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

Old August 7th, 2017 #201
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by the head of the Russian delegation Igor Barinov as part of the consideration by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination of the combined 23rd and 24th periodic reports of the Russian Federation on the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination



4 August 2017 - 13:24





Madam Chairperson, members of the Committee, colleagues,

Preventing racial discrimination in all its forms is becoming an increasingly topical issue in today’s world. The Russian Federation highly values the role played by the Committee in countering any forms of racial discrimination and responsibly fulfils its international obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Considering the importance of this issue, the Russian Federation included in its delegation representatives of the key ministries and agencies involved in implementing the Convention’s provisions within their scope of authority, specifically, the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs, the Ministry of Sport, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Supreme Court and the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs.

The provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter the Convention) have been enshrined in the laws of the Russian Federation, and are part of the basic principles regulating social interactions in all areas of public life, thus becoming an integral part of government policy.

Noting the holistic nature and consistency of the Convention as a comprehensive international legal instrument to fight racial discrimination, Russia attaches special importance to its Article 4, which requires States Parties to this international treaty to undertake immediate and positive measures designed to counter the spread of any ideas rooted in racism. Not only did the Russian Federation refrain from making any reservations regarding the provisions of the Convention, but it recognised the Committee’s authority to review individual reports on violations of the treaty.

In addition, Russia sponsors a resolution submitted to the UN General Assembly every year on “Combatting glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” In particular, this document emphasises the crucial role and significance of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and your Committee. A considerable part of Russia’s annual voluntary contribution to the budget of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights goes towards implementing projects to counter racism and racial discrimination.

Members of the Committee,
Historically, the Russian Federation has always been a multi-ethnic state that brought together all ethnic groups within its borders and created the conditions needed for their further ethnic and cultural development. Russia has unique, millennia-old experience in creating a political and legal environment conducive to the development and peaceful coexistence of various ethnicities.

The President of the Russia Federation Vladimir Putin has noted in his statements on multiple occasions the importance of establishing sustainable inter-ethnic peace and accord in Russia and preventing any forms of discrimination on any grounds.

The principle of preventing and eliminating all forms of discrimination on social, racial, ethnic, language or religious grounds has been designated as one of the key government policy principles in ethnic affairs.

Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the equality “of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of race, ethnic background, language, origin, place of residence, attitude towards religions” and also bans any forms of “limitations of human rights on social, racial, national (ethnic), language or religious grounds.”

This approach was formalised in the Strategy for the Russian Federation State Ethnic Policy towards 2025, approved by Presidential Executive Order No. 1666 of December 19, 2012. The Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs, which was created under Presidential Executive Order No. 168 of March 31, 2015, was tasked with implementing this strategy as a specialised government body. The Agency’s main functions include, among others, preventing any forms of discrimination on racial, ethnic, religious or language grounds, as well as preventing attempts to incite racial, ethnic or religious strife, hate or hostility.

The State Programme for Implementing the State Ethnic Policy was devised. It sets forth a list of measures designed, among other things, to ensure the equality of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of race, ethnic background, language or attitude towards religion, and provides for the relevant funding. The authority and area of competence of regional government bodies, local governments and their officials with regard to inter-ethnic affairs are established by the relevant laws. In all constituent entities of the Russian Federation, deputy heads of the regions were designated to oversee inter-ethnic relations.

Ethnicity-related laws and regulations in Russia are sector-specific, which means that all normative legal acts are divided into sectors that cover all norms to regulate specific types of public interactions and stipulate specific methods to do so. General anti-discrimination principles and norms banning discrimination on racial, ethnic, social, language or religious grounds correlate with the human rights in specific areas, be it the right to labour, the right to education, the right to use a native language, the right to enjoy cultural benefits, etc. With this approach, the non-discrimination principle covers all rights recognised by the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation.

This legal framework is regularly updated.

In accordance with Federal Law No. 114-FZ dated July 25, 2002 On Countering Extremist Activity, incitement to social, racial, ethnic or religious strife; propaganda of exceptionalism, superiority or inferiority of a person on social, racial, ethnic, religious or language grounds or attitude towards religion; propaganda or public display of Nazi or any similar attributes or symbols; public calls to such action; mass production and distribution of materials featuring content of this kind; organising and preparing the said actions, as well as financing them and inciting to carry them out fall under the definition of extremist activity and are subject to prosecution under the relevant norms of criminal law.

In a number of its articles, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation designates extremism-related crimes (Articles 282-282.3) as criminal offences. Political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious hatred or strife, or hatred or strife towards any social group are regarded as qualifying elements in more than ten types of crime, aggravating the responsibility for perpetuating such crimes and leading to higher criminal liability.

In accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the activities of public associations whose goals and actions are designed to incite social, racial, ethnic and religious strife are prohibited. The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, among other things, is tasked with continuously monitoring activities by various public associations, including with the view to identifying illegal activity.

A Strategy for Countering Extremism in Russia towards 2025 was adopted in 2014 as part of efforts to ensure a system-wide approach to countering the manifestations of extremism aimed at inciting social, racial, ethnic and religious strife.

Russia is consistent in its policy to fight attempts to glorify Nazism, propaganda of Nazi ideology and other supremacist ideas and theories based on race, ethnic, religious or social origin, or attempting to justify or encourage racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and is also consistent in taking measures to eliminate any incitement to discrimination of this kind. Specifically, the laws prohibit publishing works by the leaders of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the National Fascist Party of Italy, or publications supporting or justifying ethnic and/or racial supremacy or justifying military or other crimes that aim to completely or partially annihilate any ethnic, social, racial, national or religious group, the use of Nazi symbols or emblems of organisations that collaborated with the Nazis as offensive to the memory of Great Patriotic War victims. In 2014, rehabilitation of Nazism was criminalised in the Russian Federation.

The Russian authorities attach special importance to investigating and holding the perpetrators accountable for inciting racial, ethnic or religious hatred or strife. Regular training courses are held for law enforcement officers on fighting racial discrimination and profiling.

Audits on compliance with anti-extremism laws show that law enforcement agencies are proactive in identifying and suppressing extremism, and the results of their efforts are becoming increasingly tangible. Specifically, the increase in the number of extremism-related crimes reported in the regions of the Russian Federation is by and large attributable to the proactive approach of counter-extremism centres operating within Internal Affairs bodies.

In 2016, the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation identified 1,450 extremism-related crimes. Of this total, 1,207 crimes were investigated, and criminal charges were filed in 993 of them. In the closed criminal cases, 934 individuals faced charges.

In the first quarter of 2017, law enforcement bodies identified 421 crimes of this kind and 211 individuals behind these crimes. Of this total, criminal charges were filed in 267 cases.

In 2016, the courts of the Russian Federation at various levels convicted a total of 427 people in criminal cases involving racial or ethnic hatred. Of this total, 72 people were convicted for racial discrimination under Articles 280, 280.1-280.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and four people were convicted under Clause “L,” Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for manslaughter motivated by racial hatred or strife. In the same year, there were 64 cases involving acts punishable under administrative law, and 44 civil law cases related to racial discrimination.

This was largely facilitated by general measures undertaken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to ensure compliance with the main provisions of the Convention.

The judges and staff of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are constantly updated on the latest initiatives by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation posts in its internal network Russian translations of the Committee’s resolutions adopted following the review of individual reports, as well as the Committee’s general recommendations. This information is available to general courts, including the justices of the peace. Supreme Court judges and staff also receive information from the Committee’s annual reports. The annual reports are also posted in Russian in the internal network of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Committee’s resolutions, in Russian, are also included in periodic reviews of the operation of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Supreme Court judges and staff are also informed about the periodic reports by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

All in all, the Russian Federation has developed an efficient system of judicial protection of any person against any acts of discrimination and violation of human rights. The courts of the Russian Federation are consistent in following the principle of ensuring unfailing protection of the rights and legitimate interests of people within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, regardless of race, skin colour, tribal, national or ethnic origin, relying, among other things, on direct references to the relevant articles of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Since 2012, extremism-related crimes conceived or perpetrated using the internet have been on the rise. In 2016, these violations accounted for 63.2 per cent of all crimes (526 out of 831) that fall under the Federal Law On Counter-Extremist Activity. Most of the perpetrators of these crimes were between 18 and 29 years old.

The competent Russian agencies are seeking to identify and block published information containing calls to actions designed to incite racial, ethnic or religious strife, or spread propaganda of exceptionalism or inferiority of a human being on any of these grounds. The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) is the competent government agency tasked with taking pre-emptive measures for preventing this activity within the scope of its authority.

The regional prosecutor offices are engaged in an ongoing media and internet monitoring effort for identifying content that could be regarded as extremist. Inspections are carried out whenever violations are detected, followed by appropriate prosecutorial action.

From February 1, 2014 until April 2017, Roskomnadzor identified about 42,000 websites promoting the ideas of racial intolerance, xenophobia and neo-Nazism. Since October 2014, 26,332 websites were identified featuring propaganda of the ideology of the terrorist group Islamic State. Following official warnings, illegal content was deleted from 39,702 of them, and access to 2,216 websites was restricted in Russia. At the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, Roskomnadzor worked with more than 1,630 websites of this kind, and 1,490 of them deleted the information in question, while access to 144 websites was restricted.

In accordance with the Strategy for the State Ethnic Policy, the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs monitors the state of inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations, and is also involved in early prevention of conflict situations. The information obtained as part of these efforts is designed to help take effective decisions regarding the implementation of the state policy in this area.

The database currently contains more than 90,000 entries on media outlets, about 10,000 indicators of socioeconomic tension, and 220,000 entries on non-profit and other organisations that are being monitored in connection with inter-ethnic relations. The total number of items monitored within this system exceeds 25 million. This monitoring system is expected to become an important tool for suppressing acts undermining interethnic peace and accord, inciting racial, ethnic and religious hatred or strife.

Special attention is paid to preventing racial intolerance and other manifestations of extremism among sports fans, including in the context of major international sporting events hosted by Russia. Sports organisations are involved on an ongoing basis in holding international events for exchanging best national practices in creating an environment free from discrimination. For instance, preparations for the Summer Universiade in Kazan, the Sochi Olympic Games, FIFA Confederations Cup and the FIFA World Cup included seminars and workshops on this matter, attended by representatives of government agencies, football community and experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as NGOs, including SOVA Centre, Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) and Supporters Direct Europe.

The law ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on an Integrated Safety, Security and Service Approach at Football Matches and Other Sports Events was adopted on July 26, 2017 with a view to ensuring security and creating a people-friendly environment at football matches, as well as other sporting events.

In addition, Russian sports organisations (federations, leagues and clubs) have units within their structure in charge of working with sports fans and preventing discrimination in sports. For example, the Football Union of Russia has an inspector for fighting football-related racism and discrimination.

The Russian authorities are taking steps to address prejudices leading to racial discrimination, encourage mutual understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations, ethnic and religious groups. Working in close cooperation with representatives of national diasporas, as well as ethnic and cultural, social, youth and religious organisations, mechanisms for preventing and settling inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts were developed and effectively implemented.

Whenever appropriate, the Russian Federation encourages unifying multi-ethnic organisations and movements, as well as other initiatives undertaken with a view to eliminating racial and inter-ethnic barriers. Various ministries and agencies are involved in initiatives of this kind. The state provides financial support to ethnic and cultural autonomies and ethnic and cultural centres. This includes holding folk and ethnic music concerts, crafts workshops, research and dialogue events, as well as projects to preserve and develop the traditional culture of the peoples of Russia.

Measures are being taken on an ongoing basis in the Russian Federation related to education, mentoring, culture and information, including at the regional level. In all state and municipal general education institutions, primary and secondary school curricula feature special courses promoting mutual respect and a patriotic mindset among the younger generation, traditional cultural, religious and moral values, as well as providing an insight into the cultural and religious traditions of the peoples of Russia. Schools hold Holocaust remembrance days.

Special attention is paid to preventing the spread of youth radicalism. To this effect, the Russian authorities strengthen cooperation with higher education institutions, volunteer organisations and public associations working on youth issues. The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation is in charge of holding cultural awareness and educational initiatives at higher education institutions. Universities establish centres promoting harmony in inter-ethnic relations, inter-ethnic friendship clubs and youth tolerance schools. Foreign students can benefit from adaptation programmes.

Russia pays great attention to preserving the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War. In 2016, Russia’s Ministry of Education and Science together with the Russian Historical Society and the Russian Military Historical Society developed, at the instruction of the President of the Russian Federation, a new teaching package for Russian history. In 2016, many educational initiatives were held to mark 70 years since the establishment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and its legacy in suppressing neo-Nazi, radical and extremist activity and inciting inter-ethnic and religious strife.

The Russian Federation is home to more than 190 peoples and ethnic groups. In accordance with the Russian Constitution and laws, they all have an equal right to preserve and develop their language, culture and traditions. The state also provides additional support to the small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and Russia’s Far East (ethnic groups of less than 50,000 people, referred to as the “indigenous peoples of the North”), as well as other ethnic minorities.

Considering the vulnerability of their way of life and environment, as well as the small size of these indigenous peoples, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its federal laws stipulate a wide range of preferences and benefits that the small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and Russia’s Far East are entitled to in terms of water and land use, and social protection. In addition, over 1,200 regional norms and regulations were enacted in a number of Russian Federation regions to this effect. This legislative effort was designed to better safeguard the rights of the small indigenous peoples. It continues to this day.

As part of the effort to implement antidiscrimination provisions, the Russian Federation regions where the indigenous peoples of the North live and engage in traditional economic activity have been proactive in introducing mobile healthcare services using various kinds of transport (road, railway, water and air transport) in order to improve the availability of healthcare services. The mobile medical teams are equipped with portable diagnostics equipment (330 sets), operating in areas where small-numbered indigenous peoples live.

The state works together with the business organisations in this area. For example, there is a partnership with Russian Railways, which helped launch medical trains in a number of regions. Every year, this ambulant clinic provides diagnostics services in 40 to 45 remote villages to more than 10,000 people, with small-numbered indigenous peoples accounting for one third of the total patients.

Russia attaches great importance to improving the status of the Romani people by helping them integrate into society. In accordance with the 2010 national census, there were 207,000 Roma in Russia or 0.15 per cent of the country’s total population. The Romani have nine ethnic and cultural autonomies and 23 public associations, including regional public Romani associations in the Krasnodar Territory, Kaliningrad, Sverdlovsk, Rostov, Omsk, Smolensk and Tver regions.

Nadezhda Demeter, head of the Federal Autonomous Ethnic Cultural Organisation of Russian Roma is a member of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations and the Advisory Council on National Cultural Autonomy with the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs. The Government approved a Comprehensive Plan for the Socioeconomic, Ethnic and Cultural Development of the Romani in 2013-2014, developed in cooperation with the Federal Autonomous Ethnic Cultural Organisation of Russian Roma. The Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs has developed the Comprehensive Plan for the Socioeconomic, Ethnic and Cultural Development of the Romani in 2017-2019, pending approval.

Quarterly monitoring reviews are conducted in the Russian Federation regions on the status of the Romani people and compliance with the Methodological Recommendations for regional executive and local self-governance bodies in dealing with the Romani population. The Romani population is mostly sedentary, and is economically, socially and culturally integrated into society. They work in various sectors of agriculture, manufacturing, services, educational and cultural institutions. The State Romani Theatre Romen was created in Moscow 86 years ago. There are also many musical bands and performance groups, and talented Roma children are studying theatre and music at higher education institutions.

At the same time, Romani with a nomad lifestyle are in need of support, primarily in terms of access to education for their children.

Specifically, special preparatory classes can be offered to Roma children to help them adapt and master the curriculum for their respective age groups, so that they can go on to follow regular school curriculum without psychological or other stress.

It is also worth mentioning the pilot project by the Federal Autonomous Ethnic Cultural Organisation of Russian Roma, “Facilitating adaptation of Romani to Russian society through education.” The project has benefited from Presidential grants in the Moscow and Smolensk regions. It was designed to provide the relevant knowledge and skills for ensuring academic achievements and adaptation to primary and secondary education (including Russian language). New methods for working with Roma children in schools were developed and implemented as part of the project. The project featured an experiment with the presence in the school of a community assistant speaking the native language, who facilitated communication between teachers, students and their parents.

The Convention and its national implementing legislation are in full force in the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol. The authorities of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are consistent in their efforts to implement the ethnic and cultural policy on the peninsula.

In accordance with the new Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, the Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages were for the first time granted the status of state languages. The federal and regional authorities pay great attention to creating a favourable environment for people in Crimea to learn their native languages.

Seeking to restore historical justice and repair the consequences of the illegal deportation of the Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Italian, Crimean Tatar and German population from the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and the related violations, the President of the Russian Federation released an Executive Order in 2014 on measures to rehabilitate these peoples and provide government support to facilitate their revival and development. Following up on this Executive Order, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Crimea issued a directive approving a plan of action. It featured a package of measures to draft regulations on inter-ethnic relations, helping repatriates establish and pursue sustainable livelihoods and adapt to the social and cultural environment, promoting state languages in the Republic of Crimea (the Crimean Tatar, Russian and Ukrainian languages) and the study of the Armenian, Bulgarian, Modern Greek and German languages, as well as holding initiatives designed at satisfying the social, ethnic and cultural needs of repressed peoples.

In execution of this Executive Order, the Government of the Russian Federation, together with the concerned federal executive bodies, the State Committee on Interethnic Relations and Deported Citizens of the Republic of Crimea and the Government of Sevastopol, developed and launched the implementation of a package of measures for 2017-2019 to restore historical justice, and promote the political, social and spiritual revival of the Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Italian, Crimean-Tatar and German peoples who suffered from illegal deportation and political repressions due to their ethnicity or other factors. The Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs is coordinating the implementation of this plan.

The Government of the Russian Federation adopted Resolution No. 790 of August 11, 2014 to approve the federal targeted programme Social and Economic Development of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol until 2020 (the federal targeted programme), designed to assist the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in integrating the Russian economic space, ensuring transport accessibility, addressing infrastructure-related limitations with a view to ensuring sustainable economic development and inter-ethnic conciliation. Under the programme, the Government of the Russian Federation approved 708 billion roubles (over 10 billion euros) for the development of Crimea. Of this sum, 10 billion roubles (150 million euros) were allocated specifically for fostering development within the Crimean Tatar community.

As part of the single comprehensive campaign to harmonise interethnic relations and strengthen tolerance among ethnicities, the State Committee on Interethnic Relations and Deported Citizens of the Republic of Crimea assists the media in the Armenian, Bulgarian, Modern German, Modern Greek and Crimean Tatar languages. In addition, Krym Television and Radio Broadcasting Company has desks broadcasting in the Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Crimean Tatar, German and Ukrainian languages.

Based on its historical experience, the Constitution, norms and regulations, and principles of state ethnic policy, as well as proceeding from the goals and principles enshrined in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and this Convention, the Russian Federation is consistent in its policy efforts to maintain strong interethnic peace and conciliation and prevent any forms of discrimination, and is committed to following this policy moving forward.

Members of the Committee,

In conclusion, I would like to say there is an abundance of aspects in Russian national legal framework and case law regarding the elimination of discrimination. There is no way I can elaborate on all of them in such a short period of time. For this reason, my colleagues and I will be glad to provide you with more details on the issues that may be of interest to Committee experts during today’s and tomorrow’s meetings.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2832374
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old August 7th, 2017 #202
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 Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muiznieks’ position concerning the application ECODEFENCE and others v. Russia



4 August 2017 - 13:33



Russia has been perplexed by a recently published comment, in which the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, announces his decision to intervene as a third party in the European Court of Human Rights proceedings concerning ECODEFENCE and others v. Russia and inveighs against Russian legislation regulating the activities of non-commercial organisations.

Specifically, Mr Muiznieks describes Russian legislation as “running counter to human rights” and “incompatible with international and European human rights standards.” He also estimates it as an “interference with the free exercise of the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression” that allegedly leads to a situation where the organisations in question and their staff are subjected to “ostracism, harassment and even physical attacks.”

We consider such assertions and the tone of comments chosen by the Commissioner as an unfriendly gesture in relation to our country, the legislation of which fully conforms to the norms of international law. The mention of “harassment and physical attacks” is completely ungrounded.

We call on Nils Muiznieks to use verified information in his public comments and avoid false accusations and politicisation of purely legal matters s related to the activities of the ECHR.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2832384






Comment by the Information and Press Department on new EU sanctions



4 August 2017 - 19:52



We deeply regret the decision by Brussels to include a number of Russian officials and companies in the EU sanctions list as a countermeasure for the allegedly “illegal” delivery of Siemens gas turbines to Crimea. We consider this Berlin-initiated step unfriendly and unfounded. It seems our German colleagues have adopted the practice of a broad interpretation of sanctions restrictions, which directly contradicts both international law and the principles of international relations as a whole.

The EU and the German Government are fully responsible for this decision, including the potential economic losses of Siemens and other German and European companies operating in Russia. We believe the reasons for introducing a new package of restrictive measures against our country are utterly far-fetched and reserve the right to take retaliatory measures.

We are disappointed by the absurd politicisation of an issue that in reality represents a business dispute between economic entities. We are also resolutely rejecting the attempts to use it as an example of the ostensibly unfair practices of Russian companies.

Despite these developments, we are affirming our interest in maintaining and steadily developing economic cooperation with Germany and the EU in general. We are committed to all of our pledges and hope to overcome jointly the negative consequences of sanctions.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2832601
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old August 7th, 2017 #203
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s comment and answer to a media question following bilateral meetings on the sidelines of ASEAN events, Manila, August 6, 2017



6 August 2017 - 15:56





Bilateral meetings are taking place on the sidelines of ASEAN events. Meetings were held with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

My Turkish colleague Mevlut Cavusoglu and I discussed the implementation of the agreements within the Astana process, and preparations for the next meeting of the representatives of Russia, Turkey and Iran, which will take place in Tehran on August 8-9 and be used to continue the discussion on further strengthening the de-escalation zone regime in Syria. As you know, there are already three such zones: in the south of the country, in Eastern Ghouta and to the north of Homs. We are now working on the fourth zone, which is the largest and most complex, in the province of Idlib.

My Chinese colleague Wang Yi and I discussed the implementation of the agreements that were reached during the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Russia on July 4. We are making good progress. Our representatives at the deputy foreign minister level are heading the corresponding mechanism, within which all decisions of our leaders are being implemented. We also discussed preparations for the BRICS summit, which will be held in China in early September, and our interaction within the SCO. Of course, much attention was paid to the situation on the Korean Peninsula, including in the context of the UN Security Council resolution adopted just last night. In addition to new fairly serious measures to influence Pyongyang's leaders in order to make them comply with the UN Security Council resolution on North Korea's nuclear missile programmes, it also includes the firm commitment of the Security Council to resume the six-party talks and to start looking for a political settlement.

As you know, Russia and China have a common position, which was confirmed by a joint statement by the foreign ministers of our countries on July 4 and involves moving forward towards a political process via the Chinese initiative to double freeze any missile launches and nuclear tests in the DPRK and to simultaneously freeze large-scale military exercises by the United States and the Republic of Korea. In addition to this Chinese concept, our joint statement includes support for the Russian proposal to develop a roadmap for gradual restoration of trust and the creation of proper conditions for resuming the six-party talks. We agreed to promote this concept in practical activities, including within the UN.

I had a fairly long meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. He was primarily interested (he started with this) in the details of the decisions that we were forced to take in response to the law on anti-Russia sanctions adopted by the US Congress. We provided the explanations. Strictly speaking, this response was based on President Putin’s interview with Rossiya television channel, which provided all the details and the reasons for the decisions we made after our lengthy expectations that the United States would not embark on a path of confrontation. Unfortunately, the Russophobic attitudes of Congress members prevented this from happening.

We discussed cooperation in other areas as well. We reminded our partners about the understandings that were reached at the meeting between President Putin and President Trump in Hamburg, including the need to establish cooperation in the sphere of cybersecurity, and combating and preventing cybercrime.

We had a discussion concerning our contacts on various international issues. North Korea and the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula were among the central items as well. We proceed from the premise that contact on this issue between the US State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry would be very useful, and we are open to such contact. We expect that this will be reciprocated.

We touched on the situation in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf region, and the state of affairs regarding a Syria settlement. Here, too, contact is maintained between our representatives, including as a follow-up to the agreement reached by Russia, the United States and Jordan to create a southern de-escalation zone in the south of Syria. We hope that our contacts with the United States with regard to other aspects of the Syrian settlement - both military and political - will continue. As a matter of fact, they have never stopped.

We touched on the Middle Eastern settlement and the Ukraine crisis. We reminded our counterparts that the US President and the US Secretary of State promised us that the United States Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Kurt Volker, would visit us soon. Rex Tillerson confirmed that such contact with our representative Vladislav Surkov is planned and will take place in the near future. This will be interesting because Mr Volker has already been to many capitals, including Kiev, Paris, Berlin and London. We will be interested to learn what the US special representative thinks about the current state of affairs.

We spoke about strategic stability as well. All levels must be reached and the restrictions established by the START Treaty must be applied by February 2018. An appropriate bilateral mechanism must ensure compliance with their obligations by both sides. We talked about the need to establish a professional, depoliticised, and pragmatic dialogue on the INF Treaty. I think we have the understanding of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. We will instruct our experts accordingly.

As you know, there is a Ryabkov-Shannon mechanism with the participation of the corresponding Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia and the Under Secretary of State of the United States, who have met several times already. It was considered useful to keep this format intact and to continue to discuss, within it, all issues, including the complex issues on our bilateral agenda, which, unfortunately, are not diminishing. However, we felt the willingness of our American colleagues to continue the dialogue. I believe that there is simply no alternative to this.



Question:

Aren’t you indignant by the fact that the militants who do not want to sign the truce are moving to Idlib?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I mentioned earlier, agreeing on the parameters of the de-escalation zone in Idlib won’t be easy. Perhaps, this is the most complicated of the four zones, which Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed on last May in Astana. We also believe that these three countries, as well as other players, including probably the United States, have a cumulative influence on all militants and armed groups, with the exception of the terrorists, who will never be brought under any agreements. If Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the US-led coalition synchronously use their influence on specific players who are confronting each other on the ground with weapons in their hands, then proposals for compromises that can contribute to a ceasefire and create proper conditions for a political process will be found.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2832775
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old August 10th, 2017 #204
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question following the Russia-ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, the East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and the ASEAN Regional Forum on security, Manila, August 8, 2017



8 August 2017 - 10:58





Question:

Are there any changes in North Korea’s position after the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution?



Sergey Lavrov:

I heard that the Foreign Ministry of North Korea has made a harsh statement rejecting this resolution and condemning it as unfair. Strictly speaking, this is how representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have reacted to all previous UN Security Council resolutions. We will judge by their actions.

We are confident that there is no alternative to the resumption of the political process, in particular the six-party talks. Russia and China have made relevant proposals. We will promote them in New York and other venues. We will certainly continue our dialogue with our North Korean neighbours. We expect that with the prudent approach of all players, naturally including the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan, we will be able to find a solution that suits all parties.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2833873






Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Anastasia Fyodorova’s reply to a question from Rossiya Segodnya on the detention of Russians in Kosovo



9 August 2017 - 16:02





Question:

Can you comment on the detention of six Russians by the Kosovo police?



Anastasia Fyodorova:

This is what the Foreign Ministry can say about the detention by the Kosovo police on August 8 of six Russians and five Serbian nationals when crossing the administrative border between the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and the rest of Serbian territory.

The group was travelling in two cars from the city of Medveda (central Serbia) to the village of Medregovac (Autonomous Province of Kosovo). They took the road without an official checkpoint. Around 2 pm these persons were detained on Kosovo territory and taken to a police station in the city of Luzane. A diplomat from the Russian Embassy in Serbia was immediately dispatched there.

We have established the fact that the police have been treating the detainees correctly, and the procedural norms are being respected (free lawyers were invited, and an interpreter provided).

After being interrogated, the Russian nationals were handed out a warrant for their arrest for one day and documents explaining their civil rights. A court hearing will be held in Pristina.

The Foreign Ministry is keeping a close eye on the situation, and the Russian Embassy in Serbia remains intent on ensuring that the Russian citizens are released as soon as possible.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2834494
__________________
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 15th, 2017 #205
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 domestic political developments in Venezuela



10 August 2017 - 16:55



The world public continues to focus on events in Venezuela and related developments. The current determining reality is the formation of a new supreme national body, the National Constituent Assembly, following the July 30 elections, and its practical launch, which lay the foundations for a new institutional framework of the country’s internal political life, and which we believe are creating opportunities for Venezuela to move towards stabilisation.

Under these new circumstances, it is more important than ever that the international community signal its support for a peaceful settlement of the protracted internal crisis by creating an atmosphere of trust and resuming direct dialogue between the opposing sides. Regrettably, often we see the opposite.

Contrary to the very logic of developments and their own calls for “democratising” processes in Venezuela, certain internal and external political forces carry on with a destructive policy intended to dismantle the emerging dialogue tools and, in effect, throw the situation back to the original dead-end positions. The infatuation with unilateral sanction restrictions, isolating measures, pressure and ultimatums, which a number of countries are demonstrating with regard to Caracas, can hardly be seen in a different light. We do not think that actions of this sort contribute anything constructive.

We are confident that the path towards an internal political settlement in Venezuela runs through building up constructive elements in approaches that are based, not on lamentations for something that failed to materialise but on regard for the new realities emerging in Venezuela as a starting point for further progress, making it possible to launch a practical search for areas of national accord conducive to the implementation of countrywide tasks. There is no alternative to direct and responsible talks between the government and the opposition. Peace in Venezuela is still dependent on all sides being ready to return to dialogue within the framework of the Constitution, without outside interference, and with conciliatory political efforts in the interests of shaping a unifying agenda. The next benchmark to reach in an atmosphere of interaction is the launch of the regional election campaign on December 10.

We expect all sides, both internal and external, to show prudence, wisdom and a constructive desire for joint work in the interests of returning calm and prosperity to Venezuelan soil.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2834996
__________________
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 15th, 2017 #206
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Terra Scientia on Klyazma River National Educational Youth Forum, Vladimir Region, August 11, 2017



11 August 2017 - 18:54





Good afternoon,

Thank you for such a warm welcome. I have been invited for the third time running. I am very pleased to receive these invitations because it is very important for international relations professionals to talk to young people who are interested in diverse issues. All the more so since this forum has gathered sociologists and political scientists – professions that are very closely intertwined and, I believe, necessary to figure out what life is about, including international life.

I will share with you some of our assessments. I will not take up your time with long opening remarks because President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has expressed his opinion on these issues more than once and our position is well known.

We are going through a critical stage in international relations. The previous era is receding into the past. During this era the West dominated international affairs for centuries, whereas now what we call a polycentric world order is objectively taking shape. This is a natural process because life is moving ahead. New centres of economic growth and financial might are emerging on a par with those that pioneered the world’s development, on a par with Western countries. Naturally, political influence is coming along with all this. These new countries want to uphold their interests by taking part in forming the international agenda and setting the tone, especially in those regions where respective centres of power are emerging – China, India, Brazil and, to a certain extent, South Africa. There are larger countries on the African continent, but sustainable development is only typical for South Africa so far.

Let me repeat once again that this is a trend whereby new emerging centres of power are assuming responsibility for ensuring security and stability in their regions and in the world arena as a whole. It is impossible to stop this process because by and large multi-polarity reflects the truly existing cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world, and, of course, the desire of nations to determine their destinies themselves and a striving to establish justice – approximately as it was seen by those who wrote the UN Charter that contains all the fundamental principles that remain topical today, being universal for all states. Let me say once again that this is an objective process, which is anything but simple. First, a change of eras is always a very long period (you don’t wake up in the morning and multi-polarity is already here). This will continue for a long time. Second, apart from objective reasons, I want to emphasise that this process is meeting with active resistance, primarily from those who dominated the world before and want to preserve the old order in the new conditions and, deep down, forever. This is manifest in different things. We will talk about this, of course.

25 years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation was disbanded, there was a choice that major politicians in the West thoroughly discussed. The choice was in favour of disbanding NATO and for everyone to focus efforts in the OSCE and develop – based on this universal Euro-Atlantic framework and each participant's equal rights – new approaches to security so that no one would be impinged on. During that period, a new term – equal and indivisible security – was coined. Although the OSCE issued corresponding declarations, NATO was never disbanded. The North Atlantic Alliance was the setting for the actual efforts of its western member states to secure their military and political interests, of course. They have never been seriously engaged in solving any questions of practical importance within the OSCE. What they engage in mostly is ideology-driven discussions, attempts to promote their pseudoliberal values, passing them off as universal ones. The universal values are formalised in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted after the United Nations was founded. Everything to do with imposing one's additional views on certain aspects of modern life, as well as imposing one's approaches, including to human rights, on other countries, certainly does not correspond to the principles that the UN is based on. To repeat, back then the choice was made not in favour of disbanding military blocs, disbanding NATO, but in favour of the illusion that was referred to as “the end of history,” as allegedly the world didn't have any prospects other than capitalism. The illusion turned out to be just that. One cannot call the shots for the whole world, acting as a club of the chosen. This could not work, and it did not work. What’s more, this same model of globalisation, including its economic and financial aspects, which has formed the so-called liberal globalisation club and benefitted their interests, is currently a fiasco, I think. This has become obvious for many people with common sense in the West.

For our part, 25 years ago, when we were experiencing all those events, we proceeded from the fact that we all won the Cold War, and it was a common victory. We wanted to believe that the idea of pan-European, global and equal security, as was recognised by the UN Charter, would come into fruition. Remember, back in the 1990s, our country was still recovering from the consequences of the collapse of the USSR and there was a huge number of difficulties, the debt, setting up borders that appeared overnight between former Soviet republics, social problems and many other issues. At that time, western leaders thought that Russia was weak and would remain weak, and they would incorporate our country into their world order as an obedient partner, and they would call the shots on everything. Back then, one had to be hugely insightful to envision any other scenario in international affairs. The late Yevgeny Primakov looked beyond the horizon and formulated his concept of multipolarity. At that time, there were few of those who were able to foresee that becoming reality. Mr Primakov substantiated this model in his works and showed the disastrousness of a unilateral approach and efforts to organise international affairs. You may recall that following this, in February 2007 Russian President Vladimir Putin, when addressing the Munich Security Conference, spoke from the perspective of the post-Soviet experience, developed these thoughts further and gave specific examples showing it was no longer possible to handle matters as “leader and follower”. At least, we will not allow anyone to speak to Russia like this.

Obviously, it is impossible to impose one form of globalisation on all. Nations want to uphold their national identity and ensure their independence. They do not want anyone to command or prod them. Clearly, those who are still clinging to the unipolar world do not want to yield their positions, although objectively this is impossible to imagine. This era is receding. However, attempts to slow down these processes continue. Hence the unilateral coercive measures that circumvent the UN Security Council, absolutely illegitimate unilateral sanctions, repeated military interventions in the internal affairs of other states, including attempts to change regimes that are resented by some of our Western colleagues, and also the ex-territorial application of national laws, for which the United States is famous now. The European Union seems to have started to pay attention. Results are here for everyone to see – crises and conflicts and decaying states. Statehood is under serious threat in Iraq and Libya. At the same time, havoc was wreaked in other countries of the Middle East and North Africa. The interventions in Iraq and Libya paved the way for terrorists to the rest of Africa, including Central Africa, as well as to Central and Southeast Asia. ISIS is already there and people are deeply worried about this. The path for extremists and terrorists has been opened in Europe as well. Facing the pressure of problems that are tearing it apart, Europe should draw some conclusions, of course. We wish success to the Europeans. Many European countries pursued a policy that led to these crude illegal coercive actions and eventually to what we are witnessing today. This is on top of the internal problems of our European neighbours, which are linked with Brexit and the growing discontent with the Brussels bureaucrats that have started taking too much upon themselves, ignoring the opinions of EU members. In principle, I think we always say that we want to see the EU strong and united. Probably, we still underrate the extent of its independence and ability to address current challenges in a constructive spirit and to conduct an equitable and mutually beneficial dialogue and cooperation with Russia, ignoring the aggressive Russophobic minority that is trying to abuse the EU’s principles of consensus and solidarity and demands that the position of all other members should be based on the lowest common denominator. This lowest denominator is markedly anti-Russian. I hope that serious EU countries that fully understand that it is unacceptable to conduct affairs in such a style will be working for what is absolutely logical – if this is consensus an agreement should take into account all views rather than follow the lead of those who have decided to capriciously impose aggressive and confrontational approaches on everyone. Obviously, now that the West is fighting to preserve its dominance, our American colleagues are using the current situation, including anti-Russian positions of their allies inside Europe, so as to keep it within the bounds of so-called Atlantic solidarity – to preserve the importance of NATO, which cannot function without the United States, and at the same time to pursue their own economic interests. As you know, the recent package of anti-Russian sanctions faced clear resistance in Europe because it bluntly states that gas should be bought from the United States, although it costs much more there. The goal is to keep Europe in the Atlantic boat and simultaneously promote the interests of its energy companies. This is done brazenly by using methods of absolutely unfair competition.

Such theories are put forward to justify the wish to preserve the western-centric world order. In reality, this is the road to chaos because many players will never be able to come to terms between themselves. It would probably be better to take a look at themselves and start analysing their own conduct to see what is happening in the world and what is producing chaos. If we look at the facts, we will see that the chaos created in Iraq, Libya and the Middle East and North Africa in general, the impetus for these negative processes triggered by outside interference with the use of crude force, is part and parcel of the unipolar world that our western colleagues are now trying to preserve. Speaking about chaos, another analysis seems more appropriate. There are many facts that show that the authors of the controlled chaos theory have many supporters among active politicians. At any rate, this conclusion of many western political scientists is fairly justified. When there is permanent turbulence in regions that are far away from the United States, the countries that are next to these crisis areas have to do more to ease tensions and less to promote their economies and opportunities in the world arena. We suggest getting back to roots, to the UN Charter, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, and ensuring respect for its principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs and settlement of any conflicts exclusively by peaceful means.

Our western colleagues often demand that Russia and other countries that are trying to act independently guarantee the supremacy of law at home. But as soon as we propose applying this principle to international affairs, they back-pedal. The principle of the supremacy of law that is supposed to be universal is approached with double standards. It is good for imposing one’s own rules on people abroad but no good for adopting an equitable and honest approach to international affairs. No one can be satisfied with what is happening with attitudes to international law today.

Russia will work to consolidate multipolar trends. This is an objective process and attempts to stop it are unacceptable. These anti-historical attempts are being made by those who are on the wrong side of history. Russia is one of the centres of world civilisation. I know that some of our liberal analysts and commentators say that we should not emphasise that we are “special,” that this will lead to nothing good and that instead we should “merge” with the West. Other analysts, also liberal by the way, have come up with the very interesting idea that Russia is the easternmost Western country and the westernmost Eastern country. This is indeed so geographically and geopolitically, and exemplifies the need to respect one’s own culture and history, to carry out modernisation respecting rather than rejecting one’s roots.

The contribution that we are trying to make to international affairs is always creative and constructive. We always want to achieve something. Probably, this is why it is resented by the advocates of the controlled chaos theory who want to use it in their own interests in the hope it is easier to fish in troubled waters. There is absolutely no doubt that we will continue pursing an independent foreign policy as President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, and take approaches to international affairs that are based not on attempts to impose ideas and actions on others but on a search for honest compromise and agreements that balance the interests of all parties involved.

We know that part of the Western elite would like Russia to be weak (this is one of the goals of the sanctions war) and ready to make concessions at the expense of its own interests. We will not do anything at the expense of our interests and this is common knowledge. However, we are always ready to come to terms. Since the emergence of merchants, people in our country have shaken on deals, there was no need to sign anything. One of the traits of our people is keeping promises. If we do not promise, it means we simply cannot do it for whatever reason and honestly say so. We are open to talks and dialogue with everyone without exception, including the EU and the United States. As you know, this dialogue continues although it slowed down a bit and is not as regular as before. Essentially, it has never stopped. The main point is for everyone to treat us as an equal partner. In that case, I am convinced everything will be okay and we will find a balance of interests that can be called justice.

I wanted to keep my opening remarks a bit shorter but went long. Now I’m ready to talk with you.



Question:

What, in your opinion, is the idea of the Russian nation and what could it be based on?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I understand, the law on the Russian nation is an initiative that is being developed in the Federal Assembly. Regardless of whether there is a law or there is no law, the most important thing is that there is a nation. This is primarily about history, a sense of one’s own identity: this is not a Russian word but it has already become part of our language, as well as other languages, and it means a state where you associate yourself with the country you live in, with the city or village you live in or where your ancestors were born; when you associate yourself with culture, which is constantly enriched and expanded with creative works in music, the theatre and cinema; when you associate yourself with the fact that you, your children, parents, grandparents and great grandparents lived, live and will continue to live in this country. Then perhaps you should be interested in your country becoming stronger. If this is so (I hope that everyone shares this interest), then it will be far easier for us to address our foreign policy tasks. The stronger we are, the easier it is to do that and the easier it is to solve problems, which will enable us to further strengthen our economy, social sphere and defence capability.



Question:

You are constantly in the public eye, and I would like to thank you for never embarrassing us in front of millions of people.



Sergey Lavrov:

Cross your heart?



Question:

It is thanks to you and President Vladimir Putin that Russia remains the best and most powerful country in every sense. Who do you see as a worthy candidate for the post of Foreign Minister when you go?



Sergey Lavrov:

As you know, in Russia, government appointments are made by the President, so this will be up to the Russian people to decide.



Question:

You have served as Foreign Minister for 13 years. What talks have been the most exciting and the most memorable for you during this time?



Sergey Lavrov:

Talks that produce results, I suppose. I would not say that “exciting” is an appropriate word here. There can be riveting talks, when you see that there is just a little left to do, all you need is to find the right phrase and your negotiating partner or opponent will accept the rest, which already suits you.

One example of productive talks is what we achieved with Iran’s nuclear programme and what, unfortunately, our US partners are now calling into question. Even though the Donald Trump administration has confirmed that with regard to the agreements that were signed, Iran is doing everything stipulated under the agreements, nevertheless, representatives of the Trump administration continue to say that these negotiations were wrong and a mistake. It’s a pity that such a successful treaty is now in doubt.

Another example in recent years is that almost a year ago, as a result of negotiations with John Kerry, it proved possible to coordinate our approach on a political settlement in Syria. I believe it was a real breakthrough, which ensured complete coordination of actions by the Russian Aerospace Forces and the US-led coalition. The only condition, also stipulated by that agreement, was the US obligation to separate the opposition that it supports from the terrorists, in particular Jabhat al-Nusra. Although they [the Americans] signed this agreement with us, they failed to fulfil this condition. If they had kept their promise, I believe there would already have been great progress on the political settlement in Syria and preparations for elections would have been under way. However, the US proved unable to do so. I suspect there were people there who, unlike John Kerry, did not want to separate terrorists from the regular opposition.

There is also an array of border delimitation treaties that we have signed with China and Kazakhstan. Negotiations with China lasted for several decades. It was largely because the treaty was signed about 10 years ago that we have now formed an unprecedentedly strong Russian-Chinese tandem, including in the international arena.

These are just a few examples that immediately came to mind.



Question:

The name of outstanding diplomat Yevgeny Primakov evokes in all of us a special feeling of patriotism and pride for a person who has made an enormous contribution to Russian politics. Could you talk about the history of your relationship with him? What were the most important words that you heard from Mr Primakov that helped you in your life and in your career?



Sergey Lavrov:

We worked together very closely when Mr Primakov became Foreign Minister. Nevertheless, we had already been in close contact in his previous official capacities, when he was Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service and worked at the USSR Supreme Soviet and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. However, our friendship became particularly close, strong and personal only after he was appointed head of the Foreign Ministry. At that time I was already in New York. Mr Primakov went there several times, among other things to attend UN General Assembly sessions. He was a man of amazing personal qualities, who constantly thought about his friends, who religiously respected friendship, his family and all those he was close to in his youth, worked with or addressed some matters with.

As I said in my opening remarks, Mr Primakov is the architect of the multipolarity theory. I remember the time when he came to New York in September 1996. We went to a Russian banya [bathhouse]. We walked out of the steam room, sat at a table with some beer (excuse me for reminding you) and dried salted Caspian roach. As usual, we were wrapped in sheets and he said a decision had been made to send me to Washington. I was taken aback and asked him what for. He said that I was politically immature, and pointed out that Washington was the place to be. I begged to differ, saying that I thought New York was that kind of place. I recalled that he was the architect of the multipolarity theory. And where was multipolarity made? In Washington, where you had to phone and wonder whether or not you would be received, or in New York, where you entered the building of the UN General Assembly or Security Council and everything was abuzz with activity there, all countries were represented, with ambassadors walking about, all the information coming right into your hands and where it was possible to work at many venues? He said again that I was politically illiterate and that he would make the decision by the time I went home on leave (to be precise, there was some conference to attend). When I arrived, naturally, I did not ask him that question. He waited and then said that after some consideration he had decided that I should continue working in New York for the time being. Mr Primakov was not an obstinate person. He had never been a “unipolar” man. As a minister, he would never stick to his opinion if you presented good arguments to him.



Question:

I have a question about Syria. We watch television and some doubts arise. Are our American comrades and the coalition they lead really fighting terrorism? Or are they only creating a semblance of that?



Sergey Lavrov:

I already touched on this issue when I talked about the document that former US Secretary of State John Kerry and I had coordinated but the Americans failed to meet the key condition for the agreement to be fully implemented. They failed to separate the opposition detachments that cooperated with them from the terrorists. They failed to ensure that opposition groups on the ground, based near Jabhat al-Nusra, leave their positions so that it would be possible to finish off the terrorist group that remained there. They failed to do so.

I have mixed feelings about the way the coalition is operating. We have already talked about that. I have no doubt that the coalition is committed to eradicating the so-called Islamic State. All of the coalition’s actions are designed to bleed this group dry, depriving it of support, fragmenting and liquidating it. In this regard, our goals completely coincide. By the way, Presidents Putin and Trump recently stated this when they met in Hamburg. We are in contact through our foreign policy agencies. Both sides believe these contacts are useful.

As for Jabhat al-Nusra, it is a somewhat different kind of animal, as they say. This organisation is opposed to the Islamic State but, just as ISIS, it is on the list of terrorist organisations that was approved by the UN Security Council. By all standards, as such, it is not simply a legitimate but a mandatory target for all those who are fighting the terrorist threat in Syria.

There is ample evidence that certain outside players may be tacitly accepting and even encouraging the US. They are protecting Jabhat al-Nusra. At least, the US-led coalition, which is carrying out active strikes against ISIS, is not so active with regard to Jabhat al-Nusra, if it conducts any serious operations against it in the first place. Not that I remember. There is a suspicion that they are trying to protect it in order to use it later as a battle worthy group in fighting against the Syrian government and bringing about regime change after ISIS is routed (nobody should have any doubts that this will happen although exactly when this will happen is hard to say right now; we are doing all we can to make it happen). I cannot say this with 100 percent certainty but to reiterate, there is substantial evidence that somebody is not averse to playing this card.



Question:

I have been interested in politics and economics since 2013, and I recently made an interesting observation. It appears that the economy has been restructured to a greater extent during the three crisis years than during the 13 years of sustained development. Can this be explained by the Kremlin’s advanced technologies or by the White House’s near-sighted irresponsibility?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not responsible for the economy. Our task is to create the most favourable external conditions for the country’s development. We must see to it that no one offends or discriminates against our citizens and compatriots, that Russian culture and the positions of the Russian language be protected, and that Russian business is not subjected to unilateral discriminatory restrictions. I have already spoken about this but, again, some of our people are saying that we should have thought about all this at that time, that we should not have reintegrated Crimea into Russia, that we should not have helped self-defence fighters in Donbass, and that we should not have launched the campaign in Syria. There are such people. I would like to say a few words about what was in store for Russian-speaking people in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh said in late February, after the coup and before people started seriously thinking about holding a referendum in Crimea, that a Russian would never understand a Ukrainian, that he or she would never speak Ukrainian, and that there should be no Russians in Crimea for this reason. If those opposing Russian foreign policy believe that we should have left this entire situation to its own devices, all the more so as these statements were followed by an attempt to seize the Crimean Supreme Council building by force, then I cannot agree with this position.

Do you remember the recent debate about a pragmatic stand? As far as I remember, some person speaking on a liberal Russian television channel started asking whether it was necessary to hold Leningrad during the war, whether it would have been simpler to surrender it, and that this would have allegedly reduced the substantial death toll. It seems to me that this discourse is similar to assertions about abandoning the Russians in Crimea and Donbass. All this also concerns the issue of the Russian nation. We need to remain concerned and preserve our genetic code. We would have failed to defend Leningrad and to win the war without this genetic code. I am not urging everyone to take militarised action; I just want to say that we cannot discard certain issues if we are a nation. It would have been a crime to surrender Crimea to the Nazis who staged the coup in Kiev, which led to the current Ukrainian leadership.



Question:

I have a question about the Shuren hydropower plant that Mongolia is now trying to build. What is the current status of this process? In January 2017, you said that you would protect Lake Baikal which is currently facing serious problems. A shallower Selenga River could greatly affect the lake. What is the Foreign Ministry’s position? Will you protect Lake Baikal?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our position remains the same. We are confident that Mongolia’s power-generating and supply issue can be resolved rather easily, without resorting to construction of a hydropower station on the Selenga River. I have repeatedly discussed this issue with the Mongolian Foreign Minister, and our national leaders have also had these conversations.

Russian Minister of Energy Alexander Novak raised this issue several days ago. The Russian Energy Ministry has already drafted a specific plan that could be suggested to the Mongolian side to resolve the issue of increased power demand. Most importantly, we have provided the Mongolian side with these practical opportunities. Naturally, we will protect Lake Baikal.



Question:

There is a view that countries lacking nuclear weapons are unable to conduct an independent policy. Is this viewpoint and principle observed in modern international relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are correct that this is a point of view, rather than principle. There are several aspects of this issue to consider. There are two groups of countries with nuclear weapons. There are countries that have officially been recognised as nuclear powers. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons lists five countries as legitimate and lawful owners of nuclear weapons; these countries are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. At the same time, it is understood that all parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons shall press for the non-proliferation of nuclear technologies, and that the role of nuclear weapons will be constantly reduced in the context of common efforts to maintain global security, and that technologies for the civilian use of nuclear energy will be utilised worldwide, including the construction of nuclear power stations, the use of the energy of an atom in medicine, etc. As you know, new nuclear powers, including India and Pakistan that didn’t sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, emerged after this. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) signed this Treaty but later withdrew from it. Today, Pyongyang is saying that it has every legitimate right to develop nuclear weapons, and that it continues to do so. You know our position: We cannot accept a North Korea in possession of nuclear weapons. China and Russia have submitted a number of proposals aiming to prevent an extremely serious conflict, a crisis with a huge number of fatalities. Unfortunately, the rhetoric in Washington and Pyongyang is becoming over-heated. We hope that common sense will prevail.

Many people recall the example of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who had signed a treaty with the UN. Acting in line with that treaty, international experts checked the whole of Iraq and turned everything upside down. All remaining components of the Iraqi nuclear programme were eliminated, and nothing else was found. Nevertheless, they overthrew Hussein, no matter what, because he as a “dictator,” as he was called, was unacceptable for our US and British colleagues. They destroyed the country to satisfy their hatred.

Libya also implemented its own nuclear programme, but the Libyans themselves renounced it. Everyone knows what happened to Muammar Gaddafi.

When we deal with certain countries, including those in the region we are discussing, they speak in undertones about the Iraqis and Libyans who had renounced nuclear weapons and about what had been done to them. You have a right to ask this question, but we, of course, will demand that possession of nuclear weapons should not become a criterion for respecting everyone in a modern world. This is not right.



Question:

How hard was it for you to hold talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson? Is it different from talks with former US Secretary of State John Kerry?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, every person is an individual. Certain specifics are manifested during conversations on everyday topics and during discussions of professional issues. People are different. As far as I can tell, both of them promote US interests the way each of them considered and considers optimal. I am ready to hold talks with any partners. Most importantly, instead of merely continuing our conversations, we need to start coming to terms, as we have with establishing the de-escalation zone in southwestern Syria. As I mentioned, a similar process continues to involve diplomats and military experts. They maintain working and pragmatic contact. This contact meets our mutual interests because the Russian Aerospace Force’s elements are deployed there, and the US-led coalition also continues to operate in the region. True, Russian forces were invited by the legitimate Syrian Government, and the US-led coalition was not invited. This is an established fact. We need such contact in the interests of combating terrorism. They are also maintained to facilitate the political process and to create favourable conditions enabling the government of Syria and the opposition to sit down at the negotiating table and start coordinating their country’s future without any outside interference.



Question:

In October 2017, Russia will host the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students. Do you think new international relations will be established after this forum? If yes, what aspects are you expecting young people to be active in?



Sergey Lavrov:

One cannot but count on you because you will supervise all areas in Russia quite soon. The youth policy is a highly important issue. We value our relations with the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs very much. The same is true of programmes that are becoming more and more youth-oriented, not only those of the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs but also those of the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Cultural Cooperation.

I am all for holding as many of these festivals as possible. I hope that I will be able to accept the current invitation to attend this highly important event in the life of Russia and the entire youth movement and other ones as well. I hope that young people will make friends with their peers who live abroad because there is no other way. We live in one and the same world which is becoming smaller and smaller, in the context of global trends and common risks and threats facing everyone.



Question:

Russian President Vladimir Putin says all the time that we are Russians, and that we don’t abandon our compatriots, regardless of where they live. How do these words correlate with our silence regarding everyday shelling in Donbass? Russia is spending huge budget funds on the war in Syria. Do we consider Alawites nearer and dearer than Russian people from Donbass? Why did we recognise the results of presidential elections in Ukraine and the Crimean referendum, but not the results of the May 11, 2014 referendum on the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions? I have visited Donbass, and I heard the widespread opinion from local residents that “Russia has betrayed us, just as it betrayed Yugoslavia in the past.”

Today, Russian migration services often refuse to extend temporary residence permit for people who have fled hotbeds of tension and conflict areas and whose homes have been destroyed because, according to official reports, no war is currently taking place in Donbass, and because a ceasefire is allegedly in effect there.

Why are self-defence fighters and Donetsk activists being arrested at the request of Kiev authorities and returned to Ukraine? Why does Russia extradite self-defence fighters, and why are refugees being deported to their demolished housing? Why can’t Russian authorities provide them with Russian citizenship? We have issued Russian passports to Steven Seagal and Roy Jones, who don’t speak Russian. If we provide them with this opportunity, then we must assume responsibility for this. This should not amount to any political ambitions.



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot say anything on the part of the migration service. I know that recently adopted decisions have already entered into force, and they make it much easier to obtain Russian citizenship; this concerns Ukrainians, in the first place. This is an established fact. Amendments have been passed to the Russian Citizenship Law making it possible to obtain Russian citizenship without any official documents from Ukrainian authorities. This solves a multitude of problems.

I don’t remember any cases of deportation, exile and extradition. Perhaps I would be able to tell you something if you give a specific name.

As regards Syria, when they disintegrated Iraq, or rather when the Americans supported Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, this led to the creation of Al-Qaeda, which then hit back against the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly noted that it is impossible to tame terrorists. But, unfortunately, such attempts continue to take place, and our colleagues are making the same mistakes. ISIS, the so-called Islamic State, emerged after the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Al-Qaeda and ISIS emissaries operated on our territory and on the territory of our closest allies, primarily in the Caucasus and Central Asia. And after they invaded Syria and virtually unleashed a war against Bashar al-Assad using terrorist and extremist groups and providing them with weapons, advisers, and later, special forces, Jabhat al-Nusra was established. Do you really think that people who have surfaced there will also continue to live there? This is absolutely not so. Their agents are all around us and are operating inside Russia. Those trying to perpetrate terrorist attacks openly associate themselves with ISIS members. We have no right to increase the influx of this contagion and threat. Therefore I cannot say that we have forgotten about our interests in Syria, and that we are thinking about someone else’s interests there. You see, several attempts have been made to resolve the problems of this region; I have mentioned Iraq and Libya by way of example. We don’t need any more such examples. We want conflicts to be resolved with due respect for the interests of the appropriate states, no matter what, rather than under plans that have been compiled somewhere outside this region.

As regards Donbass, first of all, I cannot say that a war is taking place there. Yes, the ceasefire agreement continues to be violated there. It is the Ukrainian authorities who continue to commit these violations, in the first place. We must force the government in Kiev to implement the Minsk agreements if we want to restore peace there, so that all Donbass residents, including Russians and those associating themselves with Russian culture and the Russian language, would be safe. But Kiev does not want to do this. France and Germany, which signed the Minsk agreements, realise that Kiev does not want to do this because it fears that the radicals would overthrow President Petr Poroshenko and seize power. But the Germans and the French are still unable to change this situation. I think that the Americans, who will now become involved, realise what is happening in Kiev. It is in our interests to preserve the Minsk agreements - this unique document that actually secures the rights of the residents in Donbass. Is there any alternative? I believe that no one here wants to fight a war against Ukraine. We must force those radicals and neo-Nazis now ruling supreme in Ukraine to know their place and to submit to the will of the international community. This is much harder to accomplish than to simply bomb any specific territory. We will fail to solve this problem through air strikes and artillery attacks, but we would ultimately drive it deep inside. It is in our interests to prevent Russians from fleeing areas where they live. On the contrary, they must live a worthy life, they must be respected; those countries where they are now living must respect their culture, language, traditions, holidays and history. And I simply don’t see any other way here. Unfortunately, it is impossible to agree with you on this issue.



Question:

You have already mentioned the subject of DPRK and the US. This conflict is gaining momentum. In your opinion, can it really escalate into a serious military confrontation? If so, which side will Russia take?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already mentioned this in my answer to another question. I believe that the risks are very high, especially considering this rhetoric. Direct threats to use force can be heard, and the US Secretary of Defence James Mattis said once again (the first time he said it was a couple of weeks ago) that this could result in a huge number of casualties. Nevertheless, the talk about a preventive strike on North Korea and Pyongyang’s statements on the need to strike the US military base on Guam continue. Of course, this is a matter of grave concern for Russia. I will not make any ‘what if’ guesses. We are doing all we can to prevent this. As I said, Russia and China have put forward a very reasonable plan that implies a dual freeze: DPRK leader Kim Jong-un freezes all nuclear and ballistic missile tests, while the US and South Korea suspend large-scale military exercises, since North Korea constantly uses them as a pretext for carrying out tests and making statements that it would rely on its nuclear capability to ensure its sovereignty. If this bilateral freeze is enacted, it would be possible to come to the negotiating table and start from scratch by having all participants sign a paper that would emphasise sovereignty for all participants, including North Korea. After this could conditions be put in place to achieve our common objective as approved by the UN Security Council, which is to ensure the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. This implies that DPRK gives up on its nuclear programme, and the US does not deploy its nuclear weapons in South Korea, since hints to this effect can already be heard. I raised this matter with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and before him with John Kerry, and they had the same answer. I asked why this double freeze cannot be enacted. They said that nuclear tests and missile launches by North Korea are illegal under a binding UN Security Council resolution, while no one has ever banned any military exercises. What they are doing is legal, while what DPRK is doing is not. When it comes to this I have my own personal opinion. I believe that when a fight becomes imminent, the stronger and smarter opponent should be the first to step back from the red line. Let us hope this is the way it plays out.



Question:

It is a great honour for us to have you here right after your trip to Southeast Asia. This is really important for us.

As we all know, Andrei Gromyko went down in the history of diplomacy as ‘Mr No,’ while several years later Andrei Kozyrev became ‘Mr Yes.’ How would you describe yourself?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will leave it up to those who observe my work. I am not getting into this.



Question:

It is well known that you have a great affinity for poetry. Do any verses come to mind during talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

Mostly Ivan Krylov’s fables.



Question:

As you know, the Palestinians marked a so-called Day of Wrath in late July following Israel’s introduction of additional security measures at the Temple Mount. During this Day of Wrath, a Palestinian committed a brutal murder in the settlement of Halamish. Hamas leader reacted to this murder inadequately, calling the perpetrator a hero, not a criminal. What more does Khaled Mashal need to say and Hamas need to do for Russia to recognise them as a terrorist organisation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Khaled Mashal is no longer the head of Hamas. It has chosen a new chairman for its Politburo (this is what Hamas calls its main executive body), Ismail Haniyeh, who lives in the Gaza Strip. This is in part a philosophical question and in part a practical one. Some countries (Western countries for the most part, and Israel, of course), consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. As far as I remember, in 2007, as elections were approaching in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank, it was clear that Hamas was very, very popular. It was clear in this situation that the elections could produce a result that would not be conducive to peace talks. I hope I am not revealing any great secrets in what I am saying now. Condoleezza Rice was US secretary of state at that time, and we asked the Americans to consider ways to get the Palestinians to postpone the election indefinitely, so that we could do more to facilitate the peace process. The Americans said they would do nothing of the sort and that the elections would go ahead as democracy demanded. The elections took place, Hamas won in Gaza, and the Americans then said that they did not recognise these elections. But we warned them. They said that Hamas was a terrorist group and therefore there was a need to isolate Gaza. We had also asked the Israelis to convince the Americans to postpone the elections, but they did not listen to us.

As for what Hamas is really all about, this is a subject that we could debate at great length. But this is a fact that they are very popular among the Palestinians. I spoke with my Israeli colleagues again recently. Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Defence Minister and former foreign minister, attended the annual Conference on International Security held by the Russian Defence Ministry. I know Mr Lieberman well. We discussed this matter with him and other Israeli representatives. We think, and the majority of my interlocutors in Europe and the region would probably agree, that the lack of a settlement of the Palestinian issue and the failure to establish a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel (which was promised by the UN in 1947) is probably one of the biggest factors enabling terrorists to recruit ever more supporters to their ranks from the Arab street.

I do not associate myself with those who use this argument, but no matter what our views, there are young people in Palestine, in Gaza, who live practically under blockade, and these preachers cultivate in them a spirit of hatred, telling them that the Palestinians were promised a state and were deceived, and they use this as their main argument. A more comprehensive analysis is required in this situation. Fortunately, we see some steps now towards resolving the Gaza Strip issue and uniting Hamas and Fatah, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, around the principles enshrined in the Arab Peace Initiative and in the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s platform. This platform and the Arab Peace Initiative recognise Israel’s existence. I think it is regrettable that we have been unable to make any progress on this issue for so many years.

Now, people are even starting to question the solution to the Palestinian issue that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is the so-called two-state solution that the UN planned: a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine. People are starting to say that maybe there are other options that could be acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians. Probably there are. If they can reach agreement on something, wonderful, who would quarrel with this? They need to be brought back to the negotiating table. In August last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas to take part in direct talks, and got them to agree to sit down at the negotiating table without preconditions. But we are still waiting for these talks, unfortunately.

If people are going to look for solutions to the Palestinian problem other than establishing a Palestinian state, what remains? We already know the other options: Palestinian Arabs remain part of Israel and Israel takes full control of the West Bank and Gaza. Then there are two possible options: Israel gives the Arabs, Muslims living in this expanded Israel, full rights - and in this case no one knows what will happen with the democratic process and what results elections will produce in 5, 10, or 30 years; or it denies them these rights, and then they will end up living practically in apartheid, like in South Africa in the past.

I am speaking very frankly because I think it is not the right approach to ask what a group must do to be recognised as a terrorist organisation, be condemned, or have action taken against them.

I believe that diplomats should seek satisfaction not in punishing someone, but in, as one girl asked, talks that are the most exciting and emotional. In this particular case, we must think, above all, about the region’s future. We guarantee 100 per cent that no matter what the circumstances and no matter what the solution chosen (it is a question of settling an external form of the deal and of settling the future of Jerusalem), we will take into account Israel’s legitimate security concerns. Our Israeli friends know this; they are well aware of our policy overall. This is not to mention that Israel is home to more than a million of our compatriots, who have full rights as citizens and hold some senior positions in the country. In our efforts to work for security in the region, including Israel’s security, we cannot ignore the fact that so long as the Palestinian issue remains unsettled, it undermines this security. Those who speculate on this unresolved issue and seek to pursue their own dirty work have here an excellent tool for beguiling and brainwashing young people and drawing them into the terrorist network.



Question:

What skills, in your view, will the younger generation have 50 years from now? You travel a lot, you visit different countries and attend conferences. How do you manage all this? What is your secret?



Sergey Lavrov:

The secret, I think, is simple. I owe this to my mother and father.

As to what skills the younger generation will have 50 years from now, ask yourself the same question when you are as old as I am now. It is very difficult to predict anything and not because certain basic things are unknown today. It is clear that this generation should be knowledgeable, advanced, better than us, cleverer than us, I hope, more capable of making agreements than we see in the world of today, and less egoistic than some of our partners today. But what specific skills is it necessary to have? We cannot keep up with technologies. A month can be of decisive importance, so who knows what it’s going to be like 50 years from now? Perhaps we will live on Mars, at least half of those willing to do so.

Is there anyone from MGIMO University here?



Question:

Yes.



Sergey Lavrov:

I was afraid there was no one.



Question:

I am a journalist from Sterlitamak. I have a very relevant question. Should we expect foreign interference in the 2018 presidential elections? What will Russia’s response be to this? Will some retaliatory measures be taken?



Sergey Lavrov:

Give my regards to Sterlitamak. I was on holiday there several times, on the Belaya River, when I was young. President Vladimir Putin repeatedly said in his interviews, during the Direct Line , and later in his addresses and talks with his foreign counterparts that we saw how the US Embassy and the US consulates-general operated in Russia. They [US diplomats] personally attend opposition rallies, they invite people and discuss something with them. Our diplomats in the United States and other countries do not permit themselves anything even closely resembling this [behaviour].

One example is the so-called Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine. Everyone knows that CIA officers were at work in the Ukrainian Security Service headquarters during the revolution and a year before it. It is not concealed. The US ambassador to Ukraine summoned the opposition leaders to the Embassy and they conferred there.

On February 20, 2014, an agreement was signed at last between Viktor Yanukovych and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Vladimir Klichko and Oleg Tyagnybok, that is, the main opposition leaders. The next morning, when the agreement was broken off, we contacted the Germans and the French (they witnessed the agreement and put their signatures to it) and said that they should be responsible for restoring the agreement. After all, they were asked to authenticate it 24 hours before, but one of the parties later broke it off. They refused because Viktor Yanukovych was no longer in Kiev. A strong argument, of course! But he was in Kharkov attending a congress of his party. If a president cannot make it (regardless of one’s attitude to him), this does not mean that he should be declared deposed. Item one of the agreement said that a government of national unity should be created. But when a coup was carried out, Arseniy Yatsenyuk went to Independence Square and congratulated all those people on Maidan Square on the establishment of a government of winners. National unity and a winner are two different things. This means there is a loser.

There is yet another interesting fact (when you present it to Western colleagues, they become flustered). A coup happened in Yemen at about the same time. Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi bolted all right, and not to Kharkov but to Saudi Arabia, where he lives to this day. For the entire international community, he is the Yemeni president, and they are urging his return to settle all the issues that arise after a coup. This is our Western partners’ position. Here are double standards for you: Yanukovych went to Kharkov and he is no longer president; President Hadi left for Saudi Arabia three years ago, but he should return to head the government and rule the country. We are looking for ways to facilitate the settlement of the Yemeni crisis as well, but all these double standards and the constant desire to somehow deceive someone somewhere are not of great help in this matter.

Back to your question about interference in elections: I do not know the US Embassy’s plans, but there were many cases where US diplomats were noticed committing unlawful acts. Of course, our relevant services should take appropriate measures. For example, very many Russian citizens are employed by the US Embassy as local personnel. Under the Vienna Convention, if you hire personnel in a country where you have an embassy, this can only be technical personnel – a driver, typists, stenographers, etc. – and they have no right to engage in diplomatic work, including, naturally, its political aspects. But there are frequent cases, which we have recorded, of local employees of the US Embassy travelling to various regions, conducting polls, and asking about people’s attitudes to this or that governor or the federal centre in general. Under these circumstances, we only politely ask our US colleagues to dismiss these people.

I think this is part of the US tradition, and they may not regard this as interference because, first, for them anything goes, and, second, this runs in their blood. Anywhere, in any country, be it Eastern or Central Europe, there are a lot of facts showing that the local US embassy is literally in charge of processes, including actions by the opposition.

I hope that after all these evidence-free accusations against us (because not a single hard fact has been presented for the 9 or 10 months that Washington has been harping on our interference in the US elections), the acuteness of this topic itself will make the US establishment, as they say, put on their thinking cap. If this happens here, we have our laws and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says in very concrete terms what diplomatic representatives can or cannot do. We will be guided by the Convention and our laws.



Question:

How long will the sanctions war with the US continue? Are there currently any ways for the Russian Federation to resolve this situation?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is hard for me to tell you how long the current situation will last. Everything seems to suggest that it will not end tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. You are probably aware of the mood in Washington, in Congress. They are serious and steadfast in their attitude. Every year, the US Department of the Treasury must report to US Congress on who is doing what in Russia. Of course, this is an outrageous law, there is no doubt about this. For us, the conclusion is very simple, taking into consideration that our US colleagues and the Europeans that are following suit adopted a policy of punishing Russia for showing concern for Ukraine and its Russian population. We have to draw a conclusion. The decision to impose punitive and demonstrative sanctions is underpinned by irrational thinking. We must proceed from the premise that we should rely on ourselves without hoping for any grace from those who currently deny it to us.

By the way, talking about punitive policies, this idea can be seen even in the title of the act, which talks about “countering the aggression by the Governments of Iran, the Russian Federation, and North Korea.” They put everything in one single basket in order to restrict the administration’s margins of manoeuvring, since the president always said that he wanted to impose harsher sanctions on Iran. Unlike the US, Russia never conceives its foreign policy initiatives to the detriment of any of its partners. The same cannot be said of those called by a poet the “slanderers of Russia.” This is the difference.

You have been probably following the news. A lot is being done in this area. Take, for example, import substitution. No matter how you criticise this initiative, and no matter what the challenges are, it remains a large-scale effort that is yielding results. We have achieved progress in engine design. Russia no longer depends on Ukraine, since it stopped working with us to its own detriment. This year, Russia is set to become the world’s top crop exporter with 25 million tonnes, ahead of the US, Canada and Australia.



Question:

What do you feel when you realise that a meeting with a foreign official can affect the future of Russia, as well as other countries? What principles are you guided by at these meetings?



Sergey Lavrov:

The future of our state depends on our people and the state. When I am talking to a foreign leader, I do not have this feeling that the future of a country depends on this particular meeting. I have never even thought about it this way. What is at stake at a specific meeting is the topic on its agenda: a treaty or coordination of an intergovernmental agreement.

Of course, there are momentous meetings, but they are held at the top level, since it is the head of state who is in charge of foreign policy and takes concrete steps in international affairs. There were quite a few decisions of this kind, primarily to strengthen frameworks like the SCO, to establish the EAEU and form BRICS. This is something that affects Russia’s possibilities and expands them. The EAEU, the SCO and BRICS summits have attracted great attention for a reason. It really reflects the trend toward a polycentric world order that I already mentioned in the beginning.



Question:

What is your personal opinion about the situation with Alexey Navalny?



Sergey Lavrov:

What situation are you talking about?



Question:

All these rallies…



Sergey Lavrov:

This is not related to foreign policy. I believe that we are all citizens of the Russian Federation, and we have laws that should be respected.



Question:

What advice would you give to beginner public servants, what professional skills should they develop, while working for the benefit of our Motherland that we are proud of and which we love very much?



Sergey Lavrov:

This depends on the state agencies where you would like to work.

You should acquire more knowledge, develop your analytical thinking ability and be able to communicate because any work, especially that at state agencies, requires communication skills and a respectful attitude to any partner to a greater extent than any other place of work. These qualities are quite similar to those needed by diplomats. Therefore, if you prefer a state agency similar to the Foreign Ministry, then I don’t see why not.



Question:

Are there any chances that we will witness another “colour revolution” in the near future? What preventive measures, if any, does the Russian Federation implement?



Sergey Lavrov:

Where could we see it?



Question:

In post-Soviet countries.



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope not because not a single “colour revolution” has made life better. This does not apply to post-Soviet countries alone, and this concerns other parts of the world where they are trying to change governments and to support the opposition from the outside. I believe that the experience of the past 15 years shows that nations which are becoming, if you will excuse me, guinea pigs in these plans are beginning to realise this. But these plans are not being renounced. As I have already said, US embassies are trying to actively influence the situation in every country, and they are trying to influence the opposition, first and foremost. The Americans have the following philosophy: Even if they perceive a specific government as legitimate and even if they don’t have any special claims towards it, they want it to remain tense by showing that they are also working with the opposition. By the way, this is what the “controlled chaos” theory basically looks like. Wider perturbations would make it more convenient for them to look at this “broth” and to add various spices to it, as they see fit.



Question:

According to the Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VTsIOM), the people of Russia consider such countries as Belarus, China, Kazakhstan and Japan to be their allies. At the same time, Russia and Japan disagree on the issue of the Kuril Islands. There are also disagreements with China, which deploys its missiles on the border with Russia. For its part, Belarus does not recognise Crimea as part of Russia. So, does Russia have any powerful economic and political allies at this stage?



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, any country has every right to deploy weapons on its own territory. We have no information that China is deploying its weapons against the Russian Federation. We maintain extremely close ties with the People’s Republic of China, including military ties. We hold numerous joint exercises and drills; therefore I would not list this argument as an indicator of something different.

I have already discussed the actions of our allies. You see, our national culture has no “rod of discipline” concept, nor does it strive to establish such discipline. We have experienced such historical periods in the past, and we know about them. If we compare the attitude of our allies to certain Russian steps with the attitude of America’s allies towards Washington’s actions, then we can see that they usually mention the allegedly united and monolithic NATO alliance by way of contrast. But I know how this monolithic essence is achieved. I have already talked about how the European Union charts its positions regarding relations with Russia on the basis of the aggressive Russophobic minority’s approaches. They also have a similar falsely understood solidarity, and many countries are becoming sick and tired of this solidarity. We will not force our neighbours and our partners to toe the line. But, of course, we notice steps which, in our opinion, do not duly heed our interests. Certainly, we take them into consideration, and we will consider them in our future work.

On the whole, I would like to once again underscore that we strive to find common ground with our partners in all our actions. This concerns the CIS, the East, the South, Europe, the United States, Latin America, Africa and everywhere else. We always strive to search for common approaches and to understand their positions. We try to understand various motives for their actions that might not fully agree with the actions of the Russian Federation. We never do anything to deliberately play dirty tricks on any of our partners or to damage their positions. This is in contrast with the actions of some Western states, as regards the Russian Federation.

As of late, we can hear more and more reasonable statements from those who understand the abnormal nature of the current situation when such absolutely natural partners as Russia and the European Union are going through a rough patch simply because someone has declared at a certain stage that, in the current situation (in connection with the Ukrainian crisis), politics must prevail over economics. This was proclaimed in response to the European businesses’ apprehensions that the foundation of strategic partnership should not be demolished. Many now realise that this was, doubtless, a mistake. Hardly anyone would have the guts to admit this, but it is an established fact that, in reality, they very much want to normalise the situation, while realising that this would take a lot of time.

I hope very much that you will think about how to bring nations and countries together, how to help them work together because there are too many threats facing all countries without exception.

Thank you very much, and I wish you every success.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2835310
__________________
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 18th, 2017 #207
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn magazine published on August 7, 2017



15 August 2017 - 10:45





Question:

Mr Ryabkov, you are currently one of the newsmakers given the huge interest in Russian-American relations. The anti-Russian law, adopted by the US Congress and signed by President Trump, has been actively discussed. Does the signing of this law mean the beginning of a long period when the United States turns towards a political and economic confrontation with our country, or is it a document that limits President Trump’s options and is a factor in the internal political struggle in the US?



Sergey Ryabkov:

It is both. What President Donald Trump said as he signed the law about the attempts by both chambers of the Congress to encroach on his constitutional powers speaks for itself.

But as for the confrontation between our countries, I would try to avoid generalising. I hope that it will not run to a confrontation. We will strive to find ways to minimise the damage done by the law, if not to completely neutralise its destructive effect.

However, the problem is that without a new law approved by both chambers of the Congress which would eliminate all their blunders in the Russian-US relations, it will be very hard to minimise the damage and it will require much effort. These are the facts. I am speaking about the US Congress actions that will have a long-term effect. It is difficult to predict how long it will take to develop a more or less normal modus operandi with the US. But we will try to do so.



Question:

In the current conditions, to what extent is the US President able to pursue his own domestic and foreign policy, and is he ready to do so?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I would not say that the Trump administration is following a clearly defined foreign policy agenda. Yes, it is true, the President has an attractive domestic policy programme and it is still popular among many Americans. But as of the concrete implementation of this policy, it is not going as successfully as the White House and the executive branch in general would want.

Speaking about foreign policy, at least its Russia agenda, it has been pretty disappointing so far. I have to acknowledge that in many ways it still continues the worst of Obama’s political heritage. There is even some toughening of the rhetoric on some issues that led to problems between the US and Russia, and also some other countries, during the finishing period of the previous administration.

So, in general, it seems that we are dealing with a “negative succession” in the US policy towards Russia and also some slowdown, as an outside observer might notice, in the implementation of the slogans, ideas and proposals voiced by Washington earlier. We will see.

Of course, Donald Trump is a man of strong will and great experience, so I think the internal political fighting does not bother him much. However, we see that in some cases the administration is leaning towards the sentiments dominating in the Congress. So far, we can say that the Trump administration is at the stage of developing its approaches. But what is regrettable is that its relationship with Russia has failed to pass the endurance test in terms of it resilience against the attacks that have been intensifying over the past few months. As a result, the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate has, in fact, imposed its will on the administration.



Question:

We say history knows no ‘what if’s. But what if Hillary Clinton had been elected? I do not think things would have been better with the Democrats.



Sergey Ryabkov:

You may be right. There could have been a dramatic deterioration, but we cannot verify this; all we can do is speculate in an abstract and hypothetical way. At the same time, what seems important to me in this situation is that the anti-Russian genie, the spectre of pursuing an external enemy actually popped up from the depths of the Democratic Party, whose candidate lost. The resulting effect took the shape of the new law and a general paranoia around Russia in the US, the outbursts of accusations of every mortal sin, absolutely inexplicable in any rational categories, and a true persecution mania that has affected so many politicians and officials in Washington.

It was unprecedented how the Democrats, using Russia as a bogey man, using relations with Russia as an instrument, as a sledgehammer to thwart Trump's presidency, undermined the very possibility of building reasonable relationships with us for years to come. Unfortunately, this is the case. And whoever is the president of the United States, whoever wins the next election, he or she will feel extremely constrained with regard to a more reasonable policy towards Russia under the enacted legislation passed by both chambers of the Congress. This is a big problem they have not had before; in a sense, it is a new reality.



Question:

The scale of trade relations between Russia and the US is not large and US sanctions can hardly affect this aspect of our relations. So there is nothing to fear, is there?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have really learned to live with the sanctions. Since 2014, we have seen thirty-something sanction waves, and nearly 400 Russian companies and about 200 individuals are now under sanctions. The new law adds restrictions on purchases of Russian securities, on the amount of investment in Russian projects, and on access to technologies for non-conventional hydrocarbon production. There are other facts besides the political component of this law, which in itself is outrageous. It's simply provocative in many ways. In general, it has added a lot of gloomy colours to the picture. Nevertheless, we believe it is possible to work in these conditions as well.

Small trade turnover is rather bad than good. Had it been bigger, then maybe the interests of American businesses would have been articulated more clearly and the pack of the most notorious ‘rockstar’ politicians who stick to ‘the worse, the better’ principle, would not have been able to dictate their will to the rest and lead the people who, I admit, are not so interested in relations with Russia, but were still dragged into these destructive processes on an artificially raised Russophobe wave.

The economy will be drawing our attention in both good and bad ways. We are stepping up our import substitution efforts, reducing dependence on American payment systems, the US dollar as a payment currency, etc. This is now an urgent necessity.



Question:

What other restrictions are stipulated in the law?



Sergey Ryabkov:

In addition to what I mentioned, there are further restrictions on Russian financial and credit institutions concerning their access to resources on the international market. There is a whole series of instructions to the Department of the Treasury to dig up, so to speak, the sources of income certain Russian investments in US property came from.

There are requirements, absolutely unprecedented in their political arrogance, limiting the US executive government’s power to pursue an independent foreign policy, leaving them mostly hamstrung in their Russia-related policy. Any US administration, no matter what the president’s name is, now has minimal room for manoeuvre or any independent moves. Eliminating this pile of anti-Russian policies would require a bipartisan and both chambers’ joint resolution in the Congress, which, taking into account the prevailing sentiments, would be extremely difficult to adopt and secure both houses’ approval, as far as I understand. And it is unclear when this could happen in principle.

The new law requires cumbersome reporting on ‘Russian issues’ from the administration. Various aspects of the law’s implementation, and what Russia is doing internationally, will be submitted for hearings in the Congress with varying frequency, and reports will be written. This means the issue will not only become artificially heated, but will be maintained in an inflamed state, so that the group of Russophobes who are calling the tune these days could keep all those capable of critical thinking in the United States on a short leash.



Question:

That’s worse than McCarthyism.



Sergey Ryabkov:

It would seem so.



Question:

There is a sense that the sanctions and the pressure are making Russia stronger.



Sergey Ryabkov:

This thinking is correct. It is true that when it comes under pressure, Russia does not make concessions and does not follow the instructions of its opponents.

The question about how our economic mechanisms can adapt to this environment is a very serious one. I can assure you that we are working on it, as is the economic bloc of our government. It is a pretty common thing in our history to draw benefits from troubles. This is in our character. We have walked this path many times and worked out our behaviour model.

At the moment, we need to find ways to protect ourselves from the American total and pervasive voluntarism. The law and its political meaning, in general, strives to intimidate everybody as much as possible, if not to take the entire world hostage. The text consists of deliberately flexible, elastic statements. Apart from direct instructions it contains a large number of opportunities to use different approaches. The US Department of the Treasury has control over decisions: they are free to impose sanctions on someone who cooperates with Russia. The idea is to make business in third countries afraid of dealing with Russia. The policy of our enemies in the US Capitol is to draw as many dividing lines as possible. They believe that Russia can be isolated, if not directly then by trying to strangle businesses in other countries with sanctions.

We understand these games well. It is important for us to create working and efficient economic mechanisms with reduced dependence on the US payment and credit system. I am not an economist, but I firmly believe this as a diplomat. Otherwise, we will always be on the hook, and that’s just what they want.



Question:

Many people ask why in the US Congress, most Republicans have launched a war on their Republican president?



Sergey Ryabkov:

This particular draft law considers Russia to be the cause of all problems; it says that Russia interfered in the US election, that it mistreats its neighbours, and that it created a situation when we can talk about the collapse of the system which Western countries are used to and in which they exist comfortably.

Pinning labels is not just what propagandists do. It has become the alpha and the omega of the political line of the US Congress. To them, defending the wrongly interpreted American values and promoting those values is more important than the interests of their own country. I do not want to go deeper into the anti-Russian fever that has seized the US media, politicians and political experts, who love making up and discussing things that have never existed and never could exist. This behaviour is obscene and unworthy of such a country as the United States. But these are the facts. They are harming themselves. What has been going on in the Congress in the past few months is in itself a very serious blow to the image, reputation and prestige of the US as a leading and in many areas the most influential country of the world. It is extraordinary that they do not understand such obvious things. The petty games of US politicians are one of the most astounding phenomena of the recent time.



Question:

According to a recent opinion poll by the Forsa Institute, most respondents in Germany support the German government’s course against the new US sanctions against Russia. Does it seem that Moscow is getting room for manoeuvre to strengthen its ties with Berlin? To what extent can Europe withstand the pressure from the US?



Sergey Ryabkov:

When at some point Europeans took a tough stance on the Helms–Burton Act, the EU found legal instruments to protect its business from the extraterritorial US sanctions. Then, for economic, political and other reasons, the EU built a legal fence and found such an antidote that the Americans were forced to come to terms with the resistance of the Europeans. And the embargo against Cuba that had been promoted by Washington for decades did not produce the desired effect. The EU’s countermeasures made a big breach in the US blocking of Cuba. But this is in the past.

As for the present, we hear statements that reflect the sentiments of a large number of Europeans, especially those who are interested in normal relations with Russia more than others, including economic ties. But words must be followed by actions. If I begin speculating about this, some of the embassies of the relevant countries in Moscow may read my comments and report to their capitals that the Russians are again trying to drive a wedge, or to weaken the transatlantic bond. As we know this is a reason for them to consolidate.

Generally speaking, I do not believe in the independence of modern Europe as a player, especially with regard to Russia. Unfortunately, they have made too many mistakes and created huge ballast in relations with us, and they will have a hard time trying to abandon it. We will see how it goes. The business lobby and economics are positive factors. Nevertheless, I would not overestimate their importance in the new environment.



Question:

Mr Ryabkov, let us move onto the specifics. I am speaking about the seizure of Russian property in the US and the expulsion of diplomats, and Russia’s response. In your opinion, has the US taken Russia’s decision adequately and could it pave the way to some kind of constructive dialogue, at least regarding Russian property in the US?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I do hope that the situation is just as you have described it. First, Russia has not done anything that the US was not aware of, since we have warned them, both publicly, and behind closed doors. Second, they cannot fail to understand that the measures that we have taken are a payback of sorts. On December 29, 2016, when the US illegally seized Russian property subject to diplomatic immunity and expelled Russian diplomats from Washington and San Francisco, Russia issued a warning saying that the absence of an immediate and harsh response did not mean that there will be no response at all. We have taken the number of Russian staff working in the US as a limit. Accordingly, the US will have to cut its staff working in the embassy in Moscow and three US consulates general in St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok down to this figure by September 1. Let us wait and see how they fulfil this mandatory requirement. We will seek to ensure parity in the future.

I do not think that the US views our actions in any other way. However, they can be expected to come up with a new pretext to further escalate tension, taking new negative steps regarding the Russian diplomatic missions in the US. If it happens, this will be a clear signal for Russia of their willingness to further escalate tensions. We have warned them against taking such steps on a number of occasions.

I would like to take this opportunity to do this again: I really hope that Washington will not take any such steps. In this case, Russia will reciprocate. As a result, it would further undermine the normal operation of the diplomatic missions, which is a prerequisite for the promotion of any kind of dialogue and healthy relations.

Let me note that Russia’s actions always come as a response to the measures taken by the US. They take a step back, we follow. We have never initiated anything negative, and in broader political terms we have never destroyed anything that was already there. It was the US that dismantled the dialogue mechanisms that are no longer working. Russia proposes restoring contacts in a number of areas, but has yet to receive a reply. We are ready to continue dialogue on Syria, Ukraine, arms control and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We would never say ‘That is it, it is too late, you adopted this law, so we will not work with you anymore.’

So who is seeking escalation? Who does things that have no place in interstate relations? Who fails to exercise restraint? Who fails to think about the future?

What the US does is by and large indicative of unfair competition practices. The US uses its dominant position in international finance, and the system of international settlements, as well as its legal system that prioritises the extraterritorial principle, to pressure businesses across the world, including in China, Europe and Russia, in order to gain an unfair advantage. We have seen this in many areas. The US is seeking to squeeze Russia out of the defence market. US officials openly say that the US will oppose Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream, etc. They don’t hesitate in saying this. A great nation has placed these dirty, corrupt and unworthy practices at the core of its Russian policy. However, this cannot continue indefinitely. Russia does not want to see the situation further deteriorate. A spiral of confrontation is not something Russia desires.



Question:

Some experts have suggested certain categories of essential Russian imports into the United States as retaliatory economic measures. For example, titanium supplies for the US aircraft industry, uranium concentrate for nuclear power stations, equipment for the space industry. Is this scenario possible?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Our actions both in the economy and politics must be first and foremost guided by national interests. This is exactly the case when you put yourself in first place. We cannot act in order to hurt someone whatever it takes. This behaviour is not right and perhaps would even indicate certain political insecurity and even nervousness on our behalf which we are not suffering from. If we took this course of action there would be plenty of people in the US Congress who would note, with satisfaction, that they did manage to get under the Russians’ skin.

My personal opinion is that we need to exercise restraint and patience, if you like, strategic patience, and not be in any hurry. Let’s remember the Harmel Report from 1967 that laid down recommendations for NATO with regard to Moscow during that period of time. It is quite informative. Now let’s apply Pierre Harmel’s approach to today’s Washington. I think Russia needs a two-track approach to its relations with the US. The first track is deterrence in the face of Americans’ aggression, attacks, constant attempts to bring us down which US officials simply use to brag about, their ambition to load up our neighbours with NATO military facilities, military infrastructure, massive deployment of well-equipped troops.

The second track of this approach is engagement. Engagement of the United States in a dialogue but only on the issues that serve our interests. First thing in the morning we must think how to come up with what needs to be done for us to become stronger and more secure against the US pressure – and go to bed still thinking about it. We must correlate our actions and policy with respect to the US relations only with these tasks and proceed only within this scale of coordinates. We will see how it goes. And let’s line this matrix of the two-track approach with strategic patience. But once again, this is only my personal opinion. The Russian President determines foreign policy.



Question:

By the way, the law approved by Mr Trump also states that the sanctions must not contradict national interests of the United States. Is this why they did not withdraw from, for example, cooperation in space?



Sergey Ryabkov:

They know their own interests very well and they will never hesitate to include a paragraph saying that the US will, based on its principled inference, be smashing an X country. Literally in the next paragraph they can still, without a tinge of embarrassment, write that “if country X will somehow help us, the United States, in the Y area, we will support this country or at least it will avoid sanctions in this area.” This is normal practice. This is an example to follow.



Question:

Are there any opportunity windows left for Russia-US cooperation and what will be the future of our agreements on nuclear disarmament?



Sergey Ryabkov:

This is a very serious subject. This area requires thorough analysis and planning for years to come. Unfortunately, it is not quite clear to us what position Washington will adopt in this area. Time is ticking, and the February 5, 2018 deadline stipulated by the 2010 New Start Treaty is approaching. There is a lot of speculation and unworthy political fuss around the INF Treaty. It has been a long time since strategic stability issues have been raised. Russia is ready to engage in dialogue on all these matters, although we have to understand who will represent the US in this dialogue and what their approaches are all about. The US is expected to complete the Nuclear Posture Review by the end of the year. This is an important document that will outline the preferences and reference points adopted by the US regarding arms control.

The principle of the peaceful use of outer space must remain in place. The recent trends within the US defence and political elite and their sentiment, as well as the US military planning are very alarming. They seem to be increasingly inclined to put offensive arms in space, expand the military use of space facilities, etc.

There are other subjects that are literally more Earth-bound, which does not make them less important. For example, Russia believes that there is a need to draft an international convention to counter chemical and biological terrorism. This is an extremely topical issue, including in the Middle Eastern context. In this sphere too we have yet to hear a response to our proposal. Everyone in Washington seems to be engulfed in the endless tilting at windmills in the form of various bogus stories about the Russian influence or meddling that are not and could not have been true.

If the US continues to back-pedal on our common priorities, there is no way we can strengthen international security. These priorities include counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, regional conflicts and many other things. Time and again we find ourselves in a situation when something happens, serving as a reminder that we should have addressed this or that topic before. We should not be waiting for a pretext. All we need to do is show consistency in dealing with these matters. This is what Russia stands for both in its bilateral relations, and at international platforms.



Question:

Mr Ryabkov, is it possible in the current environment, for Russia, China and the US to work together effectively when it comes to the North Korean nuclear issue?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The situation in Northeast Asia is explosive, and it is unclear how it will unfold. You see, the question is about finding a way to align the interests and possibilities of Pyongyang and Washington. Taking into consideration the contradicting political cultures and approaches of these two players, finding a constructive solution to this issue would be impossible without them coming to an agreement. Mediation is possible. There were six-party talks that proved their efficacy at a certain stage. They helped keep the situation within an acceptable framework. There was the 1995 document we all remember, and many other things. However, as far as I understand the US is ready to promote direct dialogue only in theory, since what they are offering is unrealistic for the other party. Accordingly, the other side seems to have come to a conclusion that the only way to stop this pressure is to counter it with some kind of force. Raising the stakes in this game is dangerous and leads nowhere.

Russia has certain proposals. So does China. In fact, these proposals boil down to freezing the situation and ensuring a status quo, at least temporarily, so that the situation can unwind little by little, lowering the level of tension and stabilising the situation. This is a natural thing to do. This has been done before us and used many times in various diplomatic situations. Unfortunately, so far this approach is not working.

At the same time, again and again we have situations in the UN Security Council when the US comes up with unrealistic requirements in terms of the scope and nature of sanctions-related documents that go far beyond any possible red lines. Over the years, the US representatives have been growing less and less inclined to compromise. On international platforms, they are increasingly guided by the principle whereby ‘those who are not with us are against us,’ which means that if someone is not with them, the US should bend such a country across its knee without any talk of compromise, no attempts to find solutions based on a balance of interests. It seems that they even forgot how documents are drafted, that this should be done by working together bilaterally in order to come up with mutually acceptable phrasing. Sometimes it seems that they simply do not know how to do it. As a result, there are more problems. Among other things, this undermines the status of international organisations. The question is, what should Russia do so as to be able to move forward?



Question:

So what are the opportunity windows in terms of cooperation?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Regarding the so-called global challenges, this is the security in information and communication technology, among other things. So far, we have been unable to make any progress in the dialogue with the US in this area, even though we have signalled to the US on a number of occasions what we believe we should do together in this field.

There are many other problems that we need to resolve by working together: settling a number of conflicts, illegal migration, issues that have to do with the environment in which international and national businesses operate, including protectionist trends and artificial anti-dumping investigations we face. All these things should be discussed constructively.

We are free from any dogmas, and we know that the US has its interests. We also understand that with every new administration Washington rethinks its approaches and sets new priorities. At the same time, everything that was done before should not be erased. As the situation with Russia-US relations shows, it is impossible to sacrifice so much to politics and the distorted perceptions of the outside world. So far, our calls have been falling on deaf ears. We struggle to maintain dialogue, including on the settlement in Ukraine, a subject that the US says matters to it. The US appointed a special representative, but the dialogue has yet to begin.



Question:

The Americans say it was Russia who asked for the appointment of a special representative of the US president in Ukraine. What will this mean, and will the appointment contribute to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The President of Russia has repeatedly told the US leaders, as far as I understand, that we are ready for a dialogue with them on Ukrainian affairs, on the situation in southeastern Ukraine, and first of all, on Kiev fulfilling its commitments under the Minsk Package of Measures.

We never asked for any appointment of an American special representative. We said it was a bit strange to hear their constant speculations on the need for a dialogue while we have no such vis-a-vis. In Obama’s administration, these functions were performed by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Ambassador Kurt Volker was appointed US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. To be honest, I do not really understand what is meant by ‘Ukraine Negotiations.’ Who is negotiating? Why don’t we just ask this question to Mr Volker himself, when and if he appears in Moscow or elsewhere in Russia?



Question:

There is much talk about the US’ hypothetical delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine...



Sergey Ryabkov:

The Trump administration is being pushed hard in this direction. Kurt Volker has actually made several statements in favour of this plan during his trips to Ukraine and other countries.

Moreover, I must note that military equipment and other hardware that cannot independently inflict mortal defeat on self-defence fighters have long been flowing into Ukraine in great amounts, not only from the USA, but from many other NATO and non-NATO countries. Military instructors from the United States, Canada, and other countries are intensively training the Ukrainian military, teaching them how to use this equipment and special hardware.

The hypothetical delivery of ‘lethal weapons’ would be a qualitatively new step. Will it be made? Recently, we have noted a certain ‘drift’ in this direction in Washington. This decision would lead to extremely dangerous developments. Clearly, politically, the ‘war party’ in Kiev would see this as a powerful signal of support. In practical terms, this would mean a significant destabilisation of the situation in southeastern Ukraine. Here, too, we try to analyse all circumstances soberly, carefully, and unemotionally, and warn Washington against new mistakes.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2836554
__________________
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 18th, 2017 #208
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova's response to a media question regarding the Bloomberg article accusing Russia of interfering in the internal affairs of Macedonia



15 August 2017 - 14:30





Question:

What do you think about the provocative Bloomberg article accusing Russia of interfering in the internal affairs of the Republic of Macedonia?



Maria Zakharova:

We took note of the material published by Bloomberg and widely cited by the Balkan media about Russia’s alleged interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Macedonia. Misleading references were made to an interview by the Defence Minister of that country, Radmila Sekerinska, the text of which Bloomberg chose not to make public. Given that Prime Minister of Serbia Ana Brnabic was the target of a similar provocation by this agency in July, we urge Bloomberg to publish the full text or audio/video recording of the interview by Radmila Sekerinska.

To underscore, accusations that Russia interfered in the internal affairs of Macedonia are completely fabricated and based solely on unsubstantiated accusations on the part of Russophobes, as well as their false stories. We consider these insinuations as attempts by the enemies of Russia and Macedonia to complicate the traditionally friendly ties between our countries, to distract the attention of the Macedonian citizens from real threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country, including, among other things, the policy aimed at drawing Skopje into NATO at any cost, without regard for its core national interests.

Given the reasonable doubts about Bloomberg's good faith, we are expecting to hear clarifications by the Macedonian side regarding the authenticity of the remarks ascribed to Ms Sekerinska, which have not been disavowed and were even posted on the website of the Defence Ministry of Macedonia. Such statements are in stark contrast with the assurances of official Skopje about the desire of the Government of Macedonia to promote constructive and mutually beneficial relations with Russia, and to expand Russia-Macedonia cooperation.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2836686






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the detention and deportation from Ukraine of VGTRK correspondent Tamara Nersesyan



15 August 2017 - 15:56



Kiev continues hindering the activities of the media and is methodically adding more names to the blacklist of foreign journalists banned from Ukraine.

On August 14, Ukraine’s Security Service (USS) employees detained VGTRK correspondent Tamara Nersesyan, who was brought to the Russian-Ukrainian border after hours of interrogation late at night and forced to leave the country on foot.

This was done in accordance with the USS decision that qualified the reports of the Russian journalist as “a threat to Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity.”

Indicatively, this is not the first case when journalists are deported under this pretext. In July the USS deported journalist of Russia-1 and Russia-24 TV channels Maria Knyazeva.

We are outraged by this crude violation of the Russian journalists’ rights and demand that Kiev strictly observe its international commitments on the freedom and security of media professionals.

We are urging OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir to take note of the Ukrainian authorities’ policy towards journalists and give a principled assessment of their actions.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2836871
__________________
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 18th, 2017 #209
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint press conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Bolivia Fernando Huanacuni Mamani, Moscow, August 16, 2017



16 August 2017 - 14:31





Question:

In a conversation yesterday with your Chinese colleague, Wang Yi, you again noted that it would be unacceptable to use force to resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula and stressed Moscow's readiness to strengthen coordination with Beijing in the settlement process. Does this coordination imply certain economic steps, or is it just about diplomatic steps?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to using our influence on Pyongyang in order to make it comply with the well-known UN Security Council resolutions, we are deeply convinced that the economic pressure has practically run its course. We cannot support the ideas that some of our partners continue to nurture, which literally seek to strangle North Korea economically with all the negative, tragic humanitarian ramifications for the people of the DPRK.

We operate on the premise that all of the UN Security Council resolutions without exception, which have already introduced serious economic measures, contain the Security Council’s obligations to continue supporting the process of returning to political talks and seeking a peaceful diplomatic settlement on the Korean Peninsula. All economic measures of influence imposed by the Security Council for several years have been implemented by the UN member states, and the UN Security Council's call and commitment to the parties concerned to pay attention to the political track has, in fact, been ignored. Russia and China believe that this is wrong, and even harmful and dangerous.

So, we have come up with a joint initiative that includes the well-known "double freeze" principle: North Korea will not test nuclear weapons and missiles, and the United States and the Republic of Korea will not conduct large-scale exercises in this region. I am aware of the US response to this "double freeze" principle. They believe that legal cannot be exchanged for illegal. However, this is not about getting stuck in being right or thinking about certain falsely understood issues of prestige, but about the future of this region and hundreds of thousands of people who, according to experts, may be affected in case of hostilities, which Washington or Pyongyang never stop threatening. Recently, this rhetoric has somewhat subsided.

Perhaps we should at least hope that the hotheads calm down a little. In conjunction with the People's Republic of China, we will push for compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions, which talk about the need to return to the political process. The UNSC economic measures have never been taken in isolation from the recognition of the need for a peaceful settlement. Our joint proposals with China are included in the joint statement of July 4, which deals exclusively with political and diplomatic steps.



Question:

What can you say about Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s statement that Tehran may walk away from the nuclear programme agreement if Washington continues to put Iran under pressure? What is Moscow’s attitude to Iran’s decision to increase its missile programme budget?



Sergey Lavrov:

The missile programme budget is basically Iran’s business. It is not prohibited from having this programme. There are no legal bans in UN Security Council resolutions on this issue.

As for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s statement that Tehran may quit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was concluded to resolve the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme, I hope this won’t take place. I also hope the United States will not violate its JCPOA commitments, either.

As is known, in line with the periodic reviews mandated by US law, the United States has certified that Iran is meeting its commitments under the JCPOA. However, in parallel Washington has imposed new unilateral sanctions on Iran. It explained that these sanctions do not concern Iran’s nuclear programme or the JCPOA but reflect US discontent with Tehran’s actions in other areas, including human rights and its conduct in the region. There may be only one response to this. Unilateral sanctions are unacceptable in principle and irresponsible if they are used to change in one’s favour a well-calibrated balance (as is the case with the Iran nuclear deal) because they may upset this balance. One shouldn't resort to such provocations because the matter deals not even with national interests of a country but with an enormous region where we are interested in ensuring a nuclear-free status.

Now I would like to make the second point in this context. We have suggested reaching an honest deal more than once – if a package of economic measures of influence on any country be it the DPRK or Iran is being agreed upon in the UN Security Council and a resolution is adopted, all parties should assume commitments to limit themselves to this negotiated package of sanctions and not to come up with unilateral restrictions so as to make up for what has not become part of the collective package. The Americans are vehemently opposed although it is hard to reject this principle. It will remain an urgent imperative. We will continue upholding it in all subsequent discussions and have already made corresponding statements at the UN Security Council consultations. This is a position of principle shared by many of our partners.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

A nuclear research centre is under construction in Bolivia with Russia’s support. At what stage is this project now? Bolivia has large energy resources and Russia is interested in helping it develop its hydrocarbon industry. What can Russia do in this regard?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Fernando Huanacuni Mamani):

As for the nuclear research centre, our state corporation Rosatom and its partners in Bolivia have already signed a contract on preliminary work and are carrying it out. I have just talked with Mr Foreign Minister about how this month we will continue consultations on a master contract. There is every chance to sign it in September, which will allow us to open the centre’s first facilities in 2019, as the Bolivian side wants.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2837366
__________________
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 19th, 2017 #210
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, August 17, 2017



17 August 2017 - 18:29









Situation on the Korean Peninsula

The “spiral of confrontation” continues to escalate on the Korean Peninsula.

On August 5, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2371, which reflects the global community’s concerns over the ongoing ballistic missile tests in the DPRK. Russia will continue to fulfil its international obligations, including the provisions of the new resolution.

All UN member states are obliged to implement the resolution in full. Paragraph 28 emphasises the UNSC’s commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political settlement of the situation and the importance of joint work to ease the tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Efforts are needed from all parties concerned on facilitating an all-encompassing dialogue for a comprehensive settlement of the subregion’s problems.

Sadly, in recent years we have often been witnesses to a situation where states become parties concerned only after the hot phase of the conflict occurs, with conferences urgently held and plans developed to rescue the situation and provide aid to refugees, as well as on many other issues. It would be good if today there was a greater number of those interested in a prompt settlement of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, so that everyone who can contribute to solving it in some way or another becomes aware of the insanity of what politicians have repeatedly called for when speaking in favour of a military scenario in this region.

To our great disappointment, recently we have seen just the opposite. A number of capitals openly threaten to use force and are making extremely dangerous statements on being ready for armed conflict. We firmly state that any attempt at a military solution to the Korean Peninsula’s issues will lead to an immense tragedy and massive casualties among the population of all parties to the conflict, as well as a humanitarian, economic and environmental catastrophe.

We call on all countries to exercise restraint and undertake real efforts to prevent the situation from going past the point of no return. We are duly working with the countries that are members of the six-party process. In our interactions with our Chinese partners, we insist that there is no alternative to a peaceful solution of the range of problems on the Korean Peninsula. We urge all responsible members of the global community to support the ideas put forward in the Russian-Chinese “roadmap” for the Korean settlement process, whose main provisions are envisaged in the joint statement of the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries of July 4 posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website.



Situation in Syria

We are pleased to note the positive trends in the way the military and political situation in Syria is developing, the way the ceasefire regime is being strengthened and the de-escalation zones are beginning to function: in the southwest of the country, in Eastern Ghouta and in the north of Homs province. Experts are currently working within the “Astana format” on the establishment of a de-escalation zone in Idlib. The practical steps taken on the basis of the May 4 Memorandum and the agreements reached in Amman and Cairo, including the deployment of Russian military police units in the agreed-upon areas along the line of contact in the de-escalation zones, give hope that there will be significant improvements in the humanitarian situation and the gradual building of bridges of trust in Syrian society. An opportunity has emerged to concentrate far more forces than before to combat ISIS and al-Nusra terrorists.

The Syrian army is pressing ISIS militants in the Syrian Desert, the Euphrates Valley and the southeast of Syria. On August 12, the terrorists were completely driven out of their long-standing stronghold of al-Sukhnah. An offensive is being mounted towards Deir ez-Zor, which has been besieged for three years.

The enemy is putting up resistance, trying to regroup and preparing for new clashes.

From this perspective, we are particularly alarmed by the situation in Idlib, where al-Nusra units have made use of the relative calm to build up their combat potential and have been forcing their rules upon other illegal armed groups and the local residents amid signs of brewing protest among them. Over a short period of time, al-Nusra has managed to set up 14 prisons in Idlib, mostly in devastated poultry plants, where people are thrown for such heavy “offenses” as being relatives of government servicemen, policemen or officials. Bloody clashes are being provoked with fighters of those armed formations that are taking part in the “Astana process.” As a result, a new wave of violence and wild banditry has swept Idlib. Proof of that is the killing of seven local activists of the so-called Syrian Civil Defence, better known as White Helmets, in a bloody assault in the town of Sarmin. In the past, the Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly made clear its principled assessments of the White Helmets’ activities. Our opinion has not changed. Even so, we cannot remain indifferent to the cold-blooded mass killing of unarmed people.

The situation I have just described demands the soonest possible end. Russia together with other guarantors of the “Astana process” will continue working to help translate the agreement on the establishment of a de-escalation zone in Idlib into practice as quickly as possible and enable the population of that Syrian province to do away with the lawlessness of terrorists and criminal elements.



Developments in Afghanistan

Unfortunately, the security situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. Despite the fact that, according to the Pentagon, the US Air Force launched over 1,600 air strikes on the armed opposition in the first half of 2017, its militants are besieging more and more districts. In particular, over the past few weeks, Janikhel (Paktia province), Taiwara (Ghor province) and Ghormach (Faryab province), have also been taken under the control of extremists. The level of terrorist activity remains high. Against the background of the worsening military situation, protest sentiments in Afghan society are growing.

We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country. In this connection, we are deeply concerned about reports of the massacre of civilians in the Hazara village of Mirza Olang in the province of Sar-e-Pul. According to eyewitnesses, this crime was committed not by the local Taliban fighters, but by foreign militants, who had been transferred there by unknown helicopters.

Cases of unidentified helicopter flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of Afghanistan are also recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, four helicopters made flights from the airbase of the Afghan National Army's 209th corps in Mazar-i-Sharif to the area captured by the militants in the Aqcha district of the Jowzjan province. It is noteworthy that witnesses of these flights began to fall off the radar of law enforcement agencies. It seems that the command of the NATO forces controlling the Afghan sky stubbornly refuses to notice these incidents.

We draw the attention of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan to the need for a thorough investigation of each such case.



Developments in Kenya

On August 8, general elections took place in the Republic of Kenya, in which over 77 per cent of voters took part. Current President Uhuru Kenyatta has been re-elected, with over 54 per cent of the votes in his favour.

International observers, including representatives of the African Union, the East African Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the East African Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa positively assessed the organisation of the election, noting the absence of serious violations and incidents.

The situation in the country after the announcement of the voting results remains generally calm.

Moscow was pleased with the successful elections in Kenya and confirms its readiness to further strengthen the traditionally friendly relations and mutually beneficial multifaceted cooperation between our countries.



Political developments in Venezuela

According to different sources, the first signs of a decline in the armed confrontation between the opposition and the Government supporters are being registered in Venezuela. The National Constituent Assembly adopted a number of practical decisions to improve the political situation, including preparing for and holding regional elections in October. Parties that are members of the opposition coalition have already announced their readiness to take part in them. Analysts believe that this is obviously a step towards overcoming contradictions in Venezuelan society and resolving the accumulated socioeconomic problems democratically and in line with constitutional norms.

Against this backdrop, the positions of some global leaders cannot but cause concern. They do not see the new political reality that has emerged in Venezuela. Continued attempts to shatter the situation and exert pressure on the Venezuelan authorities have very destructive potential because they threaten to disrupt the emerging fragile balance. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the goal of such actions is not to achieve peace and prosperity in Venezuela but rather ambitious political aims that have nothing to do with the life of the country’s people.

We consider unacceptable the use of illegal unilateral sanctions that will hit hardest the disadvantaged segments of the population in Venezuela, not to mention the threat of potentially using foreign military force in order to stop the tragedy in Venezuela (President Donald Trump’s statement on August 11). Such statements contradict the principles of international law on non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and renunciation of the unilateral use of force. We consider such statements to be aimed against not only Caracas but the whole of Latin America. It is no surprise that the majority of Latin American nations, including those who have pursued tough anti-Chavez policy, sharply denounced such intentions and supported the exclusively peaceful resolution of the Venezuelan crisis. This is evidenced by public statements of their official representatives, heads of state or foreign ministers and numerous contacts of Russian diplomats and other officials with their Latin American colleagues.

We are convinced that Venezuelans are capable of resolving their problems themselves, with the constructive support of the responsible world community and without ultimatums imposed on them from the outside.



Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process

We have received requests to comment on the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process.

Russia has always supported measures to reduce tension in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict area. The co-chairs have repeatedly talked about the need for specific steps in this regard and this was also stated at the Vienna (May 2016) and St Petersburg (June 2016) summits. At the same time, the implementation of measures proposed by mediators hinges on the good will of the parties to the conflict. For our part, we are doing all we can to stabilise the situation and create conditions for continuing the negotiating process to bring about a [political] settlement. This approach prevailed at a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Moscow in April.

At present, the co-chairs are making preparations for the next summit on Nagorno-Karabakh. To this end, they held talks with the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Brussels in July. Consultations will continue on the sidelines of the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly in New York in the second half of September. A corresponding statement will be made as a result.

I would like to reiterate what we constantly say at all levels: Russia devotes special attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. It is among our foreign policy priorities and is mentioned in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept.



Russian citizen Renat Bakiev detained in Turkey

Following reports of a Russian citizen being detained in Turkey, the Russian Embassy in Ankara immediately sent corresponding queries to the host country’s competent agencies. As a result, the Turkish authorities issued official notice that Russian citizen Renat Bakiev was detained on July 29 on suspicion of “involvement in the ISIS armed terrorist organisation.” In keeping with a Turkish court ruling of August 10, he was taken into custody and is currently being held at a closed correctional facility.

The Russian Embassy in Turkey is closely watching the situation to make certain that Mr Bakiev’s rights to a fair trial are ensured, as well as monitoring the case at the consular level, and will provide the detainee whatever assistance may be necessary.

The Foreign Ministry has put this case on its watch list.



The anti-Russia statements by CIA Director Mike Pompeo

We could not but take note of and comment on the June 24 statement by CIA Director Mike Pompeo during his NBC interview. The statement dealt with Russia’s alleged longtime attempts to undermine the American democracy and meddling in US elections. It appears that in his opinion, Russia’s longtime attempts to undermine US democracy have culminated in the interference in US elections.

As we know, the issue of Russia’s meddling in the election process has become a favourite media story and an obsession in the United States. This story has been adopted by anti-Russia propagandists. This issue continues to pick up momentum and is mentioned in statements by officials who are trying to accuse Russia of engaging in unlawful actions but who have failed to produce any evidence to date. We would like to remind them about some outstanding pages of US history. Unlike the Americans, we have real facts at our disposal, and we know what we should focus on.

It is common knowledge that since the early 1990s the United States had voiced its intentions to establish a Jeffersonian democracy in Russia. But the very fact of setting such a task completely runs counter to the ideas of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the American nation and democracy. All of us know that he called for respecting various forms of government, chosen by other nations, and said the United States would not impose its will anywhere. He was mistaken. Thomas Jefferson referred to the idea of dictating the form of government to an independent country as arrogant, brutal and outrageous. It appears that the ideologists of the present-day America have very poor knowledge of their own history and the foundations of their statehood, if the concepts of “exporting democracy” and “humanitarian intervention” have become their favourite method for conducting an aggressive foreign policy and part of their national concept. For decades, dozens of countries all over the world have been suffering from US-imposed state system formulas that are trying to equate all countries under one and the same pattern, without any consideration for what makes each of them unique. This policy and experiments cannot be called harmless. In the past few years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine have fallen prey to this concept. Needless to say, al- Qaeda in all its manifestations, ISIS and other radical terrorist groups of all religious denominations evolved on the fertile soil created by the Americans and in fact often were the brainchildren of these forces.

Generous financial injections in the form of projects and grants through numerous foundations and NGOs is another “grey zone” through which the United States has been trying to influence political processes all over the world for many years. Russia virtually tops the list of these allocations. Various government and non-government organisations, including the Peace Corps, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and many other similar agencies, have been planting their agents for decades in order to penetrate the Russian political establishment and media community and to influence public opinion. According to some sources, the United States had spent $5 billion for these purposes in the 1990s alone. It is very strange that, while making such statements, Mr Pompeo forgets that many decisions stipulating the allocation of funding were approved by his own agency.

It is strange that Washington forgets the fact that in the run-up to the 1996 Russian presidential election, the Federal Reserve Bank delivered $500 million in cash to the US Embassy in Moscow under a far-fetched pretext of avoiding frenzied demand during the exchange of old $100 notes. Operatives from the CIA’s Moscow Embassy station, headed by Michael Sulick, virtually slept on the money bags, while guarding them. Foreign-made cars delivered small batches of money from the Embassy to certain individuals. Who did the US sponsor using this money? I believe we will also learn this someday.

Here are only a few examples of diverse US activities aiming to undermine stability in various regions worldwide and in those areas that are not ready to follow American instructions. We are in no way demanding that Mr Pompeo should stop his rhetoric because this is in the realm of fiction. One should simply understand that every action has a reaction. We are ready.



Closing a US neo-Nazi website’s Russian domain

We took note of media reports on August 16 that the US neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has moved to a Russian domain. The Russian Embassy in Washington has received numerous petitions. For some reason, all newspapers immediately learned about this Russian domain. In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the decision of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) to deny this website a domain on Russian territory. We completely support the statement issued by the service.

We would like to reiterate that there is no place for extremist ideology and the propaganda of extremist ideas in our country. We will pursue a consistent policy in this regard, fighting the manifestations of hatred and racial superiority wherever they may come from. We urge the authorities of other states to act with the same speed and determination with regard to similar websites spreading content that Russian courts have deemed extremist, with the connivance of corresponding foreign agencies.

What an interesting setup! When the Russian Federation time and again makes official statements on its territory and at international organisations and when it makes representations in certain countries where opportunities are opened up and provided for extremist websites to operate in their internet space – websites targeting Russia and calling for extremist activity on its territory, nobody is interested in covering these issues. Nobody pays attention to this. Just five to 10 years ago, websites were opening practically every day, including in the Scandinavian countries – some of them are still active – promoting extremist activity, in particular in Russia’s North Caucasus. It was simply impossible to get the media to focus on this issue. It was as if the issue did not exist in the Western media space. When Russia tried to explain its position, we were told that we were violating freedom of expression. We are not violating anything. Freedom of expression is sacred for us, but there is extremism, which we will fight.



Implementing the international project to renovate the Sobibor Museum and Memorial Site

We consider the decision of the International Steering Committee (ISC), responsible for the construction of the renovated museum on the site of the former Nazi death camp in Sobibor, to exclude Russia from participating in the project an outrageous fact of a “historic amnesia.”

It is quite obvious that representation during the commemorative ceremonies can in no way replace full participation in the work of the committee that was authorised to create the concept for the future memorial, to organise operations on the ground, and supervise the funding. Russia was not allowed to join the project, with the organisers sheepishly retreating from the invitation they had sent earlier, although we have repeatedly confirmed our willingness to make a contribution, including serious financial input, to the construction of the memorial perpetuating the memory of the prisoners of this Nazi “death factory” that ceased to exist due to a feat of valour performed by none other than a Red Army officer.

We were less surprised by the position of official Warsaw; we are used to it. On this issue, its Russophobic policy and striving towards anti-Russian historical revisionism has been common knowledge for some time. We will dwell on that separately later today.

But, honestly, the ease with which our potential project partners – the Netherlands, Slovakia and Israel –changed their position with regard to Russian participation is perplexing, incomprehensible and surprising. For many years, we have heard at all levels, including in public, assurances that it is impossible to deny the Red Army’s contribution to the victory over Nazism. We were assured of invariable support for our participation in the museum renovation project. And what do we have as a result?

In this connection, we had to summon the heads of the Moscow-based diplomatic missions of the aforementioned countries to the Foreign Ministry for explanations and a serious talk.

They should have qualms after all! I would like to stress that Israel is one of the countries that has behaved disgracefully in this situation. What should remain in history forever must not be distorted for immediate political reasons, because the common memory of the heroes and victims of the Second World War should live through the ages. Apart from that, we are calling on Jewish and international organisations to provide a public assessment of the situation. There has been no response. Those using a magnifying glass to peruse certain situations that have no relation to nationalism or extremism keep silent, when their voices should be the first to be heard.

We are still open to honest cooperation with our foreign partners on memorial issues. At the same time, we consider it absolutely unacceptable to turn the memory of people who fought against Nazism, a subject sacred for many nations, into an arena for settling political scores.





[
Translation of this fragment is not available on the site - Alex Him

About the statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, V. Vashchikovsky, on the problems of the Second World War

The other day the Polish Foreign Minister V.Vashchikovsky said that the Soviet Union allegedly "significantly contributed" to the outbreak of World War II. The thesis of the "equal responsibility" of the USSR and Nazi Germany for unleashing a world conflict has been heard by Polish politicians for the not first time. We are always principled and clear, but rather delicately made their statements, corrected our Polish colleagues, brought our concerns, views and vision on this issue. We believe that in their free time from anti-Russian attacks they would be useful for them to refresh some well-known facts in their memory.

Throughout the 1930s. The USSR took the position of the principal enemy of fascism. This follows from the numerous statements of the Soviet leadership, practical measures to counter German Nazis and their accomplices in Spain and Khalkhin-Gol, our support of the anti-fascist struggle of the international communist movement. In the same period, it was Poland that represented Hitler's Germany in the League of Nations, twice in 1934 and 1936. - rejected the proposal of France to conclude the Eastern Pact, but she connected to the Western policy of pacifying the aggressor. A consequence of this line was the Munich conspiracy in September 1938, following which Poland "seized" part of the dismembered Czechoslovak state.

As part of its obligations to Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union then brought to the alert the dozens of divisions, a number of operational associations received a directive to advance to the state border. However, in 1938, and in 1939, Warsaw categorically refused to allow Soviet troops to pass through the territory of the country, exacerbating the situation with certain grave consequences for the destinies of Europe.

In the new foreign policy conditions, the USSR was alone in the face of the threat of war on two fronts, and therefore was compelled to accept Berlin's proposal to conclude a nonaggression pact. Now attempts to avoid conflict or even delay the beginning of it are presented to us as alleged evidence of "complicity" in the realization of Nazi Germany's aggressive plans.

It is deeply regrettable that in an attempt to justify their historical revisionism, which denies the Red Army's feat and its liberation mission in Europe, Polish high-ranking figures are ready to go on a direct forgery, admit insulting remarks. Probably, in such an atmosphere it is easier to convince the local public that it is necessary to destroy Soviet monuments as so-called "Traces of the occupation" of Poland. However, any invention from history is sooner or later returned as a boomerang and hits the authors themselves.
]





Attempt to desecrate Soviet war memorial in Berlin

On August 14, an attempt was made to desecrate a Soviet war memorial in Berlin’s Tiergarten Park. A man, presumably a German citizen, behaved in an ostentatiously indecent manner and shouted insulting and derogatory slogans.

The police have arrested and identified him, and a case has been opened in connection with this administrative offence.

The Russian Embassy in Germany has urged the German Foreign Ministry and the Berlin Senate to take action to prevent similar incidents in the future.

At the same time, speaking outside the context of this barbaric incident, perpetrated by a radical, it should be noted that, as a rule, the authorities in Germany and its states respond quickly to such incidents. On the whole, they are careful to maintain the memory of the Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe and the world from Nazism, and they pay attention to preserving and duly maintaining Soviet military cemeteries and war memorials. When visiting Russia, representatives of the top leadership of Germany include various events to honour the memory of Soviet soldiers killed during the Great Patriotic War during their visits, and they also lay wreaths at their graves.

In this connection, we cannot agree with assessments set forth in Rossiiskaya Gazeta’s August 15 story alleging that the heroic feat of Soviet soldiers and the suffering of Soviet prisoners of war have been forgotten in Germany. This is not so.

We would like to draw the attention of the journalism community to the need for correctly and objectively covering this issue and treating the facts in a more conscientious manner. It is necessary to separate the actions of individual neo-Nazis and vandals from the German state leadership’s line regarding this issue.



Another event to glorify Nazism in Estonia

We have been asked to comment on the so-called August 11-13 sport quest called Erna Raid-2017 in Estonia.

This was the eighteenth Erna Raid to basically glorify the so-called “heroic feats” of Nazi soldiers and is dedicated to an Abwehr sabotage squad that operated behind the Red Army’s lines in August 1941. The event is sponsored by the Estonian Defence Ministry to spread propaganda among Estonian young people.

It is very sad that this shameful event that desecrates the memory of the many victims of Nazism involved service personnel from the British contingent of the multinational NATO battalion in Estonia. One would like to ask the following question: Is the appearance of British soldiers on the Erna trail a coincidence or a logical continuation of the recent video about Nazi collaborators, the so-called Forest Brothers many of whom sided with Nazi Germany, published by NATO on Twitter?

Russia condemns such manifestations of glorifying Nazism in the most resolute manner. We regret the fact that NATO has failed to learn the lessons from the recent and tragic past and that, on the contrary, it encourages its Baltic “proteges” to play these dangerous and hardly “childish” games.



Renaming Tolbukhin Park in Bucharest

We have noticed Romanian media reports on the intentions of certain Romanian activists to rename Tolbukhin Park in Bucharest.

We hope that the memory of the thousands of Soviet soldiers, who died while liberating this country from Nazism over 70 years ago, rather than this sacrilegious concept, will prevail. It should be recalled that King of Romania Michael I received the Order of Victory No. 16 from Soviet military leader Fyodor Tolbukhin, who commanded the Soviet Army’s Southern Group at the time. King Michael I was one of the five foreign recipients of this top Soviet award.

It is important to emphasise that the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission is making a weighty contribution to Russian-Romanian cooperation with regard to war-memorials. The commission works under the agreement on the status of Russian military cemeteries in Romania and Romanian military cemeteries in the Russian Federation, signed in Bucharest on November 8, 2005. We consider it worth noting that official representatives of Bucharest opened two memorials dedicated to Romanian soldiers killed during the Great Patriotic War and the postwar period, with the assistance of the Russian authorities. These memorials were opened in October 2015 in the village of Rossoshki in the Volgograd Region and in May 2017 in the town of Novoshakhtinsk in the Rostov Region.

We proceed from the assumption that the Romanian authorities will not permit any attempts to rewrite history in the context of our mutual interest to continue fruitful war-memorial cooperation.



Latvia’s law amendments obliging ethnic minority school students to take exams only in the official language

Recently, the Latvian Government approved legislative amendments proposed by the country’s Education Ministry that deprive ethnic minority school students of the right to take exams in their native language.

This discriminatory initiative, which was adopted without consideration for the opinions of ethnic minority school representatives and teachers, is another step in Riga’s systematic plan to drive the Russian language out of various aspects of this multiethnic country’s life. Notably, this is not nearly the first provocative step against minorities (others include amendments to the law on education that allow firing teachers deemed to be “disloyal” to Latvia; the draft law on amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences stipulating for a multiple increase in the fine for not using the Latvian language by city employees, and so forth.

My rhetorical question would be: why are relevant international organisations – that are so vigilant and loquacious when it comes to alleged problems in this or similar areas in the Russian Federation – staying silent?



19th World Festival of Youth and Students

On October 14-22, Sochi will host the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students. It is not the first time our country has hosted an event of this scale. Many remember the major youth festivals in the movement’s history hosted by Moscow, for example, in 1957 (I personally don’t remember it but I have read about it) and in 1985 (this one I remember). Historical chronicles and accounts of eyewitnesses indicate that these events were not only organised with much eclat but were true celebrations for youth and students.

I would like to remind you that accreditation for media representatives and bloggers continues on the festival’s official website russia2017.com. We expect a large media presence. The accreditation will close on August 31. There are only a couple of weeks left so those journalists who are going to cover the event should hurry.

We look forward to seeing you at the festival of youth and students. It will be fun, as always.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

Can you please explain how Russia will control the reduction in the numbers of employees of US diplomatic missions in Russia? Will the US have to provide a list of employees who left?



Maria Zakharova:

The US said it will officially respond to Russia’s proposal within the specified time. We are waiting for official statements, for explanations from the US side (I do not know in what form they will do this). This was mentioned more than once in the course of our diplomatic contacts.



Question:

Today Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov took part in Russian-Japanese consultations on joint economic activities in the Southern Kuriles. Is there a convergence of positions on the organisational and legal format of such activities?



Maria Zakharova:

Once the experts prepare the relevant materials, these materials will be published on the Ministry's website.



Question:

The New York Times yesterday named the developer of the malware that attacked employees of the US Democratic National Committee. The Ukrainian hacker has already given up to Ukrainian authorities and is providing evidence to the FBI. Despite this, the newspaper still blames it on Russian special services. Can you comment on this? Do you think this is somewhat reminiscent of the situation with the North Korean missile engines, where it was proved that Kiev had supplied the technology to Pyongyang, but Russia was still accused?



Maria Zakharova:

As for US accusations of Russia interfering in the election, of hacking and online attacks, we have often commented on this in detail and at all levels.

In a couple of months, it will be a year since these elections in the United States, when the still incumbent Obama administration immediately accused Russia of hacking attacks. As you remember, a month after the elections, Russian diplomats were expelled and other moves made. So I have one question of late: if they are so sure, if they do not listen to our explanations, do not provide facts, and nothing we say or do can change their opinion – have any administrative measures been taken inside the US, the US administration and the government? Was anyone fired from the relevant US services for allowing this to happen? For so many years the United States has been the world leader in Internet technologies and information security; it is a major country with practically unlimited potential.

In 2005, when we worked side by side with our colleagues from the US Permanent Mission to the United Nations, I was amazed that, unlike Russian diplomats, all American employees had cellphones of a specific brand with a special badge. When I asked what the badge meant, I was told that every cellphone used by representatives of the Permanent Mission, from the head to the staff, needed to be checked by the relevant services. That is why I wonder if anyone was actually fired for letting another country allegedly change the results of elections in their own country? Have you heard of any such high-profile dismissals? It should not be about administrative punishment, but rather about criminal prosecution. If you follow the American logic, for many years the country has been spending money (you can look up how much has been allocated for cyber defence, information technology and security) on a totally ineffective system, if one or several hackers could change the situation in the country. I have not heard of any dismissals, nor about high-profile cases against people who were engaged in the protection of information technology in the United States for many years (Barack Obama’s eight years in office). Everyone knows that information security is part of any country’s national security. So I will ask, just like one Russian author: when will we see people going to prison? Have you heard anything? Nobody has, because nothing has happened. All we know is that there is a potential hypothetical criminal somewhere at large abroad, but inside the country, no one is to blame. That is, in the US, no one was punished for the fact that the country was absolutely unprepared for cyber threats from abroad.

Let me remind you that we are not talking about a small country that has delegated its security to a certain alliance, a group of countries or a more powerful state that offers protectorate. We are talking about a major power that has always been a leader in the field of technology. The lack of real cases concerning people who worked on national information security proves one thing: all accusations against Russia are nonsense. They needed an excuse, a political target and a tool that helps regularly raise this issue and organise internal political haggling.

As for the second question – about the pretty obvious situation with Ukraine supplying technology to North Korea, or at the very least having something to do with its nuclear technologies ending up there, something the media have written about, and about Kiev again accusing Russia of everything – I can argue that it won’t take the Kiev regime long before accusing Russia of masterminding the second Maidan as well. It sounds funny now, but you'll see that they will. They will say that Russia was behind the current authorities in Kiev and behind those who came in 2013-2014 and made a constitutional coup in that country, too. Russia will be to blame for everything that is happening now in Ukraine’s political life, and for its insane reforms, too. But, I repeat, they will start with attributing Maidan to the ‘Kremlin’s hand.’ The global enemy will once again be found when the situation reaches a peak, when they will have nothing to surprise its own population with and no more resources to maintain the situation more or less in balance.



Question:

I would like to clarify a few points about the recently adopted UNSC Resolution 2371, which prohibits hiring North Korean workers by other countries. Will Russia employ North Koreans for existing job openings or will all cooperation in this area be terminated?



Maria Zakharova:

This is an inappropriate question. Russia cannot but comply with a UNSC resolution as it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and observes international law. The resolution was adopted by a vote, including the vote of the Russian Federation. As you know, even if Russia had abstained and the resolution been adopted it would still have been binding for us. All provisions of the UNSC resolution are mandatory.

If you are interested in specific details and aspects please formulate your question, I will forward it to the experts and we will present our view on the specific aspects of fulfilling this resolution.



Question:

Did the Foreign Ministry receive specific instructions regarding the Russia-Azerbaijan cooperation following the meeting between the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan in Sochi?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, it is the Presidential Executive Office that comments on the results of top-level meetings. We gladly share information but not to the extent of commenting on the instructions given or not given by the President to the Foreign Minister.



Question:

Are there any threats to businesses from our opponents? If there have been such cases, how does the Foreign Ministry respond?



Maria Zakharova:

It is odd you are asking this question in 2017. You should have asked it a long time ago.

When the so-called policy of Russia’s isolation by the West and by Washington, in particular, started and we could see its first signs, I participated in an international media event as a guest speaker and afterwards spoke to journalists covering international issues. We got talking about this strange approach that was not so aggressive and obvious at the time. I asked the European journalists why they thought it was happening and why was Russia being attacked by Washington and other countries that are one way or another under the patronage of the United States? In the past 20 years there has never been a period when they were pleased with Russia. There would always be problems, many of them imaginary, and what was happening in reality was brought to a global political scale. The journalists answered that the reasons were obvious. There is fierce financial and economic competition and attempts to prevent any potential investment into Russia. As you understand, Russia is like Klondike for SMEs and foreign investment. A huge number of industries did not even exist here 30 years ago.

There are many interesting and attractive projects here now, too, and they can bring fantastic profit and dividends. This constant building up of pressure around Russia, portraying it as the enemy hits potential investors. If we see companies operating in Russia being driven out of the Russian market as a result of almost targeted efforts or getting the toughest obstacles for working in our country, what do you think is happening to investors looking for opportunities to invest in the global market? This was the answer of the western journalists.

We have talked about this extensively, too. Minister Lavrov has frequently mentioned in his interviews and speeches that we have evidence showing how US officials and agencies pursued a policy of blocking access of small, medium or large businesses to Russia, using tactics ranging from intimidation to creating unbearable conditions. We know that US embassies sent letters to economic and finance ministries in the countries of presence around the world in which they warned about impossibility and danger of participation of representatives of those countries and businesses in Russian forums – specifically, in economic forums. We all know this based on the results of various Russia-hosted business events, forums and conferences. You are well aware that Latin American countries, Asia and Africa send large and high-profile delegations while the United States is very poorly represented. That being said, we have so many things in common. There are a great number of people who have dual Russian and US citizenship, have families and relatives in both countries. We have great potential; however, the US delegations are absurdly small and the level of official representation is low. All this is an indication of the policy of containment that is based on their idea of competition.



Question:

The US press and some social media accounts link the so-called alt-right leaders involved in violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, with Russia and even President Vladimir Putin. We know that the Russian Foreign Ministry does not comment on domestic US issues, but perhaps you could say something if Russia is now being accused of involvement?



Maria Zakharova:

Are we also involved there? I know about this indirectly because, as my colleagues told me yesterday, the Russian Embassy in the United States received identical inquiries on a similar issue from various US media outlets, seeking to find out the forms and extent of Russia’s involvement and its ability to influence the situation. Quite possibly, they were sent certain claims, and some media outlets decided to ask the Embassy, for the sake of a clear conscience, whether Russia was also involved in these developments or whether Russian diplomats decided to sit this one out.

All this fits conceptually with the totally bizarre, rabid anti-Russia hysteria being whipped up in the United States. The motives and reasons for doing this are clear. In fact, the establishment is split; there is a problem inside of it. Instead of subsiding, the post-election situation is still being whipped up. As a result, the hobbyhorse of one presidential candidate’s campaign policies is becoming the main topic during the post-election period. Actually, our forecasts are coming true. They will not abandon this issue, and it will continue to be whipped up in all conceivable, and even inconceivable, facets and angles.



Question:

Yesterday, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said US-made and British-made chemical weapons had been found at bases retaken from the militants. What might this attest to, and how could this influence counter-terrorist cooperation in Syria?



Maria Zakharova:

First, these reports must be promptly verified by specialised international agencies, as stated yesterday at the UN Headquarters by Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya; and the Foreign Ministry has also provided the relevant comments.

Second, this is not the first instance when Western countries, including representatives of countries that are members of the US-led coalition, are suspected of complicity in weapons deliveries and of supporting terrorist groups, extremists and militants using various resources. This information demands the most serious attention and immediate verification.

Such are the realities of the modern world: all secrets become public very quickly. Quite recently, we have seen numerous confirmations of the fact that secrets being concealed by the Western world eventually become public, and that various issues that had been denied five to seven years ago are now being confirmed. There are absolutely no doubts that this information may be quite real. But there are specialised international institutions that must start the appropriate verification.



Question:

This autumn, Russia will host a joint military exercise with India. Western and Indian media outlets are linking this exercise with aggravated Indian-Chinese relations in the context of the continued confrontation in the Doklam (Donglang) border area. Could you explain the Russian position on this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Federation does not hold any military exercises or any other events under cooperation projects in connection with aggravated relations between any countries with which we maintain diverse and multifaceted relations. We hold military exercises and other events under our relations with neighbours and partner states. We do so openly, and we provide the relevant information to the concerned countries. I believe that any linkage is simply inappropriate here.

We maintain wonderful relations with China, and we are expanding relations with all regional countries. To my mind, these statements and attempts to distort the situation can be perceived as a provocation to some extent. If necessary, we provide the relevant information, so as to cut off all speculation on such issues as quickly as possible.

I would also like to note that Russian-Indian military ties are an important element of the especially privileged strategic partnership between our countries. We have been holding annual bilateral military exercises since 2005, and naval exercises have been taking place since 2007.

The Indra 2017 joint exercise will take place in the Russian Federation in its Eastern Military District in October 2017. We consider it necessary to underscore that this is a routine annual event. We consider it absolutely incorrect to perceive it in the context of the current situation in Indian-Chinese relations, and I have already noted this is detail. It will be possible to get additional information about this exercise at the Defence Ministry, and I suggest that you do so.

We would like to express confidence that, as responsible members of the international community, New Delhi and Beijing will be able to find mutually acceptable ways to quickly defuse the tensions that have arisen between them.



Question:

You said anti-Russia hysteria was being built up in the United States. And regarding CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s statement, you said that “every action has a reaction.” Do you believe that there is an opportunity to improve relations between Russia and the United States? If so, then how? If not, why not?



Maria Zakharova:

This discussion could take a couple of hours. Don’t you see for youself? We do not simply see it. You know there are situations where you see but do not say. Here, we see it, and keep talking about it, and calling, and proposing. We did not close doors to the United States even during the previous administration. Even in the most difficult, extreme and bizarre moments, we always said that cooperation and collaboration, where it is mutually beneficial and helpful, remain our priority. Our only conditions are compliance with international law, cooperation based on mutual respect and, most importantly, based on the UN Charter. We have always emphasised this, even when we could no longer understand why the US administration acts one way or another. We never shut the door even when they were openly rude.

I think the deportation of Russian diplomats during the last days of December 2016 and blocking access to our property in the United States are very telling examples. Russia did not give an emotional and instant response. The United States was given more than six months to settle this situation without emotion, impulsive actions or revenge – that is, to find a way out of the situation and save face. You know how it ended. The new administration did not take any action. We could talk forever about how their work is being blocked and how they are being prevented from doing this, but the fact remains, we have taken as much time as possible to give them the opportunity to switch from confrontation to cooperation. But I want to stress once again that this confrontation was one-sided. Even after the initiation of the sanctions policy and the declaration of a crusade against Russia with banners of isolation, we always underlined our commitment to engagement and cooperation. As you know, the United States has turned to Russia many times when it needed to, and almost daily in the past two years. We maintain a dialogue.

I would rephrase what you said. We do not just see the areas where we can cooperate and work together. Frankly, we do not see any major problems in the way of cooperation with the United States in any area, which we have been doing. So we are not the party to answer this question. Our views have not changed.

We understand the internals of the United States very well and we understand that in the past decade, Washington has increasingly needed a foreign policy resource to resolve domestic political issues. This is why we have taken everything that is going on there with a lot of patience and sometimes healthy sarcasm. We were ready and are still ready to cooperate in addressing international crises and unfreezing the entire range of bilateral relations, from security and the economy to culture and politics. But we have not changed our stance. Something is going on in the United States.



Question:

In the past month, there has been a lot of talk about the planned removal of monuments in Poland (230 memorials to Red Army soldiers who liberated Poland) and about the Soviet Union allegedly being to blame for the outbreak of WWII. You also talked about that. You said that “every action has a reaction.” Will there be a reaction, and don’t you think the pause has been too long?



Maria Zakharova:

Firstly, it is important to understand that a lot of what is happening in the context of these statements is being done deliberately to provoke a disproportionate response. Many times in recent years, we have heard extremely harsh statements (not only from Poland but also from Washington and some other capitals) made in the hope that the addressees, including Moscow, would lose the patience to respond, clarify, explain, or that it would suffer from qualms or take some emotional action. We understand very well that there are steps and actions that must be reacted to immediately, instantly, and there are things that may be reacted to but after some time that we give to our counterparts to reconsider and fix the situation, which I just talked about. There are also situations when you just need to explain, clarify and try to do it without emotion (although sometimes you really want to give way to feelings and emotions) but armed with facts. Therefore, in every single case we make a decision on what kind of response we should give, whether it should be an equal, symmetrical response or perhaps not equal but based on explaining and reminding our colleagues, partners and neighbours who allow this kind of rhetoric that even though they are the centre of the universe they still have sunspots.



Question:

Earlier this week, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani declared that Iran would revoke the nuclear deal as senseless, if the United States continued to introduce new sanctions against Tehran. What risks does Russia see in connection with a new escalation of the US-Iranian conflict? Is the Foreign Ministry considering a possibility that the nuclear deal will be really scrapped and what can be done to prevent this?



Maria Zakharova:

The nuclear deal was achieved by several states and groups of states. I’m sure you remember the most active role of the EU in settling this situation. We are well aware of the existence of a domestic political pendulum in the United States, which oscillates in tune with the coming of this or that administration. But the most interesting thing is that today this pendulum seems to be oscillating outside the established trajectory, whereas previously it was oscillating from side to side. This is why the current administration is assessing the deal in the light of the political changes that occurred in Washington.

Russia’s attitude to the agreements in question has been outlined. The Russian Federation was most actively involved in their drafting and during certain periods and at certain stages did its best to prevent the conflict from turning hot.

Although you may remember the statements issued from different Western capitals (primarily from Washington) to the effect that the Iranian nuclear programme could only be stopped by force and force alone. I remember all these statements well, specifically those by US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and others. We consistently upheld both a public and negotiating position. This is why this subject remains unchanged for us. As far as Washington’s position is concerned, it is very easy to destroy everything, and we have repeatedly seen this happening in recent years. But it is very difficult to revert to peace and negotiations. As the recent years have shown, Washington has only rarely succeeded in this.



Question:

It is your first meeting with journalists after your vacation. Could you share your impressions?



Maria Zakharova:

I had a wonderful holiday, primarily because it happened after all, which is always very important. In fact, there were many questions about where I spent my vacation. People looked for me on the Mediterranean coast; someone saw me in Europe and in Asia.

I was in the Russian Federation. I spent two wonderful weeks in Zheleznovodsk, a town in the North Caucasus famous for its spas, which I recommend to everyone. The most interesting thing is that they are open all year round. During the last few days, I had a chance to travel and visited Pyatigorsk and other local sights. I liked it all very much.

I think one day I’ll hold an offsite briefing and take you all over there. You don’t mind, do you?





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2838153
__________________
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 19th, 2017 #211
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on anniversary celebrations in Totma, Vologda Region



18 August 2017 - 09:57



On August 11-13, the town of Totma, Vologda Region, celebrated its 880th anniversary. With the assistance of the Foreign Ministry, a programme for anniversary celebrations focused on events aimed at remembering prominent Totma residents’ contribution to the international prestige and influence of the Russian state, including events marking a memorable date in Russian-American relations, the 205th anniversary of the founding of Fort Ross, the first Russian settlement in California.

It is common knowledge that Totma’s history is closely linked with the exploration of the North American continent by Russian pioneers. Local merchants played a major role in organising expeditions to Alaska and the Aleutian Islands in the 18th and 19th centuries. A native of this old Russian city, Ivan Kuskov, was the founder and first governor of Fort Ross.

The anniversary celebrations were attended by Vologda Governor Oleg Kuvshinnikov, representatives of the Federation Council and the State Duma, members of the Foreign Ministry’s interagency working group for the preservation of Russian historical and cultural heritage in the United States, other officials, Totma residents and over 5,000 guests.

Packed with cultural and educational events, the celebrations kicked off with the planting of a pine alley in honour of Totma seafarers and ended spectacularly with a chimes ceremony and a video conference with California’s Fort Ross. From America, the residents and guests were warmly welcomed by the heads of the museum based at the Russian settlement and by representatives of the Kashaya Indians, who sent a delegation to Totma in 2012 to attend celebrations dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Fort Ross.

Speakers noted in particular the town’s contribution to preserving Russian America heritage and promoting scientific, cultural, humanitarian and public ties between Russia and the United States. They also praised the working contacts held within the Russian segment of Fort Ross Dialogue, an annual bilateral public, political and business forum, held this year in Pskov and Izborsk on May 29-30, 2017. There is an agreement on a Vologda Region delegation participating in the American segment of the forum in San Francisco in October of this year.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2838295






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greeting to participants in the Aitmatov Readings for Inter-Civilisational Dialogue International Forum of Writers and Thinkers



18 August 2017 - 11:34



On August 18, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov participated in the Aitmatov Readings for Inter-Civilisational Dialogue International Forum of Writers and Thinkers organised in Bishkek (Kyrgyz Republic) by the Russia-Islamic World Group of Strategic Vision, and read out Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to the forum participants:

“I warmly welcome participants in the Aitmatov Readings for Inter-Civilisational Dialogue International Forum of Writers and Thinkers.

These readings organised by the Russia-Islamic World Group of Strategic Vision were named after an outstanding author, public activist and diplomat Chingiz Aitmatov. I am glad to see that Chingiz Aitmatov’s rich literary and creative legacy, at the heart of which are timeless moral and spiritual values, and faith in humanity, continues to inspire people to search for strong responses to abundant modern challenges.

At a time when the world is turbulent, old conflicts persist and new conflicts arise, primarily in the Middle East, in the midst of an unprecedented spike in international terrorism, efforts of the public at large and of the research community to strengthen trust and mutual understanding are gaining particular importance. Russia is genuinely interested in the speedy resolution of all the crises and is committed to building a more just and democratic polycentric world order, ensuring respect for international law, and allowing nations to determine their own future.

I believe that the outcome of this forum will facilitate the development of new ideas and initiatives to overcome current difficulties, as well as further mutual enrichment of cultures, and will contribute to promoting mutually respectful dialogue between civilisations.

I wish you productive work, interesting discussions and all the best.”





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2838456






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the drug situation in Afghanistan



18 August 2017 - 16:12



We regret to note that the drug situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen. According to expert estimates, a sharp increase in drug production is expected in 2017. The areas under drug crops in Afghanistan have already exceeded last year's figures, and about a third of the country’s population is involved in the cultivation of opium poppy.

The volume of Afghan drug trafficking is not decreasing, while its geography has expanded, in particular, to African countries. The so-called Balkan route (Pakistan-Iran-Turkey-Europe) has been intensified. A growing number of narcotic substances from Afghanistan are supplied to Europe via Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine.

At the same time, tonnes of precursors for the manufacture of narcotic substances are illegally imported to Afghanistan each year. Moreover, according to information from Afghan sources, such countries as Italy, France and the Netherlands are among the main suppliers.

In this context, the US and NATO forces’ unwillingness or inability, despite their many years of presence in Afghanistan, to provide effective assistance to the Afghan Government in curbing drug production, which is known to be a key source of terrorism financing, causes bewilderment. According to UN estimates, the “drug economy” accounts for about half of the revenues of illegal armed groups in Afghanistan, estimated at $400 million.

We consider relevant the recommendation given by US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko to the American leadership on the need to develop a US anti-drug strategy in Afghanistan. Sopko's report noting the $8.5 billion spent by Washington on the anti-drug campaign in Afghanistan points directly to its failure: drug production in Afghanistan is breaking records, and the country remains the world's largest producer and exporter of opium.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2838569
__________________
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 23rd, 2017 #212
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Moscow, August 21, 2017



21 August 2017 - 13:53





Question:

What do you think about the role of Egypt in the Syrian settlement? Does Russia plan to send Foreign Minister’s Special Representative for Middle East Settlement Sergey Vershinin to the region to hold talks on the Palestinian-Israeli settlement?



Sergey Lavrov:

We appreciate greatly the role of Egypt in promoting international cooperation to resolve various crises in the region. Today, we discussed the state of affairs as part of the efforts that are being made to overcome the Syria crisis. As I have already noted, Egypt has played and continues to play an important role in supporting the concept of de-escalation zones, which was agreed upon as part of the Astana process.

The same applies to the Libyan settlement, where Egypt plays an active role. We have a close, in fact, identical understanding of the need to prevent the isolation of any Libyan politicians, key figures, or tribal leaders from the process that should lead to restoring Libyan statehood.

Returning to the Syrian settlement process, I would like to note that Russia and Egypt are actively seeking to unite the opposition for talks with the government on a realistic and constructive platform. We are trying to make the opposition groups which are known as participants in the so-called Cairo and Moscow groups, to think that way.

We have similar approaches and believe that we need to break through the impasse in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process. Like Egypt, Russia is in favour of resuming talks. To do so, it is important to create proper conditions, primarily, to prevent any unilateral steps.



Question:

Is there any progress in building the nuclear power plant at El Dabaa in Egypt? What other big Russian-Egyptian projects are planned?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding our bilateral cooperation and specifically the question of the nuclear power plant’s construction, the main contract was signed in December last year. Another three contracts are near completion and their signature will make it possible to start actual construction of the facility. We have many other big projects, including the one still under discussion now. I hope that the upcoming meeting of the Joint Russian-Egyptian Commission on Trade, Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation in September will enable us to make progress on this matter. The project in question proposes establishing an industrial zone along the banks of the Suez Canal, with Russian participation. I hope that consultations will begin in the next 2-3 months, followed by full-fledged negotiations between the EAEU and Egypt on the possibility of establishing a free trade zone.



Question:

You said that Egypt and Russia are working on organising a unified Syrian opposition delegation for talks with the regime. Are there any plans in this area?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are working with other partners too on this, including Saudi Arabia. We hope to give more information on these efforts and their results to the media a little later.



Question:

Much has been said about the difficulties with the fourth de-escalation zone in Idlib. What, specifically, are the problems there? We know that the disparate nature of the armed groups in this city and the ongoing armed combat are negatively impacting this zone.



Sergey Lavrov:

If issues could be resolved through simply sharing the details at news conferences, there would be no further need for our work and everything would be known to the public immediately. For understandable reasons, this is a complicated process (I am speaking of the de-escalation zones around Idlib). The three guarantor countries are taking part in the discussion, Russia, Turkey and Iran, which approved the de-escalation zone idea during the Astana process. The guarantor countries have planned expert-level contacts in the near future (before the end of this month or in early September). We will then prepare another international meeting in Astana, where the results of the work at expert level will be examined and, I hope, supported.

This is as much as I can say at this stage. As you noted rightly, this is the issue of agreements between the forces confronting government troops in this district. These agreements must imply agreement on the de-escalation zone’s configuration and on ensuring security along the future zone’s perimeter areas.

Let me say again, the work continues, the negotiations are understandably complicated, but we continue to act, primarily through our militaries, with diplomatic support.



Question:

One hour ago, the response to Moscow’s measures concerning the US diplomatic corps and diplomatic missions in Russia was published on the US Embassy website. Specifically, it said that issuance of non-immigration visas will be suspended from August 23 to later resume in a significantly reduced scope. Starting from September 1, all interviews will only be held at the US Embassy in Moscow. This will affect application processing times. Moreover, the US Embassy in Moscow and the Consulate General in St Petersburg will stop accepting visa applications from citizens of Belarus. How would you comment this situation? Is retaliation possible?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have just become aware of this decision. I only read the media reports but we will examine it more thoroughly.

As my first reaction, I can say the following. As you know, when at the end of last year the Obama administration was in its final throes and seeking to sabotage prospects of the Russia-US relations under the new administration, it imposed tough sanctions and demanded the deportation of our diplomats, which was absolutely illegitimate and a violation of international law, and seized Russia’s property, we did not respond and only responded when the US Congress, in a Russophobic rage, passed a new and quite far-reaching set of sanctions. Our response was as balanced as possible and strictly within the limits of diplomatic practice and traditions. In response to actual seizure of our diplomatic property, we asked the United States to stop using their diplomatic property in Moscow and to reduce the total number of diplomats and operating personnel of US foreign missions in the Russian Federation to the number equal to Russia’s staff in the US. We assumed that like Russia’s, the US diplomatic school and diplomatic service has established good traditions and experience in training highly competent professionals who can deal with the tasks of foreign embassies and consulates and have modern technology for successful operations.

It would be disrespectful of us to say that equalising the number of employees of US foreign missions in Russia and the Russian foreign missions in the United States would seriously limit the US diplomatic service’s capabilities to perform its consular functions, including issuance of visas. I believe the true reason for the decisions announced today is different. My first impression was that the decision is another attempt to incur Russian citizens’ displeasure with the authorities. This is the well-known logic of those who organise colour revolutions and simply inertia from the Obama administration. The same logic explains the decision that citizens of Belarus must, from now on, apply for US visas not from Moscow and St Petersburg but travel to Vilnius, Kiev and Warsaw. This measure clearly has a political motivation.

As concerns our action in response, as I already said, the decisions announced by the Americans today need careful consideration. We’ll see. I can only say one thing. We will not take it out on American citizens. If anyone was hoping that a bad example would be contagious, they were wrong.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2840676
__________________
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 23rd, 2017 #213
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 US statements on the use of chemical weapons in Syria on August 21, 2013



22 August 2017 - 20:27



On August 21, 2013 a sarin attack took place in the Eastern Ghouta district of Damascus. This barbaric act caused the deaths of approximately 1,400 people, according to various estimates. The specially created UN Mission presided over by Swedish chemistry professor Ake Sellstrom did not determine who was responsible for the attack, while still essentially confirming the Russian experts’ conclusions regarding the provocative nature of the use of homemade sarin by extremist groups.

The hypocrisy of the White House, the US Department of State and the US Mission to the UN, which unanimously blamed the terrorist attack in Eastern Ghouta on President Bashar al-Assad’s government four years after the event, is particularly disturbing in this regard. It is also troubling that the USA, practically on behalf of the international community, has alleged that official Damascus used chemical weapons on April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun and, therefore, that the Syrian government is guilty of concealing part of its military and chemical capabilities, which would be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Also the Syrian government is alleged to be responsible for using toxic substances against Syrian civilians.

This must be categorically rejected, because the relevant international organisation in this case, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), confirmed that Syria’s chemical weapons were completely destroyed under international supervision. Also, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism in Syria has not yet announced its verdict on who is responsible for the chemical attack.

This is another attempt by Washington to use the incident in Khan Sheikhoun to justify the air strike on April 7, 2017 against the sovereign nation of Syria, in violation of the UN Charter and universally recognised norms of international and humanitarian law. Perhaps such unseemly official comments are written with the possible aim of stepping up interference in Syria’s internal affairs in the future.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2841469






Comment by the Information and Press Department in connection with the US decision to tighten the procedure of issuing visas to Russian citizens



22 August 2017 - 20:34



In connection with the statement of the US Embassy in Moscow on changes in the timing and procedure for issuing so-called non-immigrant visas, we would like to note the following.

Our US colleagues claim that meeting our demand to restore parity in terms of the number of employees of the Russian and American foreign missions hinders the normal performance of consular functions, but the reality is that Washington is actually pursuing completely different goals. The goal is obvious − to try to provoke the discontent of Russian citizens with the difficulties purportedly caused by the staff reduction of US diplomatic and consular missions.

In reality, the problem lies in the inadequate efficiency of the visa offices of US missions in Russia. The facts speak for themselves. While 16 consular officers of Italy processed 478,000 visa requests last year, and their five Spanish counterparts issued 877,000 visas to Russians, the much larger staff of the US consulates managed to issue only about 186,000 visas.

We would advise our American colleagues not to misinform people by using the staff reduction in Russia as a pretext to add "irritants" to the already complicated Russian-US relationship.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2841479






Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on new US anti-Russia sanctions



22 August 2017 - 21:42



Washington has made the same mistake again: on August 22, the US Treasury Department decided to expand the anti-Russia sanction lists, this time in line with the North Korean file. Four Russian citizens and one Russian company now face restrictions.

The US side continues to systematically destroy bilateral relations under a trend set by the Barack Obama administration. This is the fourth such incident since the new team took over the White House.

Against this deplorable backdrop, statements by US representatives about a desire to stabilise bilateral ties sound highly unconvincing. Then again, when the US adopted the well-known anti-Russia law, it also cited the striving to improve our relations as the main motivation.

We have always advocated and will continue to advocate efforts to resolve our existing differences through dialogue. Over the past few years, Washington should have grasped the idea that we consider the language of sanctions to be unacceptable, and that such actions only hamper the resolution of real problems. So far, however, it appears that they have failed to comprehend these obvious truths.

Nevertheless, we are not losing hope that the voice of reason will prevail sooner or later, and that our American colleagues will come to realise the futility and detrimental nature of further sliding down the spiral of sanctions.

In the meantime, we will get down to charting the retaliatory measures that are inevitable in this situation.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2841501
__________________
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, 2017 #214
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, August 24, 2017



24 August 2017 - 12:51









Developments in Syria

The military-political situation in the Syrian Arab Republic took a largely positive turn after the signing of the memorandum on the creation of de-escalation zones in Syria by guarantor countries of the Astana process – Russia, Iran and Turkey – on May 4 and the subsequent creation of these zones in southwestern Syria, Eastern Ghouta and in the north of the Homs Province.

The Syrian government forces continue their efforts to rid the country of terrorists from ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (or Jabhat al-Nusra) and the groups that support these organisations.

The counterterrorism operation is ongoing against al-Nusra in the Jobar district of Damascus and in the neighbouring Ayn Terma. The jihadists are shelling residential districts in Damascus, in particular, Bab Touma and Al-Hamidiya. Several shells have been fired towards the 59th Damascus International Fair, killing four people. But the international fair, which has been held for the first time since 2011, has not suspended its work.

Aleppo, the most densely populated province in Syria, has been fully liberated from the terrorists. Overall, 50 towns and over 2,700 square kilometres of Syrian territory have been liberated.

The assault groups of the Syrian army, who are fighting in the east of the Hama Province with support from Russia’s Aerospace Forces, have assumed control over several commanding heights near the towns of Hisayah and es-Savannet and have surrounded a large group of ISIS fighters near Uqayribat. The terrorists have been trying to break out of the trap and flee towards Deir ez-Zor.

The Syrian army is carrying on the offensive near the town of Abu Kamal on the Syrian-Iraqi border towards the Euphrates.

The combined Kurdish and Arab units of the Syrian Democratic Forces continue the operation to liberate Raqqa from ISIS fighters. These units have assumed control over some 60 per cent of the city area.

Tensions persist between Faylaq al-Rahman and Jaysh al-Islam, which has joined the de-escalation agreement. These groups are fighting each other on the battlefield and in the media, where they question the other party’s loyalty to the “revolutionary ideals.”

Meanwhile, Jabhat al-Nusra has been trying to escape public censure as a terrorist organisation by blending in among the locals in the administrative units it has created in the areas it controls in the Idlib, Hama and Aleppo provinces. With this aim in view, it has been working to create its own “government” and local governments and to merge the allied terrorist groups into the so-called Northern Army.

The current developments in Syria point to an urgent need to expedite the creation of de-escalation zones, strengthen the ceasefire regime and improve the humanitarian situation in the country as soon as possible. We call on our regional and international partners to support the efforts to rout terrorists in Syria ahead of the sixth International Meeting on Syria, which will convene in Astana in mid-September, and to take additional efforts to help the conflicting sides find compromise solutions that would put an end to drawn-out confrontation in Syria.



US Department of State’s allegations of Syrian government’s involvement in chemical attacks in Eastern Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun

We would like to draw your attention to the press statement on the August 21, 2013 chemical attack in the eastern suburb of Damascus, which the US State Department’s Office of Press Relations issued on August 21. Without a shadow of a doubt in its exceptional righteousness and exclusive right to the truth, which has, unfortunately, become the prerogative of our American colleagues, the US State Department has again blamed the Syrian government for the chemical attack perpetrated four years ago, as usual, without any substance. In the same statement, the Americans again repeated the allegation of Damascus’ involvement in the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack on April 4, 2017.

I would like to remind everyone that the Russian Foreign Ministry has more than once provided detailed comments on Eastern Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun. We have yet to receive any reasonable and objective arguments to substantiate this allegation, and so we do not understand why Washington is convinced that the blame rests with the government of Bashar al-Assad. Washington’s conviction is so strong that it delivered a missile strike on the Syrian government forces on April 7 in gross disregard for international law.

We view the events in Eastern Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun, as well as the commotion raised over them by the biased Western media and officials, as clear elements of the information war that is being waged against sovereign and independent Syria and as attempts to torpedo the efforts towards a political settlement of the Syrian crisis based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



The new US strategy on Afghanistan and a statement by US State Secretary Rex Tillerson

We took note that a new strategy on Afghanistan announced by US President Donald Trump on August 21 focuses on a military solution to the Afghan issue, including through beefing up foreign military contingents.

This approach is in tune with the prescriptions for Afghanistan issued by the previous US administration, which, as is known, failed to improve the security in the region.

Regrettably, the strategy does not reflect the danger posed by the Afghan offshoot of the ISIS terrorist group, which is actively spreading its influence in Afghanistan, and completely ignores drug production in Afghanistan as well. Russia, the UN and corresponding entities have repeatedly said that the drug production represents a major source of revenue for terrorists.

We expect that the planned expansion of powers of the US armed forces in Afghanistan will not violate sovereignty of that country or infringe upon the national interests of the states in that region.

For our part, we are willing to continue to assist Kabul in training and equipping its national security forces as the main guarantor of security in Afghanistan, as well as in advancing the national reconciliation process. We reaffirm our openness to cooperation in these areas with the United States and other stakeholders.

US State Department Secretary Rex Tillerson’s remarks during a briefing on August 22 to clarify a new US strategy on Afghanistan, where he accused Russia of alleged arms supplies to the Taliban, are extremely perplexing. Of course, you are all perfectly aware of our position on this matter. We repeatedly rejected all accusations, and also asked our American colleagues to provide evidence, but to no avail. To reiterate, such statements aren’t conducive to the establishment of effective cooperation between our countries in Afghanistan. Once again, we state that we do not provide any support to the Taliban.

I would like to say once again that all the statements or comments that we made over the past year on this account are available on our official Foreign Ministry website. When quoting the current or future statements by US officials, please be mindful of the official position of the Russian Federation.



The situation on the Korean Peninsula

We noted a certain decrease in intensity of bellicose rhetoric surrounding the Korean Peninsula. The lack of an alternative to a peaceful settlement of the issues faced by the sub-region is becoming increasingly clear for all, albeit with some difficulties.

However, we believe that conducting large-scale naval exercises by the United States and the Republic of Korea (Ulchi-Freedom Guardian 2017, August 21 – September 1) is not helpful for de-escalating tension on the Korean Peninsula. We call upon all parties to be very careful. Since the region is flooded with weapons, any rash move or even an unintended incident may trigger off a military conflict.

We expect the DPRK to continue to exercise restraint and not react to these maneuvers in a military manner.

We are convinced that the need for nuclear missile tests or military exercises will disappear after the stakeholders reach basic agreements on mutual relations and the principles of peaceful coexistence. To do so, the dialogue must be resumed, but first, of course, it is important to reduce military activity in the region.



Japan’s Defence Ministry plans to deploy Aegis Ashore systems in the country

We are closely following the years-long discussion in Japan on the purchase of advanced missile-defence systems from the United States. Needless to say, we paid attention to the recent media reports about the Japanese Defence Ministry’s preference for Aegis Ashore systems.

Since the very start, we made it clear to Tokyo that we are concerned over these plans and consider inadequate Japan’s attempts to justify them by the progress of North Korea’s nuclear missile plans. We are confident that the adoption of a decision to purchase and deploy these systems should be viewed as disproportionate to the real missile threats in the region. Considering the systems’ eventual incorporation into the military structure of the Asian segment of US global missile defence, the decision may undermine strategic stability in the northern part of the Pacific.



Introduction of peacemakers in Donbass

Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko and other officials keep talking about the introduction of UN peacekeepers in the southeast of Ukraine. In this context, we would like to note the following.

On a par with the participants in the Normandy format and the Minsk Contact Group, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) is actively involved in the process of crisis settlement in Ukraine. Its employees are actively working in different parts of Ukraine, including Donbass. The SMM is monitoring the situation at the contact line, and verifying the withdrawal of weapons and the disengagement of combat equipment and personnel of the conflicting sides.

It should be emphasised that both the participants in the Ukrainian domestic conflict – Kiev, and Donetsk and Lugansk – and various international agencies and countries that are directly involved in the settlement process recognise that it should be based on the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements that was agreed upon by the sides of the conflict on February 12, 2015 and approved by the leaders of the Normandy Four and supported by the UN Security Council. Therefore, today the main task is to strictly and consistently fulfil the provisions fixed in this package. Incidentally, this document does not say a word about UN Blue Helmets and OSCE armed observers. I would like to recall once again that this document was drafted with Kiev’s direct involvement. Therefore, the initiatives of the Kiev regime are obvious attempts “to squander” the implementation of Minsk-2 and avoid fulfilling relevant commitments.



Russia’s participation in the project to build a new Museum Memorial at the former Sobibor Nazi death camp

We are pleased to note that during the meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Sochi on August 23, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supported Russia’s participation in building a new museum on the territory of the former Nazi death camp in Poland’s Sobibor. We consider his statement a major step towards restoring historical and human justice and a signal that should encourage the members of the international steering committee to resume the discussion on Russia’s full-fledged participation in the work of this body.

We were ready for full participation in this project from the very start. We believe that the Israeli side’s affirmation of its traditional attitude to the results of WWII and the Red Army’s role in the victory over Nazism is a clear signal that rules out any insinuations on Russia’s involvement in the project and Russian-Israeli cooperation to preserve historical memory and prevent the revision of the results of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century.



Desecration of a monument to Red Army soldiers in Kosice

The latest act of vandalism has taken place at the Kosice, Slovakia memorial to the Red Army soldiers who fell liberating Czechoslovakia during World War II. We regard this act, which was designed to attract public attention, as provocative, unlawful and immoral.

We have commented on other such cases before, cases that took place in many countries, particularly in Europe. Reminding the violators about morals and respect for the fallen, which are normally respected in civilised societies, is a thankless job. We hope that the Slovak authorities will promptly investigate this crime and bring those guilty, who have been identified, to account.

We urge our Slovak partners to strictly comply with their obligations under the 1993 Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation and the 1995 intergovernmental agreement on the graves of fallen servicemen and civilian war victims.

We are aware of and appreciate the Slovak authorities’ commitment to the balanced and objective position on World War II. We are grateful to the authorities and people of Slovakia for their traditional caring attitude to the memory of the fallen liberator soldiers and for taking care of their graves in their country.

We expect the Slovak authorities to act resolutely to prevent a repetition of such acts of vandalism.

The Russian Embassy in Bratislava has sent a note of protest to the Foreign Ministry of Slovakia and appeals to the Mayor of Kosice and the Slovak co-chair of the intergovernmental commission on war graves.



Latest act of vandalism in Western Ukraine

Yet another act of vandalism took place on the Glory Hill in Lvov, Ukraine the other day. Unidentified vandals – no attempts are now made in Ukraine to identify and bring them to account – have stolen metal letters and numbers from the tombstone of Soviet intelligence agent, Hero of the Soviet Union Nikolai Kuznetsov.

We view this as the logical consequence of the government-approved policy of falsifying the history of the country and distorting it in the interests of fascist henchmen and their ideological followers who, unfortunately, carry considerable weight in modern Ukraine.

What reason do we have to say so? The reason is that we do not see the Ukrainian authorities indicating their attitude to such unacceptable acts, and we do not see any result of investigation into this crime. The so-called national activists clearly cannot resign themselves to the fact that during WWII Ukrainians selflessly fought against Nazism side by side with other Soviet people and people from the anti-Hitler countries, while the supporters of such personalities as Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevich either sat on the fence or terrorised civilians and helped Nazis during punitive operations.

We are convinced that the Ukrainian authorities’ attempts to destroy the historical memory of their own people are doomed to failure.

I would like to say again that this does not relieve the Lvov authorities and law enforcement agencies of responsibility to investigate this act of vandalism and to bring the guilty parties to account.

This is why we are closely monitoring the situation and make statements that are related to the history of WWII, which some people have been trying to rewrite.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

The US Senate approved a bill that would oblige the US President to obtain permission to cooperate with Russia in the sphere of cybersecurity. What do you think about it? How will it affect Russia-US relations?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot comment on this bill in detail. I can ask our experts about it and prepare a detailed commentary on this matter in the near future.

There are trends in Russia-US relations. They are there for everyone to see, I mentioned them today, and, unfortunately, they are disappointing. But when it comes to a specific document, I stick to the principle that requires me to take into account the opinions of experts. I think we will give a detailed commentary on this matter in the near future.



Question:

Russia and the opposition group Faylaq Ar-Rahman signed an agreement to impose a cease-fire beginning August 18. Is it still in force, or was it invalidated by the recent opposition strikes?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not have such information. It should be clarified with our Defence Ministry’s military experts.



Question:

The other day, the US State Department issued a statement that US State Department Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker met with Russian officials in Lithuania, whereas in fact their meeting took place in Minsk. Could you please clarify that? My second question concerns the incident in San Francisco with a nine-year-old boy. Can you provide more details on what happened?



Maria Zakharova:

With regard to your second question, we are receiving information from the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco. Currently, Russian diplomats are establishing the details of the incident. They sent requests to the US State Department and the Los Angeles Police Department regarding the whereabouts of the child, as well as his confinement conditions. The circumstances of this tragedy are being investigated.

The diplomats are also trying to find out the details about his murdered parents. The Consulate General is now looking for his relatives. Requests have been sent to the Interior Ministry at the place of official residence of his parents, Konstantin Morozov and Natalya Sergeyeva, in order to find the boy’s next of kin.

According to the Consulate General (they made this information public), the boy’s parents had both Russian and US citizenship, which is why the US authorities failed to notify the Russian mission about this tragic incident. Without any doubt, Russian diplomats and our foreign ministry are monitoring the situation, and will provide the boy with all the necessary consular assistance. Once again, practical steps to this end have already been taken.

With regard to the meeting between Russian Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov and US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, it was, of course, held in Minsk. We have noticed a strange pattern: our American colleagues constantly run into topographic issues when it comes to Belarus. What really amazes me is that the State Department press service, for example, knows that Russia supplies the Taliban with weapons, but cannot provide evidence, but isn’t aware of where their special representative Volker goes to meet with Mr Surkov. Amazing!



Question:

Could you please comment on Russia-US relations, in particular, relations between the Department of State and the Foreign Ministry in connection with the reduction in the number of US diplomats and difficulties in the issue of US visas? Will this confrontation be aggravated by new measures?



Maria Zakharova:

The Foreign Ministry website has released so many comments and statements on this score that repeating them would take a long time.

As for counter measures in response to more complicated visa procedures, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov clearly replied to this question during the news conference – the text and video are on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

We react to this decision with confusion and regret. After many extremely tough and unjustified (I’m referring to the absence of facts) sanctions, including the expropriation of Russian property in violation of all norms of international law, after all the votes of US legislators, the Russian side merely imposed restrictions on the use of diplomatic property in Russia and asked the US to reduce the total number of employees of US foreign offices in Russia to the number of our diplomats and technical personnel in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Houston. In response we got yet another strange reaction that has been commented on by Russian representatives actively and in detail.

As we see it, the main reason for this decision is not technical complications faced by the well-equipped US consular service with its vast resources but political considerations. Probably, this is also linked with how professionally material and human resources are used. We have mentioned this as well. The Foreign Ministry website exemplified how the embassies and consular offices of other Western countries that are popular with Russian citizens issue several times more visas while having a lot fewer employees for their procession.

Judging by everything, one of the goals of our US colleagues is to make Russian citizens unhappy about Moscow’s actions and Russia’s foreign policy.

However, our American colleagues would only be able to exploit this subject if journalists, including you as a media representative, had no access to credible information on this score. You are well aware of what is going on and receive information from different sources. You may compare and calculate the number of technical personnel that worked in Moscow. You may also look at the number of joint events they recently held in Russia – it was shrinking to zero. This suggests the question of what these people are doing here.

I would like to recall that visa procedures were made substantially more difficult several months ago not only for Russians but also for citizens of other countries. The time period for a visa application and its review were also increased out of all proportion, ostensibly due to internal difficulties. The hastily invented story that this was a result of Russia’s actions is totally unfounded. Apparently, this is an attempt to quickly compile facts and explain invented difficulties. As to why they were invented, we expressed our view on this and gave our assessment of these actions.

As for some future actions on Washington’s behalf, they are completely unpredictable because its logic is difficult to understand. We called for cooperation all the time but got a new round of aggravation in bilateral relations in response. Even in the most complicated times when Washington made decisions aimed squarely at Russia, we kept saying that it is better to cooperate and discuss problems rather than create new or multiply old ones. Our permanent position is and will be invariable. This is what we proceed from: We will never take it out on US citizens, by deliberately creating unbearable conditions for receiving Russian visas and taking revenge on God knows whom and for what. This is not our way. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this outright. We stand for interaction and cooperation, realising that the main recipients of the results of this cooperation are people who live on the other side of the ocean. Creating deliberate difficulties for them because of some political ambitions is simply not our way. This is true. Russian foreign consulates will continue working normally, fulfilling all of their functions.

I would like to repeat that we received a huge number of questions on this subject from our compatriots – US citizens who live in the US or stay elsewhere. Will they be affected by counter measures? I will say it again. This is not our way. This is not Moscow’s way.



Question:

The media learned that Ukraine plans to introduce certain quasi-visa regulations for Russian citizens. In particular, entry to Ukraine will be possible only with biometric passports, and the Ukrainian foreign ministry will need to know about the visit one month in advance. If this goes through, what kind of response should be expected from Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

Let's wait and see if Kiev actually goes ahead with such a decision. We’ve heard many statements about this. They kept changing, and even the position of their Foreign Ministry changed. I remember the Ukrainian foreign minister saying that visa regulations are irrelevant, and introducing them is not necessary, and will only hurt Ukraine. Then, apparently, due to some political developments and certain political processes in that country, they started saying different things in favour of developing some kind of visa or hybrid regulations.

We believe that if a decision is effectively taken, we will consider it and watch the reaction. Speculating on such things is simply out of place, because the political climate in Ukraine is changing, and the weather is unstable. Let's wait and see what actually happens with these decisions.



Question:

Yesterday, the Russian Government signed a resolution, On Creating The Kuril Islands Advanced Socioeconomic Development Area (Sakhalin Region). How might this affect the talks between the foreign ministries of Russia and Japan on conducting joint economic activities on the Kuril Islands? Does this mean that Russia plans to carry out economic activities on the Kuril Islands under the Russian law?



Maria Zakharova:

Since you mentioned an act of Russian legislation, we see it precisely this way. Seeing it differently would be difficult. Regional partnership and regional development, including the activities related to developing economic contacts and humanitarian ties, is one of the priorities pursued by the Foreign Ministry. I can answer a specific and more precise question. In general terms, I can say that everything that is designed to develop the regions (this applies to cross-border cooperation as well) has always been a priority for our Foreign Ministry.



Question:

You have already noted that the intensity of bellicose rhetoric has decreased in the Northeast Asia region. Do you believe it is possible to resolve this conflict through talks and a dialogue between the United States and the DPRK, or is this solution still not likely at the moment?



Maria Zakharova:

With regard to resolving the situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula by way of talks between the United States and the DPRK, we not only do not rule them out, but rather we welcome them as a viable option and a possibility for resolving this issue in a peaceful manner. We are saying that military exercises and missile launches should be replaced by talks and dialogue, as well as establishing direct and indirect contacts in any format that the parties can agree on.

We have always been in favour of stepping up the six-party process as a model in which the interests of various parties are expected to be safeguarded. The main thing is to achieve the main goal, which is the peaceful resolution of this situation.

From us, you can hear only calls to establish a dialogue and re-invigorate the political process. The forms can vary. If this requires mediation efforts on the part of Russia, we are willing to do so. We did our best to step up the political process. Every complication and aggravation of the situation made us issue a specific statement clarifying that this is a dead-end path. We do so on an almost daily basis.



Question:

The United States has again expanded its unilateral sanctions on the DPRK. The updated sanctions lists include Russian citizens. Your comment?



Maria Zakharova:

We have commented on this in detail. You are aware of our position. It boils down to the fact that we not only recognise, but also actively participate in drafting sanctions, when necessary, as part of the UN Security Council’s activities. We comply with the sanctions adopted and approved by the UN Security Council in respect of, among others, North Korea.

We believe that unilateral sanctions are outside the legal framework. All this does no good, and also causes even more damage to the already aggravated situation in that region.

Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations Vassily Nebenzia commented on unilateral expansion of the sanctions. We are extremely concerned by the fact that by including Russian citizens on an expanded sanctions list and mentioning Russian companies, the party doing so is directly hurting Russian business, companies and entrepreneurs who strictly abide by Russian law. Russia fully complies with its international obligations.



Question:

Turkish Minister of Economy Nihat Zeybekci said last Friday that Turkey plans to sign a customs agreement with the EAEU. Is Russia interested in Turkey signing a customs agreement with the EAEU? Does it support this initiative? Does Moscow expect that this initiative will be supported by other EAEU countries?



Maria Zakharova:

As you rightly noted, this matter concerns not only Russia, but other participants in this format as well. It requires corresponding solutions. I can check with our experts and provide you with detailed information about our response to such statements.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2844695
__________________
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, 2017 #215
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Senior Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Kingdom of Cambodia Prak Sokhon, Moscow, August 24, 2017



24 August 2017 - 16:57





Question:

During their recent contacts Moscow and Ankara agreed to step up efforts on accommodating views on the fourth de-escalation zone in the Syrian province of Idlib. Is this realistic in the context of Jabhat al-Nusra’s continued control of this province? Do recent tensions in US-Russian relations affect coordination of efforts in this area, including the equally important humanitarian efforts in Syria, all the more so as the UN has again expressed concern over the high civilian death toll as a result of air attacks on Raqqa?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, we hope that the current intensive consultations between the participants in the Astana format will allow them to conclude agreements on the fourth de-escalation zone in Idlib following the zones in south-western Syria, Eastern Guta and Homs. The gist of the de-escalation zones initiative was to create, as soon as possible, stable conditions for an end to bloodshed, and the beginning of dialogue between the Syrian Government and local authorities cooperating with various armed groups. It is absolutely clear that such truces cannot apply to terrorists from ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups blacklisted by the UN Security Council. One of the most complicated tasks at negotiations on de-escalation zones was to separate the normal armed opposition from terrorists, including Jabhat al-Nusra – something the Obama administration promised to do but failed. Now these opportunities are being used fairly efficiently. The armed units that signed agreements on three operating de-escalation zones have assumed commitments to separate from Jabhat al-Nusra, which remains an absolutely legitimate target for air strikes along with ISIS.

As for Moscow-Washington relations and their impact on work in Syria, we are pragmatists and understand that there is no room for grievances or a misplaced sense of prestige. This is a threat to all of us, not only the future for the peoples of this region - Syria and other states. Terrorists are already operating in Europe, overseas and in South-Eastern and Central Asia. So we have common tasks in this respect and realise the responsibility of the work that is now being done.

As far as I heard from US officials, including US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert, their approach is the same. Ms Nauert even expressed the desire to expand a sphere of cooperation the other day. We are ready for this and are talking about this all the time. It wasn’t us who started this absolutely useless struggle in the world arena and set this incomprehensible sanctions spiral in motion. We hope that cooler heads and common sense will finally prevail.

By the way, you also mentioned humanitarian cooperation. Delivery of humanitarian relief has substantially improved after the formation of these de-escalation zones, including its supply inside these zones. At first we had to whip up our colleagues from international organisations who were a bit slow. We reminded them that when the developments in Aleppo and other parts of Syria were very alarming, they were permanently demanding that armed actions must be stopped for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Now that armed actions have stopped, humanitarian agencies are not very active in transporting their cargo to the de-escalation zones. I hope now this will improve. At any rate UN statistics on this account are very positive and the trend is good.



Question:

Washington is accusing Moscow of supplying weapons to the Taliban. Moscow has convincingly rejected this more than once. Why was this issue raised again?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is not the first time we are accused of supporting and even arming the Taliban. Recently, the Department of State made this accusation. At a news conference in the Department of States journalists asked the official spokesperson to present facts but not a single fact was presented just like there was not a single fact to confirm our interference in the US election, breaking into sites, or government-supported hackers. It is sad that a campaign based on falsehoods is generating so much heat in a serious country like the United States. Let me repeat that the people driving it have nothing to be proud of.

Speaking about the Taliban, and Afghanistan and the United States in general, our Foreign Ministry expressed regret in its comment that the new strategy announced by Washington is focused on achieving a settlement by force. We are convinced that this strategy has no prospects. In parallel, we noted that this strategy reflects the White House’s fairly interesting position on relations with the Taliban.

Let me recall that up to now we have cited two reasons for our contacts with the Taliban: first, the need to resolve practical issues on which security of our citizens and offices in Afghanistan depends, and, second, a striving to encourage the Taliban to dialogue with the Government and official authorities of Afghanistan on the basis of the criteria (this is important) established by the UN Security Council. The latter ruled that if the Taliban complies with three requirements – break ties with terrorists, end the armed struggle and respect the Constitution of Afghanistan – they will have the right to sit at the negotiating table. We are maintaining contacts with the Taliban exclusively on these terms, pushing them to comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council.

If I understood the new US strategy correctly, they allow contacts with the Taliban without the Taliban’s complying with any terms whatsoever. I don’t think this meets our common interest in following a coordinated line that is endorsed by the UN Security Council but hope we will provide insight into this apparent contradiction during our contacts with US experts on Afghanistan.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2844941






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question on Russia’s alleged involvement in the forest fires in Georgia



25 August 2017 - 18:40





Question:

What could you say about the allegations of some politicians and media sources in Georgia who say that Russia has something to do with the forest fires in Georgia?



Maria Zakharova:

There is lot of pressure on Russian EMERCOM rescuers all over the region this season (recently they fought a major forest fire in Armenia, and are now fighting steppe fires in the Volgograd Region). However, we immediately responded to the request of Tbilisi to help them fight fires in Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. In order to do this, we allocated an EMERCOM Il-76 plane.

But some time later the Georgian side thanked us and informed us that the fire was contained, and they did not need our help.

We sincerely hope that our neighbours are able to extinguish fires as soon as possible. And we believe it is not necessary to comment on unhealthy fantasies of those who look at natural disasters in their own country as just another opportunity to spread anti-Russian rhetoric.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2845903






Press release on the Foreign Ministry’s demarche to Moldovan Ambassador to Russia Andrei Neguta



25 August 2017 - 19:06



On August 25, Moldovan Ambassador to Russia Andrei Neguta was invited to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov drew the ambassador’s attention to Chisinau’s provocative initiative to include in the agenda of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly an additional item, Complete Withdrawal of Foreign Armed Forces from the Territory of Moldova.

The Russian side stressed that Moscow considers this step, which ignores the real root causes and realities of the presence of a limited Russian military contingent on the Dniester River, as yet another episode in the series of unfriendly actions recently taken in Chisinau by opponents of positive changes in Russian-Moldovan relations. The initiators of these actions, which do not meet the aspirations of a significant part of Moldovan citizens, should be aware of their inevitable negative influence both on bilateral cooperation and on the Transnistrian settlement process.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2845925
__________________
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 31st, 2017 #216
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 compliance with transparency measures during preparation for West 2017 drills



25 August 2017 - 20:28



The commotion in the Western press regarding the Russian-Belarusian military drills, West 2017, does not get weaker. The media go on reporting on the aggressive nature of the drills. Further references have been made that the number of troops and military vehicles involved in the drills has been intentionally lowered, and that transparency measures are not being duly complied with.

The joint strategic drills of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, West 2017, are of exceptionally defensive nature.

The total number of troops and vehicles does not exceed a level which is subject to obligatory supervision over specific types of military activity defined by a document signed in Vienna in 2011. Up to 12,700 soldiers (7,200- from the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus, 5,500 – from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, with around 3,000 of them in the Republic of Belarus), around 70 jets and helicopters, up to 680 machinery units, including approximately 260 tanks, about 200 cannons, multiple rocket launch systems and grenade launchers and up to 10 ships are planned to be involved in the drills. This is far from the numbers which are thrown in by the media regarding the upcoming drills.

We would like to highlight that despite the real number of forces and means involved, the Republic of Belarus has proactively sent invitations to take part in monitoring of the active phase to representatives of international organisations (UN, OSCE, NATO, CIS, CSTO, ICRC), and military-diplomatic corps of foreign countries accredited in the Republic of Belarus and military supervisors from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Sweden and Norway. A corresponding briefing was held at the OSCE Forum. We salute the steps taken by Belarus.

On July 13, 2017, Russian military experts held a similar briefing at NATO’s headquarters. They thoroughly described the tasks that will be accomplished during the drills, the training fields where forces will be deployed and provided information about the manpower and tools that will be involved, including troops and the main armaments and machinery to be utilised.

Additionally, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, jointly with its Belarusian counterparts, plans to hold another briefing regarding this issue by the end of August for representatives of a military-diplomatic corps of foreign countries accredited in the Russian Federation.

The hype around the event is artificial and it has been designed to demonstrate to western society the “justification” of costly measures to deploy an enhanced forward presence and increase NATO’s military activity in Poland and the Baltic countries. We would like to emphasise that these specific actions by the West lead to the rising of military tensions in Europe, and exactly that which the Western brotherhood of “pen and microphones” demonstratively bemoan.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2845944
__________________
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 31st, 2017 #217
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova to a media question on US sectoral sanctions against Venezuela



28 August 2017 - 16:29





Question:

What can you say about Washington introducing sectoral sanctions against Venezuela?



Maria Zakharova:

We are strongly against unilateral sanctions against sovereign states. The recently announced measures of financial pressure on Venezuela and President Maduro were introduced by Washington when that country started showing signs of relative domestic stabilisation following elections to the National Constituent Assembly: street protests went down somewhat, and a schedule for upcoming elections was outlined, including gubernatorial and presidential elections. Steps were taken to establish cooperation with the National Assembly, which is in opposition to the Government, but, unfortunately, they were rejected by its radical leadership.

In these circumstances, the announced sectoral sanctions against Venezuela's financial and oil sectors are clearly aimed at further unbalancing the situation in the country, and exacerbating its economic problems. They embolden the irreconcilables who do not see how they can realise their political potential without removing the Venezuelan leaders from office.

The actions of the people behind the sanctions are steeped in cynicism. As follows from US official statements, the administration is exploring options for further tightening its policy, including the potential use of force against Venezuela only "in case of deterioration of the situation" in this South American country. Hence, the question: what are the current US sanctions designed to achieve? Are they supposed to benefit the Venezuelan economy? Clearly, the very logic of sanctions implies further increasing tensions.

We have on many occasions mentioned the danger of the domestic political confrontation in Venezuela reaching a level where it will jeopardise the existence of the Venezuelan state. Provoking and encouraging from the outside the destabilisation of the domestic political situation cannot benefit ordinary Venezuelans, no matter what political views they may have. Exactly the opposite is needed: ​​facilitating a dialogue between all the country’s leading political forces, which would create conditions for redressing the economic situation. Political assistance from outside is of paramount importance for this issue to be resolved.

We are willing to contribute to a settlement in Venezuela inasmuch as it is required given the internal political dynamics in that country. We believe there is no alternative to peaceful responsible talks in the proper legal framework and without outside interference. Everything that goes beyond this framework is aimed at undermining the constitutional order in Venezuela and leading to new deprivations for its citizens.

We will carefully analyse the implications of the sanctions imposed by the United States, and their possible effect on the interests of Russia and Russian businesses. We can already say that they will not affect our willingness to expand and strengthen cooperation with the friendly nation of Venezuela and its people.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2846439






Press release on a meeting of the Coordinating Expert Council of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Preserving Russian Historical and Cultural Heritage in the United States



28 August 2017 - 18:42



On August 28, the Foreign Ministry hosted a working meeting of the Coordinating Expert Council of the Interdepartmental Working Group (IWG) on Preserving Russian Historical and Cultural Heritage in the United States.

The participants discussed the results of the IWG-sponsored events held in Russia and the United States pursuant to its decisions of May 25, including the successful launch of a Russian segment of the socio-political and business forum Fort Ross Dialogue in Pskov and Izborsk, the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the legendary transpolar flights from the Soviet Union to the United States by the crews led by Valery Chkalov and Mikhail Gromov, research expeditions sponsored by the Ryazan branch of the Russian Geographical Society to Hawaii and remote areas of Alaska, and a joint celebration of the 880th anniversary of the city of Totma in the Vologda Region and the 205th anniversary of Fort Ross.

The scholarly and journalistic materials published by the IWG members and invited experts in media outlets, including specialised and online publications, received high praise.

Preparations for forthcoming major thematic events were reviewed, including, primarily, the American round of Fort Ross Dialogue in San Francisco slated for October. The first full-scale conference of compatriots residing in Hawaii, which is to be held with the participation of the Russian Foreign Ministry and is dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the founding of Fort Elizabeth on the island of Kauai by Russian seafarers, will be an important bilateral public relations event.

Developing cooperation in the sphere of archives, including digitalisation projects and opening access to valuable documents on the history of Russian America and bilateral relations to researchers is a priority new track of Russian-American cultural ties. Plans are also in place to continue the earlier opened talks with the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America regarding the preservation of the Orthodox shrines created by Russian settlers in Alaska and other US states.

A representative of the Altai Territory Government spoke about the projects aimed at preserving the memory of outstanding Russians who were born in that region and spent their lives in North America.

Heads of a number of US public organisations and associations of compatriots who actively engage in promoting bilateral ties in the sphere of education and culture took part in the meeting.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2846584
__________________
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 31st, 2017 #218
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department on Estonian authorities’ refusal to accredit Rossiya Segodnya journalists



29 August 2017 - 10:41



We are genuinely perplexed by the decision of the Estonian presidency of the Council of the EU to refuse to Rossiya Segodnya journalists accreditation to cover the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Tallinn on September 7-8, without providing any explanation.

This flagrant discrimination against one of the largest news agencies shows once again what the Estonian authorities’ hypocritical statements about their respect for the freedom of speech and access to information are worth. Whether this decision is the initiative of the Estonian presidency or agreed with the EU headquarters in Brussels, the prohibitive measures imposed by Tallinn in any case undermine the authority of the European Union. We urge the relevant international bodies to pay close attention to this egregious case and take steps to prevent the infringement on the rights of Russian journalists.





The source of information -
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2846692






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov’s meeting with US Ambassador to Russia John Tefft



29 August 2017 - 14:35



On August 29, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov met with US Ambassador to Russia John Tefft at his request.

The US side offered an explanation in connection with President Donald Trump’s announcement of a new US strategy on Afghanistan and South Asia.

The Russian side outlined a number of issues that needed to be specified with regard to both the parameters and the modality of the US military presence in Afghanistan. It was noted that the new strategy was aimed at solving the Afghan problem by force and that it was consonant with the Obama administration’s “prescriptions”, which, as is common knowledge, had not led to any positive results. The Russian side focused on the lack of transparency in the US military actions, something that evoked justified concern in Russia and other regional partners. It was stressed that Moscow did not share Washington’s selective pressure policy directed at certain states in the region, and is calling for equitable interaction and coordination of approaches to the Afghan settlement with regard for the interests of all states in the region without exception. The strategy’s obvious shortcomings are that it does not pose the objective to fight the Afghan drug threat and lacks a comprehensive approach to counteracting the expansion of ISIS influence in Afghanistan.

During their conversation, the officials discussed potential Russian-US bilateral and multilateral interaction in Afghanistan.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2846845






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan on the results of his visit to the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi, August 29, 2017



29 August 2017 - 15:41





Question:

What do you expect from the countries of the region, primarily, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with regard to the efforts to unite the Syrian opposition in light of new rounds of talks in Astana and Geneva?



Sergey Lavrov:

Primarily, we expect UNSC Resolution 2254 to be fully implemented. It outlines a concrete road map for the political settlement of this crisis with a concurrent uncompromising fight against all the terrorists who are holed up in Syria or came there from other countries. No doubt, for this resolution to be implemented - we started a political process which it encompasses (including the development of a new constitution and holding elections based on it) - it is important for the opposition to act realistically, and to withhold from ultimatums which do not agree with the rules approved by the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council resolved that the Syrians themselves should decide the future of their country without any preconditions. The Syrian Government and the opposition must sit down at the negotiating table and start discussing their future in their own country.

As I mentioned earlier, until recently, unfortunately, there were signs of ultimatums in certain opposition groups’ approaches. We drew everyone’s attention to that. When Saudi Arabia advanced an initiative to merge the High Negotiations Committee, which was created at a meeting in Riyadh, with the Cairo and Moscow opposition groups, we fully supported it. I believe this is an unavoidable move which will facilitate the beginning of truly substantive and meaningful talks on the future of Syria. We did not just support it, but acted promptly to make this meeting happen. It’s okay that we haven’t achieved a breakthrough yet. It’s the first step that counts. Most importantly, this process has begun, and its participants - the Riyadh, Cairo, and Moscow groups - agreed to continue these efforts. We will help our Saudi colleagues in every way to move forward in this direction.

Let's not forget that in addition to the political opposition, there is also one which, up until recently, has been fighting the regime with weapons. Now, this process has been replaced with the creation of de-escalation zones. Three of them have been created, and the fourth in the vicinity of Idlib is being discussed. In this context, a dialogue is being established between the Government and the opposition groups which signed a ceasefire agreement in the context of creating de-escalation zones. I believe this is a healthy process that makes it possible to involve in the talks not only the political opposition represented abroad, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the armed people who were recently fighting the Government, but have now agreed to a truce and a ceasefire, and are beginning to discuss ways to build peaceful life. This is probably the most important thing that is now happening in Syria.



Question:

The current pace of national reconciliation in Syria reflects the desire of the armed formations to be in direct contact with representatives of the Syrian Government. Do you think that following the failure to unite the external opposition, it is necessary to create new platforms within the country which will directly safeguard the interests of all opposition groups on the ground?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have, in fact, already answered your question, I have nothing to add to what I said. I don’t agree that the efforts to unite the external opposition failed. I have already mentioned that the first meeting was effectively held, and we are in favour of continuing such efforts. Up until recently, the disagreement was too strong for us to hope to be able to resolve these differences in one sitting. We will strongly encourage every effort to this end with the participation of all external opposition groups.

To reiterate, we attach particular importance to the process, started in Astana, of coordinating the de-escalation and reconciliation zones and the ceasefire between the government army and the armed opposition. I believe that here we stand the greatest chance of improving the situation on the ground.



Question:

What can you say about the latest missile launch by North Korea? Do you think it is ratcheting up tensions on the Korean Peninsula?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to North Korea and its tests, we are committed to all the UN Security Council resolutions, and we insist that our North Korean neighbours observe them in full. We are guided by this consideration in our discussions at the UN Security Council, and we will be guided by it during a planned meeting to discuss the most recent missile test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2846895
__________________
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 31st, 2017 #219
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani following his visit to Qatar, Doha, August 30, 2017



30 August 2017 - 13:53





Question:

As you have said, many envoys are visiting the region. How does the role of Russia’s envoys differ from the others who are attempting to resolve the crisis in the Persian Gulf? We have heard reports of the ideas you are bringing to the leaders of the Persian Gulf countries and countries involved in the conflict. What are these ideas? What was the reaction in Kuwait and the UAE when you discussed the situation with Qatar?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding Russia’s role, we are not acting as mediators, as I said. Kuwait is playing the role of a mediator. We believe that this issue should be resolved through the efforts of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). We know that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has proposed mediation services. We will welcome it if these proposals produce results and these efforts meet with success. But for our part, we have not proposed anything that differs from what Kuwait and the United States are proposing. We do not think this necessary. There are sufficient proposals that provide a perfectly adequate base for beginning dialogue. We will continue our policy of contacts with all countries in the region.



Question:

Why did you not go to Saudi Arabia this time?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will visit Saudi Arabia and Jordan in early September.



Question:

A few days ago, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu said that Iran is allegedly preparing sites in Syria and Lebanon to produce precision-guided missiles that could be used against Israel. Are you aware of any such plans on Iran’s part? Could you comment on this situation? Was this matter mentioned during Mr Netanyahu’s visit to Sochi?



Sergey Lavrov:

Mr Netanyahu told the media himself about what was discussed at the talks in Sochi.

As for your question regarding whatever area of cooperation between Iran and Syria, my position is that if their cooperation in whichever field does not violate the basic provisions of international law, it should not be cause for question.

If anyone in the Middle East or other part of the world plans to violate international law by undermining any other country’s sovereignty or territorial integrity, including any country in the Middle East or North Africa, this would be condemned.

We have no information that anyone is planning to attack Israel.



Question:

With roughly a month to go before the elections in Germany, head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Hans-Georg Maassen, who is effectively head of German counterintelligence, made new statements about possible Russian interference. In the US case, you usually explained these sorts of statements as attempts to justify the Democrats’ failure in the elections, but how would you comment on the German allegations? What do they gain from this when Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel has such a popularity margin with a month to go before the elections?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not know why German intelligence is making statements about Russian meddling in the German election campaign. Perhaps they want to prove their effectiveness, but they have not provided a single fact. If it is facts we are talking about, it emerged some time ago that the American intelligence services were intercepting the Federal Chancellor’s conversations. I do not recall German counterintelligence commenting on this established fact in any way. That is all.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2847510






Comment by the Information and Press Department on observing the “back to school” ceasefire in Ukraine



30 August 2017 - 14:05



The Minsk Contact Group decided to declare the so-called “back to school” ceasefire in southeastern Ukraine from August 25, 2017, in connection with the beginning of a new academic year. The leaders of the Normandy Four countries supported this decision in their joint statement.

We regret to note that the ceasefire continues to be violated, and that Ukrainian security forces are staging provocative attacks along the demarcation line.

We expect that all necessary efforts will soon be made to persuade the parties to exercise restraint in line with available negotiating formats and mechanisms, including the Contact Group, the Normandy Four, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine and the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination.

We urge Kiev to see that the ceasefire is strictly maintained to end the provocations along the demarcation line and to consistently fulfil the obligations it assumed within the Contact Group, on observing the “back to school” ceasefire. We cannot allow the process for a political resolution to the Ukrainian crisis to be jeopardised as a result of irresponsible actions, and we cannot miss this chance for a political settlement.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2847556






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s participation in meetings on nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful use of atomic energy



30 August 2017 - 16:28



Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov spoke at the Pugwash Conference held in Astana on August 29 and took part in a panel discussion on implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to resolve the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme. In his remarks, Mr Ryabkov noted the progress made in implementation of the corresponding agreements. The related issues are being addressed by the joint commission of representatives of the six world powers and Iran, and are technical in nature.

At the same time, he expressed concern over the prospects for continued sustainable implementation of the agreements considering the increased attempts by the United States to exert pressure on Iran, including through unilateral sanctions, which can only be viewed as a violation of the spirit and letter of the JCPOA.

On the same day, Sergey Ryabkov took part in a series of events dedicated to opening the IAEA Low Enriched Uranium Bank in Kazakhstan. In his conversations with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, senior executives Sam Nunn and Ernest Moniz from the influential US-based Nuclear Threat Initiative non-profit organisation, head of the Eurasia Foundation Cliff Kupchan, Principal Adviser and Special Envoy of the European External Action Service on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Jacek Bylica, the Russian representative noted the importance of this event, which makes a practical contribution to strengthening the non-proliferation regime, as well as ensuring guaranteed access of the NPT participating states to peaceful benefits of atomic power.

Russia devotes significant attention to activities in this area. In conjunction with Kazakhstan, we created the International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) in Angarsk. A security reserve of low-enriched uranium was created at the IUEC several years ago, which, at the request of the IAEA Director General, can provide enough material to produce fuel for two energy nuclear reactor loads.

Russia will continue to cooperate with its foreign partners in this area.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2848844






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Ukraine’s latest provocation against Russian journalists



30 August 2017 - 18:44



The abduction of First Channel reporter Anna Kurbatova in Kiev on August 30 and her coercive deportation to Russia is obviously not an isolated incident but a deliberate provocation initiated by Ukraine’s law enforcers and national radicals. Shortly before this happened, her personal data were published on the notorious Mirotvorets website run by Ukraine’s Ministry of the Interior.

The Russian Embassy in Kiev took all necessary measures to clear up this case and defend Kurbatova’s rights and interests. It sent official notes and messages to Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry and law enforcement bodies and requested relevant information from the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow.

We draw the attention of international human rights organisations and other agencies called on to uphold the freedom and independence of the media to the outrage in Ukraine. We hope they will respond adequately and take practical steps to counter the thuggish actions of the Kiev authorities.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2848963
__________________
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 4th, 2017 #220
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Newly-appointed Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov in an interview with Kommersant newspaper



31 August 2017 - 10:36





Question:

What do you feel as you depart for Washington? Are you concerned about the close attention given by the US establishment and media to your predecessor, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, who was referred to as “the toxic ambassador”?



Anatoly Antonov:

I am going to Washington to work. The main mission for any ambassador is to uphold and protect the interests of his country. The ambassador must be ready to do this under any circumstances and regardless of the situation in the interstate dialogue with the host country.

Unfortunately, Russia-US relations have seriously deteriorated over the past few years because of the actions taken by the previous US administration, which was set to undermine the foundations of Russian-US cooperation that took a very long time to create. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said repeatedly, this was not our choice. We have always wanted to maintain constructive interaction with Washington on all issues on the bilateral and international agendas.

Moscow appreciated US President Donald Trump’s resolve to improve Russia-US relations, which he outlined back during his election campaign. However, the atmosphere, not to mention the quality of bilateral relations can only improve if joint work is based on the fundamental principles of equality, real respect for the partner’s interests and non-interference in the partner’s internal affairs, without any attempts to blackmail or force one’s will on the partner.



Question:

Why, contrary to what many people expected, nothing has come out of attempts to start a dialogue with the new US administration?



Anatoly Antonov:

It is no secret that the dialogue with the current US administration is hard-going. On the one hand, this is the effect of the difficult legacy left behind by Barack Obama’s team. On the other, there are persistent attempts by certain forces in the Washington establishment to play the Russian card in domestic political infighting, including by endlessly feeding the insinuations about our supposed “interference” in last year’s US elections and other slanderous charges.

Of course, this stands in the way of interaction and creates a far from simple background for Russian diplomatic operations in the US. We cannot call normal a situation, where the media present the usual, routine contacts maintained by the embassy heads and staff as spying, our diplomats are expelled en masse from the country without being given any official reasons, and Russian diplomatic facilities are expropriated in violation of international law.

The recent US law designed to boost the sanctions pressure on Russia is also a reflection of the “overheated” political situation in the United States and the hyperactivity of the Russophobic lobby. This is a serious blow to bilateral relations and chances for productive cooperation.

For our part, we have repeatedly stated that we do not yield to emotions; we display restraint, despite all the difficulties, and remain open to looking for points of contact and moving forward with a degree of intensity acceptable for the US administration.

On July 28, the Americans were advised of the need to bring, by September 1, the number of their diplomatic staff in Russia, including the locally hired Russian employees, in full conformity with the number of Russian diplomats and technical staff on long-term missions in the US. This means that they will have to cut their staff, whose number exceeds 1,200, to 455 persons. We have also reciprocated by suspending, as of August 1, the US Moscow Embassy’s use of its Serebryany Bor dacha and a warehouse in Dorozhnaya Street.

The US decision of August 21 to impose restrictions on the issue of non-immigration visas is regrettable and puzzling. On the same day, this step was clearly and succinctly assessed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who said that the main reason for this decision was not the technical problems confronting the highly professional and well-equipped US consular service but clearly considerations of political nature.

It is high time to stop; anti-Russian actions cannot be multiplied ad infinitum. For the Russian missions abroad, it will be business as usual and they will perform their functions in full.

We hope that common sense and the understanding that all attempts to pressurise our country are futile will gain the upper hand in Washington. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Russia and the United States possess the biggest nuclear potentials and have particular responsibility for global stability and security. The world is calmer and safer when we act together on the international arena.

Bilateral cooperation on the most pressing international issues is still of much importance, including cooperation in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and the cyber threat. On the whole, our two countries would equally benefit by creating more interactive cooperation that would ensure predictability, rule out unpleasant surprises, minimise opportunistic behaviour, and make it possible to ward off tensions in good time.

As for the Russian Embassy in Washington and all other Russian diplomatic missions in the United States, it ill becomes diplomats to take fright at or fear anything, no matter what our working conditions are. We will consistently work to implement Russia’s foreign policy and the guidelines of its leadership.



Question:

You have the reputation of a tough negotiator who firmly upholds national interests. As far as we know, you were approved for the post of ambassador to the United States back when everyone in Russia and the United States believed that Hillary Clinton would replace Barack Obama as US president. Does the fact that Moscow has not revised this decision when Donald Trump won the presidential election mean that Russia needs an ambassador like you in any case?



Anatoly Antonov:

Under Russian law, the appointment and withdrawal of ambassadors is a presidential prerogative. The procedure is clear: the foreign minister submits his proposals, the concerned committees of the Federal Assembly hold consultations, and the application is made to the host country. In my case, all these formalities took place after the US presidential election.

I will work steadily, professionally and openly to stabilise and subsequently improve Russian-US relations jointly with my colleagues in Moscow and Washington. Our relations must be equal, pragmatic and mutually beneficial and based on mutual respect. I will do my best to convince the Americans that we are not enemies and that we must become partners working in the interests of Russia and the United States.



Question:

Can Russian-US relations improve if US sanctions against Russia are not lifted?



Anatoly Antonov:

The Russian leadership has commented on this issue more than once. First of all, unilateral restrictions violate international law and are a double-edged sword. These restrictions are affecting us in some areas, but not more than they are affecting US exports, which Donald Trump has pledged to stimulate in order to create new jobs.

Russian-US trade has decreased by almost one-third, from $29 billion in 2014 to $20 billion in 2016, due to an unfavourable market situation and the sanctions. But the biggest damage has been done to US exports rather than to Russian consumers. We have even benefitted from this situation by enhancing domestic production and boosting trade with other countries. The US companies that were ordered by the US authorities to curtail promising projects in Russia were hit the hardest, for example, ExxonMobil that has invested $10 billion in Arctic shelf oil projects.

The US business community sent the largest delegation to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2017: it included representatives from 140 companies.

Russia has never asked and will not ask for the sanctions against it to be lifted, although it is obvious that the sanctions are evidence of an unfriendly attitude to our country.

At any rate, Russia and the United States will only develop effective cooperation if pressure, blackmail and attempts to force one’s will on the other party are removed from their dialogue. The ball in this game is in Washington’s court.



Question:

The US media recently discussed US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s “three-point plan” to improve relations with Russia. What do you think about this plan?



Anatoly Antonov:

The media reported that the US Department of State had prepared or was working on this secret document in late June, before a meeting of the Russian and US presidents in Hamburg. It allegedly contains a request to Russia to avoid “aggressive actions” against US interests, to engage on issues that are of strategic interest to the United States, such as the civil war in Syria and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, and to work jointly towards mutual geopolitical goals in the sphere of strategic stability.

I don’t think I need to comment on or assess this information. Diplomats don’t work with leaks and speculation. They only work with official information that is provided orally at meetings and talks or in the form of documents. We have not received any information from Washington about the reported three-point plan to normalise relations with Russia.

By the way, back in March we sent a document to our American partners with our ideas on possible ways to improve the atmosphere in our relations in the context of preparations for our presidents’ meeting. That document focused on the areas where we have coinciding interests and where we could therefore achieve practical results very quickly. Apart from counterterrorism, Russia and the United States could also coordinate their efforts to fight other threats and challenges, such as illegal drug trafficking, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and cybercrime.

If there was a constructive approach on both sides, we could do a great deal for the settlement of regional crises, including the Palestinian-Israeli, Yemeni, Libyan, Afghan and Syrian crises. At the same time, we should remove the arbitrary and random elements that are complicating our interaction and get rid of the numerous irritants in our bilateral relations.

We discuss these questions with our American partners, but it is a fact that the new Washington team’s views on many international issues have not yet taken final shape. We also need to factor in the complicated internal political situation in the United States. Anyway, we will only be able to return our relations to a sustainable development trajectory if our dialogue is based on the principles of equality and real respect for each other’s interests.



Question:

Have your professional activities been affected by the fact that you are on the EU’s and Canada’s sanctions lists?



Anatoly Antonov:

This does not discomfit me in any way. I don’t need to make working visits to Ottawa or, say, Brussels in my new capacity. You may be interested to know that in my job as Deputy Defence Minister of Russia I was to explain our actions regarding developments in Ukraine, including the tragic crash of the Malaysia Airlines plane. The statements I made probably touched a nerve and provoked an inadequate reaction in the EU and Canada, which decided to impose sanctions against me. Do people in Brussels and Ottawa really believe that as a result I will get cold feet and stop upholding the foreign policy of my country? At the very least, this short-sighted decision only proves that the West has a poor understanding of Russian diplomats.



Question:

You are an expert on Russian-US relations with many years of experience. Can you explain why the numerous attempts taken to improve bilateral relations after the Cold War, usually by each new administration, have failed? Why do we get disappointed every time?



Anatoly Antonov:

Hundreds of dissertations have been written on this issue, and historians and experts will spend years debating the reasons for the ups and downs in Russian-US relations. One thing is certain: Russia has never invited confrontation.

When the Cold War ended 25 years ago, many people hoped that the end of the bipolar confrontation would open the door to a fundamentally new stage of mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and the United States. For our part, we worked energetically and consistently towards this, encouraging Washington to develop honest cooperation based on equality, real respect for each other’s priorities and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.

Naturally, our actions were not dictated purely by altruism; we believed that pragmatic cooperation would be in the interests of both nations and was also called for by the objective realities of the multipolar world. This world was just beginning to take shape 25 years ago, but it was clear even then that serious threats and challenges can only be overcome if the key players coordinate their approaches and act jointly.

Meanwhile, Washington pursued its interests quite aggressively, including with the use of military force, in complete disregard for the interests of other countries and also in violation of the fundamental principles of international law, which has resulted in numerous tragedies, in particular in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.

In relations with Russia, the United States routinely demonstrated its reluctance to accept us as an equal partner and to respect our opinions. Moreover, it viewed the strengthening of our positions on the international stage and our concept of a polycentric world as a serious challenge that could undermine the notorious theory of American exceptionalism. This generated tensions in Russian-US relations and resulted in crises and upsets.

The attempt to reset relations during the Obama administration in 2009 did not change the situation much, although there were some encouraging signs, such as the New START Treaty and progress towards settling Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.

Yet Washington never tired of using every available opportunity to penalise Russia, to make a show of taking us down a peg or two. It was with this aim in view that Washington adopted the Magnitsky Act sanctions in 2012, long before the Ukrainian crisis, hindered the operation of our companies and launched a world-wide hunt for Russian citizens, as in the case of Viktor Bout.

The White House went even further when it declared the policy of system-wide containment of Russia over Ukraine. In addition to suspending the majority of dialogue channels, including the working groups of the Bilateral Presidential Commission, the United States has applied economic sanctions and other methods of pressure, including military ones, against Russia. And lastly, Washington fuelled an anti-Russian hysteria during the presidential campaign last year in order to help its candidate. This not only delivered a blow to the mutual understanding between our nations, but also had an extremely negative effect on the system of international relations as a whole.



Question:

From your perspective, what is the United States for Russia: a desirable friend, a difficult partner, or a rival?



Anatoly Antonov:

Choosing any one of the suggested answers will look like pigeonholing, which is unacceptable in diplomacy. Clearly, Russia-US relations have issues, major ones at that, but there is also considerable potential for mutually beneficial cooperation in various spheres. We would like to unlock this potential and achieve results together with the United States, make progress in establishing a normal sustainable dialogue and finding collective responses to common threats and challenges. To be able to do so, it is imperative to conduct business based on fundamental principles of equality, real respect for interests and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.



Question:

The image of Russia in the United States is extremely negative. The Americans are convinced that the Russian special services interfered in their election process, and that Russia supports the “bloody Syrian dictator” Bashar al-Assad and wants to tear Donbass away from Ukraine. Do you believe it is possible to improve Russia's image in the United States given such a low starting point?



Anatoly Antonov:

Of course, we have to take into account that the Russophobic hysteria has been artificially fomented in the United States recently. The Americans are being told that Russia is the enemy and the source of all misfortunes; Russian hackers and spies are used to scare them, and all kinds of false stories about our country are spread.

This adversely affects bilateral interaction in various spheres. However, I’m positive that the absolute majority of people in the United States are immune to such crude propaganda and take with a grain of salt the attempts to impose stereotypes and fears about Russia that have nothing to do with reality.

Of course, acting within the scope of the embassy's authority, we will strive to deliver objective information about our country and its foreign policy. Russia-US cultural and humanitarian ties and non-government contacts are of great importance in this context, as they help strengthen mutual understanding and trust between our nations. This sphere is least susceptible to fluctuations in the political situation, and must definitely work to improve our relations.

Our common history is one thing that does bring our two nations together. For example, this year will mark a string of anniversaries, such as the 210th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between Russia and the United States in December, the 200th anniversary of the Russian squadron’s arrival in Hawaii, the 150th anniversary of the Alaska Treaty, and the 80th anniversary of the legendary Chkalov Moscow-Vancouver flight.

An interdepartmental working group on preserving Russian historical and cultural heritage in the United States was recently created at the Foreign Ministry, which, in addition to relevant ministries also included representatives of almost all organisations and institutions operating in this area. It has already sponsored the first round of the bilateral forum of socio-political and business circles Fort-Ross Dialogue (Pskov, Izborsk, May 28-30) and the celebrations dedicated to the anniversary of the transpolar flight by Valery Chkalov (Fort Vancouver, Washington, June 24).

A number of promising initiatives in various segments of the cultural and humanitarian sphere have been adopted by the group for further action. They include searching for and digitising archival materials on Russia’s participation in developing the North American continent, creating museum exhibitions dedicated to Russian America, and preserving ​​in the United States various cultural objects from personal collections of famous Russian and Soviet cultural figures, such as Nicholas Roerich, Vladimir Mayakovsky, and Sergey Rachmaninov, as well as prominent emigrants. Of course, these projects are being implemented in close cooperation with US stakeholders and our compatriots, who show great interest in our common heritage.



Question:

Does Russia have any specific ideas on how to normalise relations with the United States?



Anatoly Antonov:

In general, we are interested in normalising bilateral relations. Russia and the United States are powerful nations and permanent members of the UN Security Council. We also take into account the role of the United States in global trade, and its vast industrial capacity. Our people have much in common. We simply have to make the most of the advantages of constructive interaction in the interests of Russia, the United States, and international security.

No one will benefit from confrontation. Significant improvements in Russia-US relations can be achieved only through building the potential of bilateral cooperation.

Already today, we could think about establishing working cooperation between the Security Council of the Russian Federation and the National Security Council of the United States, including for purposes of considering issues related to combating terrorism, cyber threats, and strategic stability.

In addition to regular meetings between our respective foreign ministers Sergey Lavrov and Rex Tillerson, it would be useful to establish working contacts between Russian and US defence ministers, Army General Sergey Shoigu and James Mattis, respectively. It is time to resume joint meetings of the foreign ministers and defence ministers of Russia and the United States in the 2+2 format.

In the context of fighting international terrorism, the leaders of Russia’s FSB and Foreign Intelligence Service, and the FBI and the CIA of the United States hold much value. Strictly speaking, there are many such channels of interaction. The more we cooperate, the closer our countries become, and the stronger international security becomes. I’m convinced that all of that is in the interests of the Russian and American people. We cannot afford wasting time. It's time to look around and deal not with imaginary threats, but real security problems facing the two countries, the main of which is fighting international terrorism.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2850482
__________________
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 02:25 PM.
Page generated in 3.69643 seconds.