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

Old June 19th, 2018 #441
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 remarks at the Conference marking the 50th anniversary of the NPT being opened for signing, Moscow, June 14, 2018



14 June 2018 - 18:35




This conference is dedicated to a remarkable event of global importance, the 50th anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) being opened for signing, which we will all mark on July 1.

The importance of this Treaty to international peace and security cannot be overestimated. The NPT played a key role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, laid the foundation for consistent movement towards disarmament, primarily nuclear, and the development of broad international cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy. It can rightly be considered an example of the efficacy of multilateral diplomacy, and a standard for interaction between members of the international community in overcoming global international challenges.

To date, the NPT unites 191 states. The only countries outside the Treaty are India, Pakistan, Israel and the newly independent South Sudan. The DPRK, which failed to properly comply with the withdrawal requirement, is formally considered a party to this Treaty. All the countries that joined the NPT agreed voluntarily with all its provisions, including the assignment of the status of officially recognised nuclear states to five UN Security Council permanent members.

According to expert estimates, without the NPT, up to 50 countries could have theoretically acquired nuclear weapons by now. Even though it was not possible to completely preclude the emergence of new states with nuclear weapons capabilities, the Treaty significantly limited the political and economic opportunities for building or acquiring nuclear weapons.

The decision of the 1995 Review Conference on the indefinite extension of the Treaty made it possible to give the NPT a permanent character, to ensure that it operated in a predictable and sustainable way, to guard against the influence of fleeting political interests and to open up significant prospects for strengthening the Treaty.

Today, with the support of the NPT, the entire system of effective norms and mechanisms for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which together constitute an international regime for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, is functioning successfully. This regime is constantly evolving and adapting to new realities, maintaining its relevance and ability to respond adequately to modern challenges and threats in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation.

The fifty years of the NPT’s existence have convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of its balanced structure of commitments in three key areas: nuclear non-proliferation, peaceful use of atomic energy and disarmament. Practically all decisions within the NPT review process were based on this most important principle, including the 2010 Action Plan, and its preservation is the key to the successful functioning of the Treaty in the future.

Despite the undeniable success that the NPT has made possible, throughout the entire period of its existence, the Treaty has been subjected to major tests of its durability. Unfortunately, even as the NPT turns 50, difficulties remain. The international situation, which is characterised by growing strategic unpredictability, tension and conflict, mistrust among states, the renunciation of collective mechanisms of cooperation, and the erosion of the foundations of international law, negatively affects the state of the NPT.

Within the framework of the Treaty, we are witnessing deepening divides between nuclear and non-nuclear states, and growing disagreements within these groups of countries. The universally recognised norms and mechanisms in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation are being thwarted and revised. Some states place their fleeting interests above the tasks of strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. This approach, in particular, caused the inconclusive end of the 2015 Review Conference, when the United States, Britain and Canada irresponsibly blocked the adoption of its final document.

At the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 NPT Review Conference in Geneva new hazardous trends emerged which caused the situation within the NPT framework to heat up. Thus, attempts were made to use the review process as a platform to exert opportunistic political pressure on some states, including Russia. Topics based on imagined pretexts are raised within the NPT which have nothing to do with the Treaty. Among them are chemical weapons issues.

All that considerably aggravates the situation within the NTP, with differences over certain agenda persisting and even deepening. One such topic is nuclear disarmament. This agenda is given priority within the review process, in part under pressure from a group of states calling for immediate and unconditional abandonment of nuclear arsenals. We understand the noble motives of those countries. However, such initiatives are premature and have a disorienting effect. Nuclear arsenals are reduced not in a vacuum but in the modern world which is becoming increasingly turbulent and unpredictable. This is why we call for a sober and realistic approach to nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament is a much too serious, extremely complicated and exceptionally important process for emotions to be allowed in.

We proceed from the inviolability of Article VI of the NPT and its relation to corresponding parts of the Treaty’s preamble. The cessation of nuclear weapons production, destruction of all existing stocks and exclusion of nuclear weapons and their carriers from the national arsenals by definition can not be achieved without signing a Treaty on universal and complete disarmament under strict international monitoring. The movement towards nuclear disarmament must be balanced and incremental, with a firm reliance on improving international security and stability as well as the fundamental principle of continuously raising the level of equal and indivisible security for all. All nations without exception should be engaged in corresponding efforts, while those countries which already possess nuclear capabilities must be the first to engage.

As for Russia, our country maintains strict compliance with its nuclear disarmament obligations. In line with Article VI, the Russian Federation has made an unprecedented contribution to the progress towards a nuclear-free world by cutting its nuclear capacity by 85 percent over the last thirty years. We also cut the number of non-strategic nuclear weapons by 75 percent and moved them into the non-deployed category, relocating them to central storage facilities within the national territory.

To further the nuclear disarmament process it is necessary to focus the international community’s efforts on resolving urgent problems of international security and stability. One of them is the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty followed by unimpeded unilateral deployment of the US global missile defence systems, refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the development of high-precision offensive strategic weapons, and the possible deployment of offensive weapons in space, increasing quantitative and qualitative imbalances in conventional weapons. As the problems remain unresolved further, it will destroy trust between states and, in fact, nullify all disarmament efforts.

The CTBT plays an exceptionally important role in the efforts to limit and reduce nuclear weapons; it was designed as a reliable barrier to the proliferation and upgrading nuclear weapons. By rejecting the policy line for ratification and creating a domestic environment for the accelerated resumption of nuclear tests, the US is dealing a heavy blow to the treaty. Unfortunately, most countries shamefully hush up this problem today. Apart from a few perfunctory statements in support of the treaty, they pretend that the US's refusal to ratify the CTBT is not so catastrophic. The situation with the CTBT is actually much more serious. It needs to be analysed objectively and efforts should be made to determine an acceptable format for the country that is not going to ratify the treaty to be able to participate in the established organisations.

Another acute NPT issue is the process of establishing a Middle East WMD-free zone (WMDFZ). The Arab states are extremely concerned about the lack of progress on the 1995 Middle East Resolution. The situation is complicated by the fact that the United States, after making a review of its foreign policy, questions the possibility of continuing the WMDFZ-related work within the NPT, inventing a range of preconditions for further progress in this area, including things that have nothing to do with the Treaty or the Resolution. This policy, pursued by one of the co-authors of the 1995 Middle East Resolution, has caused an extremely negative reaction within the NPT. Three regional groups at the 2nd Preparatory Committee meeting in Geneva (the Arab group, Africa and NAM) harshly criticised Washington’s line on the WMDFZ.

This issue will obviously become one of the highlights at the 2020 Review Conference. If the participants fail to agree on further steps on this track, the consequences could be most serious. As a co-author of the 1995 Middle East Resolution, Russia is committed to the unconditional fulfillment of its obligations under that resolution and is ready to work with all interested parties to resume a dialogue to convene a Conference on the WMDFZ. The proposals on working towards convening the WMDFZ Conference that Russia submitted in Vienna last year, which were broadly supported by the parties to the Treaty, could serve as a good framework for this decision.

Furthermore, non-proliferation, IAEA safeguards and the peaceful use of nuclear energy are being shifted to the backburner in the NPT review process, given the increased attention to the issues of nuclear disarmament. Yet, these topics are no less significant and complex, and require careful consideration and decision-making.

The IAEA safeguards system has always served, and still serves, to verify the fulfilment of the states’ obligations under the NPT. The participating states’ confidence in the IAEA’s monitoring mechanism is a key factor in the sustainability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The IAEA system of safeguards needs to be consistently strengthened, primarily through a gradual universalisation of the Additional Protocol, which remains a strictly voluntary matter for each NPT party to sign. At the same time, reforms, modifications and an “evolution” of these safeguards would be justified only if the system itself remains objective, depoliticised, technically sound, understandable for the member states and based on the rights and obligations of the parties in accordance with the agreements they signed with the Agency. Any new subjective elements in the application of the safeguards will inevitably make the IAEA control mechanism vulnerable to fleeting political interests, and hence lead to the erosion of the fundamental principle of non-interference in the member states’ internal affairs. This could result in detrimental consequences for both the system of safeguards and the NPT as a whole.

The reform poses the risk that information at odds with reality supplied by open sources and so-called “third parties” (intelligence agencies of different countries) will be inserted into the process of assessing states’ compliance with their non-proliferation commitments. Meanwhile, conclusions on the countries’ compliance with non-proliferation obligations are drafted, just like before the reform, by international bureaucrats in the IAEA Secretariat, and the practice is not going to change. In this case the nature of very important conclusions on safeguards would depend on the biased opinions of those bureaucrats, on their confidence or mistrust of a certain information source. In other words, what had been a technical process may turn into a political one.

We are confident that the tightest political oversight on the part of the IAEA member states over the reform of the safeguards system is beneficial and a down payment on the long-term sustainability of the non-proliferation regime based on the NPT. Transparency of the Agency’s Secretariat on all significant parameters of the reform is critically important for maintaining trust in the safeguards system. In our view, any conclusion on safeguards must be made exclusively on the basis of the information the Secretariat is ready to defend in an open discussion in the Agency’s managing bodies. Data which cannot be verified in such manner, as well judgments of the “very likely” or “highly likely” variety, may not be taken into consideration when conclusions on safeguards are made.

Nuclear non-proliferation goes hand in hand with peaceful exploration of nuclear technologies and underwrites further progress in nuclear science and energy. The increasing interest in peaceful nuclear energy, especially for power, is a pronounced and objective trend of our time. Over 450 power-generating units are currently operating in the world, 55 more are under construction. There is also increasing interest in technical cooperation projects as well as in non-energy uses of nuclear technologies.

Russia is the most consistent advocate of the widest possible use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We are confident that the mechanisms needed to overcome related proliferation risks are already in place and working fairly well. This is why our country is one of the most active participants in international cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy. At present, the Rosatom State Corporation is pursuing projects outside Russia to build 33 new nuclear power generating units. We supply our partners with completely safe light-water nuclear power reactors that are proliferation-proof. We are actively developing a closed-loop nuclear fuel cycle. We are also the largest producer of enriched uranium and a large supplier of radioactive isotopes.

What distinguishes the Russian approach is that our country not only supplies nuclear or any other kind of radioactive material or nuclear power equipment; we help our partners build a complete nuclear industry including research, nuclear safety and related physical safety, as well training national personnel. We place special emphasis on interaction with non-nuclear states parties to the NPT and proper accounting of the needs of the world’s developing regions. By doing so, Russia does the most for the practical implementation of Article IV of the NPT.

A serious challenge to the NPT regime can be seen in the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme, which was unanimously acknowledged by all the parties to the JCPOA as a key achievement in nuclear non-proliferation, and an example of resolving complicated non-proliferation challenges through the NPT. The measures under the JCPOA, including verification and control, as well as the mechanisms of information exchange, are unprecedented and give a reliable guarantee that Tehran’s nuclear programme is entirely peaceful in nature.

It must be understood that Washington’s cavalier attitude to international agreements, including unilateral amendment of its own commitments when they no longer suit its interests, can lead to most dramatic consequences for the non-proliferation regime. The situation with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) may have a negative impact on the nascent possibility of settling the Korean nuclear problem and may add elements of concern, mutual mistrust as well as suspicion to contacts between parties to the conflict.

Russia is aware of its responsibility as a founding and depositary state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Ensuring the integrity and sustainable operation of the NPT calls for consistent efforts to improve the spirit of constructive cooperation within the framework of the NPT, to bring about a rapprochement in the parties’ positions on various aspects of the review process, to avoid unnecessary politicisation, and to act with utmost discretion with regard to the NPT and any other international agreements based on it.

Russia will continue to steadily work with all states that care about the future of the NPT so as to ensure the treaty consistently functions and gains strength.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3259080






Statement by Alexander Lukashevich, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to fulfill the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, June 14, 2018



16 June 2018 - 12:41




Mr Chairman,

The foreign ministers of the Normandy format met in Berlin on June 11 to analyse the progress status of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements by the parties to the conflict - Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. An understanding was reached of the imperative of implementing the Package of Measures supported by the leaders of the four in 2015 and 2016, including its political provisions. The foreign ministers agreed on the urgent de-escalation in Donbass, the establishment of a ceasefire, the disengagement of forces and weapons, including heavy weapons withdrawal, and the protection of critical civilian infrastructure. The importance of resolving humanitarian problems, the release of detained persons was also reaffirmed.

On June 6, the UN Security Council adopted a statement by the Chairman of the Council, which clearly indicated the need for strict abidance by the Package of Measures, approved in 2015 by UN Security Council Resolution 2202, as well as measures agreed in the Normandy format and by the Contact Group.

We hope that these signals will lead Kiev to show restraint, abandon reckless military schemes and return back to the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, which remains the unquestionable basis for a peaceful settlement.

On June 13, the Contact Group reached an agreement at a meeting in Minsk to ensure safety during the rotation of the workers of the Donetsk filtering station. We expect that the Ukrainian side relays the necessary message to the commanders of the Armed Forces on the ground. We support the proposal of the coordinator of the subgroup on security, Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Ertugrul Apakan, on taking urgent measures to cease fire. The publication of the orders on the non-use of weapons, the ban on reciprocal fire, confirmation of obligations under existing agreements, the ban on offensive actions and the sending of sabotage groups can be an important step towards de-escalation. Attempts to hamper these constructive initiatives by insisting on artificial linkages are unacceptable. We welcome Humanitarian Subgroup Coordinator Tony Frisch’s proposals on declaring the non-use of torture against prisoners. We call for an early agreement on repairing the bridge in Stanitsa Luganskaya on the basis of the ICRC proposals.

The Ukrainian crisis is taking too long. Its role in mongering Russophobia is coming at a cost for the Ukrainian people. We cannot help recalling the fourth anniversary of the Ukrainian air raid on Lugansk on June 2, which killed eight people and injured 28. Ukrainian representatives then tried to deny the use of some 20 aerial bombs blaming the damage on an air conditioner explosion at the state administration building - typical of the current Kiev authorities.

For four years Kiev’s punitive operation idea has not changed. Its criminal goal is to intimidate the people of Donbass, to sow hatred and destruction. Unfortunately, the deterrent effect of the Ukrainian army’s military defeats in winter 2015, which led to the signing of the Minsk Package of Measures, is eroding. We need a consolidated call for Kiev to faithfully fulfill its commitments.

With the beginning of the Joint Forces Operation, the Ukrainian Armed Forces intensified their military operations in Donbass. The Ukrainian security forces tried to implement local forays near Gorlovka and Mariupol, which cost them significant losses. Kiev is seizing the demilitarised areas of Zolotoye and Petrovskoye, while the armed units of certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions have stopped short of this.

According to the SMM, three Donbass civilians have been killed and nine wounded as a result of indiscriminate shelling since May 31. The most egregious case occurred on June 7 in Kirovsk, where the Ukrainian military struck a mortar round on a shuttle bus, injuring five women and two men.

The SMM has confirmed the reports of the village of Chigari in the ‘grey zone’ near Gorlovka being occupied by the Ukrainian forces. The fighting unleashed by Kiev has resulted in most of the houses either being destroyed or burnt down in this village, and running water and other basic necessities are unavailable. The surviving structures house Ukrainian soldiers, and ammunition depots. Civilians are being forced to leave. The Ukrainian security forces have moved dangerously close to the militia positions. A new hotbed of instability has emerged.

In violation of the September 21, 2016 decision of the Contact Group to withdraw forces and weaponry, Kiev security forces occupied the withdrawal area in Zolotoye and Petrovskoye. It is necessary to immediately restore the status quo established in these areas in 2016 and complete the withdrawal of forces and weaponry in Stanitsa Luganskaya. More than 20 times, the Special Monitoring Mission has documented periods of total ceasefire lasting seven or more days in the territory.

A critical situation remains around the Donetsk filtration station. The Security Forces of Ukraine have set their sights on seizing it by force. The Special Monitoring Mission has evidence that the Ukrainian forces’ fortified positions came within 500 metres of the station. The mission has also confirmed that Ukraine has failed to take action on mine clearance. Due to the continuing exchange of fire, the Donetsk filtration station was forced to suspend its operations on June 7. This affected the water supply of more than 350,000 people. Donbass self-defence forces say they are ready to coordinate additional security measures for infrastructure facilities.

Mr Chairman,

The crisis triggered by the Maidan events in 2014 cannot be resolved without the implementation of the political provisions outlined in the Package of Measures. A solution is only possible through direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk without any further subterfuge.

At the meeting in Berlin, the ministers discussed the entire range of political aspects connected with the resolution, including the implementation of the law on the special status of Donbass. The Contact Group has yet to formalise the “Steinmeier formula”, which provides for local elections in Donbass and the approval of the law on its special status. The formula was endorsed at a Normandy format summit in Paris on October 2, 2015, and later reaffirmed in Berlin on October 19, 2016. The political settlement plan has been worked out. Kiev committed to it but the Ukrainian leadership lacks the political responsibility to take the first step towards practical fulfilment of the agreement.

Those who support a military solution to the civil conflict occupy positions of strength in Kiev. Sergey Nayev, commander of the joint forces’ operation, said (in his June 12 interview with Ukrainian National News) that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are ready to use the entire range of weapons in their arsenal, including aviation. The commanders were given the right to independently make decisions regarding the use of weapons at the contact line. It would be interesting to hear an evaluation of these propositions by the distinguished Normandy format colleagues from France and Germany.

The logic is familiar. Washington is also trying to “protect” Ukraine from implementing the Package of Measures by falsely connecting some of its provisions with the UN peacekeeping operation in line with Kiev’s logic. Attempts to establish a military and political commandment in the region to take control over certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk are against the Package of Measures. Any formats of international assistance in resolving the intra-Ukrainian crisis, including under the UN, must rely on the accord between the parties to this conflict – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. A peaceful political resolution is only possible through direct dialogue. This concept serves as the basis for the Russian draft of a UNSC resolution in support of the OSCE and the Minsk Package of Measures to which neither Kiev nor Washington has responded so far.

Mr Chairman,

The situation beyond the southeast of Ukraine shows that it will not be easy to settle the problem of Donbass in the existing Ukrainian realities. Ethnic and cultural nationalism is being fostered in the country. The discriminating provisions of the Law on Education, which has made the position of not only the country’s Russian but also Hungarian, Romanian and Polish population vulnerable, have not been invalidated. The clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church continue to be harassed. Ethnic and religious crimes are reported almost every day. The latest such crime was reported by the SMM on June 7, when people wearing T-shirts with the National Militia (Natsionalniye Druzhiny) insignia used axes and hammers to tear down structures on the site of a Roma community in Kiev. Freedom House has sounded alarm bells over the increased number of far-right nationalist attacks on ethnic minorities since the beginning of 2018.

The efforts to clamp down on free speech and to harass journalists are gaining momentum. Chief of RIA Novosti Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky remains in custody on false charges of treason. On June 2, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) attempted to recruit a RIA Novosti correspondent in Lithuania, Irina Vysokovich. Pressure, threats and provocations by security services, as well as violence and political trials of journalists have become a fact of daily life in Ukraine. Kiev has joined the infamous activities of Mirotvorets by trying to intimidate journalists with some “hit lists.” After the murder of Oles Buzina and Pavel Sheremet, few people have no fear of becoming the next “sacrificial victim.”

We hope that infringements on the rights of journalists and ethnic minorities in Ukraine will not go unnoticed in the West. Although the joint press release on the EU-Ukraine Human Rights Dialogue held in Brussels on May 31 does not condemn the above mentioned violations, we hope that Europe’s concerns regarding this have been presented to Ukraine. The international community must take a consolidated stand to caution Kiev against playing infantile games such as Arkady Babchenko’s fake death and also against staging large-scale armed provocations in Donbass.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3260633
__________________
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 June 19th, 2018 #442
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the results of the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting



11 June 2018 - 09:41



On June 11, the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation had its regular meeting in Almaty chaired by Foreign Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov.

The ministers had an in-depth discussion of current issues of international and regional security, analysed the factors affecting global stability including the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme. The ministers adopted a joint statement in support of the viability of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles and in favour of constructive dialogue for settling existing issues.

While considering efforts to counter current challenges and threats, the ministers reaffirmed the necessity of forming a truly broad international coalition to fight terrorism.

The ministers instructed the CSTO Secretary General to continue contacts with respective UN bodies in order to create conditions that would allow the CSTO’s peacekeeping capacity to support UN peacekeeping activities.

They agreed a schedule of consultations of the CSTO member-states representatives on foreign policy, security and defence issues, and the list of themes of the CSTO joint statements at international platforms in 2018.

An agreement was also reached on closer foreign policy coordination between the diplomatic missions at international organisations and the CSTO member-states’ embassies on the topics of cooperation within the Organisation, and their interaction with the media and the public.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3255112






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the US-North Korea summit in Singapore



12 June 2018 - 14:30



We welcome the talks of the Chairman of the DPRK State Council Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump on July 12 in Singapore. We proceed from the belief that the normalisation of US-North Korean relations, a commitment to which is stated in the final joint statement, is an inalienable part of the comprehensive settlement of the Korean Peninsula issues, including the nuclear issue.

We have a positive opinion of US President’s statement following the summit that it is inappropriate to hold war games during negotiations. We are confident that stopping provocative actions is an essential step towards defusing tensions around the peninsula and establishing an atmosphere of trust there.

For our part, we will continue active efforts to support the political diplomatic process around the Korean Peninsula. In view of the fact that the implementation of the first and second stages of the Russian-Chinese roadmap is already underway, we call on our partners to start working out the modalities of multilateral consultations with the final goal, as we see it, of creating a solid mechanism of peace and security based on respect for lawful interests of all nations in Northeast Asia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3256544






Comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department on new US anti-Russian sanctions



12 June 2018 - 15:22



Washington would not calm down with its sanctions it seems, again extending them to a number of Russian citizens and entities. The effect is bound to be zero as before, because forcing Russia to change its independent policy on the international arena is not working. Yet, US politicians continue to cherish illusions, imagining the US as a global gendarme, but each new unsuccessful attempt to put pressure on our country only exposes their own helplessness.

Moreover, the United States demonstrates obvious short-sightedness inventing an enemy where there is none, instead of putting more effort into fighting terrorism and other real threats. This is not just a flawed, but a very dangerous policy, for which history will inevitably punish its initiators.

In addition to this, we have certainly noted the fact that the last two extensions of the anti-Russian sanctions were adopted on the eve of our main public holidays –Victory Day and Day of Russia. We will take this into account.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3256565






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding US accusations against Sovfracht shipping company



13 June 2018 - 13:47



Washington has again demonstrated political imprudence by bringing charges against Joint Stock Company Sovfracht, a Russian shipping company and freight forwarder, for delivering jet fuel to Syria. In 2016-2017, the United States blocked the transfer of $5.5 million by the company, and now it has taken a new and objectionable step in response to our requests to return the money.

Sovfracht delivered jet fuel to Russian Aerospace Forces units, which are helping fight terrorist groups in Syria. US references to its own sanctions against the legitimate Syrian authorities, which bear the brunt of the counterterrorism struggle in the interests of global security, are not only a new and outrageous attempt to spread US national law beyond its own borders, but this essentially amounts to supporting terrorists.

On the other hand, this is not surprising. During the Obama administration, the United States refused to declare ISIS a threat and protected even Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists from punishment in Syria, although al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda and has been declared a terrorist organisation by the UN. While seeking a change of government in Damascus, Washington officials were ready to make a deal with anyone, even self-confessed jihadists.

The latest anti-Russia attack is new evidence that the United States, whose support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan produced al-Qaeda, pays no heed for the lessons of history and, as we have pointed out before, is looking for an enemy where there is none. Washington’s unscrupulousness and stubborn desire to harm Russia, instead of joining forces with it in the fight against terrorism, may come at a cost for the American people, who have suffered a great deal from the evil of terrorism.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3257538






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation in Yemen



14 June 2018 - 09:42



We are gravely concerned about the reports coming from Yemen that the armed groups loyal to the President of the Republic of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi have begun an offensive against the Red Sea port of Al Hudaydah. The operation is reported to have the support of the Arab coalition at sea and in the air.

These developments are particularly disturbing because Al Hudaydah is the main transit and logistics hub through which a lion’s share of food, medicines and other essentials for Yemeni civilians pass. If the unfolding military operation blocks this supply channel, the civilians, who are already dealing with huge deprivation, will find themselves on the brink of death. They will face a horrible choice: to be killed by bomb strikes and shelling or to die from starvation and diseases.

It is difficult to even imagine the number of casualties among the direct participants of the fight for Al Hudaydah. Reports from the military area quote hundreds of troops killed on both sides within the first days of the operation alone.

All this confirms our initial fears that the storming of Al Hudaydah may have catastrophic consequences for the entire Yemen. It is deeply regrettable that UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths was not granted the requested additional time to prevent this scenario.

It is expected that the hardest impact will be on the prospects of political resolution of the Yemeni crisis and we still do not see an alternative to it. Even more so that recently, thanks to the UN’s certain efforts, a range of worthy ideas emerged on how to stop the armed conflict and finally get the sides to the Yemeni conflict to sit down at the negotiating table.

On our part, we urge for soonest suspension of the military action in Yemen in order to give a chance to peaceful initiatives of the international community.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3258487






Comment by the Information and Press Department on UN Security Council Committee 1267/1989/2253 upholding Russia’s application on amending the original data and profile of Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group



14 June 2018 - 19:03



On June 5, UN Security Council Committee 1267/1989/2253 on sanctions against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and related individuals and legal entities upheld Russia's application on amending the data in the sanctions list maintained by the Committee concerning Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group. Now, the other name of this terrorist group, Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham, is indicated, which it uses to hide amid a broader association of other smaller terrorist groups, which was formally not recorded in the UN Security Council's sanctions anti-terrorist list.

This decision was made possible by the withdrawal of objections to our initiative, primarily from the United States, as well as Britain and France. Washington has long resisted this step, apparently based on its own ideas about Jabhat al-Nusra in the wake of the dual policy of the United States on combating terrorism in Syria. Still, better late than never.

We welcome this decision by Committee 1267/1989/2253, which means it supports Russia’s policy of resolutely opposing terrorist elements regardless of the fronts they may use to hide, and understands the need to jointly counter the global threat of terrorism without double standards, politicisation or hidden agendas.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3259090






Press release on the signing of the Treaty between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Archive Agency on the Duration and Conditions of Depositary Storage of Documents



15 June 2018 - 11:03



On June 15, the ceremony of signing the Treaty between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Archive Agency on the Duration and Conditions of Depositary Storage and Use of Federally Owned Documents of the Archival Fund of the Russian Federation was held at the ministry’s Reception House.

Signed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Head of the Federal Archive Agency Andrey Artizov, the treaty sets out the parties’ obligations regarding the documents of the foreign ministries of the Russian Empire, the RSFSR, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.

Sergey Lavrov said in his remarks that the treaty provided a solid legal framework for the further development of fruitful cooperation between the two agencies. He recalled that the bulk of documents generated by the central authorities were stored at the Collegium of Foreign Affairs during the reign of Peter the Great, and that the Russian diplomatic service had always been very particular about storing documents even at the time of social unrest, wars or revolutions.

Andrey Artizov was decorated with the Foreign Ministry badge For Contribution to International Cooperation during the ceremony.

The event included an exhibition of unique documents from the Foreign Ministry Archives, such as instructions of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs for archivists dated 1720, an inventory list of archival documents from the year 1805, a 1831 memorandum from Foreign Minister Count Karl Nesselrode to Emperor Nicholas I requesting royal permission to appoint Alexander Pushkin to the Collegium of Foreign Affairs “with the authority to retrieve archival documents for a History of Peter I the Great,” the first Regulations on the Political Archives of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, which was adopted in 1936, and much else.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3259135
__________________
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 June 19th, 2018 #443
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, June 15, 2018



15 June 2018 - 18:59








2018 FIFA World Cup opening

The opening ceremony of the 2018 FIFA World Cup took place yesterday at Luzhniki Stadium, which accommodated over 78,000 fans.

The ceremony was beautiful and unforgettable. I would like to give you some facts and figures related to the preparations for this sports festival.

It is still a long way to go to the final match, which will take place on July 15 at that same stadium, but all the world’s media are noting the scale and quality and the amazing atmosphere of the event organised by Russia.

The tournament will accommodate matches at 12 stadiums, whose total capacity is some 579,000 seats, in 11 Russian cities: Moscow, St Petersburg, Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Saransk, Volgograd, Kaliningrad, Kazan, Rostov-on-Don and Sochi.

Over 2 million fans from all over the world have come to this sports event. Teams from 32 countries will compete for the title of world champion. The tournament’s official mascot is my co-host, Zabivaka the Wolf, and the Telstar 18 official game ball has already visited the International Space Station.

The Organising Committee has reported about the opening of the international police cooperation centre to ensure safety at the tournament. It will comprise 150 police officers from 32 participating countries.

Since most of our guests will stay in Moscow, the city has taken unprecedented measures to provide them with a comfortable stay and, of course, safety. Shuttle buses will service fans on match days. Over 100 large and extra-large buses with special stickers and the tournament logo will operate on 8 routes. Public transit, Aeroexpress and commuter trains will be free for fans. Metro workers and municipal infrastructure staff have taken English classes. Some 1,453 hotels that can accommodate 201,500 people have been categorised; 1.4 million free Moscow guidebooks have been issued. They can be obtained in hotels, airports and railway stations.

A total of 5,700 buses, trams, trolleybuses and metro cars with screens for match broadcasting were purchased for the World Cup. I would like to note that this information is available on the official website of the Organising Committee. So I am talking about them to draw your attention to the committee’s information resources. Please visit the website and get all the information firsthand.

I also would like to say that no less than 8,700 volunteers will assist guests in Moscow, the main host city, which will host 12 matches, including the semi-final and final matches. Guests will be offered some 70 events and 20 themed museum exhibitions to choose from. There will be 32 permanent ambulance centres, 55 ambulance crews and 600 medical staff. A large number of doctors will be assisting fans during the matches.

Over 180 medical offices will be established at the World Cup facilities; 16,500 stewards have been selected and trained to serve fans at 64 tournament matches. In all, 200,000 people underwent additional or further training.

In the host cities, 12 airports have been renovated; Rostov-on-Don has received a new airport. Seven new stadiums and 27 hotels have been built.

Over 17,000 volunteers of the Russia 2018 Local Organising Committee are working at the tournament; 7 percent of them are foreigners from 112 countries, and 18,000 city volunteers. In all, the committee received 177,000 volunteer applications. Interestingly, the average age of the volunteers is 24 years, while the oldest volunteer in 80 years old.

728 free trains with a total of 445,000 seats will run between the host cities. Roughly, the distance between Kaliningrad and Yekaterinburg, the westernmost and the easternmost host cities, is 2,489 kilometres. It is a huge distance, especially by European standards; it unites the European and Asian parts of the continent.

The host cities will have 536 cultural events.

The City Press Centres are open in all host cities. The expected television audience of the tournament is 3 billion people. The matches will be broadcast by 196 TV companies in 212 countries. The television audience of the final match in Moscow on July 15 will exceed half of the planet’s population.

All host cities have unique venues for the FIFA Fan Fest, which will be open not only on match days, but during the entire tournament. Their total capacity is 217,000 people. They have large screens and offer a huge number of services, from live broadcasts of the matches and FIFA partner stands to food and children’s entertainment options. Entry is free and does not require any additional documents.

In conclusion, some economic information. The long-term annual effect of the 2018 World Cup for Russia’s GDP will be 150-210 billion roubles over the next five years.

We hope that your coverage will be objective. We are glad that the myths set loose prior to large international events in Moscow are being dispelled. People can see for themselves how this major international sports event is organised.

Once again, welcome!



Reporters arriving in Russia to cover the World Cup 2018

We would like to note high interest shown by the reporters and bloggers in obtaining accreditation with the City Press Centres set up in each host city of the 2018 World Cup. About 10,000 applications have so far been submitted to the City Press Centres operated by Rossiya Segodnya, about 2,500 of which are from foreign countries.

I would like to note that the City Press Centres have been created specifically for media members who do not have official FIFA accreditation, as well as for the independent reporters and bloggers who plan to carry out their professional activities in Russia to cover the World Cup. To reiterate, every host city of the World Cup has such press centres.

City Press Centres accommodate regular press conferences, briefings and video conferences. Reporters can also attend tours and workshops. Presentation areas on local regions featuring the achievements of a particular city or region are an important function of the press centres. There are plans to broadcast matches live.

The accreditation badge of the City Press Centres allows the reporters to carry out their professional activities in 17 Russian regions (in the regions that are home to 11 cities hosting the World Cup, as well as six regions that accommodate the training camps of national teams).

The rules of media accreditation, as well as the addresses and working hours of the press centres are available at https://footballcitymediacenter.ru/. Information about press centres is also available on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.

In the run-up to the World Cup, there’s been a noticeable increase in interest from foreign media wishing to send their special correspondents to Russia. This category of journalists is either not accredited by FIFA and City Press Centres, or wants to be additionally accredited by the Foreign Ministry. To date, over 700 requests for reporter certificates have been filed with our Ministry’s press centre, which we are handling and issuing as they become available.



Onsite briefing of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson

We invite you to visit one of the City Press Centres, where you can also attend a briefing by a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson.

The next briefing will be held on June 20 in one of the cities hosting the World Cup. In the near future, we will post relevant information about the accreditation rules so that you can attend our briefing.

The city will be determined later, so keep an eye out for further information.



UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s visit to Russia

On June 20-21, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres will visit Russia at the invitation of President Putin.

During the visit, he will meet with President Putin and have talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Plans are in place for the UN Secretary General to meet with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill. In addition, Guterres will speak at the Valdai International Discussion Club and attend a World Cup match. One can say that he had already visited it virtually at a fan zone specially organised at the request of the Russian Federation at the UN headquarters in New York. You saw photos and videos yesterday showing the member countries and their permanent representatives, delegations, the UN Secretary General and the staff of the Secretariat celebrating the World Cup opening. To my knowledge, nothing like that has ever taken place at the UN Secretariat. You can safely say that this was the first time ever. Yesterday, representatives of the UN Security Council member countries held a meeting wearing official jerseys of their national teams. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres also donned a sports outfit for the occasion. This is another powerful signal to the world that politics should help sport rather than interfere with it. The issue is about how we really can and should unite for the events that are truly important for the world, our planet and our peoples.

The agenda of the talks at the Foreign Ministry includes a discussion of the current state of international relations, including the crisis of “multilateralism” in international diplomacy, the role of the UN Security Council in resolving the most pressing international and regional problems, including Syria, as well as other issues of Russia's relations with the United Nations, including in the context of the 70th anniversary of UN activities in Russia.



Developments in Syria

On the whole, the situation in Syria remains complicated. To enhance the ceasefire, Russian service members continue to support local reconciliation and wage a resolute struggle against terrorism. In cooperation with the Syrian Government, they are carrying out measures of post-conflict settlement in the provinces of Hama and Homs. Military police are maintaining security, law and order on the liberated territories in the provinces of Damascus, Hama and Homs. Engineer-sapper units trained by Russian specialists are lifting mines in Eastern Ghouta.

Russian military experts consider the situation in the de-escalation zones to be stable.

The Syrian authorities are consistently working to normalise the humanitarian situation and overcome the consequences of hostilities in those places where they were waged. Thus, in Arbil in Eastern Ghouta, the people receive regular medical aid, retail trade has been resumed and several schools have opened their doors to pupils. Local government agencies and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent have jointly organised the delivery of food and drinking water to the needy. Energy experts are replacing a high voltage transmission line in Homs Province.

Restoration of the destroyed socio-economic infrastructure and peaceful life are motivating thousands of people to return home.

Politically, efforts are continued to establish a Constitutional Committee under UN aegis and to launch the work on Syria’s Fundamental Law in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and with account of the results of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi.

Military successes by the Syrian Government in the anti-terrorist struggle and promotion of the political settlement of the Syrian crisis are compelling the involved external forces to reconsider their policy. We are receiving signals that some countries that earlier demanded the replacement of the Bashar Al-Assad “regime” have now alleviated their positions.

Meanwhile, illegitimate foreign military presence still exists in Syria. Attempts to set up parallel government bodies are still being made in the regions controlled by outside forces. The US-led “coalition” is still prone to dividing terrorists into “bad guys” and “not so bad guys.”

As we have noted more than once, such approaches do not help reach a political solution and stabilisation. They are threatening Syria’s territorial integrity, preserving the potential for conflict and creating prerequisites for the emergence of new threats to regional and global security.

We would like to emphasise again that a peaceful settlement in Syria should be making progress. Stagnation in this process is extremely dangerous because it can reduce to nothing the substantial achievements in the struggle against the terrorists in the past few months. This should not be allowed to happen.



Situation with regard to Syria’s chairmanship at the Conference on Disarmament

The situation at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva causes us grave concern.

In our view, the USA and Israel have taken an absolutely destructive stance by actually announcing a boycott of the CD and its auxiliary bodies in order to obstruct the normal work of the forum during Syria’s chairmanship (May 28 to June 24). In particular, they have minimised their attendance of CD plenary meetings, totally refused to attend unofficial events on the sidelines of the Conference and hold bilateral contacts with the Syrian delegation. Alongside with their allies (Australia, Bulgaria, the UK, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey, France, South Korea, Japan) they are intentionally trying to politicise CD’s work. Allegations are constantly voiced of “numerous facts” of the use of chemical weapons by Damascus against their own population and that they are violating their obligations under the CWC as well as NPT (including the Agreement with the IAEA on guarantees), while absolutely irresponsible statements are made on Syria’s “lacking” the “moral right” and “political legitimacy” to hold the chairmanship. This looks like a novelty in international law. For example, Syria is entitled to be a UN member and its Permanent Representative may speak at the UNSC meetings, but Syria may not chair the CD. Who made this up?

All that occurs within the Geneva platform at the CD and is accompanied by massive propaganda. Unfortunately, international and Swiss media are also engaged in this. We understand it to be the sabotaging of CD’s activities over an entire month, much to the detriment of the efforts taken – including with direct involvement of Russia and Syria – on finding a mutually acceptable consensus on the CD’s work Programme for bringing the activities of this forum back to meaningful activity.

We would like to stress the unacceptability of such engineered stonewalling of Syria by the western nations. It is possible that our US colleagues are now trying to blame someone else again for the failures of the Conference’s work. Unfortunately, we see Washington choosing to increasingly apply such manipulations, including on the platforms of international organisations. For example, they do not even conceal at the CD how disarmament issues are politicised and that the very work of this body is boycotted. It may be not so apparent on other platforms, but we see all that at the OPCW.



OPCW Mission’s report on establishing facts of the use of chemical weapons in Ltamenah, Syria, on March 24 and 25, 2017

We have noted the report issued by the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) released by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on chemical incidents in Ltamenah, Hama province, Syria, on March 24 and 25, 2017. Following a remote study of the data – which, unfortunately, has become a tradition – obtained from some NGOs, from open sources of “limited medical reports” and by questioning some sort of “witnesses”, the FFM came to the conclusion that sarin and chlorine were “very likely” used as a chemical weapon in Ltamenah. “Very likely” has become an indecent phrase, which is nowadays used to cloak everything unfolding in international relations.

Even upon the first reading it becomes obvious that the Mission’s work methods are still far from what is required of them on sampling and analysing data on the presumed use of chemical agents, as is proscribed in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the OPCW. The report claims that the FFM was unable to go to Ltamenah, which was back then controlled by the opposition and thus could not take samples and interview witnesses. It was not stated whether any talks were held at all, and if they were, with whom, and why the FFM was denied access to the chemical incident site in violation of Clause 6 of UNSC Resolution 2209.

The FFM’s investigation was once again based on “physical evidence” provided by anonymous NGOs operating in the militant-controlled territory. This is a gross violation of the OPCW’s basic principle, which is designed to ensure the chain of custody of evidence.

A question arises why the report was released a year after the chemical attacks “were registered” and what the value of sample analysis is after such a long time.

I would like to remind to you that a report on another case of “alleged” use of chemical weapons in Ltamenah on March 30, 2017 was “cooked up” right on time for the November meeting of the UNCS, which was to consider the extending the FFM mandate, and in doing so has completely discredited itself. Our western colleagues back then, on a tip from the OPCW Technical Secretariat, insisted on releasing another document with over 60 alleged incidents, which have presumably been known since December 2015. It is natural that nothing surfaced and could not have surfaced. As to the current piece which unequivocally points at the presumably Syrian origin of the sarin used on March 24 of last year, is was tailored to emerge exactly ahead of the special session of the Conference of the States Parties to the CWC (The Hague, June 26-18). It is a classical scheme whereby materials prepared for events scheduled to discuss such issues are customised. These attempts at crude and propagandistic alignment – not at conducting an investigation and a clear process for finding the truth – have instead become the forceful alignment of materials to coincide with scheduled events. All that occurs is the fabrication of some misinformation and compilation of facts and fakes. It is the exact document needed by those western countries attempting to implement their initiative on granting the OPCW attributive function.

It will be totally unsurprising that ahead of the Conference a respective report will emerge on the chemical incident in Douma which will contradict the reliable information obtained by the Russian military on the staged character of the incident. It is evident for us that Washington, in particular, was trying in every possible way to justify its aggression against Syria on the night of April 14. Our stand on that issue is well known.

The Russian Federation’s approach remains unchanged – the real perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons must be identified and brought to account. To do that, full-fledged investigations in full compliance with CWC standards are needed rather than their politicised imitation, or even worse – tailoring the results of the investigation to reflect conclusions already made in Washington, London or Paris. Guided by these considerations, the Russian side insists on improving FFM’s performance and bringing it in conformity with CWC standards. We also urge our western partners to adopt the draft UNSC Resolution on establishing a truly impartial and highly professional investigative body. Unfortunately, all our initiatives are regularly blocked by the Western Three of the UNSC permanent members.



Voting on the Palestinian Resolution at the UN General Assembly

On June 13, the special session resumed by the UN General Assembly accepted a draft resolution on the situation around the Gaza Strip and international protection of the Palestinian population put forward by a group of Arab and Muslim countries. It was supported by 120 states, including the Russian Federation. Only eight states, including the United States, voted against it. Earlier, on June 1, the UN Security Council considered a similar draft. However, it was not adopted because the US delegation used its veto and alone voted against it.

According to the adopted resolution, the UN Secretary General should within 60 days submit a report to the UN General Assembly with suggestions on providing the civilian population’s security on Palestinian territories, including recommendations on the international protection mechanism.

When this issue was considered, the amendment suggested by Washington did not receive sufficient support. This amendment shifted the focus of the draft to denouncing Hamas activities and in essence changed the whole concept of the document. Procedural manipulations undertaken by the US failed as well. This is how we can characterise the US delegation’s activities at the UN, proceeding from what we saw during the debate and its representatives’ conduct at the UN General Assembly.

I would like to point out that the special session and voting which took place became a kind of international referendum on the US policy concerning the Middle East. Certainly, a special signal was sent to the US delegation about how to conceive of UN activities in general and how to pursue its policy, based of course on national interests but with respect for international law and other countries and nations.

It is evident that an overwhelming majority of states does not accept the US delegation’s unilateral and presumptuous position which ignores the international legal background of the Palestinian settlement, which has accumulated over many years. Equally objectionable are the US delegation’s unceremonious attempts to break the UN General Assembly procedural rules and to challenge its Chair’s clear decisions, which we could see this time.

I would like to say again that this conduct and these actions did not work.



Developments on the Korean Peninsula

Russia welcomed the establishment of the US-North Korean and inter-Korean dialogue and the agreements reached to resolve problems on the Korean Peninsula, including the nuclear problem. I can reaffirm this position of Russia. This positive headway dovetails with the Russian-Chinese roadmap developed over a year ago, which provides a comprehensive approach to this settlement and phasing and timing of the partners’ steps.

We are convinced that one of the major components in the normalisation process in the region can and should be modification the UN Security Council sanctions regime against North Korea, particularly given that respective sanction resolutions have repeatedly reaffirmed the Security Council’s commitment to this kind of adjustment, taking into account progress in the situation. The trend line is clear. This could become a serious support in the political and diplomatic settlement in North-East Asia.

As for “autonomous” sanctions imposed on North Korea by several countries sidestepping the UN Security Council sanctions and “on top” of them, our attitude is well known. I will repeat that it is negative. We are for the speedy lifting of all such unilateral restrictions, especially the so-called “secondary sanctions” that are applied extraterritorially.



Ministerial meeting on the “blue economy” in the Black Sea region

On May 31, political representatives of the countries of the Black Sea region – Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldavia, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine – responsible for maritime issues met in Bulgarian Burgas on the sidelines of the European Maritime Day international conference at the initiative of European Commissioner for the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Karmenu Vella and Bulgarian Minister of Transport Ivaylo Moskovski. Senior officials of the European Commission and the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation were also present.

The participants discussed the harmonious development of the Black Sea region and harnessing the maritime economy’s potential through international cooperation. They adopted a joint Declaration Towards a Common Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea, which outlines the areas in which member-states should develop joint strategies, including the development of freight and passenger transport links, maritime and coastal tourism, promoting marine research and special professional training, supporting investment, raising the environmental protection level and monitoring the state of the sea. The plan is to adopt these strategies in 2019.

We can note a positive mood, commitment to a respectful dialogue and mutually advantageous cooperation, which on the whole characterised the communication of the member-states that are partners in EU structures and regional organisations in the run-up to and during events in Burgas, including the work on the Declaration. We hope that this progress will continue and not only in the Black Sea region.



Swearing in of new government in Italy

We received a large number of questions from Italian, international and Russian media seeking a comment on the swearing in of the new government in Italy. We answered all these questions individually, considering that there really were a lot of them, but I would like to voice our position in general.

Russia traditionally considers events in the political life of other countries exclusively as an internal matter of these states and believes that it is unacceptable to offer any comments on this matter that are evaluative in nature.

At the same time, we took note that on June 1, in Italy, a new coalition government was sworn in, formed following the March 4 political elections. On the same day, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin congratulated Guiseppe Conte on taking office as head of the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic. In turn, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a congratulatory message to the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, Enzo Moavero Milanesi, in which he expressed hope for the continuation of joint efforts to strengthen multifaceted Russian-Italian cooperation and search for mutually acceptable solutions to current international problems.



George Soros’s remarks on the alleged “close links” between Italy’s Northern League and the Russian authorities

Regrettably, we are forced to respond to questions and to requests for comments, in part, on George Soros’s allegations about the “close links” between Italy’s Northern League and the Russian authorities . We do not hold a single briefing without responding to a question or commenting on yet another false story about Russia’s interference into someone’s affairs.

Responding to the media questions and these remarks, I would like to note that this theme was launched, as usual recently, by the forces outside the Apennine Peninsula, notably, US financier, billionaire and founder of a network of “charity organisations” George Soros. His name has long been associated with international scandals and provocations. This is yet more slander. Apparently, its aim was to scare Europe once again with the myth of “Moscow’s long arm” (I will not repeat these clichés because you know them), undermine the friendly atmosphere of Russian-Italian relations, and cast aspersions on the new coalition government formed in Italy as a result of the June 4 democratic parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, it is common knowledge that there is a long-standing nationwide consensus on the priority and importance of the development of Russian-Italian cooperation. Representatives from the broadest business and public circles in both countries are objectively interested in it. It is by this reality that Moscow will be guided in developing its dialogue with Rome.



Developments around Konstantin Yaroshenko

We continue closely following the developments around Konstantin Yaroshenko, a Russian citizen abducted by US secret services in Liberia in 2010. As you know, he is serving a 20 year term under a verdict issued not for a specific crime but based on some dubious assertions by undercover agents.

There is information about the plan to move Yaroshenko to another penal institution. This was explained by “the care for personal security” of our compatriot who was recently attacked by another inmate.

Neither Russian consular workers in the US, nor Yaroshenko himself have yet been told where he will be transferred. He has already been moved to a transit detention centre in New York. Our diplomats remain in contact with him.

As soon as we know his new whereabouts, our consular workers will contact him. They will visit him to make sure that his rights are strictly observed and that he is kept in reasonable conditions. As always, some questions will concern his health. Let me recall that it was seriously undermined when he was cruelly beaten during the abduction.

We will continue working for Yaroshenko’s return to Russia, in part, on the basis of the Council of Europe 1983 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. For now, the US is turning down our requests, but we will not let up in our efforts to get him back.



Norway’s consent to beef up US military presence in the country

We have noted the Norwegian Defence Ministry’s June 12 press releases expressing Oslo’s consent to double the US Marine Corps’ contingent from 330 to 700 service personnel, to extend their rotational tour of duty to five years, to redeploy them further north and closer to the border with Russia and to establish an infrastructure for deploying warplanes at US expense and under the European initiative that aims to contain Russia.

We believe that such decisions virtually annul Norway’s traditional policy aiming to prevent the permanent peacetime deployment of foreign military bases in the country. Obviously, the actions of the incumbent Norwegian leaders undermine trust and predictability in bilateral relations, run counter to previous assurances about renouncing an aggressive policy and allotting bases to foreign armed forces on Norwegian territory, unless Norway is attacked or threatened with attack. But what attack is it possible to talk about today? As is known, top-level Norwegian officials have repeatedly noted that Russia presents no threat. Considering the fact that US Marines are deployed in Norway, perhaps it is the United States that has attacked this country?

Arguments that US forces are rotated, rather than permanently deployed, should mislead no one because service personnel will, nevertheless, be permanently stationed on a rotation basis. This should be clearly understood.

We are urging the Norwegian side to hear our assessment of the current developments, so as to be able to resolve the situation and not to wreck the atmosphere of good neighbourly relations that has evolved over many years in the region where the borders of our countries merge.



The situation around the so-called “Skripal case”

And now, we would like to discuss a subject that has become tragicomic, namely, the situation around the so-called “Skripal case.” Last week, we noted new attempts to internationalise the “Skripal case” and to use it as the incumbent Home Office’s anti-Russia action platform during the G7 summit in Canada.

We have also noted reports about the Home Office’s bill on protecting the United Kingdom from the activities of hostile states that has been submitted to the British Parliament. The bill has been drafted in execution of unjustified anti-Russia measures, made public by Prime Minister Theresa May in the context of the Salisbury incident. We can see that British law-making activity now hinges on these groundless accusations.

Last week, the London Metropolitan Police issued their statement for the media and asked the people of Salisbury to contact the authorities if they had any information about the case. This statement comes several months after the incident. It appears that the situation is very bad if people are being urged to get in touch with the British police. This might seem funny if this was not so sad. This is yet another evidence of politically motivated findings at a time when the investigation has failed to make any headway and when any evidence is lacking.

Indicatively, Deputy Assistant London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dean Haydon has noted that the investigation is proceeding along several lines that cannot be discussed at this stage. It turns out that not only is it possible to discuss the poisoning of the Skripals by the Novichok agent, but that an opinion and a verdict have already been passed on this entire matter; moreover, the sentence has already been executed. This is all extremely absurd!

All these circumstances merely confirm provocative motives of British authorities in their obvious striving to use the “Skripal case” that has been inspired by them for their shady anti-Russia goals, as well as the possible complicity of the British official establishment, including secret services, in this provocation in Salisbury.



British Russophobia

Last week we read British Ambassador Laurie Bristow’s interview with a Russian media outlet. This is a good tradition. We can even have a special heading for Mr Bristow’s statements. Specifically, he addressed the problem of Russophobia in Britain, saying that he did not know “a single Russophobe in the UK.” What can I say? Either this is a patent, pardon the expression, “untruth,” stated publicly or, if he was telling the truth, it is really a sign of his lack of awareness, including historical awareness. There are many articles, published not only in the Russian Federation but also in other countries, including the UK itself, France, Switzerland, Italy, etc., on how a Russophobic lobby has formed in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. Actually, this is a good idea! Maybe we will publish a list of these books. Why should we quote from them, if you can read them yourselves. These books were published in countries other than Russia, including the UK.

Looking back, I can familiarise Mr Bristow with the problem of Russophobia in a segment of the British political establishment in a historical context with just a few phrases. Most historians – and I have read numerous studies on this subject – believe that the starting point in the emergence of the phenomenon of Russophobia in the British political establishment and, most importantly, the attempts to use it for political purposes was the defeat of Napoleon I by the Russian Emperor Alexander I. To reiterate: I am quoting historical studies; this is not an official position. But since we hear these statements from British diplomats and today’s leaders, we would like to reintroduce them to this historiography. So, one of the reasons behind the attempts to impose these prejudices with regard to our country was likely Europe’s realisation that if the Russians, after liberating themselves, triumphantly entered Paris on March 30, 1814, then nothing would prevent them from doing the same to other countries that might wish to step into Napoleon’s boots. In fact, the British political establishment feared, not for their European borders (I don’t think this was the reason) but mostly for their spheres of influence in other regions, such as Asia and India. It was in this period that the propagandists made use of one of the most absurd historical falsifications known as the Will of Peter the Great. (Interesting how this resembles today’s developments, just one for one!). This document was used as a bogey and a pretense to invade Europe. This alleged document, which was not only mentioned but also quoted in the British media and Parliament, was based on a fake imperial executive order that said that Russia had a divine mission to establish its dominance in Europe and the world as a whole. Incidentally, Napoleon was the first to use this untruth to justify his conquests, but it was Britain that started to exploit it and make a world-level affair out of it. Years later, it was proven fraudulent. But the example itself is very important and shows how propaganda and its methods can justify, as the British did with much success, any absurd political action, including internationally.

We will not go deeper into detail. Let me give you just another couple of examples. In 1830, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston was appointed Foreign Secretary. Historians believe that it was Temple who made Russophobia an ideology for use by a segment of the British establishment. Palmerston was the inspiration behind the Crimean War with Russia (1853-1856). This brings to memory an 1854 poem by author Vasily Alferyev published in the Severnaya Pchela (Northern Bee) newspaper:

Seized with bellicose fervour,
Palmerston the ancient warrior,
Stabs Russia on the map
With his invincible forefinger.

For centuries, and today too, the British use the same word stock as during the Crimean War, and we see this today in the British press. Look into the archives! You will be surprised.

There were many British journalists, academics and MPs, who exploited made-to-order Russophobia. It was made to order, regrettably. A case in point is the Scottish journalist, diplomat and politician David Urquhart, who systematically published exaggerated stories about Russia. You can find all this in historical archives.

I will not even speak in detail about the early 20th century. Another glaring example, along with the Peter the Great Will, is the use of outright fraud like the famous “Zinoviev letter.” On October 25, 1924, the Daily Mail published a document signed by Communist International head, Grigory Zinoviev, his deputy Otto Kuusinen, and Arthur MacManus of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), which hinted that the CPGB was preparing for an armed uprising with active help from abroad. Just the same practices, the same story! It caused a major diplomatic scandal. But the British knew full well that it was a fake, an invention. These are not myths. I am referring to history, to archives. In the 1990s, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook ordered the declassification of some archives. The world learned that the so-called “letter” was a conscious provocation intended to fan anti-Soviet hysteria and bring the Tories to power. Today the UK is using exactly the same tricks as it did over the last two or three centuries. I am referring to historical archival documents that are freely available.

If Mr Bristow thinks that these examples are too remote and that all these Russophobic statements are a thing of the past, while nothing of the kind can happen today, I will give him a couple of quotes from recent history, although just one is enough.

Speaking in Houston, the US, in 1991, ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said this: “According to the estimates of the world community, it is economically feasible for only 15 million people to live in Russia.” If someone can say that there was nothing like this statement, we will only be too glad. Regrettably, however, documents prove that she did make this statement. How do you like that? And what should the other 130 million do? How can we fail to call these statements what they are, “Russophobic”? I do not even want to mention the “evil empire” hoax that was actively promoted and used by MPs, politicians and journalists. You all know about this. In 2015, another British PM, David Cameron referred to Russia as the UK’s “main national security threat.” Mr Bristow, do you know about all these statements? I won’t even talk about Russophobic statements by Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

It is always important to refer to what is close to the hearts of the people in a given country. I will quote from a study entitled, “The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain,” which was published by Harvard University Press in 1950. The author, John Howes Gleason, writes: “Russophobia is a paradox in the history of Great Britain. Within the United Kingdom there developed early in the nineteenth century an antipathy toward Russia which soon became the most pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook on the world abroad.” And this is just one quote. This study is available in English, you can buy the book. More than that, the author asks why Russophobia became a persistent British sentiment.

Gleason was not the only one to ask this question. An analytical website, Global Research, published an article titled “Hating Russia is a Full-Time Job” contributed by ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi. I do not think that CIA officers are generally inveterate Russophiles. But Giraldi asks the same question: “Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?” His answer is: “There are a number of constituencies that, for one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to keep everyone ‘safe.’”

Russophobia, in a general sense – and I am talking about other countries, not just Britain– is needed to promote their national policies. As far as Salisbury is concerned, this is what’s happening. Apart from other things, they needed this story not only to deal with domestic issues but also to enable Theresa May’s government to show that the UK is in the forefront of foreign policy activities. If crises cannot be settled, they should be created. This is a classic example.

I would also like to remind the British ambassador of the practical manifestations of the petty Russophobia that we see, in addition to political statements. There are many. I will mention one that was simply disgusting.

One was a 2016 Penguin ad in the London Tube with quotes from world classics. Of all Russian writings, they chose a quote from Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. The problem is, the quote, remarks by Yevgeny Bazarov, was taken out of context and distorted: “Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles… useless words! The Russian man does not need them.” The ad does not explain that the quote was not complete, that Bazarov just pokes fun at borrowed words that have equivalents in Russian, that Bazarov is a nihilist and denies all values accepted by society, and that his life ends tragically… In all evidence, this was to show that Russia is a source of notorious historical threats. Why is this being done?

Mr Bristow, we’re waiting for your next statement. We like them.



Deutsche Welle information activity on Twitter

Here is one more subject concerned with propaganda, which has to do with current rather than historical matters. I am referring to the information activity of Deutsche Welle on Twitter. We have heard so much about RT and Sputnik and their alleged interference and paid services. The other day a Facebook user sent me a screenshot of Deutsche Welle material. Both you and I know that media outlets are free to criticise any state, politician or political parties. But this is a different case.

First, I received a screenshot of allegedly advertising material, which do not simply provide facts about Russia, but offer their opinions of the Russian Federation. In other words, they took money to provide absolutely sick and insulting opinions of Russia. Second, we are talking about a government-financed German media outlet. In other words, a media outlet that claims to be independent and that other media outlets are not independent but publish propaganda material in Russia, has taken money – I repeat, money – to publish this material. Third, Russia is being accused of paying its media outlets to publish political advertising, and this allegation is being used to stage a loud political show.

Here are a few facts regarding the case at hand. As I already said, it was not us who found this material. As our British partners say regarding [media watchdog] Ofcom’s complaints against RT, we received them from users. I don’t know what kind of material Ofcom receives and from what users, but I do know what users send to us. I know and can provide the name of the person who has sent this material to me. This person, whom I don’t know personally, has sent me material from his Twitter account. We have conducted a kind of investigation, and today I am ready to tell you about it and even to show you something. The arrows, ticks and brackets are not ours. It is what users have sent to us, asking if it is normal that Deutsche Welle is publicising such opinions formulated as political advertising.

I would like to say that we asked Deutsche Welle to confirm or refute the fact that they take money for the publication of such insulting opinions. We have not received an official reply from Deutsche Welle so far. They have neither confirmed nor refuted this. They have taken time to deal with this matter. This is not fake news. This is what users have sent to us, and we have asked Deutsche Welle about it. I think we will send an official request to them today. We really want an answer.

We tried to track the path of such material, which clearly aim to influence the opinion of Russian speaking audiences. They are not doing this within the framework of journalistic work, which is strange when efforts are taken to form and promote a specific opinion. This is not journalism but propaganda, because this is done for money. Moreover, we are talking about the propaganda strategy and government support of Deutsche Welle.

SMM technologists know very well about the commercial placement of information in the social media, so-called paid targeting. They chose a post or tweet, which the account administrator wants to make known to as many people as possible, determine the country, the sex and the age of target audience, as well as the timeframe for publishing this information. And then they pay up and launch the information.

To tell you the truth, we have known for some time that Deutsche Welle tweets are promoted in this manner on users’ accounts. Today we can give you proof. We have received it from users. Another interesting detail is that this tweet is not marked in the Deutsche Welle newswire as “promoted.” Therefore, this is a fraud. We expect explanations from Deutsche Welle. By the way, it would be nice if Twitter explained how it happens that one and the same product is labelled as “promoted” and paid for on some sites and not as such other sites.

The Twitter administration claims that all promoted tweets must be clearly labelled as “promoted” when an advertiser is paying for their placement on Twitter. But it turns out that there are ways to avoid this. The promotion campaign can use settings that will prevent users from knowing that this is a promoted tweet. We are indeed waiting for an official response from Deutsche Welle and Twitter regarding this case.

It is an alarming situation, because paid targeting can be used to influence a target audience. We would like to know which audience Deutsche Welle is trying to influence, and who is paying for this. We have asked a direct question. We have nothing to hide. The tweet we are talking about does not have the “promoted” marking.

We would like the parties concerned to explain what they have in mind using the example of this case.



Act of vandalism against the monument to fallen Red Army soldiers

We are extremely concerned about the reports coming from the Czech Republic on the acts of vandalism committed within the month on June 6 and June 11 against the obelisk commemorating the Red Army soldiers who were killed in the May 1945 battles for Prague. The obelisk is located near Prague Castle, which makes these unlawful actions even more demonstrative as well as provocative.

Such a blasphemous attitude to the memory of our fallen soldiers is absolutely outrageous. We hope that the city authorities will take appropriate measures to restore the obelisk and prevent such acts in the future.

We are grateful to Mr Jiri Ovcacek, the Czech President’s press secretary, for his personal interference and prompt action to eliminate the consequences of these acts of vandalism and initiate an appropriate investigation. We expect that the perpetrators will be identified and will be properly punished.



Desecration of a monument to Soviet soldiers in Poland

In the village of Sarnice (Wielkopolska), vandals desecrated a monument to Soviet reconnaissance men who sacrificed their lives in 1944 to liberate Poland from Nazi occupation. The vandals destroyed the bas-relief and wrote insulting words on the monument.

This is not the first time that the monument has been attacked. It was previously targeted by vandals in November of last year. Encouraged by the sense of impunity caused by rampant state-sponsored Russophobia in Poland, the hooligans have struck again.

The incident in Sarnice demonstrates that the Polish authorities remain unresponsive to the calls to put an end to this vandalism, which, unfortunately, is spreading across the country. All of this is certainly dealing a severe blow to the very foundation of relations with Russia.

Our demands remain the same. We continue to insist that Warsaw complies with its international obligations and the norms of civilized behaviour and treats with respect the memory of Soviet soldiers. The monument in Sarnice must be restored.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

There have been reports that during the G7 summit US President Donald Trump said that the Crimean Peninsula is part of Russia since they speak Russian there. Could this indicate a certain reversal of the global policy regarding Crimea and its belonging to Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Federation has repeatedly stated at all levels that the subject of Crimea’s status is closed. We hear lots of questions about this. Some of the comments are absolutely anti-Crimean and offensive to the people of Crimea. At the same time, there are comments in line with reality and calling to accept it, including by visiting Crimea to personally see this reality.

I would like to reiterate what has been numerously stated at all levels. The topic of Crimea’s status is closed. Once again we would like to draw your attention to the fact that if there are any doubts regarding the status of Crimea, you should refer to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Commenting on what has been said or discussed behind closed doors and through various information leaks is a thankless job.

The US officials have themselves refused to comment on this. There are many reliable and unreliable leaks. We only work with facts. Once again I would like to reiterate that Russia's position on this matter has not changed.



Question:

At the meeting between the US president and the leader of North Korea the North Korean side reaffirmed its desire for denuclearisation. In view of these developments, is Russia planning to take part in the disarmament of the Korean Peninsula? If yes, what role will it play?



Maria Zakharova:

We have noted and welcomed the positive dynamics that has been created following the recent summits and meetings on the subjects that you mentioned. With regard to disarmament matters, there are international institutions that are directly responsible for dealing with this issue and they should play the primary role in its resolution.

If Russia's participation, as a member of these international organisations or as a country with extensive experience, is required, Russia, as you know, is open to cooperation on all these matters.



Question:

On behalf of all Armenian fans, I would like to congratulate you on the glorious victory of the Russian team at the 2018 FIFA World Cup and express the hope that the team will keep it up. After the Russia-Saudi Arabia match, President of Russia Vladimir Putin held a meeting of CIS heads of state who attended the match, and introduced the newly elected Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, to President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev (Nikol Pashinyan has spoken about this himself). I know that you do not comment on anything that concerns the president, but do you think this can give a fresh impetus to the negotiations within the Minsk Group?



Maria Zakharova:

You should not confuse the formats: communication between presidents, which assumes multilateral and bilateral interaction, and a problem involving a different format for its solution. The creation of a favourable environment, in our opinion, not only facilitates the negotiation process, but is a most important prerequisite for a solution to the problem you have mentioned. However, I would like to point out again, these are different formats.



Question:

Is a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump under consideration? Are there concrete dates and options for such a meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

Everything related to summits can be commented by the Presidential Executive Office, its press service and other representatives.



Question:

President Vladimir Putin personally instructed Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to make arrangements for this meeting.



Maria Zakharova:

Russian and American colleagues are in close communication on a series of issues. As for organisational matters and top level meetings, the Presidential Executive Office can comment on that. That is the custom in Russia.



Question:

The Petersburg ferry has been seized in Estonia; 11 out of the 12 crew members do not have Schengen visas. The ferry cannot leave the port and the crew is periodically experiencing power cuts due to non-payment. All of this can lead to deplorable sanitation conditions. Is the Foreign Ministry monitoring the situation regarding the sailors who have been abandoned by their transport company? What assistance will they receive?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian vessel Petersburg has been in the Tallinn port since April 28, 2018. The vessel was seized for non-payment of repair debts. The sum is big: 350,000 euros. The ship also owes an Estonian company 50,000 euros for water and electricity. There are 12 crew members.

According to the Russian Embassy in Estonia, the sailors have just received their salaries for February 2018. There are plans for a partial change of crew: three people will leave the ship and six new people will arrive. A new captain has arrived in Tallinn to accept the position. Staff at the Embassy will observe the replacement process to find out what the Russian citizens need and what assistance they require to return to Russia. The Russian Ministry of Transport is also involved in the case. Our Embassy in Estonia is monitoring the situation, so it cannot be said that the sailors are abandoned. All relevant agencies are working on this problem. I can say for sure that diplomats visit the vessel regularly to oversee the situation and they know about the needs of the crew and are doing everything they can to solve the problem.



Question:

The government of Afghanistan introduced a truce with the Taliban, which also ceased fire for three days. What is your opinion of this decision? Which direction should the situation take following this?



Maria Zakharova:

We believe that any steps and measures that help ease tension, including this case, strengthen stability and are constructive and important for the country and the region as a whole. It is a short comment. I will certainly request additional information and will subsequently provide more details.



Question:

Russia has expelled the political department of the US Embassy in Moscow in response to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the United States. Have both countries renewed their diplomatic corps?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no details regarding full replacement. I will request them.



Question:

Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin wrote in an article published in the Belgrade newspaper Politika on the occasion of Russia Day that Russia can play a more active role in the matter concerning Kosovo if Serbia requests this. We know that Russia is playing a certain role, which cannot be described as passive, in dealing with the matter of Kosovo at the UN. Is there any practical space for expanding Russia’s support?



Maria Zakharova:

I did not see that interview, but I believe that some accents have been shifted, as is often the case. It could be an answer to a question regarding the role Russia could additionally play in this matter. I believe that Russia could play such a role if Serbia asked for this. I don’t think the ambassador took the initiative to offer this. Of course, everything Russia has been doing towards the settlement of the Kosovo problem, as we have confirmed in our political statements, above all reflects the interests and requests of Serbia as a state and a nation. It is not a matter of forcing Russian interests on the country, but of acting in response to Serbia’s request for assistance in the settlement of this very complicated and dramatic question. It is our firm position that these questions are for the Serbs themselves to decide, while Russia is always ready to offer them a helping hand.



Question:

I just wanted to say that the ambassador’s statements looked pretty straightforward to me as well. The matter can be only addressed in the manner you have outlined today.



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, I know that this often happens when accents get shifted around and the most impressive statements are presented out of context. I will read the interview, but I am almost certain that he was answering a question.



Question:

The press statement made by the OSCE Minsk Group’s co-chairs yesterday mentioned the possibility of a meeting between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia in the near future. Do you know about the place and the time of this meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

I suggest that you ask the parties concerned, that is, the official representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan. I believe it would be more appropriate if they commented on the possibility of a ministerial meeting.



Question:

During the previous briefing, we asked you a question about Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement that the talks to settle the Nagorny Karabakh conflict should be held in a trilateral format. Artyom Kozhin said that “bold statements that run counter to the principles laid down by the OSCE, among others, are probably non-constructive.” In the transcript published on the Foreign Ministry website, the word “such statements” was replaced by “your statements.” We would like to ask you to correct this mistake, because it changes the meaning of the sentence.



Maria Zakharova:

Does your pedantic approach concern only this particular question? You know, so many times I have seen my words or the words of my colleagues twisted and you have done this as well, as you remember. You are not usually so pedantic.

I believe that our briefings are aimed at providing answers. But, unfortunately, in the past three years I have repeatedly come upon the situation where questions sound like political statements. And you know about this. Such questions are asked, not with the aim of solving a difficult problem but, among other things, to pursue a different goal.

I am addressing everyone now: we are ready to give you answers, facts and assessments. But I do not think that it is right to ask provocative questions especially related to the most complex issues that affect the peoples of two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

You have not called me once in the past two weeks; I did not receive any calls from the Trend news agency. It is very weird because, in my opinion, if you were concerned about it as a journalist or as an agency, you would have called me, which you did not. So why did you wait two weeks and then raise this question again in a public arena? Do you want to make this situation provocative? Why are you doing this?

Our country is doing its best to settle the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. Why? You know perfectly well. First, we want the two peoples to finally settle this problem of bloodshed, and second, we want to develop relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan and we also want these two countries to develop bilateral relations. It seems to me that our objective is to accelerate the settlement, not postpone it.

Once again, I would like to say that I have permitted myself such a long monologue for one reason: you have not called me in two weeks. At the same time, I can say that I received many calls from Azerbaijan. And many of those present here today also called me and received answers to their questions. Your agency did not call.

I suggest we work constructively and use the opportunity to ask and answer questions not for provocative purposes, but in order to solve the main problem which is to settle the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. Don’t you agree?



Question:

First of all, let me congratulate you and all Russians on the grand opening of the World Cup and winning the game yesterday. My question concerns the United States’ military biological activity near the Russian border. Minister Lavrov raised the matter recently. My colleague and I visited Georgia just before this briefing where we collected some evidence, facts and documents that will be presented in a documentary. Is it possible that Russia could introduce sanctions against individuals and American companies involved in this activity since it is funded by the US Department of Defence? We have proof of experiments, including on humans, which pose great danger not only to Russia but to the entire world.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you. If possible, please hand over this information to me after the briefing. We will review it and issue a comment.



Question:

Russian Commissioner for Human Rights Tatiana Moskalkova accused Ukrainian human right ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova of violating Russian law due to her intention to meet with convicted Ukrainian film director Oleg Sentsov. Is the Foreign Ministry aware of any violation by Ms Denisova? What measures may be taken against her?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no information on this matter. I know that the telephone conversation between the Russian and the Ukrainian presidents on June 9 resulted in an agreement that human rights commissioners of the two countries will visit the incarcerated Russian and Ukrainian nationals. I know that the work has begun. I do not have any more details but I can find out. Of course, we are expecting details directly from the original sources, the human rights commissioners of the two countries.



Question:

As you spoke about Norway, I thought about the 2015 Swedish-Norwegian television serial, Occupied, in which Russia occupies Norway. Don’t you think that they have watched too much television serials and just got scared of a possible threat?



Maria Zakharova:

There is a whole range of measures involved. We regularly comment on this propaganda. Let me repeat once again, I will try to make a list of historical monographs, books, research and archives on Russophobia and its application. I have already quoted some very interesting sources today.


***


Please follow updates on the Foreign Ministry website where we will publish an announcement and invitation to one of the World Cup host cities where we are holding the next regular briefing next Wednesday. I myself am really looking forward to seeing the City Press Centres and the host stadium. If anyone cannot go there, please send your questions in advance and we will try to answer them.

Thank you for the greetings on the occasion of the World Cup opening and for praising our team.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3260571
__________________
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 June 27th, 2018 #444
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo



18 June 2018 - 17:21







On June 18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a call initiated by the US side.

The focus of the conversation was on issues pertaining to the Syrian settlement process guided by UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and on the tasks of consolidating efforts to resolve the problems of the Korean Peninsula.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Pompeo also discussed some aspects of bilateral relations, including the schedule of political contacts between Russia and the United States for the near future.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3262943






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Ambassador of Bulgaria to Russia Boyko Kotzev



18 June 2018 - 19:01



On June 18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received Ambassador of Bulgaria to Russia Boyko Kotzev upon the completion of his mission.

During the conversation the officials discussed urgent issues of Russia-Bulgaria cooperation in the context of the growing political dialogue. The ambassador’s personal contribution to advancing bilateral cooperation was noted.

Mr Lavrov presented Mr Kotzev with the Foreign Ministry’s badge “For Cooperation” for his significant efforts to help consolidate and develop Russia-Bulgaria relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3262966






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, Minsk, June 19, 2018



19 June 2018 - 23:03




Colleagues,

Close foreign policy coordination within the Union State is becoming increasingly important in light of persistent global tensions. The United States and its allies do not hesitate to interfere, including with military force, in the internal affairs of sovereign states. We are deeply concerned about the deployment of the US global ballistic missile defence system and the simultaneous amendment of US doctrines with a provision on lowering the nuclear threshold. Of special concern is the build-up of NATO’s military infrastructure and activity on the borders with Russia and the Republic of Belarus. The US unilateral withdrawal from the agreements on Iran’s nuclear programme is proof of the US administration’s disregard for its international legal commitments, let alone its political declarations and promises.

In this difficult situation, our foreign policy departments maintain close and constant contact and are working on joint practical measures. We highly appreciate the fact that our Belarusian colleagues took our side during the voting on the controversial resolutions on Crimea at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly and at the session of the UNESCO Executive Board, as well as Georgia’s draft resolution that exploited the problem of refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Our Belarusian friends joined us to firmly and unambiguously condemn the missile strikes delivered by the United States, Britain and France at Syria in April this year. Not all members of the international community chose to act independently and provide a principled response to that gross violation of international law.

The new programme of concerted foreign policy actions for 2018−2019 will ensure continuity in the key areas. The most important of them are closer cooperation in the CSTO and other integration structures, a common policy at the UN, the OSCE, the OPCW and other international organisations, joint work on European security issues, including relations with NATO and the EU, and on resisting new challenges and threats, as well as multilateral cooperation in the humanitarian and law enforcement areas. Our common priority is to provide diplomatic support to the EAEU, to enhance its international prestige and to create a greater European partnership involving member states of the EAEU, the SCO, ASEAN and, in the long run, hopefully also the EU.

In keeping with an initiative of our foreign ministries, we have drafted collective instructions for the heads of the EAEU member states’ foreign diplomatic offices aimed at coordinating their public awareness campaigns regarding integration in our common space. We ask the Supreme State Council to approve the joint foreign policy action programme for 2018−2019.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3264452






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the talks with Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland, Moscow, June 20, 2018



20 June 2018 - 13:06








Secretary General,

Colleagues,

We are glad to welcome you once again in the Russian Federation, and reiterate Russia’s unwavering commitment to strengthening the Council of Europe as a universal pan-European organisation with unique convention mechanisms that ensure a unified legal and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The Russian Federation continues to be actively involved in the work of the Council of Europe. Over the past few years, Russia has ratified six additional international legal acts within our organisation.

We note with satisfaction that on the opening day of the 2018 FIFA World Cup, June 14, Moscow hosted a special meeting of the ministers of sport on fighting match-fixing in football.

We are also grateful for the participation of a Council of Europe delegation in the recent St Petersburg International Legal Forum, and hope that the Council of Europe will likewise be represented at the Eurasian Women’s Forum and the St Petersburg International Cultural Forum that will take place this autumn.

Of course, in the current environment the Council of Europe’s contribution is particularly important when it comes to protecting ethnic minorities, including the right to education in one’s native language, as well as the eradication of mass statelessness and countering aggressive nationalism.

Today, we cannot fail to mention that the organisation is going through a system-wide crisis related to the situation within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We greatly appreciate your efforts to find a way out of this crisis, Mr Secretary General. The solution must be based on the principles that govern the work of the Council of Europe and were devised by its founding fathers. One of these principles is equality among all member countries.

I expect our meeting today to focus on these matters so as to help us move forward.

Welcome!


***


Sergey Lavrov (adding after Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland):

I have failed to mention the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but, now that you have reminded us about this organisation, I would like to note that the number of complaints to the ECHR against the Russian Federation has decreased 3.5-fold in the past five years.

No one and nothing is perfect in this world, and we would therefore like the Court itself to improve its performance and, most importantly, to honour the subsidiary principle on the basis of which it functions. We cannot help but feel alarmed that, owing to the above-mentioned crisis at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, over one-third of judges in the current line-up at the European Court of Human Rights were elected without the participation of a delegation of Russian MPs. Therefore your efforts and the efforts of all those wishing to overcome this crisis in line with the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe are ever more important.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3266263






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint press conference following talks with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Moscow, June 21, 2018



21 June 2018 - 13:01








Ladies and gentlemen,

The talks with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres were productive, extensive and concrete.

Of course, we discussed the difficult situation that pertains in international relations. We associate this primarily with the attempts to push through unilateral approaches to settling a variety of international problems to the detriment of searching for collective answers to the challenges of our time. Unfortunately, this negative trend is fully reflected in the work of the UN Security Council.

We agreed that the discussion of such key international issues as the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, including Syria, Libya, Yemen, as well as the Palestinian-Israeli settlement is far from being smooth. We talked about the crises that persist in Africa, which don’t lend themselves to easy solutions. We discussed in detail how the UN and its Secretariat can contribute to facilitating progress in these matters.

We also exchanged views on the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian nuclear programme after the United States announced its withdrawal from this fundamental international legal instrument. We discussed new angles that inspire optimism with regard to developments on the Korean Peninsula and related developments. It was very important for us to hear Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, clarify his vision of ways to overcome old and new conflicts in today’s world, the number of which, as I said, unfortunately, is not diminishing.

Russia actively participates in the UN member states’ efforts to harmonise the modalities of the Secretariat reform initiated by UN Secretary-General Guterres, which is already at an advanced stage. We support his initiatives aimed at making the UN more effective in addressing the issues facing the international community and achieving this goal through joint efforts and dialogue between all member states.

Russia has always been in favour of strengthening the central role of the UN, the inviolability of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council for maintaining international peace and security. This is our principled position, which was clearly confirmed yesterday by President Vladimir Putin at a meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in the Kremlin.

We believe that objectivity, impartiality in dealing with acute global problems, and a focus on taking account of the entire range of the member states’ positions guarantee the UN efforts’ effectiveness. We see the UN Secretary-General’s commitment to this kind of work, his sincere desire to help overcome the differences between the main players and find mutually beneficial solutions to existing challenges. We also have great respect for the humanistic agenda that the UN Secretary-General is promoting at the UN in all areas of its activities, primarily, in the context of resolving conflicts and crises.

Once again, I would like to express my satisfaction with the talks.



Question:

The other day the United States announced its decision to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over its resolution criticising Israel. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley denounced the “blind hatred of Israel” expressed in the policies of the HRC, and the day before said that the council criticised Israel “10 times as often as it has criticised Iran.” Does the HRC really pay too much attention to Israel? What do you think about the US withdrawal from the HRC?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres):

We hope that it is not the final decision and the United States will confirm its commitment to the UN, especially in the vital sphere of human rights.

As you know, the US has considered itself to be a champion in this area. If this is indeed so, there must be arguments in favour of the US working at the HRC and interacting with those whose initiatives and positions do not entirely coincide with those of the United States.

As for the council’s “blind hatred of Israel”, as US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said, I do not share this view. The UN Security Council is obliged to analyse the Secretary-General’s reports on the situation in the Middle East, including the situation on the Palestinian-Israeli track. These reports are based on the decisions that the UN Security Council took in the past. The debates following the UN Secretary-General’s reports are influenced by the events that take place in the Middle East directly between Palestinians and Israelis.

I can tell you that the recent discussions on the violence there, the clashes, the attacks launched against Israel from the Gaza Strip, as well as Israel’s actions in response, have shown that the majority of UN Security Council members have an objective view on the situation. At least, the attacks on Israel have been clearly denounced, including by the Russian delegation.



Question:

It is said increasingly often that the UN must be reformed, but [will reform help if] some countries do not implement UN resolutions. For example, four UNSC resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh have not been implemented in the past 25 years. What can ensure compliance with UN resolutions? Will reform help?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres):

As I see it, our colleague from the Moscow-Baku agency is asking about the situation with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. The resolutions she mentioned were adopted at the height of hostilities. These resolutions, along with some measures taken on the ground, including by Russia, helped stop the bloodshed and launch a political dialogue. All the parties involved agreed to create the OSCE Minsk Group to address the remaining issues, including the liberation of territories and a political settlement, by determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is what we have been doing since then.

Russia, the United States and France as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have been working, with the consent of Baku and Yerevan, to attain their goals. But this is only possible if there is consensus between the parties to the conflict. I am sure that the probability of a settlement will greatly increase as soon as we start moving in this direction.



Question:

What can you say about cooperation with the US in the context of the United States saying it would be possible to make progress in settling the Syrian crisis and the DPRK issue at the summit. Are there any contacts with the US with regard to holding this summit? Is it true that National Security Adviser to President Trump John Bolton will be in Moscow soon?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres):

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly pointed out that, in our opinion, whenever the United States and Russia cooperate in order to resolve an international problem, in most cases they succeed in doing so. All members of the international community benefit from this. We operate on the premise that this is what many countries are actually looking for. The UN Secretary-General just confirmed that he considers it important that our countries cooperate, rather than remain in a position where our relations are undermined by artificially created problems dating back to the Obama administration.

We are open to a dialogue with the US on all issues. Undoubtedly, normalising just bilateral relations would go a long way to promoting more effective and closer interaction in the international arena. So, our proposals on how to overcome well-known irritants in bilateral relations have been sent to Washington more than once. The last time I sent them was to new US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Concurrenly, we are ready to act precisely in this way in international situations, where we can interact already now. As you may be aware, we maintain diplomatic and military contacts on the Syrian settlement, and, at the same time, we maintain close relations with the UN, the Secretary General and his Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura. So, I’m aware of the leaks in Washington to the effect that a summit is about to be held or there will be a proposal to hold it. We do not comment on leaks. However, everyone is aware that we are always willing to establish contacts. So, if we agree on a meeting at a high or the highest level, we will, of course, make proper announcements.



Question:

A report is out accusing the Syrian army and its allies of war crimes committed during the liberation of Eastern Ghouta. The report is based on certain data. What can you say about it? To what extent are the data cited by the UN objective, given that the report also makes accusations against armed formations based in that region?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’m not aware of it. As far as I understand, the issue is about a report compiled by the Pinheiro Commission, also known as the Human Rights Commission, which received its mandate through a rather vague voting procedure in the Human Rights Council, and engages in remote examination – from a humanitarian point of view – of certain situations that arise in Syria. The commission does not do onsite inspections. As I heard today in the news, it uses data from social media and videos made by witnesses. I heard it allegedly interviewed 140 people, and so on and so forth.

We are very skeptical about distance methods when doing this kind of work, whether it be war crimes in general or the use of chemical weapons. We have already provided many comments on the ways such sensational news are often engineered.

I saw a televised story today, I think it was Euronews, which commented on the release of this report. They said it contains documented war crimes committed by the Syrian government and illegal armed groups. This text was read as they showed the already well-known video, where the boy named Ayman is being doused with water allegedly in an attempt to save him from a chemical agent.

Euronews is a respectable TV channel. What’s more, it claims to be the most objective one, as they refer to themselves, which broadcasts all views without exception. As you may remember, the story with Ayman did not end there. After the specialists watched the video and wondered why nothing in it looks realistic from the perspective of what an agent does to humans, we made arrangements with the Syrian government and brought Ayman, his parents and other participants of this video to The Hague to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, where they said they were approached by the White Helmets, which the US recently resumed funding, who began to pour water on them.

So, when our esteemed colleagues from the media carry such news, I still very much hope that the picture is not going to be one-sided, but rather will show the story from different angles and present all publically available facts.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3273166






Opening Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Belgium Didier Reynders, Moscow, 23 June 2018



23 June 2018 - 13:18








Mr Minister, my dear Didier,

We appreciate this opportunity to have a meeting with you again in connection with today's football match between Belgium and Tunisia. I also know that Philippe King of Belgium will attend the game. We value very much his contribution to friendship, cooperation, as well as to the development of relations between our countries.

This year, we celebrate 165 years since the establishment of our diplomatic ties. We remember and continue the wonderful traditions established by our predecessors. This was confirmed during Prime Minister Charles Michel’s visit to Russia in January and his talks with President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

During our meeting in February of this year, we agreed upon concrete steps to expand our cooperation concerning various international matters. I am pleased to point out that these agreements are being successfully implemented. We look forward to close contacts with Belgium during its upcoming participation in the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member in 2019-2020.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274338
__________________
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 June 27th, 2018 #445
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about an attack on the OSCE SMM in Donbass



20 June 2018 - 21:21




Question:

The other day, the State Department’s Heather Nauert tweeted that “Russia’s proxies” in Donbass allegedly fired surface to air missiles at OSCE civilian UAVs and harassed unarmed OSCE monitors, who risked their lives defending civilians. She urged Russia to stop its disgusting behaviour and get out of Ukraine before more SMM staff died. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

These irresponsible statements represent yet another attempt to confuse public opinion, present Russia as a party to the internal Ukrainian conflict, which it is not, and whitewash Kiev that has been sabotaging its commitments under the Minsk Agreements.

One gets the impression that Washington is hardly aware of either the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission’s mandate in Ukraine or its reports on the situation in the region. Let me remind you that the SMM is supposed to monitor the situation, not defend civilians.

In fact, SMM reports do record attacks on OSCE UAV drones from both sides in the conflict. But for some reason, Washington does not comment on attacks by the Ukrainian armed forces (UAF).

As for civilian casualties, the SMM reports that 48 Donbass civilians have been hit by UAF bullets and artillery shells since the start of this year (nine died and 39 were wounded), while the figures for the UAF-controlled territory are five killed and four wounded. These figures speak for themselves.

Only one SMM employee, US paramedic Joseph Stone, was killed during its four years in Donbass. This happened last April, when his car hit a landmine in LPR-controlled territory. We reiterate our condolences to Mr Stone’s family and to the US side. The international commission that investigated the incident came to the conclusion that the Donbass self-defence forces were not implicated in planting the landmine. Incidentally, a Russian OSCE monitor was in the second SMM car that followed the vehicle carrying Joseph Stone. He could have been in Stone’s place.

We call on our US partners to be more responsible and professional with regard to their public statements, even on Twitter. It is high time they stopped distorting facts and covering up for Kiev. Instead they should encourage Kiev to implement the Minsk Agreements and, more precisely, to stop shelling Donbass, lift the blockade of the region and grant it a special status within the Ukrainian state. We are confident that Washington is capable of influencing Kiev.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3266723






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Deputy Chairman of the opposition Syrian High Negotiations Committee Khaled al-Mahamid



22 June 2018 - 15:15



On June 22, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov met with Deputy Chairman of the Syrian opposition High Negotiations Committee Khaled al-Mahamid in Dubai at the latter’s request.

They exchanged views on a package of issues related to the settlement of the Syrian crisis, in particular, in the context of a series of consultations between the high representatives of Russia, Iran and Turkey, and Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Staffan de Mistura, held recently in Geneva. A number of Syrian opposition representatives, including Khaled al-Mahamid, took part in these consultations.

The Russian representatives emphasised the importance of the consolidated efforts in the Astana format, which are aimed at facilitating the formation, as soon as possible, of a constitutional committee based on the decisions of the Syrian National Congress so that it can begin its work in Geneva on Syrian fundamental law. Importantly, the Syrian Government has already submitted to Mr de Mistura a list of its representatives for the constitutional committee. Meanwhile the Syrian opposition has not yet compiled a similar list that must be inclusive and represent candidates from all major internal and external groups that oppose Damascus.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274194






Statement by Dmitry Balakin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to fulfill the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, June 21, 2018



22 June 2018 - 20:59




Mr Chairman,

Tensions are rising in Donbass again. According to Principal Deputy Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) Alexander Hug in his interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant on June 19, the number of violations of the ceasefire has increased by 70 percent, and the number of armaments violating the withdrawal line has grown four times during the last week.

Once again Kiev provokes military tensions in Donbass. The artillery of the Joint Forces Operation shells densely populated Donbass districts on the other side of the contact line. According to the SMM data, four civilians have been wounded in the Kuibyshev District of Donetsk (June 11), Kirovsk (June 14) and the village of Zhelobok (June 17); schools and other buildings have been damaged or destroyed in Dokuchayevsk (June 12 and 14), Kominternovo (June 12, 14, 15 and 16), Krasny Partizan (June 12), Donetsky (June 12), Golubovsky (June 14) and Mikhailovsk (June 16) during 13 attacks coming from the dispositions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces since June 12. The SMM have confirmed instances of drones crossing the contact line from the side controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in violation of the Minsk Agreements.

Ukrainian security officials continue to violate their obligations to withdraw troops and armaments. The ceasefire has been in force in the village of Luganskaya for almost a month, since May 23, but the Ukrainian Armed Forces have not begun withdrawing. During a meeting of the Normandy Format foreign ministers we drew attention to Kiev’s violation of Contact Group’s Framework Agreement signed on September 21, 2016.

Kiev is moving additional offensive forces to the contact line. On June 12 – 19, the SMM recorded 53 units of heavy equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in violation of the Minsk Package of Measures, as well as 151 units right next to the withdrawal line.

The situation around the Donetsk water filtering plant remains complicated. The Ukrainian military maintain their fortified positions in the immediate vicinity to this critical site. Unfortunately, ambiguous accusations that Donbass fighters were the first to approach the plant only aggravate the armed confrontation.

It is gratifying that several UN humanitarian agencies have registered in Donbass given the difficult situation in the region. In Donetsk there are UNICEF, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organisation for Migration. In Lugansk, in addition to these organisations, there is the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

We call on Kiev again to heed the signals communicated during the meeting of the foreign ministers of the Normandy Four in Berlin on June 11 and the Contact Group meetings, including the latest one on June 13. We should start working on concrete urgent measures for reaching a ceasefire put forward by the head of the Special Monitoring Mission Ertugrul Apakan. We expect Ukraine to issue orders not to use weapons or return fire, to reaffirm its obligations under the existing agreements, to vow not to attempt offensive actions and send in groups of saboteurs. It is necessary to achieve strict adherence to the ceasefire, speedy disengagement of forces and hardware withdrawal of heavy weapons, mine clearance and an end to shooting drills near the contact line.

Steps in this direction will help reduce tension in the east of Ukraine.

The view of Donbass as a “cancerous tumour on Ukraine,” which was marginal only recently, seems to keep winning new adherents among officials in Kiev. No other explanation can be found for Kiev’s stubborn refusal to meet its political commitments under the Minsk Package of Measures. Attempts to isolate Donbass or reintegrate it by force are a road to self-destruction for Ukraine. The peaceful alternative to this is the complete and comprehensive fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements with the rights and lawful interests of Donbass citizens guaranteed. We call on Kiev to incorporate the Frank Walter Steinmeier formula into the law on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. This formula links holding local elections in Donbass with the law taking effect. For almost two years the Ukrainian authorities have persistently evaded their obligations assumed at the Normandy format summit in Paris in October 2, 2015 and reaffirmed in Berlin on October 19, 2016. It is necessary to step up talks on the political aspects of Minsk Agreements, such as adopting the election law, making amendments to the constitution and enacting the amnesty.

So far the Ukrainian authorities demonstrate their unwillingness to begin a serious conversation within the Contact Group to lead the Minsk process out of deadlock, especially during a presidential election campaign which has essentially already begun in Kiev.
Ukrainian news is increasingly nothing more than bulletins on military operations all over the country. Explosions and gunfire sound far beyond the east of Ukraine. On June 14, following the detonation of an explosive device, four teenagers were badly injured in the Svyatoshinsky District of Kiev. Just as the army and police warehouses were seized during the Maidan, now weapons supplied by western countries are uncontrollably spreading from Donbass all over Ukraine. There is no guarantee that weapons will not flow across the border.

In this context, radical outlaws represent a growing danger in Ukraine. In an attempt to consolidate society on the basis of hate for everything Russian, Kiev encourages Ukrainian nationalists’ crimes. In their open letter to the Minister of the Interior and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine published on June 14, Amnesty International, Front Line Defenders, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House drew attention to the activities of nationalist groups, such as S14, Right Sector, Tradition and Order, and Carpathian Sich. Human rights defenders came to the logical conclusion that radicals’ impunity is a sign that they operate with consent of the authorities. The address contains an appeal to Kiev to publicly condemn radicalism, investigate crimes committed by nationalists and prosecute the guilty. This is an additional signal to the Special Monitoring Mission to speed up work on its report on manifestations of radical nationalism, neo-Nazism, extremism and xenophobia in Ukraine.

In its reports, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine notes more pronounced aggressive nationalism in the country. In its 22nd quarterly report, presented on June 20 in Geneva, the Mission confirms that the Ukrainian authorities are involving the C14 and National Corps radical groups in law-enforcement activities. Law-enforcement agencies are responsible for numerous arbitrary arrests, torture, degrading treatment and sexual violence. The report notes an upsurge of violence directed against media representatives. In all, 21 attacks and 71 freedom-of-the-press violations have been recorded from February 16 until May 15. The report notes the appearance of the Parasite Centre media resource that aims to harass journalists on a par with the Mirotvorets website. However, the report also contains biased assessments of the situation in Russian Crimea not covered by the Monitoring Mission’s mandate.

Ukrainian nationalists, the paramilitary wing of street democracy, are actively evolving into state policy architects. Their political weight continues to increase. Various political forces are vying for the loyalty of the radicals and are ready to pay for their support.

The law On Education being actively supported by nationalists hinges on the ideology of ethnocide. Kiev ignores its own international obligations in this sphere as well as the warnings on the part of the international community. The law On Education, together with the abolition of the law on the foundations of the state language policy, directly violate Kiev’s obligations as regards the OSCE and the Minsk Package of Measures stipulating the right to language self-determination to Donbass regions.

The voices of those disagreeing with Kiev’s policies continue to be suppressed. Apart from intimidating dissidents, the state continues to use its entire range of suppression tools. Journalists who are trying to provide objective coverage of national developments are being harassed. The other day, the Security Service of Ukraine issued an instruction on blocking 181 media outlets seen as ideologically unsafe by Ukrainian authorities. RIA Novosti Ukraine Head Kirill Vyshinsky remains in custody. Although the journalist’s health condition has deteriorated because he is unable to fulfill doctors’ medical recommendations in prison, the trial is being delayed. We are demanding the immediate release of Kirill Vyshinsky who is being punished by the authorities for his political activities.

Russian citizens from Crimea continue to be harassed. Yelena Odnovol, head of the regional branch of the Russian organisation the Volunteers of the Victory, who was arrested on April 23 on absurd charges remains in custody.

Kiev which is hiding behind the ideological screen of a mythical Russian aggression continues to shy away from the tasks of restoring harmony in society and the state’s integrity. We are confident that the Minsk Package of Measures, approved by a UN Security Council resolution, remains the only viable foundation for resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Our common task is to persuade the parties to the conflict - Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk - to fully comply with it during direct dialogue, as required by the Minsk Agreements.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274288






Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Yermakov’s remarks a joint Defence Ministry and the Foreign Ministry briefing on investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, Kubinka, June 22, 2018



22 June 2018 - 21:00




Ladies and gentlemen!

Russia’s position of principle is that the use of chemical weapons by anyone anywhere is absolutely unacceptable under any conditions. Those guilty of these crimes, provided their guilt is proven, must be brought to account.

This is why we not only supported but co-authored UN Security Council Resolution 2235 in 2015. As everyone remembers, Resolution 2235 established a Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) of the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate the use of chemicals as weapons in Syria. We believed, naturally, that the JIM and the other mechanism that existed at the time, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), would hold objective and highly professional investigations to identify the guilty parties on the basis of hard facts. Regrettably, our expectations did not materialise. The reason for this has been put forth by our military, who know the situation in the hostility zones in Syria from their own experience.

Another thing of major significance is that Russia has never demanded anything extraordinary from these two mechanisms. We only insisted that they act in strict compliance with the provisions of their mandates and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The curious thing is that our Western colleagues, who make a show of their commitment to international law, in this case did all they could to find a pretext for not complying with their own rules.

Let us take a look at what happened and continues to happen in Syria. Let us go to the roots of the developments. How did it all start?

Since 2011, the United States has been threatening, without any good reason and at various levels, including at a presidential level, to take military action against Syria if it crossed the mythical “red line” by using chemical weapons.

No hard facts of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government have been provided. At the same time, various anti-government forces, including the terrorist groups supported by the United States and its allies, started using chemical weapons increasingly more often.

On March 19, 2013, an opposition group launched an improvised rocket filled with sarin at Khan al-Assal, Aleppo. The attack resulted in 28 fatalities, 17 of them Syrian servicemen, and over 130 injuries of various degrees of severity. Damascus immediately took measures to initiate the chemical and biological investigation mechanism of the UN Secretary-General. However, a UN mission led by Professor Ake Sellstrom (Sweden) arrived in Syria only on August 14, 2013, after months of procrastination staged by the US, France and Britain at the UN Security Council.

The Western countries’ unwillingness to take measures at the UN Security Council to prevent real rather than imaginary threats has created a situation when the terrorist groups went unpunished and had enough time to stage a much larger sarin attack in Eastern Ghouta, Damascus, on August 21, 2013. They cynically timed the attack for the arrival of the UN Mission led by Dr Sellstrom and, of course, did their best to shift the blame for the attack on the Syrian Government. Over 1,500 people were injured in the heinous Ghouta attack.

In order to prevent any possible outside military interference in the intra-Syrian conflict, President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed that Syria join the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) without delay, declare its chemical stockpiles and place them under international control with the view to destroying them.

On September 14, 2013, talks between Russia and the US in Geneva resulted in a framework agreement supported by a resolution of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and UN Security Council Resolution 2118. A plan, unprecedented in scale, was devised to move the main elements of Syria’s chemical stockpiles out of the country and then destroy them.

The international operation to move all chemical weapons components and their precursors out of Syria was completed on June 23, 2014. All in all, 1,200 metric tonnes of toxic agents were removed from the country, and 100 metric tonnes of isopropanol, one of the less toxic agents, were destroyed on the ground. The operation to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons started on July 7, 2014 on board Cape Ray, a specialised US ship, and was completed on August 18, 2014. The reaction mass resulting from the hydrolysis of toxic compounds was recycled at industrial plants in Finland and Germany, and the precursors in Great Britain and the US, including methylphosphonyldifluoride (DF), a sarin precursor. (It is quite telling that the US had full access to the composition and technology of Syrian-made sarin, since some of the sarin precursors were recycled on board Cape Ray. Moreover, as part of its accession to CWC in 2013, Damascus transmitted to the OPCW detailed data on sarin production methods. Consequently, the fact that sarin used on April 4, 2017 in Khan-Sheikhoun contained DF cannot be viewed as “clear evidence” of its use by the Syrian government troops).

With assistance of Russia and other members of the international community Syria completed an operation of unprecedented scale for the OPCW to move chemical weapons stockpiles out of the country within an all-time record low of six months, while leading an extremely challenging struggle against international terrorism on its territory. The actual destruction of stockpiles took place outside Syria and was completed, albeit with a slight delay, by the end of 2015, which was caused by technical issues faced by our US partners (a one-year delay at a Vеolia plant).

Consequently, Syria’s chemical weapons capability was liquidated in its entirety under OPCW’s strict supervision. All this was solely attributable to the good will and dedication of the Syrian Government, as well as the proactive contribution by OPCW member countries. The elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons was confirmed by Director General of OPCW’s Technical Secretariat, Ahmet Üzümcü, on January 4, 2016. As of today, 27 former chemical weapons infrastructure facilities were destroyed, and 25 of them underwent full verification.

This could have been a very positive story on Syria’s chemical disarmament, which could pave the way to further constructive efforts to build an inclusive regional security framework. However a positive outcome was something Western countries could not accept by any means. What they wanted was actually the opposite: to destabilise Syria and destroy Assad’s regime.

The old inhumane and unheard-of schemes tested by the West in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya to destroy their statehood were engaged once again.

What followed was a series of fake news alleging that chlorine-based weapons were used in Syria. The choice of chlorine gas does not seem incidental. In fact, chlorine is one of the most common and ubiquitous chemical compounds, while it is almost impossible to detect it, even within a short time after its use, due to its extreme volatility. It is also impossible to place it under international control of any kind.

There is also another pattern that does not seem to be a mere coincidence. A series of chlorine gas attacks took place immediately after the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2209 on March 6, 2015 which condemned “in the strongest terms any use of any toxic chemical, such as chlorine, as a weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic” and decided “in the event of future non-compliance with resolution 2118 to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.”

There are a number of questions in this respect.

First, why would experts who used to work for Syria’s chemical weapons programme experiment with creating barrel bombs containing chlorine, while being in possession of full-fledged toxic compounds, as our Western colleagues now allege?

Second, how insane should the Syrian authorities be to position themselves as war criminals and outcasts? Maybe these fakes on the chemical attacks in Syria were merely an orchestrated campaign that played into the hands of the opponents of Syria’s legitimate government?

In any case, one fact is clear: using chemical weapons did not make any sense in military or strategic terms and was absolutely suicidal in political terms for the Syrian government, since it already controlled almost the entire territory of the country and had a wide range of much more effective conventional weapons at hand. In other words, there seems to be no motive whatsoever for Syria to use chemical weapons on its territory.

Nevertheless, it is against the backdrop of advances by the Syrian army and progress on the political track that reports on chemical weapons attacks spread in the Western media and at international platforms, accompanied by groundless accusations against Damascus. These irresponsible actions undermine efforts underway in Astana, Sochi and Geneva to achieve an inclusive political settlement in Syria, as set out in UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Representatives of the US-led coalition to fight ISIS, Russian military experts and OPCW experts confirmed on a number of occasions that terrorist groups, including ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, made military-grade toxic compounds such as mustard gas and used them in attacks regularly. Chemical weapons attacks took place not only in Syria, but also in Iraq, targeting both the military, including US and Australian military advisors, and civilians. Moreover, representatives of the US-led coalition have repeatedly found and destroyed chemical weapons manufacturing facilities in Iraq operated by ISIS. That said, for some reason our Western colleagues tend to forget these incidents and are extremely diligent at that, preferring to focus on the far-fetched chemical attacks by the Syrian army.

Over the past few years, we have been urging our colleagues at the UN Security Council to take measures against the threat of chemical terrorism in the Middle East. But all our appeals and initiatives were blocked by the United States and its allies.

The same happened to the Russian-proposed drafts of UN Security Council resolutions on adjusting the JIM’s methods to OPCW standards, as well as our draft decisions of the OPCW Executive Council on improving the FFM. This year alone, Russia submitted a draft resolution on the creation of a new independent investigative mechanisms twice. We also proposed decisions on the immediate dispatch of experts to Douma, Syria, which obliged all countries to provide assistance to the OPCW Mission. We advanced a similar demand last year after the chemical attack in Khan-Sheikhoun. But the United States and its allies not only blocked all of Russia’s positive initiatives, but also took outrageous steps that are unacceptable in civilised international relations. By launching missile attacks at the territory of a sovereign state, the United States and its allies have complicated the settlement of existing problems and pushed themselves into a corner. They will not justify these strikes because there is no justification for such actions.

Therefore, here is the most painful question for the Western countries: Are they really interested in conducting a full-scale investigation? Or do they only need a political farce and the adjustment of findings to the verdicts pronounced in Washington, London and Paris?

Despite these unacceptable theatricals by the Western countries, Russia will continue to advocate the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution on the creation of a really independent and professional agency that would work in strict compliance with the OPCW standards. We believe that there is no, nor can there be any alternative to this. The matter concerns an extremely responsible and delicate task of identifying those guilty of chemical weapons crimes.

We will also advance similarly high demands to the operation of the OPCW Mission. The deplorable idea of turning the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat, which is comprised of predominantly Western experts, into an attributive mechanism fully controlled by the West does not stand a chance. Any attempt of certain well-known states to legalise the extremely aggressive actions that go beyond the UN Charter will be laid bare. We will not allow a purely technical and so far quite successful multilateral non-proliferation mechanism into yet another politicised instrument of Western pressure on disagreeable governments.

We firmly urge all responsible countries to put a distance between them and this opportunistic idea. All of us should be guided by the interests of the OPCW’s unity and integrity. What is needed at this difficult stage is a demonstration of political will and efforts that will not fuel conflicts at the OPCW but will really help strengthen the chemical disarmament and non-proliferation regime to the benefit of all countries.

Let us shake off the negative sentiments that are being forced on us and return to the positive legal framework created by the existing agreements. Any questions can and must be settled on the basis of consensus decisions through comprehensive interstate talks. There is no alternative to this.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274298
__________________
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 June 27th, 2018 #446
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the opening of the 38th session of the UN Human Rights Council



18 June 2018 - 13:28



On June 18, the 38th session of the UN Human Rights Council will open in Geneva.

The agenda includes a wide range of issues related to the promotion and protection of human rights, including counteracting racism, preventing extrajudicial executions, observing the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, ensuring the independence of judges and lawyers, eliminating discrimination against women, protecting migrants’ rights, exercising the right to health and education, and respecting human rights in transnational corporations.

Plans also call for reviewing a series of problems in certain countries, including a discussion on human rights in Syria and Ukraine.

Participants will adopt relevant resolutions on the discussed subjects.

On the sidelines of the session, Russian non-governmental organisations will hold a series of events on counteracting racial and religious intolerance, as well as human rights violations in Ukraine.

The Russian delegation will consistently carry out a policy aimed at prohibiting politisation of the human rights agenda and its use as a pretext for interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs. We will direct our efforts towards helping our foreign partners realise the importance of making decisions on human rights exclusively based on equality and mutual respect, taking into account the opinions of all interested countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3262570






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the ceasefire in Afghanistan



18 June 2018 - 14:01



We welcome the statement by President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani on the extension of the temporary ceasefire announced by the Government of Afghanistan on the occasion of the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

It is important that the decision to halt hostilities does not apply to international terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan, primarily ISIS.

We express hope that the new initiative of Kabul will give impetus to ending the fratricidal war on the long-suffering Afghan land and will contribute to the beginning of a peaceful dialogue and the process of national reconciliation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3262605






Press release on a meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission for BSEC Affairs



19 June 2018 - 19:43



On June 19, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin chaired a meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission of the Russian Federation on the Affairs of the Organisation of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), which took place in Moscow.

The participants discussed Russia’s activity in the BSEC in 2017-early 2018 and exchanged opinions on the BSEC-related plans for Russia’s ministries and departments this year. Other matters included the activity of the Delovaya Rossiya (Business Russia) national public association in the BSEC Business Council and the operation of the Russia-initiated mechanism to promote project cooperation in the Black Sea region.

The commission stressed the importance of increasing the practical efficiency of non-politicised cooperation within the BSEC framework, expanding trade, economic and business ties and implementing in-demand international projects in the Black Sea region.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3264428






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the regular report of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine



20 June 2018 - 11:10



We have read the 22nd report issued by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine for the period from February 16 to May 15, 2018, circulated in Geneva.

We were pained to learn that the number of civilian victims of the conflict in Donbass has grown by 11 per cent over the reporting period, with 19 persons killed and 62 wounded.

It is a matter of particular concern that the main cause of civilian deaths is still the shelling of peaceful facilities from multiple rocket launchers. The number of deaths caused by landmines, trap mines, or improvised explosive devices remains inadmissibly high.

We share the appeal addressed to the parties to the conflict to strictly comply with the ceasefire agreements. We emphasise that firing at civilian infrastructure facilities is absolutely intolerable: every day, outages at filtration plants and power stations leave more than 500,000 residents of Donetsk without drinking water, electricity and heating and put the region on the verge of an environmental disaster. We would like to remind Ukrainian authorities that the shelling of civilian infrastructure is a direct violation of their international legal obligations.

A worrisome signal is that the Mission has recorded numerous facts of arbitrary detentions, torture, inhumane treatment and sexual harassment in areas adjoining the disengagement line. The monitors have managed to ascertain that the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and the Security Service of Ukraine account for three quarters of the said crimes.

We are outraged by the UN-documented facts of “subcontracting”, with Kiev actually outsourcing the law enforcement functions, including with regard to detentions and arrests, to radical groups or even neo-Nazis.

The general level of human rights violations in the country remains very high and impunity reigns supreme. The UN Mission has to state time and again that Ukrainian authorities lack the political will for and an interest in conducting a full-scale investigation into all facts of human rights violations, particularly those committed by Armed Forces or Security Service officers or members of “volunteer” units. All of this is occurring against the background of unprecedented pressure brought to bear on the judiciary, who, according to the monitors, are punished for any display of “anti-Ukrainian” behaviour. This facilitates the further spread of license and lawlessness across the country.

In a situation of this kind, we are not surprised at the lack of progress in the investigation of the monstrous crimes committed in Odessa on May 2, 2014.

We are seriously concerned over the Mission’s conclusions regarding Kiev’s discriminatory policy towards Ukrainian citizens living in Donbass. Its failure to pay compensations for lost or confiscated housing, social benefits and pensions to internally displaced persons, the existence of artificial restrictions on civilians crossing the disengagement line lead to further impoverishment of the poorest strata and deeper splits in Ukrainian society and thereby reduce the chances for potential national reconciliation.

We share the international monitors’ concern in connection with the Ukrainian authorities stepping up their offensive against civic and political liberties, including their encroachment on the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, media freedom, as well as physical assaults on journalists. According to the Ukrainian National Union of Journalists, between January and March 2018 alone, there were assaults on 21 media employees and 71 cases of freedom of speech violations were put on record. The report reflects expulsions of Russian Channel 1 and Rossiya television networks reporters, and the arrest on the trumped-up charges of high treason of Kirill Vyshinsky, head of RIA Novosti Ukraine.

It is a matter of extreme concern that the investigation into the illegal activities of the Mirotvorets website has lost momentum and that new similar resources, such as Parasite Centre, crop up in Ukraine. We urge Kiev to revise its state policy in the area of TV and radio content and to abolish the inordinately tough restrictions on the importation of printed matter.

Another worrisome signal is the UN-recorded proliferation of hate rhetoric and related violence in Ukrainian society. Over the reporting three-month period, 23 cases of attacks on opposition activists, anti-corruption fighters, women’s rights defenders and Roma were recorded. It is a matter of particular concern that the said acts of violence were committed with the full acquiescence of the official authorities and law enforcers.

We call on Kiev to listen attentively to the Monitoring Mission’s assessments of the Law on Education, which grossly violates the rights of language minorities living in the country, particularly Russian speakers. We expect the holding of separate comprehensive and effective consultations on Art. 7 of the law, as recommended by the international monitors.

We once again have to point out that the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission’s mandate excludes focus on the situation in third countries. The Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol are territory of the Russian Federation. We regard yet another attempt to include an assessment of the situation in this Russian region into the report as unlawful.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3264602






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Russia’s response to the Latvian Government’s decision to impose an entry ban on 49 Russians from the so-called Magnitsky List



20 June 2018 - 17:22



The deputy head of the Latvian diplomatic mission in Moscow was summoned to the Foreign Ministry following an unfriendly decision of the Latvian Government to impose an entry ban on 49 Russians from the so-called Magnitsky List. She was given a list of openly anti-Russia citizens of Latvia, who advocate harsher sanctions against Russia and the continued discrimination against the Russian-speaking minority, and was informed that these persons had been banned from entering the Russian Federation.

The Latvian official was told that the Russian “stop list” is not final and that more names could be added to it in response to anti-Russia steps.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3266638






Press release on consultations with Syrian opposition leaders



20 June 2018 - 20:16



On June 18 to 19, Russia’s Special Presidential Representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin held consultations in Geneva with leaders of the Syrian opposition groups – Qadri Jamil of the Popular Front for Change and Liberation, Randa Kassis of the Movement for a Pluralistic Society, Haytham Manna of the Syrian National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, Khaled al-Mahamid and Basma Qadhmani of the Syrian Negotiations Commission.

The sides discussed in depth how the recommendations of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress adopted on January 30 in Sochi are being implemented, above all as regards the work of the Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva.

The participants reiterated their shared commitment to moving towards a lasting political settlement of the Syrian crisis in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3266693






Press release on top-level Syrian consultations between Astana Process guarantor states and UN Envoy for Syria



20 June 2018 - 20:17



On June 19, Russia’s Special Presidential Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin attended top-level consultations of the three guarantor states of the Astana Process with UN Secretary-General Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura.

The sides discussed the formation and the functions of the Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva in accordance with recommendations of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. De Mistura welcomed the list of Committee candidates, compiled by the Syrian government.

The participants outlined further practical steps towards the earliest launching of the Constitutional Committee as an important element on the way to a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis as part of a structured and intra-Syrian political process in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3266703






Press release on consultations on security and stability in the South Caucasus



20 June 2018 - 21:04



Between June 19 and 20, regular consultations were held in Geneva within the framework of the ongoing international discussions being held on the South Caucasus. Representatives from the Republic of Abkhazia, Georgia, the Republic of South Ossetia, the Russian Federation, and the United States took part in the event. The consultations were co-chaired by the UN, the OSCE, as well as the EU. The Russian delegation was headed by State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin.

The co-chairs invited the parties present to share their views on ways of improving the effectiveness of the Geneva discussions. The Russian delegation stressed that the only way to increase the productivity of the consultations is for the Georgian side to engage in a direct and respectful dialogue with the representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and to abandon any confrontational rhetoric and behaviour at other international platforms.

Unfortunately, this appeal was ignored by the Georgian side, which continued to bring up the absurd claims about "Russian occupation" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and tried to politicise the tragic incidents that had resulted in the death of Georgian nationals Archil Tatunashvili, Giga Otkhozoria, and Davit Basharuli. The discussion of this matter took on an especially emotional character.
All sides at the talks, with the exception of the Georgian representatives, agreed that the situation near the border areas remains stable and under control. The statistical data of the border crossings between Georgia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia indicates that there are no problems when it comes to freedom of movement.

During the talks devoted to the situation on the ground, the Russian, Abkhazian, and South Ossetian delegations pointed to the fact that the practical effectiveness of the meetings under the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM) has been getting less and less.

The Georgian side, supported by the EU Monitoring Mission, is trying to substitute aggressive political rhetoric and public relations campaigns for serious professional efforts aimed at enhancing stability. It shows constant and express nd public relations campaigns in their practical effectivenessdisrespect when it comes to state borders and the authorities of the two republics. The representatives of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia stated that this attitude was unacceptable and called for a reduction in the frequency of meetings under the IPRM.

Unfortunately, the parties failed to engage in a constructive dialogue on the draft joint statement on the non-use of force. The Georgian delegation insisted on the need to continue working on the unacceptable US-sponsored draft, which essentially removes the Abkhazian and South Ossetian sides out of the framework of this document.

The Russian, Abkhazian, and South Ossetian representatives emphasised that they are against the growing NATO activity in the region, which poses a serious threat to the security in the region. They indicated that Moscow, Sukhum, and Tskhinval reserve the right to take appropriate retaliatory measures.

The politicised UN General Assembly resolution on refugees, which had been sponsored by Georgia for the eleventh consecutive time, predictably disrupted discussions in the humanitarian group. As a result, Georgia once again deliberately rejected the real opportunity to discuss the subject in detail at the Geneva platform. Instead, the Georgian side preferred to engage in fruitless propaganda exercises at various international forums in the absence of Abkhazian and South Ossetian representatives.

The next meeting in Geneva is scheduled for October 2018.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3266713






Press release on the BRICS consultative meeting on the Middle East and North Africa



21 June 2018 - 15:36



On June 20, 2018, the fourth BRICS consultative meeting on the Middle East and North Africa took place in the capital of South Africa, Pretoria. The meeting was attended by Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa Luwellyn Landers, Undersecretary General for Africa and the Middle East of Brazil Fernando Jose Marroni de Abreu, Special Envoy of the Chinese Government on the Middle East Issue Gong Xiaosheng, and Additional Secretary of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs Gitesh Sarma.

Following the meeting, the participants adopted a joint statement for the media.

1. The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) met on 20 June 2018 in Pretoria, South Africa to exchange views on the current situation in the Middle East and North African regions.

2. Underlying their deliberations was the commitment to the basic principle that international peace and security should be achieved and sustained solely in accordance with, and in full respect of international law, including the UN Charter. No effort to undermine the multilateral system, however imperfect and unreformed it might be, should deter international cooperation at all levels to prevent and resolve conflict, to create the conditions for peace, development and prosperity.

3. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys restated their conviction that there is no place for unlawful resorting to force or external interference in any conflict and that, ultimately, lasting peace could only be established through broad-based, inclusive national dialogue with due respect for the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of each of the countries of the region. They emphasized the importance of the UN Charter and the role of the UN Security Council as bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

4. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys agreed that in each of the countries in the region, citizens have legitimate aspirations to fully enjoy civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and fundamental freedoms.

5. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys strongly condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, from all quarters and in the name of any cause. They reiterated their countries’ commitment to supporting inter-BRICS and other multilateral efforts in countering the global threat of terrorism under the UN auspices. They stressed that the fight against terrorism, including counter-terrorism measures, must be conducted in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and relevant UNSC Resolutions. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys highly valued the 3rd BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group Meeting held in Nelspruit on 19 and 20 April 2018. They called for an expedited adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism in the UN General Assembly.

6. The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys remained concerned about the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic. They reaffirmed their commitment for an inclusive "Syrian-led, Syrian-owned" political process which safeguards the state sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria, in pursuance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015). In this regard they highlighted their support for the continuation of the important work done in the context of the Geneva Peace Talks and welcomed key contributions of the Astana Process, which showed signs of positive developments on the ground in the last months, in particular the creation of de-escalation zones and holding of the Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue in Sochi on 30 January 2018. They reiterated their strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons by any party, for any purpose and under any circumstances and renewed calls for comprehensive, objective, independent, and transparent investigations of all alleged incidents.

7. With regard to the State of Libya, the Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their serious concern about the political and security situation in that country, highlighting its extremely negative consequences for the Middle East, North Africa and Sahel region. It was noted that the military intervention in the country in 2011, led to instability, dire humanitarian consequences and the spread of terrorism, extremism and other criminal activities in the region. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their support for the continued efforts of the UN Special Representative for Libya, Ghassan Salame, as well as of regional actors to engage all Libyan stakeholders in a constructive dialogue in pursuance of the UN Action Plan for Libya announced in September 2017. They welcomed the 4th meeting of the African Union (AU) High Level Panel on Libya at the level of Heads of State and Government, chaired by President Denis Sassou-N’Guesso. They noted the steps taken by Libyan authorities in combating the terrorist threats and encouraged the need to build consensus among the Libyan political forces with regard to an inclusive political solution in pursuance of the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA).

8. The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys welcomed the Iraqi parliamentary elections held in May 2018, the first since the announcement in December 2017, and the complete liberation of the territories previously occupied by ISIS in Iraq. They expressed the hope that the elections contribute to strengthen Iraq’s democratic institutions and widen the dialogue, negotiation and promote political co-existence. They condemned in the strongest possible terms the heinous and inhumane acts of violence perpetrated by terrorist and extremist groups, such as the self-styled ISIS, in the territory of the Republic of Iraq and reiterated the need for strong international support to the Government and people of Iraq in their relentless efforts to fight against terrorism.

9. With respect to the Republic of Yemen, the Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their grave concern about the conflict, which is having a disastrous impact on human security as well as regional security and stability. They recognised that the conflict has already led to unspeakable suffering among the civilian population, including women, children and the elderly, as well as to the destruction of a significant part of vital essential services infrastructure, bringing the situation in Yemen to what amounts to a major humanitarian crisis. They called for unhindered access for the provision of humanitarian assistance to all parts of Yemen and urged the international community expeditiously to make use of such access to relieve the health, social and economic situation in this country. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys urged all parties to fully respect international law to cease hostilities and to return to the UN brokered peace talks. They further underscored their support for UN Special Representative Martin Griffiths’ efforts to restart talks among all Yemeni parties and agreed that the way forward to achieve peace, prosperity and security in Yemen is through an inclusive Yemeni-led dialogue towards the achievement of a political solution to the conflict.

10. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys were unanimous in their resolve that the conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa should not be used as pretext to delay resolution of long-standing conflicts, in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reiterated the need for renewed diplomatic efforts to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid Principles, the Arab Peace Initiative and previous agreements between the parties through negotiations with a view to create an independent, viable, territorially contiguous Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reiterated that the status of Jerusalem is one of the final status issues to be resolved in the context of negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

11. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed concern regarding the escalation of violence in Gaza and called for restraint and full respect for international law in line with the UN General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/ES-10/20) on the protection of the Palestinian population.

12. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reiterated their countries' support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). They commend the vital role it plays in providing health, education and other basic services for almost 5.3 million Palestinian refugees and underscored its relevance to bringing stability to the region and the need for ensuring a more adequate, sufficient, predictable and sustained funding for the Agency.

13. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their concern about the ongoing diplomatic crisis in the Gulf region. They welcomed efforts by Kuwait to resolve the existing disagreements through negotiations and diplomatic engagement.

14. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys committed themselves to convene again at the level of Deputy Foreign Ministers of BRICS countries in Brazil in 2019. The participants of the meeting also agreed on the advisability of holding regular consultations on the Middle East and North Africa at various venues, including the UN. They confirmed their support for hosting informal meetings of their representatives when required.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3273423






Press release on consultations between Russia-EU political directors



21 June 2018 - 16:37



On June 21, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko held consultations with Deputy Secretary General of the European External Action Service (EEAS) for Political Affairs Jean-Christophe Belliard in the format of Russia-EU political directors.

The officials conducted an in-depth discussion of the status of relations between Russia and the European Union and their prospects. They underscored the importance of maintaining dialogue on subjects of mutual interest in conditions of greater challenges to global stability.

The sides exchanged views on a number of topical issues on the international agenda, including the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, efforts to resolve the problems on the Korean Peninsula, and the situation in the West Balkans, the Middle East and Ukraine.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3273468






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Canada’s steps to legalise cannabis for recreational use



22 June 2018 - 20:25



On June 19, the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-45 on legalising the recreational use of cannabis. The law is expected to take effect in 2-3 months.

In this way Canada deliberately decided to breach its international legal obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, which require the member states to restrict the use of drugs except for medical and scientific purposes. The International Narcotics Control Board has repeatedly stated, inclusing with regards to Canada’s liberal drug initiatives, that the fundamental principle of these conventions does not provide for any exceptions or “flexible interpretation.”

It is important that the UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Problem of Drugs, which took place on April 21, 2016, made it clear in its final document, for which the Canadian delegation also voted, that the three anti-drug Conventions are “the cornerstone of the international drug control system.”

Russia strictly abides by these principles and intends to consistently introduce them in practice within the boundaries of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and other relevant international venues. We hope that our view will be shared by other countries that make a real contribution to the struggle against the global drug evil and that they will not promote its legalisation.

We expect Canada’s partners in the G7 to respond to its “high-handedness” because this alliance has repeatedly declared its adherence to the domination of international law in relations between states.

Evidently, the “drug liberalisation” carried out by the Canadian authorities will become a serious obstacle on the way to the strategic goal set by the world community – building a drug-free society.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274270






Comments by the Information and Press Department on the UN General Assembly vote on the draft resolution proposed by the Republic of Moldova



23 June 2018 - 14:20



On June 22, the UN General Assembly adopted a provocative draft resolution on Complete and Unconditional Withdrawal of Foreign Military Forces from the Territory of the Republic of Moldova, proposed by Moldova. We are pleased to note that the responsible majority of the UN member states preferred not to support this odious and dangerous initiative by certain political circles in Moldova and either voted against it or abstained.

Not much time has passed since the tragic events of 1992, so it is all the more surprising that currently many political figures, in Chisinau and elsewhere, seem to have forgotten the indisputable fact that it was only because of the timely intervention of Russian troops that the bloodshed in Transnistria was stopped and conditions were created for launching a peaceful settlement process. To this day, the Russian military contingent remains the guarantor of peace and stability in Transnistria.

The adoption of the resolution could undermine the fragile progress that has been achieved in the Transnistrian settlement process in recent months.

It is noteworthy that the leadership of the Republic of Moldova is itself divided in its attitude towards this resolution, as follows from the Special Statement of the President of Moldova of June 19, 2018.

In this regard, we consider this initiative as blatant propaganda by certain political forces in Chisinau, which are trying to score political points by inciting anti-Russian sentiment ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

We expect our international partners to act responsibly with regard to any steps associated with “frozen” conflicts, including the Transnistrian conflict. We call for the avoidance of destructive actions that only make a peaceful settlement a more distant prospect. We support the constructive efforts of all those who are really interested in a just and viable political solution to the Transnistrian issue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274365






Press release on the 25th session of the Advisory Council of the Heads of Consular Services of the Foreign Ministries of CIS Member States



23 June 2018 - 14:21



On June 21, Moscow hosted the 25th session of the Advisory Council of the Heads of Consular Services of the Foreign Ministries of CIS Member States, presided over by the Head of the Consular Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The participants signed a protocol documenting the agreements reached during the meeting. The timing and the venue of the Council's next session will be further discussed through diplomatic channels.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3274375
__________________
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 June 27th, 2018 #447
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Samara, June 20, 2018



20 June 2018 - 18:24








Samara residents, guests of Samara,

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to hold our weekly briefing by the official Foreign Ministry spokesperson in this wonderful city. I can let you in on a little secret (although, perhaps, this is no longer a secret after my post on the social networks today). When choosing a city press centre for the World Cup (we wanted to try firsthand the infrastructure created for reporters without FIFA accreditation), there was a personal factor. My father is from the village of Stepnaya Shentala, Samara Region. I went there this morning. This is what the birth certificate of my grandfather, Yuri Ivanovich Zakharov, says. I kept this name, and I was really surprised to see so many people whose last name was Zakharov. Much more than in Moscow and the Moscow Region. I received an unrealistically warm welcome. I am very grateful to the leaders in the Samara Region, the Koshkinsky District and the residents of Stepnaya Shentala. This is a Mordvin village, so they welcomed me with folk songs and sweets wearing ethnic costumes. It was unforgettable. Samara and the Samara Region is a spectacular place for its beauty. We drove around the neighborhood. An amazing feeling. Once again many thanks for such a warm and heartfelt welcome.

While on the road, they treated me to strawberries. Very beautiful berries. I thought it was an imported product which usually is not as sweet or tasty as our berries. When I tried it, I realised that this was a real garden strawberry like we always grew on our plots. They said it was from Samara. I was delighted. I brought some with me, and I will share them with everyone after the briefing. However, before we get to the strawberries, let's get to work.



Development of international and interregional cooperation in the Samara Region

Now that I am in Samara, I would like to start with the development of international and interregional cooperation in the Samara Region, all the more so there is a lot to say about it. I am largely addressing our foreign guests to let them know about the region’s potential. This potential is indeed great, no matter what people write or say. I came here today and looked at it – the investment potential is simply huge.

The Samara Region Government is working hard to involve foreign partners in resolving its socio-economic goals, in part, by enhancing its investment and economic appeal.

It is developing the international and foreign trade ties of the region in strict compliance with Russia’s foreign policy concept endorsed by the President’s executive order in accordance with Russian law, the recommendations of the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry.

The Samara Region maintains contact with its foreign partners by exchanging official delegations, including economic missions, holding fairs, exhibitions, and other educational and cultural events and taking part in international shows.

The region lines up its priorities regarding different regions in the following order: the CIS, BRICS, EU countries, and countries in North and South America.

International interregional cooperation is largely helping the Samara Region develop its ties with foreign partners. We note that the Samara Region Government is active in establishing and developing contact with foreign countries. At present, it has cooperation agreements with the following foreign regions:

1. Quebec (Canada) – 1994.

2. Henan Province (China) – 1995.

3. Fribourg Canton (Swiss Confederation) – 1997.

4. Gyor-Moson-Sopron (Hungary) – 2001.

5. Greater Poland Voivodeship (Poland) – 2001.

6. Eastern Kazakhstan Region (Kazakhstan) – 2002.

7. Western Kazakhstan Region (Kazakhstan) – 2002.

8. Karnataka State (India)– 2002.

9. Stara Zagora Region (Bulgaria) – 2003.

10. Zlin Region (Czech Republic) – 2006.

11. State of Santa Catarina (Brazil) – 2006.

12. City of Shenzhen (China) – 2009.

13. City of Chongqing (China) – 2014.

14. Anhui Province (China) - 2016.

15. Hubei Province (China) - 2016.

16. Sichuan Province (China) - 2016.

17. Canton of Neuchatel (Swiss Confederation) – 2015.

Many agreements regulating these activities have been signed. The region’s government and the administration of the Western Kazakhstan Region are planning to sign a cooperation agreement in the trade, economic, scientific, technical, social, cultural and humanitarian areas. At present the parties are discussing the possibility of signing it at the 16th Forum of Interregional Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan. This is planned for the future, but I must mention it because the parties are working hard to make this happen.

Honestly, there is potential for even greater development. There are also some negative trends. Thus, relations with Greater Poland Voivodeship were severed in 2014 at the Polish initiative (maybe this is not common knowledge). This only evokes regret, all the more so since there is every opportunity for expanding cooperation.

There are positive trends as well, and they prevail. In February 2018, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Belarus Igor Petrishenko visited the Samara Region. Agreements on expanding cooperation with Belarus in transport, the municipal economy and medicine were reached. The sides also discussed the participation of a delegation from the Samara Region in the Fifth Forum of Russian and Belarusian regions in Mogilev next October. The sides plan to sign a package of cooperation agreements at the forum.

Contacts in the trade, economic and cultural spheres between the regions of the Volga Federal District of the Russian Federation and the Upper and Middle Yangtze River of the People's Republic of China are improving which is a good example for our European - or, as we call them, Western - colleagues, who can see Samara expanding relations with its eastern neighbour. I think this sets a good example.

Discussions are under way to implement joint logistics projects with companies from Chongqing and Beijing. A draft agreement on cooperation between the Samara Region Government and the People's Government of Hunan Province of the People's Republic of China is being negotiated.

Our cooperation with France, Germany and the Czech Republic as the region’s key foreign economic partners is underway with the active assistance of Russia’s trade missions in foreign countries and the embassies of these countries to Russia.

Over the past few years, the Samara Region has been expanding contacts with the territories of France. During the visit by the Samara Region delegation to the city of Reims in April 2015, talks were held on promoting cooperation in various areas between the Samara Region and the Champagne-Ardennes region, and a Protocol of Intentions was signed. In 2015, two visits by official delegations of the Champagne-Ardennes region to the Samara Region took place (including in May to participate in celebrations dedicated to the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War). In 2016, following the territorial reform, the Grand Est Region was formed, with which the Samara Region maintains contacts. In 2018, President of the Grand Est Regional Council Jean Rottner suggested considering the possibility of signing an agreement on cooperation after identifying the most promising areas of cooperation with the Samara Region.

In 2017, after a long break (on the one hand, it cannot but cause regret, but on the other hand, the contacts resumed, and this is good), in particular, a delegation of the Zlín Region (Czech Republic) led by Governor Jiri Cunek, which included business people, visited the Samara Region. There were many such visits, and contacts continue with Germany and Switzerland.

I would be remiss not to say a few words about cooperation with our foreign partners in the cultural sphere. We maintain good contacts with the universities of the People's Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic. Agreements between the universities include student exchanges, cooperation in the sphere of scientific research and improvements in teaching methods. We pay particular attention to teaching students to operate high-tech equipment produced by leading Russian and foreign companies.

The region has gained positive experience in implementing state ethnic policy. Today, I saw it with my own eyes. One village has been home to people of different ethnic backgrounds for centuries, preserving the good things that traditional cultures have to offer, while evolving and moving forward. This experience of regulating inter-ethnic and inter-confessional relations is being successfully used now. Various forms of support for the activities of regional national and cultural associations located in the Samara Region are being developed and implemented. In particular, financial support is provided to non-profit organisations implementing projects aimed at preserving and promoting ethnic culture in the region on a competitive basis as part of the Samara Region state programme, Promoting Culture in the Samara Region to 2020, approved by the Samara Region Government.

There is something I must tell you: people in the village of Stepnaya Shentala want the authorities to overhaul their cultural centre. They believe (and I fully support them) it needs an upgrade.

Many events are being held. In particular, last year 41 were held as part of cultural cooperation with the countries of the near and far abroad.

Concluding the topic of international cultural cooperation and development of the Samara Region, I want to say that on our way back from Stepnaya Shentala, we passed through the town of Koshkino. I had a chance to see their sports complex. Perhaps, you can’t even call it a complex. It's a spacious centre built in 2016 in record time. It took them less than a year to build it with the support of Lukoil. I was shocked. Even large cities cannot always boast such a mini-football field and a full-blown hockey rink. We stopped by there by chance. It wasn’t included in our itenarary. I saw children figure skating. The level of equipment at this sports complex is amazing. I was shown a local relic - Vyacheslav Fetisov’s jersey signed by him. They said all residents of the district dream about him coming there. I spoke with him today and conveyed this wish. He promised to go. He said he will find an opportunity to make it there closer to September.



Extension of the deadline for submitting accreditation applications to 2018 FIFA World Cup city press centres

Now let us move to information concerning the activities of city press centres and journalists covering the FIFA World Cup.

I would like to note that due to keen interest and numerous requests on the part of Russian and foreign journalists, it has been decided to extend the deadline for submitting applications for accreditation to 2018 FIFA World Cup city press centres once more, until July 11 this year.

At the moment, city press centres operated by Rossiya Segodnya have received about 10,500 applications, 3,000 of which came from foreign countries.

I would like to remind you that city press centres were established specifically for media representatives who do not have official FIFA accreditation and for independent journalists and bloggers who want to cover the FIFA World Cup in Russia. Let me say it again (though we distributed this information) that such press centres operate in each city hosting the World Cup.

As you can see once again today, city press centres regularly hold briefings, news conferences, video conferences, tours, presentations and much more.

I was told that today’s briefing is being broadcast at all city press centres. I would like to take this opportunity to send greetings from Samara to all the cities and journalists working at city press centres. The people of Samara support me, I can see it in their eyes.

To find out more about the accreditation process as well as the press centres’ addresses and opening hours, visit www.footballcitymediacenter.ru. Detailed information about this is also posted on our ministry website, mid.ru.



FIFA World Cup coverage

I would like to inform you about the FIFA World Cup coverage. Speaking about Russia, I would like to inform everyone that Zabivaka the Wolf is working hard. This morning I woke up with a sore throat, because we were cheering for the Russian team in the Koshkinsky District together with local residents. I would like to seize this opportunity to say that I always root for a good and beautiful game, but when our national team is playing I support our team. I would like to thank them for this fantastic feeling that we experienced yesterday. Everybody notes that there is a special atmosphere in the World Cup host cities. I definitely felt it in Moscow. It is impossible to describe, but I think that you can feel it here, too. But sometimes, when reading about it in foreign media, I want to ask: are we even living in the same time period as the journalists writing these articles?

During the previous briefing, we spoke about the amazing atmosphere. More people witness it each day. We are very happy to see the two million fans who have come to Russia and those who will come here. I am sure, I do not just hope but know that they will take home with them the best and warmest impressions of Russia: both of our hospitality (we know how to show it) and, of course, of how the championship was organised.

After watching yesterday’s match held at the stadium in St Petersburg, which allegedly should not be, I visited the Samara stadium today, which, according to many publications, should not be either. I was impressed with the view from the ridge near the entrance way to the district and, of course, near the stadium. The only thing missing is sufficient green grass, which has not yet had time to grow, but I believe that it will be there, maybe not for tomorrow’s match, but definitely for the final one. Everything else is so beautiful that I envy you, especially those who will attend the match tomorrow.

Hundreds of millions of people all over the world are watching on their televisions. We are really grateful to the journalists and media that truthfully and objectively – I do not say well or positively, but truthfully and objectively – convey the spirit of what is happening here. Russia is doing everything necessary for this all the time. I would like to single out employees, state agencies and Rossiya Segondya that organised journalists’ work and welcomed them in Russia.

Here are several gratifying quotes. US television channel CNN commented on the success of Felix Mikhailov, who directed the opening ceremony and, according to US journalists, managed to fill it with colourful and unforgettable performances. The British newspaper The Sun noted the successful duet of Russian opera singer Aida Garifullina and British singer Robbie Williams. The Spanish newspaper El Pais focused on the high quality of the sports facilities. Several media noted the hospitable and cheerful atmosphere and events in various cities. The Guardian has written today that Russia is “a great place to host the World Cup.” The newspaper also notes that English fans will likely change their views of the country for the better. According to The Independent, Brits were scared of potential altercations with Russian ultras, but the latter do not want to fight, they want to hug. I am afraid this full-blast fraternisation, as well as the singing and dancing going on now in Moscow and other cities, may be regarded as Russians’ tactical maneuvers to improve their capoeira skills. We cannot rule this out.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is bound to be in the coverage of the FIFA World Cup. This is simply comical and sounds like satire. Thus, for some reason UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson timed his anti-Russia article to the opening of the World Cup in Russia. What can I say? Mr Johnson, after such articles you should not be hypocritical and tell us how much you love Russia. Let’s be straight – there are politicians that can hardly be called Russia’s friends. This is so because of their conduct and statements.

The US Department of State did not dare break Cold War logic. Regrettably, some of our American colleagues have become deeply bogged down in this logic in the past few years. I will not quote their statements or mention the horrors they describe. I think the American fans (and there are lots of them here, by the way) that are now in Russia, even though their team did not make it to the cup, will tell their officials about everything upon return. Probably, this will be a good excuse to pull the US political establishment out from behind the looking glass where they reside.

Some publications in the past few days have been truly surrealistic. Even my foreign acquaintances smile when they read them. Thus, the BBC wrote that For LGBT fans, a visit to Russia is a risk with potentially catastrophic implications. This is complete idiocy. ‎Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center William Evanina also made quite a remark. He warned US fans not to take their cell phones. It seems they judge everything by their own fear. We take our mobile phones with us when we visit them. Sometimes when you take a phone abroad, it begins to live its own life. But if they treat their foreign guests like this, they should not assume that everyone does the same.

Of course, one of the best is an article in a German magazine that was published on June 15, one day after the cup’s opening. The article is entitled “The face of true Russia.” The author of this obviously custom publication describes how a Russian woman resisted cancer. The cynicism of the author of this obviously paid-for publication is stunning and only exploits the difficult position of a seriously ill person. The author linked this case to the world cup and put it in the relevant section dealing with 2018 World Cup. How low can one fall to do such a thing?

I was astounded (I did not believe this and had to address our experts on German) that the author wrote that the German notion of “menchenfreundlich” allegedly does not exist in the Russian language or in Russian mentality. Before dealing with our mentality I would advise the authors of such publications to open the most trivial dictionary or probably do it on line. Those who know that libraries exist could visit them as well.

This word can be translated precisely into Russian. Moreover, there are several synonyms that are translated as well-wishing, considerate, human and humane. Can you imagine that while preparing this publication, this German journalist is telling his audience that such notions as well-wishing, human and humane do not exist in Russian minds. This is beyond acceptable behavior. Let me repeat that I could not help mentioning this. I am sure that upon return home German fans will tell their compatriots, including these authors about all the good and bad things they have seen here. But this will be unbiased and honest. These anti-Russia fake articles are dishonest journalism.

But no examples no matter how absurd, caricature or wild can overshadow the atmosphere of this special sports event. We are seeing it ourselves. The impressions of eyewitnesses speak for themselves. Here is what one fan said (sorry if some words do not fit in at the briefing): “We are sick of people who promise trouble. If you behave respectfully, there will be no problem.” This is the very truth of it.

I wish good and professional results and success to all teams.



Mobile festivals of local cuisine “The gastronomic map of Russia” in cities hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup

In the context of the World Cup, I would like to tell you about a very interesting project, “The gastronomic map of Russia.” One component of this project was timed to the World Cup in Russia. This project is the responsibility of the Federal Agency for Tourism together with the Russian Export Centre and with support of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Foreign Ministry, the Federation of Restaurateurs and Hoteliers, and the National Association of Culinary Experts. The aim of the project is to promote our gastronomic culture and provide information about traditional dishes and opportunities to try them.

The eleven food vans representing various regions of Russia are specially made GAZ vehicles with cooking equipment that travel around the country. They are equipped with a mobile bakery, pastry kitchen, tea room, snack bar and the like, depending on the local cuisine of the region they represent.

During the first two festivals in the cities hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup, Sochi and Rostov-on-Don, thanks to the chefs and authors of the best city food projects in the “The gastronomic map of Russia” project, Russian and foreign fans tasted Moscow pocket-shaped rolls, Buryat buuzes, Rostov chicken pies, Ossetian pies, Udmurt shortcakes, Black Sea oysters, Murmansk cod, lamb with pickled grapes and red onions and these delicacies (I didn’t even know they existed, why didn’t anyone point them out to me?) Novorossiysk whelks.

Tasting Baltics cuisine, Mordovian delicacies and Tatar cuisine is still ahead. Today’s young chefs as well as experienced restaurateurs together with their food are part of our identity highlighting the delicacies that our country’s cuisine can offer.

The motto of this part of the project is WELCOME FOODBALL CUP. The festival travels under the national brand “The gastronomic map of Russia.” I would like to remind you (many of you probably know) that this part of the festival will run from June 14 until July 15. The vehicles display the names of the football host cities Moscow, St Petersburg, Saransk, Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Kaliningrad, Kazan, Volgograd, Sochi and Rostov-on-Don and will travel to Kaliningrad, the westernmost point of Russia. Over a month, the mobile restaurants will cover a distance of about 10,000 kilometres and will offer the food of the regions and cities hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup to Russian and foreign fans.

The team of chefs represent a variety of regions. The mobile festival format will make it possible to try various local delicacies.

Now the main thing, the festival dates. On June 21 the festival will be in Nizhny Novgorod, on the new embankment; on June 28 in Kaliningrad; on July 6 in Kazan; on July 8 in Saransk; on July 10 in Samara; and on July 14 in St Petersburg. The hours are noon until midnight.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders

On June 23, Sergey Lavrov will meet in Moscow with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Kingdom of Belgium Didier Reynders at the Belgian side’s initiative. Mr Reynders will come to Russia on a private visit in connection with the Belgian national team’s participation in the World Cup.

The two foreign ministers will discuss bilateral relations as well as the prospects for their further development in the context of the agreements that were reached during the official visit of Prime Minister Charles Michel to Russia between January 29 and 31, 2018.

They will exchange opinions on Russian-Belgian interaction at the UN Security Council in light of the election of Belgium as a non-permanent member of the council for 2019−2020 and with due regard for the two countries’ foreign policy priorities.

The ministers will also discuss outstanding international matters, including the situation in Syria and Ukraine, and Russia-NATO relations.



Situation in Syria

The recent situation in Syria has been a patchwork of positive and negative factors, which we have reported before.

The legitimate government is strengthening control and working to normalise life in the greater part of the territory where some 90 percent of Syrians live, primarily the recently liberated districts around Damascus and in northern Homs. Streets in Eastern Ghouta are being cleaned up from the debris, and residential houses and electricity and water supply systems are being repaired. Funds have been allocated for repairing hospitals and medical centres in Nashabiyeh, Harasta, Douma and Mleiha. Emergency and assembly work has been completed on the electricity lines and at transformer stations in the districts of Rastan and Talbiseh in the Homs Province to resume electricity supply in a number of populated areas.

I always provide detailed information on the resumption of a peaceful life in Syria, including with Russia’s assistance, which we receive from experts at the Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry and other agencies. How many foreign policy departments and their officials in other countries report on their countries’ contribution to the rehabilitation of a country which they as representatives of the international community humiliated for years? Have you ever heard our American colleagues speak about the restoration of bakeries, the delivery of generators or the number of schools that have reopened? No, we only hear about plans to withdraw or keep the troops in the country, bombing raids and other threats. This is evidence of the difference in our countries’ approaches, which is regrettable, because we would like them to be similar on the matter of the Syrian settlement. The examples I have provided show that we are really concerned about a settlement in Syria, which must ultimately result in the full restoration of life in that country.

For example, railway communication between Tartus and Homs, which was disrupted for the past seven years, has resumed.

The liquidation of the remaining ISIS groups is ongoing in the desert regions in the east and south of Syria, namely, in the Suwayda Province. Last week, an area of some 2,000 square kilometres west of Mayadin in the Deir ez-Zor Province was liberated from terrorists.

However, in the night of June 17/18, massive airstrikes were launched at the deployment areas of the Syrian military and their Iraqi allies from the Popular Mobilisation Forces (Al-Hashd Al-Sha’abi) and the Lebanese Hezbollah near the town of Al-Hari southeast of Al-Bukamal in the Deir ez-Zor Province. Dozens of those who were selflessly fighting terrorists were killed. The US military say that the US-led coalition was not involved in those airstrikes.

The continued illegal presence of foreign forces in Syria, which have been deployed there in gross violation of its sovereignty, is keeping the door open for anyone who is pursuing their own goals in Syria and the means to attain them. This clearly cannot encourage the opponents of the Syrian government to abandon the illusion of a possible revenge for their defeat on the ground or ensure these forces’ constructive involvement in the common search for a political solution. As for terrorists, this situation is fuelling their hopes for relaunching chaos and regaining their positions in the country.

This calls for accelerating the movement towards a political settlement in Syria based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the outcome of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which provide for preserving the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria. Russia continues to work consistently towards these goals in its contacts with the Astana Format partners, other concerned parties and the UN, as well as the Syrian Government and opposition.



US resumes funding for White Helmets

Where do funds allocated by our US colleagues go when it comes to Syria? You are right. A decision has been taken to restore funding for White Helmets. Since I have to use polite language, I would say that this organisation is rotten through and through, although I would have preferred some stronger Russian words for it. These are the very people who undermined trust not only in themselves (there is no question about that), but also in humanitarian NGOs operating in the region. Now the order to produce fake videos and stage sham campaigns is backed with money and a multi-million tranche was allocated to this effect.

The White Helmets clearly serve as a tool of information and propaganda warfare. If several years ago we suspected that they were being used, now we realise and we know, with facts in hand, that from the very outset the organisation was created with the exact purpose of staging these provocations. This was a ploy by a number of countries against the legitimate Syrian government, ordinary Syrians and all those who actually help that country and the entire world to fight terrorism.

I do not have official data, since it comes from the US, but from what I saw in the media we are talking about tens of millions of dollars. Just think about it. These funds are allocated to the people who create and take part in provocations week after week, month after month and year after year, instead of investing in what the country actually needs, such is restoring civilian infrastructure: clean water supply, healthcare, schools, roads and transport.

There is one more thing I wanted to say about money. My knowledge of what the people of Syria have to endure is based not only on expert reports and official talks, but also since I maintain regular contacts with them. This is true. Syrian nationals come to Russia, and Syrian children are sent to Russia for rehabilitation. I also talk to Syrian journalists. They are all ready to share their stories. In addition to this, there are quite a few mixed Russia-Syrian families, who also share information about the developments on the ground. We have yet to get a full picture of what the country has experienced over the past years. I would like to explain what these tens of millions of dollars allocated to the White Helmets mean. After the latest fake videos the entire world knows that Syrians are ready to act in staged, scripted and made-to-order clips for a bowl of food, for admittance to a safe shelter during shelling or an attack by the militants, for getting treatment for their children. For that they are ready to do anything, and this is understandable. The war has been going on for many years now. Can you imagine what can be done with tens of millions of dollars? This is what this policy is all about.

We are not just confident, but we know for a fact and have information that members of the White Helmets maintain close ties with terrorist groups in Syria, including Jabhat al-Nusra. Reports by truly independent journalists visiting Syria point in the same direction. I am talking not only about Russian, but also about Western reporters. Unfortunately, these reports do not make the headlines in the West and go unnoticed for being inconsistent with the “Assad must go” narrative.

On April 26, 2018, Russia held a briefing in The Hague to debunk the staged chemical attack in Douma. The Syrians who were falsely presented as the “victims” of the chemical attack were present at the event. All this enabled us to provide clear evidence that this was a set-up, and that people got involved in it, believing that otherwise they would not be able to get food or shelter during shelling by the terrorists.

Given the situation in the regions and the civilians’ desperation, this is a huge injection of money. We expect it to be followed by new fake reports on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against civilians. These reports are paid for and made to order. We get signals that provocations of this kind are in the making. If we get reliable information, we will try to spread the word before it happens in order to prevent provocations.



The situation in Yemen

In recent days, the situation in the Republic of Yemen (RY) has been following the worst-case scenario.

We note an intensification of rocket and bomb strikes that the Saudi-led “Arab coalition” delivers on the Yemeni capital, Sana, and its suburbs, which results in a growing number of civilian deaths and injuries and increased damage to the social infrastructure.

For their part, the Ansar Allah Houthis have stepped up their attacks, including with the use of ballistic missiles, on Saudi areas bordering on Yemen.

All of this is taking place against the background of Operation Golden Victory launched on June 13 by the Yemeni armed groups loyal to the legitimate authorities with support from the “coalition’s” air force and navy. The aim of the operation is to clear the Houthis from the Red Sea port of Hodeidah, Yemen’s key transport and logistics outlet. According to incoming reports, the “allies” managed to take under their control a number of neighbourhoods abutting the port, including the airport area. Helped by a number of specialised international organisations, the authorities are evacuating civilians, but regrettably they cannot avoid civilian casualties. While Hodeidah’s marine terminal is still receiving ships with humanitarian cargo, it cannot be ruled out that it will be put out of operation at any moment, something that would threaten the ordinary Yemenis with the most disastrous consequences.

In this context, we have noticed the efforts made by the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, who, daring the risks, visited Sana from June 16 to19 and held consultations on a peace settlement, including primarily possible parametres of de-escalation at Hodeidah, with the opponents of Yemen’s legitimate government.

Moscow proceeds from the need to render extensive support to the UN envoy’s mission. As we see it, its success hinges on the participants in the intra-Yemeni conflict achieving an early end to their armed confrontation and generally renouncing reliance on force as an argument in the controversy over subsequent political organisation of the Republic of Yemen. We are confident that there is not and cannot be an alternative to its settlement at the negotiating table. We again call on the Yemeni protagonists as well as their regional supporters to take a break and have time to realise what we believe to be an absolutely clear postulate. They must not deprive the long-suffering people of that country of chances for the restoration of peace and accord, of course, with active assistance from the international community.



Current developments in Israel and Palestine

The situation in Palestine and Israel remains complicated and explosive. In recent days, we have observed a new surge of tension around Gaza.

According to incoming reports, the Israeli Air Force has been attacking, since June 17, Gaza infrastructure facilities of HAMAS militants in response to more frequent launches of burning kites, incendiary balloons and rockets at the Israeli territory. This night, the Israeli aircraft attacked over 20 targets in Gaza, the heaviest strikes during the last week.

Moscow is concerned over the new spiral of violence in Gaza. We are in favour of lowering the level of confrontation and oppose any further escalation. We call on all sides to practice restraint and renounce any steps capable of fueling a full-scale military confrontation.

It is obvious that such incidents point to a need for an immediate resumption of a substantive negotiating process based on the well-known international legislation on a Middle East settlement so as to achieve long-term fair solutions which meet the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.



Situation in Afghanistan: Update

The situation in Afghanistan remains complicated. The armed opposition, namely, the Taliban, controls a substantial part of the country and regularly stages major terrorist attacks, including on Kabul. A virtual stalemate that has shaped up on this improvised “battlefield” prevents any of the warring parties gaining the upper hand in the armed confrontation.

In this connection, the Russian side praised the initiative of President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani on launching direct talks with the Taliban without any preconditions and a subsequent ceasefire on the part of the Government and the Taliban. We also support Kabul’s decision to extend the ceasefire regime for another ten days.

However, the truce linked with the end of Ramadan, the Muslim fast, was marred by the June 16−17 terrorist attacks in Jalalabad that killed and wounded over 40 people, including civilians and service personnel of the Afghan national security forces, as well as members of the Taliban involved in joint festivities. The ISIS extremist group claimed responsibility for one of the attacks.

We resolutely condemn this barbaric act that once again highlights the true essence of international terrorism, which is doing its best to prevent the establishment of peace and stability in Afghanistan. Doubtless, these terrorist acts were aimed to thwart efforts to launch dialogue and to end the protracted fratricidal war.

We have repeatedly noted the need to wage an uncompromising and consistent struggle against ISIS that threatens Afghanistan, as well as peace and stability on the entire Asian continent. We hope that the Afghan authorities and forces of the international coalition, deployed in the country, will step up the fight against this extremist group and other radical paramilitary units operating in conjunction with it.



General Austin Miller’s statement on alleged Russian, Iranian and Pakistani support for the Taliban in Afghanistan

We have noted numerous requests to comment on the statement made by Lieutenant General Austin Miller who has been nominated the commander of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan about alleged support for the Taliban on the part of Russia. This statement is contained in his written replies for the upcoming US Senate confirmation hearings.

This subject is not new. In the past 12 months, we have recorded countless media leaks by US representatives on this matter; these leaks contained virtually identical wordings and provided no facts, and this has already become something classic.

Time and again, one gets the impression that US attempts to distort Russia’s Afghan policies aim to distract attention from Washington’s numerous mistakes made during the 16-year-plus presence in Afghanistan (I would like to remind people who don’t know this and the younger generation).

Moreover, the Russian side has repeatedly noted at various levels that US military assistance to Kabul is a source of support for the Taliban. This military assistance is not recorded accordingly, and the incoming consignments are often being stolen on the ground. While discussing this matter, we cited data from US sources, independent experts and journalists.

We have not received a clear reply from the US side as regards the redeployment of weapons and militants of the ISIS international terrorist group by unidentified helicopters (we have discussed this aspect in great detail) in Afghan air space that is completely controlled by the United States and NATO. So far, no one knows whose helicopters operated there.

We are confident that, instead of voicing groundless and strange accusations with regard to Russia and Afghanistan’s neighbours, the new commander of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan should first move to correct their own mistakes and strengthen the atmosphere of trust between states for resolving the Afghan problem.



United States’ withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council

This is not the first zigzag in our American partners’ policy. It is the second time in the history of the UN Human Rights Council (established in 2006) that the United States has recused itself from this vital UN inter-governmental body that is in charge of multilateral cooperation in human rights.

When the US re-joined the Council in 2009 after the first episode of its “voluntary absence,” many got the impression that our American colleagues learned the lesson and closed the boycott chapter forever. As it turns out, we were mistaken. Once again, the United States caused serious damage to its own reputation as a human rights advocate and demonstrated negligence not only to the Human Rights Council but the entire United Nations and its institutions.

We are surprised by the trite and brazen cynicism of our American colleagues, who are stubbornly refusing to admit huge human rights problems in their own country while endlessly trying to rehash the Council to fit in with their own political interests (and these interests only) – the Council in which, they claim, there is no room for “notorious violators of human rights.”

The US attempts to force an extremely specific understanding of human rights on other states is a grave deviation from human values and civilised conduct on the international stage. The Human Rights Council, like the whole United Nations system, is committed to serving all member states rather than one specific country or a group of countries. If the United States worships democracy as the only possible form of statehood then why are they denying the international community the right to have democracy in international relations?

We were not surprised by the United States’ withdrawal from the Human Rights Council. The withdrawal from UNESCO and now the Council confirms that Washington is willing to cooperate only with those multilateral bodies and only on those issues that serve the interests of Washington itself. The same happened with UNESCO. We have seen massive pressure from American “diplomats” in the Human Rights Council (diplomats are expected to use the art of diplomacy rather than force and fighting) – specifically, there is an example of the US delegation in the UNSC. Look what our Western partners are doing in other bodies directly linked with the UN, such as the OPCW. This is colossal pressure. The Skripal case alone demonstrated their desire to rehash the organisation to meet their own imaginary and absurd needs. This is one small example.

The UN Human Rights Council was already successful without the United States and will be able to do so in the future.

Nobody is gloating over the United States’ non-participation. That would be a mistake. Instead of using its very powerful and extensive resources for a good cause, the United States is interested only in promoting its own interests. The problem is that these interests are changing and becoming polar opposite in the US. If it was a consistent concept that the world would understand then it would be clear why the actions are so harsh – because it is a principled course. But the course is not principled. Look what is happening with Iran and the nuclear deal. And this is just one example. It means these are not principled issues. If the issues are not principled how can they remake the whole world to suit them? Why does the world have to take part in this wavering of the US political establishment?

The Human Rights Council does have its flaws ant shortcomings (it is not a perfect institution and there are no perfect institutions). However, it has proved its sustainability.

Russia will continue to actively develop a mutually respectful, constructive and de-politicised dialogue in the Council aimed at promoting and protecting human rights across the world. This is exactly why Russia has nominated itself for the 2021-2023 membership in the Human Rights Council.



US Department of State press release on political and religious prisoners held by the Russian Government

We have taken note of a press release published on June 18 by the US Department of State, “On political and religious prisoners held by the Russian Government.” This sounds like the best choice to post on June 18, right after the opening of the World Cup! Every effort is being made to somehow cloud the true atmosphere of this sporting event and draw attention to problematic matters or even invent some.

The Department of State position, stated in the release, is a flagrant attempt of the US side to invent and introduce its own vision of human rights issues. This has happened before. However, this time around, it coincided with the US withdrawal from the Human Rights Council.

Everyone is bored with this haughty attitude, behaving as a self-proclaimed unquestioned authority in the sphere of human rights, and the complete disregard for the traditions, history, and cultural values of other countries and peoples, and cannot take them seriously. When such releases coincide in time − America publishes a certain human rights document while withdrawing from the HRC, absurdity is the only right word for it.

We have repeatedly given detailed explanations regarding the suspects and defendants in accordance with our legislation for various grave crimes. US calls for the release of prisoners convicted of terrorism and extremist activity can be considered as acquittal of such acts, which is unacceptable. For our part, we consider absolutely unacceptable any attempts to interfere with our internal affairs, the work of Russian law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

It is quite natural that the authors of the document have omitted the human rights, democracy and the rule of law situation in the US (as if there are no problems, which are actually there), namely, the growing system-wide problems associated with the die-hard racial discrimination, impunity for inhuman treatment and torture under special CIA programmes and other challenges in this field. Suffice it to mention the US special services’ global hunt for nationals of other countries accused of violating US legislation. Moreover, this policy is being pursued on fictional, far-fetched and fake stories and pretexts to seize people and transport them to the US, secretly or otherwise. The reprisals that the United States arranged over Konstantin Yaroshenko and Viktor Bout, and other Russian citizens are clear proof of this.

Attempts to forcefully impose the extremely specific US understanding of human rights on other countries is in itself a gross violation of universal human values and civilised norms of conduct on the international arena.

They must start with themselves. How many years have we heard about the closure of the despicable detention centre at the US Navy base in Guantanamo? How many years, with such statements woven into various US politicians’ election campaigns, have they remained unrealized? The Guantanamo prison has become a symbol of legal nihilism as well as violation of human rights standards by the US authorities.

Once again, we urge our colleagues to seriously address these pressing problems at home, to listen to the numerous urgent recommendations of relevant international structures and human rights activists, including international ones, and to abandon this lecturing tone in statements to Russia. Russia does not need to be lectured. We are for cooperation, equal interaction and joint work on problems, but not for this kind of approach.



US to establish a space force

The Foreign Ministry took note of US President Donald Trump’s instructions to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford to withdraw the space force from the Air Force and make it into a separate branch. What alarms us the most in this news story is that the purpose of this instruction was clearly stated: to ensure “American dominance in space.”

This is fresh proof of Washington’s plans to deploy weapons in space creating the prospect of space warfare. It seems that the US does not intend to give up on its position on the use of force in space (including for deterrence purposes), set out in doctrines prepared under the Obama administration.

We pay very close attention to Washington’s initiatives in this field, and carefully weigh all the consequences. It is already clear that any increase in the US military capability in space (especially bringing weapons to space) would undermine strategic stability and international security.

Russia holds a completely different view, prioritising solely peaceful purposes in using and exploring space. In recent years Russia proposed a number of initiatives aimed at preventing an arms race in space. The key proposal was the Russian-Chinese initiative to draft a Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects. Its updated version was submitted to the Conference on Disarmament in June 2014. Russia intends to keep up its active and results-driven efforts in this field.

Let me remind you that the US has already made attempts to achieve military dominance. For example, there was a time when the US aspired to a nuclear weapons monopoly. This led to a vicious nuclear arms race and a horrifying escalation of international tension, and their ramifications can still be felt.

Russia calls on Washington to be reasonable and refrain from repeating mistakes of the past. The consequences of an armed conflict in space could be just as perilous as the nuclear race recklessly launched by the US after the Second World War.

For those interested in the Russian Aerospace Forces, I must emphasise their solely defensive nature. Our country is not interested in achieving any objectives in space by relying on striking power.



Western media publications about the so-called Skripal case

No hard facts, no evidence of any kind – yet the Western media continue to publish reports about the so-called Skripal case. Western officials either do not provide any comment and do not answer questions about the progress of the investigation, or continue with their policy of blaming everything on Russia. However, the situation in the media space is gradually changing. But it is too late – not just late, but too late, because everything London has done is patently foolish and their policy of mutual cover-up, which they describe as solidarity, has been laid bare.

Still, there have been new reports on the case. For example, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson writes in The Sun on June 14 about the “sins” of “Putin’s Russia,” including its responsibility for “poisoning British citizens in Wiltshire.” I would like to explain why, when we speak about the Skripal case, we always add “so-called” or “as they put it” or “according to the British side.” Several months ago London did its best to ensure that the world will speak about this case without these descriptive words. It has succeeded. I recently gave an interview to a journalist who represented Scandinavian media outlets. As we talked, she kept saying that the Skripals had been poisoned, asked me to comment on statements about the use of certain amounts of the nerve agent Novichok, and claimed that the poison used in the so-called Skripal case was made in Russia or the Soviet Union. When I provided hard facts in my answers, she suggested adding that this is Russia’s view on the situation. I asked why their media outlets don’t write that it is the view of the British political establishment when publishing the lopsided statements made by British politicians. Why do they always write “as Russia claims” when publishing our responses to concrete questions? In other words, they treat everything London tells the media as documented facts. Who has documented them? Nobody has.

Foreign Secretary Johnson also mentions the expulsion of Russian diplomats, whom he calls “spies”. I would like to tell the British side and all those who write on this subject that, lamentable as it may be for them, it was Sergey Skripal who was a spy. However, the British media, let alone UK officials, don’t refer to him as a spy.

London has not provided any arguments that can be accepted as evidence or facts, no figures, dates or names.

On June 15, Der Spiegel published an article. Its journalists have compiled and analysed all the information available about the so-called Skripal case and have concluded that the Western claims of Russia’s involvement in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter are completely unsubstantiated. They write that the motives ascribed to Russia are not at all obvious and that Moscow’s arguments sound logical and have been supported with facts.

Moreover, the authors of the article in Der Spiegel have confirmed that Novichok is not an “exclusively Russian nerve agent”, contrary to what the British say. According to the journalists, the United States, Britain and the Netherlands held certain amounts of the nerve agent back in the 1990s, and the Czech Republic tested until recently.



Statement by Margaret Thatcher

During one of the past briefings, we cited several Russophobic statements and actions by the British political elite, including in recent and contemporary history. In particular, we cited a phrase that many experts attribute to Margaret Thatcher: “It is economically feasible for only 15 million people to live in Russia.” And what should all the others do, we wondered? This has provoked a wave of fake news claiming that the quotation is not credible, that it was deliberately planted by Russia, and that Margaret Thatcher never said this.

Let’s see how it was.

The quotation comes from a statement made by Margaret Thatcher at the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in Houston in November 1991. As I said at the briefing, we would only be too glad if this speech had never been made. Regrettably, however, documents prove that she did make that statement.

It is true that historians have been arguing for decades whether Thatcher made this unpleasant, to put it mildly, statement regarding Russia. Dozens of politicians, respected historians and journalists cite this statement as true, while others claim that Thatcher never attended that meeting, let alone made that statement. Can you imagine the intrigue? They are clever at this kind of thing. They do not analyse the quotation but are doing their best to confuse everyone regarding Thatcher’s attendance of the event. This is surprising. Thatcher is a legendary figure who has done so much for the Cold War, and they cannot say for sure if she was in Houston in 1991 or not? When the focus is on her attendance, this leads to a discussion on whether she was or was not there. Public attention is being drawn away from the substance of what she said there.

Judging from the facts at our disposal, Margaret Thatcher did attend that meeting in Houston. There are at least two articles in The New York Times to prove this, if you want international sources.

We have found an article in the newspaper’s archives dated November 18, 1991 (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/18/b...try-meets.html). The author, Matthew Wald, writes about the upcoming event and says that Margaret Thatcher is expected to speak at it: “Attendance is likely to be up in Houston, because at least for now, the price of oil is a bit stronger. This year, the convention is in the heart of the oil patch, and the featured speaker is Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Britain, a major oil producer.”

Moreover, the journalist writes that Russian experts, over 50 of them, are expected at the meeting. I am saying this for those who deny the reliability of Russian experts’ recollections and claim that Russians don’t remember anything. Here is the quotation: “Also expected this year are about 50 Russians. ‘They’re probably just trying to rub elbows,’ Mr. DiBona [Charles DiBona, the president of the institute] said. ‘We don’t have anything planned for them’.”

The expected argument is that Thatcher could have cancelled her visit to Houston. But it turns out that she did go there. The above journalist wrote in The New York Times on November 19 (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/19/b...trictions.html) that Margaret Thatcher not only attended the meeting but was also the main speaker. He wrote: “The attack on environmental initiatives was carried on by Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Britain, who was the main speaker today. Mrs Thatcher, who was once a research chemist, said oil company executives were as concerned as environmentalists about providing a clean environment for their children. But, she said, the country should ‘have solutions that are sound scientifically, and some of the ones proposed are not’.”

While the article contains extracts from her speech on environment protection, the archives available at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website, the main database for all Thatcher’s speeches, does not even mention her appearance at what was a major event for the petrochemical industry. It would be a rhetorical question to ask why this speech has not made it into the official records. It may be that it was a private event and her remarks were not intended for publication or maybe her remarks were recorded but never published for some other reason. All this now raises many questions.

The Margaret Thatcher Foundation recognises that it does not have all speeches and interventions by Margaret Thatcher on record, which is hardly surprising, since the internet and digital technology did not exist at the time. In addition to this, it was not uncommon for politicians back then, as it is today, to speak off the record.

At the same time, recollections by S. Pavlov, a Russian essayist who took part in this event, are freely accessible online (https://moiarussia.ru/margaret-tetch...zrushali-sssr/). Here is what he wrote, in particular:

“I do not know whether anyone had warned her that there were Russians in the audience (it is quite possible that nobody had). Margaret Thatcher was just as cynical as she was smart. She played an important part in destroying the Soviet Union, and was quite open about it. Her view of the state of the Soviet economy and the changes experienced by the country was at odds with what we knew from our media… Of course, it is impossible to remember every word of a speech. However, we came together in the evening and tried to recall what was said in order to write it down.”

Essayist Andrey Parshev, who wrote a research paper on the same topic, titled “Why Russia is not America” (http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/PARSHEW/parshew.txt), came across an audio recording from the event and included quotes from it in his research.

Andrey Parshev also writes that when he heard about 15 million people, he thought that he must have got it wrong, hearing 15 million instead of at least 50 million. So he listened again, only to hear that she was talking about 15 million people.

A number of Russian scholars, politicians, essayists and historians have referred to this speech, including Director of the Centre for Russian Studies at the Moscow University for the Humanities Institute for Fundamental and Applied Research Andrey Fursov (http://mediamera.ru/post/14261), Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Anatoly Lukyanov (
), and editor-in-chief of International Affairs magazine (https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/7851).

Of course, if would be great if this speech never existed, which would prove all these people wrong. In fact, historians always have to make value judgements. That being said, unfortunately there have been more questions than answers so far.

So what is there to be done? Who can we trust? Should we believe those who took part in this event or those who deny the fact that the Iron Lady attended the convention and seek to erase any trace from the public domain? When it comes to one of the key Cold War ideologists, it can be argued that it is “highly likely” that the speech took place and that these exact words were spoken, as described in the abovementioned research papers.

In addition to this, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in almost a week since our last briefing, we have not received an official rebuttal from Britain. This adds to the controversy. There were a huge number of propaganda-inspired responses on the social media. In my opinion these were the trolls the West tends to refer to when pointing at Russia. It turns out that these trolls are paid by the West.

At the very least I can say that our experiment worked, since we were able to identify a huge number of people engaging in destructive efforts of this kind online.

We will definitely follow up on this topic. Let me reiterate that we now have an extraordinary formula from our British colleagues so that we can say that it was “highly likely.” even if these words have never been spoken.



Statement by Canada’s foreign minister

The statement by Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland on receiving the Diplomat of the Year award is another topic I cannot fail to mention.

Unfortunately, the Canadian minister took her cue from conventional Western diplomats by dividing the world order into the so-called “liberal democracies” and “authoritarianism.” She said that authoritarian regimes were seeking to undermine established democracies, suppress younger democracies aspiring to join the democratic world, and the international rule-based order through propaganda and espionage programmes.

This begs a question. Where were Canadian ministers and officials when it was revealed a few years ago that US secret services wiretapped Chancellor Merkel? Do they view Germany as a “younger democracy” or is America the “younger democracy”? Did Freeland make a statement to this effect? Nothing happened at the event I mentioned, but we are still waiting.

Of course, Canada positions itself alongside its allies as a genuine democracy that stands at the source of the existing system of international law, while Ms Freeland portrayed Russia as an antagonist. The minister went on to emphasise that with Western global dominance dwindling there was a need to force (and I quote) some undemocratic powers to abide by the existing international rules. We all see how this works in the Middle East.

It should be noted that the Russian Federation has repeatedly stressed the importance of abiding by the principles of international law, while also calling for the emergence of a multipolar world based on the principles of mutual respect and non-interference.

Neither Canada nor any other country can aspire to a monopoly over democracy. Accordingly, we believe comments by Canada’s Foreign Minister on the status of Russia’s democracy to be extremely inappropriate.

We would like to draw Chrystia Freeland’s attention to some of the essential features of a true liberal democracy highlighted in the Guidance Note of the UN Secretary-General on Democracy.

Specifically, it is about the rule of law, transparency and human rights. While democracy is not limited to these characteristics, without them no political system can be regarded as a true democracy.

Let me now draw Chrystia Freeland’s attention to some of the aspects of Canada’s foreign policy under her leadership. Unfortunately, disregard for the abovementioned principles is all too common, and so is the fact that this foreign policy undermines the very rules-based international order the Canadian minister wants to preserve.

Despite Chrystia Freeland’s statements on the importance of international rules, it must be noted that by deploying its troops to Syria as part of the so-called “international coalition” Canada violate the principles of international law.

Let me give you an example. The UN Security Council did not authorize the so-called “international coalition” that includes Canada to carry out a military operation in Syria. Article 51 of the UN Charter on individual or collective self-defence can hardly be used to justify Canada’s military intervention in Syria.

Finally, Canada was not invited by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, which has repeatedly demanded that all foreign troops operating illegally in Syria withdraw from the country in order to facilitate post-conflict recovery. Let me be clear: Canada’s presence in Syria is illegal and at odds with international law. This begs a question: does democratic Canada abide by international law in this case? It does not.

The principle of “rules-based international order” has not stopped the Canadian government from distorting the meaning of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 so as to bring about a change of government in Libya. Just to remind you, the sole goal of these resolutions was to establish a no-fly zone to prevent the government from using combat aircraft against civilians.

The actions taken by Canada and its NATO allies, including a large-scale air and naval campaign to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi government, went beyond the framework of UN Security Council resolutions and sometimes directly contradicted them.

This distortion of the principles of international law in the pursuit of one’s personal interests is threatening the system of international law, which Ms Freeland likes to pontificate about.

As we said before, a truly liberal democracy must seek to comply with the principle of transparency, especially when the issue concerns its potential involvement in an armed conflict that has claimed thousands of lives.

I would like to remind you that in December 2017 Chrystia Freeland announced Canada’s decision to include Ukraine in the Automatic Firearms Country Control List.

Private companies now can request a permit from the Canadian Foreign Ministry to export automatic firearms to Ukraine, which was prohibited before. However, there is no information regarding any such requests and whether Ms Freeland has granted them.

In May this year, an official representative of the Canadian Foreign Ministry refused to answer media questions “for reasons of commercial confidentiality.” So, what is Canada’s priority, “commercial confidentiality” or transparency?

I would like to remind you that thousands of civilians have perished in the armed conflict in Donbass, and millions of Ukrainian citizens have become refugees. The delivery of weapons to the conflict zone would only lead to the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis, as we pointed out many times.

This is probably why Canada has refused to comment on any applications for permits to export lethal weapons to Ukraine. Moreover, adding Ukraine to the firearms control list is not the only example of how Canada’s economic and other interests have eroded the principles of the liberal democratic world, which Chrystia Freeland likes to speak about in such detail.

The problem also concerns the multi-billion contract on the delivery of light armoured vehicles (LAV) to a Persian Gulf country. We are not concerned about the contract itself but about Canadian media reports to the effect that Canadian armoured vehicles could be used to suppress internal dissent in the Middle East. The Canadian Foreign Ministry launched an investigation into these reports, but in February this year Minister Freeland stated that her department “found no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used in human rights violations.” At the same time, the Canadian authorities refused to publish the full text of the investigation despite numerous requests from human rights organisations and the media.

All this is related to the issue of transparency. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, have expressed concern that Canadian-made weapons could be used in the Yemeni conflict. By continuing to deliver heavy weapons despite the reports on their misuse, Canada may be condoning human rights violations to meet its own economic and political interests.

Ms Freeland said in a recent statement that authoritarian regimes are “actively seeking to undermine” democracies because they are “inevitably imperfect.” Being imperfect but working to mend your system’s problems is one thing, but deliberately violating the fundamental principles of democracy, as Canada sometimes does, is quite another matter.

I have one more question for Canadian officials. It may sound rhetorical, but still. Does the United States know that Canada views it as an imperfect democracy? I don’t think so, considering the concept of American exceptionalism, which all US leaders are actively promoting.



US military biological activity near Russian borders

During the previous briefing, we received a question about the United States’ military biological activity near the Russian border.

Russia is concerned about the US Defence Department’s increased biomedical activity in the post-Soviet space. Despite the Americans’ assurances to the contrary, we believe that these activities are carried out in the interests of the Pentagon rather than for humanitarian purposes, such as preventing and combating infectious diseases in the former Soviet republics.

Evidence of this can be gleaned from the mode of operation of the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research, located in the Alekseyevka suburb of Tbilisi, Georgia. A biosafety level-3 (BSL-3) microbiology laboratory built by the US Department of Defence in Georgia, it houses a permanent US Army Medical Research Directorate-Georgia (USAMRD-G), which is studying especially dangerous pathogens (EDPs) that can be used for biological weapons research. The Lugar Lab is fully financed by this directorate of the US Army, which poses modestly as a lessee. Beware of US lessees who want to rent your properties, for they may represent the US Army medical research centre.

The USAMRD-G is subordinate to the United States Army Medical Research Unit-Europe, but functionally it is a subordinate command of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Silver Spring, Maryland). One of its tasks is to take anti-epidemic measures in order to prepare Georgia for the deployment of large military contingents from the United States and allied countries.

We have taken note of similar alarming activities by the Pentagon in other countries in the immediate vicinity of the border with Russia. The unceremonious interference by the US military in the sphere of ensuring biological safety in the post-Soviet republics is leading to the deformation of the national health systems in these countries and increasing the risk of dangerous and especially dangerous infections, including in Russia.

It should be said that the United States conducted an offensive biological weapons programme until 1969, when President Richard Nixon announced a decision to end it. Washington joined the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 1972. However, in 2001 it prevented the completion of international talks on a multilateral verification system for compliance with the BWC and has since hindered their resumption.



Situation with US and Russian diplomatic personnel

You may remember that at the previous briefing I was asked to comment on the situation with US and Russian diplomatic personnel. I would like to say that first the United States expelled our diplomats and then we took reciprocal action. On December 29, 2016, the US Department of State notified us of its decision to declare persona non grata 35 Russian officials without giving any reason for this decision. Despite the generally recognised principle of full reciprocity applied in such cases, Russia waited for seven months before responding to this, even though we were not allowed to fill the vacancies. People often ask us if this is true. Yes, I can confirm this. Only after the US Congress adopted a bill on July 27, 2017, which declared Russia an adversary and stipulated other unfriendly moves, did we take measures to reduce the total number of US diplomats and operational personnel in the Russian Federation to match that of Russia’s staff in the US. In addition, we gave the US side an advantage by including the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN when calculating this number, although it has no relation to bilateral ties and its partner is not the United States but the UN, which is headquartered in New York.

The Americans regularly complain about a shortage of personnel, which is allegedly why receiving US visas takes such a frustratingly long time in Russia. The official wait time before a visa interview is 10 months. In fact, we are not exactly to blame for this. The decision to reduce the number of consular personnel was taken by the United States, and it was clearly done deliberately to create a feeling of discontent, including among Russian citizens.

When the US authorities expelled 60 Russian diplomats on March 26, 2018, we responded in kind. And we will continue to take reciprocal action in the event of any further escalation of bilateral tensions, as the Russian leaders have said.

This is not our choice. You know this phrase. You have heard us say this many times before. Regrettably, we have to respond to unfriendly actions. For our part, we are ready to discuss with the Americans the entire range of issues of mutual concern. We have urged them to do so many times. These issues concern the operation of diplomatic and consular offices.

As for filling the vacancies created in March because of the US decision to expel Russian diplomats, it will take a long time. It is impossible to send dozens of diplomats to the United States overnight. We have taken note of Washington’s promise not to obstruct this. We hope to see consistency between words and deeds.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

Some foreign media outlets, including Arabic and English ones, have recently published stories, quoting Syrian army sources that a chemical unit, allegedly used by illegal paramilitary units to manufacture toxic agents and explosives, was delivered to Russia. How authentic is this information?



Maria Zakharova:

I have also read such stories about certain equipment, used for the above-mentioned purposes and removed from Syria. Of course, the Russian Defence Ministry should comment on these matters. I will certainly ask our colleagues about this, and comments will be posted by either the Defence Ministry or the Foreign Ministry.



Question:

Now that cyberattacks have become more frequent, does Russia score any successes while combating hackers?



Maria Zakharova:

We hear so many accusations with regard to Russia in connection with hackers, that all this has already bred various myths and legends. We suggest to all countries stating this at official level, bilateral cooperation when it comes to cyber-fraud and cybercrime.

We have already noted this. Full-scale, full-format and profound consultations involving professionals were planned with the German side, etc. But the Germans declined to hold talks several days before specific deadlines commenced, citing certain attacks, although everything had been coordinated. If they suspect that the attacks had originated in Russia, then discussing everything was necessary.

The same can be said about the US side. We have repeatedly suggested holding discussions in any shape or size. As soon as we start speaking about the possibility of consultations, our US colleagues also decline to hold them for unspecified reasons, saying this is not the right time for doing this. And this is happening time and again. We are being told that they can see that the attacks are being launched from the Russian Federation. We request data, and they reply that such data will, certainly, be provided. But they prefer to vanish into thin air, rather than make contact.

It goes without saying that, apart from the Russian side’s words and statements, there is also some practical activity. Here is the latest story that I read the other day: Moscow’s Savyolovsky District Court has sentenced members of a hackers’ group headed by St Petersburg residents, citizens of the Russian Federation. It was proved that, from March 2013 until May 2015, this group had received access to the accounts of clients of leading Russian banks and embezzled over 12 million roubles. The investigation involved Russian law enforcement agencies and criminalists from a major Moscow-based international company that specialises in preventing cyberattacks and developing IT security products.

Cooperation between official agencies and private companies made it possible to completely investigate this case and to sentence the culprits. The company mentioned by me operates real criminalist equipment in Eastern Europe, and its rapid response centre deals with cyber incidents 24 hours a day. We don’t see any problems in investigating these cases with the help of foreign experts. We are prepared for this multi-level and multi-format work, and this job is now underway.

This is just one example. If the international community provides all available opportunities in the context of countries and the potential of international organisations, then it would be possible to achieve very good results. We are urging everyone to do this.

Unfortunately, the West does not publish such information, and no one knows anything about this there.



Question:

Are there any statistics on nationals of so-called capitalist countries, Southeast Asian countries, seeking political asylum or citizenship in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, of course, we gather these statistics not only for the sake of it but also in order to retain records of the relevant requests. At the Russian Foreign Ministry, this is the business of the Consular Department. There are also other Russian official agencies that receive these requests if they come through our foreign missions (embassies, general consulates).

This is not art for art’s sake, nor because of a particular interest in statistics; we record these requests and the replies arising from the consideration of applications and documents. If you give me your contact details, we will try to provide you with the necessary information.



Question:

It is no secret that during the FIFA World Cup, the leaders and top officials of many states reach informal agreements while they are in their VIP boxes at the stadiums, and these agreements are later put in black and white as official documents. We could see heads of state smiling mysteriously at one another during the opening match. Could you tell us whether any agreements of this sort have taken place during the last week’s games?



Maria Zakharova:

You must have no knowledge of our custom of division of responsibilities. (I mention this often. I am not sure it is good for journalists, but it is very useful for government agencies.) We do not comment on the agenda of talks, nor do we announce or disclose what heads of state talk about. For this, there are the Presidential Executive Office, the Press Service and the Presidential Press Secretary. This is why I cannot tell you what the President talked about and what understandings, if any, have been reached.

Of course, informal communication always takes place at major international events – not only sports but also during cultural and humanitarian occasions. This is a matter of creating a definite atmosphere for confidential contact and an opportunity to discuss very serious things at an informal level. This is often used in diplomatic practice. It is not so much a question of the secrecy or openness of the information that is exchanged as an opportunity to talk as human beings, if this can be applied to heads of state and foreign ministers, to talk openly and trustingly, or to discuss something in a more relaxed atmosphere.

The TV coverage of a match involving the Russian team, which was relayed all over the world and which I watched live at a sports bar in Tverskaya Street in Moscow, caused a storm of emotion and was no less invigorating than the goals scored by the Russian players. In this, I agree with you.



Question:

If you look at the country statistics of the fans who came to Russia, most of them come from South America, not Western Europe. Can you say that football fans from European countries have to some extent succumbed to the propaganda in the Western media, and refrained from travelling to Russia out of fear?



Maria Zakharova:

I thought the local organising committee website and Rossiya Segodnya agency have statistics on the number of fans, guests and other people associated with the World Cup who came to Russia and where the visitors are coming from. It’s many different countries, including a lot of people from the West. Let’s be honest: if a man has a good excuse to leave home for a couple of weeks, would he miss the chance? He would not be stopped by any political statements. I'm just joking, of course, but it's true: sports, and football, are a matter of dedication, knowledge and real enthusiasm when it comes to football fans. There are no random people here: the real fans of football, supporters of their teams will follow them anywhere because this is part of the atmosphere that players need.

There is one more important point: I am often asked why the West makes these statements and harms us. Certainly, these actions do not add warmth to bilateral relations. These statements also harm the investment potential, and bring down the interest in the potential investment opportunities that exist in our country. We understand all this. But this is a dialectic matter, and sometimes by doing harm, they actually help in some ways. In this case, they have shown their true face, not only to Russia, but also to their own citizens. The discrepancy between the landslide of toxic content based on leaks, references to unnamed sources or simply documents published by Western governments regarding the upcoming World Cup, on the one hand, and what people actually see in Russia, on the other, mainly hits those behind this campaign.

Today I said (and I was being sarcastic) that yesterday we all saw a tremendous game of our team at a stadium that allegedly does not even exist – referring to what was said about it in the West. Today I saw another “non-existent” stadium, as they claimed. The organisation of such a grandiose event as the World Cup certainly involves difficulties, and it cannot be otherwise, but it is natural. Projects like the World Cup and other major events among other things serve to spur on the implementation of the host country’s projects it would hardly have been able to fulfill otherwise. It is about taking on the difficulties, and searching for solutions. Why would they want to hamper those projects? If you’re not helping, then at least do not interfere, I would say. That’s why I’m saying that this propaganda is helping in a way. There are also positive comments, I see them, read them. But most of what was published is still so indecent, so low and absurd, that it backfires instead of harming us.



Question:

Not so long ago, you were on holiday in Sochi. Could you share your impressions of the city and its preparations for the FIFA World Cup, the top international sports event of the year?



Maria Zakharova:

Those were incredible days off. It all happened unexpectedly. I was pondering where to go. I had been in Sochi many times before, but only on working trips, so, eventually, I decided to relax and go there for recreation and tourist purposes. Not only did I not regret it, but it gave me a positive charge of vitality that, I hope, will last a long time.

Everything is fine, but, in my opinion, Sochi (to answer your question about the city’s readiness for this sports event), comparing it with other Russian cities, let us be honest, Sochi is in a somewhat privileged situation. After the Olympic Games, hosting the FIFA World Cup is less scary, even though the city has its own peculiarities and its own aspects. Sochi played host to the Olympics, and we all know how it prepared for the Games and what enormous information and propaganda pressure this put on the locals. The Olympic experience was taken into account during the preparations for the World Cup. I even find it awkward to say that the city is ready, because there is no doubt whatsoever.



Question:

Nizhny Novgorod is now actively developing the tourism sector, and this is happening thanks also to the World Cup. Could you advise how this positive tourist image can be reinforced? Would it be possible, with your help, to organise media tours for our foreign colleagues so that back home they can spread the word about our landmarks?



Maria Zakharova:

We will gladly organise a press tour, all the more so if I can regard your question as an invitation. We, as the Foreign Ministry, as a press service, as a department that works with foreign correspondents, will do it with pleasure. There is an association of foreign journalists in Moscow. We will get in touch with them by all means and come up with a proposal.

As for reinforcing Nizhny Novgorod’s positive image, the recipe is always the same: active work on the internet and in social networks, both on a professional and informal level. I mean that people themselves should talk about it on their web pages, share their own impressions of their city. I try to make sketches of all places where I go. Today, I visited the village of Stepnaya Shentala, and all my Facebook subscribers, several hundreds of thousands of them, now know what kind of a village it is, who lives there and why its name is translated into other languages as “blue expanse” (researchers claim that Shentala was derived from several languages).

Today, after we had climbed to the second floor of a sports complex in the village of Koshki, I passed by a huge window (the building has glass walls), and I suddenly had the feeling that there was the sea beyond the window. And yet, I know that there can be neither the sea, nor even the Volga over there. I collected myself (for I actually saw that blueness), went up to the window and realised that sprawling beneath and far away were endless forests and fields that seemed blue on the horizon. It was the very blue-green colour that is often described as blue haze. I saw it with my own eyes today and tried to take photos.

In other words, it is very important that local residents should become promoters, advertising their region and telling other people about it. A professional set of instruments should, of course, also be used.



Question:

On June 18, British officials and football fans laid wreaths in the Hall of Memory at Mamayev Kurgan in Volgograd. Do you think it could be a step towards improvement in the bilateral relations with the UK?



Maria Zakharova:

We saw this sign, this gesture of goodwill and memory on behalf of the British representatives – and not only us but the residents of Volgograd as well. Honestly, I cannot think of anything but words of encouragement and gratitude to the British citizens. This is indeed the right and very much needed gesture. I think it was not so much for protocol but a sincere gesture.

Let me remind you that we fought against Nazism together. The history of Volgograd (Stalingrad) is well known in the West, in Europe and America. They know about it despite the attempts to rewrite history. The Battle of Stalingrad is a landmark in the history of the 20th century. Therefore, it would be impossible not to honour the memory of those fallen in Volgograd when you visit the city. I myself have been to Mamayev Kurgan – by the way, during the talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the-then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Their programme included a visit to Mamayev Kurgan and the burials, mass graves of Soviet soldiers and the German cemetery. This is a part of official delegation visits to Volgograd.

As concerns whether that can become a starting point, I believe the events like the Great Patriotic War must never become starting points. It is a constant, a tuning fork of sorts to gauge our life today, our actions on the international arena. It must not be a point of departure or a fleeting excuse. It is something that must stay with us every day, especially those who are involved in international politics. But, of course, there can and must be more gestures like this, in the humanitarian area, in the economy, finance and communication, including person-to-person communication. We support it by all means.

Once again, despite the whole outpour of ridiculousness and dirt we are getting from Britain, we have always said that the peoples of our countries are interested in the opposite. We are ready for positive changes and for constructive relations.



Question:

We all saw that the opening of the World Cup literally served as a peacemaking platform. With the involvement of President Putin, a meeting took place between Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Is it possible that the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan will meet in Moscow and will Russia help with that?



Maria Zakharova:

Last week I already answered a question on whether Armenia and Azerbaijan will hold any bilateral meetings and said that it is up to the representatives of the countries themselves to announce such plans. But I can assure you that Russia is fully committed to its role of an OSCE Minsk Group participant and will do everything in its power to make a constructive and efficient contribution to resolving the current crisis and improving the relations between the two countries. This is our traditional stance. It is a very important issue for us.



Question:

Kaliningrad will host several more World Cup matches. What is the simplest way for foreign fans to reach the city, considering its exclave status? What are the rules for crossing the borders of Lithuania and Belarus?



Maria Zakharova:

This information has been posted on the Foreign Ministry website, but I can update you on it based on the opportunities offered by City Press Centres within the framework of the World Cup. During Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent visit to Belarus, we signed an Agreement on Issues Related to the Entry of Foreign Nationals and Stateless Persons into the Union State to Attend Sporting Events. You probably remember that it took us a long time to draft this agreement. We needed to consider various scenarios, but we ultimately signed this agreement because both sides acted constructively.

This document regulates the entry procedure for certain categories of foreign citizens into the territory of the Union State during the preparations and hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup and the Second European Games, which will be held in Minsk in 2019.

In particular, Clause 1 of Article 2 says that foreign citizens and stateless persons who arrive to attend an international sporting event during the period of its holding in the State of one Party, may enter, leave, stay and transit through the territory of the State of the other Party without requiring any visas, only holding a valid ID and a document for attending an international sporting event (FAN ID).

Lithuania has agreed that four additional trains running to the Kaliningrad Region will cross its territory daily during the World Cup. Transit passengers crossing the Lithuanian border must hold a Lithuanian transit or Schengen visa.

If you have any information about foreign nationals’ complaints or questions, please let us know via the City Press Centres, those responsible for the centres’ operation, the Rossiya Segodnya staff, or directly via the Foreign Ministry and its representative offices. We have representatives in all host cities of the World Cup, including Samara. We will promptly act on this information by providing explanation or taking practical measures.


* * *


Thank you. You have endured an event which Russian and foreign media representatives have to sit through every week in Moscow. I was happy to be able to visit Samara. It was a dream, because my parents told me about this wonderful city when I was a child. My dream has come true. Once again, thank you very much, and good-bye for now.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3266659
__________________
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 July 3rd, 2018 #448
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister S.Lavrov’s interview with Channel 4, Moscow, June 29, 2018



29 June 2018 - 19:41








Question:

Foreign Minister, the summit is happening in Helsinki. Russian President V.Putin and US President D.Trump together. Is this the post-West world order that you have talked of in the past? Has it now arrived?



S.Lavrov:

Well, I think that we are in the post-West world order, but this order is being shaped and it will take a long time. It is a historical epoch, if you want. Certainly, after five or so centuries of domination of the collective West, as it were, it is not very easy to adjust to new realities that there are other powerhouses economically, financially and politically, China, India, Brazil. African countries are going to be very much on the rise, as soon as they resolve at least some of the conflicts, which are there on the continent. Well, Russia certainly would like to be an independent world player. Independent in the sense that we do not want to violate any international law and norms, but the decisions, which we would be taking on the basis of international law, would not be influenced by pressure, money, sanctions, threats or anything else.



Question:

Russia is shaping this world order that is clear.



S.Lavrov:

It is not Russia that is shaping this world order, it is history. It is the development itself. You cannot really hope to contain these new powerful, economically and financially, countries. You cannot really ignore their role in world trade and world economy. Attempts are being made to slow down this process by new tariffs, new sanctions for good or bad reasons in violation of the WTO principles and so on. But I think it is a logical reaction: trying to slow down something, which is objective and does not depend on any single administration in any country.



Question:

But Europe has something to fear from that world order that you have just mapped out there.



S.Lavrov:

What was that?



Question:

Well the world order that you have mapped out involved all sorts of countries. You did not mention whether the EU fits into that. Do they need to worry about that new world order?



S.Lavrov:

Well, the EU is of course part of the collective West with the addition of new members from Eastern Europe. But the European Union is certainly a very important pillar of any world order. As for the Russian Federation, it is our biggest trade partner in spite of the fact that after the unfortunate developments and the wrongly understood interpretation of what the coup d’état is. The volume of trade since 2014 between Russia and the European Union went down 50%, but it is still more than $250bn and it is our number one trading partner, as a collective, as a Union. But the European Union certainly is now fighting to make sure that it is not lost in this new world order that is being shaped. It is not easy, because the reliance on the United States is something, which quite a number of the EU members want to keep. There are some other EU members, who believe that they should be a bit more self-sufficient in military matters for example. The initiative of President F.Macron and Germany to consider some kind of European defence capabilities being beefed up is a manifestation of this case.

I am watching the EU summit, which is going on right now, and the discussion on migration brought an interesting thought to my head, namely it is about the relations between NATO and EU. NATO bombed Libya, turned Libya into a black hole through which waves of migrants, illegal migrants, rushed to Europe. Now EU is cleaning the broken china for NATO.



Question:

You talk about NATO’s involvement in Libya, but then there is Russia’s involvement in Syria and that has also created millions of refugees.



S.Lavrov:

Yes, but I would challenge you that the Russian involvement in Syria on the basis of legitimate request from the legitimate government, recognized by all as the representative of Syria in the United Nations, took place in September 2015, four and a half years into the Arab spring embracing Syria. The bulk of the refugees already was outside Syria by the time that we came to the rescue of the legitimate government.



Question:

Well you talk of the legitimate government that is also the government responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, making millions homeless. “A gas killing animal”, as President D.Trump, your ally, puts it. Do you rest easy being allied with that kind of government?



S.Lavrov:

Well, I would not go into the names, which President D.Trump used to describe some of the world leaders. It is not something done in concrete, it might change. What I want to say is: it is a war. It is the war, which was started by mistakes made on the part of everyone, including the Syrian government. I believe these disturbances could have been handled politically at an earlier stage. But we have now on our hands what is the result of outside forces having tried to use the situation in order to reshape the map of the Middle East and Northern Africa by trying to get into Syria without any invitation and trying to promote their own agenda there. So, the efforts, which we are now undertaking together with Turkey and Iran, and both of them are present on the ground, Turkey without invitation, Iran with the invitation from the government, but we managed pragmatically to create what we call Astana Process, Astana Format. The Syrian government, given the fact that Russia, Iran cooperate with Turkey on the basis of decisions, which lead to de-escalation, accepted Astana Process as such. It is part of the process together with the armed opposition, they regularly meet, and try to create conditions the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 to be implemented.



Question:

Let me ask again about Syrian President B.Assad. A lot of people would like to know what is there to like about President B.Assad?



S.Lavrov:

We do not like anybody. The diplomacy and politics are not about liking or disliking, it is for human beings as individuals to use this terminology. President Assad is protecting the sovereignty of his country. He is protecting his country and in a broader sense the region from terrorism, which was really about a couple of weeks from taking over Damascus in September 2015.

We did not want the repetition of tragedies, which happened during the last couple of decades through the “adventures”. Maybe even more than a couple of decades. It started closer to the end of last century in Afghanistan, when the US decided to support militarily, financially and otherwise mujahedeen, who were fighting the Soviet troops. I would not dwell upon why the Soviet troops were there. By the way the USSR was also invited legally by the government, which was recognized as legitimate. The US decided to use the mujahedeen to fight the Soviet troops, hoping that after the job was done, they could handle those mujahedeen. That is how Al Qaeda appeared and the US lost total control of this beast, whom they had created, basically. Then there was an adventure in Iraq on the very false pretence. Now everybody knows this, even Tony Blair admitted that this was a mistake. But the fact of the matter is just like Al Qaeda was born in Afghanistan, ISIL/Daesh was born after the intervention in Iraq. After Libya was invaded in gross violation of the UN Security Council Resolution, and Syria is now, there is another beast that was born - Jabhat al Nusra, which changes names, but is another terrorist organization. Whatever the civilized West is trying to bring to the Middle East and North Africa turns out to be in favour of terrorists.



Question:

That is a very impressive whistle-stop tour of history, but I want to ask about the present though and about President B.Assad. You said that it is not about liking President Assad. Does that mean that Russia would be prepared to see him go? Do the job, finish the war and then he goes?



S.Lavrov:

It is the position, which is not Russian position, it is the position of the UN Security Council, endorsed by each and every country on Earth, that the future of Syria must be decided by the Syrian people themselves. That there must be a new constitution. On the basis of the new constitution there must be elections. Elections should be free, fair, monitored by the UN and all Syrian citizens, wherever they are, should be eligible to vote.



Question:

So, it is irrelevant to you whether he stays or goes, that is for the Syrian people?



S.Lavrov:

Yes, that is for them to decide. I believe that this view, which was rejected for quite some time after the Syrian crisis began, is now shared by more and more countries.



Question:

When will Russia withdraw from Syria? President V.Putin first raised the prospect in March 2016, he said that Russia had largely achieved her objectives there. Again, December 2017. By the end of this year can we expect Russia to be out of Syria?



S.Lavrov:

No. I do not think that this is something, which we can intelligently discuss. We do not like artificial deadlines, but we have been consistently reducing our military presence in Syria. The last reduction took place a few of days ago. More than 1,000 troops have come back to Russia, some aircraft and other equipment as well. It depends on what is the actual situation on the ground. Yes, we managed together with our colleagues, with Syrian Army, with the help of opposition, which I would call “patriotic opposition” not to allow plans to create a caliphate by ISIL happen. But some remnants of ISIL are very much there. Jabhat al Nusra is still there. They are now preventing the deal on the southern Syrian de-escalation area to be implemented fully. So there are some leftovers. Besides, we do have, not actually full-fledged bases, but two places where our naval ships and our aircraft are located in Syria and they might be usefully kept for quite some time.



Question:

Clearly, Syria will be on the agenda at the summit. Just want to talk about some other things that might be. For example, you have mentioned sanctions. Do you think that sanctions will be lifted, given that the EU has just talked about extending them? Do you think you can get President D.Trump to commit to that?



S.Lavrov:

Actually, I have mentioned sanctions only in the context of the deterioration of relations. We are not pleading to remove them. It is not our business, it is for those, who introduced sanctions, to decide whether they want to continue or whether common sense would prevail.



Question:

Well, your President has very recently said that he would like them lifted.



S.Lavrov:

Yes, absolutely. We would not mind them lifted, but we would not mind also using the spirit to build up our own capacity in key sectors of economy, security and other areas on which an independent state depends. In the recent years, we have learned a lot, including the fact that in these issues you cannot rely on the West. You cannot rely on Western technologies, because they can be abruptly stopped at any moment. You cannot rely on the items, which are essential for the day-to-day living of the population, coming from the West, because this could also be stopped. So, we are certainly drawing lessons. But we certainly would not be against sanctions being lifted and we would reciprocate, because we do have some countermeasures in place.



Question:

What are you prepared to give in this Summit? For example, if D.Trump says he wants NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden back in the US, is that something that you would consider? Is this something that you can put on the table?



S.Lavrov:

I have never discussed E.Snowden with this Administration. President V.Putin addressed the issue some years ago. When he was asked the question, he said this is for E.Snowden to decide. We respect his rights, as an individual. That is why we were not in the position to expel him against his will, because he found himself in Russia even without the US passport, which was discontinued as he was flying from Hong Kong.



Question:

So that is not going to be up for discussion?



S.Lavrov:

I do not know why people would start asking this particular question in relation to the Summit. Edward Snowden is the master of his own destiny.



Question:

Given that the US intelligence believes that the presidential elections were meddled with, can Russian President V.Putin give D.Trump any assurances that the upcoming midterm elections in a few months’ time would not be meddled with by Russia?



S.Lavrov:

We would prefer some facts. We cannot intelligently discuss something, which is based on “highly likely”.



Question:

Well, it is more than highly likely, is not it?



S.Lavrov:

No. The investigation in the US has been going on for how long? A year and a half now?



Question:

Well, Robert Mueller indicted the Internet Research Agency, the Russian “troll factory”.



S.Lavrov:

Indictment is something, which requires a trial and I understand that they have submitted their own case and they have challenged quite a number of things, which were used for the indictment. So let’s not jump the gun. I love Lewis Carroll, but I do not think that the logic of the queen, who said “sentence first, verdict later”, is going to prevail. So far, you take the presidential election in the US, take Brexit, take the Salisbury case, take the tragedy with the Malaysian Boeing MH17 flight, it is all based on “investigation continues, but you are guilty already”. It cannot work this way.



Question:

But is Russia frightened of the truth? Because it just seems whenever the authority whether it is the UN or the chemical weapons watch dog OPCW, whenever they try to get to the facts, Russia objects.



S.Lavrov:

No, I believe that the public and respected journalists like you have been misinformed. The OPCW must operate on the basis of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which says bluntly that there is only one procedure when you want to establish facts. First, experts of the OPCW must themselves without delegating this authority to anyone go to the place of the alleged incident. They must themselves with their own hands and with their own equipment take samples. They must continue holding the substances in their hands until they have reached a certified laboratory. In the recent cases, especially in the infamous case of Khan Shaykhun in April last year, when the Syrian government was accused of using aerial bombs to deliver chemical weapons to Khan Shaykhun, the OPCW never visited the place, they never took samples themselves. When we asked where did they get samples, they said: “the Brits and the French gave it to us”. We asked "why do not you go there"?



Question:

Have you lost faith in the OPCW?



S.Lavrov:

Wait a second, that is important information. Let’s not speak slogans, let’s speak facts. So they did not go there. But they said that “we got the samples”. We asked “where from?”. They said “well the British and the French got it for us”. “Why do not you go?”, we asked. “Why, it is not very safe.” We told them if the Brits and the French made it there or rather they know people who can get there safely, why do not you ask Paris and London to ensure safety for your own inspectors to get there. We told the same to the French and to the British, they said: “no, it is something, which we cannot share with you, how we got hold of this”. So, no procedures, regarding the taking of the samples, and the chain of custody, meaning that the inspectors themselves cannot delegate to anyone the delivery of samples to laboratory. These procedures, embodied and enshrined in the Convention, were violated. The Report on this Khan Shaykhun case, submitted by this Joint Investigating Mechanism last fall was full of “highly likely”, “by all probability”, “we have good reasons to believe” and so on and so forth. We invited the authors of the Report to the Security Council, trying to get some credible information from them. Impossible, they were stonewalled, they refused to talk. We said: “guys, if you want to work on the basis of violation of the Convention’s procedures, this cannot continue”. We did not extend their mandate, but we suggested a new mechanism, insisting that this new mechanism must not violate the procedures embodied in the Convention.



Question:

Do you still have faith in the OPCW?



S.Lavrov:

Until recently we did. But the organization was grossly manipulated a couple of days ago, when the Brits and others convened the special sessions of the state parties to the Convention. They passed a decision by vote, which basically violates the Convention in all its provisions, giving the Technical Secretariat the right to establish guilt. I think that this is a step, which was not thought through very thoroughly, because it is very dangerous.



Question:

Well, it is dangerous potentially for Russia, because now the chemical weapons watchdog can apportion blame to the likes of Russia. Are you fearful of the truth?



S.Lavrov:

No, I am fearful of the future of the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention.



Question:

Will you withdraw from the OPCW?



S.Lavrov:

Well, if people prefer to violate the Convention, if they say that this is the “will of the majority”. When they convened this conference, all kinds of tricks were used, including mobilizing small countries, who do not have any representation in the Hague, paying for their travel expenses, paying for their hotel bills. We know all this and they know all this. So, when the Convention is grossly violated, I do not think that you can really avoid raising concern. We will try to repair the situation, because this decision will go to the regular conference of the state parties. But if this is not repaired, I believe that the days of the OPCW will be counted, at least it would not remain as a universal organization.



Question:

The OPCW has also investigated the case of the Skripals. I wanted to ask you, do you think that using a nerve agent to poison a former spy and his child, a policeman on the streets of a cathedral city in Britain is an act of a rational state?



S.Lavrov:

Rational state? Not at all. It is an act of crime. We from the very beginning suggested that we investigate this together, because it is our citizen. At least the daughter is our citizen. The father, I think, has a dual citizenship, he is a Russian citizen and a British subject. From the very beginning we suggested a joint investigation. We asked so many questions, including the questions related to the Chemical Weapons Convention’s procedures. In response, we were told that the British side does not want to listen, because we have to tell them only one thing. “Did V.Putin order this or did V.Putin lose control over the people who did?”. That’s all that the Brits wanted to discuss. The inconsistences in the situation with the Skripals are very troubling. We never managed to get consular access to our citizen in violation of all international conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. We never got any credible explanation why the cousin of Yulia Skripal has not been given visa, she wants to visit the UK and see her cousin. And many other things related to the act itself.



Question:

But why would Britain give consular access to the country suspected of being behind this attack?



S.Lavrov:

You know that the investigation continues. The Scotland Yard said that it would take a few more months. UK Foreign Secretary B.Johnson recently mentioned that the place is being disinfected four months after the incident. The policeman became miraculously fine. The Skripals became miraculously fine. People now talk about levelling the house, where they lived, levelling the house of the policeman. It all looks like a consistent physical extermination of the evidence, like the benches of the park were removed immediately and, of course, the video images, when the policemen or special forces in special attire go to take a look at this bench, while people without any protection are moving around. It looks very weird.



S.Lavrov:

Mr. Lavrov are accusing the British state of a cover-up of this whole incident?



S.Lavrov:

I do not exclude this, as long as they do not give us information. You know that about 10 Russian citizens have died in London during the past years. All 10 cases have been investigated in the secret format. We do not understand why. One of the wise guys said: “who is to benefit?” Certainly, the UK benefited politically from what is going. Come to think of it, it is an interesting situation, thereby the country, which is leaving the European Union, is determining the EU policy on Russia. When they were running through all capitals of the European Union, saying “you must expel the Russian diplomats, you must expel them”. So they did. Most of them, some did not. Then we privately asked those, who decided to join Britain in this action whether any proof was given in addition to what was said publicly. They said no. But they said that “we were promised that later, as investigation proceeds, we would be given more facts”. Do you think it is ok?



Question:

But you ask who benefits and there are many in the West, who say that the chaos whether it is Brexit, whether it is the Skripals, whether it is D.Trump in the White House…



S.Lavrov:

You forgot Catalonia and you forgot the forthcoming elections in Sweden, as the Prime Minister said. Macedonia, Montenegro…



Question:

Ok, we will include that later. But answer me this: does the chaos benefit Russia, as some in the West say?



S.Lavrov:

You have to be within the historical and chronological framework. You mean the chaos benefits Russia couple of weeks before the presidential elections and months before the World Cup. What do you think?



Question:

I am asking you. Does chaos benefit Russia?



S.Lavrov:

I want to clarify the issue. Does chaos benefit Russia couple of months before the presidential elections and couple of days before the World Cup? Is it the question?



Question:

Well you talked about the new world order that you are hoping that Russia will help shape. Much easier to shape that world order if the EU is in chaos, you are holding the ring in the Middle East, if you are calling the shots in Syria. Russia potentially benefits.



S.Lavrov:

No, this is absolutely wrong. It is misreading what I have said. I did not say that Russia wants to shape the new order. I said that Russia must be one of the players on the equal basis, discussing how the objective reality of multipolarity, being developed in front of our eyes, could be managed the way, which would be acceptable to all. That is what I have said. The interests of those, who determine the Russophobic policy in the West, are absolutely diametrically different. Their interest is to punish Russia, to downgrade Russia.



Question:

Why, do you think?



S.Lavrov:

Because it is very painful to lose half millennium of domination in the world affairs. In a nutshell, this is the answer. This is not the criticism, this is a statement of fact. I understand when people used to call the shots in India, Africa, Asia, elsewhere and now they understand that this time has passed.



Question:

Is Brexit good for Britain? Is it good for Russia?



S.Lavrov:

This is for the UK subjects to discuss.



Question:

Good for Russia, though?



S.Lavrov:

I do not understand why we should be thinking in this way. It is something that the Brits decided. It is something, which they still discuss with the EU: the divorce, the problems inside the country. We also know, of course we follow the news, that the Parliament has one position, some public activists want rethinking.



Question:

Does it look like chaos to you in Theresa May’s Britain?



S.Lavrov:

Look, it is something, which happened by developments inside the UK. We only want clarity. What will be the basis on which we continue to work with the European Union. What will be the basis on which we might someday restore the relations with the UK, when they take some reasonable course and not the overly ideologised, “highly likely” attitude. I believe that this must be very much understood by those in the West, especially by the liberals, who keep saying that the “rule of law must prevail”. In my view, rule of law means that unless proven guilty you cannot sentence people. That is what is happening with Skripal, MH17, with the OPCW being an instrument of those, who would like to make this “highly likely” the order of the day in Syria.



Question:

Just returning to the Summit for a couple of final questions. Does it help Russia in her dealings with D.Trump that so many people think that you have compromising materials, so-called “kompromat”, on him?



S.Lavrov:

Look, I hear this for the first time that we have the compromising material on D.Trump. That’s what the Special Counsel R.Mueller is trying to dig. Actually, I stopped reading the news from this investigation. You know that when R.Tillerson was Secretary of State, he once stated publicly that they have an “undeniable proof”. Then, during our contact, I said: “Rex, can you give this undeniable proof to us? Because we want to understand what is going on. Maybe this is something that we can explain”. He said: “well, we cannot give it to you, we cannot compromise our sources and besides, your special services, your security people know everything - ask them”. Is it the way to handle serious things? It is a matter, which is used to ruin the Russian-American relations. To answer the way, in which he did, I believe that it is not mature. It is very childish, I think. I think that the people, who are trying to dig something to prove that we have decided the future of the greatest country on Earth through some Internet agency, are ridiculous. I understand that the Democrats in the US are really quite nervous. I understand that the UK is nervous. There were leaks in the Times, saying that the Cabinet members are nervous that D.Trump and V.Putin might get along.



Question:

So, you do read the papers?



S.Lavrov:

I read the extracts, which my people give me. I love reading papers with a cup of coffee, but do not always have time.



Question:

Finally, on that point of kompromat. The ex-FBI Director J.Comey has said and I quote “it is possible that the current President of the United States was with prostitutes, peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013”. Do you think that this is possible?



S.Lavrov:

Well, he said it is possible, ask him.



Question:

Do you think that this is possible? It has happened in Moscow allegedly.



S.Lavrov:

I do not know what people can invent again. I think that I have read this story a couple of years ago, when all this started. Again, if people base the real policies vis-à-vis a country, state-to-state policies on the basis of “it is “possible”, on the basis of “highly likely”, this is shameful. I believe that what is being done in the context of the Russiagate in the US, as President V.Putin has repeatedly said, is the manifestation of deep domestic controversy, because the losers do not have the guts to accept that they have lost the elections.



Question:

Foreign Minister, thank you very much.



S.Lavrov:

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3285972
__________________
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 July 4th, 2018 #449
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s meeting with Ambassador of the Republic of Moldova to the Russian Federation Andrei Neguța



25 June 2018 - 17:46



On June 25, Deputy Foreign Minister and State Secretary Grigory Karasin received Ambassador of the Republic of Moldova to the Russian Federation Andrei Neguța.

The Russian official again noted the destructive nature of the UN General Assembly resolution adopted on June 22 at the tip from Moldova on “the complete and unconditional withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of the Republic of Moldova,” and its inevitable complicating impact on a settlement in Transnistria.

The Ambassador was informed that this unfriendly step adopted by the Government of Moldova, despite the lack of political consensus in Chisinau, will discourage the atmosphere of Russia-Moldova relations and obviously contrasts with statements on striving to develop them.

During the conversation, the officials also discussed a number of other current issues of mutual interest.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3277955






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the Ukrainian authorities denying entry to journalists from Russia



26 June 2018 - 15:22




On June 26, Ukrainian authorities denied entry into the country to journalists working for Russian media outlets Yevgeny Primakov (VGTRK) and Paula Slier (RT), who went to Kiev to take part in an OSCE conference. The absurdity of the situation stands in stark contrast to the theme of the conference, “Strengthening media freedom and pluralism in Ukraine during times of conflict in and around the country.” The Ukrainian border officials stopped Primakov and Slier at the airport for an interview and subsequently told them officially that they have been banned from entering Ukraine for five years.

We view these restrictive measures as fresh proof of Kiev’s refusal to curtail its repressive policy towards the media, in particular, Russian media, which is aimed at suppressing the freedom of speech in Ukraine. This act of discrimination looks all the more offensive since the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Désir, previously confirmed the open nature of the planned event in a letter to Russian journalists and thanked them for their interest. We consider as unacceptable the OSCE’s organisation of its events without ensuring that they can be attended by all those interested.

It is obvious that the Kiev authorities, who have systematically infringed on the rights of journalists in the absence of international censure, see that they can act with impunity. This policy will further aggravate the problem with the freedom of speech in Ukraine.

We hope that the participants of the aforementioned conference will censure this outrageous infringement on the rights and freedoms of journalists, as Mr Harlem Désir has done. At the same time, we expect the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and other international organisations concerned to adopt a harder line regarding the Kiev authorities’ policy of curtailing the freedom of speech.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278603






Remarks by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko at the opening of the annual OSCE Conference on security issues, Vienna, June 26, 2018



26 June 2018 - 15:42




Mr Chairman,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Please allow me to express my gratitude to the Italian Chairmanship, the Secretary General and the Secretariat for the excellent organisation of the conference. We hope it will allow us discuss and find ways to resolve problems that are obstructing the building of an indivisible security system in the OSCE.

The current situation in Europe and the world is very turbulent. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin put it, a game without rules has become the rule. Thirty years after the end of the Cold War the world has become economically and politically multipolar. A dangerous uncertainty in relations between states and their associations is growing. International law is being subjected to trials. Regional conflicts continue to flare up. States have to counter transnational threats many of which are due to Western intervention. Giant territories on the periphery of the OSCE do not have any statehood and have turned into territories that are controlled by various terrorist groups. All of this requires a consolidated effort on a truly collective basis. Attempts to form “security islands” around NATO or the EU will not work under the current conditions.

Russia has offered many times to agree on the rules in this respect, and to counter common threats. Ten years ago we suggested the idea of a treaty on European security but the proposal was ignored. When we began to rebuild our position, the West resorted to the tried-and-tested practice of interference in internal affairs, sanctions and military deterrence instead of an equitable dialogue.

Incidentally, the coup in Kiev that lead to Crimea’s self-determination and a civil war in Donbass are indicative. It is surprising how quickly and easily NATO returned to its initial “raison d’être,” that was succinctly formulated by its first Secretary General Lord Ismay: to keep Russians out, Americans in. I will not mention the third element of this formula.

Today NATO and the EU have made the architecture of security hostage to the crisis in Ukraine – one of many conflicts in Europe. But sanctions and pressure will not settle conflicts or enhance security. Let me recall that after the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, which changed the very paradigm of European security, the European countries still managed to start working for common interests. The Charter for European Security and the adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe demonstrated a political will for cooperation.

Today, the NATO countries must answer this question for themselves: do they think security should be divided – in confrontation with Russia, or united – in cooperation to counter common threats? Regrettably, for the time being multilateral formats are being used not to restore trust but to exert pressure on Russia, in part, by limiting dialogue. These days only few people do not talk about the need for de-escalation and prevention of dangerous military incidents or the wrong interpretation of the intentions of the sides. Nobody argues this. But how do we achieve this if military contacts are completely frozen and other channels of political and public communication are ruptured? The answer to this question is obvious. Consistent cooperation in areas of common interest has been suspended and one more resource for enhancing trust and security has been closed.

Unilateral sanctions, demonisation and imposition of the image of an enemy are aggravating the confrontation. Some political forces are trying to use Russophobia as the main driver of European and Euro-Atlantic unity that is falling apart for objective reasons. The narrative about Russia that has been imposed on public consciousness by an unprecedented propaganda campaign has nothing to do with reality in this country, its efforts in the international arena or the aspirations of the Russian people. Specific political steps are being justified by ill-disguised excuses like “highly likely” or the absence of other plausible explanations. There is no end to this. Now attempts are being made to assign “attributive functions” to the OPCW Secretariat in violation of the fundamental principle of all regimes of non-proliferation and arms control – the sovereign and exclusive right of states to assess the fulfillment of commitments. This is a direct road to a crisis and conflict in The Hague Organisation and the undermining of UN Security Council prerogatives. No less dangerous is the trend to look at the regions of the world through the prism of geopolitical competition and a “zero sum game.” This fully applies to the Western Balkans.

Unless we stop these dangerous trends, confrontation can become irreversible. Especially so, when it underlies not only politics, but military planning as well. The myth about the so-called Russian military threat has been inflated to absurd proportions. In this regard, you may be aware that Russia's defence budget in 2018 was about $46 billion and will be reduced in the future, whereas in NATO countries it amounts to an aggregate sum of $1 trillion, which is more than half the total military spending of all the countries in the world. In the United States, it exceeds $700 billion, and its European allies will soon have it at $300 billion. If they comply with the NATO-established 2-percent rule, the European allies’ total defence spending will reach $400 billion, with 20%, or about $100 billion a year, set aside for arms purchases. This begs the question: for what purpose? What enemy or enemies are they going to fight? The US operates about 800 military bases worldwide and is implementing a global missile defence system project with components deployed in Poland and Romania. The Alliance continues to establish its presence in Eastern Europe and to speed up the implementation of the "open door" policy, which only creates new dividing lines and exacerbates instability. Of course, in its defence planning, Russia has to take account of these factors.

Mr Chairperson, we support any and all attempts to return to a normal depoliticised conversation about security issues, including as part of the OSCE "structured dialogue." It is imperative to restore cooperation to cover the entire range of new threats and challenges. Europe and North America were swept by a wave of terrorist attacks in 2016-2018. We will not forget the tragedy in Nice, London, Berlin and Brussels. More and more acts of terror are committed by persons who have returned from conflict zones or loners subdued by terrorist propaganda. This suggests that fighting the ideology of terror and foreign terrorist militants is coming to the fore, including in the OSCE.

Drug trafficking is closely tied in with terrorism, as its proceeds are used to finance terrorist attacks. The area of land used to grow drug crops in Afghanistan - an OSCE partner - is expanding. In 2017, it reached a record high of 300,000 hectares. Synthetic and psychotropic substances distributed through the internet represent a threat to the citizens of our countries. The OSCE should not turn a blind eye to these problems. We are in favour of boosting its capacity on the anti-drug track and are making our contribution by implementing the OSCE project to train specialists from Afghanistan and Serbia.

Migration represents a major common challenge. It is being felt most acutely in Western Europe in connection with the influx of migrants from the southern Mediterranean. We are convinced that the OSCE can contribute to global efforts to address migration problems, of course, without duplicating them.

Colleagues,

OSCE resources remain an important factor in conflict resolution. I have already mentioned the civil war in eastern Ukraine. More than 10,000 people died there in four years, including 2,500 civilians. The situation is worsening. Kiev is blocking the Minsk agreements which are the only basis for the settlement. The Ukrainian laws on reintegrating Donbass and education and launching the Joint Forces Operation led to an armed escalation and more victims. We hope that the OSCE's efforts in the Contact Group and the Special Monitoring Mission’s onsite activities will contribute to implementing the Minsk Agreements and facilitate a settlement to the internal conflict.

The situation in Kosovo, where ethnic tensions continue unabated, is a source of concern to us. Pristina is sabotaging the creation of the Community of Serbian Municipalities, preventing the beginning of court proceedings on the Kosovo Liberation Army’s crimes, and forming its own "armed forces." The OSCE must maintain its presence in that region.

We are glad that progress has been made in the Transnistrian settlement process in December 2017 with the participation of the OSCE. We note the positive results of the first in 2018 5 + 2 meeting in Rome and the efforts of Special Representative of the Italian Chairmanship Franco Frattini. Now, it is important to make sure that the parties honour the agreements that have been reached. Unfortunately, the adoption on June 22 of the UNGA draft resolution initiated by Moldova represents a step back in this regard.

The work of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to advance the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process remains an important part of OSCE activities.

The OSCE co-chairmanship in the Geneva discussions between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is aimed at developing stable security guarantees in the Caucasus, deserves high praise.

It is important to make full use of the OSCE Platform for Co-operative Security to establish a dialogue between all organisations operating within the Organisation's space. By the way, this initiative was put forward by the EU in 1999. It is important to continue to seek the harmonisation of integration processes in our common interests, and the OSCE can play an important role here.

I agree with the position of the Italian chairmanship that it is time to take a comprehensive look at the OSCE's outreach and its mechanisms. The effect of extra-regional factors on security in the OSCE zone will continue to increase.

Colleagues,

In closing, I would like to re-emphasise the importance of restoring confidence and moving towards a community based on equal and indivisible security, which our leaders agreed upon during the 2010 Astana summit. This, in turn, will aid the resolution of conflicts and the fight against common threats. I hope that today's Conference and the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan will help us achieve that goal.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278621






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin’s participation in a meeting of the UN General Assembly Committee on Voluntary Contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)



27 June 2018 - 10:02



On June 25 in New York, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin took part in the UN General Assembly Committee on Voluntary Contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

In his speech, Sergey Vershinin emphasised the importance of supporting the agency in the complicated circumstances of escalation in the Gaza Strip and underfunding of this important body, especially following the significant reduction of Washington’s contributions to the UNRWA. He noted that successful, uninterrupted and predictable funding of the agency that performs an important humanitarian function for Palestinian refugees is conducive to the Middle East settlement based on the generally recognised norms of international law in line with the concept of building two states.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278776






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin’s participation in the main event of Russia’s presidency of the UN Security Council



27 June 2018 - 10:25



On June 25, the UN Security Council held its meeting at the concluding stage of the Russian presidency of the UN Security Council. At Russia’s initiative, the participants focused on a comprehensive survey of the situation in the Middle East and North Africa.

While initiating this event, the Russian Federation was guided by the task of charting the international community’s common approaches towards resolving acute crises in the Middle East and North Africa by political and diplomatic tools.

In his speech, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin who represented the Russian side focused on the need to establish a system of peace and stability in the region using the potential of previously submitted Russian initiatives, including the drafting of security as well as confidence-building measures for the Persian Gulf.

The parties reaffirmed the fact that there was no alternative to resolving the Palestinian problem in line with the two-state formula and UN Security Council resolutions. They underscored the importance of retaining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran as a unique non-proliferation mechanism.

UN member-states were informed about the efforts of the Russian Federation and other countries, guarantors of the Astana process, to overcome the crisis in Syria. They also prioritised joint work to combat terrorism and to restore liberated Syrian territories.

The sides noted Russia’s principled support for the efforts of the UN Secretary--General and his special representatives to search for peaceful solutions in Libya and Yemen, to normalise the situation in Iraq, to strengthen stability in Lebanon and to improve relations between regional states. They noted the unacceptability of outside interference in domestic affairs and attempts to undermine sovereignty.

We perceive this meeting as an important step for comprehensively analysing the root causes of turbulence in the Middle East and North Africa and charting agreed-upon approaches to overcome it. We would like to note that an overwhelming majority of states share Russian approaches in this field.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278842






Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna Ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov at the 2nd intersessional CND meeting, Vienna, 25 June 2018



28 June 2018 - 14:08




Your Excellency Madam Chairperson,

Dear colleagues,

We would like to draw your attention to the dramatic developments in the international drug control policy related to the recent measures taken by the Canadian authorities. Last week the Parliament of Canada adopted by majority vote the legislation on marijuana legalisation. Upon completing final procedures this legal initiative is due to come into force quite soon.

When implemented this undertaking will tangibly breach the UN drug control conventions, which as we all know limit the production and use of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes. It is worth recalling that the UN Secretary General’s Commentary of 1973 highlighted this basic principle as one of the most important achievements of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961.Today the “initiative” of the Canadian side brings this achievement under question.

In this regard the International Narcotics Control Board, which is mandated to monitor the compliance of States with their legal drug control obligations, forwarded to the Canadian parliamentarians in April this year a written brief with its assessment of the developments. Then the Board underlined that the bill was incompatible with the treaty obligations which Canada is bound to. The INCB believes that the adoption of the legislation constitutes a fundamental breach of those international treaty provisions that are “absolute and unequivocal in nature”. In its latest statement on this subject dated the 21stJune the Board used even more precise and definitive language: legalization of cannabis constitutes a violation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and undermines the international legal drug control framework.

It is worth mentioning in this context that the international community, including Canada, unanimously reaffirmed in the outcome document of the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem that the UN conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 constitute “the cornerstone of the international drug control system”. The intention of the Canadian authorities to legalize so-called recreational cannabis threatens to shake this cornerstone.

It is regrettable that the INCB warnings were totally ignored in Canada. The process of cannabis legalization in Canada is proceeding at full speed. What is more, Canadian authorities frankly acknowledge that the draft law contradicts the UN conventions, but consider it to be admissible. Advocates of the so-called recreational marijuana legalization try to validate their position by Paragraph 1 of the Preamble of the Single Convention of 1961 and argue that this measure will contribute to protecting the health and welfare of people. This argument is completely false and means a switch of the notions. It is for the sake of safeguarding the health and welfare of humankind that the conventional norms were adopted. As for the Canadian initiative, it would by the very meaning of the conventions be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the humanity. This was reconfirmed by the INCB once again in its statement of the 21st of June.

Apparently, it is assumed in Ottawa that this serious violation of the drug control conventions will pass unnoticed by other States Parties to these international treaties.

This assumption is absolutely wrong. We need to remind our Canadian counterparts that the above-mentioned conventions constitute the legacy of the entire international community. As the INCB rightly pointed out they are founded upon the principle of common and shared responsibility of their States Parties. Ottawa has no right to make unilateral decisions, which are meant to impact the integrity of the international drug control conventions, and promote a selective approach to their implementation, thus opening the Pandora’s box. If other countries choose to follow the path taken by Canada we will see the international legal drug control regime undergoing deep erosion and potentially being destroyed. This is totally unacceptable.

The intention of the Canadian authorities to legalize drugs is all the more defiant bearing in mind that this country is currently a member of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. A CND Member State, which by virtue of this status should safeguard the strict adherence to the conventions, is in fact destroying them from inside.

We strongly believe that this development, if the new bill enters into force, must become a subject of a thorough scrutiny by our Commission, including during the forthcoming ministerial review of the global drug control situation in 2019.

We would like to use this opportunity to express our full support to the strong stance of the INCB that is scrupulous in carrying out its mandate. We would like to underline the importance of responsible and comprehensive instead of selective implementation of the UN conventions by all their parties.

One last point. The Canadian authorities often advocate for a rules-based world order. Regrettably in the drug control matters they are in effect going in the opposite direction by undermining the basic rules, which are of a legally binding nature. We would like to recall once again that in accordance with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a party to an international treaty must perform its obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). Moreover Article 27 of the same Vienna convention states that “a party cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”.

We call upon our Canadian counterparts to return to the fold of the international law and bring their policy in line with the principles and goals that they declare. As we understand it, the new law is supposed to become operational on 17th October. That means that Canada still has sufficient period of time to reconsider its current policy and to refrain from a gross violation of international law, which may have very destructive implications. We hope that a responsible approach will finally prevail in Ottawa.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280198






Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s interview with TASS News Agency, June 28, 2018



28 June 2018 - 15:35




Question:

What is Russia’s view on the NATO expansion plans in Europe, in particular, in the Black Sea region?



Alexander Grushko:

The bloc has always wanted to expand the zone of its exclusive influence to the Black Sea. However, Crimea’s reunification with Russia in 2014 obviously upset NATO’s plans and its Black Sea game of patience. As for NATO’s current expansion plans in the Black Sea, we have recorded a growing number of port calls by the ships of non-coastal NATO countries. Our Western colleagues know very well that any destabilising actions near Russian territorial waters will provoke a rapid and commensurate reaction from the Russian Navy.

We firmly believe that regional problems must be resolved through cooperation, primarily between the coastal states. The Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) has major potential in this respect. The cooperation mechanisms that are available in the Black Sea region are quite sufficient for ensuring security.



Question:

At the same time, NATO is also hiking up its activity in the north, including Norway.



Alexander Grushko:

We have commented more than once on the expansion of foreign military presence in Norway. We believe that these actions contradict Norway’s policy of non-deployment of foreign military bases in peacetime and the traditions of neighbourliness. These actions may increase tensions and destabilise the situation in the northern region. We view them as an element of US-led military preparations, which have become more active against the backdrop of anti-Russian propaganda hysteria.

We are gravely concerned about the deterioration of the military and political situation in Northern Europe and the Baltics. Contrary to the objective interests of maintaining peace and stability in Europe, NATO continues to focus its attention on “containing” the non-existent “threat from the East”, despite the fact that Russia made a decisive contribution to eliminating the material legacy of the Cold War by withdrawing troops from Germany, Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and fulfilling its arms reduction obligations. These actions have greatly contributed to the strengthening of security and stability in the region.

NATO’s military activity is aimed at creating a bridgehead for pressuring Russia. These acts of provocation are undermining security in Europe, including in those countries that call for the deployment of foreign troops on their territory.



Question:

What is your opinion of the NATO-Colombia partnership?



Alexander Grushko:

There is an increasing contradiction between the policy of multipolarity, which is growing stronger, and the striving of the United States and the historical part of the West to maintain their traditional domination.

The development of partnership with Colombia is part of NATO’s policy of expanding the sphere of its geopolitical influence beyond the so-called traditional zone of the bloc’s responsibility.

I don’t know if Bogota will benefit from this partnership, but NATO’s use of the patterns of Cold War is evidence of the bloc’s inability to adapt to the new security environment.



Question:

How does dialogue develop in the Russia-NATO Council format?



Alexander Grushko:

On May 31, Brussels hosted a regular meeting of the Russia-NATO Council at ambassadorial level. Meeting participants focused on the most pressing matter, namely, the security situation in the Euro-Atlantic region.

In this connection, we drew attention to our assessments of the degrading military security situation. First of all, this is linked with expanding rotational presence near the Russian borders, the fast modernisation of the infrastructure for the rapid redeployment of reinforcements to the theatre of war, the establishment of new commands, the drastic expansion of offensive potentials as well as the creation of missile defence facilities. We once again noted that time was long ripe for a professional discussion of military security concerns, including that at expert level, measures to streamline the mechanism for preventing dangerous military activity, aerial and high-seas incidents, as well as ways of scaling down military activity along the line of contact on a reciprocal basis.

Contacts between Russian and NATO military leaders have recently become invigorated to some extent. Both parties have noted the importance of meetings between Chief of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff Valery Gerasimov and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Petr Pavel (September 2017) and Supreme Allied Commander Europe Curtis M. Scaparotti (April 2018). But I repeat, these meetings should be supplemented with professional discussions at expert level. We are also determined to continue the useful practice of exchanging briefings on major exercises in Russia and NATO countries.



Question:

And now, let’s talk about the European Union. Apart from Crimea and Ukraine and with due consideration to US meddling, construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is a major problem in relations with our European partners. What is the current status of this project?



Alexander Grushko:

Although a number of EU states and outsider countries, including the United States, as well as some EU’s agencies have a negative opinion of the Nord Stream 2 project, I don’t want to over-exaggerate the situation. Today, the project has been approved by three out of the five countries involved.



Question:

But the Danish Prime Minister has said Copenhagen might block the project.



Alexander Grushko:

Indeed, Denmark voices a special position, as confirmed by Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen. But, to the best of our knowledge, there are alternative cost-effective commercially justified pipeline routes. I would also like to recall that the legal service of the Council of the European Union has already commented on the European Commission’s attempts to create legal obstacles hampering the implementation of Nord Stream 2.

I am talking about the European Commission’s proposed amendments to the so-called Gas Directive of the EU’s Third Energy Package. If approved, these amendments would spread the requirements of European legislation to the entire Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The legal service of the Council of the European Union issued its negative findings on this matter. We hope that the EU will be guided by legal logic and their international obligations, rather than Russophobic sentiments of certain EU politicians.

From a political standpoint, it is, of course, obvious that Washington is exerting major pressure on Nord Stream 2 and trying to use geopolitical arguments for creating more favourable conditions for the delivery of LNG from the United States to Europe. But everyone admits that consumers perceive US LNG as commercially unattractive; moreover, this gas is unable to compete with Russian pipeline gas.



Question:

As you know, Bulgaria, that had previously refused to deal with the South Stream, has suddenly become interested in receiving direct supplies of Russian natural gas via the Black Sea bottom. Is it possible to meet its interests?



Alexander Grushko:

As for the construction of a gas pipeline on the bottom of the Black Sea, which is basically the latest version of South Stream, I will say that we have already made a decision. Cooperation with Turkey on the South Stream is going fairly well. As for Bulgaria, we can only talk about a surface branch section of the Turkish Stream line, and we hope that Bulgaria will complete the development of its national gas system on schedule and on a scale that will ensure Russian gas distribution to European consumers via the surface transit line starting on January 1, 2020, in part, to ensure gas deliveries to the border with Serbia.



Question:

In the latter half of this year, the EU Presidency will change from NATO member Bulgaria to neutral Austria. Do you have any positive expectations about this change?



Alexander Grushko:

We are working closely with any EU presidency. We have a normal working relationship. Here in Vienna I held consultations with the Austrian presidency. This is common practice and of course we discussed several issues that directly concern both the EU-Russia political dialogue and prospects for cooperation in all areas where our interests objectively coincide. Regular contact with the Austrian presidency will continue.

On the whole, despite persistent divergences with the EU, we have noticed a certain invigoration of Russian-EU contacts recently. Thus, in February and March of this year we held a number of Russia-EU foreign policy consultations on the issues of the Arctic, Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa and the post-Soviet states as well as the need to counter terrorism and illegal drug trafficking. On February 27, Secretary General of European External Action Service Helga Schmidt visited Moscow. On June 7, Russia and the EU held consultations on the Western Balkans, the OSCE and the Council of Europe in Brussels. Expert meetings on Africa, the Asia-Pacific Region and Latin America are planned for the near future.

A few days ago Deputy Secretary-General of the European External Action Service, Jean-Christophe Belliard had consultations in Moscow in the format of Russia-EU political directors. The talks were quite extensive. The parties discussed in detail the state of and prospects for Russia-EU cooperation as well as a number of pressing international issues, including the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, settlement on the Korean Peninsula, and the situation in the Western Balkans and Ukraine.

Both sides laid emphasis on the importance of maintaining dialogue on issues of mutual interest in conditions of stronger challenges to global stability.



Question:

You mentioned the JCPOA. What do our European partners think about implementing this plan?



Alexander Grushko:

The remaining participants of the six powers continue to closely cooperate with regard to the future of the JCPOA. An extraordinary meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna on May 25 (without the participation of the United States) confirmed everyone’s commitment to maintaining the JCPOA.



Question:

Here’s my last question. We owe money to the Council of Europe, which the Secretary-General of this organisation, Thorbjorn Jagland, once again reminded us about the other day, adding that the due date is June 30. What happens if we don’t pay?



Alexander Grushko:

It will be possible to talk about full settlement of this issue only after all the powers of our delegation at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) have been reinstated.

It should be reminded that the problem was created by irresponsible behaviour of some delegations in the PACE and, in fact, has existed since 2014. In anticipation of a positive decision, we continued to make full contributions to the Council of Europe’s budget, but in 2017 it was decided to freeze this contribution in order to create additional catalysts for resolving this issue. However, to date, the problem has not been resolved.

This issue affects not only the Russian delegation. The fact of the matter is that PACE, using the rules of procedure, has changed the fundamental principle of equality of states enshrined in the Charter of the Council of Europe, therefore, the crisis in the Council of Europe has a deeper basis than simply a matter of excluding or not excluding one delegation. It is imperative to restore the unity of the organisation and ensure the principle of equality.

We are aware that corresponding work is under way in various entities, and we expect that sooner or later the strategic considerations related to the need to preserve this unique pan-European instrument for creating and maintaining a single legal space from Lisbon to Vladivostok will prevail, and the corresponding solution will be found.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280228






Remarks by Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of European Cooperation Alexey Polishchuk at working session IV of the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference, “The OSCE and its neighbourhood: challenges and opportunities arising from migration,” Vienna, June 28, 2018



28 June 2018 - 17:58




Mr Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank the organisers of this meeting and note the contribution to the OSCE work by its Asian and Mediterranean cooperation partners.

Migration is common to all OSCE countries. The United States ranks first internationally in terms of the number of migrants, with about 50 million migrants residing in that country. Second place is shared by Russia and Germany, with about 12 million migrants each. Migration has positive and negative sides. It can solve problems related to, for example, labour shortages, but can also create problems, such as in the case of illegal and uncontrolled migration. Such problems include terrorism, crime, drugs, human trafficking, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance.

There are different ways to address migration matters. We are witnessing tightening border controls, construction of fences at the border, mass deportations, disputes over migrant quotas and plans to create filtering camps in neighbouring countries.

We are closely following the migration crisis in Western Europe, which stems from external political destabilisation in the migrants’ home countries in the MENA region. The EU measures to alleviate migration pressure on Italy and Greece have led to reorienting migrant flows to other destinations, primarily, Spain. Now the migration flow is waning, but the crisis is far from being resolved, as evidenced by the recent incidents with the Aquarius and the Ziphucs. We are convinced that in dealing with the migration crisis it is important to treat the disease rather than the symptoms and eliminate the causes that force people to leave their homes.

Violation of the rights of migrants, especially children, and human trafficking represent a major problem. Missing children ending up in the hands of criminal groups troubles us. In these assessments, we support the reports by the ODIHR and the OSCE Special Representative for Combating Trafficking. Migrant children should be afforded normal conditions at migrant centres. They should enjoy their rights to education, medical care and family reunification. We have noted the recent decision by the United States to end the practice of separating migrant children and their parents. We hope that it will be fully implemented, and the conditions at migrant centres in that country will become humane.

Russia was recently faced with an increase in the number of migrants in the wake of the Ukraine crisis and the Donbass conflict. Over 1 million Ukrainians came to Russia, of whom over 450,000 were granted refugee status and asylum. In total, there are about 2 million Ukrainian citizens in Russia. All refugees have been provided with accommodation, food, medical care, a one-time allowance, and benefits for students, schoolchildren and preschoolers. Refugees are allowed to be employed without a permit.

Colleagues,

Today, the world is seeking a strategic solution to the migration problems rather than local solutions. Talks are underway at the UN on the Global Compact for Migration, which is aimed to document that the normalisation of the situation requires controlling migration flows, suppressing migrants’ illegal actions, setting up mechanisms for readmission, and enlarging the channels of legal migration. It is equally important to assist in creating in the countries of exodus opportunities for restoring peaceful life and people’s return home, as well as in settling the conflicts that are the prime cause of migration.

Efforts to find practical solutions to migration issues at the international level are being made by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the European Union, and the Council of Europe. The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) is conducting the Illegal Migrant operation, which has resulted in over one million migration law violations detected and over 1,200 individuals on the international wanted list found since 2008.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) also contributes to global efforts. We praise the work of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, as well as the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, with its special committee for migration. In 2016, the OSCE Ministerial Council made a separate decision on migration matters in Hamburg.

Since 2005, an OSCE Border Security and Management Concept has been implemented, with the international network of 24-hour points of contact operational.

What else can be done by the OSCE? We deem it important that it express political support for the work on the Global Compact for Migration, which I have mentioned. The organisation could consider its own documents and develop contacts with partner countries in the South Mediterranean region and Afghanistan. The ODIHR and the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) could examine the situation and develop recommendations on observance of human rights for the countries that accept refuges from the OSCE’s neighbouring regions.

In this regard, we expect a productive discussion at the OSCE Mediterranean Conference in Malaga and the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, with migrants’ rights chosen as one of its special topics. It would be interesting to invite representatives of migrants who arrive in the United States, EU and Russia from OSCE’s “neighbourhood”, and to hear about their problems firsthand. We will be eager to discuss the results of these conferences at the end of the year at the OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Milan.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280281






Remarks by Anton Mazur, head of the Russian delegation at the Vienna talks on military security and arms control at the Annual Security Review Conference, Vienna, June 27, 2018



28 June 2018 - 19:00



Working session III: “Conventional arms control and confidence- and security-building measures: challenges and opportunities”



Mr Moderator,

Much was said today about the importance of arms control. We were again urged to expand transparency and upgrade the Vienna document. But let’s look at the background against which such statements are being made.

Long before the current crisis in Russia-NATO relations, some measures taken by the Alliance provoked the emergence of risks and challenges for Russia’s security interests. This is a brief list of these measures: NATO’s advance close to our borders, development of military infrastructure in its new member countries, engagement in new forms of military activities, creation of the European segment of the US global missile defence system, and participation of non-nuclear countries in nuclear exercises under NATO’s aegis. All of this has seriously undermined our trust.

NATO’s decisions made in the context of the worsening Ukrainian crisis have further aggravated the situation. NATO rapidly turned to using the patterns of “comprehensive deterrence” that have essentially amounted to the intimidation of our country. Military exercises in Eastern and Central European countries have become more frequent and large-scale (sometimes exercises involving 40,000-50,000 troops take place in one region simultaneously or consecutively). Command centres, and depots of arms and military equipment have been established, and foreign troops began to be deployed on an actually permanent basis (periodic rotations do not make any difference in this respect). The scale of such activities continues to grow and is calling into question the viability of the agreements sealed in the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act.

The leaders of the Alliance have broken off the professional military dialogue. In parallel, an unprecedented campaign on discrediting the daily activities of the Russian armed forces has been launched. A recent example is Western hysteria over the West-2017 Russia-Belarus exercises.

To sum up, the main reason for the deterioration of European security is not the lack of instruments of confidence- and security-building measures but rather NATO’s move to confrontation. It now declares that the presence of foreign troops near our borders is the only security guarantee. We consider the discourse that these deployments are “strictly defensive in character” and “limited in scale” to be questionable. We cannot ignore how members of this “defensive” bloc have repeatedly used armed force to the detriment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of certain states in Europe (Yugoslavia) and beyond (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc). We also remember how concerned the United States was when we had our training brigade in Cuba.

Now with regard to confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs), the Alliance’s current policy and military practice are not compatible with the proposals to improve or renovate them. Current complaints about the alleged “inadequacy” of existing measures miss the mark. Russia is already the state inspected by the OSCE the most.

At the same time, the CSBM tools have been badly compromised by the Alliance itself. For example, after they were used in 2014, Western countries were unable to identify any unusual military activity and destabilising concentration of forces in areas adjacent to Ukraine. However, despite this, groundless accusations against us continued.

We noted the contemptuous attitude on the part of the NATO members and their “like-minded” supporters to their obligations in the sphere of CSBMs. For example, under a far-fetched pretext unrelated to the Open Skies Treaty, Georgia not only closed its sky for observation flights with the participation of Russia, but also blocked the possibility of holding any open skies missions. In turn, Ukraine has been conducting military activities on its territory for four years now with the participation of up to 90,000 people and massive amounts of equipment, without providing the notifications required by the Vienna document and failing to invite observers to the area. The transparency measures advertised by Kiev cannot replace its implementation.

In this way, NATO countries themselves and their closest partners have devalued the significance of the CSBM tools many times over. This begs the question: Why should they be modernised at all then?

Sometimes we hear that additional CSBMs are allegedly needed to prevent accidental run-ins between the forces of Russia and NATO countries. However, to do so, withdrawing the Alliance’s troops and equipment away from our borders would be enough.

To create proper conditions for discussing the CSBMs, the Alliance must cease building up its activity on the eastern flank, and then scale it down. Talks on military security issues require a favourable and predictable environment. As such, the commitment of all participating States to refrain from any steps to change the levels, configurations and deployments of forces was the key pre-requisite for launching and negotiating the adaptation of the CFE Treaty (1996-1999).

Today, NATO countries are unwilling to limit their freedom of action, or to discuss conventional arms control in Europe. Without this, it is impossible to modernise the 2011 Vienna document.

Russia is still committed to faithfully complying with its obligations in the sphere of building confidence and security. In addition, we welcome the practice of providing voluntary information about exercises and surprise inspections and daily activities of the armed forces. Russia’s Defence Ministry is using a variety of channels to notify its partners about surprise inspections and exercises. They are covered in detail on the Defence Ministry’s online resources, as well as at numerous specialised briefings, including with the participation of NATO countries’ military attaches. We will continue to inform our partners about exercises on our territory below the thresholds of notifiable military activities, and also invite military attachés of foreign states to attend them as observers.

With regard to upgrading the 2011 Vienna document, this issue may be reviewed after restoring confidence and reducing tensions.

We believe that in the context of the Europe-wide political process, as the situation de-escalates and military contacts are expanded, it would be possible to discuss measures to control conventional arms in Europe.

We call upon our partners to unconditionally fulfill their obligations and to create a favourable atmosphere for further joint work here in Vienna. We believe they have something to think about and decide on their priorities. Is it to contain Russia or maintain a dialogue with it, including on conventional arms control in Europe and CSBMs? Sitting on two chairs is not an option here.

Thank you, Mr Moderator.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280320






Remarks by Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Second CIS Department Andrey Rudenko at the Special Session of the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference on ensuring security and stability in the OSCE region in light of developments with respect to Ukraine, Vienna, June 26, 2018



28 June 2018 - 20:10




Mr Chairperson, colleagues,

I am not going to engage in polemics over what is happening in Ukraine now. This is not the main subject of our meeting. Russia’s assessments are well known. They are based on international law and confirmed facts rather than fake news on the Salisbury case or journalist Arkady Babchenko raised from the dead. We take into account the position of the countries that do not share our views. However, differences in the views on the prime causes of the crisis do not mean that we cannot pool our efforts to resolve it. This is what we suggest – in the spirit of pragmatism and without labels or propaganda. Regrettably, remarks by the representatives of many countries demonstrate a lack of serious desire to act in this vein.

Russia is interested in settling the crisis in southeastern Ukraine more than any other country. We do not need a bleeding hotbed of instability near our borders – be it an active military phase or a frozen conflict. We are linked with Ukraine by millennia of joint history with kindred, cultural and humanitarian ties and we are destined to be together.

Today we heard again that Russia “is waging a war” against Ukraine and supporting certain “terrorists.” The Verkhovna Rada even passed a law on Russia being “an aggressor country.” That said, no war has been declared; diplomatic and consular missions continue to function and millions of people freely travel to their relatives and friends without visas across the Russian-Ukrainian border. In 2017 alone, the border was crossed about 6 million times. Moreover, nobody apart from the Verkhovna Rada has found “terrorists” on the territory of the self-proclaimed republics. They have not been identified by the Ukrainian courts, not to mention other countries and the relevant international organisations.

I would like to quote some figures. According to Ukraine’s State Committee on Statistics, mutual trade increased by 28.6 percent in 2017 to about $12 billion. As before, Russia remains Ukraine’s biggest trade partner and was the third largest investor in Ukraine, having invested $4.4 billion in its economy in 2017. In the first quarter of this year, mutual trade in goods and services grew by another 14 percent. Over 2 million Ukrainian citizens live and work in Russia, providing for their families in Ukraine that is marching to Europe in leaps and bounds. Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko makes regular telephone calls to President of Russian Vladimir Putin. So, the term “aggression” appears to be misleading.

Russia has done a lot, and perhaps even more than any other country, to help resolve the crisis in Ukraine. Russia sees its mediation role in helping the parties to the conflict – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk – find compromise solutions to ensure a viable settlement for the long term. We are ready to support any agreements between the parties that would be achieved through their direct dialogue.

All the necessary diplomatic preconditions for this are available. There is the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, a clear roadmap. There are several negotiating platforms – the Minsk Contact Group and the Normandy format. The recent contacts within the Normandy Quartet at the level of foreign ministers and foreign policy assistants inspire cautious optimism. We are also interested in further consultations with the United States on Ukraine through a separate communication channel.

In principle, the conflict around Donbass, compared with other crises in the OSCE area, could be resolved fairly quickly. What is needed is to be ready to make good on the agreements already reached, primarily at the highest level – in Paris in 2015 and Berlin in 2016. This is primarily about the implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Disengagement of Forces and Weapons of September 21, 2016, approved by the Normandy format leaders in Berlin on October 19, 2016. It is necessary to complete the disengagement of forces and weapons in the three pilot areas, Petrovskoye, Zolotoye and Stanitsa Luganskaya as soon as possible, and proceed with the coordination of new ones. Unfortunately, the disengagement in Petrovskoye and Zolotoye, achieved in 2016, was thwarted, and in Stanitsa Luganskaya, it never even started. The failure of disengagement naturally contributed to the deterioration of the situation in other areas – the maintenance of the ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy equipment, demining, etc. The consequences are now observed on the line of contact, where shelling has increased and the number of victims on both sides has grown.

In 2014, Russia responded to the request of President Petr Poroshenko and sent 75 officers to the Joint Center for Control and Coordination (JCCC) to facilitate the ceasefire. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian side made their work impossible, forcing us to withdraw them at the end of 2017. Nevertheless, we are ready to consider the return of Russian officers to the JCCC. Our considerations on the matter have been made available to our Ukrainian partners. It is necessary to confirm and document their legal status and security guarantees for our officers, for example, to approve the JCCC regulations in the Contact Group, to remove the requirements for our servicemen to provide their biometric and personal data when crossing the border, and to return representatives of Donbass engaged there earlier to the JCCC.

Unfortunately, the situation on the political track is not encouraging either. The Ukrainian side continues to evade committing the “Steinmeier formula” to paper – though it has been repeatedly confirmed at the Normandy summits – which would regulate the enactment of the law on the special status of Donbass, and to stall work on the election law, amendments to the Constitution, and amnesty.

With a vengeance worthy of a better cause, Kiev is re-instigating the conditions that triggered the conflict in 2014. This February, a law on so-called reintegration came into force, which laid the legal foundation for a military solution to the conflict in Donbass. Residents of Donetsk and Lugansk are not enthusiastic about Kiev’s plans regarding the prohibition of the Russian language, the discriminatory reform of education, as well as its attempts to destroy the fragile interfaith balance. It seems that the Ukrainian authorities are intentionally trying to achieve even greater isolation of Donbass residents from the rest of Ukraine. Kiev’s blatant connivance at radical nationalist atrocities only adds to this impression. This concern is shared by international human rights organisations – Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Front Line Defenders, and Freedom House, which released an open letter addressed to the Ukrainian authorities on June 14 this year. We consider it outrageous that today two Russian journalists were refused entry to Ukraine where they were to participate in an OSCE conference organised by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir.

The trade and economic blockade of Donbass, launched by Kiev and worth a direct loss of $1.8 billion for the Ukrainian budget in 2017, continues. To prevent a humanitarian disaster, Russia is providing humanitarian aid to Donbass residents. Since 2014, 77 Russian truck convoys have delivered over 75,000 tonnes of cargo to certain parts of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Ukrainian border guards and customs officers had the opportunity to check them. If they could not do this, they would have left the Russian territory long ago.

In late 2017, through the mediation of the Russian Orthodox Church together with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the largest exchange of detained persons took place between Kiev and Donbass. Over 300 people were released, of whom 233 returned to Donetsk and Lugansk and 73 to Kiev. We will make further efforts to take the parties to the conflict to the final stage of the exchange on the all-for-all principle, as stipulated in Item 6 of the Package of Measures.

Instead of summing up, I will say again that all conditions are in place to stop the conflict in Donbass – diplomatic, logistic, material. What is needed is only the will and political responsibility to fulfill the undertaken commitments. Despite the pre-election sentiments, Kiev must demonstrate its willingness to take Donbass’ interests into account in deed rather than in words. Equally needed is the responsible position of the “external actors”, particularly those who claim the role of mediators or facilitators. Lethal weapons shipments to Ukraine hardly contribute to this. The Minsk Package of Measures must and can become a key to restoring the state’s integrity for Kiev, rather than capitulation.

We express our special gratitude to the leaders and all the observers of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine who work under difficult conditions. We resolutely condemn any intimidation and threats towards the observers, wherever they may come from, and any restriction of their freedom of movement. In this connection, we once again call for serious work on Russia’s UNSC draft resolution on establishing a UN mission to facilitate the protection of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in southeastern Ukraine. Sadly, none of our partner countries have submitted any amendments or proposals to the text.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280385






Remarks by Alexey Polishchuk, Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of European Cooperation at working session V of the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference “Transnational Threats: Current and Future Trends in the OSCE Area and Beyond,” Vienna, June 28, 2018



28 June 2018 - 20:35




Mr Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank the current Italian Chairmanship and the OSCE Secretariat for this well-organised conference.

Terrorism remains the number one threat to the security of individual countries and the entire OSCE area.

Russia consistently advocates comprehensive consolidation and invigoration of international counterterrorism cooperation and calls for the formation of a united antiterrorist front with the participation of all states based on international law and the UN Charter and the implementation of the key antiterrorist resolutions of the UN Security Council.

It is possible to eliminate international terrorism, including its most battle-ready groups. The victory over ISIS and other representatives of the notorious “terrorist international” in Syria by the Syrian army with support from Russia and the other partner states is a graphic example of this.

The OSCE is not using in full its large and unique potential in fighting terrorism. We must orient ourselves to more specific work that will be aimed at reaching an accessible goal that will suit everyone. Considering the OSCE’s political weight, we must not limit ourselves to some applied tasks that are sometimes secondary.

The OSCE has an impressive package of innovative political commitments on fighting terrorism that helped upgrade counterterrorist cooperation at the UN level. The OSCE is capable of doing this work again in priority areas, such as countering terrorist ideology, for one.

Annual antiterrorism conferences must become an inalienable part of the OSCE calendar, including the Annual Security Review Conferences and the Ministerial Councils. We note the success of the May meeting in Rome. We hope that the recommendations drafted by the participants of the Rome conference will be on the agenda of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan in December.

Russia’s contribution to this work is its initiative on sealing in international law the concept on the importance of voluntary counterterrorist restrictions in the media and for officials, which would include self-restraint and abstention from fanning media content that may provoke radicalisation that leads to terrorism. This idea implies the need to draft and promote codes of conduct in the media space. They must set high standards for formulating public positions, most importantly on countering terrorism.

Russia’s main priorities in fighting terrorism are to counter the spread of terrorist ideology and eradicate the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs), which is a threat all OSCE member countries face. We call on the member states to reaffirm their political commitment to implementing the essential provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2354 on countering terrorist ideology and Resolution 2396 on countering FTFs, including fighters returning to their countries of origin.

It has to be stated that so far terrorists have been winning in the war for people’s “hearts and minds”. The reason lies not so much in terrorist leaders and ideologists possessing some special talents as in the persisting lack of unity within the international community in terms of approaches to these counterterrorism efforts. Instead of working together, a number of countries promote questionable concepts that play into the hands of terrorist groups, including the most dangerous ones, in their ideological and recruitment activities. I am referring to the concept of “countering violent extremism” that is sometimes used to justify terrorists and extremists as “fighters against authoritarian rule” and even suggesting the use of extremist and terrorist groups for destabilising regimes of this kind. In fact, this can be viewed as interference in domestic affairs of sovereign states and a cynical effort to use all means when fighting unwanted regimes.

Russia calls on its OSCE partners to undertake a comprehensive set of initiatives to prevent the spread of terrorist ideas and propaganda, and to counter any informational support of terrorism in keeping with the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and corresponding UN Security Council resolutions.

We believe that the SCO Convention on Countering Extremism, signed by SCO member states in Astana in 2017, provides the best standard for counterterrorism cooperation.

Finally, it is important that we step up international cooperation in fighting the financing of terrorism, as well as its economic and technical support. In this regard, Russia notes that even though trade in cultural artefacts is highly relevant these days as a source of terrorist financing, it cannot be viewed as a decisive revenue source for terrorist organisations. We believe that there is a need to focus on other objectives. Apart from countering terrorist ideology, we must also pay more attention to preventing arms supplies to terrorists.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the gathering that on September 3 and 4, 2018, Moscow will host an international conference on fighting international terrorism by stopping illegal arms supplies. Preventing any military supplies to terrorist groups will be a recurring topic at the conference.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Another challenge, which is as dangerous for people’s security, lives and health in the world and in our region, is drug trafficking, including that of synthetic drugs. The OSCE must also play a role in combating this threat. As in the case with terrorism, it is important to make sure that drug related conferences are held on a regular basis. We welcome the plans drawn up by Italy, in charge of the OSCE chairmanship at the moment to hold such a conference on July 16-17, 2018 in Vienna.

Additionally, we want to once again note the importance of strengthening the potential of the OSCE Secretariat in fighting drug trafficking by the establishment of a competent department.

The importance of uniting efforts of all of Europe is only growing in view of the direct threat of drugs being smuggled into the OSCE region from Afghanistan where the amount of drug crops continues to grow, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Finally, I would like to remind you that Russia is making a practical contribution to the OSCE in its action against drug trafficking. Russian Interior Ministry schools in St Petersburg and Domodedovo hold annual training for drug police officers from Serbia and Afghanistan. Our plan is to continue this project of the OSCE and increase the number of trainees as well as the number of participating states.

We hope that the fight against transnational threats will take its well-deserved place on the agenda of the OSCE Ministerial Council December meeting in Milan.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280409






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on suspending Lithuania’s Mission Siberia project



29 June 2018 - 11:22




In recent months Lithuanian authorities have toughened their position on Russia’s memorial activities in the Republic of Lithuania.

Under the pretext of updating the Rules for Improving Cultural Heritage Sites of Special Significance for Foreign States by the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture, they have practically suspended all maintenance and restoration work on the burial places of Soviet soldiers scheduled for this year.

The Russian Embassy has received no sensible response to its numerous inquiries to the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Culture.

At the same time, attempts to dismantle memorials to Soviet soldiers, especially in Siauliai, along with the refusal to resume work on the draft bilateral agreement on war burials raise serious concerns. Although it is obvious that signing this agreement would create legal basis for Russia’s memorial activities in Lithuania and vice versa.

This clearly abnormal situation created by the Lithuanian authorities does not leave us any choice but to introduce reciprocal limitations on Lithuanian memorial projects in Russia.

In particular, we have decided to suspend visa issues for Lithuanian citizens traveling to Russia as part of the Mission Siberia project, which aims at restoring and renovating the burial places of Lithuanians in exile.

At the same time, we would like to emphasise that we are forced to take this measure. Should Vilnius reconsider its counterproductive policy and normalise the situation with memorial places in Lithuania, we will be ready to resume Lithuanians’ trips to the Russian Federation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3281915
__________________
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 July 5th, 2018 #450
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on the terrorist attack in the Ethiopian capital



25 June 2018 - 11:21



On June 23, during a mass rally in support of new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s reforms in Addis Ababa, a terrorist attack resulted in five deaths and dozens of injuries of varying degrees, according to preliminary reports.

Ethiopian officials consider the terrorist attack an attempted assassination of the Prime Minister and the senior officials of the ruling party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front.

Moscow strongly condemns this murderous crime in which civilians were the victims.

We want to express our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed and to wish a speedy recovery to the injured.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3277441






Press release on the assassination attempt on President of Zimbabwe



25 June 2018 - 12:56



On June 23, an explosive device was detonated during a rally held by President of the Republic of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa in Bulawayo in the run-up to the general election. The president was unharmed. Over 40 people were injured, including Vice President Kembo Mohadi.

We strongly condemn this barbaric act and wish a speedy recovery to those injured.

We express our solidarity with the leadership and the people of friendly Zimbabwe in their efforts to strengthen domestic political stability and ensure the country’s dynamic social and economic development. We welcome President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s firm stance on guaranteeing free and fair elections on July 30 this year.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3277627






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s report on inspections at the Barzah and Jamraya Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre Facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic



25 June 2018 - 21:42



We have taken note of a report delivered by OPCW Technical Secretariat Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu on the implementation of a relevant decision adopted at the 83rd Session of the OPCW Executive Council.

We have pointed out a number of times that the requirements set out in that decision for Syria exceed the framework of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). An attempt to ensure free and unconditional access for OPCW inspectors to any (meaning also secret) military and civilian infrastructure facilities contradicts international law. It is clear that this document was adopted under powerful pressure from the United States and its closest allies. It would be interesting to see what the United States would have done if anyone decided to hold such inspections of its own facilities.

In this particular case, the focus was on the Barzah and Jamraya Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre, which was vitally important for Syria’s economy. Yes, it was important in the past, but not any longer, because this civilian facility was razed to the ground on April 14, 2018 in a joint missile attack by the United States, Britain and France.

It is obvious to everyone that the airstrike was delivered without a UN Security Council mandate and was an outrageous violation of international law. It was a cynical act of aggression against a sovereign country and a member of the United Nations and that it was launched on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicions that Syria has secretly retained some of its chemical weapons and that it used chlorine in Douma, Eastern Ghouta, which has not been proved either. At the time of the airstrike, the OPCW inspectors had not reached the site of the alleged chemical attack and so had not even started an investigation.

We note the offending and cynical tone of the OPCW report. The organisation is required to inspect the member states’ compliance with the CWC. The OPCW confirmed that the Syrian chemical weapons were destroyed with large-scale international assistance and under close monitoring by the OPCW. After the chemical demilitarisation of Syria was completed on January 4, 2016, the OPCW Technical Secretariat sent two inspections to the Barzah and Jamraya facilities in 2017. They have not found any traces of toxic chemicals or their precursors or any evidence of prohibited activities there. The Technical Secretariat duly informed the OPCW Executive Council of these conclusions. However, the latest report does not even say that the Barzah and Jamraya facilities were completely destroyed and the OPCW inspectors had nothing to inspect there. Moreover, the Technical Secretariat’s Director-General has announced that OPCW inspectors will make two more visits to these facilities, citing the need to implement the anti-Syrian decision of the OPCW Executive Council.

The Syrian Government several times invited OPCW representatives to visit Barzah to see the damage done by the airstrike and report the findings to the Executive Council, which would have provided grounds for adopting a formal decision to end the inspections.

However, it proceeds from the OPCW report than no constructive steps towards this have been taken. This is understandable, because the Western countries do not want to give an answer to a sensitive question regarding the reasons for delivering the airstrike at the scientific centre after the OPCW had twice confirmed the absence of any activities prohibited by the CWC there.

Overall, this report is yet another example of politically motivated verbal manipulations by the Western countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278086






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Joint Declaration in Support of the Implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions 1540, 2231, 2216, 1701, 2118, 2375 and 2397, a document by 25 states parties to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)



25 June 2018 - 21:43



We took note of the Joint Declaration in Support of the Implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions 1540, 2231, 2216, 1701, 2118, 2375 and 2397 published on June 12 on the foreign ministry websites of 25 countries, namely, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Our response to this document is explicitly negative. We are surprised that a group of countries has assumed the role of a mouthpiece of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the interpreter of the UN Security Council resolutions and that it seeks to impose its vision of various international situations.

Indicatively, no one suggested a possibility of coordinating such a document at the PSI High-Level Political Meeting in Paris in May. This was done behind the scenes. It is no secret that PSI parties have different positions on a number of international political and security issues. Under these circumstances, it is unacceptable that individual countries comment on them on behalf of the PSI or under its aegis.

Regrettably, this highly misguided practice is becoming increasingly common. For example, a joint statement in support of UN Security Council Resolutions 2375 and 2397 was published on behalf of the PSI in January 2018. This undermines confidence in the PSI, as a narrow group of countries imposes its highly debatable political assessments.

UN Security Council resolutions need neither an interpretation (this is the prerogative of the UN Security Council and its Committees within their frame of reference), nor any outside support. UN Security Council resolutions must be strictly complied with by all UN members.

We think it inadmissible to mention Security Council Resolution 1540 in the same breath as sanctions resolutions; it is also inappropriate to quote selectively certain provisions of the resolution. Besides, the resolution does not provide for a number of actions mentioned by the declaration, namely, particular vigilance concerning possible transfers destined for non-State actors and readiness to intercept and carry out necessary inspections of cargoes that are suspected to contain WMD, delivery systems, or related materials intended for non-State actors. Resolution 1540 is of preventive nature and contains no tools for cutting proliferation violations short. There are other international formats for that.

We totally disagree with their assessments of the situation around Syria. It is outrageous that the declarants have assumed the role of a judge and groundlessly accuse the Syrian Government of violating its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions and the Chemical Weapons Convention. At the same time, the signatories keep silent about their own role in destabilising that country, supplying weapons to non-State actors and delivering strikes at Syria in violation of all international norms.

The passage on Iran is irrelevant as well. The declarants call for the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by carrying out inspections of all cargoes heading to and from Iran. But they intentionally failed to mention the US withdrawal from this crucial agreement, a withdrawal leading to the subversion of the international non-proliferation efforts.

We also have an extremely negative attitude to the attempts to extend the PSI mandate related solely to the interception of WMD, their delivery vehicles and relevant materials to conventional arms and their delivery vehicles that are not WMD carriers. We stress that the resolutions on Yemen and Lebanon are in no way related to the PSI.

Finally, it is unclear whom this declaration is addressed to. Russia and many other states perform their international obligations without being urged from the outside. We do not have to be told what to do and how to do it. We are certain that many others think so too.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278096






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the unveiling of a memorial plaque to Waffen-SS Colonel Alfons Rebane in Estonia



26 June 2018 - 11:32



We were shocked to read about a ceremony held in Estonia on June 22 to unveil a memorial plaque on the 110th birth anniversary of Waffen-SS Standartenführer (Colonel) Alfons Rebane, who commanded punitive operations against civilians in the Soviet territory occupied by Nazi troops during the Great Patriotic War.

We note the particular cynicism of the organisers of this shameful event, who held it on June 22, the day when the Great Patriotic War began in 1941. It is nothing other than an insult to the memory of millions of people who fell fighting Nazism.

We regret to say that the Estonian authorities, who hastened to dissociate themselves from the unveiling of the plaque, have not found the courage to denounce this latest evidence of the glorification of Nazism in their country.

We consider this policy to be unacceptable and urge the international organisations concerned to convince Tallinn to put an end to this unashamed propaganda of neo-Nazism in Estonia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278196






Press release on the Foreign Ministry Collegium meeting



26 June 2018 - 12:29




On June 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chaired a meeting of the Foreign Ministry Collegium devoted to the “Main areas of work to raise the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures in the Foreign Ministry.”

The Collegium, together with Head of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Directorate Andrey Chobotov, examined the current situation in this area and outlined the measures needed to improve efforts against corruption, including officials’ legal training and compliance with anti-corruption standards.

Following the meeting, the Collegium approved the main events that would serve as the basis for a plan of anti-corruption measures in the Foreign Ministry.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278206






Press release on a meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad



26 June 2018 - 18:14



On June 26, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presided over the latest meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad.

Acting Governor of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Region Dmitry Artyukhov made a report on the region’s experience in building relations with compatriots living abroad. It was pointed out that one of the most effective aspects of the region’s system of international ties is its role in the implementation of state policy on compatriots living abroad. Aware of its remoteness from large federal centres and its transport accessibility problems, the region created its own system of cooperation with compatriots, which enabled it to establish durable, mutually beneficial contacts with representatives of more than fifty countries.

Preparations for the 6th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad took centre stage during the meeting. The participants noted that the upcoming congress, “Russia and Compatriots: New Challenges and New Lines”, will provide an opportunity to sum up what has already been achieved and set targets for future cooperation. The priorities are: to further consolidate the Russian diaspora abroad; strengthen the role of the youth; support and protect the rights and legitimate interests of compatriots; address problems facing Russian-language education abroad; promote the development of mass media for compatriots and provide objective information about our country.

Significant attention was given to preparations for the key youth event overseen by the commission – the 4th International Youth Forum of Compatriots, scheduled for October 6-8, 2018 in Sofia. The forum is expected to work out new forms of interaction with young people, including through online meetings between young compatriots and prominent Russian experts and bloggers.

The participants considered candidates among compatriots abroad for state awards of the Russian Federation, the Compatriot’s Badge of Honour and the Honorary Diploma of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3278705






Press release on the results of the 38th Meeting of the BSEC Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs



27 June 2018 - 14:32



On June 27, the 38th Meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) was held in Yerevan, concluding Armenia’s BSEC chairmanship.

The meeting was attended by the heads and other representatives of the foreign ministries of Azerbaijan, Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Romania, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as representatives of BSEC observer states and BSEC sectoral dialogue partners. Russia was represented at the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin.

The participants discussed the further development of regional interaction in trade, finance and the economy, as well as in transport, energy, science, technology, culture, as well as cooperation between rescue services. They also discussed the results of the meetings of education ministers (Moscow, April 20, 2018) and tourism ministers (Varna, June 14, 2018) and other events held during Armenia’s chairmanship of the organisation, which was highly praised by the participants in the Council’s meeting.

Azerbaijan has taken over the BSEC chairmanship for the period from July to December 2018.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3279612






Comment by the Information and Press Department in connection with the Sentsov case discussed at an OSCE conference



27 June 2018 - 18:17



A meeting on the notorious Oleg Sentsov, who was convicted in Russia on charges of terrorism, took place on the sidelines of an OSCE conference on freedom of speech in Kiev.

We took note of the words of a participant dressed in a military uniform, who did not introduce himself. He said he personally brought a certain item in his car to Crimea, which subsequently became an exhibit among the incriminating evidence in Sentsov’s guilt, and that he also carried out other measures. We believe such statements should be investigated by law enforcement agencies.

We note the OSCE’s irresponsible approach to organising such events where authoritative participants are not admitted, and at the same time, the conference is used as a tool for the artificial politicisation of issues related to freedom of speech.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3279931






Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry



28 June 2018 - 15:53



On June 27, a Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), convened at the initiative of a number of Western countries led by the UK, concluded its work in The Hague. As a result of political manipulations, direct bribery of a number of delegations and blatant blackmail, London and other pseudo-protectors of reinforcing the CWC managed to push through their odious draft decision, which will vest the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with the extrinsic authority to identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Moreover, the same document charges the Director-General of the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW with submitting proposals, at the Conference’s next regular session in November 2018, on establishing a similar investigation mechanism for providing other States Parties, at their request, technical assistance in identifying “perpetrators, organisers and sponsors” of the use of chemicals as weapons within the corresponding national territory.

We deem this decision illegitimate. We have to state that it is obvious that in taking the decision the Conference of States Parties stepped outside the scope of its mandate. Russia, which was one of the initiators of the Chemical Weapons Convention and which made the decision to join it, was part of a completely different organisation. The OPCW faced clearly defined tasks of providing technical assistance to national programmes of eliminating chemical arsenals. There existed a mechanism of introducing, if necessary, amendments to specific aspects of its activity, which was acceptable to all.

It should be recalled that the CWC is an arms control treaty that aims to refrain from developing, producing, purchasing, stockpiling, preserving and using chemical weapons, as well as from encouraging or inducing anyone to such activities. Article I of the CWC gives a comprehensive list of methods to deliver on these obligations – through conscientious implementation of solely technical measures aimed at physical destruction of chemical weapons and its production and storage facilities, and refusal to use chemical agents, used for riot control, as a method of warfare. The OPCW has a solely applicative role of providing the States Parties with technical and expert assistance in implementing the listed tasks and conducting verification procedures.

Thus, the Chemical Weapons Convention does not contain any clauses providing for the creation of a special mechanism to determine those responsible for the use of chemical weapons. We proceed from the fact that vesting the OPCW Technical Secretariat with similar powers without “unsealing” the text of the Convention and introducing amendments as envisaged by Article XV of the CWC is impossible by definition.

Aware of the futility of any attempts to secure approval by legal means for such amendments, which, in fact, intrude on the UN Security Council’s competence, the UK and countries that stand in solidarity with it resorted to downright fraud, a cynical substitution of the true goals and tasks of the CWC, by pushing through this illegal decision of the Conference of the States Parties. The fact that one of the key goals of the Convention – the comprehensive destruction of chemical weapons – has still not been achieved is being hypocritically hushed up. The truth that none other than a Western country that still has the most powerful arsenal of toxic chemicals, while constantly postponing its disposal deadlines, is violating its CWC commitments is being thoroughly concealed.

The initiators of this illegitimate decision are diverting attention to an absolutely different task, namely determining those responsible for alleged chemical incidents. Using dirty methods, they forced 82 countries to support the British draft and will now try to impose their harmful viewpoint on the remaining 111 states, the conscientious parties to the CWC.

We are convinced that this blatant abuse of the rules of procedure, the disruption of the consensus spirit inherent in the global disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms and disregard for the position of all other equal CWC States Parties is deepening the split inside the OPCW and jeopardises the integrity of the CWC, as well as efforts to maintain the global regime of chemical disarmament and non-proliferation of chemical weapons.

We are grateful to all countries that, like Russia, stood up to protect international law and the fundamental principles of interstate relations and opposed the odious British draft resolution of the Conference of the States Parties, the consequences of which all of us will now have to overcome.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280238






Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Depositary Governments for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 28 June 2018



28 June 2018 - 19:45



On July 1, 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) opened for signature in our respective capitals: London, Moscow, and Washington. Today, 50 years later, we celebrate the immeasurable contributions this landmark treaty has made to the security and prosperity of the nations and peoples of the world.

The NPT has provided the essential foundation for international efforts to stem the looming threat - then and now - that nuclear weapons would proliferate across the globe. In so doing, it has served the interests of all its Parties and has limited the risk that the vast devastation of nuclear war would be unleashed.

We also celebrate the astonishingly diverse benefits of the peaceful uses of the atom, whether for electricity, medicine, agriculture, or industry. This boon to humanity thrives because the NPT, and the nuclear nonproliferation regime built around the Treaty, has helped provide confidence that nuclear programs are and will remain entirely peaceful.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a critical role in NPT implementation, both to promote the fullest possible cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to apply safeguards and verify that nuclear programs are entirely peaceful. An IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement together with an Additional Protocol provide credible assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and should become the universal standard for verifying the fulfillment of NPT obligations. We pledge our full and continued support to the IAEA and urge others to do the same.

By helping to ease international tensions and create conditions of stability, security and trust among nations, the NPT has made a vital contribution to nuclear disarmament. The NPT continues to help create conditions that would be essential for further progress on nuclear disarmament. We remain committed to the ultimate goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons, as set forth in the NPT, and are committed to working together to make the international environment more conducive to such progress.

The success of the NPT was not foreordained, nor is its future success guaranteed. It depends on our concerted and sustained efforts to ensure compliance, to promote universalization, to ensure effective safeguards, and to respond to ongoing and emerging proliferation challenges, wherever they occur. Even at the height of the Cold War, our predecessors made this wise investment in our shared security and prosperity. Today, we pledge our unstinting commitment to preserving and deepening this legacy for future generations.


Sergey Lavrov,

Minister of Foreign Affairs Russian Federation


Boris Johnson,

Foreign Secretary United Kingdom


Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State United States of America




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3280366






Press release on Russian-US consultations on the situation on the Korean Peninsula



29 June 2018 - 15:28



On June 29, the Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador at Large Oleg Burmistrov held consultations with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy Special Representative for North Korean Policy Mark Lambert in Moscow. Mr Lambert also met with Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov.

The sides conducted a detailed exchange of opinions on the process to resolve the entire range of issues on the Korean Peninsula, including the nuclear problem, and its prospects.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3282311
__________________
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 July 6th, 2018 #451
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 28, 2018



28 June 2018 - 20:13








FIFA World Cup

The 2018 FIFA World Cup is in full swing and its group stage is coming to a close. We are all following it closely and are primarily interested in good play. I don’t think it makes sense questioning how the teams, coaches and the people who are organising their work and stay have assessed what they have seen in Russia.

I think you have seen the many posts on this subject in social media. Now the dominant topic is how people in Russia are receiving their guests, doing this in the Russian tradition with an open heart and mind. This is quite surprising. We did not even expect such a response from ourselves. Of course, we note that the overwhelming majority of foreign media do not hesitate to publish objective articles on sports that really describe what is happening at the World Cup in Moscow, St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and other cities that are hosting this celebration of sport.

We are glad to note that the success of the World Cup in Russia is acknowledged even by those who were dubious about this event and Russia in general. Recently Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius admitted that he does not see any effect from the idea of Ukrainian Minister for Sport Igor Zhdanov to boycott the World Cup that was supported by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and the authorities of some other countries.

As we said, reality is the best argument in countering propaganda and the tendency to engage in wishful thinking. Here is the answer to the issue of Russia’s isolation. Do not listen to those who claim that Russia is isolated. They are lying. They wanted to isolate it but failed. The main thing that we are seeing today is the division of people into those who wanted and are still trying to isolate it and normal ordinary people all over the world who have their own political views and preferences and who understand that such notions as “peace,” “neighbourliness” and “sport for the sake of peace” are above any attempts to politicise these issues.

Surprisingly, those who came to us before could understand the difference between the truth and lies because they had what to compare them with. Despite the intimidation the media have still arrived here and see with their own eyes what is happening.

As you know, official delegations and representatives of the political establishment of different countries are coming here. For example, there is Princess Hisako Takamado, who had never visited Russia before coming for the World Cup. The Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald wrote that she was the first member of the Japanese Imperial Family to visit Russia and quotes her as saying that it was a great honour for her. We are glad that this information is read by people in foreign countries.

The Polish media that, regrettably, can hardly be suspected of harboring special affection for Russia also note that all conditions have been created for the fans and that they have unique opportunities to enjoy this celebration of sport. For example, in the opinion of the first Polish radio station RMF FM, “Moscow’s preparation for the World Cup has been excellent.”

The media of the Baltic countries that initially wrote, to our great regret, that nothing will come of this event and there is no point attending because Russians mess up everything, are now writing in a friendly tone. In brief, we are witnessing the victory of reality over artificial stereotypes that are really being ingrained into the minds of philistines.

Correspondent Oliver Carroll from The Independent, a British newspaper, begins his article about “English fans fraternising with Russians” and gives historical insight into bilateral relations. There are many such pieces in Europe, Asia and Africa.

The British newspaper The Daily Telegraph wrote that England’s match in Volgograd was “perhaps the friendliest of tournament football matches.” It is very important because Great Britain tried to scare football fans and hooligans with the spectre of Russian aggression. You can remember the horrible and scandalous BBC films released a year and a half ago: British fans cannot go because they will allegedly get beaten.

In his interview with the Belfast Telegraph British fan Billy Grant said that he was still a little nervous when he departed the plane, but when he got to the city and took a walk around the fan zone, people hugged him and took pictures with him. “I would say to everybody – don’t believe what you read, come out and see it for yourselves.” His colleague, when answering the question whether they believed negative stories about Russia, said he had seen everything with his own eyes and did not believe them anymore.

The Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet notes that Russia was at its best in organising the World Cup and people the newspaper’s correspondent spoke to were surprised that there was no violence or disorder during the World Cup.

TV 2 Norg correspondent Oystein Bogen describes the situation like this: “Now I can see better why people feel so good during world cups. It is amazing entertainment. This is fraternisation that knows no national borders, and it is an impressive event. The host country should be honoured for everything it has achieved.”

Unfortunately, the traditional negativity is still here. The US newspaper the Wall Street Journal has published a piece in which correspondent Joshua Robinson writes that Russia’s “breathless” victories over its first two opponents “have raised plenty of questions” due to the doping scandals in Sochi. Who exactly has raised them and what questions are these? We have already published an article on this topic. I would like to repeat that we call on those in doubt to read the conclusion of the anti-doping commission and the FIFA press service’s statement that says the investigation of Russian footballers on the World Cup preliminary list are over and all cases are closed.

In addition to biased and propagandistic information, there are outright fakes. Apparently it is difficult to believe that Russia is not the barbaric country they wrote about, so western media descend to fakes. A photo with dozens of dog carcasses was posted in social networks. Of course, it was said to be an illustration for the World Cup in Russia. Later it turned out that the picture was not taken in Russia but in Pakistan. The picture’s author, Reuters photographer Akhtar Soomro, was also found. The photo was taken in Karachi on August 4, 2016. The original picture was restored. It is clear the picture was not taken in Russia, but unfortunately agencies started to use it: in particular, AFP posted it alongside text on the situation in Russia on the eve of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Unfortunately, it came to outright fakes.

More false information came from CNN. Allegedly Mohamed Salah, forward of Egypt’s team and English club Liverpool, “is considering quitting the Egyptian national team due to his unhappiness over what has happened in Chechnya.” There should have been an official statement of the team with a direct quote from the footballer before publishing this on television. The press service of the Egyptian Football Federation said it has no information about Salah’s intention to quit. Such dirty tricks are also used.

We have heard a lot about Russia planning to use upcoming sports competitions for political purposes. We can see how, unfortunately, this sporting event is being used for political purposes in other countries. There are indeed many examples. We always emphasise that sport lies outside politics and politicisation actually kills sporting events and hurts the athletes.

I cannot help saying the following. We were simply shocked by the Freedom of the Media OSCE event in Kiev that somehow ended up being linked with the World Cup. Are there any problems with the accreditation of journalists or any cases of non-admission to events? As far as I know, everything is transparent, clear and logically organised. Most importantly, we have not heard any complaints from journalists. How it is possible to link these two things is completely incomprehensible.

The German media outdid everyone else in politicising the FIFA World Cup. Let them forgive me, this is just impossible to read. Every day for the past few weeks, they have been issuing endless calls for their political leadership and politicians, and the general public to not travel to Russia. Day after day, the same materials in German. I do not know who they are targeting; hardly a Russian audience; maybe the German players. Maybe the German national team, having read the calls to political figures to not attend the matches, took this as an instruction. Now there is an actual reason to not go to Russia – there is nothing more to see. But this is just an assumption.

I would like to quote a few statements from the tournament participants, which, unfortunately, have to leave Russia having not made it past the group stage. So they have formed a final opinion from what they have seen. The national team of Iceland, which, by the way, won the hearts of many Russians who sincerely cheered and supported and celebrated their victories, and took their pain of failure close to heart, posted the following message on Twitter: “This FIFA World Cup has been such an epic ride. We left everything, absolutely everything, on the pitch tonight and will go out with our heads held up high. Thank you to the best supporters in the world. Thank you Russia for such a warm welcome.”

After the game with Spain, the Moroccan goalkeeper, Yassine Bounou, said that Russia had good stadiums, friendly people and very beautiful cities. And the Nigerian national team’s midfielder, John Obi Mikel, who has worked wonders during this tournament, gave journalists the following comment: “We are treated very well in Russia, everyone supports us, and there are no manifestations of racism. It's even amazing how much we are supported here.” This, despite the fact that racism and the football fans were highlighted in many Western media publications, which discouraged people from coming to Russia.

We will continue to follow this subject and support the players, and most of all support good, high-quality and beautiful football, and the Russian national team.



Upcoming visit by Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi

On July 4, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi is expected to come to Russia on a working visit.

Ayman Safadi will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to exchange opinions on current international and regional issues, primarily a settlement in Syria in the context of a de-escalation zone created by Russia, the United States and Jordan, as well as developments on the Palestinian-Israeli track. The ministers will also discuss the further development of bilateral cooperation.

Russian-Jordanian dialogue is noted for the high level of mutual trust and the close or identical views held by the two sides on many key international and regional issues.



Current situation in Syria

The situation in Syria remains complicated. The unwillingness of the radical Syrian opposition and its sponsors to take any reciprocal steps towards peace and a political settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 has invigorated the remaining terrorist groups. Jabhat al-Nusra and diehard ISIS terrorists are making use of the power vacuum in the regions that are not controlled by the Syrian Government to build up their combat capability and have staged new provocations.

Regrettably, this also describes the situation in the southern de-escalation zone, which was created under trilateral agreements between Russia, the United States and Jordan and approved in the November 11, 2017 statement by the presidents of Russia and the United States and the decisions adopted in the Astana format.

Contrary to their obligations, our partners have not managed to convince the armed opposition to comply with the ceasefire regime and are not fighting extremist groups, such as ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra/al Qaeda, as well as other groups that have been designated by the UN Security Council as terrorist. Ultimately, this has prevented the attainment of the stated goal of removing foreign terrorist fighters from the de-escalation zone.

Instead of gradually reintegrating the de-escalation zone into the national territory within the framework of efforts to maintain Syria’s unity and sovereignty, continued efforts were taken to separate the southwestern region from the rest of the country. The Syrian Government has not regained control of border checkpoints, and the Syrian-Jordanian border has not opened to commercial and civilian cargoes, contrary to the provisions of the Russian-US-Jordanian Memorandum of Principles concluded on November 8, 2017.

Instead, missile and artillery shelling was launched from the de-escalation zone at Daraa and Suwayda, in which civilians have been killed.

On June 24, the Syrian Government forces launched an offensive in southwestern Syria to eradicate the terrorists and restore the country’s integrity.

By June 25, the Syrian Army liberated the Lajat Plateau and a large town of Bosr al-Harir in the Daraa Province from the al-Nusra groups and forced ISIS units to leave the villages of Qus Abu Jabal and Tell Mughir in the east of the neighbouring Suwayda Province.

It is notable that a large part of local armed groups, outraged by the harassment of local residents by al-Nusra fighters, have gone over to the Syrian Army.

Russian servicemen from the Centre for Reconciliation in Syria are doing all they can to help negotiate ceasefire agreements between the Syrian Government and armed opposition groups who are not cooperating with terrorists.

Russia has not withdrawn from the memorandums on the de-escalation zone in southwestern Syria, which it signed with the United States and Jordan on July 7, 2017 and November 8, 2017. We reaffirm the need to comply with the provisions of these memorandums, in particular, on fighting Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS terrorists and eradicating their presence in the de-escalation zone. What the Syrian Army supported by Russia’s Aerospace Forces are doing now should have been done long ago by our American partners.

At the same time, a recent decision by the US administration to allocate an additional $6.6 million to finance the operation of the so-called White Helmets in Syria has set us thinking whether Washington really wants to see an early settlement and stabilisation and the eradication of terrorism in Syria. A great deal has been said about the questionable activities of the White Helmets, who are directly involved in the Western information war against Syria, in particular the staging of chemical attacks. In fact, the United States and the US-led coalition continue to support the stooges who are acting in collusion with terrorists.

I want to speak on another painful problem in the drawn-out Syrian crisis – refugees and internally displaced persons. To resolve this problem, in addition to ensuring a high level of security the country must rebuild vital economic and social facilities. Refugees cannot return home if there is no electricity or water, no regular supplies of food and basic necessities, and no schools or medical facilities. The main thing is to create jobs so that people will be able to feed their families and bring up their children.

Russian servicemen continue to clear explosive devices from the liberated populated areas. Their work is a major contribution to creating conditions for a voluntary, safe and dignified return of thousands upon thousands of Syrians to their homes.

We welcome any international initiatives aimed at providing assistance to Syria and the Syrian people and promoting an early settlement of the situation in Syria on a solid basis of international law, primarily UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



Repatriation of Russian children from Iraqi Kurdistan to Russia

On May 29, the Russian Consulate General in Erbil managed to repatriate Russian minors, namely, Sofia Galidova (born December 15, 2013) and Salma Galidova (born July 15, 2015), with the assistance of authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

Their father, Russian citizen Gajimurad Galidov (born August 21, 1990) and mother, a citizen of Azerbaijan T. Guseinova (born February 1, 1993), are staying at a pretrial detention centre of the counter-terrorism service in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The authorities are investigating their alleged complicity in ISIS terrorist activities. Their mother has decided to keep the third child, G. Gajimuradovich (born March 6, 2018), a Russian citizen, with her.

The parents of Gajimurad Galidov repatriated the Galidov sisters from Iraqi Kurdistan, with the Russian Consulate General assisting them after their arrival in Erbil and their subsequent stay there.

According to local authorities, G Gajimuradovich is currently the only Russian minor staying with his parents at a detention centre in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

The Russian Foreign Ministry continues to closely follow the situation concerning presumed Russian citizens who surfaced on previously ISIS-controlled territories in Iraq via the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and the Russian Consulate General in Erbil. We are doing everything possible to verify their Russian citizenship, to objectively review their cases as well as to eventually ensure their repatriation.



Results of the special session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention

Day after day, we can see how representatives of the Western community are exterminating the international legal foundations of our world’s existence, while claiming that they are preserving and upholding them. We commented the other day on the situation concerning the withdrawal of the United States from the UN Human Rights Council. We did not consider this matter to be something new or unexpected. We noted that, unfortunately, the United States was regularly dealing blows against the UN Human Rights Council as well as UNESCO. This comes as another salvo against international organisations of the UN family and the entire system of international law.

On June 27, a special session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention), convened on the initiative of several Western countries headed by the United Kingdom, ended in The Hague. By resorting to political manipulations and directly bribing a number of delegations and resorting to open blackmail, London and other parties allegedly advocating efforts to consolidate the Chemical Weapons Convention have managed to railroad their odious draft resolution vesting the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat with powers that are not within its purview, i.e., allowing it to determine those guilty of using chemical weapons in Syria.

Moreover, the very same document instructs the Director-General of the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat to submit proposals for the establishment of a similar investigative mechanism to provide technical assistance to other states, parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, at their request, in exposing perpetrators, masterminds and sponsors of using chemical agents as weapons on specific national territories. These proposals are to be approved at a regular session of the Conference in November 2018.

We consider this resolution to be illegitimate. We have to state openly that the Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, has transcended its mandate, while approving this document. Russia which co-founded the OPCW and which decided to join the Convention was a member of an entirely different Organisation. The OPCW was clearly expected to provide technical assistance to national programmes for eliminating chemical weapons. A mechanism stipulating, if necessary, amendments to specific aspects of its activities suited everyone.

One should not forget that the OPCW’s subject matter and goals include efforts to abstain from developing, manufacturing, stockpiling, preserving and using chemical weapons, as well as inciting or encouraging anyone to engage in such activities. The Convention's Article I contains an exhaustive list of methods to implement the above-mentioned obligations by conscientiously fulfilling a number of purely technical measures that aim to eliminate chemical weapons, as well as CW production and storage facilities, and to refrain from using chemical agents for riot control purposes and also in warfare. The OPCW plays a purely applied role in providing the states, parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, with technical and expert assistance to accomplish the above-mentioned tasks and to conduct verification procedures.

Therefore the Convention contains no provisions implying the possibility of establishing a special mechanism to expose those guilty of using chemical weapons. We believe that it is a priori impossible to vest the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat with such powers without analysing the Convention itself and without amending it under a procedure stipulated by Article XV.

Being aware of the futility of any attempts to legally approve these amendments that essentially encroach on the authority of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom and countries solidarising with it have resorted to outright forgery and have cynically substituted the OPCW’s genuine goals and tasks by railroading an illegitimate resolution of the Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention. At the same time, they hypocritically overlook the fact that one of the Convention’s main goals, namely, the complete elimination of chemical weapons, has not been achieved so far. They are painstakingly hushing up the fact that a Western country boasting the most powerful chemical weapons arsenal and constantly putting off its elimination deadlines continues to violate its obligations under the Convention.

The initiators of this illegitimate decision are diverting attention to a completely different task, namely, determining the culprits of alleged chemical incidents. They have forced 82 countries to vote for the British draft document using unscrupulous methods, and now they will try to impose their harmful opinion on the remaining 111 states, conscientious members of the OPCW.

We are confident that this obvious abuse of procedural regulations, the undermining of the spirit of consensus which is a salient feature of global disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms and disdain for the position of all other states, parties to the OPCW, having equal rights aggravates divisions within the OPCW, threatens the Convention’s integrity and the very preservation of the global regime of chemical disarmament and non-proliferation of chemical weapons.

We would like to thank all states that have resolutely stood up in defence of international law and fundamental principles of interstate relations on a par with the Russian Federation and voted against the odious British-sponsored draft resolution of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Conference, whose consequences all of us will now have to overcome.



US Permanent Representative in the UN Nikki Haley’s insinuations regarding the UN High-Level Conference of Heads of Counter-Terrorism Agencies of Member States (New York, June 27-28)

Ahead of the UN High-Level Conference of Heads of Counter-Terrorism Agencies of Member States opening in New York on June 27, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley levelled harsh criticism at a number of countries, including Russia, Syria, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, which had allegedly pressured the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (OCT) to prevent civil-society organisations from attending the event. At the same time, media reports started to come out with references to anonymous sources in the US Administration and claiming that Washington decided to withhold the funding of $2 million promised to the OCT and to reduce its participation in the Conference. When asked whether this measure was due to the OCT being headed by a Russian (Vladimir Voronkov), the response was that “it matters.”

This is not the first time that our American colleagues have turned a situation upside down. However, the forms and methods involved are becoming increasingly vulgar and offensive.

Taking into account the sensitive nature of the issues discussed, the counter-terrorist international conference was originally planned as exclusively a forum of official representatives of member states, heads of counter-terrorism agencies.

Several weeks before the conference, the United States and several other Western countries began exerting powerful pressure on the OCT in the form of an ultimatum and demanding participation of “civil society.”

The format in which the Conference was eventually organised provides for the heads of counter-terrorist agencies to meet behind closed doors on the first day and, starting from the second day, for the discussion to continue with the invited NGOs.

Now, as the conference is taking place, the US is, for some reason, making a scandal out of it. The US Ambassador, Nikki Haley, has crossed the line and has no qualms speculating that the decision to deny access to the NGOs was allegedly taken under Russia’s pressure.

We regard such statements as unacceptable and false.

Unfortunately, the US Ambassador’s behaviour, which seems odd for a diplomat, fits well with the disregard for the UN that is typical of the US delegation, and indicates that the United States is not ready for an equitable dialogue between states. Methods based on diktat, threats and blackmail, financial blackmail included as a new variety, against the UN, which have been increasingly practiced by the US when something goes against its directives, fully contradicts the goals and objectives of the United Nations, its working principles and diplomacy in general.

We strongly condemn this provocation aimed at discrediting the first ever UN Conference of Heads of Counter-Terrorism Agencies, held in order to discuss an issue that is of utmost importance to humanity. At a time when the entire world needs to close ranks in the fight against this evil, Washington continues to pursue its narrow self-seeking interests and is eying new geopolitical counterterrorism projects based on double standards. By reducing its participation in the Conference of Heads of Counter-Terrorism Agencies, the United States is challenging the multilateral cooperation against the global terrorist threat as well as individual countries that are involved in an uncompromising struggle against terrorists across the world.

We consider the references to the nationality of the Under-Secretary of the United Nations Vladimir Voronkov coming from the US Administration in this situation as yet another accusation and a sign of the Russophobic hysteria that took root in the American political establishment and is assuming ever more radical and paradoxical forms.

I would like to say that excesses like this will not fail to prompt a response they deserve and will be taken into account in our further work.



Developments in connection with the so-called “Skripal case”

Despite Britain’s stubborn unwillingness to contact Russian representatives on matters related to the investigation into the Salisbury case and considering the unflagging concern in Russia over the state of the health and status of the two Russians who have found themselves involved in this frightening intrigue and provocation, we persistently continue to press for the clarification of all aspects of the situation and for obtaining consular access to Sergey and Yulia Skripal.

We are not satisfied with the formal correspondence from the UK Foreign Office in response to our requests. We view London’s policy to unilaterally investigate the incident ignoring proposals for joint work as extremely unconstructive. I would like to stress once again that the UK has rejected cooperation and interaction with Russia in this case, although assistance in the form of official requests did come repeatedly via diplomatic channels.

This British approach, including the purposeful misleading of the public with regard to what has happened in Salisbury, certainly the use of censorship to manage the interpretations of this subject in the information space, and the effort to coerce the UK law enforcers into operating within the prescribed political framework, is evidence of the political pressure brought to bear on the investigation by the UK authorities. London seems to expect the investigators to do nothing but legitimise its absurd accusations against Russia. Incredibly, the investigation does not even have a list of suspects three-odd months on after the incident!

Not so very long ago, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall visited Salisbury to see how life there was getting back to normal (to reiterate, London told us that the case in point was the use of chemical warfare agents), how life in Salisbury was being normalised after the use of what London thought were chemical warfare agents. We have just one question in this connection: Have the Skripals been shown to the members of the Royal Family? They should have done this for the Prince of Wales.

The so-called “Skripal case” is veiled in mystery in the best traditions of British detective story-writing. The developments surrounding it are so absurd that even Britain’s allies are increasingly skeptical and doubtful as to the veracity and objectivity of its anti-Russia insinuations. Its partners, including those in G7 and the EU, who never got around to making head or tail of what had happened and took London’s word for it, have failed to receive any proof aside from the very same words that we all heard: “highly likely” and “there is no other plausible explanation than Russia’s responsibility.” I learned from my reading of medieval history that the explanation was the same, when they were dragging women, scholars, or doctors to the fire and the onlookers inquired what for. There is just no other plausible explanation than that they are “sorcerers” or “witches.” It is medieval rhetoric! The Middle Ages excelled in the development of culture and architecture but also stood out as an example of total ignorance, illiteracy and, most importantly, frenzied struggle against what was beyond them to explain.

Even certain British media, which have long left the Russophile club, have repeatedly expressed justified doubts that are cropping up in Western society regarding the so-called “Russian connection.” The Independent, for one, published an article on March 7 that noted numerous inaccuracies and banal non sequiturs in the official line offered by Downing Street. This was a while ago. But there are increasingly more similar articles, both in Britain and elsewhere. Other countries publish extensive reviews dedicated to developments around the incident that allegedly happened in Salisbury. We still lack facts that would be corroborated by anything. This is why we have to repeat and use such parenthetic words as “allegedly,” “as we are told,” and “maybe.”

Let me remind you that former MI5 officer Annie Machon told Talk Radio that the Russian Federation had no motive for persecuting Sergey Skripal after he was extradited to Britain, given that he was arrested back in 2006 and actively cooperated with the investigation. Ms Machon also noted that deeper motivations could be at play in the so-called “Skripal case” and that the incident was likely to be used to discredit Russia. We were saying as much. The most interesting thing is that after we or experts on Russian television said this, the British made special selections from the content and used them for accusing Russia of spreading disinformation. Now the British themselves and the British media are saying so.

Regrettably, the Western official circles are still pushing their narrative and speaking about solidarity. What solidarity? Solidarising the Medieval way in accusations with regard to what you cannot explain?

On June 19, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in his Guardian article that Russia “seems to have no qualms about using military-grade nerve agents on our streets.” I would like to remind Mr Stoltenberg that, firstly, the investigation is still in progress and that all his statements are based solely on the UK’s political declarations, and, secondly, a man who heads the North Atlantic alliance rather than a macramé fans society should know better and realise what would have happened on their streets if military-grade nerve agents and, as London claims, chemical warfare agents had been really used there. This is what London says and what the NATO countries, among others, have solidarised with.

Given the total lack of concrete evidence, the statements of the sort that were made by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg are not only unprofessional insofar as they are ungrounded but are also dangerous because they feed the destructive Russophobic sentiments and are not conducive to the start of constructive cooperation in addressing a huge number of really important international problems.



WADA President Craig Reedie receives Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire

We were greatly amazed to learn that President of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Craig Reedie was awarded the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire.

Established on November 10, 1999 by the International Olympic Committee and national governments, and headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, WADA claims to be an “independent international” organisation.

The presentation of the title to the head of this allegedly independent agency by the leaders of a country is questionable from a moral perspective. It is not the award in itself that poses a problem. In fact, it is not uncommon for representatives of one country to decorate people from another country for their contribution to promoting bilateral affairs, humanitarian relations, culture, art, economic or financial ties. But this is a whole different story.

It is said that Craig Reedie received this high accolade for his services to sports, while it is well known that this order of chivalry has a motto “For God and the Empire” and rewards contributions to upholding the United Kingdom’s interests.

As for the sports thing itself, it was the WADA leadership who were behind the groundless doping scandals that were engineered to prevent Russian athletes and Paralympians from competing in major international events. One could hardly imagine a way to inflict greater damage to international sports.

Unfortunately, all we can do is put on record that Craig Reedie, who believes that “sports without politics, it’s sort of an impossible dream,” did nothing to strengthen the Olympic movement. It is equally unfortunate that his leadership resulted in sports becoming increasingly politicised. We have never seen so much politics in sports. Yes, there were attempts of this kind in the past, but never such a heavy blow was dealt to international sports.

Russia firmly opposes manipulations in sports, and is committed to the principle of “sports outside politics” and the rules of “fair play”.



Ukraine’s confrontations statements on Nord Stream 2

We took note of Ukraine’s recent confrontational statements regarding the Nord Stream 2 project. In our opinion, they are beyond the reach of decency or rationality. Perorations that the project is a threat for Ukraine prove yet again the opponents of Nord Stream 2, not Russia, seek to make a political matter out of it.

Let me remind you some basic facts. Nord Stream 2 was traced under the Baltic Sea which makes it 2,000 kilometres shorter compared to gas transits through Ukraine. Accordingly, the cost of supplying gas through Nord Stream 2 would be far below the current tariffs for Ukraine transits. Nord Stream 2 promises of efficiency and uses cutting-edge technology, which differentiates it from Ukraine’s gas pipeline system in so many ways.

The construction of two additional natural gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea will diversify deliveries to European consumers. This would strengthen Europe’s energy security, where demand for gas is expected to increase in the years to come, instead of undermining it.

Russia has stated time and again that Nord Stream 2 was a business project and nothing else, which does not mean that any other oil and gas transit routes would be abandoned. This is a question of their economic viability as well as reliability.

At the same time, Kiev’s statements and actions cast serious doubt on the possibility of reliably supplying natural gas from Russia to European markets through Ukraine.

I noticed that these statements by Ukraine were immediately echoed in Washington, in what could be viewed as twin statements, which makes it clear who is behind the developments in Kiev. Ukraine really needs Washington’s opinion even when it comes to European affairs.



Sanctions imposed by the Ukrainian authorities against Russian NGOs

On June 22, the Day of Memory and Sorrow, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko extended anti-Russian sanctions to include a number of veteran organisations such as the Combat Brotherhood and the Russian Union of Afghan War Veterans.

The purpose of the new sanctions is to restrict the activities of these NGOs in Ukraine by freezing their assets, revoking licenses and using other mechanisms to put financial pressure on these organisations.

It should be noted, that these NGOs have played an active role in providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Donbass. From the outset of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine, the Combat Brotherhood has not only helped collect food but they have also helped to deliver it together with other essentials needed by the elderly and children as well as other vulnerable groups who are particularly susceptible to the negative consequences of the conflict. The Russian Union of Afghan War Veterans has also delivered tons of provisions in the form of aid to youngsters in Donbass.

I would like to remind you that over 10,000 people have lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have become refugees during the conflict in southeastern Ukraine. We know this only too well here in Russia. The people of Donbass who remain in the places where fighting is going on have been suffering from the terrible consequences of the humanitarian crisis, for which the authorities in Kiev bear the responsibility. Due to the blockade imposed on the region by the Ukrainian security forces, people there are experiencing serious difficulties when it comes to trying to get supplies of food, medicine and basic necessities. Therefore, the activities of these NGOs are very important in terms of alleviating the humanitarian situation in Donbass.

In this context, we consider unacceptable and inhuman Ukraine's actions aimed at squeezing out any NGOs, which, unlike the Kiev authorities, do really care about the needs of these Ukrainian citizens. We also note that imposing sanctions on the Day of Memory and Sorrow reflects the desire to alienate the peoples of Russia and Ukraine and is an act of sacrilege against our common history.



Propaganda and Zapovednik animated show on Deutsche Welle

At the June 15 briefing, we raised the subject concerning propaganda in the German media, in particular, Deutsche Welle. We cited the example of the commercial content distributed by the corporation, which, as users say, is giving it away as news. We also pointed out that Deutsche Welle used commercial promotion tools in the social media to promote their content. I must say that German government-funded Deutsche Welle quickly published a response to the questions we raised at the previous briefing. Only, they have not actually answered our questions, but their own – the answers had nothing to do with the questions that we actually asked.

Judging by the statement issued, they did not agree with our assessment of their publications on Twitter as being offensive to Russia. Here is a quote: “The tweet you showed at the last briefing was just a preview of one of the Russian language interviews, nothing more.” This sounded like it was common for regular media to announce their content on social media.

We do not dispute the right of the media to publish critical articles about any country, politician, or political party. What we are getting at here is something else. I would like to reiterate that the screenshot of the commercially promoted ad sent to us by one of the users contains not just the facts or the announcement of an event. It incorporates a judgmental appraisal about our country. That is, the money of the Federal Government of Germany is used to distribute a completely inappropriate opinion of our country. At the same time, that tweet did not specify the attitude of Deutsche Welle or the German Federal Government that backs it to this judgment. We are not at all satisfied with what they published in response. We will continue to follow this subject simply as part of our own interest in disinformation and propaganda distributed on social networks. I would not describe it as misinformation; propaganda would be more accurate.

That is why on June 18, we posted a message on our Twitter account asking users to share more screenshots of similar Deutsche Welle “announcements” with the #ProplachenDW hashtag. I must say that our tweet caused quite a stir on social networks, as it was seen by more than 100,000 users, and many subscribers sent us screenshots of the commercial tweets from Deutsche Welle. Users openly complain about this German organisation and its advertising, and many even blacklisted DW annoyed by its obtrusive messages. I am grateful to those who openly express their opinion on this matter in social media, because we believe that in this case, the opinion of users is very important. This is not about our politicised assessment, but about an adequate response to what users write to us.

Once again, I would like to say that the tweet we showed last time is not unique. We note that, unfortunately, Deutsche Welle is increasingly sliding into propaganda. We have yet another confirmation. Deutsche Welle, which positions itself as a media outlet, is using German taxpayers’ money to make animated cartoons. We do not mind. Then why say they are against propaganda? Producing an animated series, launching it, spending a lot of money on it, and incorporating openly political content and overtones is flagrant propaganda. The German propaganda school has strong historical traditions. Therefore, we will continue to observe this. Frankly, every time you hear the German media say something about the Russian media being propagandists, remember Deutsche Welle. There are more than enough examples. This is their day-to-day activity. What kind of reaction do you think Russia Today would provoke for doing the same thing in German? Do not get me wrong – this satirical show is being produced for the Russian audience with German Government money. And they have the nerve to point a finger at us for some kind of propaganda and interference in internal affairs using propaganda resources.

Once again I would like to stress that it is not just some NGO, some alliance of German animators, but it is Deutsche Welle.

In 2018, Deutsche Welle will receive an additional EUR14.5 million from the German Federal Government. According to Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media Monika Gruetters, these funds should go to strengthen the broadcasting in Russian, Ukrainian, Arabic and Turkish. That is, there will be more cartoons. Moreover, the website of the Federal Government of Germany has noted that Deutsche Welle is Germany’s overseas broadcaster. That is, a broadcaster financed with public funds, is engaged in pure propaganda and in the commercial promotion of content that is not information but surreptitious propaganda.

The website also says that DW’s mission includes “representing Germany as a mature European culture nation and a free democratic rule of law-based state.” This is more than depressing.

Once again, I would like to say that from our perspective, all these projects I have already mentioned are flagrant propaganda aimed at a direct impact on the Russian audience by a company financed by the German Government. All of this has nothing to do with journalism.

I would like to take this opportunity to induce our colleagues from the Russian State Duma, the Federation Council and the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), as well as other relevant official agencies and civil society to pay attention to this situation and to give an appropriate assessment, as well as to start analysing this from the point of view of the very standards that German representatives cite when discussing the situation concerning the Russian media.



EU approaches to Internet regulation

The European Union continues to promote the idea of Internet regulation and the need for measures to counter disinformation and "fake news."

At the Vienna conference on Media and Democracy in Europe, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers, and Gender Equality Vera Jourova said that digital media, social networks, and bloggers are getting increasingly popular with Western audiences. She proposed to apply to them the same rules as to traditional media outlets. A few years ago now Russia made a similar proposal. However, when we said that it was impossible to widely cite social networks without vesting them with the same level of responsibility as traditional media has, we were told that we were suppressing the freedom of the press. Today, this seems to be a European trend. The European Commissioner also proposed amending the EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation, which had been presented by the European Commission in April of this year and to increase control over political advertising. Is the Commissioner for Consumers aware of the political advertising on Deutsche Welle? Hopefully, she will be now.

These proposals have drawn criticism from the media as well as human rights activists who see a potential threat of censorship in them. It is noteworthy that in denying these allegations Ms Jourova stated that freedom of expression in the EU is not absolute and this, according to her, favourably distinguishes it from the United States.

It is symptomatic that when similar initiatives are discussed in Russia, the same European representatives are first to voice their criticism, calling them anti-democratic and restrictive of freedom of speech and expression. However, when similar matters appear on the European Union’s agenda, Brussels changes its attitude to the complete opposite, rejecting any criticism on the part of human rights activists and the media. This is not even double standards but absurd.

We call on our European colleagues to stop practicing double standards when talking about the threat of "fake news" and disinformation and not to use the latter as a pretext to restrain the activity of the resources providing an alternative to mainstream media, because this will deal a severe blow to freedom of speech.

We are absolutely convinced that such delicate matters that touch upon the interests of civil society, NGOs, and journalists, should be discussed in a transparent manner with the involvement of all interested parties.



Foreign Minister’s Instagram account

We continue to expand our presence in social networks. We are doing it not only through official channels but also informally. Taking into account the increasing interest to what is happening in Russia and abroad among young people and the diplomatic community, an Instagram account has been created on behalf of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that will be moderated by the Council of Young Diplomats.

We receive lots of questions and requests to post photos. Some official photos are available through the official Flickr and Instagram accounts, and the informal photos that we are so frequently asked for will be posted at @s.v.lavrov page in Instagram. The page is getting increasing more popular. You can also find information about it at the websites of the Council of Young Diplomats. You are welcome to sign up. It will be interesting.



US congressional delegation’s visit to Russia

I would like to answer several questions we received before this briefing. One of them concerned the possibility of a visit by a US congressional delegation to Russia.

I can tell you that a delegation of US Congressmen indeed plans to visit Russia between June 30 and July 5. It is expected to include members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and will be led by Senator Richard Shelby.

The programme of the trip includes visits to St Petersburg and Moscow, as well as meetings at the Federation Council and State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly (July 3), and with other Russian officials. We will be happy to welcome the delegation at the Foreign Ministry of Russia.

We hope that this visit will give a fresh impetus to the resumption of full-scale inter-parliamentary exchanges, which the Congress has suspended. We believe that dialogue between our legislative assemblies can play a positive role in bilateral relations, improve their atmosphere and interaction on various issues.

We will later provide additional information on the format of a possible meeting at the Foreign Ministry.



Possibility of a 2+2 format meeting between Russia and Japan

Japanese journalists have asked for comments on the possibility of 2+2 format meeting between Russia and Japan. As you know, this format provides for meetings between the foreign and defence ministries of the two countries.

The possible date for this meeting is being discussed. This is all I can say at this moment. Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe said at the joint news conference with President Vladimir Putin on May 26 that the third 2+2 format meeting could be held in the second half of the year. I just wanted to remind you of this. We will make public the official date after it has been coordinated.



Foreign delegations at the 2018 Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok

I also received a question about the possible participation of foreign delegations in the 2018 Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. The details of the forum, which will be held on September 11-13, are still being discussed. Hence, I cannot provide any information regarding the participation of foreign delegations. We will provide more details in August.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

Azerbaijan will take over the chairmanship of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) on July 1. Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Pankin attended a meeting of the BSEC Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs yesterday. Can you comment on Azerbaijan’s upcoming BSEC chairmanship? What goals will Russia pursue in this period as a BSEC member state?



Maria Zakharova:

All of this was discussed at the meeting. Personally, I wish every success to Azerbaijan’s Chairmanship and Chairman-in-Office. We will provide constructive contributions to make the organisation’s performance really effective. In order to update the available information, I will gladly speak about Russia’s position on BSEC’s operation at a briefing, or we will publish a comment on the ministry’s website.



Question:

The Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan has recently announced plans for an upcoming meeting between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia. What does Russia think about this?



Maria Zakharova:

We always say that representatives of the two countries in question should comment on such meetings. If such an event is coordinated and goes ahead, we hope it will be held in a positive atmosphere and will produce good results. We believe that this is what is needed to resolve the current problems, including in relations between these two countries.



Question:

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, who has recently visited Baku, said the following about the Nagorno-Karabakh problem: “Let us do all we can in this sphere and proceed from the assumption that those who try to sour relations have chosen the path which aggravates the situation. In this context, Azerbaijan has always held a correct and constructive stand. We hope that it will continue to do so.” How would you sum up Mr Volodin’s words about the “correct and constructive” stand of Azerbaijan in light of repeated threats to use military force to solve the problem made at all levels of power in the country? Does Mr Volodin’s statement imply that Armenia does not have a constructive position on the settlement, unlike Azerbaijan?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to once again urge our colleagues from the Azerbaijani and Armenian media outlets to act constructively. We are aware of the increased attention given to each word uttered on this matter concerning Nagorno-Karabakh or either of the states involved. But I would like to say once again that the main thing is to act constructively when trying to deal with this problem, so as not to provoke the other side or fuel tension where one must act wisely to attain the main goal, which is to settle all affairs on the agenda. You know that I am saying this to all journalists regardless of which media outlet or country they represent.

You also know about our traditional attitude to relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Our official position is fundamental and has not changed. We are working with both sides towards an acceptable result. We do not draw parallels between our role with the roles played by Baku or Yerevan, but this subject is really among our international priorities. A settlement based on binding agreements, coordinated positions as well as mutual respect between the sides would be definitely in our interests. Russia’s basic approach to this matter has not changed.

It appears that politicians, various MPs, historians and journalists have made a great deal of statements on this topic. You know about our official position. I recommend that you always ask the speakers to explain what exactly they meant. In this particular case, I don’t think we should check the quotation to see if it was really what the speaker actually said. We really believe that the rhetoric of confrontation can only add fuel to confrontation. Of course, all parties made statements that have not complemented to an effective settlement of this problem. It would be useless to count them. The main goal in this respect is to prevent such non-constructive statements from interfering with the movement towards the common goal. Various representatives have made such statements in various formats. Unfortunately, many of them have been misquoted or quoted out of context, and then these misquotations are reposted.

In this context and using this example, as well as taking into account the discussions we had in this room a week or two ago, I would like to say once again that it is best to rely on the official views. You know about them, and you know that Russia’s position on this matter remains unchanged. Let us be more accurate with quotations, and let us not try to complicate a situation that is already complicated as it is. I do urge you, as strongly as I can, to act constructively.



Question:

What do you think about US Secretary of State’s trip to Latin America during which he called for boycotting all actions undertaken by the governments of Venezuela and Nicaragua?



Maria Zakharova:

There would have been nothing unusual about these statements made by US officials had they been made five or seven years ago. I think that Latin American leaders have grown used to such statements made by the US. Situations or countries may change, but Washington has always had this attitude toward the region.

This time is special however, given the ongoing debate taking place in the United States concerning interference in sovereign affairs. As far as we can see from the statements made by US politicians and the media who reflect what people think, the theoretical prospect of one sovereign country interfering in the affairs of another country is a very sensitive matter for the US. It is unclear though how these statements relate to one another. If the US opposes interference, why would it call for a boycott against Venezuela and Nicaragua? This would constitute an interference in the sovereign affairs of Venezuela and Nicaragua, and the entire Latin American region. Latin American countries have not vested the Department of State or the White House or any other US agencies with such authority.

Let me reiterate that the question remains the same. You either cannot interfere in the life of other countries and regions, in which case you need to respect the processes taking place there, even if you dislike the leadership of these countries or their political views, or you can interfere. I think that Washington must choose. After all, we have been hearing at all levels for several years now that any interference in domestic affairs is unacceptable, while watching the US treat Latin America in such a heavy handed manner, using all the available means and possibilities precisely to interfere in domestic affairs. This does not make any sense, of course. A choice has to be made.



Question:

Russian journalists were prevented from attending an OSCE conference on the freedom of expression in Kiev. Could you comment on this incident?



Maria Zakharova:

We knew in advance that Ukraine was to host an OSCE-sponsored conference on “Strengthening media freedom and pluralism in Ukraine during times of conflict in and around the country.” Foreign Ministry experts who work on this topic immediately expressed their interest in attending the event. I do not recall mentioning this before, but it was clear the OSCE did not seek to make this conference truly inclusive or to engage all the interested parties in a constructive dialogue. Russia was interested in taking part in the conversation, which is quite understandable, since we knew all too well that otherwise the event will turn into yet another Russophobic gathering that will ignite passions within Ukraine. Seeking to steer the event towards constructive dialogue, the Foreign Ministry decided to send the head of the Information and Press Department to the event. A number of media outlets also expressed interest in attending, communicating directly with the OSCE. We transmitted all this information by diplomatic channels in due form.

Let me clarify your question. You referred to Russian journalists. This may have the same meaning in English or Spanish, but takes on a different sense when said in Russian. We are talking here about Russian journalists, but not all of them are Russian nationals. For example, Yevgeny Primakov is a Russian citizen, while the RT journalist has a British passport. These journalists from RT and VGTRK were detained at the Kiev airport when the conference was about to open for some kind of interrogation, after which they were told to leave the country. It was even said that they would be prevented from entering the country for five years. All this took several hours. Really absurd things were written, alleging that these people were a security threat for Ukraine and interfered in domestic affairs, although it remains unclear in what way. There were even rumours that this was a provocation engineered by Russia, since these journalists had visited Crimea and had no doubt that they would be prevented from entering Ukraine, but came nonetheless. I instantly contacted Yevgeny Primakov and asked whether he had visited Crimea, and he told me that he had not, so Ukrainian officials should have had no reservations in this regard. He also told me that he made sure he was not subject to any entry bans before setting off for Kiev. This ban came into being upon his arrival to Ukraine. And all this was taking place against the backdrop of a debate on media freedoms in central Kiev.

This is absurd! But this absurdity unfortunately dominates today’s Ukraine, and the OSCE contributes to this, to our deepest regret. This is all there is to say about this. We will not forget this. The Foreign Ministry will send letters to the OSCE describing in every detail what Russian journalists faced, and how the host country neglected OSCE standards and failed to provide for the attendance by all participants.

The most horrible part was the debate that unfolded in the Ukrainian media and media community with some would-be journalists saying that Russian journalists should have been arrested in order to exchange them for someone later. These proposals came from people who pretended to be journalists on the very day that Kiev hosted an OSCE conference on media freedom. This is completely insane. And the worst thing is that there is nothing OSCE representatives could do, which showed their helplessness, weakness and dysfunction.



Question:

Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevicius said at a meeting with his European counterparts in Luxembourg that the Russian Federation is the main source of a hybrid threat for the European Union. He suggested drafting an entire plan.



Maria Zakharova:

As I see it, only people with a hybrid mentality can say this. There is nothing else to add here. Indeed, this is already some kind of a meme. When they say that the main hybrid threat emanates from the Russian Federation, these people don’t understand that they are starting to spread a meme. This already sounds silly and strange. This is all I can say about this.



Question:

Do Russian television channels operating in the three Baltic states, including Lithuania, face any risks?



Maria Zakharova:

Unfortunately, we have been observing this trend for quite some time. This is not a new phenomenon, this took place long before the current situation emerged. By the way, when they start talking about this alleged hybrid threat, and that the situation in Ukraine and the events of 2013−2014 served as a “watershed,” I can say that this is absolutely not true.

Regarding the three Baltic states, all this took place in the context of the situation around the Russian language in these countries. Ten years ago, they started encroaching on the Russian language and depriving Russian-speaking people of their rights. This had nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine. Everything proceeded its own way, and we repeatedly discussed this. This included discrimination against Russian language media outlets and Russian-language schools. These discussions have been dragging on for decades. Excuse me, but what can you say about the non-citizens and the concept of statelessness? Is this any better? Doesn’t this amount to what is happening to media outlets, that is, an absolutely discriminatory approach towards various groups allegedly conveying certain dissent, and, mind you, not in favour of some third party? They simply have their own viewpoint and their own history that they want to develop.

I believe this issue should be examined in its entirety. This matter did not emerge only now, and certainly it did not emerge in 2013−2014, as everyone hints while making all these statements about a hybrid threat. All this began long ago and later spread to citizens. And now, this process has started openly affecting media outlets as well as journalists.



Question:

Do you expect any breakthrough at the upcoming summit when President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump are due to have a meeting? Some US media outlets, including CNBC television channel, claim that the US side will suggest that Russia help to put pressure on Iran in exchange for mitigating sanctions.

Do you know the agenda of the meeting between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov? Will they touch upon important topics such as the problem of Palestine and missile attacks on the Gaza Strip, which are often ignored by media?



Maria Zakharova:

As you know, we don’t comment on summits because our functional duties are divided. This is within the remit of the Presidential Executive Office.

I advise everyone not to use such terms as “landmark meetings,” “breakthroughs,” etc. I suggest treating these meetings in a pragmatic and realistic manner. Russian-US relations are long ripe for holding a number of meetings at various levels, as required by the bilateral agenda. First of all, I want to note that the bilateral agenda implies the interests of both countries’ citizens. Very many problems have accumulated, and we discuss them all the time. Therefore we need to build upon our relations in a realistic manner, while taking note of the agenda’s items. We discuss them on a regular basis.

We still have no specific information about the Pompeo-Lavrov meeting because this event is currently being discussed. We will share any specific date or format, as soon as we get this information. This meeting’s agenda is quite impressive, including bilateral matters with all their problems, international affairs, Syria, the entire range subject to do with the Middle East and North Africa and the current state of the Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement that we are, unfortunately, witnessing. Other regional topics include the situation in Ukraine, international terrorism and many other issues that are usually discussed in such formats. I am not announcing these items, but I would like to stress that we discuss all these matters with our American colleagues, one way or another, in various formats. The sides might touch upon these subjects, if this meeting takes place.



Question:

US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells has said recently that Washington expects Moscow to increase its support to Kabul. What do you make of this statement?

Was the issue of Russian-US cooperation in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan discussed during the recent visit of US National Security Adviser John Bolton to Moscow?



Maria Zakharova:

Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov commented in detail on the second question yesterday.

As for your first question, what cooperation do you have in mind?



Question:

US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells said that Washington expects Moscow to increase its support to Kabul.



Maria Zakharova:

Moscow should increase its support to Kabul? We can take decisions on relations between Russia and Afghanistan at our discretion. We are grateful to our American colleagues for making comments, but Russia’s statements and actions regarding Afghanistan indicate our desire to promote bilateral relations and settle regional issues, such as the fight against terrorism, cooperation at international organisations, and much more.



Question:

US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Aaron Wess Mitchell said on June 26 that the United States was considering increasing the budget for military deliveries to Ukraine and Georgia. Allow me to quote him: “We are building up the means of self-defence for frontier states most directly threatened by Russia militarily: Ukraine and Georgia.” Can this statement and confrontational rhetoric be seen as a provocation and interference in the internal affairs of two sovereign states? Does this statement infringe on the principles and international standards of human rights, considering that Kiev does not honour the (agreed conditions of the) ceasefire in some areas? What other reasons can there be for weapons deliveries?



Maria Zakharova:

It is a question we have asked repeatedly. Why send weapons, if everyone, including in the United States, Ukraine and Canada, appears to stand for peace and compliance with the Minsk Agreements? The Minsk Agreements clearly stipulate quite different steps that have to be taken by each of the signatory parties. Regrettably, we see, on the one hand, that Kiev is not implementing its commitments under the Minsk Agreements, and that it has been acting in total disregard of them for years, and, on the other hand, weapons deliveries and statements and decisions to this effect taken in Western countries. I think you can see how this creates an atmosphere of support for the militant rhetoric we hear in Ukraine, which, regrettably, has long moved from mere words to active military operations.

The worst part is that support has been promised to the segment of the Ukrainian political establishment that called for the use of military force and an increase in pressure, saying that the Minsk Agreements were expendable. I would like to remind you that this segment of the political establishment almost denounced President Poroshenko as a traitor for signing the Minsk Agreements.

All this is serving the interests of and playing into the hands of those in the Ukrainian political establishment who uphold the nationalist ideology, and the president relies on these people. All this is being done to support these sentiments. We can see what this has led to. The world, including countries far away from Ukraine, is looking at the situation with a sinking heart. Many people have invested political capital there, including Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, who was personally involved in the drafting and contributed her ideas to these agreements. These people have invested their political capital in them. But their efforts have been brought to naught by Kiev’s neglect of its commitments, neglect which some Western politicians and officials support, as well as by weapons deliveries, which is evidence of backing for military solutions.

Taken together, all these actions could lead to catastrophe, because they hinder the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, a practical and effective plan which was complied with for some time and which could be implemented. The international community has confirmed more than once and at different levels that this package remains topical and that there is no alternative to it. It can be implemented to the benefit of Ukraine and Ukrainian people, and them alone. But the recent actions are undermining the provisions of this package and the efforts of the international community to prepare and implement it by influencing, one way or another, the party that has pledged to honour its obligations.



Question:

EU leaders begin their talks in Brussels in just a few hours, and among other things, they will be considering whether to renew sanctions against Russia. This will be a regular meeting, held every six months, but this time Italy is expected to call for an easing of sanctions. I know that the Russian Foreign Ministry prefers not to engage in any dialogue on the lifting of sanctions with European countries, claiming that sanctions are illegal and groundless. Could it be that the time has come to launch this dialogue if Europe seems to be “waking up”?



Maria Zakharova:

And what would be the starting point of this dialogue? Did anyone engage in dialogue with Russia when introducing sanctions? It was a decision made by European Union countries under pressure from the United States. By the way, this may make you smile, but I recently travelled to France where I met with local experts on international relations and representatives of the Young Socialists movement. Many did not have the slightest idea that this was not a sovereign decision by France, in its national interests. They were not even aware of the pressure coming from Washington and Brussels. They were convinced that it was France’s sovereign decision. When I provided facts, it opened their eyes. How can we start a dialogue on an issue that was decided without any dialogue? After all, only they could make this decision. How can this be discussed?

Today we received a letter from a French farmer who shared his story of how government policy was not only damaging for his business, but threatened its survival. He described all this in detail and sent this message to us, saying that he understood our position, but could not agree with that of France.

This is a real letter, and I can show it to you. You think people over there do not understand this? I believe that the authorities should speak with their own people. We proceed from the premise that heads of state act in the interests of their people, while people over there send us letters saying that these actions put them on the brink of ruin. They do not even complain. I do not know why this letter was written, maybe it was simply a heart-felt emotional appeal.



Question:

Have you forwarded this letter to the French Foreign Ministry?



Maria Zakharova:

I think that the author could do it, if he wanted to. This is just one letter among a huge number of comments, letters and articles on this topic.

During one of the conversations I had in Paris, I told one woman that they understood all too well that this decision was first and foremost at odds with their own interests. She recognised this, but said that France could not fail to respond to a “violation of international law by Russia.” I suggested that we avoid digging too much into history, and asked a question: if according to their logic Russia violated international law and faced sanctions for that, when will the US face sanctions, for example, for Iraq? Or when there will be sanctions against a number of countries involved in Yemen or against France for what happened in Libya? This startled her.

This is absurd logic. How could a dialogue be possible? If you tell them that sanctions are bad for them, they know it already, but if you say that they are being pressured, it hurts their feelings. This is what I was told. Truth can be unpleasant at times. They know everything, and this is their decision. They were the ones who decided to impose sanctions, so it is up to them to think where it has led.

The Russian Federation was not the one who developed this concept, but seeing what was happening Russia decided to benefit from the situation. You know this too.



Question:

Several days ago, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe stated that June 30 is the deadline for Russia to make its contribution to the CoE budget. Have there been any changes in Russia’s stance since only two days are left?



Maria Zakharova:

You know, there’s a popular saying, he who orders the music pays for it. We didn’t order any music, so what should we pay for? When there’s music, there will be money. This is a figure of speech. However, to be more specific, they are adult people. Did they not realise and still do not realise that unless Russia is reinstated as a full-fledged member of this organisation based on the corresponding documents and charters that they themselves had developed, nothing will happen? It was obvious, and was repeatedly mentioned. What kind of statements can be made now? What kind of ultimatums can be advanced?



Question:

Another football-related question, if you don’t mind. I’m sure you’ve been to Nikolskaya Street?



Maria Zakharova:

No, I haven’t. First, I was away on vacation during the first weeks of the championship. Then, there was much work to do, including related to the World Cup. I was in Samara, though, strolled down its streets and the embankment and saw vast numbers of fans (I posted photos on my page). I was stunned by what I saw there: the fans, the city that is completely ready for the event, and the central square given entirely to the fans. There were stages, cafes and first aid stations, one of which I was taken to for a tour. They told me stories related to providing medical assistance to foreign fans. However, what I liked most was the embankment. The sight was spectacular: the deep blue colour of the Volga River, bright sand and beautiful beaches. I was particularly struck by special amenities for people with disabilities at the wheelchair-friendly beaches.

All of that was not built just for the World Cup, but it was the championship that made it possible to use these amenities in full measure, since all kinds of people come to the city, including people with disabilities. We walked around the city. The atmosphere was fantastic. I also have things to share with you. After I go to Nikolskaya Street, I'll tell you about my impressions, but the holiday spirit can be felt everywhere. There’s no need to go to any particular street.



Question:

Many issues were discussed during a recent visit by State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin to Baku, including Azerbaijan’s focus on the Russian language. Mr Volodin thanked the Azerbaijani leaders for the respect shown to the Russian language at the state level. He pointed out that no other country has so many Russian-speaking schools. What role, do you think, does the attitude of Russia’s neighbours to the Russian language play in maintaining constructive relations between Russia and them?



Maria Zakharova:

The attitude to the Russian language and the opportunities of the native Russian speakers, who used to live in one big country, the Soviet Union, and later found themselves nationals of sovereign countries, represents an important factor for Russia. The Russian leadership said so many times, and a number of specialised organisations, such as the Foreign Ministry, Federal Agency for the CIS, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Cultural Cooperation, and other federal ministries and departments, engage in these matters. This is very important to us. We all remember well (well, unfortunately, not everyone, not perfectly and some don’t remember at all) the outcome of the referendum which decided the fate of the Soviet Union. Back then, the people argued in favour of keeping the union intact. However, life took a different turn. Not of their own will but contrary to it, people ended up living in different countries, but they accepted these states and began to work for their benefit. From the point of view of the people who lived at the turn of the century, it is normal to support people in their love and respect for their own culture and roots. At least, that is the foundation for Russia’s domestic and foreign policy which it is carrying out at international organisations specialising in these matters. For us, this is an important issue.

We acknowledge the achievements of other countries on every occasion. Of course, Azerbaijan respects the rights of its Russian-speaking population. This coin has the reverse side, which is absolutely not the opposite. On the contrary, the thing is (let me express my personal viewpoint here) that this is good for the countries. The more languages the people speak, the more opportunities they have to self-actualise, especially when it comes to neighbouring states. After all, this is good for the countries that allow people to learn a foreign language, speak it, and use it in their work. This opens up great opportunities for financial, economic and cultural activities, such as to find work, to expand ties, etc. This process allows countries to enrich their population and the people who speak several languages, all the more so when the issue is about a neighbouring state which provides broad opportunities for cooperation and joint projects.



Question:

US National Security Advisor John Bolton is known here as a rampant Russophobe, a supporter of the unipolar world...



Maria Zakharova:

Here where? Known to you?



Question:

No.



Maria Zakharova:

Then why are you saying things you know nothing about? Pardon me, but if you are saying that he is “known here,” then specify where and to whom. Have you read anything written by John Bolton? Go ahead and read. I really liked his book Surrender is Not an Option. It’s an interesting read. Why even ask a question, if you are just reading it off a piece of paper and have no idea what you're talking about?

The meeting was constructive and laid the grounds for future contacts. It was dedicated to a dialogue on bilateral relations. It should be evaluated based on these premises.



Question:

Important presidential elections were held in Turkey, after which the country is about to change its structure and become a presidential republic. What kind of relations with the new presidential Turkey led by Erdogan should Russia expect?



Maria Zakharova:

We are building respectful and mutually beneficial relations with the new Turkey led by Erdogan based on the principles that are enshrined in bilateral documents.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3280395
__________________
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 July 6th, 2018 #452
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Ambassador-at-Large Sergey Gubarev’s remarks at Working session I “Conflict and crisis situations in the OSCE area: building security and confidence” of the OSCE Annual Security Review Conference, Vienna, June 26, 2018



29 June 2018 - 12:38




Colleagues,

Mr Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to share with the participants in this high-profile forum Russia’s view on the current state of the Transnistrian Settlement Process.

In 2016, OSCE Special Representative of the German Chairperson-in-Office for the Transnistrian Settlement Process, Cord Meier-Klodt, famously said that the situation in Transnistria could be referred to as a “frozen settlement” rather than a “frozen conflict.” I took note of this phrase and use it quite often, always crediting the German diplomat for coining it.

That being said, it seems that over the past year the settlement process itself has gradually started to unfreeze.

Late in 2017, we were all encouraged by what seemed to be a clear sign of a new stage in the relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol. Following more than 30 meetings between Moldovan and Transnistrian working groups, four cooperation agreements were signed in November 2017 with a view to addressing social matters faced by people on both sides of the Dniestr. It was then that car traffic opened on the bridge linking Moldova’s Gura Bîcului and Transnistria’s Bacioc, which is highly symbolic.

On April 24, 2018, the two sides reached an agreement on a very complex matter by creating a mechanism that would enable non-commercial vehicles from Transnistria to use international motorways.

On May 29 and 30, Rome hosted 5+2 talks during which the sides, the mediators and observers engaged in a frank as well as meaningful review of performance under the agreements.

The participants noted that the agreements between the sides were implemented to a certain extent, and outlined further steps in this direction. For instance, a roadmap on implementing the cooperation agreement on telecommunications is expected to be finalised by the end of June, although there are still some conceptual contradictions related to the distribution of frequencies within the cellular spectre. Transnistria also confirmed its commitment to finding a solution regarding the use of land in the Dubăsari District by August 1, 2018, while Chisinau and Tiraspol undertook to create the infrastructure and train personnel for issuing neutral licence plates for private cars effective as of September 1, 2018, in Rîbnița and Bender.

All in all, Chisinau and Tiraspol reaffirmed their commitment to performing their obligations within the agreed timeline.

Unfortunately, no progress has been reported towards resolving the problem of politically motivated criminal cases which Chisinau has initiated against a considerable number of Transnistrian officials. Despite the goodwill gestures made by Transnistria, Chisinau appears unwilling to abandon this method of pressuring Tiraspol. This approach does not comply with the letter and spirit of the negotiating process.

The meeting in Rome has confirmed the dire need to create a mechanism for incorporating the agreements reached within the 5+2 format into the national legislation. It is the only practical way to settle the problems existing between the two sides. In addition to the Russian initiative on this issue, which was submitted to the participants of the Berlin meeting in 2016, the Transnistrian side has presented its vision of the required mechanism. We believe it is time to proceed to reasoned discussions on this issue. We are convinced that this mechanism will enhance the implementation of mutual obligations by Chisinau and Tiraspol by making them irreversible and sustainable.

The 5+2 meeting in Rome has shown once again that even serious differences between Chisinau and Tiraspol can be settled. In light of this, we believe that the 5+2 format can be used not only to monitor the implementation of agreements, but also to analyse the possibilities of the continued movement towards a settlement. The collective reason of this international negotiating mechanism has proved its effectiveness more than once. We insist that the negotiating process must proceed uninterrupted. The documents regulating negotiations stipulate holding five or six official meetings every year. We must strive to keep to this schedule. We also hope that contacts will be revitalised within the framework of the Bavaria Conference, a platform that has worked effectively before and has contributed to building confidence between the sides.

Nobody disputes the premise that only a compromise reached by peaceful means at the negotiating table can resolve the Transnistrian issue. This suggests the need to conduct a persevering search for a solution whereby the sides will give up their all-or-nothing demands and expectations in favour of a viable model for further co-existence that will be approved by the people of both Moldova and Transnistria. At this point, the main goal is to take small steps and establish cooperation between the two banks of the Dniester by resolving specific issues and creating an atmosphere of trust.

The provocative Chisinau-proposed draft of the UN General Assembly resolution on “the complete and unconditional withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territory of the Republic of Moldova” is counterproductive against this background. We see it as a blow to the positive aspects of the negotiating process, which complicates the already difficult situation in the region.

The Russian Federation is disappointed not only by this step but also by the fact that a number of countries deemed it possible to join this dangerous and odious initiative as co-sponsors.

Not that many years have elapsed since the tragic events of 1992 and it is all the more surprising that today’s politicians have already forgotten that it was only the timely intervention of Russian troops that stopped the bloodshed on the Dniester and created conditions for launching the process of a peaceful settlement.

I would like to emphasise that Transnistria is the only region in Eastern Europe, where hostilities did not resume after the introduction of Russian troops and where they are a guarantor of peace and stability.

Chisinau’s initiative may compromise the fragile progress that has emerged in the Transnistrian settlement in the past few months.

Indicatively, the leaders of the Republic of Moldova do not have a consensus on this resolution, as it follows from the Moldovan President’s special statement of June 19, 2018. This step is an overtly PR tactic by some politicians in Chisinau on the eve of the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

We hope that not only Moldovan politicians but also the entire international community will have a responsible approach to any actions on the track of frozen conflicts like this one that has lasted for over a quarter century on the Dniester. We hope they will support the creative rather than destructive efforts of those that are interested in a fair and viable political settlement of the Transnistrian issue.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3282025






Opening Remarks by Ambassador Anatoly Antonov at the NPT Depositary Conference on the 50th anniversary of the Treaty, Washington, June 28, 2018



29 June 2018 - 14:18




Ladies and gentlemen!

On July 1st we celebrate the golden jubilee of the opening for signature of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT).

Over these years the Treaty has proven its importance as the core element of global and regional stability and security, providing a reliable barrier against nuclear proliferation on the planet. Apart from its non-proliferation task, the NPT is a unique instrument that promotes nuclear disarmament, as well as international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The golden jubilee of the NPT is a great occasion to turn back to history. Our country stood at the foundation of the Treaty and was actively involved in drafting it. The conclusion of the Treaty was made possible as the world powers came to realize the fact that a nuclear war could lead to catastrophic consequences for all humanity, and it was crucial to develop a reliable barrier against future proliferation of nuclear weapons. The negotiations were difficult, but a compromise was reached. An adjusted balance of interests, which was the essence of the NPT, became an assurance of its effective implementation lasting fifty years, and it remains a safeguard of stable functioning of the Treaty in the future.

The NPT was initially signed for 25 years. Such deal was struck at the insistence of a number of countries, which back then did not wish to abandon the right to possess nuclear weapons forever. The decision on indefinite extension of the Treaty, made during the 1995 Review Conference, was tough to make, as it was an outcome of a whole series of compromises achieved between different groups of countries.

As a result, the joint work on nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy gained additional momentum. Predictability and stability of the NPT functioning was sealed, as it gained additional protection from the sways of political pendulum. Moreover, broad horizons were opened for future strengthening of the Treaty.

According to expert estimates, if it was not for the NPT, up to fifty countries might have eventually acquired nuclear weapons by now. Effective functioning of the non-proliferation regime is one of the primary tasks for reaching the common objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons as set forth in the NPT.

According to Article III of the Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system is the key element for providing assurances of the fulfillment of the NPT obligations by non-nuclear-weapon States. It is an important premise for cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, consolidating trust between states.

Today the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the only international organization that possesses a unique technical expertise in verifying the fulfillment of the States obligations under the NPT. It is necessary to further consistently strengthen the IAEA control mechanism, to rely on the Agency’s authority and technical competence in issues of implementing its safeguards. In this task it is important to increase the number of states that signed the Additional Protocol to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, the process of which remains strictly voluntary for every State Party to the NPT, as well as future development of these instruments into a standard for verification of obligations fulfillment under the Treaty.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Russia consistently stands for broad access of the NPT States to the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This issue requires a balance between peaceful uses of nuclear energy, strengthening of nuclear non-proliferation regime and the IAEA safeguards system.

The Russian Federation supplies nuclear power equipment, nuclear or other materials. We help our partners develop their entire nuclear industries that involve science, nuclear and related physical safety, as well as personnel training programs. We attach significant importance to international projects.

I would like to confirm that Russia further intends to build nuclear power plants - the most modern and most failsafe in terms of security. For example, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation - Rosatom Worldwide - is currently pursuing projects of constructing thirty-three nuclear power generating units abroad.

Russia is firmly committed to a close cooperation with the NPT State Parties in creating a genuinely modern system of cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Therefore, our country contributes to practical implementation of Article IV of the NPT.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Over half a century an unprecedented progress has been achieved in nuclear disarmament. Statements that efforts in this area are insufficient or even lagging have nothing to do with reality. In accordance with bilateral agreements with the U.S. and unilaterally Russia has made a significant contribution to nuclear disarmament through reducing its nuclear arsenal by 85 percent. We have also cut the number of non-strategic nuclear weapons by 75 percent and moved them into the non-deployed category, keeping them at the central storage facilities within the national borders.

Russia will continue to pursue the goal of achieving general and complete nuclear disarmament - we have been confirming this statement at the highest level. We are confident, that future progress in nuclear disarmament can be possible only if all interested parties make necessary efforts to it. The only plausible scenario seems to rely on a balanced step-by-step approach based on a consensus, which would imply a gradual creation of appropriate conditions to further nuclear disarmament efforts. It is important that the steps in this area would promote strengthening of international stability and security, that they would be based on the principle of enhanced security for all.

Attempts to achieve this goal without involving nuclear states and in defiance of their lawful security interests may throw the current U.N. disarmament mechanisms off balance and weaken the NPT regime.

Ladies and gentlemen!

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) plays an exceptionally important role in the efforts to limit and reduce nuclear weapons, a treaty that was designed to create a firm barrier against proliferation and qualitative improvements of nuclear weapons. Since the CTBT was opened for signature, the world has been patiently waiting for it to come into force for over 20 years now. From this rostrum we would like to call upon the countries, primarily upon those on which the entry into force of the Treaty depends, to sign and/or ratify the CTBT without delay. Therefore, these counties will make an important contribution to strengthening the NPT regime.

We can confirm the importance and relevance of establishing a Middle East WMD-free zone (WMDFZ). This issue will obviously become one of the main highlights at the 2020 Review Conference. Russia, as a co-author of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, is committed to unconditional fulfillment of its obligation under the Resolution and stands ready to work will all parties interested in convening a Conference on the WMDFZ.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Despite its considerable age and constant stress-tests, the NPT has not lost its ability to adequately respond to modern challenges and threats to nuclear non-proliferation. Even today it fully corresponds to the tasks of the days it was signed. Even the toughest non-proliferation problems can and must be solved while relying precisely on the NPT and with strict adherence to the norms of international law and consideration of lawful security and development interests of all states.

We consider the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on resolving the situation around Iran’s nuclear program to be an example of such decision. Today, however, the JCPOA struggles through a difficult situation. The future of the Plan of Action raises our concerns. We call upon all states to clearly and unambiguously fulfill their commitments under the document. It is especially important to us that the JCPOA, despite current turbulence, continues to function. We believe that the measures stipulated by the JCPOA, including verification and control, as well as mechanisms of information exchange, are unprecedented and give reliable assurance that Iran uses its nuclear program for peaceful purposes only.

We welcome the establishment of the U.S-North Korea and Inter-Korean dialogue, as well as the agreements reached on resolving tensions of the Korean Peninsula, including the nuclear issue. These positive developments go within the course of the Russian-Chinese “roadmap”, developed over a year ago, that stipulates a multi-format approach to conflict resolution, phased and synchronized actions of the parties involved. With that, we stick to our understanding that the situation requires a common lessening of military and political tensions, as well as readiness of all countries to jointly seek ways to resolve current issues using only political and diplomatic measures.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The current state of affairs in non-proliferation and disarmament insistently requires a common search for ways to overcome emerging differences while taking delicate care of the NPT, which has proven its effectiveness.

The NPT 2020 Review Conference provides a unique opportunity to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and fulfill the NPT goals in all its three pillars - disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

As we see it, the main goal of the preparatory process is for the global community to consolidate its efforts in order to provide effectiveness and stable functioning of the NPT regime, its further strengthening and universalization.

Ladies and gentlemen!

In my brief speech I have not covered a series of urgent tasks to consolidate the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Among them - universalization of the NPT, full implementation of current agreements on establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, provision to the non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty of legally binding security assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, etc. These are important and priority issues, and we stand ready with other states to look for mutually acceptable solutions.

I would like to emphasize that it would be difficult to create premises for further nuclear disarmament without adequate responses of the global community to new non-proliferation challenges and search for ways to tackle hardened issues (dating way back to the creation of the NPT).

The question “Which is more important: disarmament or non-proliferation?” - remains open. Each group of countries has a different answer. Although, in any case, if we wish to create favorable conditions for further nuclear disarmament, we have to take a serious approach to specific tasks of strengthening nuclear non-proliferation.

Ladies and gentlemen!

The NPT regime is our common asset. This treaty makes the world more stable, secure and predictable. That is why its preservation and strengthening is of our mutual benefit. The future of the NPT is a collective responsibility of all its State Parties. We call to find common grounds in our approaches to different issues of the NPT’s functioning, while avoiding political bias towards the document, as well as any “radical” initiatives that may “undermine” the Treaty.

Russia stands ready for a candid, open, equal and mutually respectful work with everyone who has honest interest in further sustained functioning and strengthening of the NPT.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3282222






Remarks by Head of the Russian delegation Georgy Kalamanov during the 4th Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), The Hague, June 26-28, 2018



29 June 2018 - 18:40




Mr Chairman,

Mr Director General, delegates,

Russia consistently speaks out against the use of chemical weapons by anyone anywhere and under any circumstances. Our country’s overall commitment to the aims and tasks of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is affirmed by the early conclusion of the national programme to eliminate our chemical arsenals in 2017, three years ahead of schedule.

As regards the agenda of the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the presented documents, we deem it necessary to say the following.

We have always supported unbiased and independent investigations of incidents involving the use of chemical weapons. Russia was one of the originators of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism for Syria (JIM), created on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2235. In 2016, we voted to prolong its mandate (UNSC Resolution 2319).

During the mechanism’s operation, fundamental flaws were detected in its work. Investigations were held remotely, without visiting locations where incidents took place; basic norms of the Chemical Weapons Convention on collecting and preserving physical evidence were ignored; tendentious information presented by the opposition was taken at face value; the information from the Syrian authorities was not taken into account. As a result, we doubted the accuracy and impartiality of its conclusions and did not consent to extend the mechanism’s mandate.

Thus, the issue of reforming the Joint Investigative Mechanism needed to be addressed in real earnest. However, the joint Bolivian-Russian-Chinese draft resolution that we proposed at the UNSC, which aimed to prolong the mechanism’s mandate and raise its work to the high standards of the CWC, was blocked by our western partners, including UNSC permanent members. Therefore, it is them who bear full responsibility for this mechanism no longer existing.

We cannot comprehend the attempts being made to vest the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which has a solely technical nature, with totally alien attributive functions, in circumvention of the UN Security Council and without introducing amendments to the Chemical Weapons Convention, as stipulated in its Article XV. In fact, this is about making the OPCW, which is designed to provide technical assistance to the State Parties in fulfilling the convention’s requirements, into a quasi-prosecutor, police and forensic structure.

Mr Chairman,

We would like to discuss separately item 12 of the British draft that deals with the Salisbury incident or the Skripal case. This incident was too cynically inspired by London against Russia, actively supported by the West and enthusiastically brought to the absurd by virtue of Atlantic solidarity. According to item 12 of the draft in the British interpretation, the materials of a report by the group on the technical assistance visit (No. TAV/02/18 оf 12.04.2018) confirm (provide an evidence base for) the conclusions based on the results of Britain’s domestic inquiry.

However, the operating instructions (VER/ODV/79356/18 of March 16, 2018) endorsed by the Director-General of the Technical Secretariat have not been carried out in full. In this connection, the submitted results cannot confirm the report’s conclusion on the use of a nerve gas because they do not contain specific information on the level of acetyl cholinesterase from the moment of hospitalisation, the clinical picture, or medical treatment, especially as regards the prescribed doses of antidotes, such as oximes.

The victims’ transition from a lengthy unconscious serious condition to active consciousness and apperception within a short period of time does not correspond to the damage done by anticholinesterase chemical agents. Even if the victim survives by taking modern antidotes, he or she would need long-term treatment from the consequences of the intoxicants.

During “the technical assistance” visit, experts were oriented by Britain to identify and confirm that the victims were intoxicated by the only toxic chemical with the structure suggested by Britain in advance. In this context “the technical assistance mission” carried out in full a request of British Prime Minister Theresa May (document EC-87/NAT.7 of 14.03.2018) to confirm the results of the analysis made by Britain.

However, in accordance with the provision of item 38 of CWC Article VIII, confirmation of the results of the analysis conducted by a State Party does not amount to technical assistance.

Toxic chemicals in the Novichok family are the prerogative of Western countries (as is described in the national document of the Russian Federation of April 18, 2018 EC-M-59/NAT.4; reference to https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/...59nat04_e_.pdf).

The CWC States Parties have never committed themselves to the use of the OPCW as an instrument of attributing responsibility for violations – neither when they joined it, nor later when they ratified it.

It is also obvious that such changes are impossible without substantial amendments to the CWC. Such plans can be carried out only under a CWC procedure – the convocation of a special CSP session on amendments. The attempts to adopt this decision in this regular special CSP session are simply illegitimate.

This is an obvious attempt to distort the OPCW mandate and undermine its legal foundations. This is a destructive approach that we resolutely reject. Apart from international courts, the UN Security Council is the only international body that can decide who is guilty and how to bring it to task when it comes to UN member-states.

Therefore, the British-proposed CSP draft attacks the exclusive prerogatives of the UN Security Council and leads to the undermining of the OPCW authority and the integrity of the CWC. We suggest seriously considering the prospect that awaits us if such resolutions are carried out, and realise responsibility for the future of the OPCW and the CWC in this moment of truth.

There is a threat that this may cause the failure of the global non-proliferation regime or even the downfall of the entire international security system that was established after WWII, which is based on the central role of the UN and its Security Council in international affairs. Such a course is fraught with unpredictable consequences, especially now that new generations of nuclear missile weapons have been developed. People of good intent should unite in order to block these adventurist plans.

Instead of proposing destructive initiatives, we suggest to our partners working to consolidate the OPCW potential in a bid to counter the chemical threat, conduct fully valid inquiries into any suspected use of chemical weapons and prevent such incidents. It is primarily important to strictly observe all rules in identifying chemical attack incidents. Regrettably, the fundamental method of collecting and preserving material evidence (chain of custody) is being used very selectively.

Mr Chairman,

The two latest reports issued by the Fact-Finding Mission (on al-Latamneh and Saraqib) are typical examples of this approach. For some reason, the main source of information for the experts was the pseudo-humanitarian organisation the White Helmets, notorious for their provocations.

In this context, we should mention the interview with Member of the British House of Lords Baroness Caroline Cox of June 21, 2018 after her trip to Syria, in which she said, and I am quoting, “I must express appreciation of the support by Russia to help get rid of ISIS and all the other Islamist religious groups from the larger part of that country’s territory. We spoke to a huge number of people in different parts of Syria and all of them were against jihadists and their atrocities. I met a woman in the Latakia province, right before whose eyes Islamists first cut off her husband’s head and then her son’s. She told me: ‘During a war people die of shells but where the gunmen are they cut off people’s heads. We do not want this.’”

I should note that Baroness Cox submitted a relevant report to her colleagues in the House of Lords, titled Voices from Syria.

The evidence base for claims that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons was formed with the help of the White Helmets’ so-called evidence. At the same time, FFM experts have never been to the places where these incidents are reported to have happened and all the samples from al-Latamneh and Saraqib were received from the White Helmets. Can we really say in this case that the investigation was conducted without bias and according to the CWC rules? In this connection, we also welcome the US Department of State decision to freeze funding for the White Helmets.

We suggest concentrating on urgent, important matters, such as building confidence in the conclusions of various field missions, first of all, the FFM. The way to do this is to bring the activities of such structures into strict compliance with the Convention’s provisions and with the Technical Secretariat’s internal regulations.

It is necessary to settle once for all that the procedure for collecting and maintaining chain of custody established by the Organisation should not be used selectively but in all investigated cases without exception. It is impermissible to ignore this principle in some situations, and in others to scrupulously cling to each comma in the governing documents.

It is important to adopt a decision so that these missions are staffed taking into account the best practices existing in other international organisations (a balanced staff of experts, including geographical representation), above all, in the UN.

We would like to remind you that in 2013, the final report at the Third Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to Review the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention proclaimed the unanimous determination of the States Parties to step up their efforts to prevent the possible malicious use of toxic chemicals by non-state actors, such as terrorists.

In this connection, the Russian delegation has repeatedly called on the States Parties for bona fide cooperation, data exchange and consultations in order to prevent incidents involving toxic chemicals, their polticisation and subsequent tensions.

We have repeatedly expressed concern over the fact that the use of chemical substances with severe toxic characteristics still remains a reality despite significant efforts by the OPCW and the enormous contribution of all its member states in terms of complying with their CWC commitments.

Russia fully supports UN General Assembly resolution 56/1 (2001) and UN Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001) regarding the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001, and has repeatedly urged the State Parties to honour their obligations under the Convention: to destroy chemical weapons, prevent their reproduction and the malicious use of chemicals and technology, and do the utmost to act in line with clauses 1 and 2 of Article VII of the Convention.

These are the problems that the Russian draft resolution of the Conference of the States Parties is supposed to address. It contains clear-cut milestones for joint efforts based on common sense and concern for the fate of the OPCW. We hope that it can be adopted as the groundwork for discussion.

We believe that the States Parties should eventually put aside their ambitions and unite for the sake of preserving the integrity of the organisation and preventing a split.

Mr Chairperson,

We ask that this statement be distributed as an official document of the Special Session of the Fourth Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on both the internal and external OPCW websites.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3282742






Remarks by Head of the Russian delegation Georgy Kalamanov on the results of voting on the British draft at the fourth special session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, The Hague, June 26-28, 2018



29 June 2018 - 18:43




The Russian Federation categorically objects to the decision made at the fourth special session of the Conference of States Parties (CSP) to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We consider unacceptable any initiatives aimed at politicising the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and deepening its split. The results of the inquiry conducted by the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism in Syria, on which the UN Security Council did not pass a resolution, were also submitted for discussion at the CSP session on a tip from the initiators of the draft. Our organisation had no right to evaluate the work of the structure that was not set up by it or subordinated to it.

Neither the CSP, nor the Executive Council, nor the Technical Secretariat has a mandate for “attributing” responsibility for CWC violations. The CSP, the main governing body, can act exclusively within the framework of its competence as specified in this international treaty. It is not possible to assign the organisation with an attributive function by making some decisions at a CSP special session. To do this it is necessary to make amendments to the CWC in line with its Article XV.

These circumstances do not allow the Russian delegation to accept as legitimate the decision to create an attributive mechanism within the OPCW.

We consider it important to consolidate rather than destroy the CWC regime. It is unacceptable to create new commitments for States Parties, which they did not undertake when signing this international treaty.

What happened today does not strengthen the CWC regime. Moreover, this leads to many deep political, legal, technical and administrative implications, thereby jeopardising its existence.

The current session of the CPS has created a very dangerous precedent for both the OPCW and the system of international law in general. Only the UN Security Council has the prerogative to take coercive measures as regards states, and attribution is one of the major elements of this competence.

The Russian Federation will meticulously analyse the consequences of the adoption of this counterproductive and unlawful decision in the OPCW, which was imposed on the session by a number of States Parties that ignored the opinion of other members of the organisation, and will take corresponding measures in this respect.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3282752






__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; July 6th, 2018 at 10:05 AM.
 
Old July 8th, 2018 #453
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with the US Senate delegation, Moscow, July 3, 2018



3 July 2018 - 13:26











Welcome, Senators, and good morning. I know that you have been in Saint Petersburg for a couple of days and met with the Governor. I hope that you did enjoy the World Cup atmosphere and I hope that this atmosphere would prevail eventually. The World Cup in Russia will be part of the very positive history, just as the World Cup in the United States, which you have decided very generously to share with Canada and Mexico, as far as I understand.

I would like to start by congratulating you on the forthcoming US Independence Day and express my real hope that your visit would symbolize the resumption of relations between the two parliaments. Parliamentarians are people, who represent the nation, being directly elected by the people in various parts of the county. They certainly reflect the mood of the nation. At the same, we know only too well that there is another way: the parliamentarians shape the mood of the nation through their authority, statements and activities. I think that the resumption of dialogue between parliamentarians is going to be a very timely event on the eve of the forthcoming meeting between the two Presidents couple of weeks from now in Helsinki.

I would be very much ready to entertain any queries, any questions that you might have, and listen to your comments on the state of our relations and on the international issues, which might be of interest.

Welcome, once again.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3286892






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



3 July 2018 - 18:51







On July 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo at the latter’s initiative.

The officials discussed preparations for the Russia-US summit scheduled for July 16 in Helsinki, prospects for the further development of bilateral relations, in part, in the area of strategic stability as well as other important international issues, including the situation in Syria and on the Korean Peninsula.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3287287






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of Jordan Ayman Safadi, Moscow, July 4, 2018



4 July 2018 - 11:45











Mr Minister,

My dear friend,

Colleagues,

Welcome to Moscow. I appreciate every opportunity I get to talk about and discuss current affairs.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your reassignment as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates after the recent government reshuffle in Jordan. The Russian Federation, like the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is committed to the continuity of our relations on the basis of the fundamental strategic agreements that have been reached between Russian President Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

We primarily agreed to discuss today the progress in the Syrian settlement, with a special emphasis on the de-escalation zone in the southwest of Syria. We note the continuation of useful contacts between our military and the military of Jordan and the United States, within the framework of the joint monitoring centre for the southern Syrian de-escalation zone established in Amman.

We highly value the role Jordan is playing as an observer in the Astana Process; the next meeting is planned for the end of this month. I also suggest discussing the situation concerning the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which is very disturbing for all of us, and several other regional matters.

We will certainly exchange assessments of the state of our bilateral ties – it is always useful to discuss them, and there are very many interesting as well as promising projects. I note that next month, we will celebrate the 55th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3287597






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Al Safadi, Moscow, July 4, 2018



4 July 2018 - 14:52











We had detailed talks on the situation in the region and the state of our bilateral relations.

We focused particularly on a Syria settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of that country.

We expressed satisfaction with very close and meaningful interaction between our countries on the Syrian settlement as part of the tripartite – with the participation of the United States – monitoring centre in Amman and the Astana format, in which Jordan participates as an observer.

We appreciate our Jordanian friends’ efforts to promote the agreement on reconciliation between the Syrian government and the opposition forces near the Syrian-Jordanian border. We discussed an issue that remains a major concern for Jordan. I’m referring to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees residing in the Kingdom (according to some estimates, 1.2 million) and the accumulation of refugees on the Syrian side of the border. We share the belief that these people are in need of humanitarian aid. We reviewed a number of specific measures designed to facilitate and expand the delivery of this aid.

We also noted the need to fulfil the southern de-escalation zone agreement between Russia, Jordan and the United States in all its aspects, including continuation of the relentless fight against the terrorists from the so-called Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, which control about 40 per cent of the southern de-escalation zone. This goal remains a priority, including, based on the assumption that the elimination of the terrorist groups will create favourable conditions for the refugees (including those in Jordan) returning to their homeland.

To create favourable conditions in the liberated areas for the refugees to return home, massive international assistance is required aimed at restoring the socioeconomic infrastructure and creating new jobs. We are convinced that all international players who have such capabilities should assist in addressing these tasks in Syria without attempting to make the provision of such assistance dependent on some politicised conditions.

Russia has repeatedly mentioned the need to lift the unilateral sanctions imposed by the Western countries on Syria which are in the way of creating the proper economic and infrastructure environment for returning refugees.

Russia and Jordan express deep concern over the state of affairs in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. The increase in unilateral approaches which hinder the implementation of the agreements reached earlier within the international organisations, primarily the UN, is a source of concern. We are convinced that a direct dialogue between the parties to the conflict is the only viable way to reduce tensions in the Palestinian territories and move towards a settlement. Russia is willing to provide every assistance to have it resumed. We are willing to do so both in the context of our bilateral relations with Israel and Palestine, and in cooperation with other international players, including the Middle East Quartet platform.

In addition to these and several other regional matters, we discussed prospects for bilateral relations, which are developing progressively in accordance with the agreements reached by President Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

We are committed to continue to cooperate in the sphere of peaceful use of nuclear energy and to diversify business ties in other areas. We look forward to the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which plans to meet before the end of the year, contributing to these efforts.

We have reiterated our willingness to continue the dialogue on all these and other matters of mutual interest. We will cooperate constructively in promoting bilateral cooperation and addressing important regional and international issues.



Question:

Addressing the UN Security Council meeting on June 27, UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura expressed concerns about the potential escalation of violence in the Syrian province of Deraa and urged the Council members to act in order to prevent Deraa from following the Eastern Ghouta and Aleppo scenarios. You have not commented on this statement by Staffan de Mistura. Can you do it now? Are such statements justified in light of the fact that Russia has participated in organising humanitarian corridors for civilians? Will the practice of humanitarian corridors be used in Deraa?



Sergey Lavrov:

As my colleague and I have already mentioned, an agreement is in place between Russia, Jordan and the United States on the southern de-escalation zone in Syria, which presupposes the cessation of hostilities and does not limit, but, in fact, provides for increasing efforts to fight ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists. Of course, our US colleagues undertook to negotiate with the opposition groups controlled by Washington, so that they disassociate from terrorists. They don’t always succeed in doing so.

Moreover, a number of groups that cooperated with the Americans participate in joint combat operations with Jabhat al-Nusra. As I mentioned, Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS control about 40 per cent of the territory in the southern de-escalation zone and are trying to expand their presence there. To this end, last month they began shelling the Syrian army positions, killing civilians in the process. Of course, this must be stopped, which is what the Syrian army is now doing with the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

We are also helping the Syrian army to persuade the armed groups to conclude an agreement on reconciliation, lay down their arms and return to peaceful life. Jordan has made a sizable contribution to these efforts. A number of such groups have already signed corresponding reconciliation agreements. Accordingly, peace came to towns formerly controlled by these groups. As this process continues to expand, civilians who were forced to leave this area will return to their homes.

With regard to Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta, we remember that, during the anti-terrorist operation, there were lots of lamentations in the Western media and political circles to the effect that international humanitarian law was being violated and ethnic cleansing was taking place. All this turned out to be a lie. Unlike a number of other places where the so-called “antiterrorist coalition” was trying to establish order, tens and hundreds of thousands of civilians have already returned to Eastern Ghouta and Eastern Aleppo and keep coming back.

I wouldn’t be concerned about seeing this situation follow the Eastern Aleppo or Eastern Ghouta scenario. However, I would be concerned to see it follow the Raqqa scenario, where civilians are still unable to return to their homes, and those who are trying to do so are putting their lives on the line because of the dangerous mine fields. All our proposals, including to our American counterparts, to organise a joint mine-clearing operation and thus allow the civilians to return to their homes have not yet received a positive response. I reiterate that as we continue to oust terrorists in Deraa and across southern Syria, we will provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population and do our best to make sure that people can return to their homes as soon as possible.



Question:

What do you think is the likelihood of reaching agreement on southern Syria before the Helsinki summit?

The other day, US National Security Advisor John Bolton said in an interview with the CBS that Iran’s withdrawal from Syria will also be discussed in Helsinki. I think all reasonable people understand that this demand is unrealistic. Nonetheless, we know that Israel has its own concerns over the presence of pro-Iranian non-governmental armed forces in the proximity of its borders. Is it possible to find a solution to this very complicated issue that would be supported by all parties, including Iran?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let us first agree on some basic things. There are many non-Syrian forces in Syria. Some of them stay there with the agreement of the legitimate Syrian government, a UN member-country, while others stay there illegally, in violation of the principles of international law.

As for southern Syria, all matters related to Syria are bound to be discussed in Helsinki. The agreement on this area has already been reached and was fixed in the documents and decisions adopted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Hamburg in July 2017 and in Danang in November 2017. Jordan supported these decisions.

These decisions provide for a certain sequence of actions, as a result of which no non-Syrian forces will be left in this region. The Syrian army will control the border with Israel. At the same time, there will be a zero tolerance policy with regard to Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS units stationed in this area. The part of the agreements that depended on Russia to a certain extent has been largely fulfilled.

Now we are trying to persuade our partners to do what they pledged to do under the two agreements reached last year. This primarily concerns the need to avoid any pretexts for not combatting terrorists and ousting them from this region.

We see how the Western media discusses the subject of Iran in a very simplified context that is designed for a not very sophisticated audience: “Iran must leave and everything will click into place.” This is applied not only to Syria but also to the entire region. It is alleged that Iran should leave, stay within its borders, and everything will be wonderful. This is absolutely unrealistic.

It is impossible to seek solution to the region’s problems without the participation of its key countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, to name a few. All of the region’s countries have their own concerns and many have grievances against each other. As in any other area of the world, they should sit down at the negotiating table, state their concerns and start talking on how they can remove them on a mutually acceptable basis. There is no other way. It is necessary to act in the same vein as regards the settlement in Syria or any other problem in this volatile region.



Question:

Do you see the need to meet with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ahead of the Helsinki summit, or could you settle all issues by telephone? Will you attend tomorrow's ministerial meeting on the Iranian nuclear programme in Vienna?



Sergey Lavrov:

Summits are being prepared in various formats. One of the preparatory stages for the July 16 Helsinki summit was the visit by Assistant to the US President for National Security Affairs John Bolton. During his visit, it was the American side that proposed holding a meeting of foreign ministers ahead of the summit. We agreed, of course, but yesterday in a telephone conversation Mike Pompeo said that his timetable was extremely busy and he would not be able to meet before the summit. We agreed to find a suitable place and dates after the meeting of our presidents in Helsinki to consider ways to attain the goals that we hope will be set at this summit. I can assure you that the preparation at the expert level is continuing. I do not want to get so far ahead, but we are looking forward to a frank discussion on all the issues that mar our relationship with the United States.

On Friday, July 6, in Vienna, the foreign ministers of the parties to the agreement on Iran's nuclear programme will meet, except the US, which withdrew from this programme. Yes, I will attend.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3288008






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Vienna, July 6, 2018



6 July 2018 - 12:01











Mr Minister,

Dear friend,

Colleagues,

While we agree that there is a deficit of good news in today’s world, there are exceptions. In fact, the Russian-Chinese relations are one such exception.

Thank you for your kind words regarding Russia hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup, and thank you for your wishes to the Russian team. I have no doubt that by the next World Cup our Chinese friends will have reached new heights in football, as you have done in many other areas.

Just as our Chinese colleagues, we are interested in preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian Nuclear Programme and ensuring its full implementation. This is a challenging situation. However, just like China and other parties to this agreement, Russia is committed to abiding by the international law and UN Security Council resolutions. The plan was reflected in these resolutions which makes it part of international law.

We have a great opportunity today to exchange views on the bilateral relations between Russia and China in the follow-up to the extremely successful Russian-Chinese summit last month in Beijing ahead of the SCO Summit in Qingdao.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3290328






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini



6 July 2018 - 13:09






On July 6, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Vienna with European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The discussion highlighted the current state of and ways of normalising Russia-EU relations.

The focal points of the international agenda were ways to maintain the JCPOA, as well as the situation in the Western Balkans countries, Syria and Ukraine.

Mr Lavrov stressed that relevant EU structures should take a more principled approach in their assessments of legislative steps by Latvian and Ukrainian authorities in the language and education spheres.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3291784






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



6 July 2018 - 13:12






On July 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Although the ministers focused on the JCPOA issues, they also discussed bilateral cooperation, with the emphasis on the implementation of the agreements reached at the top level to stimulate trade and economic cooperation.

The ministers talked about current international issues and exchanged opinions on Syria and preparations for the Fifth Caspian Summit.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3291804






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the Joint Commission ministerial meeting of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Vienna, July 6, 2018



6 July 2018 - 20:31







A meeting of the Joint Commission of the countries participating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on resolving the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme at the level of foreign ministers took place. Of course, the meeting was devoted to the situation surrounding the agreement on Iran's nuclear programme after the United States unilaterally withdrew from it in violation of the commitments Washington had taken upon itself, not only as part of the JCPOA programme, but also the unanimously adopted UN Security Council resolution.

Everyone agreed that this is a major violation of the agreed upon terms which actually made it possible to significantly alleviate tensions from the point of view of the military and political situation in the region and upholding the non-proliferation regime, and, of course, of normalising trade and economic ties with Iran. The agreement worked effectively all three years. Iran was meticulously fulfilling its obligations. This was certified and continues to be certified by the IAEA, so everyone agreed once again that this move by Washington was not dictated by any specific circumstance other than its desire to re-politicise the process and the situation around Iran in general, and to put forward more conditions for Tehran to comply with which have nothing to do with the problems related to its nuclear programme. Iran is currently the most heavily inspected county of the IAEA. The IAEA enjoys unprecedented access to all the sites that could be connected with the military aspects of the nuclear programme. It is very imprudent and risky to jeopardise such an important agreement, which allows for secure and reliable support for the non-proliferation regime.

We agreed, although it was not an easy thing to do considering the not always aligned interests of the European "troika", China, Russia and Iran, that the mechanism of the Joint Commission at the level of experts will be constantly reviewing options which will make it possible, regardless of the US decision, to continue to adhere to all commitments undertaken within the JCPOA framework and provide methods for conducting trade and economic relations with Iran which will not depend on Washington’s whims. The United States has already threatened to apply extraterritorial sanctions, which Washington will impose in the coming month in the first wave. The second wave will follow in November in the form of a total ban on Iranian oil purchases. Everyone agrees that this is an absolutely illegitimate practice. It cannot be accepted as appropriate, but it is a policy that can hardly be changed. Severe clashes are expected in the trade, economic and political spheres. The permanent mechanism of experts will be used to develop methods for maintaining trade and economic relations which will not create problems for economic actors of the countries that have maintained their participation in this agreement. It is fundamentally important for these methods for organising trade and other economic projects with Iran's participation to be fairly large-scale, because Iran went ahead and signed this agreement in response to full liberalisation of the environment in which it found itself during the period of sanctions.

That is what we agreed upon. The agreement is enshrined in the final statement which outlines, among other things, the areas in which we will work to ensure trade and economic cooperation with Iran independently of the United States.



Question:

Did you discuss Iran’s threats, for instance the one to shut down the strait?



Sergey Lavrov:

No, we didn’t. Our meeting was not devoted to this issue. Responding to the appeals of the other participants Iran reaffirmed its commitments to the agreements fixed in the JCPOA. Naturally, this means that Iran will continue cooperating with the IAEA. All participants urged it to do this. Although Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif noted that now that the US unilaterally withdrew from these agreements (now the deal no longer exists because the US was its main participant and partner on which full restoration of Iran’s economic ties depended), Iran also has a formal right to do the same but it won’t use this right. All participants welcomed its attitude. I think this is a responsible position. I hope we will stick to this position. The main point is that Iran occupies it.



Question:

Why hasn’t British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson come to the meeting?



Sergey Lavrov:

I stopped following steps of our partners from the Foggy Albion. I am not interested in this at all.



Question:

Is the agenda of the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump ready? What will they discuss?



Sergey Lavrov:

Everyone is talking about it, including the US President’s National Security Adviser John Bolton. There will be no formal paper. Both presidents are experienced and influential enough to decide themselves what to discuss.



Question:

Will they discuss the southern de-escalation zone?



Sergey Lavrov:

This was mentioned more than once. Both Syria ad Ukraine will be discussed. They will discuss everything they want.



Question:

Returning to today’s meeting, Foreign Minister of France Jean-Yves Le Drian said they are working on their own measures towards the US. Did you discuss this?



Sergey Lavrov:

This doesn’t concern Iran. They are simply responding to the new decisions on higher tariffs that US President Trump imposed on European goods. This is an independent process. In this context the European Union has taken counter measures within the WTO norms. The Russian Government will make its decision today. We will also impose higher tariffs on many goods that we used to buy from the United States.



Question:

Judging by the mood of European politicians, to which extent are they ready to stand up for Iran?



Sergey Lavrov:

I wouldn’t say that they want “to stand up for Iran.” They want to ensure their economic interests and political commitments. It is impossible to make companies do something. It is only possible to create the conditions that they will find acceptable. Total, Peugeot and Renault have already left Iran. They analysed the situation and decided that the American market is more important for them. Our French colleagues explained to us that there is nothing they can do about this. What they can do is to elaborate collectively and individually such forms of trade and settlements with Iran that will not depend on the dollar and will be accepted by those companies that see trade with Iran more profitable than with the US. Such companies certainly exist - small, medium and large.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3292269
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; July 8th, 2018 at 01:09 PM.
 
Old July 8th, 2018 #454
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s meeting with EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and Co-Chairman of the Geneva International Discussions on Transcaucasia Toivo Klaar



2 July 2018 - 18:10



On July 2, State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin received EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and Co-Chair of the Geneva International Discussions on Security and Stability in Transcaucasia Toivo Klaar.

There was an exchange of views on the security situation in Transcaucasia and the work of joint mechanisms to prevent and respond to incidents on the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Georgia.

The Russian representative pointed out that despite the "good intentions" and "steps toward a better future" declared by Tbilisi, Georgia’s political decisions, in fact, are further complicating relations with Sukhumi and Tskhinvali. The introduction of yet another resolution at the UN on refugees and displaced persons, as well as the recently released Otkhozoriya-Tatunashvili sanctions lists, are a case in point.

During the meeting, the sides confirmed their commitment to make progress in the work of the Geneva format, the main goal of which is to ensure peace and stability in the South Caucasus.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3286612






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



4 July 2018 - 11:34



On July 3, co-chairs of the Russian-Chinese Regular Dialogue on Northeast Asia Security, namely, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China Kong Xuanyou, met in Beijing.

The sides supported positive developments on the Korean Peninsula and reaffirmed the importance of closely coordinating Russian and Chinese efforts in this area. They agreed to expand cooperation with all partners in the interests of maintaining as well as further expanding the political-diplomatic process for the comprehensive resolution of the sub-region’s problems.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3287567






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin’s meeting with EU Special Representative for Central Asia Peter Burian



4 July 2018 - 12:14



On July 4, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin had a meeting with Special Representative of the European Union for Central Asia Peter Burian.

During the meeting, the two officials exchanged views on the challenges and objectives faced by Central Asian countries in the context of their involvement in integration processes within the Eurasian space, as well as opportunities for Russia and the EU to work together on promoting cooperation with these countries and aligning economic projects as well as initiatives across the Eurasian space. Russia reaffirmed its readiness to engage in dialogue with the EU with a view to implementing the initiative put forward by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to create a Greater Eurasian Partnership.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3287755






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s strategic stability consultations with Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Takeo Mori



4 July 2018 - 15:04



On July 4 in Tokyo, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Ryabkov held a regular round of Russian-Japanese consultations on strategic stability issues with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan Takeo Mori with representatives of the defence ministries of both countries attending. The meeting was held in a constructive, businesslike atmosphere.

The sides discussed a wide range of issues of global and regional security, with an emphasis on ways to develop effective cooperation between Russia and Japan in resolving them. From this perspective, an exchange of views took place on arms control and WMD non-proliferation, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme, the situation in Syria, and dealing with new challenges and threats.

The sides agreed to continue joint efforts in this area and hold the next round of consultations in Moscow in 2019.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3288042






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



4 July 2018 - 19:48



On July 4, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin met with Ambassador of the State of Israel to Russia Gary Koren.

The officials had an in-depth exchange of views on a broad agenda including the developments in Syria and related matters, as well as on a number of topical issues of the Russian-Israeli relations.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3288104






Press release on State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin’s meeting with French Ambassador to Russia Sylvie Bermann



5 July 2018 - 17:56



On July 5, Russian State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin received Ambassador of the French Republic to the Russian Federation Sylvie Bermann at the latter’s request.

The diplomats discussed the current situation in Ukraine, as well as the results of the Normandy format ministerial meeting, held on June 11, 2018, and the meeting of the Contact Group on Ukraine, held on June 13, 2018.

Both sides reaffirmed the need for strict compliance with the ceasefire, the speedy disengagement of forces and facilities, the withdrawal of heavy weapons and demining in accordance with the Minsk Agreements.

The situation in the South Caucasus and Moldova was discussed as well.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3290114






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, July 5, 2018



6 July 2018 - 11:13




Mr Chairperson,

The so-called bread truce agreed by the Contact Group on June 27 offers yet another chance to achieve a peaceful settlement of the intra-Ukrainian civilian conflict. The overall number of ceasefire violations has declined. However, the Ukrainian Armed Forces continue shelling Gorlovka, Debaltsevo and Donetsk. They are seeking to conquer the grey areas. On July 1, SMM monitors confirmed that the Ukrainian military had taken over Zolotoye-4, having found two armoured troop transporters and soldiers on the territory of an administrative building there. All this undermines efforts to achieve peace.

The adventurous efforts by the Ukrainian leadership to reintegrate Donbass by force lead to more civilian victims. According to the SMM, two civilians were wounded in Yasinovataya and Dokuchaevsk, and buildings were damaged in Kominternovo, Dokuchaevsk and Zolotoye-5 between June 20 and July 3 during artillery fire coming from places where the Ukrainian Armed Forces are deployed. Dokuchaevsk came under fire in the evening of July 1, after the “bread truce” came into force. All in all, 18 civilians were killed and 91 were wounded in militia-held territories in 2018. Every new victim only brings us closer to a point of no return in terms of restoring peace in Ukraine.

The implementation of the 2016 Framework Agreement on the Disengagement of Forces and Weapons must be resumed without delay by completing the disengagement in three pilot areas: Petrovskoye, Zolotoye and Stanitsa Luganskaya, and agreeing on new ones. The Kiev military are still present in Zolotoye and Petrovskoye disengagement areas, and refuse to abide by the agreement in Stanitsa Luganskaya.

Efforts to promote de-escalation in the problem areas along the line of contact could pave the way to resuming the withdrawal of heavy weapons. So far, the situation there has been quite explosive. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been concentrating their military equipment there. Between June 20 and July 3, the SMM detected 78 weapons of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in breach of the Package of Measures, 101 military vehicles beyond the withdrawal lines, and vast mine fields in Nelepovka and Lebedinskoye. The SMM also reported that 431 weapons were missing from the army warehouses. The actual situation may be even worse. Speaking at a briefing in Vienna on July 4, Deputy Chief Monitor Alexander Hug showed a map of long-range UAV flights whereby monitoring is mainly carried out outside of militia-held areas. We expect the SMM to address this imbalance in the near future, since it undermines impartiality when monitoring compliance with the Minsk Package of Measures by military equipment.

Outside forces aspiring to the role of mediators in the settlement do nothing but exacerbate warmongering and revanchist sentiment in Kiev. Having supplied Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, the US has launched deliveries of heavy machine guns. Manufacturing of weapon stations to be installed on light armoured vehicles is about to be launched at one of Ukroboronprom’s factories under a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and the US. The US is directly responsible for the consequences of these thoughtless steps.

Kiev’s unwillingness to honour its obligations under the Minsk Package is preventing the SMM from implementing its mandate. We condemn all and any threats and intimidation of SMM observers. Those responsible for this on both sides must be called to account. Restrictions on the movement of SMM observers have been imposed to a similar extent on both sides of the contact line, as the deputy chief monitor of the SMM has confirmed. Entire areas in the government-controlled region of Zolotoye, Stanitsa Luganskaya, Schastye and Popasnaya have been closed to SMM observers due to the alleged mine hazards. Last week, the Ukrainian Armed Forces jammed the SMM unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) near Bogdanovka and Popasnaya four times and prohibited the launch of a UAV near the settlement of Komar. On July 2, the SMM observed that an electrical cable had been connected to its camera in Shirokino and that said cable led to a Ukrainian Armed Forces compound nearby. This means that the Ukrainian Armed Forces could be using SMM information for military purposes.

During the June 28 briefing in Vienna by Pierre Morel, Coordinator of the Working Group on Political Issues of the Trilateral Contact Group, it was as good as confirmed that Kiev is sabotaging the implementation of its political commitments. Kiev representatives are openly questioning the concept of synchronising moves in the political and security spheres, which the heads of the Normandy format states, including President Poroshenko, approved at their summit in Berlin in October 2016. Kiev is stubbornly refusing to launch a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, even though they signed the Minsk Agreements at the insistence of Kiev.

Kiev has blocked the addition of the compromise-based Steinmeier Formula to the law on a special status for Donbass and is preventing the enforcement of the law on amnesty stipulated under Clause 5 of the Minsk Package. The amendment of the Ukrainian Constitution to ensure the rights of Donbass residents has been put off for an indefinite period of time.

Kiev is working consistently to aggravate humanitarian problems in Donbass. The exchange of prisoners and unlawfully detained persons under the all-for-all principle is being delayed. Ukrainian representatives Viktor Medvedchuk and Irina Gerashchenko again did not attend the June 27 meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group. Kiev representatives have been using far-fetched pretexts to avoid coordinating a statement prohibiting torture.

The repairs of the bridge in Stanitsa Luganskaya, which is vitally important for people from some parts of the Lugansk Region, have been blocked. Kiev’s absurd requirements regarding the maximum bridge roadway width mean that ambulances will be unable to use it, which effectively stultifies this major humanitarian initiative.

The checkpoint regulations on the contact line remain unnecessarily strict. People have been reported to die in the long lines at the checkpoints. On June 27, the SMM reported a man dying of a heart attack at the Ukrainian checkpoint in Mayorsk. Continued attempts have been made to strengthen the blockade of Donbass.

We are against Kiev’s policy to suppress recalcitrants in eastern Ukraine. We will continue to support the local population in Donbass by supplying food and essential items. The latest humanitarian convoy was sent to the region on June 28 through the Donetsk and Matveyev Kurgan checkpoints. The OSCE Secretariat, the Observer Mission at the Gukovo and Donetsk checkpoints, and the heads of the Special Monitoring Mission were informed in due time about the humanitarian convoy’s transit date and the cargo on board the vehicles. As before, the Ukrainian customs officers and border guards had a chance to participate in cargo inspections jointly with their Russian counterparts. The OSCE monitors confirm this fact.

We call on the Western countries to influence Kiev so that it complies with its commitments under the Minsk Package of Measures. References to the non-existent “Russian aggression” or to the domestic political situation in Ukraine that keeps growing more complicated are tending to freeze the problem indefinitely. No one in Russia is interested in this option.

This scenario is only fraught with a new spiral of instability in Ukraine. Alarming signals are coming from Kiev. We have constantly drawn attention to the Kiev politicians conniving at or even espousing the cause of radical nationalists. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission, Amnesty International, Front Line Defenders, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and even the Atlantic Council have paid attention to the problem. In late June, the AC website published an article titled “Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence” that notes the growing problem with radical nationalism in Ukraine. Our signals were not heeded in time. On June 23, a group of young Nazis in Lvov made a repeated attack on a Roma camp, killing one and injuring four, including a woman and a ten-year old child. On July 2, another Roma woman was killed at Beregovo, Trans-Carpathian Region, where anti-racist rallies had taken place the day before. In Kharkov, radicals held a picket shouting that they would “attack the Roma.”

The Kiev-encouraged hate atmosphere is manifested in the most frightening ways. According to Ukraine’s UNIAN Agency, radicals in the Sumy Region attacked a settler from Donbass, tearing apart his mouth and throwing him under the wheels of a car solely because he was speaking Russian.

Regrettably, our OSCE colleagues continue to hush up the problem of rampant radical nationalism in Ukraine. It is more than four years now since February 2014 was marked by massive loss of life from gunfire on the Maidan of Independence in Kiev. The culprits have not been found to this day, nor have they sustained any punishment. As is clear, the tragedy is being swept under the rug despite a focus from international organisations.

The “language” article of the Ukrainian law “on education” has a potential for segregating the Russian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak, Polish, Roma and Ruthenian minorities. The renunciation of historical traditions and promotion of Nazi collaborators as national heroes are splitting Ukraine along moral and ideological lines. The Kiev politicians are openly interfering in church affairs, thus encouraging religious strife in Ukraine. How in this situation are the Ukrainian authorities going to win the sympathies of people in Donbass?

Signs of disagreement with the policies conducted by the Maidan authorities are inevitably suppressed. Kiev is particularly intolerant of independent journalism. According to the report issued by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission, there have been 21 cases of attacks on the media and 71 cases of freedom of speech restrictions in Ukraine in 2018. On June 26, the Ukrainian authorities deported Yevgeny Primakov (VGTRK) and Paula Slier (RT), who came to a conference on media freedom and pluralism. Both journalists were banned from entering the country for five years. Journalist Kirill Vyshinsky is still in custody for his professional activities.

I would like to say once again in conclusion that for Kiev the Minsk Package of Measures can and must become a key to restoring the integrity of the state rather than an act of capitulation. We are confident that it is only a faithful and complete implementation of the roadmap that was coordinated in Kiev that will prevent the emergence of new hotbeds of confrontation in Ukraine.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3290282






Statement by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich on discrimination against national minorities in the sphere of education in Latvia made at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, July 5, 2018



6 July 2018 - 11:15




Mr Chairperson,

We again have to raise the question of the Latvian authorities’ policy of converting national minority schools to instruction in the state language.

On June 13, the Education, Culture and Science Committee of the Latvian Saeima (parliament) approved the amendments to the law on higher education to prohibit instruction in the Russian language at private universities and colleges. The amendments stipulate that the accreditation of tuition programmes in the Russian language will remain in force until its expiration, but the enrolment of students for these classes will end in 2019. The Latvian parliament approved these amendments in the third reading on June 21.

According to the Latvian Ministry of Education and Science, the amendments regulating the use of tuition languages at private universities are in keeping with the recently adopted amendments to the Law on Education, which stipulate the gradual transition to Latvian as the only language of instruction at general schools. We have spoken about the discriminating nature of these amendments at Permanent Council meetings more than once. Before the adoption of these amendments, the law only stipulated the tuition language to be used at state-run universities. However, the ministry says that higher education is a state delegated function and that such amendments should also be made at private universities. In accordance with this logic, if the state has the power to regulate the criteria and accreditation of tuition programmes, it also can stipulate the language of instruction.

Here are the figures to highlight the scale of the problem: In 2017, private universities in Latvia had 15,439 students, including 5,189 or 34 per cent of the total who opted for instruction in the Russian language, which is a great deal for a country with a relatively small population.

Until recently, private universities had the last, even if illusory opportunity to prevent the enforcement of these amendments by appealing to President Raimonds Vejonis not to sign the amendments into law. However, he approved them yesterday, on July 4. The upcoming parliamentary elections hindered the settlement of this problem, since the election programme of many candidates is based largely on nationalist slogans and calls for enforcing Latvian in all spheres of social life.

Mr Chairperson,

Together with the so-called “reforms” in the sphere of general education, these decisions are fresh evidence of the Latvian authorities’ complete disregard for the interests of national minorities, who constitute an integral part of the population of this OSCE member state, as well as for Latvia’s international commitments. Moreover, these amendments are tantamount to gross infringement on private enterprise and private property. They also run counter to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which stipulates the right of national minorities to set up and to manage their own private educational and training establishments. These amendments contravene the Bolzano and Oslo recommendations on the linguistic rights of national minorities issued by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 10 and 20 years ago, respectively.

We hope that common sense will prevail after all. Condoning nationalist interests usually has a grievous result for the state and the people concerned. We urge the concerned OSCE agencies, including the Secretary General, the High Commissioner on National Minorities, the Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the current Chairperson-in-Office to provide a pubic assessment of this latest outrageous discriminating move.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3290292
__________________
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 July 8th, 2018 #455
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Jalalabad terrorist attack targeting Afghanistan’s Sikh community



3 July 2018 - 13:37



We were shocked to learn of the death of 19 people, most of them members of the small and peaceful Sikh community, in the July 1 suicide attack near the provincial governor’s residence in Jalalabad. The Afghan branch of the terrorist Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this heinous act.

We strongly condemn this terrorist attack. We offer our condolences to the victims’ families and wish an early recovery to the injured.

This terrorist attack has once again highlighted the importance of resolutely fighting ISIS, which has become more active in Afghanistan over the past few years. The terrorists aim to intimidate the Afghan society and to turn the country into a source of permanent threat to peace and stability in the region.

We urge the Afghan authorities and the command of the coalition forces deployed in the country to do all they can to ensure the safety of the public in Afghanistan. We hope that the extremists’ plans to create a bridgehead in the country will be foiled.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3286933






Press release on the meeting of the Russian-Spanish Inter-Agency Working Group on Combating International Terrorism



4 July 2018 - 11:36



On July 3, the Russian-Spanish Inter-Agency Working Group on Combating International Terrorism met for its ninth meeting co-chaired by Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Oleg Syromolotov and Enrique Mora Benavente, Director General for Foreign Policy and Security of the Spanish Foreign Ministry.

The meeting participants discussed bilateral cooperation against modern terrorist threats with an emphasis put on the problem of foreign terrorist militants, funding and other types of material fueling of terrorism as well as interconnection between terrorism and illegal immigration. The parties also brought up possibilities to increase cooperation within international platforms, specifically, the United Nations.

The next meeting of the working group is planned for 2019 in Moscow.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3287577






Foreign Ministry statement on the situation in PACE and prospects for resuming contributions to the Council of Europe



4 July 2018 - 12:01



There has been much speculation lately in the media regarding the situation within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and Russia’s contributions to the Council of Europe budget.

As is well known, in seeking to “punish” the delegation of the Russian parliament in 2014-2015 for the free choice by the people of Crimea to become part of Russia, the Assembly restricted the rights of Russian parliamentarians to such an extent that it made it impossible for them to continue their work in PACE. For three years, the Russian Federation continued to honour its financial commitments to the Council of Europe in full, despite the fact that its representatives did not participate in the work of the Assembly. This could not go on indefinitely.

In the summer of 2017, a decision was taken to suspend the payment of contributions to the Council of Europe “until the delegation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to PACE is fully and unconditionally restored in its rights.” A year has passed since that time, and the rights of Russian MPs have not been restored. Accordingly, there is no reason to resume contributions.

The Parliamentary Assembly has not responded in an appropriate manner to Russia’s justified criticism of the approach whereby the Assembly suspends the rights of a member country’s parliamentarians, which runs counter to the Statute of the Council of Europe. Moreover, decisions of this kind violate the principle of sovereign equality of states, which lies at the basis of international law. So the question is whether PACE will be able to resolve on its own the issue of ensuring equality of rights and obligations among all Council of Europe member states.

PACE’s thoughtless actions have already resulted in the fact that almost one half of the judges of the European Court of Human Rights and the Commissioner for Human Rights have been elected without the participation of Russian parliamentarians. In June 2019, the Secretary General will be elected. For Russia, the legitimacy of high-ranking officials of the Council of Europe is in question if they have been elected without Russia’s participation.

At the same time, it has to be emphasised that Moscow greatly appreciates the proactive efforts by all those seeking to overcome the system-wide crisis that threatens the very existence of the Council of Europe. Russia notes the consistency with which Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland advocates the preservation of the Council of Europe as a foundation of a unique pan-European legal space. We hope that the countries that chair the Committee of Ministers in the next twelve months will also play an active role. The Ad hoc Committee on the role and mission of PACE, chaired by Michele Nicoletti and featuring Russian parliamentarians, worked from January through June 2018, achieving substantial progress in efforts to remove the imbalance in PACE’s regulations.

Russia reaffirms its commitment to honouring all its financial obligations from the moment when it was forced to suspend payments, once the rights of the delegation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation are fully restored within PACE.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3287714






Statement by the Foreign Ministry



5 July 2018 - 15:37



On July 3, Damascus published an official statement by the Syrian government calling on citizens who were forced to leave the country amid war and terrorist aggression, to return to their homeland now that most of the areas captured by the terrorists have been liberated. The statement confirms that the Syrian government assumes responsibility for the safety and immunity of its citizens and meeting their needs by maintaining properly functioning schools, medical institutions and other kinds of socioeconomic infrastructure. However, the document also underscores the need for humanitarian agencies and the international community to contribute to ensuring proper conditions for the voluntary return of the Syrian citizens to their homeland. In this regard, it is noted that Syria expects the international community and its specialised agencies to lift the unlawful unilateral sanctions imposed on the Syrian people.

Moscow welcomes the above statement which shows that Damascus is strongly committed to restoring the unity of Syria and the Syrians and to a speedy transition to peaceful life and reconstruction.

Russia will continue to provide assistance and support to the friendly nation of Syria, including by facilitating the return to peaceful life, rebuilding what was destroyed, creating proper conditions for returning refugees and temporarily displaced persons to their homes.

We look forward to members of the international community, the UN and its specialised agencies responding to the invitation by Damascus and making additional efforts to assist Syria and its people in creating favourable conditions for the voluntary and dignified return of Syrian refugees to their homeland. We stand ready to work closely with partners.

We are convinced that the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland will help further stabilise the situation in Syria and the Middle East in general, alleviating the financial and economic burden and social problems which this has created for many states, primarily Syria's neighbours.

The Russian Federation does not recognise the anti-Syrian sanctions imposed unilaterally by a number of states and inter-state associations and considers them a serious obstacle to the final eradication of the terrorist threat in Syria and the political settlement in that country based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3288522






Press release on Russian-Serbian dialogue on counterterrorism issues



5 July 2018 - 18:13



On July 5, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov met with Assistant Minister for Security Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia Branimir Filipovic.

The diplomats discussed important goals and prospects for Russian-Serbian cooperation in this field both in the bilateral format and within multilateral platforms. Special emphasis was placed on the assessments of terrorist threats in the Balkan region, the link between terrorism and illegal migration, the importance of curbing financial and logistics supplies to terrorist groups, and preventing ideological and personnel support, as well as ways to counter activities by foreign terrorist militants.

The sides reaffirmed the identical positions of Russia and Serbia on key aspects on the counterterrorism agenda and their desire to continue the intensive bilateral dialogue on counterterrorism issues at various levels in the spirit of strategic partnership.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3290124






Press release on the opening of the exhibition “Holocaust: Destruction, Liberation, Salvation” in the headquarters of the Council of Europe



6 July 2018 - 15:32



The opening ceremony of the exhibition “Holocaust: Destruction, Liberation, Salvation” took place at the headquarters of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg (France). It was organised by the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation at the Council of Europe. The event was attended by Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic, and representatives of the member countries of the Council of Europe.

In his speech, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe Ivan Soltanovsky urged the Council of Europe not to ignore ethnic discrimination that has become commonplace in some EU countries and give a principled assessment to this phenomenon. He emphasised that the Council of Europe can overcome its current crisis by returning to its fundamental principles -- protecting the rights of all Europeans without exception, building a common European legal space, and ensuring the equality of all member countries.

In his message of greetings, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland noted the enormous price paid by the Soviet Union in the struggle against Nazism. Soviet prisoners of war were among the first victims of gas chambers in Auschwitz.

Preservation of historical memory and resistance to the attempts to falsify history are one of the major areas of Russia’s cooperation with the Council of Europe. We regularly draw the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and relevant bodies to the continued attempts to whitewash Nazis and their accomplices in Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine, and to the course of the Polish authorities towards erasing the memory of Poland’s liberation by the Red Army.

The annual seminar “Memory and Lessons of World War II” has been conducted for representatives of the Council of Europe member countries as part of the programme of Russia-Council of Europe cooperation in youth policy since 2014. The seminar is aimed at preserving the historical memory of the events of World War II in their traditional interpretation, disseminating information about the crimes of Nazism and its victims as well as preventing the distortion of historical truth about the events of that time.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3292104
__________________
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 July 8th, 2018 #456
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 5, 2018



5 July 2018 - 19:35











Media coverage of the World Cup in Russia

The 2018 FIFA World Cup continues to delight with its exciting football contests. Experts and fans are unanimous is their opinion that the matches have been spectacular. There’s no need to even mention the entertainment aspect of the tournament, as fans are clearly having the time of their lives when there are no matches to watch. According to our guests’ posts on social media, the atmosphere is fantastic not only in Moscow, but other host cities as well. We can see that the enthusiasm of the fans is rubbing off on the media, which is great. Indeed, we focus on these matters, because there was so much misinformation. This is not surprising, as it is difficult to make up stories now, because everyone can see everything with their own eyes, and the mudslinging directed at our country before the World Cup doesn’t work anymore.

However, the anti-Russian campaign continues unabated led, unfortunately, by the British media. They rank number one in terms of the number of ridiculous and totally outrageous tales, which are being relayed with quotes from British politicians. It's horrible. I'm not even talking about Boris Johnson and his predictions, comparisons and epithets. British Prime Minister Theresa May also made her contribution as she voiced her concerns about the British fans’ safety in Russia. She’d be better off thinking about the safety of the British subjects in her country. For some reason, she is concerned about our fans, whereas we have no problems with them whatsoever. Ms May, don’t worry about them, just come and see for yourself how things are.

We come across lots of things in the British media. Recently, the Guardian wrote that Russia extended another invitation to Prime Minister May to visit the World Cup. To reiterate, according to the comment by the press service of our Embassy in Great Britain, no individual invitations to the World Cup have ever been sent to British politicians and, accordingly, they could not be revoked. No one is trying to lure anyone. It’s an international event that is held regularly in close cooperation with the corresponding international organisation, so no one is coming up with any new formats, and everything is taking place in accordance with existing protocol and traditions. Here’s what I have to say to the Guardian – there’s no need for fabrications. We are always happy to provide an opportunity for everyone to support their team, and heads of state, government and cabinet ministers of various countries who have expressed their desire to support their athletes can already tell you about it. We have been good and friendly hosts and are doing our best to help them fully enjoy this festive atmosphere.

It’s a shame, of course, that the British authorities and media have, in fact, by their own hands, deprived thousands of British fans of the opportunity to enjoy the tournament by intimidating them. Even British athletes were subjected to intimidation. Remember, a couple of weeks ago, an English footballer of Jamaican descent Danny Rose said he wasn’t taking his family to the World Cup because of fear of racism or violence against them. There were reports quoted by the Guardian that after several weeks in Russia, this defender of the English team changed his mind and will bring his family to our country for the final matches of his team. Reportedly, the footballer enjoys the relaxed atmosphere of the tournament. As we said earlier, the myths will be debunked. We regret that as a result of this terrible political campaign unleashed by the British government, thousands of British fans were unable to come to Russia just because they were intimidated by their own politicians.

This is the case not only with the UK. Officials in Brussels and EU media, unfortunately, also engage in inserting anti-Russian clichés into the media narrative. We heard things like “Are you ready for the World Cup of shame?” and so on. I would like to remind you that this headline was posted in March on Politico. The European Parliament even went as far as issuing a Joint Statement on sporting events and human rights in Russia before the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Without delving into this document, I would like to reiterate that the forces fanning Russophobia are trying to politicise everything that comes their way, including sports. They tie human rights into this. It is so disgusting that it is surprising that in 2018 these people do not realise that all this is completely transparent. This political bias cannot be hidden even behind such documents.

There was plenty of disinformation of all sorts. In Sweden, for example, special instructions were issued, recommending, among other things, “not to chat over the phone”. Those instructions were distributed among Swedish fans planning to travel to Russia. I’d like to respond by saying that one should not judge others based on one’s self.

While the latest Cold War-style attacks are being attempted in Western media, a magnificent celebration of sport is going on in Russia, a celebration that has united the whole world and showed that even irreconcilable fans, who are prepared to defend the honour of their teams, stand with them in triumph and defeat, are perfectly willing and able to be friendly, sharing in this festive atmosphere with rival fans of other teams.

We are certainly glad that Russian hospitality was highly praised by World Cup guests. And this was on a truly national scale, because absolutely everyone, including politicians and the event’s organisers, law enforcement officers and volunteers, restaurateurs and hotel keepers, ordinary Russian fans, ordinary people and citizens, came together to make this celebration really all-encompassing, so that everybody who came to Russia would feel like a valued and welcome guest.

It was pleasant to read in The Independent newspaper that fears of fights between Russian and English football hooligans have proved unfounded. Did anyone doubt it? If this had not been instigated beforehand, if specially commissioned films had not been shown on certain TV channels, then there would have been nothing to talk about. For some reason somebody sought to turn this scenario into reality. I was told this a year and a half ago. Ahead of the England versus Belgium match, Deputy Chief Constable Mark Roberts pointed to the good atmosphere and the absence of any incidents among various groups of fans. According to The Independent, the only instances of violence occurred among the English fans themselves.

The Argentine newspaper La Nacion stressed that the organisers have managed to achieve unity among fans as part of this global celebration of football. It was indeed a difficult goal, considering the experience of previous World Cups and other major football tournaments. But it has indeed been possible to achieve so far. The Financial Times noted that interactions between Russian and foreign fans take place in an atmosphere “euphoria” and “enthusiasm”. So, as long as there are no efforts to instigate and set people against each other, there will be no pretext whatsoever. The newspaper says that similar people-to-people contacts show that relations between Russia and the rest of the world may considerably differ from the distrust and antipathy inherent in geopolitics.

I am turning to all those who were deceived by those same Western geopoliticians and media through anti-Russian stories. We invite all of you who have not yet come to seize the opportunity to participate in this wonderful and colourful event – the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia.



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Ministerial Meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

On July 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the ministerial meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in Vienna. It will be chaired by Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

For our part, we reaffirm our willingness to abide by our commitments as long as the other parties do the same, and we will do all we can to preserve and maintain the stability of the JCPOA.

We intend to continue developing trade and economic cooperation with Iran and will protect it against the impact of extraterritorial sanctions. We have the necessary instruments for this.

Tomorrow, Mr Lavrov is also expected to take part in bilateral meetings with his colleagues on the sidelines of the ministerial meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission. We will inform you about these in a timely manner.



Current situation in Syria

The situation in Syria remains complicated.

The operation to liberate the country’s southwest from terrorists is ongoing. This is being carried out in a comprehensive manner – the use of force against ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra units is combined with negotiated solutions based on the agreements reached with the armed opposition groups, which do not want to cooperate with the terrorists, and the representatives of the local councils. An enormous role in the success of these efforts is being played by the Russian military – both the officers from the centre for reconciliation of the opposing sides and the units of the Russian military police that enjoy the respect and trust of the people. In the process, the former militants are offered the choice to either undergo the procedure to regulate their status or join volunteer Syrian Army units for contract service. Militants who lay down their arms on their own free will are not subjected to any reprisals from the government.

The residents of cities and villages that have been freed from terrorist groups are welcoming the restoration of government control at spontaneous rallies and raising Syria’s national flags.

The authorities in neighbouring Jordan are facilitating a peaceful settlement of the conflict. They are interested in restoring the normal functioning of the Syria-Jordan border and the opening of traffic on an important international motorway linking Beirut, Damascus and Amman.

Generally, what is happening “on the ground” is drastically different from the picture of developments in southwestern Syria, as painted by the engaged Western media who use the materials provided by the White Helmets (money is changing hands!) and other provocateurs. We know about their underhanded methods that are aimed at anything but alleviating the suffering of the people. On the contrary, they are aimed at undermining the efforts to reach local negotiated solutions and a political settlement in general. Various lies are used: fabricated figures on the skyrocketing numbers of internally displaced persons that increase every day – allegedly due to the onslaught by government forces; hysterical outcries over lack of opportunity to send humanitarian convoys to the area of hostilities; fraudulent stories about Russia’s alleged withdrawal from the memorandum on the establishment of the southern de-escalation zone and other similar fake news.

In this context we would like to emphasise once again that the conduct of the counterterrorist operation does not contradict the goals of creating the southern de-escalation zone, which provide for putting an end to the terrorists in this area.

Despite the difficulties, assistance is being rendered to the people of Daraa both by the Syrian Government, Russian military, and the UN. Relief is delivered also to those cities and villages where reconciliation has not yet been reached.

As for internally displaced persons, it is perfectly obvious that part of civilians are leaving their places of permanent residence in areas where the Syrian Army has to overcome the armed resistance of terrorists. Special humanitarian corridors and special centres of temporary shelter have been created for such people, for example, Jabab in Daraa Province where assistance is being rendered to 2,500 people.

The issue of refugees and internally displaced persons must not be exploited. It is necessary to address this issue in practical terms. On July 3, the Syrian Foreign Ministry addressed those Syrian citizens that were forced to leave the country with an appeal on behalf of the Syrian government.

In cooperation with the Lebanese authorities, Damascus is taking practical steps to mitigate this problem. On June 28, about 400 people returned to Syria from Lebanon. At present, over 3,000 people are included on the return list. This is a small figure for now, but it is increasing.

The final eradication of terrorists in Syria is being largely complicated by the unlawful and completely unjustified US armed presence in the Al-Tanf area. In effect, this is a preserve for ISIS fighters who have not been finished off. The Syrian authorities are not allowed access to this vast territory. Humanitarian access to refugees is closed. They are actually being held hostage by terrorists in the Rukban camp.

If our Western partners really intend to establish lasting peace in Syria, we expect them to make the right decisions, particularly those that will alleviate unilateral restrictions and make it possible to freely buy food, medicines, fuel, equipment and building materials, indispensable for rebuilding the country, in world markets.

It is necessary to conduct humanitarian demining on an enormous scale. We urge our international partners to join the efforts in this area. This would help tens of thousands of Syrian refuges, including those from the Western countries, to safely return home.



The Syrian Government’s calls for Syrian refugees to return home

On July 3, Damascus published an official statement by the Syrian government calling on citizens who were forced to leave the country amid war and terrorist aggression, to return to their homeland now that most of the areas captured by the terrorists have been liberated. The statement confirms that the Syrian government assumes responsibility for the safety and immunity of its citizens and meeting their needs by maintaining properly functioning schools, medical institutions and other kinds of socioeconomic infrastructure. However, the document also underscores the need for humanitarian agencies and the international community to contribute to ensuring proper conditions for the voluntary return of the Syrian citizens to their homeland. In this regard, it is noted that Syria expects the international community and its specialised agencies to lift the unlawful unilateral sanctions imposed on the Syrian people.

Moscow welcomes the above statement which shows that Damascus is strongly committed to restoring the unity of Syria and the Syrians and to a speedy transition to peaceful life and reconstruction.

Russia will continue to provide assistance and support to the friendly nation of Syria, including by facilitating the return to peaceful life, rebuilding what was destroyed, creating proper conditions for returning refugees and temporarily displaced persons to their homes.

We look forward to members of the international community, the UN and its specialised agencies responding to the invitation by Damascus and making additional efforts to assist Syria and its people in creating favourable conditions for the voluntary and dignified return of Syrian refugees to their homeland. We stand ready to work closely with partners.

We are convinced that the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland will help further stabilise the situation in Syria and the Middle East in general, alleviating the financial and economic burden and social problems which this has created for many states, primarily Syria's neighbours.

The Russian Federation does not recognise the anti-Syrian sanctions imposed unilaterally by a number of states and inter-state associations and considers them a serious obstacle to the final eradication of the terrorist threat in Syria and the political settlement in that country based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



Brief summary of Russia's Presidency of the UN Security Council

Russia’s presidency of the UN Security Council has come to an end. Over June, the UN Security Council has held 31 meetings, adopted eight resolutions and coordinated three statements by the Security Council president and six statements for the press.

The key event held on June 25 to review the situation in the Middle East and North Africa has attracted considerable interest and positive reviews in the media. The Russian delegation was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin. Most speakers supported the need for working out coordinated decisions on resolving the crisis in the region. The call for a unified regional security architecture based on Russian initiatives, including measures to enhance security in the Gulf, drew quite a response.

Syria remained a highly sensitive issue. The Russian side informed its partners about the true situation in the country in the context of the antiterrorist operation there and about our efforts and priorities in the political process and humanitarian efforts in Syria. We also reiterated our warning against the unlawful restructuring of the OPCW by vesting it with the authority to identify culprits behind chemical weapons attacks. The Middle East dossiers concerning Palestine and Yemen were in the focus of attention.

Thanks to Russia’s efforts, for the first time in a long time, agreement was reached on the Security Council President’s Statement on Ukraine, in which the Minsk Package of Measures was reaffirmed as the sole international legal framework for a settlement.

A substantive discussion of the situation in Afghanistan was held, with an emphasis on combating terrorism and drug production. The speakers invited by Russia – Under-Secretary-General of the UN Counter-Terrorism Office Vladimir Voronkov and Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime Yury Fedotov – made a special contribution to the discussion.

The situation in Central Asia was discussed amid continued threats emerging from Afghanistan. This dossier is informally supervised by the Russian side in the UN Security Council. We regret that this time we again failed to adopt the UN Security Council statement for the press in support of the Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia because of the United States’ biased and politicised position and reluctance to recognise the CSTO’s and the SCO’s substantial contribution to maintaining peace and stability in the region.

Undoubtedly, most of the time in June was reserved for discussion of African issues – the situation in Central Africa, Sudanese Darfur, South Sudan, and Mali.

We consider it symbolic that UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres visited the Russian Federation during the same month (on June 20-21), where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and held talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The events the Russian delegation organised on the occasion of the opening of the 2018 World Cup Russia gave a special impetus to cooperation in the Security Council and the United Nations. This milestone event gave us a chance to show to our colleagues in the Security Council the importance of playing as a team to resolve sensitive issues on its agenda. You probably remember the now legendary footage from the UN Security Council with its permanent members wearing T-shirts of their national teams.

We believe that the Russian delegation has successfully led the Security Council this month, and generally attained the goals set for its presidency, which once again justified our policy aimed at overcoming disagreements and orienting our partners toward seeking compromise solutions. We hope that the steps taken this month, including on such difficult issues as Syria and Ukraine, will work to restore a full-fledged dialogue in the UN Security Council. The next time Russia will preside in it is September 2019.



Chemical incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury

We have received dozens, if not hundreds, of requests for comment on the chemical incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury. Media reported two UK residents had been taken to a Salisbury hospital in critical condition from the nearby town of Amesbury after being poisoned with an unidentified substance. These were initial reports. The incident is notable because it occurred near Salisbury, where, according to British media, an assassination attempt on two Russian citizens occurred four months ago. Let me remind you that the Porton Down Laboratory is also located there.

Statements by the UK police and doctors carried by the media claim possible poisoning with a “toxin” and note the “similarity” of the symptoms with those experienced by the Skripals. Samples of the substance are reported to have been delivered for analysis to the secret laboratory in Porton Down. As early as last night of July 4, Neil Basu, Assistant Commissioner of the Counter Terrorism Command within London's Metropolitan Police Service, declared citing the Porton Down Laboratory that “both the victims were poisoned with the Novichok nerve agent.”

What can be said in this regard? After the hell visited upon Russia by official London, after the international hate campaign launched by the UK Government against our country and our people in the past months, there is much which could be said today.

We could say that hardly four months elapsed before the British detective thriller “The Mystery of Salisbury” had a sequel. The second installment features the same main character, Novichok. But I am not going to get into that.

We could remind you that hardly had the fanfares of the military parade died down on Armed Forces Day, where Prime Minister Theresa May announced the next parade would be held in Salisbury, stressing that the professionalism and bravery demonstrated in the face of the attack are among the main reasons why it will be held in Salisbury, where another poisoning occurred a few months later, but I am not going to get into that.

We could ask the British side to update us on the timing of Theresa May and her team’s next performance in parliament, but I am not going to do that either.

We could wonder if Porton Down backtracks on its evidence in the new case. Do you remember that a couple of months ago Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson citing Porton Down claimed that the Novichok used to poison the Skripals had been made in the Russian Federation? Meanwhile, the laboratory later disavowed the statements by the UK Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Office had to delete its official statements from social media. The unfolding situation is similar. As we understand it, Porton Down has not made a statement, yet it is being officially and actively cited (their official site has as its main a more down-to-earth topic – the study of pant washing technique). We could ask whether Porton Down would again disclaim the statements attributed to it. But I am not going to do that either.

We could point to Neil Basu stressing the “complete lack of evidence” that either of the victims visited the site of the Skripals’ poisoning. He thus indicated that the British citizens were not poisoned while on an occasional stroll in Salisbury, that the two incidents are not related. And at the same time, on July 5, Minister of State for Security at the Home Office Ben Wallace claimed that Russia’s help was crucial to investigate the new incident, that we can “fill in some of the significant gaps” in London’s official investigation of the new incident and to keep the people safe. But I will not do that.

We could pick at the Minister’s words about the “gaps” which indeed abound. From the very start of the Skripal case Russia offered a number of times to conduct a joint investigation of the incident with the British authorities. However, it is Theresa May’s Government, of which Ben Wallace is a member, that has persistently refused any help, incessantly repeating the mantra alleging “Russia’s involvement.” But I will not do that today either.

We could hypothesise that the British authorities have lost control of chemical agents or recall how London demanded that Russia admit to losing control of them. But I will not do that today either.

We could list dozens of versions that were immediately reported by the British press even though Scotland Yard had cautioned against early guesswork and speculation on the topic. We could recall how the British Government accused the Russian Federation of propaganda by quoting Russian media. But I will not do that today.

We could ask Theresa May’s Government a question which interests everyone in the world now – will the OPCW handle the investigation of the new incident? And I will not do that today either.

We could wish a pleasant holiday to Britain’s Defence Secretary who makes such forceful statements. Do you remember how he recommended that Russia “go away and shut up?” We could ask him now similarly to come and say why this is still happening. But I will not do that either.

We could quote hundreds of mocking comments on British social media claiming that four months later it appears anyone in the UK can come by Novichok nowadays. I also won’t do that.

Today we could have said many things. We could have pointed out that, as if ordered to, several British media outlets have started spreading news that one of the poisoning victims had allegedly found a syringe with what remained of the Novichok, which I would like to remind you, is highly volatile according to experts. But I won’t.

We could have asked why NATO is silent. What does Mr Stoltenberg have to say on all this? But we won’t.

We could have pointed out that another poisoning has taken place in an area under tight police control, where every inch has been examined, where millions of pounds, as we have been told officially, have been spent on decontamination and special security measures. It is the same place where Prince Charles and his wife came just a few days before the poisoning to promote tourism that has suffered after the Skripal incident. But I will not be talking about this either in my official capacity today.

I will not cover any of these points. Today, nonetheless, there will be official statements on the subject.

1. After four months, the so-called Skripal case remains thoroughly murky. The refusal of the UK to cooperate with the Russian Federation to hold a joint investigation, keeping Russian diplomats from having access to our citizens in violation of all diplomatic and consular conventions, and the endless attempts to manipulate the OPCW undermine trust in official London.

2. The victims have our sincere sympathy, and we wish a speedy recovery to all four of them, two being Russian nationals.

3. We call on British law enforcement to avoid being manipulated by dirty political games that certain quarters in London seem intent on playing and to finally cooperate with their Russian colleagues in a joint investigation, not least because Russian nationals have been affected as well.

I am authorised to state that Russian law enforcement stand ready to work together. I would like to say that we have been informing the British of this several times a month through diplomatic channels.

Today we were shocked to see British officials say they were awaiting Russia’s response. Maybe in the UK, ordinary people and the media have not been apprised of the fact that Russia has used its diplomatic channels to make dozens of proposals to London to start joint work.

In the name of security on our continent, we call on the May Cabinet to stop the intrigues and games with chemical agents, stop blocking efforts to conduct a joint investigation into what has happened in the UK to Russian nationals.

I am certain that the representatives of the May Cabinet have ahead of them a long period of apologies to Russia and the international community for all that that Government has done. But, as is British custom, it will happen later. Now it is important to launch a comprehensive investigation.



Allegations by The Times on Iranian aid to the Taliban

We noted an article in the British newspaper The Times about the alleged training of the Afghan Taliban in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Replying to numerous inquiries, we would like to say right away that we do not have any such information. The Iranian Embassy in Kabul has denied the assertions.

We would like to emphasise once again that the Western media, including British media, have repeatedly made groundless allegations about support for the Taliban not only by Iran but also by Russia and other countries without any supporting facts. The article’s references to mythical officers in Afghanistan’s secret services are questionable, while references to sources within tthe Taliban appear to be simply ridiculous.

One gets the impression that with such fake news London is trying to distract the attention of the world public from NATO’s failure after 16 years in Afghanistan, this time artificially linking it with the US withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement.

We believe publications like this do nothing to create an atmosphere of trust and understanding between the states and political forces interested in settling the Afghanistan issue. We advise the authors of this article to give up their stereotypes and objectively assess the developments in Afghanistan. It would be useful if at some point they would start quoting our official statements because in so many briefings we comment on the accusations of allegedly supporting the Taliban and supplying them with arms.



Results of the meeting of the European Council on June 28-29

We consider the political decision by the heads of state and government of the EU member countries to renew unilateral financial and economic restrictions against Russia as yet another lost opportunity for constructive revision of EU foreign policy approaches to Russia. We regret that EU member countries again did not dare to admit the artificial character of conditioning the entire range of Russia-EU relations on the complete fulfilment of the Minsk agreements that are being purposefully blocked by the authorities in Kiev. As before, EU business circles and the ordinary citizens that are suffering from sanctions-related confrontation will have to pay for the absence of reality and flexibility in Brussels’ position.

We are perplexed by the wording of the “conclusions” of the European Council following the inquiry into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. The document urges Russia to admit its responsibility in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 2166 on the international investigation into this tragedy, and also to comprehensively take part in the efforts to restore truth and justice and identify the guilty party. This is ridiculous because, as distinct from Ukraine that took part in the investigation, we have done everything we could to establish the true causes of the tragedy and, in part, have presented critical radar information to investigators on the air space at the moment of the crash. I do not even want to bring up the aircraft debris. Do you remember how many times we said during briefings and official statements that it was necessary to collect the material evidence that remained on the site. We noted that this was not done at that time. It would be useful if those who are trying to compel us to “admit responsibility” would first explain the incongruities between the preliminary conclusions of the investigators and the information presented by Russia.

Concern is also caused by the unilateral steps to strengthen the EU-NATO link and create new EU internal mechanisms for sanctions under the slogan of countering “hybrid challenges.” Despite the obvious nature of the numerous manipulations of this far-fetched subject, that are demonstrated by Britain’s campaign regarding the Skripal case, the EU continues to create new elements of tension in Europe. It is hardly surprising that there are no serious changes for the better in the public perception of the EU in this country.

It is worth noting the results of the European Council meeting on the migration issue that occupied a central place during the discussion. It is no secret that despite a substantial reduction in the total number of attempts by illegal migrants to enter the EU, this issue continues to set the EU and many of its member countries on edge. We regret that the summit’s final documents did not say that the migration crisis in the EU was largely triggered by the ill-conceived and aggressive actions of NATO members and some Western countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

We hope that in carrying out the decisions on improving the migration situation, the EU member countries will not jeopardise universally recognised human rights standards and the EU’s international commitments on accepting refugees and that their actions will not lead to attempts to keep the issue out of EU borders. The Russian Federation, that knows first-hand about migration pressure and the mass influx of refugees, in part, as a result of the Ukrainian crisis, is willing to share with its EU partners its experience in this area, as we have said many times during the practical discussion of this issue with our EU partners.



EU Agency for Fundamental Rights’ report on human rights in the EU

We have taken note of the annual Fundamental Rights Report, in which the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) reviews major developments and problems in the EU in 2017 and offers recommendations to European institutions and the member states on ways to improve the situation.

It is gratifying that the authors of this report have openly admitted, and provided examples thereof, that the situation with the human rights of vulnerable groups in the member states is far from irreproachable, despite the fact that the EU has a variety of requisite instruments and solid legislation on human rights.

The FRA also writes that the measures taken in the EU, including legislation, and the work done by the EU member states were clearly not enough to provide comprehensive protection from discrimination and racism.

According to the report, racism and xenophobia persisted in the EU in 2017, primarily targeting refugees and ethnic minorities, as well as asylum seekers. The authors admit that “such incidents occurred against a backdrop of persisting racist and xenophobic rhetoric, which some EU politicians embrace.” Of special concern is the increased number of attacks on the accommodation centres for migrants and violence against this vulnerable group by members of the police in some EU member states.

The numerous facts of human rights violations provided in the report confirm the disappointing conclusion that the EU has become a leader in terms of the seriousness and scale of human rights violations in recent years. Russia and the international human rights community have tried to attract public attention to these instances almost daily.

At the same time, we have taken note that the authors of the report gave considerable attention to issues that were previously glossed over for political reasons. This time, although they studiously avoided the use of the term “non-citizens,” they reported problems Russian speakers experience in the Baltic countries, even if they only provide the example of Estonia. The authors write, citing polls, that “one in 10 non-Estonians believed they experienced intolerance based on their nationality or ethnicity, with one in five feeling that they are second-class citizens in the country.”

At the same time, the authors refuse to see the shameless fact of large-scale non-citizenship in Latvia and Estonia, a situation that persists for more than 20 years, resulting in that hundreds of thousands of people are deprived of political, social and economic rights. There are facts of ethnic intolerance towards students and teachers at Russian-language schools and the widespread punitive practice of language inspectors fining Russian speakers. A glaring example of open discrimination is the decision of the Latvian authorities to convert minority schools to instruction in the “state language” by 2021. The Latvian government refuses to heed public organisations’ calls to preserve Russian schools and the autonomy of minority educational institutions.

Hushing up this problem is especially cynical in the light of the numerous recommendations issued to the Baltic countries by international human rights organisations and institutions, such as the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

There is open and consistent disregard for such shameful facts as the glorification of Nazism and the “heroism” of former Nazis, as well as the war some EU countries are waging against the monuments to liberator soldiers who fought against Nazism in WWII. Regrettably, this suggests the existence of a major system-wide problem in the EU and casts a shadow on their stated resolve to fight any elements of racism and aggressive nationalism. The striving to interpret these shameful elements as the realisation of the freedom of expression is a sacrilege and legal illiteracy. Those who are of two minds on this should read the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the CERD assessment of the EU member states’ reservations regarding Article 4 of the Convention.

We urge the leadership of the FRA and the EU to take a more objective and unbiased approach to compiling such reports, to pay more attention to the human rights problems that have been ailing the EU for decades and to take action to resolve these problems.



Radical right forces in Ukraine

We took note of an article that appeared on the Atlantic Council’s website in late June. It was titled “Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline).” Indeed, the article wasn’t written by RT or Sputnik but by the Council itself. In the article, the author points to the challenge radical right forces pose to Ukraine by operating in an “atmosphere of near total impunity.” Specifically, the author points to the close links between C14, a neo-Nazi group, and the Ukrainian authorities. In fact, this far right group receives funding from Ukraine’s Ministry of Sports and Tourism, creates street patrols together with municipal authorities in Kiev and a number of other Ukrainian cities, while its leader openly boasts about cooperating with the Security Service of Ukraine. All this is taking place despite the fact that this group has been involved in numerous illegal violent actions.

The Atlantic Council can hardly be accused of adopting a pro-Russia stance, but even this outlet could not fail to mention attacks staged by C14 and other far right groups against ethnic minorities, anti-fascist demonstrations and human rights organisations. The article suggests that the Ukrainian authorities are unable or even not willing to counter these Nazi groups out of fear of deteriorating their relations with them, which could lead to the loss of the monopoly on violence by the state.

For several years now the Foreign Ministry has been talking about the spread of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. All we have been hearing in response were accusations of “Kremlin propaganda” or sarcasm. Even a US think tank is no longer able to sweep this under the rug.

Back in 2015, Ivan Katchanovski, a Canadian scholar of Ukrainian descent, wrote an article titled “The 'Snipers' Massacre' on the Maidan in Ukraine” for a conference of the American Political Science Association. While working on the paper, he conducted his own investigation into the February 2014 events in Kiev by reviewing documentary footage recorded by Ukrainian and international media, photo reports, intercepted radio communications between law enforcement officers, audio recordings of live broadcasts from Maidan Square, and video and photos uploaded to social media by people who were present at the scene or took part in the events. Having analysed data from all this material, the researcher came to the conclusion that far right elements were the ones who opened fire in February 2014 against demonstrators and law enforcement officers in Kiev. You may remember that the West stressed back then that determining who fired the first shot was essential. Four years have passed, and nobody seems to be interested in the results of this investigation anymore.

We believe that these attacks were designed to discredit Viktor Yanukovych’s government, who was ultimately blamed by the opposition for killing protestors. It turns out that the provocation produced the desired effect: an anti-constitutional coup took place with support from a number of Western countries.

Officials around the world have lost interest, while journalists are trying to bring this matter into the limelight.



Investigation in Ukraine of firing on Maidan Square in February 2014

More than four years have passed since the mass shooting on Kiev’s Maidan Square in February 2014, and the culprits have yet to be identified and held accountable. Moreover, Kiev is clearly seeking to soft-pedal this affair with Western support, even though it has attracted the attention of a number of international organisations.

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that not the Kiev authorities but those who wanted power even if it meant sacrificing the lives of Ukrainians were the ones who were behind the bloodshed. At the same time, sensational evidence by the so-called Georgian legionnaires on the actual culprits of the Maidan massacre are totally ignored. The would-be activist Ivan Bubenchik who had been a witness in the criminal proceedings on the killing of 13 members of Berkut, a unit of Ukrainian special forces, has boasted on numerous occasions that he fired at law enforcement officers from a rifle he got from the so-called Maidan leaders. Nevertheless, these provocative statements were not followed by any actions by the Ukrainian authorities. Ivan Bubenchik could count on the support from Verkhovna Rada MPs. This “sniper” has now disappeared from media radars, and his case was mothballed.

In any state governed by the rule of law, statements alleging to the involvement in mass killings would have been investigated in a thorough manner. This does not apply to today’s Ukraine. The ruling regime in this country intentionally blocks the investigation of crimes fearing that it would place those who came to power in the spotlight. It seems that this is not what the Ukrainian authorities want with the presidential election approaching.



An incident on the sidelines of the OSCE conference on media freedom in Kiev

I would like to remind you that an outrageous incident took place on June 26 in Kiev, Ukraine, where the OSCE was holding its conference on media freedom. Russian journalists were prevented from attending the event, while a man in camouflage somehow managed to get inside the premises (the OSCE do not know how he did it either).

I cannot confirm this information but I can quote it. A number of Ukrainian media have identified this man and even given his name. He declared that he personally had brought to Crimea in his car a certain object that later emerged as evidence of Oleg Sentsov’s guilt and had handled “other undertakings”.

Today, I would like to state officially that we have sent all materials related to this incident to the OSCE and urged it to explain how this man, who was not registered as a participant, found his way into the conference premises and addressed it, who he was, and what was being done to investigate his statement. This is yet another sign that Ukraine basically leaves really explosive statements uninvestigated and that the Western community pays no attention to them either.



Kirill Vyshinsky

It is 50 days today since RIA Novosti Ukraine Editor-in-Chief Kirill Vyshinsky was arrested on trumped-up charges of high treason.

For 50 days, a professional journalist has been exposed to an unprecedented physical and psychological pressure in the dungeons of the Kiev regime. In fact, he is a hostage and his life is small change in political manipulations masterminded by the Ukrainian authorities, who, on the one hand, are flirting with militant nationalism and xenophobia, while, on the other, are seeking to serve their own interests by drawing international organisations’ attention to human rights problems.

There are people, even in Ukraine, who are not afraid to say so despite dire risks. The “Vyshinsky case” is an unprecedented and appalling act of using physical violence against a member of the media community.

We demand that Kiev immediately and unconditionally release Mr Vyshinsky from custody and relieve him of all the outrageously false charges.



Detention of Sputnik Latvia Chief Editor Valentins Rozencovs

Last night, the Security Police detained Sputnik Latvia Chief Editor Valentins Rozencovs in Riga for an “interview” that lasted 12 hours.

The Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency has commented on this situation. We are also in contact with the journalists. We will monitor the developments and will pass on the information to the OSCE. Of course, we can see pressure being exerted on the editorial policy in the context of what they call an interview. After we have all the facts, we will make the relevant statements. Most importantly, we will work with the international media community and international organisations specialising in media rights protection.



Issue of US entry visas to Russian athletes

We have repeatedly drawn attention to the deplorable situation regarding the issue of US visas by US consular agencies in Russia. This process has been virtually blocked. Most categories of Russian citizens planning to enter the United States have to undergo mandatory visa interviews. Since April, visa interview deadlines have been extended to 300 days or a total of ten months, and it is impossible to make appointments. In other words, it is absolutely pointless to contact these agencies.

Even Russian athletes, invited to international competitions in the United States, face the same situation. Here are just a few examples: In April, members of the Russian national freestyle wrestling team were denied permission to undergo visa interviews in advance. Members of the equestrian and yachting teams were also unable to undergo such interviews in June. This happened, although they had sent the required documents to the US Embassy in Moscow three-four months before their respective tournaments.

This amounts to an obvious and flagrant violation of US obligations as a receiving country. If a country undertakes to host multinational competitions, it must allow everyone, invited by the relevant international sports federation, to take part in such competitions. Obviously, failure to issue US visas to Russian athletes who have been officially invited to attend such events discriminates against these athletes and Russia, and this also deals a blow against international sports.

We do not know what considerations are more important here: Does the United States strive to get rid of powerful opponents and pander to its own athletes, or does it want to isolate Russia, as some politicians in Washington still hope? To be quite honest, if such actions persist, they will isolate the United States itself, including in the world of sports. Everyone can see that this country’s authorities are not playing according to the rules. Today, they are playing against Russian athletes, and they can lash out against some other athletes tomorrow.

We suggest that international sports federations refrain from granting the United States the right to host competitions until this situation changes. It is impossible to pander to a state that obviously mixes up sports and politics.

We regret that Washington prefers to tread along this strange road, to sever ties between our nations, including through visa barriers. For our part, we are happy to welcome Americans arriving in Russia. We hope that more and more American citizens will want to see our country with their own eyes and take part in sports events because direct contacts are the best way to strengthen mutual understanding and trust.



World Drug Report 2018

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime has submitted its World Drug Report 2018 that highlights more pronounced critical trends in this field. Unfortunately, new record-breaking opium-poppy and coca-leaf “harvests,” as well as heroin and cocaine production volumes, have been posted.

At the same time, we are witnessing a dangerous transformation of the entire structure of the global drug-trafficking system. The share of synthetic drugs, the production of which is not linked with feedstock-growing regions, continues to increase. Moreover, synthetic drugs pose a much greater risk to human health than drugs made from plants.

An extremely alarming situation with the non-medical use of prescription opioids is shaping up. Opioid abuse has reached epidemic proportions in some regions. The report focuses on the so-called fentanyl crisis that has engulfed North America and which is causing the average life expectancy to decrease in the United States and Canada.

These assessments call for further consolidating the international community’s efforts to contain the global drug expansion. The Russian Federation and our supporters, who are ready to counter the worldwide drug challenge with real deeds, advocate this concept all the time.

Our strategic long-term goal is to build a reliable system of a collective anti-drug defence based on interstate cooperation. Unfortunately, not everyone follows this line. We have already expressed our disappointment with the decision of Canadian authorities to legalise cannabis, the most serious trans-border drug problem.

We do not share such approaches, and we still believe that one should not back down, hang out white flags and sign instruments of surrender in the face of the global drug challenge. On the contrary, it is necessary to display self-control and determination in such conditions and to defeat our common enemy through joint efforts. We will continue to move along this road, eventually achieving the global community’s goal as well as building a drug-free world.



Russian Film Week in Mexico

While Mexican football fans enjoyed our hospitality and the atmosphere of football celebration and cheered for their team, Mexico City hosted the Russian Film Week with the support of the Russian Ministry of Culture and the Russian Embassy in Mexico.

It seems that a good tradition is being established. It is the second time an event of this kind has been organised in Mexico since 2016. By the way, several years ago our Mexican friends also organised a similar cultural event in Russia.

Local audiences took great interest in the previous Russian Film Week. This year, the event featured eight new films by young Russian directors, which attracted even more attention of the local viewers.

We are glad to see these events. It is an opportunity for mutual cultural enrichment of our countries and peoples. It also helps us to understand each other better. We look forward to a Mexican film festival in Russia.



Opening of the exhibition, “The Holocaust: Annihilation, Liberation, Rescue” at the Council of Europe headquarters

On July 3, the Council of Europe headquarters in Strasbourg hosted an opening of the exhibition “The Holocaust: Annihilation, Liberation, Rescue.” The event’s keynote was the Red Army’s determining role in the victory over Nazism and in liberation of death camp prisoners.

A more detailed report on the event will be published on the Foreign Ministry’s website.



Celebration of Ivan Turgenev’s 200th birthday in Baden-Baden and Zurich

This year we are marking the 200th birthday of the great Russian novelist, publicist and playwright Ivan Turgenev, who made an invaluable contribution to world literature in the second half of the 19th century. His works influenced the style of not only Russian but also Western European novels.

Late in his life, Ivan Turgenev lived and worked in Germany and France. He was known there and highly appreciated for his writing talent and personality. Along with French writer Victor Hugo, he co-chaired the First International Writers’ Conference in Paris in 1878. Gustave Flaubert and Guy de Maupassant called him their teacher. Many claimed he was their favourite writer.

On July 10-11, the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy is organising the Literature Salons: Russia and the West in Ivan Turgenev’s Works, in Baden-Baden, where the writer worked, as well as in Zurich. The anniversary events are part of the International Diplomatic Forum cultural public diplomacy project.

The Literature Salons will be held in the format of open discussions involving prominent Russian and foreign researchers, literature theorists, diplomats and representatives of the academic and cultural elite, public organisations and Russians living abroad.

The events are supported by the Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Switzerland, the Consulate General in Frankfurt, the Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), the Russkiy Mir Foundation and the Russian Peace Foundation. We invite speakers, journalists and everyone interested in Turgenev’s life and work to join the event programme and to cover it in the media.

On our part, we would like to suggest that internet users take part in a flashmob in memory of the great Russian writer. The flashmob will be hashtagged #Turgenev200. Do post your favourite quotes, interesting facts about Turgenev and your reviews of his works.



The Sever Vash Russian Arctic Air Expedition

On July 3, Samara hosted the departure of the Sever Vash (Your North) Russian Arctic Air Expedition, a round-the-world oceanic flight round the North Pole in the Arctic Ocean. This is the first leg of the International Round-the-World Oceanic Flight in light amphibian aircraft.

The 45-day flight embraces nine countries with about 50 stops and landings: 15 in Russia’s northern areas (Tyumen, the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, Sakha-Yakutia, and Chukotka), 6 in Alaska, 9 in Canada, 2 in Greenland, 3 in Iceland, 1 in the UK, 2 in Norway , 1 in Sweden, 2 in Finland, and 5 in Central Russia.

The expedition is led by Hero of Russia Pilot Cosmonaut Valery Tokarev, who also heads the Star City municipality.

The expedition will conduct medical, biological, nanotechnological, geoinformational, climatic as well as environmental experiments and studies.



Poland continues to pull down monuments to Soviet soldiers

Poland continues its government-supported bacchanal around the monuments perpetuating the memory of Soviet soldiers who died during World War II. Unwilling to respond to our persistent signals and demands to stop this arbitrary campaign, Warsaw has declared that the demolition of monuments to the liberator soldiers will continue.

Reports are coming in about ever new destructive consequences of this pernicious policy. After the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army was removed in Dąbrowa Górnicza, Silesian Voivodeship, in May, it is now the turn of yet another memorial in that city and the dismantling is under way. The vigorous stand taken by local activists, who managed to have the project suspended based on the lack of an official go-ahead, was of no avail. The situation is no better in other regions.

To reiterate: settling scores with Soviet monuments that has been sanctioned by the Polish leaders is anything but civilised behaviour and is a violation of legal obligations to Russia. In the meantime, Poland positions itself as a champion of law and morality at international venues, including the UN Security Council, of which it is a non-permanent member. Here are double standards for you.

We also note examples of a different kind. Russia has reached an agreement in principle with the Polish authorities on improvements on the site of a mass burial of Soviet POWs (about 2,500 people), former inmates of the Nazi Stalag II D death camp, discovered near Stargard, West Pomeranian Voivodeship. The remains will be disinterred and identified. After this, they will be reburied with honours in the same place and an appropriate monument will be placed there.

But this episode is more likely an exception from the sad rule. Regrettably, we see the Polish administration’s persistent striving to “sort out” our memorial heritage at its own discretion into “acceptable” and “ideologically unacceptable.” We regard the voluntarist choice of criteria for deciding the fate of Soviet monuments in Poland as far-fetched and harmful.

You cannot bow to the memory of victims alone, while being oblivious of the memory and feat of valour of their liberators as well as those people who voluntarily sacrificed their life for the life of present-day Europe.

We resolutely voice our protest against Warsaw’s current military memorial policy that is affecting our joint history and trying to distort it. We urge Poland once again to discontinue these practices and honestly comply with its international legal obligations. There is no excuse for camouflaging these with so-called “decommunisation.”



BSEC activities during Azerbaijan’s presidency

During our previous briefing, I was asked to comment on Azerbaijan’s upcoming presidency of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), as well as various tasks that Russia, a BSEC member-country, will address during this period. In this connection, I would like to say the following.

Azerbaijan will preside over the Organisation in July-December. We perceive the preservation of its positive and non-politicised agenda as one the Organisation’s top-priority tasks during Azerbaijan’s presidency.

To the best of our knowledge, the timeframe of events in the period of Azerbaijan’s presidency has not been finalised yet. We hope that it will aim to strengthen close departmental cooperation between BSEC member countries. We expect ministerial meetings and various events organised by departmental agencies, including in energy, transport, culture, emergencies management cooperation, the fight against organised crime, development of trade and economic cooperation, tourism, and small and medium-sized businesses.

We would also praise steps aiming to expand the project-oriented dimension of BSEC activities and the further expansion of the project potential. We expect the Black Sea Project Promotion Facility, which has been established on Russia’s initiative and using its voluntary donation to help expand mutual trade between BSEC member countries. With due consideration for previously issued grants, BSEC member countries increasingly focus on this Facility, which is gradually becoming a key tool for addressing the Organisation’s tasks, including efforts to obtain additional practical results from intra-BSEC cooperation.



Russian company completes clean-up operations after thermal power station accident in Azerbaijan

As you know, a major accident happened at a thermal power station in Azerbaijan. I would like to note that Russian’s Inter RAO energy holding provided substantial assistance in resuming power supplies. According to Azerbaijani media outlets, the company did a good job. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev noted this yesterday and thanked Russia and Georgia for their assistance in connection with the situation in the country’s power grid.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

We have recently witnessed the triumph of the Russian national football team. The whole of Moscow and Russia, as well as foreign fans celebrated its victory. Russia received a great number of greetings, including from the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry. How did other countries react to this victory? Have any of those who are boycotting this championship sent their greetings?



Maria Zakharova:

You can see for yourself, because we publish all such greetings, including on the social media. The embassies and many foreign ministries sent their greetings to the official accounts of the Foreign Ministry of Russia and its diplomatic offices abroad. Yes, we have received a great number of official greetings, as well as unofficial greetings from officials delivered through the diplomatic corps. We received a hearty response from football fans around the world, including both Russian and foreign fans.



Question:

Any word from the foreign ministries of the countries that are boycotting the 2018 FIFA World Cup?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that greetings have no connection to the boycott. Many officials, in particular from Northern Europe, are revising their position. You have probably seen this happen. First they said they would not go [to Russia], and then they changed their minds. We have taken note of this.

I would like to say once again that although we have to monitor these terrible warnings against going to Russia, the boycott and various other admonitions, our door is still open to all those who want to attend the matches and cheer for their teams, be they ordinary fans, representatives of sports associations, officials or heads of state. This is our customary position, which has not changed.



Question:

Ri Su-yong, Director of the International Department of the Workers’ Party of Korea Central Committee, came to Moscow for a visit on Tuesday. Who will he meet with, and what will they discuss? Are there any new details regarding Kim Jong-un’s planned visit to Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

I will request information regarding your first question. As for summit meetings, we traditionally refer you to the Executive Office of the President of Russia.



Question:

Sergey Lavrov had a meeting with his Jordanian counterpart yesterday. During a similar meeting a year ago, the parties discussed military technology cooperation between Russia and Jordan. Did they talk about it yesterday? The official release does not mention this. Have the difficult situation with rebels in Jordan and general instability and tension in the region prevented the sides from reaching any agreements? Or has there been progress in this sphere?



Maria Zakharova:

I would say that yesterday the ministers focused on regional affairs. As you have said, Sergey Lavrov spoke about the results of that meeting at a news conference, where he said so quite clearly. Regional matters and the situation in the region as a whole were at the centre of the discussions.



Question:

Ukraine’s Naftogaz has again said that Gazprom assets would be seized in keeping with the ongoing litigation in Brussels. Do you expect any improvement in this sphere? Will pressure on Russian companies ease? Will the Foreign Ministry do something to help?



Maria Zakharova:

Regarding Ukraine and its possible actions against Russian companies, this is old news. Regrettably, the situation has been developing in various forms over many years, for decades, actually. Even when we maintained full-scale relations with Ukraine, Kiev turned the energy sector into a painful element. The situation continued to deteriorate into a scandal despite all the talks and negotiations. I would like to remind you about the internal political processes in Ukraine that are connected with the electoral cycle. Much of what has been said and done is connected with the electoral cycle. I would like to reaffirm our position that political instability must not be allowed to affect energy cooperation, despite Kiev’s repeated attempts to create a connection between the two.



Question:

Our Japanese colleagues have reported that a 2+2 format meeting between foreign and defence ministers of Russia and Japan is scheduled to take place this month. July 21 was mentioned as a possible date. Can you confirm these reports? If so, in which country will this meeting take place?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already commented on this topic. July 21 is off the agenda. We will announce the date as soon as we can. All I can say is that preparations for the meeting are underway. We will keep you updated on the location of the meeting. As you understand, there is a connection between the date and place of the meeting. It is not the first time that I hear and comment on July 21 as a possible date, and every time I have to say that this date is not on the agenda.



Question:

The OHCHR Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures Idriss Jazairy has said recently that the sanctions imposed on Russia by the West affected primarily the West. He said that this was an outdated approach, in that it was impossible to hurt Russia without hurting yourself. To what extent do you believe people in the West share this perspective, and can we expect the economy to prevail over politics in the long run, paving the way to the lifting of sanctions to the benefit of Russia, Europe and the US?



Maria Zakharova:

I have seen the reports relating to the UN Rapporteur who said that at the end of the day Western sanctions turned against those who imposed them (meaning the West), instead of those who were initially targeted. This is so, as we have said. There are facts and figures to prove this point. Russia had to find a way to take advantage of this situation, but this was not our choice. However, if the West engaged along this path, we had to respond, and the response was designed to serve the interests of the Russian Federation.

The outcome for the West was quite painful. This is not a reason for us to rejoice at the misfortune of others, since the politicians who developed, implemented and imposed these decisions were not the ones who suffered from them. The burden was shifted to ordinary people, European agricultural producers, individuals and companies who have been developing trade, economic and financial relations with Russia for many years, as well as investors who now get lower returns. Instead of expressing malicious glee we regret to see that after seeking to benefit from globalisation for so long, although there is also a downside to it as well, and seeking to expand the opportunities promised by globalisation, the West eliminated in a single blow all the positive achievements, constructive undertakings as well as benefits of operating in a globalised world.

This will serve as a very important lesson. We are talking here about strategic industries. This is an example of relying on easy solutions for resolving misunderstandings that predated the crisis, which only makes things worse, since the crisis was followed by unilateral measures to put pressure on us. This made things only worse and resulted in the consequences mentioned by UN representatives.

We share this view. To what extent are the Western countries aware of this? It all depends. People who are not involved in these sectors are less aware of these facts because the media prefer not to mention this. At the same time, people involved in the EU’s agriculture are fully aware. I have quoted their letters and messages on a number of occasions in which they express regret, etc.

I can assure you that politicians know this all too well. Some of them pretend that this is not happening, while others on the contrary use this information for their own aims. We see that these facts and figures are being used for inciting protest. When we are asked about the political changes in Europe and our view of these developments, implying that the ‘hand of Moscow’ was to blame, we respond that it was not Moscow, but Brussels to blame since it was the EU that introduced sanctions that hurt EU producers, which led them to change their political views as well as preferences.



Question:

Can you please comment on the United States’ demands for the United Kingdom to increase its defence spending?



Maria Zakharova:

We have seen these reports. I can say that this is not the first such move by the United States. This is a policy that is directed not only at the United Kingdom but many other areas, with respect to both individual countries and, for example, NATO. This is a policy of forcing NATO allies to increase the alliance’s military spending.

The reports in the media that you are talking about should be viewed in the same context. These reports include references to a bold letter by US Secretary of Defence to his British counterpart. The letter contains an ultimatum, requesting a significant increase in Britain’s military budget to avoid losing its status as “number one partner in Europe.” Once again, I am referring to the media.

Speaking about trends, there obviously is a trend and it is disturbing. In particular, we cannot help but be disturbed by the growth in NATO’s military budget. This is accompanied by the strengthening of the “Eastern front” despite the fact that the alliance has other obvious problems. There are problems and they are indeed much more serious.

Also, this coincides with a growing concentration of respective forces and facilities by NATO members at the borders of our country. The alliance is protecting itself against some factitious threats, creating and building structures from the times of bloc confrontation. NATO and the United States continue to build their missile defences in Europe. The allies have increased the scale and intensity of their command and combat training which is aimed at exploring a European scene of operation. Obviously, this military activity by the alliance is aimed at creating a springboard for putting forceful pressure on our country. The increasing potential for conflict on the European continent is a direct consequence of military preparations which are unprecedented since the end of the Cold War.

Without any ultimatums, the United Kingdom is already exceeding its target for military spending of 2 per cent. However, as we understand it and as our analysis confirms, Britain was not selected by Washington at random but because the country has repeatedly claimed to have a special relationship with the United States and it must remain at the so-called forefront of the NATO bloc. This is an example of obvious pressure by the United States on its allies in relation to increases in military spending. Of course, this does not contribute to the strengthening of military and political stability in Europe.



Question:

Last Sunday, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko again announced that Ukrainian flags will be raised on Ukrainian ships in the bays of Sevastopol. He said this while congratulating Ukrainian Navy personnel on their professional holiday. What is your response to this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

Honestly, I do not really understand why this statement caused such repercussions and so many negative reactions in Sevastopol. Crimea has repeatedly heard our statements supporting it in all its concerns, but in this case, I do not share Crimea’s negative attitude to Poroshenko’s statement because, for one thing, I can see that the President of Ukraine is moving in the direction of greater realism. I proceed from the fact that, when announcing the intention to raise the Ukrainian flag in Sevastopol, the President of Ukraine could be referring to the opening of a general consulate there. I do not see anything negative in this. It is a normal diplomatic practice, which must be formalised accordingly. We are ready for this. Let them send documents, open a general consulate with the consent of the Russian Federation and raise the flag there. I do not think that Crimeans would object to that.



Question:

President Poroshenko’s recent visit to Serbia has drawn a lot of attention from the Serbian public. Yesterday, Serbian President Aleksandar Vuсiс, while talking to the media, was asked to comment on the assessments of this visit that appeared in some media outlets, including the fact that neither the US nor Russia liked the way Poroshenko was received in Serbia.



Maria Zakharova:

Russia did not like the way Poroshenko was received in Serbia?



Question:

That was the assessment made by a correspondent with one of the Russian media outlets in the Balkans.



Maria Zakharova:

Could it have been his personal assessment? Here is our usual position: A country has its sovereign right to develop relations with other states. There can be no negative assessments of the relations between Serbia and Ukraine on the part of Russia in principle. We ourselves have the aim of developing relations with Ukraine, the Ukrainian people. There can be no negative assessments of cooperation between the two countries.

If some anti-Russian statements were made during this visit, we certainly could not support them or agree with them. To be honest, we did not even hear what Poroshenko said there.



Question:

Earlier this year in Poland, the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia met with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group. They reached agreement, in particular, on the expansion of the Office of the Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office there. I would like to know whether this process of expanding the Office has begun and how it will affect the settlement process as a whole.



Maria Zakharova:

I will get updates and provide you with information as soon as possible.



Question:

My question has to do with political prisoners in Ukraine…



Maria Zakharova:

Do you want to ask about Savchenko?



Question:

No, not at all.



Maria Zakharova:

For some reason no one wants to ask about Savchenko.



Question:

There are people who suffer from the repression of the Kiev regime. Can Russia help people who do not have Russian citizenship, or call attention to this issue so that Ukraine respects human rights and rights of political prisoners? In this particular case, our Bulgarian readers asked about a young woman of Bulgarian origin who has been in a remand prison in Odessa for more than three years on an unproven charge of terrorism. This is not a unique case.



Maria Zakharova:

I agree with you that we should look for every opportunity, for any options to help our citizens. I understand your question, although, indeed, she is not a Russian citizen. I understand why they are trying every option to bring about her release. There are many such examples. Of course, first of all, they need to attract international human rights groups and specialised organisations such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and so on.

Unfortunately, our experience with Ukraine in this respect cannot be described as positive. I just talked about journalist Kirill Vyshinsky who was arrested, unprecedentedly, for journalistic activity, only for this, without any other reason. Moreover, allow me to repeat, what is being done to him and how he is being treated is a separate matter, for consideration by the international community.

Frankly, I do not even know what can be done here. If you have any details, could you provide them to us? I will pass them on to our experts. Perhaps they will have some answer to this question.



Question:

Regarding the incident in Amesbury, it appears that the British authorities simply are not in control of the situation. Does the Foreign Ministry plan to issue a warning to Russian citizens in the UK?



Maria Zakharova:

Today I made all the statements we wanted to make. I made a point saying that we believe today is not the time to politicise things. On the contrary, now is the time to finally stop these dirty political games and start doing what had to be done on day one, namely, open a joint investigation bearing in mind that the matter involves Russian citizens and that there were no official evidence or leads offered for several months with regard to the first case. What we had instead was endless quoting of sources, unnamed sources or people who refused to identify themselves.

Please note that it happened four months ago. All the punitive measures have already been taken, although neither perpetrators, nor suspects have been brought to justice. For four full months now we have been living in an information vacuum. Everyone is periodically fed leaks that are not confirmed even after their release. So, today I said that everything is turning out in a way that allows us to have law enforcement agencies work normally, and urged the British authorities not to put up political obstacles to UK law enforcement bodies interacting with their counterparts in Russia.



Question:

Today, you accused the British government of intrigues and games with toxic agents …



Maria Zakharova:

On the contrary, I thought it was your strong point.



Question:

Can you explain what you mean when you say that the British government poisoned people in Salisbury, that is, Amesbury?



Maria Zakharova:

To reiterate, today, when we see a great flood of contradictory information coming from London, we do not consider it necessary to make any political statements. We consider it necessary to urge the law enforcement agencies of Great Britain to begin a normal investigation in conjunction with their Russian counterparts, and we urged the British government not to obstruct this process.

I believe I made it very clear. This is not the time to continue political intrigues. What else can you call international bullying and an international campaign to expel Russian diplomats other than intrigue? What do you call what has been done at the OPCW during this time? It is all games and intrigue. However, we made a point of saying that now is not the time to exchange political accusations, but rather it is the right time to launch a joint investigation in the name of the safety of people in Europe since this is happening in the UK, but this also involves Russian citizens and, as we were told by Great Britain, the Russian citizens were also affected.

To reiterate, our embassy in London sent a whole bunch of official documents inviting Britain to start working with Russian law enforcement agencies. Response is nil. That's what we need to talk about today. All political assessments will be given, but today it is important not to miss the right moment and to start working together.

Are you not interested in this as a British subject? Is it really in your interest to leave this case unresolved? For four months now nobody knows the truth about what happened there. I don’t think you know either, but you just don’t want to say so. For four months now everyone, including the BBC, is forced to run endless "leaks" on this matter. For four months now, we heard nothing from London other than unnamed sources and "highly likely." Don’t you think we’ve had enough of it and that now it’s time to do start doing real work together? If the goal was to create a political wave, it is now gone. Perhaps someone in London received some bonuses. Perhaps it's time to stop and really think about the issue which, as we are being told, is chemical warfare agents. If today we are talking about four people, isn’t it perhaps time to make some effort and take it from the political sphere to the sphere of law enforcement?



Question:

TASS website issued a report marked "breaking news" quoting Kyoto news agency that the 2 + 2 Japan-Russia talks will be held in Moscow on July 28 or 29. How accurate is this information?



Maria Zakharova:

I have said everything about this. As soon as we can confirm this meeting, its date and place, we will do so. Please do not quote each other, but use official information instead.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3290159
__________________
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 July 14th, 2018 #457
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on a message of greetings from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov on the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Eternal Friendship and Alliance Oriented Towards the 21st century



9 July 2018 - 17:50



July 6 marked 20 years since the signing of the Declaration between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan on Eternal Friendship and Alliance Oriented Towards the 21st century.

In connection with the anniversary, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a message of greetings to his colleague from Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov, in which he noted that abiding by the declaration’s provisions, our countries remain reliable partners for each other. This provides a foundation for the confident and steady development of bilateral ties.

The fact that Russia-Kazakhstan relations have reached a qualitatively new level of alliance and strategic partnership is largely determined by the practical implementation of the declaration’s founding principles and the documents reflecting its essence, including those that regulate the Eurasian integration process. In the current complicated international situation, this approach makes it possible to find well-balanced solutions that fully consider the interests of both countries within the formats of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The two countries have reaffirmed their interest in the further development of mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation, deepening productive joint actions in various areas, revealing the potential of allied ties for the benefit of our states and peoples, and ensuring prosperity, peace and security in Eurasia.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3292936






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Oman Sayyid Badr bin Hamad bin Hamood Al Busaidi



10 July 2018 - 16:39







On July 10, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov received Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Oman Sayyid Badr bin Hamad bin Hamood Al Busaidi who is in Moscow on a working visit.

During the conversation the officials praised the high level of Russia-Oman political dialogue that is invariably characterised by similar or identical approaches of Moscow and Muscat to important regional and international issues. They emphasised the need to settle the persisting crises in the Middle East as soon as possible by political means, on the basis of national consensus and in strict conformity with the principles of international law and the UN Charter.

The officials also reviewed the main issues for the further steady development of the range of traditionally friendly Russian-Omani relations, including expansion of trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation. They expressed the common view that consolidation of versatile bilateral ties meets the long-term interests of Russia and Oman and helps ensure security and stability in the Middle East.

On the same day, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov held a regular round of bilateral consultations with Sayyid Badr bin Hamad bin Hamood Al Busaidi.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293261






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulidis



11 July 2018 - 18:04







On July 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulidis at the latter’s initiative.

The ministers discussed the current state and prospects of bilateral relations and the implementation of the agreements reached at the Moscow talks in April 2018.

Mr Christodoulidis shared his assessment of the Cypriot settlement process. Mr Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s position of principle in support of negotiations between the two communities on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions with a view to reaching a comprehensive, viable and fair solution in the interests of both Cypriot communities. Naturally, the UN, under the aegis of which negotiations are being held, should play the main role in international efforts to reach a settlement. Russia supports the continued mission of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, which is performing important stabilising functions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293545






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at inter-ministerial consultations on the SCO’s international activities, Moscow, July 12, 2018



12 July 2018 - 12:17











Colleagues,

I am happy to be taking part in this meeting and to welcome you to Moscow. Speaking on behalf of the Russian Federation and the Foreign Ministry, I would like to once again express our gratitude for supporting Russia’s proposal to hold a special meeting to discuss the SCO’s international activities. I consider this issue topical and our meeting today timely.

Given the complicated, multi-directional and contradictory processes in global politics and the economy, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is gaining traction as a dynamically growing international organisation that is playing an increasingly important role in international affairs. The consistent strengthening of this trend is facilitated by the new opportunities and prospects created by the admission of India and Pakistan to the organisation. Our task now is to reinforce the SCO’s strategic role in supporting the objective process of the development of a polycentric world based on equal and indivisible security, mutual respect for each other and each other’s interests, as well as commitment to the goals and principles of the UN Charter and international law.

This is the spirit of our position on a wide range of international and regional security issues, which our leaders coordinated in Qingdao, China in June this year.

I am sure that our meeting today will add momentum to the implementation of the agreements reached by our heads of state, as well as to our joint foreign policy activities aimed at increasing the weight and enhancing the prestige of the SCO on the international stage.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293792






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with ambassadors of Slavic countries



12 July 2018 - 17:24







On July 12, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a traditional meeting with ambassadors of Slavic countries to Russia.

The participants met during a working breakfast to exchange opinions on key European and international issues with an emphasis on prospects for the development of Russia’s relations with Slavic states and the European Union.

Also discussed were matters concerning the security and stability in Europe and some regions of the world.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293952






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with former President of Madagascar Didier Ratsiraka



13 July 2018 - 17:44



On July 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with former President of Madagascar Didier Ratsiraka who is on a private visit to Moscow. During the meeting the officials noted the positive dynamics in the development of traditionally friendly ties between Russia and Madagascar in various areas and the importance of stepping up multifaceted cooperation, including regular inter-parliamentary exchanges and meetings of representatives of political and business circles.

Mr Lavrov emphasised Mr Ratsiraka’s tangible personal contribution to the development and consolidation of Russia-Madagascar relations. He pointed out the demand for further efforts to expand trade, economic and humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Madagascar in the interests of the peoples of both countries. In turn, Mr Ratsiraka praised Russia’s foreign policy and its efforts to form a multipolar world that ensures conditions for the safe and sustainable development of all states and the countering of critical global challenges and the settlement of conflicts in Africa.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294772






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Novgorod Region Governor Andrey Nikitin



13 July 2018 - 19:26



On July 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Governor of the Novgorod Region Andrey Nikitin.

During their conversation they exchanged views on major issues of practical cooperation between the Foreign Ministry and the Novgorod Region with the aim of developing the international and foreign economic ties of this region of the Russian Federation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294830






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Larry King’s “Politicking” show on RT, Moscow, July 14, 2018



14 July 2018 - 00:30











Question:

A historic Summit looms between United States President Donald Trump and Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin at a time of increased tensions between their two nations. Mr Trump has signalled that Syria, sanctions, military exercises and elections meddling may be on the agenda. But what does Moscow want from this high stakes face-to-face? We find out now, as I talk with Russia’s long-time Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who joins me from Moscow. Mr Foreign Minister, thank you very much for being with us.



S.Lavrov:

Thank you for the invitation, Larry.



Question:

Ok let’s get right into it. In the wrap-up of the NATO Summit, which has just ended, President D.Trump and other members agreed to a joint statement, which among other things condemned what they called your country’s “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea” and also reaffirmed support for Ukraine’s aspirations to become a member of NATO. What is your reaction to this, Mr Foreign Minister?



S.Lavrov:

There is nothing new in these statements. We have been hearing them for quite a number of years, so we take it as inertia by the Cold War thinking. Nothing more than that.



Question:

I thought the Cold War was over.



S.Lavrov:

The inertia of the Cold War is unfortunately still with NATO. It is high time for NATO to leave it behind.



Question:

So, when they say that “annexation of Crimea was illegal and illegitimate”, you say that it is not true?



S.Lavrov:

No, it is not true. The current status of Crimea was determined by the people, who live there, in a referendum, which was free and fair and which was attended by many of international observers. Not official delegations from any country or from any international organization, but international observers and human rights activists. This was certainly done in a much more transparent and legitimate way than the unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s independents without any referendum. By the way, it is interesting speaking of the rules-based order, as our Western friends like to say. They try to invent rules for each individual case, and then they say that this is sui generis, this is unique, and for any other issue, which they might not like, there would be other rules. I was told by a friend that when the United Nations General Assembly was supposed to discuss the situation with the Malvinas or the Falkland Islands, our British colleagues sent instructions to their ambassadors all over the world, saying “you must convince the country of your posting that they should recognize that the status of the Falkland Islands was determined by a free and fair referendum of the people, who live there, in full agreement with the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination of peoples. The fact that the Argentinian Government introduced sanctions because of that referendum is illegitimate and should be condemned”. I hope you understand what kind of parallel I am trying to draw.



Question:

I get it. At his news conference this Thursday, President D.Trump said that the NATO allies have stepped up like never before on defence spending. He also called the Alliance “a fine-tuned machine”. Mr Foreign Minister, what are your thoughts about NATO?



S.Lavrov:

Well, NATO is a reality. It is an atavism of the Cold War times, but it is a reality and we take it as a reality. We do not believe that what NATO is doing by trying to expand further and further closer to Russian borders, swallowing countries, which, frankly, do not add to the security of the Alliance, we don’t believe this is the way to resolve the problems of today. Today, we have common threats, common enemies: terrorism, climate change, organized crime, drug trafficking. None of this is being effectively addressed by NATO expansion. NATO should certainly be taken as a reality, as I have said, but NATO should understand that it cannot dictate to each and every other country how to handle the international security matters. Dialogue is required. We have been proposing many things to NATO, which we can do together: counter-terrorism, the discussions of military doctrines, the discussion of transparency measures in military build-up. All this was frozen after the referendum in Crimea. NATO took exactly the same approach, as it took in August 2008. Then, President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia launched a war against his own people in South Ossetia. And then we demanded a convening of NATO-Russia Council, but Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State at that time, said “no way, we cannot discuss anything with an aggressor”. Then, she corrected herself and all NATO-members agreed that NATO-Russia Council must be the all-weather forum and that especially at the time of crisis, it should function on the basis of equality and taking into account the interests of each other.

After the Crimean referendum, which was free and fair, as I have said, and as many international observers assert, the mistake was repeated once again. As of the defence expenditure, even without any further rise, the current statistics is that NATO together with the US spends about 20 times more than Russia spends on its defence. Without the United States, the Europeans spend about 4 times more than Russia spends on its defence budget. I assume that it might be partially related to the productivity of labour, to the difference in productivity of labour, but this cannot be the only explanation.



Question:

How did you react when President D.Trump said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia”?



S.Lavrov:

Well, my spokesman, Maria Zakharova, addressed this issue yesterday, when she gave facts that we sell gas to Germany, which is business, and the US has dozens of thousands of military men and women on the German soil and a few dozens of military bases. Any international observer, having these statistics in front of him or her, should make his or her own conclusions. I can only quote what President D.Trump said when he was asked whether President V.Putin is his enemy or his friend. He said that “he is a competitor, a strong competitor. And I believe that we can get along with him, and I hope that one day we might become friends”. But speaking of competition, I have always believed in free competition, because the free market is about fair competition. And when speaking of gas and Germany, US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry yesterday said that the “North Stream 2 pipeline must be stopped and those European countries, whose companies would be participating in this project, would be sanctioned by the United States, because the US is for competition and for the sake of competition there must be new terminals to receive American liquefied natural gas.” Some competition I would say. Of course, if “Russian authoritarian gas” is supposed to be worse that the “democratic American gas” than I am awfully sorry, but this is not economy, this is not competition, this is pure ideology and unfair competition.



Question:

Mr Foreign Minister, are you going to accompany Mr Putin to Helsinki?



S.Lavrov:

Yes, I will be there as well as US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. We had a couple of conversations with M.Pompeo, we discussed what kind of arrangements we should foresee for the meeting in Helsinki. Parallel to the meeting between the two Presidents, which they want to start one-on-one, we would be meeting with Mike, with the ambassadors, to Russia and to the US, respectively. We will discuss any issue, which each of us would like to raise. There will be no fixed agenda, but there are obvious items, which will certainly pop-up.



Question:

The two Presidents will meet alone. By the way, I have interviewed Mr Putin quite a few times. When I had been with him, he did not speak English. Are there going to be interpreters at that private meeting between the two Presidents?



S.Lavrov:

Yes, there will be interpreters. President Putin actually understands English, but for the sake of better expressing his views, he prefers to use the interpreters good offices.



Question:

Will there be no other aides in the room? You will not be in the room?



S.Lavrov:

Well, as things stand now. That is what the American side proposed and we are polite people, so we have agreed.



Question:

Alright, what are you looking forward to from the Summit? What from the Russian standpoint will be a successful Summit?



S.Lavrov:

The beginning of the normal communications. Most channels of communications established during last 7-10 years have been frozen, on very important issues: counter-terrorism, energy, drug trafficking, cybersecurity, Afghanistan, other regional conflicts. What we have now is sporadic meetings between the diplomats and the military, mostly on Syria. We also have a channel on Ukraine, where the aide of President V.Putin and the special envoy of the United States met several times, but with no visible progress, because our American colleagues, every time they meet with their Russian counterparts, try to deviate radically from the Minsk Agreements, which underline the consensus on the Ukrainian Crisis. But we keep trying and I hope that we would certainly discuss this issue in Helsinki. Back to your question, regarding the ideal outcome. The ideal outcome would be to agree, to engage all the channels on all the issues, which are divisive, on the one hand, trying to see whether we can get closer on those exact topics, and also on those issues, where we can usefully cooperate now for the sake of interests of the two countries and for the sake of interests of the international community, like the strategic stability, for example.



Question:

Are you optimistic about the Summit?



S.Lavrov:

I am not paid to be optimistic or pessimistic. I am paid to be realistic, and we try to stick to the reality. We will see what the reality looks like.



Question:

We have had great relations, when Mr. Gorbachev was in. Mr Gorbachev and Mr Bush Sr. got along very well. Mr Clinton got along very well. When do these countries start to part? I know Mr Trump said that we should be friends. It seemed that things were going well and then not well. How would you describe American-Russian relations right now?



S.Lavrov:

It is very unfortunate that we have our relations in this state. I believe, as President Vladimir Putin many times described it to the audiences he addressed, including to the American audience, that it all started when the US began to understand that Russia wants to have its own view of how to build its own country, how to protect its own security and how to organize its own development. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the American and Western influence in general on what was going on in Russia was very big. The US probably believed that as from that time the Russian leadership would follow the Western line on everything. You remember when Francis Fukuyama called it “the end of history”, meaning that as of that moment, as of the moment of disappearance of the Soviet Union, there would be only one civilization, Western civilisation with its values, rules and everything else, which would determine how the world affairs are run. Russia believed that given its millennium history, given its traditions, given its national character, given its values, including the Orthodox values, spiritual values, that Russia also has a right to have a say in world affairs. On the equal basis, on the basis of the universal respect for the international law, but having its own voice.

We wanted this voice to be received as a voice of an equal partner, which was originally promised, when NATO-Russia Council was created, when OSCE convened the Summit, where all leaders, heads of state and governments proclaimed their determination to respect indivisible security, the principle, which provides for any country not to strengthen its own security at the expense of weakening the security of others. Then, at some point, when the US unilaterally dropped from the Missile Defence Treaty, the revisionism began, which continues until now. The US has dropped from so many international agreements, which is really an attempt to revise the international order. When the US dropped from the Missile Defence Treaty, it became very clear that this violated the principle that no one should increase his security at the expense of security of others. We proposed to make this principle of indivisible and equal security not just a political commitment, but a legally binding principle. We proposed in 2007-2008 to conclude a treaty by all members of OSCE, a treaty on European security, which would codify as a legaly binding principle the commitment not to increase your own security at the expense of the security of others. The answer by the NATO members was “no way. The only place, where a country can get legal guarantees for its security, is NATO”. I hope you do not need me to explain in details that this was a very unfortunate decision of NATO. It indicated that what NATO actually wanted was to pull inside the alliance more and more members, getting closer and closer to the borders of the Russian Federation, thus violating another commitment that NATO members accepted in the context of the OSCE summits – not to keep and not to move the dividing lines to the East. On the contrary, they have committed together with us to eliminate those dividing lines. Those are just few examples of how things have deteriorated during that period.

All this in combination brought us to understanding that, for example, the Missile Defence Treaty was no longer valid, because the US dropped from it. In 2002 George Bush Jr. told President Vladimir Putin, when Mr Putin said that in his view this was a mistake to drop from this treaty, that they needed to build the missile defence system, it was not against us. It was against other countries, he mentioned Iran and North Korea. They advised us to do whatever we want in response to the US leaving the Treaty, because they would take it as not being aimed against Russia as well. That is when we started to develop these new weapons, which could overcome the missile defence, because we do not want to find ourselves in a situation, where we would be armless in front of the US, which would have strategic weapons, but would also have a strategic missile defence shield. It would be a very tempting combination. We are just doing something, which we need in this very particular situation, to defend our own security. Nothing more. We are not going to attack anyone, but we would be protected very well to counter any attack against us.



Question:

What does your country think of the United States and its sort of agreement with North Korea? Do you think that it is good for the world, bad from the Russian viewpoint?



S.Lavrov:

I think that it is good for the world. We strongly support the efforts undertaken by President Donald Trump and also by the President of South Korea to build up the atmosphere, which would be conducive to resolving the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula and to bringing all of us to denuclearisation. From the very beginning, we suggested together with China that the first step must be confidence building. The second step should be some confidence building measures, like freezing the launches and tests, like freezing the military games. I believe that what is going on is going in the right direction. I know that the outcome of the meeting in Singapore between President Donald Trump and the leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un is being criticised by many, as just being empty words on paper without any “beef” in it. Later, US Secretary of State Mr Michael Pompeo visited Pyeongyang and he was also criticised for not delivering any specific hard commitments to denuclearisation, but I think that serious analysts understand that this thing cannot be done overnight. It has been a very deep crisis with very serious consequences, which might affect many countries, if things went wrong. We have to build confidence gradually and that is what, I believe President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mr Michael Pompeo are helping to do. We support these efforts and we try to contribute in our contacts with the North Koreans and other players in that region.



Question:

It is good to hear. The unanimous conclusion by the entire American Intelligence community is that your government influenced the American elections in 2016 and that President Donald Trump will tell President Vladimir Putin to not do it again. How do you react to all of this, to Your country’s involvement in American elections?



S.Lavrov:

I have seen those reports. With all due respect, Larry, I cannot agree that it was the report by “the entire American Intelligence community”. Those who are interested can take a look at the piece written by former American ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, who described the report produced regarding the alleged Russian interference and showed the inefficiencies, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in filing this report without, for example, expressing the view, which the military intelligence had. It is a report signed only by three agencies out of a dozens of intelligence agencies that the US has and which would normally participate in anything called the “opinion of the entire Intelligence community of the United States”. Then I saw the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which alleged that Russia has been interfering with elections, that there is proof, but not a single fact was produced. Then, it was announced that the full report would be made secret, because of the “sensitive information”.

It is exactly the same approach, as we see in our relations with the United Kingdom, which accused us ten years ago of poisoning one of the former intelligence officers, who resided in London, Mr Litvinenko. The trial, which concluded that Russia was responsible, was also secret. Now the investigation of the Salisbury poisoning is also going on without any transparent information being provided to the public, without anything given to us, including access to a Russian citizen, and so on and so forth. Now this “highly likely” thing is becoming contagious. The assertion that there is no other credible explanation is becoming a rule on which the Western friends try to base their policy on Russia. The latest event in Greece is absolutely going in the same vein: “highly likely” and we are not given any single fact.

Back to the American elections. I have spent some time in the US, so I believe that I understand how the system is working. A year and a half, even more, the investigation go on, hearings go on, head of Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice Mr Robert Mueller in line with dozens of people participate in the hearings, being interrogated, and the only thing that the public gets is the assertion that it is proven again and again that Russia did meddle, we are still thinking whether this meddling did have effect on the outcome of the elections, and so on and so forth. Apart from these assertions there is no single fact. Knowing the American system, I am convinced that with so many people involved in all these hearings: closed, public, secret, not secret, it is impossible that no single fact has been leaked yet into the public domain. The US system is leaking very often, especially in issues like this, where so many people are involved, it is impossible not to have any single fact presented to the public one way or another.



Question:

So, you categorically deny any Russian involvement?



S.Lavrov:

President V.Putin addressed this issue several times. Couple of weeks ago, he once again confirmed that the Russian Government has nothing to do with what was going on during the American elections. We have been reading about somebody else’s meddling with the Democratic Party’s site, but this fact, which has been proven by the way, is not mentioned at all, when this electoral campaign issue is being discussed. What we did say was that we are ready to answer any questions that the American Administration might have, regarding this matter. This was actually offered by us, when President V.Putin met with President D.Trump one year ago on the margins of G20 in Hamburg. We thought that there was an agreement that a group of experts would be meeting. The Americans would put on the table all the issues, which they believe Russia must explain, and then the experts would do this. Somehow, few days after the Summit, under pressure of those, who believed that the Administration should not discuss anything on cybersecurity with Russia, this deal was postponed. Lately, there were signals that the Americans are ready to resume this attempt, we will be ready to discuss any concerns regarding cybersecurity, which the US might have.

Speaking of cybersecurity and freedom of expression, we are concerned that RT, which is not foreign to you, is being labelled by for example the French Government as “an agent of influence”. The same French Government introduced a draft law into the Parliament, which is intended to compile a blacklist of media outlets that are suspected of spreading “fake news”. Even more seriously, this blacklist would be accompanied by a list of media resources, compiled at the legislature level, which would be recommended to national regulators of cyberspace as “reliable sources”. If this is not censorship, if this is not an attempt to squeeze the space of expression than I do not understand much in this life.



Question:

I can say concerning this program, which is on RT and other sources, RT has never interfered with this show at all. Never edited us, never censored us or anything, so I would go on record, as saying that. I want to add one thing, Mr Foreign Minister. Morally, how can you support someone like President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, who has been so brutal to his own people? How can you support him?



S.Lavrov:

I think you are being a politician. Some people say that being a politician is being cynical, some say healthy cynicism is good. I believe that we have to be realistic. We have to be responsible first of all for the world security, for the security of our countries, for the cooperation with others, which would create conditions, making our people safer. If you take a look in retrospect at that region: Saddam Hussein was a dictator, Muammar Gaddafi was a dictator. But if you compare the sufferings of the people of Iraq and Libya, respectively, under these two dictators and the present after the American and NATO interventions in Iraq and Libya in violation of international law than I believe the numbers of those who were killed, who were wounded, who fled their homes would be probably hundreds of thousands more than those, who suffered under those regimes.

The same is true for Syria. The people, who ruined Iraq, who ruined Libya, who now try to invite the international community to share responsibility for the migrants’ crisis, the same people draw no conclusions and want to put Syria in the same state. Some analysts say that the US might be interested in keeping this region in turmoil, so that it can fish in these muddy waters. I do not believe that this is what the US wants, but if you look at the facts, it is what is happening. This is not to say that we want to justify dictators, but it is to say that before you start an “adventure”, you must make every step not to be reckless and to find a way to promote democratic changes peacefully, like the US is doing in many countries of the very same region. I do not need to list them. My point is that we condemn any violations of human rights, any violations of international humanitarian law, whoever commit them: governments, opposition, foreign countries interfering, but we have to see the entire picture and we have to think about the price of being moral just for the sake of being moral.



Question:

So, you include Syria in that statement?



S.Lavrov:

Yes, that is what you have asked me about.



Question:

I am very glad to hear that. Mr Foreign Minister, thank you so much for giving us your time today. Have a successful trip to Helsinki and let’s hope that when we meet in person, we have peace in world, would not that be nice?



S.Lavrov:

Thank you, Larry. Thank you very much for the invitation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294860
__________________
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 July 19th, 2018 #458
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding the Russian citizens injured in Salisbury



9 July 2018 - 16:18




Question:

Could you comment on the situation surrounding the Russian citizens injured in Salisbury?



Maria Zakharova:

We continue to pay the closest possible attention to developments in the Skripal case, in which London’s course of action raises more and more questions every day.

Particularly concerning is the current condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, Russian citizens who were the victims of this provocation. Unfortunately, the British authorities persist in refusing to give us an opportunity to personally meet with them, inquire about their health and make sure their living conditions are adequate.

Representatives of the British Foreign Office unreasonably ignore Russia’s demands for consular access to our citizens and offer merely formal responses to our numerous inquiries, citing the need to respect Ms Skripal’s privacy. We have to note that since the incident, she has communicated with the outer world only twice, under strict control, which again raises the question on the extent of her freedom in her decisions and wishes.

Overall, London is clearly in violation of corresponding provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 and the Bilateral Consular Convention of 1965. Such a course of action only intensifies our suspicions that Sergei and Yulia Skripal are either being kept in isolation against their will by British authorities or their conditions do not correspond to official information.

As such, Russia will continue to insist that Great Britain follow its obligations under international law concerning consular access.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3292788






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s telephone conversation with Chairman of Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh



10 July 2018 - 19:26



On July 10, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov had a telephone conversation with Chief of the Political Bureau of the Palestinian movement Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, at the latter’s initiative.

During the conversation, Mr Haniyeh described in detail developments in Gaza Strip with an emphasis on the grave socio-economic situation caused by Israel’s continued blockade. Mr Haniyeh expressed the determination of the Hamas leadership to restore as soon as possible inter-Palestinian national unity on the basis of the agreements reached between Hamas and Fatah with Egypt’s mediation.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293322






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with a delegation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine



11 July 2018 - 15:10



On July 11, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov met with Deputy General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Abu Ahmad Fuad and PFLP Politburo member Maher al-Taher.

The officials held an in-depth discussion on a Palestinian-Israeli settlement and the current situation in the Palestinian territories, primarily the goal of restoring Palestinian national unity based on the PLO platform as soon as possible. They confirmed the importance of strengthening the traditionally friendly Russian-Palestinian relations, including by promoting political dialogue on international and regional issues of mutual concern.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293464






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov's meeting with Faleh al-Fayad, the National Security Advisor to the Iraqi Prime Minister



12 July 2018 - 20:53



On July 12, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov met at the Russian Foreign Ministry with Faleh al-Fayad, the National Security Advisor to the Iraqi Prime Minister, who is in Moscow on a working visit.

During the conversation the officials exchanged views on current issues on the Middle East agenda with a focus on the situation in Syria in the context of the steps taken by the country’s army to restore control over the territories liberated from the terrorist groups.

Mr Bogdanov reiterated Russia’s principled position in support of the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of friendly Iraq. The officials emphasised the importance of promptly forming a new government with consideration for the interests of all political parties and ethnic and religious groups in the country in view of the May 12 general parliamentary election in the country.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294024






Remarks by Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in response to the report of the Head of the OSCE mission to Moldova, Vienna, July 12, 2018



13 July 2018 - 10:55




Mr Chairperson,

We are grateful to the esteemed Ambassador Michael Scanlan for his meaningful report.

Indeed, some progress has been reached in Chisinau-Tiraspol dialogue on resolving the region’s urgent social problems in the past few years.

The agreements made on May 29−30 at the meeting of the Permanent Conference on Political Issues to Negotiations in the Transnistrian Settlement Process confirm that it is realistic to find a compromise on vital social and humanitarian issues if the parties are truly interested in it. The tactic of small steps has fully justified itself. We agree that it is important to establish the atmosphere of trust between the sides and, as a result, the necessary prerequisites of progress in settling the Transnistrian issue.

Credit for this primarily goes to the authorities of Tiraspol that are demonstrating their sincere interest in removing barriers with the Dniester’s right bank. It is their initiative on resuming automobile traffic on the Bychok-Gura-Bykului Bridge in 2017 that made it possible to give an impulse to the bilateral dialogue with Moldova.

The positive dynamics in making small steps, which was created by Tiraspol, should be backed by reciprocal concessions on the part of Chisinau.

Despite the temptation we do not want to get ahead of ourselves. As the esteemed Mr Scanlan confirms, for the time being many decisions have been carried out only partially and without regard for the initially set deadlines. We should see how these agreements will be carried out in practice.

It is important to remember that Chisinau still has legislative restrictions on searching for mutually acceptable solutions with Tiraspol. On July 22 it will be 13 years since Moldova’s parliament adopted a law on the main provisions of the special legal status of the localities on the left bank of the Dniester (Transnistria). This law is still valid. In these conditions it is impossible to rule out that, depending on the political situation, the decisions agreed upon recently will not be overturned by the courts.

We consider it important to make the compromises that have been reached systemic, stable and irreversible. The issue of establishing a mechanism for the implementation of the 5+2 agreements should be resolved in the national legislation. Russia and Transnistria have made their proposals in this respect. Now we are waiting for the response of Chisinau and other partners. It was agreed to achieve practical results in the 5+2 format by the end of this year. It is time to start a substantive discussion.

You will agree that it seems at least strange that against the backdrop of progress, which some analysts rushed to call “unprecedented”, Chisinau is still trying to preserve and even strengthen the levers of pressure on Transnistria. Politically motivated criminal proceedings against Transnistrian politicians and entrepreneurs continue. It is common knowledge that Tiraspol is concerned over Moldova’s consistent toughening of customs and border control at the frontier with Transnistria. This is already creating more problems. The obstacles to the delivery of fuel and lubricants to Transnistria have not been removed. There have emerged serious differences on the accommodation of a list of imported medicines that are vital for the residents of the Dniester’s left bank. To justify its unilateral restrictions the Moldovan leaders often refer to their international commitments. One of these is the agreement on the deep and comprehensive free trade area with the European Union, which was concluded without consultations with Tiraspol and does not provide for exceptions envisaged by Transnistria’s special status supported by all 57 OSCE states.

We cannot agree with the assessment of the esteemed Mr Skanlan on progress toward the creation of an inclusive, tolerant society in Moldova. We have repeatedly noted the restrictions of language rights in that country and the practice of pushing out Russian-language media. This policy will hardly contribute to the formation of a favourable atmosphere for settling fundamental disagreements with the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Transnistria.

The adoption of the resolution on the unconditional and complete withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territory of the Republic of Moldova by the UN General Assembly at the initiative of Moldova and a number of co-authors has exerted a destructive influence on the situation. This document is at variance with Moldova’s stated policy on the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and violates international agreements. There are no objective conditions for the withdrawal of the operational group of Russian troops that have been responsible for the protection of ammunition depots in the village of Kolbasna since Soviet times.

It should be noted that in this case Chisinau ignored the opinion of Tiraspol that justifiably qualified Moldova’s step as aimed at ousting Russia’s peacekeeping presence and thereby destroying the peacekeeping format that has proved its effectiveness. Russia is a guarantor of peace and stability in the region. It is the actions of its forces that made it possible to stop the bloodshed there in 1992. We sincerely regret that many OSCE countries supported the Moldova draft of the UN General Assembly resolution. They were bound to understand that this document undermines the Transnistrian settlement process and the OSCE role in it. Moreover, relevant excerpts were repeated in a resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin at Moldova’s initiative.

Russia is committed to strict observance by its military contingent of the mandate and tasks of the joint peacekeeping mission on the Dniester, which creates the necessary conditions for Moldova-Transnistria dialogue.

As regards the information voiced by the esteemed Mr Scanlan on the movement of Russian troops and equipment on the left bank on July 14, we would like to recall that the Russian delegation made the required explanations at the meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC). This movement was required by the need to enhance security of deports in Kolbasna in connection with the operational information on potential provocations and acts of terror against Russian facilities during these days. The Joint Military Command and the JCC were informed on the movement of combat hardware on June 23. Therefore, the picture painted by the esteemed Mr Scanlan does not look unbiased, to put it mildly.

We were surprised to hear that the OSCE Mission is patrolling the territory of Transnistria. This task is not included into the field presence mandate. We are urging the leaders of the OSCE Secretariat to make sure that the OSCE Mission does not violate its agreed-upon mandate in the future. We also consider unacceptable the efforts to involve it in monitoring exercises of the Russian troops in Transnistria. Incidentally, the OSCE Mission did not monitor the joint Moldova-NATO exercises that were held near the security zone in 2016. If the mission has extra funds for unauthorised activities, we will take this into account in adopting a consolidated budget of the OSCE field presence for next year.

As a matter of principle we support consistency in approaches to the peaceful settlement of the conflict in Transnistria. We believe that the sides of the conflict are primarily responsible for reaching mutually acceptable agreements. We are ready to continue facilitating them in close coordination with the current OSCE Chairmanship and other participants in the 5+2 process on a consistent and regular basis.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294212






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question regarding Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Greece



13 July 2018 - 16:08




Question:

What is your comment on the information from some media sources that the Russian side has cancelled Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Athens?



Maria Zakharova:

As regards the visit, Sergey Lavrov has an invitation from Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece Nikos Kotzias to visit Greece. The answer has not been given yet.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294721






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s meeting with Yemeni Ambassador to Russia Ahmed Salem Al-Wahishi



13 July 2018 - 16:19



On July 13, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov received Ambassador of the Republic of Yemen to Russia Ahmed Salem Al-Wahishi at the latter’s request.

The sides exchanged opinions on developments in Yemen and focused on current UN efforts to de-escalate the situation near the city of Al-Hudaydah on the Red Sea coast. In this context, the Russian side supported the mediatory mission of the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths.

They also touched upon matters of Russian humanitarian assistance to Yemen’s civilian population facing major problems and hardships amid the hostilities.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294731






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the Meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, July 12, 2018



13 July 2018 - 17:48




Mr Chairman,

The “bread ceasefire” has led to a substantial reduction of exchanges of fire on the line of contact. It is necessary to strengthen and sustain it. Even so, between July 1 and 10, the SMM recorded sporadic ceasefire violations. In most cases, the Ukrainian Armed Forces fired on the self-defence forces’ positions. Shelling on July 1 and 4 damaged houses in Dokuchayevsk and Yasinovataya. The Ukrainian forces destroyed cereal crops on an area of 120 hectares in the south of the Donetsk Region.

What is needed to prevent a new escalation is not only monitoring, but also a mechanism of disciplinary measures with regard to the offenders. Kiev should restrain the hotheads in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and punitive battalions. It is necessary at long last to publish the orders banning the use of arms by all the military units in Ukraine, to hand over their copies to the SMM, and to bring the offenders to account. We support the proposals of the Head of the SMM Ertugrul Apakan and his deputy Alexander Hug on strengthening the ceasefire regime on the contact line.

Kiev should be made to comply with the Contact Group Framework Decision on Disengagement of Forces and Hardware. The Ukrainian forces have occupied the disengagement area in Zolotoye and Petrovskoye and have repeatedly disrupted the separation of forces in Stanitsa Luganskaya. At the Contact Group meeting on July 11, Ukraine once again fudged the issue of disengagement of forces. Kiev has challenged the SMM data on the latest ceasefire violations near Stanitsa Luganskaya. This is nothing but sabotage of earlier agreements.

We urge the Ukrainian forces to pull back military hardware from the contact line. From July 1 to 10, the SMM recorded 64 military vehicles violating the pull-back line. Ukrainian Hurricane multiple launch rocket systems are deployed in the immediate proximity of separation areas. Combat vehicles are parked next to functioning schools in Artyom and Troitskoye. Ukrainian soldiers are billeted in residential houses at Peski. The Ukrainian forces have held shooting exercises in Orekhovo-Donetskoye in violation of the Contact Group decision of March 3, 2016. A new minefield has been discovered near Vodyanoye.

A lasting settlement of the conflict is impossible without compliance with the political provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures in line with the concept of parallel steps approved by the heads of the Normandy format summits in Berlin and Paris. Nevertheless, to date Kiev has done nothing to implement it. It is blocking the negotiations at the Contact Group political subgroup. The question of including the Steinmeier Formula in the law on the special status of Donbass has been put on hold. The so-called law on reintegration has created legal prerequisites for a military solution in Donbass. The Ukrainian law On Education deprives the Russian-speaking population of the right to study in their native language and undermines the relevant provision of the Package of Measures on language self-determination. Kiev must be given a clear signal about the need to start implementing the obligations it has assumed.

The humanitarian problems urgently need to be solved. In addition to the global issues of restoring the severed trade and economic ties and lifting the transport blockade Kiev is dodging topics that are important for the local population. The Ukrainian negotiators in the Contact Group are blocking a decision on the start of repairs to the bridge in Stanitsa Luganskaya in spite of SMM confirmations that the situation there is critical. The wooden access ramp is in disrepair and people wait for hours on the Ukrainian side of the disengagement line. Deaths of people in queues have been reported.

Mr Chairman,

Instead of seeking to settle the conflict with fellow citizens in Donbass Kiev continues attempts to impose a false Russophobic paradigm of “Russian aggression” on its own society and on its foreign partners.

The clean-up of the media space continues. The head of RIA Novosti Ukraine, Kirill Vyshinsky, is still under arrest. On July 10, the Ukrainian Border service denied entry to the British journalist John Warren Graham Broderip.

The Ukrainian State Committee on Television and Broadcasting initiated sanctions against 12 Russian publishing houses and sites. As of July 10, the “stop list” included 184 titles of printed items. Under the pretext of “repeated violations of standards,” the Good Morning, Country programme has been taken off the air. It was on this programme that the leader of the Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) party, Yulia Timoshenko, said that Petr Poroshenko is planning to disrupt the presidential elections in the country by escalating military action in Donbass. Where is the reaction from the USA and the EU? Where is the reaction from the OSCE executive bodies?

The Verkhovna Rada has initiated hearings on the draft law on counteracting the threats to national security in the media space, which would legalise the blocking of information resources without a court order. This runs counter to the provisions of Ukrainian and international law concerning the access of citizens to information and freedom of expression, dilutes public control over the actions of the authorities and narrows the space for public discussion.

We are surprised that all these facts, as well as manifestations of radical nationalism have failed to be properly assessed at the EU-Ukraine summit in Brussels. Including the notorious law On Education, which does not take into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The fact that the final statement is replete with anti-Russian passages far removed from reality merely encourages Kiev to continue sabotaging its obligations under the Minsk Agreements. This line is hardly conducive to the prompt settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict.

Thank you.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294786
__________________
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 July 19th, 2018 #459
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on signing a memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the UN Mine Action Service



7 July 2018 - 12:21



We praise the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in Damascus the other day. The Russian side exerted proactive efforts to draft the document that stipulates the required legal framework for the practical involvement of the UN and the international community in addressing topical tasks as regards humanitarian mine clearance operations in Syria.

We believe that the fastest implementation of several pilot projects will allow UNMAS experts to start working all over the country. Naturally, this activity should be depoliticised and should not stipulate any pre-conditions whatsoever.

UN mine clearance efforts will greatly assist the effective long-term work of Russian experts conducting humanitarian mine clearance operations and training Syrian combat engineer units. In 2016−2017, a mine clearance unit from the Russian Armed Forces’ International Mine Action Centre conducted four humanitarian mine clearance operations in the Syrian Arab Republic, which were unique in their scale and complexity. Two operations took place in Palmyra’s architectural-historical section and city districts, one in Aleppo and one in Deir ez-Zor. This allowed tens of thousands of Syrians to return safely back to their homes, and it also became possible to save numerous priceless world heritage objects. During its four operations, the mine clearance unit removed explosives from a total area of land measuring 6,600 hectares, 1,500 kilometres of roads and from over 17,000 various buildings and structures. Its members located and deactivated 105,000 explosive devices, including over 30,000 improvised explosive devices. Syrian combat engineers who have been trained at the Russian centre continue to take part in mine clearance operations in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta and southern suburbs of Damascus, Eastern Qalamoun and Homs, liberated earlier this year. Over 2,000 buildings and structures, their adjacent territories as well as 45 kilometres of roads have been cleared of landmines. In all, 2,400 explosive devices have been defused in the suburbs of Damascus, and an additional 7,800 explosive devices have been defused in the former Homs de-escalation zone.

We are urging the international community to become proactively involved in the Russian-Syrian efforts in this area and to provide the relevant financial and technical support that would eventually help create worthy and safe conditions for returning millions of Syrians back to their homes and for the restoration of the country. The situation in Raqqa covered with landmines planted by terrorists and damaged during operations by the so-called anti-ISIS coalition shows that the international community should promptly conduct humanitarian mine clearance operations there as soon as possible.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3292301






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Ethiopian-Eritrean high-level meeting



9 July 2018 - 17:08



On July 8, Asmara hosted the first high-level Ethiopian-Eritrean meeting in twenty years. During their talks, President of the State of Eritrea Isaias Afwerki and Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed discussed prospects of ending the long-term confrontation between the two countries, renewal of diplomatic relations, trade and economic cooperation and humanitarian cooperation, including interaction in maritime cargo transportation, launching direct flights, and developing telephone communications.

Moscow welcomes the renewal of direct Ethiopian-Eritrean contacts that became possible thanks to the goodwill of the leaders of the two states. Russia has consistently spoken in favour of overcoming existing disagreements between Addis Ababa and Asmara exclusively through peaceful means and focused political and diplomatic efforts in search of mutually acceptable resolution.

We are confident that the rapid normalisation of Ethiopian-Eritrean relations meets the vital interests of the two peoples, and will help to create an atmosphere of neighbourliness between them, make a significant contribution to strengthening stability and security in the Horn of Africa, positively affect the general political environment in that part of the African continent, and expand regional economic integration.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3292798






Press release on the tenth round of Russia-Vietnam strategic dialogue



10 July 2018 - 17:17



The tenth round of the Russia-Vietnam strategic dialogue took place in Moscow on July 10. First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov and Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov held separate meetings with Permanent (First) Deputy Foreign Minister of Vietnam Bui Thanh Son as part of the event.

The officials reviewed the most important bilateral issues in the context of preparations for top level contacts and organisation of cross years of Russia and Vietnam in 2019 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Treaty on the Foundations of Friendly Relations. The officials reaffirmed mutual striving to enhance the coordination of their efforts in the Asia Pacific Region and on the global stage.

The exchange of views took place in an atmosphere of friendship and understanding, which is traditional for Russian-Vietnamese dialogue.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293271






Press release on the Russian interdepartmental delegation’s consultations in Israel and Palestine



12 July 2018 - 14:04



On July 9−10, a Russian interdepartmental delegation, including Special Presidential Representative for the Syrian Settlement Alexander Lavrentyev and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin, visited Israel and Palestine.

While in Israel, they met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Head of the National Security Council Meir Ben-Shabbat, Director of Mossad Yosef Cohen, Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yuval Rotem and senior General Staff officers. The sides had an intensive exchange of opinions and reviewed a number of topical issues dealing with the regional situation, primarily in Syria in connection with a counterterrorism operation being conducted in southwestern Syria by the Syrian Armed Forces with Russia’s support. The sides agreed that it was important to reinstate in full the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces.

While in Palestine, the Russian interdepartmental delegation was received by President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas and held consultations with Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee, and Director of the General Intelligence Service Majid Faraj in Ramallah. The sides discussed various tasks of achieving a stable Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement on a generally recognised international law foundation, as well as certain regional issues, including developments in Syria.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293850






Press release on consultations on the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s international activities



12 July 2018 - 14:08



On July 12, Moscow hosted consultations on the SCO’s international activities at the level of deputy foreign ministers of its member countries.

Speaking at the meeting, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave his assessment of the dominant political and economic processes and set forth the priorities of the expanded SCO at the current stage.

During the consultations chaired by Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov, the participants discussed in detail practical measures of the continued consolidation of the SCO’s role in international and regional affairs as well as the promotion of its cooperation with the UN and its specialised agencies and other international organisations and associations. They emphasised the need to step up joint efforts in countering international terrorism, extremism and illegal drug trafficking, and ensuring reliable security and sustainable development in the region and the world in general.

The participants consider it useful to conduct meetings of deputy foreign ministers of the SCO member countries to discuss international issues on a regular basis.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293860






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the NATO summit in Brussels



12 July 2018 - 16:29



Naturally, Moscow is following the NATO summit in Brussels. The decisions there will be thoroughly analysed in terms of the consequences for European security. The published statements suggest the conclusion that, as before, NATO is not interested in the true reasons behind the degradation of security in the Euro-Atlantic region and prefers looking at the world through the prism of Cold War stereotypes.

In accusing Russia of escalating tensions in this region, the military bloc is using this as a pretext for building up its military activities even in the once calm areas of the Baltic and northern Europe. Noting the instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and the threats emanating from this region, and expressing concern over the growth of international terrorism, NATO pretends not to understand that they are a direct result of its own military ventures.

Attempts to distort all of this and accuse Russia of everything are simply inept. The desire to justify one’s own actions is clear and obvious. NATO positions itself as a defensive alliance while it purchases offensive arms. Statements on the importance of preventing the risks of undeliberate incidents are accompanied by a significant increase in military exercises near Russia’s borders, while appeals to maintain the dialogue within the Russia-NATO Council are followed by the expulsion of Russian diplomats and the refusal to conduct a dialogue between our militaries. Reporting increases in defence spending based on the modernisation of the Russian armed forces, NATO allies prefer to gloss over the fact that their aggregate spending on arms exceeds Russia’s many times over and is more than half of the world’s military spending. Finally, the endless repetition of unfounded accusations and the fabrication of new accusations does not change the reality that NATO, not Russia, is bringing its military infrastructure closer to our borders.

There are numerous statements about NATO’s adaptation and willingness to defend the population of its countries across the board, but in practice the alliance is recreating an atmosphere of bloc confrontation in which it seems to feel more comfortable than it would in a multi-polar world arrangement. A return to the policy of military and political deterrence of Russia under unsubstantiated pretexts has become an inalienable element of this course. This approach results in a NATO expansion policy that will not enhance anyone’s security but rather deepens the divide and escalates tensions in Europe. Macedonia’s coerced involvement in NATO only confirms that an open door policy has become an aim in itself and a tool for conquering geopolitical space.

In reality, there is only one goal – military superiority. Attempts to fence oneself off are doomed to fail in the modern world because neither individual states nor even alliances are able to counter cross-border threats single-handedly. We hope that the growing awareness of the uselessness of the attempts to isolate Russia and urgent security requirements will eventually allow NATO to realise the need to pool efforts with Russia on the firm foundation of international law to effectively counter common challenges. We also hope that NATO would understand that the principle of indivisible security should be respected for all nations, not just allied nations.

In this context, we note in the summit’s statement the commitment of the NATO member states to abide by the UN Charter and to strive to observe their international obligations, including the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act. We hope that these assurances will be backed by concrete actions.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3293933






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding Poland’s claims of alleged obstacles in the investigation of the Smolensk air crash



13 July 2018 - 15:39



We were surprised to learn about the latest claims made by the Polish subcommittee investigating the crash of the presidential plane near Smolensk on April 10, 2010. Russia has been as good as accused of deliberately hindering the establishment of truth in the matter. The latest speculation is based on the reconstruction of the plane from the fragments collected at the site of the tragedy.

This public denunciation is outrageous, considering that the concerned agencies in Russia and Poland have been working on the Smolensk tragedy in a business-like manner, making use of the system of legal assistance to exchange information and coordinate the timeframe for Polish experts’ visits to the site of the tragedy for the additional study of the Tu-154M fragments.

This latest claim is evidently a political put-up job. No matter how constructively Russia may act, it is still accused of incompetence and malicious intent and otherwise demonised within the Polish and international community. It is time the Warsaw authorities stopped playing games and got down to business.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294581






Press release on the Foreign Ministry’s demarche to Ambassador of Greece to Russia Andreas Fryganas



13 July 2018 - 15:48



On July 13, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Hellenic Republic to the Russian Federation Andreas Fryganas was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Ministry expressed resolute protest over the expulsion of two Russian diplomats and a ban on entry for another two Russian citizens to Greece. It was emphasised that Russia considers this action to be absolutely ungrounded. It is not supported by facts from Greece and is contrary to the character of our bilateral relations, which this action could seriously damage.

Obviously, Washington stands behind this anti-Russia decision by the Greek Government that was timed to the opening of the NATO summit and was openly supported by a State Department statement.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294591






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Greek court’s decision to extradite Russian citizen Alexander Vinnik to France



13 July 2018 - 16:55



Yielding to external pressure, the Greek authorities continue to complicate relations with Russia. Several days after taking an unfriendly decision to expel Russian diplomats and to deny entry to several Russian citizens, they have adopted a decision to extradite Russian citizen Alexander Vinnik to France.

These measures have been taken contrary to the legal framework of bilateral cooperation in the area of legal aid in civil and criminal matters. Greece has turned a blind eye to a request from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia to extradite Vinnik to his home country, a request that should have been given priority.

It is obvious that Russia cannot leave these actions unanswered.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294758






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the latest US anti-Russia allegations



13 July 2018 - 21:57



Washington is doing its utmost to revive old allegations of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election in the United States. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has been appointed to investigate what never happened, has brought charges against 12 Russian individuals who are referred to as “GRU (the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces) officers”. However, the conspiracy schemes contrived for the Americans do not prove that the persons charged are either intelligence officers or were involved in hacking. Moreover, no proof has been provided for the claim that these persons hacked into the computer networks of the US Democratic Party.

The obvious goal of this move is to sour the atmosphere ahead of the Russian-US summit. The influential US political forces that used open lies to prevent the normalisation of our relations over the past two years have rushed to make the most of this fake news before it becomes a thing of the past.

Regrettably, it has become the norm in Washington to promote fake news and initiate criminal proceedings for obvious political purposes. The question is how long Washington will continue to play this shameful and disgraceful act. Sooner or later, the initiators of this campaign will have to answer for the damage they have done and continue to do for mercenary reasons to American democracy by undermining public trust in it.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294871






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a terrorist bomb attack in Pakistan



14 July 2018 - 13:54



On July 13, a terrorist attack was carried out during the pre-election rally in the Mastung District, Balochistan Province, Pakistan, killing 128 people and injuring around 180. ISIS and one of the Taliban groups in Pakistan immediately claimed responsibility for the attack.

We strongly condemn this deadly foray by terrorists, for which there can be no justification. We expect that the masterminds and executors of this inhuman crime will be promptly identified and will be subject to the most severe penalties.

We hope that what has happened will further strengthen the Pakistani authorities’ determination to consistently step up efforts in an uncompromising fight against terrorism.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/3294978
__________________
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 July 20th, 2018 #460
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 12, 2018



12 July 2018 - 19:52











2018 FIFA World Cup

By tradition, we would like to begin with FIFA World Cup news. The World Cup is nearing its culmination. Zabivaka the Wolf is doing everything to cheer us up. Of course, with sinking hearts we rooted for our team. We were really happy to see that people in other countries supported our squad. Those were not only our compatriots, Russian nationals, who happened to be abroad but also foreign football fans. I would like to thank them for their support. Frankly speaking, we were really pleased by how the foreign press assessed the performance of our team and we are grateful for this assessment. The Guardian reports that the Russian side was great while, according to The New York Times, the Russian football players have not only managed to make the country proud but have achieved much more in fact. It is difficult to think of what could be “much more” than being proud of one’s own country but this is the opinion of The New York Times. The BBC said that Russia could take pride in what its national team had achieved and, according to CNN, the performance of the Russian squad captured the imagination.

Thank you very much for such high praise, we fully agree. We are proud of our football players and the national squad and, of course, the coach. Thanks to all of them.

Of course, we are pleased to receive such response. Football teams, football players and coaches from all countries which take part in the World Cup have won the hearts of millions of fans from other countries. We continue to receive messages full of enthusiasm regarding the organisation of the World Cup, the atmosphere surrounding the event, infrastructure and our country in general. The Guardian published the story of British fans who went to Russia, ignoring the stories about the “bloodthirsty” Russians who would attack them as soon as they arrive in the country. The fans say that it took them just a few days to shed all doubts and realise that people welcomed fans from England as enthusiastically as all others.

One of Turkey’s most popular newspapers, Milliyet, reported that Russia in its role as the host of the World Cup had demonstrated yet again that it deserved the highest marks for how it organised the tournament. According to Le Monde, the sporting event has left an indelible impression on the memory of fans who arrived in the country from all over the world to support their squads. French journalists say that some of the many stereotypes about Russia were shattered to pieces thanks to the perfect organisation of this spectacular event which the country wanted the whole world to enjoy. The Vietnamese news site Zing quoted a fan saying he did not expect to be so happy until he got to Russia for the World Cup and everything there was just great.

Our Italian colleagues also got into the atmosphere of this celebration of sport. Panorama magazine published the article “The Feast Is Here,” which says that the power of football and “sports fever” have hit Russia like a meteorite. This fever, in the good sense of the word, has spread with unbelievable speed, turning Russians into smiling Brazilians and Moscow into Rio de Janeiro hosting carnival, with people celebrating and dancing regardless of whether it is day or night. The author was surprised to see how strongly Russians were captivated by football, suggesting that the reason for this was the team spirit inherent in Russians. The article also mentioned the friendliness and openness of our people, the reception they gave to foreign fans, as well as their willingness to help. The articles says that “although the Russian team was knocked out of the World Cup, Russia won the hearts of people, having drawn young people, old ladies, taxi drivers and police officers into the frantic and carefree atmosphere of the event… The World Cup has unexpectedly become a meeting of civilizations for all groups of the population and for thousands of foreign tourists”.

The world media responded to the FIFA World Cup through the lens of observing our country, comparing myths with reality. The Argentinean newspaper Pagina 12 published an interview with Martin Bana, a researcher at the National Council of Argentina and an expert on Russian history, in which he debunks the established prejudices and stereotypes about our country. A response is now being given to those articles and those insinuations that were massively published prior to the World Cup. The Argentinean article reports on the cultural wealth and diversity of Russia.

The Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat covers what they managed to see behind the impeccable organisation of the tournament. Russia’s greatest strength, according to the Finnish journalists, is its people who are not featured in the headlines of international publications and are not trying to attract everyone’s attention.

“It’s very easy to fall in love with Russia where people take care of each other and are ready to help a stranger on the street even though they sometimes lack both the time and resources.”

There are some contrary examples. We were also prepared for that. For example, to our disappointment, the Czech magazine Reflex said the FIFA World Cup had already been won by the Russian political leadership and Russia managed to present itself at its best. The magazine also writes about the suspicious selection of Russia as the host country eight years ago and regrets that nobody recalls that now. It is odd to feel bad that people got what they had dreamed of – a real holiday. Let me reiterate that there are a number of examples like this. I would advise these reporters to read the hundreds of thousands, by now maybe even millions, of live posts in the social media by those who are really not just visiting briefly but have been staying in Russia for almost a month, travelling between different cities, seeing all the positive and negative things and comparing it to what was written in the media. You should read their posts. Publish their comments; you don’t need to invent anything. I would like to say again that those were some examples. There are also opposing examples in the Czech information space. For example, iRozhlas, an information portal, writes that “sometimes you gasp at the sincerely of the locals.”

I can’t help but notice that Ukraine’s media space stands apart. It’s incredible, it’s an alternative World Cup of fake news. I will take the liberty to quote a “masterpiece” by Delovaya Stolitsa, one of the leading business publications in Kiev. It was written by a journalist in the Ukrainian media.

“First of all, by all odds, the Russian team will be crushed by the Croats. The benchmark related to the victory over Spain (we’ll surely learn the scandalous details of how this came about and how much money was used to forge that victory) is already too high, which means the crash will be deafening. To counter it, some big distraction is needed. A fight with victims, several arrested fans, maybe the extradition of the whole Croatia fan squad, and sanctions against the Croatian team, which is likely. Second, a fight with Croats could be used by Moscow to rock the Balkans since it will resound in the whole of former Yugoslavia. It offers a wealth of variants,” the Ukrainian author writes, “but overall it is a very possible Sarayevo-2 scenario: a special operation to take revenge for the sanctions, and right on the eve of their extension. A multitude of interesting combinations are possible here.”

You know, we don’t remember seeing such cynical delirium even from confused Ukrainian journalists. I would like to remind Ukrainian journalists that the OCSE expert conference on freedom of the media devoted to fighting fake news recently ended in Kiev. What are you guys writing? It is already impossible to believe it.

Unfortunately, some German media are not far behind their Ukrainian colleagues. They were trying to “expose” Russian team doping. This elicits nothing but pity for the German journalists who, apparently, being unable to write about a winning German team, resort to trash-talking others. Colleagues, it is just unseemly to make up fraudulent stories. This is journalism, not fairy tales. To be honest, the legislations in many countries have legal tools to protect honour and dignity. I think this is a good time to consider using them with regard to some journalists and media, especially in view of the publications in the German media. This idea seems apropos given the articles in the German press that appear to lack moral guidance.

I must say that we are still bewildered by official Britain’s reaction to the FIFA World Cup who tirelessly tie sports and politics together and then charge the British media with this approach. With all that in mind, we note that 10,000 British fans came here. I think some officials were missing in the stands, particularly yesterday. Even according to media reports I saw, none of the British Embassy staff, no officials attended the match. This is their choice. But let me reiterate that at some point responsible decisions have to be taken; British politicians must stop following a policy of insanity as seen before the World Cup.

We are sorry the English team lost before the final, but this is sport, these are the rules. The team was excellent in several matches. We welcome the British fans, many of whom will remain in Russia for the duration of the World Cup.



Regarding foreign World Cup fans

I cannot help mentioning an article in the Washington Post. I am talking about the one by Amie Ferris-Rotman, who wrote about six month ago how difficult it was for foreign journalists to work in the Russian Federation. She does not come here and nobody knows her. Amie Ferris-Rotman wrote for Foreign Policy and now writes for the Washington Post. She boldly claimed that Russians are unused to ethnic diversity, and that foreigners are something like objects of wonder to them. It’s absurd, almost a red card.

I would like to remind Amie Ferris-Rotman and everyone who, unfortunately, falls victim to her ignorance – and actually draw the attention of the US Embassy in Moscow to her article – about the over 200 ethnic groups living in Russia (just to understand what ethnic diversity means in Russia). If US journalists do not know this, they can read up on the internet or ask us for reference materials.

We are convinced (I will not yet name the journalists and publications) that US journalists are searching for any reason and any opportunity to discredit the World Cup.

It is surprising that we have received, right on cue, identical requests from French journalists for a comment on the situation with Nigerian citizens who came to Russia using their FAN IDs and were left with no money or return tickets. Let me repeat, we received requests both from Le Figaro and France-Presse within 24 hours. This looks a bit like an order. We will be glad to comment on this.

Winding up with no money by the end of the World Cup is not something unique to Nigerians, but all foreign fans who have come to Russia for the World Cup. It is being hosted in various Russian cities. Unfortunately, it is quite natural (and we can confirm this) that when this large and very long sporting event ends all of them must leave the Russian Federation, because the FAN IDs will no longer work. I think this is obvious and should not raise any doubts.

I allow that some fans wound up without money or return tickets by the end of their stay. This is also natural. Unwanted, but natural. And this is really a problem to be solved by fans, first of all, together with their countries’ diplomatic missions and consulates.

We cannot rule out that some foreign guests are hoping to cross the Russian border, one way or another, often illegally, into a European country during the World Cup. We cannot rule this out. If this action is deemed illegal, then corresponding agencies will take the necessary administrative measures. Once again, this is not our practice alone, it is natural for any actions of people that come for an international event. All states do this, and there is no other way.

So we are in no way overreacting. We still hope that these French journalists both just happened to take an interest and it wasn’t an order they received.

Let me repeat that the laws of a World Cup host country must be respected, and our law enforcement agencies monitor this carefully. I believe you have seen a lot of cases where crimes were prevented and investigations held quickly. Many of you wrote about this.



The meeting of Russian ambassadors and permanent representatives

Russia’s ambassadors and permanent representatives will come to Moscow for the traditional biannual meeting on July 19-20.

The meeting will include plenary sessions and theme-based panels which will be used to review the key tasks facing Russian diplomacy such as ensuring national security, creating favourable external environment for the country’s development, promoting and protecting Russia’s national interests, including the interests of its citizens and businesses, based on international law, the principles of justice and equal and mutually respectful cooperation.

The forthcoming meeting will allow participants to analyse Russian foreign policy priorities across the Foreign Ministry’s main areas of activity and to determine further practical steps to implement Russia’s foreign policy.

We will keep you posted as information becomes available. There will be many interviews, comments and statements by Russian ambassadors who are already arriving in Moscow and talking with the media.



The situation in Syria

The situation in Syria remains tense. The main focus is on the events in southwestern Syria. A mop-up operation to remove terrorists from the provinces of Deraa and Quneitra is in its final stage.

By now, the province of Deraa has been liberated almost completely. An agreement was reached to settle the situation in the southern and southeastern quarters of its administrative centre of the same name, which has been controlled by illegal armed groups for over seven years.

The Syrian army took control of the border with neighbouring Jordan, thus opening traffic along the international Beirut-Damascus-Amman motorway.

The southwestern area of Syria was liberated from terrorists with only a small number of casualties. This was possible mostly thanks to talks with the armed opposition groups that disassociated themselves from Nusra and ISIS. Russian officers from the Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides and the Military Police which ensure order and security in a number of towns played a special role in this.

Numerous photos in social media testify to the respect and love that the local residents, including former militants in illegal armed groups, treat our military with. The photos show Russian officers taking selfies with those who were in the ranks of the illegal armed groups just yesterday, but today chose peace and unity for Syria. It's worth mentioning that a football match with the Russian military and former militants took place in the village of Mseyfara in southwestern Syria now that the 2018 FIFA World Cup is nearing completion in Russia.

We focused on the vast amounts of modern Western-made weapons and equipment transferred by pacified militants to the Syrian army, including various ATGM systems, armoured vehicles, small arms and ammunition representing material evidence of gross external interference in Syrian affairs.

The overall successful and, in many areas, bloodless military operation to restore the sovereignty of the Syrian state in its southern regions demonstrates the existence of major prerequisites for an early political settlement and normalisation in Syria. The will of ordinary Syrians, who, at the approach of the government forces, drove Nusra out of their towns and villages and raised Syria’s national flags, cannot be ignored.

Regarding the situation in southern Syria, I’d be remiss not to mention the refugees. During Syrian army operations, many people were forced to leave their homes, especially where terrorists tried to respond with armed resistance and provoked the government forces to use force. However, the number of such people turned out to be much lower than the figures spread by the White Helmets and other provocateurs, who bent over backwards in their attempts to stop or at least slow the elimination of the terrorists.

Now the refugees can return to their homes. Clearly, these people ̶ both internally displaced persons and those who have lived in neighbouring Jordan for many years need assistance.

The Syrian government is providing this assistance. The Russian military is doing their fair share as well. However, we believe there is need for additional effort on the part of the international community and its specialised agencies and not only in terms of providing essential goods and food, but also in terms of strategic approach, such as creating a proper environment for the safe, voluntary and dignified return to their homes of millions of people who were forced to leave Syria due to the internal conflict and terrorist attacks. There’s a need for active participation of our international partners in the socioeconomic rebuilding of the country and lifting strict unilateral restrictions on Syria, which are in the way of these activities.



OPCW’s interim report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma, Syria

We have taken note of the interim report published by the OPCW Technical Secretariat on the Fact-Finding Mission’s investigation regarding the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma, Syria, on April 7, 2018.

The nearly 30-page document, although presented as an interim report, obviously claims to be comprehensive and to demonstrate the high standards of the FFM once again.

However, the reader can immediately see the political bias of this document, which raises a number of practical rather than theoretical questions. Here are some of them.

First, the report does not explain why FFM experts failed to reach Douma within the first 10 days after the notorious White Helmets had reported the alleged chemical attack there, even though the Syrian and Russian military offered security guarantees to them. It appears that the main, and very likely only reason for this sluggishness is the missile strike on Syria delivered on the night of April 13/14 by none other than three UN Security Council’s permanent members – the United States, Britain and France.

The OPCW Technical Secretariat obviously believes that this act of aggression against a sovereign state, which was delivered in violation of the UN Charter and universal norms of international law by a three-member coalition of states who bear special responsibility on issues of war and peace in the UNSC, has no connection to the investigation, along with the militants’ equipment for producing chemical weapons the Russian military found in Douma and showed to FFM experts. We have to say that we see this as yet another example of double standards in the FFM’s operations.

My second point will contrast with what I said earlier. It is totally incomprehensible why only 31 of the 100 samples the FFM collected in Douma were selected for analysis at the designated labs. I would like to ask the FFM about the reasons for this cherry-picking approach.

For our part, we see an explanation for this in the OPCW report, which highlights the fact that various chlorinated organic chemicals were detected in the samples collected at the sites where chlorine gas cylinders were found and that no traces of organophosphorous nerve agents were detected. This does not look like a professional conclusion. The Western media readily jumped at the opportunity to present this as the main proof that chemical warfare crimes had been perpetrated by the Syrian Army.

Has anyone asked a simple question about what chemical agent other than chlorine can be found in industrial chlorine gas cylinders, and why the cylinders that were found in residential buildings did not look deformed in any way if the instigators from the White Helmets claim these cylinders were dropped from a helicopter? These simple questions occur to ordinary people who are not professionals and who have not seen the photographs from the site and the site itself. This is nothing but cheap fiction.

The situation appears clear to us: these chlorine gas cylinders were delivered to the residential buildings and placed there specifically for a White Helmets video about “Assad’s atrocities”.

We urge everyone to ask themselves another simple question: Isn’t this too primitive for the public, let alone the “professional” OPCW experts? This is what we saw lying in plain view in the OPCW’s interim report and what is clear even to a layman, but there are also specific issues that raise very big questions among professionals.

We hope that elementary common sense will prevail and that the chemical provocation staged by the White Helmets in Douma on April 7 will be laid bare, including on the basis of the testimony the unwitting witnesses and participants of that frame-up from among the city residents provided at a briefing at the OPCW headquarters in The Hague on April 26. By the way, the FFM report does not even mention this. Isn’t this strange? Not at all, because the report is obviously biased.



Pentagon’s accusations against Russia of supporting the Taliban

Russia has been once again accused, without any evidence, of cooperating with the Taliban in Afghanistan with a view to undermining the US in the region. This time the salvo of charges was fired by the Pentagon in its semi-annual report to the US Congress. We comment on this topic regularly.

It seems that our US partners fail or do not want to hear our comments, or any argumentation or explanations. Let me reiterate that Russia’s contacts with the Taliban pursue two objectives: ensure the safety of Russian nationals in Afghanistan, and facilitate national reconciliation process, which, unfortunately, has yet to get off the ground.

I would also like to remind them of the recently disclosed evidence whereby the Pentagon itself acted as a de facto sponsor of the Taliban movement. In particular, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko in his reports and the Inspector General of the US Department of Defense in his March report noted that much of the military aid provided by the US to Kabul goes unaccounted for and is plundered on the ground on an incredible scale. This is happening in mind-blowing proportions. We have already cited some of these examples. Hearing accusations once again, I wanted to make sure that you remember these facts. The US military were unable to track some 95,000 vehicles provided to the Afghan forces since 2005. A 2016 Pentagon report said that 1.5 million rifles supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to arm an entire army, could not be found and were later written off as unaccounted for or lost.

In this situation it becomes obvious that regular accusations against Russia are an attempt by Washington to conceal its own military and political miscalculations in Afghanistan, a country that has become the global epicentre of narcotic drug production since NATO established its military presence there, while the terrorist threat has still not been rooted out.



Success of the operation to rescue students in northern Thailand

We rejoiced at the news that all 12 children who spent more than two weeks in a flooded cave in Thailand had been rescued. People in Russia and the whole world followed with a lot of compassion and anxiety the developments that could have turned into a tragedy. Luckily, the situation had a happy ending, primarily for the children and their families. The Russian Emergencies Ministry was prompt to offer its assistance in undertaking the rescue operation, although it was not needed after all.

We congratulate from all our heart the Thai authorities that this critical situation was resolved with great success. We wish the young football players speedy recovery and great victories on the pitch. Who knows, maybe one day at one of the tournaments that Russia will undoubtedly host in the future we will see these young players, who have demonstrated persistence and dedication in overcoming the challenges and emergencies they faced.



Fifth Forum of Young Diplomats from the Countries of the Eurasian Space

Between July 26-27, the Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats and the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund will organise the 5th anniversary Forum of Young Diplomats from the Countries of the Eurasian Space in Moscow. The participants will focus on all-out changes in the system of international relations, the digitalisation of the global economy, and the activities of the International Association of Young Diplomats.

This annual Forum has become a good tradition uniting young diplomats from Europe and Asia. The in-camera format makes it possible to openly review the current agenda in an unbiased manner and to exchange opinions on the most topical matters concerning international affairs.

In October 2017, Sochi was the venue for the 1st Global Forum of Young Diplomats that involved over 100 diplomats from 54 countries.

The 2018 forum will bring together young diplomats working in their respective capitals and young representatives of political elites. There are plans to pass a declaration at the forum.

We invite the media to cover this event.

For accreditation, call the information service of the Council of Young Diplomats at: 7 (916) 487 4354.



Sea Breeze 2018 Ukraine-US military exercises in Ukraine

We have noted reports about the beginning of the annual Sea Breeze military exercises, due to involve over 3,000 service personnel from Ukraine and NATO countries, dozens of sea-going ships and aircraft and about 200 armoured vehicles in Ukraine. The United States that has contributed an impressive 1,500 military personnel will also coordinate the entire exercises which are mostly called on to conduct a simulated security operation in a crisis-ridden area in line with NATO standards.

With the approval of the Kiev authorities, the territories of the Odessa, Nikolayev and Kherson regions and the nearby Black Sea sector are once again called on to play the part of a “crisis-ridden area.” Military activities will take place in direct proximity to the conflict zone in southeastern Ukraine where Ukrainian military units continue to shell peaceful Donbass cities every day despite a “bread truce” announced on July 1 by the Minsk Contact Group.

Attempts to flex muscles in these conditions will hardly help stabilise the situation in this region. Those partners of Ukraine who, as it appears, are deliberately pandering to Kiev “war hawks” dreaming of all kinds of “blitzkriegs” should also realise this.

We perceive the exercises as an attempt to once again provoke tension in southeastern Ukraine and in the entire Black Sea region. Countries involving Ukraine in dangerous “playing with fire” games and constantly accusing Russia of threatening regional stability shall be held responsible for possible negative consequences.



Statements by US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker

We took note of the new provocative statements on the developments in Donbass by US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker in an interview published by Germany’s Bild newspaper on July 6. It is not for the first time that this US diplomat “adds more fuel to the fire,” playing into the hands of ultranationalist and revanchist forces in Kiev, instead of trying to find ways to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

Biased and politicised attacks against Russia have been coming from this would-be “mediator” for a year now, which is perplexing. He went as far as seeing “Moscow’s influence” in the reports of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM). In other words, Kurt Volker simply does not like evidence of the constant ceasefire violations by Ukraine’s Armed Forces in the country’s east. He seems to dislike the truth, as the saying goes, especially since the US has started to supply the Kiev regime with lethal weapons that are most likely to end up in Donbass.

By the way, since January 2018 the number of incidents involving artillery fire by the Ukrainian Armed forces against residential communities surged five-fold. According to the SMM Chief Monitor Ertugrul Apakan, 18 civilians were killed and 91 wounded by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in areas controlled by the militia.

Let me remind you that Russia is not a party to the conflict and has not signed the Minsk Agreements. Still, Russia calls on the US to focus on facilitating the implementation of the Minsk Agreements in every possible way, including by exerting the necessary pressure on Kiev with a view to force Ukraine to strictly abide by its commitments.



Update on the media in Ukraine

The situation with the media in Ukraine continues to rapidly deteriorate. The past few days were marked by a number of repressive actions made by the Ukraine authorities against journalists.

First, yesterday a court in Kherson renewed the detention of Kirill Vyshinsky, who heads RIA Novosti Ukraine website and is accused of high treason. He will remain a de facto hostage in custody of the Ukrainian authorities for another two months until September 13. Russia reiterates its demand that the journalist be freed immediately. We hope that the relevant international organisations respond to the arbitrary treatment of Kirill Vyshinsky in stronger terms.

I would like say that the international organisations that for so many years failed to notice the deteriorating situation with the freedom of expression in Ukraine now share the responsibility for Kirill Vyshinsky’s fate and the possible consequences.

Second, Ukraine’s National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting slapped Inter television network with a $154,400 fine for broadcasting a May 9 concert. As Arkady Babchenko likes to sign off his articles, “With greetings, your Banderovites.” I think that this is exactly the way this decision was signed. The media watchdog saw this broadcast as an attempt to “incite hatred.” Let me remind you that on the eve of the broadcast several dozen activists from Ukrainian far-right organisations, which are literally neo-Nazi groups, called National Corps and National Militias, tried to prevent the broadcast by blocking Inter’s offices in Kiev and threatening to set them on fire. Where has the OSCE been? Where was Harlem Desir? In spite of all this, the network went ahead with the broadcast.

A large part of the Ukrainian population views May 9 as a shared very special day for countries that fought Fascism. Kiev seeks to suppress any attempts to mention this in the media, sometimes indulging with the radicalised groups, and sometimes simply giving in to their blackmail. This of course is yet another outrageous step that shows not only the lack of tolerance toward the country’s population, but also outright repression against the media.

Third, foreign journalists continue to be prevented from entering the country. I am not referring to journalists expressing their political views on the developments in Kiev, but against arbitrary treatment of all media outlets. This week, border control officers at Kiev’s Borispol airport stopped from entering the country John Warren, a UK national, who presents a culinary and educational show “Let's Go, Let's Eat” on NTV network. The refusal was allegedly caused by the fact that the journalist visited Crimea in 2015 without seeking authorisation from Kiev.

These are just a few examples, but there are many others. This proves yet again that the Ukrainian authorities persist with their policy of intentionally suppressing any dissent and restricting the freedom of expression whenever it diverges from the official narrative. Their goal is obviously to deprive the people of Ukraine of any chance to get unbiased and impartial information on national and global developments.



NATO summit in Brussels

We will carefully analyse the decisions in terms of what consequences they may have for European security. Yet, even tentatively, the statements published indicate that NATO is still not interested in an objective assessment of the true causes of the deterioration in the security situation in the Euro-Atlantic region and prefer looking at the world from the Cold War stereotypes perspective.

Cynically and groundlessly accusing Russia of fuelling tensions in the Euro-Atlantic area, the military bloc is building up its own military activity under this pretext even in the once quiet regions of the Baltics and Northern Europe. Noting the instability in the MENA region and the threats coming from there, expressing concern over the growing international terrorism, NATO does not seem to understand that this is a direct result of its members’ reckless military moves.

These attempts to distort everything and put the blame on Russia are extremely clumsy, terrible and certainly not smart. The desire to justify one's own actions is visible to the naked eye. For example, NATO positions itself as a defensive alliance, while increasing purchases of offensive weapons. Statements about the importance of preventing the risks of unintentional incidents are being made alongside an expansion of the manoeuvres close to the Russian borders, and its calls for dialogue within the Russia-NATO Council are followed by an expulsion of our diplomats and refusal to conduct dialogue between the militaries. While reporting on an increase in defence spending under the pretext of Russia modernising its Armed Forces, the Allies prefer not to mention that their combined defence spending is many times greater than Russia’s and accounts for more than half of the world's spending on military purposes. Finally, the endless recurrence and invention of new unsubstantiated accusations does not change the reality, in which not Russia, but NATO is moving its military infrastructure closer to our borders.

From all sides we hear reports of NATO's “adaptation” and responsibility to protect the population of its member-countries against all possible threats, but in practice, the alliance is recreating the atmosphere of the bloc confrontation era, in which it seems to feel much more comfortable than in a multipolar world arrangement. An integral part of this policy is the revival of the trend of military-political containment of Russia under far-fetched pretexts. This is also the reason why the bloc is expanding mechanically, which does not strengthen anyone’s security but deepens the dividing lines and augments tensions in Europe. The insistent dragging of Macedonia into NATO only confirms that its open doors policy has turned into an end in itself and an instrument for appropriating geopolitical space.

In fact, the only logical reason here is to achieve military superiority. Any attempts to put up fences in the globalised modern world are doomed to failure, since neither individual states, nor even associations of countries are capable of dealing with cross-border threats single-handedly. We hope that the growing awareness of the futility of isolating Russia and the pressing security needs will ultimately lead the alliance to understand the need to combine efforts with Russia on a solid basis of international law to effectively counter common challenges and that the principle of indivisible of security must be respected not only in relations between allies.

In this context, we note the NATO member countries’ commitment to the UN Charter and their intention to uphold their international obligations, including the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, reiterated in the summit’s statement. We hope that these assurances will finally be supported by practical steps.



New British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s statements to the media

Literally hours after taking over the Foreign Office, new British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt thanked his predecessor, Boris Johnson, for having “orchestrated an incredibly important response to the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury”, thereby essentially supporting the anti-Russian line of British diplomacy.

We believe that such an approach can hardly become a platform for normalising our bilateral relations and developing them in a constructive way. The aggravation of the anti-Russian sentiment in the British leadership will not only adversely affect bilateral ties, but also complicate interaction with London at multilateral platforms dealing with international and regional matters.

London's decision to freeze the key mechanisms for bilateral cooperation, cancel all high-level contacts and terminate a significant part of interdepartmental ties does not help pull our relations out of the crisis. It is London's conscious choice to exacerbate tensions between our two countries. In this situation, we hope that the British side realises the ruinous nature of such approaches. It seems they will have to start searching for ways to restore bilateral relations.



Developments in connection with the chemical incident in Amesbury

Naturally, we have been monitoring reports related to the incident in Amesbury. Tragically, Dawn Sturgess, one of the victims, died in hospital. We convey our sincere condolences to her family and friends. Given the statements by Lorna Wilkinson of the Salisbury District Hospital to the effect that the other victim, Charlie Rowley, has regained consciousness, we hope for further progress in his treatment.

We would like to hope that the causes and circumstances of the Amesbury incident will be thoroughly and conscientiously investigated and reported to the public and that the culprits will be brought to account in accordance with the law. It is quite important that the propaganda campaign launched by the British authorities – I will dwell on it somewhat later – will not be able to deliver a crushing blow to the investigation. Right now we see the opposite. Plants and versions that are not supported by facts or UK police statements are published every day and have inundated the information space, moderating the entire incident-related situation.

We think that comments by a number of British politicians and journalists, who have cynically used the woman’s tragic death to promote their own interests, are unacceptable. For example, British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, notorious for his provocative and uncouth statements, has declared that “Russia has committed an attack on British soil which has seen the death of a British citizen.” We are glad the British defence secretary has made a statement that contains at least some civilised words. It’s a sign of progress! I would like to clarify the following. How can a political figure make statements concerning an incident which is yet to be investigated? Moreover, there are no official comments, nor official versions or even suspects. It is clear why this is being done. This is creating a discourse and a vector for the media to follow with their propaganda in the interests of the official circles in London.

Labour MP Mike Gapes stated that Dawn Sturgess’ death was “a murder of a British citizen as a result of use of a chemical nerve agent produced by the Russian state.” Not a single word based on facts! Has the British police said anything about murder? I haven’t heard it. Has anyone heard about it? The murder is a result of use of a chemical nerve agent produced in Russia. No one has proved this at any stage and the proofs that were presented were later disavowed and withdrawn. We remember all those deleted tweets. Despite a total lack of evidence, Gapes was involved in earlier smear campaigns against UK-based Russian media. So, his statements would not be anything new for us were they not a clear sign of the propaganda offensive launched by London in connection with the “Salisbury case” and the “Amesbury case.”

We are faced with a full-blown propaganda campaign. Let me give you several examples that prove this. The Guardian’s former Moscow correspondent Luke Harding, who has largely made a name for himself by publishing numerous anti-Russia speculations, went as far as tweeting “an utter indifference to collateral damage one of the hallmarks of the #Putin regime and its extra-territorial operations.” First, this is a fake, and, second, this is a fake written in the context of London-fomented political campaign. Here is a sample of propaganda for you.

Alec Luhn of The Telegraph has hinted that the death from nerve agent poisoning refutes the Russian President’s denial of Russia’s involvement in the so-called Skripal case. This is nonsense. It is a pity that some formerly respectable British media are touching bottom before our own eyes and are ready to disseminate unconfirmed speculations or participate in propaganda campaigns. The Mirror, for example, is whipping up a panic by saying that new incidents are possible. Moreover, it has published an instruction on how to treat victims of the “Russian toxin.” What are the grounds for publishing all this stuff? You should feel at least some responsibility for what you publish.

On July 5, Prime Minister Theresa May made a statement on Amesbury, but she was speaking about Salisbury. There were no direct accusations against Russia, but one has the impression that the references to Salisbury instead of Amesbury were meant to illustrate who the prime minister thought was to blame. This is also part of propaganda.

It is clear that the investigation will take much time, particularly if we take into account the fact that much in the so-called Salisbury and Amesbury poisoning cases, as we learn from British media and statements by UK politicians, is still wrapped in a mystery. The police continue to provide extremely scarce and controversial information, particularly on the situation in Amesbury. All of this is muddying the waters still further. The samples taken from the new victims were sent to Porton Down only on July 2, but the preliminary results confirming Novichok poisoning (if we go by media reports) appeared the next day [after the alleged poisoning]. Why then the police were so active in reporting on July 4 that the two incidents were unrelated to each other? This prompts questions, one of which is: What are the medications they have treated the victims with during all these days? There are numerous questions and the reason is that they have launched this propaganda campaign meant simply to scatter a lot of fake versions and refrain from providing official versions. There are many instances of this. We will not talk about that.

Let me remind you that Russia has repeatedly invited London to hold a joint investigation into the so-called poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, but received no reply. The UK authorities have turned down all Russian proposals. I would like to say that with regard to the so-called Skripal case we have sent to the Foreign Office about 60 diplomatic notes with demands to let Russia join the investigation and have access to the victims, who are Russian citizens. We have also sent requests for legal assistance and proposals on cooperation, including in holding a joint investigation. The UK authorities have left all this without a response. At the same time, they were interpreting and presenting the situation in such a way as to create the impression that Russia is refusing to hold a joint investigation. This is nonsensical and absurd. I think we are free to publish the documents I have mentioned and will do so shortly. The Russian proposals on joint work and full-scale contacts with the UK law enforcement agencies are still in force. Could it be that London will at last come to its senses and stop letting Russophobia stand in the way of an objective investigation of these tragic events?

One can hear some sensible voices amid the din in this theatre of the absurd. The British people ask questions and send us letters, where they say that the accusations against Russia are untenable and falling apart before their own eyes. The social media vote on Amesbury is by far against the UK authorities. We have been receiving dozens of letters from people in the UK who apologise for the anti-Russia escapades of their government.



British propaganda galore

For example, it is already common knowledge that the British authorities conduct anti-Russian propaganda via social media. The Foreign Office receives an estimated eight million pounds for the so-called Russian-language programme that aims to provide what is purported to be authentic information to Russian-speaking communities in Eastern Europe suffering from alleged Russian misinformation. The list of classified contractors includes a certain company called Breakthrough Media. In addition, the 77th Brigade of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, established in 2015, conducts information operations against the enemy. Unfortunately, British military-strategic documents list Russia as the main enemy. Therefore, the activities of this military unit are, doubtless, directed against Russia. The Government Communications Headquarters, a leading British intelligence agency, is responsible for the so-called online covert action, including misinformation via social media networks, to quote Wiki-Leaks.

In these conditions, we have every right to feel concerned over the use of various tools to influence public opinion in Russia. We recall how the US Congress and the European Union voiced their apprehensions, how official Facebook representatives cooperated with them, how they provided the requested data and how they responded to MPs’ extremely sharp-worded questions.

It appears that Facebook Managing Director for the UK and Ireland Steve Hatch, working in London, does not share the intention of the company’s main office to cooperate with the governments of countries targeted by biased propaganda campaigns. For example, the Russian Embassy in London has repeatedly asked him to provide data about politically-motivated materials which were promoted in Russia with funding from British state agencies, their contractors and the BBC itself. All requests were ignored. An attempt to contact Facebook representatives failed, and no contact took place. It is most unfortunate that Facebook’s London office did not receive any Russian representatives.

This is a short sketch, and we hope to continue to entertain you with more on the subject in the future.



The situation around monuments to Red Army soldiers in Poland

The Foreign Ministry has repeatedly commented on the Polish Institute of National Remembrance’s plans to remove local monuments, which thank the Red Army [for its liberation of Poland from the Nazis during World War Two]. Russia’s highly critical assessment of this remains unchanged. We are urging the Polish authorities to unfailingly honour their international obligations to protect and duly maintain all monuments and memorials without exception, under the May 22, 1992 Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on Friendly and Good-Neighbourly Cooperation, the inter-governmental agreements on cultural, scientific and educational cooperation of August 25, 1993, and those dealing with burial sites and memorials of victims of wars and repressions, dated February 22, 1994.

The above-mentioned documents do not imply that monuments located outside burial sites should be put in a separate “symbolic” category. Therefore any attempts to dismantle or relocate memorial facilities without the prior agreement of the Russian side are illegal.

We share the concern of the Russian public’s representatives over the cynical attitude of Polish leaders towards monuments honouring Soviet liberator soldiers. We highly appreciate the manifestations of public opinion on this matter.

It is our opinion that Soviet monuments in Poland have been installed in connection with specific contexts, locations and events. Therefore they must stay where they are.



The expansion of the Office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and its effect on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement

I would like to respond to a request by the Trend news agency to comment on the expansion of the Office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and its effect on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process.

Let me remind you that during the Vienna and St Petersburg summits on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in 2016, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan discussed steps aimed at stabilising the situation in the conflict zone and creating an atmosphere that would help advance the peace process. For this purpose, they agreed, among other things, to increase the number of international observers in the conflict zone.

The matter was discussed during the follow-up contacts between the sides, including a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Krakow at the beginning of this year. An essential understanding was reached on the number of additional observers, where they will be deployed and other related issues. But no ultimate decision has been made so far.

Armenia now has a new government. The first consultations at the foreign minister level will be held in the near future. We hope that more meetings will follow, during which the sides will be able to consider a wide range of matters concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, including the observer issue.




Answers to media questions:



Question:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg convened an urgent meeting today, following US President Donald Trump’s visit and his criticism of NATO allies. Does the Foreign Ministry see this discord as a sign of deeper problems inside the Alliance?



Maria Zakharova:

The Foreign Ministry sees this as the inattentiveness of certain experts to statements made by US officials. Donald Trump had voiced his attitude to the Alliance and his concern, including over the financial aspect of the matter, long before he became the US President and even a candidate for the US presidency. He even wrote this in his books. It is strange that I am commenting on it and that you know nothing about it.

This is said even in his books that he published not just a couple of years ago, but, it seems, decades ago. So, there is nothing new or strange or surprising in the fact that he spelled out this position at the NATO summit. He voiced it before the NATO summit, after the elections, during the elections and long before the elections. We see absolutely nothing new here. This is the attitude of one NATO member state to the Alliance’s problems and financing. This is an internal matter for the Alliance. The only thing that really stuns me is why these statements are seen as surprising now. These are long-standing statements and a fairly consistent position. There are different nuances, they changed, but, from a global perspective, the position of Trump as the president, Trump as a politician and Trump as a businessman on the issue of NATO and the participation of the US in the Alliance is indeed clear-cut and consistent.



Question:

I would like to say the following about your claim that nobody knows Washington Post correspondent Amie Ferris-Rotman. I know her and her work in Russia and Afghanistan, and I consider her to be a good professional.



Maria Zakharova:

I do not think so. I think it is unprofessional to write about subjects you do not know anything about. When a journalist writes that Russians are “unused to ethnic diversity,” this is evidence that this journalist has no understanding of the subject at hand. I am not talking about rudeness or disrespect for the people of the country where you live and work (let us leave this to blogs and the blogosphere), but I can definitely say at this briefing in this building that it is unprofessional to write that Russians are unused to ethnic diversity.

As for whether she is popular or not, we raised this subject six months ago when Amie Ferris-Rotman published an article on how difficult it was for foreign journalists to work in Russia. I know you – you attend our briefings and send your requests to us. You have a lively reaction to what we say and publish. But her I don’t know. And when she wrote in Foreign Policy about the hard life of foreign journalists in Russia, we asked over a hundred foreign reporters if it is hard working in Russia. We published the results of that poll, and we asked foreign reporters if they know this journalist and if she talked with them about this matter. It turned out that nobody knows her. You know her, of course, because you come from the same country. I believe that you read what your colleagues write. This is normal competition for reporters from the same country working in Moscow. But nobody else knows her. We heard about her from her fanciful articles. Moreover, I can tell you that, regrettably, hers is not the only example of a strange attitude to one’s job.

I would like to remind you once again that Russia is a multiethnic country. People with different languages, faiths and culture live – not just coexist, but live – in the country in peace, friendship and mutual respect. Only a non-professional, to put it mildly, can offend our people by writing that they are unused to ethnic diversity. My personal attitude to this is much stronger: I believe that any deliberations on such matters, especially when such rhetoric is used, border on nationalism.

I would like to say once again that we have never received any requests or questions from this particular reporter. Only after we raised the issue publicly six months ago did she actually phone us. And this is all. Once again, we will not turn a deaf ear to reports that misinform the American public about life in Russia. Have you read her article? If not, do it and you will be surprised. Moreover, if you think we have only taken note of that item because it is our job, you are wrong. I received a telephone call from Russian journalists who asked me about this presumptuous lady. Is she really a journalist, they asked? I don’t know how she worked in Afghanistan, but I do know how she is working in Russia. Saying that Russians are unused to ethnic diversity? What is this? How can she write that when our people travel around the world? They go on holiday abroad and travel as tourists. And they are unused to ethnic diversity? Even if Ms Ferris-Rotman does not know that Russia is a multiethnic country, doesn’t she know that Russians travel abroad actively and have seen Mexicans and people from the Middle East and North Africa? I have a whole list of questions when it comes to her professional standards. Actually, I have no such questions really, but I will pretend that I do, for reasons of professional ethics. Once again, personally, I have no questions about this person. But considering your remark, I will monitor everything this reporter writes, because if you say that she is a professional, this may mean that she is writing this for a purpose. If she writes untrue things, she is involved in propaganda. And she writes patently untrue things, that Russians are encountering the world. Is this a joke? It is the world that is encountering Russia, contrary to what reporters such as Amie Ferris-Rotman write. You are definitely a gentleman. I would be happy if someone defended me like you are defending her.



Question:

I would like to add something. You can also edit things that are incorrect. This is not only the journalist’s work, but also the responsibility of the editorial staff.



Maria Zakharova:

I have noticed that the editors have changed over the last six months. Previously, it was Foreign Policy, and now it is the Washington Post. Plus, we should also realise that everything that is being said about Russia in the United States today turns into concrete decisions later. US diplomats cite specific articles in the media. Why then shouldn’t we pay attention to what I spoke about today if these articles are used as a basis for decision-making?

Secondly, obviously, it is the United States that has been waging an outrageous information war against our country. And this is just one example. Finally, it is in the United States that they constantly speak of “Russian propaganda”. And what is this if not propaganda? How can you write things like this? How can you fabricate things that are absolutely untrue and are humiliating and insulting to our people? Can you imagine something like this written about Canada or any other multi-ethnic country? Would you be able to write things like this about China, for example? And why do you think you can write this about Russia? No, you can’t, and we will keep talking about this.



Question:

According to some sources, the US has been blackmailing its allies that it will pull out of NATO. Do you think this is possible?



Maria Zakharova:

Can you pull out of yourself? I think it’s a rhetorical question, to which I have no answer. We are not hiding the fact that we are extremely concerned with the goals that have been declared by NATO, since they do not correspond to reality just as the articles by Amie Ferris-Rotman in the Washington Post. When NATO leaders say that the alliance will defend member states against Russia's aggression, this is not true for one simple reason that there is no Russian aggression against NATO members.

We understand that there are serious political interests and huge funds at stake for this organisation and that this is a big game. Unfortunately, we also note that this game is seriously damaging the cause of global security that everyone seems to proclaim. We are also well aware that this same rhetoric also represents a blow to democracy, as it is difficult to imagine more interference in states’ internal affairs than we see now, including using NATO mechanisms. These include endless statements with threats aimed at provoking conflicts between countries, direct involvement in electoral processes, and disruption attempts in various parts of the world. If everyone is so committed to democracy, why don’t they speak of the severe blow that NATO has been dealing to democracy?

As for the relations within the alliance, this is a matter for the member states to discuss. It does not concern Russia, as it is not a NATO member. When there was an understanding of the need for dialogue, the Russia-NATO Council was created. We were actively involved in it until it was suspended by the alliance in an attempt to completely freeze relations with Russia.

These issues should be addressed from within NATO. We are certainly concerned about what happens to NATO in the context of what I have said. We are talking about destabilisation not only in the areas under NATO control, but also far beyond them.



Question:

During today’s news conference US President Donald Trump, when asked if he might propose stopping NATO’s military exercises in the Baltic Sea during his talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, did not rule this possibility out. The Baltic countries have already reacted nervously. What is your position?



Maria Zakharova:

What does “reacted nervously” mean? Do you want military exercises?



Question:

Many people in our countries regard NATO and the US in particular as a guarantee of security against an “aggressive Russia.” Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility that these exercises would stop. As we remember, after his meeting with President of North Korea Kim Jong-un, Mr Trump announced that joint exercises with South Korea held in the South China Sea were suspended. Now we hear the same regarding the Baltic region. Would you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot comment on statements we have not made but everyone refers to. This is the third question on statements that allegedly have been made. I cannot comment on them. I do not know if they have really been made. In addition, I am not Mr Trump’s press secretary. I would like to note this, especially for US journalists who constantly ask me about statements their president makes.

Even if we put aside the issue of whether this statement is real or not, the key matter you have mentioned is Russian aggression. This does not involve exercises or how the US president sees this. The message about Russian aggression is the key matter for the Baltic countries. But there is no aggression. It has been made up to hold exercises among other things and to build up one’s capacities on the Russian borders, and not at the expense of the Baltic countries but completely different ones, with those who lobby for the defence industry to allocate large sums of money to pump into the Brussels bureaucracy and to gain leverage.

If we return to your question about the Russian threat, it does not exist; it is only needed to control people, politicians and political forces. This is the only explanation for what is happening. I mean massing armed forces and military equipment at the Russian borders and involving other countries in these actions thus diverting them from real threats such as terrorism, terrorist attacks and migration. This is a make-believe story.



Question:

Yesterday Donald Trump said that Russia keeps Germany captive and controls it; allegedly Germany pays billions of dollars to Russia and the US protects it against Russia… He also said he thought it was very inappropriate that Germany is totally controlled by Russia. Would you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe there are two quite strange aspects to this. First, the world knows Mr Trump as businessman; so it is strange to hear him saying it is inappropriate that someone pays Russia. It provides goods and receives money. This is customary for a business, especially for a “hardened” business. We have been a high-quality supplier of natural resources to Europe, Germany in particular, for many years. The energy cooperation between Russia and European states goes back for several dozen years. Despite the geopolitical changes that took place on the European continent during the last decade, they have not affected the quality of products and Russia as supplier. The quality is impeccable, both of the products and of Russia as supplier. This is not my assessment, but an assessment given by Europeans. So Russia gets paid for providing high-quality products and being a reliable partner, or, as Mr Trump says, closing good deals and seeing them through. This is natural, if not good.

Second, regarding Russia’s control over Germany, I would like to say that, according to information from open sources the number of US soldiers based in Germany is about 35,000 in 2016–2018. Speaking about who really controls Germany. We have business with Germany, while the US has military bases.



Question:

Has anything changed this week regarding Moscow’s position on Kosovo considering the statement by Hashim Thaci that he met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in Ankara and, quote: “asked the Prime Minister to establish lines of communication between our countries”?



Maria Zakharova:

We have a principled position on Kosovo. It has not changed.



Question:

A question about football and politics. The Croatian national football team player who made a name for himself, and not just for his performance, has officially apologised for his earlier comments, on the Rossiya 24 channel. Do you have any official comments on behalf of the Foreign Ministry?



Maria Zakharova:

I do not see any reason to comment on this. I think his initial comments were not very smart. They were followed by public apologies not only from the footballer himself but also from a great number of Croatians who expressed disappointment over the incident and stressed the unacceptability of mixing football and politics. There is football and there is politics. These are different things. We have also noted FIFA’s position and their investigation into the matter. We have taken into consideration the statement of the Croatian side and everything that people said. We have also noted this person’s apologies. Again, I think his comments were not smart to put it mildly.



Question:

The expulsion of Russian diplomats from Greece a few days ago has caused an uproar. The Foreign Ministry has commented on the matter. Can you also comment on whether this exchange of ‘courtesies’ between the two countries will have an impact on bilateral relations?



Maria Zakharova:

We always proceed from the premise that things like the expulsion of diplomats will have tit-for-tat consequences. We also believe that they do not contribute positively to bilateral relations. However, bilateral relations have their own value, as we are not talking about some abstract relations, but about practical cooperation for the benefit of the people in our countries.



Question:

A number of statements at the NATO summit, including those by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, lead to the conclusion that considerable progress has been made by Georgia in approaching NATO standards, and the day will come when it will join the Alliance. Meanwhile, Russia is known to have pointed out a number of times that if Georgia were on the verge of joining the Alliance, it would be a red line for Russia. Do you think we are closer to this red line today?



Maria Zakharova:

We said the Alliance admitting countries which were not NATO members naturally would affect the whole picture, the security situation on the European continent and would definitely have consequences. This concerns not only Georgia but our broader position of principle.

Recently I gave an interview to a Scandinavian publication representing a country, which is not a NATO member, but is being actively dragged into it. I was asked why Russia believed that this would have consequences. I replied because it would entail changes, and when changes occur on one side, there are consequences on the other side. I think it is a natural process. We have always said that.



Question:

Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at the NATO summit that the Crimea issue is the reason Russia is isolated by the West even though Russia is not a threat to the Alliance. Marine Le Pen went as far as to propose admitting Russia to NATO in order to jointly combat terrorism. I am primarily interested in Secretary- General Jens Stoltenberg’s words. Do you see any practical steps by NATO supporting his words about not wanting to isolate Russia and the intention to cooperate?



Maria Zakharova:

The Crimea issue is a closed topic for us. This has been articulated a number of times at all levels. As to political isolation, Amie Ferris-Rotman’s article in the Washington Post has a phrase about the years-long political isolation of Russia … Look at the schedule of meetings of the Russian President, Foreign Minister and other ministers, international events hosted and attended by Russia, at international venues and so on. There was and still is a will to isolate. But it was clear from the outset that isolation could not be achieved by calls alone, this is why a number of countries launched active measures to create artificial political isolation that was presented as real solidarity and so forth. However, we live in the real world in which there is no political isolation. And the Crimea issue, let me repeat, is closed. I am very sorry that people who head the international Alliance and international organisations do not bother to use facts and analyse the situation, in particular, concerning Crimea, the history of the issue, and don’t go beyond the level of political slogans or draw any new conclusions even as years pass (and it has been years already), but rather follow the same well-trodden path of Cold War ideology.



Question:

Leader of the Ukrainian Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) party and a likely candidate to the post of the President of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko said the other day that she had identified a way to return Crimea to Ukraine. Her recipe includes a strong army and the Budapest format talks. What can you say about this statement?



Maria Zakharova:

I’m not going to comment on the strong army bit. I think any state wants strong armed forces. The only question is how to use these armed forces. We can see how Ukraine is using them now: first, it is using them against its own people (precisely like that: against its own people), and, second, we can also see that regardless of whether they are strong or not so strong, this factor hasn’t brought Ukraine any positive results.

With regard to Ms Tymoshenko mentioning the Budapest Memorandum, we, including our Foreign Minister, have provided regular comments on the situation concerning the Budapest Memorandum. Perhaps, I should do so again today in a somewhat more extended format, since we are at it.

Speaking of the guarantees for Ukraine’s territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum constantly referred to by official Kiev and its many supporters (as you may be aware, its full name is the 1994 Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), Russia sticks to the following position: Russia is not violating the 1994 Memorandum on Security Guarantees in connection with Ukraine's accession to the NPT. This memorandum is not an international treaty (this can be seen even from its title) and does not impose any legal obligations on the states in addition to the ones they already had at the time of signing this memorandum.

This document confirms obligations assumed under the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE (called the CSCE back then), namely: to respect independence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from using force against Ukraine, except for self-defence or in any other way in accordance with the UN Charter.

The 1975 CSCE Final Act consolidates the principles of the territorial integrity of states and the inviolability of the borders. However, this document, like the UNGA Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, enshrines the principle of equality and the right of the nations to self-determination. As is known, when interpreting (this is an important point which everyone tends to forget) and applying the fundamental principles of international law, one must assume that they are interrelated, and each principle should be considered in light of and in connection with other principles.

The subject of balance between the principle of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination was addressed in the 1970 Declaration, which confirms the inviolability of the “territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States,” and I now emphasise, “conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” “and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”

For some reason, this part, which is just as important as the one that is referred to, is overlooked. It’s as if it’s not of any interest, as if it's not there.

After toppling lawful President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the coup that followed the Maidan protests, it was hardly possible to say that the Kiev authorities represent the people of Crimea. One cannot even speak about the legitimacy of this government, since it took power as a result of a constitutional coup with the participation of outside forces, which, incidentally, is written in the documents underlying the Budapest Memorandum. Did the government that came to power using such methods represent Crimea? In which way?

With regard to the principle of inviolability of borders, it prohibits encroachment on borders or the seizure and usurpation of a part or entire territory of any participating State. However, the exercise of the right to self-determination in the form of separation is a natural and lawful process which legitimately changes the borders and territories of existing states and, therefore, cannot be qualified as “seizure” or “usurpation.”

In 1991, the European Union adopted guidelines for recognising new states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, in which the right to self-determination is recognised as the basis for recognising these states. Why is no one referring to this, either? This interpretation of this principle was confirmed by practical formation of states in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and other Eastern European counties that were recognised by the EU countries and the United States (the latter also signed the CSCE Final Act.) Again, no one appears to remember this.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the policy pursued by illegal authorities who seized power in Kiev, primarily, with regard to ethnic minorities.

As is known, a joint statement made by the leaders of Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Ukraine was issued in Budapest simultaneously with the 1994 Memorandum. Among other things, it reaffirmed the importance of the OSCE commitments designed to counter the growth of aggressive nationalism and chauvinism. Clearly, precisely these extremely negative phenomena in the Ukrainian politics led to the separation of Crimea. It was a trigger and the beginning of the countdown of Crimea as part of Ukraine.

The Budapest Memorandum does not impose on Russia an obligation to compel Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. I think this is obvious.

In addition to Russia, the United States and Great Britain are part of the Budapest Memorandum. Ms Tymoshenko’s remarks beg the question: how are the threats to impose sanctions on Ukraine’s leaders repeatedly voiced by the EU and the United States during the riots in Kiev resonate with guarantees of the rights inherent to Ukraine’s sovereignty? There are dozens of such direct quotations. What should we think of the almost constant presence of Western representatives, officials and representatives of special services on the Maidan? How are we supposed to qualify the US and EU statement that they are already not considering the legitimately elected head of state as their legitimate partner, unlike the new leaders appointed in the middle of a city square in violation of all constitutional procedures?

I’m not even talking about the first Orange Revolution which is the forerunner of the 2013−2014 dramatic events. We are only analysing what happened in 2013−2014. These facts add up (this is obvious and has already been proved) into a coup inspired from outside in violation of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

This is what I would like to remind Ms Tymoshenko and other politicians of, as well as numerous politicians in the West, when they encourage everyone to be guided by the Budapest Memorandum. There’s no need to cite certain provisions of international agreements while ignoring others. These things are inter-related and are expressly outlined in the documents I mentioned earlier.



Question:

According to Facebook, 65,000 Russian users are interested in treason. At the same time, this data could have been handed over to advertisers and developers of mobile apps. How legal is this, and is it possible to interpret such actions as meddling in Russian politics?



Maria Zakharova:

To the best of my knowledge, this is connected with targeted advertising algorithms. The situation is becoming more interesting each day. This is a subject for separate multi-format discussions, and we will be happy to take part in them because the situation already resembles George Orwell’s anti-utopias, including efforts to study people’s behaviour, their categorisation, etc.

As far as I understand it, while creating a post or writing a text promoted for money, it was possible to choose a group of people, labelled as “interested in treason,” as a targeted audience, from an entire list of other qualitative characteristics of the social network’s users, such as film-lovers, bookworms and football fans. This is Facebook’s terminology, not ours. The social network’s administrators said that they had deleted this category after the relevant media requests.

Here is the most interesting aspect of this issue: In his July 11 story, Alex Hern of the Guardian speculates that this would enable the Russian authorities to track potential traitors without any difficulty. The Guardian is the best way to entertain an audience. After such an article, I believe that this is an excellent slogan. It turns out that the Russian authorities have invented the category “interested in treason” to track down dissidents. This amounts to downright paranoia.

Regarding the legality of Facebook’s actions, including the protection of Russian citizens’ personal data, I believe this is within the remit of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media. However, this is unprecedented and disgusting from the ethical standpoint.

Many want to know all about targeting. Those who know the meaning of this word understand that a certain target is implied. It appears that people are seen as targets, are targeted and hunted. It appears that all of us are in someone’s sights. There is nothing pleasant in this. I have commented on the ethical aspect of this. Among other things, I believe that the professional community needs to focus on this issue.



Question:

Is there likely to be a Russian-Japanese meeting in the 2+2 format this July?



Maria Zakharova:

It is possible there will be a meeting in the 2+2 format in the near future, and preparations are being made for it. But I have no detailed information yet.



Question:

This week, Foreign Minister of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ri Yong-ho paid his second visit to Moscow. Did he have any official meetings?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no additional information on this issue.



Question:

On July 11, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov met with a delegation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine against the backdrop of rumours about the Trump administration’s “deal of the century”. What practical role can the Russian Foreign Ministry play in a Palestinian-Israeli settlement at this stage?



Maria Zakharova:

You are mixing up two different subjects, wittingly or unwittingly. I believe there is important meaning in the way you have formulated your question. It is true that the current developments in the region are largely connected with the rumour, as you said, about the “deal of the century”, as it is referred to in Washington. We have said that we will welcome any plan or programme that would show a way out of the deadlock, but we also think that no plans must be allowed to push the process into another deadlock or maintain the existing deadlock for years to come. Regrettably, we see that the situation with this “deal of the century” is based largely on rumour rather than on pragmatic, open and trust-based work that would enhance stability. Unfortunately, the current situation has been created by rumour and speculation. In addition, the US decision to move its embassy [to Jerusalem], as we have said, has created huge obstacles on the way towards a settlement.

The Foreign Ministry’s job is to maintain regular contacts with all parties involved (you can read our comments, including the one on that meeting), discuss various issues with them and urge the parties involved in the discussion of various plans and initiatives to do this on the basis of the existing legal framework on the settlement (it is a solid basis comprising UN Security Council resolutions and other decisions), keeping in mind that everything possible should be done to prevent the situation from deteriorating or from being deadlocked, as it has been for years, regrettably.

Maintaining contacts, holding meetings and talks, using active diplomacy, upholding our views and using best practices, as well as taking emergency measures in a critical situation to ease tensions that flare up in the region – this is how you can describe the ministry’s job.



Question:

The Trump-Putin summit will be held in Helsinki in a few days. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier spoke about the possible issues on the agenda of this meeting. Do you know about any other issues the two presidents will discuss? What are your expectations from it, considering the new agreements regarding a meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo following the summit?



Maria Zakharova:

We have said everything we can on this issue. There is no additional information. I prefer not to run ahead in such cases, but tomorrow the Russian Foreign Minister may give a long interview on the upcoming summit. If he does, we will notify you of its publication.




The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/s...ent/id/3293994
__________________
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 02:14 PM.
Page generated in 6.29572 seconds.