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

Old August 26th, 2018 #481
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with Lebanon’s Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Gebran Bassil, Moscow, August 20, 2018



20 August 2018 - 12:41







Mr Minister,

Dear friend,

Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you in Moscow.

Our relations with Lebanon have a long history and are based on mutual respect, consideration of each other’s interests and implementation of all UN resolutions on the Middle East. Lebanon occupies a special place in the Middle East by virtue of various circumstances – both historical and domestic. We have always advocated the resolution of difficult issues that your country is facing by means of dialogue with all ethnic and religious groups without any outside interference. As you know, we welcomed the May parliamentary elections that draw a line under the domestic political crisis that lasted for more than two years and that became the result of agreements between the leading Lebanese forces. I am sure that other issues should be resolved in this vein. We will wholeheartedly support this approach of our Lebanese friends.

It will be important for us to hear your assessments of what is happening around Lebanon, primarily as regards the efforts on the Syrian settlement.







We know that you are very concerned over the refugee problem. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said the other day that we are striving to help resolve it as soon as possible. We put forward a relevant initiative, and we maintain contacts with the Syrian Government and those countries that accepted refugees. I hope we will be able to discuss today practical steps to implement these plans.

I hope we can also discuss some other regional issues, primarily the Palestinian-Israeli settlement and our bilateral relations. We have many issues in this area that require our attention. Once again, welcome to Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321052






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Lebanon’s Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Gebran Bassil, Moscow, August 20, 2018



20 August 2018 - 13:05







Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held talks with Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of the Lebanese Republic Gebran Bassil. The talks took place in a traditionally friendly atmosphere, were highly informative, and included bilateral relations and regional issues.

Given the nature of multi-faith Lebanese society, Russia has always regarded stability there as a crucial element of regional architecture. We consistently express support for Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity. We proceed from the assumption that the Lebanese should address any issues on the national agenda independently, through dialogue, and while displaying mutual respect and willingness to compromise.

We welcomed the results of the May 6 parliamentary elections, which had been postponed for a long time and only became possible owing to the parties finding an internal political balance that enabled all political forces to work as a team. We hope that this internal Lebanese balance will be preserved and consolidated in the course of efforts to form a new government.

During our discussion of bilateral relations, both parties have confirmed their intention to continue intensifying interaction in different areas, including the political dialogue, trade, economic, military and military-technical cooperation, as well as humanitarian ties. In all these areas, a contractual legal framework has been formed or is in the process of being formed and concrete mutually beneficial bilateral and often multilateral projects are being coordinated and implemented. We have agreed to work to consolidate the positive dynamism of Russian-Lebanese ties and to consider new promising projects, including in the regional context.

Russia and Lebanon hold coinciding or very close positions on regional and global problems. We share the view that Lebanon should not be a target of outside interference, a “small change” in geopolitical games or hostage to the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic and its negative consequences, such as the issue of Syrian refugees.

We have discussed in detail the prospects for strengthening our cooperation on issues related to the safe and dignified return of Syrian citizens home, those who have found temporary refuge on Lebanese soil. Conditions for this have been created and will continue to improve. I am referring to actions taken following the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which gave an impetus to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. The Centre for the Reception, Allocation and Accommodation of Refugees that Russia has established in Syria has been distributing information, practically on the daily basis, on the populated localities that are ready to receive people willing to come back to their homes. Nearly 7,000 refugees have returned from Lebanon to Syria during the last month alone. We will continue to build cooperation in this area.

We have coordinated further approaches to cooperation at the UN and in other formats on other aspects of issues that persist in the Middle East and North Africa, including Iraqi and Palestinian-Israeli settlement and, of course, the need to fully maintain the UN’s role in Lebanon.

On all these issues, we will remain in close and trusting contact.







Question:

What do you think about Lebanon’s role in the efforts on the return Syrian refugees?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’d like to say that Lebanon has been consistently and actively working to resolve the refugee problem and has been doing this since the start of the Syrian conflict. Lebanon has emphasised this issue at all stages of the talks that started in 2012 when the Geneva communiqué was agreed upon. This subject was also a priority for Lebanon when the International Syria Support Group was established at Russian-US initiative. The subject was promoted by two targeted sub-groups on the ceasefire and on the resolution of humanitarian issues.

Lebanon is a small country. As my friend Georges Bassil said, the presence of over a million refugees is a very heavy burden for this country’s economy and infrastructure. By way of example, of half a million school students that attended Lebanese schools last year, Syrians were in the majority and Lebanese in the minority. It is very important that Lebanon does not just call for a resolution of this problem. As my colleague has just said, it is ready to take part in creating the conditions for a resolution, in part, as we discussed at the talks, by encouraging Lebanese businesses to participate in projects to restore the infrastructure so as to increase the number of areas and cities where refugees can return. We agree with Lebanon on this. Conditions for the return of refugees are already being created. This process has already started. To put it mildly, it is counterproductive to make artificial demands that complicate the return of the refugees and the restoration of the country’s potential.



Question:

The US says it is still too early to talk about the restoration of Syria before a political settlement is reached there. Some analysts believe that these statements merely reflect the West’s attempts to prevent Syria from returning to a peaceful life. Is Russia taking any steps to reach a common European or UN Security Council decision on involving the international community in the restoration of Syria and the return of refugees?



Sergey Lavrov:

This just emphasises what we have been talking about, notably, artificial attempts to stop the return of refugees by refusing to participate in the efforts to restore the infrastructure in Syria. Several days ago Mr Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, visited Washington and met with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. Following their talks, the US Department of State said it was premature to even discuss Syria’s restoration. It was said that first it was necessary to reach a political settlement, the so-called “political transition.” Indicatively, the US sets these preconditions only for the territories that are controlled by the Syrian Government and have been liberated from ISIS, al-Nusra and other terrorists.

Such requirements are not set for the areas controlled by the opposition forces that are cooperating with the US and enjoying its support, primarily on the Eastern bank of the Euphrates. On the contrary, restoration is in full swing and the US is involving many allies in the payment for these efforts. Recently, US officials and senators openly promoted their efforts on removing mines on the Eastern bank of the Euphrates and restoring roads, schools, hospitals, residential and commercial buildings, thereby emphasising that the US is making a contribution to Syria’s restoration. However, it is limited to the areas occupied by the opposition that are not always constructive. On the territories under its control and that of the opposition, the US has established a unilateral security area in At-Tanf that includes the Rukban camp. UN officials are not allowed to visit this camp, and humanitarian relief is being impeded. However, militants including al-Nusra fighters periodically conduct raids in the part of Syria freed by Damascus, in part, to prevent refugees from Jordan from returning. You can come to your own conclusions.

Of course, we are drawing the attention of the UN Security Council to this situation that does not meet any requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Considering this absolutely destructive US position, the UN Security Council will hardly be able make any positive decisions on this issue at this time. We will continue working with the countries that understand the urgency of the measures on returning the refugees and the creation of conditions for this. These are countries that have accepted refugees from Syria (mostly, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey) and the European states that are also coming to realise the need for specific steps to this end. This was confirmed by the recent joint Russian-French humanitarian act on the delivery of cargo to Eastern Ghouta by a Russian aircraft from France and the talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Mesenberg the day before yesterday. They discussed Syria and, in particular, the refugee issue.



Question:

Recently, meetings with Turkey have become more frequent. In particular, you recently visited Ankara, and Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar visited Moscow the other day. President Putin and President Erdogan have talks over the telephone all the time. Is there any progress and understanding with Turkey on unblocking the situation in Idlib and the return of Syrian refugees?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia and Turkey, as well as Iran as guarantors of the Astana process are working on this every day by telephone and in person. In the next few days, we will hold talks with our Turkish colleagues to discuss Syrian settlement in general and all of its aspects. Of course, especially with regard to the military, we are focusing, at this stage, primarily on implementing the tasks agreed upon during the creation of the de-escalation zone in Idlib. The key goal now is to separate the opposition groups that are willing to participate in the political process from the al-Nusra militants who abound in the Idlib area and are trying to govern it and provide for day-to-day life in that region. The armed opposition groups that are trying to establish cooperation with Jabhat al-Nusra should think twice and do so as soon as possible.

When our Turkish colleagues deployed 12 observation posts in this zone awhile back, the situation calmed down a bit, but then al-Nusra and their branches began to fire at the Syrian army’s positions from this de-escalation zone; they launched drones, and tried to attack our air base in Khmeimim. This must stop. The other day in Ankara, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu of Turkey and I agreed that a separation of the armed groups that are willing to cooperate in resolving the crisis from Jabhat al-Nusra is a priority. I hope that in the coming days we will not only continue this conversation but also reach an agreement.



Question (to Acting Foreign Minister of Lebanon Gebran Bassil):

What do you think about the position of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi who spoke against facilitating the return of Syrian refugees, calling the situation in Syria too dangerous?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will add a few words to that, because this is an important matter. We also noted these statements by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi and contacted the headquarters of his department. We were told that the media did not interpret his words correctly. They said that in fact, the commissioner had in mind the following: until there is a so-called process of political transition, the main donors, primarily the West, will not send any funding to restore Syria's infrastructure and economy in general. We stated our view that there are other donors besides Western ones, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees should not look like a "branch" of a group of Western countries.

Concurrently and irrespective of the refugee issue, we asked UNESCO how they plan to implement long-standing agreements on how to make that organisation's potential useful for restoring Palmyra. From their explanations as to why UNESCO cannot yet engage in this, we realised that they have instructions from UN headquarters in New York. It turns out that the Political Department of the UN Secretariat issued and circulated throughout the UN system in October 2017 a secret directive prohibiting organisations that are part of this system to participate in any projects to restore the Syrian economy limiting their involvement to humanitarian aid and nothing more. Again, a condition was put forward that only after progress had been made on a so-called "political transition" will it be possible to deal with the restoration of Syria. I asked Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres why such matters are the subject of some in-house secret Secretariat’s directives and why the UN Security Council which deals directly with the Syrian settlement is not aware of them, and why such decisions are made without an open and objective analysis of the situation on the ground. Mr Guterres promised to sort it out. I hope he will.

I am convinced that everyone will agree that no group of countries should be allowed to manipulate in their self-serving geopolitical interests or the secretariats of international organisations whose employees must be impartial and independent. We see our partners in all international organisations. The UN system was created under UN Charter principles based on respect and equality of all states. I call on our Western partners to return to these principles and not to try to take advantage of unwitting, as they say, international organisations. We have disagreements over Syria and a host of other issues, but let's discuss them candidly and openly, rather than try to address matters behind the backs of our partners in a particular international structure by influencing, I’m not sure by what methods, the secretariat staff in the corresponding international organisations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321070






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic, Sochi, August 21, 2018



21 August 2018 - 15:18







Mr Minister,

My dear friend,

We are glad to see you in Sochi. Our countries have been proactive in their contacts. I have very warm memories of my visit to Belgrade in February 2018, when we marked the 180th anniversary of diplomatic ties between our countries. On May 8 and 9, President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic visited Russia. We value highly the fact that in addition to holding talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, he attended the Victory Day Parade on Red Square and took part in the Immortal Regiment march.







We also had a meeting in June in Moscow. Today, we have a wonderful opportunity to discuss the state of bilateral relations that are developing across the board, as well as regional and international matters. We have been making good progress in many areas. I think that our talks today will add further positive momentum to our relations.

I hope that you will have an opportunity to do some sightseeing in Sochi, since the city is developing at a rapid pace, attracting more and more Russian and international tourists.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321780






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Angola Manuel Domingos Augusto



21 August 2018 - 15:27







On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Angola Manuel Domingos Augusto.

During the conversation, the officials had a detailed discussion on the range of topical matters related to bilateral cooperation in trade, the economy, and investment with a focus on the development of mineral deposits. They stressed the mutual commitment by Moscow and Luanda to stepping up their trust-based political dialogue and enhancing their effective partnership for greater international and regional security.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321838






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic, Sochi, August 21, 2018



21 August 2018 - 17:06







Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held the first part of our talks, and we will continue at the working breakfast.

We reiterated our commitment to the all-round strengthening of our strategic partnership as agreed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, including as part of their talks during celebrations of the anniversary of Victory on May 8 and 9. During that visit, President Vucic invited President Putin to visit Serbia, and we are now working on making this visit happen.

Contacts between our respective ministries are very intensive. I was in Belgrade in February where we celebrated the 180th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic was in Moscow in June, and we are now meeting in Sochi.

We have great ties between our respective parliaments. The Commission for Cooperation between the Russian State Duma and the National Assembly of Serbia will meet for the third time in October.

Our economic cooperation is developing and expanding fast. Last year, our mutual trade amounted to $2 billion, up 23 per cent. The first months of this year have also shown steady growth. Preparations for a meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation co-chaired by Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov are underway.

Consultations are also underway between Serbia and the Eurasian Economic Commission on drafting an agreement on trade liberalisation. We have stable contacts in the military and defence industry spheres, and in the cultural and educational sphere. Of course, we cooperate closely in the international arena as well.

Today, we exchanged views on the situation in the Balkans with a particular focus on Kosovo. Russia has always stood for full and unfailing implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We support the actions undertaken by Belgrade in order to have this most important international document fulfilled.

We have noted Belgrade’s constructive position during the talks with Pristina with the mediation of the European Union. However, one cannot say the same about the position adopted by Kosovo Albanians. They have failed to fulfil the agreements achieved many years ago. We believe that the European Union must fully acknowledge its responsibility for this state of affairs and seek to make good on what was agreed. We also call on the Kosovo Force and the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo to prevent violence and vandalism in Kosovo, including against Serbs and religious sites.

Overall, we share Serbia’s position regarding the need to avoid any actions in the Balkans that would move dividing lines here and perpetuate the policy based on the principle of “us vs them” or “with us or against us.”

Of course, I am confident that a stable and secure future for the Balkans can be ensured through equal pan-European cooperation, as advocated by Russia and Serbia. We will continue to promote these approaches through the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and other multilateral platforms.







Question:

US President Donald Trump has stated that sanctions against Russia could be revised if Moscow cooperates with Washington on Syria and Ukraine. How do you regard such statements? Have there been any contacts? At what level?

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has urged European partners to slap their own sanctions on Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident. Could you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our contacts with the United States are proceeding on many issues, including on Syria and Ukraine, more intensively on Syria. And on Ukraine, as you know, through a dialogue within the framework of the Surkov-Volker format. They exchange their assessments of the situation and, as far as I understand, are planning a new meeting in the foreseeable future. They met in Belgrade some time ago.

The problems facing the settlement processes in Syria and Ukraine stem not from Russia’s position, but from the unwillingness of certain circles in and around Syria to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and, as regards Ukraine, from the Ukrainian government’s failure to honour its commitments under the Minsk Agreements. It is clear to everyone that sanctions against Russia were introduced not because of Syria, Ukraine, Crimea or anything else, but out of a desire to use dishonest methods of competition and advance the absolutely futile policy of containing Russia. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said during the press conference with US President Donald Trump in Helsinki, it is sad that in certain political circles in the US, relations with Russia have become a bargaining chip in domestic politics.

As for Britain, I heard the statements by the new UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who, as far as I understand, is heading for Washington. London is pressing the same things in relations with Europeans, citing the Salisbury incident, which has not yet been investigated. A while ago, Secretary Hunt was asked in Britain if any progress had been made in identifying the suspects. He did not know what to say to his own journalists.

Our British colleagues have a fairly high opinion of themselves. The country that is leaving the EU – the so-called Brexit – is trying to dictate EU foreign policy. And now it appears that London wants to dictate Washington’s policy towards Russia as well.

We have repeatedly urged our British colleagues to come to the negotiating table, lay down all their concerns and figure out where we are in our relations. The response was a haughty refusal. Our proposal stands. Neither on the issue of the investigation of the Salisbury incident, nor on any other matter that the British side is trying to spin in an anti-Russian way, can there be any “highly likely” any more. Lay the facts on the table, please.



Question:

The Afghan Ambassador to Russia claimed that Russia is allegedly going to use the Taliban in the fight against ISIS. Can you comment on this claim? Is any cooperation with the Taliban possible in principle?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot imagine how Russia even hypothetically could use the Taliban against ISIS. We are fighting ISIS with every tool we have. We support Syria in this fight and provide assistance in equipping the Iraqi army for the same purpose. Of course, we want the Afghan people to get rid of ISIS.

It has never been a secret that we maintain contacts with the Taliban, as it is part of Afghan society. We maintain these contacts primarily for the sake of the security of Russian nationals in Afghanistan, Russian agencies there, and also to convince the Taliban to renounce armed conflict and join the national dialogue with the government.

A couple of years ago we initiated the Moscow format of negotiations, to which we invited all neighbours of Afghanistan, several other countries and regions, the United States and Afghanistan itself, in order to begin a dialogue with the support of external parties. The next regular meeting in the Moscow format will take place in early September in Moscow. Representatives of the Afghan leadership and the Taliban were invited to the meeting. Their first reaction was positive and they plan to participate. I hope it will be a productive meeting.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322203






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s exchange of greetings with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi on the 55th anniversary of diplomatic relations



21 August 2018 - 19:21



On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi exchanged congratulatory messages on the occasion of the 55th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two states.

The ministers noted the traditionally friendly nature of Russia-Jordan relations, which are developing dynamically in a wide range of areas on a mutually beneficial basis. They also stressed confidence that promoting multifaceted bilateral cooperation between Moscow and Amman meets the long-term interests of the two counties and serves to secure peace and stability in the Middle East.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322339






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Ambassador of the Republic of Belarus to Russia Igor Petrishenko



23 August 2018 - 16:37







On August 23, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a meeting with Igor Petrishenko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Belarus to Russia, who is completing his diplomatic mission in Moscow after being appointed Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus.

The officials discussed current issues related to the development of Russian-Belarusian relations, including as part of the Union State, as well as a number of upcoming contacts and events. The parties expressed shared interest in further expanding political, trade, economic and humanitarian cooperation as well as the trust-based dialogue between the foreign ministries of the two countries.

Sergey Lavrov thanked Igor Petrishenko for his constructive contribution to promoting bilateral integration and wished him success in his new senior position.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323826






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



23 August 2018 - 17:55







On August 23, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo had a telephone conversation initiated by the American side.

They exchanged views on important international matters with a focus on developments in Syria.

Mr Lavrov stressed that the current situation in the world calls on our countries to address common challenges and threats through joint efforts, which are being thwarted by Washington’s destructive policy undermining Russian-US relations.

The Russian minister urged an immediate end to the persecution of Russian citizen Maria Butina under a far-fetched pretext. He again drew attention to the situation with Konstantin Yaroshenko, Viktor Bout and other Russian citizens, who were jailed in the United States in violation of the procedures envisaged by the 1999 Russian-US Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

Mr Pompeo brought up the issue of Oleg Sentsov, who is serving a prison term on terrorist charges, and received corresponding explanations.

The heads of the diplomatic departments also discussed the schedule of upcoming contacts.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323966






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Moscow, August 24, 2018



24 August 2018 - 11:44







Mr Minister,

Dear Mevlut,

Colleagues, friends,

We are glad to have this meeting. It is already the sixth this year, which is further proof of the unprecedented intensity of the contact between our countries.

I was in Ankara a short time ago. And later, the Speaker of the Russian State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin visited your capital to attend the sixth congress of the Justice and Development Party. More contacts, through other ministries and departments, are being planned for the near future.

Of course, interaction between our presidents has always been on the agenda. The next Astana format summit is currently being prepared. I hope that today we will be able to discuss preparations for this important event in greater detail.







As for our bilateral agenda, there are always things to discuss. Our relations regarding trade, economic, humanitarian and military-technical cooperation are developing rather intensively.

We greatly appreciate our dialogue on regional and international matters. Apart from the Syrian settlement, these include other aspects of the situation in the Middle East, South Caucasus, Central Asia and Ukraine. We will be ready today for a further exchange of views on all those topics.

Welcome!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324173






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, Moscow, August 24, 2018



24 August 2018 - 13:37







We had useful and substantive talks which were a continuation of our recent meetings when, on August 14, I was invited to a meeting of Turkey’s ambassadors and permanent representatives, and on August 2 in Singapore we talked on the sidelines of ASEAN ministerial meetings. Such regular contacts allow us to not only compare notes across the entire range of issues of bilateral and global agenda, but also to deal promptly with any issues that arise.

We noted today our mutual interest in further improving bilateral relations. Extensive and trust-based dialogue between President Putin and President Erdogan give a constant impetus to our work. In 2017-2018 alone, they held nine full-scale meetings. Our respective defence ministries maintain close contacts as we can see from today's visit to Moscow by the Minister of National Defence of the Turkish Republic, which is taking place in parallel with our talks.

We rate highly the interactions between our parliaments and sociopolitical organisations. Last week, Speaker of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin visited Turkey. He took part in the 6th congress of the Justice and Development Party at the invitation of President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Ankara is one of our key trade and economic partners. We observe steady growth in trade, which increased by 40.5 per cent last year exceeding $22 billion.

We share a positive assessment of implementation of joint initiatives, primarily in the energy sector. I’m talking about the Turkish Stream project which is of strategic importance both for our countries and the energy security in Europe in general, as well as the start of the construction of the first reactor unit of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant which is being built in Turkey by Russian specialists.

We note the demand for building up practical cooperation in other areas, including metallurgy, the automotive industry, agriculture, banking and defence industry cooperation. We agreed to work vigorously to remove the remaining barriers in bilateral trade.

We reviewed the issues related to preparing for and holding in 2019 the Cross Year of Culture and Tourism of Russia and Turkey. It will make a significant contribution to strengthening our cultural cooperation.

The flow of Russian tourists is on the rise. Last year, 4.7 million Russians visited Turkey, which exceeded the record figures for 2014. This year, this figure is projected to exceed 5 million people.

For our part, we confirmed that Russia is open to talks on simplifying travel regulations for certain categories of Turkish citizens on a reciprocal basis. We will deal with this in the near future. We agreed to build a mechanism for consultations to develop agreements on this matter.

We discussed international matters and focused on the situation in Syria. We reviewed the progress of the agreements reached as part of the Astana format at the high and highest levels and at the level of experts. We reviewed progress in implementing the decisions adopted by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi with regard to forming the Constitutional Committee as soon as possible. This work is underway. Today we discussed ways to achieve its speedy completion. Of course, Russia and Turkey are interested in cooperation in order to create proper conditions for the safe and dignified return of Syrian citizens back to their homes. We will work together to ensure that these processes help stabilise the situation and resolve the issues that are necessary to start the political process. Our common plans include joint efforts to finally eradicate terrorists in Syria and establish lasting peace and stability in that country.

We will continue our talks at a working breakfast tomorrow. We will discuss other international matters, on which we also cooperate very closely with Turkey, such as South Caucasus, Central Asia, the Black Sea region, Ukraine, as well as the Western Balkans, where Russia and Turkey can have a positive stabilising effect on the situation.

I am grateful for the cooperation of my colleague, Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu.







Question:

When will we see concrete agreements on simplifying visa regulations for Turkish citizens entering Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are working on it, but many of our experts are on vacation right now. We agreed that as soon as they are back, we will instruct them to get together and review the next steps which lend themselves to easy solutions. For example, international truck drivers are put out by the current state of affairs. Back in 2017, we proposed to drop visa requirements for this category of our citizens on a reciprocal basis. We can do this very quickly.

There’s another category that is of interest for our Turkish friends, which is special passports. Along with service passports available in Russia and Turkey, special passports are a particular category available only in the Turkish state system. Last month, we notified our colleagues that we are ready to consider the possibility of dropping visa requirements for service passport holders and the specific Turkish category of special passport holders. I hope you will hear news about this soon.



Question:

What do you think about the situation in Idlib? What kind of decision will be made there?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can only reiterate what my friend Mevlut Cavusoglu and I have already said. We are looking into this situation. Of course, it has many angles. There are many civilians there and there’s an armed opposition, which is interested in participating in the settlement processes. There are several tens of thousands of militants from the so-called Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra group, who are trying to control this entire territory and hamper the efforts, in particular, undertaken by Turkey to separate healthy opposition from terrorist groups. These matters are being discussed by our foreign ministries. Today we spent a lot of time discussing them. They are also discussed by our respective military (Minister of National Defence of Turkey, Hulusi Akar, is now in Moscow), as well as our special services. We are not done yet. We will have additional meetings with the participation of all our colleagues, so we will be able to provide more information a little later.



Question:

How accurate is the information about disagreements between Ankara and Moscow regarding the lists of opposition in the Constitutional Commission?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to rumours about differences between Moscow and Ankara over the lists of opposition which arose during formation of the Constitutional Commission which is an area handled by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, this is not true by definition, because Russia did not participate in forming the lists of opposition groups. This work was coordinated by Turkey. We had no questions about the list presented by the opposition to Staffan de Mistura.



Question:

Is there a specific date for the forthcoming Russia-Turkey-Iran summit in Tehran? Are there plans to expand the Astana format given that the issue is not only about de-escalation, but also rebuilding Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

The date of the meeting of the leaders is known. It will be announced soon. This is the area handled by the protocol service and press service of both presidents.

With regard to the agenda, which will be reviewed during the next summit of the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran, it will, for sure, include the full range of issues. De-escalation is being discussed, and we commented on the situation in Idlib. It is indeed multilayered and fairly complex. But when the de-escalation zone was created in Idlib, no one suggested to use it to ensure that terrorists, primarily from Jabhat al-Nusra, could use civilians as a human shield. Moreover, they are not just sitting there. They use it to carry out raids and shell the positions of the Syrian army. Several dozen drones (about 50) that were launched from this area to attack the Russian airbase in Khmeimim have been shot down. Today, we spoke about this in great detail. We need to do our best to ensure that this disengagement effectively takes place, and to minimise risks for the civilians. I am confident that the presidents will discuss this matter in detail.

With regard to expanding the Astana format, I don’t think it’s a top priority now. There are many opportunities to cooperate without any formal changes in the flexible Astana or Sochi process. For example, there is a “small group” on Syria, which includes three Western and four Arab countries of the Middle Eastern region. President Macron of France has repeatedly proposed establishing contacts between the Astana process and this group. We are willing to do so. Of course, we need to understand what goals we are after. If such contacts are based on the principles approved by the UN Security Council in its Resolution 2254, I think it will be a very useful process. Let’s not forget that there’s also an international support group for Syria, in which about 30 countries participate (almost everyone who can make a difference in one way or another or participate in rebuilding Syria’s infrastructure, social sphere and economy). So, there’s no shortage of formats. Most importantly, we should be guided by agreed principles for the Syrian settlement, which are spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. The three guarantor countries act precisely in this way. I think we have a good record of achieving results. I’m confident that this will continue to be the case in the future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324354
__________________
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 26th, 2018 #482
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to Vesti-Kaliningrad TV and radio network’s question about prospects for introducing an electronic visa system for foreign citizens entering the Kaliningrad Region



20 August 2018 - 10:57




Question:

What are the prospects for introducing an electronic visa system for foreign citizens visiting the Kaliningrad Region?



Maria Zakharova:

Under Part 3 of Article 8 of the Federal Law On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Issues Related to the Socioeconomic Development of the Kaliningrad Region of December 5, 2017, electronic visas will be issued to foreign citizens arriving in the Russian Federation via checkpoints in the Kaliningrad Region special economic zone, starting from July 1, 2019.

Before this date, the Government of the Russian Federation will approve a list of foreign states whose citizens will be able to apply for electronic visas to enter the Kaliningrad Region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3320917






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Russia Rayed Krimly



20 August 2018 - 18:46



On August 20, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Russia Rayed Khalid Krimly.

The officials discussed topical Middle East issues with an emphasis on the developments in Syria, Yemen and the Persian Gulf. They reaffirmed Moscow and Riyadh’s mutual intention to further promote multifaceted Russian-Saudi ties, including maintaining an active political dialogue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321507






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding statements by a US State Department senior official on the Syrian issue



21 August 2018 - 16:51




Question:

In one of his public statements on the progress in convening the intra-Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Satterfield is reported to have said that he doubts that Russia is ready to perform its obligations to assist in this critical step towards the political process (in Syria) that the UN Security Council and the global community in general strongly support. How can you comment on these words by the senior representative of the US Department of State?



Maria Zakharova:

Statements of this nature are strange and surprising to us because it was at Russia’s initiative that the Syrian National Dialogue Congress took place last January in Sochi and issued a resolution to form the Constitutional Committee for the work in Geneva. It was Russian representatives who later maintained intensive contacts with official Damascus, the Syrian opposition, partners in the Astana format and the UN for the purpose of practical implementation of this decision. Dynamic progress in this direction was sabotaged as a result of trilateral aggression against Syria led by the United States on April 14, 2018, on a contrived pretext of chemical weapons allegedly used by the Syrian army in Douma, Eastern Ghouta. Even despite this fact, back in May we managed to convince the Syrian government to provide the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura with a list of 50 candidates for the Constitutional Committee. Meanwhile, the opposition guarded by the western countries, including the United States, inexcusably dragged out providing its own list that was given to Staffan de Mistura only recently.

Russia unfailingly and consistently speaks out from constructive positions on the Syrian problem. At the same time, we always observe the interests of the intra-Syrian settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and mutual agreements reached in Astana and Sochi with Russia’s key contribution. We have never had a hidden agenda in Syria. Based on the earlier approved principled international legal foundation, we will continue intensive and multidimensional work in the interests of a speedy resolution of the Syrian crisis. We expect that all influential international partners, including the US, will act accordingly and stop looking at the situation in Syria through the lens of its own geopolitical ideas.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322144






Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on the US decision to impose new anti-Russia sanctions



21 August 2018 - 20:30



It has become a bad habit to constantly address the issue of Washington's introduction of sanctions against Russia under contrived pretexts.

This time the Americans have chosen the pretext of our alleged violations of US restrictions on oil product deliveries to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as well as the notorious “cyber violations.”

Two Russian shipping companies and six vessels that belong to them have been “punished” under the former, while one Russian legal entity and two Russian nationals are accused of attempting to evade US “anti-hacker” measures.

As always, there is no evidence or justification, only malicious insinuation. They seem to think the worse the better. What improvement of Russia-US relations is Washington talking about? The United States is seeking to steamroller its anti-North Korean policy through the relevant UNSC committee and insisting on expanding its sanction lists. This is not going to happen.

We counter the Americans' hard-headed, close-minded and aggressive approach to solving bilateral and international issues with calm and consistent work on a constructive agenda. We will continue to respond to sanctions in a way that doesn't harm our own interests.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322411






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with State Minister, Minister of Defence of Cote d’Ivoire Hamed Bakayoko



22 August 2018 - 12:55



On August 22, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov had a meeting at the Foreign Ministry with State Minister, Minister of Defence of Cote d’Ivoire Hamed Bakayoko, who came to Moscow to attend Army 2018 International Military-Technical Forum.

During the conversation, also attended by Cote d’Ivoire’s Ambassador to Russia Roger Gnango, the officials discussed topical matters concerning bilateral affaires, marked by a tradition of friendly ties between Russia and Cote- d’Ivoire, with a focus on ways to step up trade, economic, investment and military-technical cooperation, as well as expand humanitarian ties.

They reaffirmed the mutual commitment by Moscow and Abidjan to breathe new life into the political dialogue on international matters of mutual interest, including within the UN and its Security Council, in which Cote d’Ivoire is a non-permanent member in 2018-2019.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322786






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Palestinian Ambassador to Russia Abdel Hafiz Nofal



22 August 2018 - 14:35



On August 22, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov had a meeting with Ambassador of the State of Palestine to Russia Abdel Hafiz Nofal at his request.

The officials focused on prospects for advancing a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, given the persisting tension in the Palestinian territories and around Gaza, as well as on efforts to restore Palestinian national unity as soon as possible.

Moscow and Ramallah also confirmed their intention to continue promoting the traditionally friendly Russian-Palestinian relations and maintaining an active, trust-based political dialogue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322992






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Kuwaiti Ambassador to Russia Abdulaziz Al-Adwani



22 August 2018 - 17:45



On August 22, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Mikhail Bogdanov received Kuwaiti Ambassador to Russia Abdulaziz Al-Adwani at the latter’s request.

During their conversation the officials discussed current issues related to further developing the traditionally friendly relations between Russia and Kuwait, and also key issues of the Middle East agenda with a focus on the unfolding situation in Syria, Yemen and the Persian Gulf area.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323380






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Russia Valentin Nkuman Tavun Matungul



23 August 2018 - 16:48







On August 23, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov met with Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Russia Valentin Nkuman Tavun Matungul, who is completing his mission in Russia.

The officials discussed current issues related to the further development of traditionally friendly Russian-Congolese relations and confirmed the two countries’ intention to intensify their political dialogue, including by coordinating approaches to international and African issues and by building up mutually beneficial cooperation in trade, economic, cultural, humanitarian and other areas.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323836






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about the UN Secretariat’s directive on assistance to Syria



23 August 2018 - 17:57




Question:

What can you say about the UN Secretariat issuing a directive on assistance to Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

This is about an internal UN document, Parameters and Principles of UN Assistance in Syria, which, according to our data, was drafted back in October 2017 for use by relevant UN agencies and programmes. This document was developed without the participation of the UN member states, without a Security Council resolution and at the same time, it is a deeply political document and provides instructions that go beyond the scope of regular coordination of steps between UN agencies.

One of these instructions is worded as follows: “The UN will be ready to assist in the reconstruction of Syria only when a comprehensive, genuine and inclusive political transition, negotiated by the Syrian parties in the conflict is firmly under way.” Clearly, there is an attempt to keep the UN away from working on rebuilding Syria at the current moment, to extend the political approach of the states that are in favour of changing the government in that country to UN programme activities. The directive emphasises that the subject of rebuilding should be discussed in “other formats.” There’s not a word about demining.

The UN document proposes not to promote the matter about returning refugees and IDPs and restricts cooperation with the Syrian government. The prohibition on assisting parties accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity is a sleight of hand. We are well aware that such accusations are regularly voiced by the opponents of the Syrian government and are aimed at official Damascus.

We expect that the UN Secretariat will reconsider its non-transparent methods and distortions in its work on Syria, which, in light of the growing trend for the return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons, needs international assistance in rebuilding essential infrastructure and education and healthcare facilities. If certain influential donors think that time is not right to make money available for these needs, but, on the contrary, it is necessary to tighten sanctions on Syria, this does not mean that the UN should be guided by such irresponsible approaches as well.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323976






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Israeli Ambassador to Russia Gary Koren



23 August 2018 - 19:15



On August 23, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of the State of Israel to Russia Gary Koren at the latter’s request.

The diplomats exchanged views on the current state of affairs in the Middle East with an emphasis on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and developments in and around Syria. They also discussed a number of important matters regarding multifaceted cooperation between Russia and Israel.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324029






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding comments by the US State Department Spokesperson on the outcome of a telephone conversation between the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State on August 23, 2018



24 August 2018 - 14:49




Question:

Would you please comment on the statement by US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert, who said that during the telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo Russia had been asked to support the OPCW’s efforts to bring the Syrian authorities to account for using chemical weapons?



Maria Zakharova:

I have to bring your attention yet again to an imprecise interpretation by the US party of the content of contacts between high-ranking Russian and US officials. Heather Nauert’s statements do not correspond to reality as Michael Pompeo did not make a request like this. We consider this distorted account of the content of the conversation between the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State as Washington’s attempt to use the bilateral dialogue on the Syria conflict to promote its own political agenda in respect of both Syria and – in its broader context – at the OPCW.

In connection with the above, we would like to remind you again of Russia’s position regarding the decision to authorise the OPCW to establish if a party is guilty of using chemical weapons that was pushed through by the United States and its allies at this organisation.

Russia supports the activities of this important international organisation, however, they should be strictly consistent with the objectives set forth in the CWC, which provide for technical assistance to national programmes to destroy chemical weapons. The convention does not have any provisions regarding the possibility of creating a special attributive mechanism for establishing if a party is guilty of using chemical weapons. We believe these actions tend to erode the spirit of consensus, which is critically important to the OPCW and put global policy of chemical weapons disarmament and the non-proliferation of chemical weapons in jeopardy.

We hope that in the future the American party will be more scrupulous when commenting on the outcome of contacts between the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324438






Press release on First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov’s meeting with Bulgarian Ambassador to Russia Atanas Krastin



24 August 2018 - 16:16



On August 24, First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov received Bulgarian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Russia Atanas Krastin who presented copies of his credentials.

The sides discussed the current and future Russian-Bulgarian cooperation, reiterated their commitment to developing contacts in various areas and to building up mutually advantageous ties on the trade and economic track. The diplomats also noted the recently intensified political dialogue and the early talks on ambitious economic and energy projects. They also agreed that the large-scale celebrations devoted to 140 years of Bulgaria’s liberation from Ottoman rule as a result of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 had helped to promote the countries’ cooperation in the historical and cultural spheres.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324594






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s consultations with Foreign Secretary of India Vijay Gokhale



24 August 2018 - 19:36



On August 24, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov held consultations with Foreign Secretary of India Vijay Gokhale in Moscow.

The officials discussed the main multilateral export control regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group, cooperation in the framework of BRICS and other topical issues of mutual interest on the international agenda.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324670
__________________
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 26th, 2018 #483
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the results of parliamentary elections in Cambodia



20 August 2018 - 17:52



On July 29, elections to the lower chamber of Parliament were held in the Kingdom of Cambodia. According to the official data published on August 15, the Cambodian People's Party won all 125 seats in the National Assembly.

The unprecedented turnout (83.02 per cent) and support of 4.9 out of 6.4 million of registered voters showed the high level of trust Cambodian citizens have for the Cambodian People's Party and its leadership, whose policy is to strengthen domestic and socioeconomic stability in the country and to create favourable conditions for the further comprehensive development of Cambodia.

Moscow reaffirms its principled position to further promote longstanding friendly Russian-Cambodian relations and mutually beneficial cooperation in politics, trade and the economy, and well as cultural and humanitarian and other issues.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321468






Press release on the situation with Russian climbers killed and injured in the Pamir Mountains



20 August 2018 - 20:15



The Foreign Ministry continues to carefully monitor the developments around the Russian climbers killed and injured in the Pamir Mountains.

On the morning of August 17, the bodies of everyone killed in the Mi-8 helicopter crash (Alexander Abrosimov, Timur Barabanov and Ruslan Tarakanov) were sent to Moscow by Somon Air. The injured climbers (Sergey Matveyev and Andrei Rodygin) and Timur Barabanov’s sister also took this flight. Vyacheslav Trush also returned home.

Tatyana Gorbatyuk and Viktoria Dubina (both patients are in serious but stable conditions) as well as Alexander Sobolenko (moderate severity) remain in intensive care at the Istiqlol Hospital in Dushanbe. According to doctors, all the patients are showing improvement and recovering quickly.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3321537






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the statement by Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Russia



21 August 2018 - 16:13



We took note of the recent statement by the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Russia Abdul Kuchai alleging that the Russian Federation intended to use the Taliban against ISIS in Afghanistan.

We would like to make it abundantly clear that the assertions made by the head of Afghanistan’s diplomatic mission in Moscow are completely untrue and distort the very essence of Russia’s policy on Afghanistan. We have responded to those who are behind these kinds of allegations on numerous occasions.

This is not the first time that Abdul Kuchai has made statements based on nothing but insinuations. We call on everyone to refrain from taking cues from those who have issues with efforts by the Russian Federation to promote a peace process in Afghanistan and neutralise the extremist and terrorist threats emanating from that country.

It is deeply regrettable that instead of striving to maintain an atmosphere of partnership and mutual trust between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, its Ambassador to Russia takes steps that are headed in an opposite direction.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322000






Press release on the upcoming round of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan



21 August 2018 - 16:38



On September 4, the Foreign Ministry will host the second round of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan.

The Moscow format was introduced in 2017 on the basis of the six-party mechanism for consultations between special representatives from Russia, Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, Iran and India.

The first round of consultations that took place on April 14, 2017 was attended by deputy foreign ministers and special representatives of 11 partner countries who are interested in achieving a settlement in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. These countries include Russia, Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The representatives of the United States who were invited to take part in the meeting declined, saying that the new US administration lacked an Afghanistan strategy at the time.

The Moscow format meeting’s main objective is to facilitate the national reconciliation process in Afghanistan and secure peace in that country as soon as possible.

The upcoming meeting in Moscow will be the second in this format. Unlike the previous round, it will be co-chaired by both Russia and Afghanistan. As was the case with the first meeting, invitations were sent to 12 countries, the US included. The leadership of the Taliban’s political office in Doha was also invited to take part in the meeting.

The aim of the upcoming meeting is to help narrow the gaps in the approaches taken by the Afghan government and the Taliban to launching a direct intra-Afghan dialogue.

The Foreign Ministry plans to issue a statement on the outcome of the meeting.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322070






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Afghan leadership’s proposed ceasefire on the occasion of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha



21 August 2018 - 16:38



We praise the initiative announced by President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani on August 20 for a temporary ceasefire with the Taliban on the occasion of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, to last until November 19.

The proposal, it should be noted, does not extend to international terrorist groups, above all ISIS. The ceasefire would not only allow Afghanistan’s citizens to celebrate the holiday without fearing for their lives and the lives of their families but would also mark an important step toward establishing peace and amity in Afghanistan. Ideally, the truce should be long-lasting and stable.

The regular meeting in the Moscow negotiation format that will take place in early September 2018 at Russia’s initiative shares the same general goals. It comes in the broader context of helping launch peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban leaders in order to achieve national reconciliation in long-suffering Afghanistan and to stop the fratricidal war.

Therefore, we regret that the Taliban has essentially rejected the ceasefire proposed by the Afghan government, which means that the efforts of the international community to promote the peace process in the country must be continued.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322080






Comment by the Information and Press Department on statements by Microsoft alleging Russian hackers attempted to interfere in US midterm elections



21 August 2018 - 19:37



Again we have to state what seems to be obvious. As much as one would like to, it is impossible to comment on statements that are totally unsubstantiated and are clearly aimed at producing the greatest political and public wow-effect.

As the press secretary of the President of Russia has already said, we do not know what Microsoft is talking about, what attempted interference is meant and who those “Russian hackers,” the more so “associated with the Kremlin,” are.

As a reminder, we have long been proposing to get down to concrete matters. These include preparing a meeting of the bilateral working group on cyber security, where such problems must, in fact, be discussed with the participation of Russian and US specialists. Apparently, our American colleagues do not want to present any evidence of the alleged Russian cyber interference, which they claim to possess, for fear of embarrassing themselves. Simply, there is none and there cannot be any. Nevertheless, we are ready for such contacts, for normalising a dialogue of professionals.

It is a shame that a large international company that has long been actively and successfully operating on the Russian market has been forced to participate in the witch hunt gripping Washington – evidently, in order to demonstrate their loyalty. It is their choice. We will have to make the necessary conclusions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322365






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the refusal by the US to take part in Moscow-format consultations on Afghanistan



22 August 2018 - 11:35



It is with regret that we learned about the statement by the US Department of State announcing the refusal of the US to take part in the September 4, 2018 meeting of the Moscow format to which representatives from Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, Iran, India and five Central Asian countries were also invited.

That said, this is hardly surprising. The US ignored a similar meeting in April 2017 under the pretext that its new strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia was not ready. This time, the US put forward a far-fetched explanation, whereby it is a matter of principle for the US not to participate in initiatives that are not Afghan-owned and –led. This excuse is obviously unsound and indefensible, since Washington knows all too well that the Moscow meeting is to be co-chaired by Russia and Afghanistan. It may be the case that the US wants to attend only meetings that are US-led and correspond to its interests.

The decision by the US stresses yet again the false nature of Washington’s rhetoric regarding Afghanistan, where people over the past 17 years have had to endure and are still experiencing so much suffering and losses resulting from US policy toward this country.

The main objective of the Moscow format consultations is to enable participating countries to come together in order to facilitate the launch of national reconciliation in Afghanistan and put an end to a fratricidal war there. The refusal to contribute to these efforts shows that Washington’s interests lie elsewhere.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3322631






Comment by the Information and Press Department on “unidentified” helicopters’ missions to support extremists in northern Afghanistan



23 August 2018 - 15:34



We again point to flights by “unidentified” helicopters in northern Afghanistan to deliver arms and ammunition to local ISIS militants and the Taliban cooperating with this terrorist group. Specifically, Afghan media and local residents claim that these flights have been recorded in the Sar-e Pol Province.

We note that this is happening in the direct vicinity of Central Asian states’ borders and many ISIS militants in Afghanistan hail from these countries. There is no reaction to these events either from the Afghan security, defence and law-enforcement agencies or the command of the US/NATO contingent deployed there.

A legitimate question arises in this connection as to who is behind these flights? Who is arming the terrorists and secretly creating their bases near the southern borders of the CIS? Why is this happening in a situation where the NATO command is actually in control of Afghanistan’s airspace?




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323806






Comment by the Information and Press Department on leaking the mid-term report by the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea’s expert group to the media



23 August 2018 - 15:59



Moscow is indignant in connection with the leaking of the contents of a report by the expert group of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea (1718 Sanctions Committee) to the media earlier this month, prior to its discussion by this Committee’s members and prior to its official circulation by the UN Security Council President. This is by no means the first instance of publicly leaking the Committee’s confidential documents, which constitutes a glaring violation of Committee regulations and practical aspects of its activities, as well as elementary diplomatic ethics.

Considering the report’s contents, it is obvious that this incident aims to pressure certain countries on the North Korean file within the policy promoted by a number of actors to exert maximum pressure on Pyongyang. This is being done contrary to Pyongyang’s current willingness to cooperate on denuclearisation and to help normalise the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Proceeding from the logic “seek among those who profits from this,” it is easy to guess who is behind these leaks.

We are planning to demand that the UN Secretariat conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of this outrageous incident, identify the culprits, report all circumstances of the incident to the Committee and suggest measures for preventing similar incidents in the future. We expect members of the 1718 Sanctions Committee to take the most active part in these efforts as well.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3323816






Comment by the Information and Press department on flight security over the Baltic Sea



23 August 2018 - 19:17



We were surprised to see statements by NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu on the alliance's alleged readiness to discuss issues of aviation security for flights over the Baltic Sea. Apparently, this was a response to the statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin following talks with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto on August 22 in Sochi, where he criticised the North Atlantic Alliance for its unwillingness to cooperate on security and stability in Northern Europe.

NATO colleagues' assurances of their readiness for dialogue means they are either oblivious or willfully deceitful. Russia has twice initiated discussions of air security issues in the Baltic Sea region with military experts in the Russia-NATO Council, including in the context of Sauli Niinisto's initiative on increasing flight safety proposed in July 2016 following the talks between the Russian and Finnish presidents in Naantali, Finland. However, it met with no response.

Given the lack of interest from NATO partners, discussion of this issue was redirected to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in the format of the special expert task force on civil-military cooperation that has managed to coordinate a number of measures which considerably increased the safety of civil air flights over the Baltic Sea.

All these measures serve as guidelines for military aviation. The situation demands consideration of a range of issues related to preventing unintentional incidents over the Baltic Sea in the Russia-NATO format. Yet, our partners in the North Atlantic Alliance try to avoid this in every way possible. In this context, Oana Lungescu's statements on discussions allegedly held with Russia sound rather unconvincing.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324039






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the upcoming round of Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan



23 August 2018 - 19:27



The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has released a statement saying it will take part in the upcoming round of Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan on September 4 only if the Taliban agrees to direct talks with representatives of the Afghan government on the sidelines of this event.

As we have repeatedly emphasised, the main aim of the Moscow format, with all neighbouring countries of Afghanistan and other interested countries taking part, is creating favourable conditions for and facilitating a speedy launch of the process of national reconciliation to stop the fratricidal war and establish a peaceful and independent Afghan state free of terrorism and drug threat. These efforts are being taken in the vein of the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions and final documents of a number of international conferences, including the Tashkent declaration adopted in March this year.

The purpose of inviting Taliban representatives to the Moscow meeting is to deliver a collective appeal to restore peace in Afghanistan directly to the armed Afghan opposition. Of course, the task of establishing a peace process in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is not an easy one and is unlikely to be achieved soon. We view the Moscow meeting as an important step toward a comprehensive Afghan settlement.

We expect representatives of Kabul to take part in the Moscow format meeting to be held on September 4.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324049






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the continuing detention of Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky in Ukraine



24 August 2018 - 13:43



The Kiev authorities continue to exert unjustified pressure on the Russian media, hindering the work of various TV channels, web portals, radio stations, print media and other media resources. The situation with Editor-in-Chief of the RIA Novosti Ukraine portal Kirill Vyshinsky, who was arrested in Kiev on trumped up treason charges, is absolutely intolerable. We emphasise that the case in point is a man who carried out his work as a journalist openly and in line with the corresponding laws of the host country with respect for and in full compliance with journalism ethics.

It has been 100 days since Kirill Vyshinsky was taken into custody. On July 11, the Kherson City Court extended his pre-trial detention until September 20 in breach of the Ukrainian legislation. The first instance court exceeded the maximum custody extension limit, as was stated by an appeals court, which reduced it until September 8, 2018.

At the same time, there is no reason to hope that the situation will improve and be brought in conformity with Ukraine's international commitments. Further proof of that was the appeals court's refusal to release Vyshinsky on bail. The Russian journalist's rights continue to be violated: the authorities deny him meetings with Russian consular officials, arguing that in addition to Russian citizenship, he also has Ukrainian citizenship.

As a reminder, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic, and representatives of media and human rights organisations have already expressed concern over the tough measures applied to Vyshinsky. The Ukrainian authorities were urged to “refrain from unjustified restrictions on the work of foreign journalists as this affects the dissemination of information and freedom of the media.” Under the Helsinki Final Act, the OSCE member states must not only help create but also improve conditions enabling journalists from one member state to perform their professional activity in another member state.

We are convinced that all instances of hampering the work of journalists or media staff, irrespective of their nationality or citizenship, call for a decisive condemnation by the international community. The Russian Foreign Ministry will continue to monitor closely the situation and provide every possible assistance to Kirill Vyshinsky.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324368






Foreign Ministry statement



24 August 2018 - 18:28



The three western permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, Great Britain and France – put out a statement on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the tragedy in Eastern Ghouta, where, according to various estimates, over a thousand of Syrian civilians were killed with sarin. Once again, Bashar al-Assad is accused of using chemical weapon without recourse.

It is deeply regrettable that Washington, London and Paris used this tragic date for the entire Syrian people and the international community to promote their destructive agenda of discrediting the president of the Syrian Arab Republic. To this end, a number of Western and Middle Eastern states are not above inhuman provocations such as the chemical attack carried out by terrorists in Eastern Ghouta on orders from their foreign sponsors.

It is obvious to everyone, including independent experts, that ISIS, militants of the “moderate” opposition and affiliated non-governmental organisations created and financed from abroad, such as the infamous White Helmets, are behind this and other similar cruel attacks. It is no coincidence that as more of Syria is liberated from terrorists, the White Helmets are hurriedly being evacuated from the country. It is probably done to hide the truth about their goals and criminal activities.

Once again we have to state that everything related to the Syrian “chemical dossier” initiated by Western states is directly connected with their ambition to advance their own geopolitical interests in the Middle East. In this context we see repeated attempts to transform the purely technical Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons into an instrument of political pressure by vesting its Technical Secretariat with attributive functions to identify those responsible for using chemical weapons, which are not stipulated in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We call on the self-professed protectors of the Syrian people’s interests and those who follow their destructive agenda to stop manipulating the issue of chemical weapons to pressurise Damascus and its allies.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324648
__________________
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 26th, 2018 #484
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, August 23, 2018



23 August 2018 - 18:22







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlut Cavusoglu

On August 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu who will be in Moscow on a short working visit.

This year’s sixth meeting of the two ministers is expected to focus on the Syrian settlement process. The officials will discuss issues related to coordinating joint steps taken to counter terrorism in Syria and step up the search for a political solution of the Syrian conflict.

The ministers are also expected to discuss in detail how Russia and Turkey’s strategically important projects in the energy, trade and economic spheres are being implemented and exchange views on several issues of mutual interest on the regional agenda.



The centenary of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic courier service

As we said during the previous briefing, one hundred years ago, on August 27, 1918 a new chapter began in the history of the Russian diplomatic courier service: “a diplomatic courier desk” was established at the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR to support reliable and confidential communication with Russia’s missions abroad.

On August 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the opening of the historical photo exhibition “The Centenary of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Courier Service.”

A diplomatic courier’s work is important; it not only takes professional acumen and devotion, but also good health, because it involves long and frequent flights and trips, stressful situations and drastic changes in time and climatic zones. Diplomatic couriers also risk their lives.

Everyone knows Theodor Nette and Johann Mahmastal: Soviet diplomatic couriers who became heroes on February 5, 1926, when they were attacked by armed men in a train on its way to Riga.

Their names will never be forgotten, and the day of their heroic deed is still marked as Diplomatic Courier Memorial Day for those who were killed in the line of duty.

Today diplomatic couriers continue to risk their lives delivering correspondence to conflict areas.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Adel Al-Jubeir

On August 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will have talks with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Adel Al-Jubeir who will be in Moscow on a working visit.

We view the upcoming meeting between the two ministers as an essential part of our regular trust-based political dialogue with our Saudi partners on a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

In this context, the ministers will discuss topical aspects of the further progressive development of the multifaceted Russian-Saudi relations as well as the implementation of the agreements reached during King Salman’s state visit to Russia and his talks with President Vladimir Putin in October 2017.

The meeting will focus on bilateral trade, which has shown positive dynamics recently. In the end of 2017, it almost doubled compared with 2016, up to $915.2 million. During the first four month of 2018, trade between Russia and Saudi Arabia grew by 76.4 percent to $293.2 million.

The Joint Intergovernmental Russian-Saudi Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation plays an important coordinating role in this process, as well as the specialised working groups created in its framework. The practice of organising various business missions to Saudi Arabia under the auspices of the corresponding Russian agencies has also proven worthwhile.

Cooperation between the Russian Direct Investment Fund and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is an important element of cooperation with our Saudi partners. We also note the important stabilising effect that close Russian-Saudi coordination has on the global hydrocarbon market in the context of the well-known multilateral agreements in the OPEC-plus format.

We thank Saudi Arabia for the aid and attention to Russian pilgrims who came to visit Islamic holy places of Mecca and Medina. Another Hajj season is ending in Saudi Arabia right now. Without doubt, the Week of Russian Culture in Saudi Arabia scheduled for this autumn will also promote humanitarian contacts between the two states.

There will also be a detailed discussion of the developments in the Middle East and Northern Africa with an emphasis on the need to find solution to the ongoing conflicts in this strategically important region by political and diplomatic means, through a mutually respectful dialogue and considering the interests and concerns of all the parties involved. In particular, the ministers will address the situation in Syria, Yemen, Libya and the Gulf area as well as the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Mr Lavrov and Mr Al-Jubeir will also discuss prospects for joint work in the framework of the strategic dialogue between Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, whose headquarters is situated in Riyadh.



Syria update

Positive trends are growing stronger in Syria. Importantly, Syrian refugees are starting to return back home. The process is not yet proceeding on a mass scale but conditions are taking shape. A start has been made.

The Syrian government has worked out and is now implementing a set of measures on encouraging repatriation and easing the reintegration process for Syrian citizens returning back home from abroad. The measures include simplified passport and customs control formalities, provision of social and medical services, assistance in continuing education and in employment as well as easy-term loans. The Syrian authorities with support from the Russian military continue demining, clearing debris and restoring social and economic infrastructure. Since the beginning of the month, 14 repaired hospitals have been opened in Eastern Ghouta and Eastern Qalamoun. In the past week, residents of 15 towns and villages got access to qualified medical aid in the Damascus Governorate alone.

Unfortunately, problems persist. After the situation was stabilised in the metropolitan area and around Homs, in Daraa and Quneitra, terrorists concentrated their forces in the north, in Idlib. The militants managed to use the break to reinforce ranks and build up fighting strength. Recently they have been staging more provocations not only against the government forces but also against civilians in the areas adjacent to the Idlib area. Attack drones launched by them on the Russian Hmeimim airbase have become regular. Our air defence units have already downed 45 such devices. In the Idlib de-escalation zone terrorists conduct sweeping arrests on suspicion of campaigning for a truce with Syria’s government. There have already been over 500 such cases.

Meanwhile, the northeast of Syria remains under de facto control of the US military who continue to flirt with local armed groups, buying their loyalty with arms deliveries. Thus a process is in full swing in the Trans-Euphrates area of establishing pseudo-government structures which are not legitimate under Syrian law.

Rukban, the largest camp for internally displaced persons, which is located on the border with Jordan, is still inaccessible both to Syrian authorities and UN staff. There are several hundred ISIS and al-Nusra armed militants possessing even heavy weapons among the civilians there who appear to be hostages used as a human shield. All that is known to the US military who control the 55-kilometre area around al-Tanf, their illegal base on Syrian territory.

Last week, the United States announced the end of funding for “Syria stabilisation” programmes, which actually amounted to funding anti-government structures, and shifted the responsibility on their allies. Now using money from the other members of the Washington-led coalition – Europeans and Arabs – the United States embarked on restoring and upgrading oil-producing infrastructure in the northeast of Syria and essentially began plundering Syria’s national wealth.

I would like to recall that the United States, as well as all other parties involved in the Syria settlement process one way or another, repeatedly affirmed their commitment to the unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria, which was formalised in respective UN resolutions, other international documents, joint Russian-US documents on Syria. The United States has not backed out of those documents, at least publicly, despite the recent trend. We would like to understand how that stance corresponds to our partners’ practical steps that we are observing on Syrian territory.



“Unidentified” helicopters’ missions to support extremists in northern Afghanistan

We again draw attention to flights by “unidentified” helicopters in northern Afghanistan to deliver arms and ammunition to local ISIS militants and the Taliban cooperating with this terrorist group. Specifically, Afghan media and local residents claim that these flights have been recorded in the Sar-e Pol Province.

We note that this is happening in the direct vicinity of Central Asian states’ borders and many ISIS militants in Afghanistan hail from these countries. There is no reaction to these events either from Afghan security, defence and law-enforcement agencies or the command of the US/NATO contingent deployed there.

It is legitimate to ask, who is behind these flights? Who is arming the terrorists and secretly creating their bases near the southern borders of the CIS? Why is this happening if NATO command is effectively in control of Afghanistan’s airspace?



Progress of the investigation into the murder of Russian journalists in the Central African Republic

Russian law enforcement agencies together with their Central African colleagues continue to investigate the murder of Russian journalists in the Central African Republic on July 30. The Russian Investigative Committee has prepared a request for legal assistance according to the norms of international law, which is necessary to provide Russian investigators with access to witnesses, evidence and materials of the investigation carried out by the Central African Republic. On August 23, diplomats of the Russian embassy in Bangui forwarded this document to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of the Central African Republic.

As of today, the main task of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian embassy in Bangui is to provide diplomatic assistance to the Russian and Central African law enforcement agencies that have to clarify all the circumstances of the murder of Russian journalists.



Update on Maria Butina’s detention in the United States

Concerns are growing about Russian citizen Maria Butina who was arrested in the US on July 15 on preposterous charges of acting as a foreign agent.

On August 17, Maria Butina was transferred to a new jail without any advance notification and placed in solitary confinement which is reserved for dangerous repeat offenders. Before this, the Russian citizen had to submit to a humiliating search. All her personal belongings, including clothes, food and hygienic items were taken away from her. She was held in a quarantine cell for 12 hours without food. Her requests for urgent medical assistance were ignored. As a result, her health has deteriorated.

The strip-searches and night checks have finally stopped only due to Russian diplomats’ efforts, including a harshly worded protest delivered to the Department of State and the US Embassy in Moscow, and Maria Butina’s conditions have somewhat improved. She was transferred to a solitary cell with a window and adequate temperature. The administration of the jail has promised to allow her to call her family soon.

Once again, we demand that Maria Butina immediately be given full medical assistance and that her politically motivated criminal proceedings be ceased. We hope that the international community will take note of the degrading and arbitrary treatment of Maria Butina by US law enforcement. We will continue to defend her rights and lawful interests.



Update on Konstantin Yaroshenko

We are closely monitoring the situation around Russian citizen Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was illegally abducted by US secret services in Liberia in 2010.

On August 21, Russian diplomats visited Yaroshenko in the federal penitentiary institution in Danbury, Connecticut. It appears he is suffering from the effects of certain illnesses, of which he has notified the prison authorities. At this point, however, he has received no medical aid.

We, for our part, have agreed with the prison administration on a comprehensive physical examination for Yaroshenko. We will duplicate our formal request to the corresponding authority soon.

Simultaneously, officials at the Russian Consulate General in New York are providing every possible assistance to Yaroshenko’s wife and daughter, who have arrived in the United States and who have not seen him for years. An agreement has been reached to ensure that they will see him regularly.

We will continue pressing for our citizen’s legal rights and interests to be observed and for his speediest return to his homeland.



The investigation into Glushkov’s murder

Five months after the death of Nikolay Glushkov, Scotland Yard has finally published a report on how this case is being investigated. It contains, among other things, some video footage and a call on possible eye-witnesses to help the investigation, as well as a brief account of the witness testimony and evidence. I hesitate to criticise or make any assessment of the work of law enforcement agencies. Five months have passed since this death on British territory. Surveillance video footage and a call for potential eye-witnesses to help the investigation have only just been published. Could anyone, upon seeing this footage five months later, recall the circumstances or whether they saw a particular person? Is this really possible? This is a kind of mockery of people and of all the things that London and the other states are calling for when it comes to high-profile crimes. And this is a very high-profile crime committed on British territory. We will make a note of this statement by the British police, although it does not contain any facts or versions of this Russian citizen’s death.

We continue to insist on being informed on the essence of the investigation into the death of the Russian citizen. We again have to state that, despite our requests, London has failed so far to inform us about its decision concerning a formal request by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office on legal assistance in the criminal investigation into Nikolay Glushkov’s murder, which was forwarded to the British side on April 23, 2018, or exactly four months ago. We regard this as a violation of international legal standards because, let me repeat, the point at issue is the death of a Russian citizen.

We again call on the British side to provide constructive and responsible cooperation with Russian law enforcement agencies in investigating this case.



Investigation into Salisbury and Amesbury incidents

We remain concerned about the lack of information about the condition of Russian citizens Yulia Skripal and her father Sergey Skripal, their whereabouts, and continued refusal by the British authorities to provide the Russian Embassy’s consular staff with access to them. We consider these actions illegal.

We read a report about re-hospitalisation of Charles Rowley, one of the victims in Amesbury. Notably, according to representatives of the hospital in Salisbury, no one is currently being treated for ailments related to nerve agents. We would like to take this opportunity and wish Charles Rowley a speedy recovery.

We hope London will show common sense and stop the provocative spinning of the Salisbury incident and unreasonable and misplaced accusations with which the British side came up in a hurry without waiting for the results of the investigation.

We continue to strongly insist on an independent, objective and transparent investigation into the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents. We reiterate our willingness to work jointly on the case. We are expecting to receive a substantive response to requests for legal assistance from the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation sent to London in connection with the criminal lawsuit opened by Russia’s Investigative Committee on March 16 in connection with the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal committed in a manner that is dangerous for the general public.



Visiting Salisbury and surroundings

We are receiving lots of questions from our citizens concerning the safety of visiting the county of Wiltshire, in particular, Stonehenge - the UNESCO World Heritage Site - as well as the nearby town of Salisbury which is home to Salisbury Cathedral. This tourism attraction, which is popular also among Russian tourists and compatriots, remains open to visitors.

British competent authorities continue to investigate incidents involving the poisoning of Russian citizens Sergey Skripal and Julia Skripal in Salisbury, as well as British citizens in Amesbury.

Since the investigation is still underway and given that the British authorities continue to insist on Russia's involvement in these incidents, we cannot rule out the possibility that Russian tourists visiting the area may find themselves in the crosshairs of the British special services and become an object of their heightened attention. Importantly, a military facility operated by the British Defence Ministry - Porton Down R&D laboratory - is located nearby.

All these factors must be taken into account. In this regard, we would recommend that the tourists think in advance about places they want to visit, exercise caution and keep phone numbers of Russian diplomatic and consular missions in the UK handy. All contact information is available on our official websites.



Visit of experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to Britain to provide “technical assistance”

The British authorities are persistent in their attempts to use the purely technical Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to achieve their short-term political ends and link the organisation’s activities to the provocative activities they have been involved in in recent months.

Last week, we learned about a regular visit by OPCW experts to Britain to provide London “technical assistance” in identifying the chemical agent that afflicted the Skripals – father and daughter – last March and British subjects in the neighbouring town of Amesbury later in June.

Official London does not find it necessary to conceal that it does not expect the OPCW to make a practical contribution to the investigation of all the circumstances of the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents. The only thing it needs is that this organization validates the results of the analysis of some, as they say, identical chemical agent that has allegedly been found in the biomedical and environmental samples collected by British specialists in both cases.

This is blatant abuse by Britain of its rights as an OPCW member country. London did not avail itself of Article X of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which lays down in detail the procedure for providing assistance and protection to countries in case chemical weapons are used against them. Instead, the British authorities referred to paragraph 38 (e) of Article VIII of the CWC, which concerns technical assistance to the member countries as they fulfill their routine obligations under the Convention, which means their obligations to destroy their own stocks of chemical weapons and ensure proper oversight of the toxic agents covered by the Convention.

The cynical manipulation of legal tools is the calling card of London’s foreign policy today.

We again note that provisions of Article VIII of the CWC do not give the OPCW a mandate to conduct an independent investigation, formulate their own conclusions or undertake “independent verification” of the results of investigation conducted by a country. I would like to highlight again something that, unfortunately, goes unreported – the samples were collected by British specialists rather than their colleagues at the OPCW.

This interpretation is corroborated by the practical application of Article VIII of the CWC: previously, the relevant assistance was provided primarily to countries that lacked skilled personnel, the required equipment and technology. We all know that Britain has all this in abundance.

This begs the question, why then did London resort to the OPCW? The answer is obvious: having made groundless accusations of Russia’s alleged complicity in the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents, which, to all appearances, had from the outset the sole aim of discrediting our country, the British authorities are now seeking to have the OPCW throw its weight behind these accusations. By and large, it is already not important what articles are in question. It is important to conflate the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents, Britain’s official position and persistent mention of the OPCW in the public consciousness, which is generally what is happening now. Manipulation plain and simple, a classic propaganda ploy.

To advance its anti-Russia campaign, it might not matter to London that the OPCW is not authorised to identify the country of origin of the toxic agent that was found in Salisbury and Amesbury and that is allegedly identical to the high-profile chemical agent Novichok. To all appearances, the British propaganda machine finds it sufficient that the OPCW happened to be involved in the notorious Skripal case and has allegedly verified some of the “conclusions” of Britain’s national investigation that was absolutely closed and non-transparent. The objective is very simple: it is to have a mixture of all these statements, high-profile names, geographical names and the name of a large international organisation embedded in the public consciousness.

Despite our insistent calls, London continues to flatly turn down our requests to give Russian investigators access to the materials in its possession.



Statements by US Assistant Secretary of Defence Randall Schriver

We have noted the public statement made by the US Assistant Secretary of Defence Randall Schriver during his visit to Manila. In essence, the US official felt it possible to blackmail the Philippines saying that continued defence industry cooperation with Russia allegedly endangers its “allied relations” with the USA.

Of course, this is yet another case of Washington applying dishonest means in an effort to force third countries to purchase US-made weapons instead of Russian armaments.

Apart from being a salient example of unfair competition and a desire to promote the interests of its defence industry, such escapades indicate that the USA is ratcheting up its propaganda to put a negative political spin on Russia’s defence industry cooperation with other countries.

Speaking in Manila the US Assistant Secretary of Defence went as far as to say that weapons cannot be purchased from Moscow due to its allegedly irresponsible foreign policy. To back up his claim, the American official came out with the customary set of groundless accusations against us, including “aggression in Ukraine” and “involvement in chemical attacks in the UK.”

I have a question. Can we reverse this logic and say that all the partners the US sells weapons are responsible foreign policy actors? Take a list of countries the US sells its weapons to, look which conflicts including military ones they are engaged in, try to draw your own conclusion about who pursues an aggressive or irresponsible policy.

We consider such behaviour unacceptable. It is clear that the development of ties between Russia and Asia Pacific Region countries impedes the enhancement of US military and political positions in the region. Regretfully, when these countries opt for Russian over US military products for objective reasons, Washington has no qualms about exerting pressure and making irresponsible, provocative claims aimed at forming a negative image of our country.

We call on our American partners to engage in honest competition.



“Leaked” mid-term report by the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea’s expert group to the media

Moscow is indignant in connection with the “leaked” contents of a report prepared by the expert group of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea, established pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1718, to the media prior to its discussion by this Committee’s members and prior to its official circulation by the UN Security Council President. This is by no means the first case of publicly leaking the Committee’s confidential documents, which is a gross violation of Committee regulations and practical aspects of its activities, as well as elementary diplomatic ethics. This concerns the normalisation of the situation in the region rather than its deterioration, and this should always be kept in mind.

Considering the report’s contents, it is obvious that the aim of this campaign is to pressure certain countries on the North Korean file within the policy promoted by a number of actors to exert maximum pressure on Pyongyang. This is being done contrary to Pyongyang’s current willingness to cooperate on the denuclearisation matter and to help normalise the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Judging by the principle “seek among those whom this profits,” it is easy to find out who is behind these leaks.

We are planning to demand that the UN Secretariat conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of this outrageous incident, identify the culprits, report all circumstances of what has taken place to the Committee and suggest measures for preventing such things happening in the future. We expect members of the 1718 Sanctions Committee to take an active part in these efforts as well.



Situation update concerning monument to Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev in Prague

We have noted that, on August 21, a so-called “explanatory plaque” was attached on the initiative of municipal authorities to the monument to Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev in Prague. According to this plaque, prepared by anonymous Czech historians, Marshal Konev personally supported information reconnaissance missions prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact forces in 1968. This essentially absurd claim is not backed by historical facts and is below any criticism.

The actions of Prague’s municipal authorities highlight a purposeful attempt to use the sensitive pages of our common history for creating a long-term irritant in bilateral relations. In connection to this, the fifth act of vandalism against the obelisk to Red Army soldiers who were killed in action during the battle of Prague in May 1945 (that is located near the walls of the Prague Castle/Hradcany) in the past three months looks hardly accidental . We regret that municipal authorities are unable to guarantee the safety of this monument in the very heart of the capital of the Czech Republic.

A striving to downplay the importance of the personality of Marshal Konev who commanded Soviet troops liberating Prague (under the pretext of pseudo-historical objectivity) runs counter to the official line of the Czech Republic’s leaders and to the respectful attitude of most citizens of this country towards the memory of Soviet officers and soldiers who liberated Europe from Nazism. In this context, efforts to artificially link Marshal Konev’s personality with the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia look sacrilegious and are an historical fake.

Besides, the Russian Federation’s official position regarding the events of 1968 is well-known; our Czech partners are also aware of it. This position is formalised in the preamble to the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation of August 26, 1993 that notes the desire of the parties to completely do away with the totalitarian past linked with the unacceptable use of force against Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the subsequent unjustified presence of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia. Top Russian leaders confirmed this position on numerous occasions afterwards.



The Nazi origin of slogans used by Ukrainian propaganda

According to media reports, a new military salute, “Glory to Ukraine! – Glory to the Heroes!”, will be used in Kiev on August 24 at the military parade dedicated to the 27th anniversary of Ukraine Independence Day. This greeting should replace “Hello, comrades!” and “I (we) wish ye health!” inherited from the Soviet army.

We think this is one of the most provocative attempts by the Ukrainian government propaganda to plant in the public consciousness a slogan that many in Ukraine and elsewhere associate with the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Stepan Bandera, and their crimes during World War II. It will be recalled that UPA’s activities were banned in the Russian Federation by a Supreme Court ruling of November 17, 2014. As we understand, Kiev wants to dissociate this slogan from its embarrassing origins and fill it with a new positive meaning so that the whole world accepts it as entirely progressive and totally consonant with the global agenda.

Since the Ukrainian ideologists trace the origins of their modern statehood to the [Zaporozhian] Cossacks, they have made attempts to find something similar to this phrase in the traditional Cossack greetings. But no reliable historical source has preserved any documented and formalised Cossack salutes. All cases on record date back to a period, when this phrase began to be widely used outside of the Cossack context.

There are attempts to break up the phrase and ascribe it to Ukrainian literary classics, such as the poet Taras Shevchenko or Pavel Chubinsky, the author of the current Ukrainian anthem. Most often references are made to the Shevchenko poem, “To Osnovyanenko,” which has the following lines: “От де, люде, наша слава, Слава України!” (“This is where, people, our glory, Glory of Ukraine!”). But the poet says, “Glory OF Ukraine” (Genitive), rather than “Glory TO Ukraine” (Dative). A reversal of cases definitely changes the meaning and it proves impossible to draw the analogy sought by the Ukrainian propagandists. The anthem also has the words “Ukraine” and “glory” but there is no direct grammatical link between them. The same goes for “Glory to the Heroes!”

It is quite obvious that the slogan “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes!” is a calque of a well-known German National Socialist greeting. Aside from their identical syntax, both phrases have an identical stress pattern. It was adopted as the official greeting of UPA Bandera supporters by the 2nd Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists held in German-occupied Krakow in April 1941: “The salute in the Organisation shall be performed in the form of raising an outstretched right arm pointed at an angle to the right slightly above the head. The effective full greeting is: ‘Glory to Ukraine’ and the reply is: ‘Glory to the Heroes.’ The greeting can be shortened: ‘Glory’ – ‘Glory.’” As you can see, it is a faithful copy of the German Nazi greeting.

I would like to remind you that during the war this Nazi salute was used by Ukrainian regular and irregular nationalist armed units, most of which were loyal to the Reich, and some of these were officially incorporated in its armed forces. In the post-war period, the tradition of the Bandera-style greeting was preserved and cultivated by clandestine crime rings in Western Ukraine and the UPA combatants, who surrendered to the US forces and thus escaped the law, being able to live out their remaining days in the West. It is these communities that sought to defend the slogan and embellish its origins. They also tried to set apart Ukrainian nationalism from the vanquished German nationalism and cleanse it from crimes committed at the instigation of the latter. Ideally, they would like to shift all the blame to the Germans.

I would like to remind you about several crimes perpetrated by the Ukrainian nationalists who invented this slogan: the Lvov massacre of July 1-3, 1941, when several thousand residents, mostly Jews, were killed; executions at Baby Yar near Kiev between 1941 and 1943, when Ukrainian nationalists helped to destroy tens of thousands of people, including Jews, Ukrainians and Soviet POWs; rout of the Jewish ghetto in Rovno in July 1942, with over 5,000 people killed; the burning of the Byelorussian village of Khatyn in March 1943; the Volyn Massacre in the spring and summer of 1943, when tens of thousands of Poles, several thousand Ukrainians from among those sympathetic to the Poles and members of mixed families were killed; punitive operations during the Slovak National Uprising in 1944.

We have repeatedly drawn the attention of our Western partners, international organisations, public figures and politicians to a dangerous upsurge of nationalist sentiments in Ukraine, as well as to the recurrent attempts to revise WWII results. Speaking about the results and their revision, these are not just global and tectonic shifts or documents, but a spreading ideology, rehabilitation, an attempt to give an official status to what was unthinkable to voice some 30 or 40 years ago.

We are calling on all those who are not indifferent to the history of World War II to give a fitting assessment to this outrageous instance of glorifying the Nazi stooges, their greetings and symbols.



Statement by Latvian and Estonian ministers of justice on seeking compensation from Russia for alleged “Soviet occupation”

These statements are nothing new. People come and go, but these ideas remain. There is nothing new or sensational in this. A return to this issue, especially in the context of an election campaign – Latvia is to hold parliamentary elections on September 6 and Estonia on March 3, 2019 –fits well into the general policy of the past few years of making bilateral relations with Russia more difficult. Unfortunately, this is being done out of shortsighted political interests and contrary to common sense.

Our official position remains the same. Russia rejects all notions of the alleged “occupation” of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union, as well as related absurd and absolutely groundless “legal and historical” grounds constituting the gist of claims against Russia, including financial claims.

All assessments have been made, and they are available on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.



Prospects for resuming local trans-border traffic between the Kaliningrad Region and northern Poland

At our previous briefing, I was asked to comment on the prospects for reinstating local trans-border traffic between the Kaliningrad Region and the northern regions of Poland.

As you know, on July 4, 2016, the Polish side temporarily suspended the agreement on the local trans-border traffic under the pretext of tightening security measures during the NATO summit in Warsaw and World Youth Day in Krakow. Kaliningrad Region residents were denied permission to enter Poland. Russia was forced to respond and suspended the local trans-border traffic regime with Poland as a symmetrical measure.

The events that served as a pretext for these actions of Warsaw are long over, but the Polish side is obviously in no mood to resolve the situation, which we find highly surprising. All our proposals to reinstate the previous procedure encounter a blind wall of confrontationist anti-Russia rhetoric.

Today, Poland is not interested in resuming the local trans-border traffic, and this negatively affects the interests of people on both sides of the border. Local trans-border traffic has won a reputation as a tool for expanding human contacts and strengthening cultural and economic ties. Most Kaliningrad Region residents and Polish citizens took advantage of the simplified regime. One cannot but deplore the fact that Polish authorities persistently retain artificial barriers and hamper normal communication between people.



International Anti-Drug Camp of Russian Anti-Drug Union

The sport-therapeutic camp of the Russian Anti- Drug Union will be open from August 28 through September 3 at the Mandarin recreation centre at 17 Peschanaya Street in Peschanoye, Crimea’s Bakhchisarai District. In the past 15 years, the camp has annually attracted over 1,000 drug abusers who have been treated at private rehabilitation centres in Russia, Belarus, Germany, Israel, Thailand and other countries.

On August 30, the Anti-Drug Camp will host an expanded off-site meeting, whose participants will discuss standardisation issues and criteria for gauging the performance of rehabilitation centres at the Russian Anti-Drug Union’s venues. The meeting will take place with the support of the Foreign Ministry, involving representatives of the Ministry of Healthcare and the Internal Affairs Ministry. There are plans to hold a roundtable discussion on launching a nationwide awareness raising campaign #World_without_drugs.

As usual, the event will also feature sports competitions.

We invite media representatives to take part in covering this event. For accreditation and additional information, please contact the press service of the Russian Anti-Drug Union: [email protected], + 7 (985) 345 6145, Tatyana Yegorova.



20th Summer Diplomatic Games

On August 25, the Zavidovo resort, an affiliate of the Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUpDK) under the Russian Foreign Ministry, will host the 20th Summer Diplomatic Games.

The event will be attended by heads and members of the diplomatic missions accredited in Russia, Foreign Ministry officials and members of the GlavUpDK, as well as famous Russian athletes and cultural figures.

The jury board will include renowned Russian athletes.

Some 40 teams of diplomatic missions will compete in six categories: football, volleyball, basketball, trap shooting, billiards, tennis, fishing and cross-country running.

As per tradition, Zavidovo guests will be offered an interesting cultural programme and a tasting of Russian cuisine.

We invite media representatives to take part in covering the event.

For more details, please visit the GlavUpDk official website.



School under Russian-Tajik (Slavic) University moves to another building

We were asked to comment on the moving of the school under the Russian-Tajik (Slavic) University to another, less prestigious building in Dushanbe.

We took note of this situation because it is a special school. It was established in 2007 in accordance with a bilateral intergovernmental agreement and is a subdivision of the Russian-Tajik (Slavic) University. The school’s language of instruction is Russian and the curriculum corresponds to Russian educational standards. It has over 1,300 students and is considered to be one of the best schools in Tajikistan.

Russian diplomats held consultations with the leadership of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Tajikistan, rector of the university and the school principal. According to our partners, there are plans to build a new school building at the same address, 138 Rudaki Prospekt.

We hope that the school will retain its outstanding staff, which mainly consists of highly skilled Russian-language experts. We hope that the transition period will not last long, and the school will begin the academic year of 2019/2020 in a new building at the historic place.



Commemorative events in Iceland dedicated to WWII Arctic convoys

In August, Reykjavik was the venue of commemorative events dedicated to the Arctic convoys of 1941-1945. The occasion was supported by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Iceland. As is common knowledge, the majority of polar convoys, starting from the first one, PQ-0 Dervish, to PQ-17 were formed in Iceland, first on the eastern coast and later in Reykjavik and the Whale Fiord in the west.

On August 16, Reykjavik hosted an international conference dedicated to this heroic chapter in the history of World War II, sponsored by the St Petersburg-based Polar Convoy Regional Public Organisation and the Russian Embassy in Reykjavik. The conference was addressed by Arctic convoy veterans Taras Goncharenko (Russia) and Jack Patterson (UK) as well as relatives and descendants of heroic sailors from Russia, Iceland, the US and Britain, historians, members of the intelligentsia, and media people. Russian Ambassador to Iceland Anton Vasiliyev and Iceland’s former President Olafur Grimsson delivered welcoming remarks.

The participants at the conference signed the Memorandum on the Establishment of Allied Convoy Brotherhood, an association designed to promote cooperation between veteran organisations, museums and educational centres, facilitate the popularisation of the history of convoys, as well as counteract the falsification of history. The association is planning to install a monument to the Arctic convoy sailors in Edinburgh and organise an international sailing regatta in 2020 in honour of the 75th anniversary of the Allied Victory in World War II, with Reykjavik as its rallying point.

On August 15, President of Iceland Gudhi Th. Johannesson and Russian representatives held a joint ceremony at the city cemetery in Reykjavik, laying wreaths at the Hope Memorial (sculptor Vladimir Surovtsev) erected in memory of Arctic convoy participants from different countries.

The Reykjavik events were a shining example of international public coordination to consolidate the historical memory of the allied brotherhood in the fight against Nazism.



Disappearance of Pantelena tanker in the Gulf of Guinea

According to Russian KAT Samlot crewing company, the Pantelena tanker flying the Panamanian flag disappeared in the territorial waters of Gabon on August 14 as it sailed from the port of Lome, Togolese Republic, to the port of Libreville, Gabonese Republic. Owned by Lotus Shipping, Greece, the tanker has a crew that includes two Russian citizens: Chief Mate M. Dyuzhakov and Third Engineer A. Ramoshka.

The Russian Embassy in Libreville reports that the search operation mounted by the Gabonese Ministry of Defence has brought no results: the vessel has not been spotted in the country’s territorial waters. Currently the search operation involves Coast Guard ships of neighbouring countries.

The Foreign Ministry continues to monitor the developments.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

NATO has deployed about 4,000 service personnel near Russia’s western borders. According to NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu, these defensive actions aim to deter any possible aggression. The West is no longer trying to find a logical explanation for its actions. Lungescu did not comment on the establishment of a training facility in Romania or the deployment of a US tank battalion to Poland. How can you comment on these statements?



Maria Zakharova:

These are traditional items from the “absurd news” section. What potential threats are there, and how were they assessed? This issue is absolutely unclear. Specific methods for registering, estimating and calculating military contingents and their deployment areas for defence against some unspecified threats are also something absolutely illusory and absurd. We have noted this, and we have also stated that the reinforcement, redeployment, reformatting and expansion of military contingents in Europe certainly do not facilitate stability and a balance of power on our common continent. Nor do they bring openness and constructive attitudes to our already complicated dialogue. The goals and tasks are absolutely unclear. Apart from Russia, the question should be addressed to them. We need to ask them to what extent the residents of the concerned NATO member countries understand the motives behind these actions because none of this is free; this costs a lot and requires tremendous efforts. Obviously, it would be good to learn how the taxpayers’ money is being spent.

I repeat, calculation methods are the most absurd thing here. We have repeatedly noted the political response. But, considering the fact that answers to the question “What’s the purpose of these actions?” imply that this is a well-calculated response to a potential threat, I would like to say once again that this can only be described by the world “absurd.”



Question:

Baku and Yerevan always underscore Moscow’s mediatory role in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace settlement. At the same time, we can see that Moscow hosted the last meeting between Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers about 18 months ago. How can you explain this? Russia is a strategic partner and ally for Azerbaijan and Armenia. As we know, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev is expected to arrive soon. Will there be any meetings in this format this year?



Maria Zakharova:

We will tell you if any meetings are forthcoming. Our mediatory efforts continue. We maintain multi-format contacts with the sides.



Question:

US President’s National Security Adviser John Bolton has noted Washington’s readiness to discuss various aspects of resolving the crisis in Syria, provided that Iran withdraws all forces from that country. I would like to hear your comment on this issue.



Maria Zakharova:

I have just discussed the deployment of US forces in specific Syrian regions and the purpose of this deployment. On what grounds are they present there? Who was their deployment coordinated with? This is absolutely beyond any legal provisions and frameworks. When you expect others to honour international obligations, you should probably start with yourself. In the context of the Syrian peace settlement, we need to once again ask the United States and their official representatives who make such statements: What are the grounds for deploying the US Armed Forces there? What are they doing there? What is their role?



Question:

A Japanese business delegation was to visit the Kuril Islands in mid-August. Can you give any reasons why this didn’t happen? My TV company was told that the Japanese business people had been denied entry to Iturup Island. What was the reason?



Maria Zakharova:

I can say that these visits, namely the third Japanese business mission to the southern Kuril Islands, were indeed scheduled for August 16 under Russian-Japanese top-level agreements.

As distinct from the first two missions, this mission was to involve the Russian and Japanese parties in holding a concrete discussion on the ground, with the participation of business representatives from both countries, on the content and formats of future joint economic activity (JEC) projects to be implemented on the southern Kuril Islands in five areas approved by the Russian and Japanese leaders, namely aquaculture, greenhouse business, package tours, wind power, and waste recycling. Russian agencies planned workshops to clarify the opportunities available in the corresponding areas. A representative Russian delegation led by Natalya Stapran, head of a group for commercial aspects of JEC (established within the framework of related talks at the level of deputy foreign ministers) and director of the Department for Multilateral Economic Cooperation and Special Projects at the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, was formed for the purpose.

But adverse weather prevented the Russian delegation from leaving Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk for the islands. The departure of the Japanese mission from Nemuro was delayed too.

Given all these circumstances, it was decided to put off the visit till a later date. It was suggested to the Japanese side that it expedite coordination of new dates for the business mission via diplomatic channels. The reasons are quite prosaic.



Question:

The Foreign Ministry of Afghanistan has declared that despite Afghanistan’s good relations with Russia and the fact that our positions are aligned on many issues, the official delegation of the Government of Afghanistan will not attend the meeting on Afghanistan scheduled for September 4 in Moscow. It was noted that the peace process should be directed by Afghanistan. The US has also declared that this meeting would not lead to peace in Afghanistan. How can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

The United States attempted to bring peace to Afghanistan on its own and failed. For this reason, the international community has to become engaged collectively. US activities have not led to more stability in the region. Neither are they leading to added stability in the current situation, at least not to as much stability as Washington claimed it would achieve in keeping with the commitment it has assumed.

As for the meeting of the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan, we have provided detailed explanations on our website. Right now, the potential composition of participants is being studied. As soon as Kabul sends an official response via diplomatic channels, we will offer comments.



Question:

What responses to the recent US State Department sanctions is the Foreign Ministry considering? What is Russia’s attitude to the introduction of sanctions against Turkey and Iran, our partners on Syria settlement?



Maria Zakharova:

Hypothetically, we provide a fitting response to sanctions – new, newest, upgraded or adjusted. We don’t comment on the decision-making process but, as always, the responses are fitting. We always emphasise that this is not our choice. These are not decisions that Russian adopts at its own initiative, but solely in response.



Question:

Later this year, Bulgaria is celebrating the 140th anniversary of liberation from the Ottoman yoke. I would like to invite Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and you to Pliska, where Yard of the Cyrillic Alphabet cultural and historical complex is located.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you very much. I accept your invitation with pleasure. I will take a look and consult with my superiors.



Question:

US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Ashley Ford went on record as saying that the US was planning to accuse Russia of interference in the upcoming November elections. Does this mean that the US is planning a new information campaign against Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t know whether it makes sense to prepare a new campaign because the current one appears to be going quite well. As for accusing us of would-be sins, it’s surreal – they are accusing us of something that doesn’t exist and say so openly.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3323986
    
__________________
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 September 5th, 2018 #485
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of an exhibition marking the 100th anniversary of the Diplomatic Courier Service, Moscow, August 27, 2018



27 August 2018 - 12:48







Colleagues and friends,

This display of a unique document collection is opening today to mark the centenary of the Diplomatic Courier Service of the Foreign Ministry.

Exactly 100 years ago, a diplomatic courier desk was opened at the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. However, as with the diplomatic service itself (our Ministry was founded in 1802, but the Embassy House had been established many centuries before that), the first mention of couriers dates back to 885. I even think that the need for delivery of such correspondence existed still earlier, and there were people whose job was to handle such post.

This exhibition is largely unique. I think that you will eagerly explore these materials. It clearly shows how important and how dangerous the diplomatic courier profession is, because a courier had to deliver documents on time, without the risk of them being lost or compromised whatever the circumstances, in the most difficult conditions of wartime, domestic political crises or conflicts in other countries.







In this lobby, there are plaques dedicated to our comrades who gave their lives during the Great Patriotic War, during political repressions, and to those who were killed in the line of duty. One-third of them are diplomatic couriers. Everyone knows Theodor Nette and Johann Mahmastal, the Soviet diplomatic couriers who were attacked by armed men while carrying diplomatic correspondence to Latvia. We also remember the feat of our comrades Vladimir Fedin and Vladimir Nefyodov in 2006 who also defended the diplomatic post in an attack in Brazil. I see this as the continuity of glorious traditions, the continuity of a most responsible attitude to official duties that our Diplomatic Courier Service and its employees invariably demonstrate.

Just a month ago, President Vladimir Putin again reaffirmed the leadership’s special respect for the diplomatic courier profession by signing the Executive Order On the Diplomatic Correspondence of the Russian Federation and the Diplomatic Courier Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am sure that the employees of the Department and anyone else connected with this profession in one way or another – we constantly use the results of their work – will appreciate the attention that the President pays to this work.

I invite everyone to look around the exhibition, and then Head of the Federal Communications Agency Oleg Dukhovnitsky and I will hold a postal cancellation ceremony for a stamp specifically issued on this occasion.


***






I would like to once again thank the employees of the Federal Communications Agency, the Marka Joint Stock Company, the Department of the Diplomatic Courier Service who participated in the preparation of this event and personally Oleg Dukhovnitsky for joining us one more time in the celebration of milestone events in the life of Russia’s foreign policy service by issuing another commemorative stamp. I hope there will be many more events like this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325065






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani



27 August 2018 - 18:21







On August 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani.

The officials discussed important current issues of bilateral cooperation with regard to an Afghan settlement, including a regular meeting of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan co-chaired by the two countries.

The President of the IRA, supporting in principle the idea of ​a Moscow meeting, proposed postponing it due to the need to develop Afghanistan’s consolidated position on this issue, taking into account the ongoing personnel changes in the leadership of the Afghan ruling bloc.

An agreement was reached to jointly work out a new date for the meeting through diplomatic channels.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325441






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto



27 August 2018 - 20:07







On August 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto.

The officials discussed practical aspects of bilateral cooperation and the schedule for further bilateral contacts.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325514






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Pravda, Slovakia, published on August 28, 2018



28 August 2018 - 07:00




Question:

The populists are clearly strengthening their hand in Europe, as demonstrated, for example, by the election returns in Italy or Austria. Isn’t this working in Russia’s favour?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, we are trying not to think in this way or within this paradigm. From the practical point of view, however, it is important to understand that Russian foreign policy is devoid of ideological colouring and the main criterion, which we use to assess our partners, is the extent of their readiness to promote equitable and mutually beneficial relations with the Russian Federation based on compliance with international law and reciprocal respect for each other’s interests. In this sense, the party or ideological affiliation of some or other political forces that have gained power as a result of a democratic vote is not of much importance for us.

I would like to emphasise that Russia is open to constructive cooperation with all partners – and not only in Europe – who are willing to meet halfway. Moreover, we are ready to cooperate to an extent, to which our partners would agree. Based on this assumption, we welcome the intention demonstrated by the governments of a number of European countries, including Slovakia, to maintain a mutually respectful dialogue with Russia. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of people in Europe are interested in seeing a peaceful continent and a prosperous one too and are unwilling to return to Cold War confrontation.

I think that there is no need to say that Russia is a European country itself and that the European Union is not only our neighbour but also the most important trade and economic partner. Therefore, we certainly follow closely the political and social processes unfolding in the European states. Of course, we are not indifferent to what is going on “on our doorstep.”

As for the characterisation of certain politicians as populists, which is implied by your question, I would certainly prefer to avoid using tag-words of this kind and would say that we are speaking, in particular, about politicians, for whom many citizens of European countries vote. This means that these politicians’ ideas and action programmes have managed to respond to the aspirations of the voters, including by suggesting solutions to some of the problems Europe is facing today.



Question:

Russia has been accused lately of meddling in domestic affairs of other countries, including in the US elections, by using social media such as Facebook. According to articles published by some of the Western media, the Internet Research Agency from St Petersburg has been involved in activities of this kind. Could you share your perspective on this situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let me set the record straight right away. Russia has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries. This is not what we do. By the way, this sets us apart from other countries that have made such practices their preferred tool for promoting their geopolitical interests. Suffice to recall the outside interference in the events of the Arab Spring or the efforts to provoke an anti-constitutional government coup in Ukraine. Let me also note that for many years now we have been witnessing continuing attempts to influence internal processes in Russia. This goes to say that those who accuse us of some wrongdoings have not kept their noses clean.

As for the anti-Russia information campaign that has been unleashed lately, here is what I have to say about this. The allusions whereby Russia interfered in the US presidential election have been circulating for two years now. There is a strong case to be made for suggesting that this campaign is exclusively and entirely an internal matter for the US. After all, it was initiated by the Democrats while they still held the White House after they had lost the election. So instead of acknowledging the defeat and leaving quietly, they produced imaginary Russian hackers as the culprits of their failure and started selling the fiction of collusion between the winning Republican candidate and Russia.

To be honest, I was really surprised by how easy it was to place these groundless allegations at the heart of the political debates within the US.

For all this time, we insisted that our US colleagues show us some evidence to back their claims. But there is nothing to support their claims whatsoever. We have been proposing setting up a joint working group with the US on cybersecurity for more than a year now in order to discuss as well as remove mutual concerns related to influencing electoral processes in both countries. However, Washington has been reluctant to engage in any kind of professional conversations on this matter. It may be that they are simply not prepared to have a substantive discussion.

As for the Internet Research Agency that you have mentioned, it turned to US courts to challenge accusations against businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin and his staff. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has already made a public statement on this subject. First of all, it is not a question of the Russian state being involved. To take an example from the US, you never know what George Soros is up to. Just ask the Department of State about him, and they will tell you that this is Soros’ private business that does not involve the US government. He did not violate any laws to begin with.

Second, does anyone really believe that a Russian restaurant owner could influence the election in the US, a major power, through social media posts? I think that even suggesting this would be deriding from the US political system, as if the democracy there was just a “house of cards.”

Let me also add that 20 years ago Russia spearheaded the discussion under UN auspices on information security. Today, Russia is using various platforms and frameworks for calling on the international community to adopt a resolution at the upcoming UN General Assembly setting forth the rules of responsible behaviour in the information space. We believe that this document, among other things, would prevent attempts to use digital technology for encroaching on state sovereignty.



Question:

After a long wait, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump had a meeting in Helsinki while, as both leaders admitted, they do not fully trust each other. However, the negotiations continue. What will actually change after these meetings when it comes to bilateral relations and global policy?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, it would be naïve to assume that complete trust would be established after the Russia−US summit. It is only natural that each of the presidents is defending his country’s interests, which Vladimir Putin mentioned during the follow-up news conference with Donald Trump in Helsinki on July 16. But of course, our interests do coincide on some matters concerning both bilateral and international affairs. It is also obvious that the negative dynamics of the relations is damaging to both countries and creates additional serious risks for the entire architecture of international security.

In Helsinki, the presidents confirmed their mutual intention to search for points of contact and scenarios to overcome the existing differences. They agreed that Russia−US cooperation on a constructive and mutually beneficial basis is extremely important in a whole range of spheres. Specifically, this concerns the maintenance of strategic stability, fighting international terrorism and other modern challenges, settling regional crises and developing bilateral trade and economic links. Now we are working out specific steps that could be taken to align efficient cooperation in various fields.

The problem is, however, that our relations continue to be strongly affected by the domestic political situation in the United States. As I noted earlier, some forces in the Washington establishment are inflating the Russophobic hysteria and attempting to block any progress in bilateral affairs. It is not a coincidence that right after the meeting in Helsinki, Donald Trump was bombarded with criticism from his opponents and the Congress started developing new initiatives against our country.

This being said, the US Administration is also not being very consistent. Despite the reassurances from the Americans that they are ready for dialogue, we are still facing unfriendly steps that are escalating the already not so simple situation in our relations. Thus, on August 8, the United States announced new anti-Russian measures on the pretext of our alleged involvement in the Skripal case. Immediately, we started receiving threats of further pressure unless we can convince the United States that we no longer use chemical and biological weapons. It is difficult to take such requirements seriously. They look particularly strange considering that, unlike the United States, we completely destroyed our chemical arsenal. That was attested by the OPCW.

For our part, we will continue to act in a calm and pragmatic manner responding to all the attacks based on a reciprocity principle. Obviously, attempts to communicate with Russia in the language of ultimatums have no prospects. At the same time, we remain open to building adequate and mutually respectful relations with Washington based on actual consideration for each other’s interests.



Question:

Ukraine is one of the most difficult topics for Western countries when it comes to Russia as they saw reunification with Crimea as annexation and hence introduced anti-Russian sanctions. Moscow responded to this measure with its own retaliatory restrictions. Is it possible that Crimea will be returned to Ukraine in order to relieve the controversy?



Sergey Lavrov:

This matter is final. Crimea is an inseparable part of the Russian Federation. The process of integrating the peninsula with the national political, legal and socioeconomic environment is complete. Essential facilities of the regional infrastructure are under construction as planned. The peninsula residents are now entitled to all social security and support prescribed by Russian law. There is an atmosphere of inter-ethnic accord in Crimea – mostly thanks to the consideration for the interests of all ethnicities.

I want to stress that reunification of Crimea and Russia was conducted according to well-defined international legal terms. The local population exercised its right to self-determination documented in the UN Charter as an anti-constitutional coup took place in Kiev and Russian-speaking residents of Crimea became subject to open threats from Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. Their will expressed in a referendum allowed them to avoid the tragedy of a fratricidal conflict that the Kiev authorities unleashed against their own citizens in southeastern Ukraine, in Donbass.

Representatives of foreign public, political and business communities visiting Crimea, including from Europe, can see for themselves that the Crimeans are committed to their free choice made in March 2014 that connected their fates to Russia. I want to take this opportunity to invite readers of this newspaper to visit Crimea and see for themselves the life on the peninsula today and realise that the actual situation is different from those strange reports that sometimes circulate in the European press.



Question:

Russia provides military support to the Government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who, according to some sources, does not shy away from using toxic agents against his own people. What are Moscow’s motives for supporting the regime in Damascus?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian service personnel are staying in Syria at the invitation of the country’s legitimate Government, and they are supporting the people of Syria in their struggle against international terrorism.

Let me remind you that by mid-2015, ISIS was energetically expanding its “caliphate” and was in control of almost 70 per cent of Syria’s territory. The criminal activity of terrorist groups spewed beyond the Middle East and assumed global proportions. Bloody terrorist attacks were perpetrated in various parts of the world, including European cities. Europe was swamped with a tidal wave of refugees. The actions of the so-called US-led anti-ISIS coalition that was established in circumvention of the UN Security Council and without prior coordination with Syrian authorities were extremely ineffective.

The resolute actions by the Russian military, bolstered by energetic diplomatic efforts, dealt a crushing blow to ISIS militants and other terrorist groups which, I repeat, posed the most serious threat to the entire international community. Most importantly, it was possible to preserve Syrian statehood.

Today, our efforts in Syria are primarily aimed at facilitating the fastest possible political settlement under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, with due account for the outcome of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Russia and its partners are helping with the return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons to their former places of residence. The time is now ripe to restore the damaged infrastructure and the country’s economy.

The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is being accused of using chemical weapons; however, so far no evidence has been submitted, not even in connection with the high-profile April 7, 2018 incident in Douma. No traces of the alleged chemical attack were found; nor were there any casualties, victims or eyewitnesses. But a number of people starred in a staged news report showing the so-called “White Helmets” rescuing people allegedly affected by the chemical attack.

Despite the lack of evidence, the United States and its allies launched large-scale missile-bomb strikes against Syrian territory on April 14, in violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. Those strikes jeopardised the entire peace settlement in the country. This graphic example shows how various parties act with regard to Syria.



Question:

US President Donald Trump has noted that the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is dividing Europe. Does this imply political or economic arguments? What do you think about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Speculation that Russia allegedly strives to weaken Europe or to divide it is absurd. We invariably advocate expanded wide-ranging and equitable cooperation in the entire European continent on the basis of the equal and indivisible security principle. The well-known initiative by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin to create a common economic and humanitarian infrastructure between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans aimed to accomplish this task.

Nord Stream 2 is a purely commercial project. It is aimed at diversifying gas delivery routes and eliminating transit risks. In the long run, the project is intended to meet growing European fuel and energy demand and to strengthen the entire European continent’s energy security. By the way, it is expected to increase the level of positive economic interdependence between Russia and the European Union based on mutually beneficial relations and stability in the European continent.

We understand the purpose of the US president’s statement, which you mentioned. Washington wants to promote its economic and energy interests in Europe. In particular, it wants to force EU countries to finance the construction of expensive infrastructure and to start buying liquefied natural gas from the United States, which would cost 30-40 per cent more than Russian pipeline gas. It’s up to the Europeans to decide what option they prefer.



Question:

Slovakia supports the EU's anti-Russia sanctions, but at the same time did not expel any Russian diplomat in connection with the so-called Skripal case, taking a more reserved position on this matter. What place does Slovakia occupy in Russia’s foreign policy, and how are our bilateral relations developing?



Sergey Lavrov:

This year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. Over the years, a high level of mutual trust has developed between our states. I note with satisfaction the reciprocal commitment to the progressive development of our bilateral cooperation.

We maintain a mutually respectful political dialogue. I highly appreciate the good relations with my Slovak counterpart, Miroslav Lajcak. We are strengthening our inter-parliamentary ties. In particular, last November, Speaker of the National Council of Slovakia Andrej Danko paid an official visit to Russia.

Interregional exchanges are being promoted. At present, more than 50 agreements have been concluded between the constituent regions of the Russian Federation, local administrations, and the Economics Ministry of Slovakia. The International Association “Sister Cities” and the Union of Towns and Cities of Slovakia are working energetically to strengthen contacts between regions and sister cities.

Slovakia is an important trade and economic partner of Russia in Europe. The commodity turnover is growing and amounted to 5.3 billion dollars last year. The development of local manufacturing facilities by Slovak companies operating in Russia is also helping consolidate the positive trend.

Russian-Slovak relations are traditionally characterised by a rich cultural and humanitarian interaction. We are ready to continue supporting various projects, including those already implemented, as part of the 2018-2022 programme of cooperation between the two countries' Culture Ministries, signed in March 2018.

Apart from their cultural affinity, our peoples are united by the glorious pages of their joint fight against Nazism. We are sincerely grateful to the Slovak leadership, to the local authorities and citizens of that country for their careful attitude to the memory of the Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to liberate Slovakia and the whole of Europe from the horrors of the brown plague. We greatly appreciate their taking care of Russian military graves and memorials located in Slovakia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325524






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Adel al-Jubeir, Moscow, August 29, 2018



29 August 2018 - 15:09







Mr Minister,

Dear friend,

Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you in Moscow. Thank you for accepting our invitation. We thought it important to continue our dialogue and see how the implementation of the agreements reached during His Majesty King Salman Ben Abdelaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia’s visit to the Russian Federation has been progressing.







I warmly recall my visit to Jeddah last autumn and our meeting in Rome last December. Of course, high-level contacts continued during Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s visit to Moscow in June, which made it possible for him not only to hold talks with Russian leaders but also attend the opening match of the FIFA World Cup.

All these contacts have helped our bilateral relations to develop rather intensively in all areas. Our coordination and exchange of views on international and regional affairs are also at a very good level. I am confident that today’s conversation will be useful for maintaining the high dynamism of our cooperation in all areas.

Welcome again!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3327884






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, Moscow, August 29, 2018



29 August 2018 - 18:16







My colleague, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, and I held extensive, meaningful and constructive talks.

We agreed to build up our ties across all areas in accordance with the agreements reached by our leaders during the visit by King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to Russia in October 2017.

We welcomed the steady growth of bilateral trade which doubled last year and was up over 70 percent in the first four months of 2018. Working groups are developing advanced projects in investment, industrial, agricultural and other areas within the Joint Russia-Saudi Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation which is functioning effectively and systematically.

A number of projects worth of almost $2 billion between the Russian Direct Investment Fund and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia are already underway.

Our respective hydrocarbon companies are actively cooperating. Relations between Saudi Aramco, NOVATEK, Gazprom, Gazpromneft and Sibur have already been established, and prospective contacts with Rosneft are being explored.

We praised the close coordination of our countries and companies’ actions on the international oil and gas market, which is designed to ensure a balance between supply and demand and to maintain energy prices that are mutually acceptable for producers and consumers.

Our cultural ties continue to expand. The Mariinsky Theatre Symphony Orchestra conducted by Valery Gergiev performed in the Saudi city of Dhahran in June with great success. A Russian Culture Week will be held in Saudi Arabia in autumn, and we agreed to organise an exhibition of archival documents as part of it.

Once again, we thanked our Saudi friends for their continued assistance to pilgrims from Russia who recently made a hajj to the holy places of Islam in Mecca and Medina.

We exchanged views on key international issues, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. We share the opinion that the continuing potential for conflict in this strategically important region has extremely adverse effects on global, as well as regional, security and stability.

Our countries are determined to uncompromisingly fight terrorism in all its forms and to focus on eradicating terrorist and extremist ideology. From this perspective, we reviewed the situation in various countries of the region currently in the grips of crises. First Syria, where it is necessary to fully and consistently implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254, while maintaining Syria’s territorial integrity. We exchanged views on the situation that is developing around the de-escalation zone in Idlib with the understanding of the need to distinguish between the armed opposition interested in becoming part of the political process and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists and the like. Russia and Saudi Arabia share approaches to forming the Constitutional Committee, the beginning of political talks between the government and the opposition with the participation of civil society as a whole. We are especially grateful to our Saudi friends for their role in uniting the Syrian opposition and ensuring the participation of the representatives of the “Moscow” and the “Cairo” groups.

We also informed our colleagues about the efforts currently being undertaken by Russia, who is in contact with the corresponding countries in the region, to provide proper conditions for returning refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes in Syria.

We urge the UN and its specialised agencies to play a more active role in creating a proper environment for the return of refugees and displaced persons, including the modernisation and restoration of the socioeconomic infrastructure.

Together with Saudi Arabia, we advocate an early settlement to the conflicts in Yemen and Libya through the mediation efforts by the UN special representatives in these countries.

We exchanged opinions on the situation surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme. We are interested in resolving this situation politically and diplomatically, so that confidence-building measures are promoted in the Persian Gulf area in line with the initiative that Russia put forward a while ago in the form of a concept to ensure security in this region.

We reiterated that President Putin is keeping in mind the invitation by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to visit Saudi Arabia, which was extended during the King’s visit to Russia in October 2017. We agreed that the date and other details of this visit would be further coordinated through diplomatic channels.

I believe that today’s talks will contribute to the further expansion of multifaceted Russian-Saudi cooperation. I thank our Saudi friends for today’s team work.







Question:

US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said that the State Department is actively working with Russia in order to prevent the use of chemical weapons in Syria’s Idlib. At the same time, Damascus was accused of preparing a chemical attack. Russia claims the opposite, arguing that the terrorists were about to stage a provocation. Have the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US Department of State been in contact on this matter and how effective were these contacts?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the warnings coming from Western capitals, including Washington, London and Paris, that they allegedly know that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic was preparing a chemical attack in Idlib and that should chemical weapons be used, they will conduct devastating strikes against the Syrian army, let me tell you that we have stated our position on this matter on numerous occasions. The Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, has often raised this issue during her regular briefings. Yesterday, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya presented Russia’s position at the UN Security Council, citing specific facts.

We have seen situations of this kind in the past. I am referring to what happened in 2016 in Khan Sheikhoun and in 2017 in Eastern Ghouta. Both incidents took place in April. Back then, the Syrian Government was also blamed for the attacks, but we know what these accusations are worth. For example, when in April 2016 we insisted that OPCW inspectors visit the incident site, our Western colleagues, and primarily the three countries that are threatening Damascus with new strikes, prevented inspectors from being dispatched to the site for collecting samples. It would be obvious to any intelligent person that this incident was a staged provocation. Perhaps our Western colleagues did not want this obvious fact to become even more glaring.

When another staged chemical incident occurred in Eastern Ghouta in April 2017, we were able to overcome the opposition of our Western colleagues and insisted that OPCW inspectors be sent to the site to collect samples. When the inspectors had only a few hours before reaching the site, the US, Great Britain and France launched missile strikes.

I think that this situation is obviously farfetched. There were only accusations, while independent inspectors were not allowed to conduct the necessary investigation. By the way, a French spokesperson solemnly declared back then that what was left of the unreported chemical stockpiles in Syria was completely destroyed in these April 2017 strikes. Now that the US is beginning to heighten tensions around Idlib and is once again threatening the Syrian Government with retaliation if it uses chemical weapons, we asked them where Syria could have obtained these chemical weapons after the US, France and Great Britain destroyed all of it last year. The US responded that this statement was made by France, while they did not say anything of the kind. I think that no further explanation is needed.

As for our contacts with the US on these matters, they do exist. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raised this issue when he called me several days ago. John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to the US President, also raised this issue during his meeting with Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in Geneva. Military-to-military channels are also used for discussing this and other matters. The outcome of all these talks is always the same: we provide more and more evidence showing that a provocation will be staged in order to accuse the Syrian Government of conducting a chemical attack, while our partners claim that this is not true without providing even a single fact to back their claims.

All in all, there is a feeling that this topic and the related threats against the Syrian Government are intended to prevent terrorists from being expelled from the Idlib de-escalation zone, and nothing else. It may be that this policy masks some goals the US has been pursuing for quite a while. It started back in the days of the Obama administration, when the US wanted to take the heat off Jabhat al-Nusra using every trick in their book, hoping to be able to use it in the fight against what they refer to as the “regime”.

This is not the first time the US sets the goal of replacing unwanted regimes above the common objective of eradicating terrorism and extremism. It happened under a number of administrations: in Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. To be more precise, they “tried” to do it in Syria, but failed. We view these selfish, unilateral geopolitical games as counterproductive. Russia advocates collective solutions to all the problems this and other regions face. We are open to working with the US and other Western and regional countries on settling all existing problems, be it in Syria, Libya or Iraq, while also remaining mindful of the Palestinian issue, which has remained without a solution for decades. The US persists in avoiding any collective efforts to work on this issue, including within the quartet of international mediators. This is regrettable, and does nothing to move things forward.



Question:

Can Russia be expected to intensify diplomatic contacts with Turkey before the start of a military operation in Idlib?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are having very intense contacts with all participants in the process from among the Syrian sides and outside players. Of course, we are particularly active within the Astana format. Speaking specifically about the Idlib zone, we are objectively working there mostly with our Turkish colleagues along with the Government of Syria. Moscow and Ankara discussed this topic maybe on ten occasions or so during the last couple of months. A few days ago, as you may know, Moscow hosted Russian-Turkish talks between the respective foreign and defence ministers with the participation of representatives of secret services. For understandable reasons, the talks focused on Idlib, the terrorists’ last major base. The terrorist groups are trying to gamble on the de-escalation zone status, hold civilians hostage as living shields and bring to heel armed groups that are ready for talks with the Government. From every point of view, this abscess must be eliminated. There is a political understanding on this matter between Moscow and Ankara. The normal armed members of the opposition must be urgently separated from the Jabhat al-Nusra militants, while simultaneously preparing an operation against these terrorists and doing our best to minimise the risks for the civilian population. The Russian and Turkish military controlling the situation on the ground can explain how to translate this political agreement into the language of practical actions. Going back to the speculations on the chemical attacks that are allegedly being planned by the Syrian Government, I am quite hopeful that the Western colleagues, who are actively heating up this topic, will not connive at provocations and false flag attacks that are clearly being prepared, nor will obstruct an antiterrorist operation, in this de-escalation zone, against Jabhat al-Nusra, which both the UN and the US have defined as a terrorist organisation. My great hope is that our Western partners will live up to their commitment to fight terrorism.



Question:

Given that the Ukrainian authorities intend to pull out of the Treaty of Friendship with Russia, how will this affect bilateral relations?

Ukraine has closed its CIS Office. Does its withdrawal from the Commonwealth mean that Ukraine is still involved in certain agreements within the CIS?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would not like to comment on yet another instalment of Ukrainian intentions, because there are too many comments as it is. They intended to break off diplomatic relations, cut off transport links with the Russian Federation… Let us wait until something is done and one of their intentions materialises.

I think there will be even more publicly announced intentions as the Ukrainian elections scheduled for March 2019 draw closer.

As far as the CIS is concerned, this, as I understand, is already a fait accompli rather than an intention. The Ukrainian CIS Office is indeed closed. But in a larger scheme of things, Ukraine was never a full-fledged CIS member, because it had failed to join the CIS Charter.

As for the treaties and agreements, the CIS has international legal documents that do not require a state to be a full-fledged CIS member to participate. On these grounds, Georgia, for one, continues to be involved in a number of CIS treaties, although officially, in the legal sense, it has withdrawn from the Commonwealth. I can assure you that for all the Russophobic bluster of the current Ukrainian leadership, we certainly will not object, if common sense makes its way and the Ukrainian colleagues show an interest in maintaining cooperation with their CIS neighbours in some or other areas.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3328016






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Surinamese Foreign Minister Yldiz Pollack-Beighle



29 August 2018 - 19:38







On August 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Suriname Yldiz Pollack-Beighle at the latter’s initiative.

The ministers discussed current issues of Russian-Surinamese cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3328069






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Walid Muallem, Syrian Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Moscow, August 30, 2018



30 August 2018 - 16:09







Minister Muallem,

My dear friend,

Colleagues,

Friends,

Welcome to the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

I know that this is not your only meeting here in the Russian capital. You are also having talks with Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov who replaced Dmitry Rogozin as the Co-Chairman of the Russian-Syrian Permanent Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation on Russia’s side.







We believe that this is a rather timely meeting. There are tasks remaining for the complete eradication of terrorism in Syria. The necessary conditions have been created for peaceful life and a return of the refugees. Certainly, the projects of economic cooperation currently being discussed by the bilateral inter-governmental commission will contribute to this effort. Of course, we will discuss the external aspects of the situation in our country, including the importance of using the resources of the international community to assist Syria. In addition to that, we need to increase our progress towards the political process that began during the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. All these efforts are facing strong opposition from those who want to undermine this activity and prevent an expeditious return to normal life and stabilisation in the country. We have seen such attempts and will present our assessment of these actions here today.

Of course, we will listen to the opinions of our Syrian friends. The stance of Russia and Syria on the issue is absolutely clear. It is based on international law, UNSC Resolution 2254, the main provision of which is the requirement that the Syrian nation determine the future of its own country. We will additionally share our impression of the meetings with our colleagues from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and our other partners.

There are many points to cover. Welcome. I am very happy to see you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3330654






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem, Moscow, August 30, 2018



30 August 2018 - 18:50







Ladies and gentlemen,

We covered the entire spectrum of foreign policy cooperation during our talks and consider them to be very useful.

Of course, we focused on the situation in and around Syria and the situation in the Middle East and North Africa in general.

We noted with satisfaction that the larger portion of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic has been liberated from terrorists. We must still eliminate the remaining hotbeds of terrorism, primarily in the vicinity of the Idlib de-escalation zone. It is unacceptable that the terrorists, primarily from Jabhat al-Nusra, who have holed up there, are trying to use this de-escalation zone to prepare attacks on the positions of the Syrian army and even attempts to use drones to attack the Russian military base in Khmeimim.

We exchanged our assessments of the course of action to separate the armed opposition groups that are willing to establish a dialogue with the Syrian government from the remaining terrorists. We discussed the talks that Russia is conducting with Turkey on that issue.

Our Syrian friends shared information about their efforts to achieve more local ceasefires with the armed groups in Idlib who would like to dissociate themselves from Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as their efforts to ensure the safety of civilians in this de-escalation zone.

Both sides confirmed their commitment to the early start of a political process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the agreements that were reached between the Syrians themselves during the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

We reviewed issues related to creating proper conditions for the expeditious return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes. Minister Muallem spoke about the steps taken by the Syrian Government to ensure that such a return would include a safe and non-discriminatory attitude towards the returnees.

We are unanimous in our belief that mobilising the international community to participate in creating conditions for the return of refugees, including humanitarian aid, assistance in restoring socioeconomic infrastructure, and implementing projects to provide jobs for the returnees are urgent matters. Russia is willing to increase its contribution to resolving these issues which will be priority discussion items during tomorrow's talks between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem and Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Yury Borisov acting as co-chairmen of the Russian-Syrian Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation.

We believe other countries should actively join these efforts. The UN has a special role to play here, as well as the institutions that function within the organisation, such as various specialised agencies, foundations and programmes. In accordance with their statutory documents, they should be actively involved in mobilising international assistance for the above purposes.

It is well known that progress in a Syrian settlement and fighting terrorism, addressing humanitarian issues and creating proper conditions for returning refugees are not to everyone's liking. Efforts are being made to hamper these processes through various provocateurs, including extremists and established provocateurs who call themselves White Helmets and are notorious for staging scenes of alleged use of chemical agents by the Syrian government to give Western countries an excuse to attack Syria. Another such provocation is underway in order to obstruct the anti-terrorist operation in Idlib. Through our Defence Ministry and Foreign Ministry, we used facts to clearly and strictly talk our Western partners out of “playing with fire.”

Instead of unilateral geopolitical projects, we urge everyone, including the Arab countries, Europe and the United States, to join forces for a peaceful and stable Syria. Stability in this country is critical for ensuring security and prosperity in the entire Middle Eastern and North African region.

We agreed on further coordination of our actions on the Syrian settlement and other aspects of the agenda in this region which is important for the future of the world.







Question (to both ministers):

What do you think of the US’s “impressive” statements to Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Walid Muallem):

As to chemical weapons and the threats from the US and other Western nations, their track record in this area is well known. It is based on provocations that were arranged to have a pretext for attacking Syrian army positions.

It is indicative that the April 2017 Khan-Shaykhun and 2018 Douma incidents that were used as pretexts for strikes, have not been closed by the inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In both cases there were gross violations of the standards and norms prescribed by the Chemical Weapons Convention. The OPCW has not yet released a report on the April 2018 incident. We have pointed out to our Western colleagues a number of times the unacceptability of manipulating this international organisation. However, attempts at manipulating the OPCW continue and are even increasing.



Question:

What do you think of the US military presence in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

The presence of the US and other Western countries on Syrian territory is illegitimate. The Americans, including President Trump, have repeatedly promised and said publicly, that they would leave Syria. However, they continue to find new excuses to stay. At first they said that they would go as soon as they eliminate ISIS. Then another condition appeared — the need to stabilise the general situation in the country. Now they say they must stay until the so-called “political transition” process begins, if not finishes. All of this somewhat discredits our American partners. Also, they promised to us a number of times to close the so-called “security zone” al-Tanf that they had set up unilaterally and illegally, and to secure access for the UN and other international organisations to the Rukban refugee camp which is being used by the remaining ISIS fighters to gain strength, rehabilitate and strike Syrian army positions. I will also say that in the course of our latest meetings with the Americans, an understanding seemed to emerge that the Rukban camp should be opened as soon as possible and the refugees should be evacuated from it under UN guidance, so they can return to their homes. I hope this understanding will materialise and will translate into practical actions.

The US presence in Syria does not have a military aspect alone. Our US colleagues categorically object to engaging the international community in creating conditions for the return of refugees to government-controlled territory in Syria, and at the same time they are actively rebuilding the eastern bank of the Euphrates, restoring infrastructure there, socioeconomic systems and even setting up quasi-state local government bodies. This causes concern and is fraught with attempts to divide Syria, which is absolutely unacceptable and is a gross violation of every UNSC resolution that demands respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Let me emphasise again that unilateral actions are a road to nowhere. We all should have learned from the invasion of Iraq and the aggression against Libya. The problems of Syria and the region can only be resolved via collective actions without concealed unilateral agendas and double standards. We are ready, as before, for such open work with every external party without exception, and with the region’s countries, of course.



Question:

Yesterday and today you talked about the efforts by the Russian and Turkish militaries to work out the start of the operation in Idlid and to separate Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists from the armed opposition groups that are ready to participate in a political process. Is there any schedule for this process? Will it happen before the guarantor nations’ summit in Iran or after it?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to Russian-Turkish contacts, primarily, on resolving particular issues related to easing the situation in the Idlid de-escalation zone to preclude further use of the area by terrorists, mainly by Jabhat al-Nusra, to separating terrorists from the armed opposition, which is ready for dialogue with the Syrian government, they are ongoing as we speak. We do not have any artificial schedules or deadlines, but this needs to be done as soon as possible. I am sure you will learn about it as soon as the agreement is reached.



Question:

Yesterday you met with your Saudi colleague Adel Al-Jubeir. Does Russia play a role in the rapprochement of the Damascus’ position with those of other Arab countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

We indeed discussed the region’s problems in a broader context. I got the impression from my meetings with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia Al-Jubeir and my colleagues from other countries in the region that they are coming to understand the reality, which is that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic ensures the sovereignty and legitimate interests of security of their country.

We always advocate the unity of the Arab community. This community has many problems today. We stand for Arab countries to determine themselves how they should live in their region, and to curb attempts to manipulate their interests in order to achieve someone else’s geopolitical goals.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3332488






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of the State of Eritrea Osman Saleh, Sochi, August 31, 2018



31 August 2018 - 14:58







Mr Minister,

Friends,

Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you to Sochi. We remember well our talks in Moscow one and a half years ago. Today, we hope to continue the conversation on all matters pertaining to our relations.

Today, we will also discuss foreign policy cooperation and bilateral relations, where it is necessary to build up the trade and economic component and to promote good humanitarian, educational and cultural contacts.

Of particular interest for us are your assessments of what is happening on the African continent, particularly in the Horn of Africa, where we have observed highly positive changes lately.







We undoubtedly would like to thank you for the close coordination of our approaches at the UN and other international venues, where our positions are identical or very close.

This year, we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our two countries. We have achieved a very high level of political cooperation and mutual understanding during this quarter of a century.

We set great store by the fact that in June 2014 you, Mr Minister, were the first among high-ranking foreign representatives to visit Crimea after the peninsula’s reunification with the Russian Federation. Since then, Eritrea’s ties with Crimea have been developing actively. A high-powered delegation of your country attended the Yalta International Economic Forum (YIEF) and the Friends of Crimea Forum in April of this year. We cherish the traditions of friendship and relations that clearly meet with active support and keen interest on the part of the peoples of our two countries. We are interested in promoting our cooperation.

Welcome once again!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334300






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and responses to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Eritrea Osman Saleh, Sochi, August 31, 2018



31 August 2018 - 18:47







Ladies and gentlemen,

I held talks with my colleague, Foreign Minister of Eritrea Osman Saleh.

We noted that May marked 25 years of diplomatic relations between Russia and Eritrea. Today we acknowledged that, over the years, we have accumulated a very positive experience of cooperation based on a long-standing tradition of friendship, trust and mutual respect.

We reviewed in detail the current state of and prospects for bilateral relations and reaffirmed our mutual commitment to their progressive expansion, primarily in trade and the economy. Truck maker KAMAZ is already working in Eritrea, supplying its products to that country, as is Gazprombank Global Resources, which is building cooperation in the banking sector. Talks are underway to build a logistics centre at the port of Eritrea, which will promote bilateral trade.

We agreed to take extra measures to promote promising projects in the sphere of mining and infrastructure development and to supply specialised transport and agricultural equipment to Eritrea. We agreed to help our respective business people to establish direct contacts. For these purposes, our Eritrean friends said they are interested in participating in international economic forums held across Russia.

We welcomed our Eritrean friends’ commitment to expand interaction in education and professional training. Each year we provide a large number of scholarships to Eritrean students who plan to study at Russian universities. Work on an agreement on the mutual recognition of university diplomas has been completed, and the agreement will be signed soon. Eritrea is interested in opening a Russian language department at one of the universities in the capital of the country, Asmara. Today, we agreed to do our best to promote this important undertaking.

Our positions coincide on most regional and global matters and are fairly close on all others. Russia and Eritrea advocate state-to-state communications based on international law, respect for the identity of all nations and their natural desire to determine their own future. We will work to improve coordination, which we have already established in the UN and other international forums, including the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), where we share positions and are against eroding the activities of this important international body and focus on preventing deviations from the principles agreed to under the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC).

We focused particularly on the situation in Africa. We are convinced that the Africans have the decisive role to play in ensuring peace, security and stability in their home, of course, with the consistent support of the international community and the central role of the UN, which must actively interact with the African Union and subregional organisations on the continent.

We welcomed the normalisation of Eritrean-Ethiopian relations, which began in June, and the resumption of direct contact between the parties, which made it possible to advance along the path of removing mutual concerns, thanks to the goodwill of the heads of both states. As you are aware, Russia has been consistently in favour of overcoming existing differences between Asmara and Addis Ababa through peaceful means. Back in 2013, we proposed establishing a direct dialogue between the foreign ministers of Eritrea and Ethiopia. We are convinced that normalising ties meets the fundamental interests of the peoples of the two countries and will help maintain peace and neighborliness between the two countries, and will strengthen stability and security on the Horn of Africa.

We also support the positive changes in relations between Eritrea and Somalia. We want the relations between Djibouti and Eritrea to overcome the crisis as well. We are willing to provide every assistance in order to normalise the situation across the Horn of Africa. I’m confident that in addition to political stabilisation, this will help create excellent opportunities for deepening regional economic integration. We will facilitate such processes and encourage Russian companies to participate in prospective multilateral projects such as building regional transport corridors, cross-border pipelines and others.

Of course, given the radically positive developments on the Horn of Africa, especially between Eritrea and Ethiopia, we believe it is necessary to begin lifting the sanctions imposed on Eritrea by the UN Security Council.

In addition, we noted positive dynamics in other parts of Africa, specifically, Southern Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There are still many unresolved problems there. In general, sub-Saharan Africa's problems are serious, but in some situations, which I mentioned, there are improvements. We believe that it is important to consolidate such positive processes in every way possible.

I think we had very useful talks. I am grateful to my colleague, Foreign Minister of Eritrea Osman Saleh, for his cooperation.







Question (to both ministers):

At the start of the meeting you said that the Russian side notes positive trends on the Horn of Africa. What steps are being taken by both sides to settle conflicts in the region?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Osman Saleh):

I can confirm that we are interested in the broadest possible cooperation with the African countries. We cooperate in many diverse areas: natural resources, all types of energy engineering, including nuclear and hydroelectric energy, and new sources of energy, infrastructure in all its aspects, medicine, the social sphere, transport and much more. The number of countries with which we are not only discussing specific projects, but are also beginning to implement them and achieve positive results, invariably increases every year. Regarding the Horn of Africa, Eritrea and Ethiopia are our longstanding partners. We wish them success in stepping up the normalisation process that will benefit all, including the people of both countries, in the economy as well.

But we also have many partners in other countries: Sudan, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Rwanda, Burundi, the Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mozambique and others. I do not want to offend anyone: this is by no means an exhaustive list. I am sure that, thanks to our economic cooperation, we will contribute to cementing the foundations for the stable development of Africa and eliminating the causes of conflicts, most of which stem from insufficient development of the socio-economic sphere and the dire situation for significant parts of the population.



Question:

As reported after the Geneva meeting between Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolay Patrushev and US National Security Adviser John Bolton, an agreement was reached to restore contacts between the foreign and defence ministries of the two countries. When will your meeting with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo take place? Are there any specific agreements, including any made on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is no need to restore contacts between the ministries: they are underway. An agreement was reached to continue and preferably step up these contacts for the purpose of addressing the issues that depend, above all, on whether Russia and the United States can come to terms. As for the contacts between the foreign ministries, I met with Michael Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex Tillerson several times. And I had a separate meeting with Michael Pompeo in Helsinki, when President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump were holding talks there. I have talked to him over the telephone several times, including recently, around a week ago. As for the defence ministries, interaction between them, for example on Syria, is conducted in real time. There is an agreement on a mechanism for the prevention of unintentional incidents. It works. We would like our interaction in resolving the crisis in that part of the Middle East and North Africa to be more substantive, aimed at promoting a settlement, including in the political sphere. We are always ready to move in this direction as far as the American side considers possible for itself, given the fact that many in Washington dislike any contact between Russian and US officials. You know what an unhealthy atmosphere is pervasive there.

As for upcoming plans regarding a meeting with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, we will both attend the high-level week during the upcoming 73rd session of the UN General Assembly. I assume that we are both ready to hold a special, comprehensive and substantive meeting and that we will review all the matters that require our attention on the bilateral agenda and in international affairs.



Question:

Is it safe to assume that fundamentally important agreements with Turkey on resolving the situation in Idlib will be reached soon, or are we looking at a major military operation in that region?



Sergey Lavrov:

You mentioned agreements between Russia and Turkey, but forgot to mention Syria, because, above all, this concerns the legitimate Syrian government which is fully entitled to secure its sovereignty, to expel and to eliminate the terrorist threat on its territory. This is the main problem now with regard to Idlib. The armed opposition that’s ready for a dialogue with the Syrian government must be separated from Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups that are recognised as terrorists by the UN Security Council in this de-escalation zone. The terrorists are against such a separation and want to use civilians as human shields, which in itself is a war crime – this shouldn’t be forgotten either. Using financial and other means, including intimidation, they are trying to prevent armed groups that are not part of Jabhat al-Nusra and its offshoots from leaving that area. They even force them to cooperate with terrorists, as I have mentioned, by intimidating them and simply killing those who even talk about a dialogue with the government.

I think everyone remembers our account of the situation that was provided yesterday at a news conference following talks with Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem. We did the same thing at a news conference with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu several days before that. In all our comments and practical steps regarding the de-escalation zone in Idlib, we have in every way stressed the need to minimise risks for the civilian population. Yesterday, Mr Muallem once again pointed out that the Syrian government is working to achieve “local ceasefires” in the Idlib area in order to reach agreements with the towns and urban neighbourhoods where the municipal authorities or those who control a particular territory are willing to do so. Also, talks are underway on creating humanitarian corridors. All this indicates the precautions that are being made to stave off problems for civilians, whom Jabhat al-Nusra are tough with.

We will keep you posted on these efforts, which we actively support, and also on our dialogue with the Syrian government and Turkey, which, to some extent, is important for the de-escalation zone in Idlib after 12 observation posts had been deployed there in accordance with the Astana format agreements. We have no plans to hide what we are doing to support the Syrian government, which is liberating its land from terrorists and creating proper conditions for the Syrian people to be able to return to their homes soon and live normal lives like everyone else.



Question:

The Western media’s vocal response to yesterday's announcement on the Russian Navy and Aerospace Force exercises in the Mediterranean scheduled for early September is quite notable…



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the Russian Navy exercises in the Mediterranean, they are routine. All states have the right to conduct exercises in accordance with international law either on their respective territories or the territories of other states as agreed with them or on the high seas, which is fully consistent with international law.

I’m not sure about a violent reaction in the West. I think it's better to ask those who are trying to stage a tempest in a teapot. I do not rule out that all this is in line with the urban legend that is being spread around the world which accuses Russia of everything, without exception, that is happening on the planet. I believe, so far the only thing we haven’t been accused of is arranging earthquakes and tsunamis.

The NATO countries regularly conduct exercises on the Black Sea directly off our coast, and the scale of these is on the rise. The underlying implications of such naval exercises are clearly aggressive. They are practicing the landing of troops on the Black Sea coast. Draw your own conclusions as to what they are training for and how they want to build their relations with Russia. To be sure, the Mediterranean Sea is far enough from the capitals that are most vocal about our presence there while the Black Sea is right on the Russian border.



Question:

Yesterday Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria, reminded everyone of the risk of using chemical weapons and the great number of civilians in the area controlled by the militants. Can you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

If we remain grounded in objective facts, I would rather talk not about the risk of using chemical weapons per se but about the risk of provocation with the use of chemical weapons in order to put the blame on the Syrian government. There is little doubt that such a provocation is in the making. We have submitted concrete facts, from different sources, both to the UN and the Hague where OPCW headquarters is located. These facts match. An effort should be made by these international organisations to realise their responsibility in the provocations being planned and to raise their voice against any such attempt. There is no need to convince anyone that this is real because there have been a number of staged incidents like this in the past two years. In all of those cases, after they were staged, our Western colleagues did not allow OPCW inspectors to the sites of the incidents to take samples under CWC-established procedures. The investigations were conducted remotely. The OPCW international staff – the inspectors – were manipulated roughly, openly and arrogantly, they were intimidated and blackmailed. This behaviour by the Western countries towards an international organisation is unacceptable.

Most countries think exactly the same. In June, when our Western colleagues tried to push through a resolution to grant the OPCW Secretariat with actual UNSC authority to decide by itself who is to blame for a given incident, the resolution did not even garner half of the CWC member-states’ votes. If they keep pushing this idea, it carries the risk of destroying the chemical weapons non-proliferation regime and undermining the Convention itself. Let me reiterate that UN representatives should be very cautious about commenting on this situation and should avoid statements that could be interpreted by the masterminds of provocations as support for their plans.

I have spoken about the large number of civilians in the militants-controlled area. I mentioned measures taken so as to minimise the risk to civilians – humanitarian corridors and “local conciliations.” Actually, equally vocal concerns were expressed when the liberation of Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta was planned. In both cases humanitarian corridors were set up. The operation to suppress the terrorists was preceded by a series of “local conciliations.” By the way, immediately after the liberation of those territories, as well as other areas that the Russian side helped the Syrian government army liberate, measures were taken to clear mines and re-establish basic services for the people. Very soon civilians began to return to both Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta. Hundreds of thousands of people have returned home. Most of them have actually come back.

In contrast, nobody recalls how Raqqa was stormed, what the US-led coalition forces did. There was no talk of humanitarian corridors and “local conciliations.” Raqqa was just erased and abandoned. Nobody tried to clear mines or even remove dead bodies. There was a horrendous humanitarian catastrophe there. Only several months later, after many members of the international community blamed the coalition for what it had done to Raqqa and its residents, some works started there to clear the city. Residents began to come back only very recently and in small numbers at that. Let me stress again that we insist that all the efforts taken within the framework of settling the crisis should be aimed at implementing UNSC Resolution 2254, which stipulates assistance from the international community in creating conditions for the Syrians themselves to agree on how they are going to live on in their country. We should all act precisely in this way, helping the Syrians, rather than using them as “pawns” in a chess game with unilateral geopolitical goals. I call on everyone to follow the logic of collective responsibility for settling international crises and conflicts.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334517






Press release on exchanging congratulatory messages between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Morocco’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Nasser Bourita on the 60th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations



1 September 2018 - 12:00



On September 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Morocco’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Nasser Bourita exchanged congratulatory messages on the 60th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The foreign ministers praised the level of Russian-Moroccan cooperation in various spheres that continues to develop successfully under the declaration on strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Morocco that was signed in Moscow in 2002 and the statement on in-depth strategic partnership that was approved during the March 2016 visit by the King of Morocco Mohammed VI to Russia. They also underscored both states’ coinciding or similar positions on key international and regional matters and voiced the mutual interest of Moscow and Rabat in further expanding trustful political dialogue as well as streamlining diverse cooperation for the benefit of both countries’ peoples and in the interests of maintaining security and stability in the Maghreb region, in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean region and the entire world.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334627






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for Saturday News with Sergey Brilev on Rossiya 1 Television Channel, Moscow, September 1, 2018



1 September 2018 - 12:30







Question:

I have a feeling that French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech before the French diplomats was written in your secretariat − the ideas that Europe can do without the US and that relations need to be built with Russia and Turkey.



Sergey Lavrov:

To be honest, I cannot imagine French President Emmanuel Macron relying on anything but his own convictions in foreign policy while instructing French diplomats working abroad.



Question:

So these ideas are actually their own?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think they have been brewing for quite some time now. And this is due not only to the 2016 change of administration in the United States.

In general, I think the way the US acts on the international stage actually makes everyone rethink things. Nobody wants to be at loggerheads with the US; on the contrary – they would rather have normal, constructive and good relations. Just as, no self-respecting country can tolerate being dictated to and told what to do, in a take-no-dissent way dismissing any agreements and understandings that have developed over many decades in international relations.



Question:

We are currently in the negotiation room informally referred to as Molotov’s room, probably because Vyacheslav Molotov was the first to hold talks here when it was built. Your office is further down the corridor. Suppose you come in, and they tell you, Mr Lavrov, Mr Pompeo is calling. Would you feel like talking with the US Secretary of State after another series of sanctions this week?



Sergey Lavrov:

It isn’t about that. It is not about what I feel like and what I like or dislike. It is our job. We must work with all our counterparts, no matter what problems arise in the relations. We are not one of those countries that dig in their heels – you said something wrong about us, we’ll stop talking. This is not our way of doing things. We do assess the actions of our partners when we do not agree with them. But we never slam the door in their faces. There is no doubt that in the United States there are many politicians, including the current officials and the staff of the administration, who are fully aware of the abnormality of the current situation, when every move needs to be checked for potential reactions from the Russophobes. I believe this is just a sad page in America’s history.



Question:

The Russian Embassy in Washington recently said that America is close to the point of no return in its interaction with Moscow, in particular after introducing the latest package of sanctions. Could such a situation really arise when you enter your office, you are told that the US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo is calling, and you do not even want to talk, or there is simply nothing to talk about?



Sergey Lavrov:

Wanting or not wanting is not the concept we operate. The point of no return is also a figure of speech, because there is always a “return.” It is not the first time that we emphasise that the constant escalation of sanctions pressure without any fact presented in support of such sanctions is counterproductive and drives the relations into a deadlock. But there is a way out even from a deadlock. As soon as our partners are ready to talk on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of interests, we are always open to a dialogue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334637






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Sochi, September 1, 2018



1 September 2018 - 15:55







Question:

In view of the killing of DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko, do you plan any contacts with those who are performing his duties?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Vladimir Putin’s Press Service has already made all statements on this matter. I have nothing more to add.

This was an outright provocation aiming to sabotage the Minsk Agreements. Although the Kiev officials were not fulfilling those agreements in any case. In the current situation, it is perhaps impossible to speak about the next meetings in the Normandy format, as many of our European partners wanted.

This is a serious situation that needs to be examined, which we are in the process of doing.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334676
__________________
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; September 5th, 2018 at 09:26 AM.
 
Old September 5th, 2018 #486
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about the introduction of new US anti-Russia restrictions



27 August 2018 - 15:00




Question:

What can you say about the introduction of new restrictions with regard to Russia by Washington?



Maria Zakharova:

On August 9, we provided a detailed comment on the US administration’s decision to extend the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 to this country. Because of this, today’s official statement on this matter published in Washington is no news for anyone.

Using an absolutely farfetched reference to the so-called Skripal case, whose investigation in the UK is far from over, they are accusing us of being implicated in the Salisbury tragedy, thus calling into question Russia’s elimination of its chemical weapons arsenal. Per long-standing tradition, they offer no evidence. However, Moscow is urged to “confess” and provide unrestricted access to its chemical facilities.

All the accusations so far are ephemeral, but the restrictions imposed today are quite real, if largely echoing those already in effect. These include termination of technical aid programmes, a ban on selling military goods to Russia, withdrawal of funding for Russian military programmes, suspension of public loans and financial aid, and suspension of Department of Trade licenses to export double-purpose goods and technologies to Russian companies with public participation or funding. But the built-in exemptions from restrictions (supplies under space programmes or civilian flight safety cooperation) only confirm the extent of the hypocrisy and bias of the US authorities.

We regard Washington’s decision as nothing more than part of a deliberate policy to erode the international structure in the arms control and non-proliferation sphere, including the prohibition of chemical weapons. Unlike the United States, Russia remains committed to its obligations: we have eliminated the whole of our military chemical potential, something that has been duly verified, including by US experts.

In taking these steps, Washington is only complicating chances for a dialogue on existing multilateral and bilateral issues.

It is sad that the US political elite are incapable of understanding one simple thing: sanctions cannot dissuade Russia from its chosen path of defending its national interests as firmly as possible. Naturally, Washington’s steps are not facilitating a civilised and respectful bilateral dialogue and interaction befitting our two powers.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325140






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s meeting with Afghan Ambassador to Russia Abdul Kuchai



27 August 2018 - 16:25



On August 27, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov received Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Russia Abdul Kuchai.

The officials discussed topical issues of Russian-Afghan relations, including the preparations for the second meeting of the Moscow-format consultations on Afghanistan.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325204






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s meeting with PRC Deputy Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou



27 August 2018 - 16:32



On August 27, Moscow hosted a meeting of the co-chairmen of the regular Russian-Chinese Dialogue on Security in Northeast Asia: Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China Kong Xuanyou.

The parties held a detailed discussion on the state of and prospects for settlement on the Korean Peninsula and mapped out further joint steps in support of normalisation in the sub-region through dialogue and talks between all involved parties.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325244






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Ambassador of Burkina Faso to Russia Antoine Somdah



28 August 2018 - 12:54



On August 28, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of Burkina Faso to Russia Antoine Somdah, at the latter’s request.

The two officials discussed current issues of promoting traditionally friendly Russian-Burkinian relations. Moscow and Ouagadougou reaffirmed their mutual commitment to stepping up the political dialogue, including the coordination of approaches to international and African issues, as well as building up mutually beneficial trade, economic, military technical, humanitarian and other cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325921






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Ambassador of Bahrain to Russia Ahmed Abdulrahman Al Saati



28 August 2018 - 13:53



On August 28, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain to Russia Ahmed Abdulrahman Al Saati at the latter’s request.

The diplomats had an in-depth discussion on key aspects of the Middle East agenda, including the situation in Syria and the Persian Gulf, as well as important matters regarding the further development of many-faceted cooperation between Russia and Bahrain, including ways to maintain an active political dialogue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325963






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s meeting with Indian Ambassador to Russia Pankaj Saran



28 August 2018 - 16:07



On August 28, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov received Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of India to the Russian Federation Pankaj Saran who is completing his mission in Moscow.

The meeting concerned a wide range of issues of bilateral cooperation. Igor Morgulov expressed his gratitude to Pankaj Saran for his proactive efforts in the consistent development of Russian-Indian relations in the format of a particularly privileged strategic partnership, and for strengthening the traditional friendship and mutual understanding between the two peoples.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3325992






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov's meeting with Minister of Defence, Justice and Security of Botswana Shaw Kgathi



28 August 2018 - 19:03



On August 28 at the Russian Foreign Ministry, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov met with the Minister of Defence, Justice and Security of Botswana Shaw Kgathi, who arrived in Moscow to attend the Army-2018 International Military Technical Forum.

The discussion concerned current issues of further developing the traditionally friendly Russia-Botswana relations with a focus on the prospects for expanding multifaceted bilateral cooperation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3326163






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with the leader of Syria’s Building the Syrian State opposition movement, Louay Hussein



28 August 2018 - 19:51



On August 28, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received the leader of Syria’s Building the Syrian State opposition movement, Louay Hussein, and his deputy Mona Ghanem.

The latest developments in and around Syria were discussed at length during the meeting. The sides underlined the importance of the continuing efforts to reach a political solution to the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and decisions adopted by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Emphasis was also placed on the need for consolidated efforts by the friends of Syria and its people for the sake of effectively promoting the expeditious return of Syrian refugees to their homeland under the corresponding Russian initiative.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3326173






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s meeting with Kazakhstan’s Ambassador to Russia Imangali Tasmagambetov



29 August 2018 - 11:59



On August 29, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov received Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the Russian Federation Imangali Tasmagambetov. The parties discussed current issues on the Russian-Kazakh agenda, including the schedule of events at high and top levels in the coming months.

The meeting was held in a friendly and constructive atmosphere, in keeping with the nature of the customary relations between the two countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3327824






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s consultations with Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan Takeo Mori



29 August 2018 - 15:46



On August 29, Russia and Japan held consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers (Sergey Ryabkov – Takeo Mori).

The parties continued their discussion of security issues with a focus on the situation in Northeast Asia, including the US missile defence system.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3327940






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Lebanese Ambassador to Russia Chawki Bou Nassar



29 August 2018 - 20:02



On August 29, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of the Lebanese Republic to Russia Chawki Bou Nassar at the latter's request.

The officials had a detailed discussion of the developments in Lebanon and Syria. They paid particular attention to the problem of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and their return to Syria under the Russian initiative.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3328079






Press release on the telephone conversation between Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov and Nasr al-Hariri, chief negotiator for the opposition Syrian Negotiations Commission



30 August 2018 - 09:36



On August 29, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov received a telephone call from Nasr al-Hariri, chief negotiator for the opposition Syrian Negotiations Commission.

The conversation covered a range of issues pertaining to the settlement of the Syrian crisis under UNSC Resolution 2254. It was stressed that it is necessary to completely eradicate ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist groups on the Syrian territory, ensure Syria’s unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty, establish a steady negotiations process between the Syrian Government and the constructive opposition in the interests of restoring national accord; create the Constitutional Committee so that it can start working according to resolutions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, and create adequate conditions for a speedy return of the Syrian refugees to their country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3328150






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with the Ambassador of Armenia to Russia Vardan Toghanyan



30 August 2018 - 12:39



On August 30, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of Armenia to Russia Vardan Toghanyan, at the latter’s request.

During the conversation, the two officials discussed current developments in the Middle East, focusing on the humanitarian dimension of the situation in Syria and the need to assist the Syrian people, who follow various faiths and creeds, in the promotion of effective post-conflict recovery.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3330417






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about BuzzFeed publishing confidential information on the Russian Embassy’s banking operations



31 August 2018 - 15:13




Question:

Would you please comment on BuzzFeed publishing yet another instalment of confidential information regarding banking transactions of the Russian Embassy in the United States?



Maria Zakharova:

BuzzFeed has indeed published yet another portion of speculations regarding the banking operations of the Russian Embassy in the US as well as those of Russian diplomats. Like last November and this January, the post is about conspiracy theories surrounding routine salary transfers and money remittances to home-bound employees of our foreign mission. The aim of this stovepiping is clearly to fit it in the context of the campaign about Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 US elections.

We are again facing a situation where US media are fed confidential information on our employees’ financial transactions, which obviously happens not without direct support from the US secret services.

We have to state that Washington is actually breaching the banking secrecy regulations and disclosing personal data, which is contrary to US laws and legislative and regulatory compliance practices. Besides this, the US authorities are again demonstrating their complete inability to ensure normal working conditions for missions of foreign states. Regretfully, the non-compliance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations has become systematic.

We demand that the US stop violating its own national laws and international obligations, cut short the unlawful dissemination of confidential information affecting the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, and bring to account all those guilty, including officials.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334318






Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova responds to a media question about an international forum in Tallinn to condemn communist ideology and the unveiling of a memorial to “the victims of communism”



31 August 2018 - 17:19




Question:

What do you think about the memorial to “the victims of communism” unveiled in Tallinn on August 23 and the forum to condemn communist ideology?



Maria Zakharova:

I have to state that the Estonian organisers of these kinds of initiatives are driven by the desire to rewrite history in a way that is beneficial for them. There are persistent attempts to interpret the events of our common past in a way that serves their ideological positions and to blame modern Russia for all their troubles.

The organisers of the past events – the Estonian authorities – have once again demonstrated the narrowness of their political and historical outlook, which does nothing to improve our relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334493






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Lebanese MP Tony Frangieh



31 August 2018 - 18:13



On August 31, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov met with member of the Chamber of Deputies of the Lebanese Republic Tony Frangieh.

The focal point of the meeting was the current situation in Lebanon with an emphasis on the problem of Syrian refugees and possible Russian-Lebanese efforts to promote a return to their homeland.

The current state of and prospects for expanding cooperation between Russia and Lebanon in various spheres were discussed as well.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334507






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich in response to a report by OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Italy’s Foreign Minister Enzo Moavero Milanesi at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, August 30, 2018



1 September 2018 - 11:22




Mr Chairperson,

Mr Minister,

We are pleased to greet you at the OSCE Permanent Council. Thank you for clarifying the Italian chairmanship’s priorities.

We are convinced that the OSCE can and should be used effectively to overcome the current differences and develop acceptable solutions to Euro-Atlantic security issues. The past six months under Italy’s chairmanship in the OSCE have shown that with the responsible approach of the chairmanship, the goal of reviving the Helsinki spirit is quite achievable.

There is a particular demand for stronger cooperative principles underlying international security precisely in the context of unprecedented interconnectedness and openness of the economies, freedom of movement and dissemination of ideas, transition to innovative technology, and the emergence of a polycentric world order. In a complex and multidimensional picture of international relations, the countries that have the ability to reach agreements and collectively build global governance mechanisms in the 21st century enjoy advantages. We believe that the experience accumulated over 43 years of the OSCE's existence in addressing important issues in the Euro-Atlantic area will allow us to continue to use its unifying potential for the benefit of our nations.

We look forward to continuing constructive interaction with the Italian chairmanship in promoting crisis resolution within the OSCE space.

We share the commitment to an early resolution of the internal conflict in Ukraine. All the necessary prerequisites are in place. The Minsk Package of Measures approved by UNSC Resolution 2202 is an international legal roadmap leading to settlement. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine is checking compliance by the parties to the conflict. The Minsk Contact Group provides support and works through concrete steps designed to implement the agreements. When necessary, support for dialogue can be provided by the Normandy format states. We are convinced that the political will in Kiev to peacefully resolve the accumulated problems with its fellow citizens in eastern Ukraine is the only part that is missing if we want to settle the conflict that has lasted for over four years now. This should be done through direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

It is important to preserve the unity of external mediators in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistrian conflicts based on the parties’ positions. We noted the efforts of Special Representative of the Chairperson-in-Office on Transnistria Franco Frattini in maintaining the momentum of the negotiation process. Ten years of peace in the South Caucasus give ground to hope for progress in the dialogue between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of the Geneva International Discussions. The OSCE is called upon to continue supporting the political solution to the Kosovo problem on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

We agree with the thesis about the importance of an open and respectful discussion on all issues. We support the continuation of a "structured dialogue" for de-escalating the military and political situation.

We continue to believe that joint work in the first "basket" has good prospects. We positively assess the work of Italy’s chairmanship in this area. I would especially like to note the success of the counterterrorism conference in Rome on May 10-11. In the face of the growing threat of terrorism, creating a global antiterrorist front remains our common goal. The importance of joint efforts to oppose the return of foreign terrorists remains relevant. It is also important to combat the spread of terrorist ideology and terrorism financing.

We consider it necessary to raise the OSCE anti-drug focus. The importance of this task is confirmed by disappointing data in the UN reports. We are convinced that the OSCE could contribute to the global anti-drug efforts based on the outcome of the upcoming 62nd session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

We are open for a depoliticised and mutually beneficial dialogue and cooperation in the area of information and communications technology security. We hope that the upcoming Italian chairmanship conference on this issue, scheduled for September 27-28 in Rome, will prove successful.

We believe that our common tasks in combating transnational threats should be duly reflected in the results of the December 2018 ministerial meeting in Milan.

We note the successful efforts of the Italian chairmanship in the OSCE’s economic-environmental dimension. We positively assess preparatory events of the economic forum on investment promotion, human resources development and on streamlining proper state and corporate governance, held in January in Vienna and in May in Venice. We welcome plans to work out a draft resolution on digital economy for the ministerial meeting in Milan. We are ready to take part in preparing for it.

It is necessary to continue dialogue on economic interdependence and to help establish contacts between Eurasian and European integration associations for the purpose of realising the concept for establishing a common economic infrastructure from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

The OSCE’s human dimension needs serious streamlining. Thematic discrepancies and organisational problems persist, and specialised executive agencies often exceed their mandates. We hope that Italy will be able to respond to these challenges before this deadline expires.

It is necessary to prioritise a respectful attitude towards traditional human values, social and economic human rights, the rights of ethnic minorities, including linguistic and education rights, the fight against human trafficking, the unacceptability of politically motivated persecution of journalists and media outlets, the preservation of cultural-historical heritage, efforts to reduce the number of stateless persons, non-interference in private and family life and the eradication of discrimination in sport. It is necessary to more actively counter the spread of extremist and neo-Nazi ideology, efforts to whitewash the Nazis and their accomplices, the destruction and desecration of monuments to soldiers of the anti-Hitler coalition and efforts to falsify the history of World War II and to revise the decisions of the Nuremberg trials.

We agree with the topicality of the migration issue. The OSCE can make its contribution to the international community’s efforts in this area.

We praise the January 29 conference against anti-Semitism that was held in Rome. We expect that instructions by participants in the 2014 Basel meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council on drafting declarations to combat intolerance with regard to Christians, Muslims and followers of other religions will be fulfilled.

We support the chairmanship’s intention to strengthen cooperation with the OSCE’s partners. Our organisation has a sufficient regulatory framework for doing this. Most importantly, it is necessary to retain the consensus principle during the provision of assistance to partners.

We praise the chairmanship’s intention to expand relations with other international organisations. We are calling for proactively using the Platform for Cooperative Security, adopted at the 1999 summit in Istanbul, and conducting all-inclusive work encompassing the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Eurasian Economic Union.

We are determined to continue searching for mutually acceptable options for the OSCE’s institutional consolidation through the approval of its Charter, through correcting thematic and geographical disproportions, and through drafting common regulations as regards the work of executive agencies and election monitoring principles. We expect that the Italian chairmanship and senior OSCE Secretariat officials will continue to coordinate the activities of its executive agencies and field missions, while preventing the use of OSCE tools for narrow group interests in favor of here-and-now political profit.

Mr Minister,

Russia is ready for partner-like cooperation with the Italian chairmanship of the OSCE on the basis of equal consideration for the interests of all participating states. We hope that the upcoming traditionally intense months of preparations for the meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan will prove fruitful and efficient.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334607






Remarks by Alexander Lukashevich, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE, at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on developments in Ukraine and the need to fulfil the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, August 30, 2018



1 September 2018 - 11:24




Mr Chairperson,

We welcome the start of the “school truce on 00:00 August 29. The first day has shown that the situation at the contact line has stabilised but, according to some reports, shelling by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) has not stopped entirely.

Regrettably, the experience of the truces negotiated by the Contact Group before has demonstrated Kiev’s reluctance to take real de-escalation measures. Ukraine’s efforts at confrontation and the obstruction of the Minsk Package of Measures were confirmed by the Contact Group’s meeting on August 22.

Under a far-fetched pretext, Ukrainian negotiators refused to coordinate the additional measures of military security suggested by Chief Monitor of the OSCE SMM to Ukraine Ertugrul Apakan: the step-by-step withdrawal of weapons on a sectoral basis, disengagement of forces, mine removal, the declaration of ceasefire orders, and developing a mechanism to hold those who order attacks responsible for their actions.

The Ukrainian negotiators ruined the opportunity to coordinate the disengagement of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya. In its weekly report on August 28 the SMM reaffirmed that the seven-day plan for a complete ceasefire on a section at Stanitsa Luganskaya was observed many times. Kiev ignores the SMM reports, including this week’s AFU advance in the disengagement sections in Petrovskoye and Zolotoye, which could turn them into hot spots.

Ukraine’s subversion of the implementation of the Contact Group’s framework decision of September 21, 2016 on the disengagement of forces is making it almost impossible to de-escalate tensions on the contact line.

The situation on the ground confirms Kiev’s stance on escalating tensions. On August 23, the eve of Ukraine’s Independence Day, the AFU made another attempt to break through the line in the Zhelobok area. The SMM recorded over 500 artillery shots and a number of fires there. Just before that, the SMM recorded a large shipment (179 units of equipment) of AFU artillery, tanks and armoured vehicles by rail to the contact line. In all, AFU shelling damaged buildings in the Golmovsky, Dokuchayevsky, Dolmitny, Donetsk, Zhelobok, Staromikhailovka and Yasinovataya. A field ambulance was destroyed in Naberezhnaya on August 7. A lorry with limestone was destroyed in Dokuchayevsk on August 28. The driver was killed.

We noted the SMM report of August 28 on civilian casualties in Gorlovka and Zaitsevo due to shelling in May and June. We urge the SMM to react more promptly to reports of shelling. The SMM should include in its reports detailed information about casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It is necessary to upgrade the monitoring at the contact line. Patrolling, including by drones, should be conducted evenly and proportionately on both sides of the contact line. It is unacceptable to distort or restrict information in favour of one side of the conflict and to violate the mission’s mandate.

To achieve a stable de-escalation in Donbass it is necessary to take a package of coordinated steps in both security and politics, as was agreed upon at the highest level. But Ukraine is not yet ready for this. At the Contact Group meeting on August 22, Ukrainian negotiators again refused to acknowledge on paper the Frank-Walter Steinmeier plan that was endorsed by the Normandy Four’s summits in 2015 and 2016, referring to the need to receive instructions from the Normandy format. However, Kiev takes every opportunity to sink this plan as well. This is a vicious circle.

The issue of exchanging prisoners based on the “all identified for all identified” formula is hanging in the air. The Ukrainian negotiators have not confirmed the information requested by Donetsk and Lugansk on certain prisoners and have not responded to the inquiry about the procedural status of those that are allegedly reluctant to return to Donbass.

There are no conditions for amnesty. The law on “the reintegration of Donbass” has destroyed the opportunity for implementing the relevant provision of the Package of Measures. In an interview with Ukrainskaya Pravda, Ukraine’s Minister of the Interior Arsen Avakov reaffirmed that there will be no amnesty as envisaged by the Package of Measures. Under the circumstances we again urge the OSCE to conduct a comparative analysis of the Package of Measures and the Ukrainian “reintegration” law.

President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko reaffirmed Kiev’s reluctance to start a dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk and to take measures for the political settlement of the domestic conflict. The gist of his speech at the celebrations of Ukraine’s Independence Day was not to look for ways of settling disagreements with Donbass but to urge the West to impose new sanctions against Russia.

The attitude of the Ukrainian leaders is fostered from abroad. Arms supplies from the US and Canada could become particularly dangerous. The Ukrainian plant Impulse has begun producing ammunition for the UAG-40 automatic grenade launcher.

By the end of 2021 the AFU will be equipped with the antitank guided missile launcher Javelin. Next year Washington plans to supply Kiev with Stinger man-portable air defence system units and the ammunition for them. Ottawa issued a permit to PGW Defence Technologies to deliver to Ukraine large calibre sniper rifles. Canadian Embassy officials meet with radicals from the Azov Battalion. The Azov website shows confirmation photos.

Kiev’s position is obstructing the resolution of urgent humanitarian issues in Donbass – pensions for persons with reduced mobility and repairing the bridge in Stanitsa Luganskaya. At the meeting in Minsk on August 22, Kiev’s representatives blocked a joint declaration on the non-use of torture on prisoners, which was suggested by the coordinator of the humanitarian subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group, Ambassador Toni Frisch. They ignored Donetsk’ proposals to create a negotiating format for resolving the issue of the missing as well. They showed no interest in transferring over 100 prisoners, not involved in the conflict, from Donetsk and Lugansk to Ukraine for serving sentences.

Continuing to subvert the Package of Measures and fanning anti-Russia hysteria, Kiev is placing its bets on radicals. As a result the number of crimes based on ethnic hate is growing in Ukraine. Special reporters from the UN Human Rights Council on the right to housing and ethnic minorities denounced the revolting acts of violence towards the Romani people and noted the growth of misanthropic rhetoric in Ukraine. The Western media confirm the attempts of Ukrainian radicals to engage in propaganda of nationalism abroad. Following Der Spiegel and The Guardian, Deutsche Welle has published a video clip where an AFU soldier who arrived for medical treatment in Germany gave a Nazi salute. The SMM recorded new acts of vandalism on World War II memorials and attempts by radicals to pressure the court. We urge the SMM to expedite the report on the manifestations of nationalism, neo-Nazism and racial intolerance in Ukraine.

Kiev continues to cleanse the media space. It encourages harassment of journalists and interferes in church affairs. Editor-in-Chief of RIA Novosti Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky is still under arrest on a far-fetched pretext. Threatening to denounce the rent agreement, the authorities compelled the bishop of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra to remove the photo of the Russian and Ukrainian presidents from the museum display. We urge the SMM to pay more attention to the situation around the Orthodox Church, report in detail about attacks on cathedrals, harassment of clergymen and the trampling underfoot of the freedom of conscience and religion.

The Ukrainian authorities continue violating the language rights of ethnic communities. Kiev’s attempts to sign separate agreements with some EU countries in circumvention of the adopted law on education only aggravate the discrimination against the Russian language that is in a disadvantaged position compared to Ukrainian and EU languages.

Russians that have traveled to Ukraine for various reasons are being hunted. On August 10, Kiev held the Russian tanker Mechanic Pogodin in the port of Kherson. We demand that this Russian vessel be released immediately. Seamen from the Nord vessel, also detained by Ukraine, are still unable to return to Russia.

We doubt that the continuation of this anti-Russia policy will bring any tangible dividends to the current authorities in Ukraine. The people are concerned about completely different problems – economic issues, the lack of social protection, no punishment for the radicals, and finally, armed confrontation with their compatriots in the county’s east. Obviously, Kiev is not interested in resolving these urgent systematic problems.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334617






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Jordan's Ambassador to Russia Amjad Odeh Adaileh



1 September 2018 - 14:56



On September 1, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov had a meeting with Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to Russia Amjad Odeh Adaileh, at the latter’s request.

The officials exchanged opinions on the topical matters concerning the Middle East agenda with a focus on the Syrian crisis settlement, including assistance with repatriation of Syrian refugees, including those from Jordan.

They also addressed some practical aspects of further progressive development of the multidimensional Russia-Jordan links.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334666
__________________
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 September 5th, 2018 #487
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Russian humanitarian aid to Laos



25 August 2018 - 16:59



On August 25, a special flight carried out by EMERCOM of Russia delivered 36 tonnes of various cargoes, including two mobile electric power stations, boats, tents, blankets, rice and sugar to Laos. The Russian Government sent the humanitarian aid to the population of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, which suffered from a massive flood in one of the southern provinces of the country, after a request from the Lao leadership.

The delivered humanitarian package was handed over to the authorised Laotian representatives during a ceremony at the airport in Vientiane.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324745






Press release on the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Courier Service



27 August 2018 - 10:36



On August 27, the Foreign Ministry marks the centenary of its Department of Diplomatic Courier Service. The Department is responsible for the compilation and delivery of diplomatic correspondence from and to the Russian Federation.

Russian diplomatic couriers provide regular uninterrupted delivery of diplomatic correspondence to more than 120 foreign missions on a monthly basis, including to countries with a complicated military and political situation.

On July 5, 2018, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin signed the Executive Order On the Diplomatic Correspondence of the Russian Federation and the Diplomatic Courier Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aimed at improving the legislation and consistent implementation of Russia’s foreign policy, thus opening a new page in the history of the diplomatic courier service.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3324784






Press release on the opening of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in Kazan



29 August 2018 - 11:14



On August 22, the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China opened in Kazan. President of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov, Chinese Ambassador to Russia Li Hui and Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry Yevgeny Tomikhin attended the opening ceremony.

The Consulate General in Kazan is China’s sixth consular office in Russia in addition to the offices in Vladivostok, Yekaterinburg, Irkutsk, St Petersburg and Khabarovsk. The consular district includes 14 regions of the Volga Federal District.

The aim of having a Chinese Consulate General in Kazan is to intensify direct links between the Russian and Chinese regions, strengthen their cooperation in practical spheres, expand cultural as well as tourist contacts, especially in light of the Years of Inter-Regional Cooperation held in 2018 and 2019 by the decision of the Russian and Chinese presidents.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3327800






Press release on the talks in Khartoum on crisis settlement in the Central African Republic



31 August 2018 - 10:27



On August 27−28 in Khartoum (the Republic of the Sudan), talks took place on ways to ease the internal conflict in the Central African Republic between leaders of the largest armed groups, including organisations that are former members of the Seleka and Anti-balaka. The talks were held under the auspices of President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir.

After the meeting, the Khartoum Declaration was signed, announcing the creation of the Central African opposition union for the purpose of achieving a long-term and stable peace in the Central African Republic. The document stipulates an obligation to respect human rights and to ensure the free and safe movement of representatives of humanitarian and other non-government organisations throughout the country. The declaration formalises the African Union’s commitment to establishing peace and security, and a readiness to launch the peace process with the central Government. The declaration also expresses gratitude to Russia and appreciation for its mediation efforts which made the Khartoum meeting possible.

On August 29, the Russian Foreign Minister’s Special Representative and Ambassador-at-Large Konstantin Shuvalov arrived in Bangui from Khartoum. He was received by President of the Central African Republic Faustin-Archange Touadera who expressed his gratitude to the leadership of the Russian Federation for its efforts. In response, the Russian representative emphasised that Russia’s assistance was in line with the efforts of the African community which was making a decisive contribution to relieving the crises on the African continent in accord with the principle enunciated by the African Union, which is that African problems need an African solution.

The Russian Federation, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and member of the International Support Group to the Central African Republic, intends to continue its intensive support of the national reconciliation process that has begun in the country, acting in coordination with the leaders of the Republic of the Sudan and the African Union, as well as through efforts within the UN and the UNSC.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334252






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



31 August 2018 - 20:54



Tragic news from Donetsk – Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic Alexander Zakharchenko was killed in a terrorist attack.

We express our condolences to Alexander Zakharchenko’s friends and family and wish prompt recovery to the wounded and injured in the blast, and we wish Donbass residents courage and stamina.

We are confident that an investigation will be held soon and that all the circumstances of that crime will be established and the perpetrators and their sponsors will be identified.

However, it is clear that the goal of the terrorist attack was to derail the process of peaceful political settlement in Donbass and the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. It looks especially cynical against the backdrop of the recently announced “back-to-school” ceasefire. The assassination of one of the signatories of the Minsk Package of Measures runs along Kiev’s logic of a military solution to the internal Ukrainian crisis. Such actions carry the serious risk of destabilising the situation in southeast Ukraine.

We call on Kiev to stop relying on terrorism to resolve Ukraine’s domestic issues. We hope that responsible Ukrainian politicians will find the strength to stop the party of war and prevent the escalation of the confrontation in Donbass.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3334568
__________________
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 September 6th, 2018 #488
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, August 30, 2018



30 August 2018 - 14:01







Visit to Moscow by Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem, who is also the Co-Chair of the Russian-Syrian Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation on Syria’s side, will be in Moscow on a working visit on August 30−31.

The programme of the visit includes talks between Walid Muallem and a high-profile delegation of the Syrian Government, on the one hand, and with his Russian counterpart, the Co-Chair of the Russian-Syrian Intergovernmental Commission and Deputy Prime Minister, Yury Borisov, on the other hand. They will discuss ways to ensure the steady advancement of the mutually beneficial partnership in all the aspects of bilateral trade and economic ties. Priorities on the bilateral agenda include stepping up Russia’s assistance to restoring economic activity in Syrian regions that have been recently liberated from terrorists, facilitating the reconstruction of socioeconomic infrastructure, and creating conditions for the return of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to these territories, as well as enabling as many Syrian refugees as possible to return back from abroad.

Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is scheduled to hold talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem. The two officials are expected to have a detailed discussion on the developments in and around Syria from a political perspective, as well as to outline specific coordinated steps on the corresponding political and diplomatic tracks.

The Russian Federation provides the Syrian Government effective assistance in its efforts to deliver on a number of essential and urgent objectives, including completing the effort to eliminate ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist groups, promoting a political settlement as per UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and in keeping with the resolutions of the Syrian National Dialog Congress in Sochi, rebuilding the country and enabling refugees and IDPs to return back to their homes in safety and dignity, as well as restoring Syria’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem, will also review plans for achieving a settlement in Syria as part of the Astana process. They will focus on the follow up to the Syrian National Dialog Congress, primarily regarding the establishment and launch of an intra-Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva with assistance from UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura. The Syrian Government and the opposition nominated their candidates for this body.



Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh Mohammed’s working visit to Russia

From August 30 to September 1, Foreign Minister of the State of Eritrea Osman Saleh Mohammed will be Russia on a working visit. On August 31 in Sochi, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold in-depth talks with his counterpart on the entire range of bilateral relations as well as on the relevant international and African agendas.

The ministers plan to discuss the prospects for increasing investment partnership in trade and the economy, including joint projects in the energy sector and development of the mineral deposits in Eritrea, construction of infrastructure facilities in the country. They will also devote extended time on plans to train Eritrean professionals at Russian universities and to strengthen the legal framework necessary for multifaceted cooperation.

It should be noted that due to similar or matching views on the major international and African issues, Moscow and Asmara are actively developing a political dialogue. They are also engaged in close coordination within the UN and other multilateral formats. This being said, the talks in Sochi will focus on resolving the crises in Africa primarily through the efforts of the African countries themselves. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister Osman Saleh Mohammed will also focus on the situation on the Horn of Africa which has recently seen significant progress in resolving long-standing conflicts.

We expect that the upcoming visit by the Eritrean Foreign Minister will give the necessary impetus to joint efforts towards fulfilling the potential of the traditionally friendly ties between Moscow and Asmara.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with students and faculty of the MGIMO University

On September 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with students and faculty of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This meeting has become a tradition marking Knowledge Day and the beginning of the new academic year.

I would like to point out that these meetings are a very helpful and useful practice. As in previous years, during his visit to the MGIMO University, Minister Lavrov will address students with welcoming remarks, answer their questions and talk to university students, postgraduates and faculty.

This interactive meeting will be broadcast on federal television networks as well as on the Foreign Ministry’s official social media pages.

Traditionally, senior officials from the Foreign Ministry and former diplomats will attend the meeting.



International conference “Countering Illicit Arms Trafficking in the Context of Fighting International Terrorism”

On September 3 and 4, the Foreign Ministry together with the relevant Russian ministries and agencies will hold a conference on Countering Illicit Arms Trafficking in the Context of Fighting International Terrorism at Moscow’s World Trade Centre.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will open the forum. Top officials from Russia’s Federal Security Service, Foreign Intelligence Service and the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring, as well as representatives of the State Duma and Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, are expected to attend. It is expected that Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Yury Fedotov will address the conference.

Representatives from 21 countries and heads of counterterrorist units in 11 international organisations confirmed their attendance. The conference will include three thematic sessions that will offer the podium to respected experts, political scientists, researchers, and civil society activists.



Update on Syria

Russia believes that Syria is on track for a major positive breakthrough, including completing the elimination of terrorists in the country and the launch of a real political process, economic recovery and the return of refugees and IDPs.

When a country reaches a tipping point of this kind, it is always easy to see the difference between those who are actually committed to facilitating a settlement and stability, and those who want to prevent it, being guided by their own geopolitical goals instead of the interests of the Syrian people.

Unfortunately, the clouds are gathering once again over Syria. The United States with its several thousand-strong military presence in Syria, together with its closest Western allies, threaten Syria with armed aggression. They are not at all embarrassed to follow models they had already used before. In fact, the same scheme was used in March and April 2018. It all started with preventive statements by officials alleging that “the Assad regime” intended to use chemical weapons and stressing the need to prevent any incident of this kind. As we all know, this is followed by what we call a chemical provocation, which either involves a real or fake chemical weapons attacks. Finally, in the closing stage, the Syrian military and other sites are shelled. This process has been launched, once again. We can expect this to be crudely orchestrated through a lurid media campaign, without inventing any new approaches or schemes, and by simply following tried and tested programmes and models.

Data coming from the Russian military and presented at the Defence Ministry briefing on August 27 prove that this hypothesis is not without grounds.

This is a matter of very serious concern for us and we wanted to share it with the international community and the media in the light of the aforementioned scenario. This would be a severe blow not only for the settlement in Syria, but also for global security. Playing with fire this way could have unpredictable consequences, since you cannot get away with it every time. On August 28, this matter was discussed at the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. Unfortunately, the participants in this debate expressed opposing views. It is regrettable that everyone decided to stick to their position, even though in fateful moments of this kind it is imperative that we at least try to hear each other, if not reach a consensus.

Let me reiterate that Russia views the use of toxic substances as totally unacceptable, just like staged chemical attacks intended to justify making deliberately misleading accusations against the Syrian government and military of carrying out chemical attacks. Damascus lacks the capability to do so, since Syria’s chemical stockpiles were completely eliminated under international supervision in 2014 and 2015 as part of a unique operation involving the US, among others. There is no need to add that this would be a glaring example of suicidal madness, which is something the Syrian government can hardly be accused of.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this situation: the West is not willing to accept the path toward settlement in Syria as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and is seeking to steer the course of events into greater alignment with the plans of Washington and its allies. This would explain the response by Western capitals to the Russian initiative on the return of Syrian refugees back home. This humanitarian project could have united the international community when carried out with active input from the UN and its specialised agencies, primarily the UNHCR. But this was not the case: the initiative designed to help millions of people return to their homes in safety and dignity instead of muddling along abroad as subhumans, and quite often facing extreme hardship without proper housing or work, was called “premature.” It is unfortunate that for some of our partners humanistic values were sacrificed to their determination to change the “undesirable” regime in Damascus.

I am embarrassed to say this, but we got hold of a questionnaire used by officials from a specialised UN agency who work in a Middle Eastern country with Syrian refugees willing to return to their homes. Instead of making arrangements for their return, these officials ask refugees a number of questions. Let me share them with you.

- What are your feelings regarding your return to Syria? Do you feel anxious about it? How cynical of them. People who were forced to leave their homeland fleeing what terrorists and fighters had done to their land are being asked whether they feel anxious ahead of their return home. Did anyone ask these questions during the Arab Spring?

- Do you understand that the security situation remains unstable there?

- Do you understand that you will be called up for military service?

It is also significant that, according to witnesses, spouses are interviewed separately, which exposes respondents to even more psychological pressure. After all, this is a UN-sponsored survey, not an interrogation.

Russia is consistent in its efforts to promote peace in Syria. We do not have any hidden agenda for this country. We will continue following this line for the wellbeing of the Syrian people and for the sake of preserving Syria as a single sovereign state, regardless of how many like-minded people we encounter as we move in this direction. Our hope to see more like-minded people is not underpinned by Russia’s interests, or the interests of Syria, the Syrian people and the world in general, or by regional and even global stability. This is what we need to do in order to ensure that in a couple of years from now we are not tormented by new confessions of being blind and short-sighted coming from those who promote this destructive agenda today. We want our partners to be bolder in their actions, including in matters that affect them directly, such as international and regional security, terrorism and refugees.



Pentagon’s attempted denial of Russian Defence Ministry’s report on an increase in US cruise missiles in the Middle East

On Tuesday, August 28, the Pentagon attempted to deny reports by the Russian Ministry of Defence on an increase in US cruise missiles in the Middle East.

Indeed, the US destroyer Ross armed with 28 Tomahawks, has repeatedly entered the area in the Mediterranean Sea, from which missiles can be effectively fired on Syrian territory. Another US ship of the same class, the USS Sullivans, quickly left the area in the Persian Gulf, from which it could easily hit targets in the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR), following media reports that the US is building up its capabilities for a strike against Syria.

However, when the US military was refuting this information, they forgot to mention that they can build up US missile capacity for strikes against Syria within 24 hours.

At this point, the attack force of the US, France and Britain consists of strategic and tactical aircraft deployed on airbases in Jordan and Kuwait and on Crete and totaling around 70 delivery vehicles, around 380 air-borne cruise missiles, plus two US destroyers, the Carney and the Ross, each carrying 28 Tomahawks.

Within 24 hours, the US missile-carrying force in the Mediterranean Sea could be reinforced by two more destroyers, the USS Donald Cook and the USS Porter, currently deployed at a naval base near the Spanish city of Rota, as well as by submarines. Within the same period, the destroyer USS Jason Dunham could enter the Red Sea for a strike against Syria and the USS Sullivans in the Persian Gulf could return to the attack area.

In other words, at least four delivery vehicles carrying sea-based missiles with a strike capacity of more than 112 Tomahawks could join an aggression against the sovereign Syrian state.

For proof, during talks between Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia General Valery Gerasimov and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford, the US counterpart said that the US Department of Defence was considering strike scenarios on targets in Syria. Other coalition member states are ready to join them.

Strikes against Syria are being linked to the alleged possible use of chemical weapons by government troops in Idlib.

Russia’s Chief of the General Staff informed General Dunford that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army is out of the question. The Syrian government has no such plans.

Considerable government troops have been massed around Idlib. Given their combat experience, they can, if necessary, respond to the terrorist force in that province.

It should be noted that, according to the information that we have, on August 23 and 24 eight barrels of chlorine and shells for multiple rocket launchers, which will be filled with chlorine, were delivered to the Idlib de-escalation zone, specifically to the town of Jisr ash-Shugur. The so-called White Helmets with video equipment to film the simulated use of chemical weapons have also arrived there. Preparations for yet another provocation are taking shape.

In addition, according the Russian Reconciliation Centre, the White Helmets delivered a large amount of toxic agents to an arms and fuel depot controlled by the Ahrar ash-Sham group in the town of Saraqib in Idlib province. They were transported on two heavy trucks from the town of Afs.

In order to expand the scale of “rent-a-mob” scenes to accuse the Bashar al-Assad government of using toxic agents against civilians, part of the cargo in unmarked plastic barrels was transported to other militant bases in the south of Idlib. Let me point out the fact that all of this is factual material that can be verified and Western countries have every opportunity to do so.

So, active preparations are under way to stage the use of chemical weapons by government troops in the Idlib zone in the hope that the United States will carry out missile strikes against government troops.

Judging from US military preparations in the Middle East, new missile strikes on targets in Syria are not unlikely.

Let me point out once again that in so doing the United States will reverse all efforts on a Syrian peace settlement. This must be understood.

In addition, the situation at the Rukban refugee camp in the US-controlled Al Tanf zone remains unresolved.

The latter was also discussed during the talks between the Russian chief of the general staff and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US.

General Joseph Dunford suggested completely relocating the Rukban refugee camp under the auspices of the UN and asked General Gerasimov to coordinate the matter with the Syrian government.

In the US general’s opinion, it would be expedient to jointly submit this idea to the UN.

He also came up with a request regarding the Russian military’s cooperation with the Syrian government on the prospects of delivering humanitarian aid to the Rukban camp as soon as possible.

The Russian Ministry of Defence, for its part, supported the above proposals.

Practical implementation is currently underway.



Syrian girl’s Twitter blog

About a month ago, another propaganda project using a child’s alias was launched on Twitter. It would seem that there are many such projects. Why this particular one is of interest, will be made clear. I am referring to the account allegedly run by a Syrian girl named Hala. (the description indicates that “Hala” is six years old, and she lives in Idlib). In her profile, the girl publishes videos from meetings with friends. Six-year-olds always do this when they are in zones controlled by militants, where hostilities are ongoing. They always meet with friends, film videos and post them on Twitter. Those who have children know that they do not play, they do not study, do not take photos, but upload everything to Twitter. She also writes how diligently she is learning English. Without learning English, what could you do on Twitter, how would you get in touch with the world from Idlib Province? She also tweets on everyday topics. Most importantly, the girl Hala calls on the world to “pay attention to Idlib,” to “stop killing children and stop the air strikes.”

The account has about 350 subscribers so far, but, interestingly, they include the BBC, The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and Radio Liberty. Much attention for a child. As if she is the only child in Idlib, and the entire international community’s attention has been focused on her. And they are lecturing us and accusing us of propaganda. Here's how this should work. That's what real propaganda is. The child has 350 subscribers, including five of the world's leading media outlets. Not every Russian Embassy account is being followed by such important subscribers.

I think it's obvious why this account has appeared now. We all remember many such stories that were invented and implemented by our Western colleagues with all the might of their campaign and propaganda tools.

We all remember the account of another Syrian girl, Bana al-Abed, that attracted attention in the midst of the operation to liberate Aleppo. The author also blogged in English, with up to 120 tweets from areas in which there was neither internet access nor electricity on some days.

How is this possible? How is it possible to keep buying this terrible propaganda story from month to month, from year to year? Now Hala is taking over Bana’s cause. She does not have a lot of posts yet, but I’m sure there will be more. For some reason they look like carbon copies of what Bana wrote. Some of her tweets use almost identical expressions and very similar topics. Do not be surprised if this account becomes a central platform if the scenario of provocation, staged attacks and further strikes is implemented. Apparently, it is being prepared precisely for this. We cannot rule out that Hala’s blog will be the one to share with the world the evidence of a “chemical attack” against civilians by the Syrian government.

We have seen this before. There was the 15-year-old boy, Mohammed Najem, who tweeted the hardships of his life in Eastern Ghouta and accused the President of Syria Bashar Assad of stealing his childhood. And how many children were used by the White Helmets in their productions?! The worst thing is not that this is happening, but the fact that it is happening systematically and that none of the Western media have investigated it and uncovered the truth.

Of course, making children suffer is unacceptable. I think this truth does not have to be repeated. This is the worst thing that can happen. But exploiting children to achieve selfish ends, using them in dirty political maneuvering is even more unacceptable. The war in Syria affected millions of children and this needs to be talked about; it must be reversed, children should be helped to forget about what they have gone through –not involved in new dirty provocations. This is the goal of those who create these accounts using children's names. Haven’t you wondered who really runs these blogs? Do you not care that you are being used when you quote these accounts?

We also want the suffering of the Syrian people and children to cease. To achieve this – and I feel proud when I say this – Russia is consistently fighting terrorist groups in that country, is actively helping to achieve a peaceful settlement, and assisting in the restoration of the country. We do not create fake accounts under the guise of young children. We are doing real work.

Yesterday a seven-year-old Syrian boy, Youssef, suffering from a severe form of leukemia, was airlifted to St Petersburg by the Russian Ministry of Defence. He is waiting for a bone marrow transplantation and a long period of rehabilitation – both physical and psychological. There are military actions in the drawings the boy makes, and lingering sadness in his eyes. But he is not running any accounts or trying to send meaningful messages to the international community. He just wants to live. Our country and doctors are making every effort to give him that chance. There are many such examples, more than dozens or hundreds. Syrian children come to Russia, get treatment, rest, and undergo rehabilitation. They are taking a sip of the childhood they were deprived of by Western “do-gooders”. They come to Artek and other Russian children’s camps, rehabilitation centres. They see our doctors who are there to help. These children do not have Twitter accounts, but they have the hope and the belief that someday they will be able to live a full life.



The OPCW Technical Secretariat’s report on progress in eliminating the Syrian chemical weapons programme

We have noted another monthly report on the progress in eliminating the Syrian chemical weapons programme, presented by the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

This fact-finding document reaffirms the full physical destruction of all 27 former Syrian chemical weapons facilities and all the chemicals that were declared and removed from Syrian territory in 2014. Apart from that, the Technical Secretariat deemed it its duty to report, once again, its plans to inspect the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) facilities in Barzah and Jamraya. The OPCW TS report again says not a single word about the SSRC having been completely destroyed by a joint US, UK and French missile attack on April 14 of this year. If this is so, what do the OPCW experts intend to inspect there?

We suggest that the Technical Secretariat accept the Syrian Government’s repeated invitations to visit these former civilian facilities to confirm the devastation that was brought about by the missile attack and finally accept the formal decision on discontinuing the inspections. They need, somehow, to return to reality.



Update on the arrest of Maria Butina in the United States

We continue to monitor the situation with the imprisonment of Russian citizen Maria Butina, who has been detained by US secret services on far-fetched charges.

Russian diplomats in Washington are in constant contact with this Russian woman. They are focusing on ensuring that her rights, including the right to medical aid, are fully respected.

Disregarding the appeals filed by the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy, the US authorities have not provided any coherent explanations for transferring Ms Butina to a new detention facility last week, which was done without a warning.

We took note of the attempts by the DA’s Office to have her case reviewed in private. In all evidence, Washington is using this expedient to conceal facts that would clearly expose the trumped-up nature of the criminal case against Butina. Thus far, the Department of Justice has provided not a single, even indirect, proof of her guilt, with the exception of some scrappy social media messages.

We demand that the US authorities immediately stop putting psychological pressure on Butina and release her.



Heightened tensions on the Afghan-Tajik border

According to the State Committee on National Security of the Republic of Tajikistan, on August 26 at 3 pm local time, in the Farkhor District, a group of 10-12 Afghan militants attacked a Niva car carrying three local forestry workers. As a result, two Tajik citizens were killed and one wounded. Soldiers of Tajikistan's border unit were alerted to take prompt action to deal with the bandits.

The Committee stresses that Tajikistan’s air force is not engaged in any combat missions in northeastern Afghanistan as Dushanbe is not authorised to carry out air strikes on another country without prior consultations with CSTO headquarters.

We closely follow the developments on the Afghan-Tajik border, where service members of the Russian military base 201 deployed in Tajikistan are helping maintain security and stability.



Attack on UN peacekeepers in Central African Republic

We condemn the August 23 attack on the convoy of the United Nations Stabilisation Mission in the CAR in the village of Pavica of the Basse-Kotto prefecture, which resulted in the death of a Burundi peacekeeper. We are concerned that this is the sixth UN peacekeeper killed in the CAR since the beginning of the year.

We expect the CAR authorities to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation into the incident and bring the perpetrators to justice. As a reminder, attacks on peacekeepers can be qualified as war crimes. We urge all belligerents to comply with international humanitarian law.

We support an early ceasefire throughout the country and the launch of a political process between the government of the CAR and armed groups.



High Level Conference on the Lake Chad Region

We praise the international efforts aimed at normalising the situation around Lake Chad, in particular, the results of the donors’ conference held in Addis-Ababa in February 2016 and organised by the African Union Commission with the support of the United Nations to find additional financing and materials for its activities as well as the Humanitarian Conference held in Oslo in February 2017. The High Level Conference on the Lake Chad Region, which will be held in Berlin on September 3–4 at the initiative of the German, Nigerian and Norwegian foreign ministries, the UN Development Programme and the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, shares the same goals. Russia will be represented by Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev.

We support the decision to establish the Multinational Joint Task Force against the Boko Haram terrorist group adopted at the summit of the Lake Chad Basin Commission member states (Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon) and Benin held in Niamey in October 2014. The primary objective of the joint task force is to eliminate extremists in their territory, block their paths of escape and cut off supply channels for weapons, money and food.

We are confident that this conference will give an added boost to the process of mobilising political and financial support for the countries in the region.



Update on the investigation into Salisbury and Amesbury incidents

We have read the recently released statement by the British police on the “cleanup” of Salisbury’s Queen Elizabeth Gardens. In reality, what we are facing is essentially a total information embargo on any facts that would shed light on the incident.

It should not go unnoticed that the Brits have not yet provided any information about Sergey and Yulia Skripal’s health or whereabouts. Diplomats from our consulate have no access to them in violation of international law. Let me say once again that we are ready to cooperate in the investigation and call on the Brits to respond to our requests for legal assistance that were sent many months ago.



US administration’s policy on Palestinian refugees

We took note of the US administration’s decision to cut the aid package to the Palestinian National Authority by the $200 million intended for education and health costs at Palestinian refugee camps on the West Bank and in Gaza. Washington explains this by saying that further aid allegedly is at variance with US national interests, brings no benefits to US taxpayers and should be reassigned for other priorities.

This is clearly a political move, which is at odds with the humanitarian needs of about 2 million people in Palestinian refugee camps. If the aim is to bring additional pressure to bear on Ramallah and make the PNA authorities more “pliable” on the Middle East settlement, it is unlikely to lead to the desired effect. Washington must understand that this decision is fraught with the aggravation of the humanitarian situation, which is complicated as it is. Many US allies are saying as much, not just us.

We see in the same light the administration’s line for a dramatic reduction in funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and its subsequent disbandment. Incidentally, it was the United States that was among the founding members of this agency that makes an important contribution to alleviating the plight of almost 5.3 million refugees and to stability in the region. This is something to add to the subject of national interests: the reduction in funding is explained by national interests, but so was initiating the financial aid. The adequate, effective and predictable financing for UNRWA operations serves to promote Middle East settlement based on generally recognised international law in the interests of implementing the concept of the two-state solution.

Russia’s voluntary contributions to the agency’s budget – $10 million in the period between 2017 and 2021 – is a recognition of its important role.



NATO’s activity in Europe

The decisions taken at July’s NATO summit in Brussels that built on and supplemented the meetings in Wales (2014) and Warsaw (2016) to “contain” Russia, confirm the US and other NATO member states’ intention to step up military activity near Russian borders, to continue building a European theatre of military operations and a springboard to exert pressure on Russia.

The policy of consistent increases in military expenditures by the NATO countries has also been approved, in particular, spending on the purchase of weapons. This, when their aggregate military spending is over half of the world's total spending for these purposes and exceeds Russia’s spending 14 times over.

An increasing number of large-scale military exercises are being held near our borders. The NATO Trident Juncture 2018 military exercises are planned for October-November in Norway, the Baltic Sea and the North Atlantic – the largest in the last 16 years. The troops and equipment of the alliance members and individual partner countries will be used on land, at sea and in the air to improve the skills of defensive and, crucially, offensive operations in the northern latitudes in case of a “high intensity” conflict with a “comparable enemy.”

This demonstration of military potential will unfold in the immediate proximity to Russian borders and has a clear anti-Russian nature. The north of Europe and the Baltic Sea region, formerly calm in military terms, are turning into a testing ground for simulated large-scale combat operations, planting in public opinion the possibility of using the area as a real theatre for military operations.



Chemnitz unrest update

We noted with concern the news of unrest in the town of Chemnitz (in Saxony in eastern Germany) in the past few days after the August 26 deadly knife attack during a street festivity.

We confirm that one of the victims in the Chemnitz incident is a Russian citizen. In this regard, separately, we note that the Consulate General of Russia in Leipzig is in constant contact with him. His life is no longer in danger.

We are certain that action will also be taken both to suppress the acts of violence by migrants against local citizens and to prevent crimes of a radical left or a radical right nature. In the absence of decisive actions on the part of the authorities, the attacks against foreigners, including our citizens and compatriots, will continue to whip up aggressive intolerance caused by migration bias.



A possible alternative to SWIFT

We have noted a statement by Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas regarding the creation of an alternative system for transferring financial data similar to SWIFT, which he made during the opening of the Ambassadors’ Conference at the Foreign Ministry in Berlin.

This idea reflects mounting concern in Europe and worldwide over the American policy of sanctions and legislative measures of an extraterritorial nature being applied by the United States.

If this initiative materialises, it would undoubtedly be of interest to the Russian financial community as well.



The Russian America. History, Culture, Diplomacy website

We have completed a new website, Russian America. History, Culture, Diplomacy (located on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s portal: rus-amerika.mid.ru), which contains unique documents from the ministry’s archives on Russian historical and cultural heritage in the United States.

They describe the contribution made by Russian travellers to the exploration of the North American continent, the establishment of Russian settlements in Alaska, the Aleutian and Hawaiian Islands and in California, the destiny of Fort Ross and the direct support provided by Russia to a young American democracy during the War of Independence and the Civil War between the North and South.

The website contains research articles, information on the most important events on related topics, and an interactive multimedia map showing Russian historical and cultural heritage sites in the US. These include: the House Museum of Russian Cadets and Veterans of WWI and the Museum of Russian Culture in San Francisco, the tomb and house of Sergey Rachmaninoff, the house of Alexander Solzhenitsyn in Vermont, the tomb of a Civil War hero, General Ivan Turchaninov, the monument to Soviet pilots in Fairbanks, the tombs of Soviet pilots in Anchorage and orthodox churches and monasteries.

It should be noted that work on this internet resource began at the initiative of the interdepartmental working group set up under the Russian Foreign Ministry to preserve Russian historical and cultural heritage in the United States.

A case in point is the common heritage of both countries, which needs to be preserved through a cooperative effort. Now that our relations are experiencing an extremely difficult period, cooperation on the cultural and humanitarian track is assuming greater significance as an element in maintaining bilateral ties, promoting a rapprochement through civil communities, research and non-governmental organisations and business circles. We hope that the new website will contribute to promoting this activity.



Russia-Turkey agreement on consultations to simplify visa regulations for certain categories of people

Following talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, it was agreed to create a mechanism for working out agreements to simplify travel regulations for certain categories of Turkish citizens on a reciprocal basis.

Bilateral expert consultations on consular matters scheduled for the autumn offer the most suitable professional platform for discussing visa-related issues.



Termination of the probe into cyberattacks on Swiss arms maker RUAG

We noted an August 27 statement from a spokesman for the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland about the termination of the investigation into the alleged 2016 cyberattacks against the Swiss government-owned weapon maker RUAG because the perpetrators could not be identified.

It looks like the Attorney General’s Office has thus confirmed the inconsistency of growing accusations against Russia. I think this should serve as a good lesson for everyone passing on unconfirmed information about the so-called hacker threat supposedly coming from Russia.

We are confident that only the development of a bilateral and multilateral expert dialogue on international information security will make it possible to reach any tangible results in preventing and investigating such incidents. We are ready to cooperate with Switzerland or any other interested states in addressing these challenges.

This interaction can be carried out at the interstate level, through the appropriate consultation mechanisms, but please bear in mind that Russia also has private agencies. We often hear our Western partners referring to some obscure private entities or individuals who they believe are involved in hacking. We, on the other hand, assert that we have private companies that investigate cybercrimes. If they are making references to our private sector, why don’t we use that resource and involve them in the investigation. Private businesses are active not only in Russia, but also in Eastern and Western Europe. We have repeatedly talked about these companies, not for promotion they do not actually need, but in response to Western countries’ claims about our private sector. Ask private companies from the Russian Federation to join the investigation. Why not?








Answers to media questions:



Question:

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev will soon pay an official visit to Russia. What would you cite as the most important achievement, the most positive aspect in relations between the two countries and two peoples?



Maria Zakharova:

I would say the full-scale development of cooperation between the two countries. I know it is not a direct answer to your question, but it is impossible to single out the most important thing. The most important is that all aspects of cooperation are growing: humanitarian, political, economic – all dimensions. It is even difficult to list everything. I would say this is the most important thing. And reluctance to single out one component is actually a positive, an excellent trend.



Question:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said recently, during her South Caucasus tour, that Germany is ready to assist the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution and to take some political responsibility in this regard. How can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I think it is up to the countries directly involved in the process, and it should be done with an awareness of the existing formats’ effectiveness. Such statements should be considered taking into account all these factors.



Question:

Several Korean media outlets recently reported that President Vladimir Putin is planning to visit Pyongyang on September 9. Could you tell us if it is true? What are the prospects for a North Korea-Russia summit?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot comment on this for one simple reason: we do not comment on the President’s agenda, talks or meetings. It is the job and tradition of the Presidential Press Service and Executive Office. Honestly, I would hate to break this tradition.



Question:

You did not say anything about preparations for consultations on Afghanistan. The event was scheduled for September 4, but Kabul asked to postpone the meeting. How are preparations progressing?



Maria Zakharova:

We repeatedly commented on this on the Foreign Ministry’s website. It clearly states that in connection with the planned and ongoing reshuffles in the leadership of Afghanistan, the consultations will be moved to a later date. The Ministry clearly stated this and explained the reason. As for the new timeframe, it will be worked out when an agreement is reached with all interested parties. Then the dates will be announced.



Question:

There was a brief report on the Foreign Ministry’s website yesterday about a meeting between Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and his Japanese counterpart Takeo Mori. It mentioned consultations on security in Northeast Asia and the US missile defence systems. Could you specify whether the case in point was the Aegis Ashore systems that are currently being deployed in Japan? What else was discussed?



Maria Zakharova:

I can say that I saw Sergey Ryabkov’s comments that he gave to the news agencies. I would like to call your attention to them, because he commented on those talks as fully as possible. I have nothing to add, but as regards your practical question, its concrete part, I will specify.



Question:

During your last briefing, speaking about the Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes! slogan, you drew a parallel with the German salutation and promised that this analogy would be in the briefing’s transcript. It was not. I looked through it very attentively and found nothing. Could you articulate what you meant? What is this slogan associated with by the Foreign Ministry?



Maria Zakharova:

There are links in the transcript. We will provide them to you by all means and draw attention to them. Go to the transcript published on the website. There you can click-open the link and read everything. If it does not work on your device, I myself will open and show it.



Question:

Polish authorities intend to dismantle a monument to fallen Red Army soldiers in the village of Starzynski Dwor in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, not far from Gdansk. This is a special monument – to Red Army prisoners of war who were driven into a barn and burnt alive by the Nazis in 1945. In the 1950s, the Poles put up a monument to the victims of that tragedy. Ten years ago, it was renovated. There is a plate on it with an inscription “To the tortured Red Army soldiers, prisoners of the Hitler regime in 1942-1945.” And now Polish authorities intend to demolish even this monument to Nazi victims. What do you think about this?



Maria Zakharova:

We regularly comment on this topic, speak about the unacceptability of demolishing monuments to Red Army, Soviet Army soldiers. This is a concrete example of an attempt to rewrite history. Many people do not believe and are even ironic, saying that all this was, in fact, invented in Moscow. No, we did not invent anything. The things you are talking about, which we regularly talk about and so do many activists, veterans and representatives of historical societies – all this is part of a global strategy to change history one way or another, to rewrite it. This is a direct approach to what was unacceptable 30 or 40 years ago. These are the results of the Nuremberg tribunal, attempts to rewrite or revise which were utterly unthinkable for the generation affected by World War II and the Great Patriotic War.

We will make political statements on each such case, carry out diplomatic work and cooperate with public organisations and volunteers. Some projects have already been partly implemented. The case in point is preserving the historical memory and historical legacy in this context.



Question:

You have said that according to the available information eight barrels containing chlorine were delivered to a place near Idlib. Where did you get such information?



Maria Zakharova:

This is our information. We have our own sources. I believe the information we have provided on similar matters in the past has been repeatedly confirmed.



Question:

This week, Saudi Arabian authorities voiced their readiness to launch hostilities against Iran if it blocks the Strait of Hormuz, provided that the UN Security Council agrees to this. What is Russia’s position regarding activities in the Persian Gulf? Can a war flare up between Tehran and Riyadh?



Maria Zakharova:

It is terrifying to even think that this scenario may come true. We believe that all existing international laws and specialised international institutions are in place to resolve even the most acute issues.



Question:

Azerbaijan’s Ganja is to host the ninth Azerbaijani-Russian interregional forum soon. How would this event help strengthen bilateral relations?



Maria Zakharova:

All interregional forums between states are an important political and economic component for intensifying practical cooperation between countries. We will provide more detailed information about this event, and will also update you on how it proceeds and on its goals and format.



Question:

Could you confirm that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly? What issues will they discuss?



Maria Zakharova:

I was surprised to see breaking news reports by media outlets about their meeting yesterday. According to these reports, someone requested permission from someone else. This information was presented in a rather strange way. To be honest, I don’t understand why this event is being perceived as something sensational. As a rule, members of the Russian delegation hold several dozen meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The schedule of these meetings is now being compiled. Both sides are discussing the possibility of a meeting between the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State. It is still too early to discuss the meeting’s exact time and format because the schedule is only being drafted. Honestly, the sensational manner in which this news was presented yesterday surprised me. This was not done in the context of the UN General Assembly and, in principle, without prior confirmation by the concerned parties. In reality, there is nothing dramatic or sensational about this. We are talking about traditional contacts on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The meeting’s contents, deadline and the list of experts who will take part are currently being finalised.



Question:

On August 29, another “school truce” ceasefire entered into force in Donbass. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian side does not observe it. Recently, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko gathered accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in Avdeyevka and made a statement to the effect that Ukraine will continue to reintegrate the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. That is, the war will continue. Can the international community somehow influence the actions of the Ukrainian side, which does not honour the Minsk Agreements?



Maria Zakharova:

We are trying to convince the international community to pressure Kiev, so that it implements the Minsk Agreements. I understand that this phrase resembles an unrealised dream, but we are not losing hope. We realise that what is at stake is people’s lives, not just politics. For our part, we are doing everything possible: for example we regularly make extensive deliveries of humanitarian aid for the affected population in the areas you mentioned.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3330587
__________________
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 October 15th, 2018 #489
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

I would like to ask the community of this forum:
Do you need this topic? Is it interesting to you?

I just do not get any reaction from other members of the forum and I don’t understand if it needs it here at all. Please write what you think.
__________________
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 October 16th, 2018 #490
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Him View Post
I would like to ask the community of this forum:
Do you need this topic? Is it interesting to you?

I just do not get any reaction from other members of the forum and I don’t understand if it needs it here at all. Please write what you think.
You know I like Maria Zakharova, so I usually look at this thread. I might not read everything in each post being some of them are quite lengthy, but I find the information useful and interesting. I'm sure it is a lot of work for you to post all these transcripts and other information. I'm sorry no one else but me seems to respond in this thread, but if you no longer want to do it, then I understand. Posting videos only might be a better idea like I do in the Maria Zakharova vs. Heather Nauert thread, since it appears most people today are too lazy or apathetic to read text over a certain length, not like in the pre-Internet and TV age when everyone read books.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old October 16th, 2018 #491
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
You know I like Maria Zakharova, so I usually look at this thread.
Well then, I will continue to fill it with content



Quote:
I might not read everything in each post being some of them are quite lengthy, but I find the information useful and interesting. I'm sure it is a lot of work for you to post all these transcripts and other information.
I do not regret the disappeared time when the topic is interesting to someone, I just would not want to lose this time to reproduce those topics that are not interesting to anyone.



Quote:
I'm sorry no one else but me seems to respond in this thread, but if you no longer want to do it, then I understand.
For lazy people in this forum there are Thumbs Up! and Thumbs down!. Let them use them more often.



Quote:
Posting videos only might be a better idea like I do in the Maria Zakharova vs. Heather Nauert thread, since it appears most people today are too lazy or apathetic to read text over a certain length, not like in the pre-Internet and TV age when everyone read books.
Recently, I try to duplicate text information and video information.

By the way, the Russian Foreign Ministry prepared a surprise for us in September. It did not translate more than half of Russian content into English. I do not know what is the reason. Maybe their translator got sick.

Of course, I wrote them a letter with a request to correct this situation, but so far I don’t see any changes on their website.
__________________
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 October 21st, 2018 #492
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Him View Post
Well then, I will continue to fill it with content
In the fight with my laziness, I lost
I'm sorry, Ray.
__________________
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 October 21st, 2018 #493
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Him View Post
In the fight with my laziness, I lost
I'm sorry, Ray.
MFA no longer includes English translations? That's too bad.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old October 22nd, 2018 #494
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
MFA no longer includes English translations? That's too bad.
I did not say that.
I said that in September they did not translate half of the Russian content into English.
__________________
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 October 30th, 2018 #495
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

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

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old December 2nd, 2018 #496
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Back to School ceremony at the Yevgeny Primakov School, Moscow Region, September 3, 2018



3 September 2018 - 12:21







Ms Maisuradze,

Ms Primakova,

Mr Vorobyov,

Friends,

I am delighted to be here to warmly greet all of you at the beginning of a new academic year. I would like to congratulate all first-graders who are just starting out on their most important mission of this year which is entering this wonderful school.

This establishment bears the name of an outstanding state and public figure, diplomat and academic Yevgeny Primakov, a man who earned respect not only in our country, where he worked at various positions of responsibility, including as head of government at the most difficult time for our economy and social sphere. He is also widely respected throughout the world due to the fact that he never gave up his principles, but always listened. He never aimed to offend anyone and tried to avoid any confrontation. He always sought solutions that would be logical and obvious and always explained everything to his disciples (I was one of them). It is the highest quality of a leader and teacher to explain to his disciples the tasks and goals set before them. I very much hope that in this beautiful school, you will make friends and do your best to learn from your teachers. They are experienced people. I believe this school has one of the best staff of teachers in secondary education, which is thanks to the Governor of the Moscow Region Andrey Vorobyov, who personally initiated this project and made it a success.







I hope that here you will learn all the traditions that we want to pass on from generation to generation, from Yevgeny Primakov to all those who love their country and want to achieve high results in various spheres of life. Many roads will be opened before you. When in high school you start thinking where to continue your education, you can be sure that the knowledge you gained here will give you the widest choice of universities.

Once again, welcome to school! Good luck to you all!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336189






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a meeting with students and faculty at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Moscow, September 3, 2018



3 September 2018 - 16:37







Mr Torkunov,

Friends,

First of all, I would like to join the Rector of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anatoly Torkunov, in welcoming the freshmen here. You are starting a new stage in your lives, a largely unexplored landscape, but I'm sure that with MGIMO’s traditions and with the help of your teachers and other students who have been here a year or more, you will be able to overcome this period of change successfully and work through the challenges during your first year and get ready for new achievements.

I would also like to welcome the ambassadors from the home countries of many MGIMO students. I hope that their participation in today's event confirms the high appreciation of the quality of a MGIMO education, which has gained a reputation in Russia and the world.

We at the Foreign Ministry are very pleased that MGIMO, which is considered the Ministry’s school, enjoys such respect. The figures just cited by Mr Torkunov are very impressive. I think that those who chose MGIMO have made a good choice. Diplomatic work is very interesting and in demand. Whatever occupation you choose, be it pure diplomacy, international jurisprudence, economics or journalism, I am sure that you will not be bored.

The situation in the world today does keep us busy, and we all know this. What is happening actually reminds me of tectonic shifts. Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, some said it was the end of history and that a neoliberal model of the economy and political life would dominate around the world. It seemed that the trends in global development were leading toward globalisation, with the universal spread of interdependence, interpenetration and openness. It seemed almost like the borders were about to disappear, and humanity would live according to a pattern and likeness similar to what American philosopher Francis Fukuyama meant by the “end of history” after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But life has proved to be far more versatile. Globalisation and a pervasive interdependence began clashing with people’s reluctance to forget their roots, their dedication to stick to their cultural and national identities. Examples of this are multiplying before our eyes. Therefore, the task of politicians is to seek compromise between the expediency and the inevitability of taking advantage of the new industrial revolution, especially the digital revolution, on the one hand, and people’s concern not to lose their roots and preserve the traditions that their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers left them. So the problems are really serious.

Along with our colleagues from the CSTO, the CIS, the SCO, BRICS and many of our other partners abroad, we try to make progress in searching for agreements and the reconciliation of these two perfectly objective and real trends to globalise everything. This process is dictated by the development of the global economy and, at the same time, the preservation of people’s national traditions, cultural identity and values. Many things are said about values, but they can differ. All people’s values must be respected, without trying to make everyone equal and accepting the values offered by the neoliberal Western community. But these values are now being questioned by the Western community, too. The search for compromise and a balance of interest will decide the fate of humanity, and this process is ongoing. There will be many problems, difficulties, philosophical clashes and probably a lot of examples of struggle, which is not always fair and just, along the way. But this is life, and we are in favour of settling everything through a dialogue.

There is a small group of countries led by the US, as we can see, that does not want a dialogue but wants to use dictate, ultimatums and blackmail instead of diplomacy. We see this every day. Now everything is being revised, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme, the Paris Agreement on Climate and the North American Free Trade Agreement, but this has not been completed yet. We are already facing the problem of the future of the WTO, which the US openly calls unjust and obsolete. The methods used by Washington now cannot be called anything but an ambition to dominate everything. If something goes wrong, diplomacy is thrown out and sanctions are used, with US law being extrapolated to the entire planet. The exterritorial use of unilateral illicit coercion measures is becoming a serious problem both for developing states and the Western countries that are the US’s allies. We find no pleasure in watching these points of conflict grow and multiply. Let me stress again that we are interested in stable peace, stability near our borders and in overcoming the conflicts and crises that may in some way affect the security of our citizens and our country through talks and a search for sensible compromises. We are ready for compromises like this.

We are ready to contribute as much effort as possible to settle any conflict or crisis, such as Syria, where Russia was one of the originators of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which now serves as the base for the Syrian settlement process while the remaining terrorists are eliminated and humanitarian problems are solved, or Ukraine, where Russia played the key role in developing the Minsk Agreements that remain the only way to settle the crisis in eastern Ukraine; but, unfortunately, the settlement based on the Minsk Package of Measures does not depend solely on us. It is improbable that Kiev will change their destructive course of sabotage and undermining everything the Russian, German, French and Ukrainian leaders agreed on in February 2015 before the election takes place in Ukraine. Let me stress again that we do not have other colleagues. Those who want to dominate at any price, go against history, because new centres of economic power and growth have been getting stronger in the world for several decades, and political influence comes with this. One cannot disregard these centres. Such attempts take place, but they are weak. They will result in nothing good and most likely will return to those who try it, like a boomerang.

I see prospects in the initiatives being implemented and discussed in the Eurasian space. You know about our Eurasian project and China's Belt and Road Initiative. Last May, the Eurasian Economic Union and China reached an agreement on economic cooperation. This is a very important foundation for what Russian President Vladimir Putin called the Greater Eurasia project, saying we have to utilise geopolitical and geo-economic advantages in our common Eurasian space, without making theoretical schemes that will work for certain participants and then imposing them on others.

We base our activities in the EAEU and the SCO on a practical approach and make an effort to promote specific projects that call for implementation. Through practical steps coordinated by all participants, we expedite the potential for further integration and speak in favour of these processes taking place with the participation of the EAEU, the SCO and the ASEAN member states. I should note that as regards these processes, we always keep our door open to the EU, where the opinion has been expressed that without involvement in the Eurasian integration processes it will be increasingly difficult for them to sustain competition, something that is becoming more acute in today's world. More and more often unfair competition tactics are being used.

I should note another phenomenon of the past eight years – the G20. The annual summits prove that this is a promising association, primarily because its work - just like in the other ones I mentioned that Russia is actively involved in - is based on the principle of consensus. Nothing can be imposed there but everything has to be agreed upon - maybe not quickly or without some holdouts and compromises, but everything has to be agreed on. It is not accidental that the G20, in addition to economic, macroeconomic, financial issues, and the international monetary system, has been paying more attention to certain foreign policy issues. I think this reflects the awareness of the G20 member states - which include the leading countries in the world's major regions - that here where unilateral decisions cannot be imposed on them, they want to promote a political agenda with a coordinated approach that is suitable for everyone.

There are broad and challenging prospects now. I have mentioned only a few problems with an emphasis on the core points of the differences that are arising in the world and that MGIMO graduates will soon have to deal with. But I am confident that the freshmen and those who are continuing will only gain from delving into issues with the help of your wonderful teachers and staff from the Foreign Ministry, who take pleasure in giving lectures and holding seminars.







Question:

Over the past few years so-called digital diplomacy has become more and more popular. Social media networks are turning into an important tool of information and explanatory work. Do you use social media networks, and do you have your own accounts on leading social networks?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are absolutely right. Social media networks are part of our personal life, and they are also becoming an important aspect of our professional life because it appears that no profession, all the more so diplomacy, can do without social media networks. One of diplomacy’s tasks is to spread information and to explain the activities of a country. The Foreign Ministry has been actively using social media networks over the past few years. We have accounts in leading social networks, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and VKontakte. The Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department has a special section which deals with digital information technology. We prioritise the circulation of foreign-language content. The Foreign Ministry has both Russian-language and English-language accounts, we also have a Spanish-language account on Twitter, as well as Arabic-language accounts on Twitter and Facebook. The Foreign Ministry’s official website is currently available in all official UN languages, including Russian, English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and German. This is not the limit. There is high demand for information in other languages, European languages, first and foremost, as well as in other languages. We will try and do this, but, as you understand, this calls for certain resources. These questions are not resolved very quickly.

I personally have no social network accounts, but I’m kept in the picture when it comes to what’s going on there.



Question:

Last March, the School of Governance and Politics of MGIMO University launched Highly Likely Welcome Back, a programme for students who wish to return from British and US universities. Many did not believe that students from London would want to return to Russia and study political science and public administration at MGIMO University. However, there are 12 of us who immediately applied from New York, London and San Diego. We are very grateful to the university management for this opportunity and the patriotism it demonstrates. What, in your opinion, are the prospects for Russia-US relations? How long will the policy of provocations against our country continue?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I can say that your initial comments were very interesting. No doubt, these young people made their decision to move to the Russian Federation to study, not out of any compulsion, but on the basis of their own free choice, which highlights once again the quality of education students receive in our university. I hope that you will not be disappointed and there will be no decrease in demand for MGIMO graduates but continued growth.

As far as Russia-US relations are concerned, this is in fact an endless topic on which I could elaborate for hours. Perhaps, the most important point here is that the current US Administration is stringently, if not to say aggressively, pursuing a policy that was characteristic of all its predecessors without exception, namely a policy based on the idea that the United States is superior. This involves very simple direct actions that have very little to do with diplomacy. It involves demands. If a partner rejects them, they begin to apply pressure, impose restrictions, sanctions, ultimatums, threats. I don’t think that this is a forward-looking method of conducting world affairs but this is the philosophy and mode of action of the current US administration.

Once again, we do not recognise illegitimate steps by Washington that negate so many important achievements, ranging from the Iranian nuclear issue that was settled by an unprecedented document, to the questioning of the need to be involved in the WTO, not to mention the United States’ position regarding the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. This position crosses out all UN Security Council resolutions and affirms the United States’ unwillingness to implement them.

Personal contacts are particularly significant in these circumstances. I was present at the meetings between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. I spoke to US Secretaries of State Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo. These are people who, I believe, understand the importance of getting along with us, as they say, including in the interests of the United States. The economic activity between us is miniscule compared to our other partners but, of course, American companies are interested in the Russian market. The potential of the Russian market and cooperation with Russia cannot be ignored with regard to the long-term economic interests of the United States. This also concerns the resolution of international crises and conflicts, be it in the Middle East, North Africa, Ukraine (the conflict which the United States, under the administration of former president Barack Obama, proactively shaped and is now keeping at boiling point, primarily because they want aggravation at our border).

An additional factor is the domestic political scandal in the United States. The democrats lost after the unearthing of evidence of their manipulation of the US laws concerning nomination of candidates in the Democratic National Committee. The candidate from the Democratic Party’s socialist faction, Bernie Sanders, was basically pressured, in violation of all norms. What is more, when Donald Trump won in the United States, the democrats could not believe it and still cannot get over it. They invented the stories you hear everywhere about Russia’s interference; they claim that we must be punished for Ukraine, even for North Korea, if you listen to numerous utterances by members of the House of Representatives or senators. That is, there is no problem in the world in which Russia did not play a negative role, judging by the attitudes of US representatives, who are now simply obsessed with Russophobia. I am sure that this is not a total obsession but it has become bad form to speak positively about normalising relations with Russia.

US senator Rand Paul visited us in August, preceded by another group of senators. They were all ostracised when they returned to the United States. Once again, this has become an epidemic of sorts. Those who dare to speak about the importance of a normal conversation, of voicing their concerns and asking for clarification from their partners – they form a minority. Here is a good example, which we already mentioned, concerning the notorious interference with the US election, hacking into all possible accounts and manipulation of electoral rolls. We suggested the creation of a working group on cybersecurity to former president Barack Obama. Russian President Vladimir Putin reminded US President Donald Trump about this when they met in Hamburg in July 2017. US President Donald Trump said that the proposal was a good idea. When he returned to the United States, the US Congress raised so much dust, accusing him of wanting to talk to Russians about the very issue that we allegedly used to interfere in US domestic affairs. This is very unsound logic. Therefore, we are not reacting with hysteria, nor do we want to respond in a tit for tat manner. We are reacting to sanctions, introducing retaliatory restrictions but not in a way that harms ourselves. Instead we simply identify specific individuals who are unwinding this completely unnecessary flywheel of Russophobia that neither Americans nor Europeans, neither we Russians nor the rest of the world need.

We are open to talks. We had a normal dialogue in Helsinki. However, the joint news conference by Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump caused hysteria. I believe that the US political system should be ashamed for stirring up such turbulence in relations with Russia. They do not respect themselves. If they think that we control the entire world then what about the claims that America is superior and above everything and determines the future of humankind?

I want to stress once again that we support a mutually respectful and equitable dialogue. There is no need to speak to us in any other way. People with little knowledge of history should perhaps read books more often. As soon as the United States is ready to talk, we will not keep them waiting. Once again, we can see that US President Donald Trump’s wish to have normal relations with us is getting blocked by anti-Russian lobbyists in Washington. This is the reason for all the internal investigations by US attorney Robert Mueller, which have been going on for two years. Not a single scrap of evidence has been produced to indicate that Russia is responsible for domestic issues in the United States.



Question:

You visit dozens of countries each year and get to know their history, culture, customs and traditions. What place here at home do you feel close to?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have our capital – “my dear capital, my golden Moscow.” I really love Siberia, too. Every year I try to visit there, most of all the Altai Territory, Khakassia, and Tyva. I try to spend a week there in the summer and another in the winter. It gives me enough energy for the rest of the year. If you have never been there, I recommend these places.



Question:

Armenian events are running counter to the promise by the country’s new leaders to not persecute their political predecessors. What is Russia's stance on this? How dangerous is this situation for further CIS integration?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, we are interested in stability in countries that have allied relations or strategic partnerships with us. The domestic political processes there should develop on a constitutional track and be maximally favourable for economic development and social improvement. This is what we are trying to achieve through our integration association – the Eurasian Economic Union, and with regard to security, through the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO).

We closely followed the developments in Armenia after the constitutional change that transferred all the basic authority to the prime minister elected by the country's parliament. We have not made any moves or statements that could be even stretched to, or in any way interpreted as interference in Armenia’s internal affairs. I cannot say that every country has done the same, but that’s not my point.

We are certainly concerned that Armenia is still boiling. The events of ten years ago are being investigated. You know the facts about the arrests made. We certainly consider this the domestic affair of the Republic of Armenia. We really want these internal affairs to remain on the solid foundation of law and the constitution and be quickly resolved so that Armenia can concentrate on constructive plans.

In the near future, another meeting is planned between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. I think it would be important for us to hear how the new Armenian leader assesses the prospects for developments in his country.

As I said before, we are absolutely not indifferent to Armenia's commitment to the CSTO in this situation. We proceed from the assumption that these commitments are in place and that they must be fully complied with, including as regards strengthening the reputation and prestige of our common organisation.



Question:

You recently referred to the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia as the rise of the people's diplomacy. Do you think we have actually shattered the stereotypes about Russia that have developed in the West?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think so. I am confident that it was indeed a triumph for people's diplomacy. The authorities put a lot of effort into creating the necessary conditions for the athletes, the fans and guests of this tremendous festive event. In addition to the technical and organisational aspects, it was the Russian people who played a decisive role communicating with foreign fans, showing them that we are open, kind, hospitable and cheerful, that we appreciate humour and love being in a good company. We saw this in a variety of ways.

Certain events and phenomena bring people closer better than many official ceremonies; they help us learn about countries we have never visited and make friends.

Today we are all mourning popular singer Iosif Kobzon who was also a people's diplomat and helped carry the truth about Russia and Russian mentality to many countries. The 2018 FIFA World Cup opened many people’s eyes. It is not accidental that many foreigners are applying to visit Russia again. As you know, President Vladimir Putin instructed the Government to extend the validity of the FIFA Fan ID through the end of this year. The holders of these IDs can travel to Russia as many times as they want until yearend, and their family and friends, if any, will be issued visas promptly and free of charge, even after the World Cup.

On Saturday, President Vladimir Putin visited the Sirius Educational Center in Sochi and suggested opening visa-free entry for school students during school Olympiads in various fields of study. I think this is a general policy aimed at the maximum ease of communication between people, with a special focus on youth. We count on you and expect the traditions of international friendship to flourish and grow stronger within the walls of MGIMO University.



Question:

We know that many diplomats continue their professional activities in the area of higher education. Over the decades, outstanding experts in international relations have lectured at numerous MGIMO faculties. Is there any chance that you will join the ranks of MGIMO lecturers some day?



Sergey Lavrov:

If I came here more often, you would probably be bored to death with me. To be serious, I regularly speak at MGIMO and the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy. The Academy’s Rector, Yevgeny Bazhanov, can confirm this. I regularly speak with young people in other formats. I have recently attended the Terra Scientia on Klyazma River National Educational Youth Forum. Before that, I attended the Russia, Country of Opportunities forum and also met with finalists in the Leaders of Russia national competition. Last year, I took part in the World Festival of Youth and Students. To my mind, there are many formats that make it possible to speak with young people without reverting to mercantilism because a person lecturing here would have to ask the Rector for money. Nevertheless, I will try to share my modest knowledge and experience with our young friends.



Question:

On August 27, the United States introduced new restrictive measures against Russia, this time in connection with the so-called Skripal case. How will Moscow respond to Washington’s new sanctions, while conducting bilateral dialogue?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already said a few words on this issue. I repeat, we will certainly not leave this unfriendly move without response. We will make an announcement on this, and our response will not necessarily be symmetrical. I believe that a symmetrical response is not always an optimal scenario.

These sanctions hinge on absolutely false assertions. So far, British leaders can only voice “highly likely” claims with regard to the Russian Federation. Replying to journalists’ questions, Scotland Yard representatives, being honest detectives, note that the investigation is not yet over, and that they are making no comments for the moment. Just look at how all this happened. The US decision to surge ahead of London probably shows the ability of British diplomacy to persuade and to hide behind those capable of doing the dirty work. The EU response was quite restrained right after this tragic incident, and the United Kingdom made tremendous efforts to persuade about two-thirds of EU members to expel one, two, maybe three Russian diplomats, following the British example. When we asked our partners in Europe, who were forced to yield to this blackmail and arm-twisting, whether the British had presented them with any additional evidence, apart from the “highly likely” claims, we were told that they had done nothing of the kind, but that they had promised to provide such evidence later on. I regularly ask this question, and no one has received any evidence for the time being.

Of course, British traditions are well-known. I sincerely take my hat off to the British diplomats who manage to influence the EU’s policy on Russia and even the United States, at a time when the UK is leaving the EU altogether. They are by no means the junior partner in the relationship and they often persuade the United States to act accordingly, the way London wants it to act. This is a sad story.

There are no irreparable problems in Russian-British relations. All the episodes that have caused a cooling in relations, if not a total freeze, fit into the “highly likely” category. These incidents include the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, where the investigation was eventually classified, and we still have no information on the case. In the same category are the murders of many other Russians, including Nikolay Glushkov and Alexander Perepelichny. Add to this the Sergey Skripal incident where a Russian citizen and her father who has dual citizenship have not been seen in public for the last three months. What has happened to them, and where are they? We have very many questions.

This intricate and cynical line based on “highly likely” claims is quite deplorable because it undermines opportunities for expanding our normal relations on the basis of mutual benefit. We have many shared interests that have now been artificially shelved.



Question:

In addition to my main studies I would like to join the MGIMO Negotiation Club. Could you give me some advice on how to hold talks and describe the most difficult talks you have ever held?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think there is no universal recipe. Each negotiation round has its own features, above all because people on the other side of the table are different. Everybody shows their individual character when they sit down at the negotiating table. If you do not know your counterpart, you should try to figure out how to lead the conversation during the initial exchange of polite phrases. If you have known this person for a long time, this is much easier.

For example, I spent many hours with former US Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating an entire series of documents on the Syrian settlement process. At first we worked successfully on setting up the International Syria Support Group and then on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 (which was approved unanimously). Later, in the autumn of 2016, after President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama met in China and outlined the opportunities for close cooperation in eliminating terrorist groups in Syria, John Kerry and I met once again and negotiated a document, which unfortunately the US side failed to carry out, because the first and key provision was to separate the military opposition that was ready for a dialogue with the government on the future of Syria from the terrorists. They committed to this course of action but failed to deliver on it.

I trust my feelings and intuition. Sometimes I make mistakes, but I have to drown myself in a particular situation. There will never be a ready course of action for all situations in life. Diplomacy is the art of finding common ground. When you discuss something with your parents or friends, and your views do not coincide one hundred percent, you are trying to come to terms; this is similar.



Question:

This year, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum was held under the slogan “Creating an Economy of Trust.” Can you say that this slogan has proven its value?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is needed. It is still too early to say if it has proven its value and if trust has returned to international economic relations. But it is obvious that everyone rejects the economy of pressure and unilateral demands. Introducing such a concept as an “economy of trust” attracted the attention of many businesspeople. They need to stop worrying every day that someone will emerge from around the corner and punish them, and they won’t even know about it until the threat becomes real.



Question:

Is there such a concept as trust in international relations? Or is it non-existent?



Sergey Lavrov:

It exists. There are partners you trust. But there is also another concept, as you say: trust but verify. This is what Ronald Reagan said about the USSR. To be honest, it would not hurt to verify things in relations with many colleagues at the global stage.



Question:

There are two contradictory positions today. One is that higher education must be for the chosen people. And the other, the opposite position is that today’s society demands for everyone to have university education. What do you think?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that everything must be based on free will and on what an individual wants to be the key element in determining his or her future.



Question:

Jurisprudence, especially international, does not tolerate double standards. In this regard, I would like to hear what you have to say about the situation in Ukraine, where the head of the Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, was murdered, and in Syria.

Recently, you had talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of Syria Walid Muallem. How constructive were they, what decisions were made and how will the “provocations” in Idlib be handled? What our further actions at the OPCW and the UN can be regarding the settlement in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

I described in sufficient detail the content of my discussions with my Syrian colleague, as well as the meetings held earlier with the Turkish representatives, namely, Turkey’s Defence Minister Hulusi Akar and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu when they were in Moscow. Everything is fairly straightforward there. Among other things, the Idlib de-escalation zone was created and is expected to become a hostilities-free area. Moreover, the ceasefire does not apply to the terrorists (primarily, Jabhat al-Nusra and several other groups that merged with it). Just as in the previous cases I mentioned when I spoke about our conversations with the Obama administration, there is a demand to draw a line between armed opposition groups that are willing to participate in a political settlement, from the militants and terrorists who were designated as such by the UN Security Council and who are not willing to reach any compromises.

In order to maintain a ceasefire that excludes only the terrorists, 12 Turkish observation posts have been created along the internal perimeter. The external perimeter is guarded by the Syrian troops and our military police. The ceasefire has been violated regularly for more than two months now. This zone is used to shell the positions of the Syrian army, to raid them and to launch vast numbers of drones to attack our military base in Khmeimim (over 50 drones have been shot down). It’s impossible to put up with such a situation forever.

In conjunction with our Turkish colleagues, the Syrian government and the Iranians as participants of the Astana format, we are doing our best to separate normal armed opposition groups from the terrorists on the ground (for obvious reasons, primarily the military are doing this) and to make sure that civilians are not harmed.

At a news conference that followed our talks, Walid Muallem mentioned that the Syrian authorities are continuing the policy of local conciliations in order to reach an agreement with the local authorities in Idlib with an eye to expelling the “bad guys” from there and promoting the concept of creating a humanitarian corridor. This is work in progress. Hardly anyone can argue that the terrorists have no place in Syria, and the Syrian government has every right to seek their eradication on its territory.

With regard to the statement that jurisprudence does not tolerate double standards, I beg to differ. Occasionally, it does and very much so. For example, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was created some time ago. Eighty percent of its trials involved Serbs, while representatives of other ethnicities residing in the Balkan countries were tried only as an exception.

There are quite a few examples, including at the European Court of Human Rights, where a number of unjust rulings were made based on their own statement that Russia, allegedly, does not exercise effective control, for example, in Transnistria.

I want jurisprudence, especially international jurisprudence, to enjoy respect in every possible way, but it must also respect the principles underlying international law.



Question:

What do you think about the future of Russia-US relations? What can the United States and Russia do to put an end to the war in Ukraine?



Sergey Lavrov:

The immediate future of Russia-US relations does not look too bright, but I am convinced that, in the end, they will return to the level of genuine strategic partnership. We were allies during WWII. When Russia and the United States get along, the entire world benefits as there are fewer conflicts, crises, less blood and more benefits for the economic operators of our countries.

President Putin and other representatives of our country have repeatedly said that in our relations with the United States we are willing to meet Washington halfway as fast and as extensively as it is willing to go.

Our relations at the level of civil society remain good. We have a wonderful joint project, Fort Ross Dialogue, whose members meet annually in America and Russia.

There’s the US-Russia Business Council, which is about to hold a regular meeting soon.

The politicians will benefit from listening to what the people on whose behalf they want to make America great again have to say.

With regard to Ukraine, the only way to overcome the crisis there is to fulfil the Minsk agreements of February 15, 2015, which were unanimously approved by a UN Security Council Resolution. Everything is clearly stated there. The main method for resolving all aspects of the Ukraine crisis, which is recorded in the Minsk document and which President Poroshenko signed, is through direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, which the Ukrainian authorities shun in every possible way.

Having appointed Kurt Volker a special representative of the United States for Ukraine, our American colleagues showed that they are not working impartially, but, in fact, pandering to the whims of the Ukrainian authorities. I'm confident that as intelligent people they realise that these whims are harmful and preclude any prospect of settlement. I hope that the United States will exert its influence on Kiev, as the Ukrainians are not listening to anyone else.



Question:

I represent the Mezhdunarodnik newspaper, in which you also published your articles in the past. Given the complicated international situation, what successes of Russian diplomacy over the past five years would you single out?



Sergey Lavrov:

It’s not for us to judge. The public opinion polls are telling us that our people, in general, praise Russia’s foreign policy, which is good. Complacency is something that no one should ever have in any profession, not just diplomacy. Complacency is a bad thing in any profession.

From the most recent events, I will mention the most important things that had to be done. We are about to complete concluding agreements that will ensure the inviolability of our borders. Borders have been properly formalised with all our neighbours, with the exception of Estonia (this is also a matter of not so distant future).

The recent signing of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea was the most important step in this area and more. It is important for national security and upholding our economic interests.

The second area, which I think is also very important, has to do with consistent movement towards visa-free travel with all countries. We have now completely abolished visas with about a third of the states that we work with. Easy visa regulations that make life easier for Russians travelling abroad are in place in about the same number of countries. We would like to move faster across all these areas.

With regard to the Mezhdunarodnik newspaper, we didn’t publish our articles there, but painted it. We have Yury Kobaladze here, who designed and painted this wall newspaper and was involved in issuing Mezhdunarodnik. Two Whatman sheets were pasted together, and we wrote there with pencils and crayons.

Thank you all once again, congratulations and enjoy your studies.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336393






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) talk show on Channel One, Moscow, September 4, 2018



5 September 2018 - 08:00







Question:

Today we have a special guest in our studio, one of the main participants in the “great game”, someone the future of the world really depends on in many ways: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. We are happy to welcome you in the Great Game studio.



Sergey Lavrov:

Thanks for inviting me.



Question:

There was one episode all our viewers certainly remember, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked you to press the reset button, which actually said “overload.” What happened? Was that really a mistake? Did they know what would happen in Russian-American relations? Or was it a so-called Freudian slip, and they did have some idea what was about to begin? What is happening with diplomacy with regard to the US now?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think it was a mistake. In English, the word was written correctly – reset, but in Russian, two letters were missing, turning the Russian word for “reset” into “overload.” When US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed me that button on camera, I immediately noticed the error and told her, and they immediately asked, even begged me to give it back, so that they could write the Russian word correctly. But our diplomatic intuition certainly worked, and we simply could not dismiss such an event as if it never happened, so now that button is in our foreign policy museum at the Foreign Ministry. But I think that was a sincere proposal on their part. US President Barack Obama’s administration said from the start they wanted to build new relations with Russia, hence the term “reset.”

Our first contacts with Ms Clinton were very specific and substantive. The agenda was largely the same anyway – the Middle East, and Syria a short while later. That agenda dominated for some time before Ms Clinton's resignation, along with relations within the Russia-NATO Council and strategic stability problems.

The agreement on further limitation of strategic offensive weapons (the so-called START3) was certainly an achievement of that period, signed by the presidents of Russia and the United States. Now it is one of the few fundamental documents that underlie our relations with the US alongside the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF). Both treaties are the subject of regular meetings and monitoring of their implementation. There are problems with both documents. We are ready to discuss the concerns that the US side has. Only we would kindly ask them to specify what they mean by accusing us of violating the INF. We in turn have very specific concerns about the same treaty regarding the installation of systems in Europe (in Romania and in Poland soon) that can launch Tomahawks (impact cruise missiles) as well as interceptor missiles. There are also questions about the Americans’ compliance with certain conditions of the START. But, I would like to stress once again that it is much better to have such a document than not to have one. At least, there is a mechanism – the Bilateral Consultative Commission, which regularly meets to discuss questions that each of the parties would like to clarify.

Having said that, I went a little deeper into the history of the first achievements of the reset/overload, but that quickly transformed into something else, long before Ukraine, long before we were blamed for the Syrian crisis. From 2011, the Obama Administration began imposing sanctions against us. I think they have already introduced over 100 series of various sanctions against us. The Donald Trump administration took over from there: in the last couple of months alone, they passed eight decisions on new sanctions against Russia. What is it if not a reset/overload? I cannot be the judge. But the first blunder the Obama administration made on an issue that I would not have even put on the big policy agenda: Edward Snowden.

When he asked us for asylum, the Americans called us at all official levels (the president, the foreign minister, the FBI) ​​and urged us to extradite Snowden. We could not do that because the man did not have any documents (his passport was annulled while he was en route from Hong Kong to Moscow, where he was going to change flights and travel to Latin America, which promised him shelter). But after we refused to extradite a person under threat of the death penalty in America, US President Barack Obama cancelled his visit to Moscow in 2012 and limited himself to attending the G20 summit in St Petersburg.

Things quickly went south from there – the Magnitsky Act, then other sanctions. In 2014, the people of Crimea expressed their free will to reunite with the Russian Federation, and you know that a series of sanctions followed. I apologise for giving such a broad answer instead of saying simply if the “overload” button offered to me was a Freudian slip or a premeditated plan. It seems to me that the intentions were sincere, but they shattered against the need to talk and cooperate with us on an equal footing. And when the Americans realised they did not actually want an equal relationship with us, preferring to impose their will and arrangements, then problems began and gradually accumulated, so now we have our hands full with that heap of problems.

With your permission, I would like to finish my introductory remarks with a commentary on your programme slogan: Big Game: Russia and the US shape the future of the world. That is not quite true.

Russia and the United States do participate in the processes on which the future of the world depends. We try to do so not only through dialogue with the US (although I recognise its great importance in the world). But the future of the world cannot be shaped without China, India, Africa, Latin America and Europe. We are open to discussion about the future of the world with all the key international players. As for the US, judging by their moves, they prefer to shape the future of the world alone by dictating to others and making everyone act as Washington sees fit. This is not a new quality of the Americans. Yesterday I watched the first issue of your talk show, where Dimitry Simes and Vyacheslav Nikonov mentioned that to some extent all US administrations believe that America is on top of world affairs, and its mission is to spread democracy, joy and prosperity. However, in recent years (not only Donald Trump, but also the Obama administration) they began to let it slip, so it probably was a Freudian slip after all. When Obama said the US is an exceptional nation, when Trump said America first and they will act the way the American people need them to, it just became naked truth – the US foreign policy doctrine in a few words.



Question:

You worked with six US Secretaries of State and, perhaps, you found it more pleasant to work with some and less pleasant with others. Prior to this, you were Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN in New York. You have a vast diplomatic experience. You faced a challenging period when you were in New York in the late 1990s during the wars in the Balkans and the events in Serbia. These were surely not easy times, were they?

I remember your speeches at the UN, often, if I may put it this way, with constructive sarcasm about US positions. Now, I have a feeling, maybe it’s inaccurate, that this is a completely different stage in Russia-US relations, when it's not about sarcasm, but some global crisis of total distrust. Our countries don’t trust each other. Diplomacy has taken a place on the back burner. Both sides are forced to rely on unilateral measures and blame one another. Is this situation dangerous? Do you think that diplomacy has temporarily receded into the background, or are we at a stage in Russia-US relations that could lead to an actual confrontation, not excluding an unnecessary but possible escalation?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think diplomacy is still alive. It is going through hard times, because, in general , when the case in point is about important international political and economic matters, the United States understands diplomacy and realises it very specifically. As a rule, they put forward their position in the form of a demand and do not normally engage in a diplomatic dialogue with anyone. Those who disagree get sanctions as an answer. Those who are not willing to do as they are told have their markets shut down with higher tariffs or other measures. Americans are notorious for their unilateral actions.

I would not, although it is, perhaps, immodest, say that in our foreign policy we are not trying to reciprocate to unilateral instincts of the United States. If we take an objective look, for example, at Syria or Ukraine, we always tried to come up with multilateral formats.

With regard to economic integration, the United States abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It remains unknown what will happen to the Transatlantic Partnership, because the Trump administration prefers not to talk with the EU, but with its individual member countries. The US says that the WTO is now outdated and no longer needed, as it was created in order to plunder America.

Also, it is worth mentioning the unilateral withdrawal from a number of international agreements, such as the Iranian nuclear programme, UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council. They took the course on breaking up the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to make the OPCW Secretariat, which is called technical, an obedient anti-Syrian as well as anti-Russian tool. These are unilateral actions.

In the sphere of economic matters of interaction with the outside world, we are promoting Eurasian integration through the Eurasian Economic Union, which we created with our closest allies and partners and in close coordination with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. We have suggested that ASEAN member countries join these processes. We are not doing it in the form of ultimatums, where we tell our prospective partners that such are the rules and whoever agrees with them may join us. No, we take a look at real-life situations and seek such forms of interaction in the economy, investment, trade in goods and services and matters regulating the labour and capital movement, which are acceptable as well as comfortable for everyone whom we would like to see next to us in these processes. This is how we go about what President Putin called the idea of ​​Great Eurasian Partnership.



Question:

This is very interesting and, in many ways, convincing (including for the Americans). You know America well. At this point, they do not really want to listen to Russia’s analysis of the situation. Do they want to know what represents the threat for America? Has the real danger of confrontation between Russia and the United States increased or is it just difficult for us to work together?



Sergey Lavrov:

If we take heated political passions and rhetoric which goes beyond what was recently considered diplomatic proprieties, then confrontation and tension are on the rise. The United States initiated NATO's advancement to our borders not just by admitting new countries from among our neighbours to the Alliance, but by deploying military infrastructure on our borders. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, Germany and France are deploying their battalions and tactical groups in the Baltics and other countries that border directly on the former Soviet Union. They are promoting initiatives to admit former Soviet republics, primarily Ukraine and Georgia, to NATO. In 2008, at the NATO summit in Bucharest, it was loudly announced that Ukraine and Georgia will be NATO members. They were not issued a formal invitation, which is mandatory for starting talks on the practical accession to NATO, but the political message was clear − Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO eventually. A few months later, Mikhail Saakashvili thought that he can do anything and attacked his fellow citizens − peacekeepers in South Ossetia. You know what happened next.

The same can be said about Ukraine, because the never-ending NATO statements that Ukraine will join NATO have gone to the head of the war party in Kiev, including President Poroshenko. These people are now building up arms on the contact line in Donbass. More recently, we learned that the Americans are sending ammunition and weapons (not just light weapons) there. There are already quite a large number of instructors from the US, Canada and other Western countries. As you may recall, US instructors were working on the Georgian side of South Ossetia, the other side of the line of contact.

Such step-by-step actions increase the risk of a military confrontation, which will be absolutely unacceptable for Russia, which our American partners have been repeatedly warned about.

However, if we take Syria, the mechanism for preventing undesirable incidents is working. Our military remain in constant daily contact. When they need to clarify things, the Americans turn to us, and we provide clarifications. When we need to let them know about the riskiness of particular actions that they are undertaking on the territory where they are staying illegally, without the invitation of the Syrian Government, we go ahead and do so.

Speaking about diplomacy and unilateral actions, it makes sense to take a conceptual and applied look at the currently used terminology. Up until recently, we all urged each other to address matters in accordance with international law. Now, if you look at what our Western partners are saying, they are using this term less and less often. Still, they demand that Russia respects the rule-based world order. It may look like there’s no difference, but it is not accidental that this terminology is making it to the international diplomacy sphere. What is a rule-based order? I cited examples when the rules established by the UN Security Council, such as the approval of the Iranian nuclear deal, have been violated, because the United States has changed its rules.

For example, is the WTO a rule? Yes, it is. Did the United States put its signature under this rule? Yes, it did. However, they now have a different rule that the WTO is a harmful organisation. There are many other examples.

Or, say, Crimea where the referendum is at odds with the rule-based world order. There’s no need for a referendum in Kosovo, because there’s another rule: Kosovo is an exception as our American colleagues insist. Without any referendum, they declared themselves independent, and the Americans recognised them.



Question:

Winston Churchill once said that diplomacy is the art of telling plain truths without giving offence. I have a feeling that diplomacy has gone through an inversion. They say that “fake news” is a lie in the most offensive form. Are there any rules at all in this “big game”?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already told you about the way the very concept of rules is interpreted by the United States and more. Great Britain also had a chance to shine in the field of rewriting international law and, along with the Americans, was the leader in very unseemly actions in the OPCW as it amended, by a minority of votes, the Convention which was adopted unanimously. This story continues to unfold, and we can talk about it in more detail some day.

The dollar is the most striking example. Is the international monetary and financial system a rule? The rule with which everyone agreed and has for decades lived with hoping that the United States will remain religiously committed to its duties as the issuer of the world's main reserve currency. What is happening with the dollar now? Washington is manipulating it at its will. If it wants to punish someone, it immediately stops servicing banking operations in dollars. By doing so, they are punishing not just one country, but all other countries that have relations with it in one way or another. What kind of rule is that?



Question:

Speaking of possible dangers, it appears that Syria is the most acute source of danger today. As far as I understand, Washington analyses Syrian developments in line with two aspects. First, Russia has almost won. Second, the United States cannot allow this to happen out of geopolitical considerations and because it perceives Bashar al-Assad as a bloody dictator. According to Washington, if he wins, apart from being a victory for Russia, this will amount to a victory for Iran as well. The United States sees Iran’s victory as something unacceptable. You know the position of Saudi Arabia and other US allies better than I do. The United States believes that it must do everything possible within the framework of peace to prevent Russia from achieving victory, without going to war. Of course, this is all an exaggeration. I believe Russia would like to see the war come to an end with a victory for the Syrian Government and the international coalition supporting it. Is it possible to combine these positions? How can this be accomplished?



Sergey Lavrov:

In principle, it is very easy to combine them. We have UN Security Council Resolution 2254. By the way, Russia and the United States drafted this resolution at the ministerial level, in cooperation with other ministers from five permanent UN Security Council members and from regional countries, including the Persian Gulf states. This resolution very clearly states the need to address Syria’s problems on the basis of eradicating the terrorist threat there, resolving humanitarian problems and restoring the country to a level that would allow it to live in peace and in line with the free expression of the Syrian people’s will. The resolution states the need for drafting a new constitution and holding a general election based on it that will involve all Syrians. The document also states that only the people of Syria can decide their own destiny. This is exactly what we want. Nothing else binds us. There are no secrets or covert agreements. I cannot speak for all others working in Syria. I am only speaking for the Russian Federation.

If you remember, we started assisting Bashar al-Assad in September 2015, when ISIS militants had almost reached Damascus, and the al-Assad Government was on the verge of collapse. None of the countries that are now advocating efforts to save lives and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states did anything to prevent the terrorists from seizing Damascus, which would then have become the caliphate’s capital. That was precisely the goal pursued by the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. When we helped the legitimate Government of Syria to stave off the terrorist threat, to liberate most of the country, including such important cities as Aleppo, Palmyra and Homs, then it became clear that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic was winning the war while ISIS was reduced to a small number of separate units.

Today, Jabhat al-Nusra is the biggest threat in Syria. This organisation continues to change its appearance and name and to take over less aggressive and extremist groups. Nevertheless, this group is listed as a terrorist organisation in UN special decisions.

We are working in Syria just like Iran, the so-called Shia militias at the direct invitation of the legitimate Government of Syria, a legitimate UN member state.



Question:

Aren’t you worried that they will use this approach to organise a “Pyrrhic victory” for Russia in Syria, and that they will try to turn this conflict into a war like the one waged by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

In his September 4 tweet, US President Donald Trump warned Russia against any resolute actions in Idlib where the main terrorist forces are deployed. Another apparently provocative report indicated that the Russian Aerospace Force was already bombing Idlib despite this “red line” drawn by the United States. Aren’t we approaching a further divide with dangerous implications?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have only mentioned what we are doing in Syria. I would like to add that the other groups, except the Iranian units and pro-Iranian groups I mentioned, are there illegally. This violates Syria’s territorial integrity. At the same time, this is a reality; it is understandable. Considering what we talked about a few minutes ago, including the need to conduct a multilateral search for ways to resolve a specific conflict, rather than through unilateral actions, Russia, Iran and Turkey initiated the “Astana format.” As you know, these three countries do not always have identical goals. We were united by a desire to establish peace to Syria. We also established a channel for communicating with the US military with these considerations. This communications channel which is officially called “a channel to avoid dangerous incidents and unintended collisions” is still in use.

It was the Russian Federation that suggested the concept of de-escalation zones together with its “Astana format” partners. These zones stipulate a ceasefire with one exception: there should be no mercy for terrorists there. Our partners, including our US partners, assured us that they would help separate the so-called moderate opposition from the terrorists. This also happened in southern Syria where Russia, the United States and Jordan established a de-escalation zone near Deir ez-Zor with a multilateral, rather than a unilateral, approach. At this point, the de-escalation zones have basically been suspended because there are no longer any terrorists there and because the civilian population is resuming a normal life. Humanitarian relief aid is being delivered, and we are establishing basic utilities. The only de-escalation zone remains in Idlib where several dozen of thousands of extremists, primarily those headed by Jabhat al-Nusra, congregated. As I said, an obligation to remove the moderate opposition’s paramilitary units from terrorist-controlled territories, so the terrorists could receive well-deserved justice, was an inalienable element of the agreements to establish de-escalation zones.

In his tweet, US President Donald Trump is warning us that it is necessary to avoid humanitarian disasters and to think about the civilians. This is the right approach. When the Russian Aerospace Force resolved the problems in Aleppo, Homs and Eastern Ghouta (where a de-escalation zone was also located), we always set up humanitarian corridors and always did our best to sign a local ceasefire agreement with the compliant opposition. They were pardoned by the Syrian government, laid down their weapons and rejoined peaceful life in Syria.

When the US-established coalition was storming the ISIS-held Raqqa, and earlier Mosul in Iraq, it did not establish any humanitarian corridors and did not try to sign a local ceasefire agreement with anyone to avoid unnecessary casualties. They simply leveled everything there. After that, it was impossible to bury the dead bodies, mostly civilians, in Raqqa, and no mines were defused for months on end. People are starting to return little by little only now, almost a year later. We should not repeat these mistakes, including those of the Obama administration whose representatives pledged to disengage the moderate opposition and Jabhat al-Nusra, signed an agreement to this effect but failed to do anything. We are now seeing the same covert desire, if I understand the situation correctly, to withdraw Jabhat al-Nusra from the line of fire.

We have seen enough of those “Pyrrhic victories.” We saw what the US and NATO “victory” meant in Iraq, and we have seen the NATO “victory” in Libya. This is mostly why we are confident that even these victories are absolutely counter-productive and destructive. We support the legitimate government of Syria in an effort to eradicate once and for all the terrorist hotbed that had flared up after the beginning of the adventurist Iraqi undertaking. The terrorist wave had reached an all-time high after the destruction of Libya whose people are so far unable to rebuild their country.



Question:

What about Iran? As you know, for US President Donald Trump and his administration this is one of the few cases where they agree on an urgent foreign policy issue. Iran has become a priority both for the White House and the entire administration. A negative attitude towards Iran dominates. In the past, Washington had a view that I think has now weakened, that it was necessary to agree with Russia on Iran somehow. It was believed that if no additional sanctions were imposed on Russia and if opportunities for cooperation with Russia were revealed and announced in public, Russia could become at least America’s situation partner on Iran, if not an ally. Do you think this is theoretically possible? After all, this is a potential area for Washington-Moscow cooperation that could really produce an impression on US politicians.



Sergey Lavrov:

Essentially, these are things that we do not trade in. As I said, the ultimate goals in Syria for Russia, Iran and Turkey don’t always coincide. Yet, all of us want to put an end to this war and create conditions that will allow the Syrians to decide their own destiny without outside interference, without any attempts to impose on them some government arrangement. The United States has an adamant stance on Iran: it accuses Tehran of many transgressions and demands that it withdraw from all countries except its own and renounces any attempts to exert political influence on its neighbours and other countries of the region. I consider this approach unprofessional and unrealistic. It cannot prevail. It is essential to realise that a state with a thousand years of tradition and over 75 million people cannot be locked within its borders. It will always have its own interests. The fact that these interests should be lawful is another matter. Saudi Arabia and the UAE also have their own interests. Qatar, which occupies just a small dot on the map, has its interests as well and has serious influence on many processes, including those in Africa where it is acting as a mediator in settling many conflicts. The main point is to prevent all these interests, that we are bound to accept, from triggering conflict. They should be achieved through a search for a balance between the various concerns, motives and ambitions.

This is why we have long been suggesting, for a number of years, convening a conference on security in the Persian Gulf that would be attended by the region’s Arab countries, Iran, the Arab League, the Islamic Cooperation Organisation, the five permanent UN Security Council members, and the EU. So far this proposal has been rejected out of hand: “No, Iran is absolute evil, a breeding ground for terrorism!”

As for terrorism, about a year ago some veterans of US intelligence services and other secret services sent an open letter to the US administration on the dry statistics: I believe out of 14 organisations recognized as terrorist in the US only one was Shiite.







Question:

Iran has been under tough US sanctions for many decades. Now Russia is being subjected to tougher sanctions: there have been 57 official rounds of sanctions in the past four years alone. Our position is clear: there is no doubt that Russia will endure them. Is Russia ready for a tough response? These sanctions are becoming increasingly far reaching and are affecting more sensitive areas of our life – the economy, finances and the energy sector. Can Russia take tough steps that can at least define, if not establish a limit to its tolerance?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think President of Russia Vladimir Putin already determined the limit of Russia’s tolerance in diplomatic terms when he talked with our Western partners, primarily from the US, about the reckless policy that some of them are pursuing in the post-Soviet space. Our Western colleagues supported what could only be described as the anti-state coup in Ukraine in February 2014 and then quietly fell into the background although they guaranteed the agreement between the opposition and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which existed for just a day. When we asked the US, Germany, and France that were the guarantors what was going on and why they wouldn’t call to order the opposition that they nurtured and persuaded to sign the agreement with Yanukovych, they shamefully maintained a low profile.

In a couple of days the new “Maidan authorities,” in part, Dmitry Yarosh, the then militant leader of the Right Sector, declared officially that there was no room for Russians in Crimea because they would never respect Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, never speak Ukrainian or respect Ukrainian culture. Therefore, Russians must be eliminated from Crimea. This was in late February, a week after the new authorities again tried to eliminate the Russian language in Ukraine, at least as a language of communication in the areas with Russian speakers. Then what happened? The governors or heads of administrations in eastern Ukraine said: “Okay, you have your Maidan there, your coup, but leave us alone. We will now at least try to understand what is going on and decide what to do next.” And they were called terrorists. Who attacked Kiev and the rest of Ukraine? Was it Donetsk and Lugansk? No. They elected their own administrations because the old ones decided to join Maidan and left. They were attacked by those in Kiev who had seized power as a result of the illegal coup. Remember Yarosh? “Friendship trains,” an attempt to occupy the Crimean Supreme Council building, and you know the rest. When our Western partners blame us for this, I believe they are acting dishonestly because it is their fault. They had to work very hard to compel the opposition and persuade us to convince Ukraine’s former President Yanukovych to sign the agreement of February 21, 2014. They also signed it as guarantors and said the next morning: “Yanukovych ran off to Kharkov. We’re sorry.” This is not how business should be done. Taking it out on us and subjecting us to sanctions just because plans fell through or they planned this scenario in advance is not exactly decent. This behaviour is not acceptable in a civilised world.

As for the question about our response we are already responding, primarily targeting those that are engaged in Russophobic rhetoric and Russophobic actions. As for tougher actions, I understand the anger of a normal person who is anxious to express indignation against the injustice that is being perpetrated. Great Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko once said: “Ten years of talks are better than one day of war.” He was right. At any rate, this is what I think. So, looking at what is happening or rather not happening, we continue to insist on the implementation of the Minsk agreements. We will demand that those who orchestrate Kiev’s actions should make them fulfill them. Regrettably, those who rule the current authorities in Ukraine were not signatories of the Minsk agreements. Nor was the US, whom we are talking about now.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, the situation in Ukraine is getting worse. President Vladimir Putin released a very strong statement, and you also made a statement after the heinous terrorist attack in Donetsk that killed Prime Minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic Alexander Zakharchenko. You said that the Minsk process must continue, but is it active after what happened? Should we consider the process, that in fact has been stalled for several years and is not going anywhere, completely lacking in more options? Ukraine did not fulfil a single provision of the Minsk Agreements.

Russian politicians have been heard making very harsh statements. The Communist Party claims it is necessary to recognise the DPR and LPR. Are we entering a new stage of relations with Ukraine? And, again, is there a risk of clashing in a “big game”?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let me start by saying where we are at, whether the process is dead or not quite, hopeless or showing signs of life. The process is based on the Minsk Agreements, a document that was approved within 17 hours in February 2015 by the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, France and the Chancellor of Germany, and which was approved by a UN Security Council resolution word for word, without any omissions, in full. The document is very clear. To make progress in the obligations undertaken by the Ukrainian officials, on the one hand, and Donetsk and Lugansk people’s self-proclaimed republics, on the other hand, we used the Normandy format in which the four countries, Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine, were represented by experts, ministers, foreign policy leaders and their assistants. The logic of this format was mainly that France and Germany really wanted to please the Ukrainian leadership, who believed that it was beneath them to sit down at the same table with the self-defence forces. But it was the self-defence forces that signed the Minsk document while the former president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma signed it on behalf of the Ukrainian leadership. The Minsk document established a Contact Group for the current leaders of Ukraine, Donetsk and Lugansk to meet directly in the presence of Russia and the OSCE.

This is the only format that can bring results because talking directly is the only way we can hope to find some steps, even if they require a compromise, but the steps that lead to the fulfillment of the Minsk Agreements.

We are not abandoning the Normandy format, but right now it would be simply inappropriate and insulting to convene a meeting in this format, especially because neither Berlin nor Paris expressed their condemnation of this political murder in Donetsk. On a wider scale, in the circumstances when neither Berlin nor Paris can influence Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who has been neglecting his responsibilities for yet another year. The only party that can influence Ukraine is the United States. The United Nations appointed a UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine, Neal Walker. We are maintaining contact with him through Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov. They met several times and spoke over the phone. The United States realised – at least, Neal Walker did – that all the issues can be resolved very easily by simply bringing in 30,000 to 40,000 troops under the UN flag and by taking control over the entire territory, including the border with Russia, and establishing a civilian administration (some 500 people) that will supervise the affairs in these territory, including preparations for the elections. Then it will supervise the elections and present the results to the Kiev officials on a silver platter. The Minsk Agreements also mention the elections as well as amnesty for everybody who participated in these events, the importance of restoring economic relations (Donbass has been subject to an economic blockade for several years), the importance of not only consulting but reaching agreement between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk on the format of the elections. It is also said that Donetsk and Lugansk must be granted a special status formalising the right of these people to speak Russian, the right to approve candidates for prosecutors and judges, to have a people’s militia, etc. But Neal Walker said that they will simply occupy the area and the occupation administration will then decide. No status or amnesty will be necessary. They will just put anyone they want in prison.

If Germany and France are committed to the Minsk Agreements, which they continue to claim, they should have demonstrated more independence and made sure that President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko honoured the terms that he had signed on to looking into the eyes of French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and which were approved by the UN Security Council.



Question:

If, as Vyacheslav said, the Minsk process does not work and there are no grounds to think it will and you believe that our Western partners are not ready to fulfil their responsibilities, which may be very wrong, but if it is so, I would like to hear what you would tell the US. Why should it make its priority to settle the situation in Ukraine, to pressure President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and to make a commitment not to admit Ukraine into NATO in the near future? It would not be easy for the United States, especially for this administration. What would you say so that the US makes this its priority?



Sergey Lavrov:

Why should we convince the US? What interests does it have in Ukraine? It’s 10,000 kilometres away. For example, Great Britain has the Falkland Islands, also called Malvinas in the UN terms. I do not know what the US is trying to find in Ukraine except for a new long-term provocative agent directly at the Russian border.

I have mentioned the Falklands, or Malvinas. About two or three years ago, the UN General Assembly reviewed this dispute between Great Britain and Argentina once again. You know that subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II live there. In 2013, they held a referendum, and the results showed that the islands belong to Great Britain. Argentina does not agree with this and every two years submits a resolution to the UN General Assembly calling Argentina and Great Britain to sit down at the negotiation table.

A colleague of mine showed me a message sent from London on the eve of such voting. It mentioned a country that would send its delegation to the UN to review this resolution on the Falklands. It should fully comply with the right for self-determination written in the UN Charter that has priority; it should respect the results of the 2013 referendum where a majority spoke in favour of being with Great Britain; and it should declare its position that would respect all these principles. The fact that the Argentine government has introduced certain sanctions against people living on the Falkland Islands after the results of the referendum were announced raises the question of how strictly Buenos Aires complies with the principles of democracy. I think you can see what I mean: replace the Falklands with Crimea and we can continue speaking about self-determination and sanctions.



Question:

I will ask you about the election. I apologise in advance, because, to be blunt, you are probably sick of it. In fact, your answer is obvious. I am trying to think if there is any way at all to bring the Russian and US positions closer. When I see what the US accuses Russia of and what Russian politicians, including President of Russia Vladimir Putin, say, I have a feeling that we may be arguing about some rhetorical notions. Maybe what Americans call interfering with the election is the legitimate or normal actions of the intelligence services or some individuals from Russia’s point of view. Do you have an understanding of what Russia has done – and not just the Russian government but also unofficial organisations – regarding the US election? Could there be a conversation with the US on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot speak about unofficial organisations. We have heard messages from the US that they saw hackers from China, North Korea and somewhere else, Iran, as well as from Russia, interfere. They say the same about us and about them. I believe that we should rely on the facts. We have talked about this many times. In response we see smiles and hear that we are pretending because we know everything. Former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told me this when he said they had undeniable facts proving our interference. During our meeting I asked him to show them if they are undeniable. He smiled and told me to ask my special services because I would get a better explanation from them. But it is not an adults’ talk, is it?



Question:

Did you ask?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course I did.



Question:

What did they tell you?



Sergey Lavrov:

Tillerson?



Question:

No, the special services.



Sergey Lavrov:

Ours?



Question:

Yes.



Sergey Lavrov:

It is strange to say, but what does the US accuse us of? Is this the benefit of the doubt in US society?

Recently these two facts have become known to the public. The Democratic National Committee said that Russian hackers attacked the voter database. This was checked, and it turned out that just a group of Democrats, Democrat IT technicians, had tested the reliability of the voter registration system. Nobody apologised for this. The Democratic Committee remained unconvinced although its statements were put to shame. US Senator Bill Nelson has also said recently that Russian hackers attacked the electoral system in Florida. The FBI began investigating immediately and said there was nothing of the sort. This is a fact.

Now on to the facts that we have, in addition to the fact that a US ambassador to any country believes he or she has the right to say things directly related to the future of the electoral process in Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia or, moreover, Ukraine. Jon Huntsman – our colleague and the US Ambassador to Russia – said that the Washington administration does not have problems with Russian people but with the Kremlin. These words do not seem like words of a diplomat. It is a fact that two diplomats from the US Embassy took part in the opposition’s demonstrations back in 2012. Can you imagine our diplomat taking part in a rally to support racial minorities in the US? I think the situation would be completely different.

The same happened to Maria Butina, who was imprisoned and is still humiliated only because she wanted to cooperate with the US in promoting the right to bear arms. There is also the most interesting fact that, three years ago, when the US law on support for Ukraine was adopted, it said clearly that the US Secretary of State must promote democracy in Russia both directly and via Russian and other nongovernmental and international organisations. They decided to allocate $20 million for this each year. How would the US react if we did something like this? I agree with you that we should clarify this. Among other things, we offered the US to create a working group on cybersecurity. We offered this both to Barack Obama and the current administration. It seemed like President Donald Trump was interested; he said it was important to dispel some mutual suspicions, but, like in many other cases, political actors put obstacles in his way. However, our proposal to resume the activities of the counterterrorism group and to establish an economic and business council that would be headed by corporate leaders from both sides as well as a council of political experts and scientists from both sides is still on the table.

We have plenty of proposals that would help our relations out of this dive.



Question:

Can we improve our relations now? Tell us honestly about the results of the US elections to Congress, given your ability to influence them?



Sergey Lavrov:

As distinct from those who exploit Russophobic themes, we respect the American people and their elections.



Question:

Nevertheless, Mr Lavrov, 90 percent of the US media and 78 percent of Democrats are confident that it was Russia and notably you that elected US President Donald Trump. I won’t ask you whether you regret your choice. But knowing the negotiating skills of your partners – US President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, US National Security Advisor John Bolton, is there any chance to move Russian-US relations from this freeze they are currently caught in?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the elections, I will say again that those who spread this gossip and rumors have no respect for the American people at all.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, it was a joke.



Sergey Lavrov:

But I’m not joking. We truly respect the American people, but those who explain everything with Russian interference do not respect their own people or their voters.

As for our prospects, we always want to hope for the best. Our positions are honest and open. We are always willing to hold a dialogue. Incidentally, we suggested to the West, including the US, that we sign a document, or take a pledge without signing, on starting a dialogue on strategic stability, to counter terrorism and promote cyber security to remove mutual concerns with regards to critical social-support systems and domestic political processes, including elections. We offered this but we haven’t received a response so far. I am pegging my hopes on society. Of the small but positive events, I’d like to note the joint celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Valery Chkalov’s flight. It was a very emotional event and it created a lot of interest among the participants. It’s a pity little is written and said about this in the US. The Fort Ross Dialogue is also alive and doing well. It was named after a Russian settlement in California. Americans are visiting us, and our public organisations are travelling to San Francisco. They are getting on very well just as cosmonauts and astronauts on the International Space Station do.

So I think life will still take over, it will disperse calumny and retain the vital interests of our people, who will certainly benefit from cooperation and partnership.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337231






One event missed in the English version. Since it is short, I translated it.





Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam Nguyen Phu Chong, Sochi, September 6, 2018



6 September 2018 - 18:45



Question:

Could you comment on the reports of the British about the involvement of GRU officers in the attempt at Salisbury?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have already commented on this.



Question:

You personally have not yet given a comment. Where did they get all this from?



Sergey Lavrov:

From where and everything else, from the Internet.




This is a link to the Russian version - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338416
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 2nd, 2018 at 01:25 PM.
 
Old December 3rd, 2018 #497
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s meeting with Director of the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre Marcel Pesko



3 September 2018 - 14:52



On September 3, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met with Director of the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre Marcel Pesko.

The officials held a detailed discussion on relevant topics, including the OSCE’s role in implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and issues related to illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. They also touched on the activities of certain OSCE field presences.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336329






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to a question from the Ridus online publication regarding the continued demolition of monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators in Poland



3 September 2018 - 15:00



Question:

Poland continues to demolish monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators, and there are also plans to demolish a monument in the village of Starzynski Dwor. In this connection, we would like to ask whether the Foreign Ministry will take part in resolving this issue, and whether it will make an appeal to Polish authorities?



Maria Zakharova:

We would like to thank the Ridus publication for its concern about the extremely acute issue of preserving the Soviet war-memorial heritage in Poland, including the alarming situation around a monument to Soviet prisoners of war in the village of Starzynski Dwor. The Foreign Ministry is focusing on this issue and making comprehensive efforts to counter Warsaw’s destructive policy aimed at rewriting 20th century history and downplaying the role of the Red Army in defeating Nazi Germany and liberating European nations.

We proactively respond to every case of blasphemy towards our monuments and graves in Poland, and we always demand that the authorities investigate such incidents and punish the culprits. We openly note the deleterious consequences of Poland’s “de-Communisation” policy under the guise of which the public space in the country is cleansed of undesirable war monuments. We consistently insist that Warsaw fulfil its international legal obligations in the military-memorial sphere to Russia.

We would like to note that the relevant joint efforts involving former Soviet republics are being made on the initiative of Russia, that the potential of the UN, the OSCE, the CIS and the CSTO is being utilised, and that the resources of NGOs and media outlets are also being used.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336339






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s meeting with Ambassador of Kuwait to Russia Abdulaziz Al-Adwani



3 September 2018 - 16:51



On September 3, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met with Ambassador of Kuwait to Russia Abdulaziz Al-Adwani, in Moscow.

The officials discussed a number of topical issues on the international agenda, including the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336448






Press release on First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov’s meeting with appointed Hungarian Ambassador to Russia Norbert Konkoly



3 September 2018 - 16:59



On September 3, First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov had a meeting with appointed Hungarian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Russian Federation Norbert Konkoly, who presented copies of his credentials.

The participants exchanged views on relevant matters concerning Russian-Hungarian cooperation and discussed the advance schedule of bilateral political contacts. The parties reiterated their mutual desire to further deepen trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Hungary, and expand interregional ties as well as cultural and humanitarian exchanges.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336458






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s meeting with Chinese Ambassador to Russia Li Hui



3 September 2018 - 19:02



On September 3, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov received Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the Russian Federation Li Hui.

The officials discussed several topical issues on the Russian-Chinese agenda.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336586






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the recent statements by British officials regarding the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury



5 September 2018 - 19:10



The British officials are once again focusing their attention on Russia’s alleged involvement in the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury, following a scenario that has become familiar to everyone. Without any documentary support or trustworthy testimonials, they have declared that there is sufficient evidence to bring charges against two Russian nationals and published photos of the two men whose actual nationality is still to be confirmed.

These steps follow the same pattern over and over. Russia receives unsubstantiated accusations while the accuser also declares its emphatic refusal to have any contact in order to establish the truth. Instead, we hear ridiculous demands that we clarify a situation that has nothing to do with us, as we have repeatedly stressed.

We cannot but notice that both British and American colleagues are following the same scenario. Not troubling themselves with producing any substantial evidence, they simply compile lists of “Russian agents” to justify, one way or another, the witch hunt started by London and Washington.

Our requests for a joint investigation and legal assistance in the criminal case opened by Russian law enforcement agencies on the attempted murder of a Russian national in the United Kingdom continue to be ignored. Moreover, we can clearly see London’s reluctance to cooperate in establishing the truth.

One thing is clear: the so-called Skripal case instigated by the British officials is being brought to a deadlock on purpose. Instead of carrying out a genuinely independent, objective and transparent investigation into the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents, London stubbornly uses the anti-Russian speakerphone diplomacy and continues the propaganda show in the spirit of the notorious “highly likely”.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337601






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

4 September 2018

S. Vershinin meeting with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister G. Dehkani - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337048

Meeting of S. Ryabkov with the Director of the Second Political Department of the German Foreign Ministry A. Leendertse - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337095


5 September 2018

Commentary by M. Zakharova on the upcoming military exercises of NATO member and partner countries - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337482

S. Vershinin meeting with Deputy Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria R. Ramzi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337543

M. Zakharova's comment on the situation around the presence of terrorists in Syrian Idlib - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337576

Speech by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW, Ambassador A. Shulgin at a briefing on the situation around Syria, The Hague, September 3, 2018 - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337591


7 September 2018

The meeting of I. Morgulov with the appointed Ambassador of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to Russia D. Dzhayatillekoy - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338448

Consultations of V. Titov with the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway A. Halvorsen - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338742
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 3rd, 2018 #498
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on developments in Libya



3 September 2018 - 13:46



Moscow continues closely watching the developments in Libya and its capital. Regrettably, far from being stabilised, the situation there is gravitating towards deterioration.

Recent serious clashes between different local groups in Tripoli have already taken a heavy casualty toll, including among civilians. According to incoming reports, heavy artillery was used in the fighting.

Moscow is seriously concerned over the new outburst of the internal strife in Tripoli. In this context, we again urge all conflicting sides to cease any combat operations and facilitate the restoration of peace in the capital and its suburbs and to do everything they can to prevent chaos in the country, which is fraught with disastrous consequences for the country’s statehood.

We are convinced that any disputed issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue at the negotiating table. First and foremost, all responsible forces in Libya that care about the country and the well-being of its people should pool their efforts to move towards a political settlement in line with the UN Plan of Action with prospects for presidential and parliamentary elections.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3336306






Russian Foreign Ministry Statement



5 September 2018 - 19:52



British Prime Minister Theresa May’s remarks at the British Parliament on September 5 regarding the Skripal case and the poisoning of two British nationals in Amesbury were delivered in an absolutely unacceptable tone. They contain a number of presumptuous accusations against Russia and two allegedly Russian citizens. We strongly reject these insinuations.

In particular, we took note of her saying that “only Russia had the technical means, operational experience and motive to carry out the attack.” This statement was made immediately after the release in The Hague on the previous day of a report by the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on the results of the work of this organisation’s experts at London’s request in connection with the Amesbury incident.

The report, in particular, says that the results of the analysis of the environmental and biomedical samples taken by the OPCW experts confirm the British findings about the nature of the toxic chemicals that poisoned two British citizens in Amesbury. It’s a nerve agent by chemical composition – the same substance that was found in the samples collected by the investigation into the poisoning of the Skripals and police officer Nick Bailey in Salisbury on March 4. Interestingly, the report says nothing about the origin of this nerve agent. The term “Novichok”, which was offhandedly put into circulation by the British political manipulators, is not mentioned, either.

Again, we emphasise that neither the OPCW, nor the British laboratory in Porton Down are in a position to determine the country of origin of the poisonous agents from Salisbury and Amesbury. Work on such chemical compounds has been underway for several decades now in a number of countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. This is evidenced by the information from open sources obtained during independent investigations. We repeat this for those who may have a short memory.

This topic requires careful consideration by the OPCW. We call on the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation to take a very careful look at the information coming from the states parties to the Convention in response to its request regarding chemicals not controlled by the CWC. Back in May, Russia officially submitted a 400-page document listing about 1,000 new types of nerve agents that would be useful to consider from the point of view of amending the CWC Chemicals Supplement. We are interested to find out how much of such information came from the countries that so peremptorily associate the notorious Novichok agent with Russia. Did they provide such information to The Hague at all?

Clearly, Britain doesn’t care about the OPCW experts’ findings. What matters for London is to involve the OPCW into its outrageous accusations against Russia and use openly unscrupulous methods to associate the name of this organisation with the results of the corresponding investigations conducted by military chemists from Porton Down. That is, to have the OPCW approve unsubstantiated accusations.

We will continue to use facts to counter the anti-Russian hysteria around the Skripal case. It is regrettable that the OPCW Technical Secretariat, wittingly or unwittingly, is being drawn into the unscrupulous political game played by Britain and its allies, who do not care about the Convention.

We have previously stated on several occasions: there is nothing in the CWC that would require the Technical Secretariat to assist a member state in confirming the results of its national investigation. Strictly speaking, assistance is provided to those participating states that need it to fulfil their obligations under the Convention that are primarily related to destroying stockpiles of chemical weapons. Normally, these countries have no corresponding equipment or specialists. The British, as far as we know, have both in ample supply. The Porton Down laboratory is exactly the place that works with the substance referred to as Novichok in the West.

According to the CWC, a consultation procedure is used whenever a member state has questions for another member state. It can be conducted either directly in a bilateral format, or with the assistance of the Technical Secretariat and the OPCW Executive Council. We made relevant proposals to the British on many occasions, but they rejected them. Well, that's the choice of London.

We remind everyone of the futility of attempts to juggle the Convention provisions or to pile up groundless accusations. London must return to the legal framework of this document.

In the near future, we will again submit to the international community the background material pertaining to that matter. We will do so in The Hague and New York. We are confident that Britain’s attempts to find excuses for more attacks against us sooner or later will be brought to a stop.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337611






The following events are not displayed in the English version.

5 September 2018

Commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the statements by Secretary General of the Cabinet of Ministers of Japan Y. Sugi - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3337405


6 September 2018

On the international conference "Countering the illegal supply of arms in the context of the fight against international terrorism" - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338368

On the ministerial consultations of the CIS member states on the agenda of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338383

About the UN International Media Seminar on Peace in the Middle East - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338393

On the Consultations of the Member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization on UN Issues - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338434


7 September 2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the anti-Russian statement of several western countries - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338754


8 September 2018

On the exacerbation of the situation in southern Iraq - http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338785
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 3rd, 2018 #499
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, September 7, 2018


7 September 2018 - 16:42







The 4th Eastern Economic Forum

The 4th Eastern Economic Forum will be held in Vladivostok on September 11-13. This annual event was initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015 to promote economic growth in the Russian Far East and to expand international cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The 4th Eastern Economic Forum’s agenda covers a wide range of matters related to improving the competitive advantages of the Russian Far East by streamlining existing (advanced development territories and the free port of Vladivostok) and creating new (financial centre and offshore operations on Russky Island) preferential treatment benefits for business activities, and developing additional measures to promote industry cooperation, high-tech projects, and small- and medium-sized businesses.

Given the current integration agenda and the dynamically changing geopolitical situation in the Asia-Pacific region, special emphasis will be placed on a substantive study of the opportunities opening up for Russia. In particular, the participants will review prospects for harmonising the EAEU and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, creating broad integration in Greater Eurasia, and creating an economic cooperation space on the Korean Peninsula (Russia-Republic of Korea-DPRK).

A special programme, Territory of Innovation, designed to support young researchers, inventors and developers and to create an innovative ecosystem for promoting our country’s long-term competitiveness, will be held at the forum for the first time.

Russia-ASEAN, Russia-Japan, Russia-Republic of Korea, Russia-Europe, and Russia-China business dialogues are on the forum’s agenda.

The 7th APEC conference on cooperation in higher education will take place on the sidelines of the forum. This year, it will focus on digital revolution challenges. Numerous exhibits, sports and cultural events will be held as well.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a number of meetings at the forum.



Conference of young diplomats from the Asia-Pacific countries

A Dialogue of Young Diplomats from the Asia-Pacific region countries will take place in Vladivostok on September 11-12 as part of the forum and the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats, which has been in existence for over five years now.

The participants will focus on creating an International Association of Young Diplomats and implementing the horizontal diplomacy concept.

High-ranking guests are expected to attend the event. Minister Lavrov may take part in it as well.

Media representatives are welcome to attend starting at 9 am on September 11 and 12.

For more information about the event of the Council of Young Diplomats, call + 7 916 487 4354.



Second Eurasian Women’s Forum

The Second Eurasian Women’s Forum will take place on September 19–21 at the Tauride Palace in St Petersburg. Over 1,000 women from 122 countries will attend.

The forum is organised by the Federation Council of the Russian Federal Assembly and the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS states. The event is supported by the Roscongress Fund.

The plenary session Women for Global Security and Sustainable Development chaired by Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko will be the central event. The programme of the Second Eurasian Women’s Forum includes more than 40 various events.

The issues related to expanding women’s opportunities and their role in politics and the economy, building effective cooperation in support of innovations, developing the digital economy, ensuring environmental safety and promoting charity and humanitarian projects are the most important themes of the forum.

Special sessions of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), UNESCO and the World Bank will be held at the forum as well as a meeting of the W20 and the BRICS women’s business club, an APEC seminar and a presentation of a WHO report. There will also be meetings between representatives of the Russian, French, German, Indian and Chinese business communities as part of the forum. In addition, the Made in Russia: Women Rein the Export exhibition of women exporters’ projects will take place at the forum, as well as a presentation of success stories, a volunteer marathon, and a presentation of Russian female designers.

The forum’s goal is to strengthen dialogue and integration processes as well as the development of international cooperation in general.



Eurasian Women’s Community website

I would also like to tell you about the Eurasian Women’s Community website, which has received the status of the official news agency of the Second Eurasian Women’s Forum.

It is a non-governmental independent media established by the Institute for the Humanities and Information Technologies.

In the two years since it was established, the website has published over 1,000 original pieces, and this year it attracted over 1.5 million visitors. This website has an official English version. Visitors come from over 100 countries: 38 per cent from Russia, 25 per cent from Europe, 23 from Asia, and 14 per cent from the US.

On this website you will can find unique reports, interviews and analytics. It has information about the forum’s participants from all over the world. The materials are dedicated to women’s talents and achievements in various areas, their personal qualities, outlook and experience that helped them on their way.

The website has its own image bank with unique photos. The materials are published exclusively and can be given to the media partners free of charge.

The website’s slogan is “Tell each other to tell the whole world.” You can see for yourselves.

Why am I speaking about this resource separately? There is a saying that, unfortunately, has already become a rule and something like a slogan: “Good news sells badly, and bad news sells well.” Unfortunately, we are mostly living in the world of bad news stimulating with our attention this negative agenda. There will be a very interesting discussion at the forum on whether we can form a positive agenda and create a positive information environment by exchanging stories and news about achievements thus influencing our everyday reality. I think this website is an attempt to do so.

I would like to say, a bit in advance, that we plan to hold another offsite briefing this year like in 2015, on the sidelines of the First Eurasian Women’s Forum.



Developments in Syria

We continue noting positive trends in the developments in Syria. The official opening of the 60th annual Damascus International Fair has become the main event in the country’s social life. This year it is being held under the motto “The Glory of the Orient starts in Damascus.” Official representatives and companies from 48 states are attending the fair that will last through September 15. The Russian delegation is headed by Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Georgy Kalamanov.

Efforts in Syria’s liberated areas to restore the socio-economic infrastructure destroyed by terrorists are ongoing. In connection with the beginning of the new academic year, it was very important to repair and ensure the full operation of schools in districts where children have had no opportunity to receive a normal education for several years. By and large, the Syrian authorities have achieved the goal. The Syrian government has also restored the work of about 60 medical institutions in Eastern Ghouta, in the north of Homs and in the south. The media are reporting the beginning of construction of a major hospital complex at the University of Hama.

Much attention is being given to returning the internally displaced persons (IDP) to their residence and accepting refugees from abroad, whose inflow is gradually increasing. On September 4, Syrians celebrated a year since the lifting of the siege of Deir ez-Zor. About 600,000 IDPs have returned to the province of the same name during this time, mostly in the past two months. Earlier they had to leave their homes, to flee from ISIS and other armed groups.

The Russian military police are helping Syrians restore the regime of the 1974 agreement on the disengagement of Syrian and Israeli troops in the Golan Heights. The territory is being cleared of weapon caches left by the terrorists. Arms and ammunition depots and satellite communications equipment were found there recently.

The Idlib de-escalation zone remains a hot spot in Syria. Currently, most of it is controlled by terrorists that have united around Jabhat al-Nusra as part of the structure called Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. Even the presence of the Turkish military at 12 observation posts along the zone’s internal perimeter has not stopped these successors of al-Qaeda from continuing to commit armed provocations against government army positions, civilians and the Russian military base at Khmeimim. To curb these raids, the Russian Aerospace Forces launched pinpoint strikes at terrorist facilities on September 4 and 5. These facilities were used by terrorists to prepare and launch attacks by combat drones against Russian and Syrian troops, about which the Russian Defence Ministry has made detailed reports.

Russian and Syrian military are discussing in detail ways of eliminating the terrorist presence in Idlib with the least damage to civilians. Last week Turkey confirmed at the highest level that it considers Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham a terrorist organisation. Turkish and Russian working groups held talks on regional security issues and the situation in Syria between August 31 and September 4 in Ankara. Both sides reaffirmed their intention to continue cooperating in this area.

Meanwhile, al-Nusra continues to destroy infrastructure in Idlib: exploding bridges and ruining roads in the hope of repelling the onslaught of Syrian government troops, which it expects and is scared of. Civil activists who advocate the signing by non-terrorist armed opposition groups of local reconciliation agreements with Syrian legal authorities are being arrested. The terrorists are preventing civilians from leaving the Idlib zone through open humanitarian corridors and leading residents of villages on the contact line deep into the province in the hope of using innocent people as live shields. This tactic has been used in other parts of Syria as well.

We urge our international partners, who publicly display serious concern over the possibility of a “humanitarian crisis” in Idlib in the event of the onslaught of government forces, to consider the afore-mentioned facts and reach the honest conclusion as to who is really working to alleviate this crisis. At the same time we would like to reaffirm our position of principle on the need for the complete and final elimination of terrorists on Syria’s entire territory. We would also like to emphasise that Russia will do all it can to minimise human loss and damage to civilians in Idlib. We hope that our partners who have the ability to influence events will make their contribution to this goal by facilitating the separation of terrorists from the armed opposition groups that are ready to join the process of political settlement.

I would like to note once again that we have repeatedly told our foreign partners at all levels that the struggle against the terrorists will continue.



Statement by the US Secretary of State’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey

We have taken note of a statement carried by the world media with reference to the US Secretary of State’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey. Let me quote: “The US has repeatedly asked Russia whether it could ‘operate’ [as part of efforts to combat terrorists] in the Syrian province of Idlib to eliminate the last holdouts of the Islamic State and other extremist groups.” For instance, this statement was reported by Reuters.

We have many questions regarding this statement. Since it was made publicly, we would like to clarify some points publicly as well. What is this about? What did the US Secretary of State’s Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey actually mean? Because this statement is not quite clear to us.



Update on Kirill Vyshinsky

Yesterday, it was reported that the Kherson City Court ruled to extend the detention of Head of the RIA Novosti Ukraine website Kirill Vyshinsky, who was arrested on unfounded treason charges in May. The journalist will remain in custody until November 4, 2018. We again point out that this is a man who performed his professional duties quite openly, in conformity with the corresponding laws of the host country and with respect for and in full compliance with journalism ethics.

We are particularly worried about the declining health of Kirill Vyshinsky, who was rushed to a hospital from the courtroom with preinfarction syndrome. In the isolation cell where the journalist is held, he is being denied the qualified medical aid that he needs.

I would like to stress that this is not a person who pretends to be a journalist, a scriptwriter or an art figure. This is an actual journalist, a person who is well-known to you and the entire international community purely as a journalist. This is a person who did not work in any other profession or try to combine it with journalism or any other humanitarian activity. Kirill Vyshinsky has been a journalist all along, doing his job in a high quality and professional manner. I would like to repeat that it is in this capacity that he was presented in Ukraine. Likewise, he is known to the international journalist community as a journalist.

We demand that Kirill Vyshinsky be released immediately and in the meantime that he be provided with acceptable detention conditions and promptly receive medical aid.

We urge the international community to influence the lawlessness that reigns in Ukraine. The price of ongoing attempts to spin aggressive anti-Russia rhetoric in the Ukrainian media space and of the unprincipled fight against any manifestations of dissent could be yet another human life.

The Ukrainian policy towards their own journalists does not inspire optimism either. We share OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir’s concerns over Ukrainian court rulings granting the authorities access to data from the mobile phones of chief editor of the Schemes programme on Radio Liberty, Natalya Sedletskaya, and Novoye Vremya journalist Kristina Berdinskikh. This is a direct violation of one of the most important principles of freedom of the media – the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information.

Yesterday, it was also reported that the National Council on TV and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine decided to temporarily limit the distribution of the Russian-language RTVI channel with a British license on the country’s cable networks. We view this decision as part of the ongoing campaign to clear the country’s media space of alternative sources of information.

Open disregard for the democratic principles of ensuring freedom of expression and freedom of the media in Ukraine is utterly unacceptable. Kiev’s policy will likely result in the further erosion of the right to freedom of expression in that country. The immediate involvement of the entire journalism and human rights communities is necessary to resolve this disastrous situation with freedom of the media in Ukraine.



Update on the Skripal case

As you may have seen, in her speech before Parliament, Prime Minister of Britain Theresa May revealed new information presented by the British police on the Skripal case. The key point of her speech was the statement that investigators had acquired photos and videos depicting two suspects using the chemical agent Novichok, their itinerary in Britain, citizenship, and the names and surnames in the Latin alphabet. At this point, we do not understand and do not know whether this recently released information is complete or just part of what is known. Has this information been homogenised by British law-enforcement bodies or is it factual?

I think everyone read what was published. We did as well. I also hope that you read our statements on this. We published them on the official Foreign Ministry website on the same day. These statements are explicit and detailed. Let’s return to this issue with an account of the questions we received.

So, according to the British version, the persons involved in the Skripal case that also includes the poisoning of two residents of Amesbury with a chemical substance are certain intelligence officers, Russian nationals, which were acting with the consent of high-ranking Russian officials. Britain claims at the top level that the crime was perpetrated by certain people depicted in photos released by the police. Scotland Yard immediately expressed the caveat that the family names of the criminals were most likely invented although it is known that they flew in from Moscow and that traces of Novichok were found in their hotel room.

This was followed by accusations that included the phrase “highly likely” that have become common around the world and that has now been upgraded to “almost certainly.”. Everything about this story is absurd, especially Theresa May’s assertion that “only Russia had the technical means, operational experience and motive to carry out the attack.” One gets the impression that the British Prime Minister lives in complete information vacuum and that the numerous statements by the Russian leaders and in general media simply do not reach her, or that they are not reported to her. Possibly, she is only shown excerpts from the programme News of the Week with Dmitry Kiselev, but isn’t shown the numerous statements by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, government officials, representatives from the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry. I understand that Kiselev’s programme on Rossiya 1 is so popular that it is quoted in the British Parliament as Russia’s official position.

However, I am forced to disappoint Ms May. Russia’s official position has been expressed repeatedly by President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, official representatives of Russian government agencies and ministries, official spokespersons of the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry.

It was also announced in London that Britain has repeatedly demanded that Russia report on its actions in Salisbury, whereas in response Russia has allegedly lied and tried to confuse everyone. This is simply untrue. This is not just an invention or an insinuation but simply an outright lie. All that was demanded of us on the very first day was to acknowledge two facts – either both or one of them. We were given a choice to admit that Russia: a) committed a crime in Salisbury or b) lost control of toxic chemical agents. We were also told that the matter deals with chemical warfare agents. No other questions were asked and no other agenda was suggested by Britain. Russia was offered a choice from these two options.

Although this was done in an unacceptable manner and was in effect an accusation in the form of an ultimatum, the Russian Federation continued the dialogue as we thought appropriate. In reality this has been a monologue that continues up to this day. During this monologue (we hope it will become a dialogue at some point), the Russian Federation sent many inquiries to official London. We published part of our unilateral correspondence on the official Foreign Ministry website. This is not just a list but documents that the Russian Federation sent to its British colleagues at its own initiative through diplomatic channels. Moreover, I’d like to note that the British officials told us they could not present information through diplomatic channels and suggested that the Russian Embassy in Britain address the hospitals and the police independently, verifying and making the required inquiries. The Russian Embassy in Britain followed this advice and began addressing the police stations and hospitals. When they were swamped by Russian inquiries and did not deem it possible to respond, another “piece of indispensable advice” arrived. We were told that the Russian Embassy in Britain should not initiate inquiries to British hospitals and the police but should appeal to British diplomats via government channels. The Russian Embassy not only took notice of this information but began sending inquiries to the Foreign Office. We did not receive even formal replies to most of these inquiries.

So, when Theresa May says that Russia was offered an opportunity to answer questions, to submit a report but did not take advantage of this chance – this is far from the truth and more like overt misinformation. Let me repeat that Russia sent inquiries to Britain many times. Apart from the practical questions of what happened in Amesbury and Salisbury and a striving to receive concrete data in order to facilitate our own investigation in Russia, we also asked for direct access to the Skripals. We also suggested that representatives from law enforcement bodies in both states begin to conduct the investigation jointly.

At yesterday’s session of the UN Security Council many states made absolutely absurd statements, urging Russia to start cooperating with British investigators. This is a mirror-world, beyond the theatre of the absurd, just delirium. Let me repeat again that we had to publish excerpts from the documents that we forwarded to the British side. Let me say it again, we published parts of them but we can publish all of them if need be. Needless to say, this does not conform to diplomatic practice but what London is doing does not conform to any civilised practice at all.

I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that we received many questions about these people and requests to confirm or reject their involvement with Russian government bodies.

After receiving the first information about the event in Salisbury, Russia made well-grounded official statements and not only at the political level but also at the highest government level that the Russian Federation had nothing to do with what had happened there.

Therefore, what happened in London on September 5 is yet another attempt to attract the attention of the international community, states, public organisations and journalists to these photos and present them as photos of people linked with Russian government bodies. This is a classic example of misinformation. Our position was well known in London. It was stated on the record and repeatedly conveyed to Britain through diplomatic channels, to British Ambassador in the Russian Federation Laurie Bristow and via the Russian Embassy in London.

I would like to repeat the most important points that we have already presented.

1. The statement by British Prime Minister Theresa May in British Parliament on September 5, as well as her previous statements on Salisbury and Amesbury were made in an unacceptable tone.

2. The latest statement, as well as the previous statements on this issue, contains unsupported accusations against the Russian Federation.

3. We resolutely reject the insinuations made by Britain. I think this is a tell-tale phrase. I’d like to emphasise that this statement is not being made for the first time. For over five months we have repeatedly expressed the Russian position at all levels.

4. We have noted the phrase that “only Russia had the technical means, operational experience and motive to carry out the attack” in Salisbury. This statement was made immediately after the release of the report by the OPCW Secretariat. I would like to emphasise that this is the only “evidence” on which Britain’s entire accusation rests. After all, the photos and videos that were presented are no evidence but just the photos of the so-called accused. As for the evidence itself, we were again told to take it at face value. I’d like to emphasise again that this is the only “evidence,” notably that only Russia had the technical means, operational experience and motive to carry out the attack. We have repeatedly explained in this hall where representatives of the diplomatic corps were present, went on record in the OPCW and published on the official Foreign Ministry website the facts related to who tested this substance, on what scale, and who can produce it. We were not speaking alone. I’d like to recall that after several months it transpired and was confirmed by EU countries that similar substances were produced and tested in EU countries. Naturally, Britain itself and the United States have much experience in this respect. To a large extent, they are the main beneficiaries of this global provocation.

I’d also like to mention that the Foreign Ministry’s official website carries many materials, including references, on this matter. We will update this information in a timely manner.



Report by Director General of the IAEA on the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme

On August 30, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano released a regular report on the agency’s verification work in Iran as part of the implementation of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231 of 2015. The document will be considered at the September 10 session of the IAEA Board of Governors.

The Director General has once again confirmed Iran's strict compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA.

This conclusion is in itself evidence of the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. It shows that in this respect, the JCPOA is effectively meeting its objectives. The IAEA verification process in Iran is by far the most comprehensive and specific, more so than in any other country. Tehran's approach also confirms its willingness to keep the agreement in force, something Russia, for its part, fully supports.

We continue our active work with a view to preserving the JCPOA, including jointly with the other parties to the agreement.



Opening of the 39th session of the UN Human Rights Council

On September 10, the 39th session of the UN Human Rights Council will open in Geneva.

The session agenda will be very rich as usual and will include extensive discussions on a wide range of human rights issues, such as the problems of indigenous peoples, the prevention of genocide, the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, countering racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances, the rights of the elderly, the right to development, a fair and democratic world order, the use of mercenaries, the human rights aspects of combating modern forms of slavery, forceful disappearances and arbitrary arrests. The human rights situation in a number of countries, including Syria and Ukraine, will also be reviewed.

The council will discuss the May 2011 Universal Periodic Review process by 14 states, including the Russian Federation.

On the sidelines of the session, Russian non-governmental organisations will hold a series of events devoted to countering contemporary forms of racism and xenophobia, as well as the problem of limiting the Russian-language educational and information landscape in the Baltic countries and Ukraine. The Russian delegation intends to organise a presentation of the Master's Degree Programme in Human Rights Education, which has been successfully offered in the Russian Federation for many years in cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

During the session, the Russian delegation will pursue a policy of developing constructive dialogue and seeking mutually acceptable solutions to key issues on the international human rights agenda, and preventing the politicisation of human rights issues and using it as a tool of political pressure.



NATO’s reaction to Vostok 2018 military exercise

In the spirit of transparency and predictability, well in advance, as early as in May this year, Russia informed the North Atlantic Alliance member countries about this event at a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council. NATO military attachés were invited to observe the exercise. I think this goodwill gesture on our part is clear. Let me remind you that the Russian Federation also took similar steps last year for the Zapad 2017 exercise. But last year also there was criticism of that exercise, of Russia’s unprecedented openness, allegedly because it was so unexpected and the reasons of the exercise were not clear. The West lacks an understanding of the actions taken by the Russian side.

Unfortunately, we have become used to NATO and some member country claims that Russia is allegedly preparing for some “large-scale conflict.” The West clings to its attitude of seeing a Russian threat in any event or occurrence. There are no grounds for that.

The Vostok 2018 military exercise is held far from NATO’s area of responsibility, the Euro-Atlantic, and has no effect on the security of its member countries.

For our part, however, we cannot help but factor in the decision by some NATO countries to significantly increase defence spending, which even now makes up over a half of the world’s expenditures to that effect and exceeds Russia’s spending manifold – in total by about 14 times, as well as the intensity and number of NATO drills near our borders.

We have commented a number of times on the increasing intensity and scale of the training activities of the NATO member states in regions that border Russia. Russia’s stance remains unchanged – these activities cause serious concern, they do not enhance security but rather undermine it by creating the additional risk of a military incident involving the use of weapons.



Events in honour of the 70th anniversary of the Israeli diplomatic mission opening in Moscow

In connection with the 70th anniversary of the opening of the Israeli diplomatic mission in Moscow, a history seminar was held at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow on September 6, arranged by the Embassy of Israel with support from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Taking part in the seminar were Russian and Israeli diplomats and politicians, members of the academic community and public figures. On the same day, the Golda Meir exhibition was unveiled in the Moscow Choral Synagogue featuring some documents from the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation, for the first time.

On September 5, a memorial plaque was unveiled on the door of a suite in Metropol Hotel, the residence of Golda Meir, the first Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Israel to the Soviet Union.



Regular round of US senate hearings with Facebook and Twitter representatives

We noted with interest a regular round of the hearings in the US Senate that took place on September 5 at the Select Committee on Intelligence with representatives from the Facebook and Twitter social network services. Once more the issue of Russia's mystical involvement in the election process in America and other Western countries was discussed. There were strong politically charged accusations by Senate members against Moscow, claiming, in particular, that “Russia was acting not only against the US government but against the American people,” and “a weak America is good for Russia,” while Russian information agencies RT and Sputnik were publicly called agents of Russian intelligence services just because they strive to offer an alternative point of view. When BuzzFeed publishes data on the Russian Embassy's financial activity and funding transfers, we are perfectly aware that this data could be passed to this source only by representatives of certain US services, no one in the US Congress considers this media outlet, as it calls itself, an agent of the special services. Whereas this is exactly mediation services that the media outlet carries out between the special services and, sadly, the general public. But no one even raises this issue.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was asked a direct question as to whether Twitter is an American company and whether he prefers to see America remain the world's dominant global superpower. Is it okay to put this question to a representative of a networking service at all? During the past ten years, the American side has insisted that networking series are “new media,” “the journalists of a new era.”

This is probably where the core of the problem lies. The aim is not the protection of users but the United States’ imperial ambitions. Sadly, this is the consequence of the Russophobia of the past several years.

Speaking more specifically on the actual problems − the networking services admitted they had not done enough to prevent uncontrolled activity on their social networks. We cannot help but agree with this. They mentioned the astonishing numbers of blocked fake accounts, with 1.27 billion fake accounts deactivated by Facebook between October 2017 and March 2018. However, for example, a fake account of the “Russian Embassy in Czechoslovakia,” which spreads misinformation about Russia in a derisive manner, is still active. We have repeatedly addressed Facebook’s administration, asking them to take measures but have only received the response that “the page does not violate the rules of a social platform.” Obviously, the time has come to raise the question in practice and invite networking services representatives to Moscow for an engaging and substantive talk similar to the one that took place in the United States. It would be interesting to know whether Facebook, an American company, would prefer to see the United States remain the world's dominant global superpower. Why can't we talk about this in Moscow, for example?

Indeed, the problem with fake news and pages does exist. As I said, it took us much time and effort to close the Russian embassies’ fake pages. For several weeks we could not get Russian embassies’ fraudulent pages closed in the EU countries. We provided all the information to our colleagues at Facebook. This problem remains pervasive outside the United States as well. Let’s talk about it together and not behind the scenes, calling somebody on the carpet and asking them whether they prefer that the US remain the world's dominant global superpower.

We increasingly see the necessity for developing a more transparent and independent universal system of identifying fake accounts with due consideration for internationally accepted ethical and cultural norms and freedom of speech, which do not violate the domestic legislative standards of other countries. We have noted that the representatives of network services' administrations voiced the awareness of this problem and assured that they are taking efforts to improve the system of monitoring and filtration. For our part, we believe that one of the most important steps in this regard is making the information on blocked accounts available to the public and specifying the reason they were blocked. With the word “Russia” constantly mentioned, it would be interesting to know what fake accounts hide behind the country's name.

That said, we emphasise, that given the global nature of the problem, we deem the US administration's attempts to exert pressure on social networks unacceptable. We encourage professional discussion instead of reprimands and demands for a report on what is being done to make sure America remains the only global superpower.



The problem of distorting the truth in US politics

Lately we have been using the words “fake,” “propaganda” and “blatant lie” during all our briefings. My colleagues and I have carried out a little research on this, where we tried to examine the problem of distorting the truth in US politics. In order to be as objective as possible, we only used information by US experts published in open sources. We saw an interesting picture.

According to assessments by US experts, the practice of neglecting facts and cause-and-effect relationships regarding domestic and foreign events, which took root in the US media and politics, has become unprecedented in scale. This is not our assessment but that of US experts. A number of experts call this phenomenon “truth decay.” It happens when the line between an opinion and a fact becomes blurred. In the analysis of events, opinions and personal experience have preference instead of an analysis of what really happened. In addition, the information is rarely double-checked, and respect for fact sources declines. They just go unnoticed.

Analysts note that today, when media and social networks have total audience reach and the staged political battles in government agencies have become an everyday routine, this “truth decay” in the US shows no sign of returning to the norm. This results in political institutions losing their ability to perform their original functions and the population losing interest in their activities.

Michael Rich, the president of Rand Corporation, a US think tank, notes that open debates are being replaced by “backstage” speeches and that oversight over agencies has lost its effectiveness and has been addressing secondary problems.

He also voiced his doubt that any reform of Congress that has been discussed in the US for many years will show any significant result. The excessive degree of interparty polarisation of approaches to all key problems forbids members of Congress from cooperating constructively. Senior Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs Micah Zenko states that the policymakers’ views of their tasks have changed. Michael Rich agrees saying that the current Congress members realise their ambitions not through thoughtful work on legislation or policy but by their involvement in disgusting theatricalised actions.

Experts are especially concerned over the possible consequences of “truth decay” in foreign policy. These are not our assessments but US ones. It is said that some of the greatest political failures in US history took place due to a lack of attention to the facts or their alteration.

A piece written by Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution Thomas Mann and his colleague Norman Ornstein directly says that Democrats are actively distorting reality in the eyes of the Washington establishment.

It is also curious to hear the thoughts of Rodger Baker, Senior Vice President at Stratfor, a US private analytical company, who says that streams of lies that are produced by the political opponents of Donald Trump are based on their confidence that the liberal world is universal in its nature, being the best form of organisation for a society or a state and unavoidable in the future. The expert believes that none of this is true.

According to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the US has enough educated people who notice the country’s foreign policy predicament. However, there is an acute demand for specialists who could offer ways to overcome this.

We would like to note that former US President Barack Obama saw this problem, too – although in his own way – and stated in 2016 that if the West did not learn how to tell the truth and propaganda apart, it would face great difficulties. Unfortunately, these words of his were in many respects prophetic.

It is obvious that the US intellectual elite realises how fatal and strategically unviable it is to distort the truth about the political life in the country. But as we see, there is no answer so far about how to stop this or how to make the public see the dreadful consequences of a fake reality.



French think tanks’ report on manipulation of information

Russophobic sentiment in the media is being ratcheted up in France under the pretext of countering disinformation. On September 4, a report by French Foreign and Armed Forces ministries’ think tanks on information manipulation was released. It added to famous French initiatives like the draft bill on fighting disinformation which aims at strengthening control over the media, and the proposed separation of news resources into “right” and “wrong” within the project to establish so-called “Journalism Trust Indicators.” But this is France, the cradle, as we used to say, of the modern perception of free speech, ethical standards and requirements for journalism. This is the country that laid the foundations for modern democracy and, of course, the basics of modern understanding and realisation of freedom of speech.

This document, that even by any possible stretch can’t be called “expert” due to the abundance of opinionated claims and propagandistic clichés, is shocking in its unveiled anti-Russia bias and sharp hostile rhetoric towards our media operating in France.

In France, they openly call RT and Sputnik propagandists and, in particular, allege that they cannot qualify to be called media. Moreover, the report claims that these information resources disseminate only propaganda. Meanwhile, no proof whatsoever or even arguments are given to support such allegations which are, in my view, an example of the work of a fake entity with which they propose fighting. If you put forth allegations and fail to include facts, what are you proving? In the same vein, the ostensible exposures of episodes in the information war allegedly waged by Russia in different regions of the world are given. For example, RT is charged with making a report that “Spanish is studied as a foreign language in Catalonia,” whereas the TV channel never broadcast that report. If it did, please forward a screenshot, or any details of the report.

I know correspondents can make mistakes. Recently our colleagues from the Foreign Ministry in Azerbaijan reported to us that erroneous information was posted on a particular resource of RT, of which we informed them. It appeared that RT had already been notified by users, made the correction and issued an apology.

Moreover, the report contains a list of 50 recommendations to “countries, civil society and individuals.” One of the points recommends they not accredit RT and Sputnik journalists: “First, they should be named… then accreditation should be rejected or suspended and their journalists should not be invited to press conferences.” As an illustration for the proposal of “naming”, a President Macron quote is given in which he calls RT and Sputnik “agents of influence.” As we have said, the whole RT story in France is built up solely on Emmanuel Macron’s personal attitude towards that media outlet. Why he harbors a grudge against them is a question for the French side. Unfortunately, the trend started with him. There is no other fact-based confirmation. It is a different matter that state bodies, possibly, sensing a demand or maybe fulfilling an order, attempt to substantiate Macron’s point with facts but they are failing to do so.

Apparently, the goal of the report is creating the image of an external enemy. In reality we think this targets not so much isolating RT and Sputnik as justifying the measures being undertaken in France to limit free speech. RT and Sputnik were chosen as a smokescreen. This is convenient.

We expect a proper response from the respective international bodies and NGOs. This cannot be left unanswered. First of all, we expect a comment from Harlem Desir, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and his expert opinion concerning the way such documents, which in fact reflect the position of the corresponding French authorities, comply with the obligations undertaken by the French Republic within the OSCE, including following the principles of freedom of expression and equal access to information for everyone.



Russian mass media situation in Latvia

We continue to monitor the situation with the Russian mass media in Latvia. The official Riga is again making attempts to restrict the broadcasts of Russia's Rossiya RTR television channel. This time, the pretext was violations in the form of “hostile rhetoric” in programmes shown on the channel, allegedly found by Latvia's National Electronic Mass Media Council. Can you imagine what would happen if the “hostile rhetoric” pretext was used against US mass media, such as CNN, or Britain's BBC? For instance, a speech by British Prime Minister Theresa May broadcast by BBC fits very nicely into this “hostile rhetoric” towards Russia definition. Should BBC be closed now? We are talking about countries of a single ideological space. Why do these countries, which make statements based on the West's single ideological platform that should become globally dominant, show such different attitudes? Just make up your mind about who is right − Riga or London. Is the “hostile rhetoric” only a pretext for closing the channel, or is it the norm and free speech?

We view this politically charged step by the Latvian authorities toward the TV channel as a blatant discrimination and an unlawful effort to limit access of Latvia's Russian-speaking residents to alternative sources of information. It is clearly obvious that Riga is trying to play the Russophobic card ahead of the parliamentary elections in the country by making mass media hostages of the domestic political struggle.

We call for the specialised international structures and non-governmental organisations to respond to this. We await assessments from Vienna and Brussels on whether such policy of the official Riga corresponds to pan-European values and the European Union norms. We would like to again bring this to OSCE's and Harlem Desir's notice.



Ongoing glorification campaign of Nazi in Estonia

The reconstruction on September 2 of the notorious monument to 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS in Lihula, Estonia, which was pulled down on 2004, cannot but arouse indignation.

The fact that the event was held with the full acquiescence, and without a word of disapproval, of the country's authorities is yet another proof that a policy calling for the actual promotion of Nazi ideology is surreptitiously being implemented by Tallinn. It appears that hardly anybody in the Estonian political establishment is concerned about that fact that such events desecrate the memory of millions of those who fell fighting against Nazism. How can all this exist on one and the same continent? How can all this exist within the same international institutions − support and promotion of the need to seek historical truth, alongside the installation of monuments and the profound indifference from the authorities?

The fact that the “civilized” Europe, which should see the unacceptability of Nazism, Neo-Nazism, racism and xenophobia as part of its common system of values, is keeping silent makes this even more saddening.

We call for our international partners and the specialised agencies to pay close attention to a spate of profane attempts to rewrite the outcome of WWII, which have become an ordinary occurrence in post-Soviet Estonia, and give these attempts the assessment they deserve.



Joint efforts to establish the name and burial place of a Soviet soldier killed during the liberation of Czechoslovakia

The joint efforts of our embassies in Astana and Bratislava, public organisations and historian O.Alibekov to fulfil the request of residents of Nevidzany, Slovakia, to find out personal data of a Red Army soldier from Kazakhstan D.Kharishmbayev (Khashimbayev), who was killed during the liberation of the village from Nazi occupiers in 1945, helped to set the real name of the hero: Zh.Koshkimbayev.

It is planned to hold restoration work at Koshkimbayev’s burial place, where the remains of 11 other Soviet liberator warriors of the 1st Guard Paratrooper Division are buried.

We express our deep gratitude to the residents of Nevidzany. These people sincerely wish to build a memorial to the Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to liberate Europe. It is especially important at this moment, when attempts are constantly made to rewrite history and denigrate the heroic deeds of those who fought and died to protect their homeland, Europe and the entire world.



Russian-Azerbaijani interregional forum

The multifaceted cooperation between Russian regions and the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is developing based on the agreements between the Azerbaijani government and Russian regional governments, is an important element of Russian-Azerbaijani relations. As of today, there are 17 agreements and a number of new ones are being drafted.

In particular, the following facts prove the effectiveness of interregional ties with Azerbaijan: there are representations of Dagestan and Tatarstan, Ural Trading House and Tatarstan Trading House, as well as several regional airlines (Bashkir Airlines, Perm Airlines, Pulkovo Airlines, Samara Airlines and Ural Airlines) and some Russian businesses (Khazar Lada, the official AvtoVAZ dealer and Vostok-Service Group) in Baku. Azerbaijani entrepreneurs invested in the construction of a resort in Yessentuki as well as in plants that produce tinned vegetables and dry mortar in the Krasnodar Territory; projects are also being implemented in Kabardino-Balkaria and Dagestan.

The annual Russian-Azerbaijani interregional forum is a venue for discussing and preparing new cooperation projects. The ninth forum is being prepared now.

We will provide you with more details lately.








Answers to media questions:



Question:

On September 5, the Trilateral Contact Group had a meeting in Minsk where the Russian Federation refused to discuss exchanging Russian nationals who had been taken captive in Ukraine. After the conviction they wrote a petition in prison about the exchange addressed to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. There is a petition there, including by one of your acquaintances Viktor Ageyev, someone you have been asked about a number of times. Will you please explain why the Russian Federation abandoned its citizens in Ukrainian prisons and does not agree on an exchange?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Federation has not abandoned its nationals, I would like to ask you to choose your words more carefully. If you do populism and propaganda, will you please keep it to the pages of whichever publication you are working for. If your media outlet has such a policy, it is your business. I strongly advise you to remember that we are not having a campaign meeting here and it is not the Ukrainian Independent Information Agency of News (UNIAN) but a briefing for the press. There are no instances when the Russian Federation abandons its nationals, especially when it comes to such aggravated situations, conflict zones etc.

As to the request sent, I will find out what it is about.



Question:

Yesterday you told journalists that the British Foreign Office refused to give Russia additional information on the two suspects in the Salisbury case.



Maria Zakharova:

Not additional, but any information at all. This is a very important point. The British side refused to give Russia any data at all. It is not about additional data, it is about us sending notes, letters, requests, speaking publicly about it as soon as the first spring birds flew off from the London nest with charges against Russia. But after another salvo with photos which were presented as evidence I cannot figure out (I am a person who is not close to law enforcement bodies) how the published photos can be evidence, and evidence of what? Photographs and names were published and they are said to be suspects. But where is the evidence here? How long do they think they can take the world for a bunch of fools? Is this a guessing game where we have to try and make out what the footage we are taking a look at is all about? Cross-check those photos, understand where they were from, double check this? We immediately contacted the British side, we did it both in London as well as in Moscow. The Russian Charge d’Affaires Ivan Volodin was summoned to the Foreign Office in London, the British Ambassador to the Russian Federation Laurie Bristow was contacted in Moscow too. In both cases we tried to ask the questions that everybody is worried about. Who are these people? Is there any particular information about them – passport numbers, at least patronymic names, data received upon them applying for visas s and so forth? Of course, we asked questions also about what can be simpler than giving the Russian side information about the fingerprints. All our questions met the same answer — we will not present or give you anything, so don’t even try asking any questions. It was worded like this in London — we are not responding to your questions. So it is not about additional data, it is in essence about the position of the UK which said that it would not present anything in response to the inquiries made by the Russian side.



Question:

As a follow-up on the previous question, you also said yesterday that the data will probably arrive via Interpol. Do we understand correctly that nothing has been received so far? Can we say that cooperation with Interpol is currently more successful than with Great Britain?



Maria Zakharova:

The point is that if the UK has charges against residents of other nations, as they claim, it would be logical to suppose that they should somehow address international bodies. I think it would be better if you were to address this question to a law enforcement official who is able to put you in the picture on how this mechanism works. But this follows from the logic of what the UK is doing. Apparently, the next stage is to approach Interpol. Then, if they do not present Russia with official data, we will be waiting for them to approach Interpol and then we will be waiting for those fingerprints and data from Interpol. It borders on absurdity claiming that those people are the suspects, and releasing evidence in the form of photos with an immediate caveat that everything is most likely fake and likewise the names and documents. So will you please share what you have.



Question:

Do you know that they flew and left the country with Aeroflot? Given that you have photos and you know the flight numbers, it is easy to determine who they are.



Maria Zakharova:

I have no doubt that in present-day conditions in our country and in the world there is an opportunity to find out whether they were traveling on those flights. But this isn’t just a five minute job. The main thing is that the British side had the data, photos and names before September 5 or even September 4. This material they had certainly had for several months. Why didn't they hand it over to us beforehand? If they did not want to communicate directly with us they could have provided us with the information through a third party. By the time it was published, we could have already done some of the work. We did ask them for it. If for some reason or other they didn’t want to speak to us directly, why didn't they choose a mediator? The data can always be transferred via this manner. Then we could have already done some work on this matter by September 5 or 6. But I have the impression that they wanted to buy some time so as to make it as hard as possible for the Russian side. The longer the time, the more difficult it is to look into a matter.

Just look at what we are being directed towards and pushed into. We are constantly being forced to act on the defensive. We have to make excuses all the time. But what for? And most importantly, what legal basis is there for us to come up with arguments and present facts showing that we are innocent? We live in a different kind of world. The core of the presumption of innocence and the basis of democracy lie in the following: It is not a person, country or organisation that have to prove they are innocent. On the contrary, evidence of guilt must be presented to them. When British Prime Minister Theresa May five months ago immediately pointed the finger at Russia it runs contrary to its own legal norms and rules. They bought time for several months and provided no information, and then they posted the photos and said this was the evidence. What evidence? Someone can post a photo of you tomorrow, and you most likely travel from Russia, maybe to London or somewhere else. This is simply absurd. There is no doubt that the identity and the number of the passengers can be determined as well as the number of passengers returning back. But it requires time and this is not just a 15 minute job.



Question:

But considering that you are eager to cooperate and say that you want to do this with the law enforcement agencies, can you really say that you are making an effort to do this and you will hand over information?



Maria Zakharova:

Do you know that Russia is carrying out an investigation? Under this investigation, all the gathered information is both considered as well as analysed. The only thing we are asking for is to return back to the norms of a civilised manner of doing things so that we can get this information directly from British law enforcement bodies and verify it. But if we are offered, in a non-civilised and weird way which is outside the legal framework, a chance to obtain information from the mass media, then we will analyse this information. But we are asking that the Russian law enforcement bodies be involved in working with the information sources that British law enforcement bodies have. What is taking place in Great Britain together with all the information published is being examined by the Russian law enforcement bodies. They may not know in Great Britain that Russia has launched an investigation, but it is underway and everything that has been published will be analysed and receive a response. But I represent the Foreign Ministry, I am not involved in the matters related to analysing information or looking for people and determining whether or not they were on the flight. I can only use the data that has been verified and presented by law enforcement bodies.

As regards the involvement of the Russian Federation and its government agencies in what happened in Salisbury and Amesbury, we have repeatedly voiced and reaffirmed our stance, including during today's briefing. The details will be thoroughly and meticulously examined by the law enforcement bodies, and we will comment at a later stage.



Question:

Do you think it’s possible that these people and their names are established and the passport details exist? Will these people somehow be revealed?



Maria Zakharova:

Why should I think that? It should be established who these people are, whether there are such people or not. This is a matter of checking. We want to do it as fast and effectively as possible and this is why we again ask the UK for help in establishing these people’s identities once this information was published. If for some reason unclear to us the UK refuses to do this, we will have to take the longer way around this. But this is not a matter of suppositions which I think is unacceptable. What can be presumed by looking at two photos and seeing two names common in Russia and post-Soviet republics? I am not entitled to make guesses in this regard as an official representing the Foreign Ministry.

I understand that the whole situation is used for political purposes and I do this on the basis of the analysis of statements made by the UK and the USA together with the dividends they receive. This is what I can establish. But I cannot identify these people by putting my hand on the screen. It is a matter for the law enforcement bodies which are currently dealing with it within the opened criminal case.

Everyone paid attention to the mismatch of the photos, the date, the time and the place of shooting. Why should we all tell fortunes in a tea cup, make guesses and use such words? Why can’t they give us and sent all the existing material? Why should we read statements published by former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray in social networks claiming that he was in that place and that there are not so many corridors there? It is absurdity and delirium. Why should we play this game? Why can’t they just make copies of the documents, application forms, and present information regarding where the people were from the British point of view and what specifically they are charged with and hand over to us some of the initial data? Instead, they suggest we should exonerate ourselves in the absence of any information (I am not even speaking about official information). What was presented is some “shattered pieces” abundantly stuffed with commentaries and piled up in that political rhetoric.

There will be no assumptions and no guesswork. All information will be analysed by law enforcement bodies, and respective statements will be made upon the results thereof.

As to the involvement of the Russian government bodies in the developments, I can say once again that there is no complicity which is what Russian President Vladimir Putin and government officials said a number of times.

I would like to draw your attention again to the fact that on September 6 the Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that Russia had and has nothing to do with the Salisbury events. Russia is not complicit in it in any way. We have reaffirmed our initial position yet again.

Let me repeat that everything published and planted in the information space will be analysed within the framework of the respective criminal case.



Question:

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has said that the Government of Syria is trying to seize Idlib, and that Russia, Turkey and Iran are discussing ways of preventing this. Ankara expects that during today’s summit, guarantor countries will put an end to violations in Idlib. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry share the position of the Turkish Foreign Ministry?



Maria Zakharova:

First, let’s not anticipate the goal of the summit, which is due to take place today at the highest level, involving the countries you have mentioned.

Second, this matter will be discussed in great detail, on a priority basis.

Third, this concerns the territory of Syria per se. It is impossible to seize anything on one’s own territory, but it is possible to continue a counter-terrorist operation. Damascus has set forth precisely these goals.

I don’t want to evaluate statements that have already been made, considering the fact that the main multilateral dialogue will have to be conducted today. All assessments and results, including those in the public sphere, will be summed up this afternoon.



Question:

What does the Foreign Ministry think about the outcome of the talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev in Sochi? What part does this visit play in the system of bilateral cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan?



Maria Zakharova:

We do not comment on the presidential agenda. I would like to remind you that all assessments, including those regarding this visit, are posted on the website of President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

We have already discussed the development of bilateral relations today. We anticipate their development with enthusiasm. They have tremendous potential. Much is being implemented and discussed.



Question:

Several days ago, former Ambassador of the United States to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed the US State Department’s advisor on Afghanistan. Earlier, he said Russia should involve Western countries, including the United States, in achieving peace in Afghanistan. What is your comment on this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

Did he serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations?



Question:

Yes, and he also served as Ambassador of the United States to Afghanistan and Iraq.



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian side is not supposed to comment on these domestic US appointments.

The situation in this region remains complicated and, unfortunately, continues to get worse in some respects. In this connection, Russia is implementing a number of measures, including cooperation within the SCO and interaction with political forces in Afghanistan, while respecting legal norms. We maintain contacts with the official authorities and are trying to implement multilateral diplomacy.

We are following regional developments extremely closely and with great concern, and we regularly assess the situation.

Regarding specific statements, we will analyse them and share our reaction.



Question:

Could you comment on US Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey’s statement that Washington has tangible evidence of Damascus preparing a chemical attack in Idlib?



Maria Zakharova:

But we have tangible evidence of the terrorists preparing a chemical attack. We did not just talk, but provided factual evidence. If the American side has factual material they are concerned about, they are welcome to send it through bilateral channels.

Once again, I repeat that no one is questioning the fight against terrorists in Syria. It is still the most important task. What we find odd is that on the one hand, our Western colleagues tell us publicly (while doing much behind closed doors) that a peaceful life cannot be restored in Syria because the country is unstable and the return of refugees is impossible. Consequently, it makes no sense to provide humanitarian aid, to restore civilian infrastructure while it is unstable on the ground and terrorists are still around. At the same time, nobody seems in a hurry to dissociate moderate opposition from extremists in Idlib, specifically.

As far as the policy largely pursued by US ruling circles is concerned, there is certain logic in this – to delay disengagement while at the same time refusing to provide assistance because it is unsafe for refugees to return, amid attempts to dissuade the world community from supporting the return of refugees to Syria by lobbying the same approach in the UN, as we said.

This sounds like a weird approach – not because it is out of touch with reality, but in the context of what is happening in the region. The sooner moderate opposition is delineated from extremists and terrorism, terrorists and extremist militants are defeated, including in Idlib, the sooner Syria will be able to begin getting life back to normal, taking back refugees and restoring its civilian infrastructure.



Question:

Some observers of the situation in Idlib note that Turkey has begun demobilising the opposition and is conducting anti-terrorist operations against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. How does Russia and you personally assess Turkey’s efforts to separate moderate groups from radical ones?

Does Russia have a specific plan for the post-war recovery of Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding the interaction with our Turkish colleagues, I already gave my assessments when commenting on the situation in Syria as a whole. Please look at that part. My assessments have already been given.

As for the settlement plan, of course, we do have a global plan. It was announced after the elimination of the international terrorist group, which tried to set down roots in Syrian soil. First and foremost, a combination of two factors is needed: the return of civilians, refugees and internally displaced persons to their places of residence and the restoration of civilian infrastructure. All this should be done while keeping in mind the main goal – the restoration of the country as a sovereign, independent and unified state in which people of different religions, ethnicities and political views would coexist as equals and in peace. This is also about a political reform we have discussed and facilitated in practical terms, in particular, by hosting the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Both opposition and government members were represented there. This is our general plan.



Question:

To follow up on the previous question, I would like to clarify if negotiations are being held on involving Europeans and the Chinese in restoring Syria (because obviously we cannot do this alone)?



Maria Zakharova:

Of course. We are talking with specific countries, but we are also acting globally through the UN. We raise this issue in almost all bilateral negotiations with our Western colleagues and big players in regional affairs of Asian countries.



Question:

Yesterday Chief of the Russian Armed Forces' General Staff Valery Gerasimov said that the Vostok 2018 military exercise will not take place on the Kuril Islands. Does this mean that Russia has taken Japan’s position on this issue into account?



Maria Zakharova:

It means exactly what General Gerasimov said. I consider it impossible to give additional explanations when the military have already said everything there is to be said. There cannot be a more accurate expert opinion.



Question:

Representatives of a US military agency said that Russia warned the US military twice last week that Russian and Syrian forces are ready to attack the zone of the US military base Al-Tanf on the border of Syria, Jordan and Iraq, where US soldiers are deployed. Can you confirm that this issue has been discussed with Washington via diplomatic channels?



Maria Zakharova:

I think this question should be addressed to our military. In any case, I can double check and give you an answer.

We have mutual commitments with our American colleagues to evaluate information on the ground and exchange it. In general, I can confirm that such cases are discussed. I will check the specific instance you have mentioned and give you an answer.



Question:

The media is reporting that, according to the New York Times, Sergey Skripal worked with Spanish intelligence. In your opinion, why has the British Government not taken this into consideration, like many other facts?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t know whether the British Government has taken this into account or not. It is beyond my area of expertise, given that we have no official interaction with the British authorities on the Salisbury-Amesbury case. Accordingly, we have not asked these questions and have received no answers. I think you should ask the British authorities directly.



Question:

Can you explain on what legal grounds Russian Security Service investigators went to eastern Ukraine, an uncontrolled part of the country, to investigate the murder of Alexander Zakharchenko? The Russian security services have spoken about this. In particular, can you explain the legal grounds given that Russia recognises the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

You demand that the British give you proof of Russia’s involvement in the Salisbury events. Nevertheless, you have said that Ukraine is involved in Zakharchenko’s murder. Can you provide any evidence?



Maria Zakharova:

Wait, when you posted your articles on the portal where you work, did you mention how many times I said that this matter should be addressed to the investigation? I said this repeatedly, officially, during the interview. It is up to the investigators to find out what happened and who organised this terrorist attack.

But the point is that, of course, there is a feeling and understanding that political forces in Kiev might be behind it. Unfortunately, they were celebrating and making statements right after the murder. Officials of various levels made so many statements, that they even confirmed my words. Rather than reading statements by your politicians, read what the officials said. They encouraged such a course of events and suggested that it was the right direction for Ukraine. And you are asking me why I said that the Kiev elite and Kiev regime might be involved in this? Ask them, your politicians, on what grounds they made their statements about “go ahead, we will see victory soon.” Ask them.

As for legal grounds, I think this question is for the law enforcement agencies. I can ask them and then tell you. I will do that.



Question:

In March, the US Special Representative for Ukraine said the Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic should be eliminated as states. On August 31, Alexander Zakharchenko was killed in a terrorist attack. We saw an inappropriate reaction. I’d like to remind my fellow journalists that we must be more sensitive when such things happen.



Maria Zakharova:

I just said this to your Ukrainian colleague – let’s avoid political declarations. If you have emotional or other reasons to make a political statement, you can do it anywhere, but you come here to ask questions. Please, let's go no further. If there is a specific question, I am ready to answer or take time to find out. If you have a declaration, it is not for today's briefing. This is about information that is useful, and a chance to ask a question and get an answer. Political declarations, statements, or rallies are beyond the framework of a briefing. Respect your colleagues, because once you start doing this, everyone will do it. That is why I try to be as objective as I can, whatever I feel and whichever position I choose. I would also ask you to respect each other and not use this time to express your political preferences and views.



Question:

The Presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan discussed important issues of regional security during a meeting in Sochi. What are the prospects for greater cooperation between these countries in this area?



Maria Zakharova:

There are appropriate mechanisms in place, such as foreign ministerial consultations on various topics, including those on security issues. They are held regularly. I'm not sure if there should be more of them or if they should become less frequent. This mechanism works excellently.

There is a dialogue between other agencies and government bodies in Russia and Azerbaijan, whose competence directly includes discussion of security issues. It also works well. We effectively interact on these issues within many international organisations. I would not discuss any need for intensification in this case, because everything is already working quite well. But if either party decides a particular issue should receive more attention, it can always be done. Our dialogue with Baku is unfolding perfectly.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3338704
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 3rd, 2018 at 07:48 AM.
 
Old December 4th, 2018 #500
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the Dialogue of Young Diplomats from the Asia-Pacific Region on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), Vladivostok, September 12, 2018



12 September 2018 - 15:24







Good morning.

First of all, I’d like to thank you for the invitation to speak to such an interesting audience. As I understand it, this is the first meeting of young diplomats at the EEF.

The Asia-Pacific Region is one of the world’s largest centres of development, a driver of the global economy. Russia is an inalienable part of this region by virtue of its geography and history.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that for us cooperation with the states and integration associations of the Asia-Pacific Region is not timeserving but is strategic and long term.

We consistently promote a positive agenda in the region, which integrates the foreign policy and economic components, and continue strengthening strategic interaction and a comprehensive partnership with China. Coordination of our countries’ approaches to the key challenges of our time has proved its importance and has asserted itself as a major stabilising factor in world affairs. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping spoke about this in detail yesterday.

Russia’s privileged partnership with India is growing stronger, and our ties with the overwhelming majority of our other partners from the Asia-Pacific Region, including Vietnam and other ASEAN states are developing dynamically.

We maintain relations with the Republic of Korea, the DPRK and Japan. President Vladimir Putin met with Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe on the forum’s sidelines. Today the Russian leader will meet with his colleagues from Mongolia and the Republic of Korea.

Obviously, the further development of cooperation in the region would hardly be possible without enhancing stability and stepping up efforts against the many challenges and threats. Russia advocates equal and indivisible security in the Asia-Pacific Region based on non-bloc approaches, the principles of international law, peaceful settlement of disputes and non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. I am pleased to note that precisely this approach is now being discussed at the Eastern Economic Forum that created a special mechanism for addressing security issues in the region on open democratic principles.

Speaking about specific crises and conflicts, our priority is to facilitate the peaceful political and diplomatic settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and its issues in general because it is necessary to establish a stable system of peace and security there. At present, what is happening around the North Korean nuclear programme and efforts to settle it follows in the track of the Russia-China roadmap that was initiated by Moscow and Beijing over a year ago and suggests a step-by-step de-escalation of tensions and the formation of a sustainable peace and security system in Northeast Asia, part of which will be the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. In this context, we welcome the meetings between the leaders of the DPRK and the Republic of Korea, and between the DPRK and the United States.

In order for economic development to be indivisible, we promote the concept of harmonising integrational processes together with our partners in the Eurasian Economic Union. This is the goal of President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s well-known Greater Eurasian Partnership initiative that can include EAEU, SCO and ASEAN member states. Russia and China’s efforts to link the EAEU’s construction with the One Belt One Road project are making a significant contribution to this end. These efforts have already born practical results.

Of course, the partnership should be open to all the countries on our enormous continent, on the entire territory of Eurasia, including even EU countries whenever they find the extra incentive to return to the idea of establishing a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific that was announced many times but never implemented.

The dialogue between young people like the one you are hosting here today should also make a very useful contribution to the joint efforts to strengthen the atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding in the Asian Pacific Region. This means that young diplomats should have a professional interest in interacting with one another. Very soon you will have to provide continuity in your countries’ foreign policies and to work on ensuring that the values of mutual respect, the ability to reach agreements, and cooperation on equal terms prevail in international affairs.

I am pleased to see the professional solidarity here. This meeting is another result of the efforts taken by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats, which actively launches various discussion platforms with colleagues from other countries and regions on today’s key issues for the region they want to discuss in each case.

I am also glad that the geographical representation of the participants is constantly expanding. There are long-standing platforms for young diplomats from the BRICS, OIC and Eurasian countries. There is the Moscow Diplomatic Club in Moscow.

Last October I had the pleasure to speak in front of the young diplomats who took part in the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students held in Sochi where the First Global Forum of Young Diplomats, which was attended by over 100 delegates from 60 countries, was also held. Based on the results of the forum, the participants decided to establish an international association of young diplomats in order to further strengthen the community of professional diplomats.

The preparations for the Second Global Forum of Young Diplomats that will be held this November in Sochi are underway. I hope that such a large number of organisations will not devolve into bureaucracy and that you, being young and passionate people without any strict bureaucratic rules, will have a lively discussion, which will be useful to everyone.

I wish you fruitful discussions. I was told that you have several questions that I am ready to answer.







Question (retranslated from English):

Russia is a major partner for many Asian countries and a participant in many Asian forums including the Eastern Economic Forum, the ASEAN Regional Security Forum and the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting with Dialogue Partners. What do you think is Russia’s main strategic role in Southeast Asia and Asia as a whole in the next 10 years?

What opportunities and challenges will Russia face in a strategic role in Southeast Asia and Asia in general?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a key issue that determines the developments in the region. Russia is located here. This is a huge part of our territory. Regrettably, not many people live in this area. President of Russia Vladimir Putin mentioned this the other day at the State Council meeting in Vladivostok, which was specifically devoted to the development of this region of the Russian Federation.

We are interested in making the most of our potential for cooperation with our neighbours to develop the Far East, and to coordinate and carry out mutually beneficial projects.

At this point we have not achieved a sufficient level of economic cooperation with ASEAN. It is obviously below the level of our political partnership. This can be explained by objective factors, among other things, primarily the size of the economy. We have not yet reached a level that would meet our interests. However, in the past 10-12 years, since we started to actively cooperate with ASEAN on a practical basis and the first Russia-ASEAN summit was held, we have increased our trade many times over and it now exceeds $10 billion. Maybe this figure is not that impressive but it is a serious improvement over what it was before.

Russia and ASEAN signed a programme of economic cooperation, which is one of the instruments for developing our relations as part of our dialogue partnership. It is being successfully carried out and updated in accordance with the decisions that were made at the Sochi summit several years ago and in line with the agreements that we make every year with my colleagues at the Russia-ASEAN ministerial meetings.

We also have other tools for cooperation with this association, primarily the politological forms of our interaction. Moscow has established the ASEAN Centre at the Foreign Ministry’s MGIMO University that is engaged in very useful research. There are also many other forms of cooperation between scientists and civil society representatives.

Needless to say, security issues are a priority, for many reasons. Without settling these, it is hardly feasible to hope for comprehensive cooperation in the interests of all the countries in the region.

I would like to emphasise in this context that we are firmly committed to the central, core role of ASEAN in the processes that are linked with the ensuring of security and the settlement of conflicts in the Asia Pacific Region.

You mentioned formats that have a good reputation, for instance the ASEAN Regional Security Forum, the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting with Dialogue Partners and the East Asia Summit.

We are now preparing for the East Asia Summit in Singapore. President Vladimir Putin is expected to make a separate independent visit to Singapore in this connection. This will be the first summit after new ideas were introduced into the discussion of security issues in APEC. I am referring to the concept of the so-called Indo-Pacific Region. This term has been repeatedly used by India and by Indonesia among the ASEAN countries. Now it is being actively introduced into the diplomatic lexicon of the United States, Japan and Australia.

We would like to understand “the added value” of this term. Regarding the oceans, the Indian Ocean does not end in India but extends to East Africa. Does this term imply using this interpretation of the new format?

We are ready to consider any ideas but want them to be properly articulated, including the principles underlying this or that concept. I am referring primarily to the need to respect what has already been done (credit for what has already been done goes, first and foremost, to the ASEAN countries). Secondly, we would be eager to listen to the ideas that do not rely on bloc mentality and do not exclude any country from the discussion, and certainly are not aimed at deterring a state.

We are always interested in discussing any constructive proposals under these conditions.



Question (retranslated from English):

We have talked a lot about digital technology today. What does the Russian Government think of this?



Sergey Lavrov:

We actually have a Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media in the new Cabinet. This reflects current needs where an economy is hard to imagine without achievements in digital technology. The Russian Government has special programmes that are carried out by a separate ministry.

As for the Foreign Ministry, digital technologies are deeply and broadly engaged in information work. We have accounts on major social networks including Twitter, Facebook, Vkontakte and others. The number of subscribers to all these is growing.

The future lies in digital technology until something new is invented. This is crucial. Cooperation in digital technology is becoming a priority in bilateral relations with our partners around the world, including the Asia Pacific Region. I believe this will by all means produce positive results in practical terms.



Question (retranslated from English):

Can you tell us about the progress of “soft power” in Russia, including the promotion of culture and language in the world? We do not see much of this in Thailand.



Sergey Lavrov:

That means we haven’t been doing enough if it is not being seen in Thailand.

What is now called “soft power” was something widely used during Soviet times. We had a broad network of representative offices in all regions, with an emphasis on the developing countries, Soviet cultural centres and science centres. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we understandably could not maintain the same scale of communication with our foreign colleagues in the areas of culture, language and science. This has changed a lot since then. The number of events to promote communication at the level of civil societies, people of culture, science and sport are increasing with each year.

The 2014 Sochi Olympics and the recent FIFA World Cup held in Russia were examples of people’s diplomacy. I think all those who visited our country in the past two months to watch football battles have very positive impressions. At least none of the media outlets, regardless of their attitude towards the Russian Federation, have expressed negativity.

The network of Russian science and culture centres is growing; and the scale of teaching the Russian language is growing. The countries situated around the Russian Federation have very interesting education programmes, which are being implemented at their request, such as training Russian-language teachers from among the citizens of the respective countries so that they can subsequently teach Russian language to their compatriots using Russian methods.

Regarding other spheres of application of “soft diplomacy” efforts, we have a practice of holding cultural cross years with many countries, mostly with Western countries so far, for example, the Year of France in Russia, and the Year of Russia in France, Germany, Italy, etc.

Language and culture are increasingly being chosen as the theme for these cross years. Currently we are discussing this event with France – the Year of the Russian Language and Literature in France and the Year of the French Language and Literature in Russia.

I agree that similar processes should be supported with our eastern neighbours as well, all the more so as Thailand and other ASEAN countries show a fairly keen interest in Russian culture. We will pursue this.



Question (retranslated from English):

I would like to know about Russia’s allocation of funds for maintaining and achieving Sustainable Development Goals.



Sergey Lavrov:

Briefly, according to the statistics and criteria of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, we provide several hundreds of million dollars annually in official assistance to development.

I don’t want to make a mistake in giving exact numbers, but it amounts to over half a billion dollars in various forms. This assistance mostly goes to countries which are neighbours of the Russian Federation. They are our close friends and allies, as you know, we used to live in the same country until recently. Considerable amounts go to attaining sustainable development goals in other regions, including Africa. In the past 15 years, we have written off African countries’ debts to Russia totaling over US$20 billion.

We are actively engaged with the World Health Organisation (WHO) in programmes to fight diseases. When the Ebola virus outbreak occurred in Guinea and Sierra Leone, we established special programmes – we have opened a centre in Guinea to produce a fairly effective vaccine in case the epidemic returns.

We have educational programmes related to UNESCO, and environment programmes related to UNEP, this is why we allocate considerable funds to assist UN Sustainable Development Goals.

I do not recall such sizeable programmes for Asia, specifically the ASEAN countries. This is due to the fact that the ASEAN countries are at a higher level of development than many of your colleagues in Africa.

There are no limits to perfection, and we will actively engage in the discussions at the 73rd UN General Assembly later this month, which will consider, among other things, progress in implementing Sustainable Development Goals.



Question (retranslated):

I am from the Peruvian Embassy in Moscow. I would like to know the prospects for the development of relations between Russia and the Latin American countries which are members of APEC.



Sergey Lavrov:

Latin America is a region which attracts many people in the Russian Federation, including businesspeople and tourists. The distances, of course, impede quick establishment of stable links, but a great deal has already been accomplished.

We do not see Latin America as consisting of APEC members and all the rest. There are many subregional structures in Latin America, such as the Pacific Alliance, MERCOSUR, UNASUR, the Andean Pact, CARICOM and very many subregional groups with some membership overlaps.

We actively welcome what has been happening in recent years, I am referring to the formation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and its consolidation as an All-Latin America association. This is probably in line with the objective processes taking place in the world when a truly polycentric system is emerging in which there would be several centres of economic development as well as political influence. Latin America should undoubtedly be one such centre, one of the pillars of the world order which can only be multipolar because neither unilateral, nor unipolar, nor bipolar models are going to work. They have proved that they have spent themselves. So we have established a dialogue with CELAC. Already the foreign ministers of the Russian Federation and the leading CELAC “four” have had several meetings which demonstrated considerable potential for the development of our relations. We are interested in signing a memorandum on strategic cooperation and developing solid links in the areas that are on the CELAC agenda.

We have good links with the CARICOM, the Central American integration association, in whose ministerial meeting I took part. We have asked it to grant us observer status.

Speaking about the structures that are closer to Peru, MERCOSUR is negotiating an agreement with the EAEU that will chart the paths towards mutual trade liberalisation. We have good links with UNASUR which deals more with political and security matters.

There are a number of applied projects, for example, in Peru there are courses that train anti-drug trafficking professionals not only for Peruvians, but also for other countries in the region. We have opened similar courses in Nicaragua. A whole range of other practical initiatives are being launched, for example a vaccine factory in Nicaragua.

So, we are interested not only in the promotion of a political dialogue, but also in practical actions that strengthen our ties with Latin America, especially since many countries have Russian communities consisting of descendants of the people who had moved to your wonderful continent two centuries ago and now make up an important part in the communications between our civil societies.



Question (retranslated):

My question is about the emerging transport corridor in the Far East. This territory is becoming very important in terms of developing a regional transport corridor, considering Nord Stream, Primorye-1, Primorye-2 and other logistical arteries, such as the Trans-Siberian Railway. How do you assess the current potential for restoring the transport link between Chennai and Vladivostok that was used during the Soviet times? How can this corridor be integrated into APEC?



Sergey Lavrov:

You have to direct the question to the professionals who are involved in these projects, including within the APEC mechanisms. There is the North-South Corridor which carries Indian goods to Europe and on which we are working actively together with our Iranian and Azerbaijani colleagues.

As for the eastern direction of India’s logistical interests, honestly, I do not know in what condition the Chennai-Vladivostok line is at present. If you are talking about its modernisation, then it is probably not in a very good condition today.

We should look at the whole range of logistical projects which exist and are being implemented. You have mentioned the routes that go through the Russian Federation, the Trans-Siberian Railway. As you know, we are very keen on developing sea routes. The Northern Sea Route is increasingly in demand not only because the climate is changing and it is becoming more easily navigable, but also because we are paying very special attention to it. The State Council meeting in Vladivostok on September 10, which I have already mentioned, urged that there was a need to accelerate the building of ice-breakers that can operate on the Northern Sea Route at any time regardless of how thick the ice is.

Speaking about the prospects for land routes that are less directly connected with India, but are relevant to many other countries in the region, in the context of the normalisation of relations between North Korea and South Korea, the leaders of the Republic of Korea and the DPRK who are preparing another meeting in Pyongyang have agreed to create conditions for restoring the integrated railways and to link the common Korean railway to the Russian railway tracks. I have to point out that our Mongolian friends recently suggested that a community of North-East Asian railways be set up to include China, Mongolia, North and South Korea. I think in this scheme of things a calculus should be made of the economic feasibility of including the Chennai-Vladivostok line, to see how practicable it is at this point in time. This is again a matter for the specialists.



Question (retranslated from English):

During the course of your career you have witnessed “cycles” as Russian-American relations improved, then worsened and then normalised again. We do not see eye-to-eye on some matters. What are the roots of the problems which prevent us from moving forward and building more constructive relations between our countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think there is a combination of objective and subjective factors at play here. The objective factors boil down to the fact, that a world order is being formed that is different from the world in which the United States used to have it all its own way without encountering any counteraction to speak of. These times are on the way out. In terms of purchasing power parity China is already in top place among the world’s economies. I think the same will soon happen with respect to the volume of GDP. India is developing rapidly, and Latin America also wants to have a voice and an identity of its own. It is not by chance that I have mentioned the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). This too is a sign that Latin Americans want to have an identity in addition to the Organisation of American States within which the Latin Americans cooperate with the United States and Canada. They feel that this is no longer enough under the new conditions.

The processes that we see in Africa also show that the continent which has colossal resources, for all its problems, is also aware of its significance and is no longer content with just being a territory where the “big” Western countries divide the benefits of various subsoil resources. So Africa too will seek to assert its identity.

We have already mentioned ASEAN, the APEC powerhouse. These countries have always promoted a unifying, non-confrontational agenda. Now that the concept of the Indo-Pacific region is being promoted (not least by the United States) many ASEAN countries have been put on their guard wondering what it is that does not suit the US in the processes which have for years been referred to as APEC under the ASEAN umbrella.

I think, objectively, one can understand a country which has for several centuries “called the tune” (I mean it in the best sense of the word) in international affairs without encountering any serious resistance. That monopoly seems to be going now and a whole number of big states have emerged which have to be reckoned with. Hence the “America First” slogan which merits respect. All Americans are great patriots. I know it and that too is a worthy attitude. But when this slogan is translated into practical actions, it sometimes runs counter to the need to look for compromises and to come to agreements.

I would not look only at Russia-US relations, which are “poisoned” to the utmost, but at America’s attitude to any country. Washington makes a proposal, the partner replies that it would add something here, rephrase something there, and proposes to enter into negotiations. For the most part the US is reluctant to negotiate. First it imposes sanctions, then more sanctions and only then it negotiates. This was the case with North Korea, with the EU, and a trade war is under way with China. Most recently sanctions have been threatened against China over a “crackdown” on Muslims in Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region.

It has become a pattern – as soon as something goes wrong coercive measures are slapped on. I don’t think such a policy can succeed in the long term.

After the 1990s a huge number of American and European advisers worked in Russia (in fact, every government ministry had advisers). IMF experts supervised the preparations for large-scale privatisation and all the rest, including the adoption and implementation of corresponding programmes. I worked at the Foreign Ministry at the time and our leaders there openly advocated the need to embrace “all the Western democratic values.” The Western leaders, especially the US, probably got the impression that nothing more needed to be done, that Russia would always pursue the course that suits Washington.

However, times have changed and we simply began to regain our own identity, our history, our traditions and values which are not at all equal to and are indeed at odds with many neoliberal values that the West is promoting and that are not included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our new independence probably went against the grain in some quarters. However, the anomaly that occurred in our country in the 1990s should not have given a signal to serious Russia experts that history had come to an end and that Russia would now be different. Russia has always been one of the centres of the world order and at crucial periods has been among those who fought against out-and-out evil. We were allies during World War II. Stopping the advance of Fascism and Nazism was a great gain of humanity. That of course shows that whenever the world faced real threats we were, together with the majority of Western partners, “on the right side of history.”

The threats we are facing today are no less formidable: terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking. I hope that an awareness will prevail of the need to combat these threats, this evil together, rather than trying to play against one another in various situations, like in Syria today, and to use the threat of extremism to pursue short-term goals.

Let me give you an example. In 2011, protests and unrest started in Libya and the UN Security Council imposed an arms embargo. However, some countries, notably France, publicly declared that they were supplying arms to Libya because “the dictator” (Muammar Gaddafi) had to be liquidated and defeated. Then, of course, a NATO aggression followed. Instead of enforcing a no-fly zone sanctioned by the UN Security Council, the government army was bombed out. After toppling the Gaddafi regime in Libya, the terrorists moved to Mali. I had a call from the French Foreign Minister of the time (Laurent Fabius) who urged Russia to support at the UN Security Council the French bid to be allowed to use force against terrorists (France had a small contingent in Mali). I told him that terrorists were always an evil and of course, we would back any actions aimed at eliminating that threat. But I reminded him that the terrorists who were threatening the Mali government and whom France was going to fight were the very same people whom France had itself armed when they had to be used against Libya to topple Gaddafi. He laughed and said “c’est la vie.” “C’est la vie” is a saying, not policy. There should be no double standards. If terrorists in some country or other can “topple a dictator” whom some people do not like, they will be supported in the hope that later the terrorists would somehow be kept under control. Things do not happen this way.

Since the Soviet times, when the Soviet Union was involved in Afghanistan, the US backed those who fought the Soviets, the mujahedeen, who later created a structure called al-Qaeda which did a lot of harm to the US. After the occupation of Iraq, also on a specious pretext, ISIS emerged there and spread all over the world, against which we are fighting together in Syria, Iraq and other places. After Syria was attacked by extremists backed by the regional and Western countries there emerged Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the most effective and vicious terrorist groups. It is an illusion to hope that we will first use these bad guys for our own short-term purpose and will then control them. This will never happen.

I am satisfied that we have a highly professional military-to-military communication channel with the US regarding the Syrian crisis. We have been invited to Syria by its legitimate government, the US came there of its own accord, but such is the situation “on the ground.” Our approach is practical, not dogmatic. I assume that the political contacts we still have on Syria will help us to achieve common ground, above all from the point of view of the Syrians themselves, something we are all pledged to do.

This is the objective side of the matter. I have sidetracked a little bit into history speaking about the objective reasons for the relations that exist today between Russia and the United States. As for the subjective aspect, everything is clear. In my opinion, the two-party system in the United States has misfired, as many Democrats and Republicans say. The Democratic Party still refuses to accept the results of the elections. They are at pains to prove that but for Russian interference the Democratic candidate would have won. Against this background, there is not a single hard fact confirming the charges of cyber-attacks and hacking into accounts. There is a farrago over the Paul Manafort case with charges being leveled that he was almost the main agent of the Kremlin’s “evil plans” to prevent a Hillary Clinton victory. As a result, after months of investigations, he was only accused of being an agent of the Ukrainian government working in its interests. No Russian trail was found. However, the image of Russia as a villain that controls everything happening in the US has been embedded in public consciousness. I feel a kind of embarrassment on behalf of American politicians who present their country as being so weak and helpless that a few dozen hackers they have mentioned among millions of social network users could turn around the course of US history. And yet nobody speaks about the real facts that everybody knows, including the fact that Bernie Sanders was blocked by the Democratic Party in violation of US laws (an established fact).

I think the subjectivity is in many ways fueled by a sense of loss and attempts to put the blame on anyone but not on somebody inside the US. The two-stage system the US uses in elections is not very democratic. If we look at the votes of US citizens, Hillary Clinton won many more votes than Donald Trump (a million and a half more, if I am not mistaken). But the electors voted otherwise because the electoral districts were formed in such a way that Anglo-Saxon Americans were much better represented in the electoral college than Afro-Americans and Latinos. George Bush and Al Gore were pitted against each other in 2000. In Florida there was a vote recount (the difference was several thousand votes, which is nothing) and then the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Al Gore did not challenge and accepted his defeat. Shortly afterward I had a meeting with Condoleezza Rice and she criticised our political system. I cited this case and suggested that it is not very fair when even a vote recount is not allowed and the Republican-dominated Supreme Court is used. She agreed it was a flawed system but asked me not to meddle, saying these were their problems, they were aware of them and they would sort them out themselves. Now it turns out that it is not Americans’ business, but the business of the whole world to accuse Russia of allegedly interfering in the process. I do not believe it is worthy of our two nations. I think the citizens of other countries present here will agree with me that nobody likes it when relations between Russia and the United States are in such crisis. Everybody would breathe a sigh of relief if we moved toward normal relations on the basis of equality and the search for mutual compromises, which I think would be in keeping with the electoral plans US President Trump announced when he was elected. He invariably confirms his commitment to normalising relations with Russia, as he did at the Helsinki summit. This means that there are those in the American establishment, both in the Democratic and Republican segments, who think it is not right in terms of the US interests. So I am utterly confused because I used to think that if people elect a leader under a system that commands respect in the United States, the people ought to obey that leader.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3342322






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with DPA German Press Agency, Moscow, September 13, 2018



13 September 2018 - 07:20




Question:

What could be the role of regional and municipal partnerships and other forms of public diplomacy in light of the tense relations between Russia and Germany?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is an established fact that public diplomacy and inter-regional cooperation play a special role in strengthening ties between countries, as well as maintaining trust and mutual understanding among peoples in times of international turmoil. That said, I would not describe relations between Russia and Germany as tense. Yes, we have some political disagreements, which somewhat complicate our bilateral relations. At the same time, we are connected by a common history and culture. Our societies and economies are closely intertwined, and we share the same human wisdom. Taken together, all this provides a foundation that enables our peoples to believe in a bright and predictable future and work together toward building it by overcoming problems underpinned by what I believe to be immediate, tactical concerns.

The cross-year of regional and municipal partnership, held at the same time in Russia and Germany, is a good example. Its closing ceremony will take place in Berlin on September 14. Today, we have every reason to affirm that this initiative was a success. It had a rich programme and has already made a positive contribution to maintaining an atmosphere of mutual understanding and neighbourly relations as well as promoting people-to-people ties.

The cross-year also added momentum to the town twinning movement. Three pairs of Russian and German cities will sign partnership agreements over the next few days: Vyborg and Greifswald, Tuapse and Schwedt, and Zvenigorod and Lahr. I strongly believe that this “municipal-level rapprochement” will carry on. New sister cities will be announced at the 15th Conference of Russian and German Partner Cities, scheduled to take place in 2019 in Duren, North Rhine-Westphalia.

We have also succeeded in strengthening dialogue on the youth track. Specifically, in two weeks Hamburg will be the venue for the Second Youth Forum of Partner Cities that will focus on youth exchanges as an urban development tool.

Let me also note that holding theme-based cross-years has become a good tradition and a hallmark of Russian-German relations. Today’s agenda includes launching a new project, the Year of Research and Educational Partnerships. Just as before, Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and I will act as the patrons of this initiative.

It is with satisfaction that I note the continuing contacts between our NGOs. In this regard, we attach special importance to the Petersburg Dialogue Forum and the Potsdam Meetings platform.



Question:

There has been a lack of trust in the relations between Germany and Russia since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine. What can Russia do to restore trust?



Sergey Lavrov:

International relations can be compared to a two-way street. Accordingly, all sides must contribute to restoring trust, to say the least. Moreover, it was not Russia’s fault that the trust between our countries was undermined. Over the past quarter of a century we went to great lengths to promote equality and neighbourly relations in our country-to-country contacts with Europe. Russia has put forward various initiatives to this effect, including the draft European security treaty.

Unfortunately, Western countries did not support these efforts. Instead, they opted for a policy of military and political containment of Russia, culminating in the internal political crisis in Ukraine in February 2014. It is worth mentioning that three European countries, including Germany, acted as guarantors of the agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. They gave up on their guarantees, de facto giving the green light to a government coup. When the ultranationalist forces that came to power in Kiev launched a bloody policy of terror against their own people, it was Russia that was blamed for all the woes, which led to the unilateral sanctions.

In this regard, I feel somewhat optimistic that even against this backdrop Russia and Germany continue to develop ties, including in trade, economics, culture, as well as civil society contacts. We keep up the dialogue on key challenges the world is currently facing. This provides a positive foundation for gradually restoring mutual trust and full-fledged cooperation. As far as Russia is concerned, we are ready to work toward achieving this end.



Question:

If you could turn back the clock which event would you reverse to improve the relations between Russia and the West?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already partly answered this question. It is not any individual events that constitute a problem but the foreign political philosophy of certain Western countries.

In Russia we thought that the painless end of the Cold War would become our shared victory. However, the United States and their Western allies decided otherwise, proclaimed themselves winners and refused to cooperate on building an equal and undivided security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic. They chose in favour of moving the division lines closer to our borders, primarily, through the expansion of NATO to the East – and this despite the assurance of non-expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance given to the Soviet leadership at the time. The EU’s Eastern Partnership programme was also charged with anti-Russian sentiments from the beginning. The notorious events in Ukraine became direct consequences of this course and resulted in an unprecedented crisis in Europe.

Tension between Russia and the West is an expensive thing when it comes to international security and stability. But it is not too late to reverse this negative trend. This requires abandoning the logic of zero-sum games and building communication solely on the principles of honesty, mutual respect and consideration for one another’s interests. In other words, to follow the principles of the UN Charter unfailingly. For example, such principles as sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, peaceful and diplomatic settlement of disputes.



Question:

During his visit to Europe, US President Donald Trump called the EU an opponent of the United States. Who is the European Union for Russia? Who is the United States?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian diplomacy does not think in such terms. We do not consider bilateral relations through a friend or foe perspective.

For us, the European Union is not an opponent but an important neighbour and partner. Extensive Russia-EU links in various spheres, common energy and transport infrastructure predetermine the fact that our economies complement and positively depend on each other and thus our dialogue is of a mutually beneficial nature. To a large extent, we share our actual rather than imaginary security threats. It is possible to stand against them only together. Therefore, we are interested in the European Union being united, strong as well as independent in its strategic decisions.

Unfortunately, Russia-EU relations are not at their best right now. Inspired by ripples from overseas, the Russophobic forces within the EU continue to vigorously impose perception of our country as a source of “strategic challenges.” It is regretful that Brussels lacked independence and began to unwind the anti-Russian sanctions spiral prompted by Washington. We were quite surprised how the European Union so hastily volunteered to suffer multi-billion losses. Americans have not suffered any. But it is for the Europeans to decide if they need it.

On our part, we expect that common sense will eventually prevail and we will be able to return back to the path of a mutually respectful dialogue. In this respect, I cannot but be glad that an increasing number of people in Europe are realising that the confrontational approach with Russia is harmful.

As concerns Russia-US relations, how we go about doing things is completely clear. We take Donald Trump’s claims that he wishes to build a normal dialogue between our countries seriously and we are ready to meet him halfway in order to overcome the deadlock in our bilateral relations. However, we will only judge our partners’ actual interest in constructive cooperation by their practical steps. And we have not seen any. The situation continues to gradually deteriorate exactly due to Washington’s actions. Even if the US leader shows any positive impulses they get completely negated by the over-the-top Russophobia in the US establishment that sees our country as a threat to the geopolitical domineering of the United States and supports system-wide containment of Russia with unilateral sanctions and other leverage. Meanwhile, cooperation on important international matters is stalled. This has an adverse effect on the situation in the world where too many accumulated issues are simply impossible to resolve without cooperation between the two states.

On our part, we will continue to act in a pragmatic manner and respond to any unfriendly steps. However, we believe that it is both in the interest of Russia and in the interest of the United States to recover the relations on the principles of sovereignty, mutual respect for interests and non-interference in domestic affairs. The sooner Washington parts with the illusion that we can be forced to change our principled view by pressuring us with economic restrictions or demonstration of military potential, the better for everybody.



Question:

What role does Russia expect Germany to play in the settlement of the Syrian conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are ready for cooperation with any partners interested in the speediest achievement of a settlement in Syria, alleviating the suffering of the Syrian people who are now struggling with unprecedented international terrorism and crude external interference.

The terrorist hotbed in Syria is close to elimination. The country is turning to peace and political settlement. Now it is time for the restoration of the destroyed infrastructure, revival of economic activity, and the return of millions of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes.

In our opinion, helping Syrians to meet these goals could become an important area of ​​international cooperation. After all, it is primarily about helping people and, at the same time, creating favourable conditions for a political process that would allow the people of Syria to determine the future of their own country.

Unfortunately, so far, this kind of cooperation with Germany has not worked. Germany’s stance does not go beyond the general EU approach that limits the possibility of real assistance to Syria and the Syrians on the territories controlled by the government – four-fifths of the country now – to a “credible political process.” However, there is no definition of this “credible political process.” Severe financial and economic sanctions remain in force, preventing the establishment of normal economic activity in Syria of a kind that would allow a gradual voluntary return of the people who left their homes because of the hostilities and the tense economic and humanitarian situation.

Russia, together with its main partners in the Astana format and the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on Syria Staffan de Mistura, is vigorously working on the formation of a Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva that would prepare constitutional reform in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. We are willing to search for mutual understanding and collaboration between the Astana format and the so-called small group on Syria, which includes Germany. But this must be done on the basis of international law and the decisions already adopted, stipulating respect for the unity, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3342589






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Minister of External Affairs of India Sushma Swaraj, Moscow, September 13, 2018



13 September 2018 - 19:34







Ms Minister, Esteemed Sushma,

We are happy that your stay in Moscow begins with our meeting. Tomorrow your day will be fully occupied with sessions of the Intergovernmental Russian-Indian Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation that you head together with Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Yury Borisov.

Today we can exchange views on the development of our foreign policy dialogue. This is a very important component of our privileged strategic partnership. We will review the progress that has been made on implementing the agreements reached during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sochi last May and during the July meeting of our leaders on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg. We will also discuss our preparations for new summit meetings.







We very much appreciate our relations, our cooperation and coordination of actions in the international arena, including at the UN, BRICS and the SCO, to name a few. Considering the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific Region, it is important for us to know how our Indian friends assess events there, especially recent developments.

Again, welcome!




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3343243






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and responses to questions at the Germany-Russia Forum, Berlin, September 14, 2018



14 September 2018 - 15:38








Mr Matthias Platzeck,

Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues:

I am grateful to you for the invitation to speak before such a prestigious audience. We highly appreciate the constructive cooperation within the Germany-Russia Forum that is making a tangible contribution to the development of bilateral cooperation and the consolidation of an atmosphere of friendship, trust and neighbourliness between our nations.

Our dialogue with representatives from German public, political and business circles has become a good tradition. Last July we met at the Korber Foundation, and last February we talked with Russian and German business leaders on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

In the current situation in European and world affairs these discussions oriented towards the promotion of mutual understanding between Russians and Germans are very much needed. They demonstrate our mutual interest in the joint constructive search for the best ways of resolving various bilateral and international issues.

I am sure that today’s meeting will be no exception. It is devoted, as Mr Platzeck said, to integration processes in Greater Eurasia and the prospects for building a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It is hard to overrate the importance of these issues. The prospects of conjugating the potential of all European states without exception have occupied the minds of many outstanding European politicians. At one time French President Charles de Gaulle set forth the idea of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Such European greats as chancellors Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schroeder and President Jacques Chirac repeatedly emphasised the importance of broad cooperation with Russia with a view to building a common European system of security and economic cooperation. I would like to recall at this point that the first ideologists of Eurasian integration – Russian philosophers, geographers and historians Nikolai Trubetskoi, Pyotr Savitsky and Georgy Vernadsky – wrote about the natural character of common European cooperation as early as in the 1920s and 1930s. They defined potential cooperation on our enormous continent as a “natural synthesis” of the origins of the East and the West and the unification of their “civilisation codes.”

Upon the end of the Cold War, the obstacles in the way of mutual rapprochement between the two key economic and geopolitical players on the continent disappeared. They could pursue this in the name of building Greater Europe without dividing lines. For our part, we did our best for a Russia-EU partnership to become strategic in the true meaning of the word. Our many initiatives – from removing barriers to personal contact to building a common energy complex in the future – were aimed at reaching this goal.

In 2008 we proposed signing a European security treaty that would legally codify the political commitment of every state not to enhance its security at the others’ expense. Consistent implementation of these ideas could be an important contribution to the formation of common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Symbolically, speaking here at the Hotel Adlon Berlin at the fourth annual economic forum of executives and top managers of leading German companies, President of Russia Vladimir Putin expressed his conviction in the inevitability of Russian-European rapprochement if we want to retain our status as a civilisation, and be successful and competitive. We believe this idea not only remains valid but is becoming increasingly topical every day.

Sadly, not everyone in Europe supports this attitude for expanding interaction with our country. We are aware that there are different points of view where pragmatism does not always prevail. Sometimes there are enduring historical phobias, where Russia is imagined as some kind of threat to the peaceful European way of life. But, of course, Russia is not a threat. We often face attempts to teach us how to make our home better as if they do not understand that a patronising tone in any dialogue, let alone a dialogue with Russia, and ideology-based relations are meaningless and counterproductive.

I am talking about the current situation in our large European home with open disappointment. I am confident that Russia and the European Union are bound to cooperate on a basic, substantial level. The past decade, to a large extent, has been a decade of lost opportunities. Just a few examples. We could have, as Matthias Platzeck said, abolished visa rules, but this issue was deliberately dropped for political reasons by Brussels. We could have greatly reinforced our trade and economic links, but Brussels began creating hurdles for Russia's main exports. Such roadblocks include the Third Energy Package, a project which, properly speaking, aims to create problems for Gazprom in the European energy market, despite the fact Russia has always been a stable supplier of hydrocarbons to Europe.

Under the Eastern Partnership programme, a game was initiated not with a zero sum but with a 'negative sum’ through attempts to throw post-Soviet states into a false choice of "you're either with us, or against us." The culmination of the policy of deterring Russia was the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine, with national radicals coming to power who abolished the agreement on a settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine signed in February 2014, with Germany, France and Poland acting as EU guarantors. Yet, Berlin, Warsaw and Paris made no attempts to say anything regarding these rebels’ attitude towards European mediation.

It was also surprising, the haste of the European Union - by direct order from Washington - to agree to suspend time-proven cooperation with Russia and deliberately agree to suffer multibillion euro losses with the sanctions. Paradoxically, the Americans have neither sustained nor are sustaining losses.

But the Ukrainian crisis could have been prevented. I will remind you that the European Union was trying to draw Ukraine into its orbit through signing an Association Agreement that would inevitable have led to Ukraine leaving the CIS free trade area and subsequently sever Kiev's cooperation ties with Moscow. Instead of persistently following this destructive scenario, we proposed agreeing on parameters to harmonise integration processes, which would satisfy all three sides – the European Union, Ukraine and Russia, and would have taken into account both the EU’s requirements and Kiev's existing obligations under the CIS and bilateral relations with Moscow. However, all proposals by Russia on trilateral talks in 2013 and early 2014 were insensitively dismissed by Brussels. And if the expression "learning from the past" has any meaning, we believe that this is a case where we could look back and reach conclusions to help us move forward, including in the context of today’s discussion of the issues on the agenda.

By the way, in this regard it is worth hurrying as the world’s geopolitical landscape is changing rapidly, becoming more competition-oriented. New centres of economic power, above all in the Asia-Pacific region, are building up their potential. The old schemes based on the “those who lead – and those who are led” no longer work as a polycentric world order shapes up. Non-standard, innovative ideas are in demand.

If we take an impartial look at things, then in my opinion, the European Union should assess the advantages to its own interests more seriously, especially the creation of a new model of economic cooperation in Eurasia, one based on the mutual complementarity of national growth strategies and the combined potential of multilateral economic projects.

We, for our part, have started to pave the way in this direction. In cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and based on WTO precepts, we have created common markets for goods and services, and are ensuring conditions for the free movement of capital and workforce and are strengthening the EAEU’s external relations. For one, we have a free trade zone with Vietnam. We are discussing similar agreements with Israel, Serbia, and Singapore and other ASEAN countries. Talks with Egypt and India will get under way soon. An interim agreement has been signed with Iran. In total, we have received around 50 proposals from various countries and associations on establishing partnership relations with the EAEU.

An emphasis is being attached to work that has just begun to interconnect integration within the EAEU framework and China’s One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative. An agreement on trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and China was signed in May. We are planning to link infrastructure projects within the EAEU and the OBOR frameworks with the Northern Sea Route. All this creates prerequisites for progress towards the implementation of President Vladimir Putin’s Big Eurasian Partnership initiative – a maximum free space for broad economic cooperation involving the EAEU, the SCO and the ASEAN countries.

We hope that the European Union will consider these efforts and then the idea of a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok will acquire a practical form.

We appreciate the fact that many German politicians are showing interest in such cooperation. Mr Platzeck mentioned that matters regarding the creation of a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok are included in the coalition treaty of the current Government of Germany. This subject is regularly discussed during various Russian-German meetings, including at the top level. The main thing is that intentions should be transformed into specific steps.

Naturally, the implementation of large-scale plans is impossible without the general improvement of Russia-EU relations that remain hostage to the Ukrainian crisis in many respects. And the crisis itself persists due in large part to the policy pursued by Kiev’s current authorities who are impeding the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, agreements for which there is no alternative in resolving the current situation in this neighbouring country. We know that in Europe more and more people are becoming aware of the counterproductive approach of a confrontationist line towards Russia, favour a pragmatic policy and do not want to be manipulated to the detriment of their own legal interests.

I believe that we should reach the right conclusions and start repairing our pan-European home and building a common space of peace, security and economic cooperation with regard for the interests of all countries – those that are members and those that are not members of various integration associations. Much here will depend on the state of relations between Russia and Germany – the two largest European powers. History knows many examples of constructive Russian-German cooperation with favourable results for the general situation in Europe.

In this connection, it is indicative that, even under the current circumstances, cooperation between our states continues to develop in a range of areas – from the economy to culture. An obvious example is my visit to Berlin at the invitation of German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, which was timed to coincide with the closing ceremony of the Cross Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships. I regard this as a good helping hand in gradually improving the mutual trust that Europe and the whole world desperately need. Let me stop here. I am ready to answer your questions.



Question:

You said that repairs of the European home are on the agenda. What are your main proposals? How can we start major repairs? What else is necessary in addition to what is already being done today? What are we short of?



Sergey Lavrov:

To be honest, I don’t know what “is already being done today.” To start repairing our European home it is necessary to start talking. Practically all channels of dialogue between Russia and the European Union (EU) and between Russia and NATO have been broken off. Practical cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance has been shut down at their initiative. Of over 20 sectoral dialogues with the EU, not a single one is current. No, probably I’ve been hasty – there are contacts on the migration dialogue that is very important for Germany and the EU. I think one or two others continue. The energy dialogue has not resumed in its former format. There are sporadic contacts between Vice-President of the European Commission Maros Sefcovic and Energy Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Novak. Sometimes they meet together and sometimes with Ukraine’s Energy Minister Ihor Nasalyk if the discussion concerns issues linked with Ukraine’s role in Russian-EU energy cooperation.

I don’t even remember the last time we held a meeting with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini in the Permanent Partnership Council that is designed to review all areas of Russia-EU cooperation without exception in accordance with the still valid Russia-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. I meet with Ms Mogherini occasionally on the sidelines of international forums and she is interested exclusively in international issues, primarily Syria and Ukraine. I don’t think we have had any other serious discussions. We have somehow failed so far to sit down and figure out where our relations with the EU are as a whole. Summits have not been held since 2013; the Permanent Partnership Council I mentioned is not functioning, and the overwhelming majority of sectoral dialogues have been suspended as well.

If we do not start to cooperate normally at meetings, and discuss our issues and concerns, I think there will be little progress. One indicative example: up to now we cannot exchange information on the movement of foreign terrorist commandos around the world, including our common space because the EU has not shown any interest or activity in completing the work on signing agreements between Russia and the Europol and between Russia and Eurojust. Without these agreements it is impossible to exchange personal data under Russian and EU law. This is an example of a most urgent problem, challenge and threat common to all of us, not attracting our special attention. So we must sit down and start talking. We are ready for this.



Question:

Do you have special expectations as regards the German government in this respect?



Sergey Lavrov:

We know what role Germany plays in EU, Europe and world politics. Probably, much depends on Germany’s position. We will only welcome Berlin’s initiative to simply start, without any preconditions and special expectations at this point, practical conversation on all the issues on the Russia-EU agenda.



Question:

We had reasons and problems. These problems were not resolved either and the reason for it was that Germany and Western Europe generally mistrust Russia. Indeed, we don’t know whether Russia treats us well. This implies a hybrid war, cyberattacks and other aspects that are being discussed. What is really going on there? I don’t even want to talk about Crimea. As I see it, we need confidence-building measures. What could these measures be?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is incorrect not to talk about Crimea because this matter deserves to be discussed. We are ready to answer all your questions. It appears that your statement about your inability to learn what is going on in Russia can be explained by an absence of normal dialogue between us. This dialogue should not hinge on a demand that Russia should first confess to all mortal sins, even without any specific facts proving our illegal activities, and that it would then be possible to hold talks with Russia.

You have mentioned cybersecurity and election meddling. We are closely following foreign assessments of Russian policies and actions. We can see the current bacchanalia in the United States and claims that all problems of the American political system are linked with Russian meddling. Special counsel Robert Mueller has been working for over a year. Hundreds of people have been questioned during congressional hearings, and the FBI is conducting its own investigations. Considering the huge number of suspects who have been questioned, it is very hard to conceal anything. The American system is famous for its instant leaks. They are not mentioning even one specific fact. All we can hear is groundless accusations that someone from St Petersburg hacked into US government agencies’ websites.

There was a scandal around Paul Manafort who had worked for US President Donald Trump’s campaign. He was charged with being a key figure in engineering collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian Federation. All charges, except one or two, were dropped during a subsequent trial. None of them had anything to do with Russia. Incidentally, the main accusation that he had functioned as a foreign agent, while failing to register as such, is linked with his work for the Ukrainian Government. No one is talking about this. The media probably mentioned this matter once, and that’s it.

We are calling on the US to resume the work of the bilateral group on cybersecurity that existed in 2013, no matter what. This group stopped functioning after the United States severed many communications channels after the government coup in Ukraine. We tried to resume this process last year. This past March, Geneva was to have hosted the relevant large-scale meeting involving both countries’ inter-departmental delegations, State Department and Foreign Ministry representatives, as well as those of security and intelligence services. The Russian delegation arrived in Geneva where the meeting was to have taken place. While at the airfield, Russian representatives heard the news that the Americans had refused to hold the meeting. Someone somewhere said once again that a Petya/Not Petya ransomware attack had been recorded; the Americans turned around and left. During the summer, American experts approached us during the relevant OSCE events and suggested resuming contacts. We agreed, but there are no such contacts so far.

We addressed this matter again during the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Helsinki. US President Donald Trump said that it is the right approach. The same conversation took place the year before, on the sidelines of the G20 summit where we also agreed to resume cooperation on cybersecurity. However, this initiative did not find support with the Trump administration and similar agencies responsible for this field. The US Congress even accused President Trump of being ready to agree to talk with Russians on a topic that proves Russia’s harmful interference with US affairs. Using this sort of approach will not get us very far.

We are having a similar problem here. Cybersecurity is on the bilateral agenda for our relations with Germany. The first meeting of the Working Group on Cybersecurity was scheduled for last March but eventually got postponed at the request of Germany.

You said that the reason why there is no normal dialogue is lack of trust for Russia. But without a dialogue, you will not be able to dispel your doubts and get rid of the mistrust. Today I mentioned a state coup in Ukraine in February 2014 when, as a result of the mediation by the EU, the-then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, including the opposition which is now represented in the Ukrainian leadership, signed an agreement. Germany, France and Poland verified the agreement and acted as guarantors of its fulfillment. The morning after the signing, the agreement was terminated, a coup took place and, instead of building a government of national unity under clause 1 of the agreement, the coup initiators announced the creation of a government of winners. This is a slightly different mindset. I don’t think the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine was happy with the first action of the new leadership in Kiev. The first action was to abolish the law that guaranteed the rights of the Russian language as well as other minority languages. The day after the coup, one of the radical leaders, Dmytry Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector extremist neo-Nazi organisation, publicly threatened all Russians in Crimea with deportation because a Russian person will never understand a Ukrainian and will never honour Ukrainian heroes (he meant Roman Shukhevych, Stepan Bandera and other Nazi henchmen). Therefore, Russians must be banished from Crimea. I think that message to Crimean residents played a key role in the action they took afterwards by holding a referendum. Even more so because his threats were followed by sending so-called “friendship trains” with militants to Crimea and attempted occupation of the Crimean Supreme Council.

Speaking about trust, of course, we asked our German and French colleagues what they think about their mediation formalised on paper being simply ignored. Moreover, the opposition did completely the opposite of what it was committed to doing. Neither Berlin nor Paris responded. By the way, in February 2014, US President Barack Obama spoke out in favour of that agreement. He specifically called President Vladimir Putin and asked him not to talk Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych out of signing that document. And we did not talk him out of do it. We said that if there is an agreement between the officials and the opposition then we will, of course, support its signing. After what happened, US President Barack Obama did not even try to somehow explain why the United States, which wholeheartedly supported signing the agreement, not only put up with its termination but most actively backed the officials that took over Kiev by an armed coup d’etat. Since all this is related to Crimea, let’s consider how we can avoid being stuck with certain assessments of the events and instead try and understand why this happened. Once again, we need to do it not for the sake of filing complaints against each other but to learn from these mistakes and draw conclusions. We are all in favour of this.

Now, hybrid wars. What is happening in the West where the policy regarding Russia is being built absolutely suits the definition of a hybrid war. There are direct military actions when, despite all reassurances, NATO is expanding its military presence and infrastructure near our borders. More military divisions and weapons are being deployed. The media is shaming Russia for any reason whatsoever and the NGOs operating in Russia as well as other countries are most actively used for interfering into our domestic affairs. There are dozens of NGOs that operate in Russia and receive funding from abroad. We do not prohibit their activities but ask those who operate on foreign money to inform us about this and register as foreign agents. This is exactly what the Americans are doing.

For example, since we are talking about interference with domestic affairs and hybrid wars, in the summer of 2015, the United States passed a law supporting stability and democracy in Ukraine according to which the US Department of State undertook to promote democracy in Russia both directly and through NGOs. The United States allocated $20 million per year. This is stated in the law which is not a confidential document. Just imagine if the Russian parliament passed something like this with respect to US public organisations. Imagine the reaction and hysteria we would get from overseas.

Let’s compare facts and not claim that our way of life and approach to international affairs are the only good alternative. Only compromises will help us find solutions to most of the pressing matters but for that we need to start talking. I am glad that we are trying to build it today.



Question:

You have come up with a good concept for returning once again to the issue of Ukraine and the unresolved conflict in Donbass. We can also see a major humanitarian problem there. Its solution was formalised on paper, but the decision is not being implemented, and this is making everything even more complicated. You have mentioned Ukraine’s mistakes in this connection. Do you have any idea of a Russian approach to maintaining peace in this country and region?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have an idea of this approach which is not new and which is called the Minsk Agreements. This document was the result of uninterrupted 17-hour talks involving the presidents of Russia, France, Ukraine and the Chancellor of Germany, and it was unanimously approved by a UN Security Council resolution. Indeed, the document devotes much attention to issues on which the well-being of the population and the solution of humanitarian problems depend. For example, it notes the obligation of the Kiev authorities to help restore economic ties and to resume banking services from which Donbass residents were cut off. As you know (I hope you are following Ukrainian developments), instead of accomplishing these tasks, Kiev has long since imposed a total economic, trade and transport blockade of these territories. In most cases, people are not allowed to pass through checkpoints. Ukrainian authorities barely manage to pay pensions. Regarding banking services, German and French leaders pledged to provide mobile banking services under the Normandy format, but so far they have failed to do this.

For many years, the Ukrainian Government has failed to cooperate with Berlin or Paris in addressing the problems of ordinary people in the conflict zone. As you know, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are conducting a joint operation on their territory. Before that, a counter-terrorism operation took place. People who refused to support a coup d’état were called terrorists. But if you recall the facts, you will see that these people did not attack anyone. When the putsch took place, when they saw political and philosophical concepts of the new government, primarily anti-Russia concepts directed against the Russian language and culture and the Church, they asked to be left alone, saying they wanted to understand what was going on in Kiev, and that they would live on their own for the time being. They did not attack anyone. On the contrary, they were attacked and branded as terrorists.

This is a small part of what we can recall and discuss while focusing on the genesis of the Ukrainian crisis. But the Minsk Agreements are the most important thing. They need to be honoured, with due respect for their key provisions. Many parameters of this small document directly oblige Kiev to hold consultations with Donetsk and Lugansk and to coordinate all key issues with them, including constitutional reform, the special status of Donbass, an amnesty and the holding of elections. Kiev does not plan to do all this. It constantly creates artificial tensions along the demarcation line and deceives its Normandy format partners by refusing to disengage forces and hardware in the well-known Stanitsa Luganskaya place. In two other towns, where the disengagement took place, Ukrainian forces sneaked back. The OSCE Monitoring Mission knows this, as is proven by its reports. Of course, this is a glaring example of Kiev’s reluctance, under far-fetched artificial pretexts, to formalise the so-called Frank-Walter Steinmeier formula. This formula was coined by your esteemed President and my colleague when he worked as minister of foreign affairs.

In October 2015, the Normandy Four leaders met in Paris to discuss the issue of holding elections because, according to the Minsk Agreements, the law on the special status of these territories should first be approved and enacted. The law has been drafted, its contents have been coordinated, but it is has not entered into force. President Petro Poroshenko asked how he could enact the law on the special status if he did not know who would be elected during these elections. This implied that a special status would not be needed if they elected acceptable candidates. Therefore elections come first, followed by the [special] status, he noted. At that time, the then German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested a compromise: the law will come into effect on a preliminary basis after polling stations close on the day of elections, and it will come into full force, permanently, after the OSCE circulates its final election monitoring report. This process usually takes two months. Everyone agreed, and this came to be called the Frank-Walter Steinmeier formula. A year later, in October 2016, the Normandy Four leaders met here in Berlin, with President of Russia Vladimir Putin reminding his colleagues that an agreement had been reached in Paris, but that experts and foreign ministers, members of the Normandy format and the Contact Group, had failed to formalise it on paper and to move on because of opposition from the Ukrainian Government. President Petr Poroshenko said the Frank-Walter Steinmeier formula stipulated that the law come into force on a permanent basis on the day of publication of the concluding OSCE election monitoring report; and he wanted to know what would happen if the report recognised the elections as unfair and unjust. This argument took 12 months to prepare. President of Russia Vladimir Putin promptly responded that this was the intent and suggested writing down that the law would be permanently enacted on the day the OSCE report was published, if the report recognised the elections as free and fair.

This took place in October 2016 in Berlin, and we are soon going to mark the second anniversary of this agreement. The Ukrainian Government flatly refuses to formalise the document on paper. Representatives of the Normandy Four leaders had another telephone conversation the day before yesterday. French and German representatives once again tried to coordinate the formalisation of the Frank-Walter Steinmeier formula on paper, but their attempt met with the resistance of the Ukrainian representative. I could discuss this matter for a long time, so let’s move on to something else.

By the way, I don’t shy away from the Crimean issue. Most European Union countries, including Germany, have a discriminatory regulation under which the passports of persons who received them in Crimea after March 2014 are not stamped with Schengen visas. If we read all human rights conventions, as well as OSCE and Council of Europe obligations regarding freedom of movement, we shall see that this is a direct violation of humanitarian obligations by those introducing such discrimination.

I took part in a conversation where participants posed the issue in a very interesting way: supposing that the Crimean referendum did reflect the true expression of the will of the population, then a refusal to issue visas to Crimea residents amounts to punishing people for their political convictions. On the other hand, if we assume that this was an annexation (as in the scenario being promoted by our Western colleagues), then it also turns out that civilians living in Crimea are not to blame for anything. An external “aggressor” “attacked” and “annexed” them. So why should the people suffer? Regardless of the logic, this does not explain the position of Europeans who do not stamp visas into the passports of Crimean residents. This is if we care about humanitarian matters.



Question:

Your country is conducting intensive military operations in Syria. Europe and Germany are receiving immigrants in connection with developments in this country. What are Russia and its diplomacy doing to prevent any aggravation of the situation in Idlib where chemical weapons are expected to be used? One million children, three million people, including militants and people whom we call terrorists are staying there. The expulsion of three million people cannot serve as a price for combating them.

We are hearing Russian proposals on rebuilding Syria, and Germany could become involved in this process. We are happy to know that Russia is ready to work in this region.



Sergey Lavrov:

Let’s discuss everything by order of priority. The Russian Aerospace Forces are helping the Syrian Government. Russian military advisors working on the ground are helping the Syrian Army to deploy its forces more effectively to combat terrorism. Some obvious successes have been posted in this area. ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra militants and their supporters have been expelled from most of the Syrian regions.

Russia is not the only country to deploy its service personnel, military units, military advisers and special forces in Syria. Unlike Russia, other countries were not invited to Syria by the country’s legitimate Government, and their presence there is therefore illegal. However, we are pragmatic people, and we are not ideologically motivated; therefore we perceive this reality which should induce all external players now operating in Syria to reach an agreement in the interests of the Syrian nation, eliminating all threats to the Syrian state and fulfilling UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which states expressly that only the people of Syria can decide their country’s future by drafting a constitution and holding UN-supervised elections in line with its provisions.

Russia, Turkey and Iran are working in the Astana format. A summit was held fairly recently. We are also working with Jordan, Israel and the United States via bilateral channels. Military representatives have communications lines making it possible to avoid unintentional incidents; and these lines can be used when it is necessary to resolve essential matters besides reviewing deconflicting issues.

Immigration, a serious problem, has affected us to the smallest extent and on an incomparable scale. We realise how serious it is for many EU countries, in terms of socioeconomic and philosophical aspects. We are counting on the wisdom of Europe. I am confident that efforts will continue to be made in order to find mutually acceptable solutions.

I would like to recall that the current tidal wave of immigration was caused by the aggression against Libya when NATO countries bombed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in violation of a UN Security Council resolution and helped those hunting the country’s leader Muammar Gaddafi. In the long run, they helped to brutally murder him to the jubilant yells of US officials who watched all this on television live in the White House in Washington DC. This is when the tidal wave of immigration began. Libya turned into a black hole, handling streams of terrorists, extremists and weapons to Sub-Saharan Africa. In the opposite direction, millions of refugees flowed into Europe.

I recall a situation when in the second half of 2011, soon after Libya was reduced to its current state (and no one knows how to rectify this situation), former French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius asked me to support France in the UN Security Council discussion of ways of dampening the threats engulfing the Republic of Mali. A French contingent was deployed there, and they wanted the UN Security Council to approve its use for thwarting attacks of terrorists from Libya. I replied that the fight against terrorism was not even a subject for discussion, and that Russia would support any decisions facilitating this fight. However, I reminded my colleague that terrorists whom they wanted to counter in Mali were the same people armed by them in Libya, so that they could topple the Gaddafi regime. They were armed in violation of a UN Security Council resolution stipulating a complete embargo on weapons shipments to Libya. The French military openly said that they were helping the opposition that was bringing democracy to Libya.

As for the situation in Idlib, it is the only remaining major stronghold of the terrorists, who are resorting to their favourite tactics of using civilians as a human shield. They have brought the larger part of the armed opposition under control and regularly try to attack Syrian Army units and our airbase at Khmeimim, using, among other things, drones. Dozens of drones take off from the Idlib area and one of them even managed to drop explosives. Since this incident all drones have been neutralised, destroyed – we know how to handle them. So, it is not true that the people in Idlib are simply stuck there like in a besieged fortress and are seeking a truce. They have launched vigorous attacks from there, using the aid they are receiving in this or that manner from abroad.

We have talked to our Turkish colleagues, who know that a territory in their country is occasionally used by evil people to worsen the situation in Syria. They are taking steps to put additional border security measures in place. Under an agreement we have reached, Turkey has established 12 observation posts in Idlib. This tends to slightly ease tensions. Turkey has undertaken to work towards the separation of the armed opposition, that is prepared to have a dialogue with the government, from terrorists, to prevent the latter from bringing armed groups that are not extremist or terrorist under control.

It is necessary to keep in mind that Idlib is one of the four de-escalation zones that were created in Syria under a resolution by the Astana Three. The establishment of one such zone to the south was coordinated with the United States and Jordan and its parameters have been accepted by Israel – this was important because Israel was apprehensive about the presence of extremists along its border close to the Golan Heights. The previous three zones have been closed for political reasons because it was agreed that the militants would pull out [of these relevant areas] and opposition groups would separate from the terrorists. These opposition groups have signed local truce agreements with the government. Today, the situation in this area is quiet, although an area of 110 kilometres in diameter unilaterally established by the Americans at Al-Tanf for absolutely unknown reasons has remained and was brought under control by the Americans. ISIS fighters and other terrorists remain in this area, feeling free and easy there and using it to occasionally launch attacks, including on the Palmyra and Aleppo areas.

As for Idlib, one should understand what agreements were reached to facilitate the creation of the de-escalation zones. The agreements declare a truce that – is explicitly stated – does not apply to terrorists. The agreements urge opposition groups to separate from the terrorists and establish contact with the government forces through our mediation and through the mediation of Turkey or Iran in order to negotiate local conciliations. We will definitely do everything that we are doing now, fully taking into account the challenges that the civilian population is facing.

In addition to the efforts to set the stage for reaching local agreements with certain groups that are located in the Idlib zone, a humanitarian corridor is being created for those who want to leave the area like we did in the zone to the south – in the Province of Homs and Eastern Ghouta. Next week, on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet again. On September 7, in Tehran, they discussed how to address Idlib-related issues in order to minimise the risk that the civilians might be exposed to. Currently, our and Turkish diplomats and military are engaged in dialogue. Next Monday, the two presidents will look into this situation.

They are now claiming that Syrian forces have launched an offensive with Russian support. But this amounts to an unfair distortion of the facts. Syrian and Russian forces only respond to attacks from the Idlib zone. I have already noted that about 50 drones were launched towards the Russian military base. It is very difficult to detect them using conventional air defence systems; radar cannot detect the drones as many of them are made of wood, but we have intelligence data about where in Idlib these drones are assembled from components being smuggled into the region. As soon as we receive such information, we strike such illegal factories manufacturing deadly weapons. I assure you that we will deal with these matters in the most cautious manner possible; we will set up humanitarian corridors, encourage the so-called local conciliations and do our best to avoid hitting civilians. We will not act the way the [US-led] coalition acted in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria, when no local ceasefire agreements were discussed with the armed opposition, when no humanitarian corridors were established (Raqqa is just about as large as Idlib), when buildings were razed to the ground, and when dead bodies lay unburied for months on end. We are expecting the UN to update us on the situation in Raqqa, and on how actively conditions are being created to ensure the return of the local population. For information’s sake, hundreds of thousands of Syrians are already returning to Eastern Aleppo (many similar emotional statements were also made prior to its liberation) and Eastern Ghouta (from where people left before these areas were liberated from terrorists).

We have already said everything about chemical weapons. Each day, we provide facts proving that another provocation is being prepared, that it will, most likely, be carried out by the so-called “White Helmets” NGO, being portrayed by our Western partners as a model example of humanitarian activities. For some reason, unlike the above-mentioned depoliticised International Committee of the Red Cross that operates all over Syria, this organisation solely operates on extremist-controlled territories.

When they say that the Syrian government will use chemical weapons anytime now, and that France, the United Kingdom and the United States will then deal a crushing blow against the “regime,” as they call it, this essentially amounts to an invitation to extremists to stage another attack, just like they did in Eastern Ghouta, and this will make it possible to attack the Syrian government. This is also a provocation in its own sense. They have failed to provide even one fact that the government is getting ready to launch a similar attack, but no one responds in any way to various facts being presented daily by Russian military representatives, including the way this attack is being prepared, how many barrels with chlorine have been delivered to Idlib, what kind of explosives are to be used, and what communities are involved.

Just like in any other affair, including the Salisbury incident and the chemical problem in Eastern Ghouta, where the Western Big Three had attacked at a time when everyone was shocked by a video showing “White Helmets” representatives hosing down a boy, it is necessary to rely on solid facts. Later, we located that boy and his father, we brought him to the Hague where he said he was simply staying inside a compound; all of sudden, some people wearing white helmets rushed inside and started hosing him down. It was Russia, not the West, that insisted that OPCW experts go there. When they were a several-hour ride away from Eastern Ghouta, the United States, France and the UK struck that place. As per our demand, the OPCW was to have submitted its report with expert findings. This report has not been submitted so far, with the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s officials replying to our questions that they will complete the report anytime now. All this looks very bad in the context of openness and the need for all of us to combat chemical weapons and terrorists, instead of trying to use both issues in geopolitical games.

Regarding our opinion on how to restore the infrastructure, we want Syria to resume peaceful life, to resolve humanitarian problems, and we want the refugees to return, including those from Europe. Thousands of refugees are already pouring in from Lebanon. With Russian support, the Lebanese government actively cooperates with organisations facilitating their return. The Russian military and the Syrian government have already conducted an inventory of communities whose conditions already allow refugees to return and to start settling down in their homes. These communities already have running water, sewage systems and elementary medical services. We have already circulated this information in countries receiving Syrian refugees, including Germany. We are asking their authorities to find out whether there are people from these villages, towns and cities (that already have adequate living conditions) in their respective countries and to inform them accordingly. We are also working in this direction together with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

What else can be done? It appears that it is necessary to become involved in this work and to stop dividing Syrian territory into “good” and “bad” areas. Today, our Western colleagues, including the EU and the United States, are saying that they will provide humanitarian aid alone (but they don’t want the government to receive too much of this aid). Speaking of restoring the infrastructure and the economy, they are ready to take part in this process only if the so-called political transitional process begins, and when they become convinced that this process is heading in the “right” direction. But they now invest millions and tens of millions of dollars in a region which is illegally occupied by the United States and US-controlled opposition units, primarily Kurdish units, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. They are doing exactly what the West refuses to do anywhere else in Syria. In other words, they are creating more favourable conditions for the population, and, by all appearances, this concept runs completely counter to the solemn assurances of our Western colleagues that they would respect the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

It goes without saying that unilateral sanctions, imposed on the Syrian government by the EU and the United States, influence the state of the country, including efforts to create favourable conditions for the return of refugees. These sanctions have considerably impaired its ability to provide medical services and lots more needed to get life back to normal. There are many aspects here, and the West could study them in order to see what could be done.



Question:

You said there is an obvious shortage of forums for pan-European dialogue. In principle, the Council of Europe embraces the region that you’ve described. What contribution is Russia willing to make to return to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

Are you serious? You know that what is now happening in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe only further aggravates the shortage of forums. The aggressive Russophobic minority does everything it can to keep this forum from actually being pan-European, to make everyone else fall in line and to punish the Russian Federation. When this Russophobic minority – and we know what deputies in the Parliamentary Assembly we are referring to – passed the rule-breaking decision on depriving our delegation of the right to vote, we still showed goodwill. We suggested coming to terms to make all the delegations in the Council of Europe equal, as is written in its Charter that describes the authority of the Parliamentary Assembly. Depriving any delegation of the right to vote is a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the functioning of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. When this happened, we went to a specially established mechanism for talks with the heads of the Parliamentary Assembly, including Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland. These meetings did not produce any results although Mr Jagland and President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Michele Nicoletti were sincerely doing all they could to overcome this crisis.

For about a year and a half after we were deprived of the right to vote, we continued paying our dues to the Council of Europe but honestly warned everyone that this could not continue because it was a violation of the principle of equality that is fundamental to all bodies of the Council of Europe, be it the Committee of Ministers, the Committee of the Regions or the Parliamentary Assembly. When our patience came to an end because Mr Jagland and Mr Nicoletti’s efforts did not produce results, we said that starting at a certain point we would not be able to pay our dues because by that time more than half of the judges of the European Human Rights Court were elected by the Parliamentary Assembly without the participation of the Russian delegation. Later, the Parliamentary Assembly elected Dunja Mijatovic the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, again without the Russian delegation. The Secretary General election will take place next year. If the issue is not resolved by then, we will consider the legitimacy of all these Council of Europe committees to be questionable.

Responding to criticism for not paying membership fees, which is punishable by expulsion from the Council of Europe, last summer, we said that as soon as everyone returns to the foundations of the Council of Europe Charter and the full rights of our parliamentary delegation are restored without exception, we will immediately pay all we owe to the Council of Europe. This remains our current position. It depends on the parliamentarians, whether they will be constructive or not. If those countries that want to punish Russia for everything, and we know tentatively who they are, manipulate the Parliamentary Assembly, it will probably discredit the deputies from the other countries that are interested in dialogue even on the most complicated issues. Crimea, the crisis in Ukraine, and migration problems, to name a few, may be discussed. To be honest, if a country that leaves the EU of its own free will determines the EU policy on Russia, it does no credit to the EU.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3344050
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.
Page generated in 7.99426 seconds.