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

Old August 6th, 2020 #141
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, July 2, 2020



4 July 2020 - 18:32







Mr Chairperson,

The Annual Security Review Conference held on June 23-25 clearly showed that a number of the OSCE member states continue to consider the Minsk agreements to resolve the Ukraine crisis separately from their letter and spirit. Some consciously choose not to read these documents thoughtfully and attentively, forgetting that concrete steps to fulfill the obligations must be taken by the parties to the intra-Ukrainian conflict, namely, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. In a number of cases, instead of a realistic view of things, we were hearing, time and again, the propaganda cliches about “aggression” and “occupation” that have nothing to do with reality. None of the documents adopted as part of the settlement process uses these terms.

It is also symptomatic that in their remarks the representatives of Ukraine continue to ignore the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015 which was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202, a document recognised as the only international legal basis for resolving the conflict in the east of the country. However, this fits Kiev’s tactics of recent months, where it pretends to be involved in implementing the Minsk agreements, and sometimes even openly sabotages them.

Under the guise of the red lines which materialised out of the blue, Kiev blocks any and all progress on the key provisions of the Package of Measures which underlie the political settlement, such as substantive direct consultations with individual districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions regarding all the political and legal aspects of the special status of these regions, the constitutional reform reflecting the specifics of Donbass self-government in the country’s fundamental document, amnesty, coordination of the modalities for holding local elections and concurrent advancement on the political and security tracks. Instead, Kiev chose to conduct a political dialogue exclusively among its delegation members, passing off its results as decisions agreed upon with the Donetsk and Lugansk representatives, and is not hiding its plans to establish military control over certain regions of Donbass without taking any real steps in the sphere of a political settlement. Instead of an amnesty, it proposes mopping up the region in order to remove dissent based on some “special judiciary model” (another new concept recently proposed by Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration and deputy head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Contact Group Alexei Reznikov).

All this does nothing to create a favourable background for progress towards a settlement. Due to the already mentioned factors, the discussions during the online conference held by the Contact Group on June 25 failed to bring any concrete results. The documents about the special status and amnesty that Kiev submitted for its consideration without regard for the opinion of the people in Donbass immediately led to questions which, we believe, will require to be carefully studied by the Donetsk and Lugansk representatives. Only slight chances of progress in mine clearance are causing cautious optimism.

The remarks made by new Kiev representatives at the Minsk talks are not conducive to an effective dialogue with Donbass. Recent remarks by representative of the humanitarian subgroup and head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Social Policy Galina Tretyakova are yet another example of the lack of a constructive approach. She expressed a personal belief that low-income families give birth to “poor-quality babies” and suggested considering sterilisation. This sounds more than strange amid targeted economic discrimination and oppression of Donbass residents by the Ukrainian authorities for several years now through a socioeconomic blockade of the region and refusal to pay social benefits to those who are unable to cross the dangerous section of the contact line in order to regularly validate their entitlement to benefits.

The situation on the line of contact itself remains difficult. Due to Kiev’s unpreparedness for the constructive work with the militias in order to respond to the common threats caused by the spread of coronavirus, the criteria and procedures for crossing checkpoints during the epidemic have not yet been agreed upon. This gives rise to critical situations. For example, during the early morning hours of June 27, dozens of people were stuck in the “grey zone” near Yelenovka checkpoint.

We are very concerned about the damage caused to the property of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (SMM), including its equipment. On June 30, an SMM video camera was fired at in the vicinity of the Oktyabrskaya mine, the Donetsk region. Earlier, on June 2 and 22, video cameras in Petrovskoye and Shirokino were damaged. We urge the mission to continue to monitor the situation there and to establish the circumstances of the incidents involving its equipment, including the caliber and the type of weapons that were used in the attack. Mission reports indicate an increase in the Ukrainian army’s military activity in the immediate vicinity of these video cameras (for example, camouflaged deployment of armoured vehicles in Bogdanovka or three new trenches built in Shirokino - reports dated June 6 and 24, respectively). Notably, just yesterday, fighters from the 24th separate mechanised brigade of the Ukrainian army posted a video clip of them shooting at an overhead electricity cable transmission pole from the anti-tank guided missile system in the village of Novoluganskoye, the Lugansk region, which allegedly was used to hold a militia video cameral [1]. The fire was adjusted from a drone. The fact that they destroyed a critical infrastructure facility did not bother them at all.

The SMM is putting on record more civilian casualties and destruction as a result of shelling in Donbass. A local resident was killed in Donetsk-based Aleksandrovka on June 22. Reportedly, over ten towns in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions were shelled last week. We expect the mission to be able to verify these messages and to include the data on the consequences of the shelling in its reports.

Given the just mentioned, the United States, Canada, Great Britain and a number of EU countries continue to train, supply weapons to and, in fact, incite the Ukrainian army to continued violence against Donbass residents. The Canadian Defence Ministry has already announced its plans to send 90 military instructors from the Fourth Canadian division deployed at a military base in Petawawa, Ontario, to the Lvov region. Plans are in place to send 50 more troops with the same mission. The Operation Orbital British military instructor programme has been extended for three more years. According to the US Embassy in Ukraine, on June 16, the US government sent more military cargo worth $60 million, including radios, ammunition and warheads to missile systems, to the Ukrainian army. The Pentagon’s proposed draft budget for 2021 provides for allocating another $250 million to Ukraine half of which, as expected, will be used to supply arms. In June, Washington announced its far-reaching plans to supply arms and military equipment, including naval equipment, for a total amount of about $600 million. In addition to this, the United States continues to build a naval command post in Ochakovo, Nikolayev Region.

The militarisation of Ukraine is not conducive to a reduction of military tension and also supports the party of war in Kiev with its bellicose plans about Donbass. Even more so, it does not in any way help overcome the deep sociopolitical crisis that swept the country after the February 2014 coup. Both at the state level and in everyday life, those who disagree with the ideas of “Ukrainian national and linguistic exceptionalism” continue to be discriminated. Associations of aggressive nationalists have a strong presence. For example, after a recent march by the supporters of an opposition political party in Kiev, radicals from the National Corps announced nationwide "intimidation actions" against its activists. One of the participants in the Kiev march was nearly beaten to death in Kharkov, and another one was badly injured in Vinnitsa.

Journalists are increasingly being targeted for their professional activities. According to the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights Lyudmila Denisova, about 100 cases of violations of freedom of speech have been recorded in the first half of 2020, at least 66 of which involved physical violence against the reporters. The data of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine clearly show the scope of the problem with over 400 criminal cases involving crimes against the reporters currently being investigated. Only 10 have been indicted. As before, many high-profile crimes against media workers committed since the bloody Maidan still remain unsolved.

It is not surprising that the Ukrainians’ trust in the authorities continues to decline. According to recent opinion polls by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, about half of Ukrainians - 45 percent - do not approve of the authorities. According to the Social Monitoring Centre, about 70 percent believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Once again, we note that the Ukraine crisis is the result of a February 2014 coup which was orchestrated, financed and organised from abroad, and which led to the armed confrontation in Donbass and great suffering s of millions of civilians in Ukraine.

We urge our international partners, the OSCE and external curators of Ukraine to maximise their influence on the Ukrainian leadership in order to encourage it to act in the interests of peace and civil harmony, to speedily implement the provisions of the Package of Measures in their entirety and interconnection based on a direct and sustainable dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.

Interestingly, the UN Security Council called on July 1 for a ceasefire in all conflicts around the world amid the coronavirus pandemic having unanimously adopted a resolution in support of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s call. We expect the OSCE - as a regional agreement under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter - to promptly respond to this step and have the Contact Group quickly agree on a ceasefire in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4207219






Joint statement by the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation, group of States Parties to the Treaty on Open Skies, regarding the US decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies



6 July 2020 - 12:00



Today, in connection with the conference to assess the consequences of the US withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies held in Vienna on July 6, the delegations of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation circulated the following joint statement among the conference participants



Joint statement by the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation, group of States Parties to the Treaty on Open Skies, regarding the US decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies

The Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation express their regret over the US decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies. This step could seriously damage the architecture of European security and the system of agreements on arms control.

The Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation, which form a group of states parties to the Treaty on Open Skies, are ready for an equal and mutually respectful dialogue aimed at searching for a comprehensive solution to problems with the implementation of the treaty, without ultimatums and considering all the parties’ interests and concerns.

When determining and implementing our further course regarding the treaty, we will closely cooperate within the group of states parties to the treaty, guided by the goals of supporting international stability and improving the effectiveness and viability of the treaty by promoting trust between member states and taking into account the interests of Belarus and Russia.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4210879






Press release on humanitarian aid to Syria



7 July 2020 - 13:36



On July 4, representatives of the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that the operation to deliver 85 tonnes of medicines and medical supplies from Damascus to Al Hasakah was completed successfully. Previously this shipment was transported from Erbil to Damascus aboard a Russian air carrier. The WHO representatives note that this is the largest shipment of medical aid from the interior of Syria to the Trans-Euphrates region across contact lines and is especially important for helping the healthcare system counter the spread of the coronavirus infection.

Moscow is satisfied with this operation, which proves that aid can and must be delivered inside the country in coordination with the Syrian government and in accordance with the norms of the international humanitarian law and guiding principles of humanitarian cooperation envisaged in UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182.

Initially it was planned to ship the medical supplies to northeast Syria via the Al-Yaarubia border crossing with Iraq. When this crossing was closed on January 10, 2020 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2504, a lot of criticism was voiced that it was allegedly impossible to provide aid to the districts on the eastern bank of the Euphrates without cross-border deliveries. However, this operation, as well as many other land and air humanitarian convoys that had arrived in Syria prove the opposite.

In this context, it is regrettable that we can see no progress in sending a joint convoy of the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent Society to Idlib (Al Atarib and Darat Izza) across contact lines. This operation was scheduled for April 20, 2020. The Syrian government issued all the necessary permissions, but it is still unclear why those in need have not received the aid. Representatives of Western countries and specialised humanitarian agencies continue to raise alarm at the UN Security Council talking about the devastation in Idlib and asking for an immediate response, but only by cross-border shipments from Turkey. Such uncompromising insistence on using the cross-border mechanism, despite the suffering of the local people, cannot but cause regret.

In this context, we must note once again that the cross-border mechanism was created back in 2014 as a temporary and emergency measure that must not affect the deliveries of humanitarian aid in coordination with Damascus or be used to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4212046






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas



7 July 2020 - 18:02







On July 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas upon the initiative of the German side.

The foreign ministers discussed urgent matters on the Middle East agenda, with emphasis on the developments in Syria and around it. They reviewed pressing issues of rendering humanitarian aid to all Syrians on the entire Syrian territory without politicisation, discrimination and preconditions.

The ministers exchanged views in detail on the ongoing UN Security Council discussions of the prospects for creating a cross-border mechanism for delivering humanitarian aid to Syria. Mr Lavrov noted the need to tailor humanitarian aid for Syria to the real situation on the ground and the norms of international humanitarian law, which require coordination of all operations with Damascus. Mr Lavrov also mentioned the negative consequences of US and EU illegal economic sanctions against Syria that are still in place despite the appeal by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to ease unilateral restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic.

The officials agreed that there is no alternative to the political settlement of the Syrian crisis, which must be achieved by Syrians themselves with UN support. This process must be based on a commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

The ministers discussed urgent bilateral issues and Russia-EU relations in the context of Germany’s EU presidency and the schedule of their future contacts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4212164






Press release on the Conference of the States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty to review the consequences of the United States’ withdrawal from the treaty



8 July 2020 - 11:43



On July 6, an online Conference of the States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty was held to consider the consequences of the United States’ withdrawal from the treaty. The Russian interdepartmental delegation was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

On May 22, the United States announced its decision to withdraw from the treaty in six months and tried to justify this move by mentioning “violations” of the treaty by Russia. The arguments provided by the United States were not at all new. Russia has repeatedly responded to all its claims at the Open Skies Consultative Commission, (OSCC), a body created to implement the treaty, which includes representatives from each of the 34 participating states.

Most conference participants noted the importance of the treaty for European security and the need to preserve it. They expressed regret over the United States withdrawing from it (although a number of countries expressed their “understanding” of its motives and called on Russia to return to full compliance with the treaty), and said they hoped that this decision would be revised. Many underscored the need to resolve the problems of compliance with the treaty at the negotiating table, supported the ongoing work and expressed their willingness to participate in it.

Clearly, the partners are aware of the negative consequences of Washington withdrawing from the treaty, and find this prospect worrisome. However, they have not yet shown their willingness to assume responsibility for the treaty, to give a principled assessment of the actions of the US administration and to engage in a truly meaningful dialogue with Russia in order to resolve mutual claims, preferring instead to focus on reviewing important, but not vital, issues (allocation of active observation flight quotas, clarification of the Open Skies Consultative Commission cost distribution scale and appointment of two new chairpersons of the commission’s working groups instead of the Americans).

In his remarks at the conference, Sergey Ryabkov described the US decision as regrettable and pointed out that it would have major negative consequences for the treaty and European security in general. This destructive step by the United States fits seamlessly into the foreign policy pursued by the current administration, which includes breaking up the arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements.

At the same time, the United States is heedless of the interests of its allies and other parties to the treaty, or the expert community, or the demands of its own lawmakers, many of whom openly disagreed with the decision to withdraw from this treaty. Therefore, Russia has no reason to believe in the goodwill of the US administration which is allegedly ready to remain part of the treaty if its ultimatum is met, and will not ask the United States “not to go”.

Russia pointed out that withdrawal from the treaty will tarnish the image of the United States as a reliable partner. It will no longer be possible to take its calls to improve transparency in the military sphere seriously. The United States will lose its right to acquire the observation flight data from the participating states. The member states of the treaty will have to consider a number of practical issues related to this move.

A decisive rebuff was made to Washington’s attempts to accuse Russia of violating the treaty. Prior to the conference, two Russian documents were distributed among the participating states, namely, The Open Skies Treaty: Questions and Answers ​​and The United States of America’s Non-Compliance with its Obligations under the Open Skies Treaty, and during the event itself Head of the Russian Defence Ministry’s Treaty Compliance Directorate Sergey Ryzhkov presented a detailed analysis of these violations.

Russia has called on its partners under the treaty to join efforts in order to find a comprehensive settlement of mutual concerns. Of course, this is possible only provided the interests of the parties are mutually respected.

The Republic of Belarus supported this position. Russia and Belarus form a group of the treaty member states. A joint statement by the two countries was circulated in the run-up to the conference in the wake of the US decision to withdraw from the treaty.

Russia will continue to assess its partners' willingness to fully comply with their obligations under the treaty and seek mutually acceptable solutions to emerging problems. If attempts are made to limit Russia’s rights as a state party to the treaty, we will take retaliatory measures. Russia’s policy with regard to the treaty will be built based on the above assessments and, of course, our country and its allies’ security interests. No scenario can, therefore, be ruled out.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4212382






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with the foreign ministers of the African Union troika (South Africa, Egypt and the DRC) held via videoconference, Moscow, July 8, 2020



8 July 2020 - 14:22







Colleagues,

I am delighted to see all of you today. Our experts continue working on the connection with Cairo. It was working very well when they checked it yesterday, but we are having problems today, which shows once again the importance of personal contacts. I am sure that we will resume them very soon when the coronavirus pandemic, which all of us are fighting, ends. We will talk about this subject today as well. Of course, videoconferences are a useful thing, but I would like to repeat that they cannot replace personal contacts.

It appears that the spread of the coronavirus infection across the world has cast a bright light on the shortcomings of the current system of global governance. Regrettably, at a time when we should have joined forces against a common threat, some of our colleagues on the international stage attempted to make use of the situation to promote their own mercenary interests to the detriment of other countries; in particular, they continued the policy of replacing undesirable governments and otherwise interfered in the affairs of sovereign states. In general, we have taken notice of the attempts to undermine the foundations of the universal system of international law based on the principles of the UN Charter, as well as the attempts to replace international law with a “rules-based order.”





We are convinced that these efforts to promote unilateral interests are harmful and are doing serious damage to the common interests of the international community, which call for consolidation and solidarity. It is this approach that our African friends and Russia demonstrated during the first Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi in October 2019, where we called for strengthening international law in the interests of global stability, and where our presidents and prime ministers reaffirmed the intention to continue to cooperate closely in order to further develop our partnership in all spheres and to prevent conflicts in Africa on the basis of the principle that stipulates African solutions for African problems.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the further deepening of our partnership in all spheres in keeping with the Sochi Declaration will continue to play a vital stabilising role in global and regional affairs.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4212682






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following political consultations between the foreign ministers of Russia and three African Union countries (South Africa, Egypt and the Congo) via videoconference, Moscow, July 8, 2020



8 July 2020 - 15:27






Colleagues,

Today, we held the first political consultation meeting at the foreign minister level between Russia and three members of the African Union. This mechanism was established after the first Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi last October. These countries are the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They are the former, current and next presidents of the African Union.

Russia and Africa are linked by traditional friendly relations, strong political dialogue and extensive trade, economic and investment ties. We have even more ambitious plans in all of these areas. Today, Russia and these African countries expressed their reciprocal interest in further building up cooperation in all areas, including the economy, humanitarian ties and political consultations.

We discussed the priorities of developing cooperation through the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum established by the Russian Foreign Ministry. It was set up for daily contact with the foreign ministries of various African countries and the mechanisms of the African Union and other integration associations in Africa. The Secretariat will oversee the organisational and practical preparations of new initiatives for the next Russia-Africa Summit scheduled for 2022 in accordance with the Sochi agreements.

Having met in Sochi, the heads of state decided that it was expedient to hold these summit meetings once every three years.

We also discussed the energy requirements of the African states. They are growing fast given the African countries’ development rates. We reviewed opportunities for enhancing the energy security of African countries, in particular, by supplying them with hydrocarbon resources and especially by developing the nuclear power industry. Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev gave a relevant presentation. Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Alexey Gruzdev spoke about industrial cooperation at our videoconference.

The issues formulated by our African partners today and initiatives on the best ways to develop investment, trade and economic ties will be discussed at the Association of Trade and Economic Cooperation with African Countries. This was established last month by the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. Large Russian companies are members of this association. They are interested in developing cooperation with African states. In addition to Rosatom, it brings together ALROSA, Gazprombank, Transmashholding, and the Innopraktika development institute, to name a few. As I mentioned, the association will be used as a platform for helping Russian companies that want to work in individual African countries or with the integration associations on the African continent.

We also discussed humanitarian issues focusing, for obvious reasons, on the spread of the coronavirus. The pandemic has made a tangible impact on many aspects of interstate relations and has done harm to the economy. This is also being felt in Africa. Our African colleagues expect this damage to be heavier than it is now.

They expressed gratitude to the Russian Federation for the assistance that our departments have rendered to African states. We continue receiving requests for additional aid. Over 30 countries have sent requests. We are reviewing them as quickly as possible. Deputy Head of Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare) Alexander Simanovsky talked about this in detail today.

We agreed to continue our assistance in countering the coronavirus infection, in part, via African and global multilateral associations. We will support the adoption of decisions that favour the African nations at the UN, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

We emphasised our mutual interest in further cooperation in developing vaccines against such pandemic threats, in particular, by using the very helpful and effective experience of our cooperation (several years ago) in combatting the Ebola virus.

As part of our political dialogue, we focused on the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This anniversary is marked this year. It is a historically meaningful document that played a critical role in breaking down the world colonialist system. It was the Soviet Union which played the lead role in adopting that declaration. We stressed the need for preserving the historical truth about colonial times. Now, many of our Western colleagues, who have a colonial past on the African continent, prefer to forget where the problems of contemporary Africa largely come from. We believe it is unacceptable to forget about that period or turn a blind eye to the neocolonial practices that continue in Africa, the harmful effects of which were mentioned by our interlocutors today.

We agreed that the establishment of the UN played a decisive role in the upcoming process of decolonization, and the UN itself appeared as a result of defeating Nazism and the Victory in WWII. There is an interesting connection: the countries that try to rewrite the history of World War II try, at the same time, to forget the consequences of the colonial past on the African continent.

We shared the opinion, and Russia made it a point, that decolonisation cannot be declared completed. UN General Assembly resolutions and the International Court of Justice demand the completion of this process, specifically, with respect to the Chagos Archipelago. Mauritius’ sovereignty over it should be restored. The sovereignty of Madagascar should be restored over the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean and Comoros’ sovereignty over the island of Mayotte. This French territory preserves its status despite numerous UN General Assembly resolutions.

We think it is important to continue these discussions at the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation. Together with our African and other partners we will promote implementation of the existing decisions made by the world community.

In general, the talks were very useful. We agreed to draft relevant proposals that would let us start working on the agenda for the next summit, which, as I have said, is scheduled for 2022 pursuant to the understandings reached in Sochi last October. I mean that the next summit will be held in Africa.

We have adopted a joint statement following our discussions which will be distributed to the media. You are welcome to read the document.







Question:

I would like to ask you about the situation in Libya. This is a source of constant concern for the international community because of the differences between the confronting parties and the discord among their supporters. Moscow keeps talking about the need to conduct a direct dialogue based on the Berlin Сonference. Russia has also backed Cairo’s initiative – recently the Foreign Ministry has started talking about the need to enhance the UN role in a Libyan settlement. How can this be done in practice when nothing really changes?



Sergey Lavrov:

In practice this can be done in only one way – both sides must immediately stop the hostilities and their attempts to move armed units westward and eastward, respectively, or in any direction. Regrettably, the statement of obvious fact by our partners, notably, that the Libyan conflict has no military solution, is not leading to practical actions. At some point, last January before the Berlin conference, we invited the main parties to Moscow: Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA) Khalifa Haftar, Head of the Presidential Council and the Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj, and Speaker of Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh. At that time, the LNA believed in its superiority on the ground and did not want to sign a document that suited al-Sarraj. In our estimate, the LNA is now willing to sign a document on an immediate ceasefire but the government in Tripoli is now reluctant to do so in the hope of a military solution once again. This is the main reason for what is happening there.

In the framework of a dialogue as sanctioned by our presidents, we and our Turkish colleagues are coordinating approaches that would make it possible to immediately announce a ceasefire and embark on resolving the other issues, including those mentioned at the Berlin Conference and reaffirmed at the meeting in Cairo in the so-called Cairo Declaration. This is the main problem now.

Recently, we spoke in Moscow with Speaker of the Libyan Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh. We stay in touch with Fayez al-Sarraj who heads the Government of National Accord in Tripoli and, of course, with Marshal Khalifa Haftar, the LNA commander. We express to them that an announcement of the complete cessation of hostilities must be the first, indispensable step and that this has no alternative. Our Turkish colleagues are working with the National Transitional Council towards the same end. I hope they will manage to achieve the only correct solution under the circumstances.

As for the UN’s role and the need to increase it, we do want the UN to be more active here. Unfortunately, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya Ghassan Salame resigned soon after the Berlin Conference, almost half a year ago. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been unable to appoint a successor so far. His first proposal to appoint Foreign Minister of Algeria Ramtane Lamamra was supported by most countries except our American colleagues. They refused to support his nomination. Almost two months ago a proposal was put forward to appoint former Foreign Minister of Ghana Hanna Tetteh but for some reason Mr Guterres has failed to have her nomination approved. We tend to think that the US representatives are trying to “hobble” him.

Now the situation is like this. After Salame resigned, the UN mission was headed by the acting special representative. By circumstance, this position is now occupied by an American citizen. We don’t want the US to hold the UN Secretariat by the hand and prevent the appointment of a full special representative in the hope that their compatriot will resolve some objective that we fail to understand.

I say this in the open because it is no secret. I am hoping that commitment to multilateral principles will still prevail in this case, and that the UN Secretary-General will fully display his responsibility for the functioning of this mechanism. I am convinced that this position must be occupied by a representative of the African Union.



Question:

Can you comment on the UN commission report that says Russian and Syrian aircraft strikes against civilian infrastructure in Idlib are equated with military crimes?



Sergey Lavrov:

You, probably mean the commission that calls itself an international independent commission of inquiry on Syria. This commission was not set up by consensus decision, and its mandate raises many questions as does its methodology. The decision to establish this commission was pushed through primarily by the Western countries, which wanted to change the Syrian regime. They didn’t hide this. Using a vote at the UN Human Rights Council, they provided a mechanism with the established purpose of searching for evidence against and discrediting Damascus and those whom they call its allies.

The commission never went to Idlib like many other entities employed by the West in the non-government sector to gather information compromising the activities of the legitimate Syrian authorities. This so-called independent commission uses facts taken from social networks, from some sources they ask to remain anonymous referring to security considerations. These are the same methods as are currently used by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Our Western colleagues are trying to jam through a resolution based on the report prepared in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention based on information taken from social networks, civil society partners, whose names and addresses they refuse to give saying that it would subject their security to risk and threat. This is why we proceed from the exclusive need to resolve and consider any issue concerning the Syrian or any other conflict based on hard facts alone, and on information for which the relevant entity is ready to be responsible. This independent commission just cannot be responsible for its statements, as has been proven on many occasions.



Question:

Mark Esper has said that in the year since he became head of the Pentagon the US Department of Defence successfully restrained Washington’s main strategic rivals – Russia and China. How would you comment on this statement?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not see that there is anything to comment on here. If he thinks the Pentagon’s main objective is to “restrain” Russia and China, then this is the philosophy of the current US administration. It is really burning with a desire to “restrain” everyone except for themselves, and is seeking to get rid of everything that could restrain its freedom to act with impunity on the international stage, such as the INF Treaty, the TOS, the CTBT, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council and the WHO. If this is the case, this is rather regrettable. We believed that the military act much more carefully than politicians in situations that can erupt into a conflict, especially a hot conflict.

This mood and this philosophy of the Pentagon chief are really regrettable, because we are interested in developing a normal dialogue with all countries, including the United States. Telephone contacts between Mark Esper and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu were highly professional and based on mutual respect. We would like the foreign policies of all countries not to be aimed at “restraint” but at strategic stability based on a balance of interests of all states, including the world’s leading powers. The phrase “strategic stability” is being replaced with “strategic rivalry” in our dialogue with the Americans. In other words, this philosophy shows that the Americans are preparing for conflicts with any country that will attempt to defend its interests.

This is bad for the United States itself. Maybe Washington is using the alleged threats coming from Russia and China to distract the Americans from the incredible problems we see unfolding in that country. Maybe this is part of the election campaign, for the contenders need to gain points. It would be regrettable if they did this by removing all checks and balances on the international stage and by taking the freedom to venture into risky projects in the hope of getting more votes. We stand for dialogue and strategic stability, as President Putin has noted, including when he proposed a summit meeting of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.



Question:

It has been reported today that Ukraine plans to withdraw from the 2012 memorandum on counterterrorism cooperation with Russia. The interpretative note reads that “this decision will allow for the creation of additional legal and political grounds for protecting the national interests of Ukraine in conditions of Russia’s armed aggression and enhancing Ukraine’s prestige.” Will you comment on this, please?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not aware of our Ukrainian neighbours’ decision to withdraw from the memorandum on counterterrorism cooperation. They are withdrawing from many documents now, which they have a right to do. They also have a right to present their decisions to terminate cooperation in any way. If they think this will help them to protect their national interests more effectively, be that as it may. But it is obvious to us that counterterrorism must not be a victim and hostage of geopolitical games. Any more or less well-read person can see that the Ukrainian authorities are playing geopolitical games. Just look at the statement made by President Vladimir Zelensky, who has said that the Minsk Agreements are only needed to ensure Western sanctions against Russia. This statement is self-explanatory. I leave this on the conscience of the Ukrainian leadership.

We continue our contacts in the Normandy format. The advisers and political aides of the Normandy format leaders have recently had a meeting. It has reaffirmed that the Ukrainian side categorically refuses to honour the Minsk Agreements, which have been approved by the UN Security Council. It has refused to answer the direct questions of our representatives to this effect. We hope that Germany and France as the parties of the Normandy format will take their share of responsibility for Kiev’s position regarding the vital document titled the Minsk Package of Measures.



Question:

Is there any chance of a ceasefire in Libya and that the forces of the Government of National Accord will not cross the Sirte – Al Jufra red line, given yesterday’s reports of attacks in Al Jufra, which neither side in the conflict has confirmed?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot say if the ceasefire has a chance or not. There is always a chance, but it is difficult to say if it will be used. There was such a chance half a year ago, as well as two, three and four years ago when conferences on Libya were held in Paris, Palermo and Abu Dhabi. A conference was also held in Berlin half a year ago, and before that there was a meeting held in Moscow. A document was adopted, an open and simple document that was only a page and a half long, which stipulated a ceasefire in the first place. One of the sides invited to Moscow and Berlin did not use that chance. Now the other side does not want to use this chance, which still exists. As I have mentioned, it is not simply a chance but a demand which has no alternatives and which must be implemented if we want to start settling the situation in Libya.

As for the military situation on the ground and which side’s forces are preparing to cross any lines, this is of secondary importance. If we agree – and it appears that all sides agree that there is no military solution in Libya – the only thing to do is to stop fighting now. Next we can use the tried and tested mechanisms such as the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission and the proposals sealed in the Cairo Declaration, including the proposal recently advanced by the head of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives Aguila Saleh, who has recently visited Moscow. I am referring to the establishment of truly collective and equal bodies of power where all the three historical regions of Libya will be represented based on a balance of interests. I regard this as an absolutely reasonable proposal.



Question:

Is Russia ready to act as a mediator in the conflict around the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have offered our assistance, including in the form of technical support, to the conflicting parties. We can do useful things. They know this. The United States has offered its assistance as well. Several meetings have been held in the United States. We welcome the progress achieved so far.

It is encouraging that the sides have recently agreed to stimulate contacts between the concerned ministries. This topic has been discussed at the UN Security Council upon Egypt’s initiative. During the discussion held there, we proposed accelerating the coordination of mutually acceptable approaches based on the existing norms of international law and the interests of the parties involved in this dispute.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4212741






Joint statement following talks between the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation and the foreign ministers of three members of the African Union - the Republic of South Africa, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo



8 July 2020 - 16:34



1. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held the first annual political consultation meeting with the foreign ministers of three African Union member states, who are the current, previous and future chairs of the African Union. The meeting took place on July 8 online. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor from the Republic of South Africa, Sameh Shoukry from the Arab Republic of Egypt and Marie Tumba Nzeza from the Democratic Republic of the Congo took part. The consultations were held as part of launching the dialogue mechanisms for the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum established after the Russia-Africa Summit (Sochi, October 23-24, 2019). The event was also attended by the heads of a number of national policy departments and government agencies.

2. The Russian Foreign Minister talked about the priorities of the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum formed at the Russian Foreign Ministry which include overall coordination of Russian-African cooperation in preparation for the summits, the strengthening of business ties between Russian and African companies, as well as the development of common economic, research and cultural roadmaps to promote Russian-African cooperation.

3. The ministers noted the importance of close cooperation between the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum and the foreign ministries of African countries as well as the secretariats of Africa’s integration associations.

4. The ministers reviewed measures to increase industrial cooperation between Russia and Africa, both bilaterally and with the involvement of African subregional organisations, as well as to ensure simplified African exports access to the Russian market.

5. The ministers expressed serious concern about the continued worldwide spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus infection and its consequences. They noted the need to expand international cooperation in combating epidemics, pandemics and other public health challenges. The Russian Foreign Minister reiterated Russia’s commitment to continue to assist the African countries in combating the COVID-19 pandemic bilaterally and through multilateral agencies.

6. The ministers confirmed that the second Russia-Africa summit will be held in Africa in 2022. They agreed that the specific dates and venues will be agreed upon during the next round of political consultations following the election of the African Union chair for 2022.

7. The ministers emphasised the importance and relevance of the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples dated December 14, 1960 and marked in 2020.

8. The ministers reaffirmed the importance of the principles of equality and self-determination of the nations, and strongly condemned modern forms and practices of xenophobia, racism, neocolonialism and Nazism.

9. The ministers agreed to hold a second political consultation meeting of the Russian foreign minister with the three foreign ministers of the African Union in 2021.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4212782
__________________
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; August 6th, 2020 at 03:27 AM.
 
Old August 6th, 2020 #142
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 9, 2020



9 July 2020 - 19:10






Update on the coronavirus pandemic

We begin our online briefing with the current situation concerning the coronavirus infection in the world. The latest data on the global spread of the coronavirus shows that the growth rate of those infected has yet to be reversed and a plateau of stabilisation has not been reached. Nearly 12 million people worldwide have been infected. Against the background of the general, favourable process of virus weakening, some countries are seeing a second wave of local epidemic clusters.

This situation is unique in that the infection does not spare anybody; it is spreading everywhere, penetrating even regions that are practically isolated from modern civilisation.

The WHO leadership keeps warning the international community that the virus has yet to be defeated and is actively circulating around the globe, which requires states to be even more vigilant, united, and committed to mutual assistance and cooperation.



Supporting Kazakhstan in combating the coronavirus, humanitarian aid

Russia is providing comprehensive aid to the Republic of Kazakhstan in combatting the coronavirus; this includes aid provided by regional authorities.

For example, under a Russian Government directive of July 4, an Emergencies Ministry plane delivered the first shipment of humanitarian aid (protective clothes, individual protection equipment and medicines) to Nur-Sultan on July 7. Another plane will leave tonight, July 9. This humanitarian aid is valued at 150 million roubles.

On July 6, a team of 32 doctors and medical personnel to organise a system of epidemiological oversight and provide lab diagnostics was sent to Nur-Sultan aboard a special Emergencies Ministry plane. On the same day, the Moscow government sent a group of 23 Russian specialists (infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, anesthetists and pulmonologists) to Almaty.

Several days ago the governor of the Astrakhan Region decided to send a team of doctors to Atyrau to help their Kazakhstani colleagues combat the pandemic.

Since February 2020, 18,000 test systems and 44,000 reagents for coronavirus diagnosis have been sent to Kazakhstan free of charge. In the next few days, another 50,000 test systems and reagents will be sent considering the deteriorating epidemiological situation in the country.

Russian noncommercial organisations are also providing aid to Kazakhstan. The short list of items from the Russian civil sector includes over 100,000 masks, 20,000 pairs of gloves, thermometers and antiseptics, among other things, which will be sent to Kazakhstani regions in July.

Noncommercial organisations from Moscow, Yekaterinburg, Ufa, Saratov, Astrakhan, Novosibirsk, Orenburg and Kazan will take part in this effort. The first shipment of humanitarian aid will be sent to Kostanai from the Ural-Eurasia expert club of Yekaterinburg.

The initiative will also cover Kazakh cities of Petropavlovsk, Kokshetau, Uralsk, Atyrau, Nur-Sultan and Almaty.

This public initiative, in the spirit of traditional neighbourliness and mutual help, is expected to contribute to Russia’s aid to Kazakhstan in countering COVID-19.

In May and June 2020, the Russian Healthcare Ministry and Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare) held lectures and educational webinars on coronavirus diagnosis, methods of treatment and prevention for their Kazakhstani colleagues.



Update on bringing our compatriots home

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Primakov Readings international forum

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



Russia’s first Voluntary National Review of implementing UN Sustainable Development Goals

At the UN high-level political forum in New York on July 14, Russia will submit its first Voluntary National Review of implementing UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Russian experts have been preparing for this event for almost two years, collecting information on implementing each of the 17 UN SDGs. They have conducted several rounds of consultations with representatives of federal government executive bodies, NGOs, business and scientific communities.

The document produced by this multi-stage process contains a deep analysis of the socio-economic changes in the Russian Federation aimed at reaching the goals set by the international community as part of the UN 2030 Agenda. It includes the plans for Russia’s implementation of the SDGs by the UN-set date of 2030.

One of Russia’s most substantial achievements is the full eradication of poverty based on the UN scale; the provision of universal healthcare, guaranteed education for all children and full access to electricity for every resident. The latter was recently noted in the May report of the UN Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL).

We believe this material will be of interest to those who follow the implementation of the socio-economic agenda in this country. It will be also useful for comparing Russia’s achievements with those of other states that submit national reviews on the progress of this sustainable development track.

The review will be presented by Minister of Economic Development Maxim Reshetnikov. The presentation will be followed by an interactive session with the participation of other delegations and NGO representatives. The livestream will start on the UN website (www.webtv.un.org) at 5:30 pm Moscow time. The printed version of the review will be accessible in Russian and English on the UN website.



The UK’s personal sanctions against Russian citizens

We see the decision to impose sanctions against some our officials as part of the so-called “Magnitsky case” announced by the UK Government on July 6 as another unfriendly step by the British authorities.

The Russian side has provided exhaustive comments and clarifications on all issues related to the death of Sergey Magnitsky on many occasions, but London obviously prefers to ignore them. It is unclear on what grounds they “appoint” the guilty and mete out a punishment. This is why we cannot qualify Britain’s actions other than an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of another state and to put pressure to bear on the Russian judicial system.

We also want to remind London that Britain’s reputation in human rights is far from impeccable for such an arrogant and preachy decision. The cases against UK service personnel on crimes committed during the Iraqi campaign have been dropped in keeping with the best colonial practices; the case of high-ranking Westminster child molesters was hushed up; and facts are emerging about UK special services unlawfully collecting personal information on British citizens. International government and non-government organisations have pointed out these and many other outrageous facts to the UK authorities on many occasions.

Of course, this politically biased decision will have a negative impact on our countries’ bilateral relations, which have already been seriously damaged by the British side in recent years.

I would like to remind London that reciprocity is a basic principle in interstate relations. We reserve the right to use appropriate reciprocal measures, and we call on London to give up the language of groundless accusation and instead resort to a civilised dialogue to discuss any problems or concerns.



Update on Russian citizen Konstantin Yaroshenko

We continue to monitor the developments related to Russian citizen Konstantin Yaroshenko imprisoned in the United States. It will be recalled that he was illegally arrested by US secret agents in Liberia in May 2010 and transported to the US, where he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. However, the charges against him were based entirely on evidence supplied by stool-pigeon agents.

The Russian Embassy in Washington has had regular contacts with Mr Yaroshenko and is keeping tabs on his health undermined by enhanced interrogation on the part of US law enforcers, long imprisonment and default of timely medical aid. We urge the US side to provide him with the necessary medical treatment. Following protracted efforts, some important medical check-ups were arranged for him not so long ago.

We would like to draw your attention to yet another aspect of the matter: Washington has failed to respond to our repeated requests to free and bring back to Russia on humanitarian grounds both Konstantin Yaroshenko and all other Russians, who remain in US penitentiaries or are under investigation. They have assured us that they are doing whatever is necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In reality, as it transpired later, inmates at the overcrowded prison, where Mr Yaroshenko is serving his term, are issued just one medical mask a week, whereas the daily increment of COVID cases [across the country] occasionally exceeds 50,000.

On being informed about this problem, the Russian Embassy in Washington attempted to deliver PPE to Mr Yaroshenko, but the prison authorities refused to cooperate.

In this connection, we reiterate our call to the US authorities to revise their approach and to let the imprisoned Russians return home. This would be a long-awaited show of humane attitude to those whose lives are exposed to daily danger.



Update on US citizen Paul Whelan convicted for espionage in Russia

We regularly see media reports alleging that Russia is holding talks with US representatives so as to exchange Paul Whelan, who has been sentenced to 16 years imprisonment in Russia on espionage charges. Let me remind you that Mr Whelan is the holder of passports from three other countries apart from the US. We would like to give explanations, inasmuch as this story is actively supplied with fakes, including by our US partners. There is also stovepiping and comments that are totally at odds with reality.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its foreign missions have worked on the permanent basis for years to defend the legitimate interests of Russian citizens imprisoned in the United States. We are exerting every effort to obtain an early liberation of Russian citizens exposed to a biased and often politically motivated treatment by the US judiciary. I am referring, among others, to pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was kidnapped by US secret services in Liberia in 2010, businessman Viktor Bout, who ended up in prison following a provocation engineered by US agents, Bogdana Osipova sentenced to a long prison term for having taken her own children to Russia, and many other Russian citizens.

I would like to stress again that the rumours about alleged discussions with the US side on possible options for “exchanging” Paul Whelan for Russian citizens have nothing to do with reality.



US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation

We noted reports on new US steps to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Somewhat earlier, we gave our assessment of that country’s attitude to the WHO. As before, we regard it as unconstructive.

Against the background of messages we receive from Washington, it is hard to explain why US representatives attended the May session of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of WHO. The WHA approved a resolution confirming WHO’s leading coordinating role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Indicatively, the resolution was passed by consensus, which means that the US vote was also taken into account.

It is unclear whether the United States intends to participate in WHO operations as an observer state, as was the case with UNESCO, which the Americans also abandoned in 2017. The Trump administration has left the question unanswered as to whether the US is planning to recall American specialists assigned to the WHO, some of whom hold important positions in the organisation, and whether it intends to prohibit US experts from working for numerous WHO expert committees. Frankly, we would like to know whether the US intends to be consistent and withdraw from the Pan American Health Organisation (formally an independent entity but in practice a regional branch of the WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (yet another organisation affiliated with the WHO). The US side would do well to answer these questions.

During these difficult times, we also lack understanding as to whether Washington is ready to cease being a party to the WHA’s International Health Regulations (IHR), a legally binding instrument regulating multilateral collaboration at a time of health emergencies, and to refrain from involvement in revising IHR based on experience gained in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We continue to oppose the politicisation of global health cooperation. We again underscore the fact that COVID-19 is a challenge to the entire international community and that an effective fight against the pandemic is only possible if all states become involved in coordinated action.

We are guided by this premise as we prepare for a special session of the UN General Assembly on COVID-19, the convening of which we supported. We hope for a constructive and, of course, non-discriminatory discussion of further joint steps to cut short the spread of the pandemic and overcome its negative consequences.



The blocking of RT Group channels in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia

We continue to watch the cynical violation of international commitments to media freedom in the Baltic states that are finding it increasingly difficult to conceal their obsession with Russophobia and their intention of using any means to get rid of the Russian information presence in their media space. We are referring to an attack that the authorities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have launched on the TV channels of Russia Today Group. It is clear that the attack was coordinated, something that these countries’ spokespersons have confirmed in public.

I would like to remind you that it came to our knowledge on June 30 that Latvia had decided to block the transmission of seven RT channels. We commented on this decision at a previous briefing. It was based on EU “personal sanctions” against Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselev, who has nothing to do with the Russia Today media holding, as we have repeatedly reminded all those concerned.

On July 1, the Commission for Radio and TV Broadcasting in Lithuania announced that it was ready to use the same sanctions against the same sources on the same far-fetched grounds as their Latvian colleagues. The blockage comes into effect today. The decision was enthusiastically supported by Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevičius, who said that “Lithuania started introducing restrictions against the Russian media seven years ago.” It would be helpful if his remarks were brought to the attention of Brussels, the OSCE, and many other organisations, including NGOs and relevant media outlets.

A few days later, on July 6, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu spoke in support of the Latvian move to ban RT broadcasting and promised to analyse the effectiveness of the same measure in Estonia.

Is there any need for further comment after I cited facts and quoted officials from member-states of the European Union, a group that has proclaimed the defence of democracy and fundamental freedoms as its main goal? One is perplexed by the fact that not a single EU official has yet commented on this flagrant abuse of the freedom of expression and crackdown on dissent in the Baltic states.

We think that it is Brussels’ inadmissible silence with regard to all the numerous episodes of discrimination against the Russian media in the Baltic countries that has given their leaders a free hand to such an extent that they do not even bother to find a plausible explanation for their steps, measures and moves with regard to the Russian media holding.

These antidemocratic steps are discrediting Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn in the eyes of the world community and are contrary to their international commitments regarding media freedom and free access to information. We say this directly to our Baltic partners, but they seem to be unwilling to hear us.

We hope that the relevant international organisations and the human rights community will respond to these direct violations. There is no need for any proof or investigation. There is a direct breach of the commitments, which those states have assumed of their own free will and made the cornerstone of their domestic and foreign policies. For our part, we will submit relevant official statements to UNESCO, the OSCE, and the Соuncil of Europe.



The Venice Commission on education in Latvia

We have taken a close look at the opinion on the recent amendments to the Latvian legislation on education in minority languages, adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe) on June 18.

Regrettably, the Venice Commission experts, who for the most part represent EU member-countries, have demonstrated a biased attitude and have actually supported Latvia’s policy aimed at a forcible de-Russification of the country and violation of the language and educational rights of the local Russian-speaking community.

One is particularly perplexed by the Venice Commission’s attempt to justify discrimination against the Russian language regarding its status as compared to other minority languages, namely those spoken in the EU. We are confident that EU membership does not justify the creation of an “elite club” that guarantees the rights of a certain group by prejudicing the rights of others.

We insistently call on Riga to abide by the universal and regional minority rights standards and mechanisms accepted by the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the OSCE. I would like to remind EU partners that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaims a ban on all forms of discrimination, including discrimination of minorities.



Independence Day of the Republic of Kiribati

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


The Special Olympics World Winter Games in Kazan

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







Answers to media questions:



Question:

What’s your take on the murder of a man from the Chechen Republic in Austria?



Maria Zakharova:

A man was killed in the Vienna suburb of Gerasdorf, Austria, on July 4. Shortly after, two suspects were detained by Austrian law enforcement officers. According to the Austrian authorities, the victim and the attackers are natives of the Chechen Republic.

The circumstances of the incident are now being investigated, including the citizenship of the victim and the detained persons. The Russian embassy in Austria is interacting with Austria’s authorities.

The media are providing a variety of causes that may have led to this crime, including criminal motives. Regrettably, a number of publications are talking about the possible involvement of Chechen Republic authorities. We most resolutely disagree. We consider such speculation inappropriate and believe they are interfering with an impartial investigation.

Also, please note the comments released by the Russian Embassy in Austria today.



Question:

The Czech government is reproaching Moscow for delaying Russian-Czech consultations on important items on the bilateral agenda. What’s your take on this?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, we would like to emphasise the absolute groundlessness of these reproaches. In reality, the situation is exactly the opposite. In order to resolve certain problems in bilateral relations, Russia initially pushed for the earliest possible holding of talks. Our Ambassador in Prague was given the necessary authority a long time ago, and our partners have been officially notified of this several times. We talked about it publicly and urged our Czech partners to step up the dialogue. It is gratifying to know that after Rudolf Jindrak, head of the Foreign Department at the Office of the President of the Czech Republic, was appointed head of the delegation, the process was set in motion and the Czech authorities started responding. This will make it possible to start the consultations.

We reiterate our commitment to a dialogue at the deputy foreign minister level. However, the sanitary and epidemiological situation precludes any chance of a meeting any time soon. That is why we are urging our Czech colleagues to start consultations with the authorised representatives of our countries as soon as possible.



Question:

Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation of Afghanistan, Abdullah Abdullah, plans a visit to Pakistan soon. What do you make of this move?



Maria Zakharova:

We are aware of Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Abdullah Abdullah’s planned visit to Pakistan. We hope this trip will help strengthen ties between Islamabad and Kabul and advance a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.



Question:

What part do the Kurds play in Russia’s vision of Syria’s future? Discussions are underway that ethnic federalism is being considered as a form of separation of powers in future Syria. How does Russia see the future of the separation of powers in Syria? What level of autonomy would the regions have?

Over the past four months, northeastern Syria has experienced water supply problems. The Turkish-backed forces blocked the water supply to Kurdish regions several times. Now, Turkey has reduced the volume of water supply to Syria by 60 percent. What are Russia’s plans to resolve this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe your question has both a historical and a political dimension. For centuries, Syria has been home to various ethnic and religious groups which coexisted peacefully and safely. This was Syria’s crown jewel and can only be respected. We are convinced that these historical traditions should be fully preserved and continued.

We operate on the premise that the Syrian Kurds are an integral part of the Syrian nation. Based on this principled position, Moscow supports the dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus regarding the future of their common homeland. The Syrians themselves must determine what their country will be like to make sure its entire population, regardless of religion or ethnicity, feels safe and secure.

It is important to keep this point in mind in the context of the long-lasting fight against terrorism, including of foreign origin. Today, the Syrians are faced with the need to rebuild their homeland based on a common commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.

The reconstruction effort must include all water facilities, many of which have been damaged as a result of terrorist attacks. At the same time, using water resources has both a national and a regional dimension and will call for well-coordinated interaction of all the countries through which the most important waterways, including the Euphrates River, pass. The ultimate decision must take into account the interests of all stakeholders.



Question:

Some 130 UN member states have supported Azerbaijan’s initiative to hold a special UN General Assembly session on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and on measures to alleviate its consequences. Could you please comment on this initiative?



Maria Zakharova:

It has been decided to convene a special UN General Assembly session on COVID-19 at the initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement and Azerbaijan as its current chair.

Russia has supported this initiative of its CIS partner. We believe that the special session will be a constructive event where substantive decisions can be adopted. In this context, we expect an interesting discussion to be held there.

Since the epidemiological situation in New York is rather alarming, the session will be held via videoconference. The related procedures are being coordinated.



Question:

Israel is planning to seize more Palestinian lands. Not only Muslim countries but also all other countries, with the exception of the United States, have criticised this decision. Does Russia support the so-called deal of the century?



Maria Zakharova:

As you have pointed out in your question, the extension of Israeli sovereignty to parts of the West Bank can be interpreted as the unilateral implementation of the US plan for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement known as “the deal of the century.”

Indeed, the majority of countries have criticised this Israeli plan. There is a stable consensus on the Palestinian issue in the Arab and Muslim world.

Russia has pointed out its position of principle on this matter more than once. It is well known and has been put forth at the top level. It is similar to the assessments and approaches formulated in the recent decisions of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. In our opinion, the attempt to extend Israeli sovereignty to more Palestinian lands will not only preclude the implementation of the two-state solution, but will also most likely provoke a new round of dangerous violence in the region, which will further fuel radical protest sentiments.

Russia’s consistent stance on supporting the two-state solution to the Palestinian problem based on universally recognised international law has not changed. At the same time, we believe that direct UN-led talks between Israel and Palestine, with the mediation of the Quartet comprising Russia, the United States, the EU and the UN, must be resumed without delay to address all aspects of the final status and to ensure a comprehensive and lasting settlement based on UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.

We believe that a vital precondition for launching a full-scale peace process is the restoration of Palestinian unity on the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. In this connection, we welcome the well-timed moves taken by Fatah and Hamas towards this goal, which were made public on July 2 during a joint news videoconference by senior Fatah and Hamas officials.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217345
__________________
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 August 7th, 2020 #143
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on attempts to find a “Russian trace” connection to civil disturbances in Belgrade



9 July 2020 - 20:11



Some online media have claimed that there is a “Russian trace” in the civil disturbances that took place in the Serbian capital on July 7-8.

It is clear that the authors of this stovepiping are trying to conform to the well-known conspiracy stereotypes of their sponsors, who tend to see a “Russian connection” everywhere. What we actually see is cheap “paid journalism” with only one purpose: to tarnish the Russian-Serbian partnership.

We expect a quick end to the violence, the restoration of public order and stability in friendly Serbia, and a return to a constitutionally based sociopolitical discussion on all pressing issues facing the country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217363






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US remarks in connection with the UN Security Council discussing a draft resolution on a cross-border mechanism for delivering humanitarian aid to Syria



10 July 2020 - 14:18



Moscow is disappointed with the fact that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took the liberty to comment on the UN Security Council discussions in connection with the draft resolution on the cross-border mechanism for delivering humanitarian aid to Syria. This is yet another attempt to distort the facts and the actual state of affairs for the sake of pursuing self-serving political interests. Unfortunately, Washington’s arrogant attacks against Russia and China are no longer surprising. However, the ease with which the current situation in Syria is being blatantly misrepresented as a result of the speculations on the Syrians’ humanitarian needs is really quite surprising.

We are talking about Syria now, but the sad experience of recent years clearly shows that these schemes were used in other countries of the region as well. Iraq and Libya convincingly demonstrate the disastrous results of this kind of geopolitical engineering. Notably, none of those who mounted aggression against these countries by grossly breaking every rule in the book of international law and trampling upon the UN Charter principles has assumed responsibility for the devastating fallout of this intervention.

The far-fetched humanitarian and other pretexts used to intervene in the Middle Eastern states are now being replicated in Syria. However, the negative impact of illegal unilateral sanctions aimed at economic strangulation of the country and exacerbating the suffering of the Syrian people is bashfully hushed up. Nothing is mentioned about freezing international funding for the needs of the post-conflict rebuilding effort and blocking any and all steps to normalise relations with Damascus. The goal is to destabilise the domestic political situation in Syria, provoke social protests and make another attempt to change the “objectionable regime.”

In this regard, we consider it necessary to once again state that Russia has advocated and continues to advocate an increase in humanitarian aid to all needy Syrians throughout Syria. However, it must be done in accordance with the international humanitarian law providing for coordination with the government of the recipient country, as is the case in other countries. Western countries are up in arms against the need for coordination with the government of Syria, a UN member country. This only proves that they are not interested in helping those in need, and their only goal is to use humanitarian aid as a tool to undermine Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We are not against extending the “cross-border” mechanism, but we believe it is necessary to bring it in line with the situation on the ground, especially in Idlib, and to avoid a situation where it would interfere with establishing relief supplies from the interior of the country across the contact line. Unfortunately, our arguments either fall on deaf ears or are ignored.

With no less regret we note that the Americans and their supporters succeed in manipulating purely humanitarian agencies such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) and other specialised UN agencies in an attempt to service the political order for changing power in Syria.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217509






Press release on Russian humanitarian aid for the Republic of Guinea



10 July 2020 - 14:28



On July 10, the Russian Defence Ministry made a special flight to deliver humanitarian goods, including ventilators, disposable supplies for disease treatment and diagnosis, Russia-made test systems and reagents for COVID-19 testing, to the Republic of Guinea with a view to enhancing its national potential to counter the spread of the novel coronavirus infection. Russian humanitarian aid was rendered gratis to Guinea by the United Company RUSAL and the Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare.

Part of the medical equipment is supposed to be used to finish outfitting the RUSAL-established Scientific Clinical and Diagnostic Centre of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Kindia and the infectious disease ward of the Fria hospital, also opened with funding from the Russian company in June 2020.

The return flight will carry Russian citizens wishing to come back home from Guinea and Sierra Leone.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217553






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions during the online session “Russia and the post-COVID World,” held as part of the Primakov Readings international forum, Moscow, July 10, 2020 - PART I



10 July 2020 - 15:55






First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for inviting me to once again speak at the Primakov Readings. This is a young, but also one of the most respected platforms for discussing international matters. Unfortunately, we cannot meet in person due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nevertheless, thanks to modern technology we could keep it on schedule. I am glad that my colleagues were able to take part in the preceding sessions of these readings. Judging by their feedback, this was a useful experience.

I will not delve into the question of how the coronavirus has affected every aspect of our lives, and what it will bring in the future. We already feel its effect on the economy and in personal contacts, from official visits and talks, to humanitarian, cultural and education exchanges. There seems to be a consensus that it will take quite some time for things to get back to normal. How long it will take and what the new norm will be is anybody’s guess. That said, all tend to agree that things will change.

By the way, I cannot fail to mention that our foreign service has had to face serious challenges. There were confirmed cases both at the Foreign Ministry head offices and our representative offices in the regions, as well as in our affiliated institutions. Thank goodness, we did not face a massive outbreak or severe cases. There were also people in our missions abroad affected by the pandemic. When borders closed, all our foreign missions without exception were mobilised to assist Russian nationals stranded abroad. Along with other agencies represented in the Emergency Response Centre, primarily the Transport Ministry, the Federal Air Agency, the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare and the Communications Ministry, we complied repatriation lists. This was a lot of work, fraught with many mistakes, mostly unintentional rather than deliberate, that had to be rectified. At the same time we had to make arrangements to pay support allowances to those stranded abroad without funds. We have already done a great deal on this front, although there are still people asking to be repatriated, and some have come forward only recently. It seems that looking at the developments in the countries where they are staying and considering the uncertainty as to when all this will come to an end, they finally opted to return home.

Speaking of other ways in which the pandemic influenced our work and the way we perform our professional duties, the virus has aggravated other pre-existing challenges and threats. They have not gone away, including international terrorism. As you know, some speculate that terrorists are thinking about somehow using the strain of this virus, or maybe even creating new strains to achieve their malicious ends. Drug trafficking, cybercrime, environmental issues, climate and, of course, the many conflicts around the world – all these problems are still with us. And all this overlaps with the specific nature of the Trump administration and its deliberate policy of undermining all legal and contractual frameworks without exception on arms control and international cooperation, for example, regarding UNESCO, the WHO, the UN Human Rights Council, etc.

Of course, we keep a close eye on all these developments and analyse them. We still believe that sustainable solutions to various crises, conflicts and problems in the interests of all countries, and taking into consideration each and everyone’s concerns can only result from collective efforts based on the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, by respecting UN Security Council prerogatives, mobilising consensus-based associations, including the G20, as well as BRICS, the SCO and associations on the post-Soviet space. Unfortunately, not everyone has been ready to work together during the pandemic, to engage in collective efforts and approaches. We are witnessing attempts to push through narrow-minded agendas, and use this crisis to continue strangling unwanted regimes. The call from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to suspend unilateral sanctions, at least during the pandemic, that impede the distribution of medial and other humanitarian goods, and other essential items to the corresponding countries, was completely ignored. The same goes for attempts to assign blame for the infection in the midst of the pandemic, when what we need is to think about how we can help medical workers, doctors and virologists. You know very well what I am referring to.

Like 75 years ago, when Victory over a common enemy was won only by working together and rising above the ideological differences of the time, we now also need to realise that we will resolve these issues only if we cooperate. I’m sure we’ll talk about the future of the WHO later. We are in favour of resolving any issues based on the UN Charter, which is a collective security platform.

Our Western colleagues – I’ve already mentioned this many times – are trying to actively introduce the concept of a “rules-based order” into diplomatic, political and practical usage. This is not international law. This is something else (we can also talk about this in more detail during the discussion). Clearly, this is an attempt to regain the dominance that the historical West has enjoyed for almost 500 years now. This attempt takes the form of convening a “group of interests” and various partnerships, where convenient countries are invited that either share the attempts to adopt unilateral approaches to international affairs, or will yield to pressure and join these initiatives. Not everyone is invited. Those who have their own outlook on things and are ready to defend it are left out. Later, when a concept, say, on chemical weapons, is fabricated, or an attempt is made to create a club of the select few who will decide on who is to blame for violating cybersecurity, they will start selling it as universally applicable norms. We are witnessing this now as it’s happening. These are very serious problems.

I would like to conclude my opening remarks. Our main goal, as before, is to protect our national interests and create the most favourable external conditions for the country’s development. You may have noticed that we come up with ideas that unite. Convening a summit of the UN Security Council permanent members is our top priority. This effort is ongoing. We are now focusing on the substantive part of the event, because, of course, it will play the decisive part.

The current hardships in international relations increase the importance of these discussions and, in general, the contribution of the expert community, and academic and political circles, into the efforts to analyse the situation and make reasonable realistic forecasts. I’d be remiss not to mention the case study concept that Yevgeny Primakov introduced into our foreign policy and political science. We appreciate the fact that the participants and organisers of the Primakov Readings always help us draw from a rich well of ideas, from which we then pick the ones that we submit to the President to determine our policies in specific circumstances.



Question:

Five years ago, an IMEMO strategic forecast assumed that a new bipolarity might emerge as one of the four scenarios for the future world order. At that time, this hypothesis was based on the relative dynamics of the synergetic power of China and the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided plenty of evidence of this theory. Of course, a different – asymmetrical – bipolarity is emerging, where the strategic parity is between Russia and the US, and the economic parity is between China and the United States, which is distinct from what was the case in the 20th century.

Do you think that the US-PRC conflict has passed the point of no return? It is obvious that any exacerbation of this confrontation is not in Russia’s interests. Will Russia be able to act as a swing power in order to maintain stability of the world system, including based on your unique experience of multilateral diplomacy?



Sergey Lavrov:

I remember the forecast you have mentioned. I would like to say that, certainly, a lot has changed over these past five years, primarily in terms of confirming that the confrontation, rivalry, antagonism, and the struggle for leadership between the United States and China have, of course, been mounting. Before I pass directly to an analysis of this bipolar process, I would like to note that the real situation in the world as a whole is much more complicated. After all, the world is growing more polycentric than it was previously. There are numerous players apart from the US and China, without whom it is very difficult to promote one’s interests, if some or other capital suddenly decides to do this single-handedly. I think we will yet discuss some other possible options in this sense. Let me mention the fact that Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the National Research University – Higher School of Economics Sergey Karaganov has commented on this subject in an article for Russia in Global Affairs, a journal published by Fyodor Lukyanov.

It is quite clear that we should take into consideration, in our practical work, the entire diversity and totality of political, economic, military, historical, and ideological factors that are manifesting themselves in the multipolar world, a world that Yevgeny Primakov predicted. We are assessing the US-Chinese controversy against this backdrop and through this prism. That it is not existing in a vacuum is, as a minimum, confirmed by the fact that each of the sides is seeking to recruit as many supporters of their approaches as possible to the WHO or any other subject that in some way or other is associated with Washington and Beijing as defining contradictions in their approaches.

The Americans are certainly perceiving the growth of the PRC’s total state power as a threat to their claims to retaining the world leadership against all odds. Back in 2017, the US National Security Strategy listed China, along with Russia, among the main threats. It was for the first time that China was put before Russia as a threat to the United States.

Russia and China were directly accused of seeking to challenge the American influence, values and prosperity. It is quite clear that the US is waging a struggle by absolutely unsavoury methods, as is obvious and clear to everyone. They are putting forward unilateral demands that take into account solely the US interests. If demands are turned down, they say the refusal is unacceptable and introduce sanctions.

If a discussion is suggested, the discussion rapidly degenerates into delivering an ultimatum and ends up in selfsame sanctions – trade wars, tariffs, and lots more.

A highly indicative fact is how the Americans and the Chinese managed to come to terms on phase one of the trade talks in January and what the fate of this agreement is now. The US authorities are accusing Beijing of drawing off jobs and glutting the market, while showing reluctance to buy US products. According to the Americans, China is implementing the Belt and Road project intended to steamroll all world economy mechanisms, production chains, and so on. China allegedly was concealing information on COVID-19 and is engaging in cyber espionage. Notice how zealously the Americans are forcing their allies and others to give up any collaboration with Huawei and other Chinese digital giants and companies. China’s hi-tech companies are being squeezed out of the world markets. China is being charged with expansionism in the South China Sea, problems on the actual control line with India, human rights violations, and [misbehaviour with regard to] Tibet, the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. All of this is taking place simultaneously. A powerful wave of fault-finding, a perfect storm is being raised. I hope, of course, that common sense will prevail and the situation will not pass the point of no return mentioned by Mr Dynkin.

We hope that there are people in the United States, who are figuring out how to reassure the world of the dollar system’s reliability in the post-election period. The US Secretary of the Treasury is speaking about this all but openly. He is warning that they should be wary of overstepping the red line, after which people will just start fleeing from America, saying that the dollar is no good anymore because it is being brazenly abused.

There is, of course, hope that the Chinese possess a political, diplomatic and foreign policy culture that always seeks to avoid various imbroglios. But there are also some very alarming signs that, despite these rays of hope, which must be nurtured and cherished, US and Chinese officials start getting personal, occasionally in a very harsh form. This bespeaks a high degree of tension on both sides. And, of course, this is really alarming.

I do hope that our Chinese and US partners have some diplomatic methods, ways of classical diplomacy tucked up their sleeve. People should not insult each other in public or accuse each other of all sins, as the Americans are doing on every street corner. A better option is to sit down [to the negotiating table] and recognise that your opposite number is a great power and that every state, be it a great power or otherwise, has interests that must be respected. The world certainly should seek to function based on a search for a balance of these interests.

Now let me pass to the second question – that this aggravation is not in Russia’s interests. I think that it is totally at variance with our interests, the interests of the European Union, and those of other countries as well. If you take the EU, China-EU trade is absolutely comparable with trade between China and the US. I think it is also necessary to pay attention to the EU’s increasingly publicised aspirations as regards a strategic autonomy not only in the military-political and security sphere but also in trade and the economy. Incidentally, the EU also wants to start repatriating its industries and localise as many trade and distributive chains as possible on its territory. In this regard, it is entering direct competition with the Americans.

The EU is unlikely to support the United States on every count in its desire to bleed the Chinese economy white by “pumping over” all development-friendly processes to its territory. There will be a lot of wrinkles, tension and clashes of interests.

Today, unlike in 2014, when the EU, under atrocious US pressure, introduced sanctions against Russia, it is showing signs of sound pragmatism towards our country. Specifically, they have publicly announced that they will revise the notorious “five principles” that Federica Mogherini formulated several years ago to guide relations with Russia. They also say that it is necessary to overhaul their entire approach so that it should be more consistent with EU interests.

Incidentally, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell gave a talk recently on EU and China and on EU and Russia. Asked, why not impose sanctions on China for Hong Kong and human rights, he said that sanctions were not a method to be used in relations with China. We inquired whether sanctions were, in his opinion, a method that could be used in relations with Russia? Our European friends will be thinking about this. It is a tough question.

I think that the European Union and Russia have a stake in cooperating, but not to the detriment of anyone else. Basically, we do not ally with others to organise some actions against a third party. We prefer pragmatism and shared benefit. I think Brussels will be doing something to overcome the myopia of the recent period. The survey of EU policy vis-à-vis Russia will give more heed to an analysis of the real benefits inherent in promoting relations with Russia and the EAEU.

I do not see any benefits that Russia could derive from a trade war between Washington and Beijing. We will not benefit from relations with the EU and India either. Relations with India are traditionally friendly and other than time-serving. I do not envisage any changes in this area. We have proclaimed a “specially privileged strategic partnership” with India. I do not see any reasons why our Indian friends should sacrifice the gains that exist in the context of our partnership and prospects that it opens.



Question:

You have mentioned Russian-US relations. Of course, international security and strategic stability depend on them. The situation is rather alarming now because of a deep crisis in the arms control regime. It is possible that the last key treaty in this sphere will expire in six months. There are many reasons for this, both geopolitical and technological. I believe we have to admit that public opinion is not pressuring the political elites to maintain arms control as much as during the Cold War, when large-scale demonstrations were held, as we well remember. The highest priority threats for the public now are the pandemic, climate change and terrorism. The fear of a nuclear war has receded into the background. What can be done to change this, or will it take a new Cuban crisis for the public to become aware of the nuclear conflict threat and to start expressing its opinion?

Jointly with our academic community we are now holding many videoconferences with American experts. You have said that there are rational people in the United States. It can be said that these conferences offer an opportunity to coordinate a number of new proposals, which could be used to formulate our initiatives. Of course, we update the Foreign Ministry and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov about our activities. But it seems that today we need to think about some radical action, possibly in connection with the proposed summit of the five nuclear states, in order to create conditions that will help prevent the dismantling of the arms control regime and launch the creation of a new system of international security and strategic stability suited to the conditions of the 21st century.



Sergey Lavrov:

I fully agree with you. Nuclear risks have increased dramatically, and the situation in the sphere of international security and strategic stability is visibly deteriorating. The reasons for this are obvious to everyone. The United States wants to regain global domination and attain victory in what it describes as great-power rivalry. It has replaced the term “strategic stability” with “strategic rivalry.” It wants to win, whatever the price, as the saying goes. It is dismantling the arms control architecture so as to have the freedom to choose any instrument, including military force, to put pressure on its geopolitical opponents, and it wants to be able to use these instruments anywhere around the world. This is especially alarming in light of the changes in the doctrines of the US military-political authorities. These changes have allowed the limited use of nuclear weapons. It is notable that, like in the case of other strategic stability topics, the Americans have once again alleged that it is the Russian doctrine that permits the limited use of nuclear weapons and escalation for the sake of de-escalation and victory. They have recently issued comments on our doctrines, claiming that there are some secret parts where all of this is stipulated. This is not true. Meanwhile, we can see that the United States has adopted a number of practical programmes to support their doctrines with military and technical capabilities. This concerns the creation of low-yield nuclear warheads. American experts and officials are openly discussing this.

In this context, we are especially alarmed by the Americans’ failure to reaffirm – for two years now – the fundamental principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and that therefore it must never be unleashed. Early in the autumn of 2018, we submitted to the American side our written proposal that has been formulated as the confirmation of what People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov and US President Franklin Roosevelt had coordinated and the notes they exchanged. We have reminded them about this proposal several times. They have replied that they are analysing it. Of course, we will raise the issue of the inadmissibility of fighting a nuclear war and winning it at the upcoming summit meeting of the five nuclear powers. It is important for our arguments to be no weaker than the arguments in the relevant Soviet-US documents. The slackening of these formulations has shown that the Americans would like to dilute the fact that there is no alternative to this principle and it cannot be repealed.

You have said that civil society is not paying sufficient attention to these threats, and I fully agree with you on this count. It is vital to attract public attention to this problem, to tell the people about the risks in understandable terms, because technicalities are often difficult to understand, and the form in which the analysis of this situation is presented to people is very important. Of course, we should count not only on official establishments but also on civil society and its politically active part – the NGOs and the academic and expert community.

I have said that I agree with you on this count, but I would also like to caution against going too far with raising public awareness of nuclear risks, so as not to play into the hands of those who want to prohibit all nuclear weapons and not to raise other concerns. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons openly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, creating confusion and problems. The necessary balance can be found with the help of top quality professionals, and I believe that we have more of them than any other country.

As for public sentiments, they do not always determine the reality. During the election campaign of US President Donald Trump, public sentiments were largely in tune with his declared plans and his calls for normalising Russian-US relations. Since then, the public has calmed down, and nobody is staging any riots over this matter.

Of course, it is vital to continue to interact directly with the nuclear powers and their authorities. We would like reasonable approaches to take priority.

You have mentioned that political consultations are underway between you, your colleagues and American experts. We appreciate this. Your contribution and assessments, as well as the information we receive following such consultations are taken into account and have a significant influence on the essence of our approaches, including in situations when we submit several alternatives to the leadership; this helps us analyse the possible scenarios and all their pros and cons.

The United States, as well as Britain and France, which are playing along with it, would like to limit the summit’s agenda to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. China sees this as an attempt to press through the idea of expanding the number of negotiating parties at the talks on nuclear weapons by one means or another. China has put forth its position on the idea of multilateral talks clearly and more than once. We respect this position. By the way, the Americans are clever at twisting things. They use only the parts of our statements and those of the Chinese that suit their position. The Chinese have said recently that they will join the arms control talks as soon as the Americans reduce their capability to the level of China’s arsenal. A day later, Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea announced that the United States welcomed China’s readiness to join the multilateral talks and invited Beijing to Vienna. The next round of Russian-US consultations at the level of experts will be held in late July, following on from the late June meeting between Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea, when the Americans made a show with Chinese flags. The Americans have once again stated publicly that they would like to invite the Chinese to Vienna but it would be better if Russia met with China before that so as to tell Beijing what Washington expects from it. I think everyone can see that this is impolite and undiplomatic. When we say that we proceed from the assumption that China is free to take whatever stand it deems necessary, it shows our respect for China’s position. I would like to add that the Americans have not put on paper anything of what they said about the need for transitioning to a multilateral format. Let them at least document what they have in mind. But they seem to be categorically averse to this.

We are ready to take part in multilateral talks, but it should be a voluntary and independent decision of everyone. Only voluntary participation can be effective.

None of the reservations are being taken into account. They say that Russia supports their call for multilateral talks. What do we hear when we add that multilateral talks must also include Britain and France? Special Envoy Billingslea didn’t blink when he said the other day in reply to a question about the possible involvement of Britain and France that they are sovereign states who are free to decide whether to join the talks or not, and that the United States will not make the decision for them. Why has it actually made the decision for China then?

Knowing the US negotiating party, I am not optimistic about the New START, for example, but it’s good that we have started talking. Sergey Ryabkov and Marshall Billingslea have agreed to set up three working groups within the framework of the process they are supervising. They will hold a meeting of the working group on space, nuclear and weapons transparency plus nuclear doctrines in Vienna between July 27 and 30. We’ll see what comes of it. We never refuse to talk, and we will try to make negotiations result-oriented.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217691
__________________
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 August 7th, 2020 #144
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 online session “Russia and the post-COVID World,” held as part of the Primakov Readings international forum, Moscow, July 10, 2020 - PART II



10 July 2020 - 15:55







Question:

Extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is one of the critical items on the agenda of Russia-US relations, primarily in the sphere of arms control. If Russia fails to reach an agreement with Washington to renew this treaty before February 2021, what will it do next? If there’s a pause in the dialogue with Washington in the sphere of arms control, and if the treaty is not renewed, what will the arms control system become and will the multilateral formats that we are talking about now be possible in the future?



Sergey Lavrov:

It appears that the United States has already decided not to renew this treaty. The fact that it insists that there’s no alternative to taking the deal to the trilateral format suggests that everything has been already decided. In addition to this, they want the latest Russian weapons to be part of the deal which, by and large, is nothing short of trying to force an open door. We told the Americans earlier on that when Avangard and Sarmat become fully deployed, they will be subject to the restrictions established by the treaty for as long as it remains valid. The other systems are new. They do not fit into the three categories covered by START-3, but we are ready to start talking about including the weapons that are not classical from the START-3 perspective in the discussion, of course, within the context of a principled discussion of all, without exceptions, variables that affect strategic stability that way or another. This includes missile defence, where we are now able to see that the once existing allegations that it was designed solely to stop the missile threat coming from Iran and North Korea, were lies. No one is even trying to bring this up anymore. Everything is being done solely in terms of containing Russia and China. Other factors include high-precision non-nuclear weapons known as a programme of instant global strike, openly promoted plans by the Americans and the French to launch weapons into space, the developments related to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a number of other factors too. We are ready to discuss new weapons, but to do so not in order to humour someone or to respond to someone’s initiatives, but to really reduce the threat to global stability and security.

To this end, we need to look at all the things that create these threats, pushing us to create antidotes, as was the case with our hypersonic weapons, which were developed in response to the global deployment of the US missile defence system.

Speaking specifically about the START-3 Treaty, we need an extension as much as the Americans do. They see some kind of a game in our calls to extend it for five more years without any preconditions. Russia, they say, has modernised its entire nuclear arsenal, but we are just beginning the modernisation, so they want to “tie our hands.” This is absolutely not so. We need to extend the START-3 Treaty as much as the Americans. If they refuse to do so, we will not insist. We know and we firmly believe that we will be able to ensure our security in the long run, even in the absence of this treaty. I think it is premature to discuss our actions if this treaty expires without any further action, but we are indeed ready for any turn of events. If the renewal is turned down, our options may be different, but I can assure you that overall we will continue the dialogue with the United States on strategic issues and new weapons control tools based on the facts that underlie strategic stability, as I just mentioned.

With regard to the multilateral talks, we already said back in 2010, when we were signing START-3, that the signing of this treaty puts an end to the possibility for further bilateral reductions and that, talking about future reductions, I emphasise this term, we will need to take into account the arsenals of other nuclear powers and start looking for other forms of discussions, if we’re talking about reductions. If we are talking about control, I think the bilateral Russian-American track has far more to offer. Losing all forms of control and transparency would probably be an unreasonable and irresponsible thing to do in the face of our nations and other nations as well. I believe the fact that there’s a transparency group (this is a broad term that includes measures of trust and verification) among the Russian-American working groups which will be meeting in Vienna soon, is a good sign.



Question:

The Eurasian countries regard Russia as a mainstay that can connect the EU and Asian countries. How do you see Russia’s role in this space?



Sergey Lavrov:

The situation on the Eurasian continent is fully affected by almost all global factors. This is where a number of the most important world centres are located, including China, Russia, India and the European Union if we are talking about the continent as a whole. For various reasons, each of these actors is motivated to pursue a foreign policy independent from the United States. This includes the EU.

Calls for strategic autonomy extend to the development area as such. We in Eurasia feel the influence of forces that would like to put together interest-based blocs and try to introduce elements of confrontation into various processes. We increasingly see centripetal tendencies. I am referring to ASEAN in the east and the EU in the west of our continent.

Located in the centre is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union. We would like to promote unifying, not divisive approaches in this space and intensify trans-regional collaboration based on equality, mutual benefit, and most importantly, we would like to realise the obvious comparative advantages of cooperation on the continent via integration entities created in the West, East, and Centre, with respect for each of these unions and the search for natural forms of collaboration. This is the goal of what we call the Greater Eurasian Partnership that President Vladimir Putin suggested establishing at the Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi a few years ago. We think this is an absolutely realistic action plan.

Let me note parenthetically that there are opposing approaches. They are mostly promoted by the United States through so-called Indo-Pacific concepts aimed at undermining the central systematic role of ASEAN in the Asia-Pacific region. I am referring to an attempt to put together a group of countries that would openly – this is not even hidden – contain China’s development.

I would favour identifying points of contact among all integration processes. Of course, there is China’s Belt and Road concept. The EAEU has an agreement with China that includes identifying points of contact and the harmonisation of any project that will be implemented as part of Eurasian integration and China’s project. Of course, there is a clash of economic interests in a number of cases, but the sides’ willingness to be guided by international legal principles, respect for each other, and mutual benefit makes it possible to agree on these economic interests based on the search for balance. It is in this way that our relations with our EAEU partners, China within the SCO, and ASEAN, are built. We invite the European Union, as has been repeatedly stated, to consider how it can become part of the development of our common geopolitical and primarily geo-economic space with benefits for itself and for others.



Question:

The Middle East and North Africa remain a troubled region. New divides continue to crop up there; the potential for conflict remains and the old conflicts that everyone knows about persist. The humanitarian situation is aggravated due to the West’s unfair sanctions against a certain part of the region. Various asymmetries are growing deeper. What are Russia’s strategic interests in the region today? What do we want to achieve there, given the post-COVID nature of the era we are now entering?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have very good relations in this region, possibly the best in the history of relations between this country, in its various capacities, and the region. I mean relations with all sides: the Arab countries, regardless of the conflict potential within the Arab world, and Israel. We will proceed from the need to promote positive contact with all these countries and seek to understand their problems and needs, and take this into account in our relations not only with a specific country but also with the countries that this particular partner has problems with.

In the beginning, I was asked whether Russia was ready to perform as a balancing influence in relations between the United States and China. If they ask us to, if they are interested, we would not decline this. We have established contacts with both sides and our historical development record enables us to see that we have potential.

If there is interest in mediation services that we can offer in this region or elsewhere, we are always ready to try to help, but of course, we will not push ourselves on anyone. Our own interest is primarily in precluding new military crises and in settling old crises so that the Middle East and North Africa become a zone of peace and stability. Unlike certain major countries outside the region, we have no strategic interest in maintaining controlled chaos. We have no such interest whatsoever.

We are not interested in engineering head-on clashes between countries in the region so as to create a pretext and a motive for continuing, and sometimes expanding, our military presence there. We are interested in promoting mutually beneficial trade, economic, investment and other ties with these states. In this respect, we would not like any other country in the region to have the same fate as Libya, which was robbed of its statehood and now no one knows how to “sew it together.” This is why we will be actively involved in efforts to reestablish an international legal approach to avoid any further toothpowder-filled test tubes passed off as VX and lies about weapons of mass destruction in other countries in the region as is now happening in Syria. Some have already started talking about “undiscovered” chemical weapons in Libya. All of these are inventions. How they are concocted is no secret.

We would like to derive economic benefits from our relations with the countries in the region. For this, we primarily have much in common in our approaches to problems in the contemporary world: international law, the UN Charter, and inter-civilisational dialogue, something that is also important, considering the Muslim population in the Russian Federation. Russia’s Muslim republics maintain good ties with the Gulf countries and other countries in the Arab world. We would like to support and develop all this. We will not gain anything from the chaos that continues in the region. As soon as the situation stabilises, the Russian Federation’s reliability as a partner in economic cooperation, military-technical cooperation, and the political area will always ensure us important advantages.



Question:

My question is related to the recent changes in Russia. The new wording of the Constitution, which has come into effect, includes a provision according to which any actions (with the exception of delimitation, demarcation and re-demarcation of the state border of the Russian Federation with adjacent states) aimed at alienating part of the Russian territory, as well as calls for such actions, shall be prohibited. This provision is understandable. This brings me to my question: Does this mean that our years-long talks with Japan on the so-called territorial dispute have become anti-constitutional because they contradict our Fundamental Law? As far as I recall, the terms “delimitation” and “demarcation” have never been applied to the Kuril Islands, or have they?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, you are spot on. Our relations with Japan are based on a number of agreements. The Russian Federation as the successor state of the Soviet Union has reaffirmed its commitment to all of the agreements signed by the Soviet Union. President Vladimir Putin has confirmed this more than once. This includes the 1956 Declaration under which we are ready to discuss and are discussing with our Japanese colleagues the necessity of signing a peace treaty, but not a treaty that would have been signed the next day after the last shot, that is, immediately after the termination of the war, as some of our Japanese colleagues would like. The state of war between the Soviet Union and Japan was terminated by the 1956 Declaration, which provides for the end of the state of war and for the restoration of diplomatic relations. What else do we need? In other words, a peace treaty we are negotiating should be modern and comprehensive, and it should not reflect the situation of 60-70 years ago but the current state of affairs, when we believe that we should develop full-scale ties with Japan. This document must be essential and inclusive, that is, it should include issues of peace, friendship, neighbourliness, partnership and cooperation, and it should cover all spheres of our relations, including economic ties, which are improving but not in all economic sectors. It should be remembered that our Japanese neighbours have imposed sanctions on Russia, although they are not as all-embracing as the US restrictions, but anyway.

A peace treaty should also cover security topics, because Japan has a close military alliance with the United States, which has essentially declared Russia to be an enemy. Of course, a comprehensive peace treaty should also include our views on foreign policy interaction, where, to put it simply, we disagree on all disputable matters, as well as humanitarian and cultural ties and many other factors. We have offered a concept of such a treaty. Our Japanese colleagues have not responded to this concept so far.

It is clear that the outcome of WWII is the fundamental issue that should determine our relations. Japanese officials have stated more than once that they recognise the results of WWII excluding the decision concerning the South Kuril Islands, or the “Northern Territories,” as they say. This position contradicts the law. Japan’s position must be based on the fact that the country ratified the UN Charter, which essentially means that the actions taken by the winner countries with regard to the enemy countries are beyond discussion.

Of course, our Japanese neighbours keep saying that they would sign a peace treaty as soon as the territorial dispute is settled. This is not what we have agreed to do. We have agreed to focus on signing a peace treaty as stipulated in the 1956 Declaration.



Question:

Russia often criticises the US for promoting non-inclusive associations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans to isolate “uncomfortable” states. I am primarily referring to the so-called Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad. Obviously, the very existence of such formats turns the region from a zone of cooperation into a zone of confrontation. We are certainly not interested in that. However, for all its minuses, the Quad concept is obviously finding understanding from Russia’s strategic partners, for instance, India. The Quad Plus project, where the US plans to invite Vietnam, our strategic partner as well, is also under discussion. Apparently, there is a need to enhance security in the region. Can Russia offer an alternative to such formats to prevent our two strategic partners from being in a position where they have to deter a third one?



Sergey Lavrov:

I talked about the appearance of concepts and strategies on forming what US diplomats call “a free and open Indo-Pacific” several years ago. When some initiative calls itself free and open, I always have the impression that this includes a tinge of PR because how can it be called open if every state the region without exception is not invited to join?

When the term “Indo-Pacific strategies” appeared we inquired if they did not deal with the Asia-Pacific Region the contours of which are clear: the APEC, and the mechanisms that were established around ASEAN (the ASEAN regional security forum, the meeting of the ASEAN defence ministers and the partner countries, which is very important and, of course, the East Asia Summit (EAS), a forum that will be a decade old this year). We asked why the established term, Asia-Pacific Region, was replaced with this “Indo-Pacific strategies.” Does this mean that these strategies will embrace more countries, including all Indian Ocean coastal states? We received a negative answer. But what does “Indo” mean then? Will the Persian Gulf, which is part of the Indian Ocean, take part in the new format? We got a negative answer again. The Gulf has too many problems to be involved in these initiatives.

As for the ideas pursued by this Quad, as I have said, they are not really hiding them. These ideas come down to attempts to deter China. Our specially privileged partner India is fully aware of this. Pursuing its multi-vector policy, India is certainly interested in developing relations with the US (and who isn’t?), Japan and Australia. We are also interested in this. But India does not want to benefit from this cooperation at the price of further aggravating its relations with China. They had sad incidents on the Line of Actual Control but we welcome their immediate contacts between militaries, which are ongoing. They reached agreements on de-escalating tensions. Their politicians and diplomats also met. We can see that neither India nor China want their relations to get worse. Therefore, before talking seriously about Indo-Pacific strategies as a future for our large region, it is necessary to explain the choice of wording. If this was done to please India because of the Indian Ocean, just say so.

There are things that have already been established. I mentioned a diverse network of institutions and mechanisms around ASEAN. ASEAN brings together a group of countries that promote unifying approaches in the context of their civilisations and cultures. Everything is aimed at searching for consensus based on a balance of interests. For decades, the members have been absolutely content with developing relations in this venue with its regional security forum, defence minister meetings and East Asia Summits. There is even an expression: “ASEAN-way.” They always emphasise that they want to handle matters in “the ASEAN-way.” This means never to seek confrontation or launch projects that will create problems for other members. Regrettably, Indo-Pacific strategies may pursue different goals, at least under their initial concept.

In the beginning of our conversation, I mentioned the tough claims made by the US against China. They sound like an ultimatum. This is a mechanism for exerting and intensifying pressure. We do not see anything positive in this. Any problems must be resolved peacefully, through talks. Let me repeat that ASEAN is an ideal venue where every participant can discuss its problems with another member without polemics or tension. We are actively forming bridges with ASEAN (I mentioned the EAEU and the SCO). Their secretariats have already signed related memorandums. We will continue promoting ASEAN’s core role in the South Pacific Region.

We will only welcome Indo-Pacific strategies if they become more understandable, if we are convinced that they lean towards joining the ASEAN-led processes rather than try to undermine its role and redirect the dialogue against China or someone else. However, we are not seeing this so far.



Question:

A week ago, experts were polled on US allegations that Russian military intelligence, the GRU, had offered rewards to the Taliban for killing US troops in Afghanistan. All of the analysts agree that the allegation could be rooted in domestic, primarily political reasons. Your subordinate, Special Presidential Representative for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov, has pointed out that one of the factions in the United States is against the planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan because US security services have become deeply involved in the drug trade over the past few years. We have not asked you about this situation yet. What do you think about this uproar?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already responded to the hype in the United States over Russia’s alleged connection with the Taliban, who were allegedly financed to fight US troops and even offer bounties for the murder of American military personnel. I can only tell you once again that all this is a dirty speculation. No facts have been provided to prove anything. Moreover, responsible officials in the US administration, including the Secretary of Defence, have said that they know nothing about this.

These allegations fit in very well with the political fighting during an election year in the United States, as if they were invented – and it appears that this is so – for this purpose. The objective is to disgrace the US administration and to discredit everything it has been doing, especially with regard to Russia. I would like to repeat that there are no facts to prove these allegations. But there were facts in the late 1970s and 80s, when the US administration did not make a secret of helping the Mujahedeen, of supplying them with Stingers and other weapons, which they used against Soviet soldiers.

As I have said, we would like both Russia and the United States to draw lessons from the experience they have accumulated in that long-suffering country and to help launch an intra-Afghan dialogue together with the other countries that could help allay tensions there, primarily China, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan’s other neighbours. We have been working actively towards this end.

As for the United States, we have been acting within the framework of this political process under the agreements being advocated by the United States in its dialogue with the Taliban and the Afghan Government. We are using our channels to make these agreements possible. There is a mechanism for consultations between Russia, the United States and China, which Pakistan sometimes joins and to which Iran has been invited. However, Iran has not acted on the invitation because of its problems with the United States and the actions Washington has been taking against Iran around the world. These consultations are a mechanism for cooperation that is being used to define the spheres where signals could be sent to the sides. This is being done within the framework of the logic of the so-called Moscow format, which brings together all of Afghanistan’s neighbours without exception, as well as the United States, Russia and China. This is more than adequate.

Now, regarding Afghanistan’s drugs and the possible involvement of the US military in the drug business. We have received numerous reports, including through the media, according to which NATO aircraft are being used to smuggle Afghan opiates to other countries, including to Europe. The governors of the concerned Afghan provinces have stated more than once that unmarked helicopters are flying in the area. It should be noted that the sky over Afghanistan is controlled by the NATO coalition. Other reports have mentioned other forms of smuggling opiates.

Of course, we cannot verify such information to the dot, but it has been reported so regularly that we cannot ignore it. If combat aircraft were used in Afghanistan (as I mentioned, it could only be NATO aircraft), the flights could only be made by military or intelligence personnel. These circumstances should be investigated, first of all in the United States. The Americans have agencies that are in charge of monitoring compliance with American laws. Second, investigations should also be held in the country where military personnel are deployed, that is, Afghanistan. This is exactly what Zamir Kabulov said. By the way, established facts show that over the 20 years of the deployment of the US and other coalition members in Afghanistan the volume of drugs smuggled into other countries, including in Europe and our neighbours, as well as into Russia, has increased several times over. Neither the United States nor the other members of the NATO coalition are seriously fighting this drug business. By the way, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko noted in a recent report that there are opium poppy plantations right next to NATO bases. This is an established fact. And this is possibly not right from the viewpoint of the US stand on the drug business.

We have regularly tried to attract the UN Security Council’s attention to this issue when we listened to reports on NATO coalition operations in Afghanistan, and we also did this via bilateral channels when we urged our partners to combat the drug industry. They replied that the mandate of the NATO mission in Afghanistan did not include drugs, that it only stipulated counterterrorist activities. But it is a well-known fact that the drug business is used to finance terrorism and is the largest source of funds for terrorist organisations. You can reach your own conclusions. As I have pointed out, we take this problem very seriously.



Question:

A few hours after this meeting of the Primakov Readings is over, an extraordinary UN General Assembly session on combating the pandemic will begin at 10 am New York time. This session was convened by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). How important is this session? Who will represent Russia? Do you think the UN is late in responding to the pandemic? What do you think about the Non-Aligned Movement’s principles in these conditions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, we are aware that a special session of the UN General Assembly on the subject of COVID-19 will be convened upon the initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement chaired by Azerbaijan this year. It will take place a little later. Today, on July 10, the procedural registration of the rules to be used for convening the session begins, since amid the coronavirus infection, all remotely held events are subject to coordination in terms of their organisational and procedural aspects. Only this matter will be discussed today. The date for convening the special session itself has not yet been determined.

I don’t think we have any reason to believe that the UN is slow or late in responding to the coronavirus infection challenges. The UN General Assembly met twice some time ago at an early stage of this situation. Two resolutions were adopted which were dedicated to the international community’s goals in fighting the coronavirus infection. Most recently, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on COVID-19. We were unable to do this for a long time because the Americans strongly opposed mentioning the role of the World Health Organisation in the document. Eventually, we found words that allowed us to mention this role and to ensure consensus approval.

Let us remember that the World Health Assembly, by the way, with the participation of the Americans, held a special session in May. The WHA adopted a resolution supported by the US in which the WHO’s role was objectively reflected. It was agreed at that session that as soon as the pandemic and all major programmes are completed, an international assessment of the lessons we learned from the WHO's work in this area would be made, but without pointing a finger at anyone. It is an objective scientific evaluation of independent professionals.

Of course, the Non-Aligned Movement is our close partner. We are a guest country that is regularly invited to NAM summits and ministerial meetings in this capacity. This body was created in a wholly different historical context at the height of the Cold War, when the developing countries that formed this movement wanted to emphasise the principle of neutrality with respect for the two military blocs. Nevertheless, the Non-Aligned Movement remains a significant factor in international politics even after the Cold War. I think this is good, since the attempts to cobble up certain blocks again (we have already discussed this today) continue. It is important that this neutrality, non-commitment and focus on advancing the principles of international law be preserved at the core of NAM activities.

By the way, another NAM summit was held in Baku in October 2019. We attended it as a guest. Important joint statements were agreed upon. We confirmed our support for strengthening multipolarity in the international arena and respect for the UN Charter principles. NAM statements in support of Palestine and Bolivia were adopted as well. Back then, these were important topics. We are interested in seeing our status in NAM help us actively work on issues of common interest.



Question:

Did Dmitry Kozak give an ultimatum at the talks on the Minsk agreements, telling Kiev to draft amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine on the special status of Donbass as soon as possible? If so, why has this demand become so tough only now that these agreements are already five years old?



Sergey Lavrov:

There were no demands or ultimatums. Working as Normandy format advisors, the assistants of the four leaders that are part of our Contact Group, we are trying to ensure, in cooperation with the OSCE, the direct dialogue that Kiev is required to conduct with Donetsk and Lugansk. Conceptually, we are striving for only one goal – we are asking our Ukrainian partners to reaffirm their full commitment to the Minsk agreements as they were drafted, signed and approved by the UN Security Council. When we are told that Kiev is committed to the Minsk agreements but that it is necessary to first establish control of the Ukrainian Army and border guards over the entire border, this has nothing to do with the Minsk agreements. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. When we are told, at the top level, that the Minsk agreements must be preserved to continue the sanctions against Russia, we would like to know if Ukraine is primarily interested in these agreements because of the sanctions, why it signed them and whether it is still committed to what is written in them rather than this absolutely artificial and inadequate link with sanctions. The majority of EU members consider this link incoherent. This is an approach of principle. I talked with the foreign ministers of France and Germany. Mr Kozak spoke with his counterparts as well. We would like our French and German partners to continue to express their views about this as participants in the Normandy format. Every day, we hear Kiev’s official statements that simply discard the agreements that were reaffirmed by the UN Security Council after the talks in Minsk.

For all this, we continue to hold pragmatic conversation with a view to coordinating specific steps on promoting all aspects of the Minsk agreements: security, socio-economic, humanitarian and political issues. At the recent, fairly productive meeting of the leaders’ assistants of the Normandy format states, the participants reached a number of agreements on yet another detainee exchange, and the Contact Group’s security arrangements, including reconciliation of the texts of the orders that must be adopted by the parties to the conflict (Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk) and describe in detail the actions to be banned by these orders. These issues were agreed upon. The third negotiated item on the political agenda is the presentation by Ukraine of its vision of the document that will contain amendments to the Constitution to reflect the special status of Donbass fully in line with the Minsk agreements.

Understandings were reached in these three areas and were supposed to be formalised in the decisions of the Contact Group that ended its session the other day. In Minsk, the Ukrainian delegation disavowed everything that was agreed upon in Berlin. We noted this, and Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak sent a related message to his colleagues. So, this is no surprise at all. We have always insisted that the Minsk agreements must be carried out in full and with the due succession of actions. It’s not that we are losing patience, but patience helps when there is a clear understanding of what comes next. President Vladimir Zelensky came to power under a slogan of quick peace in Donbass. However, at this point, we have no idea what the attitude of his administration is to the actions that must be taken under the Minsk agreements.



Question:

Former US National Security Advisor John Bolton writes in his memoirs that US President Donald Trump was unhappy about the sanctions over Salisbury and Syria. Did you hear about this? Is the agreement with the US on the exchange of top level visits still valid? Is Russia’s participation in the extended G7 format being considered?



Sergey Lavrov:

I haven’t read John Bolton’s memoirs but I’m familiar with some parts of his book. Clearly, Mr Bolton has his own view of Russia-US relations, the US mission in the world, and America’s vision of the world order and what it should be. Apparently, every author wants his or her book to sell well (and in America practically every person writes a book after serving in the government for one or two years). To achieve this, it is necessary to make it interesting, and “hot issues” are helpful in this respect. I’ll leave all this on the conscience of Mr Bolton: both his presentation of this material and the spicy and sensitive details. I’ll also leave on his conscience his obvious embellishment of US actions in different situations.

Nobody has signed any agreements on exchanging top level visits because such an agreement implies a certain date for a visit, and the name of the city and geographical location. But nobody is discounting the possibility of such meetings, either. We are willing to work with the Americans at all levels and President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has good relations with US President Donald Trump. From time to time, I talk with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. Our deputies also maintain a dialogue. So, if the Americans are interested, we do not see any obstacles. We don’t want our relations to be seen as some appendage to the election campaign and the tough actions taken by the sides as regards each other on the eve of the US election.

As for the G7, I think we have already said everything we wanted to say on this issue. Russia was a full member of the G8. The G8 did not meet in 2014 and not due to any action on our part. Our partners — Europe, North America and Japan — decided not to hold this event in full. This is their choice. President Vladimir Putin said in one of his comments that as before we will be happy to host the entire G8 in the Russian Federation. If our colleagues do not want this, love cannot be forced.

As for the G7, the list of countries invited to attend, as mentioned by US President Donald Trump, shows that the G7 can no longer accomplish much on its own. But even the countries that were mentioned will not make any radical change because the list is incomplete. We are convinced that the serious issues of the world and global finances can hardly be resolved effectively. Apparently, these reasons — the need to involve the main players in world financial, economic and commodity markets — have prompted the resumption and upgrade of activities in the G20. This is an inclusive mechanism that relies on consensus and the principles of equality. We believe the G20 format must obviously be preserved, encouraged and actively used if we want to talk about the underlying causes of current economic problems rather than their use in foreign policy disputes or any other sort of rhetoric.



Question:

In Russia, they always say that they are ready to work with any president that is elected by the American people. Can you predict potential development of bilateral relations if former US Vice President Joe Biden wins? Do you think some analysts are correct in believing that he could revise some of President Donald Trump’s decisions, which do not benefit Russia, such as withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not comment on election campaigns. This is done by the media in all countries. The election campaign in the US is creating much interest in the entire world. This is understandable, but officially we proceed from the correct assumption that the choice of the head of state is up to the American people. This is a domestic US affair.

As for how this or that outcome might affect Russia-US relations, if we reason in a perfectly abstract way, we can quote some analysts that have commented on how this will influence disarmament talks. There is an opinion that is probably buttressed by some facts, that the Democrats are less prone than the Republicans to destroy the agreements on strategic stability and disarmament that had been reached over the past few decades. But we have not forgotten that a major anti-Russia campaign was launched during the Democratic administration of Barrack Obama. Many elements of this campaign, including sanctions, are now an element of bipartisan consensus. I don’t want to guess. This situation is unpredictable. Let me repeat, let the American people make their decision.

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights that is in charge, among other things, of monitoring elections, has conducted such monitoring remotely and distributed a report that was recently presented at the OSCE Permanent Council. The report contains many critical remarks about the correlation of election processes to American laws. I will not go into details. You can read this report yourself. But the report mentions, in particular, that for a variety of reasons at least 2 million US citizens are deprived of the right of the vote to which they are entitled by law. Interestingly, the report notes such a congenital defect in US election legislation, notably, a two-stage election process.

At first, people elect the Electoral College that later on chooses the president. The report also noted that the creation of the electoral districts is unfair to different ethnic groups. This is an indicative observation on behalf of the OSCE. We have spoken about this for a long time. I also recall that when Condoleezza Rice was US Secretary of State, she complained about our elections. I replied that if she had specific grievances, we had international and domestic observers and many other mechanisms and the entire process would be analysed. I reminded her that in the US a nominee can win a popular vote but a different candidate can be elected president because of different shares of votes in the electoral districts and the Electoral College. This is what happened in 2000 when the Florida votes were recounted for such a long time. Eventually, this process was stopped by the Supreme Court. George Bush Jr became US President and Alexander Gore accepted his defeat. Ms Rice told me then that they know this is a problem but this is their problem and they will settle it themselves. They probably will respond to the OSCE report in the same way.

As for the prospects and the projection of this or other decision on treaties, including the Open Skies Treaty, in line with the current schedule and its own announced decision on withdrawal, the US is supposed to end its participation in the treaty on November 22 or two and a half weeks after the election. No matter who becomes president, the new administration will assume its duties on January 20. Therefore, this decision will not likely be revised if the treaty expires. If the new administration, Democratic or Republican, decides to return to the treaty, the talks will have to be started from scratch. Therefore, at the extraordinary conference of the signatories of the Open Skies Treaty that was held online on July 6 of this year, we urged all remaining parties to the treaty to try and preserve it. We are prepared to continue with it but will take our final decision on whether we should remain part of it after analysing all consequences of the US decision on withdrawing from it, that is unlikely to be revised. It is final and irreversible as we are seeing, in my opinion. This is also confirmed by what happened with the INF Treaty. The decision was announced. This was followed by attempts at persuading them to keep it but to no avail.

But let me return to what I said in replying to one of the questions. We are ready for a situation where nothing will be left of arms control due to the US’s persistent line to throw all of these agreements out. But we are also prepared not to start from scratch but continue our contacts with the Americans on all strategic stability issues. I am confident that all members of the international community will support this approach. That said, we will keep the door open for multilateral talks as well. Let me repeat that these talks must rely on common understanding, voluntary participation and a balanced lineup of participants.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217691
__________________
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 August 8th, 2020 #145
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in response to the reports by Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine and in the Trilateral Contact Group Heidi Grau and Chief Monitor of the OSCE SMM to Ukraine Yasar Halit Cevik, Vienna, July 9, 2020



10 July 2020 - 16:46







Mr Chairperson,

We welcome the distinguished ambassadors Heidi Grau and Yasar Halit Cevik. The presented reports confirm that the dynamics of the negotiating process to resolve the Ukraine crisis are disappointing, and the situation on the ground remains barely predictable.

Yesterday’s Contact Group meeting failed to break new ground despite the efforts of the Normandy format foreign policy advisers who tried to give another boost to the Minsk negotiating platform during the meeting in Berlin on July 3 which lasted many hours. The Contact Group discussions are only treading water. No agreed upon decisions in writing have been reached. There’s no positive dynamic whatsoever.

More than six months after the meeting of the Normandy format countries’ leaders in Paris on December 9, 2019, most of their instructions for the Contact Group remain unfulfilled. For example, one of the top priority instructions was to agree on measures to support a ceasefire. Donetsk and Lugansk came up with their part of the deal immediately after the summit. However, it remains a non-starter because Ukraine flat out refuses to confirm the Minsk agreements approved by the UN Security Council. In addition, Kiev continues to refuse to agree upon a set of additional measures to support a sustainable ceasefire, including a measure to publish ceasefire orders and to ban offensive and sabotage operations. This clearly indicates that Ukraine’s leaders are not interested in a genuine ceasefire, despite an understanding on this matter that already exists in the Contact Group.

We draw the attention of the distinguished Ambassador Heidi Grau to this untenable situation.

As you are aware, the key to ending the violence in Donbass lies in reaching a comprehensive political settlement. Pursuant to the Package of Measures, the implementation of the “political package” of the Minsk Agreements should be carried out concurrently with the steps in the security area. Kiev itself confirmed the fact that this should be done simultaneously at the Normandy summit in Berlin in October 2016. However, nothing has been done, for years now. After the change of power in Ukraine in 2019, there were hopes for progress in this area. In March, Kiev co-initiated the creation of the Advisory Council as a dialogue platform for coordinating political and legal decisions on the settlement. This was included in the minutes of the group’s March 11 meeting. But then Kiev itself went back on the idea, putting further progress on the political track at risk.

We are now hearing the Ukrainian negotiators say that no progress in this area is possible without establishing military control over Donbass, not to mention the fact that Kiev refuses outright to discuss any political decisions as part of a face-to-face dialogue with representatives from Donetsk and Lugansk, even though the Package of Measures clearly provides for it. Ukraine has not yet provided written proposals for implementing the “Steinmeier formula” in the law on the special status of Donbass, or implementing the provisions on the special status in the country’s constitution as prescribed by the Package of Measures. The prospects for including the draft provisions in the law on special status and amnesty presented by Kiev without account taken of the opinions of representatives of certain areas of Donbass remain vague. In addition, the Ukrainian authorities went back on their written guarantees not to prosecute under criminal law the detained persons subject to exchange.

There has been no progress on reaching an agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk on the modalities of crossing the contact line by civilians. The economic blockade of Donbass continues unabated. Kiev “cares” about the people of the region only in word. In reality, it makes the people who have not changed their place of residence in certain areas and are not “temporary migrants,” obtain and regularly confirm their status in order to renew their entitlement to pensions and social benefits. The April decision to suspend, but not completely revoke this requirement during the epidemic, is peddled as some kind of a grand gesture on behalf of the Ukrainian government.

Instead of real steps towards de-escalation and settlement, we are increasingly seeing attempts by Kiev officials to escalate military hysteria. Against the background of ongoing preparations for local elections in the autumn, the clichéd myth about an “external threat” is once again being exploited. However, there are more alarming developments. On July 2, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ruslan Khomchak said the Ukrainian military “are increasingly focusing on training the troops for offensive operations in urban areas.” On July 5, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Navy Alexey Neizhpapa made similar remarks. This shows that Kiev is preparing a military scenario to resolve the “Donbass problem.”

These bellicose statements are accompanied by waves of armed violence like the continuous nighttime shelling from large-caliber weapons by the Ukrainian army on the Gorlovka suburbs in the early hours of July 6. To save their lives, the civilians had to spend the night in their basements. Critical infrastructure was damaged, including a water pump station and a water supply pipeline, and seven transformer substations outside the Komsomolskaya Mine were cut off from power. We urge the SMM to study the data on the aftermath of these attacks and include them in their reports in full.

We regret that Kiev was not receptive to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ March 23 call to cease fire in all conflicts amid the coronavirus pandemic, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2532 of July 1 in support of this appeal. In May, the number of civilian casualties in Donbass exceeded the two-year high. The vast majority of them were recorded in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. By the way, the SMM summary reports (not the daily reports, but the summary reports) categorise casualties by gender and age. However, they do not show information on their place of residence relative to the line of contact, which is important. We are convinced that publishing these data is in the interest of compiling an objective report. I would like to hear Mr Cevik tell us why this has not been done and how the mission plans to remedy the situation.

This two-year high in one month confirms the imperative of releasing an SMM thematic report on civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian buildings. We are aware that the current Albanian Chairmanship of the OSCE has addressed this issue more than once. We look forward to the soonest publication of the report.

Ambassador Cevik,

We reiterate our principled support for the bold efforts of all SMM staff working in difficult conditions under shelling. In addition, many of them are experiencing an increased workload amid forced adjustments to mission activities amid the coronavirus epidemic. Of great concern are the incidents involving the safety of the observers themselves. It’s not just about the shelling. On July 1, a Ukrainian soldier pointed a weapon at a mission patrol that was crossing a checkpoint in Krasnogorovka, Donetsk region.

We are also seriously concerned about damage caused to the mission’s property. Also, we would like to note the counterproductive use of lengthy and sometimes very ambiguous wording in SMM reports. They should clarify the actual situation, rather than give reasons for ambiguous understanding and interpretation. The mission’s operational report for July 1 describing the incident at the Oktyabrskaya Mine in the Donetsk region, where the SMM cameras came under fire, is a case in point. In this regard, I would like to hear you, Mr Cevik, provide specific information about which party is most likely responsible for the shelling of the cameras in Petrovskoye (June 2), Shirokino (June 22) and at Oktyabrskaya Mine (June 30). Does the mission have an understanding of what kind of weapons were used? This is particularly relevant in light of the Ukrainian army’s bravado over its “ability to destroy equipment” on supports of various types through targeted use of precision guns. A video on this was shown on Ukrainian television.

At the same time, it is important not to reduce the mission’s attention to Donbass alone. The monitoring of the security situation near the contact line is certainly a key task but not the only one. The situation in the rest of the country must also be closely followed. According to its mandate, the SMM must monitor compliance with various aspects of human rights, including those that evoke a strong public response. The SMM mandate should not be reduced to “we-report-what-we-see.” The SMM confirmed this by following the investigations into the murders of Pavel Sheremet and Yekaterina Gandzyuk.

Manifestations of aggressive nationalism and radicalism accompanied by street violence continue to undermine security all over Ukraine. Judging by everything we see, Ukraine’s top leaders are well aware of this. President Vladimir Zelensky recently addressed law enforcement agencies with an appeal to prevent the escalation of street violence. At the same time, SMM reports do not yet reflect the serious incidents linked with physical violence by radicals from the National Corps against political activists of opposition movements in June. According to media reports, two of them – in Kharkov and Vinnitsa – required serious medical attention to stay alive after being attacked. There are more than enough facts on manifestations of aggressive nationalism that the SMM could include in a thematic report.

The mission’s selective approach to Ukraine’s checkpoints on the borders with other states is somewhat surprising. It reports that the situation is calm in some of them in the south and the east of the country. Meanwhile, in the past few months, including during coronavirus restrictions, tensions escalated more than once at Ukraine’s border checkpoints with Hungary and Poland. Thus, there were queues of several thousand people at Ukraine’s border checkpoints with Poland in the Lvov Region in March and June. The protest actions at the Ukraine-Hungary border, announced in advance, were accompanied by clashes with law enforcement officers and damaged Ukraine State Border Service property. But these incidents were not covered by SMM reports either.

It is important not to reduce the monitoring of the developments around the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). SMM observations show that the religious organisation created by the former Ukrainian leaders continues to pressure the UOC. Today’s report notes the growth of religious strife, including cases of physical violence. The SMM also reported on three cases of arson at churches in Odessa and the Chernovtsy and Rovno regions in April. Indicatively, the Ukrainian Security Service found grounds for instituting criminal proceedings against former President Petr Poroshenko last November. He was suspected of fueling ethnic and religious strife. We urge the mission to follow the case that is now being studied by the Ukrainian State Bureau of Investigations.

It is also necessary to monitor the consequences of Kiev’s discriminatory legal acts on the language and education that contradict the country’s constitution and its OSCE commitments.

In conclusion, we would like to emphasise that the current extraordinary situation caused by the coronavirus pandemic is making the need to find a compromise between the parties to the Ukrainian domestic conflict even more urgent. The main goal of the OSCE is to help them do this as much as possible and to eliminate the logic of war and violence. It is necessary to work for the earliest possible implementation of all provisions of the Package of Measures of February 12, 2015 that was approved by the UN Security Council. This is the only foundation for durable peace in Ukraine.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217719






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the Netherlands’ decision to file an interstate lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation in connection with the MH17 crash



10 July 2020 - 18:44



We see The Hague’s decision to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in connection with the Malaysian Boeing crash as another blow to Russian-Dutch relations. From the very beginning, The Hague took the path of placing all the blame on Russia for the crash of flight MH17. As the events of the past six years since the tragedy have shown, the Netherlands acted not in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2166 but exclusively within the framework of anti-Russian logic, to which both the technical and criminal investigations were subordinated. All evidence, testimony and expert assessments that ran counter to the pre-selected scenario of what happened in July 2014 in the sky over eastern Ukraine were rejected.

We believe that this step will only lead to further politicisation and complicate the search for the truth.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217767






Statement by H.E. Ambassador Alexander Shulgin, Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW, at the 94th Session of the OPCW Executive Council, The Hague, July 7, 2020



10 July 2020 - 19:25







Mr Chairperson,

This session of the OPCW Executive Council is taking place in unprecedented conditions. Many states parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC) have introduced self-isolation regimes and are maintaining a number of restrictions to this day. They have sent reduced delegations to this event without attracting experts from their capitals.

People tend to rally at difficult times, as we can see from numerous examples throughout our history. This year we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of victory over Nazism. The countries of the anti-Hitler coalition stood together in the fight against this global evil. The international community emerged from WWII more politically mature and it was then, three quarters of a century ago, that they established the United Nations Organisation, a foundation on which international relations have been developing ever since.

Now that our countries are facing serious trials and trying to deal with the consequences of the coronavirus, we would like to see the states parties to the CWC stand closer together in addressing common tasks.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have to state that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is divided and fragmented. It is increasingly less frequently that the member states speak the same language. The notion of consensus has been all but abandoned, and many decisions are taken through voting. As a result, the reputation of the OPCW as an independent expert establishment in the sphere of chemical disarmament has been undermined, through the fault of those who are doing everything within their power to turn the OPCW into an instrument for attaining their own political goals. These countries are doing this in many spheres, but the culmination of their efforts was the establishment, contrary to the opinion of many states, of the attributive mechanism. The assignation of attributive functions to the OPCW Technical Secretariat is nothing other than an attempt to change the paradigm of the organisation. I would like to point out once again that the Russian Federation, just as a number of other countries, does not accept this attribution and does not intend to collaborate with the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) or finance its activities.

The first IIT report, which we will be discussing at this session, has only confirmed the obvious – from the very start, the IIT was assigned quasi-prosecutorial objectives to discredit the legitimate authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic and to accuse them of violating the CWC and the OPCW regulatory instruments.

We have analysed the IIT report. Russia’s views on this topic have been presented in the national document. Our main conclusion is that the accusations against the Syrian Government of the use of chemical weapons in Al Lataminah (Ltamenah) have been fabricated. The IIT actions cannot be regarded as objective or professional.

The opponents of the Syrian authorities need any, even if concocted, pretext for interfering in Syria’s internal affairs. The relevant examples are the US missile attack at Shayrat Airbase in April 2017 or the trilateral aggression against Syria’s civilian and military infrastructure facilities in April 2018 after the high-profile incident at Douma.

The IIT is a clone of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, which completely discredited itself. You can see this from its composition – the majority of its members are representatives of Western countries and US allies; the fallacious methods of its operations, such as remote and non-transparent investigations and the use of anonymous outside experts; as well as the gross violation of the fundamental principle of consistency to ensure the preservation of material evidence.

It is a fact that these investigations are based on reports produced by the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) in Syria. The FFM activities have given rise to many questions, which remain unanswered. Just look at the recent FMM reports on the incidents at Khan Shaykhun, Al Lataminah (Ltamenah), Saraqib and Douma: all of these reports contain a message indicating that it was the Syrian army that allegedly used chemical weapons. However, the evidence used in the reports is limited to statements made by politically biased NGOs such as the White Helmets, which are financed by Western countries and collaborate with terrorists. Not a single report has been issued in the past few years about chemical attacks prepared or implemented in Syria by terrorist and radical groups, even though numerous reliable facts regarding this have been regularly provided by the Syrian authorities.

The results of the FFM’s efforts to investigate the Douma events are particularly scandalous. The flagrant juggling of facts, behind-the-scenes fraud, denigration of experts who disagree with the final conclusions of the Douma report, and unanswered questions have seriously undermined the Organisation’s reputation.

The Technical Secretariat should immediately adjust the work of the FFM in order to restore confidence in it as an important working body capable of operating in an unbiased manner, while strictly abiding by the Convention and in the interests of the entire Organisation.

Given the quality of the first IIT report, with the gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies it contains, all the technical calculations the IIT made to eventually conclude that the Syrian military-political leadership was guilty of using chemicals as weapons need to be presented for the judgment of the participating states. Moreover, even IIT experts had to admit that they could not come to an unambiguous conclusion in the course of their investigation. For example, Paragraph 8.35 of the report says that there is no single chemical that would unequivocally and directly indicate the use of chlorine gas and its origin.

Therefore, at this stage, there can be no question of making any decision, even less so based on the draft submitted to the Council for consideration and aimed at legitimising interference in the internal affairs of Syria. This draft unreasonably imposes unprecedented demands on Damascus even though Syria’s military chemical potential has already been destroyed under international control. If any State Party has doubts about this, they should act strictly within the framework of the procedures prescribed by the Convention, namely, consult with the Syrian side.

The Organisation’s work on the Syrian “chemical dossier” should return to its normal technical track. The dialogue between the Technical Secretariat and the Syrian authorities is ongoing, but its effectiveness is very low. We consider its reluctance to heed Damascus’ arguments as a manifestation of an anti-Syria bias, a sentiment that currently prevails in the administrative bodies of the Organisation. The Technical Secretariat is as responsible as the Syrians for making progress in this area. We are confident that it could be achieved with the proper political will and non-interference of external forces.

As a responsible party to the Convention, Russia unequivocally condemns the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances. We are ready to work closely with the other participating states to rid the world of combat chemicals and prevent further production of this type of WMD. But this problem should be addressed exclusively in the legal field, without trying to replace the norms of international law with some dubious rules.

Countering chemical terrorism is an important aspect of the OPCW’s work. There are two task groups that meet to present to States Parties the experience of other international agencies. But what is the role of the OPCW? The multiple cases of chemical terrorism in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, are no secret. But for some reason, this problem is not on its agenda. Russia once initiated a discussion of measures that the international community must take to eliminate the threat of the use of chemical weapons by terrorist groups. Obviously, the capabilities of the Convention are not enough. We proposed considering, at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, building an additional mechanism in this area – an international convention for combating acts of chemical and biological terrorism. But, unfortunately, our initiative to start this dialogue here in The Hague was rejected. As a result, the OPCW remains inactive on this serious issue.

Things are not particularly brilliant on other important tracks. Much has already been said about the need to fulfil the obligations of States Parties under Article XI of the Convention. But there have been no visible shifts on this matter. The parties responsible for that are definitely those industrialised nations that, contrary to the requirements of the Convention, interfere with the economic and technical development of other States Parties with regard to chemical projects that are not prohibited under the Convention. Moreover, economic sanctions are often involved.

There is only one State Party now that still has declared chemical weapons stockpiles. We would like to urge the United States not to delay the process of eliminating their chemical arsenals and to complete the process, following Russia’s example, ahead of the declared deadline and in strict accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

In conclusion, I would like to underscore once again: the Organisation needs improvement, and it needs an impetus for positive development. Participants in the Fourth Review Conference of the CWC in 2018 made an attempt to look into the future. Everyone remembers who blocked the approval of the final report then, a document spelling out recommendations regarding various tracks of the Organisation’s work for the future.

Despite this very sad situation, we are not losing hope that this controversial phase of OPCW activities will soon end and we will be able to get back to implementing the true tasks and goals of the Convention with a clear understanding of the responsibility for creating a safer and a more predictable world.

Please distribute this statement as an official document of the 94th session of the Executive Council and place it on the internal and external websites of the Organisation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217777






Joint statement on the first report by the investigation and identification team, July 7, 2020



10 July 2020 - 19:34



This joint statement is issued on behalf of Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Cuba, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Lao People’s Republic, Myanmar, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), and Zimbabwe.

We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (hereinafter "the Convention"), as members of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), express deep concern over the situation in the OPCW after the release of the first Report by the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) on the alleged incidents in Ltamenah, the Syrian Arab Republic, on 24, 25 and 30 March 2017.

The establishment of the IIT and its way of conducting work is not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The IIT interferes into the exclusive authority of the United Nations Security Council.

The conclusions made by the IIT are arguable, as the demands of a number of States to clarify the high-profile case of the alleged tampering with the report by the Fact-Finding Mission on the chemical incident in Douma in April 2018 have been unfortunately ignored. Some countries took advantage of this in order to commit an unprovoked aggression against the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.

We believe that it can cause further split in the OPCW and the unnecessary politicization of its work.

We proceed from the assumption that the normalization of the work of the Organization, that once earned the Nobel Peace Prize, depends on the resumption of a mutually respectful dialogue among Member States under strict compliance with the Convention, as well as the respect for international law as a whole, which should not be substituted for the sake of a group of States-Parties for some rules they invented themselves.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217791






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on an OPCW Executive Council decision to accuse Syria of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention



10 July 2020 - 19:53



On July 7-9, The Hague hosted a regular, 94th session of the OPCW Executive Council. Experts from the member countries’ capitals did not take part due to the quarantine restrictions. This is regrettable, especially considering the importance of the issues that were discussed.

At the session, the Western countries actively promoted the approval of the first report by the “attributive” Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) they imposed on the OPCW over the events in Ltamenah, Syria on March 24, 25 and 30, 2017. The report accuses Syria’s Air Force of using toxic chemicals against civilians in this area.

Based on the evidence, we have repeatedly informed the OPCW that this report is biased, politically motivated, unauthentic, professionally weak and technically unconvincing. Even the wording of the IIT’s main conclusion that “that there are reasonable grounds to believe” shows that its authors could not reach an unequivocal opinion. The proponents of this anti-Syrian attitude did not even try to conceal the hidden motives behind the Western-inspired material which was used to prepare the draft of this unacceptable decision on Syria’s alleged failure to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Russian Federation and many other states parties to the CWC are convinced that the creation of an “attributive mechanism,” notably, the IIT that was set up and is dominated by the US-led interested Western countries contradicts the provisions of the convention. The activities of this quasi-procuratorial group trample over the exclusive prerogatives of the UN Security Council. The goal of this geopolitical project is clear: to undermine the position of the Bashar al-Assad government through political manipulation and insinuation.

The Western countries decided to push this decision through by holding a vote. This is an obvious political farce. However, despite the numerical superiority of the participants in the Euro-Atlantic military political structures in the OPCW governing bodies and their unprecedented pressure on other Executive Council members, they managed to get the desired result, but only with great difficulty.

This faulty and underhanded approach causes indignation. Together with many other responsible members of the international community, Russia made a statement in The Hague against the further politicisation of the OPCW’s activities. This organisation must not be held hostage to the states that impose their self-serving mercenary agenda on it. If no end is put to their actions, the OPCW may become totally paralysed.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4217805






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



13 July 2020 - 12:52



The Foreign Ministry voices its serious concern over an escalation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border on July 12, 2020. According to the updates we have received, military action is continuing. Artillery is being used and there are killed and injured persons.

We convey our condolences to the victims’ families and friends.

We regard any further escalation unacceptable and posing a threat to the region’s security. We call on the opposing parties to exercise restraint and fully comply with the ceasefire.

The Foreign Ministry is ready to render the required assistance in order to stabilise the situation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4229025






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's telephone conversations with Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov



13 July 2020 - 16:04







On July 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had separate telephone conversations with Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov. The officials discussed the escalation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Sergey Lavrov called for an immediate ceasefire and for the sides to show restraint, taking into consideration their assumed obligations and the proposals of the Russian, US and French representatives as Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office.

The Russian Foreign Minister stressed that Russia would continue carrying out its mediation mission in contacts with Baku and Yerevan both as a country and as a Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. He also pointed out the importance of all members of the Minsk Group showing a responsible approach in assessing the unfolding situation and avoiding declarations or actions that could provoke a further escalation of tensions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4229316






Special Representative of the Russian Federation to the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, Foreign Ministry Ambassador at Large Azamat Kulmukhametov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, July 13, 2020



13 July 2020 - 17:27







Question:

Deputy head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Contact Group in Minsk Alexander Merezhko declared that the Minsk Package of Measures was of recommendatory nature. How can this statement be qualified? Is it not threatening to push back the already precarious negotiating process?



Azamat Kulmukhametov:

We noted Mr Merezhko’s comments that are clearly at odds with common sense. The status of the Minsk agreements has been sealed by a UN Security Council resolution which regognises them as the only basis for settling the Ukrainian conflict.

We can only regret that the Ukrainian politicians at different levels with unfailing regularity make statements to the effect that it is necessary to revise the Minsk agreements, that these agreements are non-mandatory, or that there is a certain Plan B.

These pronouncements reflect the essence of Ukraine’s approaches to the Minsk agreements. They would like to use any methods to evade the commitments recorded therein. Frankly speaking, the former Ukrainian leaders made it quite clear that they were not going to implement anything almost immediately after the agreements were signed. Regrettably, this position has not changed after the coming to power of President Vladimir Zelensky, who promised to put an end to the six year-long conflict.

At the same time, these approaches are indicative of a Zugzwang position that the Ukrainian political leaders feel they are in. On the one hand, they are eager to renounce Minsk, because in the eyes of a portion of the Ukrainian population their full implementation is a betrayal of the Ukrainian national interests. On the other, the agreements cannot be renounced under any guise: after all, it has been admitted at the highest level quite recently that “the Minsk agreements are only needed for continued sanctions pressure on Russia.”

As a result, Kiev is creating just a semblance of “being determined to reach a peace settlement,” raising the level of its representation at the Minsk negotiations, constantly declaring its readiness for 24/7 work, and putting on the delegation “its own” representatives of the Certain Areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions (CADLR). But in fact, it is doing its best to stymie the negotiating process.

However, we would like to hope that Kiev is aware that its stake on changing the geopolitical situation in its favour lacks prospects and will at last get down to the conscientious implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures in its absolute totality and succession.

Maintaining the “no war, no peace” state is at odds with the interests of the people of Ukraine, including Donbas, and the interests of the Russian Federation, which invariably favours restoration of normal, neighbourly relations with that country.



Question:

Somewhat earlier on, the Ukrainian president rebooted the Contact Group in Minsk by bringing in representatives of Kiev-controlled areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Is it logical to invite activists and journalists from these territories, who left Donbas back in 2014? Could this be Kiev’s attempt to create an illusion of settlement efforts? How did the LPR and DPR representatives at the talks respond to this? What is Russia’s reaction?



Azamat Kulmukhametov:

Actually, this is yet another simulation meant to show that Kiev is implementing the Minsk agreements. Ukrainian representatives never tire to say that they are ready to negotiate only with Russia that allegedly is a party to the conflict and should live up to some commitments, although the Minsk Package of Measures contains not a single indication to this.

On the contrary, the document states clearly that Kiev must negotiate with certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

Instead, Ukraine has put on its delegation as advisers four former residents of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Some of them left the region following the start of the conflict. Others did this long before the conflict.

The CADR and CALR representatives have provided an exhaustive assessment of Kiev’s tactics that only complicates and delays any settlement of the intra-Ukrainian conflict.



Question:

Kiev has suggested a working procedure for the Contact Group, which does not indicate the self-proclaimed LPR and DPR as participants in the conflict and the negotiations. How do the LPR, DPR and Russia representatives perceive of this procedure? What was Russia’s response?



Azamat Kulmukhametov:

Yes, indeed, the Ukrainian side, with obstinacy worthy of a better cause, is trying to avoid direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk and to impose a paradigm where Russia is a party to the conflict. It is with this purpose that the CADLR invitees have turned up at the [Contact Group] meetings. The attempts to have the Contact Group put on record the provisions that would delegitimise the Donetsk and Lugansk representatives are pursuing the same aim.

But I would like to reiterate that the Minsk Package of Measures clearly outlines all the parties to the negotiations. For this reason any attempts to drop the direct participants – Donetsk and Lugansk – from the negotiating process is a path leading nowhere.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4229437
__________________
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 August 8th, 2020 #146
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Russian Permanent Representative to UN Vasily Nebenzya regarding voting on the UN Security Council resolution on the cross-border mechanism for humanitarian aid delivery into Syria, New York, July 11, 2020



13 July 2020 - 18:52







Mr Chairperson,

The Russian delegation has abstained during the voting on the UN Security Council Resolution Extending Authorisation of Cross-Border Mechanism for Humanitarian Aid Delivery into Syria (CBM).

Our vote reflects our principled approach regarding the CBM. The mechanism was established in 2014, when external aid could not be delivered to some regions within the country. The circumstances have greatly changed since then because the legitimate Syrian Government has regained control over the bulk of its territory. This means that humanitarian aid can and should be provided in accordance with Resolution 46/182 and the fundamental principles of international law. On the other hand, we were guided by a desire to help people in Syria, where the humanitarian situation was dramatic because of the years-long conflict.

Thanks to our principled approach, one more important step has been made towards curtailing the CBM stage by stage. The Bab Al-Salam crossing, which accounted only for 14 percent of overall humanitarian deliveries from outside the country, has been removed from the CBM. At the same time, the UN Security Council has extended the operation of the Bab Al-Hawa crossing into Idlib for 12 months to ensure regular and uninterrupted humanitarian deliveries into this region.

We have already pointed out more than once that the CBM in Syria fails to meet the minimum requirements of the international humanitarian law. The UN has to this very day not established its presence in the Idlib de-escalation zone, which is controlled by international terrorists and fighters. So, as a result, it is impossible to reliably monitor the distribution of aid or know the ultimate recipient. It is an open secret that terrorist organisations from the UN Security Council list of terrorist organisations, which continue to control parts of the Idlib de-escalation zone, are using humanitarian aid for influencing civilians and are openly thriving on these deliveries, as shown by an increasing number of direct and indirect evidence.

In addition to this, some external players have used the CBM to preserve the dividing lines in Syria, which could result in the insulation of some regions of Syria. This runs contrary to the principle of sovereignty and respect for the territorial integrity of Syria, which has been reaffirmed in many UNSC resolutions, including this document. We remember the eagerness with which some of our colleagues attempted to prevent the closing of the Al Yarubiyah crossing through which humanitarian aid was being delivered within the CBM framework into north-eastern regions of Syria, in January this year. The international community was consistently led on to believe that aid could not be delivered to ordinary Syrians in any other way. This turned out to be nothing more than a political game. When Al Yarubiyah was closed, the Syrian Government expressed readiness to promptly coordinate UN humanitarian deliveries via Damascus. After lengthy prevarication by humanitarian aid agents, the WHO delivered aid to Al Hasakah Governorate on July 4.

Since early 2020, when Al Yarubiyah was closed, more humanitarian aid has been delivered to the north-eastern regions of Syria than in the preceding years when this crossing was open. This is a self-explanatory fact. At the same time, humanitarian aid is being delivered, in coordination with the Syrian Government, both to the Government controlled regions and medical facilities and to the regions controlled by the Kurdish authorities. This shows that the Syrian Government has ensured a non-discrimination principle of humanitarian deliveries.

The Syrian Government has reaffirmed its readiness to deliver humanitarian aid to the Idlib de-escalation zone through the contact lines. However, this process is being hampered. We urge the UN, working together with Damascus, to launch and increase deliveries into all the regions within the country, including Idlib.

Regarding the text of the adopted resolution, we have to point out that our Western colleagues did their best to prevent any mention of the negative consequences of their illegal unilateral sanctions against Syria. These restrictions are seriously undermining the socioeconomic situation in Syria and are also hindering the operations of many humanitarian NGOs, which are willing to help the Syrians in the Government controlled regions. The so-called humanitarian exemptions from the sanctions are not effective, as the humanitarian organisations themselves have stated. They have a shackling effect in the form of the NGOs and counties’ fear of being placed under sanctions for coordinating their efforts with the Damascus authorities.

We have proposed that instructions be included in the resolution for the UN Secretary-General to prepare a report on the impact of the sanctions on the Syrian economy, the Syrians and humanitarian aid. Our Western colleagues were ready to jeopardise the CBM to prevent this amendment. But their hypocrisy will not help them gloss over what is really going on in the country. Their efforts to block our amendment have once again revealed their double standards.

We would like to note that the co-authors of the resolution from the very start ignored our fundamental concerns. This is why we blocked the Belgian-German draft of the resolution twice and presented alternative drafts. If not for this, we would have adopted the resolution much sooner rather than at the last possible moment when the CBM almost expired. We would like to remind the authors of this resolution, as well as the curators of other subjects at the UNSC, that so-called pen-holding is not a privilege but a special responsibility to the other Security Council members and the entire international community.

Anyway, the desired result has been achieved, and Russia intends to comply with the provisions of this resolution consistently and in a transparent manner. We hope that our Western colleagues will stop turning a blind eye to the evolution of the situation in Syria and will encourage the international humanitarian agencies’ cooperation with the Damascus Government. Although a part of the Syrian civilians still needs the humanitarian aid delivered via the CBM, it is time to start delivering aid in accordance with the norms of the international humanitarian law.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4230973






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on Turkey’s decision to turn the Hagia Sophia cathedral museum into a mosque



13 July 2020 - 19:29



We regret the decision of the Republic of Turkey’s leaders to turn the Hagia Sophia cathedral museum into a mosque and resume Muslim services there.

The 1934 decision on the status of the museum, adopted at the initiative of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish state, made the Hagia Sophia a symbol of peace and interfaith harmony for many decades and played an important role in promoting an atmosphere of religious tolerance and dialogue between nations.

We hope that the management of the Hagia Sophia, which was a museum until recently and remains a sacred place for the entire Christian world as well as the heritage of global culture and Eurasian civilisation, will fully comply with its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We expect that any actions regarding this unique landmark will consider its exceptional meaning for believers all over the world.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4231003






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



13 July 2020 - 21:23







On July 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo upon the initiative of the US side.

The officials had a detailed discussion of the preparations for the meeting of the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council proposed by Russia. They exchanged opinions on providing strategic stability in the context of the forthcoming meetings of the Russian-US working groups on military and political subjects.

They discussed the goals of settling the conflicts in certain regions of the world, including Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

They touched on other current issues on the international agenda and issues of bilateral relations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4231027






Foreign Ministry statement on the fifth anniversary of concluding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)



14 July 2020 - 09:30



Five years ago, on July 14, 2015, the foreign ministers of Great Britain, Germany, Iran, China, Russia, France and the United States, with the participation of the EU, concluded settlement agreements for the Iranian nuclear programme that were unique in their scope and reach.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action driven by the common political will of the countries participating in its development and reinforced by UNSC Resolution 2231 was a major achievement of multilateral diplomacy. It showed the benefits and effectiveness of the decisions made during the talks that prevailed over approaches based on threats, pressure and brute force.

The success of the JCPOA was possible because the parties involved in the talks were able to find a common language and hear and understand each other's concerns and, most importantly, find the keys to resolving one of the most difficult and long-standing conflicts in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation based on international law and generally recognised instruments.

Over a relatively short period of time, the JCPOA made it possible to provide comprehensive answers to the questions that the IAEA had at that time regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, while providing an unprecedented level of transparency.

Today, there’s no state verified by the IAEA more than Iran.

Contrary to the speculations that have been occasionally heard in the West, the JCPOA has never been aimed at calling into question or restricting Tehran’s legal rights to develop peaceful nuclear programmes enshrined in Article IV of the NPT. On the contrary, the agreements paved the way for expanded mutually beneficial cooperation with Iran in the field of nuclear energy, as well as other economic, trade, scientific and technical spheres.

Most importantly, what the opponents and critics of the JCPOA prefer to keep silent about, are the agreements built on an equal footing which rely on a carefully aligned balance of interests and reciprocal commitments. There were no losers among the JCPOA participants. The entire world benefitted from its conclusion.

Today, five years on, we have to admit that the implementation of the JCPOA constantly requires enormous endurance and perseverance from its participants. The root cause of the many difficulties and challenges that arise in the process of implementing the agreements is the unilateral abandoning by the United States of its obligations and numerous gross violations of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The maximum pressure policy adopted by Washington, which it decided to use to impose sanctions not only on Iran, but also on the JCPOA, is short-sighted and erroneous. This policy discredits the United States and opposes it to the rest of the world, which is strongly advocating rigorous implementation of the Security Council resolutions and consistent and comprehensive implementation of the JCPOA in accordance with the initially agreed-upon goals and parameters. The state, which is one of the key co-sponsors of a major agreement and the above-mentioned UN Security Council resolution, has been refusing to act on them for more than two years now and is stubbornly preventing others from doing so, undermining respect for it as a responsible agent of international relations capable of concluding and fulfilling international treaties.

The current White House administration should realise that the United States has and will always have obligations to the rest of the world, which it must fulfill. These are the principles of coexistence in a world based on universally recognised norms of international law, rather than the rules that someone is trying to write and rewrite to suit their own needs to the detriment of others.

Failures and challenges in implementing the JCPOA do not diminish its achievements. Its settlement arrangement has not lost its relevance. Like five years ago, the world does not have a more reliable and effective choice when it comes to implementing the agreed-upon decisions of the UN Security Council rather than settling accounts. The chances of the JCPOA returning to a steady operation mode remain intact. Russia will make every effort for this and encourage its partners to work together meaningfully to find ways to de-escalate and protect the JCPOA from the US attacks.

The JCPOA detractors have nothing to offer to replace it. Their agenda is focused on destruction and nothing else. For the sake of their own ambitions and a false sense of exceptionalism, they are prepared to act recklessly, break agreements, escalate military-political tension in the Middle East, provoke a crisis at the UN Security Council and to try to achieve their election goals while doing so. This path leads nowhere. The JCPOA was designed to prevent the implementation of military scenarios and to avert the threat of war that was looming over the Gulf region.

It has no alternative now, either.

We urge our JCPOA partners and other UN members to show political will and defend it. The UN member states have no room for error today.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4230963






Press release on the Cross-Border Mechanism for Humanitarian Aid Delivery into Syria



15 July 2020 - 20:23



On July 11, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2533 authorising the extension of the Mechanism for Cross-Border Aid Delivery into Syria (CBM), with 12 votes in favour and three abstentions (Russia, China and the Dominican Republic).

The adoption of the resolution approved the preservation of the cross-border aid delivery to people in need in Idlib, which the Syrian Government is not controlling. The CBM has been extended for 12 months rather than six months as was the case previously, which will allow special UN bodies to improve the planning and preparations of their humanitarian missions. Aid will only be delivered across the Bab Al-Hawa crossing handling the majority of humanitarian aid (86 percent).

At the same time, we regret that Western countries have blocked the adoption of three amendments to the draft resolution submitted by Russia and China, which proposed that the regular reports on Syria by the UN Secretary-General should include information about the impact of unilateral sanctions, note progress in aid deliveries from the internal regions of Syria through the contact lines, and to emphasise measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic (a coordinated part from UNSC Resolution 2532). We abstained from voting on the resolution because these amendments have not been adopted, and in accordance with our position of principle in favour of the gradual curtailment of the CBM.

We would like to point out that Russia has always advocated the delivery of humanitarian aid to all those in need throughout Syria in strict compliance with the norms of international humanitarian law. The guidelines for the delivery of humanitarian aid formalised in UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182 say clearly that it should be provided with the consent and on the basis of an appeal by the affected country and based on respect for its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity.

However, discussions at the UN Security Council have shown that Western countries have problems with this particular provision – respect for the norms and principles of international humanitarian law. This proves that these countries want to use the CBM together with their unilateral sanctions, which have been adopted in violation of the UN Security Council and extended contrary to the UN Secretary-General’s appeal to alleviate them amid the pandemic, in order to discriminate against the government-controlled regains and increase the suffering of the Syrians living there,

For our part, we hope that all the necessary measures will be taken in the coming period to ensure stable humanitarian aid deliveries to all parts of Syria from the internal regions and in coordination with Damascus. The revitalisation of humanitarian deliveries to north-eastern Syria after the closing of CB Al Yarubiyah on the Iraqi border has not only increased the satisfaction of the needs of the local population (from 35 percent in 2019 when CB Al Yarubiyah was open to 50 percent in the first half of 2020), but it has also shown that cross-border deliveries have a positive alternative.

Furthermore, we see no reasons for the continued delay of a joint aid convoy of the United Nations (UN), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) to Atarib and Darat Izza in the Idlib de-escalation zone. The mission has been coordinated with the Syrian Government for April 20. However, it has been postponed allegedly over fear of spreading the coronavirus infection to the north-western regions of Syria. According to UN information, the infection was reported in Idlib on July 10, which has only increased the urgent need to deliver aid to those in need.

Overall, the situation in Syria has changed dramatically since the establishment of the CBM six years ago. The Syrian Government has regained control over the bulk of the national territory and is providing active assistance to its citizens. In this context, we do not consider it practical to extend the CBM, which was adopted as a temporary emergency measure but is being increasingly used not for the declared humanitarian reasons but for political purposes, that is, for undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4232110






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the increased incidents of illegal crossings of the border from Georgia



15 July 2020 - 21:11



We note with concern the increased incidents of illegal crossings of the borders with Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.

On June 6, 2020, a group of Russian border guards, deployed in Abkhazia under the April 30, 2009 Agreement Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia on Joint Efforts to Protect the State Border, detained three Georgian citizens who crossed the border near the Abkhazian village of Alakumkhara and were moving inside the territory of the republic. The detainees were delivered to the Gali District Department of the State Security Service of Abkhazia to be investigated.

On June 13, 2020, border guards detained a 24-year old citizen of Georgia who was proceeding into Russian territory 600 metres from the Russian-Abkhazian state border in the Tsunta District of the Republic of Dagestan. The man had no ID on him; he was dressed in fatigues and was carrying a Vepr hunting rifle with 28 bullets, as well as binoculars. The Russian side, responding to an appeal from the Georgian side, has not initiated criminal proceedings against the person in question but has expelled him from the country and delivered him to Georgian border guards.

On July 9, one more Georgian citizen was detained in the Republic of Dagestan, this time at a distance of 9 kilometres from the state border.

On July 11, a 33-year old citizen of Georgia, dressed in fatigues and armed with a semi-automatic rifle, moved 300 metres inside the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia, where he encountered Russian border guards, who were deployed there in accordance with the April 30, 2009 Agreement Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia on Joint Efforts to Protect the State Border. He attempted to escape, shooting some 10 times at the Russian border guards, and was lightly wounded by return fire. He was given first aid and taken to hospital, where he still is to this day. We would like to note that the man has admitted that he deliberately and knowingly crossed the state border with South Ossetia.

Despite the serious and sometimes provocative nature of these incidents and Russia’s resolve to deal with them in an unpoliticised manner and flexibly, Tbilisi tries every time to make a political show of them and to shift responsibility onto others. It is especially inappropriate that Georgia has blamed Russia for these provocations and has accused it of alleged “gross violation” of the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan coordinated on August 12, 2008, and “complete disregard for the UN Secretary-General’s appeal for a global ceasefire amid the COVID-19 pandemic.”

We call on the Georgian authorities to put an end to these provocative actions and statements and to use all of the available dialogue formats with Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including regional incident prevention and response mechanisms, the Geneva Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus and the informal channel of talks between Grigory Karasin and Zurab Abashidze to settle the existing problems in a mutually beneficial and constructive manner. We expect the Georgian authorities to wage a more active awareness campaign in Georgia so as to prevent any new cases with illegal crossing of the border.

The increased border incidents have reaffirmed the importance of facilitating the speedy launching of a dialogue between Tbilisi, Sukhum and Tskhinval on the delimitation and demarcation of their borders, as well as on a joint binding statement on the non-use of force.

In this connection, we would like to mention the provocative comments issued by the US Department of State and the US Embassy in Tbilisi, which traditionally cover up for their Georgian wards and place the blame squarely on Moscow and Tskhinval, without even trying to get to the gist of the matter. At the very least, such actions are undermining Washington’s stand as an impersonal party to the Geneva Discussions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4232130






Press release on the Foreign Ministry’s report on human rights in Ukraine



16 July 2020 - 18:25



The Ministry has drafted a report on the human rights situation in Ukraine.

The document states the unfavourable state of affairs in this area in that country and focuses on systematic violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The Ukrainian authorities continue to adopt legislative acts that run counter to national law and international obligations in the area of human rights.

Under the fabricated pretext of the need to oppose “Russian aggression” and “separatism” in Ukraine, the authorities are persecuting political opponents, independent journalists and media outlets, as well as members of NGOs that the authorities find objectionable. The same far-fetched pretexts are used to justify restrictions of the rights of internally displaced persons who fled from the zone of internal armed conflict in southeastern Ukraine, as well as the suppression of the civil rights of the Russian-speaking population and representatives of ethnic minorities, especially in education. The same reasoning is behind the persecution of priests and parishioners of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the campaign of violence used in seizing the parishes that belong to it. The coronavirus infection has also been used to justify such unseemly actions.

The Ukrainian authorities are pursuing a purposeful policy of justifying and glorifying Nazi criminals and their Ukrainian henchmen. The distorted interpretation of the historical events of those years imposed by the authorities, especially in schools, is designed to promote a nationalist sentiment among the public, primarily the younger generation.

The country’s right-wing radical organisations are openly promoting racial hatred and racist ideology. As a result, ethnic or national minorities often face discrimination and stigmatisation, as well as physical aggression. Given this, a significant increase in manifestations of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, as well as acts of vandalism against religious sites in that country is not surprising.

Numerous problems in Ukraine regularly come to the attention of international human rights monitoring organisations, human rights treaty bodies, the UN Human Rights Council special procedures, as well as international and Ukrainian non-governmental human rights organisations. These bodies highlight the systematic nature of human rights violations in Ukraine and point out with concern that the identified problems need close attention on behalf of the authorities and major efforts to overcome them.

Unfortunately, so far we have not seen any evidence of the Ukrainian authorities’ plans or ability to address this unseemly situation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4234521






Press release on 2 + 2 Russian-French consultations with the participation of Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and Deputy Defence Minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin



16 July 2020 - 20:42



On July 16, Paris, France, hosted consultations on strategic stability and arms control, conducted pursuant to an agreement between the presidents of Russia and France. An event was also held, intended to prepare a meeting of the Council for Security Cooperation at the level of foreign and defence ministers of Russia and France.

The parties held a substantive exchange of views on European and global security, strategic stability, current non-proliferation and arms control issues, preventing an arms race in outer space, as well as Russia-EU and Russia-NATO relations.

They also discussed in detail regional matters. In the context of developments in Ukraine, both sides stressed the need for strict compliance with the Minsk agreements and for the implementation of the decisions approved at the Normandy Four summit in Paris held on December 9, 2019. The participants also stated that there was no alternative to political settlement of the conflicts in Syria and Libya and that it was important to preserve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme. They analysed the situation in the Central African Republic and the Sahara-Sahel region.

The importance of Russian-French cooperation on other current international issues, including information security, environmental protection and climate change, as well as collaboration in combating the COVID-19 epidemic was reaffirmed by the sides.

The participants in the meetings brought up the state of and prospects for bilateral relations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4234559
__________________
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 August 8th, 2020 #147
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 16, 2020



16 July 2020 - 20:46






Update on the coronavirus infection

I will continue updating you on the global coronavirus infection. Today, the spread of the coronavirus in the world is still alarming. The total number of people infected in different countries is steadily growing. It has exceeded the 13 million threshold. The number of deaths is over 600,000. The rates and dynamics of the spread of the virus on the planet are a source of concern. Many international experts believe the pandemic is continuing to “gain momentum.” A global record on the number of infected people in a day – over 230,000 – was recorded.

WHO Secretary-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke at his recent online briefing about the persisting global threat of COVID-19. He again warned the world against excessive optimism and the unjustified rush in relaxing quarantines. He also emphasised the need to be vigilant and observe the precautions that are being introduced in different countries to prevent the spread of the virus and save lives. According to WHO Secretary-General , the peak of the pandemic has not yet been reached. If society does not observe the basic guidelines of countering the coronavirus and does not take precautions, the risks will only continue to grow, and a repeated outbreak will have even more destructive consequences.

Under the current conditions of this unprecedented cross-border challenge when a lot depends on the concerted efforts of states and governments, multilateral organisations and structures, Russia has actively joined the collective efforts of the international community. Thus, the practical aspects of countering the infection were discussed on July 14 at an international videoconference on cooperation in security during the COVID-19 pandemic at our initiative.



Update on inbound flights

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


Pet repatriation flight from Shanghai

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


Upcoming visit of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Algeria Sabri Boukadoum

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


Upcoming visit of President-Elect of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly Volkan Bozkir

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



Syria update

Overall, we are aware of considerable tension on the ground in Syria, especially in the regions not controlled by Damascus, primarily Idlib and east of the Euphrates.

The Russian and Turkish military are working in Idlib under the Additional Protocol of March 5. They are focusing their efforts on creating a so-called safety corridor along the M4 motorway and on joint patrol missions. We would like to note that part of the road from Trumba to the Ain Al Havr settlement was completely cleared on July 7.

Nevertheless, the terrorist groups operating in the de-escalation zone continue to actively resist the Russian-Turkish efforts in a bid to destabilise the north-western regions of Syria. In practical terms, the fighters have increased the number of shelling raids on the positions of the Syrian Government’s forces and nearby settlements. On July 11, they launched yet another attack on the Khmeimim air base using two drones. On July 14, a landmine blew up along the route of a Russian-Turkish patrol mission near the town of Ariha, reportedly wounding several servicemen. We will definitely not sit on our hands; we will fight back.

There are a number of explosion-prone factors in the regions east of the Euphrates, such as an increase in ISIS operations, the destabilising effect of the illegal US presence in the regions, growing protests by the local residents against Kurdish oppression and deteriorating humanitarian conditions, primarily in the camps for the internally displaced persons, due to the prevention of humanitarian deliveries. We believe that security and stability can only be ensured in the north-east of Syria on the basis of the full restoration of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We have noticed a “strange” pattern: terrorist groups have not been vanquished but are being incited to continue fighting in the areas illegally occupied by the US. It has been reported that the Americans are training and arming the fighters of the terrorist group Jaysh Maghawir al-Thawra in the Al Tanf deconfliction zone for subversive operations in other Syrian regions. According to media reports, the other day the Syrian military detained three extremists, who said they were involved in preparing attacks on Russian and Syrian facilities upon US instructors’ orders.

The situation in Syria is being aggravated by the growing social and economic problems against the backdrop of the unilateral Western sanctions, which have been extended and increased contrary to the appeal by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to ease sanctions amid the pandemic. The proponents of sanctions pressure make no secret of their intention to strangle the Syrian economy and to increase the suffering of the Syrians so as to provoke social protests. They say openly that the restrictions will not affect the regions not controlled by the Damascus and the Syrian opposition. In addition to sanctions, they are also making active use of humanitarian instruments for attaining their political objectives, as proved by the recent discussions at the UN Security Council on the extension of the cross-border mechanism for humanitarian aid delivery into Syria.

It is obvious that the main goal of the Western representatives was not to deliver emergency aid to those in need, but to infringe on the sovereignty of Syria and to undermine its unity. As for Russia, we would like to say once again that Russia has always advocated the mobilisation of international humanitarian assistance to all who need it throughout Syria without any discrimination, politicisation or preliminary conditions, and in coordination with the Syrian Government as stipulated by the norms of the international humanitarian law.



Update on Libya

The situation in Libya is causing serious concerns. Despite the fact that there has been no large-scale military activity during the past month, the developments on the ground remain tense. Reportedly, the opposing Libyan parties have simply taken time-out in order to recalibrate their forces before resuming armed confrontation. This may result in more casualties among the civilian population and further destruction of the socioeconomic infrastructure.

The threat of further internationalisation of the conflict is growing. In response to the Government of National Accord’s appeal to the Turkish leadership for help with opposing the Libyan National Army, the House of Representatives, based in the east of the country, recently passed a decision that basically sanctions the involvement of Egyptian armed forces in the military action on the side of Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

We call for the warring Libyan parties to prevent a new spiral of escalation, to immediately and permanently cease fire and, of course, start an inclusive political dialogue based on the respective UNSC resolutions and decisions of the Berlin Conference on Libya.

Our stance is that the Libyan crisis does not have a military solution. All the existing problems and disagreements must be resolved through negotiations. We directly spoke about this to Deputy Chairman of the Government of National Accord Ahmed Maiteeq and Speaker of the House of Representatives Aguila Saleh when they were received in Moscow in June and July 2020.



Russian Foreign Ministry’s report on observance of human rights in Ukraine

The Russian Foreign Ministry has prepared a report on the human rights situation in Ukraine. The report is published on the Foreign Ministry’s official website at https://www.mid.ru/web/guest/maps/ua...ent/id/4232144

The report covers the problematic state of affairs with regard to observing human rights in Ukraine and presents data on the systemic violation of fundamental rights and freedoms. On a regular basis, Ukrainian officials adopt legislative acts that run counter to the norms of Ukrainian human rights law and international obligations with regard to the protection of human rights.

Under the artificially created pretext of fighting against “Russian aggression” and “separatism” in Ukraine, the Ukrainian officials persecute political opponents, independent journalists and media outlets as well as undesirable members of public organisations. The same contrived pretexts are used to justify the restriction of rights of internally displaced persons who fled from the area of the domestic armed conflict in the southeast of the country, as well as to justify the suppression of the rights of the Russian-speaking population and ethnic minorities, especially in education. The same reasons are used to support persecution of the clergy and parishioners of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the campaign to forcibly takeover its parishes. Most recently, the officials have been referring to the novel coronavirus infection to justify these absolutely objectionable actions.

The Ukrainian officials are pursuing an intentional policy of justifying and glorifying Nazi criminals and their Ukrainian abettors. The distorted interpretation of the historical events of those years propagated by the officials, especially in education, is aimed at cultivating nationalist sentiments among the general public and primarily among the younger generation.

The far-right organisations operating in the country openly promote racial hatred, including racist ideology. As a result of this policy, people belonging to ethnic and national minorities often face discrimination and stigmatisation, including physical aggression. In this context, the rising number of incidents of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and vandalism targeting religious sites and places of worship is not surprising. It would be strange if this did not happen after so many years of absolutely uncontrollable or perhaps, on the contrary, well-directed radically-oriented nationalism.

The numerous problems persistent in Ukraine regularly come onto the radar of international bodies monitoring human rights, treaty bodies involved in human rights protection, special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council as well as international and Ukrainian human rights NGOs. All these bodies note the systemic nature of violations in this area and point out, with great concern, that the exposed problems require most focused attention from the officials and significant efforts for their resolution.

Unfortunately, there has been no indication so far that the Ukrainian officials intend and are capable of rectifying this reprehensible situation.



The United States step up military aid to Ukraine

We have noted that the United States was systematically stepping up its military aid to Ukraine. Its draft defence budget for 2021 allocates for these purposes $250 million, with half of this sum intended for direct arms supplies. It is also planned to draft a comprehensive programme to assist the development of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.

The United States seems to be in the mood for using Ukraine’s Enhanced Opportunity Partner status at NATO (the decision was approved on June 12, 2020) to consolidate its influence on the Ukrainian defence sector. Washington has always actively prodded Kiev towards reforming its military and converting its military-industrial complex to NATO standards.

By supporting, in this manner, the “party of war” in Kiev, the United States is actually encouraging the Ukrainian authorities to sabotage the Minsk agreements and to continue the hostilities in Donbass. This makes it possible to foment the myth regarding the necessity to protect Ukraine from a certain “Russian threat” and to justify military reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank. And, of course, this enables the US to address its own mercantile problems, given the funds allocated to Ukraine in parallel with the introduction of NATO weapon standards.



Belgrade and Pristina resume a dialogue

We support Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’ efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo problem, including as part of the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. We proceed from the assumption that the EU, which has been assigned a mediatory role in this process by a decision of the UN General Assembly, will perform its functions in good faith and work to achieve the implementation of the agreements reached by the sides. Forming the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo (CSMK), something that will create the conditions for the Serb population’s survival, is of key importance. We must note with regret that the Pristina authorities have been sabotaging their commitment to establish CSMK for over seven years now.

It is at this angle that we are regarding the resumption of a dialogue between the sides in the videoconference format on July 12, as well as a direct face-to-face meeting of the participants scheduled for today in Brussels. Let me remind you that this has become possible after the Kosovo authorities cancelled their anti-Serb discriminatory trade measures that had been in effect for more than one and a half years, something that we repeatedly referred to.

We would like to stress that the Russian position on Kosovo remains unchanged. We are in favour of Belgrade and Pristina achieving a viable and mutually acceptable solution based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. It should primarily conform to international law and get the approval of the UN Security Council. It should also meet the interests of the people of Serbia.



The US State Department’s statement on extending sanctions to Russian gas pipeline projects

We note Washington’s surprising stubbornness in seeking to prove to the world what has already become an axiom – the fact that it has no arguments left internationally apart from sanctions. That its attempts to exert pressure very often focus on whatever is associated with Russia is nothing new. America’s own allies in Europe catch some of it too. But this time, the Secretary of State himself has announced updates in the public guidance on Section 232 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) adopted in 2017. The Department of State explains that their implementation of Section 232 will now include investments or other activities related to a broader scope of Russian energy export pipelines, including Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream. The DOS has threatened that persons making such investments or engaging in such activities… may be subject to sanctions pursuant to Section 232.

The more I watch Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s interviews where he touches on the subject, the more I have the impression of watching a film from the Cold War period.

It is common knowledge that the undertakings the DOS has mentioned are purely commercial projects. We, as well as our European partners, have told the Americans as much, based on figures, facts and calculations.

So it is logical to ask whether the State Department people have read the Act and its Section 232? We did. On numerous occasions we had to explain to our US partners the details of the international agreements and their own domestic laws, which they were referring to. Let me repeat the trick.

Section 232 invoked by Secretary of State Pompeo says that the President may impose sanctions only “in coordination with allies of the United States.” I wonder if their decisions were coordinated with anyone at all? Berlin, perhaps? But it seems to me that in Germany only the lazy have not signalled their negative attitude to the hypothetical US sanctions against German companies. We will return to the German response later today.

I would like to ask my question again: Have they read through the Act that the State Department and its chief were referring to?

What is clear is just one thing: the United States is pursuing its own time-serving economic interests in a bid to find a foothold in Europe as an energy supplier. No holds barred! There is nothing that Washington would not use to achieve its goal. But they cannot be unaware that [the Europeans] will buy their expensive natural gas only if they are coerced into it. In an attempt to convince others that it is in the right, the US has used whatever it can think of, including the trite formula on the need to protect its European friends from “aggressive Russia.” We love this quote. But we would like to stress again that Secretary Pompeo’s tough statements are unacceptable. Please reread Section 232.

Now let us look at Berlin’s reaction. “The United States is disregarding Europe’s right and sovereignty by threatening sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project. Germany deems it necessary to develop a common approach to the policy of sanctions towards Russia but Washington’s actions make this difficult,” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said. “By announcing measures that will also sanction European companies, the US government is disregarding the right and sovereignty of Europe to decide where and how we source our energy. European energy policy is made in Europe and not in Washington. We clearly reject exterritorial sanctions,” says Mr Maas in a statement circulated by the German Foreign Ministry.

We cannot but agree with this. But there is just one “but.” Possibly the problem is that they are beginning to articulate this formula only now, whereas they should have operated according to it somewhat earlier.



New expansion of the US Treasury sanctions list

We regret the July 15 decision of the US Treasury to add three Russian citizens and five Russian companies to the Sudan-related sanctions list.

We have put forth our position on this matter more than once. The allegations of “the hand of the Kremlin” throughout the world are nothing more than American paranoia. These sanctions are only putting extra strain on the already complicated relations between our countries.



US troop reduction in Afghanistan

We have taken note of a statement made by Assistant to the US Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman on the US’s reduction of its forces in Afghanistan to a level stipulated in Washington’s agreement with the Taliban for bringing peace to Afghanistan, as well as the transfer of five military bases to the Afghan National Security Forces.

We welcome the United States’ compliance with its obligations under the Doha agreement and call on the United States, the Taliban and the Kabul Government to implement the other arrangements within the framework of settling the situation in Afghanistan, primarily when it comes to prisoner exchange and direct intra-Afghan talks.

We believe that a full withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and a direct and inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue, with the assistance of international partners, will put an end to a bloody multi-year war and will facilitate the establishment of a lasting peace in Afghanistan.



The practice of capital punishment in the United States

We have taken note of the decision of the US federal government to resume the execution of death row inmates after a 17-year moratorium on the federal death penalty. We believe that this decision, as well as the preservation of capital punishment in several states, contradicts US human rights obligations. This practice is unacceptable because the lethal injection is in violation of the international ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In light of the high risk of judicial mistakes and procedural violations, the use of capital punishment will deprive inmates of the right to a fair trial.

We are also concerned about the disproportionate use of capital punishment with regard to some groups of people, primarily on grounds of race. This practice is undermining the guarantees of equality of all before the law and the courts and is proof of discrimination against inmates in violation of international law in the field of human rights and freedoms.

The policy of the United States, which claims to be the leader of the democratic world, contradicts the universally accepted international standards of humane treatment of inmates. The US authorities are violating not only the rights of their own citizens but also foreigners sentenced to capital punishment. Many of them have no access to procedural guarantees and assistance, because the United States is not complying with its obligations under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to promptly notify the consular offices of the inmates’ countries of origin. It is regrettable that after losing the LaGrand and Avena cases in the UN International Court of Justice the United States has withdrawn its agreement to recognise as compulsory the jurisdiction of the supreme UN judicial authority related to the application of the Vienna Convention, which has had a negative impact on the legal protection of foreign inmates in US prisons.

We call on the US authorities to refrain from authorising the death penalty at the federal level, to abolish the application of this practice, which contradicts current human rights standards, in the states where it is being used, and to fulfil in good faith its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.



The UK government’s statement on Russia’s interference in 2019 election

The UK Government announced, through its Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, that it sees “no evidence of a broad-spectrum Russian campaign” in the 2019 elections to the British Parliament, but still calls such attempts unacceptable.

Also, Mr Raab mentioned an ongoing criminal investigation of some sort, “there is an ongoing criminal investigation and it would be inappropriate for us to say anything further at this point.”

That statement is so vague and contradictory that it is almost impossible to figure out what he meant. If it’s inappropriate to talk about it, don’t talk. If you’re talking anyway, then present the facts.

What is it about? Let’s look into it. On the one hand, there is no evidence, on the other hand, they are talking about some kind of retaliation. These are mutually exclusive things. One gets the impression that another round of the “highly likely” tactic is about to begin.

I read the original publication. Clearly, having analysed the experience of previous years, the British government has come to the correct conclusion that the term “highly likely” no longer makes any sense. So, they chose a different term. The British government has bestowed a new gem upon us today – “almost certain.” The “almost certain” has replaced “highly likely,” but the tactics haven’t changed.



Appointing the heads of the OSCE executive bodies

The term of office for OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Lamberto Zannier and OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir expires on July 18. Russia did not object to extending their term in office for three more years.

No consensus was reached. A number of countries were concerned about the items on the agenda and complained about the work of these executive bodies reflecting the crisis events in this organisation. As a result, the OSCE Albanian Chairmanship-in-Office announced a competition to fill these positions. Applications can be filed until September 18. The appointment will take place during the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Tirana on December 3-4.

In recent years, Russia has repeatedly drawn attention to the system-wide shortcomings in OSCE functioning, geographic and thematic imbalances, and the lack of effective consideration for the entire spectrum of the participating states’ opinions.

The situation where the Secretariat and OSCE institutions were left without full leadership confirms the long-overdue need for deep reform in this organisation, including the development of a Charter (constituent document), operating rules for the executive bodies, increased efficiency in preparing multilateral conferences and consultations, etc. We hope the current institutional crisis at the OSCE will spur substantive efforts in this area.

We consider it critically important to rectify the insupportable situation during the competition to fill the senior position vacancies at the OSCE, when in all the years of the OSCE’s existence there has not been a single representative from the CIS countries in these positions. This runs counter to the fundamental principles of the OSCE and its procedural rules and principles that enshrine the equality of all participating states.

Today, we sent a letter to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir, with whom we have successfully interacted over the years. We highly appreciate this interaction. It has not been problem-free, but it has been constructive. I would like to mention a major event such as the Conference on Freedom of the Media and Safety of Journalists in Moscow co-hosted by Russia and the OSCE. At this point, this is a farewell letter, but who knows, maybe we will continue to interact with Mr Desir in the future. We will follow his work, considering that over the years he has become a genuine professional in his field. We look forward to continuing our interaction.



Opening of an Orthodox chapel at the burial site of Red Army soldiers in Estonia

On July 14, the opening ceremony of an Orthodox chapel built at the mass burial site of Red Army soldiers who perished when liberating this area from the Nazi invaders took place in Maardu, Estonia. Without exaggeration, funds for the project were raised throughout the entire world. The Estonians were enthusiastic about the idea. The necessary funds were raised in record time: it took less than a year for the new Chapel of St George to open its doors to parishioners.

The opening ceremony was attended by senior diplomats from Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan as well as Maardu Mayor Vladimir Arkhipov, Tallinn Deputy Mayor Vadim Belobrovtsev and activists from veteran organisations. The chapel was consecrated by the Metropolitan of Tallinn and All Estonia Eugene.



The 55th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and the Republic of the Gambia

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







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Could a meeting be held at the level of the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, or at any other level, to discuss the recent escalation on the Azerbaijan-Armenia border? Have the conflicting parties asked Russia to help settle the problem? What efforts have been taken in this connection? What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s opinion of the obtaining situation?



Maria Zakharova:

The July 13 statement by the Foreign Ministry of Russia and press releases on telephone conversations held by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with Foreign Minister of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov, as well as a statement issued by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group include a call on the sides to take the necessary measures to prevent any further escalation and to resume substantive talks without delay.

We will duly inform the media when we have any information about Sergey Lavrov’s possible meetings with his colleagues. At this moment I have no such information.

The Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry of Russia are working with their Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues to prevent any further escalation and to promote normalisation between the sides.



Question:

Article 9 of the Joint Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956 reads that the Soviet Union “agrees to transfer to Japan the Habomai Islands and the island of Shikotan, the actual transfer of these islands to Japan to take place after the conclusion of a peace treaty” between the Soviet Union and Japan. One of the amendments recently approved to the Russian Constitution prohibits the transfer of national territory with the exception of cases of delimitation, demarcation and re-demarcation of the Russian border with the adjacent states. Can this exception be applied to the 1956 Declaration?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, I would like to say that neither the demarcation, nor the delimitation of borders has any connection to the talks on a peace treaty with Japan.

Our dialogue with Tokyo has always been based on the principle of the inviolability of our borders, and we have always pointed out the need for Japan’s full recognition of the results of WWII, including the legal possession of the South Kuril Islands by the Russian Federation. No changes are possible in this position, and now this principle has been clearly expressed in the Constitution of Russia.

We believe that the goal of our talks should be the signing of a fundamental document that would be more embracing than just a peace treaty. What we have in mind is a treaty of peace, friendship, neighbourliness and cooperation, which will provide a solid and modern legal basis for advancing our relations to a fundamentally new level.



Question:

Last month, a German company specialising in electronic payment services went bankrupt amid a fraud scandal. We know that the company’s COO has shown traders in London some documents leaked from the OPCW concerning the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in 2018 and other people in neighboring Amesbury, also affected by a nerve agent at the same time. He never told the traders how he got those documents. A former commander of the UK’s chemical and biological weapons regiment told The Financial Times that the documents could have been leaked from Russia, adding that Russia had orchestrated a major misinformation campaign to discredit the UK investigation and undermine the credibility of the OPCW. Can you comment on these statements?



Maria Zakharova:

Your question contains a lot of information. It is very indicative. All I can say to this is we do not know what exactly the Irish police found during the search of the Dublin office of the bankrupt German company. As you said, this firm specialised in electronic payment services and hardly had anything to do with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Regarding the role of the OPCW in relation to the Salisbury incident, it should not be forgotten that the British authorities immediately rejected our proposal to hold consultations on the Skripal case in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to remove whatever far-fetched concerns they had. So the OPCW just retreated to purely technical assistance under paragraph 38 (f) of Article VIII of the CWC. At the request of the United Kingdom, Technical Secretariat experts simply confirmed the presence of chemicals in the so-called Novichok class in the samples given to them.

It is noteworthy that none of the experts were able to identify the geographical origin of the chemical compounds found. Therefore, we have no idea whatsoever of the rationale applied by those who suddenly admitted the possibility of some Russian footprint in this highly dubious story. Most likely, these fantasies (and this is how they should be qualified) should be considered in the context of London’s tactics of accusing Russia in their preferred “highly likely” style we know so well (now elevated to a new level – “almost certain”).

In general, it seems more appropriate to ask the initiators of this Russophobic hoax for clarification. Apparently, this was done just to keep this fabricated Skripal case story afloat. Why London would want to go around in a new circle (something that’s obvious now, given today’s statements and the Financial Times’ quite coincidental interest in this topic) is a big question.



Question:

What can you tell us about Syria’s preparations for parliamentary elections on July 19? How will these elections impact the settlement of the crisis in that country? What does Russia think about the forthcoming elections at a time when the US is increasing its economic pressure on Syria by adopting the so-called “Caesar Act”?



Maria Zakharova:

We know that Syria has scheduled parliamentary elections. We believe it is important to ensure the normal functioning of all institutional authority – both legislative and executive. This will maintain stability and prevent a Libyan scenario.

We consider it important to hold elections in conformity with the current Constitution. Any other comment will be released after the elections.



Question:

On July 13, the Interim Commission of the Federation Council on Information Policy and Cooperation with the Media urged the Russian Foreign Ministry and other bodies of executive authority to take political and other measures within their competence in response to the illegal actions of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian authorities as regards the Russian media. Can the Russian Government take actions that will be tough enough to prevent the authorities of the Baltic republics from being disrespectful to Russia? Will Russia adopt economic sanctions?



Maria Zakharova:

We are talking about the media. The Foreign Ministry is now working on a proposal for such measures.



Question:

A joint article was published recently by Lithuanian Seimas Deputy Emanuelis Zingeris and Chair of the Lithuanian Jewish community Faina Kukliansky on World War II. It distorts the facts of Lithuanian history during the Great Patriotic War, which were mentioned in the article by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. What could you say about this article?



Maria Zakharova:

Regrettably, this article is fully in line with the Russophobic policy actively pursued by Lithuanian leaders in the past few years and their attempts to whitewash the Nazi’s Lithuanian accomplices and those involved in the postwar criminal groups, the so-called “forest brothers” that are guilty of large-scale annihilation of civilians, and to impose their ideology on society. Moreover, the authors of the article ignored some facts they considered inconvenient, notably, the published data on the numerical strength of the Lithuanian Jewish community and the real reasons for its changes during the war. Thus, they completely ignored the fact that during the occupation of Lithuania by Hitler’s Germany, the Nazis and their Lithuanian accomplices killed about 95 percent of the Lithuanian Jewish community. They also ignored the expert opinion of the Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum regarding the positive reaction of Lithuanian Jews to the accession to the USSR and a number of other historical facts.

At the same time, the response of different representatives of the Jewish community to this article shows that it reflects the opinion of individuals that are making incompetent attempts to present it as the opinion of the entire national minority.

Meanwhile, manifestations of neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism continue gaining momentum in Lithuania, which is a fact. The media has reported on many incidents that took place at the end of last month: on June 23, radicals threatened the editor of the musuzidai.lt website Yakov Finkel; on June 26, Jewish religious sites were desecrated in Vilnius; and on June 29, a similar incident took place in Kaunas.

Detailed information on manifestations of neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism and race discrimination in Lithuania are cited in the relevant section of the Foreign Ministry report regarding the situation with the glorification of Nazism and the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. This document is accessible on the Foreign Ministry website. It describes the efforts of Lithuanian leaders to falsify the history of WWII, groundlessly distort the liberation of the Baltic republics from the Nazis by the USSR and the Red Army, and prosecute anti-Nazi activists.

We would like to advise the Lithuanian authors of this article to learn the facts described in the relevant Foreign Ministry report instead of making an awkward attempt to distort the tragic events of history.



Question:

Reportedly, Sitka, Alaska town officials have decided to move the monument to the ruler of the Russian settlements of Alaska Alexander Baranov from the town park to a museum, where it will be displayed in a historical context. What’s your take on this move? Do you agree with the reason mentioned in the resolution on moving the monument, that Alexander Baranov exercised direct supervision over the enslavement of the Tlingit and Aleut peoples and that his actions have affected the indigenous peoples to this day? Do you plan to negotiate possible repatriation of the monument?



Maria Zakharova:

We regret the recent decision by the Sitka town authorities to relocate the monument to Alexander Baranov erected in 1989 from the town park to a museum. Clearly, it was made amid a highly emotional atmosphere in the wake of a campaign to demolish monuments that swept the United States.

We are aware that many Americans advocated keeping the monument in place. Generally speaking, they have a lot of respect for our common historical heritage and Russia’s role in developing Alaska. It is certainly wrong and unfair to deny Baranov’s vast constructive contribution. He spearheaded the construction of over 200 towns and settlements, including Russian America’s capital Novoarkhangelsk, later renamed Sitka, schools, libraries and hospitals.

As you may be aware, a symbolic ceremony of reconciliation with the participation of the descendants of the Russian pioneer and Tlingit Indian tribe was held back in 2004. The Russian-speaking community in the United States tried to re-direct discussions around the monument into a constructive channel. The corresponding petitions by the Coordinating Council of Organisations of Russian Compatriots in the United States and the Congress of Russian Americans have collected about 6,000 signatures.

The situation was widely covered in our country as well. There were even suggestions to bring the monument back to Russia, but the Sitka town officials decided to keep it and move it to a museum. For our part, we will continue to keep an eye on the fate of the monument.

In general, we believe that our common history should be the subject of a mutually respectful dialogue and bring the peoples of Russia and the United States closer rather than be politicised to suit fleeting interests.

Also, please see the Ambassador of Russia to the United States Anatoly Antonov’s comments on this matter.



Question:

In recent months, the Foreign Ministry has taken on the mission of repatriating Russian citizens from other countries. This required major efforts on the part of Russian diplomatic missions and the Government in general. At this point, we know that Russia could resume international flights, which means that Russian citizens will again be able to travel abroad. What is your take on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We were not involved in “repatriation” per se. We assisted Russian citizens who wanted to return home in the usual, traditional way, but were unable to do so amid the global lockdown. The Foreign Ministry did this as part of a team led by the Russian Government and the Emergency Response Centre. Several Russian departments and our foreign missions around the world took part in this effort.

With regard to, as you write, resuming international flights and regular flights by Russian airlines, this matter is now being discussed by the corresponding departments. The decision will be made by the Government.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4234569
__________________
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 August 9th, 2020 #148
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s interview with Interfax news agency, July 16, 2020



17 July 2020 - 16:49







Question:

The EU’s senior officials were replaced six months ago. Back then, many in Moscow were cautiously optimistic and hoped that Russia-EU relations would improve. Did these expectations come true?



Alexander Grushko:

Nothing has changed so far. As the classic famously put it, “you cannot hitch a trembling doe and a horse up to a single carriage.” Let’s wait and see which way the thinking process in the EU goes. So far, this European carriage is stalling, because, clearly, there’s a conflict of interests between various countries, including with regard to Russia. There are some politicians, including in the Baltic countries and Poland, who are fighting tooth and nail as they stick to their geopolitical position where Russia is seen as an adversary. They are convinced that Moscow must feel the sanctions pressure in all areas. There are countries out there, though, which frankly admit that, first, the sanctions have not produced the desired effect, that is, in EU parlance, have not changed Russia’s behaviour and, second, these sanctions run counter to the EU’s basic interests.

Brussels has driven itself into a trap by linking these sanctions to the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Kiev says it is not going to act on the Minsk agreements and comes up with its own interpretations. In particular, it refers to the agreements as some kind of “recommendations,” although the Minsk Package of Measures was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202 in 2015 and thus became part of international law. However, the proponents of the sanctions are not interested in legal details.



Question:

Clearly, the sanctions will not be lifted any time soon. But since there are business interests at stake, can intermediate measures be taken prior to implementing the Minsk agreements? Can the sanctions be relaxed a bit?



Alexander Grushko:

We try to be realistic when assessing the prospects. I think, sooner or later, Europe’s strategic interests should prevail. If Europe wants to be part of a new polycentric world, to be not only an economic, but also a political and military centre, it should be interested in normal and healthy relations with Russia, just as Russia is interested in normal and healthy relations with the EU based on equality and respect for each other’s legitimate interests.

The sanctions have had a multiplication effect on a number of sectors in our economy. They have created a tougher competitive environment that forced businesses and investors to be more efficient and competitive both in terms of organising production processes and improving product quality. We see that businesses continue to operate as usual despite the restrictions. If you look at the number of foreign companies currently operating in Russia – I’m talking about our main investors, such as from Italy, France and other countries – it has remained unchanged. There has been no such thing as a sharp decline in numbers. Yes, there were some fluctuations, but overall European businesses remain present in Russia at about the same level as before.

True, in connection with the coronavirus pandemic and general negative developments in global trade, the economic situation has worsened. It is no secret that, according to analysts, only 30 percent of the global economy is currently in the green area, where clear standards and rules apply; about 30 percent are in the red area where certain restrictions apply; and 30 percent remain in an area of ​​uncertainty. Of course, uncertainty is bad for business, since predictability and clarity of the rules are of key importance for full-fledged economic cooperation.

By the way, Kiev’s ambiguous position on the Minsk agreements boils down to its desire to extend the sanctions against Russia for as long as possible. This is how they see their country’s interests. Western countries are not only turning a blind eye to this, but doing their best to embolden Kiev. Most of the EU countries are NATO members, and the alliance has recently decided to upgrade Ukraine to the level of partner with “enhanced capabilities.” This is nothing short of the direct encouragement of nationalist forces and the party of war in Kiev.

So, the ball is in the EU’s court now, but I think that in the long run, if we think about Europe’s real interests, sooner or later they will have to discard their disastrous policy towards Russia. By the way, there has been certain progress in this area. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell announced the beginning of a strategic review of relations with Russia. Let’s wait and see how this plays out.



Question:

As early as 2016 Russia put forth an initiative on taking stock of its relations with the EU. In response, the EU set forth five principles of developing relations with Russia, linking them with the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Moscow called this position short-sighted. Will Russia offer new initiatives in its relations with the EU under its new leadership?



Alexander Grushko:

These five principles were part of the sanctions package. They cannot be called a strategy. Thus, it was mentioned that the EU would discuss only those issues that are of interest to the EU with Russia. We took note of this and discuss only those issues that are of interest to Russia with the EU.

There have been no new initiatives so far. Nevertheless, despite the announced restrictions, we continue our dialogue in many areas. This primarily applies to the range of issues linked with the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Ukraine because the leading EU countries – France and Germany – are part of the Normandy format. We conduct regular consultations on the Balkans and cooperate on economic issues.

Incidentally, Russia and the EU have acquired a new sphere of interest – experience in countering the coronavirus and taking post-pandemic measures. The pandemic revealed shortcomings in international cooperation. We made a proposal on pooling efforts in healthcare. This concerned the development of a vaccine, an exchange of experience and best practices, and supplies of equipment and medications. This is important. If the right conclusions are reached, notably, that it is necessary not to alienate oneself but to pool efforts, the general climate of Russia-EU relations will improve. I believe digitisation and greenspace economic expansion are promising areas for dialogue and even cooperation. This is fresh ground in international cooperation and it is better to develop it jointly rather than separately. It is better to avoid unnecessary dividing lines in this respect.

At the same time, we must recall how we were perplexed by the campaign launched by the West when we started helping Italy, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other countries to counter the coronavirus. We were reproached for the attempts to use setbacks in EU-NATO cooperation for deriving some geopolitical advantages and setting European countries at loggerheads. This was a very unfair and brazen campaign. In reality, we did not publicise our efforts too much and helped those who asked for assistance. We gave them what we could afford to give with due account of our own, often very urgent requirements in lung ventilators, test kits, protective masks and medications.

By force of duty, I had to deal with issues linked with the humanitarian mission of the Russian military in Italy. I was truly stunned by what I had to read in the European press. This assistance was presented as Russia’s secret operation aimed at the military penetration of Italy with a view to consolidating its position there. This is dreadful. As if you can get into Italy, one of the world’s most open countries, only as a military medic dressed in a chemical protection suit, and wearing a mask and glasses. It is no secret that the Italians were blackballed by the EU and NATO for accepting Russian aid. Meanwhile, this case is fairly simple: the Prime Minister of Italy appealed to our President for help. It was rendered in full cooperation with the recipient side. When the tasks were fulfilled by consent, we left within two days.



Question:

Politicians in Europe say more and more often that the EU needs its own army with its own troops outside NATO, which would enhance European independence and reduce Europe’s dependence on the US. How realistic these plans are? In general, does Moscow see an anti-Russia trend in EU military policy?



Alexander Grushko:

We understand Europe’s desire to be autonomous and independent in terms of security. The bipolar system of international relations is a thing of the past. The situation was different when Europe was part of the trans-Atlantic bipolar standoff. However, today it is clear that if Europe wants to be a political and economic powerhouse, the EU needs to look towards its own potential for military security. We have repeatedly stated that we see the objective reasons that prompt Europeans to move towards a defence “identity” and independence in this area. What matters is that this process should not follow Cold War patterns and create new dividing lines. Meanwhile, such a risk is real. NATO is trying to rein in this process and subjugate it to the goals of defence against the “threat from the East,” which means Russia.



Question:

Many Western politicians accuse Russia of attempting to drive a wedge between the EU and the US...



Alexander Grushko:

Any wedges in Transatlantic unity are being driven in by the US administration which views Europe as its colony and prescribes which trading partners Europe should and shouldn’t have, whose gas it should and shouldn’t buy, which gas pipelines it should and shouldn’t build. The US administration not only threatens but also imposes sanctions on its own allies. It withdraws from or undermines arms control agreements which are of fundamental significance to its closest partners. The Europeans are publicly complaining that the Trump administration has monetised Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which has “sacral significance” to them. It is not Russia that is forcing European nations to spend 2 percent of their GDP on the military and purchase US weapons. This is why those who speculate on Russia allegedly driving wedges should look in the mirror.



Question:

Nevertheless, in geopolitical terms, controversies between Europe and the US benefit Russia, don’t they?



Alexander Grushko:

What does it mean, “benefit Russia?” Russia has a number of reasons to have normal relations with both the US and the EU. Let me remind you that in the best years trade between Russia and the EU totalled $417 billion while our economic share in the global GDP was much less. The EU’s trade with China and the US was around $500-600 billion. These numbers are comparable. This means that from an economic perspective, relations with Russia, as a resource, had strategic importance for the EU comparable to what they had with China and the US. We are not going to give this up. Yes, it is true that in recent years we have been investing heavily in EAEU development, expediting the eastern vector in our foreign economic relations. However, this is an objective reality and a requirement because the drivers of economic growth are shifting to the east, this is a general trend. Nevertheless, this does not mean we are giving up the traditional European direction, and not only because we are tied by railways, gas and oil pipelines, but – what is most important – by common history, culture, and ultimately, geography. We hold the view that the EU’s real interests cannot lie in fostering hostile relations with Russia.



Question:

Many are concerned that after the constitutional amendment concerning the primacy of national law over international law, Russia will cease to comply with the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Venice Commission has expressed this concern.



Alexander Grushko:

We are not talking about compliance or non-compliance here. Of course, the ECHR will continue to work and take complaints from Russian citizens. But we will act upon the rulings inasmuch as they correspond to our Constitution. There’s nothing unusual about this. Many countries, specifically Finland, Georgia, Albania, Serbia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Austria, have these provisions in their respective laws.

Here’s a recent case in point. On May 20, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court declared the inability to enforce an EU court ruling on the legality of the European Central Bank’s public sector procurement programme and pointed to the “significant excess of authority” ​​conferred on the EU court. This situation is not related to the ECHR, but still highlights the relationship between domestic and international law.

We should keep in mind the fact that a problem has come up lately where Western countries take advantage of their majority and try to assign functions to certain international organisations that go beyond these organisations’ statutory mandates. In particular, a kind of attributive mechanism was created at the OPCW Technical Secretariat. Legally, this mechanism can be created, but only by way of amending the CWC and having it ratified by all the states parties, if they agree to do so. However, in this case, it was approved by simple vote. And then you have attributive mechanisms that are devoid of any legal basis whatsoever, contradict the very nature of these international instruments and replace national competencies in assessing compliance or non-compliance with conventions or treaties, and replace UN resolution prerogatives. That is, some illegally created bodies, some experts can point fingers at countries and allege that they have failed to comply with something. Meanwhile, corresponding illegal sanctions tools are being established within Western associations, which can be put to instant use on cue from these very mechanisms that are controlled by the West. How can anyone agree with that?



Question:

Going back to the ECHR, let’s say a Russian citizen, having served his time in prison, sues Russia at the ECHR and is awarded compensation. Will this still be possible now that the constitutional amendments have been adopted?



Alexander Grushko:

Since we have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), its provisions are part of our domestic legislation.



Question:

That is, no changes?



Alexander Grushko:

There will be changes in the sense that there will be no conflicts between ECHR rulings and the Constitution when it comes to law enforcement. There are a vast number of cases where the states parties say they are unable to act upon a court ruling, in whole or in part, because it contradicts a particular clause in their constitution.

By the way, regarding the ECHR, the non-participation of the EU in the convention as a supranational association is the most significant gap. Talks have been ongoing for several years now, but to no avail. However, joining other conventions as part of the Council of Europe, the EU insists on “disconnection clauses” providing for the implementation of the conventions only when they are in line with EU legislation, including its potential amendments. In fact, this results in fragmentation of the Council of Europe’s convention array, while the EU bodies remain outside the ECHR’s legal framework.



Question:

The Netherlands recently filed a lawsuit with the ECHR against Russia over the MH17 plane crash, but at the same time expressed a willingness to hold talks with Russia on the issue. Can you please comment on that? Is Moscow holding consultations on this issue with the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium? Is Russia ready to pay damages to the victims? And what do you generally think of the court’s deliberations on this case?



Alexander Grushko:

We are keeping an eye on the court proceedings. Regretfully, the proceedings, and now the announced intention to file a suit with the ECHR, show that The Hague continues to stick with the initial version when Russia was designated as the guilty party before “evidence” was collected.

Regarding consultations with the Netherlands and Australia, we met with them on certain legal questions but this was unrelated to the court process.



Question:

Discussions have resumed fairly recently between Russia’s and NATO’s chiefs of staff. Is there a chance of resuming political contact at other levels of the Russia-NATO Council (RNC)?



Alexander Grushko:

We never made a decision to cut our relations with NATO. The political dialogue is ongoing, like before, even if outside formal RNC meetings. For example, contact is maintained between Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and Chairman of the Military Council of NATO. They had a telephone conversation just recently. Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and Supreme Allied Commander Europe who is also Commander of US European Command have regular meetings about twice a year. But the point is that so far there are no issues to be discussed. The RNC was set up to monitor the security horizon and proactively identify common threats and challenges. It reviewed alternatives and ways to cooperate in neutralising those threats with consideration for the other organisations so as not to overlap into their activities. The council was looking for niches where all RNC members had a common vision of what could be done.



Question:

Is there a lack of such vision now?



Alexander Grushko:

The vision is absent but the common threats are still there, and they have even escalated. Take Afghanistan, for instance. We had good cooperation on stabilising the situation in that country. Very significant projects had been implemented. One of the biggest was fighting drugs. Over 3,000 officers had been trained under the RNC for anti-drug services of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. But all cooperation in combating piracy and fighting terrorism is stalled now. The last thing we were doing – the launch of the first ever operation in the history of the Russia-NATO Council on ensuring security in Syrian chemical weapons destruction. Nevertheless, NATO decided that Russia must be “punished” and gave up any cooperation thus shooting itself in the foot.



Question:

But NATO and Russia have a lot of questions for each other that cause concern. Are these questions being discussed within the RNC?



Alexander Grushko:

The main challenge today in Russia-NATO relations in practical terms is the prevention of dangerous incidents, avoiding misreading each other’s intents, that is, de-escalation. The NATO countries’ leaders talk about that. No one would object to that. We are ready for substantive dialogue but this is impossible without the military. Meanwhile, NATO decided to curb all relations along the military line except at the chiefs of staff level. With all respect for ambassadors, they are not to discuss the safe distance between a ship and an airplane or the frequencies to be used by pilots when their aircraft are on a collision course.

In addition, NATO insists on an obligatory discussion of the Ukraine issue which makes no sense given the OSCE’s role and the Normandy format which includes two NATO countries. So we are ready for specific substantive work but…

By the way, we had two RNC meetings last year where we discussed the state of military security and a very serious problem – the INF Treaty since it concerned the security of all RNC members. We presume that such a discussion will move us in the right direction otherwise the dialog will be a waste of time.



Question:

Is it possible that nuclear weapons will be redeployed from Germany to Poland? What will Russia do if this takes place, considering that this will amount to a violation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act?



Alexander Grushko:

We are closely monitoring the developments. The Russia-NATO Founding Act sets out the bloc countries’ firm obligation not to change the structure and geography of the deployment of nuclear weapons and related infrastructure. Of course, we would like to hope that this obligation will be honoured. However, the actions of the US administration are pushing back the limits, to put it mildly, so we are no longer sure that this commitment will be honoured.

If we notice any movement towards any new plans or related preparations, we will take all the necessary measures, including of a military nature, to ensure our security.



Question:

Does this mean that Russia will withdraw from the Founding Act?



Alexander Grushko:

I believe it will be the death sentence to this document.



Question:

So, the CFE Treaty has been destroyed, the INF Treaty has followed suit, the United States has pulled out of the Open Skies Treaty, and now the New START and the Russia-NATO Founding Act seem to be at death’s door as well. This looks like chaos in the field of arms control. How can this be stopped?



Alexander Grushko:

Yes, this is chaos. The United States is moving towards it. Regarding the pillars of the military security system in Europe, just take a look at the US policy over the past few years. It all began with the US failure to ratify the CFE Treaty, the cornerstone of European security, as it proceeds from its preamble. Next it withdrew from the INF Treaty, although it looked as if nobody would threaten it. Now it has pulled out of OST, for no visible reason. If the possibilities you have mentioned become a reality, I mean redeployment of nuclear weapons, it will be the insurance shot fired to kill off the security system.

So far, there have only been hints but no outright statements regarding this possibility. However, in light of the United States’ arrogant actions without any regard for others’ interests, this possibility cannot be ruled out.



Question:

Can Russia redeploy its tactical nuclear weapons closer to the NATO border in this event?



Alexander Grushko:

We will take all the necessary measures. We have already stated that if no US intermediate- and shorter-range missiles are deployed in Europe, we will not deploy them either. But as soon as such missiles appear in Europe, we will reciprocate. The countries that are actually fighting to host US military presence in any form, seeking to become “frontline” states – I am referring to Poland and the Baltic states, should be aware of the adverse sides of this choice when it comes to their own security and the security of their allies.



Question:

Is Russia conducting any discussions with NATO or asking for explanations regarding the strengthening of the missile defence component in Poland?



Alexander Grushko:

We held such discussions in the past, and we even talked about creating a common missile defence system. But what is there to discuss today? They are implementing their plans, and the establishment of a missile base with Mk41 launchers in Poland is to be completed in 2021. This will disrupt the balance even more and will create a direct threat to Russia’s interests, especially since the United States has tested its ground-launched cruise missiles barely two weeks after withdrawing from the INF Treaty.

The problem is getting worse. The system is ready for action in Romania, and it has the adaptable Mk41 systems, which can be used to launch various types of missiles. The launchers have been deployed on US warships that are equipped with Aegis Ashore missile defence systems. The Mk41 launcher can also be used to fire the intermediate-range Tomahawk missiles. We are taking all of this into account when planning our defence.



Question:

How would you assess the progress on the initiative on the mutual use of transponders for military aircraft flights over the Baltic region?



Alexander Grushko:

The Baltic Sea Project Team, established under the auspices of the Russia-NATO Council, was like a ray of sunshine in the gloomy darkness of NATO-Russia relations. The participants include representatives from Russia, NATO, Finland and Sweden, as well as the Baltic countries. As a result, an international off-the-airway route connecting St Petersburg and Kaliningrad was agreed on and certified by the countries it crosses in their areas of ​​responsibility. It became an official flight route recognised by Eurocontrol. The use of this route by Russian state aviation, primarily warplanes, makes it possible to share flight plans in advance and fly with transponders engaged. Civilian air traffic controllers can use their radar to monitor aircraft that fly this route. This is a major improvement in civil aviation management that reduces risks to commercial aviation, because this region has a very high density of air traffic. It is also a good example of what can be achieved, albeit modestly, when experts are involved and the parties adhere to a depoliticised approach.

At the same time, we still have an issue with NATO. Even when our planes fly this route with their transponders on, NATO fighters continue to intercept them.



Question:

Is the idea of ​​sending a UN mission to ensure the security of the OSCE mission in Ukraine still relevant? What is your overall assessment of the mission's work?



Alexander Grushko:

No, this idea is no longer being considered. It was proposed by former President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko. We agreed because the OSCE, unlike the UN, does not have armed personnel. Its missions are unarmed. They are missions of observation and assistance. At some point, Poroshenko pointed out the need to improve mission staff safety. But today they are not being threatened. We support the mission's activities, and we believe that it performs a very important function. But when it comes to the essence of the problem, it is not about the mission or how it works, but about Kiev's reluctance to move towards a settlement and the implementation of the Minsk Agreements in the political and security spheres.



Question:

Can you confirm that French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Russia is being prepared? When might it take place?



Alexander Grushko:

Indeed, there is a general agreement on Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Russia, but the timeframe has not been set yet. It can be assumed that the international agenda will include the entire range of issues related to strategic stability, arms control in the broadest sense, European security and, all the hotspots such as Libya and Syria. If anything, the relevance of these topics is increasing in connection with recent events. All these issues have become permanent fixtures in the Russian-French dialogue at the highest and other levels.



Question:

One gets the impression that despite positive developments, relations between Russia and Turkey cannot be viewed as a strategic partnership, but rather as an alliance of convenience, especially if you consider differences over the Middle East. Do you think a situation could arise where, for example, Ankara's actions in Libya or Syria will hurt Russian-Turkish relations?



Alexander Grushko:

I would rather not talk about Russian-Turkish relations separately from the general context of international relations, which are not in a very good shape. As collective principles get weaker, the politicians begin to build alliances of convenience.

Of course, Russia and Turkey have a well-known history of relations which have had their fair share of bad moments. However, the efforts of President Putin and President Erdogan have made it possible to achieve great strides in building a strategic partnership. If you look at bilateral relations including the economy, energy and personal contacts, it would be hard not to see that they rely on a solid foundation. Clearly, there are elements of constructive mutual dependence here. Projects such as the Turk Stream and the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant have a serious impact on our relations.

Indeed, we recognise that Russia and Turkey may have different interests, including in the Middle East. But please keep in mind that Russia and Turkey, along with Iran, managed to create the Astana format, which is now formulating the basic principles underlying the Syrian settlement. With all the minor differences in our national positions, difficulties and different views of current developments, we enjoy a strategic unity with regard to Syria’s future, which, we believe, should be a single and indivisible state within its current borders and that the Syrians themselves should determine their future. This is critically important. We manage to agree on things despite some disagreements. Speaking of the fabric of the political dialogue, I would be hard pressed to give you the names of other countries with which we have such close, in fact, daily contact. This is not only about contact with unprecedented intensity between our leaders, but also contact on the ground. Our respective militaries are jointly patrolling Idlib and areas next to the Syrian-Turkish border. We have come a long way and have achieved great results. Even though we have disagreements, we are absolutely open to discussing them.



Question:

How will Russia respond if the United States buys the Russian-made S-400 systems from Turkey?



Alexander Grushko:

This is impossible. The standard contract contains an end-user clause. Systems like this are never sold if it’s understood that they may be resold.



Question:

What can you say about the Turkish government’s decision to change Hagia Sophia’s status in Istanbul?



Alexander Grushko:

We regret this. There are not so many modern world symbols with a history dating back centuries and the impact they had on the evolution of humanity. All of them need to be treated with great care and respect.

The cathedral is located in Turkey, but it wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that it is in the public domain. In 1985, Hagia Sophia was recognised as a World Heritage Site under the protection of UNESCO because of its historical, spiritual, inter-faith and cultural importance.

We hope that all obligations inherent to the status of this cathedral, managing it and ensuring its security and accessibility will be honoured in full.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4238766
__________________
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 August 9th, 2020 #149
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 Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani



17 July 2020 - 18:19







On July 17, 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 ministers discussed several regional issues with an emphasis on the need to resolve them through political and diplomatic means via talks where the interests and concerns of all parties are considered.

When discussing priorities on the bilateral agenda, they reaffirmed Moscow and Doha’s mutual ambition to maintain a regular political dialogue and to further promote business cooperation and cultural ties based on the agreements reached at the highest level.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4238856






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi



17 July 2020 - 18:33







On July 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with State Councilor and Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi.

The ministers discussed a number of current issues on the bilateral and international agendas, including preparations for the summit of UN Security Council permanent members, global security, developments in various regions of the world, integration processes in Eurasia, and SCO and BRICS activities under Russia’s chairmanship this year.

Sergey Lavrov informed his colleague about the progress of the Russia-US dialogue on arms control in the context of maintaining strategic stability.

Wang Yi spoke about the results of yesterday’s China + Central Asia (C+C5) foreign ministers’ videoconference.

The ministers expressed a mutual commitment to continue close cooperation in fighting COVID-19, including within the World Health Organisation and in other multilateral formats.

The conversation was held in a trust-based and constructive manner and confirmed the consistency of opinions on all the topics discussed as well as Moscow and Beijing’s commitment to settling global issues exclusively through equal dialogue and a search for a balance of interests while respecting the principles of the UN Charter.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4238866






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan



17 July 2020 - 19:16







On July 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan at the latter’s initiative.

The two countries’ foreign ministers discussed current issues related to the further promotion of comprehensive bilateral ties. They focused on the practical implementation of the agreements reached during President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s visit to Abu Dhabi on October 15, 2019, as well as other bilateral contacts at the highest levels.

When discussing the developments in the Middle East and North Africa, they expressed a shared opinion in favour of prompt ceasing of hostilities and comprehensive political settlements to the conflicts in Libya and other hot spots in the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4239002






Russian Ambassador to Indonesia Lyudmila Vorobyova’s interview with International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya, July 17, 2020



17 July 2020 - 19:55







Question:

What, in your view, is the current stage in Russia-Indonesia relations characterised with? How close are the two countries to a strategic partnership?



Lyudmila Vorobyova:

Earlier on this year, we marked the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Indonesia. We have approached this milestone with a lot of achievements to our credit. President Vladimir Putin and President Joko Widodo had numerous meetings, specifically in Sochi in 2016 and in Singapore in 2018. On April 13 of this year, the two leaders held a telephone conversation focused on how to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The political dialogue is developing actively at all levels, as is cooperation in such fields as security, antiterrorism, international information security, military-technical cooperation, education and culture. We have also established close collaboration internationally. On the whole, we can say that Russian-Indonesian relations are currently growing. I am confident that in the future our joint efforts will be likewise aimed at strengthening the mutually beneficial ties between Russia and Indonesia for the good of our two nations and in the interests of promoting peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region and globally.

Our accumulated bilateral potential, our trust-based relations and closeness of views on processes in the world are factors that create a strong basis for a strategic partnership. Regrettably, COVID-19 has somewhat postponed the signing of a relevant declaration by the presidents of Russia and Indonesia. However, I have no doubt that this event will take place at the earliest possible opportunity.



Question:

Indonesia is one of the main trade partners for Russia in Southeast Asia. What trade and economic cooperation sectors have achieved the greatest success? What are the priority development sectors?



Lyudmila Vorobyova:

In 2019, Russian-Indonesian trade topped $2 billion. This is not enough, of course, given the two countries’ considerable resources and an interest in expanding cooperation. The Russian-Indonesian Joint Commission for Trade, Economic and Technological Cooperation co-chaired by Minister of Trade and Industry Denis Manturov of Russia and Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto of Indonesia, as well as its several working groups are exploring promising spheres of collaboration.

A number of joint investment projects are being implemented in Indonesia. Notably, Rosneft is building an oil refinery in East Java. There are good opportunities for cooperation in the context of President Widodo’s plans to relocate the national capital city to East Kalimantan.

Apart from this, energy, aircraft-making, shipbuilding, industrial cooperation, hi-tech and some others sectors are also promising cooperation fields.



Question:

Russia-Indonesia military-technical cooperation is many decades old. What is the state of relations in this field today?



Lyudmila Vorobyova:

A high level of mutual trust creates a favourable atmosphere for progress of collaboration in the military and military-technical sphere. Indonesian Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto has paid two visits to Russia since the start of 2020. In June, at the invitation of Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, he attended the military parade on Red Square dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. There are regular meetings of top military command personnel; Russian military participate in multilateral exercises in Indonesia.

In October 2019, the sides drafted a plan of Russian-Indonesian military cooperation for 2020, which provides for calls by Russian naval ships at Indonesian ports, staff exercises, talks between representatives of armed forces services, and other things. We hope that it will be implemented despite the pandemic.

Russian arms and military equipment supplies remain an important component of bilateral defence collaboration. As is common knowledge, Indonesia signed a purchase contract, in 2018, for 11 multi-role Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets. Talks on the contract are still in progress.

The generally good quality of Russian equipment and its competitive price tag motivate high interest in it on the part of Indonesian partners. In this connection, Russia is still one of the principal suppliers of weapons to Indonesia.



Question:

Bilateral cultural contacts existed long before the establishment of diplomatic relations. How is our cooperation in the field of cultural exchanges, education and sports developing today?



Lyudmila Vorobyova:

I am particularly pleased to note the progress made in humanitarian ties. In October 2018, the Rossiya airline established a direct air link, Moscow-Denpasar-Moscow, between Russia and Indonesia, something that doubled the number of Russian tourists visiting Indonesia to 160,000 in 2019.

Cultural exchanges are being intensified as well. For example, the National Gallery in Jakarta marked the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations by holding a Russian exhibition of paintings titled “The Necklace of Equator,” which was visited by 5,000 people. In turn, Moscow hosts the annual Festival of Indonesia that people in Moscow and visitors are invariably keen to attend.

There is much potential in the education sphere. The Government of the Russian Federation provides over 160 student grants for Indonesians to study at Russian universities, but the number of those eager to enroll is far in excess of this quota. As of today, Russian universities have more than 600 Indonesian students.

I am glad that increasingly more Indonesians show an interest and are paying attention to Russia, its history and culture, they also visit this country, familiarise themselves with its customs and traditions, and form an opinion of their own about it.



Question:

How are Russian citizens and Russian compatriots living in Indonesia coping with challenges created by COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed on account of the pandemic?



Lyudmila Vorobyova:

The Indonesian authorities took measures to prevent the disease from spreading in the country as soon as the first patients were recorded in Jakarta in March. Various restrictions were introduced stage by stage, including on the public transit system.

There were almost 6,000 Russians, many with expired visas, in Indonesia, primarily on Bali, when Russia suspended all international air flights. Thanks to the Embassy’s efforts, the local immigration services reached out to the Russians, who got stuck in the country, cancelling fines for their visa violations. During these months, Russian airlines performed 14 evacuation flights that brought most of them home. Many hard-pressed tourists received financial aid. Luckily, none of the Russians in Indonesia contracted coronavirus.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4239024






Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s comment in response to questions about Russian citizens held in prison in Tripoli



18 July 2020 - 16:19



In connection with the incoming media requests to comment on a recent video with Russian citizens Maxim Shugaley and Samer Sueifan, filmed, apparently, in the Libyan prison there they are being held in, we would like to note the following.

Indeed, Russian representatives never visited Mr Shugaley and Mr Sueifan in their confinement because the Tripoli authorities, violating the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, have not provided us with this opportunity. In the current context, any trips made by Russian diplomats to Libya are associated with unacceptably high risks to their personal safety. Because of this, the Russian Embassy in Tripoli had to be evacuated to Tunisia back in 2013, after it was openly attacked by militants from a local armed group. Several dozen Russian diplomats and members of their families quickly arranged a convoy at night, safely bypassed the pickets of semi-bandit units and fled the country without any casualties.

Nevertheless, the Russian Foreign Ministry is working on the release of Maxim Shugaley and Samer Sueifan. We got involved in this work immediately after receiving belated information through unofficial channels about their illegal arrest in Tripoli in May 2019. We sent appropriate notes to the Government of National Accord through their diplomatic mission in Moscow. We regularly and insistently raise this topic at all meetings with representatives of the Tripoli authorities, demanding an immediate and unconditional release of the Russian citizens. In particular, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did so at his meeting with Deputy Chairman of Libya's Government of National Accord Ahmed Maiteeq and GNA Foreign Minister Mohammed Siala in Moscow in June. We are using all available communication channels, including confidential ones, with all states that have any influence on the GNA.

As a result of our persistent efforts, we have recently received written assurances from Foreign Minister Siala that the problem with our citizens will be resolved in the near future.

The Russian Foreign Ministry will continue its purposeful and energetic work towards this end.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4239127






Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova to a media question on the situation in the Libyan oil sector



20 July 2020 - 18:11



Question:

In January 2020, Libya stopped oil production and exports. Some blame Libyan National Army commander Khalifa Haftar for allegedly trying to put pressure on the Government of National Accord in Tripoli. The field marshal himself claims that the oil facilities were closed by the decision of tribes that live near the installations because they were dissatisfied with the unfair distribution of oil revenues. Could you comment on the situation in the Libyan hydrocarbon sector?



Maria Zakharova:

Our underlying belief is that oil produced in Libya is a national treasure of all Libyan people. This, in particular, is stipulated in the final document of the International Conference on Libya held in Berlin in January 2020, as well as in UN Security Council Resolution 2510, which endorsed the Berlin Conference conclusions. However, until recently, revenues from oil exports were accumulated in the Central Bank of Libya, which is controlled by the Government of National Accord. Even though most of the oilfields are located in the east of the country, the residents of that region were deprived of the opportunity to use the money earned from oil sales. This abnormal situation ultimately provoked the suspension of Libyan oil exports.

Libyans must manage their natural resources without any outside interference. Each of the country's three historical provinces – Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan – has the right to have equal opportunities to receive income from the use of Libya's oil resources. However, appropriate conditions need to be created for this, first of all the national institutions responsible for the management of the hydrocarbon sector and its earnings must resume coordinated work. I am primarily referring to the Libyan National Oil Corporation and the Central Bank, the institutions that must ensure a fair distribution of revenues from oil and gas exports among all Libyans without any discrimination.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4245104






Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova to a media question on the capture of Russian sailors in the Gulf of Guinea



20 July 2020 - 20:06



Question:

Can you comment on the situation with the seizing of the ship Curacao Trader, with Russian sailors aboard, in the Gulf of Guinea?



Answer:

According to reports from Russian Embassies in Abuja and Cotonou, on July 17, the tanker Curacao Trader was attacked in neutral waters in the Gulf of Guinea, 210 nautical miles from the Benin coast. The criminals captured 13 of 19 crew members, among them 7 Russians. The ship operator is the Greek company Alison Management Corp and the port of registry is Monrovia (Liberia).

Eight armed pirates took part in the capture. They have not put forward any demands so far. On July 19, the tanker arrived at an anchorage near the Cotonou port (Benin).

Russian Embassies in Abuja and Cotonou remain in permanent contact with competent Nigerian and Beninese agencies and with the ship’s owners. We are taking all necessary steps to determine the whereabouts of these kidnapped Russian citizens and to have them released.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4245154






Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s interview with Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, published on July 20, 2020



20 July 2020 - 20:18







Question:

Tension continues to increase in North Africa with every passing day. You recently met in Moscow with Speaker of the Libyan House of Representatives (HOR) Aguila Saleh. What are Moscow’s main proposals for overcoming the current crisis? How does Russia assess Turkey’s undisguised interference in Libya’s domestic affairs? Why have contacts stopped between Moscow and Ankara, although a principled agreement on holding a meeting in the 2+2 format was reached during earlier conversations between presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

We received not only Aguila Saleh. A month earlier, representatives of the western Libyan camp, Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord Ahmed Maiteeq and the Government’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Muhammed Tahir Siyala, visited Moscow. Naturally, we discussed ways of overcoming the crisis in Libya with both delegations.

Everyone is well aware of our position on this score. We call for immediately ceasing hostilities and launching political dialogue on Libya’s post-conflict reconstruction and the establishment of integral Libyan institutions of state authority based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and decisions of the Berlin International Conference on Libya. We believe that the April 23, 2020 initiative of Aguila Saleh, Speaker of the Libyan Parliament, that was further elaborated upon in the Cairo Declaration, set forth by President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on June 6, 2020, can serve as a solid foundation for accomplishing these tasks.

We cooperate closely with all influential international players, including Turkey, with due consideration for its special relations with the Tripoli authorities, on the Libyan agenda. The well-known January initiative by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan played a positive role in that the warring parties announced a ceasefire, and this created a favourable background for holding the Berlin Conference.

Unfortunately, the truce was short-lived, and active hostilities resumed. We will continue to induce Ankara to influence the government of Fayez Al-Sarraj in a constructive way. We are also working with the Americans and the Europeans, as well as with leading regional countries. As you know, the presidents of Russia and Egypt had a telephone conversation on June 8, 2020, and a considerable part of their conversation dealt with the situation in Libya.

During a telephone conversation with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Vladimir Putin noted that there could be no military solution to the Libyan crisis. He also underscored the need to respect Libya’s sovereignty, independence and unity and reaffirmed the importance of launching a direct political dialogue between the Libyan parties without any interference from external forces, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2510.



Question:

Egypt continues to exert diplomatic efforts to attain a desirable solution to the problem of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance (Hidase) Dam hydropower plant project, as regards specific deadlines and terms for filling the dam’s reservoir. What does Moscow think about this problem, and can Russia take part in diplomatic efforts and provide mediatory services for merging the positions of the concerned parties in the context of the diminishing US role on which Cairo had put up high hopes?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

We are closely following these developments in relations between Egypt and Ethiopia during the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance (Hidase) Dam on the Blue Nile River.

We believe that the states of the Nile River basin should address all disagreements linked with the regime for using the Nile’s waters in the spirit of constructive cooperation and neighbourly relations. It is only possible to eliminate the arising problems through talks, on an equitable basis, by complying with the norms of international law, while heeding justified concerns and the national security of each country, in the interests of their socio-economic development and the preservation of the environmental balance in the Nile River’s basin.

We are calling on the concerned parties to continue their consultations. We hope that Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan will manage to coordinate compromise solutions for overcoming the persisting disagreements.

Russia is ready to continue assisting the parties involved during the search of solutions seen as acceptable by each of them.



Question:

You met with members of Hamas leadership during your working visit to Doha. Was that meeting part of Russia’s mediating efforts to help heal the split between the Palestinian political organisations and movements, primarily Hamas and the PLO?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

Yes, indeed, I had a meeting with Hamas Political Bureau Head Ismail Khania, his predecessor in this post Khaled Mashal, and Hamas Political Bureau member Moussa Abu Marzouk, while visiting Doha in late June.

During our substantive discussion regarding the situation emerging in the context of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, we focused on how to restore Palestinian unity on the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

It is obvious that the Israelis and the Palestinians should as soon as possible resume direct talks under the aegis of the UN in order to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement based on the generally recognised legal infrastructure of a Middle East settlement (MES) and to solve all the problems related to the final status. In this context, overcoming the intra-Palestinian split is an important precondition for launching a full-scale peace process, something that we always emphasise during our contacts, primarily those with members of the leadership of Palestinian political movements and organisations.

I would like to add that Moscow welcomes the timely steps towards restoring national unity, taken by Fatah and Hamas, steps that were announced by Executive Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee Jibril Rajoub and Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Saleh al-Arouri during their joint news conference in a video format on July 2 of this year.

For our part, we express readiness to help consolidate and promote this budding positive trend, including by organising yet another meeting of the main Palestinian organisations in Moscow, the relevant sanitary and epidemiological conditions permitting.



Question:

Are there any developments in connection with “the deal of the century?” What is Russia’s attitude to the Israeli leaders’ statements on Israel extending its sovereignty to the Palestinian territories? It is common knowledge that during your contacts with the Israeli side you touched upon Tel Aviv’s changed position on Land for Peace.



Mikhail Bogdanov:

Some Middle East experts are of the opinion that the extension of Israel’s sovereignty to a part of the Palestinian territories on the West bank of the River Jordan can be carried out as a unilateral implementation of certain provisions of the US MES plan known as “the deal of the century.” This interpretation is not ungrounded, particularly with account taken of the fact that the Israeli leadership usually takes note of Washington’s guidelines.

The Russian position in this regard has been repeatedly voiced and is well known to everyone. We believe that Israel’s annexation of a portion of Palestinian lands would not only obviate the prospects for a two-state solution but also would most likely provoke a new dangerous spiral of violence in Palestine and heat up to an even higher degree the radical protest moods in the Arab Muslim world.

Our country has changed nothing in its policy in support of the two-state solution to the Palestinian problem based on the generally accepted parameters of a settlement, as reflected in the relevant UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and in the Arab Peace Initiative, including the Land for Peace principle you have just mentioned. Let me remind you in this connection that the Soviet Union recognised the proclamation of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders and with its capital in East Jerusalem back in November 1988.

As for West Jerusalem’s position on this formula, one envisaged by UN Security Council resolutions starting from Resolution 242 and later sealed by the Madrid Peace Conference co-sponsored by Moscow and Washington, this question should be addressed to the Israeli side.



Question:

What objectives will Vladimir Safronkov have as the new Special Representative of the Foreign Minister on the Middle East Peace Process?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

Vladimir Safronkov has been recalled from New York where he served as Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, and appointed Ambassador-at-Large, Special Representative of the Foreign Minister on the Middle East Peace Process. Mr Safronkov is an experienced career diplomat who has been involved with the Middle East for many years, including the Palestinian issue.

In his new capacity, he will represent Russian diplomacy in bilateral and multilateral contacts on the Middle East Peace Process, including the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, which includes Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU. His main task will be to promote Russia’s unwavering position to support a comprehensive and sustainable two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, based on the generally recognised international legal framework for a peace process.



Question:

Some reports cite a significant decrease in the level of coordination and trust between Moscow and Damascus. Some attribute this to a possible cool-down between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad. How correct are these assumptions and estimates? What next steps might be taken to give momentum to the Syrian crisis resolution?



Mikhail Bogdanov:

In reality, there is nothing behind those speculations about the alleged disagreements between Moscow and Damascus. These artificially inflated allegations are planted to create a distorted view of Russian-Syrian relations, most probably by parties hostile to both countries.

Such moves are apparently in line with the wider political and economic pressure on Syria after the country – supported by Russia – was able to block attempts to impose others’ will on it by military means.

In the context of a comprehensive peace process in the Syrian Arab Republic, we attach great importance to the advancement of an inclusive political process led and owned by Syrians, without outside interference, as provided for in UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

We hope that in the next period, when the restrictions imposed in connection with the coronavirus pandemic are lifted, another round of intra-Syrian dialogue will take place in Geneva. Members of the Constitutional Committee have confirmed their readiness to hold a meeting of the drafting committee with the agreed agenda, as the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen noted during a recent briefing at the UN Security Council. In this regard, we take special note of the decisive contribution that the Astana format has made to the establishment, launch and support of the Constitutional Committee’s work.

Russia has never been a colonial power. Historically, we have no experience of robbing overseas territories. Our foreign policy, based on respect for international law, does not include hegemonic attempts to impose any external will on independent states, or interference in their sovereign affairs. I can say with all confidence that our relations with Syria will continue to be based on a mutually respectful, equal basis with strict observance of our international and bilateral obligations.

Strategic issues of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Syria are taken care of by the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission co-chaired by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov and Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem. Numerous agreements and memorandums aimed at enhancing bilateral ties have been signed between the relevant government agencies of Russia and Syria in recent years. Despite the objective difficulties due to the security situation and sanctions pressure from the West, Russian private businesses are also showing a keen interest in the Syrian market.

Russian companies’ contribution to post-war reconstruction in Syria, which you mentioned, is based on mutual interest, factors such as the commercial benefit from a project, the stability of its subsequent operation, non-exposure to technological risks, as well as its economic and social efficiency.

At the same time, I can assume that our Syrian friends will be considering a potential contractor’s nationality as quite an important factor for a long time. They will hardly make their choice in favour of representatives of countries whose governments have been involved in fuelling the long fratricidal conflict and have actually provoked international terrorist aggressions against the Syrian people – unless they have to.

I think that today, in addition to Russian businesses, Belarusian, Iranian, Chinese and Indian companies have a good outlook in Syria, as does Arab capital. After all, Syria has always been and remains an integral part of the Arab world.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4245174






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt Sameh Shoukry



21 July 2020 - 16:59







On July 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt Sameh Shoukry.

The ministers discussed the situation in the Middle East and North Africa with a focus on the Libyan crisis. Both sides confirmed that the only way to reach a peace settlement in that country is through negotiations between all Libyan parties in line with the decisions of the Berlin Conference endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2510. They also underscored the importance of the Cairo Declaration of June 6 for promoting the key principles of the Berlin process with a view to arranging an inclusive intra-Libyan dialogue for working out understandings on the post-conflict order in Libya based on the balance of interests of its three historical regions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4249426
__________________
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 August 10th, 2020 #150
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 the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, July 21, 2020



21 July 2020 - 19:02






Mr Minister, dear friend, colleagues,

We are pleased to welcome you to Moscow. We appreciate the fact that, despite the circumstances, we continue to talk not only online, but in person as well.

We regard our meeting today as a very important milestone in the common efforts that the remaining participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are now undertaking in order to preserve this critical achievement of multilateral diplomacy.

We consider destructive in every sense the policy adopted by our US colleagues which seeks to completely destroy this important document and other agreements in the sphere of arms control and non-proliferation in general. Nevertheless, we are confident that the chances for the JCPOA to return to a sustainable course are still there. At least we, like our Iranian friends, are doing our best to make this happen. We see that the People's Republic of China has adopted the same position, and the remaining JCPOA members from Europe continue to show interest in this as well.





Today, we will focus on the additional steps, primarily, in the legal sphere, that need to be taken based on UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which is at one with the JCPOA and should be implemented as such.

Today is also a good opportunity to exchange views on further steps to promote the Syrian settlement as a follow-up to the videoconference between the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey as leaders of the Astana process guarantor countries.

On July 16, our presidents - President of Iran Hassan Rouhani and President of Russia Vladimir Putin - talked by telephone and discussed in detail the state of bilateral relations, primarily in the economic and cultural areas. Today is a good opportunity to outline additional steps to advance these areas.

Welcome again. We are very pleased to have you here.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4249949






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, July 21, 2020



21 July 2020 - 19:28





Ladies and gentlemen,

Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif and I have held talks. We appreciate the fact that this is his second visit to Moscow this month amid the known problems that the coronavirus infection is creating for diplomacy.

Prior to our talks, the minister conveyed a message from President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, to President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. The message was transmitted during a telephone conversation, and then we held talks at the Russian Foreign Ministry's Mansion.

We noted with satisfaction the rich bilateral political dialogue, including at the highest level. As you are aware, the two presidents had a telephone conversation on July 16.

Direct interdepartmental ties are expanding progressively, including contact between our respective healthcare ministries, which have been exchanging experience on countering the spread of COVID-19. We also share an understanding with our Iranian friends that overcoming the virus will be easier and more effective if we join our efforts.

We noted successes in promoting cooperation in trade and investment, which were made possible by the consistent implementation of the agreements reached by our respective leaders. We pointed out the unacceptability and the illegitimate nature of the unilateral restrictive measures that are designed to block Iran’s foreign economic relations. We confirmed our plans for the further implementation of promising bilateral projects in energy, transport and agriculture. We praised the activities of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation. Given the coronavirus infection, we will try to hold the next meeting in Russia in the autumn.

We welcomed the interest of the regions in Russia and Iran to expand cooperation, which we will continue to encourage.

We coordinated our approaches towards key global and regional issues. We have overlapping or very similar positions. We discussed in detail various aspects of efforts under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). On July 14, this important agreement was five years old. Indeed, the agreement has contributed to ensuring global stability and security. We are united in our understanding that we need to make every effort to preserve it. We are convinced that only equal and constructive interaction between the participants and within the IAEA will help preserve the compromise agreements enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

We exchanged views on the state of affairs in Syria, including the outcome of the trilateral video conference of the heads of state, the guarantors of the Astana process - Russia, Iran and Turkey - organised at the initiative of Iran on July 1. We agreed to further coordinate our actions in order to achieve lasting peace and improve the humanitarian situation in this long-suffering country.

We also exchanged views on the situation in Afghanistan and related developments as they relate to the crisis in Yemen and the Middle East settlement, and overcoming the problems associated with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

We believe the talks were quite satisfactory. We agreed to maintain close contact on all these matters.







Question (retranslated from Farsi):

You mentioned in your remarks the Treaty on the Fundamental Principles of Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We will be celebrating its 20th anniversary in eight months. Does Russia intend to extend it, or maybe you want to expand and make it more broad-based?



Sergey Lavrov:

We talked about this today. Of course, this treaty is a vital document underlying our bilateral relations, as you can see from its name: the Treaty on the Fundamental Principles of Relations and Cooperation between Russia and Iran. It covers the main spheres of our cooperation. It also includes a provision on its automatic extension next year for the next five years. We can do this without any doubt. But today we have agreed that 20 years is a rather long period of time, especially the past 20 years, when serious and even fundamental changes took place on the international stage with regard to the economic and political aspects of the international order and the threats humankind is facing such as terrorism, other kinds of organised crime, climate change and the current buzzword – viruses. We have an identical stand on these topics, which we will report to our leaders, that is, that we should coordinate a new document, which will reflect the deep-going changes in the world and our common positions in these circumstances.



Question:

What role can Russia play in the settlement process in the Gulf and in the dialogue between Iran and Arab countries? Do you think that Russia’s collective security initiative is still valid, considering the attempts by the Americans and Europeans to bury it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our firm position is that problems in any part of the world, and the Middle East and North Africa is one of the most important regions, should be settled through dialogue aimed at balancing the interests of the concerned states. Every country has its own legitimate interests in their home regions and these must be respected. Of course, it is our profound belief that the external players should help to create the conditions for such an inclusive dialogue instead of trying to sour relations between the concerned states and incite confrontation so as to gain unilateral geopolitical advantages. Regrettably, this is exactly what is taking place right now. It is even more regrettable that this policy of some of our Western colleagues has spread to the Muslim world, where contradictions, most of them contrived, unwanted and counterproductive, are being incited.

Our fundamental belief is that the principles proclaimed within the framework of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) must be respected and implemented. This calls for formulating common approaches of the Islamic countries to the main current problems and to cooperation between all Islamic countries in accordance with the OIC name. Russia as an observer country of the OIC has been doing its utmost to promote the development of such a positive and unifying atmosphere.

The experience of collaboration between Russia, Iran and Turkey in the settlement of the Syrian crisis has shown that it is a correct and positive policy. I would like to add that Arab countries, in particular Jordan and Iraq, are working together with Russia, Iran and Turkey within the Astana process. This shows that Muslims, be they Arab or any other ethnic groups, can join their efforts in the interests of a common cause. This combination of efforts by all Muslims and the concerned foreign players will benefit the settlement process not only in Syria but also in Yemen, Iraq and Libya, as well as can help defuse the Middle Eastern, that is, Palestinian-Israeli deadlock, which is having an extremely negative effect on the region as a whole.

As for the Gulf developments, we have been acting from the very positions I have mentioned. The only correct path is not to create any coalitions, such as “a Middle Eastern NATO,” which is being advocated by our American colleagues. It is yet another confrontation-prone approach based on a desire to isolate some country and to continue promoting confrontational policies in this crucial part of the world.

Our initiative on security, peace and cooperation in the Persian Gulf is based on an approach that can unite all the coastal states, which can contribute to this process. We have also proposed to involve external players, including permanent members of the UN Security Council, the EU, the Arab League and the OIC. I believe that this approach will ultimately take the upper hand, because it is the only method to ensure the region’s stable and sustainable development in the interests of all nations in that part of the world. This principle is also incorporated in Iran’s Hormuz Peace Endeavour (HOPE), which my colleague and friend mentioned.

Frankly speaking, it cannot be said that the proposal for a collective security system in the Gulf region has encountered any opposition on the part of the regional countries. Of course, the coordination of common approaches is complicated by the chronic phobias, old wounds and long-time problems, which have found a way into the present-day world. But I have no doubt at all that it is the correct path and that we will do our very best to promote a consensus regarding it.



Question (retranslated from Farsi):

The Americans are talking about the maximum and minimum steps involved in extending the arms embargo against Iran. In other words, they want to extend indefinitely the sanctions, which were scheduled to be lifted several months from now under the JCPOA. What is Russia’s position as one of the positive participants in the nuclear deal?



Sergey Lavrov:

The UN Security Council did not impose an arms embargo in the full sense of this word on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The UN Security Council has introduced a permissive regime for supplying certain types of weapons to Iran. This regime will remain valid until October. Any attempts to take advantage of the current situation in order to extend it, let alone introduce an indefinite arms embargo, have no legal, political or moral grounds.

Notably, the corresponding provision in Resolution 2231 was not only introduced on a temporary basis, but was included as a gesture of goodwill on the part of Iran as part of the deal that has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear programme per se. Our position is straightforward: we are against such attempts. We don’t see any grounds for these attempts to be successful. We have circulated our position in New York as part of a corresponding document. It contains the grounds on which we are building it.



Question:

Iran applied for SCO membership in 2008. India and Pakistan became full members of this organisation in 2017, but Iran is still an observer. What is preventing it from becoming a full member? When can we expect it to become a full SCO member?



Sergey Lavrov:

We don’t see any obstacles to Iran becoming a full SCO member. We believe Iran meets the requirements for this status. Russia supported Iran’s application from day one. A consensus is needed for approval, which we are working on now.



Question:

Did former National Security Adviser to the US President, John Bolton, really have a good reason to quote in his memoirs the alleged remark by President Putin that “Russians do not need Iranians in Syria?”



Sergey Lavrov:

I think Mr Bolton had no reason whatsoever, as you said, to quote President Putin, if only because the President had never said anything like that. It is not in our rules, traditions, and even less so in President Putin’s personal rules to try to manipulate such scenarios behind our partners’ backs.

We are actively cooperating with Iran and Turkey in Syria. As you may be aware, this troika as guarantors of the Astana format made it possible to get the stalled Geneva process going. Only after Iran, Turkey and Russia decided to help the Syrians move towards a settlement and address problems in the military-political, humanitarian and political areas, the UN started doing something in this regard as well. Now, our troika is acting as a catalyst in all the processes that the international community seeks to promote under UNSC Resolution 2254.

I will not comment on retired US officials’ desire, now habit, to write memoirs in a form that invites litigation and mutual complaints. Perhaps, this is part of what might be referred to as specific political culture, if it were not something completely different from what we usually mean when we say the word “culture.”




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4250024






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum, Moscow, July 22, 2020



22 July 2020 - 13:32






Mr Minister, my dear Sabri, friends,

We are glad to welcome you to Moscow. Very recently our presidents have spoken by phone. Previously they met in Berlin in January. Following their contacts, we have been instructed to examine the current state of relations in all areas and outline ways to further promote them.





We have very good, mutually respectful and friendly relations of strategic partnership. We and our Algerian friends are interested in coordinating new economic, investment, cultural, educational and defence cooperation projects, as well as those on the international stage.

I am glad that the recent success in countering the coronavirus allows us to meet in person. We are very happy to see you in Moscow. Once again, welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4251659






Joint Statement following the High-Level Russian-Turkish Consultations on Libya, Ankara, July 22, 2020



22 July 2020 - 14:01



The Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, whose leaders proposed an initiative on January 8, 2020 in Istanbul to de-escalate the situation on the ground and to advance the political process in Libya,

- reaffirming their unwavering commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Libya, as well as to the goals and principles of the UN Charter;

- expressing confidence that the Libyan conflict cannot be resolved by military means but can only be settled through a political process consisting of and led by Libyans facilitated by the UN;

- noting the need to combat terrorists and terrorist groups recognised as such by the UN Security Council;

- reaffirming their commitment to continue bilateral cooperation in order to achieve security and stability in the country, as well as to improve the humanitarian situation there,

Have agreed on the following:

1. To continue joint efforts, including influencing the Libyan parties, in order to create conditions for a lasting and sustainable ceasefire in Libya.

2. To contribute to the advancement of the intra-Libyan political dialogue in accordance with the decisions of the Berlin Conference on Libya (held on January 19, 2020) and in coordination with the UN.

3. To call on the warring parties to take measures to ensure safe humanitarian access and provide urgent assistance to all those who need it.

4. To consider establishing a Joint Working Group on Libya and holding the next round of consultations in Moscow in the near future.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4251704






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding an attack on Russian journalists in the United States



22 July 2020 - 16:11



A Channel One television crew has been attacked by police in Portland, United States, today. The law enforcers beat the journalists and destroyed their professional equipment.

We regard such deliberately aggressive actions by US law enforcers against journalists as unacceptable. We urge the concerned American agencies to ensure the appropriate treatment of media representatives in accordance with the international obligations the United States has assumed voluntarily in the field of human rights and freedom of the media.

It is not the first example of a disproportionate use of police force against Russian journalists in the United States. In this connection, we have to once again appeal to the international organisations responsible for protecting the rights, freedoms and safety of journalists.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252015






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Sabri Boukadoum, Moscow, July 22, 2020



22 July 2020 - 17:52






Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, my colleague and friend, Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum, and I held productive talks in accordance with the agreement reached by the presidents of our countries in a telephone conversation on July 13.

We noted the steady progress in our relations in accordance with the Declaration on Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, which remains fully relevant.

We noted the effective activities of the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation which contributes to a steady increase in trade, which was somewhat down in the first six months of this year due to the coronavirus pandemic. Today, we discussed specific steps that will help remedy this situation and resume the upward trend in our trade and economic ties with the use of specific projects in investment, energy, agriculture, transport and the pharmaceutical industry. The epidemiological situation permitting, the Intergovernmental Commission will gather for a meeting and review these steps.

We praised the activities of another intergovernmental body which is the commission on military-technical cooperation. Its next meeting is also scheduled for the second half of the year.

We reiterated our interest in facilitating contact between people and various cultural ties.

We agreed to improve the coordination of our joint bilateral activities under the auspices of our respective foreign ministries, including the early drafting of important documents, such as intergovernmental agreements on the peaceful use of outer space, combating organised crime, creating respective cultural centres in Algeria and Russia, as well as mutual recognition of higher education degrees.

Our positions on important issues related to resolving international problems overlap. Russia and Algeria believe it is necessary to do so based solely on the UN Charter, respect for its goals and principles, including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, as well as non-interference in their internal affairs.

Our countries are in favour of resolving crises and conflicts exclusively through peaceful, political and diplomatic means. If we want to bring a sustainable solution to the many problems in the region (the Middle East and North Africa), all external players must encourage the conflicting parties to start a dialogue and reach agreements based on compromises and a balance of interests. We can resolve the crisis in Syria and achieve the Middle Eastern settlement (the Palestinian-Israeli conflict), settle the situation in Mali and the Sahara-Sahel region in general and, of course, settle the Libyan conflict, which we covered extensively today, only from these positions.

It is always important to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions and avoid actions that violate them. This fully applies to the Western Saharan issue. We are in favour of continuing our efforts to settle this based on existing UN Security Council resolutions.



Question (translated from Arabic):

Russia and Algeria emphasise that there is no alternative to a political settlement for the crisis in Libya. Is there a Russian-Algerian roadmap or mediation plan to resolve the situation in Libya? How would you comment on Algeria’s recent initiative to resolve the Libya crisis, which was advanced by President Abdelmadjid Tebboune who also underscored that it enjoys the support of the United Nations?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not have a bilateral roadmap. As we have publicly reaffirmed more than once, Russia and Algeria are both committed to the implementation of the agreements laid out in the final documents of the Berlin Conference on Libya, as approved by the UN Security Council. These documents list the specific steps to be taken, their sequence, and timeframe. We believe that all of those remain current.

In our contacts with the Libyan parties (and we are working with each of them), with Libya's neighbours and other external players, we specifically focus on achieving an immediate cessation of hostilities, not as an end goal to our efforts, but as a mid-point that should be immediately followed up by the Committee on the Resolution of Military Issues and the dialogue on a political settlement involving all regions of Libya. The ultimate goal of all our efforts should be the restoration of Libya’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and statehood – values that were grossly violated as a result of the NATO adventure in 2011 contrary to the UN Security Council resolution.



Question:

Despite Moscow’s never-ending calls for Libya’s warring sides to cease fire, the situation in this country continues to escalate. The Egyptian Parliament recently approved the possibility of introducing Egyptian troops into Libya if there is a threat to national security emanating from that country. What is Moscow’s attitude to this turn of events? Could it lead to an even greater escalation in the region? What role does Moscow assign to Libya's immediate neighbours, such as Algeria, in addressing this problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already said, and it is probably difficult to argue with this, that the situation we are dealing with now is rooted in NATO’s aggression carried out in 2011 in gross violation of the UN Security Council’s resolution. The external players, especially those from outside the region, could not have cared less about the Libyan people and statehood. They just destroyed it. In their geopolitical gambling, they made bets on one of the Libyan parties while fully ignoring the opinion of the African Union and its attempts to bring the situation back to normal. Such was the criminal behaviour of our NATO colleagues.

Now a situation has emerged that reflects a still unresolved problem, non-compliance with the agreements that were adopted with great difficulty during the period after the NATO aggression. As a result, we now have the Tripoli-based Government and the Tobruk-based parliament. As long as this dichotomy, this split, persists, they will always face the risk of external players supporting one or the other, the government or the Parliament. This is not what Libya needs. In this context, we need to bring all Libyans together at a negotiating table and help them work out compromises based on a balance of interests for all Libyan people and a revival of the Libyan state.

Unlike many other external players, Russia has never tried to place any bet in the Libyan game. We have always worked with all the political forces in Libya, had them visit Moscow at various times, and we continue to maintain contact with them now.

You asked about the role that Russia assigns to Libya's immediate neighbours. We think that Libya’s neighbours including Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt should play the most important role, because this is about stabilising a country that is their immediate neighbour. The security of Algeria and Libya's other neighbours depends on how successfully the problems in Libya are resolved. We are seeing the repercussions of NATO's criminal adventure in the entire region – terrorists crossing Libya to infiltrate other countries in Africa, the smuggling of weapons, other forms of organised crime, drug trafficking, and illegal migration. These trends obviously create very high risks and threats for the countries in the region, including our Algerian friends.

Today we are talking about the need to fulfill the agreements reached at the Berlin Conference. As a reminder, when this conference was announced and preparations began (it took four or five rounds of negotiation), no one was planning to invite Libya’s neighbours or the Libyan parties to Berlin. It was the Russian Federation that contacted the organisers – our German partners – and insisted that Libya’s neighbours also receive an invitation. As a result, President Tebboune was able to participate and made a valuable contribution to the discussion. The conflicting parties were also invited to Berlin. They did not meet or speak with each other there, but at least they were in the same city at the moment when their country’s future was being discussed. Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly stressed during discussions in Berlin that we had to secure the Libyan parties’ endorsement of the document that we eventually adopted.

We are confident that at this stage of our common effort, all Libyan parties must participate in direct negotiations, and Libya’s neighbours must have a say in shaping the conditions for an inter-Libyan settlement.

We also note that our Algerian friends, like the Russian Federation, are working with all Libyan political forces without exception. I think this is the only way to guarantee success in resolving this problem.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252080
__________________
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 August 10th, 2020 #151
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 Foreign Minister of Bahrain Abdullatif Al Zayani



22 July 2020 - 18:45







On July 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Bahrain Abdullatif Al Zayani had a telephone conversation at the initiative of the Bahraini side.

The two ministers reaffirmed the strong intention of Moscow and Manama to continue coordinated efforts in the interests of promoting traditionally friendly Russian-Bahraini relations. They focused on current issues of maintaining close foreign policy coordination and boosting business, cultural and educational cooperation and bilateral collaboration in fighting the coronavirus infection. They also reaffirmed mutual interest in helping to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and establishing a dialogue on security issues in the Persian Gulf area.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252094






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 80th anniversary of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the Soviet Union



22 July 2020 - 20:39



The ruling circles of the Baltic countries continue their attempts to promote a lopsided interpretation of the events related to the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the Soviet Union 80 years ago.

The Russian position on this matter is well known. It is based on an objective assessment of historical realities and a careful analysis of those events with reliance on archival documents and facts.

In June 1940, becoming aware of the truly real threat of Nazi Germany using the Baltics as a bridgehead for the invasion of the Soviet Union, Moscow had to deploy more troops in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in addition to the forces stationed there under the 1939 mutual assistance agreements. In itself, this measure, which was taken with approval by the Baltic countries’ authorities, was legitimate and did not amount to the transfer of sovereignty over their territories to the Soviet Union. The subsequent incorporation of the Baltic countries into the Soviet Union was not unilateral either but was carried out by mutual agreement.

The outcome of the July 1940 parliamentary elections in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia was a natural reaction of the overwhelming majority of voters to support their countries’ incorporation into the Soviet Union, which they saw as the only power capable of resisting a Nazi aggression. History has shown that the Soviet Union prevented the implementation of Hitler’s plans to turn the Baltics into a raw materials appendage of the Third Reich as set out in the Generalplan Ost (Master Plan for the East) and other documents of Nazi Germany. Under the plan, which was implemented up until 1944, the Baltic population was to be enslaved, Germanised and partially exterminated. In 1944 ̶ 1945, the Baltic peoples, along with the other nations of Europe, were liberated by Soviet soldiers, quite a few of them Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians, thousands of whom perished in the process of doing this.

The allegation of the “occupation” of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by the Soviet Union in 1940, which the ruling Baltic elites are actively promoting, contradicts the interpretation of this legal term accepted in that period. The Soviet Union and the Baltic countries were not at war with each other, and the communications addressed to them by Moscow did not include a threat of war.

Regarding the international recognition of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the Soviet Union, the agreements on the post-war structure of Europe reached by the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam did not question this fact. The matter was laid to rest in 1975 by the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Final Act).

According to the 1999 pilot project of the Council of Europe on state practice regarding state succession and issues of recognition, the majority of states recognised de facto the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union, and some of them confirmed this recognition de jure in their official correspondence.

It should be noted that the recognition of the Baltic states’ incorporation in 1940 as illegitimate would have put in question the consequences of this incorporation, for example, the addition to the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic of territories which were not part of pre-war Lithuania and which the modern-day Republic of Lithuania has inherited (Vilnius, the Vilnius Territory and Klaipeda).

It is noteworthy that throughout their history as constituent republics of the Soviet Union, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had their national governments, were presented in the supreme Soviet state authorities and had all the necessary conditions for the preservation and development of their national languages and culture, and that until the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991, the Baltic countries had been, through the assistance of the central Soviet authorities, among the best economically developed and prosperous regions of the Soviet Union.

Therefore, the “occupation doctrine” of the Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn authorities is a purely political project aimed at advancing all manner of claims to the Russian Federation and at falsifying that period of history.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252119






First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov’s interview with News.ru, July 23, 2020



23 July 2020 - 12:59







Question:

The United Sates is planning to redeploy part of its military contingent from Germany to Poland. Do Russian Federation leaders see Warsaw’s step as anti-Russian, given the provisions of the new National Security Strategy? Will Russia take this into account in its military planning? Will the Russian military groups in Kaliningrad be reinforced?



Vladimir Titov:

Unfortunately, Warsaw is leaving no room for doubt that both its past military-political steps and the most recent ones you mentioned are directed against Russia. Poland’s recently approved national security doctrine has confirmed this once again. In general, one has the impression that the ruling political forces in Poland have turned Russophobia and a perpetual fight against an imaginary Russian threat into very nearly the main component of their foreign policy.

On the whole, the deployment of US and NATO military forces in the direct vicinity of the Russian border has been increasing steadily, including the new military infrastructure and combat equipment concentrations. As for Russian military planning, I think it is clear to everyone that we have been regularly monitoring all attempts to change the alignment of forces in this region with an eye to a fitting and timely response.



Question:

Recent reports also said that the US nuclear arsenal could be redeployed from Germany to Poland, not just the military contingent. Warsaw, however, rejected these plans. How realistic is this scenario? Do you think that Russia and the United States should discuss this matter at their consultations on strategic stability?



Vladimir Titov:

Russia’s consistent position is that the continuing deployment of a large US force in Germany after this country’s reunification in 1990 is a leftover from the Cold War, even more so with respect to US nuclear forces deployed in Germany. But far from reducing its military presence in Europe, Washington continues to hone practical skills of using nuclear weapons during so-called joint nuclear missions involving NATO’s non-nuclear states, something that explicitly violates the basic provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As for a discussion on the potential redeployment of US nuclear forces from Germany to Poland, closer to Russian borders, I would not like to make a public prediction.

This is a very sensitive matter for both Russia and NATO countries that affects the foundations of strategic stability in Europe. Any actions in this area will inevitably have grave consequences for all sides. I am sure that the Polish leadership is conscious of that. In its relations with the North Atlantic Alliance Russia invariably advocates a reduction in military-political tensions in Europe. NATO representatives also point to the importance of restraint, but for this it is necessary, at the very least, to refrain from changing the existing balance. The potential appearance of US nuclear weapons in Poland would directly violate the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act.



Question:

Are Russia and Germany in contact as regards the new US sanctions against Nord Stream 2? Does Moscow believe that the German government’s position on this gas pipeline project will remain unchanged?



Vladimir Titov:

We know that Germany consistently supports Nord Stream 2. The pipeline ensures stable, competitively priced gas distribution to Germany and other European countries via the shortest route. Strategically, Nord Stream 2 will strengthen Europe’s energy security for decades to come. Natural gas and this infrastructure can be used to promote new opportunities in energy, including hydrogen.

The US’s attempts to impede the construction of Nord Stream 2 are a combination of deliberate politicisation of energy cooperation and unfair competition. Pretending to be concerned about Europe’s energy security, Washington is actually trying to dictate to the Europeans what energy policy they should pursue. But below the surface is an effort to minimise the use of Russian gas in the EU market and promote the use of its own fossil fuels.

Both EU leaders and the German government have declared that the US sanctions against the project are unacceptable.



Question:

Russia said that Germany has failed to provide evidence to substantiate its charges that Moscow was implicated in the 2015 hacker attack on the Bundestag. Are there any changes regarding this matter?



Vladimir Titov:

The German side has provided no evidence of this. References to some “intelligence data” made in public statements, press releases and media reports are not proof of anything. Grave charges of this kind must be supported by convincing and verifiable materials based on objective technical data. Berlin’s continued silence is just further obvious proof that their unfounded accusations against Russia were originally aimed at launching yet another anti-Russia campaign.

We regard Germany’s attempts to use so-called EU cyber sanctions against Russia as unacceptable for Russian-German relations and international cooperation in the information security area. Indicatively, Berlin came up with this initiative ahead of the German court ruling on the hacker attack you mentioned. So, there was no court decision yet, but the guilty party and a punishment were already assigned. This only confirms the suspicion that German authorities were deliberately designing a conflict situation.

Moreover, in 2014, Berlin froze, under a far-fetched pretext, the Russian-German expert cyber dialogue. We call on our German partners to resume this dialogue, specifically to re-launch a separate format for high level interagency consultations on international cyber security, which was effective in the past.



Question:

Will Moscow respond, if the EU introduces, at Germany’s initiative, cyber sanctions over the hacker attack on the Bundestag?



Vladimir Titov:

We will wait and see. If EU cyber sanctions become a reality, we certainly will not leave it unanswered. At the same time, we have repeatedly stated that any kind of prohibitive measures in international relations will put us on a dead-end track. We can deal with our differences through dialogue.

Likewise, we couldn’t help but notice an element of legal absurdity in our German colleagues’ reasoning. In response to a four-year-old cyber incident, Berlin wants to use a framework mechanism of EU restrictions that emerged only in 2019. In other words, they are trying to apply it retroactively.



Question:

Czech spokespersons claim that their government regards the conflict with Russia as settled after the reciprocal expulsion of diplomats. Does Moscow agree with these assertions?



Vladimir Titov:

By declaring, in June 2020, under absolutely far-fetched pretexts, employees of the Russian Embassy in Prague persona non grata, the Czech side took a provocative and unfriendly step. Either of its own free will or at somebody’s prompting, the Czech Republic consciously chose to dramatically aggravate relations with Russia, a totally ungrounded move that forced us to respond in kind.

Thus, the Czech side’s unfriendly actions have done much harm to bilateral relations, which have rapidly deteriorated. We hope that Prague will learn a lesson. The conflict will be over, when the Czech authorities give up on provoking Russia on many issues.



Question:

Who will represent Russia at talks with the Czech Republic on the fate of the monument to Marshal Ivan Konev? Is there information on a date, timeline and format?



Vladimir Titov:

Generally, both sides understand that they need to hold a discussion on problems in bilateral relations based on Article 5 of the 1993 Russian-Czech interstate Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation.

An important item on the current agenda is the fate of the monument to Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev, which was dismantled by the Prague-6 municipal authorities in violation of the above treaty in April 2020. But our relations currently have several problems besides this incident.

We have been calling for this discussion for a long time now. But one has the impression that the Czech side has used every expedient to avoid it.

We are cautiously optimistic in connection with the recently announced appointment of Head of the Foreign Department at the Office of the President of the Czech Republic Rudolf Jindrák as special representative at consultations. For my part, I am prepared to act as his counterpart.

Regrettably, the obstacle to organising this meeting is the persisting unfavourable sanitary and epidemiological situation and the related restrictions on travel. This is why the Russian Ambassador to the Czech Republic Alexander Zmeyevsky has been duly authorised to negotiate with the Czech side so as to provide an impetus for launching the negotiating process. We hope for an early start to consultations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252254






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with President of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly Volkan Bozkir Moscow, July 23, 2020



23 July 2020 - 15:16






Mr Bozkir, friends,

First of all, I would like to say that we are delighted to welcome you to Moscow. In addition to my greetings, I would like to once again congratulate you on your election as President of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly.

Taking into account your ample experience, including in the field of parliamentary diplomacy, we have no doubt that you will pursue a balanced and unbiased policy in this responsible position, helping to mitigate differences and find solutions that are acceptable to all members of the international community.

The upcoming session of the UN General Assembly is inseparably connected with two landmark events, the 75th anniversaries of the end of World War II and of the establishment of the UN. In this context, we should all do our best so that the General Assembly can focus on the unification agenda, emphasising the importance of strengthening the central coordinating role of the UN and undeviating compliance with the UN Charter, as well as promoting a truly multipolar world order based on respect for and a balance of interests of all members of the international community without exception.

To us, just as to the majority of the other states, respect for international law is the key element of global stability. The universally recognised principles and norms of international law constitute a solid foundation of interstate cooperation and equal international relations.





Respect for international law is especially important at a time when a number of states, primarily in Western Europe, have tried to interpret international law not in its original meaning but so that it suits the geopolitical interests of their narrow group.

We can see an increasing number of attempts to interpret universal international convention in a way that undermines the fundamental principle of common accord and to peddle the ideas, partly through voting, that are then presented as the common opinion of the entire international community.

There have also been attempts to privatise – let us call things by their proper names – the secretariats of some international organisations, to encourage their personnel to neglect the principles of international civil service, and to promote new ideas of multilateralism outside the UN framework, ideas that contradict the meaning of multilateralism as the fundamental principle of the UN based on the equality of all member states.

You have been elected President of the UN General Assembly at a very difficult time. We are fully aware of the current problems in international affairs and the world. I can assure you that Russia will be your reliable and consistent ally in the protection of the primary underlying goals and principles of the UN.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252454






RUSSIA’S POSITION AT THE SEVENTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY



23 July 2020 - 17:00



1. The goal of the seventy-fifth anniversary session of the UN General Assembly (GA) is to reaffirm the central and coordinating role of the UN in international affairs and provide support for a multipolar system of international relations. The Organization is rightfully viewed as a unique platform for a frank and equitable dialogue aimed at elaborating solutions with due regard for different opinions, as well as at building a just world order.

2. We have consistently advocated for the strengthening of the multilateral framework of international relations and world economy based on the universal norms of international law, above all on the UN Charter, with an emphasis on the unconditional respect for the sovereignty of States and the inadmissibility of interference in their internal affairs. We firmly oppose the policy of Western States that seek to replace the universally recognized principles and norms of international law with concepts such as the so-called "rules-based world order."

3. We support the coordinated efforts of the international community to curb the spread of the coronavirus infection as well as to mitigate its political, social and economic consequences. In this regard, we welcome the UN Secretary-General’s initiatives aimed at establishing a ceasefire in situations of armed conflict to counter the pandemic and at suspending unilateral sanctions against affected countries. We consider it unacceptable to politicize the issue of the coronavirus as well as to antagonize certain States or organizations within the UN system.

4. The primary responsibility for preventing conflicts and addressing their consequences invariably rests with States themselves. Any international assistance, including via the UN, should only be rendered in line with the UN Charter and upon consent of the countries concerned. Preventive diplomacy, good offices and mediation should be provided on the basis of the principles of impartiality and the sovereignty of States. Furthermore, it is imperative to remember that each situation calls for a delicate and impartial approach as well as a thorough search for a tailored solution that would take into account the roots and evolution of the conflict.

5. We believe that the goal of the UN Security Council reform is to increase the representation of developing States from Africa, Asia and Latin America in the Council without prejudice to its effectiveness and operational efficiency. Efforts to identify the best reform model should continue in the current format of intergovernmental negotiations. The prerogatives of the UNSC permanent members, including the veto power, are not subject to revision.

We support realistic initiatives to revitalize the work of the UN General Assembly. We attach particular importance to the tasks of fine-tuning its working methods, streamlining its overloaded agenda and strengthening multilingualism. Any innovation should be reasonable and correspond to the current needs. Any redistribution of the powers of other statutory bodies, including the Security Council, in favor of the General Assembly is unacceptable.

6. We support increased cooperation between the United Nations and regional and sub-regional organizations in line with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It is essential to further enhance constructive partnership between the UN and such organizations as the CSTO, the SCO, the CIS, the BRICS and the EEU, whose international role is steadily increasing. Against this backdrop, we are looking forward to the unanimous adoption of the biennial resolutions on cooperation between the UN and the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO at the upcoming 75th session of the General Assembly.

7. We firmly stand for the UN principle of the inadmissibility of distorting history and revising the outcomes of the Second World War. In this regard, Russia will again submit the draft UNGA resolution on Combating Glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and Other Practices that Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which has traditionally enjoyed support of the majority of UN member States. We call on the delegations that abstained or voted against the draft resolution last year to reconsider their position.

8. We support a comprehensive approach to resolving conflicts in the region of the Middle East and North Africa by peaceful means. Our proposal to create a regional security architecture in the Persian Gulf and, in the longer term, throughout the Middle East remains on the table.

9. We encourage an early stabilization in Syria and a successful political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict, while fighting the terrorist threat. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a party to the Astana format, Russia supports the efforts of Special Envoy Geir Pedersen and facilitates his work by engaging with the Syrian sides, including on establishing an intra-Syrian dialogue in the framework of the Constitutional Committee. We are open to collaboration with other international players, but we will not let the effective Astana format be undermined. We will continue to counter the attempts of Western States to put the blame for the use of chemical weapons on Damascus. Linking the allocation of funds for the reconstruction in Syria with the so-called "political transition" is inadmissible. We firmly reject any attempts to politicize the humanitarian aspects of the Syrian conflict. Humanitarian assistance should only be provided in line with the UN guiding principles. We advocate rendering assistance to the reconstruction of the liberated areas and support the lifting of unilateral sanctions against Syria.

10. We consider it necessary to step up efforts to restart direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Any actions that undermine the internationally recognized framework of the Middle East peace process, including plans for the annexation of the West Bank, should be abandoned. The two-state solution is the only viable option. We continue facilitating the peace process using our bilateral ties and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as well as a member of the Middle East Quartet. It is important to engage with key regional States and the League of Arab States.

11. We believe that there is no alternative to a political settlement in Libya. We highlight the need to take into account the views of all Libyan sides, including while planning for international assistance aimed at putting an end to the conflict. We engage with all parties and call for an early cessation of hostilities and the restoration of sustainable and integrated state institutions, including security agencies.

12. We reaffirm the importance of overcoming the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, which was brought about by a protracted internal political crisis and exacerbated by an external military intervention. We continue to reach out to all those involved in the Yemeni conflict, encouraging them to move towards a comprehensive political settlement. We contribute to the work of Special Envoy Martin Griffiths.

13. We support the Iraqi leadership's efforts to reinforce security and reach a long-term normalization in the country. We emphasize the need for consistent and thorough work to bridge the differences among ethnic as well as sectarian segments of the Iraqi society in the framework of a nation-wide dialogue.

14. We consistently pursue the policy aimed at facilitating the process of a national reconciliation in Afghanistan and at building a country free from terrorism, drug-related crime and foreign military presence. Russia will further work towards an early launch of inclusive intra-Afghan negotiations. We are seriously concerned about ISIS’ increased influence in the north and north east of the country and the threat of the spillover of terrorist activities into Central Asia. There is an urgent need to consolidate international efforts to eliminate the drug threat in Afghanistan. We believe that regional cooperation, first of all in the format of the Moscow consultations, as well as at the SCO and the CSTO, has a crucial role to play. We support the work of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).

15. There is no alternative to the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, enshrined in UNSC Resolution 2202, as a framework for the internal settlement in Ukraine. International assistance, including those led by the UN, can only prove effective if they are aimed at backing up the current format, which includes the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk and the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.

Sustainable settlement of the internal crisis in Ukraine can only be achieved by political and diplomatic means through a direct dialogue between Kyiv and Donbass, while taking into account the legitimate demands of all the regions of Ukraine and its linguistic, ethnic and sectarian groups at the constitutional level. Russia will continue its tireless efforts to help relieve the dire humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine brought about by Kyiv, including by rendering assistance in overcoming the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.

In line with UNSC Resolution 2166, we insist on a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the flight MH17 crash over the Ukrainian territory based on irrefutable facts. Neither the technical investigation into the causes of the Malaysian Boeing crash by the Dutch Safety Board nor the criminal investigation by the Joint Investigation Team can be regarded as such.

We expect that all cases of violence against civilians and journalists that have occurred since the beginning of the internal crisis in Ukraine will be investigated fairly and impartially, and that all those responsible will be brought to justice.

16. The territorial status of Crimea was definitively determined by the Crimean population itself during the 2014 referendum. Any discussions on the situation in this Russian region that do not involve its residents bear no relation to reality. This issue cannot be part of the UN-led discussion on the developments in Ukraine. The same goes for the situation around the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, which lies within the scope of the Russian-Ukrainian bilateral relations.

17. There is no military solution to the problem of the Korean Peninsula. A comprehensive settlement in North-East Asia can only be achieved through joint political and diplomatic efforts of all stakeholders. The creation of a new security architecture in North-East Asia that would take into account the legitimate interests of all states in the region, including the DPRK itself, is key to achieving this goal. Sanctions are but a means to encourage Pyongyang to engage in negotiations and cannot replace diplomacy. The maximum pressure policy promoted by the US will not bring long-term stability to North-East Asia, as it is nothing but an attempt to improve the security of certain States in the region at the expense of that of the DPRK.

18. The destructive actions of the US have resulted in a critical situation with regard to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program. In pursuit of its opportunistic interests Washington violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 2231 and Article 25 of the UN Charter by taking steps to subvert the aforementioned agreement.

We call on the international community to provide support to the JCPOA and oppose any illegitimate attempts by the United States to undertake the revision of UNSC Resolution 2231.

19. The solution to the Cyprus issue can only be elaborated by the Cypriot communities themselves in line with the relevant UNSC resolutions and without any external pressure. Such a solution should include a two-community and two-zone federation with a uniform international legal personality. The outdated community security guarantee system must be brought under the UN Security Council’s control.

20. With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, ensuring respect for the equality of the two entities and three state-constituting peoples in full compliance with the 1995 Dayton Accords is a prerequisite for sustainable functioning of the country’s institutions. The Bosnians deserve the right to decide independently on the future of their country. In this context, we believe that the abolition of the Office of the High Representative is long overdue.

21. The situation in Kosovo should be resolved in line with UNSC Resolution 1244. The agreement between Belgrade and Pristina will only be viable if both sides arrive at it independently, without any ready-made solutions imposed from abroad. We advocate preserving the budget and staff parameters of the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

22. The political crisis in Venezuela can only be resolved by the Venezuelans themselves, through a direct dialogue between the government and the opposition, with strict respect for the country’s Constitution. International support will only be effective if it aims to establish and support a direct intra-Venezuelan dialogue. We firmly reject the use of force or threat of force under any pretexts, including humanitarian ones. Humanitarian assistance should be provided in line with the UN guiding principles enshrined in UNGA Resolution 46/182 and should not be politicized.

We continue to oppose any attempts to question the mandates of Venezuela’s official delegations at various international organisations.

23. The Final Peace Agreement is the cornerstone of the settlement in Colombia. This document made it possible for the UNSC to support the peace process. Unilateral attempts to alter the substance of its provisions are unacceptable. Sustainable settlement in Colombia is impossible without involving the National Liberation Army (ELN) in the peace process. We are looking forward to an early agreement on the status of the ELN negotiators currently residing in Cuba based on a constructive dialogue between Havana and Bogota.

24. We stand for a balanced and non-politicized approach to assessing the situation in Myanmar and identifying ways to bring the humanitarian situation in the Rakhine State back to normal. We are convinced that bilateral consultations between Myanmar and Bangladesh are key to resolving the complex refugee problem.

25. Russia has always been and remains a loyal proponent of the normalization of the Indo-Pakistani relations. We hope that the parties involved will avoid a new flare-up of tensions in the Kashmir region. We advocate resolving the Kashmir issue through bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Islamabad.

26. We believe that crisis prevention and conflict settlement in Africa should be based on a leading role of the countries of the African continent and efficient support provided by the international community. We support strengthened cooperation between the UN and the African Union as well as the continent's sub-regional organizations. We intend to continue facilitating a political resolution of the crises in the CAR, the DRC, South Sudan, Somalia, Mali and the Sahara-Sahel region as a whole, as well as in other hot spots in Africa. We support national efforts of the countries of the continent to address the root causes of conflicts, restore state institutions and reform the security sector.

We intend to continue monitoring the stabilization and national reconciliation process in the CAR in line with the Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation of 6 February 2019, which is particularly important in the context of the general elections scheduled for late 2020 and early 2021. Russia will continue rendering assistance to the CAR authorities in building up the country’s security capacity. We are open to collaboration with stakeholders on the ground who are interested in the settlement of this protracted conflict.

We are ready to provide all the necessary support to Sudan, which has just entered an important period of transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding. We are convinced that decisions concerning any international presence on its soil should first and foremost take into account the interests and opinions of the Sudanese people.

We consider it necessary to remove the issue of Burundi from the UNSC agenda, as the situation in that country no longer constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

27. We will continue to actively engage in the work of the UN General Assembly's Special Committee on Decolonization (C24). This body will retain relevance until a definitive solution to the issue of all 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories is reached.

28. UN peacekeeping should strictly comply with the basic principles of the Organization’s work in this area (consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force, except for self-defence and defence of the mandate) and the UN Charter. Efforts should be focused on promoting political settlement of conflicts and national reconciliation. The peacekeeping reform must only be carried out in full compliance with the decisions of the member States. Peacekeeping intelligence should only be used to ensure peacekeepers’ safety and protection of civilians. Vesting peacekeepers with additional powers, including with respect to the use of force, is only possible upon a UNSC decision that takes into account the specific situation in each country.

We believe that the UN General Assembly's Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C34) should play a leading role in defining the development of UN peacekeeping.

Peacebuilding and sustaining of peace are inextricably linked and based on the principle of national ownership. International support should only be provided upon request of the host government and should be aimed at enhancing the states' own capacity.

29. For the UNSC, sanctions are an effective auxiliary tool for political and diplomatic resolution of conflicts. Their use is a last resort. Sanctions should only aim to suppress an activity that threatens international peace and security, be task-specific and time-limited, be regularly reviewed, and take into account political, socio-economic, humanitarian, and human rights consequences. Any attempts to use sanctions for economic strangulation and destabilisation of "rogue regimes", or as a means to generate unfair competition, are unacceptable. We support securing guarantees in international sanctions regimes against infliction of damage on population and disruption of work of humanitarian organizations in countries under sanctions. We seek to expand the institute of the Ombudsperson acting in the interests of persons listed by the Al‑Qaeda and "Anti-Taliban" sanctions committees, to embrace other UNSC sanctions committees. We condemn the practice of supplementing international sanctions with unilateral restrictions, especially those with extraterritorial effect.

30. We stand for strengthened international cooperation in fight against terrorism with the UN playing a central coordinating role, eradication of double standards, and rejection of hidden agendas in this area. We commend Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Office Vladimir Voronkov for his work to consolidate counter-terrorism efforts under the auspices of the Organisation and raise the profile of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Office (CTO) under his leadership. We will continue to provide the CTO with political and financial assistance and expertise.

We consider it particularly important to efficiently use tools offered by such UNSC subsidiary bodies as the Counter-Terrorism Committee and sanctions committees on ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban movement.

We call for ensuring a comprehensive compliance with UNSC resolutions against the financing of terrorism, as well as with standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In keeping with UNSC resolutions 2462 and 2482, we promote the objectives of enhancing measures to suppress financing and arming of terrorists and break the linkage between terrorism and organised crime.

We consider it essential to apply joint efforts against foreign terrorist fighters so as to prevent their movements, prosecute them in a manner duly reflecting the seriousness of the offenses (as enshrined in UNSC resolutions 2178 and 2396). Special attention should be paid to the issue of family members (women and children) of foreign terrorist fighters, as it raises concern not only in the humanitarian field, but also in the area of human rights, due to a high degree of radicalisation and challenges experienced by the said category of persons when reintegrating into society.

We consider it wrong and short-sighted to focus the attention of UN counter-terrorism structures on minor gender and human rights-related aspects or exert pressure on them under the pretext of engaging civil society in the international counter-terrorism collaboration. An excessive humanitarian and human rights focus in the UN "division of labour" system is encouraging a paralysis of structures vested with unique powers in the security sector, thereby playing into the hands of terrorists.

We should strengthen efforts to implement UNSC Resolution 2354 aimed at curbing the spread of terrorist ideology and propaganda, including through the Internet.

It is necessary to further emphasize the inadmissibility of the concept of "countering violent extremism", which in fact provides grounds for terminating counter-extremism cooperation in the intergovernmental format and creates preconditions for interference in the internal affairs of states, to the extent of supporting terrorist and extremist groups and provoking "colour revolutions".

We stress our commitment to fighting terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It is also important to counter attempts to use the fact of the upsurge of right-wing extremism, which is an important factor in the escalation of violence, first of all in a number of Western nations, for political manipulations and increasing the sanction pressure on Russia.

31. Further consolidation of efforts of the international community is needed to address the world drug problem while strictly abiding by the provisions of the three UN drug control conventions. We strongly oppose any initiatives to revise the existing international drug control system, legalize certain types of drugs, as well as impose questionable practices of treatment of drug addicts as "universal standards."

We believe that WHO recommendations concerning changes of the conventional regime regarding cannabis and its derivatives are not sufficiently thought-through. They lack substantiation for adoption, as well as the analysis of risks that would be generated by the weakened international cannabis control mechanisms.

It is necessary to increase efforts to counter the spread of Afghan drug trafficking. We note the importance of enhancing cooperation in curbing the threat of Afghan drugs in multilateral fora, such as the Paris Pact, the SCO, the CIS, and the CARICC. We consider it a priority for Afghanistan to consistently implement its commitments to solve the drug problem based on the principle of common and shared responsibility of states. In our view, international efforts will only prove successful if combined with an effective drug policy by the Afghan authorities aimed primarily at eliminating poppy plantations.

It is essential to ensure special monitoring of issues related to the spread of new psychoactive substances, the use of Internet for drug trafficking, and the use of cryptocurrencies as payment for trafficked drugs.

We support the central coordinating role of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) as the UN main decision-making body on international drug control. Russia considers that the CND should comprise states that strictly and scrupulously comply with their international obligations under the UN drug control conventions. Russia is one of the leaders in the CND, and we are determined to proactively use our best practices approved by this body when agreeing on resolutions and decisions at the 75th Session of the General Assembly.

32. We have consistently supported the UN’s central coordinating role in consolidating international efforts to combat global challenges and threats, including those posed by transnational organised crime.

We attach particular importance to strengthening the legal framework of international cooperation in countering criminal challenges and threats, including the possible development and adoption of new international legal instruments.

We highlight the importance of the work currently underway to finalize the Mechanism for the Review of the Implementation of the 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

33. We attach great significance to strengthening international anti-corruption cooperation, with the UN playing the central and coordinating role, based on the UN Convention against Corruption (CAC). We welcome the initiative to hold a General Assembly special session on corruption in 2021. We consistently support joining efforts of all stakeholders under the UN auspices to prevent corruption in sports pursuant to the Russia-sponsored resolution 8/4 on safeguarding sport from corruption adopted by the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

34. We believe that the UN should play a key role in the consolidation of joint efforts to ensure international information security (IIB), which should result in the elaboration and adoption under the UN auspices of genuinely universal and comprehensive rules of responsible behaviour of states in information space aimed at preventing conflicts therein. The rules should consolidate such principles as the non-use of force, respect for the sovereignty of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and respect for human rights, as well as guarantee equal rights for participation in Internet governance for all states.

We believe that it is crucial to ensure continued discussions on international information security at the UN in the framework of the Open-Ended Working Group on IIB (OEWG), the first genuinely democratic, transparent, and inclusive negotiating mechanism created upon Russia’s initiative. Currently, a number of states are striving to shift the focus from achieving key objectives in ICTs to less relevant issues, seeking to stall the discussion and even disrupt the negotiation process at the UN by postponing the OEWG closing session (initially scheduled for July 2020) to late spring 2021. Besides, the work of the OEWG is being linked with the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on information security established in line with US-sponsored UNGA resolution 73/266 of 2018. The GGE mandate expires in May 2021. In this context, it is necessary to avoid the duplication of the OEWG and the GGE negotiation processes and the disruption of the OEWG’s status.

We call on our partners to support our stance and expressly come out in favour of intensifying and ensuring the continuity of the OEWG’s work on all aspects of its mandate, first of all on drafting rules, standards, and principles of responsible behaviour of states in information space.

35. We have consistently advocated strengthening the existing treaty regimes and developing, through consensus, new arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation (ACDNP) regimes. The UN and its multilateral disarmament mechanism should play a central role in this process. We put in efforts to improve the performance of its key elements – the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the UN Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament.

We consider it essential for these fora to render their work result-oriented and fully and unconditionally compliant with the UN Charter, other norms of international law and their respective mandates. Furthermore, we are convinced that any measures taken should not infringe on sovereign rights of states.

We deem it necessary to counter any attempts to revise or undermine the disarmament architecture that has been shaped over decades, as well as to weaken the defence potential of other states through the pressure of unilateral sanctions, bypassing the UN Security Council. At the 75th session of the General Assembly, Russia will submit another ACDNP draft resolution to the First Committee.

36. We strictly comply with our obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and advocate for the document’s early entry into force, which requires ratification by eight states. The US is playing the most destructive role here; it is the only state to have officially refused to ratify the Treaty. We are particularly concerned with the discussions currently held in the US administration regarding the resumption of nuclear tests. This policy will threaten not only the CTBT, but the regime of non-proliferation as a whole.

37. We support the noble cause of shaping a world free of nuclear weapons and make a substantial practical contribution to achieving that goal. We believe that a realistic and balanced approach should be promoted here. Progress towards nuclear disarmament should continue with due account for all factors affecting the strategic stability, so as to enhance the security of all states without exception. We encourage all states possessing nuclear capability to join the process of nuclear arms reduction and limitation.

We would like to note that progress in the field of nuclear disarmament has been hindered by the unrestricted development of the US global missile defence system, unwillingness of certain states to denounce the idea of possible deployment of weapons in outer space, the quantitative and qualitative imbalances in the area of conventional armaments, the implementation of the US concept of prompt global strike, and the US’s refusal to ratify the CTBT.

We do not support radical initiatives on introducing an early nuclear weapons ban (including the treaty on its prohibition) that undermine the NPT and divert attention from pressing problems of international security caused primarily by the US’s destabilizing actions to dilute the arms control system.

38. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the entry into force of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Russia considers this treaty the most important international legal instrument on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, as well as one of the pillars of the modern world order.

Given the current trends caused by the destabilization of the situation with arms control and non-proliferation, NPT member states should by all means work to ensure that the upcoming 2021 Review Conference helps strengthen the Treaty and not spur controversy around it. The ultimate goal is to elaborate a document that would reaffirm the Treaty’s resilience, commitment to obligations under the NPT, and the necessity to increase efforts to strengthen the Treaty.

We appreciate and fully support the work of the IAEA as an international organization that possesses the necessary authority and competence to monitor the observance of the non-proliferation obligations under the NPT. Safeguards developed by the Agency play a key role here. We believe that further development of the safeguards system serves to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, provided that it keeps intact the general principles of verification – impartiality, technical feasibility, and transparency.

39. We regard the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction as a landmark event both in terms of ensuring stability and sustainability in the region and in the context of global efforts towards WMD non-proliferation. We intend to further support the idea of such conferences. We believe that efforts to elaborate a legally binding agreement on creating a zone free of nuclear weapons and other WMDs in the Middle East serve the interests of all states in the region.

40. We note that international security has been negatively affected by yet another destructive move made by the United States in this area by withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF treaty), which was consequently terminated. We call on all states interested in maintaining stability in a "world without the INF treaty" to make necessary efforts to ensure predictability and reserve in the missile-related issues.

We reaffirm our commitment to the strict compliance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (the New START) and our readiness for substantive negotiations with the US regarding the extension of the treaty. We are convinced that the extension would prevent the situation from deteriorating and win time to explore possible new approaches to arms control while taking into account new factors in this area, including the development of new military technologies and new armaments.

41. We highly commend efforts of the UN Security Council and its ad-hoc 1540 Committee on the WMD non-proliferation. We are determined to engage in a substantive and constructive dialogue in the framework of the comprehensive review of the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1540. We expect that the procedure will result in the confirmation of the 1540 Committee’s current mandate.

42. Russia has initiated the development of important multilateral agreements on arms control and non-proliferation, such as the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space treaty (PAROS) and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism. We believe that a constructive dialogue on these issues will provide an opportunity to engage in substantive work (including negotiations) on the UN platform. By promoting such initiatives, Russia strictly adheres to the principles of equality and consensus through the balance of interests.

43. At the 75th session of the General Assembly, we will traditionally submit to the First Committee draft resolutions on the no-first placement of weapons in outer space and on transparency and confidence-building measures in space activities. The globalization of the "no-first-placement" initiative is an important but only interim step on the way towards the conclusion of an international treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space on the basis of a relevant Chinese-Russian draft treaty.

44. We consider it necessary to strengthen the central and coordinating role of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in international cooperation on the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. We are against the practice of addressing issues that fall within the competence of the Committee at other international fora and non-profile international organizations. We stress the need to develop and adopt national norms to ensure the fulfilment of international legal obligations with regard to space activities.

We continue to actively engage in the work of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to ensure long-term sustainability of space activities, as well as to agree upon a balanced Space 2030 agenda and its implementation plan.

45. We are in favour of strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, as well as the Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons (Russia will submit a new draft resolution on that issue).

We regard as illegitimate the actions of Western states aimed at vesting the Technical Secretariat (TS) of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with functions to "identify those responsible" for the use of chemical weapons. The decision to create the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) within the OPCW imposed by the West contradicts the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and infringes upon the exclusive prerogatives of the UNSC. It is important to avoid vesting the purely technical OPCW with functions outside its competence.

The publication of the IIT pilot report on three chemical weapons incidents that occurred in the Syrian settlement of Al Lataminah in 2017 concluding that the Syrian political and military authorities were responsible for the incidents has confirmed concerns that this mechanism had been created to suit certain interests. The analysis of the document clearly shows the adherence to the faulty principles of the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission, which investigated the use of chemical weapons in Syria, as well as the former OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM).

We encourage impartial and highly professional international investigations into the cases of provocations involving chemical weapons on the part of the opposition forces and all manifestations of "chemical terrorism" in the Middle East in full compliance with the high standards of the CWC.

46. We regret that the US has decided to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies following its pretentious allegations of Russia’s violations of the Treaty. Washington’s actions are fully in line with its policy aimed at destroying the entire complex of agreements on arms control and aim to undermine the European security system. We are looking into potential further developments around the Treaty on Open Skies as well as considering possible response.

47. As regards the law of the sea, we continue to support the fundamental role of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as a universal instrument creating a comprehensive regime of cooperation in the World Ocean and making it possible to effectively counter new global challenges related to the sustainability of maritime activities, maritime security and efficient management of marine biological resources. As always, we highly value the work of the convention mechanisms such as the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. We believe it is vital that they work strictly within the mandates, avoiding their broad interpretation.

48. The Russian Federation supports the work of the International Court of Justice as the main judicial body of the United Nations and is ready to assist the creation of conditions enabling its effective and unbiased functioning.

We closely monitor the situation around the implementation of the UNGA resolution of May 23, 2019, concerning the Chagos Archipelago, which was adopted in accordance with a relevant advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. It is in the context of decolonization that we view the above-mentioned UNGA resolution, and we hope that it will help complete the decolonization process.

49. The Russian Federation closely follows the work of the International Law Commission (ILC), which significantly contributes to the codification and progressive development of international law. We believe that the UN should further build on its most valuable outputs.

In the autumn of 2021, during the seventy-sixth session of the UN General Assembly, elections to the ILC are scheduled to take place. The Russian Federation nominated the current member of the Commission, Director of the Legal Department of the MFA of Russia Evgeny Zagainov, for re-election to the Commission for 2022–2026. We hope that the UN Member States will support our candidate in the upcoming elections and are actively laying the groundwork to this end.

50. The credibility of the International Criminal Court (the ICC) is steadily declining. It is becoming more politically biased and one-sided while the financial costs of its activities are getting unreasonably high. We note the low quality of its work and the lack of any tangible contribution to conflict settlement.

51. We underline that the mandate of the Residual Mechanism is strictly limited, and it is necessary to complete all cases referred to it as soon as possible. We have to acknowledge yet again that the Mechanism inherited the worst practices from its predecessors, particularly the ICTY, which is demonstrated by its consistent anti-Serbian attitudes. We do not consider it expedient at this point to establish new judicial bodies of that kind.

52. We remain convinced that the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, which was established by the UN General Assembly acting beyond its authority, is a legal nullity. We oppose the idea of funding the Mechanism from the UN budget.

53. We continue to regard the issue of "the rule of law" with an emphasis on its international dimension, i.e. the primacy of international law. We are very cautious about implementing the concept within the UN, seeing how a number of states seek to push through, under its guise, initiatives that do not have broad support. We will counter the attempts to make use of the concept in order to interfere with internal affairs of states.

We will also continue to block attempts by certain countries to legitimize within the United Nations the concept of "responsibility to protect" (R2P), which no longer enjoys consensual support.

54. It is states that bear the primary responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights while the UN executive structures are to play a supporting role in this area. We believe that equal cooperation between states based on the rule of international law, respect for sovereignty and equality of states should be the main principle in the work of the United Nations to promote and protect human rights. Integration of human rights issues into all areas of the United Nations' activity should not lead to duplication of the work of its main bodies. We do not support the idea of linking the activities of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) to the UN Security Council. We oppose attempts to reform the HRC in order to turn it into a quasi-judicial monitoring mechanism.

We oppose adoption of politicized country-specific resolutions, especially in view of the successfully operating mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review under the auspices of the HRC. We strongly condemn the use of human rights issues as a pretext for interfering in internal affairs of states and undermining the fundamental principles of international law.

It is in this light that we regard the resolution on the situation with human rights in Crimea, which, since 2016, has been regularly submitted to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly by the Ukrainian delegation. This document has nothing in common with the actual situation in this region of the Russian Federation.

By the same token, the Georgia-sponsored resolution on the status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia is obviously counterproductive and entails the risk of aggravating the situation in the region and stalling the Geneva discussions, which remain the only platform for a dialogue between representatives of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia.

The work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should become more transparent and more accountable to the UN Member States in order to avoid politically motivated approaches to assessing human rights situations in different countries.

55. We strongly condemn any forms and manifestations of discrimination. The ban on discrimination enshrined in international human rights instruments is universal and applies to all persons without exception. We see no value added in segregating new vulnerable groups (such as members of the LGBT community, human rights activists, bloggers) that allegedly require a special legal protection regime and new categories of rights. Such steps by a number of countries only lead to greater politicization and confrontation within the UN human rights mechanisms.

56. Active practical work in the area of social development, particularly efforts to eradicate poverty, promote social integration, ensure full employment and decent work for all, will facilitate effective implementation of the decisions adopted at the World Summit for Social Development and the twenty-fourth special session of the UN General Assembly.

We consider the UN Commission for Social Development to be the main UN coordinating body that develops framework for harmonized action on general issues of social protection, ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities, problems of ageing population, improving the situation of young people and strengthening the role of the traditional family. We resolutely oppose any initiatives that undermine its role as well as the calls for its dissolution.

57. The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) remains the main intergovernmental platform for discussion of a broad range of issues relating to improvement of the status of women, and achieving gender equality in particular. We believe it important to avoid politicization of these issues or their automatic inclusion into UN documents focusing on other topics. Special attention in documents on improving the status of women should be devoted to social and economic rights, as well as social protection and support for women and their families. We commend the work by UN Women, which should render assistance only upon request and authorization by states. We attach great importance to the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women to be held in the autumn of 2020.

58. We support further development of international cooperation to promote and protect the rights of the child based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the outcome document of the twenty-seventh special session of the UN General Assembly entitled "A world fit for children". We point out the inadmissibility of attempts by some countries to deprive parents and legal guardians of their role in the upbringing of children and development of their potential, including by granting young children the autonomy to make decisions. Family support programs, as well as programs to facilitate access to education and healthcare are among the things that are needed to create favorable environment for child rearing.

We devote close attention to the problem of children in armed conflict, including in the work of the UN Security Council. We support the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict and engage in cooperation with her, including as part of the program for repatriation of Russian children from Syria and Iraq.

59. We support discussions within the UN General Assembly on interfaith and intercultural collaboration, as well as the development of intercivilizational dialogue, including within the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC). We see the need for active engagement of members of the AoC and other structures of the UN Secretariat in the preparations for the World Conference on Inter-religious and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue to be held in Russia in 2022.

60. We are ready for cooperation on the UN agenda issues with all interested non-governmental organizations. We seek to ensure adequate representation of Russian NGOs in the work of various UN structures.

61. We believe that coordinated efforts of all states with the UN playing a coordinating role are needed to overcome the consequences of migration crises. Approaches to addressing migration challenges, including the issues of ensuring and protecting the rights of refugees, cannot contradict the basic principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, while the actions taken should not violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and be implemented without consent of the countries in which they are applied.

Russia makes a substantial contribution to protecting refugees and resolving migration issues, which is manifested in Russia's large‑scale humanitarian activities in many countries and regions, as well as its political efforts to prevent and overcome crises.

We appreciate the role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in enhancing the effectiveness of international protection of refugees and other categories of persons falling under its responsibility. Every year Russia voluntary contributes about USD 2 million to the budget of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

We note efforts by the UNHCR regarding Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). The Russian Federation actively contributes to funding UNHCR humanitarian operations aimed at assisting these people. Life itself confirms the importance of Russia's initiative to facilitate voluntary repatriation of Syrian refugees, which requires international support. We look forward to the world community pursuing a non-politicized approach in dealing with this issue.

We commend and support, including financially, UNHCR efforts to address the humanitarian consequences of the Ukrainian crisis.

We deem it necessary for the UNHCR to focus its attention on stateless persons, including in Europe.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we welcome the UNHCR focus on developing close interaction with national authorities to combat this infection. Our country supports, including financially, the Office's efforts to contain the spread of the disease among refugees.

Russia supported the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) designed to make an important contribution to strengthening the international refugee protection regime. We expect the Global Refugee Forum to help draw worldwide attention to refugee issues and strengthen implementation of the GCR.

We note the relevance of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). We welcome the strengthened constructive interaction between the UN and the IOM. We trust it would enhance both organizations' capacities so that the international community can successfully respond to emerging migration challenges.

We view migration not merely as a current challenge, but also as an important driver for social and economic development. We assume that a key development objective in the migration area shall be finding mechanisms for optimizing and controlling migration processes in order to enhance their positive contribution to the socio-economic sphere while taking into account national interests and priorities.

We attach great importance to strengthening international cooperation in the area of migration. Russia supported the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. It should be noted that the Compact's principles and objectives echo a number of provisions of the updated Concept of the State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation. Our country participated actively in the consultation process to develop modalities of the first International Migration Review Forum to be held in 2022.

62. We support the process of the "strategic transformation" of UNESCO launched by its Director-General. We believe that the process of this leading humanitarian organization's adaptation to modern challenges should not be detrimental to UNESCO mandate and its intergovernmental status, or lead to the duplication of activities with other UN structures. The ultimate goal of the UNESCO reform is to improve its performance by depoliticizing its work and avoiding discussing topics that are outside its main area of expertise and lead to widening disconnection between member states.

We insist that remote working methods of UNESCO governing bodies were introduced out of necessity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and should be discontinued upon expiration of the coronavirus restrictive measures. The establishment of a temporary work mode should not lead to the revision of existing rules and procedures, nor set precedents for the future.

63. We view cooperation in the field of sports and the promotion of sport ideals worldwide as effective ways to foster respect and mutual understanding among nations.

We believe that politicization of sports and discrimination of athletes, including Paralympians, through collective punishment are unacceptable. We advocate the development of a universal system of international sport cooperation based on the principles of independence and autonomy of sports.

64. In the context of revitalizing international efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda), we support deeper and enhanced international cooperation on the social, economic, environmental and other relevant tracks of the UN work. We underscore the comprehensive, non-politicized, and indivisible nature of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the key one being poverty eradication.

We support strengthening intergovernmental processes within ECOSOC using the dialogue platform of the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), including for reviewing global implementation of the 2030 Agenda and achieving its goals.

Russia's voluntary national review of progress towards the SDGs demonstrated our country's progress in the social, economic and environmental areas. These efforts have been given considerable impetus by the Presidential Executive Order No. 204 dated May 7, 2018 On National Goals and Strategic Objectives of the Russian Federation through to 2024, which also laid the groundwork for further implementation of all the 17 SDGs in Russia. We call on all our partners to familiarize themselves with the review posted on the official UN website.

Given the comprehensive and inclusive nature of the 2030 Agenda, we believe that the participation of the business sector in its implementation is extremely important. We therefore support the work of the UN Global Compact as an effective mechanism for promoting the principles of corporate social responsibility in the areas of human rights, labour and environment.

65. We place great emphasis on promoting cooperation within the framework of regional economic commissions of the United Nations – Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia (ESCAP). These structures have significant potential to advance the socio-economic agenda, through both establishing sectoral convention mechanisms and providing technical assistance to States in need.

66. We support a balanced and transparent dialogue between donors and recipient countries regarding further implementation of the UN Secretary‑General's initiative to reform the UN development system (UNDS), including the resident coordinator system.

We hope that the practical implementation of the UNDS reform will contribute to greater performance and help to avoid overlapping in the activities of the programs, foundations and special agencies of the UN. The UNDS efforts should be in line with the decisions of the Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (UNGA Resolution 71/243), remain unbiased and free from imposing of political agendas, and focused on providing for the basic needs of developing states in the context of the 2030 Agenda implementation.

We believe that the reform will not diminish the policy-making role of the relevant UN regional commissions.

67. We support the accelerated implementation of the Addis-Ababa Action Agenda decisions on financing for development to mobilize and effectively use resources for achieving the SDGs.

We will further increase Russia's "visibility" as a key and predictable donor in assisting international development, including through promotion of innovative practices and national experience.

We recognize the importance of open and equitable cooperation on fiscal matters, including in the framework of combating tax evasion and illicit financial flows.

68. We intend to offer support to the WTO and foster the development of a universal, open, non-discriminatory, and just multilateral trade system. We reject protectionist measures, unilateral trade restrictions, and sanctions imposed by some countries in violation of generally recognized international legal norms.

69. We view poverty eradication as the central objective on the socio‑economic track of the UN activities. In the framework of the Third United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty, we support further elaboration of practical measures to eradicate poverty (including in rural areas), socio-economic and technological transformations related to the development of industrial production, particularly in the least developed countries.

70. We support multilateral efforts to address climate change. Despite the pause in negotiations forced by the coronavirus pandemic, we count on the constructive interaction of all parties to the negotiations to finalize the rules for the implementation of the Paris Agreement particularly as regards market and non-market mechanisms, and present them for approval at the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2021.

Emphasizing the importance of climate issues, we oppose the artificial grouping of this important topic with peace and security, human rights and migration. We believe that climate change should be used as the unifying agenda for the world community.

71. We are committed to increasing international cooperation to ensure global food security.

72. We believe that the Rome-based UN agencies (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Food Programme, International Fund for Agricultural Development) should maintain their leading role in the strengthening of intergovernmental cooperation in the field of agricultural development and fight against hunger.

We support the development of a multilateral partnership aimed at ensuring balanced nutrition, food safety, and awareness raising. We welcome the efforts of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in developing food standards and addressing antimicrobial resistance, as well as practical implementation of measures within the framework of the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016–2025). We expand cooperation with the World Food Programme (WFP) in rendering humanitarian food aid, first of all in conflict zones (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Palestine) and areas affected by natural disasters (Cuba, Nicaragua, Burundi, Djibouti, Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic), as well as to Eastern Africa, suffering from a locust invasion (Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, South Sudan).

We will actively contribute to preparing and ensuring that the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 is filled with substantive content. We expect it to become a prominent political event that will give practical impetus to the transformation of food systems to ensure food security, including in the context of the crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

73. We support the strengthening of the international humanitarian response system. We are concerned about the politicization of the humanitarian aid issues and attempts to use the plight of people in countries as a pretext for imposing domestic policy changes. Such situations are observed in the Middle East, and in other regions.

We note that, in practice, politicized actions of third parties only deepen mistrust between legitimate authorities and the UN humanitarian leadership, which is of no help in addressing humanitarian issues but is rather in the interests of those willing to further destabilize the political situation.

We believe that the UN member states should cooperate to ensure the observance of the humanitarian aid principles enshrined in UNGA Resolution 46/182 and other repeatedly reaffirmed decisions of the UNGA and ECOSOC.

74. We attribute the leading role in international health cooperation to the WHO. However, we recognize the need to improve its work in implementing the International Health Regulations. We stand against creating parallel structures to this Organization, transferring them some of its functions and politicizing the health agenda.

Other priority global health topics include the fight against non‑communicable diseases (NCDs) and, in this context, we will continue to fully support the work of the UN Interagency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of NCDs, as well as universal access to health services, prevention of antimicrobial resistance, tuberculosis prevention.

75. In the context of the international Chernobyl-related cooperation, we are committed to seamless interaction among Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, as well as other donor countries, with a view to overcoming the socio-economic and environmental consequences of the accident and developing the affected areas.

76. We support the enhanced cooperation on disaster risk reduction within the framework of the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030). We are ready to develop partnerships with all stakeholders to successfully hold the high-level SAMOA Pathway meeting (SAMOA – Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action) (September, 27 2020).

77. We intend to curb the growth of the budgets for the 2021 UN programs, as well as budget estimates for peacekeeping operations and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. We attach great importance to ensuring the budgetary discipline, mainstreaming the accepted recommendations of advisory and oversight bodies, and to more efficient use of financial and human resources, and greater transparency and accountability in the UN Secretariat work. We stand against the endorsement of underdeveloped reform initiatives without a precise analysis of potential benefits and costs.

78. The respect for the principles of multilingualism and full equality of all the six official UN languages is one of the main criteria when assessing the quality of the Organization's conference services, as well as the access of Member States to information on its functioning. We insist on ensuring the unconditional parity in the funding of all the language services.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252717






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto



23 July 2020 - 17:15







On July 23, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Peter Szijjarto.

The ministers discussed topical aspects of bilateral relations, including the schedule of political contacts. They also considered a number of international issues, including the interaction of the two countries at the UN and other international platforms, as well as the protection of the rights of national minorities in Ukraine.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252748






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



23 July 2020 - 19:21







On July 23, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu.

Sergey Lavrov and Mevlut Cavusoglu exchanged views on the current situation in the South Caucasus. In connection with the recent escalation of violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Russian side emphasised the need for a balanced approach and containment of the parties involved in the conflict to prevent the further aggravation of the situation, ensure security on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, and intensify efforts for the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. They agreed to develop cooperation between Moscow and Ankara to stabilise the region.

Following up on Russian-Turkish interdepartmental consultations in Ankara on July 21-22, both ministers reaffirmed the need for the further exchange of views on ways to expedite stabilisation in Libya, the cessation of hostilities there and the establishment of an UN-mediated intra-Libyan dialogue.

A number of issues on the bilateral agenda were also touched on. They agreed that personal contact needs to be resumed as the spread of the coronavirus infection declines.

Sergey Lavrov and Mevlut Cavusoglu agreed to continue the Russian-Turkish dialogue on a wide range of issues of mutual interest.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252898
__________________
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 August 10th, 2020 #152
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, July 23, 2020



23 July 2020 - 22:23






Coronavirus infection update

Over the past week, the number of coronavirus cases around the world has reached 15 million, confirming expert views on the intensification of the spread of the infection: the daily increase has stabilised over the past few days at over 200,000 people. The pathogen is mutating, and we now have its more aggressive variations. Second waves and recurrences of the disease have been reported in some countries and regions where the spread of the infection seemed to be decreasing.

The World Health Organisation continues to insist on the imperative need to remain vigilant in the face of these quite real risks. Its official representatives, including Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, have more than once warned about the unjustified and premature complacency, disregard for simply safety measures and the hasty lifting of the coronavirus restrictions. According to the WHO, success depends on an objective balance between the governments’ decision to ease restrictions and the real sanitary and epidemiological background in their countries and around them. It is extremely important to consistently combine the efforts of the international community to effectively respond to the global epidemiological threat.



Assisting repatriation of Russian citizens

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



Developments involving Russian citizens kept in penitentiaries on the territory of foreign states in the context of COVID-19 pandemic

I would like to discuss a topical subject and say a few words about the developments involving Russian citizens kept in penitentiaries on the territory of foreign states in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Against the global pandemic background, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s missions abroad have been focusing on the conditions in which Russian citizens are kept at penitentiaries on the territory of foreign states. Given the relevant prerequisites, they explore the possibility, jointly with the host country authorities, of varying the preventive or punitive measure taken against them, including the early release from custody (particularly in the cases involving minor offenses), specifically with account taken of the humanitarian aspects and the need to abide by the sanitary rules amid a dramatic aggravation of the epidemiological situation.

Decisions on an amnesty or the conditional early release taken by the relevant authorities do not apply, in the majority of cases, to the serious and most serious crimes. In certain instances, a favourable attitude to a relevant application concerning foreign citizens serving sentences for having committed minor offenses is conditional on their immediate departure to the state of citizenship (with a ban on subsequent entry within the next few years). Given the persisting restrictions on trans-border travel, meeting this condition is highly problematic in the present-day environment.

Nevertheless, there are positive signals as well, coming primarily from countries of the former USSR. As of early July, Russian missions abroad have reported that one Russian citizen has been amnestied in Azerbaijan and 21 Russians (ten of them sentenced for minor offenses, 3 for serious crimes, and 8 for extremely serious crimes) have had their uncompleted prison terms reduced in Kyrgyzstan.

The majority of Russian missions abroad note that there is no surge of complaints from Russian citizens as regards their detention conditions in the current situation, specifically complaints about compliance with sanitary and epidemiological regulations and availability or otherwise of timely medical aid.

At the same time, we still feel highly concerned over the situation in the United States. The US authorities consciously avoid delivering on the unconditional duty to notify Russian consular officials of an arrest or detention of this or that Russian citizen, a duty imposed on them by the Bilateral Consular Convention of 1964. The Embassy’s relevant appeals to the US Department of State, requesting them to provide a list of names of Russian citizens under investigation or serving a sentence in US prisons usually remain without a reply.

We are also concerned with how the US side performs its obligations regarding the notification timeframes (one to three days) and the timeframe within which a consul is allowed to visit a detainee (two to four days after the detention or arrest depending on the location). We again call on our US colleagues to abide by the said Consular Convention.



Russian humanitarian aid to Abkhazia in countering COVID-19

I would also just like to say a few words about the humanitarian aid that we are providing to various countries that have asked us for help. From the outset of the pandemic, at the request of the Abkhazian side we have been supplying gratis Vektor test kits for the laboratories diagnosing the novel coronavirus. Regular assistance, including diagnostics, is provided by the reference centre of the Stavropol Research Antiplague Institute, where Abkhazian specialists were trained in using the test kits.

In addition to this, at Sukhum’s request a combined medical team of the Black Sea Fleet 4th separate regiment of radiation, chemical and biological defence disinfected such facilities as hospitals, markets, government institutions and border checkpoints in Abkhazia from April 18 to May 18.

We are ready to extend the necessary assistance further.



Russian humanitarian aid to Kyrgyzstan in countering COVID-19

Russia is also supporting Kyrgyzstan in combatting the coronavirus. The Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare has provided Kyrgyzstan with three mobile laboratories, 1570 test kits for diagnosing the disease (to make 157,000 tests) with the necessary amount of chemicals and 10 devices for remotely taking the temperatures of people. We have also been providing consultations together with scientific and methodological support. A Rospotrebnadzor delegation went to Kyrgyzstan to give advice on how to organise antivirus activities in early July.

In view of the aggravated epidemiological situation in Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Government decided to extend to its people urgent humanitarian aid.

On July 22, a Russian Defence Ministry cargo plane delivered to Kyrgyzstan six medical teams (19 people), special medical equipment, PPE, disinfectant and medicine.

On the morning of July 23, a Russian EMERCOM plane took off for Bishkek and delivered 58 Russian medical workers, who are going to be working in Kyrgyz medical facilities. A Russian EMERCOM plane will soon (tentatively on July 25) take medicine and medical equipment to Bishkek.



Possibility of obtaining free visas after restrictions on entering Russia are lifted

Visas issuance by Russian consular missions was temporarily suspended pursuant to Government Directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020.

After Russian missions abroad resume working on visas, foreign citizens will get an opportunity to obtain visas without having to pay any consular fees and processing costs if all the following conditions are met:

- the applicant’s passport has an unused single (double entry) visa effective not earlier than March 15, 2020;

- the applicant submitted documents giving grounds for issuing a similar or a visa for less visits for another time;

- the visa expires within six months after the Government Directive No. 635-r of March 16, 2020 is declared cancelled.

All these conditions must be met to get the relevant service.

Together with the documents giving grounds for obtaining a new visa the applicant should file a written application (in free form) to the head of the consular mission for exemption from the already mentioned payments because of an event of force majeure. In this case we will proceed from the decision taken by the Russian authorities that restricted entry into the territory of the Russian Federation that did not allow the person concerned to travel on the earlier issued visa.



Foreign Ministry website publishes Russia’s position on upcoming UN General Assembly’s 75th session

As you are aware, the 74th session of the UN General Assembly is coming to an end. We are awaiting the next session, the 75th, which will begin on September 15. In this regard, the Foreign Ministry website has published material related to Russia’s position on the upcoming 75th anniversary session. This sets out our country’s approaches to the entire range of international subjects on the agenda.



Results of 44th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

This is another matter related to the United Nations. While we are awaiting the 75th anniversary session, the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council has just concluded in Geneva. It took place from June 30 to July 17. The restrictions the UN adopted due to the pandemic have influenced the process and character of the session. It was held without delegations from the capitals. The Council adopted 23 resolutions, approved the results of Spain and Bahrein’s Universal Periodic Review and appointed four experts at the new openings of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council.

We have to note that the session has also shown the inability of Western countries and developed economies to rise above their self-serving interests and show solidarity against the backdrop of global challenges, such as COVID-19. They did the opposite and picked confrontation.

It has resulted in an extreme political engagement and way too emotional discussion of the developments in the Philippines, Venezuela, Eritrea, Belarus, Myanmar, Nicaragua and Burundi. The Council approved resolutions on the human rights situation in Syria and Eritrea that have long been out of touch with real developments in those countries.

We would like to dwell upon the adoption by the Human Rights Council, at the initiative of Brussels, of a resolution on human rights in Belarus prior to the presidential election in that country on August 9. Against the backdrop of the never-ending list of accusations made by Western partners about alleged Russian interference in the elections in their countries, without any proof as always, we are perplexed by the fact that they are absolutely okay with their own, not alleged, interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state by initiating such decisions of the Council. We consider this approach unacceptable.

It is sad that many so-called developed democracies have taken advantage of the restricted organisational parameters of the work of the Council when a comprehensive review of the initiatives is impossible, for adopting such controversial, not yet reflected in international law concepts, like the responsibility to protect and to hold peaceful protests, as well as for promoting their own interpretation of the goals and principles of the UN Charter with a view to redesign the entire architecture of international relations.

We are disappointed by the persisting inability of some of our colleagues in the Council to hold an open and equal dialogue and take into account the concerns and interests of other countries. We would like to again urge our Western partners to join efforts and bring the Council back to mutually respectful and equal cooperation in the human rights area.



Financial scams of White Helmets founder James Le Mesurier

I would like to say a few words about Syria; however, I will not give any assessments of the situation – something we do regularly anyway – but will focus on something we have not spoken about for a long time – the White Helmets. What I want to do is to show the international public that the White Helmets are not humanitarian workers or an NGO trying to help people. This is just a false story, a deception, a fake, disinformation, which has long gone beyond the legal framework.

Strange as it might seem, such assessments can be found in the media of Western states, even though for a long time, it was the Western media that stubbornly imposed a biased approach and profusely praised the pseudo-humanitarian group’s activity in Syria. The White Helmets members were described as some impartial hero-rescuers risking their lives to save the local civilian population, victims of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and his allies, as they wrote. In general, this rhetoric has not changed. Western sponsors have not given up their support for the White Helmets and affiliated groups.

For our part, we have noted more than once that the flashy pious facade of their humanitarian ‘brand’ hides looting, racketeering, robbery, deliberate misinformation, staged chemical attacks, air and artillery strikes and downright complicity in terrorism. Well, journalists seem to have finally become interested, and have decided to take a closer look, beyond the facade of the propaganda that the Western community has spouted into the world for many years. So they have conducted an investigation of their own.

One of the leading Dutch newspapers, De Volkskrant, recently ran an article about financial fraud committed by none other than James Le Mesurier, the founder of the White Helmets and former director of the non-profit Mayday Rescue Foundation, who died on November 11, 2019 in Istanbul. It appears that the man lived in grand style, with a monthly salary of 24,000 euros, an apartment and a luxury villa in Istanbul, as well as a luxury apartment in Amsterdam worth more than 1.5 million euros. He was fabulously, incredibly rich, on a scale that does not fit in with the picture of Mayday Rescue or the White Helmets’ declared activities.

The journalistic investigation carried out by the newspaper revealed that Le Mesurier was not particularly honest in financial matters. For example, in the summer of 2018, he was apparently caught trying to steal 50,000 euros during the White Helmets’ evacuation to Jordan. Even before that, Dutch regulators already had a long list of questions about the Briton's activities, seeking, for example, explanations for the unjustifiably high salaries and broad privileges of the Mayday Rescue leaders, the NGO’s substandard financial transparency, conflict of interest, and tax evasion in the Netherlands. That is an outside perspective, providing an opportunity to find out what the White Helmets were doing, as well as all there is to know about the life of that pseudo-humanitarian agency’s leaders, not just ordinary members.

All this once again confirms that the management of the White Helmets, shamelessly putting their hands into taxpayers’ pockets in countries that sponsored them, were obviously prioritising their own selfish criminal interests. The customers and masterminds of the project were never particularly bothered about what Syrian civilians wanted, simply using them as a cover. They never cared about what was happening in Syria, or about any stability in that country. It is not surprising that their subordinates, having learned the ropes of the bloody business, cooperated with terrorists and facilitated their atrocious crimes.

It is difficult to imagine that after the high-profile journalistic revelations by De Volkskrant, there will be any Western propagandists left who will continue to exonerate those pseudo-humanitarian workers with their tarnished reputations, or to present them as benefactors. Their helmets are no longer white.



US efforts to offset Russian influence in Africa

We have noted that the US Department of State is allocating grants to journalists, education institutions and NGOs of African countries for countering alleged Russian propaganda in media space. Under the pretext of increasing the transparency of state institutions and boosting the stability of the judicial system on the African continent, they are financing efforts to search for the “Kremlin’s hand” in the spirit of a real “witch hunt.” As I see it, the current situation in the United States is not the best moment for establishing order on the African continent. The United States should better start with itself, and it has a lot of work to do.

We have no choice but to comment and explain why we perceive this as Washington’s striving to eliminate the favourable regional socio-political background with regard to Russia that became particularly obvious following the Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in October 2019. It appears that the United States is deliberately encouraging anti-Russia publications in some African media outlets and is trying to portray Russia as a destabilising force. We are confident that such methods of unfair competition and misinformation show that there is no hard evidence confirming the so-called Russian policy of propaganda and misinformation, and this is also the consequence of weak US approaches in the field of public diplomacy.

The allocation of grants fits into the White House’s efforts to promote the idea that there is no alternative to Western concepts regarding state governance and the imposition of alien values on sovereign states.

We see this as yet another manifestation of neo-colonialism and an element of covertly formalising inequality in the overall system of international ties. In the context of the 60th anniversary of passing the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, due to be marked in December, we are urging our US colleagues to follow the spirit of this highly important historical document and to completely renounce their mentor-like attitude towards developing countries.



Anti-Russia accusations regarding alleged hacker attacks to obtain access to Western COVID-19 vaccine projects

We resolutely reject another absurd media story by our Anglo-Saxon “friends” from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom regarding an alleged hacker attack to obtain access to Western COVID-19 vaccine projects. We have repeatedly noted that Russian state agencies have never had anything to do with these accusations. In reality, we have been successfully cooperating on this topical global problem with many countries, including the above-mentioned countries. It is simply indecent and sacrilegious to try and exploit this sensitive subject.

We don’t understand the reasons for once again whipping up an anti-Russia hysteria around the hacker story at a time when everyone is already sick and tired of it. This is all ridiculous and amounts to yet another Russo-phobic attack.

We would like to advise the British National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) which is successfully promoting this fake story to rely on information backed by specific and irrefutable evidence, instead of claiming 95-percent certainty all over the world. We have already heard about the “highly likely” concept that was replaced by the “almost likely” term. And now, they are talking about 95-percnt certainty. Please come again when you score 100 percent.



US sanctions against foreign companies

We have taken note of one more strange US political action. On July 15, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced visa restrictions on high-ranking officials of the Chinese IT giant Huawei and a number of its counteragents.

Chinese companies have been accused of incredible activities that have nothing to do with their commercial operations, such as censorship, the persecution of political dissidents, the establishment of total control over Chinese citizens and illegal collection of their personal data.

It appears that Washington is using every available opportunity to use non-market and extraterritorial methods and illicit techniques to elbow a strong high-tech rival out of the market. Moreover, these techniques are prohibited in the United States itself. Just recall what Washington said some 10 years ago when it was promoting its information technology throughout the world. A large group of American politicians are demonising those who are undermining the US monopoly on the growing market of 5G information and communication technology. The financial sanctions have now been complemented with visa restrictions based on the selective application of the US Immigration and Nationality Act against foreign citizens who have become undesirable for various reasons.

We regret Washington’s dangerous policy of using tough-line measures to elbow rival high-tech companies out of the international markets, especially amid the difficult conditions created by the coronavirus pandemic when hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs. During this difficult period, information technology has become the lifeline for people who had to stay home for months on end and could not communicate with their family members, relatives and friends around the planet in any other way. Such irresponsible actions are clearly not helping the world to overcome the ongoing economic crisis.

Another component of this policy of restraints, sanctions and aggressive pressure is the US order that China close its consulate in Houston, Texas. It appears that countries that uphold their interests, promote their economies in a legitimate manner and refuse to yield to illegitimate US actions are immediately faced with sanctions, threats, stop lists, the seizure of people and assets, and the closure of their embassies and consulates. We have seen this taking place for years now, under different US administrations and contrary to the values which Washington has been spreading around the world.



Report by Commission on Inalienable Rights at US Department of State

We have thoroughly familiarised ourselves with the report prepared by the Commission on Inalienable Rights under the US State Department. We noted the fairly self-critical nature of the purported goal of this study which is whether Washington can still claim the role of the global leader in promoting the human rights agenda in third countries. Why waste time on research and reports? Just ask us. We would have provided a short and clear answer.

Framing the question like that appears as bold as never before, and resolute, too, amid the ongoing domestic unrest and numerous protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis by law enforcement officers.

Unfortunately, the 60-page-long report about the Commission's work does not have a slightest trace of an analysis of the problems regarding human rights in the United States. Based on this report, such a problem doesn’t exist. There’s footage of what is happening there, but there’s no such problem according to the report. The report itself and its outcomes are a case of blatant propaganda of American exceptionalism when it comes to articulating and promoting one's own, hence, “correct” vision of the human rights concept, which we are accustomed to. In fact, the commission has arrived at an interesting conclusion that without the Americans, fundamental freedoms and rights would not have been so well developed and the UN with its human rights mechanisms wouldn’t have been created.

This finding looks at least strange amid, to put it mildly, Washington's “sluggish” involvement in international human rights mechanisms. Of nine main human rights treaties, the United States participates only in three, and even then with many reservations. For example, unlike Russia, Washington does not allow its citizens to turn to treaty bodies with their complaints about their rights’ violation. It sounds very “liberal and “democratic.” The demonstrative boycott of the UN Human Rights Council, the main UN body in this area, by the “world leader in the field of human rights,” which we talked about today, doesn’t make sense. This is an actual boycott. It would also be a good idea to sort out the undercurrents of the reservation to Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits any propaganda of war, made by the United States, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council bearing special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

Washington's policy seeking to build an hierarchy of human rights and freedoms set out in the report gives rise to many questions, including those of a purely legal nature. The history of humankind has taught us enough lessons in this sphere, so as to kill the temptation to discuss again what is primary and what is secondary. I would like to remind our US colleagues that international law has long and clearly enshrined the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interconnectedness of all human rights.

Such an unceremonious disregard for the international law fundamentals, especially amid persisting large-scale systematic violations of human rights in the United States itself and failure to observe them with regard to citizens of other countries deprives Washington of the moral right to put forward any claims against the governments of third countries. In this regard, we would like to recommend our US partners to get busy with real problems at home. We’ve been talking fairly often about this lately. Also, there’s an important problem of racial discrimination. These problems became the object of attention of international bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council, which held a special meeting on this subject and adopted a separate resolution.



The Russia part of the International Religious Freedom Report to the US Congress

We note the annual report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released on July 17. It is traditionally replete with Russo-phobic argument and biased assessments of the situation in our country. This year, the authors of this so-called study decided to target the Russian legislation they describe as allegedly excessively harsh. According to their version, Russian laws infringe on the rights and interests of various religious movements, in particular, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Hizb ut-Tahrir group.

Regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses – perhaps the United States is simply unaware of this, so I would like to enlighten our partners about a court decision recently enforced in Switzerland, one originally issued in July 2019. The court recognised some of the methods used by the local group of Jehovah's Witnesses as violating fundamental human rights. Don't you know this?

I am referring to the practice where persons who choose to leave the sect or who fail to follow its instructions, are boycotted by their families and friends, children are boycotted, and psychological and social pressure is put on dissidents using various manipulative methods to influence consciousness, punishments, as well as unpunished cases of sexual violence. The sect's members are actually denied the right to freedom of opinion and conscience, and this is what warranted the attention of Swiss justice.

As for Hizb ut-Tahrir, let us not forget that it is an international terrorist organisation. Its activities are prohibited and can be prosecuted not only in Russia, but also in most Arab and European countries. Not so long ago, the US Department of State said in its reports that this organisation was contributing to the spread of extremist sentiment among Muslims. This assessment can be found in the 2009 Country Report on Terrorism. Ten years later, the US position has reversed. This actually happens rather often. In this regard, our overseas partners’ concern about that organisation was very surprising.

Russia’s position is unchanged. Any non-governmental organisations operating in our country, including religious ones, must respect and comply with Russian law. Unfortunately, representatives of this group continue to propagandise non-compliance with the laws of the Russian Federation. We deem this unacceptable.



The 45th anniversary of Apollo-Soyuz programme

On July 17, 1975, there was the famous “space handshake” between the commanders of the Soviet and US crews after the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft docked. The success of such an experimental flight laid a firm ground for further progress in space exploration giving a powerful impetus to the development of international cooperation in that area. The experience gained during the mission made it possible to implement the Mir-Shuttle space programme, during which Russian cosmonauts were taken into orbit by US Space Shuttles and US astronauts worked at the Russian Mir orbital station. The result of that multi-year fruitful Russian-US interaction in space exploration was the decision to build an international space station, a project, which is now being implemented by 14 countries.

So, 45 years ago, at the peak of the Cold War, despite the then political differences between the two countries, they managed to carry out an unprecedented large-scale project that laid the foundation for the subsequent work of the next generation of space explorers, with the help of the joint efforts of Soviet and US scientists, engineers, cosmonauts and astronauts.

It should be noted that Soviet and US specialists faced really complex tasks. It is symbolic that the Soyuz crew and the Apollo crew literally breathed different air. The differences in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the Soviet and US spaceships required complicated solutions to build the special airlock with docking facilities to allow the crew to transfer from one spacecraft to the other. And according to the memoirs of Soyuz commander Alexei Leonov, initially his historic handshake with US colleague Thomas Stafford was planned over Moscow but mystically it occurred while the docked ships flew over the Elbe, where Soviet troops met with their US allies 30 years earlier during WWII. By the way, the tradition of a handshake in space has survived to this day. It would be great if such fine traditions could return to the Earth and lay the foundation for Russia’s relations with the United States in a variety of areas.

This year, to mark the 45th anniversary of Soyuz and Apollo docking, Vasily Boryak, Deputy Director of the North America Department at the Russian Foreign Ministry, and US Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan made a video call to space and greeted the crew of the international space station on this historic event. The diplomats noted that space is still a priority area of cooperation between Russia and the United States where steady progress continues.



New anti-Russian statements by President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda

We have been unrelenting in responding to the attempts by Baltic politicians to falsify the historical events of the 20th century and impose their own biased point of view based on the infamous concept of the “Soviet occupation.” President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda has taken the liberty to engage in these unfriendly verbal attacks yet again during a recent session of the European Council in Brussels.

We believe accusing Russia of “historical revisionism” to be inadequate, cynical and immoral for Lithuanian leaders in view of their consistent efforts to glorify the so-called forest brothers, many of whom collaborated with the Nazis and caused dozens of thousands of civilian deaths.

It is sad that the Lithuanian leader continues to feed on these destructive phobias instead of thinking about improving the relations between Russia and Lithuania that have hit a hopeless deadlock, which is the fault of Vilnius.



Japan’s white paper on defence

We took note of the assessment of Russia’s defence policy in the 2020 Defence of Japan (Annual White Paper). Surprisingly, not only the sections on Russia are completely detached from reality, but also imbued with distrust and suspicion regarding our country’s policy and actions, aimed exclusively at ensuring effective national security in Asia-Pacific’s tense military and political environment.

We firmly reject Tokyo’s claims regarding defence actions in the Southern Kuril Islands, labelled in the White Paper as “inherent territories of Japan” under illegal occupation.

Once again, we have to recall that Russia assumed sovereignty over these islands in view of the outcomes of WWII, enshrined in the UN Charter, among other instruments, which entitles us to carry out any kind of activity there.

We regret to note that in its White Paper, Tokyo failed to make its defence policy transparent, refraining from explaining to the regional community its plans to revise the post-war “peaceful” constitution. It also reaffirmed its narrow bloc-based approaches to security, while ignoring the need to build an inclusive and transparent architecture of relations in Asia-Pacific taking into consideration the interests and concerns of all the regional powers, which is long overdue.



Launch of the updated Russky Vek (Russian Century) portal

Russky Vek (Russian Century) portal for Russian compatriots living abroad has launched its updated version. It was created at the Foreign Ministry’s initiative to render information support to the State Programme for Voluntary Resettlement of Compatriots Living Abroad. The portal is operated by the Institute of Russian Diaspora (Russkie.org).

The portal is mainly designed for informing people, government agencies, NGOs and civil society in general both in Russia and abroad on what the Russian Federation does to support compatriots living abroad, promote national interests and improve its image, and use the latest online technology to facilitate cultural and economic ties with Russian compatriots.

The portal provides daily updated news, analysis and other material, including articles, reports and interviews covering the latest events in Russia and within the Russian world.

The Russky Vek website offers detailed information on legal and administrative aspects of participating in the state programme, including the Official Information Package, information on regional resettlement programmes, updates on career opportunities in the resettlement regions, contacts of diplomatic and consular missions, as well as the Interior Ministry’s migration offices and associations of compatriots living abroad.

For the first time, the portal’s Resettlement section offers an interactive map of regions taking part in the state programme with their brief descriptions and links of the relevant employment offices, as well as local Interior Ministry offices.

The portal’s new version seeks to make content interactive, functional and better available.

We hope that the updated website will be easy to use and user-friendly, offering an enhanced experience regardless of the users’ web navigation skills.

If you have any other suggestions, please send them in so that we can make this website even better.



Unveiling a renovated monument to Great Patriotic War soldiers in Moldova

On July 18, the village of Jevreni in the Criuleni District of Moldova hosted a ceremony to unveil a renovated monument to Great Patriotic War soldiers.

The memorial complex opened in 1956 and did not see any repairs until now. The monument became dilapidated during those years, some of the marble slabs were smashed, and the reinforced concrete stele sprang many cracks. It was, therefore, decided to restore it with financial support from the Russian Federation.

The granite perpetuates the names of more than 400 Red Army soldiers, who fought heroically for the freedom of our common homeland, including people hailing from Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.

In all, 16 memorials across the Republic of Moldova will be restored with support from the Russian Foreign Ministry, Russian regions and foundations during the year of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.



Celebrating Peru’s Independence Day on July 28

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



Uncertainty regarding the settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict in Donbass

We have taken note of positive change in the implementation by Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk of the Normandy format leaders’ decisions taken in Paris. During a videoconference of the Trilateral Contact Group held on July 22, the sides signed an agreement regarding additional measures to strengthen the ceasefire. It comes into force on July 27 and includes certain measures aimed at maintaining a ceasefire on the contact line in Donbass. This agreement has been made possible through a direct dialogue between the representatives of Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk with the mediation of Russia and the OSCE. We hope that these coordinated measures will be implemented.

At the same time, we are seriously worried about the situation on the political track. It has been complicated by Kiev’s decision on local elections, which have been scheduled for October 25, 2020. In accordance with Verkhovna Rada Resolution 3809 issued on July 15, the organisation of these elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions has been complemented with requirements that directly contradict the Minsk Package of Measures. These requirements include the reinstatement of the Ukrainian constitutional order in Donbass (it is unclear what order they had in mind, the existing one or the one that should take into account decentralisation and a special status for Donbass), as well as the restoration of Ukrainian control of the border with Russia. On July 22, these requirements were confirmed in an official press release of the Ukrainian President’s Administration.

I would like to say once again that the Minsk Package of Measures stipulates a different sequence of measures. It should start with the amendment of the Constitution and other Ukrainian laws within the framework of the constitutional reform and with a focus on decentralisation and the approval of a permanent special status for Donbass, which is to be sealed in the Constitution. This should be followed by elections and the restoration of Kiev’s control of the border. The process should only end after a comprehensive political settlement. In addition to this, the Minsk Package stipulates that the subject of elections in Donbass must be coordinated through a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.

The meaning of the Verkhovna Rada resolution on local elections and the press release of the Ukrainian President’s Administration is not clear. They can be interpreted as Ukraine’s actual withdrawal from the Minsk agreements. These decisions should be clarified.

Russia as a peace intermediary and a member of the Trilateral Contact Group and the Normandy format is worried. We request that Kiev provide a clear explanation on this subject. We also urge our German and French partners in the Normandy format and international organisations to provide their views on the evolving situation and to encourage the Kiev authorities to honour their obligations.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

The Turkish Government has announced that it is closing maritime zones in the Mediterranean and planning to start geological exploration on the sea shelf based on an unrecognised Ankara-Tripoli memorandum. These intentions are being opposed by Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, leaders of eastern Libya, and other countries that regard this agreement and Turkey’s neo-Ottoman plans as unacceptable. What is the Russian view on this memorandum and the clear surge of tension in the region? In the light of the law of the sea and international law, can all the islands influence the delimitation of maritime zones and the sea shelf?



Maria Zakharova:

The Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department has repeatedly provided explanations on this matter in its comments. Our position remains unchanged. We are following closely and with much concern yet another escalation of tension in the Eastern Mediterranean. We are in favour of differences being settled through talks based on generally recognised norms of international law. We call on our partners to work on strengthening confidence-building measures and good-neighbourliness and to necessarily refrain from unilateral, ill-considered actions.

There is a universal venue – the United Nations – for an effective solution of disputed matters as they arise. Apart from this there is the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that contains a mechanism for the delimitation of exclusive economic zones and continental shelves between states.



Question:

What is your comment on US sanctions against Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov?



Maria Zakharova:

We have commented on this matter. In addition to this, I can say the following. The US Department of State decided to “renew” its 2017 ban on entry to the US for Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov. The new prohibition extends to Mr Kadyrov’s family members – his wife and children.

As we understand, a number of US politicians are dead set on continuing to accuse Russia, its leaders, politicians, executive authorities and lawmakers of all imaginable and unimaginable sins. This is yet another example of a public action, given that a portion of the US political beau monde has not renounced its erstwhile political course. I would like to ask what seems to me an absolutely logical question: In what way are Mr Kadyrov’s family related to any violations imputed to him? It is totally unclear. I am not going to comment on these far-fetched accusations, the more so that, as usual, evidence and arguments are lacking.

We are witnessing yet another attempt to justify the allocation of budget funds to the US Department of State to pay an army of muckrakers looking for any negative information – this time in the context of Russia but basically in relation of citizens in all “rogue” states. This is how they “contain” Russia, assert their exceptionality, and, of course, violate international law under the pretext that they are “exceptional” and this self-ascribed status gives them the right to do whatever they want.



Question:

How would you comment on the election campaign held ahead of the July 13 to 15 elections to North Macedonia’s Assembly?



Maria Zakharova:

It was hard to miss a series of video addresses made by high-ranking Western politicians, including the heads of government and ministers, who openly and aggressively called on North Macedonian voters to vote for this or that party. The addresses were widely disseminated during the election campaign in North Macedonia.

This open foreign meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state forms a background against which the unscrupulous and totally groundless speculations about a “Russian extension” in any elections around the world look absolutely absurd. We are witnessing the cynical use of double standards: suspicions and reproaches addressed to Russia are routinely justified by non-transparent and vague reasoning in the highly-likely style, while the West’s direct pressure on citizens of North Macedonia is being palmed off as something legitimate and conforming to the notorious “democratic tenets.”

I think this example makes it quite clear how hypocritically the West pursues its policy of aggressive pressure, accusing certain countries of meddling, when there is no meddling, and issuing itself an indulgence for any sort of interference, where its own interests are involved, even in the case of a sovereign state.



Question:

The conflict that flared up on the border of Azerbaijan and Armenia has subsided in the past few days, but the situation remains tense. Meanwhile, official Baku believes that the efforts of the co-chairs of the OSCE’s Minsk Group to resolve the conflict are not enough and suggests changing the methodology and convening an extended meeting of the Minsk Group that would involve all 11 states. Azerbaijan is also suggesting that the mechanism for fulfilling the UN Security Council’s resolutions should be revised. Can you comment on Baku’s position, and is it possible to say that Russia has played a key role in reducing tensions? What short-term agreements have been reached to stabilise the situation?

The other day, Azerbaijan suggested holding an extended OSCE Group summit that would involve all of the format’s member countries. What does Russia think about this initiative to invigorate the diplomatic process to peacefully resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict?



Maria Zakharova:

The ceasefire violations are decreasing, but tensions do persist.

In an effort to prevent further escalation, we are exerting specific efforts within the framework of the OSCE’s Minsk Group as one of its co-chairs and also independently.

Last week, participants in a Minsk group meeting reviewed the situation in the conflict zone. Those in the OSCE Permanent Council meeting also did the same in the presence of all OSCE participants. The co-chairs of the Minsk Group maintain permanent contact with the conflicting parties. Earlier, the latter held video conferences with OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Edi Rama and OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, and there are plans to hold consultations with the UN Secretariat.

A number of statements, including those by the Presidential Executive Office and Foreign Ministry, have been made, urging the conflicting parties to display restraint and strictly adhere to the ceasefire. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has had urgent telephone conversations with his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts. This week, he discussed the situation with Ambassadors of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Moscow. The national defence ministries are also cooperating.

Yerevan and Baku have proposed various initiatives to formalise the truce and to build up the negotiating process. We are discussing these with the concerned parties. We hope it will be possible to review the range of issues on conflict resolution in great detail after the restrictions on international travel are lifted.



Question:

The government of Afghanistan is opposing the release of 600 Taliban prisoners based on the fact that they were convicted for serious crimes. What is the Foreign Ministry’s take on this?



Maria Zakharova:

Our understanding is that this issue needs to be resolved by the opposing parties themselves. As far as we know, the technical consultations concerning the lists of prisoners subject to release are still in progress. More importantly, this issue should not serve as an artificial obstacle to beginning direct intra-Afghan talks. For our part, we call on Kabul and the Taliban to complete the prisoner exchange as soon as possible and move on to a constructive dialogue.



Question:

How did Afghanistani leadership react to Russia’s proposal to host the intra-Afghan talks?



Maria Zakharova:

At the moment, Russia has not officially proposed hosting intra-Afghan talks. However, we do not rule out this possibility in the future. It is true that we have received relevant requests. Right now we believe that the talks will be a lengthy process and will require more than one round of meetings in different capitals.



Question:

What was the Foreign Ministry’s response to a resolution opposing Russia’s participation in the G7 that was submitted by a group of Democrats to the US Senate?



Maria Zakharova:

The initiative by a group of Democratic senators to adopt a resolution against Russia’s participation in the G7 events would have little practical influence on our interests. This is just another attempt to use the Russia factor in domestic political battles in the United States and to gain political points with Russophobia. It seems to me that they are simply taking advantage of American voters’ lack of knowledge on the international agenda. They make up anything they want. They do not even have to explain the inadequacy of these steps and, basically, their absurdity.

As for US President Donald Trump’s proposal to hold an extended meeting of the Group of Seven with Russia and several other countries, we already commented on this matter in early June.

Our stance is that in the polycentric system of international relations that is emerging now, looking for solutions to the problems in global politics and the economy is only possible based on the principle of inclusivity. The days of elite clubs are gone. It is clear that no serious conversation on crucial global issues is possible without China.

We are convinced that other mechanisms of global governance are more consistent with the spirit of the age such as the G20, which represents the major centres of economic growth and political influence, as well as BRICS, the SCO and the EAEU where members operate on the principles of collective leadership, respect for each other’s interests and consideration for the civilisational and cultural specifics of each member state.



Question:

Can the Foreign Ministry confirm reports about preparations for an upcoming meeting of the Russian and French foreign and defence ministers in the 2+2 format in Paris?



Maria Zakharova:

Indeed, we are preparing for this meeting, scheduled to be held in Paris, as it is France’s turn to host. The dates remain to be clarified.



Question:

You have called a statement about Russia by the British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee “fake-shaped Russophobia.” Do you want to say that this wide range of accusations, including cyberattacks, misinformation and mysterious murders of Russian citizens in the United Kingdom, are all conjectures? What prospects for improving Russian-British relations do you see?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot help but agree that murders of Russian citizens in the United Kingdom are, indeed, mysterious, in many cases. I would say they are typically English murders. This is a fact that instead of an objective investigation, the world regularly witnesses yet another farce. Why? For one, this is because sentences are passed even prior to investigation. This, too, has become a good British tradition.

Regarding the above-mentioned report, we have, indeed, commented on it at the Foreign Ministry’s Main Office, and the Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom has also issued a statement. For many years, we have emphasised that Russia is invariably guided by the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. We do not harbour any unfriendly intentions regarding the United Kingdom either. We have said this many times. We are willing to develop equal cooperation with that country. At the same time, we have repeatedly warned London that the hysterical anti-Russia campaign now underway in the United Kingdom will eventually backfire against its architects.

In this connection, we would like to note once again that efforts to elevate Russophobia to the level of state policy have no future. This devalues London’s parallel statements about a desire to normalise bilateral relations, as well as many other statements about international law, compliance with law, etc.

Regarding prospects for improving relations between Russia and the United Kingdom, Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Andrey Kelin has discussed them in great detail. Please read his interview.

I believe that these curt phrases assessing this report completely reflect its empty essence. This report is about nothing, it is full of hot air because it contains numerous accusations but does not provide any facts. The document has a well-known style and provides no evidence or specific facts. As we have already realised, all this is presented under the highly likely, almost likely or 95 percent likely concepts; the last concept is quite new. This is another addition to the negative information background that has a destructive effect on interstate dialogue and the normal development of bilateral ties.



Question:

Does Russia plan to study the possibility of lifting restrictions on crossing the border with Abkhazia? Are you conducting the relevant talks with the Abkhazian side? When can the first stage of lifting restrictions commence?



Maria Zakharova:

Indeed, in early July 2020, the leaders of the Republic of Abkhazia asked Russia to study the possibility of lifting restrictions, introduced during the pandemic, stage by stage. We are examining this matter in the inter-departmental format. A final decision will be made after thoroughly analysing the current sanitary-epidemiological situation in Abkhazia. Rospotrebnadzor experts who have left for Sukhum will be expected to submit the relevant recommendations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4252952
__________________
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 August 11th, 2020 #153
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding statements by US and British officials about the testing of a Russian satellite



24 July 2020 - 14:17



We have taken note of statement made by US and British officials, including US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea, head of US Space Command Jay Raymond, US Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-proliferation Christopher Ford and Director of the Space Directorate at the UK Ministry of Defence Harvey Smyth), in connection with the testing of a Russian satellite, which allegedly has “the characteristics of a weapon,” on July 15, 2020.

We regard this as part of Washington’s anti-Russia information campaign to discredit Russia’s activities in the space area and our peace initiatives for preventing an arms race in outer space. The US and British representatives have again tried to distort facts so as to distract public attention from the existing threats in outer space, to justify their actions to deploy weapons in outer space and to get additional funding for these purposes. Not surprisingly, they keep silent about their own military activities in outer space, including the use of the so-called inspector and maintenance satellites as anti-satellite weapons.

It is also noteworthy that these statements have been made ahead of the Russian-US meeting of space security experts, scheduled to take place in Vienna on July 27. The goal of these statements is not clear to us. We would like to hope that they were not intended to influence the modality and outcome of this meeting, as well as to hinder the development of a bilateral dialogue on space issues and strategic stability, which is so important for the international community.

The testing conducted by the Russian Defence Ministry on July 15 has not endangered any other space object and, most importantly, has not infringed on any norms and principles of international law. According to our Defence Ministry, the inspector satellite was launched to inspect a Russian satellite at close range, using special equipment for this purpose. This mission has collected valuable information about the technical maintenance status of the inspected spacecraft and transmitted it to the ground-based command system.

We reaffirm Russia’s commitment to its obligations regarding the peaceful exploration and use of outer space by all states without discrimination. Of crucial importance in this connection are our initiatives, which incidentally the overwhelming majority of UN member states support, aimed at preventing the militarisation of outer space. The idea is to draft a multilateral binding agreement that will prevent an arms race in outer space based on a Russian-Chinese draft agreement on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, and the use or threat of force against space objects, as well as the globalisation of the political commitment on the no first placement of weapons in outer space.

We call on our American and British colleagues to act professionally instead of planting false information, to start negotiations and join meaningful and practical collective efforts. We reaffirm our readiness to discuss all issues related to activities in outer space with representatives from the concerned agencies and establishments.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4253360






Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to a media question on US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's statement on US-Chinese relations



24 July 2020 - 17:52



Question:

Can you comment on the recent statement by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the US-Chinese relations?



Maria Zakharova:

We noted US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remarks on US-Chinese relations made on July 23 at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library.

We were surprised by the defiant tone of Mr Pompeo's statements, which predictably contained crude references to China, its social and political system and its leaders. Unfortunately, these things are common in US foreign policy diplomacy these days.

The tension in relations with Beijing being provoked by Washington, in addition to harming the United States and China, is also seriously complicating international affairs. These two countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council and play an important role in global affairs. Together with the other Security Council members, they bear a special responsibility for maintaining global stability.

We regard Pompeo’s statement on the possibility of dragging Moscow into the US anti-Chinese campaign as yet another naive attempt to complicate the Russian-Chinese partnership, and drive a wedge into the friendly ties between Russia and China. We intend to further strengthen our cooperation with China because we regard this cooperation as the most important factor in stabilising the situation around the world.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4253571






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the blocking of Tsargrad TV Channel on Google services



28 July 2020 - 19:35



On July 28, we learned that the Google LLC has again blocked Russian news resources on a large scale. Last night, the official Tsargrad TV account was blocked on the YouTube video hosting site, with an audience of over a million subscribers, as were related channels Tsargrad News and Double-Headed Eagle. This was done without any notice or explanation, only with the warning, “no possibility of recovery.” The media were denied access to mail, cloud and other Google services.

At the same time, YouTube blocked the accounts of a number of Russian experts that share the views of Tsargrad’s editorial policy. In all cases, the video hosting administration ignored its own rules to send a warning of violation of a specific term of the user agreement, which was allegedly infringed upon. Google administrators have ignored the numerous messages from the TV Channel.

The moderators of this video platform chose a cynical moment to limit the streaming of a Russian medium that is promoting Russian Orthodox values. This happened on Rus Baptism Day, an important holiday to Christians.

This is not the first time a US tech giant has behaved like this. On May 20 of this year, the leading Crimean TV channel Krym 24 as well as Anna News and News Front agencies accounts were removed under similar circumstances. Earlier, the Federal News Agency was also blocked without explanation. In this context, it is no accident that over 300 Russian Facebook and Twitter accounts were removed last March.

All these facts make it clear that Google’s decision is yet another example of political censorship, a violation of freedom of speech and the principle of equal access to information. The US technology monopolists are again following in the wake of Washington’s attempts to remove Russian sources from the global information market with unscrupulous tactics.

We call on the related international organisations and human rights community to respond to this unacceptable example of censorship.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4261968
__________________
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 August 11th, 2020 #154
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Alexey Zaytsev, Moscow, July 30, 2020



30 July 2020 - 17:39






Coronavirus update

The global situation with the spread of COVID-19 remains alarming. Recently, Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus confirmed that the world is confronting a new and extremely dangerous pathogen today, a pandemic that has become the most serious emergency of international importance ever announced by the organisation. There are no signs of “inhibition.” On the contrary, the coronavirus is rapidly spreading across the planet. Over the past month and a half, the statistics on identified cases have almost doubled. The milestone of 17 million cases has been passed. The dynamics of the infection in various countries and regions has not subsided and indicates the need to be prepared for a second wave of the epidemic.

We appreciate the consolidated initiative of a number of specialised UN agencies and expert institutes, recently announced by the WHO, to form a unified database of world best practices in the field of legal and regulatory control of efforts to combat the infection and its negative consequences. The launch of this database will increase the capacity of COVID-19 response at the national and international levels and make the measures taken more effective.

As shown by the outbreaks of the disease in individual countries, observed against the background of the seemingly achieved “taming” of the coronavirus, reversals in the dynamics of the development of the virus may well take place. At the same time, it is clear that it is possible to effectively control the unprecedented cross-border challenge through a collective effort alone.



Prospects for resuming transport

The global sanitary and epidemiological situation precludes any chances of lifting the temporary restrictions introduced by the Government in March regarding the entry of foreign nationals and stateless persons into our country, as well as state border crossings by Russian citizens through checkpoints other than airport checkpoints.

The current effort is focused on the gradual resumption of international air traffic.

According to Government Directive 1915-r dated July 24, 2020, citizens of UK, Tanzania and Turkey, as well as persons holding a residence permit or any other document validating their right to permanent residence in the above countries can enter Russia if they arrive by air starting August 1. In addition, citizens of the countries with which Russia has valid agreements on visa-free travel can enter Russia via flights originating from these three countries.

Russian foreign missions in the UK, Turkey and Tanzania have resumed the issuance of visas of all categories as usual. Please keep in mind that visas will be issued only to citizens of the above states, as well as persons holding a residence permit (or any other document validating the right to permanent residence) in the UK, Turkey and Tanzania, respectively. Citizens of other states temporarily residing in these countries are not yet eligible for visas.

Much is being done with regard to other countries.

The Foreign Ministry monitors the rules for Russian citizens’ entry into foreign countries amid the pandemic. It makes the results available to the Federal Air Transport Agency and Rospotrebnadzor in order to make coordinated proposals to open regular flights with the respective countries. In particular, we analyse our partners’ readiness to receive international flights and the special requirements introduced in this regard, in particular, the requirement to present test completion certificates and the quarantining of foreigners. Along with Rospotrebnadzor, monitoring of the sanitary and epidemiological situation in foreign countries has been organised in order to draft a final list of countries with which flights can be resumed.

In the foreseeable future, air traffic can be resumed with other countries that meet the corresponding criteria (an incidence of no more than 40 people per 100,000 in 14 days; an average daily growth rate of 1 percent; a prevalence rate 1.0 or less). The Government takes these indicators into account when making relevant decisions.

Please also note that all passengers arriving from abroad will need to pass sanitary and quarantine control at the checkpoints at Russia’s state border. When crossing the border, foreign citizens must present, to sanitary and quarantine control officers, medical documents confirming the absence of COVID-19 disease (in Russian or English), confirming the negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) COVID-19 lab test result taken no earlier than 72 hours before arrival in the Russian Federation, or medical documents confirming the availability of corresponding antibodies.



Facilitating Russian citizens’ return to their homeland

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



Russian citizens detained in the Republic of Belarus

We expect Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Belarus Dmitry Mezentsev to comment soon on the situation with the Russian citizens detained in Belarus.



Russia provides humanitarian aid to South Caucasus in coronavirus response effort

Russia has been providing various types of COVID-19 related humanitarian assistance to countries in the South Caucasus since the beginning of the pandemic. One of the projects was to supply Vector test kits for COVID-19 novel coronavirus infection lab diagnostics without cost.

Russian teams from various specialised medical facilities have worked or continue to provide practical, organisational and methodological assistance in several countries including Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Our military medical specialists also provide assistance under agreements with the host countries. For example, a group of Russian military specialists is currently rendering assistance in Armenia. Earlier, a mixed medical team helped with the disinfection of facilities in Abkhazia.

In addition, experts from Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been trained to work with the Vector test systems at the reference centre of the Stavropol Anti-plague Research Institute.



Agreement with FAO on cooperation in fighting locust invasion in Africa

On July 27, in Rome, an agreement was signed, via videoconference, between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation the (FAO) on a $10 million contribution from Russia to the FAO to combat locust invasions in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and South Sudan. The agreement was signed by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the FAO and other UN Agencies in Rome, Viktor Vasilyev; from the FAO, by Deputy Director General Elizabeth Bechdol.

The desert locust populations in East Africa, the Middle East and Asia have grown 400-fold since early 2020, posing an unprecedented threat to food security and effectively endangering the lives of over 40 million people in these regions. The situation is further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to FAO’s humanitarian call to respond to the desert locust invasion in the Greater Horn of Africa region, controlling the pest will take more than $300 million. To date, it has raised about $130 million.

The Russian contribution will help address the invasion of this dangerous agricultural pest, and further, will reaffirm Russia’s policy to strengthen cooperation with the African countries in accordance with the final declaration of the Russia-Africa Summit adopted in Sochi on October 24, 2019.



Update on Venezuela

We continue following the developments in Venezuela. According to incoming reports, the sanitary-epidemiological situation in that country remains difficult but is generally under control by the government. The main hotbeds of coronavirus activity are in the areas bordering on Colombia from where Venezuelan migrants return home. Despite tough quarantine measures, the Venezuelan authorities are rendering all necessary assistance to arriving compatriots. We urge the South American countries to expand cooperation with their colleagues from Venezuela for joint prevention of the spread of the coronavirus infection among the most vulnerable groups.

In this context, we note the beginning of the practical implementation of the framework humanitarian agreement signed on June 1 by Venezuela and the Pan America Health Organisation (PAHO). It was reported recently that the US authorities have unfrozen the Venezuelan government’s accounts. These funds will be used by the PAHO to buy individual protective gear and diagnostic equipment and for their shipping to Venezuela. The amount of money at stake is about $20 million while the total amount of US-blocked Venezuelan funds exceeds $116 billion.

Indicatively, the mainstream media give the credit for unfreezing the funds to Deputy Juan Guaido. Considering that he himself welcomed the illegal sanctions and the freezing of Venezuelan funds on foreign accounts, we view his current attempts to gain political credibility through the suffering of the Venezuelan people, as cynical to put it mildly.

We are convinced that the implementation of the June 1 humanitarian agreement must be carried out jointly by its three signatories and on a scale that actually meets the urgent needs of the people.

Obviously, the above exemptions from the sanctions are not enough to meet the humanitarian needs of Venezuela. Washington must completely give up its policy of unilateral bans on Caracas’ foreign economic activities and let the Venezuelan government acquire medications and other basic necessities. Only in this case will the Venezuelan people be able to effectively counter the pandemic.

Elections to the National Assembly of Venezuela will be held next December in line with the Constitution. Active preparations are already underway. However, the election campaign is linked with many difficulties due to the coronavirus and the actions by a number of external players. It will hardly be possible to find a political solution to the internal Venezuelan crisis without holding the election. Such is the political reality that has already been recognised by the responsible political forces that are interested in a peaceful settlement to the domestic crisis. We welcome the joining of the election campaign by a broad range of political parties.

We would like to repeat our position: we consider the electoral process a key element in a settlement. Venezuelan society is tired of confrontation. In this context, we call on all of our foreign partners to refrain from unconstructive criticism and attempts to discredit the election, not to mention overthrow the lawful government of Venezuela by force. Any radical actions can only escalate tensions.

We hope that all members of the international community will promote favourable conditions for allowing the Venezuelans to independently develop constructive and compromise solutions to the current problems.



Russia-US Strategic Meeting

An expert group meeting held as part of the bilateral Russia-US strategic dialogue ended in Vienna. It took place in the form of successive panel discussions on space security, doctrines and capabilities, as well as verification and transparency.

Let’s review our interaction with the United States on strategic issues in recent years. In 2014, due to the actions and upon the initiative of the Obama administration, the regular dialogue, including on matters of international security and strategic stability, was suspended and actually frozen for three and a half years. In the summer of 2017, President Putin and President Trump reached an understanding on the need to resume contacts on strategic issues and arms control. Since then, four rounds of full-format consultations have taken place at the deputy foreign minister level in September 2017, in July 2019, and in January and June 2020.

Until now, it has been difficult to qualify these contacts as regular. This was largely due to the staffing situation in Washington. The US delegation arrived at each of these meetings with a new leader and with many new members.

As is customary, the Russian interdepartmental delegation is headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

This year, pursuant to the instructions issued by the presidents of Russia and the United States, contacts on the strategic agenda have been stepped up. They have become more substantive. In particular, in the course of the January round of the strategic dialogue, an agreement was reached to launch an expert discussion of space security issues. We’re talking about considering the entire range of relevant issues, including the risks of weapons in outer space.

During the last round of talks on June 22, it was additionally agreed to hold a meeting of experts on verification and transparency, as well as military doctrines and capabilities. The United States initially proposed limiting the discussion to nuclear weapons-related issues. We suggested taking a broader look and focusing on all types of weapons capable of resolving strategic tasks and influencing strategic stability.

Actually, the experts of the two countries reviewed these three thematic blocs (space security, doctrines and capabilities, transparency and verification) at a meeting in the Austrian capital held from July 27 to 30. The conversation was specific and professional. The parties will need to analyse the results in detail.

Russia is open to continuing a dialogue with Washington on various strategic issues. We consider it extremely important, in particular to try to prevent the further destruction of international agreements in this area. At the same time, we plan to continue to build our relations with the United States in the area of arms control on a strictly parity basis relying on the principle of mutual consideration for each party’s interests and concerns.

Taking this opportunity, we would like to express our gratitude to the government and the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Austria for their assistance in organising a new meeting with the United States as part of our strategic dialogue.



US arms deliveries to Pristina

We note with regret and concern reports on American supplies of arms and military equipment to the authorities in Pristina. The US is doing this openly, to the detriment of international efforts aimed at ensuring peace and stability in the Balkans which are therefore incompatible with the militarisation of the self-proclaimed “Republic of Kosovo.”

Washington’s plan aims to help the Kosovars create their own army. However, this grossly violates the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which provides for the dismantling of any Kosovar Albanian paramilitary formations, allowing the presence of an exclusively international peacekeeping contingent in the province.

We call on everyone who is not indifferent to the developments in the Balkans and the future of this sensitive region to prevent any actions that are fraught with the potential for destabilisation and another explosive conflict.



Compliance with measures to strengthen the ceasefire in Donbass

A week ago, we reported certain positive shifts in the work of the Minsk Contact Group. On July 22, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, with the mediation of the OSCE and Russia, agreed on additional measures to strengthen the ceasefire in Donbass, which entered into force on July 27. We fully support the agreements reached, aimed primarily at preserving human lives and preventing further destruction of the infrastructure.

According to available information, the ceasefire on the disengagement line has been generally observed so far.

This is an important step in the stage-by-stage implementation of the Minsk agreements and the decisions of the December 2019 Paris meeting of the Normandy Four leaders.

We hope the established ceasefire will continue, making it possible to more effectively resolve other issues of settling the internal Ukrainian conflict, primarily those concerning the political aspects of the Minsk agreements.



Medical help for Russian citizens in US penitentiaries

Currently, about 100 Russian citizens are being held in US prisons and pre-trial detention centres. Most of them are serving time for non-violent crimes. Unfortunately, we have to state that correctional facilities often choose not to provide proper medical treatment for our compatriots who are serving time, including those with serious chronic ailments. Despite the need for medical help, comprehensive medical examination is often delayed or not carried out at all. Only after the Russian Embassy’s repeated requests to US authorities was quality medical help provided to many of them.

In view of the spreading coronavirus infection, we note the lack of necessary personal protection equipment (face masks and gloves) for prisoners. Convicts with cold symptoms are kept in the general population. Some of the Russians serving time in the United States have been tested for the coronavirus, and all had negative results.

The Foreign Ministry pays close attention to the health and incarceration conditions of Russians who have been convicted or are awaiting a verdict from a US court. Amid the coronavirus pandemic, work with the US authorities has been stepped up in order to provide assistance to Russian citizens in penitentiary facilities and to protect their interests. We will continue to press for Washington to release the most vulnerable group of prisoners, whose lives and health are at risk.



The European External Action Service press secretary’s statement on the situation in Crimea

We noted a statement made by the press secretary of the European External Action Service in connection with the keel-laying ceremony for two multi-purpose landing ships held at the shipyard in Kerch, Crimean Peninsula, on July 20. We take this as another attempt to interfere in another state’s domestic affairs. The arguments provided by the service demonstrate again the inability to provide an unbiased assessment of the realities in the region, as well as total indifference to the legitimate interests and aspirations of the people of Crimea.

We would like to point out that our policy for strengthening the defence capability of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea area is designed to help ensure stability and security in that region.

In connection with the claims that we have allegedly imposed restrictions on Ukrainian citizens visiting Crimea, we would like to note that the temporary preventive measures introduced by Russia in connection with the coronavirus pandemic apply to citizens of most European countries, including Ukraine.

With regard to violations of international law, which the EU has again accused us of, we see Kiev doing this, not us. In this regard, we suggest that the EU, instead of relaying Ukraine’s unfounded accusations against Russia, pay due attention to Kiev’s inhuman actions of cutting off water and power supplies to Crimea. We call on the EU to abandon the egregious practice of “visa discrimination” with regard to Crimeans, which also directly contradicts international law and founding EU documents.



The Nation article about the Douma bombing

We have taken note of an article published in the US weekly The Nation on July 24, which provided a detailed picture of manipulations with the report prepared by the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) about the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria during the high-profile chemical incident in Douma on April 7, 2018. Although these facts are common knowledge, this is the first time they have been reported by such a respectable Western publication.

Independent international experts, public figures and politicians, as well as the media have been discussing these manipulations for more than a year now. A collective appeal has been even submitted to the member states of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the UN Secretary-General as its depositary, asking them to investigate the situation and take emergency measures to restore trust in the OPCW Technical Secretariat.

Russia and other states that hold the same opinion have raised this question at the OPCW more than once, but we have not received any clear response to our numerous appeals. It looks as if this unpleasant case were being covered up and put on the back burner, because it proves that the OPCW FFM reports are being deliberately distorted to whitewash the United States, Britain and France, which delivered missile attacks on the territory of a sovereign state in violation of the UN Charter and the generally recognised norms of international law. Iraq and Libya are the regrettable examples of the outcome of such military and political provocations and gambles.

We hope that this unsavoury story will eventually come to an end and that the OPCW will resume its technical activities in a professional and non-politicised manner, in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.



Facebook’s verification of content posted on the Ukrainian StopFake site

The New York Times has published a shocking article about Facebook’s collaboration with the Ukrainian site StopFake.

The article mentions StopFake’s ties to the Ukrainian nationalists and the far right and provides facts exposing StopFake, which Facebook hired in April 2019 to check facts published in the social media.

Russia has long been aware of the openly anti-Russia character of the StopFake website, its obsessive monitoring and unhealthy interpretation of any Russian-language publications, as well as its ties to the far right.

We are disappointed that such a large corporation as Facebook has chosen an extremely biased resource for the responsible task of verifying information. The analysis of the publications which StopFake has presented as unreliable leaves no doubt that this cooperation is aimed at continuing the political censorship of Russian-language content posted on Facebook.

We urge the company to take a more responsible attitude to choosing its partners. We see the current activities of the US technological giant as yet another proof of the Western countries’ coordinated policy for removing Russian content from the global information space.



Three-day ceasefire in Afghanistan

We welcome the statement made by the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban Movement on another three-day ceasefire for the duration of Eid al-Adha. At the same time, we would like to note that this will not help attain the main goal of the current stage in the settlement process, which is the launch of direct intra-Afghan talks as soon as possible.

We urge the opposing sides to use this pause in the hostilities to reduce the level of violence in Afghanistan, complete the exchange of prisoners and launch a constructive dialogue aimed at national reconciliation.



Enactment of amendments to citizenship of the Russian Federation law

On July 24, Federal Law No. 134-FZ of April 24, 2020 came into force amending the Federal Law On Citizenship of the Russian Federation. Under the new legislation, the territorial offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are given the exclusive authority to grant Russian citizenship to adults if at least one of their parents is a Russian citizen and is living in Russia, in case the applicant resides in Russia.

These changes were adopted as part of the State Migration Policy Concept for 2019-2025 approved by the President of Russia and aimed to promote demographic development of the Russian Federation and to attract foreign nationals with a potential to successfully integrate into Russian society.

Other changes include a number of measures simplifying the procedure to grant Russian citizenship to persons who have moved to the Russian Federation, such as:

- the requirement to renounce their foreign citizenship has been cancelled for all categories of applicants for Russian citizenship;

- the simplified procedure does not require that the applicant reside in Russia for a specific period or to confirm they have means of subsistence;

- for persons who received professional education in the Russian Federation after July 1, 2002, the required period of employment in the Russian Federation prior to applying has been reduced from three years to only one year;

- citizens of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine permanently residing in our country are now entitled to apply for Russian citizenship via the simplified procedure;

- foreign nationals and stateless persons who are married to Russian citizens residing in the Russian Federation and have children with them in this marriage are also entitled to apply for Russian citizenship via the simplified procedure.



Memorial events at the Russian Chapel on the Vrsic Pass in Slovenia

On July 25, Slovenia held traditional memorial events at the Russian Chapel commemorating Russian prisoners of war who died during WWI while building a mountain road. This church, built in 1916 on the site of the tragedy, has become a symbol of friendship and a place for annual reunions of the two countries’ leaders and the public.

From the Slovenian side, the events were attended by President Borut Pahor, Speaker of the National Assembly Igor Zorcic, key ministers and parliamentarians, politicians, activists of friendship societies and anti-fascist NGOs, prominent figures of culture and art. President‎ of the National Council Alojz Kovsca was the honorary sponsor of the commemorative events. The Russian delegation was led by Russian Ambassador to Slovenia Timur Eivazov.

We are grateful to our partners for their considerate attitude towards Russian military memorials on Slovenian territory. We consider the annual ceremonies at the Russian Chapel as a manifestation of respect for the memory of our ancestors, and a sign of Russians’ and Slovenes’ mutual interest in carefully preserving the historical truth and developing neighbourly relations.



Celebrating Republic of Benin Independence Day

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


Celebrating Republic of Niger Independence Day

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



The Khaled Alkhateb International Memorial Awards

The other day, military correspondents from Russia, Syria and India received Russia Today’s Khaled Alkhateb International Memorial Awards for Best Journalism. The awards were conferred for their work from conflict zones.

The Khaled Alkhateb International Memorial Awards was instituted in honour of 25-year old journalist Khaled Alkhateb who cooperated with Russia Today Arabic. On July 30, 2017, the young man was killed during a rocket shelling, launched by militants in Syria’s Homs province.

In his reports, he covered the operations of the Syrian government forces against terrorists. In 2018, President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed an executive order on posthumously awarding him the Medal for Bravery. His family received the medal at the first awards ceremony.

The award is presented in three categories: Best Video Journalism from a Conflict Zone: Short Form, Best Video Journalism from a Conflict Zone: Long Form and Best Written Journalism from a Conflict Zone. Journalists from 16 countries vied for the award.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Will you comment on the situation with Russian sailors Konstantin Semyonov and Ivan Voznikovtsev, who have been arrested in Greece on charges of facilitating illegal migration?



Alexey Zaitsev:

The Foreign Ministry is monitoring the situation following the arrest of these Russian citizens in the territorial waters of the Hellenic Republic on charges of facilitating illegal migration. We maintain correspondence with the sailors’ relatives and are otherwise coordinating consular support measures taken in such cases.

The Russian Embassy in Greece is monitoring compliance with the rights and legitimate interests of the arrested and sentenced Russian citizens under international and Greek laws. The Embassy personnel have taken measures to establish contact with the arrested and are providing available information to their relatives and consultation support within their competence. They are monitoring their detainment conditions, organising consular meetings with them in the Athens and Nafplio prisons, submitting statements, if necessary, that these individuals have no prior conviction in Russia, as well as supplying them with the list of recommended defence lawyers and reference material on the extradition of Russian citizens sentenced to prison terms abroad so that they will serve their sentences in Russia.



Question:

US officials claim that they are discussing the possibility of trilateral arms control at their meetings with Russian counterparts. Does this mean the possible involvement of China?



Alexey Zaitsev:

I would like to say once again that these discussions are being held in accordance with the agreements reached by our countries’ leaders on the Russian-US agenda on security, stability and arms control. During the latest, full-scale round of this strategic dialogue, the sides have reaffirmed their interest in continuing their interaction. They have also coordinated the issues for the further expert discussion in the bilateral format. I have mentioned all of this today.

As for the possibility of holding multilateral discussions to ensure predictability and restraint in the nuclear missile sphere, our position is well known, has been put forth more than once, and we have informed our American partners about it. The Russian Federation is ready to hold such discussions on the understanding that it will be counterproductive to force anyone to join them. Such discussions can be only held on the basis of consensus and respect for the legitimate interests and positions of all the parties involved. We believe that the further efforts in this sphere call above all for the involvement of Britain and France, the US allies in NATO, which defines itself as a nuclear alliance.



Question:

Donald Trump’s special envoy for arms control recently said that the US President will never agree to limit missile defence systems. Could you comment on this please? Do they discuss missile defence matters during the strategic dialogue?



Alexey Zaitsev:

After withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the United States embarked upon an unprecedented global missile defence system buildup. Unilateral US actions in this sensitive sphere, including the creation of the global missile defence system’s segments in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as efforts to establish a space-based missile defence echelon, extremely negatively affect the system of international security, considerably aggravate relations in various regions and help to create dangerous pre-requisites for resuming a nuclear arms race. At the same time, the US Missile Defence Review perceives Russia and China as potential adversaries.

Russian officials, including top-level ones, have repeatedly assessed US missile defence actions. It goes without saying that we continue to raise the relevant issues before the US side, including as part of the strategic dialogue.

We also touched upon the subject of missile defence at an expert discussion on doctrines and potentials that has ended in Vienna. We are urging the US to guide itself by the generally accepted principle on the unacceptability of strengthening its own security to the detriment of other states’ security, while implementing its missile defence plans.



Question:

Turkey has announced talks involving a delegation headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin. According to the Turkish media, the parties to the talks are discussing control over Siirt and nearby territories. Turkey and Fayez al-Sarraj are demanding that Khalifa Haftar and the so-called Russian mercenaries leave Siirt and Al Jufra Air Base. What is Russia’s position regarding these “calls?” What is the essence and logic of talks with Turkey on Libya?



Alexey Zaitsev:

The July 21-22 Russian-Turkish consultations in Ankara are part of our joint work, conducted under a direct instruction from the presidents of Russia and Turkey, to achieve a lasting and unconditional cessation of hostilities in Libya and to launch an all-inclusive political process.

I would like to recall that the first round of these consultations was held in mid-June in Istanbul. Following the talks in Ankara, it was decided to hold a new meeting of Russian and Turkish delegations in Moscow in the near future.

The agenda of this work includes a multitude of technicalities that we are now trying to coordinate with the Turkish side. This includes the deployment of the conflicting parties’ forces at the moment of declaring the truce. At the same time, it is, first of all, necessary to heed the opinion of Libyan protagonists themselves who are directly involved in the confrontation, while drafting agreements on various aspects of the Libyan settlement. Consequently, it will take some time to finalise compromise agreements.



Question:

The United States, Turkey, their representatives and the media are accusing Russia of violating the embargo on Libya. You have repeatedly said that thousands of jihadists and other militants have moved from Syria to Libya. How was that possible? Who do you think is actually breaking the embargo now?



Alexey Zaitsev:

We do often hear unsubstantiated accusations about Russia violating the arms embargo imposed on Libya. Moreover, it is no secret to anyone that several states are directly involved in the Libyan conflict through the supply of arms and transit of foreign mercenaries and militants to the area of ​​hostilities, including those that are accusing Russia. So your question should rather be addressed to the respective UN Security Council sanctions committee.



Question:

Turkey has regularly underscored Russia’s special role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution. The leaders of Russia and Azerbaijan have discussed this topic more than once; it was also touched upon during a recent telephone conversation initiated by the Turkish side. During the phone call, both sides expressed willingness to coordinate efforts to stabilise the border region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Can we talk about any mutual understanding here or at least, about Russia and Turkey sharing a position on resolving the Karabakh conflict?



Alexey Zaitsev:

Russia is having deep concerns over the recent aggravation of the situation on the border between our friends Armenia and Azerbaijan. We are confident that the years-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, just like any other disagreement in the international arena, must be resolved exclusively by peaceful means, and through diplomatic negotiations. Our position is invariably shared by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – the United States and France, as well as by the UN, the CIS and other international organisations.

The Russian government has made all the necessary efforts to prevent a further escalation there, including through immediate contact with our key partners in the region. During the recent telephone conversations between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues, we were given more assurances of support for this approach from Baku and Yerevan.

We have substantively discussed the current South Caucasus situation and specifically the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process with the Turkish side, at the level of heads of state on July 27, and foreign ministers, on July 23. Both sides have expressed serious concern about the threatening developments in the region. Russia and Turkey both believe there is no alternative to a political and diplomatic solution of the existing problems on the basis of international law, in the interests of the peoples of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

We are determined to continue working, together with our partners including Turkey, to prevent a new round of tensions, to stabilise the South Caucasus and actively promote the establishment of a political dialogue between Yerevan and Baku.



Question:

How would you comment on the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry’s statements revealing their plans to hold joint exercises with Turkey, including on the border with Armenia?



Alexey Zaitsev:

According to our information, the current Azerbaijani-Turkish military cooperation agreement envisages joint battle exercises and tactical flight training in Azerbaijan from July 29 to August 10 involving some 5,000 troops, 150 armoured vehicles, up to 150 artillery and air defence systems, up to 30 tactical aircraft, multipurpose helicopters, as well as reconnaissance and assault UAVs.

We are certainly closely following developments in the region, especially in the context of the recent Armenian-Azerbaijani border conflict, and we urge all parties to show restraint, including in their current military activities.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4272112
__________________
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 August 12th, 2020 #155
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the introduction of EU restrictions on Russian individuals and state entities for their alleged involvement in cyber attacks



31 July 2020 - 15:29



We are perplexed and upset by the decision of the European Union Council on July 30 to introduce unilateral restrictions on a number of citizens and entities of Russia, as well as the PRC and the DPRK. Once again, this is being done without any grounds, under the far-fetched pretext of involvement in cyber incidents in the past. The political connotations of this move are obvious.

We have repeatedly warned the EU about the harm of multiplying unilateral sanctions. Moreover, they are absolutely illegal in the context of international law. Commitment to collective multilateral decisions is of particular importance in the dynamically developing cross-border digital space. There is a demand for joint efforts to elaborate universal rules, norms and principles for the responsible conduct of states in the information space. Russia has long been suggesting such an approach.

Moscow has repeatedly suggested to the EU developing a professional dialogue on concerns in the information area or using the existing channels and mechanisms in the UN and OSCE. But instead, Brussels chose to use the sanctions toolkit, approved on paper a year ago. It cynically presented this move as a promotion of international security and stability in cyber space. One can conclude that the EU prefers a policy of unilateral pressure and restrictions to a serious conversation leading to a resolution of differences and buildup of mutual trust. This approach leads to new political confrontation and cyber chaos rather than a rules-based order about which our EU partners like to talk so much, forgetting about the central role of the UN.

We noted the obviously fallacious logic of the EU: Russian citizens are accused of involvement in a 2018 cyber incident, that is, that happened a year before the institution of the mechanism of cyber sanctions that the EU has used now. In other words, they are using it retroactively. Apparently, EU lawyers deliberately forgot that the law is not retroactive.

Once again, we strongly urge the EU to give up its futile attempts at exerting pressure, to return to implementing the basic norms of international and European law, and to draft effective rules for preventing conflicts in cyber space, not in words but in deeds.

Needless to say, the EU’s unfriendly action will not go unanswered. In diplomacy, everything is reciprocal.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4277466






Commentary by the Information and Press Department on an article about missile defence



31 July 2020 - 18:35



We have taken note of an article posted on the US Department of Defence website saying that missile defence is allegedly becoming an element of rivalry between the great powers. Citing an unnamed Pentagon official, the article claims that Russia and China are developing several increasingly sophisticated missile defence systems in the context of rivalry with the United States. As follows from the text, the US military sees this as a threat.

We take this post as part of a targeted disinformation campaign seeking to discredit Russia. Clearly, there are unscrupulous attempts to ascribe to us some aggressive and dangerous plans, this time in missile defence. Unmistakably, this is about the United States trying to justify its own large-scale and expensive programmes for creating and modernising weapons and plans to build up its military presence around the world. In order to substantiate these efforts by the United States to ensure overwhelming military superiority to the detriment of the security interests of other states, Pentagon propagandists are using the traditional “rivalry between powers” approach.

By itself, this fake news usually does not contain an in-depth analysis or even a balanced reflection of the situation. The attempts to create the appearance of a “responsible” US approach to anti-missiles made in the article do not hold water and are doomed from the start. We can begin by saying that Washington threw out the 1972 ABM Treaty, thus destroying one of the pillars of the global strategic stability system. Of course, the article doesn’t mention this. The fact that the United States has carried out numerous destabilising anti-missile projects is not mentioned, either.

Notably, the US military is deploying strategic missile defence infrastructure not only within the national boundaries of the United States, but around the world, which makes it a global system in nature. Washington is also thinking about developing the space segment of its missile defence system, in fact, planning to deploy attack weapons in outer space. In addition, in the context of missile defence at the doctrine level, the Pentagon has left open the possibility of delivering preventive “disarming” strikes against other countries in order to destroy missiles before they are launched. Moreover, the United States claims these are defensive actions.

It is important to understand that the fast-expanding architecture of the US missile defence system is changing the strategic balance of forces in the sphere of offensive weapons, creates major additional global instability risks and contributes to forming dangerous conditions for stepping up a nuclear and space arms race.

Russia has repeatedly expressed concern over unilateral and unrestricted US moves to deploy a global missile defence system. After the United States scrapped the ABM Treaty, Russia has more than once come up with initiatives designed to remove any “annoyances” and to establish cooperation in the anti-missile sphere. Washington and its allies have refused to move in this direction and are reluctant to take Russia’s interests into account. So, the desire to shift onto us the responsibility for the situation created by the United States is at least unseemly.

Once again, we urge Washington to take a responsible position and to take a critical look at its missile defence plans, which, if implemented, will not be beneficial for the security of either the United States or its allies. It would also be helpful to abandon these tactics of shifting responsibility to others, which is undignified behaviour for a great power, in order to divert the attention of Americans and the entire international community from their own actions of seeking to ratchet up tensions and break the international stability system.

More than ever before, the world doesn’t need rivalry, which the current US administration is betting on, but cooperation, especially in security. We are ready to discuss missile defence issues with the United States as part of a bilateral strategic dialogue.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4277755






Comment by the Information and Press Department a year after the end of the INF Treaty



3 August 2020 - 18:11



The INF Treaty ended a year ago when the US walked away from it, unilaterally. We still believe Washington made a grave mistake. Although the treaty was less than ideal in today’s security environment, it definitely promoted predictability and restraint in the missile and nuclear weapons area.

Russia firmly believes that the INF Treaty should have been preserved. It was possible and necessary to duly mitigate the crisis around it. The sides should have promptly started settling the accumulated differences in its implementation. However, this would have taken political will on both sides. Regrettably, the US did not have this and began to see the treaty as an obstacle on the road to victory in the US-proclaimed “Great Power Rivalry.”

It is regrettable how the Americans prepared to discard an agreement they no longer wanted. To justify its destructive actions, the US orchestrated a propaganda campaign based on completely groundless accusations against Moscow. Instead of a Russia-suggested practical and professional analysis of reciprocal grievances, the Americans set forth patently unacceptable ultimatums. The US instantly rejected Russia’s realistic solutions on settling existing concerns by taking measures on reciprocal transparency. Having blocked the potential paths to resolve the problems, the US deliberately engineered the end of the treaty.

Now, there are no limitations on short- and intermediate- range missiles, whereas the threats for universal security and stability have increased manifold. After abandoning the treaty Washington immediately embarked on completing the development of missiles previously banned under the treaty. The US conducted full-scale tests of these missiles, which fully confirmed that Russia’s long-standing grievances with Washington regarding the treaty were fully justified. The US publicly announced its intention to deploy advanced missiles as soon as possible, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region. Deployment in Europe has not been ruled out, either.

Obviously, the deployment of US ground-based short- and intermediate- range missiles in various parts of the world will seriously undermine regional and global security and provoke a new and dangerous round in the arms race. Russia cannot ignore the potential risk of additional missiles adjacent to its territory, which would be of a strategic nature for us. This would require an immediate response regardless of whether these are nuclear or conventional missiles.

After the INF Treaty, a number of specific steps were made to ensure predictability in the missile area and the preservation of a “window of opportunity” for dialogue-based solutions. President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced a moratorium on the deployment of these missiles on the ground as long as US weapons of similar classes were not deployed. The US and other NATO countries were directly urged to announce a reciprocal moratorium. Moscow announced its willingness at the highest level to hold a discussion on the parameters and potential verification measures as regards mutual commitments.

We strongly believe that the only viable step now is a joint search for settling the existing situation through political and diplomatic means. Russia remains open to equitable and constructive approaches to restoring trust and enhancing international security and strategic stability. We hope the US will also display an interest in this responsible approach.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279132






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 25th anniversary of the Russian Federation’s accession to the Missile Technology Control Regime



4 August 2020 - 10:00



August 4 marks the 25th anniversary of Russia's accession to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the only multilateral missile export control mechanism. Adopted in 1987, the Regime has since established itself as an authoritative consensus-based forum that effectively combines the participating countries’ national approaches and expertise to develop solutions that make a meaningful contribution to building a reliable infrastructure to prevent the proliferation of WMD delivery vehicles. So far 35 states have joined the agreement.

Over the past quarter century, the Russian side has always been deeply involved in all MTCR projects. Russia is one of the leading donors in the information exchange under the Regime and makes a significant contribution to the MTCR's Licensing and Enforcement Experts Meetings. As a country that possesses advanced rocket and space technologies, Russia actively participates in the work of the MTCR Technical Experts Meetings to regularly update the list of controlled goods and technologies.

The MTCR list of dual-use products that can potentially be used in the development of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles, has become a benchmark in the corresponding areas of ​​export control even for non-regime states.

We are in favour of preserving the purely technical character of the Regime and admitting new members only if they have major rocket and space potential and can make a tangible contribution to the implementation of the MTCR goals and objectives.

In 2021-2022, the Russian Federation will preside over the Regime, approved by a unanimous decision of the participating states. Both in the chairmanship and in our national capacity, we will strive to uphold and further improve the effective work of the MTCR in the interests of attaining the imperative goals of non-proliferation of WMD delivery vehicles.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279146






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the ISIS attack on the Jalalabad prison



4 August 2020 - 12:40



We strongly condemn the attack on a prison in Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan by militants of the international terrorist group ISIS, which killed at least 29 people on August 3.

This attack, like the recent attacks on civilians in crowded places in other Afghan cities, indicates that ISIS continues to pose a serious threat to security in Afghanistan and is a major destabilising factor in the region.

We call on the Afghan authorities and the command of the US and NATO forces deployed there to take targeted, coordinated and comprehensive action to destroy any strongholds of ISIS in Afghanistan.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279296






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Israeli strikes against Syria



4 August 2020 - 18:48



On the evening of August 3, the Israeli Air Force carried out strikes on Syrian military positions under the pretext of an alleged attempt, earlier that day, by unidentified persons to plant explosive devices near the dividing line in the occupied Golan Heights. Needless to say, the Israelis blamed Syria for the incident. According to recent reports, the air attack struck Syrian observation posts, anti-aircraft guns, live monitoring and recording systems and command posts of the Syrian Army.

We resolutely condemn these actions and express serious concern over yet another aggravation of relations between Israel and Syria. We warn Israel’s leaders against a repetition of steps that are fraught with dangerous consequences for the entire Middle East. We support Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and urge both sides to display restraint and prevent a further escalation of tensions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279338






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Russia’s humanitarian operation in Lebanon



5 August 2020 - 14:26



On August 4, a large explosion at the Port of Beirut killed many and caused significant destruction. A state of emergency was declared. Prime Minister of the Republic of Lebanon Hassan Diab asked foreign states for help.

In this connection, in line with the instructions of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, the Russian Emergencies Ministry in cooperation with the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor) are developing a plan to provide emergency humanitarian aid to the friendly nation of Lebanon to relieve the disaster. It was decided to send a rescue group with the necessary equipment to Beirut for search-and-rescue operations in ruined buildings as well as an airmobile hospital of the Ministry of Emergencies and a mobile PCR laboratory of Rospotrebnadzor.

The Lebanese leadership welcomed Russia’s initiative and expressed its gratitude for the readiness to help. Now the parties are agreeing immediate hands-on steps to prepare Russia’s humanitarian operation in Lebanon that will be launched soon.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279525






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message to the participants of the memorial ceremony in Hiroshima on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing



6 August 2020 - 07:00



Dear Mr. Mayor and the people of Hiroshima,

Dear organizers, attenders and guests of the memorial ceremony,

This year is marked by the 75th anniversary of the end of the most large-scale and the bloodiest war in the history of mankind. Therefore, we address not only its results, which enabled peoples’ transition to the principles of a peaceful life and formed the basis of the modern system of international relations, but also remember the human cost in order to prevent a recurrence of the tragedies of that time.

On August 6, 1945, the United States launched a nuclear attack against Hiroshima and three days later against Nagasaki. To this day, the terrible death of innocent civilians strikes a chord with millions of people on our planet. Even with a clear idea of the reasons behind and course of World War II, it is hard to fully understand what the masterminds and perpetrators of such an inhumane act were guided by.

Soviet representatives were among the first foreign observers to visit the site of the tragedy and collect detailed materials that were submitted to the leadership of the country. This and other information on the results of the study into the consequences of nuclear explosions in Japan was subsequently made public and presented to the wider international community. We would expect others to follow suit, showing respect to historical truth and ensuring transparency with regard to those events.

An impartial analysis of what happened in August 1945 confirms that the world’s leading capitals could not but realize that World War II was really coming to an end. The Soviet offensive in the Far East, as part of the agreements between the Allies, not only liberated China and Korea, but also took away Japan’s motivation to continue military operations. In that situation, atomic bombings by the United States were in fact a show of force and an operational test of nuclear weapons on civilians. The United States was the first and only country to use this type of weapons of mass destruction.

As a nuclear-weapon State, Russia recognizes its responsibility for international security, and global and regional stability. We are aware of the impact that the use of nuclear weapons may have. Our country pursues a policy of peace and non-confrontation in international affairs.

Today, we note with great concern the degradation of the international arms control system, denunciation of treaties, disregard of the principles of undiminished security of States, and a significant increase in nuclear risks. There has been an alarming shift in doctrinal military and political policies towards the idea that it is acceptable to employ nuclear weapons as a means of warfare.

We need to eliminate the risk of military confrontation between the nuclear powers and rule out the possibility of a nuclear war. We firmly believe that such a war cannot be won and must never be unleashed. We suggest that all nuclear powers officially confirm their commitment to this tenet.

In a bid to free the world from the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, we reaffirm our commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and, in this connection, call for extension of the START Treaty. In the face of the dismantlement of the INF Treaty by the United States, Russia unilaterally undertook not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in any given region of the world until relevant US-made weapons are deployed there.

Russia has unwaveringly supported constructive dialogue with all political forces and social movements advocating the nuclear threat reduction. In this context, it is crucially important to hold a substantive discussion on the issues that have to be dealt with in order to create favorable conditions for further movement towards nuclear disarmament. These issues include the deployment of a global missile defense system by the United States, development of high-precision non-nuclear strategic offensive arms, weaponization of outer space and cyberspace, and the United States' refusal to ratify the CTBT.

We must join our efforts to ensure that the terror and pain of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will never repeat. The tragedy left a deep imprint on the hearts of the Russian people, finding its way into our literature, art and music. Every Russian schoolchild knows the story of a girl named Sadako, who, hoping to be cured from radiation sickness, was trying to make a thousand paper cranes.

That is why, on August 6, our thoughts will be with the people of your city.


MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
SERGEY LAVROV




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279615
__________________
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 August 12th, 2020 #156
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Alexey Zaytsev, Moscow, August 6, 2020



6 August 2020 - 16:12






Coronavirus update

The epidemiological situation around the world remains tense. The novel coronavirus infection continues to spread at a rapid rate. The total number of cases in the world since the beginning of the pandemic has exceeded 19 million. The biggest number of COVID-19 cases have been registered in North and South America (about 10 million people) and in Europe (more than 3.5 million people). Several countries, such as Germany and Estonia, have announced the start of the second wave of COVID-19.

Due to a noticeable increase in the number of new cases, several countries had to suspend their plans to gradually lift the restrictive measures both in relation to foreign visitors and their own citizens.

On July 31, the WHO convened the fourth meeting of International Health Regulations Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of coronavirus disease. In its statement, the Committee highlighted the anticipated lengthy duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The members emphasised that the effects of the crisis will be felt for decades to come and called for sustained community, national, and global response efforts. The Committee advised the WHO Secretariat and member states to continue to mobilise global and regional multilateral organisations, including partners for accelerating access to tools to combat COVID-19. The Committee’s statement, with further details of the meeting and their recommendations, is available on the organisation’s website.



Assisting Russian citizens in coming home

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas

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



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message to the Mayor of Hiroshima and city residents in connection with the 75th anniversary of the atom bombs

Today, the whole world recalls the tragic events of 1945. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a message to the Mayor of Hiroshima and city residents in connection with the anniversary of the US atom bomb strikes against Japan. In his message, Sergey Lavrov noted that the year 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the largest and bloodiest war in history.

The message states that Russia is now extremely concerned over the degradation of the international arms control system, the abolition of treaties, the contempt for the principles of not infringing on the security of other states and a substantial increase in nuclear risks. Alarming changes in military-political doctrines are taking place, and this implies the acceptability of using nuclear weapons as a means of warfare.

The minister emphasised that it is necessary to rule out the risk of military clashes between nuclear powers and the possibility of nuclear war. There can be no winners in this war that must never be unleashed. We must guarantee through collective efforts that the horror and grief of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will never be repeated.

The full text of the message is posted on the official Foreign Ministry website (https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy...ent/id/4279615).



45th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act

On August 1, the world marked the 45th anniversary of signing the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. This document was agreed upon in a tense international situation owing to the political will of the participants, and their ability to consider each other’s interests and search for compromise. It has become a symbol of détente and one of the pillars of the current European security system.

Today, the European security system is again going through hard times. International legal instruments for ensuring global stability are being eroded and dividing lines have not been erased. They have merely been moved eastward and are becoming even deeper. The reluctance of the Western countries to give up confrontational block-based approaches and instruments of implementing their geopolitical ambitions at the expense of the security of others undermines trust in the Euro-Atlantic Region and beyond.

The OSCE, the most representative, unique pan-European organisation, has found itself in crisis and increasingly resembles a “discussion club” rather than a platform for developing collective security solutions.

The OSCE’s basic principles that were set forth in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Paris Charter for new Europe, the 1999 Charter for European Security, the 2010 Astana Declaration and other fundamental documents, remain valid. It is important to make sure that this entire set of interrelated principles and commitments is understood uniformly by all participating states and applied in practice without selective approaches and double standards.

Russia stands for reforming the OSCE, consolidating its legal status and enhancing its prestige. For all of its drawbacks and problems, it would be a mistake to give up on the potential of the OSCE. It is simply impossible to re-create such a mechanism in the current situation. Due to its wide geographical coverage, comprehensive approach to security, the rule of consensus and a culture of dialogue, the OSCE can and should play a more significant role in resolving pressing international issues.

In today’s conditions of the global struggle against new challenges and threats, including the coronavirus pandemic, we need to create and consolidate positive, unifying principles in the OSCE agenda and move to a constructive dialogue instead of an empty and futile exchange of accusations. The OSCE can use its potential to make a tangible contribution to de-escalating military and political tensions, countering transnational threats, facilitating the conjugation of integration processes in Eurasia and improving people’s lives.

There is no doubt that, having returned to building truly equitable relations, the OSCE member-countries will be able to overcome any crises and move forward to the creation of a unified community of equal and indivisible security and mutually beneficial cooperation in the vast expanse of the Euro-Atlantic Region and Eurasia, which remains a strategic guideline.



Global Engagement Center report on Russia

We have paid attention to the report titled Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem presented by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and prepared by the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center. We will read it more carefully, but even a cursory look leaves no doubt that this is yet another example of US policy aimed at denigrating Russia. Washington criticises any information sources that disseminate alternative points of view and tries to stifle any voice that contradicts US approaches and attitudes. The relevant list has been compiled based on politically motivated considerations and is clearly biased.

Such rhetoric with respect to our country is unacceptable. The non-constructive approach adopted by the US administration is not conducive to resuming and intensifying real cooperation between our countries in the key areas of global and bilateral interaction. We view the report as another attempt by the United States to control the activities of the media, which we regard as nothing less than an encroachment on freedom of expression.

The Russian Embassy in the United States has posted its comments on the State Department report. Among other things, it voiced an appeal to all sober-minded forces in the United States and international community to rely on official Russian information about our real approaches to the development of bilateral relations, not to slip into sweeping groundless accusations against our country.



The Republic of Cote d’Ivoire celebrates Independence Day

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


Celebrations of the National Day of Singapore

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


Chad Independence Day celebrations

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



The new 2019 Diplomatic Journal

Another annual publication, the 2019 Diplomatic Journal, has come off the press. It was prepared by the Information and Press Department.

The collection includes Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speeches, remarks, interviews, and articles in the media on the main issues of Russian foreign policy over the past year in Russian and English. As before, the journal is based on articles and photos from the Foreign Ministry website. The electronic version of the yearbook is available on the Foreign Ministry’s website. https://www.mid.ru/ru/ezegodnik-dipl...nguageId=en_GB.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

How does the Russian Foreign Ministry see US military biological activities in the post-Soviet space?



Alexey Zaytsev:

The intensification of the United States and its allies’ military biological activities beyond their national borders, including in the post-Soviet space, raises serious concerns in the context of the implementation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).

Under the guise of providing sanitary and epidemiological assistance, the Pentagon put on stream the construction and modernization of microbiological laboratories in the former Soviet republics. It is not possible to control the procedure or degree of these facilities’ involvement in closed research programmes under the US military. The strains of infectious pathogens obtained by American military biologists could possibly be used in the future for purposes incompatible with the interests of the national security of Russia and other CIS countries.

In this regard, we consistently advocate strengthening the BTWC regime, a fundamental instrument of international law aimed at comprehensively countering the threats and risks of using biological agents as weapons and at promoting international cooperation in biological research for peaceful purposes. In particular, we propose including information on military biological programmes implemented abroad in the annual reports submitted by the States Parties to the Convention as a confidence building measure. However, our American colleagues seem unwilling to share such information.

We will vigorously use the relevant multilateral platforms to coordinate our efforts to ensure biological safety. We will reinforce our partners’ understanding of the importance of further substantive dialogue on this matter.

During our bilateral contacts with the CIS counties, we point out the need for strict national control over any biological activity carried out on their territories. We continue to work on bilateral memorandums on biological safety. The first such document, signed in April 2019 with Tajikistan, makes a significant contribution to the development of cooperation to ensure sanitary and epidemiological safety and is a positive example for other states in the region.

To resolve any issues related to the US military’s biological activities along the perimeter of Russia’s borders, we deem it necessary to activate the mechanism under Article V of the BTWC. Under Article V, the States Parties undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in resolving any problems which may arise in relation to the purpose of this Convention or its implementation. We call on the American side to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss, in a bilateral format, the concerns we have accumulated in connection with US military biological activity.



Question:

US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien said that Russia will pay the price if allegations of collusion with the Taliban are confirmed. Can you comment on this?



Alexey Zaytsev:

We have long been accustomed to unfounded allegations on the part of the Americans. Russia has been accused of many things – of interfering in the presidential campaign in the United States, of cyberattacks, and even of undermining some American foundations. However, none of these allegations has yet been supported by reliable evidence. This time, the Russian special services have been accused of conspiring with the Taliban, supposedly encouraging them to conduct sorties to kill US troops in Afghanistan. This is yet another lie that does not deserve comment by definition.

It is not even about these statements by high-ranking American officials being the fruit of the raving imaginations of those in Washington who seek to disrupt our bilateral dialogue and basically cement this systemic challenge to Russia as a state. There is an equally dangerous implication – the very logic of Russian-American interaction in Afghanistan is being questioned and undermined.

In this regard, we noted a comment by US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, who recently spoke at a hearing in the US Senate and said that “any suggestion that the Russian Federation, or any part of the Russian government, is employed in providing resources to fighters from other countries to attack American soldiers will be met with the most severe consequences.” We consider such statements to be irresponsible and unacceptable for a high-ranking representative of any state.



Question:

How can you comment on the statement by National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien that in the coming months the United States and Russia can hold a dialogue on anti-terrorism?



Alexey Zaytsev:

We support the continuation of our interdepartmental dialogue with the United States on anti-terrorism. It is objectively necessary and meets both our national interests and the goals of maintaining peace and security. By now, four meetings at the level of experts and coordinators of this process have been held in Vienna under the aegis of our foreign policy departments. Our countries are capable of doing much together to more effectively counter international terrorism and other dangerous threats of our time. However, such cooperation must be carried out without politicisation and be mutually beneficial. We are open to cooperation with Washington on a broad range of issues in the struggle against terrorism but with the understanding that the US needs it no less than we do.

Regarding cooperation on this subject, the ball is on the US’s court.



Question:

How could you comment on the US plans to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan?



Alexey Zaytsev:

We welcome Washington’s intention to continue reducing the strength of the US military contingent in Afghanistan and bring it down to 4,000-5,000 personnel by next November.

We believe that US President Donald Trump’s statement on this confirms a commitment to his election pledge on US troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and demonstrates the White House’s resolve to fulfil its part of the obligations in the peace agreement with the Taliban. We are convinced that the full implementation of this agreement between the US and the Taliban, as well as the start of direct intra-Afghan talks will pave the way to a long-term settlement in Afghanistan.



Question:

Can the Foreign Ministry comment on the situation with the camp of migrants stuck in the Orenburg and Samara regions on the border with Kazakhstan? What agreements have been reached on the transit corridor from Russia via Kazakhstan for citizens of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan?



Alexey Zaytsev:

At about 10 am on August 3, a group of Uzbek citizens independently tried to enter the border zone of the Orenburg Region with a view to crossing the Russian-Kazakhstani border. Members of this group dispersed after law-enforcement officers took appropriate measures and conducted an explanatory conversation.

At the same time, three citizens of Uzbekistan were taken to the police station in the Bolshechernigovsky District of the Samara Region for failure to obey police officers, where administrative protocols were drawn up against them. The Bolsheglushitsky District Court of the Samara Region brought the above citizens to administrative responsibility in the form of two days of administrative arrest.

At the moment, the situation on the administrative border of the Samara and Orenburg regions is stable, no violations of public order were allowed. Citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan do not express any demands.

As of August 5, there were 849 Uzbek nationals on the territory of the Bolshechernigovsky District, Samara Region, waiting for permission to cross the Russian-Kazakhstani border. Under the plan, they will soon be taken to Tashkent on an Uzbekistan Railways train from Kinel Station in the Samara Region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280041
__________________
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 August 14th, 2020 #157
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Reply by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Alexey Zaytsev to the question of the newspaper Kommersant



7 August 2020 - 17:55



Question:

Could you comment on statements on the reduction of the US military presence in Norway?



Alexey Zaytsev:

Despite statements, made in July this year, on the reduction of permanently stationed US Marines in Norway, there is no talk about a real decrease in US military activities. We do not rule out that their new “dynamic” presence really conceals the intention to substantially increase the number of US contingent. Under the pretext of joint exercises with the Norwegian Armed Forces, the Americans, on the contrary, can considerably strengthen positions in northern Norway.

There are reasons for such assumptions. In the past few years, we have seen Norway’s consistent war preparations. They are particularly active in the areas adjacent to the Russia-Norway border. Despite voluntary commitments under “the basic policy,” foreign military troops have been stationed in Norway on a permanent basis and their number has been steadily built up. Disclaimers about the rotation-based stay of these units are not convincing. The number of exercises that include foreign contingents is increasing, and Russia is featuring as a potential enemy in them. Plans for developing national armed forces, arms purchases and upgrading the military infrastructure are openly anti-Russian in nature. We believe such actions by Oslo are destabilising the situation in the region.

We hope Oslo will pursue a responsible and forward-looking policy in the North and refrain from actions that undermine regional stability and damage bilateral relations by actually cutting the foreign military presence on its territory.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280861






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Twitter and Facebook labelling accounts



7 August 2020 - 17:59



We regard the move by the administration of Twitter, following Facebook, to label Russian media accounts as state-affiliated, while Western media outlets financed by the government remain unlabeled, as a violation of the key democratic principles of ensuring the free distribution of information and free access to it. This step once again shows the systematic policy of double standards and country discrimination, which align with Washington’s foreign policy and the unfair competition between US mainstream media and alternative sources of information

We see these politicised and biased actions of American IT giants as their ambition to squeeze Russian media content out of the international information space by decreasing its citation rate.

We call on these internet platforms to wave away the authority of self-proclaimed political censors and not to deprive their audiences of the right to free and unlimited access to information in violation of fundamental democratic principles.

We expect specialised international agencies and human rights organisations to respond accordingly and give an impartial assessment of these actions of the US media corporation, which look dubious considering the free distribution of information.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280871






Press release on oil resources of northeastern Syria



7 August 2020 - 18:56



According to incoming reports, in late July, the US Delta Crescent Energy company signed an agreement with the self-proclaimed Kurdish administration in Syria on oil production and on the development of oil deposit infrastructure in the northeast of the country. In addition, as part of the deal, the US company plans to transfer two mobile oil refineries to the Kurds that are supposedly designed to reduce any damage to the environment due to oil and oil product spills.

US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo officially confirmed the signing of the deal. He noted that the paperwork on the deal took more time than Washington had hoped and that the agreements would help all the residents of northeastern Syria.

According to the media, the US Department of the Treasury has provided Delta Crescent Energy with a waiver from the unilateral sanctions that ban any transactions involving Syrian hydrocarbons.

This amounts to systematic violations of international legal standards and international humanitarian law by Washington, its commitments as an occupying power. Moreover, the US administration has again demonstrated its obvious disdain for the UN Charter and Security Council and General Assembly resolutions in favour of strict respect for Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity as a UN member.

The United States is illegally occupying territories in the northeast and south of Syria. Moreover, it is taking part in robbing and illegally trading in the country’s natural resources that are the asset of all Syrians. And this is being done against the backdrop of yet another toughening of unilateral sanctions adopted in circumvention of the UN Security Council. Exceptions are demonstratively made for the territories beyond Syrian government’s control. As is known, the sanctions undermine the failsafe supply of fuel and electricity for the Syrian people and create an artificial shortage of energy resources. Moreover, they are preventing Syria from receiving vital medications and medical equipment during the coronavirus pandemic.

It should be noted that the oil products produced in the northeastern regions of the country and the profits from smuggling them are not benefiting all the residents in that part of Syria. The media and analytical centres regularly publish information on civil protests in northeastern Syria against the illegal US presence and arbitrary rule of Kurdish authorities that do not care about the wellbeing of civilians. The US policy of artificially strengthening the Kurds at the expense of other ethnic and religious groups in northeastern Syria provokes domestic tensions and creates serious threats to regional security and stability.

We are seriously concerned and we regret these arbitrary and illegal actions, as well as the absence of a proper reaction from the international community.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280898






Comment by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Alexey Zaytsev on the Pentagon’s statement to send more US troops to Poland



7 August 2020 - 19:22



We would like to comment on the Pentagon-announced intention to deploy more units in Poland and the Baltic area.

A higher concentration of the US Armed Forces’ attack units on the so-called Russia-NATO contact line, just like any reconfiguration of the US military presence closer to the Russian border, will not enhance security in Europe, no matter how hard Washington may try to prove the opposite. On the contrary, such actions escalate tensions in Europe. We have emphasised more than once that attempts to deter us by force and intimidate our country will receive a befitting and timely response.

The striving of some countries to ensure their own security at the expense of Russia is an absolutely unproductive approach. Reliance on such a policy will merely complicate the already difficult military-political situation and will make it more difficult to develop our dialogue with NATO.

We believe the plans to build up the US military presence in Poland deal a serious blow at one of the key provisions of the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, in accordance with which the alliance gave up on the additional permanent deployment of substantial combat forces on the territories of NATO member states.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280908






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 12th anniversary of the August 2008 events in the South Caucasus



8 August 2020 - 10:00



We remember the tragic events that happened 12 years ago. In the early hours of August 8, the Saakashvili Government in Georgia launched the so-called “operation to re-establish the constitutional order in South Ossetia,” which in reality turned into an indiscriminate heavy artillery shelling of Tskhinval and an assault on the camp of the Russian peacekeepers from the Joint Peacekeeping Force. Georgia’s actions were a blatant violation of the international agreements on the peaceful settlement of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict and led to numerous casualties, including among Russian military and Russian citizens, as well as to the massive destruction. In the final analysis, this was what evoked both the Russian response in the form of a peace enforcement operation and the Russian Federation’s subsequent decision to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The years-old negotiating mechanisms designed to settle the Georgian-Abkhazian and the Georgian-South Ossetian conflicts ceased to exist and were replaced by a new international format on the South Caucasus: the Geneva International Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus, launched to implement the Principles for resolving the conflicts agreed by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and President of France Nicolas Sarkozy. Based on a mutual agreement, the sides that participate in the discussions on equal terms are Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia, as well as the EU, OSCE, UN, Russia and the United States, as parties that were previously directly involved in the settlement process and seeking stability and security in the South Caucasus. By coordination between the participants, the three abovementioned international organisations simultaneously act as co-chairs. The importance of the Geneva Discussions is obvious: it is the only international forum for direct dialogue between Georgia and Abkhazia and Georgia and South Ossetia. The very existence of this venue has made it possible to maintain a peaceful negotiating process for the past twelve years, avoiding any military confrontations and preserving relative stability on the borders of these three states.

There is a lesson to be learned from the tragic events of 2008 and it is to remind us that settling international disputes and conflicts by military methods is senseless and counterproductive.

This is particularly true of complicated and delicate situations involving interethnic relations. Any recourse to violence in this context leads to the most painful and occasionally irreparable consequences. During all these years, Russia’s efforts have been directed at restoring dialogue and a full-scale negotiating process between Georgia, on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the other, including by way of signing an agreement on the non-use of force between them.

The consistent normalisation of Russian-Georgian relations is an important element of the effort to ensure full-fledged stability and security in the South Caucasus. Russia has always cherished the bonds of friendship with the neighbourly Georgian people, with whom we lived in a single state, no matter how it was called, for centuries. We are confident that it meets the long-term interests of our countries and peoples to overcome the existing differences as soon as possible, restore bilateral relations, and promote them in all areas.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280918






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the situation around the TikTok social media app’s operation in the US



8 August 2020 - 13:39



We consider the unreasonably harsh restrictive action of the American side in relation to one of the largest social media platforms, the TikTok video sharing app, to be a violation of a wide range of Washington's international obligations to ensure the unimpeded and broad distribution of all forms of information, as well as the free choice of its sources, and to encourage cooperation in this area.

Based on unsubstantiated allegations, the ban on any transactions between US citizens and the Chinese company ByteDance, which owns TikTok, in combination with an aggressive campaign to force it to sell the app to American corporations is yet another egregious manifestation of unfair economic competition with a purpose of dominating the international information space.

The actions of the US authorities run counter to the basic principles of a free market economy and violate WTO rules. The attempt by the Washington establishment to justify this unceremonious arm twisting policy against a Chinese competitor in order to take it over by national security interests looks especially cynical.

We urge Washington to reconsider its methods of competition to preserve the US IT giants’ monopoly in the international social media market and to bring them in line with the generally accepted democratic values ​​and international law.

We expect that specialised international bodies and human rights organisations will react appropriately and give an impartial assessment of these actions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4280946
__________________
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 August 14th, 2020 #158
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 Federal Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas, Moscow, August 11, 2020



11 August 2020 - 12:03






Mr Minister, dear Heiko,

Colleagues,

We are delighted to welcome you to an in-person meeting. The coronavirus has definitely made some adjustments to the schedule of our contacts, but, nevertheless, our leaders – President of Russia Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – regularly stay in touch by phone. Regular videoconference and telephone contacts have also been maintained between various government agencies, including those responsible for foreign policy, the economy and humanitarian relations.

We are pleased that in the year of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, our joint commission of historians continues to work, albeit remotely. In general, we have many plans on our bilateral agenda, which we expect to discuss today, including the highly successful practice of holding cross-year cultural projects that you and I supervise.





Our foreign policy interaction is traditionally intense. Its agenda is very relevant and even has special significance today, given that we are currently working together within the UN Security Council, where Germany now holds a non-permanent seat, and, of course, because Germany currently presides the Council of the EU.

Unfortunately, regional conflicts are still as active as ever. I am sure that today we will productively exchange our assessments and opinions on many of them.

Therefore, we have much to talk about. Welcome!




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4282273






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas, Moscow, August 11, 2020



11 August 2020 - 17:01






Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held constructive, trust-based and detailed talks with Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas. We discussed the bilateral agenda and cooperation on international issues both at the UN and in Europe.

Mr Maas is visiting Moscow on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Moscow treaty between the USSR and West Germany on mutual recognition and respect for the European territorial and political realities established after World War II. The original treaty was shown here today. Mr Maas and I looked at it. On August 12, 1970, when it was signed, the Soviet Union confidently, and from an emphatically peaceful position, made a conscientious strategic choice in favour of peaceful and mutually respectful partnership with the West despite the overpowering atmosphere of mistrust and tough ideological pressure. Credit should also go to Chancellor Willy Brandt’s pragmatic “eastern policy.” At that time Bonn took into account the fact that long-term stability in Europe largely depended on normalisation of relations with Moscow.

The treaty facilitated the establishment of the principles of peaceful coexistence in Europe and improved the international situation as a whole. It objectively facilitated the holding of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the signing of its Final Act in Helsinki. It also made it easier for the GDR and West Germany to join the UN simultaneously.

During today’s consultations, we reaffirmed our mutual desire to further promote cooperation in the economy, science, education, culture and humanitarian exchanges. The cross year of science and academic partnership is coming to a close with serious practical results. This year will be replaced with another cross event, the Year of the Economy and Sustainable Development. In addition to this, on September 26, our German partners will launch in Moscow the Year of Germany in Russia. We expect it will take place in Pushkin Square with due account for the epidemiological situation.

We welcome the fact that despite the difficulties related to the pandemic, our German partners have embarked on the practical implementation of the humanitarian gesture of the German government as regards the survivors of the siege of Leningrad. The first equipment designated for the war veterans’ hospital is already in St Petersburg. Later today, Federal Minister will hold a number of meetings in St Petersburg. In part, he will meet with the survivors of the siege of Leningrad. We appreciate the attention given by our German friends to this problem.

Regarding the economy, we focused on completing the construction of the Nord Stream 2 project. Needless to say, we took into account the US sanctions pressure. We appreciate Berlin’s position of principle in support of this essentially economic initiative that will help diversify natural gas supply routes, and help enhance the energy security of Europe based on the estimates of European countries rather than those from overseas.

We expressed to the Germans our concerns over our cooperation in cyber security. We noted that in the past and this year we have recorded many cyberattacks against Russian facilities and organisations that were made from the German internet.

We cooperate with Germany on the Ukrainian issue as well. We have a common understanding that there is no alternative to the Minsk Package of Measures and that it is necessary to implement it as soon as possible. We again urged our German colleagues to use their influence on the Kiev leaders to encourage them to fulfill their commitments in the Minsk process as soon as possible. We regularly exchange opinions on the further possibilities for cooperation in the Normandy format as an important instrument that stimulates the activities of the Contact Group in which Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk are supposed to act directly in fulfilling the Minsk agreements that they signed.

In addition, we also reviewed the issues linked with the crisis in the Middle East and North Africa. We have a common position on the need to fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on the settlement in Syria, which implies confirmation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We discussed preparations for resuming the activities of the editorial commission of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva (I hope this will take place this month if the epidemiological situation permits). We consider it important for our European partners to pay more attention to the practical alleviation of the humanitarian situation in Syria, which affects ordinary people.

We also share an interest in settling the situation in Libya. We reaffirm the commonality of approaches of Russia and Germany on the need to settle this conflict on the principles that were set forth in the final documents of the Berlin Conference on Libya and confirmed by the relevant UN Security Council resolution. The need to fulfill the Berlin agreements in full remains current. We agree with this. The further escalation of violence in Libya threatens to destabilise the situation not only in that country but also in the Middle East and North Africa as a whole. We believe that the final goal of our efforts must be the restoration of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and statehood of Libya, which were crudely violated as a result of NATO’s venture in 2011 in circumvention of the relevant UN Security Council resolution.

Other issues on which Russia and Germany cooperate include the situation on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settling the Iranian nuclear programme. Our European colleagues have put forth many ideas in this regard. In turn, Russia also made some proposals that we believe would help resume the cooperation of the JCPOA signatories without exception. We hope to discuss these initiatives in more detail.

We are willing to cooperate on other issues of international politics, including the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other venues.

I am grateful to Mr Maas for his visit to Moscow. We have agreed on a schedule for future meetings, which will be fairly full through the end of this year.







Question:

On behalf of Russian journalists, we would like to thank you for taking the situation with the detention of journalists in Belarus under personal control. Several people have been released, but correspondents from Rossiya Segodnya and Meduza have not been in touch yet. You held telephone talks with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makey. What were the results? Was the topic of Belarus raised? Yesterday German Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas said he did not rule out that this topic would be discussed today.



Sergey Lavrov:

Naturally, we are concerned about the situation with our journalists, our citizens. Yesterday, Russian Ambassador to Belarus Dmitry Mezentsev, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs represented by the Information and Press Department, and I addressed this issue in a conversation with Mr Makey and insisted on the speedy release of our journalists. At the same time, we realise that many of those who were detained did not have accreditation, although we know that it was requested in a timely manner, in compliance with all the rules and procedures.

The current situation must be resolved proceeding, first of all, from humane considerations. We know that today there was again information about the lack of contact with some of your colleagues (they got in touch and then contact was lost again). The Meduza correspondent is important to us primarily as a Russian citizen. Meduza is not a Russian media outlet, but as a Russian citizen, of course, he has our protection. In our contacts with our Belarusian colleagues, we will seek an early resolution of this situation.

Unfortunately, when mass protests take place (and they take place in many countries, including the EU, for example, the yellow vests riots were held in France recently), your colleagues who strive to objectively report on what is happening very often find themselves in dangerous situations and are exposed to violence, as it happened with the RT correspondent. Therefore, in bilateral contacts with all our partners, in countries where Russian journalists work, we will strive to ensure they are not discriminated against. Of course, it goes without saying that everyone must comply with the relevant legislation. Within international agencies, including the OSCE, we will also defend an equal attitude towards all journalists without attempts to mark some media outlets as “propaganda media” and journalists as “propagandists who do not reflect the goals of their profession.” This is very unfortunate.

This issue should be addressed not only because it happened and is happening in Belarus, but because it is a common problem. You know Europe’s attitude towards riots (yellow vests; and also in Germany in 2017, during the G20 summit in Hamburg, anti-globalists rallied and violated German laws). We could see how law enforcement agencies operate, including special forces. Today we did not discuss the Belarusian topic, but I am sure that we will be able to exchange views on this matter during the working breakfast.



Question:

The distinct role of the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) is always emphasised in the context of settling the Ukrainian domestic crisis. Do you think the observers can properly fulfil their mission? Do they objectively describe what is happening in the east of Ukraine?



Sergey Lavrov:

We mentioned this earlier today. We closely cooperate with Germany in the Normandy format. As for the OSCE SMM, we actively support this mechanism that has a clear mandate for working in all of Ukraine, not only in Donbass, but also in other regions, monitoring respect for human rights and national minorities, as well as any attempt to promote neo-Nazi activity. Regrettably, the SMM has not paid due attention to this part of its mandate, and we have brought this up with the chief monitor of the SMM, Yasar Halit Cevik.

We also have some questions about certain aspects оf its activities, which primarily draws the attention of the international community (I’m referring to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements in Donbass). Thus, the SMM prefers to report on ceasefire violations and the shelling of civilian buildings in an abstract manner, that is, many cases of shelling reportedly take place in such and such period without mentioning which side attacked; a certain number of civilians are affected and a certain number of civilian structures are destroyed. We have insisted for more than a year that the SMM be more specific in its evaluations and report who is actually more to blame for shelling, who starts them and who responds to them. Using our representative office at the OSCE we have meticulously analysed SMM daily reports that become public. The analysis showed that over 80 percent of civilian facilities are shelled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Over 80 percent of the civilian victims, on both sides of the contact line, are among Donbass defenders. In other words, the Ukrainian Armed Forces bear the lion’s share of responsibility for ceasefire violations. I believe that to enable the OSCE member states and the entire international community to have an objective picture of how the Minsk Agreements are being implemented, the OSCE SMM must fulfil its commitment that it has failed to fulfil for more than a year now, and present a detailed, thematic, analytical report on who initiates ceasefire violations, who is shelling primarily civilian facilities and who is to blame for the death of civilians. We have sent the relevant reports to the Albanian OSCE Chairmanship, the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) on ceasefire, the OSCE Secretariat, and Mr Cevik who heads this mission and is personally responsible for the scrupulous observance of its mandate, objective presentation of information and any attempt to conceal the truth. All of us must be guided by facts rather than guesswork.

In his opening remarks Mr Maas mentioned the Paris summit. We fully support the need to fulfil the agreements reached but this is not at all the case at this point. I agree that all sides must take steps towards this goal – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. In this context we would like to draw the attention of our German and French colleagues in the Normandy format, the co-authors of the Minsk Agreements, to statements made by Kiev. Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Reznikov, who represents Kiev in one of the structures in the Contact Group, said the Minsk Agreements have become obsolete. President Vladimir Zelensky said that he wants someone to explain to him what they mean and noted that each provision must be decoded. The newly appointed chief negotiator in the Contact Group, Leonid Kravchyuk, publicly regrets that Petr Poroshenko signed them but nonetheless agrees to lead the process on implementation. Many irregular things are happening in this context.

I agree, it is necessary to encourage the specific positive steps on the ground in every way. But these are only a limited number of agreements and we shouldn’t miss the forest for the trees. The main point is Kiev’s philosophical and conceptual approach to the Minsk Agreements and their status. We are hoping that Germany and France will still bring this home to their colleagues in Kiev and explain to them that there is no alternative to fulfilling what is written in the Minsk Agreements.



Question:

You mentioned that the US is toughening its threats on sanctions against Nord Stream 2. Last week, a German company faced the imposition of sanctions for the first time. The political appeal for response measures in the US is becoming louder.

Do you expect Germany to take response measures against the US? If so, what measures could be taken?

A question to both ministers: Considering that the construction of Nord Stream 2 has slowed, do you believe it will be completed late this year or early next year?



Sergey Lavrov (answering after Mr Maas):

I agree with what was said by the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, Mr Maas. We consider exterritorial sanctions, as well as unilateral sanctions which not only the US and the EU resort to, inappropriate. The EU is implementing its own unilateral sanctions but as distinct from the US, it refrains from exterritorial use.

Then United States does not see any red lines or boundaries. While not bothering with diplomatic formalities, it pursues one simple goal – to have an opportunity to do anything it wants in world politics, the global economy and, in general, any field of human endeavour. This is what we are seeing. Washington has walked away from most multilateral treaties and any agreement or association that it may consider restricting its freedom of action. I think this is obvious. This is what we have to proceed from.

We continue to meet with the United States for pragmatic reasons. We are well aware of how Washington operates in the world, and they are not shy about it, something that is evident in the developments around Nord Stream 2. US officials say on the record that they will stop Nord Stream 2 at all costs because the US is ostensibly committed to ensuring Europe’s energy security.

If our European partners are willing to let the US decide their security issues, in energy or any other area, if the countries whose companies are involved in implementing Nord Stream 2 with a view to ensuring their energy security want the US to decide for them, this is their choice.

We see that Germany’s response is completely different. Germany has its position and it promotes it. I hear what is said in Washington at the top level: “It’s appalling! The US ensures Germany’s security and Germany is paying billions of dollars to the Russian Federation.” This is a serious distortion of facts. German Federal Minister Heiko Maas has confirmed that the link to NATO is important for German security. These are allied relations. Not that long ago, the German Chancellor, Ms Merkel said that NATO guarantees German security. We asked from whom Germany is defending itself, whether with NATO or on its own. We did not receive an answer, but in general this is part of the discussion of the principles on which it is necessary to conduct dialogue on security issues and the entire security system in the Euro-Atlantic region. I would like to emphasise again that Russian, German and other participants in Nord Stream 2 believe that the project must be completed. As I see it, there are grounds to believe that this will be done very soon.



Question:

You mentioned attacks against Russian infrastructure facilities from German territory. Can you be more specific?



Sergey Lavrov:

In Russia, the National Coordination Centre for Computer Incidents deals with computer affairs and cyber security. It has been operating for a fairly long time. It has a number of partners, including in Germany. From January of the past year to the end of last May this centre recorded 75 cases where Russian resources, including over 50 government institutions were attacked by hackers from the German internet segment. Notifications on all cases were sent to the relevant German organisations. Of 75 cases, we received only seven formal answers that had nothing to do with the substance of the matter. We suggested a professional analysis of each episode when we recorded hacker attacks against out structures, including government resources.

Today, we drew the attention of our German colleagues, who voiced concern over cyber security and declared an interest in developing a professional dialogue on settling cyber security issues, to the fact that disregard for our requests does not correspond with the desire they express at the political level. We have given them the statistics on these cases.

We recalled that we have conducted bilateral interdepartmental consultations with Germany on cyber security and information security in its political, military-political and applied dimensions. In 2018, a regular round of these consultations was cancelled by Germany, and they have not indicated a desire to resume them since. True, today we discussed the activities of the High-Level Working Group on Security Policy (this bilateral group exists and does a fairly useful job). In this context, we spoke about an opportunity to resume the dialogue on cyber security. I hope we will move from words to actions and will start a professional conversation.

As for the murder in Tiergarten, we would like to know the truth. Our relevant departments have sent their German colleagues everything they have. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said that this information is not enough. But we would also like to receive some confirmation, some evidence regarding the statements of the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office that the Russian state is directly involved in this murder. We have not heard any specific reply so far.



Question:

Prime Minister of Slovakia Igor Matovic has just commented on the expulsion of three Russian diplomats from his country by saying that Slovakia and Russia are friends, but Slovakia is a sovereign state, not a “banana republic” where the diplomatic rules can be ridiculed. How would you comment on the expulsion of the Russian diplomats?



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree that Slovakia is a country friendly to Russia. We have never had any political problems.

I think that this is not about Slovakia. You have just quoted [Mr Matovic] as saying that Slovakia is a sovereign state. Quite unexpectedly, I read earlier today that the US State Department Spokesperson, Morgan Ortagus, had commended the Slovak authorities for expelling the Russian diplomats. I believe no other foreign spokespersons have commented on the situation in this way. Draw your own conclusions as to who may be implicated in or has a stake in sovereign Slovakia taking this decision with regard to the three Russian diplomats.



Question (translated from German):

Do you share your German colleague’s opinion that German-Russian relations would benefit if disputed issues like the assassination in the Tiergarten were discussed openly?

There is another case of interest to the German judiciary which can also be traced to Russia. Could you confirm that the former Wirecard COO, Jan Marsalek, is currently in Germany?



Sergey Lavrov:

I know nothing about Mr Jan Marsalek. You asked whether he is in Germany, but your question should certainly be addressed to someone else. I am not aware of his activities because he is not in the focus of foreign policy discussions.

As for an open discussion of any issues, be it the Tiergarten or something else, we have always been ready for this. It was not at our initiative that our Western partners (including Germany) cut a number of channels for contacts after 2014. Everyone knows this well. Among other things, the EU has discontinued all sectoral dialogues. We are taking a philosophical approach to this. If our partners are not ready, love cannot be forced.

Today, we were saying that the European Union intended to take another look at its Russia policy. When and if it evinces this desire, we will not be found wanting. We will be ready for an equal, honest and open dialogue on any issues of mutual interest, especially since there are quite a few of them. It is worth pointing out again that when we are told that the German Federal Public Prosecutor General has declared the Russian state as implicated in the Tiergarten assassination, we would like to get a confirmation of precisely this point. We have no proof whatsoever.

Where requests are concerned, as Mr Maas said, we have replied to a number of requests for legal aid, while on others we simply have no information, as the relevant Russian authorities tell us. Speaking about cybersecurity, I would like to remind you (I hope that the correspondent who asked the last question heard my answer to the previous question) that in 2018 there was a mechanism for consultations on cyber security, which the German side dismantled two years ago. Today we have heard that there is an interest in resuming this dialogue in some or other format. We will be ready to discuss such a possibility. We have a stake in this, especially as we would also like our German colleagues to say something in response to the 75 requests regarding hacker attacks on Russian institutions, including government agencies, launched from the German segment of the internet, requests we sent to Germany over the past year and a half.

I am glad that today we are not just openly discussing matters of much interest for the public but are at last beginning to comprehend the need for having relevant professional channels, where the conversation will be held just because Russia and Germany are partners and good friends and do not want their cooperation to be overshadowed by anything, rather than in the context of home policy interests of this or that country, or in the context of certain electoral considerations. I am confident that it is in our power to cut short any attempts to undermine this cooperation. Russia, at any rate, is ready for this.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4282429






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Argumenty i Fakty newspaper, Moscow, August 12, 2020



12 August 2020 - 00:00



Question:

Mr Lavrov, what was the impact from the coronavirus pandemic on international politics?



Sergey Lavrov:

It affected international politics and the socioeconomic environment in all their aspects without exception, freezing political contacts and interrupting established value and supply chains. COVID-19 plunged the global economy into a deep crisis, and the recovery will take a long time. Not only is the world living through a major economic downturn, but could also be on the verge of restructuring established economic links.



Question:

There was a feeling in the air that many conflicts would subside, at least for the time the world faces this common scourge, but unfortunately, this did not happen. You have said recently that some countries, on the contrary, took advantage of this situation to settle scores with the “unwanted regimes”. How did it happen?



Sergey Lavrov:

The pandemic levelled the playing field for all actors, showing yet again that in today’s interconnected world most threats transcend borders, making it impossible to wait out the whole thing without becoming involved. It seems that all these developments should compel the international community to set momentary differences aside, at least for some time, and combine efforts in order to come up with a common response to this new global challenge.

However, a positive breakthrough failed to materialise. International affairs are becoming increasingly prone to confrontation, with growing distrust among international actors. Instead of uniting our capabilities in the fight against the coronavirus, we are witnessing attempts to assign blame for the spread of the infection.

The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ call for a ceasefire in hot zones did not stop the bloodshed. A number of countries want to benefit from the ongoing crisis and to satisfy their geopolitical and economic ambitions. They continue to rely on military power for settling regional conflicts. There has been no progress in overcoming the most urgent situations, for example in the Middle East. In some cases, this sets the stage for a further escalation.

The policy of “strangling” unwanted regimes with sanctions continues. In this context, the UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called for suspending unilateral restrictions on medicines and medical equipment, and the related payment transfers, for the duration of the pandemic, but these calls were ignored. Those who have been posing for decades as human rights champions were the ones who turned a deaf ear to these calls.

Once again, we call for joining efforts in fighting this common scourge and using the corona crisis as an opportunity to launch wide-reaching international cooperation for addressing common challenges the humanity is facing.



Question:

Many noticed another statement of yours. You said that international terrorists are looking for ways to use the coronavirus or similar strains for criminal ends. Could you share any details on this subject? Who is planning biological attacks, where and against whom?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I would like to point out that I was referring to widespread speculations on this subject rather than to an actual threat of terrorists using the virus. Still, in some regions of the world terrorists have been trying to take advantage of the pandemic and the accompanying challenges in order to expand their reach, spread panic and ideas of hate, as well as attract new recruits, primarily among those disgruntled with the way governments responded to the crisis.

The subject of biological terrorism is not new. It has been on the radar of international structures for many years, and in the current environment, considering how it changed the world, clearly adds fuel to these debates.

Let me add that we believe manipulating the subject of coronavirus or biological terrorism in the context of the pandemic or outside of it for the sake of momentary gains to be unacceptable. This includes provocative statements and destructive information campaigns designed to put other countries or international organisations under greater ideological or moral pressure. Preventing terrorists from getting their hands on dangerous chemical substances and biological agents, as well as technology for making chemical or biological weapons is an ever more pressing issue.



Question:

What can be done to prevent this?



Sergey Lavrov:

In March 2016, Russia proposed drafting an international convention on fighting chemical and biological terrorism at the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament. The purpose of this initiative is to fill the gaps in the existing international norms that stand in the way of a prompt and effective response to the new threat of WMD terrorism that is becoming a major system-wide challenge that transcends borders. Provisions on counter-terrorist action in the existing international instruments have limited reach, since focusing on specific objectives that are related to their core mission. Russia proposed adopting an international convention that would address a number of issues at the confluence of non-proliferation, disarmament and counter-terrorist activity. Importantly, it sets out norms for direct action by criminalising these reprehensible acts.

Let me emphasise that this convention does not restrict the rights of any of the states. Once adopted, it will help strengthen security for all states without exception at the national, regional and global levels. In addition, the idea of signing a convention on fighting chemical or biological terrorism could be an effective way for getting talks at the Conference on Disarmament out of their current impasse.



Question:

Will the Nuclear Five summit be held? It was rumoured that the event would be timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Does this mean that the meeting might take place no later than October 24 (United Nations Day)?



Sergey Lavrov:

The initiative to organise a meeting of the heads of state of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Russia, China, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom – was announced by President Vladimir Putin as he was addressing the Remembering the Holocaust: Fighting Antisemitism international forum in Jerusalem on January 23, 2020. The president stressed that the summit would play a special role in the context of a search for collective answers to modern challenges and would demonstrate loyalty to the spirit of alliance and ideals, which our ancestors fought for during World War II.

The initiative was supported by all the Security Council partners. Currently work is in progress on aspects of the upcoming event. No specific date has been set. The 75th anniversary of the United Nations is certainly an important landmark for us, especially as its establishment became possible as a result of the Great Victory, whose anniversary we are celebrating this year as well.

I must stress in this context that we are focused in particular on obtaining a concrete result rather than seeking to hold the meeting as soon as possible. After all, the summit will make it possible, based on the solid ground of the UN Charter, to launch a serious and direct conversation between leaders on principles of international collaboration and ways of addressing the gravest problems of humanity. Hopefully, it will also enable us to coordinate common “rules of conduct,” including with an eye to preserving global peace and preventing a large-scale military conflict. I am confident that mapping out a path towards the normalisation of international relations and setting a good example of collective leadership is of particular importance against the background of the dislocations developing in the global system, dislocations fraught with the most unpredictable consequences.



Question:

At the summit, Russia is planning to promote the idea that a nuclear war is inadmissible and impossible to win. Why do these seemingly obvious things have to be driven home to anyone, all over again?



Sergey Lavrov:

As it turns out, these things are not obvious to everyone. In fact, the importance of reaffirming the principle you have mentioned in relations between the nuclear powers and in general in international relations has been dictated by objective reasons.

The global security and strategic stability situation has been deteriorating. The time-tested strategic arms control mechanisms are being pulled down. The military doctrines that have been approved by some states once more entertain the idea of limited nuclear employment.

These unhealthy trends have been primarily dictated by the wish to consolidate the US global domination over others at any cost and are creating a dangerous illusion that the US will be able to win a nuclear war. Russia for its part is seeking to explain what this behaviour is fraught with.

We are in close contact with other nuclear states and are working to reaffirm this fundamental principle. It is important to keep the world public focused on this topic so that the reality of a nuclear threat is not lost on them.



Question:

Now that we have mentioned the UN, experts have been talking about a crisis of the institution of international organisations for a long time. Instead of coordinating the efforts of countries in combating the coronavirus pandemic, the World Health Organisation had to fend off US accusations that it was working for China. The UN itself came under criticism for its inability to resolve regional crises. How justified is this criticism?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, we have been hearing frequent critical remarks with regard to the UN lately. The UN is being accused of being unable to quickly respond to emerging challenges and to facilitate a resolution of international crises. Under this pretext, some Western countries are trying to impose alternative decision-making mechanisms on the international community and promote the concept of the so-called rules-based world order.

I completely disagree with this criticism. Despite all difficulties, the UN remains the cornerstone of the postwar world order and a platform that has no alternative, where all countries without exception can discuss and address topical international matters on an equal basis. Moreover, its importance and popularity undoubtedly increase at a time when countries are becoming more interdependent and when the number of trans-border threats continues to increase.

At the same time, the entire international community, namely, UN member countries and members of the UN Family, as well as senior officials of international organisations, are constantly working to adjust them and boost their efficiency. In fact, this process never stops. Today, for example, a large-scale UN development system reform is underway, which is called on to achieve Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The WHO has been implementing an administrative reform for many years. It goes without saying that the coronavirus crisis has also brought a number of drawbacks into focus, not so much in the work of the WHO Secretariat but in cooperation between WHO member states and their fulfilment of WHO recommendations.

As we can see, different national healthcare systems coped differently with the coronavirus pandemic under one and the same set of WHO recommendations and agreed-upon international medical and sanitary regulations.

Today, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has launched an independent assessment under a decision by the organisation’s governing body, the World Health Assembly. During this process, specialists will analyse cooperation between member countries in the fight against the pandemic, with the WHO’s coordinating role. Naturally, based on the results of this assessment, they will have to decide how to make international cooperation in global healthcare more effective, including in preventing medical emergencies and responding to them.

The UN Security Council plays a vitally important role in resolving crises. Naturally, its members are having trouble reaching consensus on a number of matters. The main reason for this, as we see it, is the reluctance of some states to renounce the zero-sum game logic in favour of common global interests. However, Security Council members manage to achieve mutually acceptable solutions on an overwhelming majority of matters.

Certainly, the UN is not ideal, but it is the best achievement of the past 75 years in the interests of strengthening international security. Consequently, its critics should channel their energy into a more constructive direction. For example, they should chart ways of further boosting the prestige of the UN and its efficiency.



Question:

What UN reform options is Moscow prepared to discuss?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia supports any reasonable initiatives to enhance the UN’s work, provided that they do not violate the “division of labour” between the UN’s main bodies. Notably, we do not deny the need to overhaul the UN Security Council, and we are actively involved in the talks on this matter. At the same time, we are convinced that an expanded UN Security Council should comprise more developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America that implement an independent foreign policy and can therefore make a truly valuable contribution to the UN Security Council’s work and to make it more pluralistic and democratic.

As a UN founding state and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia, together with the countries that share its vision, will continue to contribute to boosting the UN’s efficiency and to strengthening its central coordinating role in world politics. These efforts are acquiring special importance in the context of the UN’s 75th anniversary, being marked this year.



Question:

Immediately after the onset of this pandemic, the Foreign Ministry began evacuating Russian citizens from various countries. Where did you encounter the greatest difficulties, how many Russians did you manage to bring home and how many remain?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our efforts to bring home those Russians who found themselves stranded and in a predicament abroad due to the coronavirus were often complicated by the strict protective measures adopted by the host countries. Nevertheless, we have worked out a correct and successful algorithm to coordinate the process between Russian agencies and organisations and provide assistance to our fellow citizens. The total number of people evacuated since mid-March is more than 275,000; since the beginning of April, the number has exceeded 67,000. We had difficulties with arranging flights from a number of destinations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where they faced logistical problems associated with planning evacuation routes, sometimes from several capital cities; with obtaining overflight permits and arranging the ground handling of aircraft in a number of states; and with delivering the people to the airports of departure, sometimes from remote islands and regions.

The evacuation flights continue, given that, according to our data, 23,000 of our compatriots still remain abroad.



Question:

Has our country provided any material support to those people, so that they can survive for a while away from their homeland?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian Government adopted Resolution No. 433 on April 3, 2020, to provide Russian citizens stranded abroad, who were entitled upon meeting certain criteria, with state social support (assistance) in the amount of 2,400 roubles per adult and 1,600 roubles per child for every day they had to stay abroad. In a number of exceptional cases, the assistance mechanism was activated in accordance with the Russian Government Resolution No. 370 of May 31, 2010.



Question:

How has the pandemic affected the effectiveness of diplomacy? For you personally, have the remote contacts been able to compensate for the lack of conventional meetings with colleagues from other countries? Or can nothing ever replace a live encounter?



Sergey Lavrov:

Undoubtedly, the pandemic has dealt a blow to foreign policy affairs, obstructing normal diplomatic activity. But thanks to modern technologies, we have still been able to maintain a good level of political contacts, hold online talks and videoconferences. Still, there is no way these options can replace traditional diplomatic work, where personal contact is very important.



Question:

How seriously does the Foreign Ministry take the measures used to prevent coronavirus such as wearing face masks and social distancing?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are certainly making every effort to protect the ministry's employees. We strictly adhere to the necessary precautions. About half of the staff are still working remotely.



Question:

You travelled to Serbia and Belarus in June, the first countries you actually visited since the beginning of the pandemic – what was the reason for this choice?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian-Serbian relations are of intrinsic value and they are friendly; this friendship has been sealed by a centuries-old chronicle shared by two truly fraternal peoples united by common civilisational and cultural roots, the Orthodox faith, and brotherhood in arms. Russia and Serbia are facing many joint tasks that we are addressing and will be addressing together. Therefore, at the height of the pandemic, Russia offered Serbia the most vigorous assistance in the fight against the spread of infection. It is also quite natural that after Belgrade, I went to Minsk, paying a visit originally planned for May, where an agreement was signed on the mutual recognition of visas within the Union State of Russia and Belarus.



Question:

After the presidential elections in Belarus, protesters clashed with law enforcement in Minsk and other cities, and Russian journalists were among those detained and injured there. How do you assess this situation, and what is the Foreign Ministry doing to resolve it?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have seen how law enforcement agencies, including special forces, act in various countries during social unrest (remember, for example, the yellow vests’ rallies in France, or the anti-globalisation protests in Germany). As for the situation with Russian citizens, we are addressing this matter. This topic has been raised by the Russian ambassador, by our Information and Press Department, and I also mentioned this during a conversation with Minister Makey (head of the Belarusian Foreign Ministry) and insisted that our journalists be released as soon as possible. We understand that many of those who were detained did not have accreditation, but at the same time, we also know that they had actually applied for media accreditation in a timely manner and in compliance with the applicable rules and procedures. This situation must be resolved on the basis of humane considerations. And we will make efforts for an early settlement in contact with our Belarusian colleagues.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4282523






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with his Finnish counterpart Pekka Haavisto



12 August 2020 - 16:06







On August 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Finland Pekka Haavisto, at the latter’s initiative.

The ministers confirmed the schedule for further contacts and conducted a detailed exchange of opinions on current issues in friendly bilateral relations with an emphasis on promoting practical cooperation, primarily in the trade, economic, investment, cultural and humanitarian areas.

In considering the need to overcome the negative consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, the ministers noted the importance of continuing the work of the Russia-Finland Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, including the meeting of its co-chairs, Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov and Minister of Foreign Trade of the Republic of Finland Ville Skinnari in the autumn this year. Preparing for the centenary of the two countries’ diplomatic relations (on December 31 of this year) the ministers discussed joint events to mark this date.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Haavisto praised the cooperation of the two countries during the pandemic, including the bilateral channel of their diplomatic missions. They exchanged views on the situation at the Russian-Finnish border considering the restrictions on crossings, and discussed when they might be lifted. They emphasised the need to promote international cooperation in countering the pandemic with the coordinating role of the WHO.

The ministers agreed to continue close cooperation in multilateral regional formats in Northern Europe and the Arctic, including Russia’s forthcoming chairmanship of the Arctic Council and Finland’s chairmanship of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council in 2021-2023.

In terms of security issues, Mr Lavrov mentioned the destructive character of the NATO activities in the Baltic Sea region and supported the continuation of trust-building measures, including Finnish President Sauli Niinisto’s initiative on enhancing the security of air flights over the Baltic. The ministers also talked about EU-Russia cooperation, disarmament issues, and the situation in Ukraine.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4282729






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the information campaign launched in Japan over the 75th anniversary of the USSR’s entry into war against Japanese militarism



12 August 2020 - 18:36



We were bound to notice the information campaign launched in Japan over the USSR’s entry into the war against Japanese militarism. Russia is being groundlessly accused of the ostensibly treacherous violation of the Soviet-Japanese pact on neutrality and the Red Army’s aggressive actions in Manchuria. Almost all leading Japanese publications wrote about this. It seems that some people in Japan live in a parallel history that is far from reality. In this context, we would like to recall some objective historical facts.

The USSR entered the war in the Far East on August 9, 1945 in full conformity with the international legal standards of that time, as well as the historical and legal circumstances. The Soviet-Japanese pact on neutrality of April 13, 1941 was nullified when the Soviet Government made a statement on April 5, 1945 to the effect that the circumstances had undergone a major change, notably, that militarist Japan had rendered aid to Nazi Germany in fighting against our country, which was in violation of this pact. The statement was justified later by the materials of the Tokyo Military Tribunal of November 4 ̶ 12, 1948 and the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.

The Soviet Union conscientiously fulfilled the Yalta agreements of the allied powers of February 11, 1945. Initially, the requests to enter the war with Japan were made by the US and Britain in Tehran in 1943. On August 8, 1945, the Soviet Union emphasised in its statement to Japan that these requests were the prompted by the desire to reduce the timeframe of the war, reduce the number of victims and facilitate the restoration of universal peace as soon as possible. As stated, this is exactly why the Soviet Government joined the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945. Incidentally, the fact that this was the only option for peace in the world is reaffirmed in the decree of the Japanese Emperor of August 14, 1945 and the act of his signing the document on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945.

Having acted against Japan, Hitler’s ally, which unleashed the aggression in Asia and the Pacific, the Soviet Union fulfilled its liberating mission in the Far East, mainly in China and Korea, which were occupied by the militarists. In combination with the operations on Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, this became the long-awaited final act of World War II and made it possible to move on to a peaceful life and lay the foundation for the current system of international relations with the UN as its centre. The facts confirming the above events are illustrated by unique archive materials that are published on the Foreign Ministry website. We advise anyone interested in this to read them.

The current excesses in the Japanese media are reminiscent of medieval Japan tradition of forcing foreigners to “trample on the crucifix,” as vividly described by Jonathan Swift. In this case, we are talking about the history of World War II, which is sacred to us. A desire to present those who were identified as war criminals by the Tokyo Tribunal as “victims of aggression” is close to an attempt to justify them. In civilised countries, including Russia, this is considered a crime punishable by law. We hope Japanese authorities will take adequate measures as regards those who behave like this.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4282880






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud



12 August 2020 - 18:51







On August 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

The ministers discussed a wide range of bilateral cooperation issues with an emphasis on implementing the agreements reached at the top level during President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin’s visit to Riyadh on October 14-15, 2019.

In discussing the regional agenda, the ministers focused on the situation in Lebanon and Libya, and the Middle East settlement.

Sergey Lavrov and Faisal bin Farhan emphasised their solidarity with friendly Lebanon in connection with the explosion at the port of Beirut on August 4, and confirmed their intention to render any necessary aid to the Lebanese people in overcoming the consequences of this tragic incident. They also noted the importance of creating favorable external conditions to allow the Lebanese themselves to agree on forming a new government through an inclusive dialogue with the main ethnic and religious groups.

Exchanging opinions on Libya, the ministers stated the need to stabilise the ceasefire as soon as possible and to urgently relaunch inclusive inter-Libyan dialogue based on the mechanisms created at Libyan peace talks in Berlin and approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2510.

The ministers expressed concern over the deadlock in the Middle East settlement and emphasised the counterproductive character of any unilateral actions that contradict the universally accepted international legal basis for a settlement and that could lead to a dangerous escalation of tensions in the Palestinian territories and the entire region.

Mr Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s support for the activities of Saudi Arabia as the chairman of the G20 and Russia’s willingness to facilitate the achievement of meaningful results at the forthcoming G20 leaders’ summit and other G20 events.

The ministers also discussed the current situation in the World Trade Organisation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4282890






Ambassador Andrei Kelin’s on The Agenda with Stephen Cole at CGTN



13 August 2020 - 14:54







Question:

Thank you very much indeed for talking to us today. Let’s begin with the good bits, the recent parliamentary intelligence and security report which says the UK is a target for Russian disinformation. Is Russia targeting Britain?



Answer:

My humble opinion about the whole report is very simple – it does not contain proofs of Russian interference, be it the referendum, the election or internal affairs. NATO has taken a position as a leader of the western world - a policy of deterrence and dialogue towards Russia, and London would like to be a leader in these efforts. But there is 95% deterrence and only 5% of dialogue. I don't believe that the appropriate word here is targeting. We are just producing our own perception and our own views on the subject and basically that is all.



Question:

But these stories keep emerging don't they - of Russian hackers? Either political or criminal, targeting Britain’s security or secrets. Is the Russian government worried about all these stories that come out?



Answer:

We are not worried about the content of these allegations because, as I say, I haven't seen any proof to it, but we are worried about other things – in the recent days, in the media here in Britain, a lot of mud has been thrown in our direction. It of course provides little appetite in Moscow to develop dialogue.



Question:

Let me ask you how you or how Moscow regards relations between the UK and Russia? I mean there has been some mud thrown as you said, how can you repair relations, what is the state of relations?



Answer:

The state of relations is difficult. Political contacts are close to being frozen. And this is very bad. I have seen some expression of intentions to review this policy, to restart a relationship in the political field. But all of this is being damaged by thise attacks again and again. I do not know whether it is the change of policy here in London or it is just a coincidence of different subjects. Magnitsky Law, then allegations about interference, then about hacking for the coronavirus vaccine which is nonsense, of course, because we have already developed it. We have developed at least four different coronavirus vaccines and I hope the trials will be finished pretty soon and pretty soon they are going to apply this vaccine on the population.



Question:

Will you share the secrets of those vaccines with the West?



Answer:

It is not a problem at all. We are for cooperation amongst scientists. British scientists in Oxford, by the way, have a very good relationship with our scientists. Before the lockdown at the end of the last year many of your scientists, heads of universities under the auspices of the Oxford University, made a trip to Moscow. They have sent a lot of them and I do believe that scientific cooperation and interaction will continue even after the lockdown and all these crises.



Question:

What do you think needs to be done, at the moment, to repair the damaged relations between London and Moscow?



Answer:

A very simple thing. The government in London should be realistic. It should understand the benefits of cooperation and working with Russia but not against Russia. Deterrence is the policy that has been, as I said, taken up against Russia, and of course it is not a cooperation that we have all envisaged.



Question:

Can I ask you now about relations, as a diplomat you’ll know, about relations between the US and Russia. What do you make of President Trump’s approach to Russia?



Answer:

These relations are much worse off between the US and Russia, I will say, because the ‘Russian factor’ is the main game in the pre-election campaign. It's a kind of competition between Republicans and Democrats: who will make more accusations against Russia. Now we have also a ‘Chinese factor’ added to that but accusations on Russia are still a centerpiece of that. It is very bad to the diplomatic relations, it is very bad to humanitarian relations and others, yet it is different from the UK situation because in the UK there is no electoral competition for the moment. That is why I simply do not understand why the UK always, in the recent weeks, joins theses accusing statements by Washington.



Question:

And who would Moscow prefer to see in the White House – President Trump or Joe Biden?



Answers:

Well, this is a provocative question. We will work with the one who is going to win the elections and we have no interest in who is going to win.



Question:

I'm sure you do. But you're being very diplomatic.



Answer:

Believe me, it is not the case. If you ask me whom we are going to prefer here: Conservative or Labour – it does not matter for us. We will just have to work with this or that person for the better.



Question:

What is your take then on the decision by the US to withdraw from certain organisations, international organisations and treaties too – including the World Health Organisation and the Paris Climate Accord...these are serious organisations.



Answer:

This list is very long. The US has proclaimed an idea that we all should work on the “rules-based order”. But if one looks into this more attentively one will see that the United States is trying to ruin this rules-based order by withdrawing from World Health Organization, from the Paris Climate Accord and many others, for instance, withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran; the two-state solution between Palestine and Israel in the Middle East – they have invented something different, which is bad; they are withdrawing from the INF treaty; they are withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty, they are withdrawing from the International Criminal Court and from a very important organ – the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. It is a long list. All these treaties and organisations represent the international order based on international law. But what is it that is now being called a “rules-based order”? In fact this is an order which is established and ruled by the United States. So we do not understand this dualism – on the one hand trying to establish a legal order and, on the other hand, they are ruining it themselves.



Question:

Joe Biden is a favourite now in the polls to take over in the White House – would he reverse some of these decisions do you think?



Answer:

Oh hardly. The United States is a very big ship. To reverse the course of this ship, you need an enormous effort, you need to convince the crew, you need to convince the passengers that the ship should be reversed. So it's a long run.



Question:

One ship that can't be reversed is Britain leaving the European Union and Brexit. Do you think that will affect Russia's relationship with the UK or indeed affect the relationship with the EU and Europe?



Answer:

The United Kingdom was mainly guided by the principles of policy of the European Union. But the policy of the European Union is a lowest common denominator, which is looking at different factors in this field. At the moment Britain will be more independent but the tendency which we are observing for the moment that UK policy is more and more linked to the policy of the United States, and this is worrying us a bit.



Question:

Are you saying that Washington is controlling London diplomatically?



Answer:

I would not go that far but I also understand that if in the trade negotiations Britain would like to have better positions, then it has to submit certain interest to the policy which is being dictated from Washington.



Question:

But the US and UK are traditionally best friends and strongest allies…



Answer:

Yes and no, there is some criticism of course, right now voiced in various newspapers, but anyway we do see a certain consolidation of English-speaking nations on different bases, even on the basis of the so-called ‘Five-Eyes’ intelligence union.



Question:

Talking of the US and EU, and I’ll come back to Brexit in a moment, the US State Department has called for financial penalties on investors and other business participants in the undersea pipeline that will carry natural gas from Russia to Germany. What is the Russian view towards what is effectively a threat, a financial threat?



Answer:

It is not a threat to us but it is more a threat to …



Question:

A threat to investors…



Answer:

European investors and allies. This is a commercial project which we even did not initiate – it was initiated by Germany. Imposing sanctions on it, extraterritorial sanctions, or, as it is now going on, threatening companies that are involved into this – this is unscrupulous really, this is inappropriate means of economic competition in the economic field.



Question:

Isn’t it a sign of the US worrying that Germany is going to be over-reliant on Russian energy?



Answer:

This is a matter for Germany of course and other countries who do believe that this gas will be cheaper for them than the liquid gas imported from the United States. And here you have to choose the economic side and the political side but as I understand...



Question:

And often they are very closely linked.



Answer:

…Often you do not count money being guided only by political considerations. Business is proceeding from economic reasons, this is natural. But this handling of the allies and handling of Europe by Washington, for us, it is not un-understandable at all.



Question:

So, are you saying that Washington is worried about the deal on economic grounds not diplomatic, or sort of power grounds?



Answer:

I mean absolutely opposite... because the import of liquid gas from the United States costs much more than the gas that is supplied by pipelines from Russia.



Question:

Is the European market important for Russia in terms of power because Gazprom could well look to other markets, perhaps bigger markets like Asian markets?



Answer:

And we are doing so. There are pipelines under construction to China, different parts of China that we are going to supply – this is an enormous market. But Europe of course will remain within the scope of our attention. It is about 20% of our trade and we will continue to work with Europe, we will not abandon Europe, we are a European nation and a lot of trade and relations continue to be in this field.



Question:

So coming back to Brexit – was Moscow disappointed at the UK voting to leave Europe?



Answer:

We do not have any feeling about that. This is up to the UK to decide whether it feels more comfortable outside of the European Union or being inside the European Union. For us, it doesn't make a big difference. In economic terms, of course there is an opportunity for Russia to develop stronger relationship with the UK in the field of trade and investment. Even at the moment it is very important I should say, and trade continues to increase in the recent years. Some barriers which have been posed by European Union in our trade have already fallen. But we still do not see any activity of UK government that would show that they wish to establish good and proper economic terms with us since there are political barriers to this.



Question:

You mentioned in your previous answer about China and power links to China - what is the state of relations between China and Russia?



Answer:

I think it is partnership relations and they are going pretty well in economic terms, in terms of trade, in terms of partnership even in strategic areas. We feel we can be partners with China and we have a long story of partnership and different relationships. So I think that we have a good future together.



Question:

In what areas do you have relationships with China?



Answer:

In different areas, but more importantly we have a certain partnership in strategic areas. I mean political-military field. We are doing maneuvers together, there is a partnership between armed forces as well – all this helps. And more important is that our positions in international relations coincide more and more. Also in the Security Council, we more and more vote together on similar subjects – we have similar positions towards Iran, towards Syria and in many other areas.



Question:

Well, you must therefore be disappointed by this recent international conference that started to talk about a cold war saying the US stance towards China in particular could be a threat to “all of humanity” - what do you make of that?



Answer:

I do believe that this development is very bad. I was a witness of the Cold War. I remember how it happened and how bad it was, of course. For me such a sudden turn in the United States towards spoiling relations with China was a surprise. Even bigger surprise was to see that the UK is making U-turn on China. If you remember, even in March there was pretty good dialogue between the UK and China. China sent a plane to UK with equipment to beat coronavirus. There were government conversations at the top but suddenly, two or three months after that, things have turned around totally.



Question:

What caused that turnaround?



Answer:

That's a good question. If you know, tell me, please.



Question:

You're looking bewildered about talk of a Cold War then?



Answer:

By all means we need to avoid any cold war and any course of events that may be going in this direction.



Question:

I mean there’s been so much change during this pandemic. Not least economically, the world is a very difficult place economically. I think - was it - 8 trillion is going to be wiped off GDP because of the pandemic. Is there a role for Russia going forward economically to try and solve some of these problems?



Answer:

You know that in the beginning of the pandemic, in April I believe, late March and April, there were a lot of articles and a lot of opinions of how the world is going to change after the pandemic. There were predictions that either there will be a new war or there will be overall brotherhood of mankind, the end of history, as it has been said before. But more and more I'm becoming convinced that not much is going to change. Things will remain in place with one exception – that all of us, including the UK, US, Russia and all other states, have suffered economically very seriously. It means that GDP is lost and definitely we will have to spend in the coming years for restoration of the past level of economics before going forward.



Question:

So we're all suffering, we're all in the same boat economically. We’ve all got to pay for Covid-19.



Answer:

Absolutely.



Question:

But is it damaging countries’ relationships? You hinted towards this earlier, in terms of how the situation suddenly has changed in the last few months?



Answer:

The policy of my country is cooperation in fighting coronavirus, cooperation in fighting economical disadvantages. But some would still like to make alliances over it. They would like to be friends with some countries and to deter other countries, to divide, to make differences. This is a detrimental policy.



Question:

A lot of gloom and doom after three or four months into the pandemic. Is there, Mr Ambassador, any light at the end of the tunnel? What cheers you up when you're out playing tennis?



Answer:

What cheers me up is that the studies on the vaccine, at least in my country, they are very close to a happy end and sooner or later, perhaps in Autumn, we are going to start to use this vaccine to vaccinate the population which is very important and which shows us that there is some light at the end of the tunnel.



Question:

We talked about the relationship between the UK and Russia but not too much about the relationship between the EU and Russia, could you expand a little more on that relationship?



Answer:

I cannot say that they are prosperous because we are still under sanctions after the Crimean crisis in 2014, and since that time we have not reestablished a good relationship although trade has been going up in the recent years. The European Union is being guided by five principles, namely that the European Union will have a dialogue with Russia on selective items which are of interest for the European Union, which narrows very much the agenda as compared to what it has been before 2014. It is linked with the crisis in Ukraine, it is linked with the Minsk Agreements. However, the attitude in Ukraine towards the Minsk Agreements is absolutely different. They do not want to implement Minsk Agreements because in this case the European Union will have to lift sanctions from us, so it is a big paradox of course. I know that a certain review inside Brussels is going on but I don't believe that we will straighten up relationships pretty soon.



Stephen Cole:

Mr Ambassador, thank you very much indeed for talking to us at CGTN.



Ambassador Kelin:

Thank you very much for the good questions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4283287
__________________
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 August 14th, 2020 #159
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, August 13, 2020



13 August 2020 - 18:45






Coronavirus update

The epidemiological situation around the world continues to be tense. The total number of infections since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic has exceeded 20 million. We have to admit that on a global scale, the incidence rate has not yet reached a plateau; it continues to rise. The new outbreaks of the infection noted in recent days in a number of European countries indicate the need to continue to take anti-epidemic measures.

Last week, Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, speaking on the current situation with the coronavirus in the world, correctly noted that “The COVID-19 pandemic has changed our world. It has stress tested our political, economic, cultural, and social infrastructure, and found us wanting. It has pushed the limits of health systems both weak and strong, leaving no country untouched.” We share the position of the WHO on the importance of strengthening national health systems, of showing solidarity and combining the efforts of all countries in coronavirus response and relief on a global scale. We maintain the closest contact with the WHO on the development and future use of a COVID-19 vaccine. A few days ago, for the first time in the world, Russia registered a vaccine against COVID-19, developed by Russian scientists. More than 20 countries have already shown practical interest in it.

We would also like to note that, in accordance with Russian Government Directive No. 1993-r of July 31, 2020, foreign diplomats and holders of service passports travelling on short-term business trips are allowed to enter the Russian Federation. The entry restrictions that were previously introduced as part of the effort to contain the coronavirus were lifted on August 1, 2020.

This has fully reinstated the pre-coronavirus procedure for this group of foreign nationals to pay short-term visits to the Russian Federation, including visa-free entry if there is an appropriate interstate agreement.



Assisting Russian citizens in coming home

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



Russian regions assist Kazakhstan in countering the spread of the coronavirus

As you know, Russia is actively helping countries hit by the coronavirus. When this disease affected our strategic ally and partner, the brotherly nation of Kazakhstan, Russia’s regions didn’t remain idle, they joined the mission and contributed to countering the pandemic. We would like to thank the following regions in particular: Astrakhan, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Orenburg and the Moscow city government.

A plane with a medical team of 22 specialists left for Almaty on July 6 as part of the agreement reached between the Moscow Government and Almaty City Hall.

On July 11, another team of 11 Russian doctors arrived in the Mangystau Region.

On July 15, five doctors were sent from the Astrakhan Region to Kazakhstan’s Atyrau Region to provide organisational and methodological aid as well as 16 tonnes of humanitarian supplies (masks, protective suits and disinfectants).

On July 18-20, a large humanitarian shipment from Ural-Eurasia (Yekaterinburg) was delivered to Kostanay, Kokshetau and Petropavlovsk.

On July 20, Gumilyov Eurasian National University in Nur-Sultan received a shipment of personal protective equipment from their partners at the Berlek-Unity Centre for Geopolitical Studies in Ufa.

On July 22, over 250 kg of cargo purchased by the Caspiy-Eurasia Centre (Astrakhan) and Astrakhan universities, members of the Caspian Universities Association, was delivered to Atyrau.

On the same day, aid from the Eurasia-Volga information and analytical centre (Saratov) was delivered to Uralsk.

From July 27 to August 1, a medical team of four doctors from Kazan was working in the Jambyl Region of Kazakhstan, who came there at the invitation of the local government.

The Novosibirsk Region sent seven infectious disease specialists to the Pavlodar Region of Kazakhstan and also dispatched a consignment of medical supplies which included 50,000 masks, 20,000 pairs of gloves and 200 protective suits for the region.

The North-South political analytic centre (Moscow), Siberia-Eurasia expert club (Novosibirsk), Institute of Central Asian Studies (Kazan) and the Commonwealth of Eurasian Nations (Orenburg) sent aid to Nur-Sultan, Almaty and Shymkent.

The Orenburg Region government and the Orenburg branch of the all-Russia NGO of small and medium-sized businesses, Opora Russia, are working to send a humanitarian consignment (personal protective equipment) to the Aktobe Region in Kazakhstan this month.

In total, in July, public organisations operating near the Russian-Kazakhstani border sent more than 150,000 masks, 25,000 pairs of gloves, blood pressure monitors, thermometers, antiseptics, medicines and other items to Kazakhstani regions. The total value of goods is over 1.5 million roubles.

Our regions’ steps fully embody the principle of being good neighbours, which is how we refer to the aid being sent from Russian regional associations to the people of Kazakhstan.



Launch of Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator

We have taken note of a statement by the WHO Secretariat about plans to create a council to support the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator.

The council is positioned as a high-level temporary advisory body to rally multilateral support for the ACT initiative.

The council has been set two main goals – to promote the consolidation of political and financial resources to support the ACT, and to provide information support for the efforts undertaken by the Accelerator.

The council is expected to represent the WHO member states, the European Commission and the WHO as initiators of the ACT Accelerator, non-profit organisations, and private businesses as observers. Russia is one of the states influencing the development of the market for pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, drugs and diagnostic tools.

We are ready to consider an official invitation for Russia to join the ACT Accelerator support council once we receive one.



Developments in Belarus

We are closely following the developments in Belarus over the past few days. We are concerned about the incoming reports on incidents that involve violations of public order on the streets of a number of Belarusian cities that followed the presidential election.

In this context, we note the unprecedented pressure that some of our foreign partners are putting on the Belarusian government. We have witnessed some clear attempts of external interference in the affairs of a sovereign state aimed at splitting society and destabilising the country. We have repeatedly seen the use of similar methods in other countries.

For our part, we urge everyone to show restraint and exercise prudence. We reaffirm our interest in a stable internal political situation in Belarus. We hope that the situation will normalise soon and will resume its usual course.

As regards the recent detention of Russian citizens in Belarus, including journalists, we would like to note the significant role that the Russian Embassy in Minsk and particularly Ambassador Dmitry Mezentsev have played in settling this problem, by keeping in touch with the relevant authorities in Belarus. At this point, most of the Russian journalists have been released. Specifically, Semyon Pegov, Vladislav Zizdok, Anton Starkov, Dmitry Lasenko, Maxim Solopov, Ilya Pitalev, Nikita Telizhenko and Igor Rogov have returned home. We are grateful to our Belarusian colleagues for their prompt response to the relevant requests by the Russian Embassy. I would like to note that the effort to protect Russian citizens’ rights will undoubtedly continue.

We also expect that professional cooperation between the investigative committees, the prosecutors general and other competent authorities of the two countries will help sort out the situation with the detention of 33 Russian citizens in Belarus in the shortest possible time. It is important to note that any attempts to find some “Russian footprint” in the organisation of the popular unrest in Belarus are quite groundless. Whatever evidence can be found there point in a different direction. The relevant facts in this regard have been reported to the Belarusian side and are now in the public domain.

I would like to emphasise that Russia has always been and remains a reliable ally and friend of Belarus and the fraternal Belarusian people. We are confident that any attempts to trigger discord between us are doomed to failure.



Syria update

We view the overall situation in the country as stable. Tensions remain in the territories beyond Damascus’ control.

Radicals in Idlib continue to resist the implementation of the Additional Protocol of March 5 of this year by the Russian and Turkish militaries. Terrorists have stepped up the shelling of government troops and nearby towns and villages and continue their provocations in the “security corridor” along the M4 motorway, thus, the joint patrols of the motorway have been suspended. Also, attempts to attack the Khmeimim Russian air base are of special concern. Another attack involving three drones is reported to have been repelled on August 10. It is clear that firm stability in the Idlid de-escalation zone can only be achieved after the terrorist hotbed there has been neutralised.

The situation in the northeast of Syria is also complicated. The existing problems, related to increased ISIS activity, the dire humanitarian situation and increasing coronavirus cases, are compounded by Arab protests on the west bank of the Euphrates against Kurdish actions and the illegal US presence. The local population is angry over illegal extraction and smuggling of Syrian oil with support from the US. This is not only the deliberate plundering of the country’s natural resources. This also undermines Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and endangers regional security. It is noteworthy that Washington waived its own sanctions which ban any operations with Syrian hydrocarbons so as to deal in Euphrates oil.

On the humanitarian track, we note that Syrians have resumed their return to their homeland. Thus, repatriation of refugees from Lebanon has stepped up with over 2,000 people leaving for Syria since the beginning of the month. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the international community to the need to facilitate this process, including by relieving the socioeconomic load on the receiving countries, especially against the backdrop of the tragic events in neighbouring Lebanon.

On the political track, we expect the members of the Constitutional Committee’s editorial commission to resume their work in Geneva on August 24, with support from the UN Secretary-Generals’ Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen, provided the epidemiological situation permits.



Resignation of the Lebanese Government

On August 10, amid the escalating crisis in the Republic of Lebanon, President of Lebanon Michel Aoun accepted the resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers led by Prime Minister Hassan Diab and formed early this year. Members of the Government will continue to work as acting ministers until a new cabinet is formed.

We view the ongoing political events in Lebanon as its domestic affair. As always, we support its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity. We call on the people of Lebanon to resolve all urgent issues on the domestic agenda within the confines of the law, via a dialogue to reach a wide national consensus without interference from abroad.

We believe that today all Lebanese politicians have to unite in order to overcome the aftermath of the disaster that took place in the port of Beirut on August 4 and lead the country out of this long crisis together. First of all, they have to take joint steps in order to de-escalate tensions, renounce violence and prevent a further descent into chaos and to a point of no return. We hope that foreign states will help de-escalate tensions in Beirut and help the Lebanese reach a compromise, and not do the opposite. We believe that the United Nations should take upon itself the mission of coordinating international efforts to support Lebanon in this situation.

At the same time, we would like to voice our concern over the attempts by a number of potential international donors to politicise the provision of financial aid for Lebanon in their own geopolitical interests. We believe that socioeconomic assistance to countries in need should be provided without any strings attached. Any prior conditions that infringe on national sovereignty and the prerogatives of the legitimate authorities are unacceptable. Moreover, considering the difficult domestic political situation in Lebanon, pushing for any unprepared reforms without consensus support can lead to further destabilisation and an uncontrollable escalation of violence.

We are doing everything we can to bring the situation back to normal as soon as possible in Lebanon, a friendly nation, including actively participating in the large-scale search-and-rescue operation in the port of Beirut and having the Russian Emergencies Ministry mobile field hospital doctors provide emergency medical assistance to the injured.



New York Times article on US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of repercussions of alleged Russian intelligence support for the Taliban against US military in Afghanistan

During Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s July 13 telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the US side did indeed raise the issue of the supposed plot of Russian military intelligence to encourage Taliban attacks on US troops in Afghanistan.

What was Russia’s response? The Foreign Minister of Russia called such allegations bad-faith speculation with no basis in reality, and asked Washington for evidence which was not produced, as expected.

Moreover, Sergey Lavrov stressed that the US presence in Afghanistan is in Russia’s interests, including to prevent militants from shifting focus to Central Asian countries.

We would recommend that officials in Washington look to the statements made by the US President, who had repeatedly said that US intelligence does not consider this information to be credible.



US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statements in an August 10 interview with Newsmax TV

We took note of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s interview with Newsmax TV in which he said “the Iranians, the Chinese, the Russians too, are engaged in influence operations here in the United States” including with respect to the US presidential election. We did not hear anything new concerning our country in this interview. This fixation on Russian interference in US affairs is better left to Freud, in my opinion. In recent years, accusing Russia of every conceivable sin – from “election interference” to “spreading misinformation” – has become a sort of ritual for US politicians and officials.

For our part, we will never cease pointing out the entirely fabricated and baseless nature of the allegations. There is no – and can be no – real evidence of the Russian state influencing any US election or any domestic matters whatsoever. Our country does not engage in that, and the tales of “interference” are a byproduct of US domestic politics.

It is certainly unfortunate that such insinuations are still being made even as the US and the entire world are busy dealing with the serious challenge posed by the coronavirus and its socioeconomic toll. We firmly believe that under the circumstances everyone in the world community should be working together rather levelling unsubstantiated, nakedly political charges at other nations.



Pentagon plan to increase the US military presence in Romania

Following the announcement of the Pentagon decision to increase its military presence in Poland and the Baltic states, high-ranking US commanders spoke about their country’s plans to redeploy to Romania some of the troops being withdrawn from Germany. Washington does not conceal that these steps are part of the effort to bolster the so-called “north-south axis” from the Baltic to Black Sea, the axis that is to become the line marking Russia’s “containment,” with Romania viewed as a key stronghold for projecting power in the Black Sea region.

Obviously, there is a clear trend here of systematically reinforcing the US-NATO military group in the so-called near-front zone, which is what NATO considers Russia’s western borders to be. This is about something that is actually happening, not made-up stories of Russian interference. This is a routine feature of current US policy. At present, it means that there will be essentially permanent US and allied contingents in Eastern Europe where they had never been before. The fact that this presence is anecdotally called a “permanent rotation” does not change the essence of the matter.

If these steps are taken, they will endanger the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, in particular the provisions that deal with the obligation not to station “substantial combat forces” in the alliance’s new member-states.

All that is evidence that the US and its NATO allies are intent on seeking to create an “arc of tension” along the contact line with Russia, at the expense of European security interests.

Of course, Russia will respond appropriately to this provocation of encroachment. This fact must be taken into account, among others, by the east European capitals which are constantly thinking up new ways to incite Russophobia while beckoning US soldiers. We just advise them to carefully weigh all the risks and seriously consider the consequences.



US practice of adding terrorist organisations to national list

The American authorities continue to ignore the spread of neo-Nazi ideas in the United States without taking any practical steps to mitigate this problem.

We noticed the recent British government decision to include the international neo-Nazi group Feuerkrieg Division, the majority of whose members are US citizens, to the national list of terrorist organisations. At the same time, this organisation is not on the US list of terrorist organisation. Paradoxically, the British seem to be more concerned with this issue than the Americans, who, as we understand, are trying to shift the focus of this problem from themselves to other countries. Why am I talking about this? Because some time ago (about two months ago), we noticed that they included a little-known Russian organisation on this terrorist list, giving it the status of the first foreign group of white Supremacists, as they say, to be sanctioned. You would be better off paying attention to problems with your own domestic organisations. Instead of some little-known Russian organisation, you would better have added the Feuerkrieg Division to your list. Why not? This would have been a step in the right direction.



The Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian diplomatic missions and consular offices abroad participate in posting information on the МестоПамяти.РФ website

On February 14, 2018, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Russian Military Historical Society signed a cooperation agreement. One of the goals is to cooperate on filling the online resource МестоПамяти.РФ with information and materials on Russian (Soviet) military memorial sites located beyond the Russian Federation.

To date, Russian diplomatic missions and consular offices in more than 50 foreign countries have joined this project initiated by the Russian Military Historical Society. The interactive map on the site marks graves, monuments, memorials and memorial sites, including those that no longer exist for some or other reasons.

We call on our compatriots living abroad and foreigners who are interested in true history to take an active part in the project.



60th anniversary of independence of the Republic of the Congo

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


75th anniversary of the liberation of Korea

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


60th anniversary of the Gabonese Republic’s independence

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


75th anniversary of independence of the Republic of Indonesia

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







Answers to media questions:



Question:

How is the work going with resuming tourist travel from Russia to Montenegro?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, starting August 7, a decision of the local government in Montenegro came into force about the liberalisation of entry for Russian nationals, which is now in the so-called green list of countries with a relatively stable epidemiological situation. Russian tourists are required to have a status of a Montenegrin resident or to spend 15 days in a country from the green list before arriving in Montenegro.

It is obvious that the lifting of restrictions reflects the Montenegrin government’s desire to try to compensate the huge losses in their tourist industry, the backbone of their economy, which it suffered due to the coronavirus pandemic. Russians have been the biggest part of tourist flow to Montenegro for years and this country has been quite popular among them.

Travellers need to remember that new waves of the pandemic are still possible. In this regard, in particular, we retain our restrictions and preventive measures and carefully pick foreign countries to open for air travel.

As for Montenegro, we should remember that this resort country announced an all-out pandemic on July 21, which is still in place. The disease develops in waves, which makes it impossible for us to make forecasts about its spread. We must also listen to other countries’ estimates. Thus, Montenegro has not been included in the EU list of non-EU states whose citizens are allowed to enter the European Union space.

We believe that when planning a foreign trip, Russians need to assess the situation from the medical point of view, consider logistics (at the moment, Russia has resumed air traffic only with Turkey, Great Britain and Tanzania). And please keep in mind the problems related to the lockdown and the inability to leave other countries and return home, as well as all the efforts we took to bring our citizens back home.



Question:

On August 14, Pakistan celebrates the 73rd anniversary of independence. Pakistan and Russia have established a constructive political dialogue that also consolidates friendly relations and mutual understanding. How could you characterise the relations between the two countries in 2020?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the friendly people of Pakistan on the upcoming holiday, Independence Day, and convey our wishes of peace, prosperity, and wellbeing.

Russian-Pakistani relations at the current stage are a multifaceted partnership based on a concurrence or proximity of our countries’ approaches to the majority of key international and regional issues.

We maintain a stable political dialogue, including at the highest and high level. Although the COVID-19 pandemic introduced certain adjustments to the schedule of our political contacts, we intend to implement the existing plans when the sanitary and epidemiological situation returns to normal.

We are working to strengthen our trade and economic partnership, including by implementing joint energy projects. We hope for an early start in the construction of the North-South gas pipeline from Karachi to Lahore.

Our counter-terrorism cooperation is increasingly dynamic. Since 2016, Friendship joint antiterrorism exercises have been held alternatively in Pakistan and Russia.

Collaboration on the international stage is expanding. Some additional opportunities for this emerged after Pakistan became full-fledged member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2017. We value the dialogue with Islamabad on the Afghan issues and our partners’ active involvement in mechanisms designed to promote settlement in Afghanistan, including the Moscow format, the expanded Three of Russia, China and the United States with the participation of Pakistan, and the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group.



Question:

When is the next round of Russian-Turkish talks on Libya being planned? What will be discussed?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to note that Libya is discussed during our regular working contacts not only with our Turkish partners. We maintain an intense, trust-based dialogue on key matters related to a comprehensive political settlement of the Libyan crisis with all stakeholders, primarily those in Libya itself. I am referring to the heads of the existing authorities and government agencies in western and eastern Libya, representatives of influential political forces, established regional leaders, and sheikhs of tribes.

We are collaborating constructively with the African Union and the Arab League, as well as with countries, primarily Arab and European, that share our approaches and are proactive where Libya is concerned. We proceed from the assumption that the relevant collective actions should be based on the decisions of the Berlin International Conference on Libya (January 19, 2020) and UN Security Council Resolution 2510 approved in support of these decisions, with the main coordinating role assigned to the United Nations.

As for the next round of the Russian-Turkish interagency consultations on Libya, it should take place in Moscow in August or September of this year on a date convenient for both sides. The Russian and Turkish representatives agreed on this in principle during their previous meeting in this format held in Ankara on July 21-22 of this year.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4284195
__________________
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 August 14th, 2020 #160
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

They returned Maria Vladimirovna to us.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.
Page generated in 1.69577 seconds.