite informal contacts maintained among finance ministers before 2010. It was decided to hold annual G20 summits after the 2008 crisis.

The fact that the G20 has been brought to the summit level is proof that from now on the G7 will not be in a position to deal with global economic matters. It is the economy and finance that were proposed as the main goals of the G20 summits since the G20 incorporates the G7, the BRICS countries and the apparently like-minded members of the BRICS Five – Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Argentina. In other words, the G20 is an almost open recognition of the multipolar world and the inability of the West in the broad meaning of the word, which includes Japan, to deal with global economic and financial problems unassisted.

At the same time, we should think about reforming the existing institutions. In this sense, the UN is an organisation that needs a regular upgrade. But this process must be gradual, consistent, coordinated and based on consensus, without any abrupt movements that could undermine the UN’s ability to function. Much attention is being given now to the deadlocked reform of the UN Security Council and the conflicting ambitions of states that have risen to new heights in the global economy and politics. When the UN was established, some of them were colonies, like India, while the People’s Republic of China did not even exist, even though the victorious nations recognised China as one of the winners in World War II, in which over 35 million Chinese lost their lives.

The situation has changed since then, and more countries are claiming a permanent seat on the UNSC. Discussions on this are underway. We believe that first of all we must correct the grossly unfair state of affairs: at least five, but often six and always more than one third of the 15 UNSC members represent Europe, whereas the developing countries are seriously underrepresented. Therefore, our position during debates on increasing the number of permanent UNSC members is that the developing countries of Asia, Latin America and definitely Africa deserve to be included. This would correct the injustice.

Since this subject is highly controversial at the UN, the countries that have recently held the chairmanship of the G20 proposed holding annual meetings of foreign ministers, who have never met in this format since the G20 summit meetings were first held. This can be interpreted as a desire to make up for the lack of progress in coordinating the new format of the UNSC by discussing many key topics within the G20 framework. When it comes to the economic and financial agenda, the G20 decisions are not binding unless approved by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Likewise, the G20 cannot take decisions that are the purview of the UN Security Council and General Assembly. But the G20 is a good platform for finding ways to align different approaches in a broad-based manner free from red tape. Another relevant example is BRICS. I believe that many more such target-oriented alliances will be established in the future.

Take the Astana format set up to coordinate a Syrian settlement. It is clearly a one-off format created to deal with a particular problem. Turkey, Iran and Russia had not created similar formats before. Russia has wonderful relations with Iran and solid ties with Turkey, but the Astana trio is a one-off group brought together to address a specific case. One more format of this kind is the OSCE Minsk Group, where the burden of decisions, even though the group is based at the OSCE, is carried by the co-chairs – Russia, the United States and France. They have been acting in a fairly well-coordinated manner, but it is nevertheless a one-off format.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4380725
__________________
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 November 28th, 2020 #192
Dawn Cannon
Senior Member
 
Dawn Cannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Vampire Ball
Posts: 6,410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Him View Post
Once in the midst of ‘perestroika’ one of our politicians was asked at an election campaign meeting: “Why is our life so bad?” He replied: “But is it? Our grandchildren will envy us for the life we had.” There is a homely truth in that of course, but I would prefer some lesson to be learned from the bloody wars of the past. Alas, there is another wise maxim: history teaches nothing.



Question:

So, if we are in for such terrible events in the future, and will not see heaven for another 25 years, if at all, as our report tries to explain – if things are so bad, maybe Russia should, as they say now, self-isolate during the period of these terrible shocks and entirely concentrate on itself, abandoning or minimising any foreign policy ambitions? As they say, do not get angry, but focus. And let others fight their battles for global dominance or whatever prize there is.
Not a bad idea.

I wondered if it would, but...I suppose, (most of us) will never know.
 
Old November 28th, 2020 #193
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Cannon View Post
Not a bad idea.

I wondered if it would, but...I suppose, (most of us) will never know.
I think that we will not be allowed to isolate ourselves in this interdependent modern world. Liechtenstein and Vanuatu can self-isolate, but Russia cannot self-isolate.






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov



14 October 2020 - 11:54







On October 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov.

The two ministers discussed topical issues of bilateral cooperation as well as preparations for the upcoming meeting of foreign ministers in the CA5 + Russia format.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4380838






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov



14 October 2020 - 12:35







On October 14, at the initiative of the Azerbaijani side, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov, during which the difficult situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone was discussed. The ministers confirmed the need to strictly implement the provisions of the Moscow Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia dated October 10, 2020.

The Russian side emphasised that there was no alternative to immediately agreeing on a mechanism for monitoring compliance with the ceasefire regime, which would create a basis for further steps towards a political and diplomatic settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4381067






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy Luigi Di Maio, Moscow, October 14, 2020



14 October 2020 - 14:20






Mr Minister,

Colleagues,

We see in our meeting, which is taking place during a pandemic, evidence of the special importance of Russian-Italian relations.

We value the continuity in our relations which has lasted for many years, primarily owing to trust-based contacts at the top level.

We, like our Italian friends, are convinced that in the current difficult situation for the world community, which has become even more aggravated as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to strengthen coordination in order to stand up to challenges and threats facing the whole of humankind.





Our economic cooperation has developed successfully. Jointly with the Russian co-chair, Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov, you have just held the 17th session of the Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial and Financial Cooperation (Economic Council). As far as I know, the session was highly productive.

Our countries have vast scope for humanitarian collaboration. Contacts in this area are based on the Programme of Cooperation in the Sphere of Culture, Education, Media, Youth Exchanges, Sport and Tourism effective until 2022.

Despite the restrictions caused by COVID-19, a number of planned events are being implemented, such as the Mariinsky Theatre’s concert tour of several Italian cities and an exhibition of Marc Chagall’s paintings from the collections of the Tretyakov Gallery and the Russian Museum. Later this month, Milan will host an exhibition titled “Women in Russian Art: From Icons to Malevich and Goncharova.” This is just a small fraction of the projects carried out by our countries in various areas. We will talk about all this in detail later today. Given the acuteness of global and regional problems, we will focus on foreign policy collaboration.

Welcome once again.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4381434






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, Moscow, October 14, 2020



14 October 2020 - 16:39






Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to welcome again my colleague who is visiting Moscow as Foreign Minister for the first time. And, as he told me, this is also his first time in this building that he likes. I hope that the interior design and our talks will also facilitate further progress in relations between Russia and Italy.

We met in Rome last February. Since then, the external background for bilateral cooperation has not improved. It has actually deteriorated due to the coronavirus pandemic. It has also largely occurred because of the aggravation of trends towards confrontation in world affairs, in part, in relations between the West and Russia.

At the same time, we can state that despite all these difficulties we manage to maintain regular contact, including at the top level. This year alone, President of Russia Vladimir Putin had eight telephone conversations with Prime Minister of Italy Giuseppe Conte. They personally coordinated many areas of cooperation, including our assistance to our Italian colleagues in their efforts to overcome the first huge wave of the pandemic in the Apennines.

Today, we reaffirmed our mutual efforts to consistently restore cooperation in all key areas. We can already present some results. In part, I mentioned my visit to Italy last February; it was for the regular meeting of defence and foreign ministers in the two-plus-two format after a big pause. A very useful discussion took place at that meeting. Today, we confirmed the requirement for this mechanism. As soon as the epidemiological situation permits, we hope to hold a regular meeting in this two-plus-two format in Russia.

We also noted the important role of the joint Russian-Italian Council for Economic, Industrial and Currency-Financial Cooperation. Today, it held its regular, 17th meeting in Skolkovo. It was attended by its co-chairs – Luigi Di Maio and Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov. As I understand, the participants reached specific agreements that will allow us to further develop our trade and economic cooperation.

We also have mechanisms for discussing joint efforts to counter new challenges and threats. Today, we also discussed the schedule and format of a regular meeting of this group.

We share the general positive assessment of the steady development of inter-parliamentary ties. A regular meeting of the High Russian-Italian Inter-Parliamentary Commission is on the agenda. It was postponed due to the coronavirus. But last year, foreign affairs committees of the upper chambers of our parliaments presented parallel reports on developing bilateral relations, and the work on the further advance of this cooperation continues now.

We highly praised the level of humanitarian cooperation. We have held many events during the past year. Some of them were conducted in a traditional format, while others took place online, which makes it possible to attract a big audience to these cultural and humanitarian events. Russian director Andrey Konchalovsky’s film “Dear Comrades” won a special prize at the Venice Film Festival last September.

The Russian-Italian Civil Society Dialogue Forum continues playing a major role in building up our cooperation. Today, we reaffirmed our support for this important forum. Our cooperation in many scientific areas is also making steady headway.

We discussed key international and regional issues, paying special attention to relations between Russia and the European Union (EU). The state of this is a source of serious concern in Russia. We set forth our views of the current state of affairs. We emphasised that unfriendly moves by Brussels, especially a number of Russophobic EU members, undermine the overall potential of Russia-EU cooperation. At the same time, we appreciate and note the efforts of our Italian partners to maintain the existing constructive potential of our relations although we understand that not everything depends on individual EU members.

We talked about Ukraine. Here we share a common position on the lack of an alternative to the implementation of the Minsk agreements. For our part, we quoted facts that show the destructive position of the Kiev authorities on undermining this important international document.

We discussed cooperation in the G20, including and primarily in terms of Italy’s Chairmanship of this format. Italy will begin fulfilling these functions on December 1 of this year after a G20 regular summit in Saudi Arabia. We are interested in the closest cooperation on the many priorities that Italy will promote. We will facilitate the success of our Italian friends in fulfilling this function.

We spoke about the situation around Belarus and the Libyan crisis, emphasising that there is no alternative to overcoming these through political and diplomatic means.

We will continue maintaining contact between our foreign ministries. We have a consultation schedule that we are fulfilling, in part, in the online format.

Today, my colleague invited me to visit Italy in December to attend the Mediterranean Dialogue conference. I believe this will be one more opportunity to continue our discussions in the interests of Russia and Italy, our peoples and pan-European cooperation.

Thank you for your attention.







Question (for Luigi Di Maio):

The international situation has become even more unstable in the past few months with the current conflicts in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh. How can Russia and Italy cooperate to resolve these problems, starting with Libya?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Di Maio):

I support what Mr Di Maio said. We have been interested in settling the Libyan crisis since it broke out. It should not be forgotten that it was triggered by NATO’s aggressive adventure in crude violation of the relevant UN Security Council resolution, when the North Atlantic Alliance bombed the sovereign state of Libya. We are still trying to put together the fragments of this broken vase through a concerted effort. As I have said, from the very start of this crisis Russia has maintained relations with all Libyan parties without exception: in the east and the west, with representatives of the Government of National Accord, the House of Representatives in Tobruk, and the leaders of the Libyan National Army, to name a few. We also took part in all international efforts to create conditions for an inclusive process that must be organised and run by the Libyans themselves.

Many international conferences in France, Italy, the UAE and a number of other countries, in which Russia has also taken part, were aimed at reaching these goals. The Berlin conference in January 2019 played a special role in this respect. We contributed to preparations for this and insisted on inviting the main parties and Libya’s neighbours because initially the German organisers did not plan it like this. As a result, the participants adopted a number of useful documents that were subsequently developed in the relevant UN Security Council resolution. Now all our efforts are aimed at carrying out this resolution. A number of mediators are trying to facilitate this: Russia, Italy, regional countries (Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia) and Germany as the initiator of the Berlin conference. The main goal is to move all these efforts in the same direction so that none of the Libyan parties are isolated. On the contrary, it is necessary to ensure their participation in the political process following which the balance of interests of all Libyan regions will be considered. This includes three historical Libyan regions and the political forces that represent them. We support the adoption of all these measures under UN aegis. Events in Geneva are being prepared following a series of meetings held with the involvement of mediators and representatives from the east and west of Libya, including in Cairo. The most important goal is for all of us to make a coordinated effort. Italy and Russia understand the need for cooperation in this respect.

In conclusion on the Libya issue, I would like to emphasise our complete agreement on the need for the appointment of a UN Secretary-General special envoy to Libya. This position has been vacant since March. It is no secret that the US’s position is the main obstacle to this. The American delegates literally try to stop the actions of the Secretary-General who was supposed to make the decision and submit it to the UN Security Council some time ago.



Question:

In response to the European sanctions, which I believe will follow in the wake of the “Navalny case,” you said yesterday that Russia will have to suspend its contacts with European foreign ministers. Does this mean that today’s meeting with Luigi Di Maio may be the last with an EU foreign minister?



Sergey Lavrov:

The EU is increasingly replacing the art of diplomacy with sanctions. Clearly, the bad example of the United States is contagious. We see this not just as a bad example by the Americans, but also as a result of direct US pressure on its European allies and colleagues. Indeed, what we are saying now is that we want to understand what the EU is trying to accomplish. But this EU policy will not remain without consequences.

We see EU confirmation of the principle that only full compliance with the Minsk agreements can lead to normal relations between Moscow and Brussels. However, President Zelensky has noted that the Minsk agreements are only important to him as a means of maintaining the sanctions on Russia, and that he will only support them after they are revised, both in substance and with regard to the sequence of steps outlined in these agreements following the Paris summit with the participation of the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine. With this EU approach in mind, where it completely ignores the real state of affairs regarding the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the fact that they have been blocked by official Kiev, we cannot disregard the statements coming from Brussels. In particular, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said that Russia has adopted a position that openly undermines EU interests, and that restoring the strategic partnership between Russia and the EU is out of the question before Russia changes its behaviour. I have already covered the Ukraine crisis, which is one of the key crises now, as it unfolds, and who precisely is blocking the implementation of the peace agreements.

We are seeing similarly unfounded accusations in the case of Mr Navalny, which you mentioned. We hear our partners say that establishing the facts is of paramount importance. The trouble is that the facts concerning Mr Navalny’s time in Russia, on a Russian plane and in the Omsk hospital are well known and have been established by us inasmuch as we could, since several people involved in this incident have fled to Great Britain and Germany, and we do not know of their whereabouts. We are asking to be granted access to these people, but no constructive response is coming our way. We do not have the necessary facts. The West has them, but we are denied access to them. Yesterday, during a conversation with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, and today during talks with Luigi Di Maio, we heard a reiteration of the need to establish the facts. First off, the other side has no facts. Second, as we know, during a Monday meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, the participants discussed the need for imposing sanctions, but Mr Borrell assured me that before such a decision can be made, it is imperative to study the facts that Germany and France promised to provide as part of a certain technical group that is now being created. We very much hope that these facts will be presented not only to a narrow group of European countries, but also directly to the party that is being, without proof, accused of all conceivable sins and crimes. Moreover, this is a requirement of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. We have sent corresponding inquiries to Germany, France and Sweden, whose laboratories conducted these tests, as well as to the OPCW. Until such facts are presented, we cannot take seriously the “incantations” that were clearly written using the same language that we keep hearing and that is used by all EU members in their contacts with us. More than anyone else, we are interested in establishing the truth. We very much hope that our colleagues in the West, primarily, Germany, will not shirk their international legal obligations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4381601
__________________
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 November 28th, 2020 #194
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 radio stations Sputnik, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Govorit Moskva, Moscow, October 14, 2020



14 October 2020 - 21:57






Question:

Good afternoon, Mr Lavrov. We are not going to shake hands today to comply with the coronavirus requirements, even though we are not wearing masks right now. We have been told that you are pressed for time because the Italians are waiting for you. Therefore, we won’t interrupt your answers, so that you can answer all of our questions or our audience.

While preparing for this interview, we told each other half-jokingly, although this is sad humour, that we should browse the social media before the minister comes in to see if a new war began anywhere. Everything is so sudden this year, and it would be bad if a war began five minutes ago and we didn’t ask you about it.

Thankfully, no new war has begun, but the most recent war is ongoing despite the ceasefire, which was coordinated through titanic efforts, including by you (is it true that you didn’t smoke for those 11 hours? I can’t imagine how you managed it). But in fact, there is no ceasefire. Is it possible anyway? We keep saying that there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement. But is it possible? Can the sides stop fighting?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, those were unique negotiations. I would like to say that President Vladimir Putin made the decisive contribution. He monitored our all-night meeting, and we spoke twice in the middle of the night.



Question:

Did he phone or come personally?



Sergey Lavrov:

He phoned. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu was involved as well, because we needed to coordinate the ceasefire, which cannot be complete without a verification mechanism. It is stipulated in the second paragraph of the document we have coordinated.

Over the past few days, I spoke several times with my colleagues in Baku and Yerevan. Sergey Shoigu spoke with the two countries’ defence ministers. President Putin spoke with the leaders of the conflicting sides. Our main idea was that the military must meet to coordinate a ceasefire verification mechanism, which is mentioned in the document but has not even been discussed so far.

I reaffirmed this again barely half an hour ago, when Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov phoned me. We are sending the same signal to our Armenian colleagues as well. I believe that this [mechanism] is key to a lasting secession of hostilities, which damage civilian facilities and bring misery to people.



Question:

What exactly is this miraculous ceasefire verification mechanism? Is it a no-fly zone?



Sergey Lavrov:

When politicians and diplomats who are mediating in a conflict announce a ceasefire agreement, their military coordinate practical measures for its implementation and who would monitor the ceasefire on both sides. There is nothing miraculous about this. It is what we did in Transnistria, as well as in Donbass, by the way, although ceasefires there have been announced many times, but only the latest one is more or less effective, thanks to the additional ceasefire verification measures coordinated in the Trilateral Contact Group. This was also done in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994, when a ceasefire agreement was complemented with the coordination by the military of its implementation on the ground.

As for the second part of your question, yes, of course a political settlement is possible. The proposals that have been and are being coordinated in the OSCE Minsk Group are still on the table. Their essence is well known: a staged and gradual withdrawal of the sides’ armed forces from the districts bordering Nagorno-Karabakh on the conditions of its security and the maintenance of reliable communications between Armenia and Karabakh until the region’s final status is agreed. It is a well-known scheme. I believe that there is a silver lining to these unfortunate events: the latest tragedy should help revitalise the political process simultaneously with the settlement of security issues on the ground.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, does the phrase “reliable communications” refer to the Lachin corridor and the 5-2 scheme?



Sergey Lavrov:

All agreements that were discussed recently and that the sides are seriously considering stipulate the withdrawal of armed forces from five districts at the first stage and two districts at the second stage, when the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh is to be defined. Troop withdrawal from five districts at the first stage is to be complemented with the restoration of communications, economic ties and transport contacts, as well as the deployment of peacekeeping forces to guarantee the non-resumption of hostilities.



Question:

So, peacekeepers are the mechanism you have mentioned?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, this mechanism should be used now on the contact line, rather than in the five districts that are stipulated in the co-chairs’ proposals. At this moment it would even be enough to have military observers there, rather than peacekeepers.



Question:

Russian ones?



Sergey Lavrov:

We believe that it would be best to send our military observers there. But the decision rests with the sides. We hope that Yerevan and Baku will take into account our allied relations and strategic partnership.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, the current war in Nagorno-Karabakh, if we call a spade the spade, has been inspired by Turkey. In general, we regularly “run into” Turkey, in Libya, as well as in Syria, where Ankara is emerging as a military opponent to us rather than an ally. At the same time, we regularly declare that it is our strategic ally. How will all of this work today in the light of the current developments? Where do we, and Turkey, stand? What are we in relation to each other?



Sergey Lavrov:

Turkey has never qualified as our strategic ally. It is a partner, a very close partner. In many sectors, this partnership is of a strategic nature.

In fact, we are working in Syria, and we are trying to help settle the Libyan crisis. Turkey is also seeking to promote its interests in this region. The main thing is that this is absolutely legitimate, if interests are legitimate, be it Turkey, Iran, UAE, or Qatar. Many countries in this region have interests of their own, which are projected outside of their state borders.

In what Syria is concerned, I think that these transparency and legitimacy have been ensured, despite the fact that the Turkish military are present on Syrian territory without an invitation from the legitimate authorities. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and his government have accepted and supported the establishment of the Astana format. They are cooperating in the implementation of all those initiatives that have been advanced by the threesome of the Astana guarantors. In this sense, the Russia-Turkey-Iran partnership plays a very important role. It is this actual partnership that has made it possible to cut down the terrorist-ruled territories, in fact, as far as the Idlib de-escalation zone.

The eastern bank of the Euphrates is a topic apart. Regrettably, the Americans are promoting separatist ideas in those territories, where they are running the show, and these activities are non-transparent and absolutely unlawful. They are encouraging the Kurds to establish residence and functioning rules other than those approved by the central government.

In Libya, we are also collaborating with Turkey. Diplomats, the military, and secret service officers have met on numerous occasions to use the capabilities of each of the sides. We are in contact with everyone. I am referring to both eastern Libya, where the parliament has its seat, and western Libya, where the Government of National Accord (GNA) is based. The Turks, as you may know, are supporting the GNA, but they are well aware that it is necessary to look for compromises between the approaches of all regions and all Libyan political forces. For now, the political processes are rather chaotic, but they are developing and starting to align. This concerns the Berlin Conference on Libya and the initiatives proposed by Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt as neighbouring countries. This is absolutely understandable and we support it. What is important now is to channel all this into a single pattern under the aegis of the UN, a pattern that will be based on all Libyan sides being encouraged to sit down and negotiate, rather than put forward ultimatums to one another, as we have seen lately between Tobruk and Tripoli.

Currently, our UN colleagues are trying to reduce all these efforts to a common denominator. We are helping this proactively. I hear that Turkey is also interested in these processes gaining strength. In any case, diplomacy is about taking into account the positions of all sides to a conflict in this or that crisis-hit country. But it also has regard for the interests of regional states, which interests are legitimate and accepted by the sides to the conflict themselves.



Question:

You mentioned the consideration of interests of all players. Do we regard Turkey’s interest in Nagorno-Karabakh as legitimate? Are we going to take it into account?



Sergey Lavrov:

Now let me go over to Nagorno-Karabakh. We do not agree with the position that has been voiced by Turkey and enunciated on several occasions by President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan. It is no secret. We cannot share statements to the effect that there is a military solution to the conflict and that it is acceptable. Regrettably, Turkey has been able to do this, confirming that it will support any actions undertaken by Azerbaijan to solve this conflict, including military ones.

We are in contact with our Turkish colleagues. I had several conversations with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavasoglu during the period of crisis. We are upholding our point of view to the effect that a peaceful settlement is not only possible but is also the only method to ensure a durable solution to this problem, because all other things will only preserve the conflict in a subdued state. If a long-term political accord is lacking, the military solutions will one day prove untenable and hostilities will be there anyway.



Question:

The deferred war effect?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, like the Palestinian problem.



Question:

There is no escaping the fact, and it is obvious to everyone, that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become more active. He is playing his own game in the Middle East, namely in Libya and Syria. It is obvious that he considers this region the area of his interests and he talks about it openly.

He also plays his game in Cyprus and has again aggravated the situation in this region. They were one step away from war with Athens. Plus, his words that Jerusalem is also an Ottoman city. At the moment, they are doing the same in the South Caucasus. In his inauguration speech, he called Turkey an Ottoman land. In Turkey itself, they call him a “new sultan.” He openly states that he wants to recreate the Ottoman empire and hence has begun working in all these directions. Let alone his decision on Hagia Sophia, which openly contradicts Ataturk’s wishes.

Regarding this activity of the Turkish leader and the entire Republic of Turkey, are we going to adjust our policy in this area in any way?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, some adjustments can be kept in mind, but our policy in the Turkish or any other direction should be based on reality and avoid the “war is an extension of policy” principle. This is what I firmly believe. Naturally, there could be situations when there is aggression against you, and you must strike back.



Question:

As we say, if you don't listen to Lavrov, you will listen to Shoigu.



Sergey Lavrov:

I did see a T-shirt with that on it. Yes, it's about that.

But first, I would like to outline the general situation – who is trying to advance their interests, where and how. In any place you say Turkey is active, it appears that countries located 10,000 miles away from that region are also active, sometimes even more active than Ankara. There are states that are closer, but the United States plays a very active role in each of these places.

In Syria, the Americans are strongly undermining the very idea of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which reaffirmed Syria’s territorial integrity and required others to respect it. They create quasi-state authorities on its territory without a second thought. First, they announced a ban on the purchase of Syrian oil by all countries, and then allowed their company to mine oil there and used the proceeds to strengthen Kurdish units that are not controlled by Damascus. By the way, Turkey is also active on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, trying, as it believes, to suppress Kurdish terrorism. Ankara's concerns about the security of its border with Syria on the east bank of the Euphrates and in the Idlib region are, at the very least, far more legitimate than what Washington is trying to do by fuelling separatist tendencies in Syria.

The US is very active in Libya. Again, they are trying to “resolve” the conflict in that country to suit their own interests, such as to weaken Turkey and, as it happens, also the Russian Federation. They are saying so openly. There, too, oil plays an important role, because putting Libyan oil on the world markets again and lifting the moratorium announced by Libyan National Army commander Khalifa Haftar are issues of great political and practical importance, directly affecting energy prices.

As regards the Palestinian problem, Jerusalem, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the creation of a Palestinian state – the United States has pushed almost everyone else aside, claiming they will sort this out themselves. There was the Arab Peace Initiative that envisaged first creating a Palestinian state, followed by the normalisation of Israel’s relations with all Arab states. But the US turned it upside down. They want to begin with promoting the establishment of Israel’s relations with all its Arab neighbours, and then see what they can do about the Palestinian problem, or maybe it won’t need to be resolved at all.

We support an improvement in Israel’s relations with its neighbours as well as with all other countries in the region. What we are opposed to is this being done at the expense of the Palestinian people’s interests enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which proclaimed the creation of a Jewish state. That state is alive and kicking, is our close friend and partner. But there is still no such thing as a Palestinian state. Of course, promises, promises (he who expects from a promise a lot must wait for three years or maybe not). But it has been a little more than three years.

These kind of statements from Islamic world leaders such as President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan should obviously be expected in a situation where the UN Security Council’s decision that Jerusalem’s future and status as the capital of three monotheistic religions should be determined with due respect for the interests of all the concerned parties is scrapped and written off, and where access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque – a matter to be decided as part of the final status agreement in the context the creation of a Palestinian state – is revised and cancelled again.

An even broader context to consider: there is an obvious fight for leadership going on in the Islamic world. There are several power centres. There is Turkey, and there is Saudi Arabia as the leader and home of two of the greatest Islamic shrines. Let us not forget that, besides the Turks and Arabs, there are also Pakistanis and Indonesians. Indonesia is the largest Islamic state in the world. We have ties with the League of Arab States, and with the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), and with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which unites all the Islamic states of Asia and Africa without exception regardless of geographical location. Unfortunately, this confrontation within Islam, the competition for leadership, has been increasingly taking on rather fierce forms recently. In contacts with our colleagues from the OIC, we strongly urge them to develop common approaches, find consensus-based positions, and strive for harmony between all branches of Islam. In 2004, King Abdullah II of Jordan held a summit of all Muslims, which led to the adoption of the Amman Declaration that confirmed the unity of all Muslims and a commitment to promote it in various practical situations. This is not working even now.

Regarding the Hagia Sophia, we recognise the right of Turkey and the Istanbul authorities to determine the specific parameters of its use, while of course taking into account its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The discussion within this organisation is still going on. Our Turkish colleagues have given us assurances that all things related to Orthodox culture will remain open for access by visitors, tourists, and pilgrims. Let's see how this works in practice, since the appropriate measures have not yet been technically implemented.

As for the South Caucasus – again, look who is trying to be active there. Americans are no less active there now.



Question:

The Americans say openly that their zone of interests is the entire world. The have positioned themselves as an empire. The Turks have never said so, but they have entered this path as well.



Sergey Lavrov:

What is permitted to Jove is not permitted to an ox?



Question:

We need to understand what they have in mind.



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe all of us should be like the oxen? Otherwise, all of us should be like Jove?



Question:

You mentioned that if the EU doesn’t understand that dialogue with Russia can only be based on mutual respect, Russia could stop talking with them. What did you have in mind?



Sergey Lavrov:

That’s not what I said. I was saying that the point at issue is not whether there can be business as usual, but whether we can do business with the EU at all, which is not simply talking down to Russia but is doing so extremely haughtily and arrogantly, demanding that we answer for the sins which we are allegedly guilty of. I don’t think that we have to answer to anyone. We have our own Constitution, laws and other mechanisms.



Question:

This reminds me of your famous answer to UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who suggested that we should change the Constitution, “Who are you to lecture me?”

Let’s get back to my previous question. How can we stop dealing with them? Can we do this at all? Did you have something different in mind?



Sergey Lavrov:

Economic interests must be respected, but economic operators are free to decide what would or wouldn’t benefit them. I believe that grovelling is beneath us. They may try to ruin our economic partnership, including Nord Stream 2, but they can hardly destroy the entire system of gas transportation interaction maintained via many other agencies and companies. Let things run their course based on the objective interests we have in common.

They have told us that we have not yet matured sufficiently to be a geopolitical partner of the EU, as [President of the European Commission] Ursula von der Leyen noted recently. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has said that having differences with Russia doesn’t mean that Germany cannot have good or at least reasonable ties with it. Our relations will hardly be good in the foreseeable future, and not through our fault. We are always ready to resume, normalise and improve relations based on equality and mutual respect. But all aspects of reason should now be analysed by our counterparts. I seriously hope that reason will prevail there. But we don’t see this happening so far.

Speaking about undercover trends and the possibility of a new EU approach to Russia, the brain trusts and political analysts with close ties to the German government have openly started working on a new Eastern policy. In fact, they propose to dismantle the current bilateral agenda. According to them, we did have a strategic partnership, but it is now a thing of the past. We used to have Partnership for Modernisation, which Frank-Walter Steinmeier promoted when he was foreign minister. These political analysts believe that these projects have not been realised. Russia has allegedly refused to accept the views of the EU and NATO and has finally become their adversary when it comes to the main issues of the world order. This is what these wise men with close ties to the German Government say. They have proposed abandoning their strategic plans for partnership with Russia. Moreover, if, until recently, the EU used to say that although it disagrees with Russia strategically it can nevertheless collaborate with it in the spheres where we have common interests, these new analysts that formulate the new approach suggest a paradigm according to which cooperation even in these spheres can only be possible if the Russians change their behaviour. This idea is gaining momentum. Of course, when such ideas are formulated by political analysts, this is evidence of changing sentiments of the ruling elite. We will look into how this trend influences practical politics, but as of now the policy of the EU leaders, including France and Germany, is not optimistic. On the other hand, I believe that Paris is more inclined to maintain strategic relations with Russia. At least, this is the position of President Emmanuel Macron, which is being implemented in the framework of his agreement with President Putin in a number of Moscow-Paris instruments created to discuss and coordinate joint approaches to strategic security and stability in Europe. We will see which turn this situation and thinking takes.

Yesterday I talked with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. I believe that he is an experienced person who understands that it will be very difficult to deal with many issues of interest to the EU without Russia. Therefore, it would be in the EU’s own interests to maintain partner ties and work together with Russia. However, in my opinion and based on Josep Borrrell’s reaction to some of my questions, the EU is so far unable to get the better of its Russophobic minority, which is taking advantage of the principle of consensus and solidarity to block the more or less constructive approaches to the development of relations with Russia.



Question:

Is the Russophobic minority the Baltic countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Baltics and Poland.



Question:

“The Russians must change their behaviour.” We can change it in a variety of ways, though. For example, why is it that a criminal case against Mr Navalny has not been opened? Why does Chancellor Merkel meet with Alexey Navalny, and why do many Western leaders meet with Ms Tikhanovskaya while we are always on the side of caution, always on the defensive? Perhaps, we should also start meeting with the opposition, at least at the Foreign Ministry level, with the people in these countries who sympathise with Russia? We are way too cautious now that things have gone haywire.



Sergey Lavrov:

We tried to behave properly and have always respected the decisions concerning the choice of leaders, members of parliament, etc. made in the countries with which we have relations. Yes, we see that our Western colleagues always meet with the opposition, not just the mainstream opposition. This matter was discussed several years ago. We decided we would go ahead and start working with the opposition. We did not shy away from such contacts before, but we will now do so without looking over our shoulders at those who criticise us.



Question:

Who shall we start with?



Sergey Lavrov:

The 2017 election in France. Marine Le Pen ̶ the leader of a parliamentary party, a legitimate mainstream politician ̶ came to Moscow at the invitation of our parliamentarians. She talked with them and was received by President Vladimir Putin. The then Foreign Minister of France Jean-Marc Eyraud publicly stated that it was an attempt to interfere in his country’s electoral process, that Paris didn’t want to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs and hoped that Moscow would reciprocate. You have given examples of the persons with whom President Macron and Chancellor Merkel have met, and how they have received Ms Tikhanovskaya. Everyone appears oblivious to the fact that this is, in fact, interference in Belarus’ internal affairs.



Question:

Perhaps it is because we are polite and cautious?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are free to talk with the opposition unless it promotes the idea of a violent overthrow of our partners’ constitutional government. We can talk with anyone, which, in fact, is what we are doing in a number of cases.



Question:

Why not initiate a criminal case against Navalny? This has become some kind of contention. They are saying we haven’t even opened a criminal case.



Sergey Lavrov:

We have provided clarifications on this matter many times. A criminal case is opened when it is based on facts leading the authorities to suspect a criminal offence. Such a decision is always preceded by a preliminary inquiry, which the Interior Ministry is now carrying out. They have interviewed over 200 people and taken testimonies from the doctors, hotel staff, the aircraft crew, and the list goes on. Various TV channels are talking about numerous irregularities and absurdities in this case. That bottle; what made these people rush to the hotel room; they were in their underwear and barefoot, but no one else got sick... A host of inconsistencies there. We will insist that our German colleagues comply with their international legal obligations arising from the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its protocols.

With regard to criminal prosecution and who should explain what to whom, not so long ago, our official representatives said they have information about the CIA contacts with Navalny. Mr Navalny’s lawyer demanded right away to prove that. Just like that. This is their position. When we ask proof of the existence of a criminal element in what happened to Mr Navalny, or ask the Germans to show us the results of his tests, they ask us if we really don’t believe their words. They are telling us they cannot let us have the test results, because they need the patient’s consent, and he has not given it.



Question:

This is a classic principle of international politics in recent years: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

You mentioned Germany and Nord Stream 2. The narrow question is what will we do if Germany abandons Nord Stream 2 after all? But I will formulate it more broadly; I’ve been wanting to put it to you – and others – for a long time. No matter what we do, we get sanctions in response. Some people believe that this doesn’t depend on what we do at all, doesn’t depend on our behaviour. There is an array of sanctions that was devised long ago and will be introduced in order to contain our economic, military and trade development, rather than make us change our behaviour. There will always be a “Magnitsky case” or something else to be used as a pretext for sanctions. A lot of people die in US prisons, but we don’t introduce sanctions for this reason. Nor do we have the leverage to impose any more or less painful sanctions on them. If they are doing this anyway, isn’t it more advisable to stop deferring to them and defend our interests in the world on a broader basis? Isn’t it perhaps high time for us to decide what we would like to do about integration and whether we want to return to some form of a broader Union State? Should we perhaps articulate this in a clearer and more aggressive manner and work towards it, if sanctions are going to be introduced anyway?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is precisely what I said. It is time to stop judging ourselves on the basis of marks given by the collective West or individual Western countries. And that’s just what we’re doing. There are people in this country who can judge the actions taken by the Russian Federation as a state. We have the Constitution and the relevant authorities. There are the people of Russia, who decide whom they can trust with running the country. That’s all. If we have partners (and they are an overwhelming majority), who are ready to look for a balance of interests on a mutually respectful basis, we should continue cooperating with them. There is, I repeat, an overwhelming majority of them.

Of course, we have organisations that we created largely at our own initiative and which we would like to strengthen. In the military-political sphere, this is the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). The CIS embraces both security in the post-Soviet space and the economic, social, humanitarian and educational projects. There are the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the EAEU, and the Union State, which should be strengthened. I think that this must be done more energetically. Relevant instructions have been formulated by President Vladimir Putin. The Russian government is studying them.

Of course, we should do our best to make these projects more appealing for members of these organisations. I don’t think that we need to constantly think about what the West is saying about us. I agree with you one hundred percent that the West does not particularly need to exert itself to find pretexts for containing our development. The West can create these pretexts on its own, as we have seen.



Question:

Shouldn’t we perhaps act more boldly? Send troops to Donbass? Put things in order openly? Where is the problem, if sanctions are pending anyway?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are polite people, as you know. I am convinced that our hands-off position with regard to the situation, where we defer to the West and what the West will think about us, should after all remain within the confines of international law. We must remain committed to all the agreements that have been achieved with our involvement, including, in the case of Donbass, the Minsk Agreements.

It is another matter that we must ourselves urge the signatories of some or other decisions on [conflict] settlement to abide by their own commitments. I have sent a dozen letters or so to my colleagues in France and Germany, directly drawing their attention to the absolutely unacceptable actions, ones diametrically opposite to the Minsk Agreements, taken by officials in Ukraine, including President Vladimir Zelensky, head of the Ukrainian delegation to Contact Group talks Leonid Kuchma, and Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba. Their replies were absolutely helpless, just formalities. I explain to them that Zelensky has urged a revision of the content and sequence of the Minsk document. They reply: “We are still committed to it.” I cite examples of how, in violation of Ukraine’s Constitution and its international obligations, they are practicing Russian-language discrimination under the language and education laws. They say: “Yes, we will focus on this at the OSCE and the Council of Europe.” This is yet another sign that they think they are above the law and above the Russian Federation. The feeling of superiority is a dangerous thing.



Question:

But it is in short supply sometimes.



Sergey Lavrov:

We have our dignity and that is enough. I think this is what should be kept in mind.



Question:

Our listeners are calling us all the time telling us that Russia should stop expressing concern about a particular situation, but rather be more assertive or even aggressive in promoting our agenda and initiate processes rather than respond to someone else’s moves.

We talked about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. She is going places, meeting with presidents and making a home in a neighbouring EU country. Are we ready for a change of power in Belarus? Do we have Plan B other than President Lukashenko? Often, the power changes in the wake of certain events, sometimes a revolution, sometimes something else, and we find out that we don’t have a plan and are not sure what we should be doing.



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe we must see the picture in its entirety, especially when it comes to our closest allies. We have lived in one state for many years, even centuries. However, we should not behave like the Americans. I cannot agree with this. They are rude, impolite and brazen, although they are trying to teach everyone to respect the right of each nation to decide on their future. They are trying to articulate this right through their embassies, as was the case in Kiev during the two Maidan protests. Everyone is well aware of the location and the number of FBI and CIA officers in the Ukrainian government buildings. They are now doing the same thing in Moldova, by the way. We can see this from the US ambassador’s public statements. They are promoting their interests in the South Caucasus republics which we are also aware of.

However, I’m convinced that we should not be using these methods. It is important for us to see the potential future of our allies and the steps that will allow us to maintain good and mutually beneficial relations with them regardless of their domestic political events.

As far as Belarus is concerned, I’m convinced that our policy seeking to support the constitutional reform process, which, as I just mentioned, was initiated by President Lukashenko, and which we see (and talk about this publicly) as a good opportunity to start a truly national dialogue with the involvement of that country’s political force, is the best we can come up with under these circumstances.

We said we will recognise the results of the presidential election. We are convinced that our Western partners’ attempts to question them, or to claim that the percentage was lower, or to demand that we now agree to have the OSCE intervene and resolve this situation, are an exercise in futility.

It was our and Minsk’s Western partners who slapped the OSCE on the wrist so that it doesn’t accept President Lukashenko’s invitation to send observers for them to see how these presidential elections were being organised and held. Claiming that only the OSCE is in a position to make a difference in these circumstances at a time when it simply missed its chance to contribute to channeling the events towards an outcome conducive to further development of the Belarusian state, is at least incorrect. President Lukashenko said that he is not holding on to power, and that, following the constitutional reform, he is prepared to consider early presidential and parliamentary elections. If we want to help the Belarusian people maintain its unity and achieve prosperity, we must cut short anyone’s ultimatums and attempts at violent protests and, of course, encourage law enforcement officers to also be guided by the law and respond in a proportionate manner. This is our position which we publicly stated on many occasions.



Question:

Cut short the protests? People take to the streets every Sunday.



Sergey Lavrov:

Cut short the calls for violent protests or blocking motorways. We are now hearing Ms Tikhanovskaya uttering such calls from Vilnius. “Uttering,” because, most likely, these calls were written for her by someone else.

With regard to us not being able to put forward the initiatives that serve our interests, this is not true. The Minsk Agreements were formulated in 2015 in Russia’s interests and were supported by the then President of Ukraine Poroshenko, as well as by the leaders of Germany and France. Ukraine claiming it can’t comply with the Minsk Agreements, because Russia wants to implement them as it sees fit, is a lie. The international legal interpretation approved by the UN Security Council, and the fact that these agreements reflect our focus on ensuring the Ukrainian people’s interests on a sustainable basis, is pet peeves for those in Ukraine who realise that they do not want to take the interests of eastern Ukraine into account.



Question:

They have been articulated in Russia’s interests, only they are not complied with. This is why, when you say that we must uphold our interests under the international law, I’m always tempted to ask you if it really exists. But I won't ask you this question, because it is a rhetorical one. We, journalists, think there is no longer such a thing as international law. The only real thing is what is happening “on the ground” and what we can see with our own eyes.

We can see how Belarus almost went up in flames and how Kyrgyzstan effectively blazed up. This is what is happening now. We have already covered Nagorno-Karabakh. Our colleagues from Sputnik in Moldova and Georgia are telling us that they are bracing up, because things will get scary too. Is this the result of our confrontation with the United States and other above-mentioned forces? Or, is it about deliberately rocking the boat and wreaking havoc near our borders? Or, is it because these countries are just a mess? Do we need to be more proactive in order to stop this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Clearly, domestic troubles in these countries have a significant role to play. I will not dwell on this right now. The countries you named have their internal problems, especially Kyrgyzstan and Moldova. You mentioned in one of your previous questions that no matter what we do, the West will try to hobble and restrain us, and undermine our efforts in the economy, politics, and technology. These are all elements of one approach.



Question:

Their national security strategy states that they will do so.



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course it does, but it is articulated in a way that decent people can still let go unnoticed, but it is being implemented in a manner that is nothing short of outrageous.



Question:

You, too, can articulate things in a way that is different from what you would really like to say, correct?



Sergey Lavrov:

It’s the other way round. I can use the language I’m not usually using to get the point across. However, they clearly want to throw us off balance, and not only by direct attacks on Russia in all possible and conceivable spheres by way of unscrupulous competition, illegitimate sanctions and the like, but also by unbalancing the situation near our borders, thus preventing us from focusing on creative activities. Nevertheless, regardless of the human instincts and the temptations to respond in the same vein, I’m convinced that we must abide by international law.



Question:

Are you an old-school man, Mr Lavrov?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not. But I think that this is, anyway, our future and that mankind has invented nothing more reliable than the UN Charter. At least, moral superiority is on the side of someone who can always explain his positions by the universal international legal norms undersigned by all countries, without exception, upon their accession to the UN. Later they developed the international legal framework by working on numerous conventions, etc.

The Minsk Agreements have been approved by the UN Security Council. They form part of international law. The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement and the role of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, where we hold a dynamic and proactive position, have also been recorded by the UN Security Council.

We have just mentioned the fact that there are attempts to increase the number of intermediaries. On the night of October 10, the Foreign Ministry’s Reception House, where we are now, hosted the signing of a document, the last item of which said: the negotiating format shall remain unchanged. Today, this is also part of international law as an understanding reached between the sides.

Being human, you would like occasionally to say rude things or show indignation at your colleagues’ behaviour in some other offensive manner, but you have to restrain your temper.



Question:

If we decipher what you have said, it will transpire that the best option is to come to terms with the United States rather than Moldova. Their elections are several months away. Do you have any predictions or hopes? Do you see any signs? Will things improve or deteriorate after the elections? What should we expect in general?



Sergey Lavrov:

Pragmatism is also part of our foreign policy concept outlined by President Vladimir Putin. The concept implies that cooperation needs to be promoted with all those who are ready for this, based on equality and in the areas where we have common or overlapping interests. We and the Americans, incidentally, despite the irreparably deteriorating conceptual approaches to further cooperation, collaborate nicely in a number of specific areas.

In Syria, for example, we fundamentally disagree with the fact that the Americans, first, have come to that country without any invitation and actually occupied a large part of the Syrian Arab Republic. Second, we disagree with what they are doing there in practice, pilfering hydrocarbon wealth and using the proceeds for purposes directly related to fomenting separatism, etc. Nevertheless, the Russian and US militaries maintain steady communications channels. This is a reality: they fly their aircraft, as we do ours. There is an agreement as to who flies and where, and how to react to unforeseen incidents. There is an early warning mechanism.

As far as political dialogue is concerned, let me note Afghanistan, where there is the Russia-US-China mechanism, which is occasionally joined by Pakistan and may well be joined by Iran. At least the participants in this dialogue have no contraindications thereto. We collaborate on the Korean Peninsula in fits and starts, despite occasionally diametrically opposite approaches to this or that situation.





Question:

And what about Nagorno-Karabakh?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we cooperate on Nagorno-Karabakh and can cooperate, by the way, on Transnistria, where there is the 5+2 mechanism. The two parties – Chisinau and Tiraspol – plus Russia, Ukraine, the US, the OSCE and the EU. So far, regrettably, this Transnistria settlement mechanism is not working, primarily because of what we have talked about. The Americans would like to bring Moldova to heel and turn it into yet another abscess in the post-Soviet space. Their aim is to prevent Maia Sandu and Igor Dodon’s Socialist Party from materialising in practice the coalition they formed somewhat earlier. They want an outright victory for the pro-West forces.

The United States is still the most powerful country, but it is no longer able to solve any international problems single-handedly. The US is trying to do this. But this inertia is dying down. They are trying to do this primarily in the post-Soviet countries, where they openly promote an anti-Russia agenda. They are seeking to shape to their benefit the processes of state building in Central Asia, Ukraine, the South Caucasus, and Moldova, as we have ascertained just now. I know that they are taking stock of Belarus, where they would like to lay the basis for similar developments. We must oppose this, primarily by living up to our commitments to our strategic partners and allies. This has been announced in a sufficiently clear manner, including by President Vladimir Putin. On top of that, we have other forms of cooperation at the level of executive and legislative authorities and at the level of civil society. I think we should engage civil society more vigorously and, I would say, proactively. This includes such matters as financing, because, although they are known as “non-governmental organisations,” it is common knowledge that the most active and effective Western NGOs – the US Republican and Democratic institutions – get one hundred percent of their funding directly from the federal budget. In addition, hundreds, if not thousands, of NGOs that mostly operate in the post-Soviet space get subsidies from the United States Agency for International Development, also a governmental organisation financed from the federal budget.



Question:

Shall we do the same?



Sergey Lavrov:

We say that we should master “soft power” as a practical form of people’s diplomacy. So far, of course, we cannot match the Americans in this regard. Margarita Simonyan admitted this herself during a recent TV appearance, saying that we in the Russian Federation cannot match the financial scale of public support extended to the media in the West.



Question:

Funny to compare.



Question:

The main thing is that we now understand that we should follow this path. And this is fine.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, it is a paradoxical situation: Komsomolskaya Pravda is published in the United States but has been banned in Belarus.



Sergey Lavrov:

It is only a temporary setback. However, you shouldn’t have mentioned this, as it will now be definitely prohibited in the United States. They just didn’t get around to it. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the other day that US think tanks need to disclose their foreign funding sources and foreign grants, adding openly that the sources were most likely from Russia and China and that such funding would damage the United States.



Question:

Well, it’s now or never. Let’s interfere in the internal US affairs right now, in front of our audiences! Who shall we stand for, Joe Biden or Donald Trump?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already been denounced as one of key masters of America’s destiny. President Putin mentioned this in an interview with Rossiya 1 television channel. Why squander money if they already think so highly of us?



Question:

And yet, who will we stand for?



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope they will continue to provide an objective coverage of developments.



Question:

Isn’t this boring?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, not at all.



Question:

They will say that we did it no matter who wins the election.



Sergey Lavrov:

So let them. As President Putin said, we will work with any future US president and administration whom the American people give their vote of confidence to. This is our position of principle. I don’t think we should change it. It is another matter that the loser will accuse us of his defeat anyway; I fully agree with you on this score. One of the main arguments both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are using is that the Russians want to bring their adversary to power. One way or another, the one thing we can be sure of is that the situation in our relations will not change dramatically. There can be minor changes either way, but not more than that.



Question:

Will it become worse?



Sergey Lavrov:

Maybe, I don’t know for sure. But we are optimistic anyway. Only a pessimist says that it can’t get any worse. And an optimist says things can always get worse.



Question:

Our diplomats have been expelled from the Czech Republic, Austria, Norway, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Why? What has happened to make them race each other?

We always respond in kind. It is our principle of reciprocity. Maybe we should not respond in kind but do something more energetic, so as to put an end to this “epidemic”?



Sergey Lavrov:

This has indeed become an element of good behaviour towards the United States and Britain. Britain is traditionally playing an extremely negative role, particularly recently. You probably remember the Skripal case, when 60 Russian diplomats were expelled from the United States alone. Britain, which was an EU member at the time, forced the overwhelming number of EU countries to expel Russian diplomats as well. Far from all EU countries withstood the pressure. At the same time, as we have said more than once, our partners from the countries that expelled our diplomats told us that the British had not provided any proof of our alleged responsibility. Likewise, Germany is not providing any proof either, despite its obligations under international law.

We respond in kind. This is normal diplomatic practice and normal diplomatic response. Of course, we also come to conclusions, and our conclusion is that our partners’ decisions to expel Russian diplomats on suspicion of espionage or something else are not simply part of diplomatic practice (this is the formal side of the matter), but also evidence of their susceptibility to Russophobic trends. The Americans are doing their utmost to promote such trends in Europe and to convince it to stop buying Russian gas, military items and other goods, so as to export their own more expensive products there. On the other hand, the countries that accept the deal will be able to breathe more easily. The Americans will not bother them too much, at least for some time. But then they will definitely increase their pressure on them with new vigour. Of course, we come to conclusions on the reliability of our partners on a broader, symmetrical and conceptual level.



Question:

Do you remember the saying, If a fight is inevitable, throw the first punch? Let’s do something at long last, so that we don’t feel sorry when yet another package of sanctions is slapped on us.



Sergey Lavrov:

I may not go into detail, but I believe that this is exactly what we have done quite a few times over the past years.



Question:

Karen Shakhnazarov recently published a post and put a question mark in the end. The text is about whether Russia is an empire or not. Very much depends on this. What do you think about this as the Foreign Minister? Are we an empire? If we are, our foreign policy should correspond to this idea.



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a rhetorical question for Mr Shakhnazarov. He unequivocally considers Russian an empire. I respect his interest in analysing what is going on. Not every practical politician can do this. Sometimes, there is just no time for this analysis. He thinks that it is the empires that have a future in the modern world, considering that miniscule countries cannot compete with large associations. He assumes the USSR was an empire just like the Russian Empire.

Today Russia’s interests in the world arena largely boil down to it preserving influence on its closest neighbours and enjoying their support. Of course, the EU is also essentially an empire. The United States is a global empire. Promoting its ambitious projects, the Belt & Road Initiative, the Ice Silk Road and the community with a shared future for mankind, China is certainly projecting its global interests and wants to exert influence on countries far beyond its borders.

Probably, Mr Shakhnazarov uses the term “empire” for simplicity’s sake. It is possible to coin a more precise term that would nonetheless show that the objective formation of that very polycentric world implies the increased importance of and dialogue between major powers, rather than 193 UN member states. This includes the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Let me recall at this point President Vladimir Putin’s statement that they bear special responsibility under the UN Charter. Nobody has cancelled the UN Charter. This also includes, of course, new associations that have emerged in the past few decades. The European Union is the clearest example. As it happens with any past classic empire, problems start cropping up with their expansion. There are many EU countries, primarily the Visegrad Four, that are beginning to express their serious discontent with the bureaucracy that has a tendency to reproduce itself, as any bureaucracy does, and to strengthen its influence at the expense of other regions, in this case, EU member-countries.

With the expansion of its influence that is now particularly pushy and aggressive, the United States will face various problems. Take Afghanistan where the Americans want to achieve something by hook or by crook. For the time being, they haven’t managed and they will not be able to achieve anything without the assistance of other countries. Iraq is the clearest example. In 2003, they got at Baghdad and “proclaimed democracy” there, but the country has gone. Libya was bombed by NATO at the initiative of the US and also France, which at that time was one of the most active participants in these efforts. Barack Obama preferred to play second fiddle at that time. No matter where the US developed its expansion in the past two decades, democracies haven’t been established anywhere, although this was the main goal. There is no tranquility anywhere.



Question:

Chaos is everywhere.



Sergey Lavrov:

Destruction is everywhere.



Question:

Not a single example in the past two decades.



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that the multilateralism about which we are talking must certainly be aimed at establishing cooperation, “fitting in,” and searching for compromise and a balance of interests between the key global centres that have territory and population, as well as both civil and military economic and technological capacities. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council is an obvious choice for me, but it is important to remember that France and so far Britain are part of Europe. The UK will soon become a country across the channel from mainland Europe. However, it is very hard to ignore the EU.



Question:

To another empire. What will happen with Japan now?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think Japan counts as an empire.



Question:

I said it tongue in cheek.



Question:

It has an emperor.



Question:

It is more of a formal empire.



Sergey Lavrov:

The new Prime Minister of Japan Yoshihide Suga and President Vladimir Putin have been in touch. They exchanged messages. President Putin congratulated him on his election as party leader and prime minister and received a detailed response. Recently, they spoke on the phone. As far as I can tell, Japan still needs to wait and see the way practical policies unfold in many areas. So far, I sense, despite numerous forecasts, that our Japanese neighbours have reaffirmed continuity in our relations and their commitment to expanding them across all areas. We welcome this because it reflects Russia’s principled approaches enshrined in joint agreements with Mr Suga’s predecessor. According to them, only a full-fledged partnership in the economy, technology and culture and in converging and coordinating our foreign policy approaches can take out relations to a new level, which is absolutely necessary for us to be able to seriously approach any of the issues that remain on the agenda.



Question:

There is no question about our confrontation with the United States. These are big and complex countries. There’s also China. But there are countries (I’m talking about soft power) that are completely dependent on us, such as Abkhazia or Tajikistan. I have already mentioned our drama with regard to Belarus. They even issued a ban on selling our books there. In Abkhazia, older Russian women were evicted from their homes. You are aware of this problem. The Russian Embassy is constantly dealing with this. In Tajikistan, Rossiya Segodnya has failed to open an office. Komsomolskaya Pravda was closed there as well. The country is completely dependent on us. There are hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians there. These countries are doing whatever they want.

I have two proposals. Maybe, we should include a provision about our media presence into the agreements with these countries straight away. You know, it hurts to see Abkhazia or Tajikistan throw us out. I’m talking about the Russian people and their interests. They do as they please. And there’s nothing we can do in response.



Sergey Lavrov:

And the list goes on. In particular, the problems with our media have not yet been fully settled in Armenia and Kazakhstan, where transition to the “public multiplex” did not automatically account for our allied ties. The Ministry of Communications and Mass Media had to sit down and discuss this. I’m confident we will resolve these issues.

I agree that these problems shouldn’t have emerged there in the first place. Based on our relations and everything that we do in practice and our participation in numerous associations, our interests should have been taken into account much better. But these items are on our agenda. The property of ethnic Russians and ethnic Georgians – also citizens of the Russian Federation – in Abkhazia is the subject of our constant focus.

I hope now that things in Abkhazia have calmed down, we will definitely revisit this issue. Although, again, we are a little surprised that this matter remains unresolved. Now, after these events, I think we will put more effort into promoting our approaches with regard to the countries you mentioned. In most of these countries, our business presence is predominant, including fully Russian-owned companies and joint ventures. Let’s face it, teaching the Russian language in most of them is at a very good level. Under an existing agreement, special programmes are being developed in Tajikistan to train Russian language teachers and to create additional schools to support the state policy for preserving Russian as the main language of interethnic communication in the country and the CIS. The same processes are underway in Kyrgyzstan.

It is hard for me to judge on the matter, as each time I deal with some practical aspect of our relations with our allies and strategic partners. Perhaps, you are better positioned to have a full and objective picture, so your tips are important to us. But whenever your media or your other colleagues are faced with practical matters, we, of course, will always be there to not only listen to and take into account your inquiries, but also to make them part of our practical policies.



Question:

We keep talking about some country rewriting a piece of our history, another country demolishing monuments to our Great Patriotic War generals, and yet another vandalising a war memorial. It’s an endless story. And every time it happens, we say we will not allow it. But is there anything we can really do to prevent it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Again, this is about whether we should stick to international law, or “to hell with it.”



Question:

I am for “to hell with it,” to be honest.



Sergey Lavrov:

If we choose the “to hell with it” approach, I will tell you what scenario will develop. In this case, all the memorials in tribute to the Czechoslovak Legion simply need to be destroyed. Just tell people that those memorials have been installed here in accordance with an international legal document, but “to hell with it,” so it’s a free-for-all now, everyone can do as they please.

This would be an outright invitation to make the aforementioned incidents –especially numerous in Poland, but now also occasional incidents in other countries such as Bulgaria – the new normal. And then the last limit will be crossed and all barriers removed.



Question:

This has become normal for them anyway. It’s us that don’t think it is normal.



Question:

They continue doing this. We drove to Minsk for an interview with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. We passed a sign saying Katyn, the site of the Polish plane tragedy. We have a memorial there, and it is in excellent condition. We monitor such places at the state level, and they know very well that Russia will never allow anything to be done with them. This is a fresh example that just came to mind. But they do not stop there; they demolish and demolish memorials. Can’t you at least intimidate them?



Sergey Lavrov:

I repeat, in this specific area – the protection of memorials and historical truth – I can see no other way but to insist on the fulfilment of their international legal obligations. Yes, they demolish a lot. They demolish memorials, not only in Poland, and the rationale they use, I would say using such arguments is a dishonour for a normal person: “But we are only dismantling monuments that are not installed above burial sites; our legal obligations only concern what is above burial sites.” First, the documents mention all monuments, which means they lie. And, second, they have already demolished those monuments that stood over graves, such as the Bronze Soldier in Tallinn. But if we begin to reciprocate, it will run contrary to our Orthodox principles.



Question:

I wanted to ask this. At first you said that we cannot do this because it is against international law. So let’s do what is in our best interests: we do not reciprocate, because we are Christians, because this runs contrary to Russian traditions, but this is not about international law.



Sergey Lavrov:

No, this is because of international law. I just mentioned Orthodoxy because it is my conviction that to destroy graves or monuments is inappropriate for us. If we announce that international law no longer works, at least in this area, relating to all our memorials that remain in Poland (and in other countries too, this process will become irreversible), they will say – right then, we have no more obligations, because Russia withdrew from these agreements. This is probably not a good comparison, and might be taken as sacrilege, but it’s like in poker – who’s the first to blink. Now if we blink first – say that our patience has run out, shrug off all responsibility – if we take the initiative here and abandon international law, I mean, why would we do this? The only motive could be to be able to destroy monuments on our territory...



Question:

Well, specifically in this sphere, yes. What about in a broader sense?



Sergey Lavrov:

But we are talking about this specific sphere now. We are talking about this war going on over history, about the gross attacks on the World War II results, which Russia and other countries that fought against the Hitlerite coalition paid for with blood. Russia annually submits to the UN General Assembly a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism. It is always supported by the overwhelming majority of countries, except the United States and Ukraine that vote against it. The European Union abstains, which I think is a shameful position for the EU. This year, at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, we submitted a draft resolution on the end of World War II. It introduces a new term, or rather a new proposal – for all UN members to recognise the Victory in World War II as common heritage of mankind. Because the United Nations is common heritage, and the Victory was crucial for its creation. That draft resolution is opposed by the United States, the entire European Union, Canada, Ukraine and Georgia.



Question:

How do they explain it?



Sergey Lavrov:

They don’t. They say it is superfluous: we never said it until now, but now you want us to say it. This is unacceptable, and it confirms our suspicion that they really want to rewrite history, not only in order to whitewash their predecessors, but also in order to now use it in practical politics for anti-Russia purposes. Therefore, we will fight this. But I cannot agree with the idea that it is in our interests to abandon or throw out entirely international law as a norm.



Question:

You are still avoiding the question about a bright future with the Americans. Are there any chances for this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I didn’t avoid it. I said it’s not going to get any better.



Question:

I’ll try another tack. Don’t we have a chance to take advantage of the differences between China and the US? Isn’t this in Russia’s interests? There are many indications that the US is creating a coalition against China. Why don’t we use this situation? Say, we could move a bit away from China, giving the Americans a signal that we could work with them? Is there any room for manoeuver with these new alliances?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are still proceeding from real life in everything we do. Or, at any rate, we try to. I don’t see any reason that would prompt us to move away from anybody. It would be foolish to give up agreements that are mutually beneficial and efficient. Moving away from China just to show that we can intrigue as well? What for? This is to our detriment. I believe the Americans are saying openly, without any diplomacy, that Russia should help it punish China, make it disarm or freeze its level of armaments. They are exploiting this issue impudently like shell game artists.

Recently, an American representative made a statement that Russia supported the US, that we “are about to reach agreements on freezing all nuclear warheads before the US election” and that “Russia badly wants China to join these efforts.” Well, this is simply indecent.



Question:

What is the real situation with regard to START III? They are saying they are ready and have proposed freezing nuclear weapons. They claim they are just a step away from extending the treaty on their terms. Is that right?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have always proceeded and continue to proceed from the premise that strategic stability agreements must be based on the presentation of interests by each contracting party, on the analysis of threats that the opposite side poses, and the search for compromise that considers the interests of each party on a well-balanced foundation, and thus, the real threats. This primarily applies to vehicles that can deliver nuclear warheads to the other’s territory.

Now the US has turned everything upside down. It wants to leave aside delivery vehicles because it has developed many facilities that are not subject to talks now. The Americans keep talking about our new resources, which we have announced, that have been introduced in our armed forces. Of the five new types, we are willing to include two in the current treaty. They know this.



Question:

And what types are we prepared to include in the treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

I won’t go into details now. These are arms that are in the categories covered by the current treaty: ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers.



Question:

If the Americans were in our place they would say that these arms are not covered by the treaty. They are not part of it, and that’s it.



Sergey Lavrov:

The Americans are in their place and claim that these arms do not fall under the treaty. This is because they have a programme for a lightning global strike. Under this programme, strategic rather than nuclear carriers can reach any point in the world within an hour. They have not yet included this in our conversations. Likewise, they are not touching on the issue of space militarisation, although officially their doctrines include outer space as well as cyberspace in the arena of hostilities. We are bound to consider this.

They do not want to be clear about the fact that they have officially put an end to their participation in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and many other agreements. Instead of dealing with specific delivery vehicles that pose a threat to each other’s territory, they suggest counting warheads and charges. In this way, they want to start a practical discussion of non-strategic nuclear weapons, that is, tactical nuclear arms. There was a clear understanding that before including these arms in the discussions on their limitations, the Americans must first withdraw these tactical missiles with tactical nuclear warheads to their own territory. Now they are stationed in five NATO countries. Moreover, in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Washington is involving other NATO states in military exercises to get practical skills of using and handling nuclear arms. This is a crude violation of the NPT. Instead of clearing the field for talks by withdrawing these arms to their territory, they want them accepted as a fact of life and suggest counting everything. This is not going to happen.

And their second requirement is to return to the mechanisms of verification that existed back in the 1990s and were by and large humiliating. At that time, their inspectors sat at an entrance checkpoint of the included plants and used a tape-measure to determine the size of containers in which missiles were brought out. They also measured what was brought into these plants. Yes, we also had the right to stay at the facility in the city of Magna. But when the current New START Treaty was approved, the sides decided to abandon these intrusive practices that were not quite in the spirit of partnership. In effect, they are not suitable in the modern conditions when we have seriously moved to equitable agreements concluded in this document. However, the Americans want to count every warhead and return to the tough verification measures I mentioned. They also want to compel us to persuade China to do what they want. This is what they are talking about.



Question:

They haven’t invented anything new in this respect. Many years ago we filmed joint work on the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) in this building. And when this treaty was almost ready for signing, they simply replaced the term “nuclear weapon carriers” with “high-precision weapon carriers” and said seriously that they had reduced the number of these carriers, primarily aircraft. But if they stick to these positions, does this mean that there is no possibility of extending New START?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, personally, I don’t see much chance for this. My colleagues who work in the interdepartmental format and meet with the US delegation do not see this possibility, either. That said, we will never say that we are closing the door to talks and stop all contacts. No. We simply explain that it is impossible to hold talks based on an ultimatum, completely ignoring all the principles that have for decades been recognised as the foundation of our agreements on START I and similar documents.

As for the SORT, this was not a legally binding document but a political declaration that at that point at least helped us to keep the process of maintaining strategic stability going.



Question:

Who is better for us? Joe Biden or Donald Trump? And can one of them be better at all?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think Semyon Slepakov, who wrote a text with the words “America doesn’t like us,” has a serious understanding of this issue.



Question:

I’d like to note this historical moment of Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov quoting Semyon Slepakov in his interview with three large Russian radio stations.

But my question is somewhat different. To leave behind the awful subject of the impossibility of extending the New START Treaty, which I think is the most pessimistic of all, I’d like to ask you about Kazakhstan and some other more general questions as we usually do here. I don’t know whether you agree with the opinion expressed by some analysts and experts and I don’t know myself because I’m not an expert on Kazakhstan, but they claim that we will face disagreements in that country that will be similar to those in Ukraine. I’m referring to what happened between ethnic Russians in the north and Kazakhstan as a state. I have heard this from several people and have read about it in some publications. I don’t know whether this is correct. Hopefully, not. I visited Kazakhstan several times but did not notice anything of the kind, but this was long ago. Do you believe these apprehensions are justified? Do you see an escalation in tensions? And a more general question: When will we do something to help our compatriots (mainly, ethnic Russians) to return to their homeland? We’ve been talking about this for years and have simplified some procedures, but the situation is basically the same.



Sergey Lavrov:

As for Kazakhstan, just like you, I don’t see any threat of an ethnic divide. The authorities are well aware of the need to strengthen ethnic accord and ensure the reliable territorial integrity of their country. In this respect, it is very important to consider the interests of Russian speakers in Kazakhstan, in particular, to teach the Russian language, maintain the Russian space and ensure the right of parents to send their children to Russian-speaking schools.

All these measures are part of the agreements in the CIS and bilateral agreements between Russia and Kazakhstan. Of course, it is important to make Russians feel involved in running the regions and the state of Kazakhstan. I am convinced that President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and its first President Nursultan Nazarbayev are well aware of this. At any rate, we see this understanding in our meetings at the top level and between our ministers.

As for others that also maintain relations with Kazakhstan, I cannot believe wholeheartedly in the purity of their motives. We are seeing (once again this is borne out by how the Americans work in the post-Soviet space, including Central Asia) that they are trying to sow discord not just on yet another territory that is located near Russia but a country that is very close to us in the historical, political, and military-political terms, a country that is our ally. Indeed, they are making these kinds of attempts. At any rate, US-funded NGOs are trying to encourage nationalist attitudes in a titular nation, thereby maintaining the potential for conflict.

China also has a programme of its own in Central Asia. It is primarily interested in promoting its economic interests. I have already commented on the question that was raised with regard to Mr Shakhnazarov’s article. China has accumulated economic might, doing this under the rules introduced by the West, primarily the Americans in the context of globalisation. Now there is a fuss largely because of this. The Americans don’t like the rise of China which followed the rules and played the music they composed. This is why the US wants to quit the WTO now and discard other agreements that limit its freedom of action in one way or another. Projecting its economic power, China is pursuing its absolutely natural interests. We are trying to take part in this and harmonise the interests of Central Asia and other post-Soviet states, including Russia, through the opportunities that are offered by China.

The EAEU has already signed two agreements with China. They are aimed at harmonising Eurasian integration with Chinese Belt and Road projects, and in a broader context, promoting a certain philosophy that President Vladimir Putin referred to as the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. We invite all those who live in this vast Eurasian continent to join it, including the ASEAN states and the countries that are not members of any integration associations. Plus, as was emphasised, we keep the door open for the EU because it would be foolish not to use our God-given advantages, the geography of the most rapidly growing and promising continent, for the development of each of our countries.

Let me emphasise that we have a very trust-based and comprehensive dialogue with Kazakhstan and the other CIS countries. Any topic that might cause concern is raised in the open, in a friendly manner and is successfully resolved in the overwhelming majority of cases. I hope that in the final count, we will be able to find solution to any similar issues.



Question:

Here’s a question from our listeners. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has travelled all over the world. What are the five most beautiful places in your opinion?



Sergey Lavrov:

Every place is beautiful in its own way. But I am inclined to share the views that Vladimir Sungorkin and I gained. Travelling all over the world, it is important to remember that you will never have time to travel all around our country. There is enough beauty in it for generations to come.



Question:

I have a debate with Mr Lavrov. He is fond of Altai and I like the Far East. The debate continues.



Question:

And our favourite is the Krasnodar Territory.



Question:

Sochi, the Black Sea Coast.



Question:

We took a vacation there with our families this year. We also visited Yalta.



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a passive holiday, speaking about fitness and exercise.



Question:

It depends on what you do.



Sergey Lavrov:

But these are not physical fitness exercises. I know what people are doing there.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4381977






Press release on consultations in the Russia-EU political directors format



15 October 2020 - 09:23







On October 14, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko held scheduled consultations with Deputy Secretary General for Political Affairs of the European External Action Service Enrique Mora.

The sides exchanged assessments and opinions on a wide range of regional and international issues, including the situation in Libya, Syria, Iraq, the Western Balkans region, and around Venezuela. They also discussed at length the situation in the OSCE and the Council of Europe, including from the perspective of the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Touching upon the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the officials underscored the need to observe the humanitarian truce, an agreement reached in Moscow at President Vladimir Putin’s initiative on October 10, 2020.

When discussing the situation in Ukraine, Alexander Grushko and Enrique Mora agreed that there is no alternative to the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. The Russian side also pointed to the danger and potential destabilising consequences of interference in the internal affairs of Belarus.

The Russian side also emphasised that cooperation with the EU is possible, but only on the basis of equality and respect for each other’s legitimate interests.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4382011






Foreign Ministry statement on the impossibility of Russia’s continued participation in trilateral consultations with Australia and the Netherlands on the MH17 plane crash in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014



15 October 2020 - 12:00



As you are aware, in July, the Netherlands filed an interstate complaint against Russia with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in connection with the crash of Malaysia Airlines MH17 (a Boeing 777) in 2014. We regard this step as another blow to Russian-Dutch relations and a demonstration by The Hague of its firm intention, in defiance of common sense, to continue the dubious path of putting the blame and responsibility for what happened in the skies over Donbass entirely on Russia.

From the outset, the Netherlands adhered to the only scenario of what happened and promoted it both as part of a technical investigation conducted by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and a criminal investigation carried out by the Joint Investigation team (JIT). Naturally, both investigations were biased, superficial and politicised. Everything was done to back the hasty accusations against Russia.

In turn, our country initially advocated a full, thorough and independent investigation in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2166, repeatedly pointed out the shortcomings in the investigations of the plane crash, and noted the inconsistency with the criteria contained in the resolution. Russia was open to meetings with the investigative authorities, offered overall assistance, transferred a significant amount of valuable materials that shed light on the crash and refuted many findings of the investigation. Some of the data provided by Russia were declassified for this purpose.

In addition, when in 2018 we agreed to hold trilateral consultations with Australia and the Netherlands on the entire range of issues related to the circumstances of the flight MH17 crash, we operated on the assumption that such consultations would help establish, based on the facts, the true causes of the crash. However, in all likelihood, Australia and the Netherlands did not want to find out what actually happened in the summer of 2014, but focused on pushing Russia to plead guilty and extracting compensation for the surviving families.

Eventually, without even waiting for the interim results of the consultations – there were only three rounds – The Hague opted to file an interstate complaint against Russia with the ECHR. These unfriendly actions by the Netherlands make it meaningless to continue the tripartite consultations and our participation in them. The responsibility for disrupting the tripartite consultations thus rests entirely with The Hague.

We believe that in ignoring our arguments and our openness to a dialogue, the Netherlands is exclusively pursuing its fleeting political interests, shamelessly hiding behind the alleged need to protect the rights of the victims’ families.

For our part, we remain committed to the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2166, and plan to continue to cooperate with the competent authorities of the Netherlands, including in studying the issue of Ukraine not closing its airspace for civilian flights over the zone of armed conflict in Donbass, but we will do so in a different format.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4387013






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu



15 October 2020 - 18:36







On October 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu.

The two ministers had a substantive discussion on the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh following regular highest and high-level Russian-Turkish contacts. They emphasised that there was no alternative to a peaceful settlement of the issue and reaffirmed the need to strictly implement the provisions of the Moscow Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia of October 10 `this year. With respect to practical steps, the officials pointed to the importance of negotiating an immediate ceasefire, as well as efforts to coordinate mechanisms for monitoring compliance with it. They also underlined the relevance of prompt and coordinated action to resume the negotiating process based on the OSCE Minsk Group mechanisms in order to achieve practical results.

The ministers touched on other important issues on the bilateral and international agendas, the status of the UN Security Council’s resolutions on Syria and Libya and the progress in the settlement process of the internal conflict in Ukraine based on the Minsk Agreements. They discussed cooperation in the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.

The ministers reviewed the schedule for upcoming Russian-Turkish meetings.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4390909
__________________
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 November 28th, 2020 #195
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 15, 2020



15 October 2020 - 18:54






Coronavirus update

The situation with the spread of the novel coronavirus infection around the world is showing no signs of a turnaround. Quite the contrary, most countries are continuing to experience increasing morbidity rates. As of October 15, the total number of infected people exceeds 38.5 million.

Medical facilities are again being put on high alert, and lockdown restriction policies are being tightened in many countries. The autumn surge of COVID-19 has a negative impact not only on the sanitary and epidemiological landscape, but also often determines the general socioeconomic, informational and moral-psychological situation around the country.

In many countries, museums, theatres and cinemas are being closed again; the opening hours of restaurants and transport are being cut; large public, sports and religious events are being canceled; and current anti-epidemic orders are being extended. A number of states are imposing curfews. As a result, a further increase in unemployment has been recorded, a drop in investment activity, as well as a rising number of bankruptcies. This leads to social discontent. There are growing fears that the protracted lockdown may be even more harmful to national economies that have already been hit hard and sent into recession by the spring stage of the pandemic. So one of the central tasks for most states and governments today is to ensure an appropriate balance between the degree of restrictions aimed at protecting people’s health and keeping the key socioeconomic segments afloat.



Russia's humanitarian assistance to other countries in the coronavirus response effort

Russia’s assistance to various states in the context of the spread of the novel coronavirus infection has been repeatedly highlighted at briefings and in other official statements and publications by the Russian Foreign Ministry. Ever since the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the world, our country has been providing humanitarian assistance to many states that have been seriously affected by this dangerous pathogen. Acting under the agreements concluded, as well as on the basis of agreements at the highest and high levels, Russia has been distributing various items of medical equipment, personal protective equipment and virus diagnostic kits such as PCR test kits and reagents, non-contact thermometers, disinfection systems, mobile laboratories, and other products. According to Rospotrebnadzor, Russia has supplied 6,580 test systems for 658,000 tests to more than 30 countries. An important part of this work is sending Russian specialists to the “frontlines” in the hotspots to provide anti-COVID assistance. For example, special teams of Russian doctors have just returned from Uzbekistan, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan.

The experience our doctors have gained in organising medical care is becoming more in demand among our partners. The guidelines developed by the Russian Healthcare Ministry are published on its official website. An interactive training course, Comprehensive Novel Coronavirus Infection COVID-19 Response Programme developed by leading Russian scientists with consideration for WHO recommendations is also available there. Russia has donated educational modules for training medical personnel to the WHO Regional Office in Europe.

Advanced Russian projects to develop safe and effective medicines and vaccines are enjoying considerable interest around the world. A number of foreign states have expressed interest in acquiring them and launching joint production on their territory. Earlier this month, the first 200 dose batch of Sputnik V vaccine was sent to Venezuela for the final stage of joint clinical trials. The Russian Direct Investment Fund is working to promote this vaccine around the world.

In addition to the sanitary and epidemiological work, our humanitarian assistance also includes large-scale logistical, food and consulting assistance (various equipment, essential products, educational services for local medical personnel, etc.), primarily provided to the CIS countries, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia continues to receive requests for help.



The upcoming talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary General of the Council of Europe Marija Pejcinovic Buric

.......................................................................................................


UN Security Council session on the Persian Gulf

.......................................................................................................



Russia elected to the UN Human Rights Council

During the plenary meeting of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly held on October 13, Russia and 14 other states were elected to the UN Human Rights Council for 2021-2023.

Russia received support from 158 UN member states. We regard the weighty support provided to our country as evidence of wide recognition by the international community of the correct course being pursued by Russia to establish and strengthen a mutually respectful and depoliticised dialogue on the entire spectrum of items on the human rights agenda.

We see promoting constructive state-to-state cooperation in the human rights sphere, strengthening the international regime for observing human rights based on justice and equality in accordance with the goals and principles enshrined in the UN Charter, as our main goal at the UN HRC over the next three years. We want the Council to finally become an effective and efficient tool to promote and protect human rights around the world. Russia will do its best to make sure that the UN HRC’s activities are based on the principles of universality, non-selectivity, objectivity, equal treatment of all categories of human rights and respect for cultural and civilisational diversity.

A very controversial, from the point of view of logic, reaction of the United States has come to our attention. If the US administration does not believe in the UN Human Rights Council as it claims to (the United States has left this body), why then, do the Americans care about the composition of this UN body? Perhaps, the interest is there, but Washington isn’t sure that the United States can muster enough votes to get elected? Perhaps, this is the real reason behind the Americans not participating in the activities of the UN’s main body for human rights? For us, something else is clear: with its provocative statements, Washington has once again demonstrated its unwillingness to act in the human rights field in the spirit of equal cooperation and search for constructive solutions in the interests of all states without exception.

We also find HRC Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnes Callamard’s remarks unacceptable. She had the nerve to describe Russia and China’s election to the HRC as damaging to the Council's reputation. Clearly, the Special Rapporteur not only once again grossly violated the boundaries of her mandate, but also ignored the principles of objectivity and impartiality that underlie her status as a UN expert. We believe this behaviour is unacceptable and requires the Council’s consideration. The Council should ensure that its subsidiary bodies and mechanisms, such as the institution of special rapporteurs, behave responsibly.



EU sanctions on Russian individuals and entities

Over the past day, the European Union has produced a series of sanctions decisions against Russian individuals and entities. In addition to the previously announced steps related to the attempted poisoning of Alexey Navalny, the EU announced sanctions over the alleged involvement in destabilising the situation in Libya, including violating the UN arms embargo on Libya.

The European Union’s reasoning behind these decisions does not stand up to scrutiny and is bordering on the absurd. Of course there is no mention of any real evidence. We consider the EU’s attempts to use the authority of the UN to cover up its unseemly political goals as absolutely unacceptable.

We have warned our colleagues in Brussels and other European capitals more than once that the EU’s stubborn intention to hold Russia responsible for Mr Navalny’s alleged poisoning will be the litmus test of our further relations with the EU. Regrettably, our words went unheeded. These steps will not remain unanswered.

Once again, we are calling the European Union to return to the international legal framework, stop dividing countries into worthy and unworthy of the status of geopolitical partner, and choose stable, progressive cooperation instead of escalating confrontation for political purposes.



German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas’s interview with RIA Novosti

In an interview with RIA Novosti Russian Information Agency on October 13, 2020, German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas described the situation with the poisoning of Alexei Navalny as “not being a subject of relations between Russia and Germany.” We regard statements like this as a tactical ploy that serves as a cover for a policy of undermining bilateral relations, which is being pursued by Germany. Let me remind you that it was Berlin that, while blatantly disregarding its obligations under international law to render Russia practical assistance in investigating an incident involving a Russian national, has exploited it to come up with well-known unwarranted accusations against our country, as well as ultimatums and threats, assuming yet again, on its own initiative, the role of a motivator to push through new anti-Russia sanctions in the EU and other multilateral formats.

We unequivocally deny the statements that Heiko Maas has made publicly on more than one occasion about representatives of Russian executive authorities alleging that Navalny poisoned himself. This is a pure lie. Nobody has ever made such a statement. We unambiguously perceive these words by the German Foreign Minister as a provocative move that oversteps the boundaries of propriety.

We cannot regard the German Foreign Minister’s assurances that Berlin is interested in maintaining good or, at least, sound relations between Russia and Germany as sincere. We would like to note that the essence and importance of these relations is linked in public consciousness not solely to geography, as Maas said in his interview, but, to a significant extent, to our common history, which has as crucial chapters as those written in the 20th century alone, including the liberation by the Soviet Union of Germany and the rest of Europe from Nazism, the unprecedented reconciliation of the peoples of our two countries that followed, and Moscow’s decisive role in restoring German unity. The German government is eroding the framework of trust-based relations that took decades to build and the foundation for which was laid by the friendship between the USSR and the GDR, as well as Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. Today, Berlin is backtracking on both the GDR and Willy Brandt’s political legacy.

Mutual trust has been undermined – and not by Russia’s actions but by the policy that the West has been pursuing in recent years, including moves like NATO’s fast-track expansion, despite pledges to the contrary; providing support for militants in Russia’s Caucasus; providing political cover for Georgia’s revenge-seeking military aggression led by Mikheil Saakashvili in 2008; and the de facto sponsorship of the anti-Russia coup in Ukraine in 2014, to name but a few.

As for Maas’s comments on the current situation in Belarus, we call on the German Foreign Minister to abstain from interference in word and in action in the internal affairs of a country that is our ally. We believe the Belarusians do not need instructions either from Berlin or the capital of any other foreign country, for that matter, to reach a consensus on issues of real public concern. Aggressive intervention by the collective West in the internal processes of third countries invariably leads to the emergence of new hotspots in the world.



Discussion of Navalny’s case at the OPCW Executive Council session

The 95th OPCW Executive Council session, held in The Hague on October 9, unleashed a US-prompted politicised discussion of the incident with Russian blogger Alexey Navalny. A group of Euro-Atlantic “community” countries and their satellites attempted to accuse Russia of a crude violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

All this is being done against the backdrop of the OPCW’s non-transparent cooperation with Germany on selecting and analysing bio samples on a Russian citizen. Information on Berlin’s contact with the OPCW was published only ten days after its written inquiry was sent to this organisation when it became clear that the results obtained by German military physicians were confirmed by similar military laboratories in France and Sweden.

Let me remind you that this matter deals with an incident involving a Russian citizen on Russian territory. Russia did all it could to save his life: the plane’s urgent landing in Omsk, the medical aid rendered to him quickly and professionally by Russian doctors, which made it possible to stabilise his condition in two days, and the prompt permit to transfer him for treatment in a German hospital despite a court order to remain in the country in connection with a court trial.

In this context, all insinuations of the Russian authorities’ interest in poisoning Navalny using a chemical nerve agent are inconsistent, to say the least. There is no logic in the allegation, that having ostensibly poisoned the blogger in such a dangerous and specific way, the Russian authorities sent him for the care by chemical experts at the Bundeswehr. This is absurd.

How could German experts find this so-called Novichok agent in the samples? This is a separate issue. German experts claim they have never synthesised substances of this class. Yet, they detected it without fail as we were told. The OPCW laboratories in France and Sweden could be asked the same question.

Berlin’s position is beneath criticism. It prefers a propaganda campaign with loud statements at top level to a civilised dialogue of competent agencies. If they claim to have “the evidence of a poisoning” why don’t they present it to Russia? Moreover, they are not even sharing it with their own allies. Germany’s allies even say this. They admit that they just believe what Berlin tells them. Apparently, this is political block discipline: they were told to believe and they believe. But they have not been shown any evidence or fact-based materials. This is not even mentioned.

Instead, when Russian law-enforcement agencies again and again requested assistance from their German partners, German officials maintained a knowing silence saying: “You poisoned Alexey Navalny, but we won’t give you any evidence and won’t talk to you about it.”

These actions contradict the current legal foundation and practice of Russian-German cooperation. Inquiries by the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office (there were four of them, plus one to France and one to Sweden) have been sent in line with the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. In 2019-2020, Germany promptly replied to 83 Russian requests for legal aid in all. But this time something went wrong.

Russia has never given any reason to doubt its compliance with the CWC. We eliminated fully, and ahead of schedule, all reserves of chemical weapons as well as the relevant technical equipment. Russia supports verification at chemical facilities and maintains international cooperation in the interests of non-proliferation.

In accordance with the procedures at the OPCW where our German partners decided to transfer this issue, they are obliged to cooperate with Russia on implementing the convention. We have sent them an inquiry about this but have received just a formal note instead of a reply.

We are also waiting for replies from Sweden and France to the inquiries we sent to them as regards any facts on Navalny’s poisoning, which they claim to have. We would like to recall that according to the national criminal laws of many countries, the suppression of evidence from law-enforcement bodies that are conducting a pre-investigation check or investigating a crime, qualifies as complicity and holds criminal liability.

The OPCW Technical Secretariat is also required to perform its functions and react to the request of a state-party, Russia in this case, for specific explanations. Considering the situation around Navalny’s poisoning, which is alleged by a number of countries, we sent our proposal to the OPCW Technical Secretariat on October 1 of this year. We asked it to consider the possibility of sending its experts to Russia for cooperation with their Russian colleagues on this issue. This is required to determine the components of a potential crime on the territory of the Russian Federation. We are working to prepare for their visit.

For now, we do not see any willingness on the part of the Western countries to cooperate with Russia. Everything is reduced to the rhetoric that we hear, which is often simply unacceptable. The goal is obvious – to try to accuse Russia of everything without any grounds and create an excuse for introducing new restrictions against us.



Russian sailors held captive by pirates in Nigeria released

We continue to monitor the developments around the Russian sailors who were held captive by pirates and released on October 5. Until recently, they stayed in Calabar, Nigeria. To provide the necessary assistance to our compatriots, a diplomat from the Russian Embassy in Nigeria was sent to Calabar. The Russian missions in Abuja and Yaounde, together with the Nigerian and Equatorial Guinean authorities, as well as representatives of the ship owner, promptly dealt with practical arrangements for organising flights for the sailors, first from Calabar to the capital of Equatorial Guinea, Malabo, and then to Krasnodar on a flight provided by the government of Equatorial Guinea. As of now, the sailors are in Malabo and will fly home today or tomorrow. Their health is satisfactory.

Thus, the dramatic story of Russian sailors held captive by pirates has come to a happy ending. It was very difficult to comment on the developments during the rescue mission due to the numerous nuances; therefore, we redoubled our efforts to try to rescue them. Their release has become possible due to the coordinated efforts by both officials and individuals. For a long time, our embassy in Nigeria, as well as the embassy in Cameroon, which also represents Russia’s interests in Equatorial Guinea, have maintained regular contacts with the foreign ministers of these countries, heads of their law enforcement ministries and agencies, as well as representatives of special services, thus creating the conditions for a safe release of our compatriots from captivity.

I would like to take this opportunity to again draw the attention of our compatriots who are employed at foreign ships that navigation in the Gulf of Guinea is a risky business and can pose a direct threat to the lives and health of ship crews.



Developments in the Kyrgyz Republic

Russia continues to monitor the developments in friendly Kyrgyzstan. On October 15, President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sooronbay Jeenbekov made an official statement on stepping down.

We hope for a prompt stabilisation of the situation in the republic and that this process will go in accordance with the Constitution and national law. Russia, as a strategic partner and ally of Kyrgyzstan, has provided and will continue providing all the necessary assistance.



Humanitarian aid to DPRK

At the decision of the Russian authorities, Russia continues to provide humanitarian aid to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The delivery of 50,000 tonnes of Russian wheat to the DPRK has been completed recently.

Having sincerely thanked Russia for its assistance, our Korean partners said that the humanitarian aid will be sent to the socially important facilities in the districts that were hit by typhoons in August and September 2020.

We hope that Russia’s food assistance will help the friendly Korean people to overcome the aftermath of the natural disasters.



Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod’s statements following the talks in Moscow on October 9, 2020

We noted openly confrontational statements by Foreign Minister of Denmark Jeppe Kofod which he made after the talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow on October 9, 2020.

Upon Denmark’s request, we agreed to meet our partners halfway with regard to holding talks at the level of foreign ministers. We expected a meaningful discussion of issues that are truly important for bilateral cooperation, as well as international problems. The conversation did follow this course. However, once he returned home, the Danish Foreign Minister decided to use this meeting opportunity exclusively for his own political publicity and made very strange statements.

Not only does this kind of conduct have nothing to do with responsible diplomacy but it also indicates that official Copenhagen has no intention to look for ways to normalise Russia-Denmark relations.



Peace process in Afghanistan

Delegations of official Kabul and the Taliban continue their consultations on the procedures related to the upcoming talks. We have to note that the increase in military activity in Afghanistan last week and the exacerbating military and political situation in the country cannot but cause concerns.

We hope that the Afghan parties will reach a consensus as soon as possible and begin substantive talks in order to stop the violence and achieve nationwide reconciliation.



Norway’s accusations against Russia of alleged involvement in an alleged cyber attack on the Norwegian parliament

Our embassy in Norway has already commented on the accusations against Russia made by Foreign Minister of Norway Ine Marie Eriksen Soreide with regard to an alleged cyber attack on the Norwegian parliament last August.

We would like to additionally note the following. Norwegian officials make this kind of statements – with Russia being accused, without proof, of any computer-related incidents of “interference” – on a regular basis. It is perplexing that, despite the existing procedure for investigating such incidents which – and this should be emphasised – is well known to Norway, Oslo has chosen a path of unsubstantiated accusations and is making absolutely no effort to provide any evidence. This can only mean that there is simply no evidence at all. If there was any then perhaps it would be somehow offered or at least described. Apparently, the evidence does not exist. Possibly, the goal is not to get to the bottom of the incident but to find another reason to cast blame on Russia and create a respective climate.

It appears that Oslo, while playing up to the destructive actions of its security services, has decided to further undermine bilateral relations, which are already in a deplorable state through Norway’s fault.



Desecrated Soviet Army monument in Sofia

On October 13, the Monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia was once again desecrated. The fact that the inscription made on the monument refers to the Bulgarian tank destroyer brigade of the Waffen-SS, Bulgarians’ shameful chapter in the history of World War II, looks particularly cynical.

We noted prompt action of Sofia’s municipal authorities to remove the damage caused by this act of vandalism. At the same time, we strongly hope that this vagary of local fringe groups will not be ignored by law enforcement and the perpetrators will receive a well-deserved punishment while measures will also be taken to protect the monuments dedicated to the troops that sacrificed their lives to defeat Nazism.



Kazan to host 5th BRICS Young Diplomats Forum on October 21-24

.......................................................................................................







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Yesterday, Lebanon and Israel began talks to delineate and delimitate their sea borders. These talks are more technical than direct, that is, it isn’t about the normalisation of relations between the two countries, given that Israel is still occupying part of Lebanese territory in the south. How is this step viewed in Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

We are closely following the process of the Lebanese-Israeli talks, mediated by the United States, on the delimitation of the border between the two countries. At the initial stage, it is planned to reach an agreement on the maritime border.

The first round of technical consultations took place yesterday at a venue provided by the UN Interim Force in Lebanon command in the village of Naqoura, near the Lebanese-Israeli border. The joint statement of the American mediators and the office of the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, released following the meeting, says it was productive, and the parties agreed to meet again before the end of this month.

I would like to remind you that the subject of their disagreement is some 860 square kilometres in the Mediterranean Sea, which, according to some indications, appears to hold a large amount of offshore natural gas. In this regard, there is a reason why the Israeli delegation to Naqoura was led by the Director General of the Ministry of Energy, and the Lebanese delegation included head of the Lebanese Petroleum Administration.

It is worth mentioning that for a long time, many Western and regional experts offered pessimistic forecasts on this almost unanimously. They unequivocally stated that the Lebanese Hezbollah would never allow such negotiations to begin. It is gratifying that their speculations have not come true. Such pessimistic forecasts have clearly not been realised. Last week, the Hezbollah parliamentary group issued a special statement emphasising that the matter, which relates to Lebanese national sovereignty, is the exclusive prerogative of the Lebanese state.

On the whole, we assess the talks launched in Naqoura as a step in the right direction. Russia invariably supports any efforts that serve to strengthen stability in the Middle East and are acceptable to all directly interested regional countries.



Question:

The US presidential election is less than a month away. Can you tell us now about Russia’s opinion of its collaboration with the United States in Afghanistan during the four years of Trump’s presidency?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, it is for Afghanistan to assess this collaboration. We have also stated more than once that such an assessment should be made by a legitimate international body, or more precisely, the UN Security Council, which approved this operation. We have been pointing out for many years – not only under the current US president but also under previous presidents, that it would be a good idea to have an implementation report regarding the mandate so that its effectiveness can be assessed from the viewpoint of international law. I would like to point this out once again.

As for the practical results, we commented on them many times both in global and practical terms. There were different results. Overall, I wouldn’t divide US presidents into those who influenced the developments in Afghanistan in a positive or negative way. Regrettably, there were enough reasons for dramatic events and respective conclusions under all of them. I would like to note once again that we said a lot of times during a period of many years under several US presidents that there should be a report on the implementation of the UNSC mandate.

We have received many questions about Washington’s latest announcement of its intention to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2020. I have issued tentative comments regarding this. I would like to note today that the prospects for its implementation are rather vague. There can be various reasons for making such statements, including, possibly, domestic political reasons in the context of the presidential election.

Let’s wait and see what practical actions are made before commenting on them. As I have mentioned during my previous briefing, statements on troop withdrawal have been made under various US presidents, but nearly all of them were ultimately followed by an increase of the contingent. It will be best to judge intentions by actions.



Question:

Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan pointed out several times that a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh depends on the international recognition of the right of Artsakh [Nagorno-Karabakh] to self-determination. He also noted in his address to the nation he delivered on October 14 that his government would not negotiate a settlement unless the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is defined. What should be done towards this end? What is Russia’s view on a settlement?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to simultaneously answer your question and the question from Pakistani television channel 92 News, which reads that fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues despite the ceasefire agreement reached with Russia’s mediation. Why are the sides not doing anything to cease fire?

I would like to remind everyone that on October 9-10 talks were held in Moscow between the foreign ministers of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the form of consultations at the initiative of President Putin. They went on for nearly 11 hours. One of the topics discussed was a ceasefire verification mechanism, which is mentioned in the second paragraph of the statement issued following the meeting.

Since then, Russian leaders have had several telephone conversations with their partners in Baku and Yerevan, including presidents, foreign and defence ministers and other high-ranking officials.

Our main message is that the military should meet to coordinate a ceasefire verification mechanism. I would like to remind you that yesterday Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about this in detail in an interview with three Russian radio stations. The transcript is available on the ministry’s website. As far as we are aware, no efforts have been taken towards this. We really do hope that such a mechanism can be launched without delay.

As for a political settlement, we believe that it is possible and necessary. The proposals that have been and are being coordinated in the OSCE Minsk Group are still on the table. Their essence is well known: a staged and gradual withdrawal of the sides’ armed forces from the districts in question with security guarantees, and the maintenance of reliable communications between Armenia and Karabakh until the region’s final status is agreed.

I would like to add that the sides have made a great deal of statements. Many of them were very emotional. This is understandable, but before making any statement you must think whether it actually helps reach your goal. As I have already mentioned, the current goals are to stop the bloodshed, introduce a full ceasefire and launch negotiations. In this context, we repeatedly called on all the sides that are involved in the situation in one way or another – the conflicting sides and those who believe that they have a right to take part in the normalisation process – to do their utmost so that such statements are not just carefully worded but can really serve to attain the goals mentioned before. These goals have been outlined, repeated several times by the Russian authorities more than once and – I would like you to take special note of this – reaffirmed by many international leaders and the heads of international organisations.



Question:

Yesterday Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned differences with Turkey over the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. What are these differences? What can Russia say about the activities of militants from the Middle East who are now fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh? You and other Russian representatives have mentioned this topic many times. Will Russia take practical steps in addition to expressing its concern?



Maria Zakharova:

I will begin with the second part of your question. I have already mentioned that efforts are being taken not just by the foreign ministry. Our military experts are working as well to attain the goal which I mentioned today and which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov broached in detail yesterday.

The Russian leadership has pointed out more than once that the target is to coordinate a ceasefire verification mechanism between the military. It is not just an expression of our concern but practical, concrete and substantive efforts.

As for the first part of your question, the answer to it has already been provided. Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with three radio stations on October 14: “We do not agree with the position that has been voiced by Turkey. We cannot share statements to the effect that there is a military solution to the conflict and that it is acceptable. Regrettably, Turkey has been able to do this, confirming that it will support any actions undertaken by Azerbaijan to solve this conflict, including military ones.” The Foreign Minister explained the difference between Russia’s and Turkey’s positions in a clear, unambiguous and detailed manner. He also added that we are in contact with our Turkish colleagues and that he had several telephone conversations on this matter. The minister pointed out that we are upholding our point of view to the effect that a peaceful settlement is not only possible but is also the only method to ensure a durable solution to this problem.



Question (retranslated from English):

Pakistan is calling on India to start a dialogue on a settlement around Kashmir. What is the Russian Federation’s position on this matter?



Maria Zakharova:

Our position on a settlement of the Indian-Pakistani disputes, including the Kashmir issue, remains consistent and unchanged. We are convinced that it should be effectuated by political and diplomatic methods on a bilateral basis and in keeping with the 1972 Simla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore Declaration.

We welcome all efforts aimed at a peaceful resolution of the dispute, which has for decades affected not only the bilateral relations between New Delhi and Islamabad, but also the situation in the region as a whole. We are interested in these two biggest South Asian states maintaining neighbourly relations. This would directly strengthen regional stability and security as well as promote mutually beneficial trade and economic ties.



Question:

What is your attitude to the possible introduction of a visa-free regime between Iran and Russia for group tourism travel?



Maria Zakharova:

The agreement on visa-free group tourism between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran was signed by the foreign ministers of both countries in Moscow on March 28, 2017.

The agreement provides for reciprocal visa-free tourism by citizens of Russia and Iran as members of organised groups numbering from 5 to 50 people for a period of up to 15 days. Under its Article 4.2, the Federal Agency for Tourism (Rostourism) is the coordinating authority responsible for its implementation on the part of Russia.

Currently, Rostourism, jointly with its Iranian partners, is working on a mechanism for implementing the Agreement. We hope that this work will be completed shortly and that the agreement will come into force.

We proceed from the assumption that the decision on starting to apply the agreement will be accepted with account taken of the sanitary and epidemiological situation in Russia and Iran, as well as the restrictions involved in the effort to resist the spread of the COVID-19 infection.



Question:

How would you comment on the lifting of the arms embargo introduced against Iran?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, Russia has always advocated a scrupulous compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2231 in all its aspects in strict conformity with the commitments envisaged by this Security Council decision and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concerning the Iranian nuclear programme. A basic point in this context is to ensure the implementation of provisions on the enforcement and abolition of the temporary restrictions established by the resolution.

Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the requirements contained in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 are not subject to a revision. These include a special procedure for arms and military equipment deliveries to and from Iran. As is common knowledge, the UN Security Council did not introduce any “arms embargo” against Iran in 2015. Tehran has volunteered to assume a number of restrictions, which was done solely in the interests of an early, positive culmination of the JCPOA talks. From the very start, all the parties involved were aware that these restrictions had nothing to do with settlement related to the Iranian nuclear programme. The term of the relevant provisions has expired.

For Russia, Iran is a reliable partner in many spheres of collaboration. We are convinced that the opportunities opening in connection with the expiry of the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, related to military-technical cooperation with Iran will be duly taken into consideration and promptly used on a mutually beneficial basis and for the good of the people of both countries.

The US allegations that it has single-handedly restored all the Security Council sanctions against Iran, which were effective before the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, are not true to fact. We have repeatedly commented on this. The UN Security Council does not share the US opinion, nor has it taken any steps to “re-launch” the former restrictions. The world has refused to be taken in by Washington’s tricks that we characterise as unlawful and even underhanded. Regrettably, this is emerging as Washington’s signature style in international affairs.

We do hope that the US colleagues have kept a measure of reasonableness to acknowledge the reality. International agreements must be observed by all parties involved, including the United States; there should be no attempts to revise them in retrospect or to be confined to implementing only those elements that suit Washington.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4390936
__________________
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 November 30th, 2020 #196
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by foreign ministers of the Central Asian states and the Russian Federation on strategic areas of cooperation, October 15, 2020



15 October 2020 - 19:35



We, the foreign ministers of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, value the unique advantages of strategic partnership based on the agreements reached by the heads of our states and existing state-to-state treaties, in accordance with the traditions of age-old friendship, mutual respect and trust,

Determined to deepen the multidimensional interaction that makes our long-term cooperation sustainable in the face of any and all circumstances, including modern challenges stemming from infectious disease epidemics, pandemics and other health emergencies,

Declare that further proactive expansion of state-to-state relations seeking to improve security and stability in Central Asia and to turn it into an area of peace, prosperity, interethnic and inter-religious harmony, long-term and forward-looking cooperation, energy and transport-transit interaction of continental importance is in our national interests.

In this context, we will strengthen cooperation based on the principles of equality and mutual advantage, taking into account the constructive processes on the vast Eurasian continent and trends towards deepening economic interaction and expanding interregional cooperation.

We will focus our efforts on the following strategically important spheres.


Political and diplomatic sphere

Emphasising the high level of political relations between our countries, their effective cooperation in the international arena, we note the need to improve the forms of political and diplomatic interaction between us.

To this end, we will strive to establish regular and multi-tier consultations between the foreign ministries of our respective countries to discuss important items on the global and regional agendas.

We are confident that these joint activities will contribute to bringing the positions of our states closer on the most significant problems in the modern world and developing consolidated approaches to resolving them.


Security

In view of the complex international situation and mounting challenges and threats to the international community, our cooperation is designed to prevent and counter potential risks and to adopt joint measures with other stakeholders, partners and international organisations with the UN playing the central role.

We welcome a broad-based international dialogue aimed at strengthening the system of security and trust between all states and preventing and eliminating threats to the peace. The actions of the states to ensure their own security should not lead to dividing lines, generate confrontation or be carried out at the expense of the security of others.

In a coordinated manner, we will continue to counter the use of information and communications technology for criminal purposes, including the spread of fake news, recruitment and training, as well as fundraising and cyber attacks. We will continue to develop bilateral and multilateral legal frameworks for ensuring international information security.

Expressing our concern about the high level of the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and the presence of international terrorist organisations in that country, we will continue to strengthen cooperation in order to advance the process of Afghan national reconciliation and reconstruction of the country. A comprehensive and sustainable peace in Afghanistan can only be achieved through inclusive talks on a political settlement among the Afghans themselves.

Emphasising our concern about the threat of drug trafficking in the region and the smuggling of weapons and ammunition, we express our readiness to jointly oppose these negative developments, including with the participation of Afghanistan.


Trade and economy

We reaffirm the importance of investment cooperation between our countries as a key factor for achieving strategic development goals in the region, maintaining quality and sustainable growth of the national economies and promoting regional cooperation in manufacturing.

In 2019, our trade exceeded $30 billion. The share of manufacturing and agricultural goods, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, metals, automobile and engineering products in our trade flows is increasing. Direct region-to-region transactions account for most of our aggregate trade.

In view of the temporary restrictions caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, we reaffirm the need to take coordinated measures to ensure the uninterrupted flow of essential goods, food, medical equipment and medicines within the region. We are interested in capacity building, stepping up trade and economic ties and promoting trade in goods (including by streamlining customs clearance and creating joint ventures) and services between our countries, and expanding business contacts. We intend to continue to develop regional industrial and agricultural value chains, as well as promote settlements in national currencies taking into consideration the interests of the parties. We are ready to take coordinated measures to counter unfair competition and other extra-market risks in order to enhance our economic cooperation.


Transport

Located at the crossroads connecting Europe and Asia, and building on the immense transport potential, we reaffirm that our countries are interested in a coordinated transport policy that would enable us to benefit from the region’s opportunities in transit and transport and to promote socioeconomic development in our countries. Russia and Central Asian countries are proactive in promoting connectivity between our passenger and freight transport systems along the east-west and north-south routes.

We note our readiness to work together on overcoming structural and institutional challenges the developing land-locked countries are facing with the view to reducing their transit and trade costs, enhancing their competitiveness and access to foreign markets.

Efforts by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) to promote initiatives like the Trans-Asian Railway, Asian Highway and develop international transport and logistics hubs (“dry ports”) expand Central Asia’s transit potential. The SCO is working on expanding transportation by rail, roads and multimodal logistics within our shared space. By following single standards, we have been able to coordinate railway network management, avoid increases in costs or excess transport charges. We are interested in measures to create demand from shipping companies (flexible tariff policies, etc.).

The competitiveness of the cross-border routes crossing our countries largely depends on the accelerated introduction of digital solutions in the transport sector, promoting online data sharing in shipping and personnel training. To this end, we will step up cooperation and share best practices.


Environmental protection and climate change adaptation

We believe that environmental issues pose a serious challenge to sustainable development in our countries.

We note that our countries stand ready to make their contribution to ensuring the environmental wellness in Central Asia, in particular, to environmental protection and climate change adaptation, emergencies prevention and response based on a harmony of interests between all the parties involved in this cooperation.

We express our readiness to take joint action to reduce water and air pollution, land and glacier degradation, increase forest cover, mitigate natural disaster risks and ensure access to drinking water.

We will promote regular contacts between researchers, environmental protection experts, medical professionals and other specialists in order to rebalance climate and environmental conditions and improve the socioeconomic situation in the Aral Sea basin, including the Aral Sea region.


Energy

We support further efforts to expand mutually beneficial energy cooperation, which includes carrying out joint projects, sharing best practices and research data, streamlining extraction, processing and transit technology for the fuel and energy complex, and training personnel for the energy sector.

We attach great importance to introducing state-of-the-art technology when using both conventional and renewable energy sources.

There are broad opportunities for promoting cooperation in the power industry and cross-border power exports.

We will continue closely coordinating the positions of our delegations at the relevant international energy forums.


Sanitary and epidemiological safety

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the strain it puts on the world’s healthcare system, trade, economic and financial relations, in light of the risk of new epidemics and to improve the sanitary and epidemiological safety of the people, we intend to continue implementing joint projects and share research data on preventing and fighting communicable diseases, expanding testing capacity and personnel training. We will further improve the collective system for monitoring and rapidly responding to emergencies.

We emphasise the coordinating role of the World Health Organisation in preventing sanitary and epidemiological threats. We note the need to improve International Health Regulations in order to enhance the WHO’s potential.

We are exploring avenues for increasing the number of tuition-free scholarships on sanitary and epidemiological wellbeing in Russian higher education institutions for representatives from partner countries. Russia will continue sharing research data and offering advice on monitoring the incidence of COVID-19, fighting epidemic outbreaks and prevention.

Expanding the capabilities of our countries in research on and production of pharmaceuticals in the context of fair competition and engaging in joint manufacturing of the needed medicines, vaccines and PPE is in our common interest.

To consolidate our efforts in fighting the spread of dangerous infections, we will promote joint efforts to study the origins of COVID-19 and the symptoms caused by this infection, and will develop treatments and preventive measures. We will continue working with the WHO along these lines.

We welcome the mutual support by our countries in providing humanitarian aid and facilitating the repatriation of citizens from nearby countries and beyond.


Migration

Matters related to labour migration remain high on the cooperation agenda for a number of Central Asian countries and Russia.

In this context, it is essential that specific steps are taken to offer the most favourable living and working conditions for labour migrants from certain Central Asian countries by improving the corresponding contractual legal framework, and offering vocational training to people who fall into this category. We note that the interested Central Asian countries will be involved in these processes.


Culture and education

We call for stepping up cooperation in education and emphasise the importance of sharing best practices and information on modernising national education systems.

We look forward to further expanding intercultural dialogue in the interests of the people living in Central Asian states and Russia. Acting in the spirit of the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures proclaimed by the UN, we will continue our joint efforts to preserve and encourage cultural diversity, cooperate and provide mutual assistance in studying and protecting the region’s cultural and ethnographic heritage.

We will maintain our proactive contribution to international dialogue of cultures, and will promote partnerships in education, research, healthcare, migration, information, youth cooperation, physical fitness, sport and tourism.

We support preparations for the Soul of Eurasia International Cultural Festival, to be held annually and hosted by cities in the CIS member states on a rotational basis.

We oppose neo-Nazism, extremism and xenophobia, and stand for inter-ethnic, inter-cultural and inter-religious accord. All countries have the obligation to preserve memorials, monuments and cemeteries related to the service personnel who died during World War II.

We note the importance of establishing the CIS Commission of Historians and Archivists within the Association of the CIS History Research Institutions.

The foreign ministers of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Republic of Uzbekistan will discuss their assessments of progress in the spheres mentioned above during regular meetings in the Central Asia + Russia format, and when needed on the sidelines of CIS, UN and OSCE events.

The relevant divisions within our respective foreign ministries shall be tasked with coordinating day-to-day operations and drafting the eventual proposals.

Depending on the sphere of cooperation, representatives from other agencies and organisations can be invited to take part in the Central Asia + Russia format meetings, including via videoconference, subject to reaching a mutual agreement on this matter.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4390973






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Secretary-General’s Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya Stephanie Williams



16 October 2020 - 09:34



On October 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with UN Secretary-General’s Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya Stephanie Williams, who is in Moscow on a working visit.

The sides had an in-depth discussion on a wide range of issues related to the developments in Libya. They noted with satisfaction that a ceasefire had lasted four months and pointed out the importance of continued coordination of the UN-led international efforts to promote a sustainable development of the intra-Libyan negotiations aimed at helping the country overcome a drawn-out system-wide crisis.

In this context, Ms Williams updated the Russian Minister on preparations for the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) in Tunisia, to be attended by representatives of all political forces and regions of Libya. The sides noted the positive results of the intra-Libyan contacts held in September and October in Montreux (Switzerland), Bouznika (Morocco) and Hurghada (Egypt), as well as the Geneva meetings held within the framework of the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission.

Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s intention to continue to work actively towards an early rapprochement between Libyan parties and the creation of conditions for the establishment of united bodies of authority based on the decisions of the Berlin Peace Conference and UN Security Council Resolution 2510. It was pointed out that since the Libyan oil sector had resumed operation, it is important that oil export revenues are distributed in a fair and transparent manner in the interests of all Libyans. The success of the settlement process, which is gathering momentum, depends on the involvement of all political forces that have influence on the ground and want to ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Libyan state.

Later the same day, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov held detailed consultations with Stephanie Williams at the Foreign Ministry.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4391176






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Japan Toshimitsu Motegi



16 October 2020 - 14:40







On October 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Japan Toshimitsu Motegi, at the latter’s initiative.

Pursuant to the agreements between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, the ministers discussed topical issues of Russia-Japan relations, including the prospects of promoting political dialogue, trade and economic cooperation, practical cooperation in healthcare, including measures against the novel coronavirus, and cultural contacts.

The ministers covered specific aspects of the cross-year of inter-regional and sister-city links, and preparations for the projects that are part of the two countries’ joint economic activity on the southern Kuril Islands.

Sergey Lavrov noted the great importance of dialogue on security issues.

The parties exchanged opinions on global and regional issues of mutual interest.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4391688






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at Vladimir Putin’s videoconference with the permanent members of the Security Council of the Russian Federation



16 October 2020 - 15:00



Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon, colleagues,

Before we get to the main item on today’s agenda, I would like to ask Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov whether there has been any progress in the dialogue with the United States to extend one of the central documents in terms of international security and arms control. I am referring to the New START, the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.

Where are we in the talks with the Americans?



Sergei Lavrov:

Mr President,

In keeping with your instructions, we remain quite proactive in our contacts with our American colleagues on strategic stability matters in all their aspects, including by emphasising our initiative to take a decision without delay to extend the New START, set to expire in February 2021, for a new five-year term without any preconditions. This initiative remains on the table.

In the meantime, we confirm that we will be ready to continue working on new agreements, and that we have submitted, with your consent, clear proposals in furtherance of the comprehensive approach to strategic stability, which have been forwarded to the US side. In reply, the United States has sent us its proposals, which have been presented as conditions, or rather preconditions for the extension of the New START. Moreover, these preconditions are rather numerous and have been formulated both outside the Treaty itself and outside our frame of reference.

To a certain extent, a critical situation has taken shape, because in February, as I said, in early February, the Treaty will expire. If there is no consent from both sides, in keeping with the Treaty’s procedures on its extension, it will cease to exist. This means, in effect, that to all intents and purposes the work on the Treaty extension proper, without the conditions that it does not contain, has not yet started.



Vladimir Putin:

What is the exact expiry date for this Treaty?



Sergei Lavrov:

February 4, 2021.



Vladimir Putin:

Does this mean that we face a full-sized threat to be left, and in general leave the world, without this Treaty?



Sergei Lavrov:

And, in general, without any other instrument that would ensure at least some joint approaches to maintaining strategic stability. The rest has been either pulled out or suggested by the Americans for termination.



Vladimir Putin:

It would be extremely sad, if this Treaty ceased to exist and was not replaced by another fundamental document of this kind. During all the previous years, the New START worked and worked properly, performing its fundamental role as a constraint curtailing the arms race and a tool of arms control. It is clear that we have new weapons systems that the American side lacks, at least for the time being. But we are not refusing to discuss this aspect of the matter as well.

In this regard, I have a proposal, namely, to extend the Treaty now in effect unconditionally for at least a year in order to have a chance to hold substantive talks on all the parameters of problems that are regulated by treaties of this kind, lest we leave our countries and all nations of the world with a vested interest in maintaining strategic stability without such a fundamental document as the Strategic Offensive Arms Limitation Treaty.

Please, formulate our position to the US partners and try to obtain at least some comprehensible reply from them as soon as possible.



Sergei Lavrov:

We will do it as soon as we can, Mr President.



Vladimir Putin:

Thank you.

Let us go over to a discussion of current matters.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4395265






Press release on Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with President of the Central African Republic Faustin Archange Touadera



16 October 2020 - 16:10







On October 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with President of the Central African Republic Faustin Archange Touadera.

The officials focused on a number of priorities pertaining to the development of multifaceted cooperation between Russia and the Central African Republic, and reaffirmed their shared intention to expand practical collaboration in the political, trade, economic, investment, military-technical, and humanitarian areas.

The Russian side noted that it was ready to persevere in supporting Bangui’s efforts to normalise the situation in the country, as well as to continue the coordination with the Central African Republic at the UN and other international venues.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4392154






Joint statement by the CSTO member states at the 95th session of the Executive Council, October 9, 2020



16 October 2020 - 18:53



We, member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), being committed to the goals and objectives of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (hereinafter, “the Convention”), are supportive of the efforts aimed at ridding the world completely of chemical weapons, strengthening the non-proliferation regime and preventing their use by anyone under any circumstances.

As proponents of the convention, we pursue exclusively constructive goals, including identifying mutually acceptable solutions and avoiding confrontation or attempts to impose a politicised agenda on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and to turn it into a tool for promoting the geopolitical interests of certain countries.

We emphasise the importance of strict observance of the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Convention on cooperation of the States Parties and the provision of legal assistance in an appropriate form to ensure that a satisfactory national investigation into alleged incidents is carried out. This kind of interaction implies the provision of all the necessary information requested by the State Party concerned as part of the implementation of its obligations under Paragraph 1 of Article VII of the Convention.

We stand for the unconditional and bona fide use of the mechanisms provided by the Convention to clarify issues that raise doubts about compliance with this international treaty or which may be considered unclear. We call upon the States Parties to abandon lofty politicised statements and to move towards real cooperation, consultations and exchange of relevant information in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article IX of the Convention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4392569






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversations with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov and Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan



17 October 2020 - 20:09







On October 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had telephone conversations with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan.

The ministers discussed the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.

Sergey Lavrov focused on the continuing relevance of the Statement of the Presidents of the Russian Federation, the United States of America and the French Republic on Nagorno-Karabakh of October 1, 2020.

The ministers stressed the need for a strict compliance with the Moscow Statement of the ministers of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Republic of Armenia of October 10, which provides for a humanitarian ceasefire.

They also reaffirmed the importance of the Moscow agreement on the launching of substantive talks aimed at reaching an early peace settlement based on the fundamental principles and mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4392654






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Secretary General of the Council of Europe Marija Pejcinovic Buric Moscow, October 19, 2020



19 October 2020 - 14:21






Madam Secretary General,

Colleagues,

We are delighted to be able to hold these full-scale in-person talks in this traditional format with you despite the restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Russia is the largest European country and an active member of the Council of Europe. We have joined 67 rules and regulations of this pan-European organisation and have incorporated their norms in a great number of national laws.

We really hope, and we have pointed this out in our contacts with our European colleagues, that all the Council of Europe mechanisms and institutions will apply its conventions honestly and without attempting to provide any lop-sided interpretations.

Of course, we do indeed hope that the crisis in the Council of Europe, which was settled last year, will serve as a lesson to those who attempted to undermine the purpose of the Council of Europe sealed in its Statute. I am referring to ensuring a common legal and humanitarian space on the continent, without any dividing lines and based on respect for the sovereign equality of states.





It is encouraging that today we have an opportunity to discuss the entire range of objectives the Council of Europe has set itself at the current stage and to review our collaboration with it in the most diverse spheres.

I am aware of your plans to meet with High Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia Tatyana Moskalkova and Minister of Justice Konstantin Chuychenko. I am quite sure that the packed agenda of your visit will help advance our relations to a new level.

Once again, welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4395102






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answer to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with Secretary General of the Council of Europe Marija Pejčinović Burić, Moscow, October 19, 2020



19 October 2020 - 16:25






Ladies and gentlemen,

This visit by Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Marija Pejčinović Burić, draws a symbolic line under the system-wide crisis affecting the Council of Europe in 2014-2019 due to the illegal actions of a number of its Parliamentary Assembly members that run contrary to the organisation’s charter.

In the spring of last year, I met in Moscow with Secretary General Pejčinović Burić’s predecessor, Thorbjørn Jagland. The crisis was fully underway at the time. Now the situation has changed qualitatively, primarily as a result of the 129th Session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe held in Helsinki last May.

Russian parliamentarians’ rights have been fully restored since then. The main lesson to be learned from that situation is that speaking a language of threats is unacceptable at the Council of Europe, as are ultimatums, pressure, or attempts to violate the key principles enshrined in the Council of Europe Charter, which the organisation is guided by.

Marija Pejčinović Burić’s visit takes place shortly before the 25th anniversary of Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe. We will mark this date on February 28, 2021. This is a good time to analyse where we stand and what challenges we face in the interests of further cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Russian Federation.

We have reaffirmed our interest in strengthening multilateral cooperation within the Council of Europe. Russia aims to dedicatedly participate in its work. Our country’s commitment to all of its obligations that we have taken on under the numerous conventions of this pan-European organisation remains unchanged.

What is most important for us is for the Council of Europe to remain one of the pillars of world order based on international law, and not on the “rules” established by individual countries or their non-universal organisations and alliances. The Council of Europe must justify its mission as a pan-European organization providing mechanisms and conventions that consolidate the legal and humanitarian landscape on our common continent. It is important that the various agencies of the Council of Europe are not used to promote a narrow group interests.

I had a frank discussion with Secretary General Marija Pejčinović Burić. Unfortunately, we have seen attempts to promote double standards and to settle political scores on the Strasbourg platform in recent years. We discussed the continuing widespread violation of human rights and the rights of millions of people within the Council of Europe’s space. I am talking about overt discrimination against the ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine and the Baltic countries. We emphasised the unacceptability of the developments stemming from Crimea’s water blockade in violation of all existing conventions, both European and universal; and in violation of the recommendation made back in 2016 by Special Envoy of the Council of Europe Secretary General Gerard Studman, who visited Crimea and put together a report. One of his recommendations was the need to immediately respond to the problems of water supply to Crimea.

We pointed out another issue that our friends at the CE Secretariat are well aware of - the unacceptability of glorifying Nazi criminals and their henchmen or destroying monuments to the soldiers who liberated Europe. We strongly believe that the Council of Europe, which claims the status of the continent’s leading human rights organisation, should not turn a blind eye to these shameful developments.

We also covered what the Council of Europe can do to ensure coordination of the international efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic and its fallout. Secretary General of the Council of Europe Marija Pejčinović Burić has put together a valuable report on this subject. A decision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is now being drafted. It is supposed to be adopted at its meeting to be held next month under Greek chairmanship. We believe that the Council of Europe should not just be a “guardian of convention” in the sphere of healthcare, but articulate a constructive agenda and unite the efforts of the member states building on existing mechanisms, including the European Social Charter, the Medicrime Convention and the European Pharmacopoeia. In this regard, we welcome the proposals contained in the Secretary General’s report to expand the social dimension in the Council of Europe’s activities.

We also discussed the role and the place of the organisation in Europe’s architecture. We share the opinion that the Council of Europe should maintain its identity and independence and not become part of the efforts to draw new dividing lines, but to concentrate on resolving its main statutory task which is “to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and of facilitating their economic and social progress.”

These words have more relevance today than ever before. We will do whatever it takes to make sure that this primary goal of the Council of Europe is translated into practical actions as quickly and as broadly as possible.

Thank you.







Question:

Did you discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? It is becoming obvious that the agreements reached at the trilateral meeting in Moscow have not led to a complete ceasefire. Did you discuss steps to de-escalate the conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

We told our colleagues from the Council of Europe Secretariat what Russian thinks about the situation and the steps we are taking. We are convinced that the main goal now is to immediately stop the confrontational rhetoric both by the parties and the responsible international players. This is not difficult.

The next, absolutely necessary step, that must be taken alongside the cessation of confrontational rhetoric is to stop the hostilities, strikes at civilian facilities, to fulfill the demands that were made in the statement by Russia, the US and France as the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, and the Moscow document signed with our assistance by the ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia on October 10. The same is confirmed by the document they agreed to on October 18 of this year, on trying to stop the bloodshed again.

You are right: our hopes have not materialised since the Moscow meeting – the hostilities continued including strikes at the civilian infrastructure and residential areas. This is unacceptable.

To make a ceasefire work (we became convinced of this after the two adopted documents failed to change the situation on the ground significantly), it is necessary to create and use a mechanism to monitor compliance with it. We are working on this now with the participation of the Russian Defence Ministry and our colleagues from Azerbaijan and Armenia. I hope this mechanism will be agreed upon very soon.

Having listed the current goals, I must also mention the need to considerably enhance the efforts on a political settlement. The Moscow statement mentions this as well. There are detailed and extensive ideas that were developed and discussed between the sides by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France and the US. I believe they contain the answers to these questions.

Considering what can be achieved at this current historical point, I think we must encourage the sides to harmonise key provisions that will make it possible to stabilise the situation in this region for the long term, unblock economic and transport ties and ensure reliable security in Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent territories.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4395296
__________________
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 November 30th, 2020 #197
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry statement on New START Treaty Extension



20 October 2020 - 12:18



We have received no official response from the United States to our Note dated October 16 which contains the proposal put forward by President Vladimir Putin to extend the New START Treaty for one year. We have noticed only some comments made by U.S. officials on social media platforms. Given contradictory reactions to the actual situation, we want to clarify.

Russia offers to extend the New START Treaty for one year and meanwhile is ready to jointly with the U.S. undertake a political commitment to “freeze” for the above-mentioned period the number of nuclear warheads that each side possesses. This position of ours may be implemented only and exclusively on the premise that “freezing” of warheads will not be accompanied by any additional demands on the part of the United States. Were this approach be acceptable for Washington, then the time gained by the extension of the New START Treaty could be used to conduct comprehensive bilateral negotiations on the future nuclear and missile arms control that must address all factors affecting strategic stability.

We expect to receive an official response to our Note dated October 16.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4395765






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to participants in the BRICS Friendship Cities and Local Government Cooperation Forum, Moscow, October 20, 2020



20 October 2020 - 16:26






Friends,

Let me welcome the participants in the BRICS Friendship Cities and Local Government Cooperation Forum. The initiative to hold meetings in this format originated, in fact, simultaneously with the establishment of BRICS itself. The Forum has become established as a useful and much-needed venue for contacts between representatives of local governments of the five countries and for an exchange of views on the pressing issues related to the development of urban environment.

Symbolically, the present meeting is taking place in one of the oldest Russian cities whose history goes back one thousand years. Members of different ethnic and religious groups live here peacefully side by side. Kazan’s rich centuries-old traditions combine organically with its image of a modern and dynamically developing city. The hospitality and cultural diversity of the capital of Tatarstan will help the Forum to become a success. There is no doubt about that.

Today’s meeting will add to the treasure trove of BRICS events in 2020 and will promote contacts between people, which are reliable bonds of the strategic partnership between the five states. The Forum’s central theme – Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Modern Cities – is particularly relevant against the background of the current difficult situation in global politics and the world economy. It fully reflects the main objective of the Russian BRICS chairmanship, as set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, which is to strengthen BRICS cooperation in order to ensure wellbeing and better quality of life for the citizens in our countries.

I wish all Forum participants every success, fruitful work, and good health!




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4395987






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the criminal charges brought against Russian citizens by the American authorities



20 October 2020 - 17:55



The US administration has once again made news with another anti-Russia attack, accusing our government agencies of malicious activities in the field of information and communications technology.

First, Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the US Department of Justice John Demers announced the filing of criminal charges against six Russian nationals allegedly employed by the Russian special services, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seconding that statement.

As usual, no evidence has been presented, except for the hackneyed phrases about Russia’s “implication” in a wide range of destructive activities in the information landscape.

We categorically reject this kind of speculation. Russian state agencies have nothing to do with any malicious activity on the internet, as Washington is trying to portray. It is obvious that there are opportunistic political considerations behind this move, the US Russophobic forces’ interest in keeping the “Russian threat” theme afloat in the midst of the US presidential election campaign.

Our position on building interaction in cyber affairs has been repeatedly announced, including at the highest level. In particular, it is spelled out in the statement by the President of Russia of September 25, 2020 on a comprehensive programme of measures to restore Russian-American cooperation in international information security.

We can only regret that, judging by the US high-ranking officials’ rhetoric, our approaches are not shared; our partners are not ready for cooperation on an equal and mutually respectful basis.

We would like to emphasise that the statements by the representative of the US Department of Justice, who referred to the aforementioned statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin as “cynical propaganda,” were, in fact, Washington’s first public response to our call for cooperation. It is indicative that the Americans chose to respond to the Russian leader’s proposal at the level of a deputy head of a federal department, not even a specialised one.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4396213






Opening remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov acting in the capacity of the current President of the UN Security Council during an online meeting, Moscow, October 20, 2020



20 October 2020 - 18:47






Sergey Lavrov:

The meeting of the UN Security Council in the format of a videoconference is now declared open.

Provisional Agenda: Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Comprehensive Review of the Situation in the Persian Gulf Region.

If there are no objections, the agenda is adopted.

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Qatar to participate in this meeting.

The motion is adopted.

In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following speakers to participate in this meeting: President of the International Crisis Group non-profit organisation Robert Malley and Research Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vitaly Naumkin.





No objections. The motion is approved.

Based on Rule 39 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the UN Security Council, I invite His Excellency Secretary-General of the League of Arab States Ahmed Aboul Gheit and His Excellency Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council Nayef Al-Hajraf to participate in this meeting.

The motion is adopted.

The UN Security Council will now begin its consideration of item 2 on the agenda.

I would like to draw the attention of the Council members to document S/2020/1013, which contains a cover letter from the UN Secretary-General dated October 14, 2020 to the President of the Security Council attached to a concept note on the agenda item under consideration.

I shall now give the floor to the UN Secretary-General, His Excellency Antonio Guterres.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4396285






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement at a UN Security Council meeting held via videoconference, Moscow, October 20, 2020



20 October 2020 - 19:02






Mr Secretary-General, colleagues,

In organising today’s high-level meeting, we proceeded from the assumption that ensuring peace in the Gulf Region was an important goal for the entire international community.

The unhealthy situation in this area destabilises international relations. That is why we believe that the UN Security Council, which is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, should maintain focus on this matter.

We propose discussing what can be done specifically to back away from a dangerous line and to ensure long-term stability in the region.

Everyone remembers the atmosphere earlier this year when many feared the potential outbreak of a large-scale war in the Gulf. We managed to avoid a worst-case scenario, but we see no grounds for complacency. The situation remains unstable. Dangerous and unpredictable scenarios can unfold at any time, especially considering the presence of the religious component among the existing differences and conflicts.

We have no doubt that everyone wants the Gulf region to be peaceful and predictable. Attempts at unilateral actions - we continue to see this – are an impasse. Blackmail and dictatorship, demonisation and accusation of only one party are wrong and dangerous. We must stop recriminations and suspicions and say no to sanctions, pressure, ultimatums and provocative actions no matter which side they come from. We firmly believe this can be done even amidst today’s continuing tensions.

We need a creative philosophy. The collective efforts to build confidence based on respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of states in strict accordance with international law and the UN Charter must be the key to improving the situation in the Gulf region.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation related to the Iranian nuclear programme continues to play an important part in keeping a lid on tensions. The speakers before me mentioned this. The agreements on the JCPOA became a major political and diplomatic milestone, made it possible to avert the threat of an armed conflict, and consolidated the NPT regime. Like all responsible parties to this agreement, Russia remains fully committed to this agreement and is convinced that the positive results of these difficult but rewarding collegial efforts must be preserved and defended.





Colleagues,

President Putin’s initiative to hold an online meeting of the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as the FRG and Iran, seeks to develop measures aimed at preventing further escalation and forming a reliable collective security system in the Gulf. We are grateful to those who supported this initiative. In order to form a dependable regional security system, Russia has presented a collective security concept for the Persian Gulf region, based on a constructive and unifying agenda. Plans are in place to create collective response mechanisms to numerous challenges and threats with the participation of the coastal Gulf countries, including Iran and all Arab states. We propose enlisting, alongside the coastal countries, the participation of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and other stakeholders in the practical steps to implement these concepts.

The road to this goal won’t be short, nor will it be easy. However, the countries of the region must travel it themselves. The external players’ job is to help them create proper conditions for moving towards each other as they patiently and consistently eliminate historical layers of mutual grievances and differences. This calls for engaged discussion and, let’s face it, delicate approaches. For our part, we are ready to provide assistance as part of a dialogue with all partners.

UN mediation could also come in handy, including within the framework of the Secretary-General's good offices missions. As you may be aware, in Resolution 598, the UN Security Council instructed the Secretary-General to work through, in conjunction with the regional parties, measures to strengthen security and stability in the region. It is important to see what has been done and what needs to be done additionally to fulfill this direct instruction.

Our concept is not the ultimate truth. It is food for thought. Strict adherence to the principle of indivisible security is a fundamental condition if we want to move in the right direction. This means that the security problems of some countries and the problems of strengthening the security of any country cannot be resolved at the expense of the security of others or by damaging the security of any other state.

Colleagues,

I propose considering today's meeting an invitation to overcome the pile of differences by opening a respectful dialogue taking into account the concerns of all parties without exception and based on international law. And I am confident that by acting together, openly and impartially, combining political will and creative potential, we can help the Gulf states overcome this difficult historical period and create an effective regional security system, or, as a first step, to at least agree upon the basic principles.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4396295






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov and Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan



21 October 2020 - 13:49



Further to the recent telephone conversations that President of Russia Vladimir Putin had with President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held separate meetings in Moscow with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov, on October 20, and with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, on October 21.

The ministers discussed urgent matters related to the implementation of the earlier agreements on a ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone and the creation of conditions for a stable settlement of the conflict.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4398257






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s welcoming remarks to participants in the 5th BRICS Young Diplomats Forum, October 22, 2020



22 October 2020 - 10:00






Friends,

I extend wholehearted greetings to the 5th BRICS Young Diplomats Forum participants.

The initiative to hold such forums came from the Russian Foreign Ministry Council of Young Diplomats in 2015, during Russia’s previous BRICS chairmanship cycle. Despite being a fairly new event, this format of interaction between young diplomats from our five countries has shown a good example of building horizontal ties among the foreign affairs agencies of the BRICS states.

It is symbolic that this year’s venue is the capital of Tatarstan, Kazan, one of the oldest cities in Russia, where representatives of different ethnic and religious backgrounds live together in harmony. This is consonant with the BRICS concept about uniting various geographic regions and various cultural and civilizational landscapes. It is in diversity that the strength of our unity shows.

Deepening the strategic partnership in BRICS is one of Russia's foreign policy priorities. Over the past decade, the group has proved to be a relevant and well-respected format of cooperation. The BRICS countries maintain solidarity in strengthening collective principles in global affairs; they advocate respect for the sovereignty and sovereign equality of all states, and are deeply convinced that any conflicts should be resolved by peaceful means only. We defend the principles of a more just world order based on respect for the norms and principles of international law and the United Nations Charter.

I hope that your forum will contribute to the development of both the political and youth agendas of our association, and will help to further strengthen our strategic partnership, trust and friendship between our states and peoples.

I wish all the best and good luck to all forum participants. May you stay in good health and have fulfilling discussions on matters that are of relevance for young diplomats from the BRICS countries. Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4400648






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings to participants in the 12th BRICS Academic Forum, October 22, 2020



22 October 2020 - 15:00






Colleagues, friends,

I am delighted to welcome the participants of the 12th BRICS Academic Forum.

This mechanism of regular consultations of our countries’ academics was launched in December 2008, when the first meeting of the BRICS countries’ experts was held in Moscow at Russia’s initiative. The establishment of the BRICS Think Tanks Council in accordance with the Delhi Declaration in 2012 has formalised interaction among national coordinators on this track.

It is highly satisfying that over the past years the Academic Forum has become a respected platform for the exchange of opinions among the leading academic centres of the five BRICS countries. You have done a great deal: you have strengthened ties between your experts, business, academic and student communities, proposed solutions to numerous social, environmental, information and educational problems, and held a number of meaningful events.

This year the forum will focus on the current aspects linked with the future functioning of multilateral development institutions. Such discussions are more important now than ever before. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the cross-border nature of the majority of challenges in the current globalised world and has shown that they can only be dealt with jointly on the basis of universally recognised international law and the central guiding role of the UN.

Regrettably, not all countries share this commonplace truth. We can see that a number of US-led Western countries are unwilling to develop mutually respectful dialogue with the other members of international community. Quite to the contrary, they are doing their utmost to restrain the development of new global centres and to punish those who pursue independent foreign policies. As an alternative to international law, they are advocating a West-centric concept of a “rules-based world order.” These rules, as we are well aware, are being coordinated behind the scenes by a small group of countries and then forced on the rest of the world.

We are alarmed by increasingly protectionist policies and growing trade differences, which sometimes take the form of full-scale trade wars. The wide use of illegal unilateral sanctions, which have long become an instrument of unfair competition, offers little room for optimism as well. Taken together, this is increasing the confrontation potential and is eroding mutual trust still further.

These destructive trends must be countered with a broad interstate dialogue and a constructive and universally acceptable global and regional agenda. Cooperation within the framework of BRICS, including at the level of the expert community, is a positive example showing that fruitful joint work by the international community is well within our reach.

In this year of the 75th anniversary of the UN, it is especially important for the five BRICS countries to speak up as one in support of the UN-centric architecture and for the development of a fairer and more democratic multipolar world order based on the principles of the UN Charter and the cultural and civilisational diversity of the world.

Russia assumed the rotating BRICS chairmanship on January 1, 2020. In his address at the Brasilia summit in November 2019, President Vladimir Putin outlined the key priority of Russia’s Chairmanship, as well as of the strategic BRICS partnership: to help improve the living standards and the quality of life of our nations.

The academic community, including your representative forum, should contribute to achieving this and other ambitious goals. We expect your discussions to produce new assessments and proposals, which will be taken into account during the preparation of the BRICS summit scheduled for November.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you once again for your active contribution to the BRICS movement and to wish you every success and all the best.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4401290
__________________
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 November 30th, 2020 #198
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 22, 2020



22 October 2020 - 18:31






Coronavirus update

Today’s briefing is being held during a new and sharp escalation of the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the world, something that cannot help but raise concerns. It looks like the second wave of the pandemic will be stronger and more dangerous than the first one. Explosive growth in incidence rates everywhere, as we see from the morbidity statistics (over 40 million cases in the world as of today), increases the load on medical institutions marshalled to treat the coronavirus in all countries. A lot of international experts predict another serious impact on national economies that have just begun to recover from the spring downturn.

Several days ago Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros Ghebreyesus emphasised the increased risks of COVID-19’s quick spread that is coinciding with the usual seasonal respiratory diseases on an increasing scale. The European office of the WHO also warns that the current outbreak is largely due to weakening restrictions on maintaining physical distancing.

In this context, the WHO is once again calling for a consolidated effort to fight another wave of the pandemic, which will determine whether the incidence rate will decline or will result in further serious impact. UN experts believe that anti-coronavirus measures must be taken with consideration for the specific epidemic background, be tailored and localised and serve both to protect the population and the economy. The search for such smart formulas and flexible solutions is the main task for most states’ governments today.

Deterioration of the sanitary situation in several countries that are traditionally popular among Russian tourists, as noted lately, raises special concern. For example, according to the data from the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor), large outbreaks of COVID-19 are being recorded in the UAE, Croatia and Slovenia. Even in countries that are relatively safe today, such as Egypt, Thailand, the Seychelles, Maldives and Turkey, a decline cannot be ruled out; and the risks of a worst case scenario are there. Once again, we ask Russians to carefully consider the circumstances when deciding on a foreign trip, and to calculate all possible risks up to the point of perhaps cancelling the trip.

Please once again, note the recommendations of the emergency response centre to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus in Russia.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan Ruslan Kazakbayev to be held on October 23

..................................................................................................


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to the Hellenic Republic

..................................................................................................


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

..................................................................................................


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Serbia

..................................................................................................



75th anniversary of the UN

October 24 marks the 75th anniversary of the UN Charter coming into effect, which initiated the activities of this global organisation. This anniversary is inextricably connected with another landmark event, the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Seventy-five years ago, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, driven by a commitment to prevent a repetition of one of the most terrible tragedies in the history of humankind, united around the idea of building a fair world order rooted in respect for the sovereignty, the interests and concerns of all nations and peoples. The central pillar of the post-war world order was assigned to the UN, and its Charter carried the basic standards for international law including the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, and settling crises through political and diplomatic means.

Throughout its existence the UN has faced a number of serious challenges which to a certain extent impeded its performance. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that it has fulfilled its major goal and prevented a new world conflict.

The UN General Assembly held a high level event to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the organisation on September 21, 2020, whereby a video address by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was presented on behalf of the CSTO member states. A declaration was adopted following the event with a focus on the need to enhance true multi-polarity and the imperative of strict compliance with the UN Charter and other provisions of international law. A number of other festive and related events, which included Russia’s participation, had been scheduled on the UN platforms, however, they had to be postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The anniversary initiatives in New York were to be accompanied by commemorative events in Russia. In part, the United Nations Association of Russia with support from the UN Information Centre in Moscow was supposed to hold a series of scientific and practical conferences, forums and roundtable discussions as well as a gala event at Zaryadye Concert Hall. The bulk of events had to be rescheduled to later dates in view of the health related restrictions.

Meanwhile, on October 10, MGIMO University held an opening ceremony for the Churkin Moscow International Model of the UN timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary. The opening ceremony was held via videoconference.

Today, October 22, the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation held a themed roundtable discussion with key speaker Sergey Vershinin, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. Among other things, he outlined the major stages in UN development and highlighted its paramount significance in the contemporary world.

A month earlier, the Russian Federation’s State Duma of the Federal Assembly issued a special statement on the 75th anniversary of the UN. The statement expressed invariable support for the UN as the central coordinating element in international affairs. It underscored that the domination of certain countries in its Secretariat is unacceptable as it undermines the principle of multilateral cooperation.

In addition, a commemorative postage stamp and a coin devoted to the organisation’s anniversary were issued in Russia.

As a UN co-founder and a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia will continue to contribute to enhancing the authority of the UN as the only universal platform for finding collective solutions to modern challenges and threats. We are open to constructive efforts on this track with any like-minded partners.



Update on a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement

We continue our mediation aimed at the cessation of bloodshed in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. The issues of this conflict settlement were discussed, in part, in Moscow on October 20 and 21 during Sergey Lavrov’s separate meetings with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov and Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan.

As one of the co-chairs in the OSCE Minsk Group, we continue to work in this format. The next meeting of mediators is scheduled to take place in Washington tomorrow.



Update on Syria

Differing trends continue in Syria. On one hand, the efforts to normalise the situation are gradually producing results, but on the other, destructive forces are working to undermine these processes.

The sides continue to implement the provisions of the Russian-Turkish additional protocol to the memorandum on stabilising the Idlib de-escalation zone of September 17, 2018, which was signed in Moscow on March 5. In accordance with the existing agreements, the Turkish military has started withdrawing their units from a number of observation posts on Syrian territory, in particular, in the town of Morek in the west of the Hama Province.

Meanwhile, developments in the northeast of Syria are a source of growing concern. Thus, we noted the recent provocative statement by Ilham Ahmed, a co-chair of the Executive Board of the Syrian Democratic Council. She said Russia had allegedly failed to perform its “guarantor mission” of the Rojava’s talks with the Syrian Government. Indicatively, immediately after her accusations against Russia, on October 16 another big US convoy with combat hardware arrived in northeastern Syria from Iraqi territory. Washington is obviously trying to tear the Kurds away from the multi-religious Syrian state by fueling separatist attitudes.

Last week’s decision by the self-proclaimed autonomous administration of North and East Syria to release about 600 ISIS fighters from prisons gives rise to many questions. Obviously, the Kurds could not make this decision without US prompting. The dangerous consequences of this hard-to-explain move were revealed shortly afterward. There are incoming reports of the stepped-up activities of the Islamist radicals that are penetrating regions controlled by the lawful Syrian authorities and engage in local armed clashes with the Syrian military.

We would like to emphasise Russia’s invariable position of principle in support of Syria’s unity, and respect for its territorial integrity and sovereignty. We consistently urge Damascus and the self-proclaimed administration of the North and East Syria to engage in a constructive dialogue with a view to finding mutually acceptable solutions in the interests of the local population and the entire country.

We note the efforts of the Syrian government to facilitate the return of refugees to their homes. The campaign on the repatriation of Syrians has been carried out since 2018. It is actively supported by the Russian Federation. As part of this process, President of Syria Bashar al-Assad has signed several executive orders on amnesty. The Syrian authorities have carried out procedures for granting legal status to its citizens that had to flee the country because of the war. Although the task of creating conditions for a safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to the places of their residence and restoring the damaged regions has been clearly set in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the international contribution to this process remains relatively modest.

The Syrian authorities plan to hold an international conference on facilitating the return of refugees and IDPs in Damascus on November 11-12. Syria has already invited many states and international organisations to take part in this event. Russia is a co-organiser of this forum. We consider it a venue at which the participants will be able to discuss in detail the entire package of issues aimed at helping Syrians come home and restore their unity. We hope the international community will actively join the efforts to resolve this humanitarian issue.



Results of the general election in Bolivia

The general election held on October 18 in the Plurinational State of Bolivia passed without incident and in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. As a result, the opposition party Movement to Socialism, headed by Luis Alberto Arce Catacora, won.

On October 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a congratulatory message to Mr Arce Catacora.

The election has drawn a line under a period of political instability and legal uncertainty that began in Bolivia almost a year ago after the forced removal of President Evo Morales by actions that included the features of a coup.

The indisputable and convincing results of this vote showed that the political process that has been underway in Bolivia over the past 15 years and which is adjusting to the current domestic political and socioeconomic realities, enjoys the support of the majority of the country’s population. Of fundamental importance in this context is the new Bolivian leadership’s call to find common ground between various political forces and overcome the split that has occurred in the country over the past year.

The results of the election in Bolivia allow us to reach another important conclusion: national interests and popular wisdom are able to overcome any attempts at political engineering, including that imposed from the outside. And this lesson that the Bolivians have taught us today has a meaning that reaches far beyond their country.

We congratulate Mr Arce Catacora on his victory and the Bolivian people on a peaceful and democratic vote. We wish them further progressive development and prosperity. We confirm our readiness to strengthen our political dialogue and mutually beneficial trade, economic and investment cooperation in fuel and energy, science and technology, agriculture, education, culture and other areas of mutual interest.



Developments in Mali

We continue to monitor the situation in Mali. We are pleased to note the significant progress achieved at talks between the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the military in Bamako on the transition period procedures. This, in particular, has resulted in the appointment of an interim president and an interim prime minister, and a government being formed with the involvement of Mali’s leading public and political forces and the lifting of the sanctions imposed by the ECOWAS on Mali. Work is underway to form a National Council that will perform the functions of the country’s parliament during the transitional period.

As before, we believe the new Malian authorities will take all the necessary measures to normalise the domestic political situation and bring it back to a constitutional track and will also ensure that civil government in Mali is restored as soon as possible through a general election with support from the ECOWAS and the African Union.

At the same time we are very concerned about the worsening situation with security in Mali. Given the negative implications of the spread of COVID-19, numerous extremist groups affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda have taken advantage of the power vacuum to step up their activities, especially in the country’s central and northern provinces, which are battered by persistent acts of terror, against both the military and civilians.

On October 16, the UN Security Council finalised a statement for the press, following the death at the hands of the terrorists of an Egyptian peace-keeper from the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in the vicinity of Kidal and the attack against the mission’s camp near Timbuktu. We would like to express our condolences to and sympathy for the victim’s family, Egypt and the UN Mission.

We very much appreciate the activities of the UN Mission, which has remained one of the main pillars ensuring security in Mali. Unfortunately, the UN blue helmets, along with the armed forces of the countries in the Sahel area and civilians, are still being subjected to persistent terrorist attacks. This year alone, 23 UN peace-keepers were killed in clashes with militants and in terrorist attacks.

We resolutely condemn any attacks on UN blue helmets and call on Malian authorities to find and punish those who committed these crimes. The UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission has become the most dangerous UN operation for peace-keepers. In this context, the effective performance by peacekeepers of their duties requires that additional security measures be taken.

Russia will continue to be effectively involved, including as a permanent UN Security Council member, in the collective efforts to stabilise the situation in Mali, and in the Sahara-Sahel area in general, and also to provide support to countries in the region on a bilateral basis, including support for boosting their armed forces’ fighting capacity and training their military and law-enforcement officers.



US threats against countries with defence industry ties to Iran

Having lost twice at the UN Security Council, the United States still persists in its completely misguided anti-Iran policies, promising to severely punish countries that do not agree with its failed policy of exerting “maximum pressure” on Tehran.

As we see it, out of revenge, Washington turned to its usual method of imposing unilateral sanctions on countries cooperating with Iran. The defence sphere is only the beginning. Judging by Secretary Pompeo’s remarks at a briefing on October 21, the United States’ goal is to cut off international cooperation with the Islamic Republic.

Unfortunately, US attacks and threats against various countries and international organisations, including the UN and the IAEA, have become commonplace. Washington values its animus for Iran far greater than international law and Security Council resolutions. Just consider its promises to impose sanctions on those who engage in implementing projects envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Iranian nuclear programme. This behaviour is beneath a great power and absolutely unacceptable.

We believe that the world will not let the United States replace international law with fleeting political constructs. Clearly, the selfish interests of the US military-industrial complex are behind the inflation of the Iranian threat, which is intended as a cover to flood the Gulf countries with its weapons.

If the Americans want to fence themselves off from the rest of the world with a gigantic sanctions divider, concealing their poor dealmaking, prejudices and complexes, that is their business. Other countries, including Russia, continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, choosing partners and cooperating with them in areas that are of mutual interest and benefit. This applies to Iran as well. We have been partners with that country for decades. Our partnership is multi-tiered and relies on a solid foundation of trust, neighbourliness and concern for each other’s needs and views.

With regard to defence industry cooperation, Russia’s policy is entirely consistent with international law and is carried out in full compliance with Russian laws, which are among the toughest and, unlike in the United States, do not depend on political whims or attachments.



US charging six Russian nationals with hacking and UK’s Foreign Office statement on Russian security services’ attempts to undermine Tokyo Olympics by using cyberattacks

The coronavirus pandemic revealed even more the vulnerability of all countries, regardless of their political orientation and economic level, to global problems related to the use of digital instruments.

While the sensible part of the international community is working to promote constructive cooperation in issues of global information security and find ways to overcome the “cyber pandemic,” some states continue to make unsubstantiated accusations against Russia of committing illegal actions in the information space.

This is how we view US authorities’ charges of hacking against Russian citizens, as well as the October 19 statement published on the official website of the British Foreign Office on attempts by Russian security services to use cyberattacks so as to undermine the forthcoming Olympics in Tokyo. It will not surprise me if they come up with a theory proving that the Olympics were also rescheduled because of Russian hackers. Regretfully, we live in the world of an infodemic, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. Such fakes, unfortunately, are routine nowadays.

Our repeated proposals on holding an expert meeting to consider the backlog of grievances and controversies remain unanswered against the background of the West incessantly telling bogus stories about almighty “Russian hackers.”

Regretfully, instead of launching a pragmatic dialogue among cyber experts, the United States and its allies would rather have false and far-etched stories about Russia’s alleged interference, ratcheting up their grievances to the point of absurdity.

We would like to once again remind the masterminds of this campaign who whip up the narrative about “Russian hackers” that under the conditions of the coronavirus pandemic it is crucial to focus on the issues of international interaction in fighting the “cyber pandemic” rather than act in the opposite direction, deepening mistrust in the global cyberspace which, in turn, gives free rein to real hackers.



Military exercises held in Germany as part of NATO's “joint nuclear missions”

Media reports on NATO exercises in Germany in mid-October with a terrific title, Steadfast Noon, have come to our attention. Reportedly, these exercises involved the fine-tuning of skills for using nuclear weapons as part of the alliance’s “joint nuclear missions.” Fighter-bombers from a number of countries equipped to use American nuclear weapons that are deployed in Europe were involved in the exercises. Deployed US nuclear weapons will remain not only in Germany, but also in Belgium, Holland, Italy and Turkey. The Americans will upgrade their nuclear bombs, and European NATO members will upgrade the aircraft carrying these weapons.

Once again, we are compelled to point out that amidst the crisis in arms control, the unlimited buildup by certain states and their allies, as well as their alliances, of their military capabilities and, especially, the provocative training in carrying out nuclear missions harm international security, destabilise the international situation and could well lead to disastrous consequences.

By the way, the very NATO agencies that engage in countering a so-called Russian information threat could use their resources to tell the Europeans about these exercises in more detail, so that they understand what kind of exercises are taking place on their respective territories or their airspace. They could even show some pictures and infographics and also use computer graphics for the Europeans to get a better idea of what kind of strikes were being practiced on their territory, albeit in a test mode. Our NATO colleagues usually do this with regard to Russia, so this time they are welcome to do so with regard to themselves. Go ahead and show your people what kind of scenarios you are working on, because these are practical scenarios after all.

The US practice of exercises related to preparing and using nuclear weapons by the personnel of the armed forces of states that do not possess such weapons is an outright and flagrant violation of articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which significantly undermines its viability.

There can be only one solution to this problem, namely, to return all US nuclear weapons to US national territory, to eliminate the corresponding infrastructure which provides for rapid deployment of these weapons on the territories of other states, as well as a refusal to conduct exercises involving the preparation and use of nuclear weapons by personnel of the armed forces of the states that do not possess such weapons.



Statements by CDU Chairperson and German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on the upcoming presidential election in Moldova

We noted the October 12 publication in the official twitter account of the CDU party of a video address by its Chairperson and German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on the eve of the presidential election in Moldova on November 1. This member of the German Government unequivocally supported the nominee of the Action and Solidarity Party Maia Sandu in the election.

We consider these appeals from a high-ranking German official as a direct interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova. Her assertions of the link of the choice in favour of Ms Sandu with the country’s European future are beyond the pale and cannot be qualified as anything other than an attempt at the little-disguised blackmail of Moldovan voters. We consider such statements unacceptable because they contradict universally accepted international practice.



Update on Afghanistan

A growth in violence was recently recorded in Afghanistan against the backdrop of the complete stalemate on technical issues at the talks on national reconciliation. Hostilities continue in a substantial part of Afghan territory. Tensions have recently escalated in the south, in the Helmand Province. Active hostilities are waged around the administrative centre of the province, the city of Lashkargah. The military-political situation in other regions of Afghanistan remains complicated. Civilians are perishing and the number of refugees is growing.

We urge the confronting parties in Afghanistan to reduce the level of violence in the country and focus on the talks. We hope that delegations from official Kabul and the Taliban in Doha will soon reach a consensus on the disputed procedural issues and start discussing the key items on the national reconciliation agenda.



Attack on the Baghdad headquarters of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan

We are concerned about the October 17 attack on the Baghdad headquarters of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan. The building was subjected to a pogrom and set on fire.

We are convinced that the differences accumulated in Iraqi society cannot be resolved by force. They can only be settled by conducting a mutually respectful dialogue and achieving national reconciliation.

In this respect, we urge the political forces in Iraq to display restraint and search for solutions that meet the interests of all ethnic and religious groups in the country at the negotiating table.



Uzbekistan’s programme to upgrade the quality of teaching the Russian language and general education subjects in Russian

The first group of 31 Russian school guidance counselors arrived in Tashkent on October 6 under Russian-Uzbekistani agreements on measures to improve the quality of teaching the Russian language and instruction in general subjects in Russian in the Republic of Uzbekistan. The tasks include the initial monitoring of the level of Russian language competence among teachers and students in the republic’s regions with a view to determining the subsequent steps.

On October 11, the Ministry of Education of Russia, the Ministry of Public Education of Uzbekistan and the Art, Science and Sports non-profit charity foundation signed in Tashkent a memorandum on adopting a joint project and a basic step-by-step programme for its implementation. Under the plan, after the monitoring is completed and coordination centres are established in Uzbekistan, 100 Russian specialists will be sent to organise professional retraining courses and work in schools. The presence of Russian teachers is to gradually increase to 1,000 by 2030. Up to 30,000 local teachers will receive various forms of education.

The project will be funded from the federal budget of the Russian Federation with contributions from Uzbekistan, as well as sponsorship by noted Russian businessman and philanthropist Alisher Usmanov.

The opening of an affiliate of the Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University (St Petersburg) in Tashkent in 2020 is expected to be a major step in the development of bilateral cooperation. On October 8, the leaders of Uzbekistan made a decision to this effect. In addition to educating bachelor and masters degree holders, the affiliate will conduct professional upgrading courses for teachers.

We consider this project to be a real step towards consolidating humanitarian ties between the peoples of Russia and Uzbekistan.



The arrival of Russian teachers in Tajikistan

On October 15, 50 teachers from 18 regions of Russia arrived in Dushanbe to teach disciplines in Russian at local schools, the event being part of a project to send Russian teachers to the Republic of Tajikistan.

The aim of the initiative is to help the country’s students to improve their command of the Russian language. The plan has already been implemented successfully for four years now and has involved 173 teachers from Russia specialising in the Russian language and literature, physics, maths, chemistry, biology and IT. They taught at more than 20 schools in seven cities and six districts of Tajikistan. The project has been praised highly by Tajikistan’s leaders and received a positive public response.



The Forum Coupling of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative

..................................................................................................


Independence Day of St Vincent and the Grenadines

..................................................................................................







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Turkish Parliament Speaker Mustafa Sentop said in a statement he made in the Azerbaijani Parliament, Milli Majlis, that the OSCE’s Minsk Group is “brain dead” and that it has failed to come up with a sustainable solution to the conflict. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s opinion of this Turkish statement at a time when energetic efforts are being taken towards a ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh?



Maria Zakharova:

Many statements have been made about a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh. It would be impossible to comment on all of them. I believe we should look at it from a different angle: there is an official Moscow position on the matter. It has not changed, and all of you are well aware of it. It has also been reinforced by practical steps and actions.

As for the OSCE Minsk Group, we have announced today its latest move forward. This is better than commenting on any statements.



Question:

My question is about the counterterrorist operation. Chair of the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs Konstantin Kosachev has said that Armenia should submit an official request to Russia for holding a counterterrorist operation in Nagorno-Karabakh in light of the involvement of foreign terrorist fighters in the conflict, a potential terrorist threat and the necessity of holding a peacekeeping operation in Nagorno-Karabakh. What will Russia do, considering its huge experience of combating international terrorism?



Maria Zakharova:

It is not clear what you mean by your question. What exactly do you want me to comment? I don’t believe that we need to comment on Mr Kosachev’s statements. They are always carefully worded and do not need to be topped up. Maybe you will rephrase your question so that it is addressed to me personally?



Question:

I mean, what will you do if the transfer of terrorists creates a direct threat of the proliferation of terrorism?



Maria Zakharova:

I can say that our military experts and representatives of other concerned agencies are closely monitoring this issue. We are very concerned. We have said so publicly. I would like you to know that that we have been working very actively outside public view. It is a very serious problem indeed.



Question:

How would you assess the situation with militants from the Middle East fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh? Who is taking them there? What is the idea of Russia’s appeals to the countries that help them move around? What is Russian diplomacy counting on – that those who are bringing them in will also recall them?



Maria Zakharova:

Russian diplomacy counts on the tools that it has and uses in its work. This isn’t about any speculative hopes, or dreams. It’s about down-to-earth work, where public statements actually come second, while applied work and practical actions come first.

We maintain contact with our colleagues who are involved in the situation in the region. Once again, I would like to say that, with regard to militants being transferred to Nagorno-Karabakh, we are using foreign policy tools, diplomatic channels, and Russian military experts, specialists, and representatives of relevant agencies are also involved in this activity.

As you must realise, attracting excessive public attention to this work is the last thing we need. But the public must be confident that this issue is being handled. Let me emphasise once again that for us, it is not some speculative problem, but a very specific one. We are perfectly aware of the possible consequences and can predict them.

Why did we speak about this publicly? Among other things, to give these efforts a dimension and further underscore their importance for our country because we are well aware of the consequences this can lead to. But the public side of this matter is secondary. Specific work is primary, and it is being done.



Question:

Yesterday, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan said the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has no peaceful solution. At the same time, Russia is setting up bilateral and trilateral meetings to find a peaceful solution, which, as it appears, Armenia does not believe in. How could you comment on this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to reiterate that at this stage, many statements are being made, and we perfectly understand why. The situation is tense; the conflict is in an active phase, which unfortunately, involves bloodshed: people, service members and civilians are dying. Furthermore, you are perfectly familiar with Russia’s position. It has been repeatedly stated by the leaders of our country, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This position enjoys broad support in society – to end the bloodshed and immediately start the negotiation process. Our position has not changed, of course. You know that it is consistent.



Question:

Has the coronavirus pandemic influenced Iranian-Russian political and economic cooperation?



Maria Zakharova:

Despite the pandemic, bilateral ties continue to develop vigorously in all directions at the high and highest levels and also between the regions. This year, the presidents of both countries had four telephone conversations. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif three times in Moscow. In addition to this, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin had a telephone conversation with Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the new Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

Moscow and Tehran are expanding cooperation at international venues as well. They are working closely in the Astana format to facilitate Syrian settlement. On July 1, 2020, its online summit took place at the initiative of the Iranians. The heads of guarantor states are to meet face to face in Tehran after the sanitary and epidemiological situation is normalised.

Russian and Iranian leaders are constantly focusing on ways to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, including prospects for practical cooperation on Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The concerned agencies have launched professional dialogue on this.

We are noting positive trends in bilateral business ties and growth in trade even in the conditions brought about by the pandemic which is hitting the global economy hard. We plan to continue encouraging mutually beneficial partnership between our countries and to help realise the impressive potential that has accumulated here.



Question:

Can Iran and Russia cooperate in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Are the two countries working together on security in the South Caucasus?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran maintain longtime friendly and diverse ties and a relationship that has always been aimed at creating the required conditions for regional peace and stability. Both countries are vitally interested in neighbours living in peace and addressing mutual problems at the negotiating table and on the basis of international law and principles formalised by the UN Charter.

Since the resumption of hostilities, Russian and Iranian leaders have repeatedly discussed the conflict’s escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh at the high and highest levels. We are noting the parties’ coinciding positions on key aspects of resolving the situation, including the most important current aspect, namely, the lack of an alternative to a truce and the beginning of the negotiating process.

We know that Tehran supports and praises Russia’s daily efforts as a nation, as well as those within the OSCE’s Minsk Group.

We hope to continue the current exchange of opinions with our Iranian friends whose assessments and ideas remain in high demand; and we heed them attentively in our work.

We can see that the well-balanced position of the Islamic Republic of Iran is important for the parties to the conflict, and we are convinced that it will help them realise that continued hostility and bloodshed have no future and spell out nothing but bloodshed.



Question:

What is Russia’s position on the normalisation of relations between the UAE and Israel and the resumption of flights between them?



Maria Zakharova:

We would like to note that the documents on the normalisation of Israel’s relations with the UAE and Bahrain reaffirm their commitment to continued efforts towards a fair, comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. These intentions must now be complemented with practical action. This would certainly help improve the overall situation in the Middle East.

We believe that the Palestinian problem remains acute and that its settlement would help coordinate a unifying agenda based on the mutual respect of sovereign states and their non-interference in the internal affairs of each other. We have been consistently urging all Middle Eastern countries to develop their relations on this basis.

In the given context, we would like to express our grave concern over the Israeli government’s decision to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which was taken after the above mentioned agreements on normalisation were signed in Washington on September 15. We would like to point out that some of these new settlements provide for building additional sections of the security (separation) fence in East Jerusalem. This essentially amounts to the annexation of Palestinian territories in accordance with the “deal of the century” promoted by the US administration.

In this connection, we would like to reaffirm Russia’s principled approach in support of the two-state solution to the Palestinian problem based on the universally recognised norms of international law. We call for launching direct UN-led talks between Israel and Palestine to find a mutually acceptable solution to all issues of the permanent status and to attain a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict.



Question:

Some Afghan politicians believe that a civil war will start in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US troops. What is Russia’s position on this score?



Maria Zakharova:

We believe that the deployment of foreign troops in Afghanistan is not helping to stabilise the military and political situation in the country but rather serves as an additional irritant to the armed opposition as a party to the conflict. As you are likely aware, the Taliban views the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan as an occupation army.

In this connection, we believe that a full withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, complemented with agreements to be reached through an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue, is an essential condition for a lasting peace in the country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4401503
__________________
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 2nd, 2020 #199
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 during talks with Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan Ruslan Kazakbaev, Moscow, October 23, 2020



23 October 2020 - 12:41






Mr Kazakbaev,

Friends,

Welcome to Moscow.

This year the usual rhythm of our contacts at all levels has largely been adjusted by the coronavirus, and recently by developments in Kyrgyzstan as well. We watched them with concern and are pleased to note that the situation is calming down. We hope to continue constructive cooperation both bilaterally and within our integration associations in the spirit of continuity that has always been characteristic of our relations regardless of events in any country.





Today we will discuss our plans to further strengthen our alliance and strategic partnership in all areas.

We are glad to see you. Welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4402000






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with the Kommersant newspaper, published on October 22, 2020



23 October 2020 - 12:50







Question:

After the Russian Foreign Ministry statement on October 20, US high-level officials started talking about the parties being very close to a deal. Is that how you see the situation?



Sergey Ryabkov:

It goes without saying that we carefully followed all the signals from Washington at different levels concerning the extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and continuing our dialogue on arms control. It is a positive sign that our American colleagues are focusing on achieving progress and searching for solutions to the existing problems. At the same time, it appears to us that they are getting ahead of themselves and largely second-guessing what may be happening next. At this stage, it is not possible to say that we are on the verge of an agreement and that this agreement – or even a general political understanding of whether the New Start Treaty will be extended and what may be happening in this area in general – is within our grasp.



Question:

So there has been no breakthrough yet?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have to state that the degree of our differences is rather significant, including on some fundamental aspects. Therefore, I personally do not see reasons for strong optimism. The Foreign Ministry statement of October 20 speaks for itself. It registers our readiness to extend the New START Treaty for one year. At a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club on Thursday, President Vladimir Putin absolutely clearly and definitively spoke in favour of this decision. The Foreign Ministry statement also highlighted the possibility of freezing nuclear warheads – provided that there are no additional demands on behalf of the United States.



Question:

Do you mean additional verification demands regarding possible arsenal freeze agreements?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Specifically, the verification, but not only that. I would like to note that this subject has been discussed for quite a long time in the course of the contacts that interagency delegations of both countries have held behind closed doors during the past few months. We repeatedly explained to the Americans, and continue to do so today, including during the last few days, that verification is a derivative of an agreement itself. As long as we do not know its scope and parameters, we will not be able to say what kind of verification measures are possible at all and whether they are possible in principle in a number of cases. Verification issues are extremely complicated, and we just cannot put the cart before the horse.

It should also be noted that we have displayed flexibility on two occasions during the last few days or so: first at the start, when President Vladimir Putin declared that Russia was ready to extend the treaty by another year, and then on October 20 by agreeing to freeze [nuclear] charges.

Now it is America’s turn to meet us halfway, including – and we insist on this – by accepting our demand to reach this agreement without any additional linkages or make-weights, or any aggravating elements that might lead the whole thing to an impasse.

By buying time and extending the New START Treaty, we will get an opportunity (and President Putin has also declared this) to continue the discussion of the entire range of related matters. These include a number of points that, let us put it this way, are not quite Washington-friendly. Some issues from this category are simply abrasive for the United States. Among other things, I am referring to missile defence and a number of other matters.

During our contacts with the Americans, we, in fact, suggest following what preceded the signing of the New START Treaty. At first, the general framework should be outlined, identifying the range of matters that we will tackle in an inclusive manner. The Russian Foreign Ministry statement of October 20 points to this directly. In fact, it ends by pointing to the need to act precisely in this way. It also contains a reminder that we have got no reply to our official note of October 16. This is the right framework, as we see it. We communicated these proposals to the Americans in early October, but there is no coherent reply to them up till now. We are taking it easy because we understand that our arms control concept for the future is substantially different from its US counterpart. So, in this case it is simply necessary to get additional time in order to continue focused and concerted efforts on these matters. Nothing other than this will work in the current situation. Coming to an agreement the way the Americans suggest (that is, by accepting their demands regardless of what we will control in the future) is the wrong approach. It distorts the arms control methodology.



Question:

Are you planning contacts with the Americans any time soon? The State Department said on October 20 that they were ready to hold this meeting immediately.



Sergey Ryabkov:

If the United States confirms its readiness to accept our approach as it has been outlined in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement of October 20, then we will immediately redeploy to where it is convenient for the US and will work on giving shape to this understanding. In the opposite case, if they continue adding, as they do now, some or other priorities of their own to the list of issues, priorities that do not suit us, we see this kind of meeting as hardly expedient.



Question:

The American media write, quoting sources, that speaking of verification, the US authorities expect Russia to declare its tactical arsenal and install monitoring in places of nuclear weapons manufacturing. Do I understand it correctly that Russia is not ready for this now?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Things like perimeter control are part of some distant foggy past. They are from a completely different era. There is no reason to restore anything like that. I don’t see any reason to return to this topic in the foreseeable future, especially with the current level of relations between the two countries, which is quite close to freezing.

Even in the past, this kind of ideas sounded questionable. Nothing of the kind has been practiced in recent years and even decades. We see no reason to revive this discussion.

With regard to US non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, we have insisted and will continue to insist that, as a first step, the United States should withdraw the respective weapons from the territories of its European allies and remove the infrastructure that enables fast redeployment of these weapons in Europe. This, perhaps, will significantly expand the chances to work out a stronger European security agenda.

By the way, we remind the Americans that the post-INF Treaty agenda still needs to be handled. We have noted some alarming signals in this connection in recent days.



Question:

The head of the Pentagon, Mark Esper, has admitted that the United States would deploy intermediate or shorter-range nuclear weapons not only in Asia, but also in Europe.



Sergey Ryabkov:

Yes, the idea of deploying such systems in Europe, and not just in Asia, has begun to surface again. This complicates the overall picture. And of course, even irrespective of what will happen with the New START treaty, we will have to deal with it. This will take political will, and we are calling on our American colleagues to use it.



Question:

A number of American experts believe that Russia’s recent concessions to the United States on arms control are a pre-election gift to Donald Trump.



Sergey Ryabkov:

These statements are nothing but malicious and reality-distorting speculation. We are acting in accordance with the logic of our dialogue with our American colleagues, the way it is developing. The ideas we have recently proposed are simply a product of the natural development of that dialogue. But no matter how the election ends, things won’t be easier in any case.

We call on the US administration to properly assess the flexibility that we have shown and to abandon their unfeasible demands or any excessive expectations. In any case, in the future, we will increase Washington’s “fare for the ride” with regard to certain agreements.

We certainly imply that no current proposal we make would remain on the table indefinitely. Regardless of the course of any future negotiations and discussions, we can always take a fresh look at any part of our position and adjust it depending on our own interests. Right now, Washington has a unique opportunity to reach an agreement on the specific terms we have just offered. But this only and exclusively applies to the deal to extend New START and freeze nuclear warheads – without any attachments to it, without any additional appendages or demands on Russia.

Rejecting this condition will immediately destroy the possibility of reaching the agreement.

Let me emphasise that the New START extension per se is not that critical from our point of view. The Russian President has clearly and unambiguously explained to the world the reasons why we believe that our security can still be reliably ensured even if our colleagues in Washington decide against extending the New START Treaty.



Question:

You said yourself that Russian-US relations are down to zero and there is no trust. How can a freeze on warheads work in this situation unless it is verified? Someone in the US Congress will take the floor the very next day and say that Russia is violating the agreement.



Sergey Ryabkov:

We will hear the same thing anyway, even if we accept the most thorough, comprehensive verification process. We hear that every day as it is. The problem is not whether they want to achieve a specific, material result. This is about pursuing an anti-Russia course and finding opportunities to put pressure us.

Look at what is happening to Moscow’s proposals to come to terms on security in the area of information and communications technologies. Instead of a substantive reply, we hear nothing but abuse, unseemly conjecture coming from Washington, including from high-ranking officials. The same would happen with this.

So if we were to go that far we would still not get any actual result and would only face another stream of accusations.

But I would like to stress once again, the problem lies elsewhere. The problem is that a building cannot be built starting with the roof. First of all, you must lay the foundation and understand the design, how many floors, rooms and windows the building will have. Only then can you go on to covering the roof for weather protection.



Question:

Let’s go back to the issue of Russia declaring its tactical arsenal. The lack of transparency in this area allows the US to pass off its figures as the only true ones. The other day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Ambassador Marshall Billingslea declared that the New START Treaty covered 92 percent of the US strategic arsenal and only 44 percent of Russia’s, thus implying that the bulk of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is composed of tactical arms. Officially, Russia cannot say anything to counter this.



Sergey Ryabkov:

Why do you think so? I can give you any figure. Can’t you understand that it is the same thing as saying the outside temperature is 6 degrees, rather than 4 degrees? Someone will certainly find it interesting to check the figures, but others will take it at face value.

We are not interested in the figures they give. The New START Treaty, as it is, is what was signed: it is distinguished by absolute parity and balance. The Russian systems that are limited by the treaty were of interest to the United States at the time of signing. Now (I am not trying to speak for US experts), we are getting signals that they are not indifferent to what is happening with these systems.

As far as other systems are concerned, systems that they can discuss and show an interest in, the problem is (and Russia’s leader mentioned this at the Valdai Forum) that the United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the ABM Treaty.

We will continue to insist on the undeniable interconnection between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, no matter how it upsets the Americans, who do not want to hear it. This is our fundamental and pivotal understanding of what strategic stability is based on.

If some systems cannot be limited via arms control, this means that some compensatory measures will be adopted to achieve a balance at a different level. Of course, this is a difficult and costly alternative, but either way, we will not let anyone drag us into an arms race. This would be worse than arms control. Therefore, we should address all factors influencing strategic stability as a whole. The Foreign Ministry’s October 20 statement said this in a clear and easy-to-understand way.



Question:

What attracted my attention in this statement was the word “bilateral,” bilateral talks on the future of arms control. Earlier, you seemed to say that the next treaty should be multilateral.



Sergey Ryabkov:

We did not say that the next negotiating cycle should be multilateral. We said that we had come close to the line where further efforts in this sphere should be multilateral in nature. In this context, we were saying – and continue to say – that inviting other countries to join the negotiating process should be based on their sovereign choice. We have interests and priorities of our own in this area. We know how important it is for the United States to collaborate with the UK and France in this area; accordingly, the priority for us is to have these two countries join the process. As far as China’s accession is concerned, Vladimir Putin has covered this matter in detail at the Valdai Forum.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4402033






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s welcoming remarks to participants at the SCO Plus Forum, October 23, 2020



23 October 2020 - 13:07






Mr Medvedev,

Esteemed participants,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It makes me very happy to be greeting the high-ranking representatives of the leading political parties from countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the BRICS association and the Commonwealth of Independent States, as well as some other international organisations and interested states at the first SCO Plus inter-party forum.

Your forum is taking place amid the ongoing pandemic of the new coronavirus infection. This unprecedented challenge in modern history has aggravated global economic and political turbulence. The situation calls for adequate and well-coordinated steps. The protection of people’s lives and health and efforts to overcome the pandemic’s global consequences are coming to the fore. Collective efforts alone can make it possible to accomplish these tasks, on the basis of close cooperation and mutual trust.

This year, the international community is marking two interrelated anniversaries, the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII and the establishment of the United Nations Organisation. The Great Victory made it possible to create a stable system of international relations that has guaranteed humankind’s peaceful development for decades. We are convinced that today, like never before, it is necessary to jointly maintain and strengthen the central coordinating role of the UN and its Security Council.

Such formats as the SCO, BRICS and the CIS, doubtless, facilitate wide-ranging international dialogue. They have asserted themselves as effective platforms for cooperation based on equality, respect and consideration for one another’s interests and mutual benefits. SCO activities, along with the work of other influential associations in Eurasia, including the Eurasian Economic Union and ASEAN, help lay the foundation for the implementation of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework aiming to create a region of peace and prosperity that would be open for all countries of our common continent.

Colleagues,

The initiative of convening the representative SCO Plus Forum devoted to the topical theme Economy for the People is a timely and appropriate move. It will make it possible to analyse the diverse experience of practical cooperation, including the creation of a substantial contractual-legal framework in the interests of expanding broad and mutually beneficial cooperation between all our countries.

I wish you all every success with your work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4402099






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic Ruslan Kazakbayev, Moscow, October 23, 2020



23 October 2020 - 15:17






Ladies and gentlemen, we have held talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic Ruslan Kazakbayev. We appreciate the fact that, after resuming office that he held eight years ago, Mr Kazakbayev has chosen the Russian Federation as the venue of his first foreign visit. This further attests to the strategic nature of our bilateral relations.

Today’s meeting confirms the fact that our countries are allies and privileged strategic partners, and my colleague has made this clear. Our relations will continue to hinge on mutual trust, respect and consideration for each other’s interests.

Today, we have once again reaffirmed the fact that Russia closely followed developments in friendly Kyrgyzstan after the results of the October 4 parliamentary elections were announced.

Today, we have noted that, according to our estimates, the domestic political situation is being legitimised once again, and that the critical situation has been mostly overcome.

We were informed in detail about the timeframe of parliamentary and presidential elections, which is now being coordinated, as well as the constitutional reform. We hope that all these processes will be implemented based on domestic national accord and the Kyrgyz people’s harmony, so as to determine the direction of the Republic’s long-term development. Russia will continue to assist our Kyrgyz friends in their efforts.

Today, we have discussed all aspects of our bilateral cooperation. We have reaffirmed our readiness to help maintain political dialogue, to deepen and strengthen our bilateral trade and economic cooperation, and to expand inter-regional cooperation. The co-chairs of the intergovernmental commission for trade and economic cooperation between our countries are planning to meet before the month is out.

Of course, the pandemic has affected the schedule of international events. Among other things, we had to postpone many events during the Cross Year of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic. We reaffirmed the need to continue carrying out the programme of the Cross Year after health-related restrictions are lifted, and after the epidemiological situation returns to normal. Quite possibly, some events will be held in 2021.

Traditionally, we maintain high-level foreign policy cooperation. We believe that the plan of cooperation between the foreign ministries of Russia and Kyrgyzstan, valid until the end of next year, allows us to actively promote coordination and mutual support at multilateral venues.

We voice coinciding positions at the UN, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

Today, we have discussed in great detail specific issues due to be raised at the upcoming sessions of the above-mentioned multilateral organisations.

We spoke about the need to consolidate integration processes within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. We share a vision of the positive prospects for further unlocking the potential of Eurasian integration, so as to make the economies of this union’s member countries more competitive and to improve the well-being of our citizens.

We agreed to help expand the Eurasian Economic Union’s international ties.

We praised the meetings of ministers of foreign affairs in the regular Central Asia-Russia format. This format is quite useful for deepening multilateral cooperation, as confirmed by the Joint Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Central Asian Five and the Russian Federation, passed on October 15, 2020.

On the whole, the talks were quite constructive and timely. I hope that we will continue our cooperation, as the situation in Kyrgyzstan continues to stabilise. We will try and assist this process in every way.







Question:

Russia has suspended financial assistance to Kyrgyzstan in light of the latest events. The national situation has now been stabilised, and the state power system has been legitimised. When does Russia plan to resume financial assistance to Kyrgyzstan? I am referring to the $100 million from the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development.



Sergey Lavrov:

No one has cancelled the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development’s decision to allocate a $100 million soft loan to the Kyrgyz Republic. Of course, it is necessary to negotiate specific deadlines for implementing this decision with the Fund, and our Kyrgyz friends are quite aware of this.

Today, we have reaffirmed the agreements that were coordinated with the previous Government of Kyrgyzstan, including explanations that the main question involves determining the deadlines for providing the loan promised by the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development.



Question:

Does Russia plan to increase the number of regular flights between both countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we do, depending on the sanitary-epidemiological situation. The Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsya) and other specialised Russian agencies that monitor the spread of the coronavirus infection and are responsible for countering the pandemic continue to address this matter.



Question:

Are you studying the possibility of holding top-level and high-level meetings in the near future?



Sergey Lavrov:

As far as I understand, our Kyrgyz friends should first decide what processes should be completed, namely, the order of priority of elections and the constitutional reform. We have discussed this today. I hope that the situation will be clarified in the near future.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4404234






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the presentation of Sweden’s defence strategy



23 October 2020 - 17:32



We have noted Sweden’s proposed defence strategy, Total Defence 2021-2025 Bill submitted by Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist to parliament on October 15, which includes, in part, a 40 percent increase in the military budget.

Of course, determining a strategy to ensure national security is Sweden’s sovereign right. However, such a sharp increase in military spending, which is comparable, according to Swedish observers, with the Cold War era, cannot but cause concern. All the more so as the draft strategy includes an alarmist scenario of armed attack against Sweden, with Russia being mentioned over a hundred times, mainly as a potential source of threat to Sweden’s security.

These invented anti-Russia phobias are due in no small measure to deliberate external pressure on Stockholm, primarily from the North Atlantic alliance, which is responsible, according to our evaluations, for fomenting tensions and escalating military activities in northern Europe, which used to be one of the most stable areas in the world until recently.

We believe there are no disagreements or conflicts that could result in a military solution in the north of Europe. We are always ready for an open and respectful dialogue on the issues of enhancing security and stability with all of our northern European partners. We have repeatedly emphasised this in our contacts with Sweden as well.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4404923






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



23 October 2020 - 18:49







On October 23, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Egypt Sameh Shoukry.

The ministers had a detailed discussion of topical issues on the bilateral and international agendas.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4405065






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani



24 October 2020 - 13:07







On October 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani.

The officials exchanged opinions on topical Middle East matters and focused on what is happening in Libya and Syria. The parties reaffirmed their mutual striving to maintain regular dialogue between Moscow and Doha in the interests of a comprehensive political settlement of these and other regional conflicts.

The officials underscored the importance of continuing well-coordinated steps to pursue sustainable development of the entire range of Russia-Qatar bilateral relations based on prior agreements reached at the top level.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4405152






Press release on the SADC Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Day



25 October 2020 - 12:00



On October 25, the member countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are marking the day of struggle for the lifting of unilateral sanctions against Zimbabwe.

In 2002 ̶ 2003, the United States and the EU introduced a number of coercive measures, in circumvention of the UN Security Council, including those that blocked Zimbabwe’s access to loans from international financial institutions. These restrictions not only undermine the prestige and prerogatives of the main UN body, but also inflict direct damage on the population of that African state.

Against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic, the immoral nature of unilateral sanctions introduced by the Western powers and aimed at imposing their agenda on the Zimbabwean government, which consistently keeps within the constitutional field, is displayed in a particularly bold relief.

We express solidarity with the position held by the SADC countries, which are demanding an immediate lifting of the illegitimate restrictive measures against Zimbabwe, a full-fledged member of the international community. We intend to continue assisting the socioeconomic development of this state, as well as help overcome the pernicious consequences of the sanctions by building up mutually beneficial investment and scientific cooperation pursuant to the existing bilateral Russian-Zimbabwean top-level agreements.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4405269
__________________
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 3rd, 2020 #200
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 the Athens News Agency – Macedonian Press Agency (ANA-MPA), October 26, 2020



26 October 2020 - 09:00



Question:

It is four years since your previous visit, what is the significance of your trip to Athens this time? Do you think that the 200th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence celebrations is a reason for deepening Russian-Greek relations, and if so, in which spheres?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am delighted to have this opportunity to return to Greece again. My previous working visit to Athens in 2016 took place during the implementation of an unprecedented joint project, a cross-cultural year between Russia and Greece, the main event of which was a visit by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

Since then, themed cross-years have become a good tradition. We held a Bilateral Year of Tourism in 2017 ̶ 2018 and a Year of Language and Literature in 2019 ̶ 2020. It is symbolic that a Russia-Greece Year of History planned for 2021 will coincide with the celebrations dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the beginning of the Greek War of Independence.

The upcoming events will be fresh proof of the historical connection between the Russian and Greek people. It is gratifying that your people remember Russia’s role in the Greek struggle for independence and its development as a sovereign state, and that they honour the memory of the first head of state of independent Greece, the Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire Ioannis Kapodistrias. At the same time, the self-sacrificing struggle of the freedom-loving Greek people was praised by our outstanding poets Alexander Pushkin, Wilhelm Kyukhelbeker, Kondraty Ryleyev, Vasily Kapnist and Fyodor Glinka, to name just a few.

The novel coronavirus pandemic has become a huge challenge to our economies and bilateral trade and economic cooperation. From January to July 2020, our trade dwindled by 16.1 percent compared to the same period last year. We will have to work hard together to at least restore it to its pre-crisis level. I hope to discuss this subject during my talks with our Greek colleagues.

The people of our countries have helped each other many times, including this time again. We are grateful to our Greek friends for their help with dealing with the logistics so that Russian citizens could return back home. It was exemplary cooperation, not to mention the fact that the first repatriation flight from Greece was free for Russian citizens, for which we are especially grateful to you. Since March, over 700 Russian citizens have returned back to Russia by means of seven repatriation charter flights.



Question:

What is Russia’s position, given that it has declared in favour of the islands possessing an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf, on Turkey’s provocative steps and violations in the southeastern Mediterranean over the last year, from the signing of the Turkish-Libyan memorandum to the sending of Turkish research vessels and warships to an area within the Greek continental shelf? These actions have been denounced by the EU and the entire international community.



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has signed the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and its position is based on the international legal norms contained in this document. Specifically, its Article 3 says that every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles. But in a number of cases, countries, for some reason or another, establish a narrower territorial sea. In circumstances, where it is necessary to delimit the territorial sea between neighbouring states, the problem should be solved based on international law.

Russia is in favour of dealing with any disputes exclusively via political dialogue, including by devising confidence-building measures and looking for mutually acceptable solutions based on international legal norms.



Question:

What was the Russian public response to the Church of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul being transformed into a mosque? Is this an insult to the Christian and particularly Orthodox Christian world?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Church of Hagia Sophia is a UNESCO World Heritage site and common heritage of mankind. It is of exceptional cultural, historical and sacral importance for the Orthodox believers in this country and all over the world. It is no secret that the Russians, who visit Turkey every year, regard the Hagia Sophia as particularly important from a spiritual point of view. Many visit Istanbul only in order to relish the skill of masters and architects, and the beauty of the extant interior, mosaics and frescos.

We regularly communicate our position on this matter to our Turkish partners, including at the top and high levels. The Russian Orthodox Church has also made a number of statements regarding the status of this shrine.

We proceed from the assumption that Turkey, as we have been repeatedly assured, will be guided by the principles of mutual respect, will treat the Orthodox believers’ feelings with due attention, will live up to the commitments it has assumed in respect of observing all rules and conditions related to the facility’s status, and will ensure its complete safety and accessibility for tourists and pilgrims.

We deem the activities by the expert monitoring mission of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the International Council on Monuments and Sites of importance for assessing the state of this building. We hope that the mission will promptly submit its conclusions following an inspection that was held on from October 5 to 9, including expert findings on the quality of the Turkish restoration work, as well as comments on how unhindered access to the Hagia Sophia for members of all faiths is organised.



Question:

What is your assessment of Turkey’s involvement in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Syria and Libya?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia and Turkey are working to settle the conflicts in the hotbeds of tension you have mentioned. There is no hiding the fact that we can seriously diverge in our approaches to a number of contentious regional matters.

It is obvious that business-like, meaningful interaction between Russian and Turkish diplomats, military and special services taking into consideration each other’s interests helped normalise the situation in Syria. It is thanks to the agreements we reached in bilateral, as well as trilateral (with Iran) settings, that we have been able to create the Astana mechanism, which is the most effective settlement framework we currently have. The proactive interactions between our two countries brought about the cessation of hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic, the creation of de-escalation zones, as well as the establishment of a Constitutional Committee. Joint Russian-Turkish patrols operate in Syria’s problem-plagued regions like Idlib or to the east of the Euphrates, making a meaningful contribution to ensuring order and security. By working together to neutralise terrorist groups we can lay the groundwork for carrying the political process forward and enabling Syrian refugees to return home.

As we speak, Russian and Turkish experts are contributing to efforts to reconcile the conflicting parties in Libya. By combining our efforts we have been able to introduce a ceasefire, as well as to restart oil production, which is a key industry for the country’s economy. We continue working on bridging the gap in the negotiating positions of the warring parties with a view to launching political reform based on UN Security Council resolutions and the outcomes of the Berlin conference.

As for Nagorno-Karabakh, there are certain nuances regarding Russia’s and Turkey’s involvement. We have been vocal in our opposition to the idea that a military solution could provide a possible and acceptable option. There is no way we can subscribe to these aspirations, since we view both the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis as friendly and brotherly peoples. The presidents of Russia, the United States and France, as the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, made it abundantly clear in their statement that they would support only a political settlement. It is this troika of the co-chairs that is the universally recognised mediator facilitating efforts to settle this long-standing conflict.

On October 10, 2020, the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, with the participation of US and French representatives, held consultations for 11 hours and agreed on a Joint Statement that provided for a ceasefire and resuming meaningful talks. We are trying to persuade our Turkish partners that it would be advisable for them to use their influence to support progress along these lines. I have discussed the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu in a series of telephone conversations.

We call on all the external actors to do everything to prevent further military escalation, calm down and step up efforts to reset the peace process.



Question:

What does Turkey’s decision to reopen the Varosha seafront mean? Will this complicate the resolution of the Cyprus problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

The ones who took the decision to open the Varosha seafront should be the ones to comment on the purpose of this decision.

Of course, this step is a matter of serious concern for Russia. First of all, it runs counter to a number of UN Security Council resolutions: 414 (1977), 482 (1980), 550 (1984), 789 (1992) and 2483 (2019). Second, any unilateral actions undermine a constructive atmosphere and create additional challenges for resuming the negotiating process on the final settlement to this long-standing issue.

As you know, the UN Security Council held a special meeting on October 9 as part of Russia’s Presidency. Being a permanent member of this body, the Russian Federation reaffirms its commitment to the settlement parameters approved by the UN and is ready to facilitate their implementation. We hope that the parties return to the negotiating table to find mutually acceptable solutions once the electoral procedures in Northern Cyprus are completed and the sanitary and epidemiological situation on the island gets back to normal. We believe that this will help stabilise the situation, and promote peace and security in the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4405308






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Hellenic Republic Nikos Dendias, Athens, October 26, 2020



26 October 2020 - 17:26






Ladies and gentlemen,

We have had very productive talks. It is nice to return to Greece again. We are grateful to our Greek friends and hosts for their traditional hospitality towards our delegation.

Greece is among the most important European partners for Russia. We have maintained close historical and spiritual ties for centuries; they are an extremely valuable asset in our relations indeed, including at the current stage.

Next year we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence, which led to the establishment of a sovereign Greek state. Russia greatly contributed to this process. It is notable, as Nikos Dendias has said, that the first head of state of an independent Greece was the Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire Ioannis Kapodistrias.

Today we signed an important document, which will launch one more large-scale cultural and humanitarian project, a Russia-Greece Year of History, which, we hope, will be officially inaugurated early next year. The joint memorandum stipulates a full programme of events. I hope that this initiative will be interesting not only for historians and archaeologists, but also for the general public in our countries, especially the young people.

We agreed that our bilateral cooperation is ongoing despite the complex sanitary and epidemiological situation. We noted once again that we have provided assistance to each other during the pandemic. In particular, our Greek friends worked energetically to help hundreds of Russians – actually, over 700 – return home from Greece. Moreover, the first repatriation flight from Greece was free. We really appreciate this. Mutual support is a distinguishing feature of our relations in a variety of areas.

Regarding bilateral ties, we expressed hope that we would be able to overcome the decline in mutual trade due to the pandemic as soon as possible. The Joint Russian-Greek Commission for Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical Cooperation plays a considerable role in this. The co-chairs of this important intergovernmental agency have maintained contact via videoconference. We hope the commission will be able to hold a full in-person plenary meeting as soon as circumstances allow.

We have agreed to continue working to modernise and expand the legal framework of our relations. Our concerned agencies are working on documents in a number of vital spheres, including healthcare, communications, information technology and customs cooperation.

We have achieved mutual understanding on a wide range of regional and international matters, and have agreed to maintain contact in multilateral platforms, including the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and BSEC. We praised Greece for its performance during its Chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers over the past six months. We are satisfied with the priorities the Greek Chairmanship has been promoting over this period, and the fact that at the upcoming conference this November in Athens, which will probably take place via videoconference, the ministers will approve a number of important documents, including on promoting youth ties among our countries, education and culture.

We exchanged views on developments in the eastern Mediterranean, reaffirming our commitment to resolving all the disputes that may arise in any sphere through dialogue rooted in international law.

We also talked about Syria and Libya. We shared some information on how we are working with other external actors to promote a settlement, including Russia’s cooperation with Turkey and Iran as part of the Astana Format for the Syrian settlement. We also discussed measures that are being taken to fulfil the agreements between Russia and Turkey on the Idlib de-escalation zone, primarily regarding eliminating what remains of the militants from Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham.

On Libya we noted the good news from Geneva, where delegations from Tripoli and Benghazi held talks under UN auspices. We hope that the declared truce will be immediately followed by concrete steps to create the relevant mechanisms, while processes related to achieving a political settlement will not be left in cold storage.

We discussed Russia’s role as the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair in promoting a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh, starting with an immediate ceasefire.

We also talked about the other steps we are taking in other areas in the post-Soviet geopolitical space. Of course, we are interested in overcoming and settling all the problems that exist there.

We are satisfied with the outcome of the talks. I invited the minister to visit the Russian Federation again. He promised to choose a city at his discretion. We are ready to accommodate these requests.

Thank you.







Question:

We see how rapidly the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is developing. You just mentioned this. Does Russia have a plan or initiative to help reduce the tensions in this area?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the Eastern Mediterranean, I can confirm what I have said. Problems have been accumulating there for years, especially in the south of the Mediterranean. New problems have emerged and they are well known. We are convinced they must be resolved on the foundation of international law.

As for whether we have an initiative, I think this is a general appeal to fully comply with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international legal documents. This is key to alleviating tensions a bit, and transferring the problem to the negotiating table.

The coastal states must be the first to show an initiative. If someone asks us to mediate, using our relations with this or that country, we will certainly be willing to consider this opportunity.



Question (retranslated from Greek):

Greece is currently engaged in active talks on expanding its territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles. What is your position on this issue?

Obviously, Turkey has entered a new stage in its policy. What do you think about the attitude of the international community to this policy?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for a decision to extend its territorial waters, you said yourself that this is the intention of the Greek government. For this reason, the Russian Federation cannot take any position on this issue, except for the one envisaged by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Under this convention, each participant has the right to establish territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles, naturally considering elementary common sense and geographical features. If the plans of two or more participants in the convention clash, a solution can only be reached at the negotiating table with due respect for each other’s interests as the convention requires.

As for Turkey, we have good relations with it, but they are not without some problems. Our approaches to various issues do not always coincide, but when we find common ground (we are conducting good talks on Libya), we pool our efforts for the good of the cause and facilitate the creation of conditions required for settling crises. We will continue this kind of cooperation with Turkey.

Any problems that emerge between countries must be resolved through dialogue no matter how difficult the situation may be, including that between Turkey and Greece. We would like these problems to be discussed and resolved via direct dialogue.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4406104






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabi Ashkenazi



26 October 2020 - 18:10







On October 26, during a working visit to Greece, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a bilateral meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel Gabi Ashkenazi.

Sergey Lavrov and Gabi Ashkenazi discussed a number of current issues on the bilateral agenda, including cooperation in the fight against the spread of the novel coronavirus infection. They reaffirmed mutual interest in continuing an intensive political dialogue.

The sides exchanged views on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, focusing on the status of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and the prospects for advancing a peace settlement in the Middle East, as well as on developments in Syria.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4406207






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the US State Department's report on international cybersecurity



26 October 2020 - 18:53



The report, International Security in Cyberspace - New Models for Reducing Risk, released by the US State Department on October 20 has come to our attention.

With regard to cyberspace, this document added little to the unfounded accusations against Russia that we constantly hear from across the ocean. It reiterates the unsubstantiated accusations of Russia’s “irresponsible” behaviour in cyberspace. This matter continues to hold the central theme in internal political confrontation for “pumping up” domestic audiences as part of the election campaign.

However, this time our US colleagues have outdone themselves in anti-Russia rhetoric with extremely harsh statements occasionally bordering on bizarre rudeness. Such an approach will not benefit the State Department and is indicative of the fact that they treat the culture and norms of state-to-state communication with disdain.

In reality, Russia’s approaches to the use of information and communication technology have nothing to do with the way they are portrayed in Washington. Once again, we would like to remind everyone of President Vladimir Putin’s statement of September 25, which contains proposals for the United States to start a constructive professional dialogue on the entire range of issues related to international cybersecurity. We suggest that all sensible forces in the United States and other countries use this document as a guideline.

The fact that the report promotes lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is of particular concern. This is not the first time we have heard Washington say this. When US nuclear doctrine was revised and released in 2018, there were media leaks that the administration allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to hostile actions in cyberspace. Even then we expressed concern about these adjustments to the US’s approaches in the military nuclear sphere.

This is the latest confirmation that our fears were not groundless. The State Department’s report explicitly states that this scenario is realistic. So, there is a new and major reason to ponder the outcome of the irresponsible transformation of the US position.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4406263






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Athens, October 26, 2020



26 October 2020 - 19:50






Esteemed Mr Prime Minister,

Thank you for this opportunity to meet during our visit to Greece. We very much value Russian-Greek relations, which are rooted in the distant past and the historical and spiritual affinity between our people. We enthusiastically support your celebrations, next year, of the bicentenary of the beginning of your struggle for independence.

Today, Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias and I signed a joint memorandum that confirmed your agreement with President of Russia Vladimir Putin to hold a Russia-Greece Cross Year of History in 2021. The two countries have an impressive plan of events, which, I am sure, will be of interest not only for historians and archaeologists but also for our people in general.

Today, we discussed in detail the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and this very important geopolitical region as a whole. We agree on the need to reduce tensions and move on to settling the numerous problems through talks between the directly interested parties as soon as possible. This also applies to the issues regulated by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, including those where the neighbouring states’ rights interfere which requires, under this convention, a negotiated settlement through direct dialogue.





Russia is located in the near vicinity of the Eastern Mediterranean. We have sustainable and positive ties with these countries and will be ready to do all we can to facilitate normalisation there if our regional partners have the will and interest in this.

I fully agree with you that attempts to play the religious card in a geopolitical game are very dangerous. For many years, we have promoted the initiative within the OSCE to recognise not only anti-Semitism, but also Christianophobia and Islamophobia as utterly dangerous. We have absolutely identical positions with Greece on this issue. We will promote this in the Council of Europe as well. Greece now chairs the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. We are pleased to see that Greece is promoting common European values, including education, culture and support for youth organisations.

Today’s talks have confirmed once again that Greece’s membership in the EU and NATO does not impede the development of relations with the Russian Federation in any way. It would be helpful if the EU and NATO did not prevent us from developing ties with Greece, as well.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4406354






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin’s remarks on behalf of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during an open debate in the UN Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question



26 October 2020 - 22:37



Russia convened today’s meeting as the Security Council President, in view of the importance to the international community of devising consolidated approaches to settling regional crises.

The long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the epicentre of the upheavals in the Middle East. This problem has remained a source of international and regional discord for more than seven decades while providing an ideological rationale for terrorist and extremist groups around the world.

Absent a settlement, the conflict has brought unspeakable suffering to the people of Palestine and Israel, to the Arab states and the numerous Palestinian diasporas located there, including people living in Palestinian camps.

This state of affairs resulted from attempts to reverse the situation single-handedly, without collective or coordinated efforts, reaching a point where unilateral initiatives have not only ignored, but have undermined the international legal framework for the Israeli-Palestinian settlement as approved by the UN and set forth in Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. This has led to a new impasse that threatens to undermine regional stability.

While maintaining constructive, partnership ties with all the countries in the region, Russia views the improvement of Arab-Israeli relations to be a positive development. At the end of the day, achieving a comprehensive and just settlement in the Middle East has always been and remains an integral part of Russia’s policy in the region.

At the same time, as the Arab states and Israel normalise their relations, the Palestinian question should not be sidelined. This problem will not go away. We hold the time-tested view that all-round stability in the Middle East is by definition unattainable without a lasting solution to the Palestinian issue. The leadership of all Arab states shares this view.

We must focus, without delay, on facilitating the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It is important that the political process be rooted in international resolutions and the existing agreements and understandings between the parties.

The purpose of today’s meeting, as we see it, consists of reaffirming the international legal framework of the Israeli-Palestinian settlement, primarily the two-state solution with a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security. We should not forget others aspects of a final status, issues like refugees, water resources, and the status of the holy sites of the three world religions in Jerusalem. We also take into consideration the fact that the Arab countries remain committed to their well-known initiative.

Still, the parties themselves should strictly abide by the obligations they assumed to renounce unilateral steps in anticipation of a final status: cease settlement activity and the demolition of Palestinian buildings, and eliminate from the agenda any plans for annexation altogether, stop the violence and work together to fight terrorism.

Of course, much will depend on the progress and outcome of the intra-Palestinian dialogue. Russia and its Egyptian partners are helping the Palestinian organisations unite on the Palestinian Liberation Organisation platform. This is a crucial condition for the attainment of the Palestinians’ national aspirations based on the UN-approved proposals of the Middle East Quartet of intermediaries.

We believe that the Quartet should act with more urgency. This is a unique mechanism for mediation that was approved in UN Security Council resolutions. It can and must play the role assigned to it in developing direct Palestinian-Israeli talks.

Russia has proposed that the first stage of these talks begin without any preconditions, so the sides can come to an agreement through a bilateral dialogue without external pressure. History shows that a lasting settlement of any conflict is only possible when the protagonists hold talks on a mutually acceptable platform. For our part, we will continue working towards this objective with all the interested regional parties, at the UN Security Council and within the framework of the Middle East Quartet of international intermediaries. We are resolved to work closely with our colleagues in this format: the UN, the United States and the EU. We would welcome regional parties to join in these efforts as well.

We noted that in his September address to the General Assembly, President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas reaffirmed his openness to Quartet-led talks with Israel. Another instrument of this kind is the Moscow conference on the Middle East; international consensus regarding this has been sealed in UN Security Council Resolution 1850 and in decisions of the Quartet. The Russian initiative on holding a Palestinian-Israeli summit meeting in Moscow remains relevant as well.

Immediate attention should be given to the socioeconomic developments in the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as to the grave humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which has been further complicated by the coronavirus pandemic. In this context, we call on the international community to make use of its donor potential to help people in the Gaza Strip. The key role in this sphere belongs to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). We urge the donor countries to support its activities.

In October 2021, we will mark the 30th anniversary of the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference. It worked out a concept for the Middle East settlement, which must be comprehensive, cover all negotiation tracks and take into account decisions and principles based on international law. We believe that the relevance of the Madrid legacy remains current.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4406453






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Croatian newspaper Vecernji List, published on October 27, 2020



27 October 2020 - 00:00



Question:

In your opinion, what caused the stagnation in Russia-Croatia relations? What are the current obstacles in the way of stepping up cooperation and expanding it to the level of our neighbours, Slovenia and Serbia? How can these complications be removed?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would not go as far as describe our bilateral relations as being stagnant. Russia and Croatia maintain regular and advanced political dialogue. In 2017 and 2018, President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic visited Russia at Vladimir Putin’s invitation. These were very useful, productive meetings. We maintain close contacts at the foreign ministry level. I have had a number of telephone conversations with my colleague Gordan Grlic Radman this year alone.

There is also forward momentum in our practical cooperation. Last year, the Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation held a meeting in Moscow. We planned to hold this year’s gathering in Croatia, but the pandemic has changed our plans. It will take place after the epidemiological situation stabilises. Of course, Croatian companies continue working in Russia, and the same is true for Russian companies in Croatia. In 2019, trade between our countries exceeded 1.5 billion dollars. Croatia remains a very popular tourist destination for Russians.

The sanctions spiral inspired by Brussels and a number of Russophobic EU countries at the direct orders from Washington remain a serious obstacle for further strengthening Russia-Croatia ties. But this is a different matter. They have been stepping up this anti-Russia policy lately. I hope that our European colleagues will have the wisdom, vision and simply common sense, so that our dialogue with the European Union and its member states is fully restored based on the principles of neighbourly relations, good faith, predictability and openness.



Question:

What does Russia think about the LNG terminal on Krk Island? The United States insisted on building it for many years. Croatia’s PPD bought 2 bcm of natural gas from Gazprom last year, and there has been much talk about Croatia’s excessive dependence on Russian gas.



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia respects the right of any country to follow its own energy policy and choose the best energy supply sources. We have nothing against competition. That said, this should be fair competition based on market principles instead of Cold-War-era political slogans.

The project to build an LNG terminal on Krk Island is Croatia’s internal affair. If our Croatian colleagues believe that liquefied gas would be better for their economy compared to cheaper pipeline gas, so be it. Everyone has the right to decide what is profitable and what is not.

Our country has been a reliable and honest energy supplier for many decades now, and officials in Zagreb are perfectly aware of this. They also know that there is no political rationale behind these gas contracts. This is nothing but business. Of course, we heard allegations that Croatia and other European countries depend on Russian gas, but we have seen nothing but attempts to sow groundless doubt. We do not impose anything on anyone, and we responsibly perform all the contracts we have.



Question:

Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic has been deeply involved in Ukrainian matters ever since his work in the European Parliament and has promoted the Croatian experience of the Danube region’s peaceful reintegration as a model for the reintegration of Donbass into Ukraine. How would you comment on this initiative, and did it have a negative impact on relations between Russia and Croatia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Concerning the situation in eastern Ukraine, it already has an uncontested basis for a peaceful settlement, the Minsk Package of Measures agreed upon in February 2015. This document was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202, which made it a part of international law. Now all that is left to do is fully implement what the parties agreed on more than five years ago following hours of a diplomatic marathon. We can see no need for any additional external initiatives.



Question:

Where do you believe Russia and Croatia have common interest regarding international affairs? In South-Eastern Europe, for example, in B&H? On what matters can we cooperate?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would say our interests coincide in general. I am confident that both Russia and Croatia are interested in strengthening international peace, security and stability, in ensuring sustainable development, and in political and diplomatic solutions to numerous crises and conflicts.

South-Eastern Europe remains a natural, historical environment for Russian-Croatian interaction, a region where our joint efforts should support processes that imply deeper mutual understanding between regional participants, building a genuine national reconciliation system based on common sense and effective international agreements.

You mentioned Bosnia and Herzegovina. One of the topics for discussion with our Bosnian partners is the Dayton Agreement, which will see its twenty-fifth anniversary on December 14. We are confident that the Dayton accords retain their relevance; it formalised the fundamental principles of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of B&H, equality of the three state-forming peoples and two entities with broad constitutional powers that are crucial for maintaining peace, stability and security, and promoting development.

I think our approaches are consonant with Croatia’s position. That country has signed the Agreement, it bears its share of responsibility for its implementation and I do not think many others are as interested in its fundamental postulates being implemented. Russia is ready to provide all kinds of support when it comes to this.



Question:

Russia is being frequently accused of interfering in elections, in particular in the US, of masterminding cyberattacks (even last year’s Croatian Security and Intelligence Agency report mentioned those attacks), of using false news and misinformation, of poisoning its political opponents, Alexey Navalny being the most recent case, and of destabilising the Middle East and the Balkans. What is the reason for this? How do you respond to such accusations and how do you intend to rectify what is going on?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unfortunately, we have to admit that recently, Washington and a number of EU capitals have redoubled their efforts to contain Russia's development; they are trying to punish us for an independent foreign policy, for consistently upholding our national interests. To justify their actions, the introduction of ever new anti-Russia sanctions, they throw in various accusations and insinuations, including those you just mentioned. At the same time, no one has shown any facts or evidence. This rhetoric is always being kept at the ‘highly likely’ innuendo level; those claims are based on fabricated accusations and run contrary to even elementary logic. All the proposals we make to set up a professional dialogue on any concerns remain without any reaction. So we have no other choice but to conclude we cannot count on a mutually respectful consideration of the emerging problems, because the West has made it a rule to talk with Russia based on the presumption of its guilt. Consider Berlin's arrogant refusal to respond to numerous requests from our Prosecutor General's Office on the so-called Navalny case, a direct violation of Germany's obligations under the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Instead of respecting this international legal document, representatives of Germany and France initiated another batch of illegitimate EU sanctions against Russian citizens. All this deplorably and clearly illustrates the inability of the European Union to adequately assess what is happening in the world, and its tendency to put itself beyond the law.

We never avoid responding proportionately to the anti-Russia attacks by our Western colleagues who seem to have forgotten what diplomacy is and have sunk to the level of vulgar rudeness. Our retaliatory steps in the US and EU are well known.

At the same time, we continue to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, to build up interaction with those who are open to honest joint work on the principles of equality, mutual respect and a balance of interests. The overwhelming majority of such international partners we have are in Eurasia, Africa and Latin America. Among them are our friends and allies in the EAEU, CSTO, CIS, BRICS and SCO.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4406498






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the resolution adopted by the German Bundestag on October 9, 2020 ‘Strengthening the memory of the victims in the German war of extermination and recognising the victims of National Socialism that have been previously neglected’



27 October 2020 - 17:19



On October 9, 2020, the German Bundestag adopted the resolution, “Strengthening the memory of the victims in the German war of extermination and recognising the victims of National Socialism that have so far been neglected or omitted,” drafted by the ruling coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD. This document contains a decision by the German parliament to establish a new history and remembrance centre devoted to the Nazi crimes against humanity during World War II. The German Government has been tasked with preparing a concept and plan for carrying out this project.

Being one of the 15 republics of the former USSR, and as a successor state to the Soviet Union, a country that lost almost 27 million people to Nazi German aggression, Russia invariably welcomes any effort to preserve the historical memory of the inhuman atrocities perpetrated during the total war of extermination unleashed by Adolf Hitler for the sake of wining “expansion space” for the Germans in the east and cleansing this space from Slavic peoples, who were referred to as “subhuman.” According to the Russian Federal State Statistics Service, during the Great Patriotic War, the population of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic alone declined from 111 million to 97.6 million people. At the beginning of 1941, there were over 14 million children under 4 years old in RSFSR, but in early 1946 this figure stood at 6.8 million. Almost a million people died during the horrible siege of Leningrad, mostly from hunger caused by the encirclement of our northern capital by the German Wehrmacht. The memory of the unprecedented crimes perpetrated by Nazi Germany has to be preserved and passed on to future generations. We appreciate the steps taken in this direction by officials in Berlin. We will eagerly follow the project to create a history and remembrance centre. Russia is ready to share historical content and research for exhibitions and events.

In this regard, we have carefully read the resolution adopted by the Bundestag and would like to point out a number of important provisions. The resolution states that the centre will focus on the Polish, Ukrainian and Belarusian “cultures of memory” on World War II. It doesn’t say a word about the Russian “culture of memory.” In the context of the thematic goals of the centre this approach (as you are aware, this is about the “total war” lead by Nazi Germany on the Eastern front) is more than a little surprising from the point of view of historical science, especially if we take into account the fact that the people behind the document recognise the irrefutable fact that millions of Soviet citizens were killed, maimed and deported and that thousands of towns and villages were destroyed during the war on the territory of today’s Russia, as well as Ukraine and Belarus. Obviously, the reasons for such selectivity may in this case be purely political.

The “Ukrainian culture of memory” on WWII highlighted in the resolution begs the question: what exactly does this mean? Does the future German historical and memorial centre plan to represent the Ukrainian ultranationalists’ “culture of memory” promoted by Kiev today, which glorifies SS division Galicia and leaders of the Nazi henchmen Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych? Or, will the centre, contrary to the Ukrainian state policy of glorifying Nazi criminals, present the history of the Great Patriotic War as seen by residents of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, Mariupol, Dnepr, Zaporozhye and thousands of other Ukrainian towns and villages who share our vision?

One way or another, the Bundestag’s initiative touches on a sensitive matter, which, if handled without the proper tact, could deal a major blow to the still unfinished process of post-war reconciliation of the peoples of Europe. We hope that the German government understands this. This future centre must not become a platform for rivalry between national interpretations of the history of the war, some of which might be more preferable to Berlin for fleeting reasons. This will inevitably open up the deep historical wounds in the European nations that suffered greatly from Nazism.

We cannot help but express our deep regret and indignation at the fact that the resolution portrays the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression pact as a factor that “played a major part” in starting WWII. This deliberately exaggerated and false thesis is fully consistent with the European Parliament’s controversial resolution of September 19, 2019 titled “Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe.” Historical insinuations and manipulations on this matter that are aimed at equating the Soviet Union with the Third Reich when it comes to unleashing the war in the eyes of the Western public, are not new and are particularly cynical in this year of the 75th anniversary of Victory and liberation of Europe from Nazism.

In deliberately casting a veil on the reasons and conditions that forced Moscow to conclude this agreement in order to postpone the inevitable clash with Hitler’s Wehrmacht (the Munich Agreement, non-aggression pacts between Germany and England and Germany and France, the Anschluss of Austria, the appeasement of Nazi Germany, foreign policy “maneuvering” of the pre-war Polish government and much more), certain political forces in Germany would clearly not mind making our country at least partially responsible for the heavy historical burden on Germany as the sole instigator of the bloodiest conflict in human history. Their motives and actions are quite clear. We hope that this future historical and memorial centre will not be used for these purposes.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4409295
__________________
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 3rd, 2020 at 04:27 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.
Page generated in 7.29408 seconds.