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

Old December 18th, 2019 #41
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Ambassador to Cuba Andrey Guskov’s interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, published on November 27, 2019



2 December 2019 - 15:43



Question:

What is the reason for the dynamic development of bilateral ties?



Andrey Guskov:

The high intensity of the Russian-Cuban dialogue is due to a number of bilateral and international factors. Havana is Russia’s vital strategic partner and ally in Latin America and the Caribbean. Our bilateral relations are boosted by the unprecedentedly high level and increasing scale of recent cooperation. We also have similar approaches to the main issues concerning global and regional affairs. In light of the current global tension, we need to coordinate our positions and interaction as much as possible.



Question:

Interaction between Moscow and Havana was growing not only in the field of politics over the past year. Important economic agreements have been reached and new contracts have been signed. What are the most important joint projects?



Andrey Guskov:

Our trade and investment cooperation is indeed growing.

Over the past few months, we have signed a number of crucial bilateral agreements and contracts. When Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev visited Havana in October, RZD International and National Railway Company of Cuba (Union de Ferrocarriles de Cuba or UFC) signed a contract to rebuild and modernise Cuba’s railway infrastructure. The contract provides for overhauling and repairing over 1,000 kilometres of railway lines, the delivery of Russian rail equipment and the training of Cuban personnel. This project is strategically important for Cuba. It will take 10 years and will cost 1.9 billion euros. And lastly, it is the largest international project that Russian Railways (RZD) has.

Other documents signed during Dmitry Medvedev’s visit include agreements on the maintenance of airworthiness of the Russian-made aircraft of Cuba’s national airline, Cubana de Aviacion SA, and the delivery of a rolling machine for the Las Tunas steel mill. Zarubezhneft has launched a pilot project to enhance oil recovery at the Boca de Jaruco oilfield, which includes using Russia’s experience and know-how to drill Cuba’s first horizontal wells.

An additional protocol to an agreement on the manufacturing of four power units for the Maximo Gomez and East Havana thermal power plants was signed during the visit by President of Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel to Russia in late October.

Other landmark projects include the construction of facilities for the assembly of Russian-made Ural and GAZ vehicles and PAZ buses outside the capital. These will be the first plants to be built in Cuba with Russian assistance in the post-Soviet period.

There are plans to develop cooperation in nearly all sectors of the Cuban economy. We are making strides in the preparation and implementation of joint projects, in particular in the fields of the green economy, agriculture, light industry, scientific and technological cooperation, healthcare, biopharmaceuticals and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The latter project provides for building an irradiation centre in Cuba.

Russian firms and companies are interested in expanding their contribution to the implementation of Cuba’s 2030 National Plan for Economic and Social Development, including in light of the 2019-2020 Opportunities Portfolio recently presented by Cuba.



Question:

Many Russians, especially the older generation, still have memories of Soviet-Cuban friendship. Strictly speaking, bilateral mutually beneficial economic cooperation was not the point then. Friendship mostly implied gratuitous deliveries of Soviet goods to Cuba. Is there a risk of returning to the same model now? How justified is Russia’s presence on the island, economically?



Andrey Guskov:

Russian-Cuban cooperation is pragmatic and mutually beneficial today. This approach is stated in all the basic bilateral documents, in particular, in the Russian-Cuban declaration on the principles of relations, and is put into action.

Russian loans play an important role in our cooperation; but there is no question of any gratuitous deliveries.

A whole range of Russian engineering products are being exported to Cuba: equipment for oil production, power generation, for smelting, as well as the KAMAZ, URAL, GAZ, and LADA vehicles, locomotives, railway cars and more. These contracts are important for our enterprises, and we can expect to see growth here.

There is no doubt that, as the process of updating the model of Cuba’s socioeconomic development advances – something the Cuban government has set as a major goal it is working towards – competition will definitely increase among foreign partners in the local market.

Even now, there are many economic projects on the island that are very attractive for foreign business, including in tourism, energy, transport, industry, information and communication technologies, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, pharmaceuticals and other fields. It is important for us to provide the opportunity for Russian companies to participate in them.



Question:

For six decades, Cuba has been under tremendous pressure from the United States, and recently the embargo has intensified. Does this affect the relationship between Havana and Moscow?



Andrey Guskov:

The current session of the UN General Assembly has recently adopted its annual resolution to end the United States’ longstanding embargo against Cuba with 187 votes, that is, almost unanimously, with some exceptions. This is a convincing demonstration of the international community’s broad solidarity with Havana, although Washington continues to apply and has recently toughened its illegal unilateral coercive measures against Cuba.

In such a difficult situation, we are providing all the necessary support to our Cuban friends. We are certainly working on reliably protecting our trade and economic cooperation from extraterritorial sanctions.



Question:

As of late, there has been increasing talk in Russia, at the highest state level, about the necessity of abandoning the US dollar in global trade as a currency that has discredited itself and which is affected by time-serving political considerations. In effect, Moscow is already trading with some countries in their respective national currencies. What is Cuba’s position on this, and are there any such plans?



Andrey Guskov:

Yes, we are considering this possibility. The conversion to payments and settlements in national currencies in bilateral trade would help make them more resistant to outside pressure.



Question:

Although Russia has considerably expanded its presence in Cuba, the European Union and China remain the island’s main trading partners. How does such competition influence cooperation between Moscow and Havana?



Andrei Guskov:

Objectively speaking, international trade goes hand in hand with economic competition. It is common knowledge that the latter factor is seen as a driving force of commercial ties. The Cuban market is no exception. Russian companies and enterprises are ready to develop it, while waging a competitive struggle against other foreign economic operators. The necessary conditions for this have been created in our cooperation with Havana. The Russian-Cuban Inter-Governmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Science and Technological Cooperation is an effective mechanism for dialogue and collaboration. In September, Moscow hosted the Commission’s successful 17th session. Its work is clearly aimed at expanding and diversifying bilateral cooperation, including mutual trade.



Question:

Cuba entered an era of change, and a new constitution was approved. Now the republic has a president, and the post of prime minister has been reinstated. Private property has been partially legitimised, and mobile internet is available. Do you think the modernisation of the country's sociopolitical life will continue?



Andrey Guskov:

There is no doubt about that. Updating the socioeconomic model with an emphasis on implementing, as is noted here, economic methods of managing the national economy remains the Cuban state’s most important goal. The computerisation of Cuban society is another priority. These and other modernisation processes take their roots in the new constitution, which entered into force this year, so progress is guaranteed by the country's fundamental law.

We know from our own experience how difficult transformations of this magnitude can be. I wish our Cuban friends success in their journey to this destination.

We are here to offer the necessary support to our partners by providing the Cubans with model Russian laws in key areas, in which they will need to adopt new legislation in accordance with the current constitution.



Question:

The Cuban revolution turned 60 earlier this year. Many people who participated in those events continue to hold important government posts. Do they still have that unshakable faith in the revolutionary ideals of the past? Is revolutionary romance still present in big politics, or is it just for tourists?



Andrey Guskov:

Cuba carefully preserves the legacy of its revolution. The memory of its "apostles," primarily Comandante Fidel, is sacred. In this regard, I wouldn’t divide the Cubans into different political generations.

But, like in any other country, in addition to the continuity of eras and generations, there are differences as well. This is absolutely normal and shows that Cuba is developing in line with the dominant international trends.

Getting back to your question, loyalty to the ideals of the revolution is a hallmark of Cuban politics, its banner, if you like.



Question:

How did you meet Raul Castro, and what was your impression?



Andrey Guskov:

The first time I saw this man up close was in 2014, when I was in Havana as part of a Russian delegation and attended a meeting with Raul Castro. I still have that remarkably vivid impression, and it only got stronger after Raul Castro’s recent meetings with Dmitry Medvedev, Valentina Matviyenko and Nikolai Patrushev, which I had the honour to attend. He remains a person with a sharp mind, a wonderful memory and fine humour, and tends to imbue people on the other side of the negotiating table with optimism and energy.



Question:

You specialise in Latin American countries, and have been heading the embassy in Cuba for over a year now. How is working in Cuba different from working in other countries?



Andrey Guskov:

Our working relations with our Cuban colleagues are very close and based on trust. They are truly comradely. There is a sense that we are part of one team, although, identifying the best mutually beneficial solutions to various issues on the bilateral agenda involves discussions and occasionally fairly complicated talks. However, this special camaraderie in Russian-Cuban relations is worth a lot and helps us do our work.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3928243






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin’s remarks at the celebration of International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Moscow, November 29, 2019



2 December 2019 - 15:59



Ladies and gentlemen,

I am happy to welcome all of you as we mark the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

Russia values the high level of relations with Palestine, as well as the intense, trust-based and genuinely friendly bilateral dialogue. Our country’s leaders and personally President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin attach great importance to the Palestinian track in Russia’s foreign policy. Since 2005, he had 17 meetings with Mahmoud Abbas. Their most recent meeting took place in Moscow in July 2018, and the two leaders had a telephone conversation on July 12, 2019.

I would like to inform you that President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has sent a message of congratulations to President of the State of Palestine to mark today’s occasion.

We are looking forward to seeing President of the State of Palestine in the Russian capital in May 2020 at the celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

Russia strongly supports efforts to restore unity within Palestine on the political platform offered by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and hold elections on all Palestinian territories.

November 2019 marks a milestone in our bilateral relations. At the end of this month, we marked 45 years since the Soviet leadership approved the establishment of a PLO representative office in Moscow. This happened on November 27, 1974 during a visit by a Palestinian delegation to the USSR, headed by PLO Executive Committee Chairman Yasser Arafat. This moment is regarded as the start of the process that resulted in the establishment of diplomatic relations between our country and Palestine.

Today, we consider expanding trade and economic cooperation to be among the priority areas of bilateral cooperation. We are aware of the adverse factors related to the challenging military and political situation in the Middle East, and the continuing occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel. Nevertheless, trade between Russia and Palestine increased 66 percent in 2018 compared to 2017, exceeding 5 million dollars. This, of course, is a modest result. Making maximum use of the existing potential for the benefit of the Russian and Palestinian people is our shared objective. It is in this vein that this question was discussed at the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission held in Moscow on November 22.

Russia attaches great importance to strengthening bilateral cultural and humanitarian ties. In particular, the reconstruction of Bethlehem’s historical and religious centre financed by Russia is advancing at full steam, and is expected to be completed by early next year.

Thousands of Palestinians graduated from Soviet and then Russian education institutions. In 2018, 600 Palestinian students were enrolled in Russian universities, including 271 students who study under full grants.

We are working on increasing the number of Russian tourists and pilgrims visiting Palestine and the Christian holy sites on Palestinian territory. Russia successfully operates a museum and park in Jericho with an archaeological exhibition and laboratory. Efforts are underway to include this complex on tourist routes, as well as in the Russian Holy Sites project. The Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Bethlehem is up and running.

Russia believes that by working together we can bring the day when Palestinians will have their own state closer and build a prosperous country, the establishment of which will be essential for achieving sustainable peace and security in the region.

I would like to wish wellbeing and cohesion to the Palestinian people who have had to deal with so many challenges. I also reaffirm our solidarity with the aspiration of the Palestinian people toward fulfilling its legitimate right to a life of dignity within its national state.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3928342






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with the ambassadors of European Union member-states and the head of the EU Delegation to Russia



2 December 2019 - 16:30



On December 2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Moscow with the heads of the diplomatic missions of EU countries and the head of the European Union Delegation to the Russian Federation.

The participants in the meeting had a detailed discussion of the outlook for restoring Russia-EU relations. The Russian party stressed its readiness for constructive interaction with the new leaders of the European Union. The counterproductive nature of unilateral restrictions that hampered the development of trade and economic ties in Europe was emphasised, as was that of other steps that could result in the erosion of the system of international law and the emergence of new divides on the continent.

The parties also reviewed current international issues with a focus on the prospects for the settlement of the intra-Ukrainian conflict, the developments in Syria and Libya, and the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3930152






Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Baku, December 2, 2019



2 December 2019 - 19:40






Esteemed Mr Aliyev,

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you during my regular visit to friendly Azerbaijan. Indeed, we have a similar assessment of our relations: they are on the rise and developing steadily in all areas. This is borne out by your regular contacts with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, which you mentioned. You had a detailed conversation on the sidelines of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing, and during the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi where you had a very useful bilateral meeting and took part in a very interesting multilateral discussion of global and regional issues.

We praised the visit of First Vice-President of Azerbaijan Mehriban Aliyeva to the Russian Federation and her contacts with Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly Valentina Matviyenko. We appreciated her participation in a very important opening ceremony for the Azerbaijan Pavilion at VDNKh and her participation in the region-to-region forum.

We will definitely implement the initiatives that were discussed during this visit. They concern, among other things, a new theme in our intergovernmental economic cooperation, notably innovation and high technology. A special roadmap will be drafted and literally in several days the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan will review the state of affairs in this area.

As you said, trade is rapidly growing and is expected to reach $3 billion. Russia’s direct investment in the economy of Azerbaijan amounted to $1.5 billion. Over 70 Russian regions cooperate with Azerbaijan. More than 300 companies with Russian capital operate in Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani capital is becoming increasingly strong in Russia as well.





One more interesting and important result of Ms Aliyeva’s visit to Russia is the agreement on the bilateral youth forum becoming more regular. This is of principled importance for preserving continuity and historical memory and bringing up our younger generations as good friends and neighbours, which has always been typical of our relations.

As for our cooperation in international and regional organisations, we have always appreciated close teamwork and a striving to always consider each other’s interests. We will continue helping each other uphold our common positions, the important issues that are of special interest to both countries.

This includes a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. We are interested in the implementation of confidence measures and the development of humanitarian contacts, including those in the media. These agreements were reached at the Vienna summit and confirmed at the ministerial meeting in Moscow. They are gradually being carried out, and I hope the meeting of foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan this week will further promote these processes.

At the same time, I agree with you that there is still much to be done in long-term political planning. I completely agree with you that it is necessary to avoid rhetoric that is at variance with the fundamental principles approved by both states and fixed in the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act.

I am sincerely grateful to you, Esteemed Mr Aliyev, for this opportunity to talk with you. I hope my visit, which will continue tomorrow, will help further promote trust and make our cooperation even more productive.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3928658
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln

Last edited by Alex Him; December 18th, 2019 at 11:10 AM.
 
Old December 18th, 2019 #42
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Opening remarks by Russia's Permanent Representative to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at a news conference on the 24th session the Chemical Weapons Convention meeting, The Hague, November 28, 2019



2 December 2019 - 19:45



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues.

We are starting our news conference on the CWC meeting, the highest body of our organisation, in The Hague.

I would like to introduce the participants.

My name is Alexander Shulgin, and I am Russia's Permanent Representative to the OPCW. Igor Kirillov, Commander of the Defence Ministry NBC defence troops is to the left of me. My neighbor to the right is Viktor Kholstov, Head of the CWC and BTWC Analytical Research Centre at the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

The conference is drawing to a close and it is time to review the first results. It seems that this conference will be primarily remembered for the adoption by consensus of two draft resolutions – by the Western Three, the United States, Canada and the Netherlands as swell as Russia - on updating control lists from the Appendix to the CWC.

For the first time since the existence of the CWC (it was opened to signing in 1993), the register of convention-controlled toxic agents has been supplemented with new groups of deadly chemicals.

The two families of abstract toxic substances that were presented by the Western Three (in Western terminology they are called novichoks) were supplemented with another two families of toxic agents. One contains a chemical that was developed and studied in secret NATO labs (Czech President Milos Zeman released a statement on this). Another family, that we insitsted on including, includes several hundred chemcials developed and licensed in the United States as weapons in the 1970s and 1980s. The Americans should have declared them at the end of CWC development but didn’t do it at that time.

The resolution of the problem with these lists is certainly a positive move. After a long period of fierce confrontation here at the OPCW in The Hague, Russia and the United States have finally proved that our delegations have not yet forgotten how to come to terms.

At the same time, the adoption of the OPCW Programme and Budget for 2020 has been a serious stumbling block at the conference. We confirmed our objections to the so-called omnibus draft decision prepared by the Technical Secretariat. This draft covers expenses on so-called attributive activities that we consider illegal (they violate the CWC and damage the exclusive prerogatives of the UN Security Council).

The other drawback of this omnibus draft is the use of cash accumulated from the previous year without the consent of all participating states, which is a flagrant violation of the financial rules of our organisation.

We are supported by the representatives of the People’s Republic of China who also have reservations about the programme and budget.

We have just held a rollcall vote, and I am looking at the results. The omnibus project received 106 votes, 19 delegations voted against it, 17 abstained and 11 walked out of the room.

This result is probably due to the unscrupulous campaign waged by our opponents, who tried to create the impression that Russia and China are shutting the door on the OPCW to prevent its successful operations in the future.

If we analyse the outcome of the voting, we will see that one-third of the states attending this conference refused to be associated with the decisions on the OPCW agenda and budget.

Is it normal when the opinions of nearly one-third of states are disregarded? Well, it is regrettable that some states are trying to force others to adopt decisions under which they will have to pay for the questionable projects launched in the mercenary interests of certain groups of states.

Russia’s position is simple and clear: we are ready to continue financing the organisation on the condition that these funds are used to pay for conventional activities, what I mean here is the activities that are stipulated by the Convention.

Evidence of this constructive Russian attitude is the transfer of our annual contribution to the OPCW budget, less part of the cash balance for the preceding period that were used to finance the attributive functions assigned to the OPCW.

Before this session of the OPCW conference began, the leading Western media published a series of material about the shady schemes involving the preparation of the FFM report regarding the alleged chemical attack that took place in Douma, Syria, on April 4, 2018.

On November 18, all the states parties to the convention received an open letter from a group of scientists and public figures, including Jose Bustani, the first Director General of the OPCW. They urge the OPCW management to “come clean” and to “permit all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations.”

This is probably why the US representative at the OPCW has initiated a lively discussion, to put it mildly, at the Conference of the States Parties (CSP) this morning. He put forth unsubstantiated accusations against Russia and Syria and went as far as to say that Russia “continues to embrace chemical weapons” and that it is allegedly helping Syria to cover up the use of chemical weapons. Regarding the embracing of chemical weapons, it is definitely not Russia but the United States that is indeed doing this. Russia is committed to the convention; it is strictly complying with its provisions and has fulfilled its obligation to destroy the chemical weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, our American colleagues are dragging their feet, drawing out the destruction of their chemical weapons under various pretexts, including financial and technological reasons. But these arguments are far-fetched and flimsy.

The US Representative said, probably as part of his comments on the latest media exposures, which I mentioned, that we must trust the top professionals working at the OPCW, who are reliable, objective and unbiased people.

In this connection, I told this audience in exercise of my right of reply that the US Representative admired the FFM experts. Why then did the Technical Secretariat not rely on the FFM when it compiled its final report, which said that barrels containing chlorine were delivered by an airstrike, but on three unidentified and allegedly independent experts, who had made this conclusion? I asked if this was because some of the FFM experts, who the US Representative said we must trust, turned out to be honest people who had visited the site of the alleged Douma attack and reached conclusions that were widely different from the expectations of the states that probably wanted to see conclusions that put the blame for the Douma attack on the Syrian authorities. Why was this done? The explanation is that these states wanted an excuse for an armed action against sovereign Syria, that is, the missile strike the United States, Britain and France delivered in the small hours of April 14, 2018.

I have also suggested that the participants in the CST wrap their mind around the following question. The Technical Secretariat, as you understand, has referred to the opinion of three allegedly independent experts from somewhere or other, rather than the FFM experts. The Russian Federation has applied to the Technical Secretariat on two occasions, asking it to publish the ballistic test data that enabled those supposedly independent experts to come to the said conclusions on an air attack involving the use of chlorine-filled cylinders.

On the first occasion, they turned us down because, allegedly, they could not endanger the lives of those independent experts. We said then: Perish the thought! These experts’ identities are of no interest to us. What we want is to look at the calculations themselves and check them from a scientific point of view. We sent another request and waited for a very long time. At long last, we received a half-hearted reply to the effect that they were unable to disclose the experts’ identities. It reminds me of a Russian proverb: “That’s mixing apples and oranges.” We requested the ballistic test data and hear in reply: “We can’t disclose the experts’ identities.” It’s a vicious circle!

In short, this is how the situation shapes up. In my remarks today I said that two assumptions could be made in connection with the Technical Secretariat’s systematic refusal to grant our requests. First, the ballistic, chemical or any other tests are so poor that it would be clear to any expert with at least some training that the whole thing is trumped up. The second assumption is even worse: It is highly likely that there were no international independent experts at all, that they are a figment of imagination, fictitious personages, who have been brought into it just to add importance to the Special Mission’s verdict about the air attack, in which chlorine-using Syrian troops were allegedly implicated.

Indicatively, this time, none of our usual opponents has dared to raise objections or offer any arguments. You know, unlike our US colleagues, who waste their breath on war cries and are hugging chemical weapons – well, they are very nearly kissing them – we provide concrete facts and they seem to have no replies to concrete facts.

What’s the thing to do considering what is happening? After all, the scandal is going into top gear. Unlike the US ambassador, who, as you may recall, has compared the Technical Secretariat to a small island amid a stormy sea, I proposed that the situation should not to overdramatised and that we act in a different way.

We should not whip up the passions or speculate about the storms or the eye of a hurricane, where the poor Technical Secretariat allegedly finds itself. We had better take a different look at the situation. Let us regard the Technical Secretariat and the OPCW in general as our common home. It is for this that the Director-General of the Technical Secretariat is calling us. A common home, where all of us, the States Parties, can come with our grievances and try to have them sorted out.

The question is – is there a problem with the functioning of our Organisation now? Yes, of course, there is. On the one hand, there are three supposedly independent experts, but they are being hidden, along with their appraisal. On the other hand, dozens of experts, recognised and respected people, with remarkable international reputations, led by Professor Robinson, have been pointing out the obvious inconsistency between the OPCW Fact Finding Mission (FFM) conclusions and the real situation.

I have reminded you that we once proposed holding a briefing for all the FFM experts who previously worked, or are still working with the Technical Secretariat and who travelled to the Douma to investigate the situation. Among other things, we also made this proposal because our military found the Syrians, who were involuntary participants in the provocation, appeared in the White Helmets’ video. In April 2018, we brought those witnesses to The Hague, and they spoke at the OPCW headquarters, telling us what really happened.

But what about this special mission and its final report of March 1? Did they even mention the briefing at the OPCW with those involuntary witnesses? Did they take it into consideration? No and no. They simply dismissed it as a fact that did not fit into the picture that needed to be created.

I remember when we proposed holding that briefing, the American ambassador stood up again and said he would never allow a reenactment of the Stalinist processes of the 1930s with intimidation and cross-interrogation here in The Hague.

Well, listen, if the Americans were so afraid of having a Russian representative at those hearings, at that briefing, then, for God’s sake, we could think about another format. For example, let the Director-General, as some here propose, meet with a group of FFM experts, former and present, only in the presence of international independent observers from various countries, possibly with the exception of the five states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

In a word, there are many options, if there is goodwill. But inaction is extremely dangerous. We are simply driving the disease in this way, and undermining trust in anything the Technical Secretariat will produce in the future – FFM reports or reports by the Identification and Investigation Team (attribution team) – from the very beginning.

So what we need to do is act. We expect that the situation will be considered one way or another. It is important to do this, if only because the cost of the FFM error is extremely high. International security depends on it.

And finally, Russia and other countries that share this stance are making a statement at this conference on the need to step up the fight against chemical terrorism. The problem is that ISIS militants have gained experience in handling chemicals; they have such chemicals and can carry out chemical attacks, including in the countries where they return.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3928686






Remarks by Deputy Head of the Russian delegation and Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the 24th Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, November 29, 2019



2 December 2019 - 19:47



Mr Chairperson,

Delegates,

We would like to support our Syrian colleagues who spoke in favour of the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s senior officials providing a proper response to the new data that indicate a possible falsification of the well-known report by the Fact-Finding Mission in Syria on the March 1, 2019 incident in the Syrian town of Douma.

As you may recall, this incident followed a very strange script right from the start. Without waiting for the investigation to begin, let alone end, and in violation of international law, the three states in question launched a missile strike on Syria, a full member of the UN and a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. This was done as the inspection team was arriving in Damascus. If the strike had begun a bit later, the OPCW inspectors would have been in the middle of it. Thus, the above countries showed a complete disregard for the activities of the OPCW. In addition, this criminal act sent a clear message to everyone that Syria was to blame for the incident in Douma, and that there could be no other opinion. This was the beginning of this – now we can say it openly – egregious incident.

Later, during investigation into this incident by the OPCW, some of our Western colleagues, in particular, US Permanent Representative Kenneth Ward, mockingly asserted that the Russian military covered up their tracks and destroyed evidence at the site of an alleged chemical attack, thus helping Damascus cover it up. Meanwhile, our military police risked their lives to ensure OPCW staff safety. The Syrian authorities did their best to ensure a smooth operation of the Mission.

Almost immediately after the report had been released, the Western media began running analytical materials by independent observers expressing doubts about reliability of the Fact-Finding Mission’s conclusions. A BBC producer, recognising the fact that the Douma incident was staged, confirmed information presented during a news conference in The Hague in April 2018 with the participation of the Syrian citizens who were involuntarily involved in this staged travesty.

Notably, most Western countries decided not to attend that news conference, which we believe was a big mistake on their part. With regard to the important information provided by the Syrian participants in that memorable news conference, we were amazed to find that it wasn’t included in the Mission’s final report.

The number of doubts about the validity of the findings included in the report on the Douma incident gradually gained critical mass. Russia and Syria’s findings about the provocation were confirmed by the Mission members who worked in Douma, and their opinion was made public. Now, the findings in that infamous document are called into question by international experts, researchers and public figures, whose impartiality can hardly be questioned.

Think about it: the situation got so out of hand that many concerned individuals worry about this organisation’s good name and try to reach out to OPCW members and the Technical Secretariat, fully aware of the potential harm of this state of affairs. I’m talking, primarily, about an open collective email to all delegations represented at the OPCW. It was signed by renowned people, including first OPCW Technical Secretariat Director-General Jose Bustani. However, here today, all participating states are trying to keep silent about this.

At yesterday's meeting, the distinguished Permanent Representative Kenneth Ward compared the OPCW Technical Secretariat with an island in the eye of a storm. In other words, the situation at this Hague forum is none other than a storm. However, the United States and a number of other sympathising states provoke the politicisation of the OPCW, raise sharp and controversial questions during its meetings, and change the profile of the organisation, imparting it with functions that it doesn’t have under the Convention. It is known that the United States turns a blind eye to the standards of international law and replaces them with “rules” of its own making.

Delegates, we are given assurances that the OPCW is our “common home” and a place where we can share our concerns and hope, at least, that they will be reviewed. It appears that today is that day. There are a number of countries that are concerned about the new data on the alleged incident in Douma and insist on finally establishing the truth in this matter.

Leaving things as they are and pretending that nothing special happened would be a mistake. We are convinced that inaction will only undermine the credibility of the Fact-Finding Mission and the Technical Secretariat itself.

We suggest looking into this matter calmly and without unnecessary emotion or passion. For a long time now, Russia and a number of other countries have been suggesting holding a briefing for the participating states with the involvement of former and current FFM experts. We were told this won’t happen as some delegations saw the danger of reproducing the "Stalinist trials of the 1930s" involving cross-examination and intimidation here, in The Hague.

I would like to note in this regard that if Russia’s presence at this briefing raises this kind of concern, it can be held in another format, such as a separate meeting between the Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat with the above-mentioned experts in the presence of independent international observers.

In a word, there are options, and we are willing to discuss all alternative solutions. It is important to understand that the price of an OPCW experts’ mistake is very high since it can affect not only the reputation of our Organisation, but international security as well.

In this regard, we urge all delegations to express their ideas about how we can overcome the current situation and finally put this extremely difficult matter to rest.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3928696






Press release on Russian officials’ meeting with President of Syria Bashar al-Assad



2 December 2019 - 21:36



On December 2, Russia’s Special Presidential Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin were received by President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.

They discussed in detail the developments on the ground through the prism of the need to restore Syria’s territorial integrity and unity based on the interests of Syrians from all ethnic and faith backgrounds, and the need to continue fighting the terrorists. They also discussed efforts to provide comprehensive humanitarian aid to Syria without preconditions and to promote a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process with support from the UN as this is provided for in UNSC Resolution 2254.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3928776
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #43
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to comply with the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, November 28, 2019



3 December 2019 - 12:40



Mr Chairman,

We have noted OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Miroslav Lajcak’s initiative to visit Ukraine, including the contact line area near Stanitsa Luganskaya. The disengagement of troops and equipment that took place there in the summer shows that the Ukrainian authorities’ political will is the key factor of success. It is enough to recall how the former Ukrainian leadership headed by Petr Poroshenko blocked progress there under various pretexts, for more than three years, sabotaging the disengagement and dragging out discussions in the Contact Group on repairing the bridge.

The discontinuation of the violations committed by the Ukrainian armed forces in the disengagement areas in Zolotoye and Petrovskoye, the withdrawal of troops and equipment, as well as the completion of mine clearance, create a favourable background for discussing further de-escalation measures. Earlier this week, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) received confirmation of the dismantling of the fortifications in Zolotoye. It says the disengagement has had a positive humanitarian effect. In talking with the observers, residents of the Zolotoye-4/Rodina village expressed satisfaction with the fact that army units have been withdrawn from the disengagement area (SMM weekly report of November 19, 2019). This has helped bring life in the village closer to normal, including the restoration of access to ambulance vehicles to people who need them. At the same time, it is reported that the population is concerned about the Ukrainian armed forces making new trenches close to their houses. We remind you of the need to coordinate additional de-escalation measures in the Contact Group, which would include, inter alia, a ban on locating combat positions in residential areas, as well as on firing from such positions.

Nevertheless, despite the mine clearance in the areas mentioned, the mine threat persists nearby. The SMM emphasises that this threat still restricts travel through the territory controlled by the Ukrainian armed forces to the disengagement area in Petrovskoye. The alleged mine threat still prevents large areas from being fully monitored. It is also noteworthy that last week, all cases involving the jamming of OSCE SMM UAVs, both small and long-range drones, occurred over the territory controlled by the Ukrainian armed forces.

In November, the Ukrainian armed forces continued to transport heavy equipment, including large-calibre artillery, in Donbass. The Mission has exposed the delivery of tanks and heavy artillery such as several self-propelled 203mm 2S7 Pion cannons at the Pokrovsk, Zachatovka and Khlebodarovka railway stations. Under these circumstances, tighter SMM monitoring is required not only in the hotspots, but also at the rear of the Ukrainian army, where military equipment is being concentrated.

Mr Chairperson-in-Office,

The SMM should closely monitor not only Donbass but also the rest of Ukraine. Ukraine continues to pursue a discriminatory language policy, including in education. It is worth noting what the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe reported after a trip to Kiev in late October. The commission’s experts rejected as unconvincing the Ukrainian authorities’ attempts to explain differences in the approach to the Russian and EU languages in the new laws on education and the state language. It is noted that the provisions on persecution for the “deliberate distortion of the State language” and for creating obstacles and restrictions to the use of the Ukrainian language could provide the basis for restricting the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, the Venice Commission experts concluded that the requirement on holding any events exclusively in the Ukrainian language amounts to an infringement on the right to freedom of expression and contradicts Ukraine’s international human rights obligations. The commission’s experts drafted practical recommendations for Kiev to revise the discriminatory provisions of the current legislation.

This situation is quite comfortable for the aggressive nationalism that has resurfaced in Ukraine since the 2014 coup. Numerous organisations of radical nationalists feel free to do what they like in the country. Some of them have combat wings manned by people with combat experience. All kinds of radicals commit acts of vandalism, including near official agencies, but they are very seldom called to legal account for such actions. Xenophobia and anti-Semitism are running high. According to the international NGO, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), anti-Semitic sentiments have increased in Ukraine by 14 percent since 2015, reaching 46 percent. The change of government has not improved the situation. One of the latest such excesses took place in Kiev on November 25, when radicals painted a swastika on the monument to Jewish writer Sholom Aleichem. Will the culprits walk free this time yet again? We urge the SMM to take a principled stand on this. A theme report on aggressive nationalism in Ukraine is long overdue.

And lastly, ahead of the Maidan anniversary, the Ukrainian law enforcement authorities have suspended – allegedly for cataloguing or an interagency transfer – the investigation of crimes committed during the active phase of the armed confrontation in central Kiev in February 2014. The Verkhovna Rada has recently blocked the initiative of an Odessa deputy regarding parliamentary assistance to the investigation of the multiple murders committed in the Odessa House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014. The impunity of perpetrators is only further encouraging radicals.

Mr Chairperson-in-Office,

The Minsk agreements play a decisive role in settling the crisis in Ukraine, and their implementation is a prerequisite for peace in Donbass, as well as getting the situation back to normal across the country in general. The OSCE should focus all its efforts on facilitating progress towards this end.

The November 27 meeting of the Contact Group showed that Kiev representatives are not ready to move forward in their negotiations with Donetsk and Lugansk without new signals from the Normandy format. There is no progress on the political aspects of the settlement either, including key aspects such as a special status for Donbass, amnesty or constitutional reform. The special status law has yet to come into force, and it remains unclear what will come of it after December 31. There is ongoing speculation on whether to renew these regulations or replace them with something new. At the same time, not only does it need to become permanent as stipulated by the Minsk agreements, but also all reservations in its regard should be removed since they make implementing the law impossible. The Steinmeier formula on the modalities for enacting the special status law as coordinated with Kiev within the Contact Group must be put into Ukrainian law. Unfortunately, Kiev representatives failed to provide any meaningful answers on these topics during yesterday’s meeting in Minsk. By the same token, they refuse to discuss within the Contact Group proposals put forward by Donetsk and Lugansk on security matters for identifying new areas of disengagement and demining activity.

The recent conflicting statements by Ukrainian officials show that Kiev lacks any clear strategy on Donbass. For example, I am referring to the statements by Foreign Minister Vadim Pristaiko, who said that Ukraine could withdraw from the Minsk process. Another example is an interview by Defence Minister Andrey Zagorodnyuk, who said that the Ukrainian Armed Forces “prepared a plan for recovering” the positions within the disengagement areas near Petrovskoye and Zolotoye if the outcomes of the Normandy summit are not satisfactory. It seems that Kiev decided to overtly blackmail the international community, threatening to derail the execution of its own commitments.

Conditioning the future of the Minsk agreements on the outcomes of the December 9 Normandy summit is counterproductive. Let me remind you that the Minsk Package of Measures sets out an internationally recognised framework for settling the Ukraine crisis that has no alternatives. Withdrawing from the Minsk process would lead to renewed bloodshed, new suffering and casualties for people in Donbass. We hope that Kiev does not intend to launch military action as its infamous Plan B.

Ukraine’s reflections on possibly freezing the situation in the region do not inspire any optimism. With the implementation of the Minsk agreements in a deadlock due to Kiev seeking to evade full implementation of its commitments, this option is presented as a heaven-sent third path. Observations of this kind do nothing to bring peace in Ukraine any nearer. Overall, the backdrop created by Kiev ahead of the Normandy meeting can hardly be regarded as positive.

Supporting the Minsk Package of Measures is a matter of principle, especially when Kiev is increasingly vociferous in calling for reviewing or even terminating this document. At the same time, the Package of Measures was approved by the UN Security Council on February 12, 2015, and does not require any additional confirmation let alone revision. It can and must be fully executed by Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk as part of their direct dialogue.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3929692






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov, Baku, December 3, 2019



3 December 2019 - 15:35






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

Question (for Sergey Lavrov):

You said that trade between our countries was growing. Both Azerbaijan and Russia show an interest in expanding their trade and economic ties. What are, in your view, the prospects for cooperation in this area? What are the main risks?



Sergey Lavrov:

The prospects are most favourable. This can be explained by the fact that both the business communities and the political leaders of our countries intend to promote close cooperation and strengthen our strategic partnership, including in the economy. We have cited figures that speak for themselves like the rapid growth of trade and a surge in private Azerbaijani investment in Russia and Russian investment in Azerbaijan. There is also tourist volumes. In fact, Russia leads in the number of tourists visiting Azerbaijan; soon they will number a million. This is an indicator of your country’s appeal from the point of view of culture, investment, contacts, and mutual benefit.

In our opening remarks earlier, we did not mentioned infrastructure cooperation. We have been cooperating closely and have even more ambitious plans on road connections and on using our geographical advantages to enhance the role of Azerbaijan and Russia in the context of international projects related to the North-South and East-West transport corridors. This is a unique point where both vertical and horizontal routes intersect. We could say a lot more about other forms of interaction, including between companies engaged in the production of hydrocarbons. A new area for cooperation – innovation and high technology – is emerging after First Vice-President Mehriban Aliyeva of Azerbaijan visited Russia. Russia and Azerbaijan have much to share in this regard; we can pool our potentials and achieve synergy which, I am confident, will produce a significant effect.



Question (for both ministers):

While attending high-level CSTO events a few days ago, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan urged the member-countries of the bloc to refrain from selling arms to Azerbaijan. Obviously, this refers mainly to Russia. But Russia maintains very close ties in the military-technical sphere with Azerbaijan. How can you comment on this appeal? Will the parties comply?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can only say that military-technical cooperation is one of the most important aspects of our strategic partnership with Azerbaijan. We promote this with absolute transparency, in full conformity with international law and within Russian and Azerbaijani law. We are also fully aware of the balance [of forces] in this region, which is important for maintaining stability there.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

I am part of the recent cross visits by Azerbaijani and Armenian journalists. Two weeks ago I went to Yerevan and the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. What do you think about this initiative on exchanging journalists? Do you think a meeting between the Nagorno-Karabakh Azerbaijani and Armenian communities can be useful for settling this conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia was one of the initiators of these reciprocal visits by journalists. A meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia took place in Moscow early this year with the participation of co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The participants approved an unofficial but specific paper on their support for promoting humanitarian contact. This paper covered the problems of the dead and the detainees. It mentioned contacts between journalists, in principle, any personal contact.

I think this is very important because any decision must be accepted by the people who live on this land, in Azerbaijan, Armenia or Karabakh. Close personal contact will encourage journalists to cover the developments on both sides of the contact line without bias and will make more sustainable the agreements we hope to reach. I wholeheartedly support the resumption of contact between the Karabakh communities. They took place at one time but were suspended later. This is a very promising issue because in the final analysis it is the population of Nagorno-Karabakh that will have to decide how to live from now on.





Question (addressed to Elmar Mammadyarov):

You plan to meet your Armenian counterpart on the sidelines of the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Bratislava. What do you expect from this meeting? Will you release a common statement on the meeting?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Elmar Mammadyarov):

Apart from this meeting, the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers are expected to meet with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. As for the adoption of a document, at the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting every year we try to put on paper our commitment to the fundamental principles that were approved by the signatories years ago but still remain current. If possible, we would welcome a five-lateral statement (the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the three co-chair ministers). If this proves to be impossible for some reason, the three co-chairpersons will at least confirm their position on paper. But I hope this statement will be five-lateral.



Question:

Do you think there is potential for increasing the number of cooperative ventures in Russia and Azerbaijan?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course. There are 956 companies with Russian capital here. They are either 100 percent Russian or joint ventures; but they are joint ventures for the most part. Since business in both countries has serious plans that enjoy the support of their governments (we are planning new innovation and high-tech projects), I think the number of joint ventures will certainly increase.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3929878






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the condition of Paul Whelan detained on spying charges



3 December 2019 - 16:57



We continue recording Washington’s attempts to push, both directly and via its controlled media, the allegation that the Russian authorities are keeping Paul Whelan imprisoned for no reason and are denying him proper medical aid. Whelan, a citizen of the US and another three Western countries, was arrested on spying charges. This is yet another mass-scale disinformation campaign aimed at smearing Russia’s image.

As we have reported more than once, Whelan entered Russia as an American citizen with a tourist visa. He was detained in Moscow on December 29, 2018. Whelan was caught red-handed performing an intelligence operation. His spying activities have been fully documented.

The investigation into his case has been completed. He was given a final indictment on August 30 and has studied the materials of his case under Article 276 of the Russian Criminal Code since September 4. Apparently, he is in no haste and is deliberately drawing out the reading, although the beginning of the court hearings at which the evidence of his guilt will be presented depend on the completion of this process.

Representatives of the US Embassy, as well as diplomats from the UK, Ireland and Canada, whose passports Whelan has prudently acquired, regularly – in fact, every week – have access to him. They know perfectly well that his public statements on bullying and even a threat to his life in the pretrial detention centre are no more than a provocative line of defence aimed at creating an artificial uproar around him.

Whelan’s complaints about the terms of his detention and actions of investigators have not been confirmed even once. The defendant receives medical assistance not only from the doctors at the centre but also from specialists from city clinics. For example, a comprehensive medical check-up was organised for him at a Moscow clinic in September. It did not reveal any serious complaints. He was offered surgery to remove a minor ailment, but he turned the offer down and decided to limit himself to medication.

So, there is no threat to Whelan’s health. As for feigned illnesses to which he resorts from time to time, this is apparently part of US intelligence agent training.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3930182






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about Turkey and the Government of National Accord of Libya signing memorandums



3 December 2019 - 19:56



Question:

What can you tell us about the signing of memorandums on the delimitation of maritime zones and cooperation in the sphere of security by Turkish President Recep Erdogan and Head of the Government of Libyan National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj in Istanbul on November 27?



Maria Zakharova:

These documents can be given a legal assessment only after we familiarise ourselves with the contents, which have not so far been disclosed. However, we noted a fairly painful reaction to this signing by a number of Mediterranean states, primarily, Greece, Cyprus and Egypt. Despite the official statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry that the Turkish-Libyan memorandum on the delimitation of maritime zones does not contradict international agreements, Athens and Nicosia accused Ankara of violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and infringing on their interests.

With regard to the memorandum of cooperation in security, the signing gave rise to allegations of Turkey's attempts to legalise its military support for the government in Tripoli in its confrontation with the Libyan national army led by Khalifa Haftar, including by way of a blatant violation of the arms embargo. In turn, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Libya, Ghassan Salame, recently suggested that the document could disrupt preparations for an international meeting on Libyan settlement scheduled to be held in Berlin later this year. This raises many questions directly for Mr Sarraj.

We hope that the parties to the above memorandums will show political prudence and refrain from steps that could further aggravate the already tense situation in Libya and the Mediterranean in general.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3930276
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 19th, 2019 #44
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by the Representative of the Russian Delegation at the Meeting of States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (the BWC) on Paragraph 5 of the Agenda «General Debate», Geneva, December 3, 2019



4 December 2019 - 16:17



Unofficial translation



Distinguished Mr. Chairperson,

We would like to congratulate you on the election to this responsible post and wish you every success during your tenure. In our turn, we assure you of our support.

Distinguished Colleagues,

The current review cycle is gradually nearing the completion. Some people might think, of course, that it is still two years before the 2021 Review Conference (RevCon-2021), which is true in some sense, and that there is still enough time to prepare for it thoroughly and to successfully hold it. Yet, as experience shows, a habit to postpone everything has its own drawbacks. In 2016, despite all the efforts, the participants of the RevCon failed to reach a compromise and adopt a substantive outcome document containing an intersessional programme of work,

With that in mind, the Russian delegation advocates for the soonest preparation for the RevCon-2021. It is in our power to establish some elements, some kind of «components» which would serve as the basis for further recommendations and decisions of the Review Conference already at the MSP. Moreover, joint developments would be a guideline for the meetings of the BWC expert groups allowing them to focus on those developments which potentially can be adopted by consensus.

The Russian delegation has prepared a food for thought paper which will be circulated at the nearest time and which might be included in the MSP outcome document. We would prefer stronger and clearer wordings, of course, in particular concerning the resumption of the work on the Protocol to the Convention which provides for inter alia an effective verification mechanism of the treaty obligations.

This task is becoming particularly relevant in the light of the continuing efforts to present something like peer reviews or other initiatives as an alternative, which raise at least serious questions. We are by no means against transparency and confidence building measures. Instead, we advocate their improvement in the framework of the BWC and as you all know we have submitted proposals to present reports by the States Parties on their foreign medico-biological activities, including the military component. The relevant working paper of the Russian Federation (BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.9 of October 14, 2016) can be found on the BWC web-portal. We are looking forward to the support.

In the same context, we intend to draw the attention of the delegations to the initiative of establishing a «standing interim capacity» under the UN Secretariat in order to institutionalize the UN Secretary-General's mechanism for investigation of alleged use of chemical and biological weapons. We would like to remind you that the establishment of the unit itself is not provided for in any UNSC or GA resolutions under which, the Secretary-General's mechanism was established and in fact it does not have any legal basis. Moreover, this initiative was not discussed and agreed upon with the BWC States Parties. It appears that not everyone is aware of it.

We also have serious claims to the way the work on the implementation of these plans is being done. We mean the lack of the due transparency some of our colleagues like to speculate about. Yet, for some reason they do not question the grounds on which the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) is carrying out preparatory work to implement this initiative behind the backs of the UN Member States. We hope to receive not only the explanation but also detailed information on this issue from our colleagues from the UNODA Geneva office. They should be indeed aware of it.

The main thing is that all such activities directly affecting the BWC scope are conducted without the participation of the BWC States Parties.

Again, as I said, Russia supports the soonest launch of the negotiations on the Protocol to the Convention inter alia providing for the effective verification mechanism. At the same time, being realistic, we understand that due to the unyielding position of one of the delegations the work is unlikely to get started. In this connection, the Russian delegation has submitted and continues to promote initiatives aimed at the institutionalization of the BWC regime. First and foremost, we mean the establishment of mobile medico-biological units and the Scientific Advisory Committee based on the equal geographic representation in the BWC framework, I will not go into details as we will talk about them later during the discussion of the relevant items of the agenda. It is clear that we will need extra funds to implement these projects. However, everyone will benefit from it, first of all, the developing countries which face serious challenges in biosecurity,

Moreover, Russia supports all other initiatives aimed at strengthening the BWC institutional basis. In this context, we welcome Chinese initiatives to establish an independent, non-discriminatory but resilient to the risks of proliferation cooperation regime of biotechnologies exchange as well as a voluntary Code of Conduct for biologists.

In conclusion, I would like to responsibly state that the Russian delegation is ready for the closest cooperation with the French MSP Chairmanship and all the delegations in order to achieve concrete practical results. I would like to underline that there is nobody else to do this job but us, the BWC community.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3934002






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a question from the Interfax news agency, Sochi, December 4, 2019



4 December 2019 - 17:56



Question:

Can you comment on Germany’s decision to expel Russian diplomats?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are deep thinkers. We will first thoroughly study what we are being accused of, and why on earth this happened.



Question:

Are you saying you need more time?



Sergey Lavrov:

A bit of time.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3934215






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 26th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Bratislava, December 5, 2019



5 December 2019 - 14:58






Mr Chairperson-in-Office,

Mr Secretary General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, allow me to thank Slovakia’s Chairmanship for its hospitality. Here in Bratislava, where Western and Eastern Europe meet, we are reminded that the purpose of our organisation is to facilitate the emergence of shared security through cooperation, as well as the removal of dividing lines and the growth of mutual trust. The goal adopted at the 2010 Astana summit of building a community of equal, comprehensive and indivisible security should remain our utmost priority. Today, CSTO foreign ministers adopted a statement to this effect, reaffirming their commitment to this objective.

Unfortunately, not all have been following this example. Instead of advancing towards equal security, we are seeing movement in the opposite direction. The strategic stability architecture is breaking down, and the security space is becoming increasingly fragmented. There are attempts to replace international law with a “rules-based order” as a set of foreign policy concepts shared by a narrow group of Western countries. The expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in several waves and attempts to present the alliance as a “source of legitimacy,” the fact that its military infrastructure is getting closer and closer to the Russian borders, and efforts to rapidly expand military capabilities in Eastern Europe, as well as unprecedented increases in defence spending coupled with setting up the “image of an enemy,” all this causes tensions reminiscent of the Cold War.

It is essential that we reverse this dangerous trend and stop the situation from further sliding towards confrontation. There is demand for a positive common European agenda on all pressing matters, from countering multiple challenges and threats to coordinating Eurasian integration processes. Considering the OSCE’s broad geography and inclusive approach to security, the consensus principle and culture of dialogue, it can and should play an important role in delivering on this vision. By the way, this is what the Bratislava Appeal issued by the Chairperson-in-Office is all about. It has our full support.

Guided by the same philosophy, we have prepared a number of initiatives for today’s meeting. Adopting a declaration to mark 75 years since the end of the Second World War would be a matter of principle. The same applies to a commemorative declaration on the 20th anniversary of the Charter for European Security. It was proposed by Russia in order to reaffirm the principles established 20 year ago. Let me remind you that our Western colleagues were at the forefront of promoting these principles. Today, however, they are not as enthusiastic about them as they used to be.





Russia supports efforts to continue a “structured dialogue” with input from military experts and without politicising the process. We believe dialogue to be an important confidence building measure, especially at a time when military-to-military contacts between Russia and NATO have been broken off. There has been no response so far to Russia’s proposals on ways to ease tensions along the line of contact between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The appeal issued by the CSTO foreign ministers to their NATO colleagues has been left unanswered as well. In a situation, where Russia faces an aggressive policy of containment, any discussion on updating the 2011 Vienna Document seems pointless.

The OSCE should play a more prominent role in combating terrorism and treats related to drug trafficking. We have drafted resolutions to this effect, and hope that they will be discussed in a constructive manner.

The chairmanship and member states have thoroughly reviewed projects on energy cooperation and digital innovation. More attention should be paid to the second basket.

The OSCE is especially relevant for resolving urgent humanitarian problems. Let me remind you that the ignominious phenomenon of statelessness still exists in Latvia and Estonia. In Ukraine, there is flagrant discrimination against the Russian language, while most of the population speaks it. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is still persecuted.

A number of countries brazenly violate their commitments to ensure media freedoms and equal access to information, demonstrating their intolerance towards alternative points of view.

Delivering on our own resolutions passed five years ago to adopt a declaration on protecting Christians and Muslims remains on the agenda.

The OSCE’s anti-crisis efforts are relevant. We support the operations of the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, and expect it to release honest reports on the casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure in Donbass. It is our hope that the upcoming Normandy Format summit in Paris will provide an impetus to implementing the Minsk Package of Measures. Establishing direct dialogue between Kiev, on the one side, and Donetsk and Lugansk, on the other, remains a key factor for achieving a settlement.

We need to pay more attention to the challenging situation in the Balkans. The OSCE’s field operations should not be used to promote Euro-Atlantic integration in the region. Any actions by our organisation in breach of UNSC Resolution 1244 are unacceptable.

It is important that we remember that the OSCE’s executive structures, including its institutions, should benefit all member states. Following the principles of mutual respect and balance of interests is the only way to fully unlock the OSCE’s vast creative potential.

In conclusion, I would like to wish Albania every success as it prepares to assume the OSCE Chairmanship.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3935535






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the elimination of Russian-language schools in Estonia



5 December 2019 - 16:09



The Estonian authorities are continuing their unconstructive policy to try to abolish the Russian-language education system. Several days ago, members of the municipal assembly of the town of Keila in Estonia decided to shut down the only local Russian language secondary school for the next academic year.

The mendacious theme about the need to integrate Russian speaking young people is used as an “argument.” Just like the scandalous merger of two Russian language gymnasia and one Estonian language gymnasium (in Kohtla-Järve) into an integral state gymnasium with a solely Estonian language curriculum, the decision on the school in Keila was made contrary to the opinion of the students and their parents. Moreover, NGOs that stage peaceful protests face possible criminal prosecution.

Russian language schools in Kallaste and Tartu may soon suffer the same fate as those in Keila and Kohtla-Järve.

We are counting on the active position of specialised UN, OSCE and Council of Europe agencies with regard to Tallinn’s discriminatory policy for ethnic minorities in education, and we hope they will act in the same manner as they do when similar situations arise in other countries.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3935898






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Italian Askanews agency, December 5, 2019



5 December 2019 - 18:00



Question:

Mr Lavrov, you have been Russia’s foreign minister for the past 15 years. Italy has seen ten top diplomats in this position during this time. Do you think there is continuity in our country's foreign policy towards Russia? Can Italy today act as a bridge between Europe and Russia, as it wanted to previously?



Sergey Lavrov:

Frankly, I never noticed how many foreign ministers Italy had during my tenure as foreign minister. Now I know. Rest assured that I had constructive businesslike relations with all of them. I very much hope that we will develop good professional and personal contacts with Mr Di Maio as well.

I believe that traditional resistance to fluctuations in the political situation is the hallmark of the Russian-Italian dialogue. We have successfully interacted with the center-left and center-right governments. I am pleased to note that Italy, in turn, also adheres to a balanced and pragmatic approach to bilateral relations, including the economic component. All of that yields significant practical returns with about 500 Italian firms and banking institutions operating in our country, and the Government providing them with the necessary support.

Unfortunately, the dynamics of our interaction are being adversely affected by external factors, primarily, the sanctions spiral unwound by the Brussels bureaucrats at the behest of Washington, which runs counter to the interests of the European nations. We are aware that business and sociopolitical circles in Italy are increasingly supportive of returning to full-format cooperation in all areas. We believe that Italian diplomacy could use its clout and authority to help improve the situation in Europe and build relations between Russia and the EU on a pragmatic and non-confrontational basis.



Question:

The Middle East is a good example of Russia’s growing authority in the international arena in recent years, starting with Syria. Now, some in the West are concerned with Russia being on the side of General Khalifa Haftar in Libya. What would you tell them, and how do you see the future for Libya?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia is conducting exclusively responsible politics in Libya. It is devoid of a geopolitical dimension and puts Libyan interests at the forefront. We are not siding with anyone in this conflict. Our approaches to resolving crises – be it in the Middle East or other regions of the world - invariably rely on the principle of an all-encompassing national dialogue aimed at finding tradeoffs based on international law and corresponding UN Security Council resolutions.

We have more than once confirmed this position in public, including during international conferences on Libya. Our goal is to help the Libyans overcome the chaos into which their country was plunged eight years ago as a result of NATO’s illegitimate intervention, and to restore peace and security that are essential for sustainable development throughout its territory. I think this is how the future of Libya is seen not only by us, but the entire international community as well.

We presume that the uncompromising war on terrorism, which can only be eradicated through a collective effort based on the UN Charter, remains the most important component in stabilising the situation in this North African state and the entire Middle East.



Question:

Do you share the growing optimism in Europe regarding Ukraine after Zelensky’s victory? Do you think a solution can be reached in the foreseeable future which will reboot the EU-Russia dialogue, including with regard to the sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

The main question is whether Ukraine wants to normalise relations with our country. We have repeatedly stated that confrontation is not in the interests of either state. Moscow is ready for a constructive dialogue with Kiev. The ball is in Ukraine’s court now.

It is well known that our country has never been and is not a party to the conflict in Donbass. Russia has the same status in the Contact Group as the OSCE and the same status as France and Germany in the Normandy format. Compliance with the entire Minsk Package of Measures approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202 is needed if we want to overcome the intra-Ukraine crisis. Thus, the key to settlement is in Kiev, and it should finally establish a direct and sustainable dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

With regard to Russia-EU relations, they continue to be affected to a large extent by a small group of Russophobes within the EU, who, with US support, are not hiding their interest in “containing” Russia. The inability to build positive consensus is a symptomatic problem of the European Union.

For our part, we remain open to pragmatic cooperation with the EU, which is our neighbour and important trade and economic partner. We believe that the existing problems can be resolved if we mutually respect each other’s interests.



Question:

Do you expect Russian-US relations to become more complicated during Donald Trump’s second campaign in the US election cycle?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia is certainly not trying to create any new difficulties in relations with the United States. On the contrary, we have on many occasions offered our US partners the chance to build sustainable and predictable cooperation on all issues, regardless of electoral cycles and other domestic political factors.

Regrettably, in the past few years our dialogue has actually become hostage to the exacerbated differences found in the Washington establishment. Some of its representatives have tried hard to fuel Russophobia during the inter-party struggle in this period. There are even grounds to suggest that they placed their bets on it for self-serving purposes. Absolutely unfounded insinuations on Russia’s interference in US elections and collusion with Trump’s team were invented and spread with this goal.

A package of unfriendly steps has been taken towards Russia: sanctions, mass-scale expulsion of our diplomats and seizure of diplomatic property.

Apart from the inevitable heavy damage to bilateral ties, these steps have provoked a general escalation of tensions in international relations by creating additional risks for global security. Russia and the United States historically bear special responsibility for this as the holders of the world’s highest nuclear potential.

It seems that President Trump is generally aware of the consequences of a continuing course of confrontation between Moscow and Washington. However, the uneasy political situation inside the United States continues to complicate and even block positive impetuses. Being realists we understand that considering the approaching presidential elections in America our ill-wishers may again try to use the Russian card and try to resolve their own problems at Russia’s expense.

We will act pragmatically. We will respond to unfriendly moves, but we would also welcome the resumption of a constructive dialogue with Washington and a joint search for ways of improving bilateral relations.

Both us and the Americans, as well as the entire international community would stand to gain from bilateral stabilisation. It would open up opportunities to use the considerable potential of cooperation in different areas. Our priorities lie in ensuring strategic stability and countering international terrorism and other dangerous challenges.



Question:

This is not the first time you visit to a MED conference. Do you have different expectations for it compared to the past year? What do you think about this dialogue platform?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am pleased to take part in the conference, Rome MED 2019 – Mediterranean Dialogues, for the fifth time now. This forum has proven that it is needed as a useful dialogue venue for discussing a broad range of Mediterranean issues. This cooperation is especially topical now that the complicated processes unfolding in this part of the world require serious, comprehensive and depoliticised analysis. Naturally, I value the opportunity to meet with my foreign colleagues on the sidelines of the conference.

I am sure that by tradition our discussions will be constructive and oriented to a search for well-balanced solutions to the numerous problems faced by the Mediterranean nations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3936393






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following the 26th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Bratislava, December 5, 2019



5 December 2019 - 18:44






Bratislava hosted a regular meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council. The OSCE that was based on the 1975 Helsinki Final Act is not going through its best times today because of the problems that have accumulated in security and strategic stability in the common Euro-Atlantic space.

Lofty principles were laid out in Helsinki and in subsequent summits, including the one in 1999 that adopted European security declarations. The participants agreed that security must be common and indivisible, equal for all, and that nobody should ensure their own security at the expense of the security of any other state. It was also agreed that sub-regional organisations in the Euro-Atlantic area would always take part in the dialogue on an equal basis with OSCE members. I am referring to the CIS, CSTO, NATO, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Attempts to develop such a dialogue were made in the 1990s, but later our Western colleagues, who themselves initiated these declarations that were adopted shortly after the collapse of the USSR, somehow lost enthusiasm for these lofty principles. For instance, they are bluntly refusing to codify the principle of indivisible security that I mentioned, and do not want to adopt documents that would make it binding. Their logic is very simple. They do not make a secret of the fact that they are only willing to grant legal security guarantees within the North Atlantic Alliance. Obviously, this runs counter to the agreements on using the OSCE as a venue for cooperation in the interests of promoting security, removing any dividing lines and pooling the efforts of the OSCE states for common benefit.

Of course, we are bound to be concerned over what is happening in NATO. Several days ago President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin commented on this situation at the meeting with Russian Defence Ministry senior officials. The problem is that NATO apparently considers itself a source of legitimacy and is trying to persuade everyone that this role has no alternative, that it can only be played by the North Atlantic Alliance, and that it has the right to determine who is guilty of everything that is taking place around us and that the West does not like for some reason. Boundless expansion continues; military infrastructure is rapidly moving eastward, close to Russian borders; tensions are constantly escalated, and Russia is permanently accused of aggressive intentions. This is taking place against the backdrop of decisions on the further buildup of the NATO countries’ military budgets, which were adopted at the summit held in London. Meanwhile, the current budgets exceed Russian military spending more than 10-fold.

The available facts point to a simple and easy-to-understand situation: NATO wants to dominate not only in the Euro-Atlantic region but, judging by its actions, in other regions as well, for instance in the Middle East. This is why we wanted to draw your attention to this obviously unsound situation. The bottom line is that it runs counter to the lofty declarations that the OSCE leaders adopted after the organisation turned from the conference into the current entity. First and foremost, this applies to the principle of indivisible security.

We have proposed several initiatives on a return to the source, the foundation on which the OSCE was built back in the Cold War years. I would like to emphasise again that mutual respect, consideration for others’ interests and consensus-based efforts without dividing lines are the key provisions on which the OSCE rests.

Today, we distributed a statement by the CSTO foreign ministers, urging all OSCE participants to begin creating a common and indivisible security space, as we agreed to before. We also released a statement by the CIS countries and some other states (Serbia, for example) on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II and the need to do everything we can to prevent the falsification of its results and the glorification of those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes in human history. Some people are trying to do this, including many in Europe.

There are many other areas that we are paying special attention to. They concern economic security. There are some good solutions in this area, including digital technology and innovation. There are many issues that require solutions with a view to streamlining integration processes. We have heard that many of our colleagues in the OSCE consider it practical to establish a dialogue between the EU and the EAEU, although consensus on this issue has not yet been reached.

The third security dimension is the human dimension. This traditionally evokes heated debate in the OSCE. This happens primarily because our Western colleagues try to act like teachers and regard others as pupils. They try to impose neo-liberal values on all other OSCE countries. We clearly confirm our position – we are ready to follow all the agreements that were made in the universal format and conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the OSCE decisions on humanitarian issues.

This applies, in part, to the need to fully respect the linguistic and education rights of national minorities, something not being done in Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia. This also applies to the need to grant citizenship to everyone. The concept of “non-citizens” that still exists in Latvia and Estonia is well known. We consider it shameful for Europe, in particular, for the EU. This also concerns the agreements that were adopted by the OSCE earlier and that our Western colleagues do not like to remember. These agreements demand that each state should give the public unlimited, free access to any information. This includes information from inside a country and from abroad.

I will not quote examples – there are representatives of our media here that are affected by the failure to abide by this requirement, which actually amounts to a ban on the work of journalists.

There are many problems in the OSCE. I would like to complete my opening remarks by noting the growing understanding of the unsound condition of this organisation. Statements in favour of starting to talk with each other, trying to understand your partner and find a balance of interests are being made increasingly more often. I think Miroslav Lajcak, OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Slovakia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, put forth a very important initiative by disseminating the so-called Bratislava Appeal (this is an open document and you can read it). It was not designed as a foundation for negotiation. He urges everyone to be guided by the values that were universally agreed upon in the OSCE. The Appeal is open for other countries to join. Russia has joined in with pleasure. We hope it will eventually be supported by all members of the organisation.





Question:

You mentioned NATO. It was announced following the NATO Leaders Meeting in London that space is an operational domain for NATO and that Russia was named as a threat alongside terrorism. NATO leaders also declared that they would address Russia’s deployment of new intermediate-range missiles. Will you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the threat of Russia and terrorism, it started with Barack Obama. They made such statements at the UN six years ago. Let this be on the NATO countries’ conscience. It is perfectly clear that they want to dominate the world and get rid of any and all rivals, including by waging an information war in a bid to pull both Russia and China off balance. I believe this is very difficult to do with regard to both countries. We are aware what is going on. We have our own responses to the threats which NATO is generating around the world and which it has openly said are spearheaded at Russia and China. We know how to respond to these threats without joining the arms race but to protect our security in the most reliable manner. President Vladimir Putin pointed out more than once that this is what we will do. And this is what we are doing.

As for declaring space an operational domain for NATO, the alliance has already done this with regard to cyberspace. This should be taken into account by all the international agencies, because we must comply with the rule set out in the UN Charter – security is our common domain, and the collective security system must be based on the principles of equality and respect for each other’s sovereignty. To counter these unilateral approaches to space and cyberspace, Russia has put forth unifying initiatives that are not designed to make any one country an autocrat dictating its rules to all the others. The Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space has been submitted to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament for consideration. The United States and a small number of its closest allies are blocking the start of negotiations on this issue.

As for cyberspace, our initiative on international cooperation in the field of information security, which we have been advocating at the UN for years, has acquired a new meaning. A draft document on advancing responsible state behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security has been circulated at the UN General Assembly. It is the right place where all UN member states without exception can discuss such issues as cybersecurity. An open-ended working group has been established at our initiative and all UN member states have been invited to participate in it. There are plans to hold four rounds of talks. It is the right platform for finding solid and workable solutions rather than trying to aggrandise oneself and look down on everyone else. It is regrettable that our NATO colleagues are guided by this instinct, but it is an indisputable fact.



Question:

Germany is expelling employees of the Russian Embassy in Berlin without warning the Russian authorities, claiming that Russia was not providing sufficient assistance in the investigation of the August murder, and that there is serious factual evidence of Russia's involvement. But they have presented no evidence. Some Western experts have already compared this to the Skripal case, where the UK used its famous and groundless ‘highly likely’ approach. In that case, the accusations were followed by actions even before the investigation was completed. Do you think we can expect an objective investigation, and is Russia going to become involved in it after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she hopes that Russia will do so?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia and Germany have channels for communication between law enforcement agencies, including for considering issues where the legislation of one of the sides has been violated. These channels should be used now. Our German partners are saying they believe Russia is not cooperating enough, but I don’t know what their opinion is based on.

Today, in a discussion at the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, representatives of several countries mentioned Malaysian Boeing tragedy. Once again, our Dutch colleague said Russia is not cooperating with the investigation, with the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). First, no one invited us to join that team. Second, the facts that we provided to this investigative group outweigh any other contributions that anyone has made to the investigation in terms of their quantity and quality. The evidence we provided included primary data from the radars, and a full-scale replication experiment conducted by Almaz-Antey concern, and much more. But our simple questions about the same data from Ukrainian radars, records of Ukrainian dispatchers’ communication, and the long-promised satellite images from the United States remain unanswered. When we continue asking them what they mean by our ‘insufficient’ cooperation, do you know what they say? The answer is: “You must admit that you did it. This will be responsible way to cooperate with the investigation.” If our German partners choose to follow that model, then we will probably have no success with them either. That sounds like the wrong way to talk to anyone, and even less so with the Russian Federation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3936436
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 20th, 2019 #45
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 US’s anti-Russian sanctions



6 December 2019 - 19:29



Yesterday the US authorities decided to once again put pressure on Russia using sanctions. This time they imposed restrictions on 11 Russian nationals and six companies that Washington accuses of illegal activities on the internet. However, it is clear that the claim is politically motivated.

If the US had real evidence, it would have asked Russian competent agencies to check into the matter, for example, based on the 1999 bilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance. As far as we know, no such requests were received.

Moreover, it was the United States that suspended the joint working group on cybersecurity in 2014 and has refused to restart it since then. In other words, in the media Russia is constantly accused of cyber-attacks, including during the American presidential election, but no one wants to present evidence of this to professional experts, because Washington simply has no proof it would not be ashamed to show to experts.

This means that those who initiate the sanctions do not aim to fight crime, but to carry out another propaganda attack on Russia. Certain politicians in Washington are trying very hard to discredit Russia instead of developing normal cooperation, including in law enforcement, thus continuing to destroy bilateral relations.

This US attack, like the previous ones, will not go unanswered.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3937996






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Luigi Di Maio, Rome, December 6, 2019



6 December 2019 - 20:04






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

Question (for both ministers):

Mr Luigi Di Maio said there is no military solution to the conflict in Libya, only a peaceful one. Mr Lavrov also recalled that despite all the efforts taken in Abu Dhabi the situation has become more complicated. In these circumstances, how do you see the treaty between Turkey and Libya on the maritime border and logistics, including military supplies?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Luigi Di Maio):

The situation in Libya is very difficult because there are too many groups involved there, and too many questions are asked on who is the most legitimate. We have the UN Security Council’s decision, which, as I have said, should be honoured. In this respect, for example, the legitimately recognised parliament of Libya in Tobruk expressed disagreement with the signed document you mentioned. Libya’s neighbours also expressed concern. We cannot fail to consider this. Of course, any steps taken on the ground and on paper should factor in the extremely delicate nature of the situation and contribute in the best way possible to ensuring that everyone involved in the Libyan crisis act together, sit at one table. This includes the African Union as well which is undeservedly pushed aside when it comes to the Libyan settlement.





Question:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if no response comes to the proposal on the moratorium on the deployment of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, Russia would take certain measures. Does this mean deploying previously banned missiles in the European part of Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin in his message to several dozen world leaders, including the NATO countries, gave a principled assessment of the reasons that led to the INF Treaty being discarded and he expressed our willingness to, nevertheless, not aggravate the situation in this area. He proposed establishing a mutual moratorium on developing and deploying such missiles. Russia has already declared, as expressed by Vladimir Putin, that when the Americans officially launched the legal process of abandoning the treaty in February of this year (the treaty was terminated in August), that we would respond in a symmetrical way. If the US throws the treaty out, if it designs, builds and deploys weapons of the type banned by the INF Treaty, we will do the same. But we will never be the first to deploy this category of weapons in any region unless a similar US-made system appears there. This position is fully in effect. The West has not responded to the moratorium proposal except for French President Emmanuel Macron who expressed a willingness to start a dialogue on this issue. I presume that we will start such a dialogue. If we see that the moratorium is not being supported, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position remains fully as I just described it.

If practical steps are taken to build and deploy missiles, we will respond symmetrically but we will not be the first to do it. The Americans recently stated that they would not design and build this class of missiles. But they have already tested such a missile on an MK-41 launcher, which, as we have been assured for many years, was meant to launch exclusively ballistic defence interceptor missiles. Reality turned out to be exactly as we cautioned. We are considering all these variables.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3938016






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the 5th international conference Rome MED 2019 - Mediterranean Dialogues, Rome, December 6, 2019



6 December 2019 - 20:23






First of all, thank you for inviting me again to this authoritative forum.

The Mediterranean is a unique region at the juncture of Europe and Asia, a crossroads of critical logistics and energy routes, an intersection of civilisations and cultures, and the cradle of the world’s major religions. Its countries have everything they need for dynamic sustainable development and prosperity.

The situation in the Middle East, the southern part of the region, which has become a victim to aggressive unilateral approaches and geopolitical engineering, cannot be considered satisfactory. A number of nations are experiencing socio-political crises. The terrorist threat persists. The unique ethnic and religious mosaic keeps eroding; the Christian presence, in particular, has dwindled considerably.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people perish each year as they attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea.

It is clear that blackmail, pressure and threats will not allow for a lasting stabilisation in the Middle East. The multiple regional knots can only be untangled using the principles of international law and mutually respectful cooperation based on universal diplomatic tools.

And some things have already been achieved. I would call the situation around Syria an example of multilateral diplomacy’s efficiency. The efforts of the Astana Format nations – Russia, Iran and Turkey – made it possible to launch a political process and to set up the Constitutional Committee, albeit with some problems and delays. The situation in Syria is generally returning to peaceful normality except for a number of northern regions of the country outside the legitimate government’s control. As Russian President Vladimir Putin said speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in October 2019, the Syrian settlement can become a model for resolving regional crises.

Libya remains a dangerous hotbed of instability and has become a breeding ground of a motley crew of terrorists. Its statehood has been severely undermined by NATO’s reckless venture. The country remains deeply split, internecine strife is ongoing while the economy and social sphere are crumbling.

Undoubtedly, the conflict can only be settled politically via an inclusive intra-Libyan dialogue. It is necessary to revive the efforts of the international community on this track. In this context we note German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s initiative to hold an international conference in Berlin on Libyan settlement. It is certainly important to take into account the experience of the previous conferences on Libya that were held in Paris in July 2017 and in Palermo in November 2018. We should not forget the results of the meeting of the Chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya and Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord (GNA) of Libya Fayez al-Sarraj and Supreme Commander of the Libyan National Army Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar in Abu Dhabi in February of this year. The key is to fully honour the resolutions and prerogatives of the UN Security Council, to ensure full-fledged participation of Libya’s major political forces and external actors involved, including all of Libya’s neighbours, the African Union and the Arab League.

The threat of destabilisation in Iraq is looming. The international community must render comprehensive support to the Iraqi authorities in their fight against the remaining ISIS terrorists and other terrorist groups. Coordination within the Baghdad Information Centre, which was set up by Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria, is acquiring growing importance, as is interaction between Baghdad and Damascus in clearing the Syrian-Iraqi border from terrorists.

Russia has invariably advocated the preservation of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon, which is undergoing another political crisis. Urgent issues of the national agenda must be resolved by the Lebanese people themselves. It is crucial to retain the balance of interests between major political forces and ethnic and religious groups as stated in Lebanon’s constitution.

We call for overcoming tensions in the Persian Gulf through dialogue. This is provided for in Russia’s Concept of collective security in the Gulf, which was drafted some time ago. Consistent implementation of this idea will make it possible to a lay a foundation for the architecture of mutual trust in the entire Middle East region.

It is clear that it will be impossible to reliably secure stabilisation in the entire Mediterranean space without the formation of an independent and viable Palestinian State. Only a two-state solution can satisfy the aspirations of the Palestinian people and to reliably ensure the security of Israel and the entire region, yet we are witnessing attempts to replace it with some “deal of the century”. Prompt resumption of talks between the Palestinians and Israelis is needed in order to achieve a comprehensive, long-term, just settlement based on commonly recognised international law. Russia will continue efforts to overcome the intra-Palestinian split on the basis of the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Developments on another shore of the Mediterranean – in the Balkans – are also cause for concern. The region’s countries are being insistently dragged into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation disregarding the will of their people. The number of NATO military drills and manoeuvres, as well as NATO ships in eastern Mediterranean is constantly increasing. The outcome of such actions is clearly predictable: the emergence of new division lines and a degradation of mutual trust. I have already mentioned the stream of refugees who have flooded Europe and who Europe has to deal with.

Generally speaking, we firmly believe that the interests of both the North and the South of the Mediterranean are met not by zero sum games, but by joint efforts to neutralise common challenges and threats. To this end, I would consider it useful to actively engage OSCE’s potential, including using its venues to promote positive widely accepted approaches to Balkans issues. We actively root for the Organisation’s interaction with its Mediterranean partners.

I think the region can be turned into an area of peace, stability, security and creative partnership only on the solid basis of international law, primarily, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, whereas archaic containment instruments and bloc philosophy should be resolutely abandoned.





Question:

I would like to go back to Libya. Do you think that the Berlin conference you mentioned before is going to be a means to raise hope, in the sense that at least agreeing on a ceasefire would already be enormous progress? And the second question is that, as you certainly know, American sources have been recently – and more than once – saying that there are Russian mercenaries in Libya fighting on the side of General Haftar. Can you answer this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the Berlin conference, I said that we need to build on the experience of the conferences held two years ago in Paris, a year ago in Palermo and the agreements reached between Fayez al-Sarraj and Khalifa Haftar in February of this year. As you know, they envision a reform of the Presidential Council, a formation of a new government of national accord, an agreement on oil revenues, and drafting a new constitution. Without an understanding on such key issues it is very hard to expect that convening in a certain place – Berlin, Palermo, wherever – will be enough for the crisis to begin to resolve itself.

We took part in the preparations for the Berlin conference. We were a little surprised that not all Libyan sides or Libya’s neighbours were invited to the conference. We consider it to be a drawback. I hope steps will be taken in the remaining time to make the conference really inclusive. I would especially highlight the African Union (AU) among the participants. In 2011, before NATO embarked on its venture, the AU was trying to settle the Libyan crisis through dialogue between Muammar Gaddafi and the opposition. However, a different point of view prevailed back then, and a course was selected to overthrow the regime. We are still facing the consequences, primarily the Middle East and North Africa nations, as well as Europe, especially the Mediterranean states.

Of course, who can object to a ceasefire? After the Abu Dhabi agreements were forgotten, a military campaign was declared. Clearly, the parties cannot achieve a military victory considering the armaments they have. This alone should make them sit down at a negotiating table and come back to the understandings reached in Abu Dhabi. UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Libya Ghassan Salame held a briefing a couple of months ago at the UNSC. He has his own approaches, which we share and support. I hope all the external actors without exception will push their allies in Libya in the same direction – towards a negotiating table. We are one of the few countries that maintain relations with all Libyan actors without exception – Fayez al-Sarraj, Aquila Saleh, Khalifa Haftar, Khalifa al-Ghweil and other characters in the political landscape of that country, which was, in fact, destroyed. We are encouraging them to take steps in this direction.

As to the rumours spread by our US colleagues, for some reason no questions are asked when NATO countries’ servicemen, who had never been invited, officially appear all over the world (if we speak about the Mediterranean, take Syria, for instance). They seem to be present there as a fact and have the right to be there. But as soon as something occurs somewhere, some Bellingcat and other NGOs will plant materials about Russia doing something wrong somewhere again. I read that a spy ring has been discovered in Haute-Savoie. Then it was written, actually, that no spying activities had been recorded but it is a spy ring anyway. We have already been seen in Chile, as you are aware. We also mastermind riots and take part in the domestic political struggle there. I think we should just be honest. There is no secret – there are knowledgeable people here – everybody knows who is really backing the warring parties in Libya. Let us not forget about it. It is better to stick to business rather than chase sensations. To do that, the parties must return to the Abu Dhabi agreements and implement them.



Question:

Just to get back to another subject that you raised in your introductory remarks – the situation in Syria. A lot of things have happened since you came here last year, and particularly the Turkish operation in the north of Syria, the comeback of the Syrian and Russian troops to the north of the country. This morning we heard from Minister Cavusoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, that they feel they have the duty and the right to pursue military actions against what they call a terrorist group in northern Syria. The Russian Commander in Syria, General Chaiko, made a deal with this group – that is, the Syrian Democratic Forces – just a few days ago to bring Russian troops to three more cities in the north of Syria. So how do you think that situation on the border can be solved?

And another question, if I may. You talked about the Astana process and the Constitutional Committee, but this diplomatic process is still going very slowly if it is gaining any ground at all. There is a sensation that since, as you mentioned, rebel provinces are just little pockets in the country now, the Syrian government can rightly think that it has the opportunity to win the war, and one usually doesn’t have an incentive to negotiate if he thinks he can win. Why do you think there can still be a political solution in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

When we are facilitating the Syrian settlement, achieving real results in this direction, we always think about the security in the region and the need to first of all eliminate the terrorist and other threats to the security of the region’s countries.

If we speak about the Palestine-Israel conflict and Israel’s overall position on the issues of the countries around it, Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently stressed that we take Israel’s security concerns very seriously. We take equally seriously the security concerns of any other country in the region, in particular, our good partner the Republic of Turkey. One can argue if specialists agree or disagree with the explanations presented here by my friend Mevlut Cavusoglu. The fact remains that Turkey had been drawing attention to this issue for a number of years, saying that it would have to resolve it, including, among other things, the 1998 Adana Agreement between Turkey and Syria. It seems that when the United States realised the seriousness of Turkey’s position, it began talking about how these concerns could be alleviated. You know how this ended. No common ground was found, and the United States declared its withdrawal from Syria. Later they remembered that they had forgotten about the oil, which of course they do not own. But that is a separate matter.

When Turkey launched the operation, and let me stress this, it had warned about its inevitability for a long time (everyone knew perfectly well that Ankara has grave concerns in this area), we immediately got in touch with our Turkish colleagues. The Peace Spring operation was frozen, suspended. Instead of the entire 444 kilometres of the border, the operation area was established along 100 kilometres, whereas an agreement between President Putin and President Erdogan took effect in the remaining border area: Kurdish armed groups and weapons withdraw 30 kilometres to the south of the border while the Russian military police and Turkish servicemen jointly patrol a ten-kilometre zone in this area, and the Syrian border guards also advanced there, of course.

These agreements were welcomed both by the Kurds and Damascus. Although later, when the United States declared it had forgotten oil there and it must go back to “safeguard” it and to do whatever it fancies with it, the Kurds began to “vibrate.” Even though before that I thought they understood our arguments that only a direct agreement with Syria’s official authorities can reliably solve all the problems the Kurds are facing there. I hope our Kurdish friends will learn from experience. The latest zigzags of US policy should convince them that there is no other way but to come to an agreement within a united Syrian state and not to bet on those who want to dismember Syria and light the fuse under the bomb that the Kurdish issue has been for many countries in the region. I think the agreements you asked me about are being implemented now. I think it has significantly stabilised the situation. At least it allowed the legitimate Syrian government to substantially expand its control over the territory of its own country.

Your second question was about the Astana format. It was set up when nothing else was working. Staffan de Mistura, my good friend who is present here, remembers how hard we were trying to launch the Geneva process in 2016, Obama’s last year in office. First we meant to hold a meeting in April, then in May, then after the holy month of Ramadan, then in September, then in October and so on. Nothing came out of that.

The Astana process is based on a very simple logic. Before it was launched, there was no forum where the people representing the warring parties would sit facing each other. Basically, there were contacts between the government and émigrés, whereas those who were fighting the government on the ground – the armed opposition – did not talk to each other. The Astana format filled this gap and launched a process that brought together delegations from the government, the armed opposition, three guarantor countries (Russia, Turkey and Iran) and observer states. Initially the observer state was Jordan. We also invited the United States to take part – they came a couple of times and then gave up. That is their business; we are not talking about the US policy here. Iraq and Lebanon joined Jordan as observers.

The 14th Astana format meeting will be held in the capital of Kazakhstan next week. It will review the implementation of agreements on de-escalation and finishing fighting the remaining terrorist groups. Also, humanitarian issues will be considered, including humanitarian assistance to the Syrian population, creating conditions for the return of refugees, POW swap and exchange of detained persons. Of course, the political process will also be discussed.

I am not going to say after only two sessions how successfully the Constitutional Committee is advancing or how slow it is. The process has just started. I have already mentioned the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. How long has it been going on? When was the six-month settlement roadmap adopted? In 2003? How many years have elapsed? For some reason nobody is worried that the implementation of the UNSC decision on the Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement is progressing so slowly?

The Constitutional Committee could have been established and working for one year already if our Western colleagues hadn’t prevented its convocation last year. When in December 2018 your humble servant together with foreign ministers of Iran and Turkey Mohammad Javad Zarif and Mevlut Cavusoglu flew to Geneva to meet with Staffan de Mistura and his colleagues, we brought a list approved by the Syrian government and the opposition, while the Western countries did everything for the list not be approved at that time. As a result, we wasted a whole year.

As to whether the situation on the ground offers Bashar al-Assad incentives for negotiations, Bashar al-Assad called for a start to a political process in the summer of 2015, when the terrorist fighters were camped outside a Damascus suburb. The entire Western camp, which supported those fighters, was categorically opposed to it. Now that we launched the Astana process, the situation has turned around. Thanks to the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the Syrian army has radically changed the situation on the ground to its advantage. Nevertheless, we used our influence on the Syrian government and our good relationship to persuade it first to agree to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which convened in Sochi in January 2018, and subsequently to support the decisions of the Congress. Staffan de Mistura knows that there were problems with that – the parties did not initially accept what our UN friends were pushing for. We persuaded our colleagues in Damascus that starting a political process would be the best way out. Now the terrorist presence in the Syrian territory has shrunk as a result of using the de-escalation zone concept – it remains in the northwest in Idlib and in the northeast, where the Americans are engaged in very murky relations with their protégés, in particular, in the Al-Tanf area. Anyhow, the Syrian government is not refusing to take part in negotiations. I met with UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen today. We talked about his impressions of the second session of the Constitutional Committee. He has no panicky sentiments and he is convinced that the sides are getting used to each other and learning to talk to each other. So I can assure you that we are not going to stop our efforts. We do not act in an opportunistic way following the principle that we will not hold negotiations once we can get a military victory there. That is not our approach. I know some Western colleagues who are guided by this logic. But we are not.



Question:

You are not going to answer to me if I ask you what is your position about the next American presidential election. But I have another observation that has come out during the NATO meeting very recently. Withdrawing its few troops out of border between Turkey and Syria, it seems that President Trump has made a favour to Russia in the sense that Russia has been able to reinforce its power already considerable in Syria. And at the same time, there was a crisis inside NATO because the allies were not consulted, Turkey wanted certain thins, and so on. Do you have any comment on this strange idea that Trump, with his policy, is a good ally of Russian interests?



Sergey Lavrov:

We want to be partners with both the United States and the European Union. We had regular, working and pragmatic relations with NATO, and we are not the ones who cut off these relations. NATO shut off all communication channels, including regular contacts between military officials as well as several dozens of annual events, which were aimed at increasing efficiency in our efforts to battle terrorism. Let this remain on their conscience. If the alliance has adopted this stance, we are not going to be beholden to them or to persuade them. During recent years, we have understood that we can rely only on ourselves because our western colleagues are unreliable partners.

I am not even going to comment on the United States' reasons for taking certain decisions. We are taking this as a given and are not seeking any logic in it. There is a fact, and this fact must be assessed, as it deserves.



Question:

In the Middle East and the Mediterranean we have been seeing in last weeks and months a wave of popular movements in different countries from Lebanon to Iraq, against the governments. This is different from what was called the Arab Spring in 2011. It has some points in common, it has some differences. In some cases Iran and Iranian influence in the Middle East seems for a lot of these people to blame for some of the problems their countries are facing. Do you think that this can have an effect on the balance, on the geopolitical situation in that area? And how do you view those popular movements that have been raging, with 400 people dying in Iraq recently, for example.



Sergey Lavrov:

This era of political awakening of the masses was predicted by Zbigniew Brzezinski about 20 years ago when everyone realised that the end of history forecast by Francis Fukuyama had not come and would not come. Brzezinski wrote in one of his books that the key issue now is not how to arrange a concert between all key actors but how to prevent revolutions from becoming the norm around the world. We should probably pay tribute again to the visionary analyst and politician.

And now regarding specific events. The entire international community should be aware of what we want. If we want the type of democracy that was brought to Libya, let us say this. However, it is a different matter that we still think no matter how authoritarian Muammar Gaddafi’s regime was, that it was stable was never doubted, and Europe did not see any problems coming from Libya. There was a Lockerby aircraft bombing in 1988 but this was singular case, a tragedy. The same is true of Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. My colleague US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, while commenting on the situation in Iran, several times declared vociferously that no one has the right to rid the Iranian people of the possibility to protest. At the same time, it is no secret that the United States would like to see regime change in Iran the way it did it in Libya and Iraq. The outcome is the same and well known – dissolution of the state, a surge in terror, and waves of refugees. The same thing happened in Ukraine even though it is somewhat far from the Mediterranean Sea. When the coup d’etat was arranged, it was promptly given support. Our US colleagues are still trying to manage all the processes there by exerting external control over the country.

When a coup was attempted in Gambia the same year, the US State Department deputy spokesperson Jeff Rathke declared just as vociferously that the US would never support government change anywhere through unconstitutional means. I think you know better than I do how this reconciles with the actions the US actually takes.

So, of course, the roots of all these developments are the socioeconomic conditions of the population, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs and the will and desire for a better life. Governments should respond to that. I think any attempts to pursue geopolitics by riding the wave of these natural manifestations of discontent are simply irresponsible and counterproductive, because instead of stability we get real chaos and the collapse of states under the label of “democracy.” I spoke about Lebanon in my opening remarks. The system that was created there should be dealt with very carefully and it should not be substituted with something that would not work in that country.

The same with Iran. Yes, they are fraught with problems there, including due to the absolutely illegal imposing of sanctions against that country by America, which also withdrew from the JCPOA while forcing all others, including Iran, to observe it. I don’t even know what to call that. It is some kind of absurdity, an absolutely surreal approach. They forbid everyone from observing the UNSC resolution, which they themselves have claimed null and void. If the US design is to strangle Iran economically and foster people’s discontent, we are witnessing the same design towards Venezuela. We see an emerging pattern, so to say. The line of action is the same: accusing the regime, as they call it, of anything whatsoever and at the same time arranging an economic blockade, arresting accounts, and in fact stealing gold reserves.

We still stand for solving any problems through an inclusive dialogue, be it Venezuela or Lebanon. I hope the traditional Lebanese wisdom and their capacity for negotiating will prevail, for that matter with any other country, too.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, you have mentioned Ukraine, and in fact, Ukraine interests all Mediterranean and MENA areas because there is a conflict. In three days on December 9 you are going to have a Normandy format meeting in Paris. President Vladimir Putin is going there. Which are the possible reasonable expectations for that meeting? A ceasefire or perhaps something more?



Sergey Lavrov:

We want the Normandy format to facilitate the full implementation of its own 'product' - the Minsk Agreements, which are the result of hours-long talks between the four Normandy format leaders in Minsk, signed by all parties to the conflict – namely, representatives of Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, with UNSC Resolution 2202 adopted in support of it. During all previous years under Petr Poroshenko's regime, we were told Russia should implement the Minsk Agreements and we explained that the agreements should be fulfilled by those who signed them, that is, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. We are ready to provide assistance through various efforts – political methods, our participation in the OSCE mission and many other ways. Now, when President Vladimir Zelensky has indeed shown the political will to pursue peace despite all hindrances, primarily from ultra-radicals and neo-Nazis, our European colleagues are welcoming the progress achieved during implementation of the previous Normandy format decisions, which implied separation of forces and facilities in three pilot areas and the documenting of the so-called Frank-Walter Steinmeier formula. The corresponding agreement was reached over three years ago. However, Petr Poroshenko's regime adamantly refused to implement that which the four countries' leaders had agreed. It is being said now that progress has been achieved, and this is true. But this fact has another side to it: it proves that the lack of the progress until recently was solely on the conscience of the previous Ukrainian regime.

We expect the Normandy format to achieve additional agreements that would allow the conflict to be resolved and to ensure stable security for people in Donbass and their rights that are enshrined in the Minsk Agreements (the so-called special status for Donbass). This is probably impossible to achieve in just one day, but we have to make consistent efforts. The faster we do this, the better it will be for all of Ukraine. Of course, at this meeting we would like to learn about President Zelensky's own idea of progress, because as those surrounding him – officials, ministers and members of parliament representing his Servant of the People party – come up with very contradictory statements. For instance, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vadim Pristayko has recently said that they would see how the things will proceed on December 9 and after this make a decision on whether they will remain part of the Minsk Agreements. This a simple but rather interesting statement. There are statements claiming there will be no amnesty as implied in the agreements, and also those saying that the law on the special status of Donbass, which expires in late December, possibly should not be extended, although it has to be permanently enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine by the end of the year. We have been told they will consider it and will possibly draft a new special status law. What does this mean and how does it fit into the obligations to fulfill the Minsk Agreements? We do not know. And when Ukrainian officials claim that there can be no direct dialogue between Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk, this shows blatant disregard of everything and everyone. The Minsk Agreements are based on direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. It will be very highly important for us to understand President Zelensky's idea of achieving the goal he announced during his election campaign: securing peace in Eastern Ukraine.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3938030
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 20th, 2019 #46
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II adopted at the 26th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting Bratislava, December 5-6, 2019



7 December 2019 - 10:33



In 2020, we will commemorate the 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II, one of the most violent and bloody conflicts in human history, which claimed tens of millions of lives and inflicted terrible suffering on all of humankind.

Nazism was defeated thanks to the indestructible unity and solidarity of our peoples and the joint struggle waged by the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. We remember every one of those whose unparalleled courage on the battlefield and on the home front saved our civilisation from destruction. We bow to the bravery of the anti-Nazi resistance and the memory of victims of the death camps and the sieges of peaceful cities.

It is our solemn duty to preserve the historical truth. We denounce as a sacrilege any acts of disrespect with regard to the monuments of Red Army soldiers and officers, as well as the cases of vandalism directed against the graves of those who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe from Nazism. There is no justification for the vandalism against these memorial objects. We urge all countries to honour the memory of the heroic liberators and to maintain military graves in proper condition.

We condemn any and all attempts to falsify the outcome of World War II. We are outraged by some countries’ striving to rehabilitate and glorify Nazi criminals and their accomplices. We firmly believe that the decisions of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which have no statute of limitations, must be strictly complied with. Throwing a veil over ethnic and religious hate crimes will inevitably lead the humankind to a new catastrophe.

We note the importance of the decision taken at the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution on combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

History has shown how dangerous it is to pander to nationalism, intolerance, discrimination, extremism and ethnic, racial and religious hatred. We recognise the importance of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as a vital international instrument.

We reaffirm our commitment to the idea of a free, democratic, common and indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community. The heroism of WWII liberators and their readiness to make sacrifices should be accepted as their behest for the future generations to strengthen peace on the principles of justice, equality and indivisible security.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3938141






Remarks by Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of European Cooperation Nikolay Kobrinets at the concluding session of the 26th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Bratislava, December 6, 2019



8 December 2019 - 07:39



Mr Chairperson-in-Office,

Colleagues,

First of all, I would like to express our gratitude to the Slovak chairmanship for the comfortable environment created for the ministerial meeting participants. Discussions on the entire OSCE agenda that took place during the preparations, the plenary meeting and on the sidelines of the 26th OSCE Ministerial Council were very productive.

The Russian delegation showed its readiness for constructive interaction based on the positive, unifying agenda. Our experts worked hard on all projects that were suggested by the chairmanship, and also reviewed other documents in detail.

We brought eight Russian proposals to Bratislava. The attitude towards them was not in a collaborative spirit. Most of the proposals were brushed aside under contrived pretexts, though it is obvious that they were blocked mostly for their Russian origin, despite assurances to the contrary. We consider this approach short-sighted: substantive work within the OSCE is being sacrificed for the sake of ideology.

We regret that the intention of some countries to enforce a distorted image of the current political and legal realities, and their attempts to block our proposals did not allow for adopting a joint political declaration and a statement on the OSCE efforts to assist in the resolution of the intra-Ukrainian crisis.

They did not have enough political will to agree with the approval of a declaration by 57 states on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, even though the document used the wording that was agreed upon in previous years. Some states have both short and selective historical memory. This is regrettable and dangerous. Forgetting history and distorting it for the sake of the immediate opportunistic interests can result in repeating the mistakes and tragedies of the past. The details of our position are reflected in the joint statement by the foreign ministers of 11 countries, which was read out by a representative of Belarus.

We welcome the statement that supports the Transnistria settlement in the 5+2 format. We hope that the implementation of the agreed confidence-building measures and outlining new reciprocal steps will facilitate a gradual rapprochement on the two banks of the Dniester River. A joint statement by the delegation heads of the countries, co-chairs of the Minsk OSCE Group, in support of the process of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement was adopted. We note that all parties are set to continue talks and promote measures to prepare the people for peace.

Two declarations of the Ministerial Council have been agreed upon. They are related to the anniversaries of the adoption of the OSCE principles governing non-proliferation, UN Security Council Resolution No 1540, as well as the OSCE Code of Conduct related to military-political aspects of security. While praising their contents in general, we note that it is apparently the current limit of what can be achieved on the military-political track.

The conversation on the ways to restore trust and de-escalate tensions is valuable in itself. We support the continued ‘structured dialogue’ involving military experts without the politicisation of the process. We consider it an important confidence-building step.

Building up cooperation in combatting transnational challenges is still relevant, especially considering the persistent terrorist threat in the world in general and in the OSCE region in particular. It is essential to enhance the efforts of the OSCE in counteracting the expansion of the terrorist ideology, including via the media, as well as to use the Security Committee of the OSCE Permanent Council more efficiently in the area of counterterrorism with the regular participation of experts from the capitals. Russia’s proposal regarding drug trafficking counteraction remains relevant.

I would like to add that the inexplicable obsession of some delegations with gender issues has hampered the work to adopt decisions that have no direct connection to this subject.

The sabotage by some delegations of the instruction issued at a meeting of the council in Basel in 2014 on adopting declarations to protect Christians and Muslims is absolutely counter-productive. At the same time, their rhetoric on the need to strictly adhere to the commitments we all signed up to seems a mere hypocrisy.

The balanced projects related to the language and educational rights of ethnic minorities and the public’s right for free access to information were turned down outright. The same commitments that the Western countries so actively voted for in the past have apparently become unwanted.

We supported the so-called Bratislava Appeal by the Chairperson-in-Office. We agree with its key provisions: to focus on what unites us and not on what separates us, be more flexible and ready to compromise and improve the equal interactive dialogue. We will continue to be guided by these principles in our work at the OSCE.

The year 2020 will mark the 45th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act and the 10th anniversary of the Astana Declaration. This is a good opportunity to reaffirm our adherence to the basic principles of the OSCE that are outlined in these documents, as well as to the objective to strengthen comprehensive and indivisible security. However, it is alarming that this year, some partners did not show the readiness to do so in connection with the 20th anniversary of the Charter for European Security and the Platform for Co-operative Security.

We wish success to Albania, which will hold the upcoming chairmanship.

Thank you for your attention.

Please add these remarks to the minutes of this meeting.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3938345






Article by Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov, Together Against Corruption, for TASS News Agency, December 9, 2019



9 December 2019 - 11:43



Every year on December 9, the world marks International Anti-Corruption Day. On this day in 2003, the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) was opened for signing. Unique in its own way, this multilateral document encapsulates the full scope of issues related to anti-corruption. The Convention has been signed by 186 states, which is declarative of the fact that the actions taken by the involved countries in line with UNCAC obligations are truly universal. No other similar document has been able to unite so many supporters behind one common goal, which is fighting corruption. Today this issue is becoming especially relevant. The links between corruption and other transnational threats, including organised crime and drug trafficking, are becoming increasingly evident.

Russia was one of the first countries to join the UNCAC and has unfailingly been one of the most active participants in international anti-corruption cooperation – which, in turn, gives a powerful impetus to the development of our domestic legislation aimed at improving the organisation and operation of authorities, and strengthening civil accord in society. Our country has been a proactive participant in all the sessions of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (the main decision-making body of the Convention) and hosted this prestigious forum in 2016, when representatives of 162 countries, 21 international organisations and 88 NGOs came to St Petersburg. It was an exceptionally worthwhile experience that, to a large extent, contributed to boosting Russia’s international authority in the fight against corruption. The next regular UNCAC session will take place this December in Abu Dhabi, where Russia will host several special anti-corruption events.

Residents of the Russian capital have most likely seen the preparations for one of these events. Content by participants of the Together Against Corruption! youth public service advertising contest organised by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office were displayed on information screens in the Moscow Metro. Contestants from Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and BRICS countries submitted entries for the contest. Of course, the majority of the participants represented universities and schools in Russia.

Projects of this type are a good example of practical multilateral work on preventing corruption. But, without a doubt, success would be impossible without exploring new trends and challenges and responding to them timely. These are the tasks we deal with every day.

One of these relatively new focus areas that are becoming more significant both within the UN framework and in other formats is countering corruption in sports. In June 2018, in view of the 2018 FIFA World Cup taking place in our country, Russia organised an international conference on preventing corruption in sports at the United Nations Office in Vienna. The event created much enthusiasm and, drawing on the success of the first conference, we held a second similar event in September 2019. Russia will by all means not only stay focused on this matter but will continue to play the most active role. As one of the avenues for further development of international cooperation with regard to counter-corruption measures in sports, the parties are discussing a Russia-proposed initiative for establishing a special forum under the auspices of the UN where countries could coordinate their approaches and efforts in this area in an open and practical dialogue.

At the same time, the continued attempts to politicise the multilateral dialogue on anti-corruption issues and to use it to ratchet up political pressure on “uncomfortable” states has not escaped our attention. In this regard, I would like to emphasise that our country has always supported the constructive nature of the Implementation Review Mechanism of the Convention against Corruption, based on the principles of equality and respect for the sovereignty of the participating states, transparency, impartiality and voluntariness – in a word, what the UN calls the Vienna Spirit. Russia is open to honest and mutually respectful work with all partners, including at multilateral platforms. We are confident that this is the most effective approach. Our work within BRICS is good proof of the above. Joint anti-corruption efforts are one of the association’s priorities and are reflected every year in the final documents of its leaders’ meetings. Less than five years ago, during the Russian presidency, Russia initiated a full-fledged specialised format – the BRICS Anti-Corruption Working Group (ACWG). In the Ufa Declaration, adopted in 2015, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa reaffirmed their commitment and willingness to work together on this track. Meetings of our experts are held on a regular basis, and work is underway to strengthen the ties between the relevant authorities of our countries. Coordinating and consolidating, where possible, our positions in the run-up to major events have become a good tradition. Over the five years of work, the parties have clearly demonstrated that only an equal dialogue gives the maximum effect.

In 2020, when the rotating presidency will return to Russia, we intend to focus on coordinating our positions on fighting corruption at various multilateral forums, primarily the UN and the G20, strengthening cooperation with the BRICS partners in anti-corruption education and awareness, and furthering cooperation to prevent corruption in sports. An important part of our work will be to develop common approaches while preparing for the UN General Assembly special session against corruption in 2021.

Russia’s focus on strengthening cooperation with its BRICS partners does not mean, however, that we will pay less attention to other existing formats. On the contrary, while continuously promoting the central coordinating role of the UN mechanisms, our country seeks to apply any relevant experience to build up and supplement the existing anti-corruption policies through cooperation within different multilateral instruments.

Our cooperation in the G20 is particularly interesting and promising. The scope of matters that the group members keep in focus is very wide, and covers the most diverse aspects of the fight against corruption. In 2019, the G20 High Level Principles for Effective Protection of Whistleblowers and the G20 Compendium of good practices promoting integrity and transparency in infrastructure development were developed and adopted during the Japanese presidency. A study of the relationship between corruption and economic crime was also launched. In 2020, Saudi Arabia will take over. We have developed a very fruitful and cooperative relationship with Riyadh on the anti-corruption track, and we plan to work hard on the priorities declared by our Saudi partners, including the development and implementation of anti-corruption strategies and policies, the use of modern technology to enhance integrity, public-private partnerships and increased transparency in privatisation. Russia has extensive experience in all these areas, and is ready to share.

The work within the Council of Europe is making similar headway. In 2006, Russia ratified the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. In 2007, Russia joined the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO). Since then, Russia has been rather successfully completing GRECO evaluations of national government bodies dealing with preventing corruption and exemption of certain categories of government officials from criminal prosecution, exposing, seizing and confiscating income and property received as a result of corrupt activity, illegalising criminal activity, promoting transparency of political parties’ funding, and preventing corruption among parliament members, judges and prosecutors.

Russia is also a member of the Interstate Council on Combating Corruption under the Commonwealth of Independent States. Upon the council’s instruction, experts from the member states are drafting an agreement on cooperation between the CIS countries in fighting corruption. The latest meeting of the expert group, scheduled for approving the draft of the agreement, took place in Minsk on December 3−4.

This problem is addressed by other regional formats, including the OSCE. We support the organisation’s efforts to promote and implement advanced international legal standards and instruments with regard to anti-corruption.

Since 2005, Russia has been a member of the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Working Group of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) as well as the APEC Anti-Corruption Authorities and Law Enforcement Agencies Network established under its auspices. Currently, APEC is focusing on coordinated action to prevent corruption, to identify links between money laundering and corruption, and to protect those who report corruption-related crimes.

Another important multilateral specialised format is the Anti-Bribery Convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Russia, although not an OECD member, has been a party to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions since 2012. The implementation of this document consists of such measures as establishing an institutional mechanism to ensure measures against corruption, providing legal assistance to foreign states, modernising the national legislation in line with the Convention, as well as updating legislative and regulatory compliance practices. Right now in Paris, the OECD is discussing Russia’s new report on fulfilling the Convention. We hope it will be approved, which will allow our country to continue to the next level of this process.

When it comes to preventing corruption, we attach great importance to research and analytical support. In 2011, under a multilateral agreement, the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) was established in Vienna. Currently, 73 states are IACA members. The Russian Federation was among this organisation’s co-founders and is largely involved in its activity. Educational courses and study programmes on anti-corruption research and action, collective measures for the private sector and business ethics take place under the aegis of the IACA. Additionally, the academy offers highly-qualified young corruption prevention researchers a three-month scholarship to conduct anti-corruption research. Funded by Russia’s voluntary contribution to the IACA budget, the academy organises an annual anti-corruption training course for industry experts from Russia and former Soviet republics, which is a noticeable investment in the practical development of the research aspect of multilateral anti-corruption cooperation. Recently, the academy has been going through certain difficulties caused by an overdue need to reform its management, finance and administration system. The situation is on the mend thanks to additional financial support from Russia and a number of other countries, as well as due to the passing of the academy’s development programme that envisages strengthening the academy’s research and analytical component, among others. Our opinion is that, remaining the leading international education centre for preventing corruption, the IACA will also be able to support its anti-corruption cooperation within the framework of the United Nations and the G20 with quality analytical material, and provide methodological assistance to the member states in developing specialised legislation.

Nevertheless, the research and educational work is not limited to the IACA format. Since 2015, Russia and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime have been successfully executing a collaborative project in anti-corruption training under the auspices of the UNODC Anti-Corruption Academic Initiative. The project has already produced various handbooks – for example, a standard study course on the UN Convention against Corruption that is currently being adapted to Russian education standards. Last November, the Moscow Institute of International Relations hosted the 2nd Anti-Corruption Academic Symposium as part of this project, and the event brought together over 100 teachers of related subjects, experts and students from various countries. A similar, now full-fledged, training event is scheduled for next spring.

Of course, Russia takes its main anti-corruption efforts at the national level. But at the same time, it is obvious that coordinating action, sharing experience and determining the format of international collaboration make this work more impactful. Therefore, the National Anti-Corruption Plan approved by the Russian President aims at boosting the efficiency of international cooperation in the area, on which we will, along with other competent agencies, continue to work further within the above listed frameworks. December 9 is an excellent occasion to remember once again that 16 years ago on this day, the international community agreed to join forces against corruption. We will continue this work for the benefit of the Russian people.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3939610






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the occasion of Human Rights Day



9 December 2019 - 12:56



On December 10, the international community marks Human Rights Day. On this day in 1948, the UN General Assembly approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which laid a solid foundation for the current international system of promoting and protecting human rights.

Human Rights Day is a good opportunity to take stock and also to outline new tasks and objectives that would facilitate the further improvement of the human rights situation both in individual countries and in the world in general.

Russia still considers the standards and principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international covenants on human rights and other related universal human rights instruments as the unshakable foundation of the modern international system for protecting human rights.

We are confident that it is only possible for countries to implement their international obligations effectively, within the existing instruments, when this is based on a dialogue and cooperation involving all interested parties in the process of the development and adoption of decisions for human rights protection.

We regret the policy of some countries aimed at using human rights issues in their own opportunistic political and economic interests, including in order to interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

Russia has always spoken against such approaches and pointed out that there is no alternative to constructive international cooperation in human rights protection, that the use of a policy of double standards is inadmissible, and that it is necessary to respect the national, cultural and historical characteristics of states’ development.

These will be the principles the Russian Federation will adhere to if it is elected in the UN Human Rights Council for 2021-2023 during the election which will take place in the autumn of 2020, during the 75th session of the UN General Assembly. We are confident that the election of Russia to this important intergovernmental UN body will facilitate the establishment of a constructive dialogue in all areas of the international human rights agenda.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3941759






Permanent Representative of Russia to the EU and Euratom Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov's remarks at the 13th European Russian Forum, Brussels, 9 December 2019



9 December 2019 - 21:34



Dear Ms Ždanoka,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Dear compatriots,

First of all I would like to extend my warmest greetings to all friends and colleagues who gathered in this room today and fulfil a mission the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov entrusted me with – to read out his address to the organisers and participants of the 13th European Russian Forum.

It is true that the finest minds of our nation have been dwelling on the issue of “Russian identity” throughout all its history.

From time immemorial, the Russian nation was endowed with a greatest uniting power, ability to carefully preserve, multiply and creatively absorb the best from the ethnoses living together with it in peace and quiet. The great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky deliberated a lot on its “panhumanity”, putting the idea the following way: “The supreme and most characteristic trait of our nation is its sense of fairness and its longing for it… It cohabitates with everybody and accustoms itself with everything… It has an instinct of pan-humanity”. The unity of peoples with Russian identity has always been based on a solid foundation of the Russian language and culture as well as the sense of deep belonging with the fate of the Motherland that enabled consolidation to overcome difficulties and hardships during various tragic periods of history.

In this regard the tragic events of the 20th century were quite remarkable having left an indelible mark both on our self-perception and perception of us by other nations. They included forced massive emigration of some of the best representatives of Russian intelligentsia following the fratricidal civil war, and the cruellest war in human history that took 27 million Soviet lives. And the collapse of the USSR that Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly referred to as the greatest tragedy for the Russian nation meaning its colossal humanitarian repercussions – 25 million ethnic Russians finding themselves separated overnight from their historic Motherland against their will. Therefore, I would like to remind you as well that the Russian nation is the largest divided nation in the world, and we are still living the consequences of that tragedy everywhere.

The fight for Soviet geopolitical legacy that followed the break-up of the USSR continues to this day, with its main tools borrowed from the kit of Cold War times being Russophobic propaganda, slander against the Russian nation and revision of its role in world history.

We have to state with regret that a number of EU Member States are consistently and deliberately squeezing the Russian language out of all spheres of social life, having made it their official policy. Thereby – however strange and inconsistent it would seem – in the European Union that brings ideas of liberalism and diversity to the world, fundamental rights of Russian speakers are infringed on a regular basis. Besides, states patronised by the EU adopt laws that flagrantly violate linguistic and educational rights of national minorities enshrined in multilateral conventions. All this is presented of course as measures to protect state languages of these countries that, according to their newest mythology, suffered from the heavy legacy of the USSR. In this regard I would like to recall that as it is unacceptable to strengthen one’s security at the expense of security of others, equally one cannot affirm its identity at someone else’s expense. I am convinced that the identity of a nation is based on creativity rather than negation and destruction. This lesson has yet to be learned by those building their identity in the 21st century on barbarian principles. This is the only name I can find for the genuine “witch hunt” worthy of McCarthyism times against courageous defenders of infringed rights of Russian-speaking population in Europe.

We cannot also ignore facts of discrimination against Russian-language media in the EU. I am referring to their persecution on the pretext of countering an inflated threat of Russian disinformation. The European Parliament has elaborated a substantial number of resolutions promoting the worst tools of censorship and pressure on Russian-speaking journalists. Sometimes the situation reaches the level of the absurd – Russian cartoons for children and humour shows are declared tools of “Kremlin propaganda”. Another, no less alarming message is the increasingly repeated call to start actively looking for a “fifth column” allegedly engaged in practice, lacking confirmation even by EU evidence, of external intervention in EU democratic processes. It is a road to nowhere. One can only hope that common sense will finally prevail.

We consistently draw the attention of relevant EU bodies to the facts indicated above. Unfortunately, in response they are often wickedly referring to the exclusive competence of Member States on these issues. And everyone in this room knows how they implement it.

The Victory over Nazism in 1945 is a key historic event that has been anchored in Russian national conscience and become an essential integrating factor for the modern Russian nation. Thereby, we perceive in a particularly acute way attempts to rewrite history, its outstanding example being the recent European Parliament resolution “On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe” that equated Nazism to Communism. Harmful connivance to the policy of glorification of Nazism and its supporters, marches of veterans of Waffen SS legions convicted by the Nuremberg tribunal, glorification of Nazi collaborators, “war” against monuments to heroes who sacrificed their lives to free Europe from Nazism are extremely dangerous for modern European societies. I would like to recall that in 1930s Germans failed to notice how in quite a democratic way they slipped into National Socialism. Next year will mark an important date – the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory. I urge our European partners to honour in a dignified way the memory of fallen heroes and liberators of Europe.

Dear friends,

There is no doubt that today we are facing a most important task of preserving the Russian national identity, capability to remain a nation with its own character and traditions, particular features, historical continuity and a bridge between generations. The Russian language, with its charge of creation and unity, must remain a language of cross-national communication in Russia and beyond.

A joint search for answers to joint challenges rather than aggravation of existing splits is key to success of any interaction. And this is exactly the aim of the comprehensive programme of the Forum – drawing attention to issues of concern to the wide-ranging Russian community in Europe. We hope that the ideas voiced here will be heard and make their contribution to normalising Russia-EU relations. We cannot allow the dangerous inertia of confrontation to overlap common sense and impede development of our interaction meeting the interests of every nation in Europe without exception. The Russian world and Russian culture are always open to cooperation, interaction and prosperity for all.

I would like to wish the Forum’s participants success in their deliberations and creative ideas.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3944429






Joint statement on measures to counter chemical terrorism, The Hague, 29 November 2019



9 December 2019 - 21:54



This joint statement is issued on behalf of Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Ghana, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the State of Palestine, Serbia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (hereinafter "the Convention"), as members of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), express deep concern over the threats of chemical terrorism in the world, which are becoming especially evident in the Middle East.

We emphasise that the development, production, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, storage, and use of chemical weapons by terrorist organisations should be the subject of close attention on the part of the OPCW, as it constitutes a serious risk to the object and purpose of the Convention and to achieving a world free of chemical weapons.

We note that as possessor States approach the completion of the destruction of their chemical weapons, the global task of preventing their re-emergence and proliferation will become a priority. Within this context, both the full and effective implementation of the provisions of the Convention by every State Party as provided for in Article VII as well as the achievement of the universality of the Convention will take on the utmost importance.

We note with concern that terrorist organisations operating in the Middle East not only use toxic chemicals, but they also have their own technological and production capabilities used to synthesise chemical warfare agents. We also note that the growth of international terrorism adds a new dimension to the problems related to the ability of terrorist groups to access and use toxic chemicals. Chemical terrorism is becoming a reality that requires all of us to take decisive, consistent, and urgent measures.

We reaffirm the need to ensure that all States Parties to the Convention, within the framework of their national legislation, prevent both natural and legal persons from engaging in any activity prohibited under the Convention, specifically by adopting appropriate criminal legislation and putting into place an effective export control system.

We emphasise in particular the importance of the OPCW Open-Ended Working Group on Terrorism and its Sub-Group on Non-State Actors. We welcome the decision of the OPCW Executive Council that was adopted by consensus in October 2017 regarding the threats posed by the use of chemical weapons by non-State actors, and consider it our common achievement and a step in the right direction.

We request that the Director-General provide regular updates on information received by the Technical Secretariat from the States Parties and other reliable sources regarding the activities of terrorist groups concerning the acquisition, production, transfer, and preparations for use of chemical weapons, as well as actions taken in this regard. We underscore that the information on measures taken by the OPCW Technical Secretariat to establish a dialogue with other international organisations in order to establish an early warning network on existing risks and exchange best practices is also in high demand by the States Parties.

As principled and consistent supporters of the adoption of effective collective measures aimed at actively countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their components, and their means of delivery, we welcome the initiative co-sponsored by the Russian Federation and China to negotiate a convention on the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which should become an important additional tool for establishing a reliable barrier against terrorist threats.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3944443
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 22nd, 2019 #47
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 UN General Assembly’s vote on the draft resolution “Problem of the Militarisation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as well as Parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov”



10 December 2019 - 16:35



On December 9, the UN General Assembly held a plenary meeting, which considered a politicised and counterproductive draft resolution, submitted by the Ukrainian delegation, titled “Problem of the Militarisation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine), as well as Parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.”

The Russian delegation put this document to a vote and voted against it. In addition to Russia, this anti-Russia initiative was rejected by 18 member states. In addition, the number of supporters dropped from 66 to 63 compared with last year, with an even greater number of abstentions and absentees (111 versus 108). This indicates that the majority of members of the international community do not accept the distorted interpretation of the state of affairs in and around Crimea and that support for the Ukrainian initiative, despite the pressure that Kiev and its patrons are using on many countries, has markedly decreased.

This draft resolution was introduced to the General Assembly for the second consecutive session. It contains unacceptable accusations against Russia and is based on conjecture, speculation and a distortion of the facts. Specifically, claims of the “militarisation” of Crimea and parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are open to criticism. As a reminder, before 2014, under a Russian-Ukrainian agreement on the stationing of the Black Sea Fleet, Russia alone had the right to deploy up to 25,000 troops on the peninsula, although the actual number was much lower (about 12,000). In all, including the Ukrainian contingent, there were 27,000 service personnel deployed on the peninsula, whereas today this number is less than that, as Russia has informed the international community, in keeping with its existing commitments.

As for the Sea of Azov, Russia has no naval bases whatsoever in this area. Any forces there are used to guard the Crimean Bridge and ensure safety of shipping. Measures taken by Russia (selective inspections aboard ships, including Russian ships) are commensurate with the extremist threats to the Crimean Bridge and Russia as a whole. It is actions by Ukraine, which is actively building up a military presence along the coastline in the vicinity of Berdyansk and which systematically closes certain parts of the adjoining water area for gunnery practice, that are aimed at militarising the Sea of Azov.

One item of note is that the Ukrainian delegation planned a debate on the draft resolution on the same day the Normandy format summit was being held in Paris, for which the Zelensky administration had sought to create a maximally favourable background. It cannot be ruled out that this step at the UN was conceived by the opponents of the Ukrainian president, who wanted to impede any constructive proceedings at the meeting.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3945254






Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Estonia Alexander Petrov’s interview with RIA Novosti news agency, December 10, 2019



10 December 2019 - 21:13



Question:

What do you think about the situation with the Sputnik-Estonia news agency which has come under unprecedented administrative pressure from the Estonian authorities?



Alexander Petrov:

It’s very sad. Despite being in strict compliance with local legislation, this Russian media outlet is working amid an information blockade imposed by the authorities, which is further aggravated by the security officials’ occasional disciplinary talk with the journalists. Despite tough pressure, Sputnik managed to adapt, found a niche and is steadily expanding its audience. Apparently, this forced its detractors to switch to open bullying and arm-twisting tactics with regard to the banks and the landlord in order to paralyse the news agency’s daily activities. What is it if not brazen point scoring with a dissenting media outlet?



Question:

Are the principles of freedom of speech observed in Estonia in light of the fact that publications by the Russian media and Russian correspondents in Estonia are often dubbed propaganda expressing the Kremlin’s point of view or rewriting history? Calls are also being made to limit the activities of "hostile television and radio stations in Estonia" and to tighten control over the issuance of television and radio broadcasting licenses.



Alexander Petrov:

Estonia seems to rank at the top of international rankings of freedom of speech, which is often mentioned with pride here. However, the actual Sputnik hunt has revealed that these rosy indicators are far from harsh reality. Objectionable media with a point of view that differs from the official one are harassed and openly persecuted in the worst Cold War traditions.

Notably, the Estonian media employees accredited in Russia or coming to Russia never run into any artificial or far-fetched barriers in their professional activities, or have problems with access to banking and other services, even though criticism of our country is the mainstream subject in Estonian media. So, where is real, not declared, freedom of speech?



Question:

Recently, some Estonian politicians have raised the question of demanding compensation from Russia for damage caused by the "Soviet occupation" and returning some of Russia’s territories to Estonia. As Interior Minister Mart Helme said earlier, "Russia owns 5.2 percent of Estonia’s territory, but Russia doesn’t want to return this territory, nor pay compensation for it, nor even discuss this issue." How, do you think, these statements should be taken?



Alexander Petrov:

President Putin rejected any possibility of discussing any territorial issue with the Baltic countries many years ago. The President gave a pithy and very clear answer to Riga mentioning the allegedly illegal transferring of the Pytalovsky District of the Pskov Region to Russia.

I will cite the current official statements by Russian representatives, according to which any demands for Russia to return the allegedly annexed territories to Estonia are untenable. The same applies to the demands for our country to pay certain compensations for "Soviet occupation." These topics have been closed once and for all. There’s no need to say that such calls are causing enormous damage to Russia-Estonia relations and put a barrier on the way to improving their general atmosphere and moving forward.

It would be much better if the initiators of such demands spent their indefatigable energy on goals that bring together the peoples of our countries, not the other way round. The sooner they begin to think based on existing realities, the greater the chances of restoring normal neighborly and mutually respectful relations. This fully applies to ratification of Russian-Estonian border treaties. Signed in February 2014, they still cannot enter into force due to additional reservations expressed by Estonia when considering a draft law on ratifying these treaties, which eventually created a salient problem in relations between our countries.



Question:

Do you think Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid’s visit to Moscow on April 18 gave a boost to bilateral relations? Is there any sense of warming in bilateral relations?



Alexander Petrov:

The fact that there have been no contacts at the level of the heads of our states for more than 10 years now can also be considered a situation that is far from normal. Successful talks took place in Moscow in April, and there were grounds to hope for positive changes. However, someone in Estonia, or perhaps beyond it, clearly didn’t like the idea. It may well be that the above calls involving territorial claims and the like that appeared shortly after the Estonian president’s visit to Moscow can be regarded as a response or as fear of a possible warming in bilateral relations. So, the adjustments were made, which almost ruined the April visit’s positive effect.



Question:

In the run-up to the NATO summit in London, Estonian Defence Minister Juri Luik reiterated that Russia is a threat. “We must openly say that Russia is a threat,” Luik said. “There’s no point in hiding or trying to sugarcoat it.” Do you think Russia poses a threat to the West? Or, hiding behind an imaginary threat, Estonia is fishing for EU preferences for itself?



Alexander Petrov:

I will refer to Putin’s remarks made in Moscow on November 20 during the Russia Calling! Investment Forum. Everyone is fully aware, the President said, that Russia is not going to attack anyone. I would like it to be absolutely clear not only for the leaders of the leading European countries, but also the Estonian authorities.

In Estonia itself, you can also hear those who are convinced that Russia is not a threat to its security. This is what the former Estonian prime minister said. He spoke in favour of starting communication between representatives of the government of both countries, citing the example of neighbouring Finland, where the president and prime minister are not afraid of such a dialogue that is beneficial for that country. I would like to strongly advise those who, at every opportunity, lament about the imaginary Russian threat to heed such recommendations. They say, however, that no man is a prophet in his own country. In this case, the recent remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that Russia is no longer an enemy of the Alliance can at least somehow help some Estonian politicians to take a different look at our country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3945396






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Washington, December 10, 2019



11 December 2019 - 01:08






Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to express my gratitude to Secretary of State of the United States Michael Pompeo for this opportunity to have a meeting here in Washington. We accepted the invitation to make a response visit to the United States after Michael Pompeo travelled to the Russian Federation and visited Sochi in May 2019, where he had a meeting with President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, and the two of us had a rather in-depth discussion.

We have regular meetings and telephone conversations whenever necessary. Today’s meeting confirmed that talking to each other is useful. As challenging as the current period in our relations and in the world in general may be, it is always better to talk with one another rather than not to talk.

We discussed in detail the state of our bilateral ties, and also exchanged views on arms control and regional conflicts. This was a business-like and frank conversation when we sought not only to listen but to hear each other too.

It is an open secret that we hold different views on a number of subjects, and it would be naive to consider that we can instantly reach mutual understanding on key questions. However, this has probably always been more or less this way. Positions never fully coincide. This is what diplomacy is all about: searching for solutions enabling each party to avoid conflict without giving up on its fundamental principles, while promoting constructive cooperation.

We do agree with our American partners, as Mr Pompeo has just said, when differences accumulate between the two leading nuclear powers we can hardly regard this situation as acceptable. It does not benefit our two countries or the international community. Instead, it creates additional tension on the international stage and around the world. It is for this reason that we will continue this dialogue. We share the commitment to working together on finding opportunities to put bilateral relations back on track. We are aware of the fact that Washington has been literally overrun by a wave of suspicion towards Russia, which has been undermining joint efforts, as you can clearly see. Today, we emphasised once again the groundless nature of all speculation regarding Russia’s alleged meddling in the domestic affairs of the US. We have not seen any evidence to back these claims. No one showed it to us, probably because they simply do not exist.

Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until Donald Trump’s inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let’s sit down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump’s inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016 until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the exchanges we had through this channel. I think that this would set many things straight. Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a more constructive footing.

By the way we have proposed several times, and once again raised this subject today, to put on paper the mutual commitment to refrain from interfering in each other’s domestic affairs, just as in 1933 when restoration of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the United States was accompanied by an exchange of personal notes to this effect. The American side proposed and the Soviet Union agreed to have US President Franklin Roosevelt and Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov exchange letters setting forth the commitment to refrain from any kind of interference in each other’s domestic affairs. This initiative was spearheaded by the US. We are ready to take a similar step today, at this important stage.

Anyway, we agreed that it would not be the right thing to do to put our relations on the backburner, suspend or postpone contacts on the key issues the world is facing today. We are ready to engage in practical efforts on all matters of mutual interest and act proactively as long as it suits our American partners.

One of the central themes of our conversations was strategic stability. We noted the negative consequences of the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We underscored that in current conditions, after the Treaty’s termination, we are not going to neglect this sphere of strategic stability. In his messages to the heads of leading states, including the United States and other NATO members, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was announcing a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of these missiles and would not deploy them in specific regions until similar US-made systems appear there. We made this proposal to our Western partners, including the United States, so that this would become a mutual moratorium. This proposal remains on the table.

Today, we discussed the future of another treaty which is set to automatically expire in February 2021, unless extended. I am talking about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Russia reaffirmed its proposal to make a decision on extending the Treaty already now. Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed this position in his recent public address.

We also reaffirm our proposal on issuing a statement at the level of presidents on the unacceptability of unleashing a nuclear war. This proposal also remains on the table.

Speaking of regional affairs, we discussed Ukraine today. I briefed in detail US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and members of his delegation on yesterday’s Normandy format talks in Paris, on decisions that were adopted at these talks, on matters that are yet to be resolved, so as to move towards fulfilling the Minsk Agreements. It is vitally important that the final document that was approved yesterday by the presidents of Russia, Ukraine and France and by the Chancellor of Germany reaffirms the unshakeable nature of the Minsk Agreements and calls for fulfilling them in full. This is our absolutely clear position.

We also discussed the need to continue discussions on ways to overcome the crisis around the Iranian nuclear programme. You know our position. We believe that it is necessary to do everything possible to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which is aimed at ensuring the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear research projects. Of course, we are gravely concerned about the situation taking shape in the Persian Gulf and the Hormuz Strait. We suggest that all countries wishing to ensure safe shipping and navigation should review the Russian proposal. This proposal is aimed at launching dialogue on establishing a collective security system in the Persian Gulf region. In September 2019, we already held a special seminar with the participation of political analysts, experts and the academic community in Moscow. It involved many regional countries, including Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and a number of European experts. We also invited US representatives, and we hope that they will take part in the next event of this kind.

We discussed the developments around Venezuela. Russia invariably underscores that the people of Venezuela should determine their future themselves. We believe that the dialogue that initially took place within the so-called Oslo format, which, unfortunately, became deadlocked, and the current roundtable discussion between the government and the moderate opposition will yield the desired results and the crisis will be resolved by peaceful methods alone.

We discussed the developments on the Korean Peninsula. We advocate its denuclearisation. We believe the contacts between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are extremely important in this context. We hope that our position, which Mike Pompeo and I also discussed, namely, the position of Russia and China (we coordinate approaches towards these matters) will help Washington define its future policy in view of the current impasse in the negotiating process. We are convinced that it is necessary to move forward in line with reciprocal actions in order to resolve this impasse. We are ready to actively help overcome the current issues on this track.

We discussed Syria. UN Security Council Resolution 2254 encompasses all the frameworks that should determine the efforts to achieve all aspects of the peace settlement. We underscored the need for further cooperation between Russia, the United States and other players in order to eradicate terrorism in Syria completely. We also stressed the need to resolve humanitarian problems and, of course, to conduct a sustainable constructive political process that was launched in Geneva within the framework of the Constitutional Committee. The Syrian parties should agree on the future of their country within the Committee’s framework.

We discussed other numerous hotbeds of tension in the Middle East and North Africa. As I see it, we are both interested in closer dialogue on the Libyan peace settlement. We also cooperate on the situation around Yemen. Of course, it is very important to keep an eye on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, which is obviously stalling and remains in a critical state.

In addition, we talked about bilateral affairs. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump agreed on a number of specific steps during their 2018 summit in Helsinki and on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka this past June. In terms of the results this has had, Counterterrorism Dialogue resumed a year ago, and several rounds have already been held. This dialogue allows Russia, the United States and the entire international community to more effectively combat this evil. We hope that this format will remain intensive after the US co-chair steps down. As far as I know, John Sullivan will attend Senate hearings on appointing him US Ambassador to Russia tomorrow. We know him as a highly professional and experienced diplomat, and we will be happy to cooperate with him. Naturally, we expect that the Russian Ambassador to the United States will receive the same support.

Regarding the economy, despite the sanctions, which, as we know, harm everyone, bilateral trade has expanded confidently during the presidency of Donald Trump. While Barack Obama reduced bilateral trade to $20 billion, Donald Trump helped attain $27 billion by late 2019. This is an almost 33 percent increase; it helps create jobs in both countries and spells greater profits for producers. I believe that we can achieve even more mutually beneficial results if we create additional incentives for this cooperation.

We agreed to continue looking for ways to eliminate irritants in bilateral relations, including the situation with the arrest of Russian citizens abroad, failure to issue visas for members of Russian delegations taking part in international events in the United States, as well as for diplomats, and the situation with diplomatic properties. We agreed that our deputies will continue a detail-oriented discussion on all these matters, and we want to make this discussion constructive and, most importantly, fruitful.

In conclusion, I would like to say that on the whole, given all difficulties and disagreements, the potential of our economic cooperation and our ties in other areas remains impressive. It is in the interests of both countries to make full use of this potential and expand relations for the benefit of our two countries and the entire international community. We are ready for this. Today, we felt a similar shared intention of the US side. I am grateful to Mike Pompeo. We want to continue our dialogue. I invite him to visit Russia at any time convenient to him.





Question (to Michael Pompeo):

On North Korea and your discussions with North Korea, are you satisfied with Russian and other countries’ sanctions enforcement? And then also within the past week, North Korea has warned of a “Christmas gift” for the United States. Is the administration prepared or do they expect North Korea to return to a more aggressive posture, perhaps want to terminate negotiations?



Sergey Lavrov (speaks after Michael Pompeo):

We are talking about sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. Sanctions are an instrument used by the UN Security Council, but the resolutions we are talking about go beyond sanctions. Each of these resolutions states the need to step up the political process. This factor is often relegated to the background in the coverage of the ongoing developments.

We believe in the need to actively support this political process. Direct dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang can play a key role here. Our position is that this dialogue should resume, and we strongly believe that it can yield tangible results, but only if reciprocal steps are made. The DPRK should not be required to do everything and all at once, and only after that go back to the question of ensuring security, lifting sanctions, etc. In light of the humanitarian situation in the DPRK, urgent steps are needed to understand whether the international community is ready not only to demand that the resolutions be fulfilled, but also to respond to DPRK’s legitimate economic and humanitarian needs. Today, it is extremely challenging to deliver to the DPRK even the goods that are not covered by any sanctions imposed by the UN or the United States. In fact, manufacturers and transport operators are simply afraid of being punished once again for just mentioning that they traded with the DPRK even if their business was legitimate. This is how we got into the current deadlock. Of course, we call on the DPRK leadership to exercise restraint and hope that the right conditions for resuming dialogue will be created.



Question:

In your discussions over Paul Whelan, are the US and Russia any closer to resolving that case? Is Paul Whelan any closer today to freedom?



Sergey Lavrov:

The investigation was completed in September, and the defendant is currently studying the indictment papers. It is currently up to him and his lawyers when they are done with these papers. After that the court proceedings will take place in order to close this file, and it is only after the proceedings come to an end that we can make decisions based on the official bilateral documents on law enforcement.

I note that there is much talk about Paul Whelan’s health. We treat this issue with all seriousness. He gets regular check-ups with our doctors. He was complaining about an inguinal hernia, and he was offered the opportunity to have an operation, but he refused. I would like to note that Paul Whelan has adopted an arrogant posture. It may be that this was the tactic chosen by his lawyers. He threatens the staff of the Federal Penitentiary Service to make holes in their heads with a drill, and makes other arrogant statements. It may well be that he was advised to act this way by his lawyers. If his goal is to build an image of a martyr, this approach is probably wrong and unfair. Let me reiterate that we are acting in strictly keeping with the law and the applicable international norms.



Question:

Do you believe that Ukraine meddled in the US election in 2016, and is that specifically something that you discussed with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo today?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have nothing to do with this question. It applies to two sovereign countries. It can be said that indirectly it sheds light on the absurdity of the accusations Russia has been facing of meddling in the 2016 election. I have already said that we are ready to release correspondence we exchanged with the US administration regarding the allegations of interference. We are ready to disclose to the public the documents that are so important for the society, as soon as Washington gives its consent.



Question:

Has today’s meeting helped clarify the future of the New START Treaty? Will it be renewed? What do you think about the idea of the US to bring China into the negotiations? Is there a sincere desire to involve China or is it just a “red herring,” as people say here, trying to find a pretext not to extend the treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Vladimir Putin has recently reaffirmed yet again Russia’s readiness to agree to an extension for the New START Treaty in order to ease international tension over the termination of the last arms control instrument between the Russian Federation and the United States. We are ready to do so even today. The ball is in the court of our US partners.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has also commented on China’s involvement on numerous occasions. If the PRC is ready to join in, we will support this approach. Of course, in this case we will have to take other nuclear powers into consideration as well, including both acknowledged and unacknowledged nuclear weapons states. However, China has made it clear that it will not be part of these negotiations since it is far behind both Russia and the US in terms of the number of its nuclear weapons and the structure of its nuclear arsenal. Today we looked at the statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) regarding China’s nuclear arsenal. It is several times lower compared to Russia and the US.

That said, let me reiterate that if China is ready, we are open to considering transforming nuclear disarmament into a multilateral process. Nevertheless, as Vladimir Putin said to US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in Sochi in May 2019, this has to be negotiated. In fact, our US colleagues have yet to put their formal proposals down on paper. This will take some time. In the meantime, in order to avoid a vacuum Russia and the United States as the biggest nuclear powers could extend the New START Treaty in order to calm the international community. This would be a good thing to do.



Question (addressed to Michael Pompeo):

If the attempt to enlist China in discussing the New START Treaty, given Beijing’s objectives outlined by Mr Lavrov, fails, will you be ready to extend the Treaty, albeit in a limited format without the PRC?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Michael Pompeo):

Replying to this question, Mike Pompeo said that in suggesting to expand the number of participants in the strategic nuclear arms control talks, the US had in view, as he put it, a “set of conditions,” rather than the ceilings of each of the participants. This is the first such explanation coming from an official US representative. It is for this reason that I mentioned the fact that it would be easier for us and other intended recipients of this US idea to consider it if it were somehow formulated.



Question:

You said that you would like to receive from the US some additional information on the Russian meddling in the US elections. Why not just read Special Counsel Mueller’s report where there are many details on US accusations against Moscow in what it concerns its interference in the 2016 elections?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have read this report. It contains no confirmation of any collusion. Let me repeat for the fourth time our proposal to publish the data that would show how Russia responded, through a special channel created to review cyber threats, how Russia aimed to discuss this in a confidential manner, and how the Obama administration turned down all these proposals. I think the publication of all these data would harm neither the transparency of the process nor Special Counsel Mueller himself in that his report should reflect the entire picture, and the journalists too would probably find it interesting to read. I reaffirm our proposal.



Question:

Is there any progress on establishing a Russian-American business council?



Sergey Lavrov:

Today, we discussed our economic cooperation, including the possibility of making organisational improvements to it as a follow-up to the discussions that President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump had in Hamburg, in Helsinki, and recently in Osaka.



Question:

Given the massive expulsions of Russian diplomats several years ago, it seems obvious that the consular services in both Russia and the United States find it more difficult to operate, including the issue of visas to official delegations. Was this matter discussed? Are you planning to resume consular operations?



Sergey Lavrov:

We fully agree with the expediency of effective operations by the consular services. We were talking about the visas today. Let me give you the following figures: the US diplomatic missions in the Russian Federation have 155 more employees than Russian diplomatic offices operating on the bilateral track; 155 is the number of Russian representatives at the UN. When we decided to ensure parity in terms of diplomatic representation, we chose not to subtract from the overall quota those diplomats who do not oversee bilateral relations, nor have the right to do so. Therefore, we have 155 diplomats fewer here than the US has in Russia. Regrettably, Russian citizens have to wait for 300 days for a visa interview in Moscow, 40 in Vladivostok, and over 30 in Yekaterinburg. I mean, only in order to be interviewed. Our US colleagues explain this by the fact that all their consular employees left after the imposition of quotas. Probably each country has the right to determine the structure of its diplomatic mission. We also had to cut where it hurt and many consular employees left. But in our case, there was not a single instance of foot-dragging on the issue of visas. All the visas are issued within the same timeframes as before these nasty developments in our bilateral relations. We think that it is of fundamental importance to maintain precisely this approach, considering the significance of people-to-people contacts – sports, cultural, inter-parliamentary and others. The more Americans and Russians visit each other, the easier this travel will be, and the better in terms of strengthening our relations and partnership that, as I said, has enormous potential.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3945473
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 23rd, 2019 #48
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following his visit to the US, Washington, December 10, 2019



11 December 2019 - 05:14






We are winding up our visit to the United States, [which took place] at the invitation of Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. In addition to the talks with Mr Pompeo and his team, following which we held a news conference at the US Department of State, there was a meeting at the White House with US President Donald Trump that passed, as I believe, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, primarily in what concerns the responsibility of Russia and the US for the state of affairs in the world.

We stated that there were a number of serious problems – [alas,] there is no escaping from them. We understand the specificity of the current situation, above all that of the domestic political environment in the United States, but both sides share an intention to do more and make more efforts to achieve concrete results in the spheres, where we can collaborate in a mutually beneficial and effective manner.

We paid special attention to strategic stability, global security, and the state of affairs in the field of arms control and non-proliferation. The situation is quite grave. There is just one Russian-US treaty remaining in force – I am referring to the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or the so-called New START Treaty. We have proposed and reaffirmed that this treaty should be extended. Moreover, we think it essential to adopt a decision on this extension the earlier, the better – before the end of this year – as President of the Russian FederationVladimir Putin suggested recently.

Naturally, we take into consideration the situation around the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). We have reminded [the US] about President Putin’s proposal to impose a mutual moratorium on the development and deployment of the armaments banned under the INF Treaty. We will be prepared to discuss this with our US colleagues, if they are interested. If not, we can do nothing about it. As Vladimir Putin stressed, our security is reliably ensured. But we are conscious of our responsibility for preserving and consolidating at least some disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation instruments. A Russia-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution on preserving and consolidating these instruments was adopted by 174 votes, with no one voting against All Western countries, including the United States, voted for it. This at least gives us hope, small though it is, that Washington is still aware that a collapse of this entire system must not be allowed.

In a number of other spheres, we have an opportunity to cooperate usefully to benefit both our relations and international stability. I mean the dialogues that are being continued and the mechanisms on Syria, Afghanistan, and the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula that are still ongoing.

We talked today about the need to take some steps to prevent an aggravation of the Gulf crisis and to address problems originating from the US unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme.

In conclusion, we discussed prospects for economic collaboration. Our mutual trade will have grown by 25 percent at the yearend by comparison with 2016. We understand that this is not the limit of our potential, although this growth is taking place against the background of sanctions. Both business communities are interested in promoting mutually beneficial cooperation.





Question:

Did you have another chance to invite US President Donald Trump to Moscow for the Victory Day events? Did you manage to get any answer out of him? Did you consider the possibility of an official meeting of the presidents of Russia and the US?



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin invited US President Donald Trump to attend Victory Day celebrations on May 9, 2020 in Moscow during their meeting in Japan on the sidelines of the G20 in June. I have reaffirmed this invitation today, on behalf of Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump is contemplating this.

We hope that if such an opportunity arises, a full-fledged bilateral summit will certainly be possible.



Question:

The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the completion of our projects?



Sergey Lavrov:

In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted.



Question:

Today you had the opportunity to talk to Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump. Did Donald Trump complain to you, in a private conversation maybe, about the Democrats launching the impeachment process? Do you think it was pure chance that Donald Trump received you at the White House today – the same day the Democrats began a new stage of impeachment?



Sergey Lavrov:

Answering your first question, I have already mentioned the topics we discussed. I also said in my opening remarks that we have not discussed anything else. As for the schedule of US Congress meetings, frankly, I was never interested. Are you saying they scheduled a meeting when they found out that I was arriving today?



Question:

In your discussion about Syria with President Trump and Mike Pompeo, have you noticed any new position that would facilitate the political solution in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

Mike Pompeo and I discussed the problems of the Syrian peace process. We have a shared position, which we reaffirmed today: there is no military solution, but an inclusive nationwide dialogue needs to be promoted, mainly in the framework of the political process at the Constitutional Committee launched in Geneva, and ways should be sought to involve Kurds in the political process, mainly through helping them to establish contact with the central government in Syria – this is something we are confident of. We are talking with them about this, showing that it is the only reliable way to ensure the interests of the Kurds as well as other ethnic and religious groups in Syria. Russia and the US have a dialogue channel on Syria, mainly between the military departments as part of the so-called deconfliction process. There are also contacts between the ministries of foreign affairs.



Question:

And, if I may ask you about your assessment of the situation in Lebanon and Iraq – what’s the position of Russia regarding what’s happening in Lebanon and Iraq?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our position is that the current crisis in these countries can be resolved exclusively through a national dialogue with the involvement of all political, ethnic and religious groups. In Lebanon, it should be based on respect for the principles underlying the Lebanese Constitution. We consider this to be fundamentally crucial. It is essential to prevent a situation where an ethnic group will be excluded from these processes, also under the pretext that some technical authorities need to be formed. Such a step would seriously deviate from the traditions that have allowed Lebanese society to maintain its integrity and ensure the country’s sovereignty.

We support the government of Iraq, now forced to fight the remaining terrorist groups while at the same time working to consolidate society, again on an interethnic and interreligious basis involving both the Shiites and Sunnis, and with respect for the role that Kurdistan plays in the Iraqi statehood. I have recently visited Iraq; I have been to Baghdad and Erbil. We have expressed solidarity with the Iraqi leaders’ efforts on this track.

I hope both Lebanon and Iraq will avoid a destructive intervention of external forces, but that all external players will encourage both Lebanese and Iraqis to reach an agreement at the national level. Only in this way can these countries become stable, as well as the region.



Question:

At your joint news conference with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo he said that despite all the differences, the United States is committed to expanding cooperation on fighting terrorism and drug trafficking. Could you share any details of this conversation? Did you agree on enabling the bilateral working group on counterterrorism or other forms of interaction between the law enforcement agencies of the two countries to resume full and regular work?



Sergey Lavrov:

When President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump met in Helsinki back in the summer of 2018, they supported our proposal to promote cooperation on counterterrorism. Under the Obama administration the working group offered a framework for these ties. In the midst of the decisions that were later taken against Russia by the United States this format was suspended at Washington’s initiative, alongside many other contacts we had. In 2019, at Vladimir Putin’s and Donald Trump’s initiative we resumed dialogue in the format, which consists of regular consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers and deputy secretaries of state. Russia is represented in these consultations by Deputy Minister Oleg Syromolotov, and the US is represented by his counterpart, John Sullivan, who is about to complete his confirmation hearings to become ambassador to the Russian Federation. We hope that it will not take long before the US finds a new head for its delegation. By the way, both the Russian and the US delegations are formed out of people from various agencies, including diplomats, the military and other agencies in charge of dealing with the terrorist threat. This is a very useful mechanism that provides for a comprehensive approach to working together on this urgent matter.



Question:

It looks like on the START Treaty you have not made a lot of progress with the US. You have floated the idea that maybe Moscow would be up for an extension of less than five years. Did you put this proposal forward to Secretary Pompeo and President Trump? Did you receive any sympathetic response to that?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our proposal to Washington consisted of saying that all options are on the table for extending the New START Treaty. This will be my brief answer to this question. It reflects the gist of our discussion.



Question:

My other question is on North Korea. What sanctions should be lifted so that the talks between Pyongyang and Washington can get going?



Sergey Lavrov:

We believe that there were already enough sanctions against the DPRK, maybe even more than enough, considering the unilateral sanctions on top of those imposed by the UN Security Council. We believe that since each UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions also stipulates the need for a political process, this requires a flexible approach. Among other things, the current sanctions regime affects humanitarian affairs in one way or another.

There was a telling example that I brought to the attention of Secretary Pompeo today, and he promised to take a look into this situation. The Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) had a project to openly deliver to the DPRK humanitarian aid that was totally legal. The items included in these humanitarian deliveries did not breach in any way any bans imposed by the UN Security Council, and was not related in any way to the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US in addition to the UN sanctions. Still, the FAO’s attempts to find a supplier and, more importantly, an operator for delivering the aid to the DPRK were faced with a serious obstacle, since everyone is simply afraid to sign on to this operation, while nothing prevents it from being carried out. This “sword of Damocles” must be removed, and this should be formalised in one way or another. Our US colleagues understand this issue. I do hope that they also understand the need to stimulate DPRK’s interest in promoting cooperation by taking steps to meet Pyongyang halfway in response to what the DPRK has already done by imposing a lasting freeze on its tests. However Pyongyang never saw any positive action in response. We will promote a plan of action that Russia devised in cooperation with the PRC taking into consideration the comments from the US and the Republic of Korea. It is our hope that this plan of action will help the sides resume direct talks instead of presenting each other with ultimatums.

As I have already said, it would be unrealistic to expect the DPRK to do everything the US wants from it and complete the denuclearisation process, and only after that reap the benefits, improve its economic standing, have the sanctions lifted and get security guarantees. Our US colleagues use the terms “denuclearisation of the DPRK.” This notion is imprecise and inaccurate, since all the agreements are about denuclearising the Korean Peninsula. These are different things, as you can plainly see. We will continue to encourage the sides to resume a dialogue, but for that there must be reciprocal steps in response to the actions the DPRK has already taken.



Question:

Today Mike Pompeo said that the White House would soon be ready to issue a big statement on economic cooperation with Russia. Do you know what he was talking about? Did you discuss this?



Sergey Lavrov:

We discussed today the reviewing of the principal agreement between our countries’ presidents, reached in Helsinki last year and proposed by Vladimir Putin. I mean the establishment of a Consultative Business Council that would unite heads of private businesses - seven to ten people from each side - and that would enjoy the support of Moscow and Washington and develop pragmatic agreements on mutually beneficial projects in the economy and investment. Our colleagues said they supported the idea. In line with President Trump’s instruction, they are developing their response. Probably this is what Mr Pompeo meant.



Question:

You’ve seen President Trump in action for three years now. Do you think that he is a reliable partner for Russia, someone that you can count on to do what you want him to do, what he promises to do?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is primarily up to the American people to decide on President Trump’s actions. Speaking about relations with Russia, we have no reason to doubt that President Trump fully understands what the Americans, US businesses, the US in general and the global situation would gain from good relations between Russia and the US. That is, from relations that must not have any shade of concessions to one side or the other, that must be based on a balance of interests, on pragmatism and mutual benefit. This is our general impression of US President Donald Trump. We know that not everyone in the US shares his stance and some want to stall the normalisation of our relations by any means, including the introduction of new sanctions. I hear that a Democratic senator Robert Menendez is advocating sanctions because the Russians suffer from the oligarchs. This is an interesting legal story. Let me repeat: we have no doubt that President Trump is sincere and fully understands that the US would only benefit from normal relations with Russia.



Question:

The strain that the impeachment process has put on the Ukraine-US relationship. What sort of leverage do you think that gives Russia in your discussions with Ukraine about ending your conflict with it?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not understand what we have to do with the relationship between the US and Ukraine and what leverage can be used here. These are relations between two sovereign states and this is how we see them.



Question:

Do you leave here more hopeful or less hopeful that New START can be extended than when you came? Or is there a drop-dead date, after which it would be too late to extend the treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

February 5, 2021, is this date. Until then, everything is in our hands and the hands of the US. Our proposals are on the table. I know that they have heard us. It’s up to Washington to decide now.



Question:

The White House has put out a statement about your meeting with President Trump saying that the President did warn you not to interfere in US elections and also urged you to try and settle your conflict or the situation with Ukraine. Did you discuss these two items and if so, could you tell us about the discussion?



Sergey Lavrov:

We did not discuss elections at all. And speaking about Ukraine, I shared with Mr Trump and Mr Pompeo my opinion about the Normandy format summit held yesterday in Paris. This opinion is based on the summit’s final document, which was adopted and circulated, including in the media.



Question:

What do you think of the United States, based on your discussions on Syria? Do you think the Trump administration is coming along, or maybe accepting the Assad regime’s rule in Syria? Or were they more critical of the Russian position, critical of the Russian bombing in Idlib? Maybe opening an embassy in Damascus? What’s your opinion of how the United States views the Assad regime?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for how the United States views the legitimate government of Syria, you had better ask the American authorities. At least, the support that the United States provided, though not immediately, to the Constitutional Committee in Syria − which as you know, consists of three parts, one representing the interests of the government, another representing the opposition, and the third, civil society – indicates that the United States accepts the realities that exist in Syria. It is these realities that underlie the Constitutional Committee. Today I sensed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s interest in achieving a result in the work on constitutional reform, as stipulated by the UN Security Council resolution.

As for Idlib, I told Mike Pompeo that the city has become a hotbed of terrorism. Unfortunately, our Turkish colleagues have yet failed to fulfill their commitment to delineate between the armed opposition not tainted by any terrorist acts and Jabhat al-Nusra, now disguised as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – something they pledged to do in September 2018. We understand that this is difficult to accomplish. The Obama administration once assured us they would filter out the militants who were ready for a political dialogue from Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists. This promise was never made good on – the Obama administration proved unable to do so. We had doubts then about Washington’s attitude to Jabhat al-Nusra and suspicions that the terrorist group was being preserved to be later used against the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad. Be that as it may, unlike ISIS, which suffered heavy losses and was scattered into disparate groups, Jabhat al-Nusra has seized control of the Idlib de-escalation zone and is attacking the Syrian troops’ positions, civilian infrastructure and Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base. We naturally respond to each of these strikes. This situation definitely cannot be maintained forever. It should develop towards the end result – a complete liberation of this zone from terrorists and the restoration of the legitimate government’s control over the entire territory of Syria. It is also alarming that the terrorists who control this zone are spreading themselves throughout the region. A large group has been spotted in Libya, where they are adding fuel to the clashes that hamper the resumption of political dialogue.

We discussed in detail the Syria situation, as well as what is happening on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, where the United States, at the head of its coalition, which came uninvited to Syria, is rigorously arranging the life of the local population, supported by Kurdish units and occasionally causing confrontations between the Kurds and Arab tribes when the Kurds come to their traditional lands and wish to stay there. We proposed that the United States resolve the issues of the east coast through promoting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as stipulated in the UN Security Council resolution Washington supported.



Question:

It’s not even a few hours since the end of your meeting with Donald Trump, and American journalists and politicians have already expressed a wave of criticism of its format – it was held behind closed doors and the media were not present. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, described the meeting as “the success of Russian propaganda.” Do you feel that you have been successful?



Sergey Lavrov:

Firstly, the Russian media were not allowed to attend either, so it was not just about the US media. If Adam Schiff describes routine contacts between foreign ministers and the fact that a visiting foreign minister was received by the host country’s president as a “triumph of Russian diplomacy,” maybe the next thing we know is that our diplomats, like our athletes, are being accused of taking dope and are then prosecuted. The absurdity of Adam Schiff’s position is fully obvious to me, as I am sure, to any sane person.



Question:

As you know, the President last time you were here disclosed some highly classified information during your meeting. I wanted to know if anything, to your knowledge, has been discussed today that would be considered highly classified?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can only know the answer to your second question from what you are going to write. At our first meeting with President Trump, no one disclosed any classified or confidential information, as has been said many times. If anyone believes differently, we would like to know what specific information was being referred to in this story, which is already becoming surreal.

I don’t know what you will regard as classified information. We have spoken about things I have described to you honestly, almost word for word. Think about this. If you find any secret, you will have a scoop.



Question:

A scandal is unfolding in Great Britain due to the publication of a dossier with details on talks about the national healthcare system between London and Washington. Some politicians, for example Jeremy Corbyn, have already accused Russia of interfering in the British election by publishing this dossier. Would you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not heard this, but I am not surprised. I have not heard about this exact aspect of our alleged interference in the relations between the US and Great Britain. I heard that my former counterpart, now Prime Minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson, said openly that Russia did not interfere in British affairs during Brexit nor does it interfere now. In this instance, I believe him.



Question:

Your visit coincided with the discussion of several draft laws on sanctions in the Senate. Do you consider sanction risks when you execute foreign policy decisions? Do you warn the country’s leadership about such risks?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is a coincidence that our delegation arrived in Washington on the day when new sanctions were being discussed. Before that, there was a question about our arrival coinciding with the discussion of the impeachment. It seems to me that no matter what day we chose to come to Washington, it would be a day of sanctions, impeachment or something like that.



Question:

The White House issued a read-up that explicitly said that President Trump warned you against any Russian interference in US elections. Are you saying that this warning was not delivered?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have not read the White House’s read-up about our conversation. We have issued our own: read it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at the news conference at the State Department that the US warned Russia against interfering in the elections, and I responded. I told President Trump that Mr Pompeo had mentioned this in public. In response, I said in public that we had made an offer to the current administration that we disclose the correspondence between Moscow and Washington, between October 2016 and January 2017, via the special channel designed to counter any risks in cyberspace. This would make it clear that we were ready to cooperate on any issue related to the US’ suspicions about Russia’s interference in the elections. The Obama administration was bluntly refusing to establish such cooperation. What else can we offer, if direct confirmation of our readiness to discuss any US concern is rejected and if the current administration refuses to disclose this correspondence (I don’t know why)? This was discussed publicly at the news conference at the State Department.



Question:

What is your impression of the personal conversation with President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky? Can it be that, apart from Kiev and Moscow, Washington can also help resolve the conflict in Donbass more quickly? Maybe, the United States should also join the Normandy format?



Sergey Lavrov:

The atmosphere of the Normandy format talks and those between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky was constructive, mutually respectful and pragmatic. Unlike many Ukrainian politicians who openly ideologise the problems existing in Ukraine, the presidents did not do this during the talks. The parties openly displayed a business-like desire to conduct detailed and result-oriented talks rather than make a loud statement and make themselves heard in their respective “constituencies.”

Speaking of capitals where it is necessary to search for an additional resource to help resolve Ukrainian problems and fulfil the Minsk Agreements, after Kiev, I would rather mention Donetsk and Lugansk, than Moscow and Washington. This is the gist of the problem, the essence of the Minsk Agreements – direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. Today, Ukrainian nationalists, ultra-radicals and neo-Nazis are putting on a show and demanding that Vladimir Zelensky must not surrender the homeland, capitulate, commit high treason or launch any direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. It appears that Petr Poroshenko, who signed the Minsk Agreements, more or less heads this process. This is aimed at preventing any settlement and at continuing with efforts to abide by an adage that implies that most people suffer from war, while some profit from it. This is deplorable.

We hope that Vladimir Zelensky will unfailingly honour his election campaign promises, namely, ending the war, stopping the loss of human lives and ensuring peace throughout Ukraine. This can be accomplished by fulfilling the Minsk Agreements. This matter was discussed in Paris, first and foremost. The very first clause of the document, approved yesterday by the Presidents of Russia, Ukraine and France and the Chancellor of Germany, says that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements. Any country, including the United States, as well as other Western and non-Western countries, could help by persuading the Ukrainian side which it influences (in case of the US, it is Kiev) to conscientiously fulfil the Minsk Agreements.

Nothing good would come of it, if the United States continued to adhere to the positions advocated by Kurt Volker, the former US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. It should be recalled that he suggested deploying occupation forces in Donbass under the UN flag, abolishing all agencies that now ensure the everyday activities of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics, establishing an international administration there, deploying an international police force in the region and thereby resolving the crisis and holding elections after that. Understandably, the occupation administration would see elections as a “cosmetic” affair after the deployment of occupation forces. We hope that our work to explain the situation around the Minsk Agreements will not be in vain. Our foreign colleagues will help unfailingly honour UN Security Council Resolution 2202 that unanimously approved the Minsk Agreements.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3945562






Joint Statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey on the International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format (Nur-Sultan, 10-11 December 2019)



11 December 2019 - 13:37



The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format:

1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and highlighted that these principles should be universally respected and complied with;

2. Rejected in this regard all attempts to create new realities on the ground, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives, under the pretext of combating terrorism, and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries;

3. Expressed their opposition to the illegal seizure and transfer of oil revenues that should belong to the Syrian Arab Republic;

4. Condemned the continuing Israel`s military attacks in Syria in violation of the international law and international humanitarian law and undermining the sovereignty of Syria and neighboring countries as well as endangering the stability and security in the region;

5. Discussed the situation in the north-east of Syria and agreed that long‑term security and stability in this region can only be achieved on the basis of preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Welcomed in this regard signing of the Memorandum of 22 October 2019 on stabilization in the north-east of Syria and reaffirmed the importance of the Adana agreement of 1998;

6. Reviewed in detail the situation in the Idlib de-escalation area and highlighted the necessity to establish calm on the ground by fully implementing all agreements on Idlib, first and foremost the Memorandum of 17 September 2018. Expressed serious concern with the increased presence and terrorist activity of “Hayat Tahrir al‑Sham” and other affiliated terrorist groups as designated by the UN Security Council that pose threat to civilians inside and outside the de-escalation area. Reaffirmed in this regard the determination to continue cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council. While deploring civilian casualties, they agreed to undertake concrete measures, based on the previous agreements, to ensure the protection of the civilian population in accordance with the international humanitarian law as well as the safety and security of the military personnel of the guarantors present within and outside the Idlib de-escalation area;

7. Expressed their conviction that there could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict and reaffirmed their commitment to advance viable and lasting Syrian‑led and Syrian‑owned, UN-facilitated political process in line with the UN Security Council resolution 2254;

8. Emphasized in this regard the importance of the formation and convening of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva on 30 October 2019 as a result of the decisive contribution of the Astana guarantors and the implementation of the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Expressed the readiness to support the work of the committee through continuous interaction with its members and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen, as facilitator, in order to ensure its sustainable and effective work. Expressed the conviction that the committee in its work should be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement without foreign interference and externally imposed timelines aimed at reaching general agreement of its members;

9. Reaffirmed their determination to continue operations on mutual release of detainees/abductees within the framework of the respective Working Group of the Astana format. Underscored that the Working Group was a unique mechanism, that had proved to be effective and necessary for building confidence between the Syrian parties, and agreed to take measures to continue its work;

10. Emphasized the need to increase humanitarian assistance to all Syrians throughout the country without discrimination, politicization and preconditions. In order to support the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Syria and the progress in the process of the political settlement, called upon the international community, the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies, to enhance the assistance to Syria, inter alia by developing early recovery projects, including the restoration of basic infrastructure assets - water and power supply facilities, schools and hospitals as well as the humanitarian mine action in accordance with the international humanitarian law;

11. Highlighted the need to facilitate safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to their original places of residence in Syria, ensuring their right to return and right to be supported. In this regard they called upon the international community to provide appropriate contributions and reaffirmed their readiness to continue interaction with all relevant parties, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other specialized international agencies. Agreed to further discuss the realization of their initiatives to organize international conferences on the humanitarian assistance to Syria and the return of Syrian refugees;

12. Took note with appreciation of the constructive engagement of the delegations of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon as observers of the Astana format and highlighted the important role these countries play in the efforts to bring peace and stability in Syria;

13. Expressed their sincere gratitude to the Kazakh authorities for hosting in Nur-Sultan the 14th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format;

14. Decided to hold the next International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format in Nur-Sultan in March 2020.



Nur-Sultan, 11 December 2019




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3949043
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2019 #49
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko’s interview with the magazine Soyuznoye Gosudarstvo, published on December 12, 2019



12 December 2019 - 10:06



Question:

What have we achieved in the 20 years since the establishment of the Union State?



Andrey Rudenko:

On December 8, we marked the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on the Creation of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. The main achievement of our integration process over a period of the past 20 years is a palpable economic effect and a positive influence of our close integration on the quality of people’s life.

Union State citizens have practically equal rights to work, education, social security and medical services. They are free to choose a place of residence and enjoy freedom of movement. Various kinds of tourism such as cultural, medical and environmental have become very popular thanks to the absence of any borders between Russia and Belarus. This is only part of the opportunities, which people in Russia and Belarus habitually profit by. Question: What could make the Union State an example for other integration associations in the post-Soviet space?



Andrey Rudenko:

The Union State is not just able to be an example of integration, it has actually become one. The Russian-Belarusian integration processes have largely turned back the centrifugal trends in the post-Soviet space and have led to the establishment of new regional associations such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO).

The Union State mechanisms – the Supreme State Council, the Council of Ministers and the High-Level Group – enable us to find mutually beneficial solutions to any issues, whose range is much wider than at the EAEU, in particular, in the field of labour migration.



Question:

Can Belarus be described as our main strategic partner and ally in these difficult geopolitical conditions?



Andrey Rudenko:

There are no main or secondary allies, they can only be reliable or unreliable. Belarus is a reliable ally. The all-round development of allied relations between Moscow and Minsk has been sealed as a priority in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept.



Question:

Would you say that Russia and Belarus are pursuing coordinated foreign policies?



Andrey Rudenko:

Yes, that is definitely the case. Our countries are closely coordinating their efforts at the main international platforms, including the UN and the OSCE. This is being done through the biennial programmes of coordinated actions of states parties to the Union State Treaty. The latest such programme was signed for 2020-2021 at the joint meeting of the foreign ministry collegiums of Russia and Belarus held in Moscow on November 18, 2019. It sets out the goal of promoting our joint initiatives on disarmament, protection of traditional values, and the fight against the falsification of history, neo-Nazism and human trafficking. We have a unique system of exchanges, under which Belarusian diplomats receive on-site training at our ministry’s OSCE and Council of Europe departments, while Russian diplomats are trained at the relevant departments of the Belarusian foreign ministry.



Question:

What are the most important items on the current Russian-Belarusian agenda?



Andrey Rudenko:

Russia and Belarus maintain a multifaceted dialogue, and I believe therefore that it would not be right to put any subjects ahead of others. Of course, trade and economic cooperation is a vital pillar of the Union State dialogue. But there are other equally important topics, such as our close interaction on foreign policy, or our cooperation in the social sphere aimed at ensuring equal rights for our citizens, our joint research projects, or cooperation in the defence sector, space exploration, pharmaceutics, healthcare, culture and arts. Therefore, the answer is that all the numerous facets of our dialogue have a unique function and each of them is important in its own way.



Question:

When can we reach a mutual visa recognition agreement?



Andrey Rudenko:

The coordination of the text ended in November 2018. Russia has completed all the necessary internal procedures needed to submit the agreement for signature. The document can be signed as soon as we know that Belarus has done the same. We hope that this will happen soon, because an agreement that creates conditions for the legal crossing of the Russian-Belarusian border by foreign nationals meets the interests of both countries and will also contribute to the creation of a common migration space.



Question:

How often do you travel to Belarus? Do you feel at home there?



Andrey Rudenko:

I have been to Minsk and other Belarusian cities many times. My impressions are very positive, largely thanks to the traditional Belarusian hospitality for which I am sincerely grateful.



Question:

What would you like to wish Union State citizens on the 20th anniversary of the Union State Treaty?



Andrey Rudenko:

I would like to wish well-being, health and happiness to all Russian and Belarusian families, which I see as close friends. I would like them to cherish our common history, our victories and our common aspiration to ensure peace and prosperity for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3953527






Comment by the Information and Press Department on reports on certain economic operators’ activities in the Central African Republic



12 December 2019 - 17:09



As the Political Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in the Central African Republic, signed on February 6, is being implemented, the CAR government is gradually expanding control over the territories formerly ruled by numerous armed groups. The general stabilisation in the country and the strengthening of the local government are having a positive effect on the development of the mining industry, which is important for the Central African Republic.

We have noted reports that certain economic operators are allegedly extracting mineral resources in areas still controlled by militants, thereby supporting their anti-government activities. In particular, the Central African company Lobaye Invest, funded by Russian private capital, is occasionally mentioned in these reports.

In this context, we feel compelled to note that such information is unreliable and therefore can be classified as planted for political purposes or considered an act of unfair competition. According to information from the Russian Embassy in the Central African Republic, supported by official correspondence from the country’s government, the licenses issued to Lobaye Invest by the Central African authorities apply exclusively to territories under well-established Bangui control. This provides an acceptable level of security. Even so, the company has not yet begun mineral mining there. In any case, Lobaye Invest will perform its mining activities in strict accordance with the laws of the Central African Republic and the Kimberley Process Rules of Procedure for the benefit of the people of that country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3954216
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 24th, 2019 #50
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, December 12, 2019



12 December 2019 - 17:28







Exhibition on the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Grenada

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


Official visit by Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada Colindres to the Russian Federation

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


Presentation of Vitaly Churkin memoirs

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to meet with the Arab states’ ambassadors

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



Update on Syria

The most difficult situation in Syria remains in the areas that are beyond the control of the Syrian government, primarily the Idlib de-escalation zone and the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

We continue to implement the memorandum of October 22 focusing on the area east of the Euphrates River in conjunction with Ankara. The work is two-pronged and seeks to prevent a resumption of hostilities and improve the humanitarian situation. To resolve the first problem, the Kurdish units were withdrawn from the border with Turkey, regular joint patrols were established, a demilitarised zone was created along the perimeter of the Operation Peace Spring, and a Russian-Turkish coordination centre is now operational. On the humanitarian track, Russian specialists are providing medical help to civilians (about 3,000 patients), distributing food packages to the needy (totaling about 5 tonnes) and restoring water and power supply sites.

In this regard, we noted the UN OCHA report on the situation in the Al-Hawl refugee camp in northeastern Syria which, as you are aware, we are closely monitoring. The UN representatives noted a stabilisation of the situation in the camp, which was achieved largely due to the efforts of the Syrian government. The humanitarian organisations working in the regions east of the Euphrates River quickly restored the minimally required level of medical support at Al-Hawl and are now establishing sustainable humanitarian access to the camp. Currently, it is home to about 69,000 people, and several hundred IDPs have already returned to their homes in the areas controlled by the Syrian authorities.

The situation in Idlib remains difficult. Terrorists continue to shell nearby areas, endangering the civilians inside and outside the de-escalation zone. Every day, we record about 40 attacks. For example, on December 4, jihadists fired at a fitness club in Tel Rifaat (Aleppo Governorate), eight children were killed and 13 injured. A day earlier, as a result of another incident in the south of Aleppo, a 6-year-old boy died, and his mother and two brothers were badly wounded. We must once again point out that the Idlib problem will not be resolved as long as the terrorists “rule the roost” there.

The 14th international meeting on Syria in the Astana format ended in Nur-Sultan yesterday (a joint statement by Russia, Turkey and Iran was posted on the Foreign Ministry website). The dynamics of this format clearly show its relevance and effectiveness. The Astana format brought together not only the three guarantor countries (Russia, Iran and Turkey), but also the Syrian parties (the government and armed opposition), the UN and Syria’s Arab neighbours (Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq). The participants discussed in detail the situation on the ground in Syria, fighting terrorism, addressing pressing humanitarian problems, assisting in returning refugees, strengthening confidence-building measures, including the release of forcibly detained individuals and advancing the political settlement process. These topics will continue to be monitored by the participants of this format.

On November 21, the Syrian authorities, through mediation by the Russian military, released 120 prisoners, which is an important humanitarian gesture.

Syria continues to restore economic and sociopolitical ties with its Arab neighbours. Syria will resume its citrus fruit exports to Iraq soon via land transport through the recently re-opened Abu Kamal border crossing.

Senior officials from the Union of Journalists of Syria took part in a meeting of the Arab Union of Journalists in Riyadh. According to local commentators, this trip to Saudi Arabia was the first in recent years for the Syrian officials.

A delegation of Syrian parliament members took part in a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, in Rome, dedicated to fighting international terrorism.

In mid-December, Syria’s private airline, Cham Wings Airlines will resume flights to Western Europe, which were interrupted in 2012. Service to Berlin will be offered twice a week from Damascus International Airport. Next year, service to Dusseldorf will resume.



Update on Iraq

Mass protests have been continuing in Baghdad and a number of Iraq’s Shia provinces since early October. At the outset these protests were driven by socioeconomic slogans and were peaceful. However, at a certain point they took on a political dimension, and in some parts of the country, including the capital, government facilities and political party offices have come under attack. This has led to clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement, leaving about 400 people dead and over 15,000 wounded, according to various sources.

Measures to stabilise the situation taken by the Iraqi government and Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi have done little to calm the social tension. As a result, the prime minister announced his intention to resign. On December 1, the Iraqi parliament accepted his resignation with the understanding that the cabinet will stay on as a caretaker government.

The country’s president is currently engaged in proactive consultations with the main parliamentary groups to agree on a new cabinet head. We hope they will be able to reach consensus within the timeframe as set forth in Iraq’s constitution in order to avoid a power vacuum and avert an escalation of the political crisis within the country.

As far as Russia is concerned, we support initiatives by the Iraqi authorities to promote a nation-wide inclusive dialogue taking into consideration the interests of all ethnic and religious groups within the country and socioeconomic reforms.

We call on all political forces in Iraq to exercise restraint and once again reaffirm that only the people of Iraq can resolve issues on the national agenda in keeping with the law and without outside interference.

We hope that the Iraqi people, after all the suffering they have gone through, will not become hostage once again to political posturing and outside ambitions, while Iraq will not be used by outside forces as an arena for settling scores.



Developments in and around Venezuela

We regularly provide detailed comments on the political developments in Venezuela. While the situation there remains complicated, a glimmer of hope has emerged that a political solution will be found. This is largely due to the efforts of the national dialogue roundtable that serves as a platform for meaningful talks that are becoming increasingly inclusive.

One of the central questions on the agenda is to determine how the electoral process will unfold moving forward. Once these modalities are coordinated, Venezuela will be able to hold a parliamentary election next year under the country’s constitution, with respect for democratic principles and norms.

We noted that people and politicians in Venezuela, including within the opposition, are increasingly opposed to confrontation. According to a recent opinion poll, 67 percent of Venezuelans are ready to vote in an election, and 72 percent oppose the idea of boycotting the vote. This is a positive trend. We expect it to be maintained.

Unfortunately, Washington has no intention of giving up on its policy to remove the legitimate government of Venezuela from power. Despite a somewhat softer rhetoric, the US persists in its attempts to destabilise Venezuela from within and continues to expand its illegal sanctions. It is obvious that the unilateral restrictions imposed by the White House have not brought the anti-government forces any closer to power, while seriously worsening the economic and humanitarian situation in the country. Businesses can more or less adapt to living under sanctions, but civilians, especially people facing hardship, low-income households, people who are sick or children, find the current situation extremely challenging. The restrictive measures imposed by the United States are clearly inhumane.



The NATO summit in London

On December 3-4, a NATO summit was held in London (according to some of its members, the alliance is brain dead) dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the organisation.

Seemingly, the anniversary would be a good occasion to take a critical look at achievements, to think about consistency in NATO’s goals and objectives in the current geopolitical situation, to make sense of relations with the key partners, neighbours and other parties, and to reflect on the future. But, as you know, thinking is only possible when there’s something to think with.

Instead of looking in earnest for answers to real questions faced by all countries of the world and, most importantly – something that has already become obvious even to the average person – which are impossible to cope with on an individual basis, the alliance again brought to the fore a fictitious Russian threat, although other regions in the world received their fair share of accusations as well. A list compiled in London features the Russian threat before international terrorism, illegal migration or cyber threats. This only leads to more questions about NATO’s health.

The policy adopted at summits in Wales, Warsaw and Brussels to step up tensions and ensure NATO’s dominance in all operational spheres – land, water, air, cyberspace, and now outer space – is being followed through on. All the issues regarding traditional spheres of operation have been resolved, so now they will be dealing with outer space. As we understood it, the Allies said “yes” to US demands to increase military spending, which already accounts for more than half of the world’s defence spending and is more than 20 times higher than Russia’s defence budget. The alliance is considering the possibility of moving beyond its geographical area of ​​responsibility as a “rising China” is now in the focus of its attention. NATO's involvement in ICT and innovation technology is expanding.

With regard to Russia, the Alliance stubbornly continues to operate under blueprints dating back to the 1960s. This is about a “double approach” according to the “deterrence plus dialogue” formula. In terms of deterrence, NATO has always been overly enthusiastic. Plans are being implemented to increase combat readiness and to deploy more troops near Russia’s borders. The scope and the number of provocative exercises and maneuvers are on the rise.

But things are much worse when it comes to holding a dialogue. Practical cooperation, including between the militaries, has been frozen for five years and not on Russia’s initiative. From London, we heard the same old words about “security threats” from the east. Talking in terms of a willingness to normalise relations “only if Russia changes its behaviour” and not doing anything to de-escalate military and political tensions is not only pointless, it is dangerous.

Listening to NATO countries confirming their commitment to maintaining and strengthening arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation leaves a sense of pure propaganda. Interestingly, reservations about the need for mandatory consideration for the “prevailing security environment” followed immediately. Apparently, this was required to justify actions that clearly are at odds with the system of treaties in this area or that explicitly undermine it.

Covering its connivance with Washington’s scrapping of the INF Treaty, the Alliance continues to spread unproven accusations against Russia and to avoid meeting Russia halfway in its efforts to maintain predictability and restraint in the missile area. The European countries’ acquiescence to this destructive US approach only encourages Washington’s purported plans to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, which is fraught with the obvious risk of destabilising the situation and an arms race in Europe and other regions.

It is noteworthy that, unlike previous documents of this kind, the declaration of the leaders of the NATO countries does not contain a call to extend the New START Treaty. This was clearly done under pressure from the United States, which systematically creates uncertainty around this matter and refuses to respond to Russia's proposals to come to an agreement as soon as possible and renew the treaty. Clearly, terminating the New START Treaty would deal a fatal blow to the nuclear missile control architecture which we stated more than once. We have gone beyond political statements and offered factual materials on this subject.

At the same time, NATO made sure to reaffirm its status as a “nuclear alliance.” Thus, the NATO practice of “joint nuclear missions,” which include training non-nuclear countries in handling and using US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, was perpetuated, which blatantly violates NPT central provisions, which the Alliance continues to ignore.

The London summit gave the leaders of the NATO countries an opportunity, once again, to swear allegiance to “transatlantic unity” in such a strange manner. This was predictable amid reports of growing contradictions within the Alliance itself. Of course, these contradictions are exclusively NATO’s internal affair. But for us, any attempt to iron them out on an anti-Russian basis is untenable. Contributing to destabilisation amid an already difficult global environment is apparently the most important goal.

As you may be aware, it was decided at the London summit to launch a “thinking process” on the strategic development of NATO. We hope that it involves, among other things, a more balanced and objective analysis of the current state of affairs and prospects for normalising Russia-NATO relations. We believe this meets Europe’s security interests. The path to this lies through rejecting confrontation and searching for ways to jointly overcome the crisis. For our part, we are ready for this. Unlike the Alliance, we have the tools for a thinking process, and we are willing to share them. We hope that NATO will come to realise this, specifically, the fact that maintaining a normal dialogue will add credibility to the North Atlantic space which it needs so much, in particular, with regard to the complex priority issues in this space, such as strategic stability, security and overcoming new threats and challenges.



The outcome of the 24th Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention

In late November, the 24th Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was held in The Hague. The Russian government delegation took part in it, and Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW, Alexander Shulgin, delivered remarks posted on the official site of the Russian Foreign Ministry which you can view.

The conference focused on an overview of the results of work on a wide range of issues on the current agenda of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, including the elimination of the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons, the discussion of the so-called “Syria dossier” and other current activities of this international body.

A key moment was the approval by consensus of additions to the Schedules of the Annex on Chemicals to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which include four families of new toxic chemicals, including the Novichok nerve agents made infamous by the West and developed and studied in a number of NATO and EU countries. The approval of the decisions based on the proposals from Russia as well as the three Western countries (the United States, Canada and the Netherlands) was preceded by sustained and difficult work on agreeing the technical parameters of these complementary initiatives, and the participants put much effort into finding compromises and mutually acceptable solutions. The very fact of their approval by consensus is evidence that we are still capable of reaching an agreement. I mean the members of this organisation when I say “we.” We can reach an agreement when it comes to real steps on enhancing chemical weapons non-proliferation, even despite the apparent confrontation at the organisation due to the exorbitant politicisation by the Western nations of a totally contrived Syrian “chemical dossier,” the Skripal case concocted by the UK, and the illegitimate vesting of the OPCW Technical Secretariat with attribution functions to identify parties responsible for the use of chemical weapons, contrary to the CWC provisions and the exclusive powers of the UN Security Council.

However, there was another case of politicisation in the OPCW activities, which was the decision of the Conference on the 2020 organisation’s budget with veiled funding of the “attribution mechanism,” which we believe was illegitimately set up within the OPCW Technical Secretariat. Russia and about a third of the CWC member states did not associate themselves with this decision by voting against, abstaining, or merely leaving the session hall.

The 24th Session was held in a tense and oftentimes confrontational atmosphere and proved to be another example of how dead set our Western opponents are to continue to turn the OPCW into a tool for pursuing their geopolitical plans in the Middle East and beyond. All that is being done instead of making joint efforts to maintain the authority of this specialised and, in essence, technical organisation and enhancing the integrity of the Convention itself.

It is remarkable in this connection that even against that controversial background Russia’s initiated joint statement by 24 countries on countering “chemical terrorism” was adopted. This kind of document is yet again proof of the need for collective efforts in combating the manifestations and relapses of chemical terrorism, while extremist groups and pseudo-humanitarian NGOs like the White Helmets allied with them continue to carry out terrorist attacks and provocations with toxic chemical and full-fledged chemical war gases in Syria.



Russia’s election to UNESCO bodies

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



Update on the Julian Assange case

Reports of WikiLeaks website founder Julian Assange’s health deteriorating are cause for concern. He is currently being held in the Belmarsh High-Security Prison in the UK. The cruel treatment of the journalist has already become a topic of discussion at the Second Chamber of the States General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Human rights activists regularly cite facts that show that being severely ill, partly due to the conditions of incarceration which was provoked with political resources, Julian Assange has no access to medical aid, he is not given proper nutrition and is constantly subjected to cruel psychological torture. This has been noted by, among others, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer. He visited the journalist with a team of two independent medical experts in May of this year. In his statement, Nils Melzer points out with alarm that “in addition to physical ailments, Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”

The Human Rights Council’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Special Rapporteurs on the right to privacy and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and many others also call for complying with international rights obligations with regard to Julian Assange. This indicates that the international community is speaking almost in one voice. Regardless of whether these mechanisms are official UN agencies or consultative forums, whether these representatives express the point of view of civic society or the stance a specific country, all of them agree that it is a cruel reprisal against a person who does real journalism. Perhaps this journalism in a new form was presented to the world community decades ago, but nevertheless, this is the new journalism we have heard so much about. So, what we are witnessing is a real political crackdown with the use of the most horrendous enforcement actions.

Many organisations, as I said, are calling for observing international human rights obligations with regard to Julian Assange. Recently doctors from the UK and a number of other countries published an open letter to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel asking to transfer him to any medical centre for an urgent expert medical examination by qualified doctors. Over 60 doctors who signed the letter state that in the absence of urgent assessment and treatment Mr Assange could die in prison and that they “have serious concerns about Mr Assange’s fitness to stand trial in February 2020.”

Nevertheless, official London is obviously ignoring the risks to the life and health of a journalist who has been detained for many years, and who was thrown into prison and is being kept under the same conditions as the most dangerous criminals.

Julian Assange’s situation is clearly a violation of the applicable laws, regulations and standards that govern and guarantee freedom of the media and journalist safety by the Western world, and the UK in particular, which claims to be a paragon of democratic standards. This is an example of how the policy of “double standards” looks like in real life – abhorrent. The states that lecture and admonish others on human rights and freedom of expression are completely oblivious of the “values” they promote when it comes to their own interests.

However sad this might be, at present the question is how far the British and their partners are ready to go in their desire to not just take revenge on the journalist but in fact to do away with him. And all this for the mere fact that he was professionally pursuing his job as a journalist.



Russia’s Sputnik News Agency in Estonia

Russia’s Sputnik News Agency in Estonia has found itself in a critical situation, as it has come under unprecedented administrative pressure from the Estonian authorities.

Apparently, the Estonian security police ordered all banks in the country to suspend any transaction related to Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency. Sputnik, and the legal entities, in particular, banks, that provide services to the agency, have already received notices to this effect. This means that the agency will not be able to remit salaries to 80 percent of its employees, make office lease payments or pay for utility bills. Neither will it be able to pay for any goods or services it may need – it will have to almost completely suspend operations.

In addition, the authorities are bringing pressure to bear on the lessor, having put nothing short of an ultimatum to it: the company, which owns the premises has been warned by the security police about the possibility of tough measures being taken against it if it continues fulfilling its obligations under the contract with Russia’s “propaganda media outlet, on which the European Union has imposed sanctions.” What is this harassment about? It is impossible to grasp what the Estonian security police have conjured up. This is the peculiarity of the Estonian information environment, I mean journalists are being taken care of by security police.

Official Tallinn is openly persecuting the information agency, using administrative leverage to block its operations. By using these frankly punitive measures, the Estonian authorities have rushed headlong into a campaign to discriminate against the media in the Baltic states, in particular, media outlets having links with Russia. These countries have imposed a broadcast ban on Russian produced and Russian-language television channels, and have blocked access to websites that are linked to Russia. They are also engaged in banishing journalists from the country.

I would like to note that each time we are told that only journalists who have breached certain rules, visa requirements or accreditation rules are banished from the country. Once again, to be clear, we have for many years been unable to obtain from the European Union Delegation to Russia the list of rules – and the list of countries, which are members of this association – under which journalists can work in and enter these countries. What could be easier than that, one might think. Available on our Foreign Ministry website are a full list of relevant requirements and rules, the procedure for obtaining a visa and accreditation requirements. Everything is transparent. It would be even easier if we did not have these requirements at all, as one would like it, but anyway these requirements have not changed – they are clear and available. We are always ready to consult or provide logistical assistance to anyone in having their documents processed.

However, we have tried but failed to obtain a clear list like ours, or requirements from the European Union – since authorities in Tallinn claim the Russian media “are under EU sanctions.” Their answers are numbing, for example, they say they have no list like this or that it is extremely difficult to hand it over to us and also that each EU member country establishes its own entry rules. Fine, establish your rules, but then you have to lay them out and make them available, so that everyone can understand what a journalist needs to do to enter an EU country and work there, so that no questions arise.

All these repressive measures are a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of international law that safeguard the freedom of expressing one’s opinion and equal access to information. It is bewildering that such severe measures against the media are taken in countries that include themselves among European democracies, and they are doing this under the banner of democracy.

I would like to note that Russia delivers on its international commitments and creates conditions for foreign media to work unhindered in our country.

We are calling on the relevant international agencies, primarily, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and non-governmental human rights organisations to respond to this situation.



Update on those injured in the tour bus accident in the Dominican Republic

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



New tensions between Belgrade and Pristina due to representation of 1999 events in Racak

We resolutely condemn the Kosovo court’s verdict of deputy Ivan Todosijevic from the Serbian List for his words that the Racak events in January 1999 were falsified (the village of Racak is located in Serbia, Kosovo Autonomous Region). We believe this decision to be further proof of anti-Serbian repression, methodically applied by the Kosovo authorities.

According to Pristina’s version, Serbian security forces allegedly massacred Kosovo Albanians there, when in fact it was a cynical provocation used by the West to initiate NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia.

It is known that the investigation carried out by a group of international experts did not result in an unambiguous conclusion. Originally there were numerous inconsistencies, while abundant evidence showed that a clash between security officers and local militants took place in the village.

Now the Kosovo Albanian authorities use this story to promote their own version of events that took place in the region in the late 1990s and forced its separation from Serbia. At the same time Pristina tries to settle grievances with its political opponents among the local Serbs, which is a manifestation of a struggle and an outbreak of a real war against those who think differently.



The 27th Ladya Winter Fairy-Tale event

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







Answers to media questions:



Question:

I would like to ask you about Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent visit to Azerbaijan. There were other trips after that. However, I would like to ask you about the atmosphere at the talks, which you also attended. Is the Foreign Ministry satisfied with their outcome?



Maria Zakharova:

I think this is unfair with regard to other visits and trips, considering that the visit to Azerbaijan was covered in detail at the news conference held in Baku. Not that I don’t want to speak about this, but everything has been covered before. As usual during such visits, the atmosphere varied from constructive to marvellous. I would like to repeat that I don’t think we need to speak about this again since all the possible assessments have been made. All the related materials are available on the Foreign Ministry’s website.



Question:

The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia held talks on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Bratislava. They have agreed to meet again. However, the talks were obviously very difficult, because after them the foreign ministers made opposing statements with regard to their positions on the settlement process. Can you comment on this trend?



Maria Zakharova:

I wouldn’t say that we registered any incompatibility or inability of the sides to continue their dialogue. I believe the sides did not discuss this. It is obvious that they hold different positions, because otherwise they would not need to hold talks. As an international mediator, Russia will do its utmost to promote this dialogue so as to settle this drawn-out conflict. We will do everything we can for the dialogue to proceed constructively, so that the sides find mutually acceptable solutions.



Question:

Is it possible, in the light of the above, that the tactics of the peacemaking process will change? That is, is it possible that the sides, acting under the guidance of the co-chairs, will start taking smaller steps regarding confidence-building measures, humanitarian aspects, and so on, since their positions are so widely different? They have marked absolutely opposing red lines. Can the mediators change the tactic to try to bring them closer together more slowly but persistently?



Maria Zakharova:

It is not a question of maybe; it is what we are already doing. You probably know about the instances of dialogue and interaction that have brought about mutual understanding despite the difference in the sides’ positions and the red lines, as you said. One of them concerns the exchange of journalists, which is a good example. The mediators acted very constructively in this case. It is not a question of changing the tactics, but making more active use of the existing mechanisms the mediators have at their disposal.



Question:

I have a question about the case of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Berlin. Russia has expelled two members of the [German] Embassy today.



Maria Zakharova:

No, we haven’t yet expelled two members of the Embassy staff. The German ambassador has been summoned to the Ministry, where he was notified about the response measures and told who must leave Russia within seven days.



Question:

President Vladimir Putin commented on this case. He said three days ago that an extradition request had been made. But the German Ministry of Justice said they had never received such a request. What can you say about this?



Maria Zakharova:

I have requested additional information from law enforcement. In fact, I urge you to start by putting questions to the law enforcement agencies that are in charge of such cases. I have learned that this man was on the wanted list. As for the details of the investigative procedure and the addition of information about it to the databases, please ask the law enforcement bodies. I would like to say once again that according to my information, which I checked with law enforcement yesterday, this man was on the wanted list. I believe that interaction between the concerned agencies and departments of Germany and Russia should not proceed in the public space but at the level of working contacts. They have the mechanisms and opportunities for dealing with such matters. Regrettably, this case has become a public matter, which is not helpful at all.



Question:

This year, foreigners visiting St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region started to be issued with e-visas. But, according to some media reports, dozens of tourists were reportedly stopped by border officers at Pulkovo International Airport and deported because they had incorrectly filled out the application form on the Foreign Ministry website. How is the system operating now? Are there any shortcomings and how are they ironed out?



Maria Zakharova:

We said this decision was made earlier than planned. To the best of my knowledge, the system was to have started operating at a later date, but it was decided to launch the new system already in 2019; and this is exactly what was done. We have already pointed out that, alas, the system is not flawless because, considering the difference in spelling the difficult names and surnames of foreigners, they face some problems that they are unable to quickly resolve on their own. The online system has already been updated with a ‘help’ section and more information will be added bit by bit. It’s no secret that we receive masses of critical remarks. I would like to say once again that the system is being speedily set right. A week ago, I spoke with people overseeing this project at the Foreign Ministry, experts and specialists who assured me that everything was being done to put the relevant changes in place before the year is out. Of course, we are addressing the situation, sometimes using even hands-on management, because this often implies humanitarian cases. We are staying closely in touch with the Russian state agencies that are also involved in this project, such as border Services and Federal Security Service representatives and others.

I would like to say once again that, if tourists wishing to enter Russia via the above-mentioned method using e-visas have any questions [during the time when the online service is still being updated], then they can always get in touch with Russian embassies or contact them online. Our social media networks have the appropriate websites, including online platforms of the Consular Department where experts quickly reply to all questions; the entire mechanism of communications is open and readily accessible. I would like to note once again that we should not overlook the fact that the system needs to be improved, and this is what we are doing today.



Question:

Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov visited Pakistan yesterday and attended a meeting of the Russian-Pakistani Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. What do you think about top-level contacts and the development of relations between our countries?



Maria Zakharova:

We have a high opinion of the talks and the work of the delegation headed by Denis Manturov in Pakistan. As you well know, the Foreign Ministry coordinates this country’s multi-vector foreign policy activities, and it has contributed to the preparatory process. This is not some outsider agency, it is part of our executive branch; therefore it would be somewhat incorrect to provide some independent assessment because this is part of the Russian Government. We can state that dialogue between our countries continues to develop very constructively, and relations in various fields are also expanding dynamically. We will provide more detailed information on the results of this visit, and we will brief you on this matter using the relevant resources.



Question:

Recently, there appeared new reports in the media saying that Russian athletes will be banned from competing in major sports events. This is more like a Cold War than sports. Are athletes from other countries so “white and fluffy?”



Maria Zakharova:

Regrettably, politicising sports is nothing new. This has been going on for decades. Masses of major international sports events – the Olympic Games, world and European championships, and others –have been politicised in some way or another for a long time now. Political and information campaigns are launched; in parallel, these are accompanied and lavishly seasoned with scandals, so-called exposures, and the like in a number of areas. It is for this reason that an international organisation affiliated with the UN has repeatedly urged everyone to refrain from politicising sports. Today I read comments that included a reference to RUSADA and its head; it said that the Russian Foreign Ministry, its representatives and its top management were not quite clear about the real situation, that they were misled and issuing wrong comments, etc. We do not comment on the situation instead of the related agency, the Ministry of Sport. It provides a competent expert assessment of the state of affairs in Russian sports in a number of areas. But as a foreign policy agency we are also involved in international activities aimed at reducing the politicisation of sports and preventing it from being increased. This is our direct mission and we record that this country has been a target of numerous political campaigns for years now. So, what is so wrong with our assessment?

Take 2014, when no one yet exploited the subject of doping in the current context. Can we say that the theme of the Winter Olympics in Sochi was not politicised? Look at the front covers of Western magazines, newspaper publications, or web accounts of the leading media and Western mainstream journalists. What they said was a carbon copy of the political assessments regarding the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow. It looks like no one so much as bothered to invent something new. Let me repeat: this was happening when the issue of doping was not even being mentioned in the current context.

We are totally against such campaigns, be they targeted or global, and we are conducting this work at international venues. This is not just a Russian initiative that no one supports. I am referring to a broad international front that opposes the politicisation and use of political resources in the sphere of sports.

Another highly important point is that Russian officials at all levels – sports functionaries, the executive and legislative authorities, and the President of the Russian Federation – have never concealed the fact that we have problems in the area of sports. But the thing is that these problems exist in the athletic communities of all without exception world countries. It is for this reason that doping is an international problem and relevant international organisations are developing resolutions and measures to fight doping. This work has been pursued for quite a while at the global level. It is a big question why this effort is being focused on Russia. We said as much at a briefing in late November. The same was reiterated by the Russian foreign minister at his recent news conference and in media interviews.

We are conscious of the fact that Russia has been the focus of these political campaigns for years. Honestly speaking, I do not even know anyone who could deny this. If a problem exists in all countries, but just one of them is picked as a target, this must surely have something to do with politics. We can find no other explanation. A lot of analysis and media stories have been devoted to this.

I think the Winter Olympics in Sochi was an acid test in this sense.

Quite likely, if our “partners” failed to run this politicised campaign against the Sochi Games, they would have helped themselves today and we would have no reason to say that these campaigns are a fixture as far as Russia is concerned. I think that avarice has prevailed: it dawned on no one that they just could have refrained from doing this so as to strip us of an argument to the effect that they are politically biased against Russia and this is an ingrained trait, as our recollections of the past events convincingly prove.



Question:

Many political analysts believe that banning Russia from international sports games for four years is an act of hybrid war on one of its frontlines. While the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry are holding up well in this war, often at the cost of lives of their personnel and diplomats, the Ministry of Sport, for some reason, timidly threw in the towel after WADA’s strike, and our athletes are starting to look where else to make money. Perhaps the Foreign Ministry could give some advice on how to hold our country’s ground? It looks like regaining Russia’s positions in the world will again cost lives of our troops in Syria and diplomats while our athletes will have to find other sources of income.



Maria Zakharova:

I cannot follow the logic in your question. How did you bridge Syria and sports? This is a questionable connection, in my opinion.

I have just commented on this matter at length. Once again, the competent ministries are dealing with all the problems and achievements that happen in sports for us. We are responsible for foreign affairs and regularly comment on our efforts in this area. Nobody is going to drop this work.



Question:

Was cooperation in achieving peace in Afghanistan discussed during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s US visit?



Maria Zakharova:

I can tell you that Afghanistan was discussed as part of the global agenda. Of course, I cannot give you any more details. It was a negotiation, after all. Right now I cannot share anything with you besides this comment.

We monitor the efforts and the talks between Washington and the Taliban, and we talk about them regularly.



Question:

The United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed a bill that obliges the Secretary of State to look into whether Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism. What do you think about this legislative initiative in light of Minister Lavrov’s recent visit to Washington?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t link this decision to Mr Lavrov’s Washington visit.

Minister Lavrov held talks with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and had a meeting with US President Donald Trump. Everything that is happening in the Senate and in Congress in the context of Russia is living its own strange life. It is hard to explain it or understand its logic, and it is a Russophobic policy of the people pursuing their own opportunistic political goals. We are well aware that Russia has become one of the key discussion points in the presidential and other election campaigns across the United States. We have repeatedly expressed our regret and opposition to such approaches. They are clearly not helpful when it comes to developing our bilateral relations. If the same approach is chosen as the highlight of future election campaigns, be it a presidential or any other campaign, we will have a similar response, which is zero tolerance and regret, because the strike is at the bilateral relations that are already in poor shape. But, as we see it, a number of US politicians cannot come up with different talking points. They are not concerned with other issues, with those missed opportunities and the advantages that they are wasting while embarking on massive anti-Russian campaigns and imposing a Russophobic agenda on the American people. The missed opportunities are enormous. As they say, just counting them brings tears to your eyes.

If financiers and economists – the real experts and not just some people who are promoting a short-term low-grade political product – were given access to the American media, newspapers, magazines and television programmes, they would be able to tell the American people, who make the products that drive America’s prosperity, how much they have lost to the actions of the people in politics who are tearing up the canvas of the Russia-US relations. The facts and figures will be horrendous. I think an American voter would be interested to know how much the United States could gain, including for themselves.



Question:

What does the Foreign Ministry think about the possible introduction of US sanctions against Turkey due to its purchase of S-400 surface-to-air missile systems from Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly stated our position on this matter. Relations between two sovereign states do not require a commentary from a third state. While analysing various statements made during these debates, we realised that they were targeted at Russia. Therefore we have repeatedly said that we consider such polemics to be unacceptable because they amount to pressure. There are other examples when Washington exerted similar pressure on a number of other states, not only Turkey, not only S-400 and issues linked with Russia.

In the past few years, and we are talking about a long period, not just a year or two, but decades, Washington has been using a sanctions policy in cases when it needs to serve its own interests, and the negotiating process is either insufficient or there aren’t enough resources to use the existing legal methods to achieve the goals that have been set and that reflect its national interests. We have repeatedly commented on this. The policy of sanctions pressure and intimidation are unacceptable in the present system of coordinates underlying international relations. All our comments on this matter remain relevant today.



Question:

Alexey Reznikov, Kiev’s representative in the working group on political matters of the Trilateral Contact Group, has said that Ukraine will draft amendments to the Minsk agreements in the run-up to the next Normandy Format summit.



Maria Zakharova:

I haven’t seen these statements. Can you say honestly that such statements exist? I hope that you are mistaken, because if the Ukrainian delegation, which has barely returned from Paris, is already starting to think about going back there and holding a new Normandy Format summit, and if it is again talking about making changes to the Minsk agreements, then this can only cause surprise, rather than regret. I hope that this statement was either misquoted or that this is not Kiev’s official position. I think, when they came to Paris, Ukrainian representatives clearly heard the position of the international community, in this case it was within the framework of the Normandy Format. This position is that it is imperative to unfailingly comply with and implement a sequence of actions formalised by the Minsk agreements. They may have expected to hear something else, but this is what they heard: there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements, they must be fulfilled, and the sequence of actions listed in them is correct. In principle, we said the same thing at all levels before the Normandy Format meeting, but sometimes people prefer to hear this in person, when they meet eye to eye. Well, this is exactly what was done. So I would like to hope that after returning to Kiev they did not forget what they heard in Paris.



Question:

The Dutch Prosecutor’s Office has accused Russia of refusing to arrest Vladimir Tsemakh, suspected of being implicated in the MH17 disaster. What is your comment on these Dutch statements?



Maria Zakharova:

It is not just statements by official representatives of the Netherlands – MPs, executive authorities and politicians – it is an entire global information campaign in the media. We have to read so many stories on this issue that we have made a digest and are planning to publish it. But I understand why you asked this question: in fact, there are too many statements and publications of this sort made in the Netherlands. We will certainly publish our digest, but I could go through the main points now. In reply to all accusations and strange publications that have been appearing in the Netherlands for rather a long time (I am referring specifically to a recent statement by the Prosecutor’s Office to the effect that Russia has failed to grant its request on the temporary detention of Vladimir Tsemakh, who, let me remind you, is a citizen of Ukraine), I would like to say the following.

The MH17 disaster was a great tragedy. The Russian Federation is highly interested in establishing its true causes. We have regularly said as much and made appropriate statements. But there were not only statements but also practical steps. From day one, Russia cooperated with the investigation and continues to do so today.

In this connection, we are perplexed by the Prosecutor’s Office statements, which, naturally, did the rounds in the media and were complemented with so-called “analysis.” The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation has provided a well-argued and detailed legal evaluation to these in its official reply to the statement by its Dutch counterpart. To summarise it, the general conclusion is this: the Dutch side’s grievances are ungrounded; it has itself failed to comply with a number of requirements, both technical and basic, of the European Convention on Extradition. This is why the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia had to ask clarification questions. Further correspondence showed that the Russian law enforcement agencies had good reason to being doubtful: the arrest warrant was verbal and issued in writing only after Russia’s counter inquiry; as it transpired – I am citing the Russian law enforcement agencies now – this was done ex post facto. I would like to say that we are talking about the agencies that focus, entirely and exclusively, on legal matters. Incidentally, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Netherlands has not put Mr Tsemakh on a wanted list, nor has he been entered in the Interpol database as a wanted person. If the Russian authorities had taken the Dutch prosecutor’s inquiry in earnest, they would have themselves breached Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It concerns the right to liberty and security of person. Russian laws in this sphere would have been breached as well.

For our part, we would like to express incredulity at these attacks against Russia for a number of reasons. I would like to remind you that the exchange of detainees was a humanitarian action that resulted from almost three years of efforts within the framework of the Minsk Process. Approved by the UN Security Council Resolution 2202, the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements includes an exchange of detainees on the “all for all” principle.

Russia remains committed to UN Security Council Resolution 2166. We have been cooperating with the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) led by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, which are investigating the circumstances of the MH17 incident, since the very first day. Moscow has taken a responsible attitude to all the requests it receives from the Dutch agencies involved. Much has been accomplished in this respect. You know about this, but I would like to remind you that, in addition to all the information we provided, we have also submitted declassified data regarding Russian hardware and the results of the simulated explosion experiment conducted by the Almaz-Antey concern, as well as the initial radar data and documents. All this material and these documents have confirmed that the missile that was used to shoot down the Malaysian Boeing belonged to Ukraine.

As for whether this information is taken into account, we can see this from the initial results of the investigation. It is obvious that a selective approach to information is preventing the investigation team from making any progress; they are just going around in circles. The so-called achievements announced at the JIT news conference on July 19 are questionable, as we have said at different levels, and have been criticised by the experts and representatives of several countries. It looks as if the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, seeking to cover up its flops, is using the situation to accuse Russia of a negligent attitude to cooperation when it comes to answering requests for legal assistance. It also looks as if they would like to shift the blame for the slow and inefficient investigation onto Russia. We are surprised that the Dutch side is doing this. I would like to ask the Dutch Public Prosecution Service what they think about their international obligations. This is not an idle matter, and we want answers, including to the questions I will speak about later.

I would like to draw your attention to the Dutch prosecution service’s strange reaction to the extradition request. We would not have aired this question in public if not for the accusations made to us. I would like to cite an outrageous case when the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office’s requests for the extradition of a person believed to be guilty of serious crimes were denied under far-fetched pretexts, to put it mildly. Make your own decisions. I will not provide the names, for obvious reasons, but the Dutch prosecutors know them. It was established with hard facts that the person in question was guilty of 73 instances of large-scale fraud. The Dutch side refused to extradite that person. You know why? For humanitarian reasons and a change in personal circumstances. The Dutch side refused to identify these personal circumstances, citing the law on the protection of personal data. It later transpired that this person was granted refugee status by an Interpol member state.

Here is yet another example. We asked the Netherlands for the extradition of a person who was charged with large-scale drug trafficking (the amount in question was more than 28 kg). Three years later, our request was denied, as usual, for humanitarian reasons. What was the real reason in this case? The suspect was placed in a mental facility. What happened to him after that? The next year he was spotted in Spain and then in 2017 in Israel.

What cooperation are we talking about if the Netherlands is acting like this? It would be inappropriate to complain about Russia’s alleged prevarication. The Netherlands’ inadequate reaction is understandable. What will the investigation team show the court in March 2020? The situation is obscure. They don’t have any convincing proof. It looks like they are trying to use any opportunity to regain the public’s attention. The latest pretext is Vladimir Tsemakh.

I would like to remind you that the Dutch prosecution service has overlooked, or is probably hushing up, the fact that the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies widely use prohibited methods with regard to detained persons. There is plenty of evidence on this. Here is a vital detail. Speaking about this particular person, Vladimir Tsemakh, his health was shattered after the SBU prison. You should remember the operation conducted by the Ukrainian special services to detain him. It was done in the interest of the investigation, which is supervised by the Dutch prosecution service. The man’s life was in direct danger, because the SBU staff beat him up and tranquilised him during the arrest. The cover-up for that special operation was a mortar attack at the contact line as the result of which one person was killed and another seriously wounded.

Numerous publications and statements made by the individuals who claim to be experts or to be otherwise involved ask why Russia placed Tsemakh on the list of persons to be exchanged with Kiev. I think we have explained everything. It was a correct decision, because the SBU has again put Tsemakh on the wanted list and wants to see him in prison again. Would the Netherlands extradite the man to the Ukrainian colleagues? It is a rhetorical question. The practical question is whether the investigation team really wants him to testify. I would like to remind you that Dutch prosecutors had interrogated him. They had spoken with him when he was in a Ukrainian prison. As we can now conclude, they used physical and psychological pressure against him. Those who interrogated him can be qualified as accomplices in the crime against this man. It is for this reason that Tsemakh is not eager to communicate directly with Dutch, Australian or, for that matter, Ukrainian investigators. However, it has been reported in the public domain that he is willing to testify in order to help establish the truth. This approach to acquiring testimony, including in the Netherlands, makes one doubt their commitment to the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2166 regarding a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the tragedy. A great number of materials has been published on this score.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3954230
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 27th, 2019 #51
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Russian Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich, at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, on reports by Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine and in the Trilateral Contact Group Martin Sajdik and Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine Yasar Halit Cevik, Vienna, December 12, 2019



13 December 2019 - 16:33



Mr Chairperson,

We welcome esteemed Ambassador Martin Sajdik and esteemed Ambassador Yasar Halit Cevik. We are grateful to them for their evaluation, which illustrates that the situation in Ukraine remains tense. Despite strong public aspirations for peace in Donbass, local residents have for more than five and a half years been held hostage to the lack of political will on the part of Kiev to achieve a dialogue-based settlement with Donetsk and Lugansk. Recent efforts in the Normandy format have focused on unblocking this unsatisfactory situation.

On December 9, the leaders of France, Germany and Russia had useful discussions with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in Paris. The participants in the meeting sent several clear signals about the need to further de-escalate the conflict and achieve a political settlement. The goal is establishing long-lasting peace in the east of Ukraine. At the same time, even these positive intentions were met with controversial statements by the Ukrainian authorities – both before and after the summit – disagreements with some provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015. In addition, according to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, on the day of the summit, ceasefire violations were recorded in both the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

The main outcome of the Normandy talks was that all participants of the Normandy format confirmed their commitment to promote full implementation of the Minsk Agreements. They emphasised the need to step up the efforts of the Minsk Contact Group – a format that allows Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk to directly discuss and reach agreements on all aspects of the settlement process. There is an explicit reference to a dialogue like this in the Package of Measures, which was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202 and recognised by the international community as the basis for resolving the crisis in Ukraine, an approach that has no alternative.

A law to grant permanent special status to Donbass is seen as the basis for a political settlement. The participants in the Paris summit reaffirmed that all legal aspects related to this move had to be coordinated with the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Contact Group, as provided for in the Minsk Package of Measures. At this point, the Verkhovna Rada has extended the law on special status for a year, i.e., until December 31, 2020. At the same time, according to the Minsk agreements, a law has to be adopted to grant special status to Donbass on a permanent basis. This also implies making the relevant amendments to the constitution. We also expect the Steinmeier formula on the manner of enacting this law on the special status to be enshrined in Ukrainian law as soon as possible.

In the context of synchronising the efforts to resolve political and security matters, the Contact Group has been tasked with taking immediate steps to ensure that the situation on the contact line is stabilised. These include measures to support the ceasefire agreement, restart the mine clearance agreements and instruct the sides to coordinate and carry out, within the next three months, the disengagement of forces in areas that they will additionally identify during direct talks. According to SMM reports, there are no active hostilities in Donbass, however, a complete ceasefire has not been maintained. The number of ceasefire violations over the last week alone amounted to several thousand. Shelling continues close to populated areas. We emphasise the importance of issuing ceasefire orders and introducing disciplinary action against those responsible for ceasefire violations, as well as banning subversive activities and the deployment of troops and weapons near residential blocks of flats.

In these circumstances, it is important that the SMM closely monitor the situation near the contact line and to the “rear.” We expect the monitoring to be balanced on both sides of the contact line, including with technical equipment. The SMM should not fail to notice any military activity, rotation or redeployment of Ukrainian troops, which often take place at a distance from the contact line. We express our support for Chief Monitor Yasar Halit Cevik and the staff that works in this challenging environment.

We have taken note of the OSCE mission’s thematic report on the impact of mines issued in early December. Data analysis points to the limited progress on demining along the contact line. The only exceptions are the disengagement areas in Stanitsa Luganskaya, Petrovskoye and Zolotoye, where demining activities proceed in accordance with the respective agreements. It is worth noting in this connection that the Normandy format countries have called for preparing and implementing a new demining plan based on the decisions of the Trilateral Contact Group (TCG). We expect the SMM to publish collated information on the other victims, including a thematic report on the victims of shelling and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

The Normandy format countries have given a powerful impetus to the TCG’s humanitarian working group. Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk are being urged to reach an agreement and to exchange all detainees held by sides by the end of the year. I would like to remind you that the last such exchange was held nearly two years ago, on December 27, 2017. The verification of the list of detainees must be given momentum. Another important goal is to complete the procedural clearance and amnesty of the persons to be exchanged. The unfortunate cases when Kiev exchanged some persons and then put them on the wanted list are not strengthening trust between the sides.

The humanitarian priority measures, which should improve civilians’ lives, include the opening of more checkpoints on the contact line. We hope Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk will reach an agreement on this at the upcoming meetings of the TCG in keeping with the Normandy format recommendations.

In this context, the Ukrainian authorities continue to aggravate the deep sociopolitical divisions caused by the 2014 coup, instead of addressing them.

We have taken note of the expert conclusions made by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in Opinion No. 960/2019 (December 9, 2019) on the Law on Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language, some provisions of which have come into effect this year. The commission’s experts pointed out its discriminating nature and warned that Kiev’s language policy may become a source of interethnic tension. The commission has urged the Ukrainian authorities to bring the law in compliance with Ukraine’s human rights obligations.

Another matter to which we must pay more attention is the Ukrainian authorities’ policy of encouraging aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism. A recent example is Resolution 2364 on the celebration of memorable dates in 2020, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in early December. It proposes holding nationwide celebrations of the birthdays of Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII, including Vladimir Kubiyovich, Vasily Levkovich, Ulas Samchuk and Vasily Sidor. The Israeli Embassy in Ukraine has expressed concern about the glorification of such ambiguous persons. We would like to repeat our position regarding this: disregard for the rise of radical nationalism in Ukraine can have tragic results.

In this context, dialogue between Kiev and Donbass may be difficult, but it is important as well as possible and necessary. We call for focusing all efforts on promoting a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk with a view to an early, full and comprehensive implementation of the Minsk Agreements. This will help normalise the situation throughout Ukraine. The TCG and its working groups, which will convene in Minsk on December 18, bear special responsibility for reaching agreements in the spirit of the Normandy format decisions.

To conclude, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to Ambassador Martin Sajdik for his tireless efforts and considerable personal contribution to promoting a settlement of the crisis in Ukraine. For four and a half years, he coordinated the main negotiating platforms created for consultations between Kiev and certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. We hope that the TCG’s final meeting this year, which he will chair, will give a new impetus to the settlement process.

We welcome the appointment of Ambassador Heidi Grau as Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine and in the Trilateral Contact Group and wish her every success in this responsible work.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3955217






Comment of the Information and Press Department on the latest report by the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine



16 December 2019 - 21:37



The Foreign Ministry has reviewed the 28th report, released in Geneva, by the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine covering a period between August 16 and November 15, 2019.

While the number of casualties decreased in comparison to the previous reporting period, the situation remains tense. Children are still killed and wounded, including in mine accidents. Since April 2014, 147 children lost their lives in this internal armed conflict.

Tens of thousands of families lost their homes over the past five years with only a few receiving compensation or temporary housing. The Ukrainian military continue its brazen expropriation (and destruction in many cases) of civilian properties, and use utilities, leaving owners with large debts. Restrictions on freedom of movement curb the civilian population’s socioeconomic rights along the contact line on Kiev-controlled territory.

It is perplexing that experts continue to welcome and believe promises by parliamentarians in Kiev to pay pensions to all Ukrainian citizens without any discrimination based on place of residence or registration. In reality, a social mechanism has yet to be created to deliver on this pledge, while hundreds of thousands of pensioners are unable to get the payments they are entitled to.

We share the Monitoring Mission’s concern regarding the continuing systematic and flagrant violations committed by the Ukrainian authorities. In particular, the report mentions extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, solitary confinement, torture and ill treatment of civilians on Kiev-controlled territory. Violations of the right to a fair trial continued, notably in conflict-related criminal cases. The freedom of assembly and expression are still being encroached upon, while new attacks are reported against journalists and human rights activists.

We also share the Monitoring Mission’s concern regarding the ongoing court proceedings related to the May 2014 killings in Odessa. The presence of members of extreme right-wing groups may have a chilling effect on the judges’ and the jury’s independence in this case, and exerts psychological pressure on the judges. We are not surprised by the lack of progress in establishing accountability for the killing of protestors and law enforcement officers on Maidan.

All these facts point to Kiev’s inability to show political will and carry out a thorough and impartial investigation into human rights violations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Security Service.

Regretfully, the Ukrainian authorities are not prepared and clearly unwilling to ensure the language rights of minorities. We hope that Kiev finally heeds the calls coming from the OHCHR, as well as recommendations issued by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in its opinion on the Law “On Ensuring the Functioning of Ukrainian as the State Language,” and revises its approaches to dealing with ethnic minorities living in Ukraine.

The Foreign Ministry contests the Monitoring Mission’s perspective on the outcome of the mutual release of detained individuals that took place on September 7, 2019. We reject the groundless accusations of ill treatment of Ukrainian nationals by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. We urge experts to rely on official sources of information when drafting their reports.

We have to emphasise once again that the Monitoring Mission’s mandate does not cover third countries. The Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol are part of the Russian Federation. Consequently, once again including into a report on Ukraine an assessment of the human rights situation in this Russian region is unlawful.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3958516






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article Neighbours in Europe. Russia-EU: Thirty Years of Relations for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, December 18, 2019



18 December 2019 - 00:15







Thirty years ago, on December 18, 1989, Brussels hosted the signing of the Agreement on Trade and Commercial and Economic Cooperation between the USSR and the European communities. This date became the point of departure for official relations between Russia as the successor state of the USSR and the European Union.

Symbolically, the Agreement was signed slightly over a month after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event that came down in history as a landmark signifying the end of the Cold War, a period, when the continent was divided into two opposing ideological blocs. The founders of the Russia-EU partnership knew that it would be impossible to erase the centuries-old divides on the continent unless a broad framework for cooperation was created in Europe. Both sides intended to make it mutually beneficial, long-term, and resistant to economic and political fluctuations.

The subsequent years were marked by painstaking efforts to create a multi-level architecture of collaboration between Russia and the EU. A solid legal infrastructure evolved based to this day on the 1994 Russia-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. In May 2003, during the Russia-EU summit in St Petersburg, yet another step forward was taken in overcoming the division of Europe, with the parties reaching an agreement on establishing a strategic partnership based on four common spaces – economic; external security; freedom, security and justice; science and education, including cultural aspects. We worked together on long-term projects, which, had they been brought to a logical end, would have yielded tangible dividends to all those who live on our shared continent and substantially enhanced the level of their security, prosperity and comfort. Among other things, the case in point was easing the terms – up to a visa-free regime – of reciprocal travel of Russian and EU citizens, establishing close cooperation between the law enforcement agencies in fighting the terrorist and organised crime threats, coordinating efforts to settle regional crises and conflicts, and forming an energy union. But the sides failed to ensure stability of the declared partnership between Russia and the EU.

Regrettably, many people in the West looked at the prospects of a common European future exclusively from the viewpoint of “winners” in the Cold War. The principles of equal cooperation have given way to the illusion that Euro-Atlantic security can only be based on NATO, and that Europe can only be associated with the European Union, with everything else as nothing more than the concentric circles around these “centres of legitimacy.”

The practical aspects of our relations with Brussels included instances of increasing priority given to the EU’s supranational norms and attempts to apply them retroactively to all other countries. We were urged to accept off-the-shelf decisions made in the EU, which ruled out any discussion or respect for Russia’s interests. In other words, we were invited to join the mainstream and follow the lead, as well as to accept the interpretation of “common values,” many of which contradict the traditions of the European civilisation based on Christianity.

Our Brussels partners preferred to keep silent about the fact that their concept of four common spaces was based on the understanding that any attempts to force our neighbours to choose between Russia and the EU would be dangerous and counterproductive. Well before 2014, an alarming sign in the Russia-EU relations was the launch of the Eastern Partnership initiative, which was aimed, as it turned out later, at creating a distance between Russia and its closest neighbours connected by centuries-old ties. We are still feeling the negative impact of this egocentric policy.

In short, the EU was not prepared to have equal relations with Russia. In the Brussels vocabulary, Europe equalled the European Union, as if there is only one “real” Europe (the EU member states), and all the other countries must work hard to earn the “high title” of Europeans. They are creating artificial dividing line on the continent and distorting both geography and history. A glaring example of that is the numerous EU resolutions that equate the Nazis who sought to exterminate European nations with the Soviet soldiers who saved these nations from annihilation.

It is a deeply flawed approach, which is not benefitting the European integration project and contradicts its initial unification and peace-building spirit. Russia has always been and will remain an integral part of Europe geographically, historically and culturally. We have a unique identity of which we are proud, but we are part of the European civilisational space. Over a period of many centuries, Russia contributed to the expansion of that space all the way to the Pacific coast. The development of our identity was influenced by advanced European ideas. Likewise, modern European culture would have been different without the process of mutual enrichment with Russia.

Despite our differences, Russia and the EU are important trade and economic partners, as well as neighbours who can share their common responsibility for peace, prosperity and security in this part of Eurasia. By the way, if it were not for the EU’s biased position in the context of Ukrainian developments, Russia-EU trade would have reached $500 billion, becoming a global factor comparable to the EU’s trade with the United States or China.

There is increasing evidence of our EU partners’ realisation that the current situation is abnormal. Russia’s relations with the majority of EU states are being revitalised. We have made the first contacts with the new EU leadership, which assumed office in early December.

The new institutional cycle in the EU history offers an opportunity to relaunch relations with Russia. At the very least, we can ponder what we mean to each other in this rapidly changing world. We hope that the EU decision-makers will opt for strategic thinking and will act in the spirit of the great European politicians, such as Charles de Gaulle and Helmut Kohl, who thought in terms of a common European home. The artificial restrictions imposed on trade to suit someone’s geopolitical interests will not settle the existing problems but will only create more obstacles and will weaken Europe’s economic positions. There is no doubt that European cultures and economies can only protect their identities and competitive ability from the onslaught of globalisation by combining the relative competitive advantages of all countries and integration associations in the common Eurasian space.

Russia-EU relations are not developing in a vacuum. A multipolar world has become a reality. New centres of financial, economic, technological and military power have emerged in the Asia Pacific Region. We are taking this crucial factor into consideration during the process of shaping our foreign policy. The new realities not only entail additional trans-border challenges but also open opportunities for getting resources for our own development where previously we did not even look. In any case, combining efforts enhances our capabilities. Amid the persisting international turbulence, it is important to ensure the rule of international law. No attempts should be made to replace it with the “rules-based order” that the West has invented to promote its interests. It is only then that we will be able to assure the effectiveness of multilateral efforts.

We see the European Union as one of the centres of the multipolar world. We intend to promote relations with the EU in keeping with President Vladimir Putin’s concept of Greater Eurasian Partnership from the Atlantic to the Pacific involving the states of the Eurasian Economic Union, the SCO, ASEAN, and all other countries on the continent. EU-EAEU cooperation can become the economic basis for EU members joining this Partnership. Aligning the potentials of the two major regional markets and harmonising their trade and investment regimes will strengthen the positions of all those involved in global trade. Importantly, this will also help in the future to avoid likely situations, where our “common neighbours” will again be artificially faced with a primitive choice and have to decide whether they are with the EU or Russia.

I would like to repeat once again that the principles of partnership were set out in our common documents, including the roadmap for the Common Space of External Security adopted at the Russia-EU summit held in Moscow on May 10, 2005. It says that “the EU and Russia recognise that processes of regional cooperation and integration, in which they participate and which are based on the sovereign decisions of States, play an important role in strengthening security and stability.” The sides agreed to actively promote these processes “in a mutually beneficial manner, through close result-oriented EU-Russia collaboration and dialogue, thereby contributing effectively to creating a greater Europe without dividing lines and based on common values.”

That says it all. It would be better still if these fine words were translated into actions.

A European security system can only be effective if it is collective. Twenty years ago, on November 19, 1999, the Charter for European Security was adopted at the OSCE summit in Istanbul. The Platform for Cooperative Security, which stipulates cooperation not only between countries but also between all organisations in the Euro-Atlantic region, was appended to the charter at the EU’s initiative. We supported that initiative. Regrettably though, Brussels, which is the venue of not only EU bodies but also the NATO headquarters, later lost interest in the idea. The Western countries that attended the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Bratislava on December 5−6, 2019 blocked the Russian move to reaffirm the above initiative, which stipulates an equal common European dialogue involving the EU, the CIS, NATO and the CSTO. Does this mean that the EU and NATO were confident of their domination when they advanced that idea 20 years ago, but now fear competition from the organisations that are taking shape in the CIS and hence avoid a direct and equal dialogue with them?

We urge the EU to take guidance from the fundamental principles sealed in the documents on Russia-EU relations, rather than from a recent construct about “forced coexistence.” We are facing common threats and challenges, namely, terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, illegal migration, etc. Restricted cooperation and continued confrontation with Russia are unlikely to improve the EU’s position in the world.

We are open to mutually beneficial, equal and pragmatic cooperation with the EU that will be in harmony with the interests of our allies and all the other Eurasian partners. Only in this way can we create a viable model of lasting relations that will meet the interests and aspirations of all nations on the Eurasian continent.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3960550






Comment by the Information and Press Department on legislative activity in Ukraine



18 December 2019 - 11:24



We have taken note of the sharp increase in the number of legislative initiatives submitted by President Zelensky’s administration to the Verkhovna Rada immediately after the Normandy format summit held in Paris on December 9. On December 12, the Ukrainian parliament extended the law on the special status for Donbass for another year, and on December 13 President Zelensky submitted to the parliament draft amendments on decentralisation to the Ukrainian parliament. On the face of it, this has been done in the spirit of the Minsk Agreements and has been timed for the upcoming December 18 meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group. As usual, it is the details that matter.

For example, the extension of the 2014 law on the special status for Donbass only appears to be a step in the right direction, but cannot be regarded as the implementation of the 2015 Package of Measures or the understandings reached at the Normandy format summit meetings. Under these understandings, Kiev should coordinate all aspects of the special status with Donetsk and Lugansk so as to ensure its permanent operation. Taken together with the law, this decision implies the amendment of the Ukrainian constitution and regulatory acts.

Moreover, many provisions of the above law have become obsolete, for example, the 2014 timeframe for elections in Donbass. Likewise, the law contains an obsolete reference to a language law that is no longer effective. Article 10, which was added in 2015, links the enforcement of the main articles of that law to the commencement of the new government’s term after the elections, which contradicts the Steinmeier Formula. All this must be amended.

The same is true of the draft amendments to the constitution. Their thorough analysis shows that they are not aimed at the country’s decentralisation but only at a reform of its administrative and territorial structure. These amendments do not stipulate broader powers for the regions but instead increase control by the central authorities. The regional heads, to be appointed by the president, will have the right to propose the abolition of local laws, the dismissal of officials and the holding of early elections. Contrary to the Minsk Agreements, the draft amendments do not mention a special status for Donbass, which should be formalised in the constitution. All these problems should be clarified as well.

We hope that Ukrainian lawmakers will take a responsible attitude to the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, avoid double standards and will not distort the essence of the understandings reached by the Normandy format leaders. This will definitely serve to help reach a comprehensive political settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict in Donbass.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3960920
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 27th, 2019 #52
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, December 18, 2019



18 December 2019 - 17:51







Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi’s visit to Russia

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with First Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic and Speaker of the National Council of the Slovak Republic Angrej Danko

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem

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



The 30th anniversary of Russia-EU relations

Thirty years ago the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, and the USSR signed an agreement on trade and commercial and economic cooperation which was the starting point of official relations between Russia and the European Union.

These relations are currently going through uneasy times. We are nevertheless optimistic and look to the future of these relations. We maintain hope that inherently European judgment and pragmatism, understanding the lack of alternatives to mutually beneficial cooperation in a modern multi-polar, highly competitive and unsafe world will prevail.

I would like to draw your attention to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article entitled “’Neighbours in Europe.’ Russia and the EU – Thirty Years of Relations,” published today by Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The article analyses the interaction of relations in difficult periods and prospects for developing relations between Russia and the European Union. We hope that this material will be helpful for everyone including our EU colleagues, all those who sincerely want our Eurasian continent, from Lisbon to Vladivostok, to remain peaceful, safe and prosperous.



Opinion of the Law Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Langauge as State Language adopted by the Venice Commission

On December 6-7 of this year, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (The Venice Commission – VC) approved a draft opinion on the Ukrainian Law on Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language.

It expresses a generally critical assessment of the legislation. The commission’s experts stress that many provisions of the law contradict Ukraine’s international legal obligations.

In particular, criticism was directed at provisions that stipulate double discrimination against the Russian language (against the background of preferential treatment of the official EU languages) in public and political life, education and culture. Thus, requirements that scientific papers shall be published only in Ukrainian, English and other official EU languages, are deemed by the Venice Commission as unjustified and representing a violation of the freedom of expression. The ban on holding cultural and entertainment events in Russian is similarly criticised.

The VC was also critical of the introduction of the post of the Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language as well as a complaint mechanism of administrative fines stating that it is unclear on which legal basis the Commissioner would impose sanctions in case of non-compliance with the State language standards.

The VC experts underscored that Ukraine’s language policy is a source of ongoing tension which hinders peace and concord. In this context, it is recommended that Kiev review the law on the state language in terms of its compliance with Ukraine’s international obligations, and also to repeal the differential treatment of the languages of national minorities which are official languages of the EU and the languages of national minorities which are not official languages of the EU; to consider repealing the mechanism of compliance and sanctions set forth in the Law or at least to limit it, and also to prepare the Law on Minorities that would provide for the interests of all groups of the population

While noting the objectivity of the opinion of Venice Commission experts, we hope that the Ukrainian authorities will heed the view of this respected international European body.



Recent incidents with Russian journalists in Ukraine

Recently we noted that cases of denying Russian journalists entry into Ukraine have become more frequent.

Over the last ten days, the Ukrainian authorities denied NTV reporters entry into the country three times. The journalists allegedly did not confirm the purpose of their visit in two of the cases, and in the other case the journalist was refused entry because she visited Crimea in 2016.

In addition, on December 13, a Zvezda television channel crew was arrested before their departure from Kiev. The journalists were fined for allegedly illegally filming at passport control on December 11, and several days later they were banned from visiting Ukraine for three years.

It is noteworthy that all these incidents took place after President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky publicly invited Russian journalists to Ukraine, during the news conference following the Normandy Four summit in Paris on December 9, to observe and cover the developments there. Before this news conference, we had heard many interesting things from Kiev over the last months. We heard President Zelensky persuading everyone (on cameras) that he was “not a dupe.” We looked up this word. It can be defined as “a fool,” “an amateur” or “a victim of deception.” We want to believe that this is really so, that the president in his current capacity will keep his promise and ensure that journalists have free access to Ukrainian territory as he said; all the more so as it was his initiative. In this case, if we are talking about December 9, these were not requests from Russian journalists but the president’s reproach to them, which can be put this way: Russian journalists know how to talk from a studio and discuss Ukraine from abroad, and now they have to come and see how things really are. As soon as he said this, Russian journalists decided to accept this invitation. You know how this ends, I have just told you.

We understand that it is not easy for President Zelensky to keep his word considering the situation in Ukraine. This is why we call on specialised international bodies and NGOs, plus OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir, as well as other international institutions, to help Mr Zelensky with this.



Update on Venezuela

Regarding Venezuela, we have repeatedly pointed at the counterproductive and inhuman nature of the unilateral sanctions imposed on this country. We have stressed that such restrictions affect the social and humanitarian situation, create an artificial shortage of food and medicines. This fact cannot be argued with references to political goals and tasks set by the nations that impose such restrictions.

For our part, we are making every effort to support our friends, the Venezuelan people, during this very difficult time. In this context we have very good and constructive news. The first shipment of 200,000 packages of insulin medication manufactured by the Russian company Geropharm was delivered to Venezuela last week. This is not a single delivery. Over 5 million packages of this medication are to be delivered in 2019-2020 which will make it possible to provide this vital and essential drug to over 400,000 Venezuelan residents with diabetes. The deliveries will be made on a monthly basis while in the future the list of medications will be expanded.

Moreover, in addition to medical products, Geropharm plans to assist in training qualified personnel for Venezuela’s healthcare system and to transfer the technology of packing and packaging insulin. We view this as an example of constructive bilateral cooperation in improving the humanitarian situation in Venezuela.

Unfortunately, such good news is oftentimes shaded by Washington’s threats of using force against the legitimate government of Venezuela. Recently, US State Department Special Representative Elliott Abrams said once again that the US administration has not ruled out the possibility of intervention in Venezuela and other military options. Washington appears unable to come up with anything new in these situations; a crisis of the genre, so to say. There is an alternative: help restore what you were arduously trying to destroy a couple of years ago.

We are convinced that those resorting to this kind of leverage will simply continue to paint themselves into a corner that will be hard to escape from without losing face. The developments in recent months have shown the complete failure of the “Juan Guaido” project, who, in addition to high-profile corruption scandal, also continues a policy of provocation. It was revealed recently that his party members planned to attack two military garrisons in Venezuela’s Sucre State so as to seize the arsenals and to further provoke military clashes. I think Washington should be asked the following questions: is this a democratic opposition? And, can this sort of opposition be considered democratic? The Western expert community has introduced the term “proportionality.” How proportionate is this activity? How does all that meet the high standards of democracy?

We believe it is time for the opponents of Caracas to admit reality – Venezuela has only one head of state, President Nicolas Maduro, and that compromise solutions can only be found through a dialogue that will yield real results.

We reaffirm our willingness to facilitate intra-Venezuelan talks of the kind and amount needed by the parties. We invariably stand with international law, UN Charter goals and principles, including non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.



The United States promotes a thesis on Russia’s "negative" role in Libyan settlement

We remain focused on the situation in Libya which was discussed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington. Russia's position remains unchanged: we stand for stopping hostilities and conducting an inclusive political intra-Libyan dialogue, which is the only viable way to resolve this conflict. In this context, Russia is ready to make a weighty contribution as it maintains contact with all current Libyan political forces.

However, mixed signals continue to come from Washington. Secretary Pompeo said the United States is ready to work with Russia on a Libyan settlement. At the same time, we were strongly bewildered (although this word does not accurately reflect the substance of what’s going on when it comes to the United States) when we heard Capitol Hill mention it was drafting yet another bill titled “The Libya Stabilisation Act,” which provides for sanctions against Moscow for Russia’s imaginary military presence in Libya. As can be seen from the text, they plan to accuse Russia - just think about this - of a "military intervention" that has become the main destabilising factor in the country. I wonder how US lawmakers describe the illegal US Armed Forces presence in Syria or the reckless actions of the previous administration, in particular, in Libya, to their voters.

Unfortunately, these aggressive, groundless and illogical steps have long since become common place among US representatives. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed this extensively during a news conference and an interview. He said we are used to them and know how to respond. Let's take this specific example and find out what, apart from promoting Russophobia, stands behind the US lawmakers’ moves, and what or who shapes their thinking on matters in which, by definition, they are not in a position to have a complete picture due to the lack of related knowledge and expertise. In this case, as is usually the case with the United States, the so-called expert community comes to the rescue. Normally, it is expected to provide an objective evaluation, because these people use grants which finance their support, focus on a subject, and have experience in specific areas. Let's take a closer look at who shapes lawmakers’ opinions in the United States, in particular, on Libya.

With the above bill in mind, the recent call to “blunt Russia's adventurism” in Libya and oppose its negative role sounds logical. It is the key message of a report compiled by a Ben Fishman, an authoritative Middle East expert, according to the US media. We read his biography. Indeed, he is quite involved in these processes. Just a quick look at his biography is enough to understand how biased he is. According to his official biography posted on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy website, he served as Director for Libya at the US National Security Council during President Obama’s second term, where he literally "supported the Libyan revolution." That is, Russia’s adventurism is being analysed by someone who was directly involved in forming and implementing Washington’s openly aggressive, absolutely unprincipled and, by the way, pseudoscientific policy that was aimed at toppling objectionable political regimes during the "Arab spring." And he did the same in Libya. This includes everything that is now happening in the region, in Libya and the neighbouring countries, including the immigration fallout that hit Europe, something Italy is well aware of. This is all the work of the person who then justified and implemented this concept, and today, is taking advantage of his status as an expert, who is forming public opinion in the United States aimed at identifying the guilty. This line of thinking is nothing short of fantastic.

The Libya crisis has in many ways become a catalyst for an unprecedented immigration wave, which is mentioned every year at a conference that takes place in Rome and focuses on the problems of the region. It provoked a surge in terrorist activity in North Africa. This is what adventurism is all about. We are well aware of who stood behind this reckless campaign. This list includes not just countries, but individuals as well.

Such statements, which mislead domestic audiences and society in general and are designed to shift the focus from their own fundamental mistakes, are the actual adventurism. Unfortunately, there are more examples like this, and we can cite dozens of them. We encounter similar messages in the United States in the context of discussing different international tracks. Hence, the deep misunderstanding that hinders overcoming existing difficulties in bilateral relations. We have repeatedly stated our willingness to restore various dialogue formats both through official channels and between corresponding experts, but we have not seen the United States do anything to meet us halfway. We hope the situation will change.



Provocative statements by former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Wesley Clark on Russia’s role in the Balkans

We have noted what former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Wesley Clark said in an interview with US media. This is a person who the Balkan countries know very well. He believes Russia is using the Balkans and trying to maintain its positions practically by bribing local politicians. Is this serious? Who said this? Don’t blame us for what you do.

Wesley Clark would be better off telling us how he was rewarded by Kosovars for separating them from Serbia. This would be interesting. In particular, the retired American military officer is a senior executive at Envidity, a Canadian energy company that received the right from Pristina to develop minerals on almost a third of Kosovo territory (above all the enormous amounts of lignite). He is also connected with Geominerali, a firm that removes scrap metal from the region. I think the topic of bonuses, wages and income is for you. It is an interesting story to investigate. Speaking of connections and shaping public opinion by people who have direct financial and economic interests in the region.

Isn’t this why orders were given to bomb the region, to receive lucrative contracts later? This is a good question. I think it is important to at least try to answer it. This is why when there is talk about some self-serving interests, we must look at those I mentioned above. Later, reasons are found to justify the aggressive interference in sovereign Yugoslavia’s internal affairs, to accuse anyone of playing dirty or breaking laws. Here is an example. This is a fact.



Developments in India

Recently riots and protests have broken out in the Indian states of Assam, West Bengal, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Mizoram against amendments to the country’s citizenship law, which unfortunately resulted in injuries and deaths among civilians as well as disrupted surface and air transport, communications and internet service.

Russian nationals currently in India or planning to visit the country soon are advised to be vigilant and cautious, avoid crowds and refrain from visiting areas controlled by protestors. We recommend following updates on these developments on the Foreign Ministry’s media resources and on the Foreign Assistant mobile app.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Azerbaijan has said recently that Armenia was unfortunately refusing to exchange prisoners on the principle of “all for all.” Several months ago, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow was calling for this exchange format. Why do you think there are problems on this issue? Does Moscow still support this principle?



Maria Zakharova:

We have spoken about this many times. The prisoner exchange is a constant topic on the agenda of the talks. In particular, the meeting between the Azerbaijani, Armenian and Russian foreign ministers with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group held in April was dedicated to this matter. The parties in the meeting agreed to take mutual measures to allow the prisoners’ families to see them. As you know, in June an Azerbaijani national, Elvin Arifoglu, and an Armenian national, Zaven Karapetyan, returned home with the support of the Red Cross. We welcome this breakthrough and regard it as the first step to helping the prisoners. I can say that work is also underway regarding other prisoners. If an agreement is reached, we, of course, will support it.



Question:

We are receiving contradictory information. On one hand, the Russian government allocates money from the federal budget to implement the UN programme to aid the most damaged Syrian provinces. On the other hand, several foreign media outlets, citing their sources at the UN, are saying the Russian Permanent Mission at the UN is threatening to block the adoption of the 2020 budget to show its disagreement with the methods the UN wants to use to investigate military crimes in Syria. Would you comment on Russia’s position on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We provide humanitarian aid directly to Syria and via corresponding mechanisms at the UN, but at the same time, we have a position on the issue you have raised. I don’t see any contradictions here.



Question:

Last week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed recognising the genocide of the American Indians in the United States. How do you see this initiative? Will we join it?



Maria Zakharova:

If you quote or cite a statement, it must be complete. This was about the Turkey’s reaction to the relevant actions of US lawmakers. I believe each state has the right to a foreign policy, a negotiating process, and consideration for its interests. This applies to any country in the world. If you want to remember what the immigrants did to the American Indians when having arrived in the future US, we are ready to supply you with reference materials and share them with the public. We will definitely do that.



Question:

Let me ask you a theoretical and futuristic question. Recent events that have occurred in Latin America, especially in Bolivia, show external interference. Unsuccessful attempts were made in Venezuela. Is there a possibility that this intervention will be the subject of discussion in the UN General Assembly, so that measures might be taken against these countries? Because this is already becoming a proven practice.



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that the question you asked is relevant, including for foreign policy and the position of states in the region. You know our position on upholding the principles of non-interference and protecting the principles of the UN Charter. We reaffirm this, including in our approaches to the development of general and specialised UN General Assembly resolutions. We are trying to charge the text of the relevant UN General Assembly resolutions with precisely these approaches. But, if the region’s countries form an approach or a position on introducing an appropriate resolution for consideration by the General Assembly that would really protect, as you just said, the region from endless attempts to intervene from the outside, reincarnating the concepts of managing the region from the outside, using the region’s resources illegally without taking into account the sovereignty and national interests of this state, I mean a return to colonialism in one way or another – even an updated and modernised colonialism.

If the region’s states consider developing or elaborating such an initiative within the UN General Assembly, I think many would be interested in this and would take part in it. Since your question is theoretical and about the future, as you said, I am responding in the same vein.



Question:

There is Far Eastern news related to the impoundment of Japanese fishing vessels at Yuzhno-Kurilsk. Please explain what charges are being presented to the Japanese side, how are the Japanese sailors fairing, what are the conditions of their detention, and when will they head home?



Maria Zakharova:

In fact, what you are talking about did take place. According to the Border Service of the FSB of Russia and a Foreign Ministry representative in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russian border guards inspected, on December 17, some Japanese vessels that were fishing for octopus in the area of the South Kurils based on the 1998 Agreement on Certain Issues of Cooperation in the Fisheries and discovered that the actual catch on five of these was at variance with the entries in their fishing logs. Given the weather conditions, these vessels were brought to the port of Yuzhno-Kurilsk for further investigation. I can list, if you wish, the names of these ships. I am referring to Harumi Maru No.53, Seise Maru No.62, Ootomo Maru No.38, Umitaka Maru No.55, and Fumi Maru № 53. I hope I said nothing that ran counter to the reality, given that all the names were transcribed in Russian.

To start with, I can say that their total catch exceeds [the quota] by several tons.

Guided by humanitarian considerations, the Russian border guards provided all the crew members with enough packed meals to last for three days. The possibilities are being looked into of delivering from Japan additional provisions, such as food, fuel and clothing, as well as medicine for the sailors who need it. The thing is that two crews have members suffering from serious ailments. I will not name them, but these aspects are being taken into account as well. There are plans to deliver the required medicine.

Please note that the Agreement has been in effect for 2 decades and each year its implementation is darkened by violations of this kind.

We call on the Japanese side to take the due and effective measures to enforce compliance with the Agreement and the understandings that have been reached.



Question:

After Boris Johnson and his party’s double-digit victory in the early UK elections, the newly elected PM approved the publication of a report about so-called “Russian meddling.” According to the Sunday Times, the report may mention nine Russian businessmen, who sponsored the Tories. How do you estimate these British actions? Does Russia have any expectations about bilateral relations with the United Kingdom after the just ended elections?



Maria Zakharova:

The report has been drawn up by government agencies. We are talking here about a sovereign state. They can prepare and publish anything they like; this is entirely within their jurisdiction. It is common knowledge that a great many stories that the UK media constantly refer to, as well as press leaks are generating a wave of speculations. We always say that either we use sources and facts that can be confirmed, or this must not be done in principle – I mean references to some piecemeal information. This is raising a wave of what everyone is now fighting against, that is, misinformation and fake news. And, in general, all of this looks very much like information and propaganda campaigns. We have always welcomed the publication of facts.

This was a general commentary. In this case, we are talking about a decision that will be taken by a sovereign state.



Question:

What expectations does Russia voice on the Alexander Korshunov case?



Maria Zakharova:

Moscow’s obvious expectations boil down to the following simple fact: The entire case and all related developments should proceed completely in line with the law. We have already voiced these expectations, and we have discussed them openly and also via the relevant channels. We hope very much that the examination of this case will not violate legal proceedings.



Question:

Russia is an Interpol member state. How can you explain the fact that you did not know that the Russian citizen was wanted by Interpol?



Maria Zakharova:

I don’t deal with matters to do with Interpol. All I can say is, who made this statement and why.



Question:

The European Parliament recently passed a resolution denouncing “illegal actions” by the Russia "against Lithuanian judges, prosecutors and investigators involved in investigating or judging the ‘13th of January case’ about the tragic events of 13 January, 1991 in Vilnius” and urged EU member states and Interpol to ignore all Russian inquiries on this subject. What comments can the Foreign Ministry make about this?



Maria Zakharova:

You know that we are trying to distance ourselves from comments regarding the European Parliament’s activities. Speaking of the gist of this matter, rather than external involvement, I can point out the Russian side’s all-round approach.

It is common knowledge that, in July 2018, the Russian Investigative Committee opened a criminal case against officials of the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania and a national court in connection with the criminal prosecution of a priori innocent persons under the so-called the “13th of January case” that was fabricated by Vilnius.

We have always commented on the prosecution of Yury Mel, Gennady Ivanov and other members of the Soviet Armed Forces. Vilnius prosecutes them in violation of the norms of international law in the area of human rights. This means that such crimes that they have been charged with were absent in Soviet legislation as well as in Lithuanian legislation up to 2010. This is exactly what runs counter to the fundamental principle implying that there is no punishment without a crime and the unacceptability of retroaction for criminal law. Unfortunately, the actions of modern Lithuania as a state ran counter to fundamental legal principles. It should be recalled that this state did not exist during the so-called “Vilnius events” of January 1991. The international community, including European states whose members of parliament voted for this European Parliament resolution, officially recognised Lithuania only in September 1991. Unfortunately, this did not confuse them in any way. Therefore, it would be absurd to talk about any interference in domestic Lithuanian affairs because, in January 1991, Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union, and all events in Vilnius were therefore a domestic Soviet affair. And an accusation implying an aggression sounds even more fantastic, resembling some kind of a novel. It turns out that the Soviet Union had attacked itself.

At the same time, it is important to note that the Russian investigation does not influence the discharge of various functions by Lithuanian persons involved to the case; nor does it limit their rights and freedoms. We can call this aspect an exception in our public assessments of actions of European Parliament members. At the same time, instead of becoming really involved in the legalisation of politically motivated persecutions of Russian citizens in Lithuania and trying to put pressure on the Russian justice system and urging their respective states to violate their international obligations, they ought to pay more attention to the protection of such fundamental European values as human rights and the rule of law.



Question:

As is common knowledge, the draft Law on the Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities in Montenegro is to be submitted to the Parliament on December 24. The bill has received a mixed reaction in the country. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

The case in point is a sovereign state’s law. This is a prerogative of Montenegro and its people. We are categorically against any interference in internal affairs.

If we turn to the essence of what is going to be discussed, this, as we understand it, could affect the interests of the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral of the Serbian Orthodox Church, including its property rights to religious facilities. If we consider this aspect of the issue, it goes beyond national boundaries and concerns the unity and cohesion of the Orthodox World and the problem of preserving its mainstays that have taken shape over the centuries.

We are convinced that it is necessary to strictly respect the legitimate rights of the canonical Orthodox churches. Disdain for their opinion and the artificial creation of conditions for splitting the believers is fraught with great problems. I would like to stress that we have always commented on this topic with much delicacy and respect for the fundamental principles and norms of international legal acts, given that religious communities, etc., are involved.

This topic has been politicised to the extreme in recent years by a number of persons representing the executive authorities of Western states. We have to comment on it from the point of view of how representatives of the executive authorities (and not only them but also official spokespersons for a number of states) meddle in religious affairs (and do it in a gross manner), rather than offer our own assessment of the problem of Orthodoxy or other faiths.

Incidentally, this is precisely what is happening in the religious life in Ukraine, where the well-known events have virtually rocked the world Orthodox community and affected the life of both society as a whole and specific people in particular. I think this is a sad example. To my mind, it is in everyone’s interests to avoid recurrences of this sort.



Question:

What is Russia’s view on the US draft sanctions over Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 systems, as approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?



Maria Zakharova:

We are against any sanctions that have failed to be verified and legalised by the relevant structures of the UN Security Council. From our point of view, unilateral sanctions are illegitimate. The sanctions pressure brought to bear on various countries contradict the norms of international relations enshrined in a great number of international bilateral legal documents and the basic instruments that serve as a foundation for international organisations.

We are categorically against any sanction pressure and the use of sanction tools, whether it be through the financial system, the economy, or the humanitarian sphere, in addressing contradictions and problems in relations with other states.



Question:

The first words uttered by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky about Russian journalists are at odds with the facts. Can we expect the Ukrainian side to disregard other agreements reached at the Normandy Four meeting? Is the Foreign Ministry ready to appeal against the entry ban, via diplomatic channels?



Maria Zakharova:

Diplomatic channels are not for appealing against someone’s decisions. They are used to convey a point of view, an attitude, or requests.

In this case, we are talking about the fact that this sphere – regarding allowing or disallowing journalists to enter Ukraine – is not regulated by any laws effective in that state. This is a paradox, but it exists. I am referring to the instruction issued by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) that entitles the authorities to simply ban people from entering Ukraine’s national territory.

Every state has a procedure regulating the entry and activities of foreign journalists, a procedure that is legitimate, approved, elaborated, enshrined in and based on some law. For example, there are states that journalists can enter without a visa, permission, formal documents, or just any formalities whatsoever. Incidentally, if you ask me, Ukraine always used to be such a state, but then something happened to it on its way to European values and it actually took to segregating journalists without any legal right.

How can we appeal against what was originally outside the legal framework and is now practiced by fiat? Ukraine has a problem complying with its international commitments. This is why we are acting through international organisations, which, in turn, must – here it will be appropriate to use your term – appeal and demand that Kiev honour what it has signed and shared for years – the relevant agreements, resolutions, and instruments – doing that as a nation and a state entity, rather than in private.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3961456
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 29th, 2019 #53
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 Czech Republic approving a law recognising August 21 as Remembrance Day in Honour of the Victims of the Invasion and Subsequent Occupation (of the CSSR) by the Warsaw Treaty Forces in 1968



18 December 2019 - 19:08



We are disappointed to learn about the law approved by the Czech Republic that recognises August 21 as Remembrance Day in Honour of the Victims of the Invasion and Subsequent Occupation (of the CSSR) by the Warsaw Treaty Forces in 1968. This sort of approach adopted by our partners runs counter to our bilateral agreements enshrined in the Russian-Czech Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation (of August 26, 1993), where the two parties announced their “desire to finally draw the bottom line under the totalitarian past related to the inadmissible use of force against Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the further unjustified presence of Soviet troops on Czechoslovakian territory.”

Prague’s aspiration to return back to the events that happened fifty years ago in order to include them in a modern political context, its reluctance to turn over this page of history, which is beclouding the atmosphere of Russian-Czech relations, is unlikely to facilitate advances in bilateral cooperation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3961546






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation around the Sputnik Russian news agency in Estonia



19 December 2019 - 15:17



The outrageous situation around Sputnik, a Russian news agency, in Estonia is raising serious concerns.

It seems that the official Tallinn considers it a matter of principle to shut down this Russian news agency. The local Police and Border Control Department are sending letters to the employees of Sputnik’s Estonian office, threatening them with criminal prosecution. In addition, it is stressed that those who have any information on individuals and legal entities connected to Sputnik but won’t report it to the money laundering office may also be prosecuted.

Thus, in their persecution of the Russian news agency, the Estonian authorities have adopted such totalitarian methods as intimidation of its employees and partners.

This situation is unacceptable and is beyond the fundamental democratic principles and Estonia’s international commitments to ensure free operation of the media, freedom of speech and equal access to information.

We urge the specialised international institutions and human rights non-profit organisations to respond immediately. Above all, we expect a statement on this case from OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3963878






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the adoption of a resolution on combatting the glorification of Nazism by the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly



19 December 2019 - 17:21



On December 18, participants in a plenary meeting of the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York passed a resolution titled “Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, which was submitted by the delegation of the Russian Federation. Members of the Third Committee of the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly approved the document’s text in November.

This year, the number of the document’s co-authors reached 62. An overwhelming majority of states (133) supported the resolution. As in the previous years, only the delegations of the United States and Ukraine voted against, and 52 countries, including EU member states, abstained.

This is undoubtedly a subject that should help unite UN member states, especially in the context of the upcoming 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II, due to be celebrated next year. The establishment of the UN was as a response by states, parties to the Anti-Hitler Coalition, to the horrors and crimes of Nazism. We are convinced that the history-making Victory is a shared heritage of all UN member states.

One of the resolution’s key provisions denounces the increasingly active war on monuments to those who fought against Nazism and fascism in some countries against the backdrop of unveiling and building monuments in honour of SS members and various collaborationists, as well as the holding of marches and torch processions by nationalists and neo-Nazis. The document also voices profound concern over attempts to glorify members of the Waffen SS, recognised as a criminal organisation by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, as well as those who fought against the Anti-Hitler Coalition, cooperated with the Nazi movement and committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Broad support for the Russian initiative and the annual increase in the number of the document’s co-authors reaffirm the importance of the fight against the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism in modern conditions, as well as the preservation of the historical memory of nations regarding the lessons of World War II that inflicted untold suffering on humankind and those who gave their lives for the Victory. Against this backdrop, the position of states that do not support the resolution, allegedly under the pretext of concern about the freedom of expression, evokes great regret.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3964033






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Serbian newspaper Srpski Telegraf, published on December 20, 2019



20 December 2019 - 08:00



Question:

What is your assessment of the developments in Kosovo? What possible solution is there to the problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

As of now, in our opinion, there are not yet the necessary prerequisites for positive change in the Kosovo settlement process. The post-election chaos and the struggle for power continue in Kosovo. The European Union’s potential as a mediator has been significantly depreciated, and it seems that the EU cannot influence the Kosovars to compel them to adopt a sensible, constructive approach to the talks with Serbia.

For instance, since 2013, Pristina has stonewalled the implementation of its commitment to create a Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo. Discriminatory anti-Serbian customs duties imposed by the Kosovo government are in effect for a year already.

Russia urges the parties to reach a viable and mutually acceptable solution based on Resolution No 1244 of the UN Security Council. The solution should comply with international law and be approved by the UN Security Council because we are talking about providing international peace and security.

We will only agree to a solution that is acceptable to the Serbs themselves.



Question:

You have visited Belgrade several times. What did you like the most and what made the strongest impression?



Sergey Lavrov:

The most important thing in Serbia is its people, of course. Their traditional hospitality and friendliness can be felt everywhere, and this was the most vivid and pleasant impression.

I can say honestly that when visiting Belgrade, both my colleagues and I, always feel at home there. And there is nothing surprising about this because our two really fraternal nations are united by common cultural and civilisational roots, spiritual ties and the warmest friendship and affinity.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the Serbian government and all our Serbian friends for the attention they pay to the strengthening of Russia-Serbia strategic partnership.



Question:

What would you wish the readers of Srpski Telegraf in the new year?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I wish the people of friendly Serbia peace, good health, happiness and wellbeing. I am sure that in the upcoming year, we will reach new levels of bilateral cooperation together, and ensure the implementation of mutually beneficial joint projects in the interests of increasing wellbeing and improving the quality of life for the people of our countries.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3965980






Remarks by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on the situation in Ukraine and the need to comply with the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, December 19, 2019



20 December 2019 - 11:48



Mr Chairperson,

The Normandy format summit has sent clear signals on the need to further promote de-escalation, to achieve a political settlement and to have parties to the internal Ukrainian crisis agree on humanitarian measures. For this purpose, the Normandy format leaders called on the Contact Group to step up its efforts. It serves as a platform for the representatives of Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk to engage in direct dialogue on the key aspects of the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Unfortunately, not all these signals were taken into consideration.

Firing incidents continued in Donbass throughout the past week. There were about 5,000 ceasefire violations. The Ukrainian Armed Forces continued to receive weapons by rail. In fact, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) reported dozens of artillery units and armoured vehicles at Rubezhnoye station, Lugansk Region (18 2S1 Gvozdika howitzers, 5 MT-12 Rapira guns, 15 tanks and 30 armoured vehicles were seen there on different days). In this context, implementing the permanent ceasefire agreement that was reached within the Minsk Contact Group in July becomes especially important. At the December 18 meeting of the Contact Group, the parties reaffirmed their commitment to the ceasefire and to taking measures to support it. This is about delivering on the existing obligations. It is vital that a full and comprehensive ceasefire is achieved rather than yet another truce, as many politicians in Ukraine have been suggesting.

Unfortunately, Kiev and Donbass representatives were unable to agree on new areas of disengagement along the line of contact at the final Minsk Contact Group meeting of the year. Not only did the Ukrainian negotiators evade discussing this matter in a constructive manner with people from Donbass, but also they failed to put forward any proposals. Moreover, Kiev does not seem to be prepared to disengage forces along the entire line of contact. At the same time, in accordance with the outcome of the Normandy Four summit in Paris, the sections for disengagement are expected to be designated and measures to this effect taken before the end of March 2020. Effective withdrawal of troops and forces, as well as demining could make it possible to consider increasing the number of crossing points for civilians.

The parties have yet again been unable to comply with an instruction from the Normandy Four and agree on a date of exchange of the detainees before the end of this year based on the “all established for all established” principle. In the course of the talks with representatives of Donbass in the Contact Group’s humanitarian subgroup, Kiev was unable to submit proposals for the so-called procedural and legal cleansing of the persons subject to exchange. On the other hand, Donetsk and Lugansk have come up with such a mechanism. Let me remind you that an amnesty and non-prosecution of the participants in the events in Donbass are directly provided for by paragraph 6 of the Minsk Package of Measures.

We are worried seeing how, against this backdrop, Kiev imitates or completely refuses to fulfill its political obligations under the Minsk agreements. We see how the authorities in Kiev try to replace them with half-hearted measures or acts that are hardly related to the Minsk agreements, like extending the law on the special status of Donbass for a year. However that law has not entered into force and must be permanent. By the way, in its current form, the document contains references to invalid regulatory legal acts. These imitations include introducing constitutional amendments regarding decentralisation. They do not contain any mention of the special status of Donbass. They were not discussed with Donbass representatives and are, in fact, just a set of measures to reform administrative and territorial arrangement dubbed “decentralisation.”

Meanwhile, under the Minsk agreements, a genuine and comprehensive political settlement is what matters if we want to establish peace in eastern Ukraine. Progress on the political track should go parallel with security measures, as approved by the Normandy format and agreed with Kiev. This progress, of course, is impossible without stepping up talks between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk in the Contact Group.

In the meantime, we hear strange declarations from Kiev about its openness to a dialogue with certain people from Donbass – those who used to live there but left Donbass several years ago. This is despite the fact that when working on the Package of Measures in Minsk, then Ukrainian president Poroshenko insisted that real representatives from Donetsk and Lugansk – the leaders of certain Donbass regions – put their signatures under this document. They did so. However later, Kiev methodically avoided direct dialogue and camouflaged its tactics with pseudo-patriotic rhetoric. These attempts to hinder an effective direct dialogue with Donbass are nothing more than a manifestation of the desire to continue the armed confrontation in Donbass and avoid reaching a settlement.

The price of Kiev’s ongoing military operation in eastern Ukraine continues to rise. According to the SMM, 145 civilians were victims in 2019, of which 18 were killed. The number of damaged civilian buildings increased to at least 550 this year, including 14 operating schools. Most of the victims and destruction from shelling occurred in certain districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, including in the near vicinity of Donetsk, Gorlovka, Pervomaisk, the villages of Kominternovo, Sakhanka, Zolotoe-5 and Mikhailovka. The SMM data clearly show the targets of the Ukrainian military.

By the way, the cruelty of the Ukrainian armed forces’ servicemen with regard to the people of Donbass is evident not only from indiscriminate shelling, but also from the actions of the military on the territory controlled by the Ukrainian army. This is reflected in the report of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Ukraine for the period from August 16 to November 15. Continuing gross, systematic and often unpunished violations of human rights, including the right to life, have been reported. The report mentions cases of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment of civilians, looting, robbery and violence by the Ukrainian military. All this was the reason for the UN Human Rights Observation Mission in Ukraine to urge the country's law enforcement agencies to investigate the crimes committed by the participants of the Kiev military operation in Donbass. An appalling situation with regard to protecting the rights of journalists was also noted.

Speaking of journalists, towards the end of the Normandy summit, Mr Zelensky publicly invited Russian journalists to visit Ukraine. However, over the past 10 days there were several incidents related to the Ukrainian authorities restricting their work. NTV correspondents were denied entry to Ukraine on three occasions. A Zvezda television channel crew was detained when leaving Kiev on December 13.

Mr Chairman,

This year, there have been some encouraging developments related to resolving the internal Ukraine crisis. There was some progress within the Minsk Contact Group, a disengagement of troops and hardware has been carried out at three pilot sites, and a Normandy Four summit was held. However, contradictory signals from Ukraine’s leadership on its future strategy have so far failed to provide any evidence that this process is fully underway. We hear some officials in Kiev, including Foreign Minister Prystaiko, talk about the need to “adjust” some of the provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures, which, he believes, “have partially lost relevance.” We caution against attempts to revise this document approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202 and recognised as a non-alternative international legal basis for overcoming the crisis in Ukraine.

Ukrainian leader’s statements on their desire to achieve peace are not enough. Now is the moment of truth when Kiev needs to show political will, stop imitating the fulfillment of its obligations, engage in implementing the Minsk Package of Measures, and start a dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3966217






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US sanctions against gas pipelines



21 December 2019 - 14:49



We are watching with interest how the US is crossing a landmark line in foreign policy by launching sanctions, which Russia has long become accustomed to, against their own allies. It is exactly what the provisions stipulate in the December 20 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 which contains a section entitled Protecting Europe’s Energy Security.

The title is totally misleading. In reality, the Act is not about assisting Europeans in ensuring uninterrupted fuel supplies at acceptable prices but rather about a desire to dispossess them of guaranteed supplies from Russia. Moreover, the desire to hurt Russian exports is not the only and the main goal. Equally noticeable is their desire to impose American LNG on Europe, which costs much more than pipeline gas supplies from Russia, and thus will slow down Europe’s economy and undermine its ability to compete with the US on global markets. The Europeans will ultimately lose in every respect.

In pursuit of these goals, the US is going to sanction European companies, not Russian, taking part in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream pipelines. Washington decided that no one, even its closest NATO partners, should be spared for the sake of geopolitical ambitions and commercial gains.

Russia has been pursuing and will continue to pursue its economic projects regardless of anyone’s sanctions. However, it is fascinating to see how really sovereign European countries are, when they, like Germany, for example, receive orders from Washington to meekly finance the US energy industry and forget about their own economic interests.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3968209
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 29th, 2019 #54
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions in The Great Game show on Channel One, Moscow, December 22, 2019



22 December 2019 - 15:45








Marina Kim:

Welcome to The Great Game. Today we will talk about the outgoing year 2019. What was it like for Russia on the international stage? Sergey Lavrov, the man who has been at the helm of Russian diplomacy for the past 15 years, is our special guest tonight. Good evening.



Sergey Lavrov:

Good evening.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Mr Lavrov, your recent meeting with US President Donald Trump has created quite a stir, especially in the United States. President Trump deliberately held the meeting on the day when the House Judiciary Committee announced articles of impeachment against Trump. I see this as political trolling of the highest level. You noted, however, that there are no good days for meeting with anyone in the US because of sanctions, impeachment or other hearings. Anyway, what do you think about Donald Trump?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have met with US President Donald Trump before. He received me at the White House in May 2017, when Rex Tillerson was Secretary of State. After that, the US opposition tried to stir up a spy scandal, claiming that secret information was passed to us at the meeting. This is a crazy and silly allegation plucked from the air. Of course, I also talked with President Trump during his meetings with President Vladimir Putin. The last such meeting was held in June of this year on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka. So, we know each other rather well. I like the way President Trump talks about international affairs and bilateral relations. He avoids ambiguities and tries to speak his mind. It is not often that top-level politicians do this, but I think that it is a very constructive approach that allows the sides to see the potential, difficulties and prospects of relations, which is what we are concerned about.



Dimitri Simes:

Mr Minister, I believe that it is a tell-tale fact that Donald Trump has received you, especially considering the pressure he has been put under regarding Russia. As I learned at the White House – I believe the Department of State made an official statement – there was a preliminary agreement that, since President Putin had met with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, President Trump would receive you during your meeting with Mr Pompeo. Donald Trump could do as some people recommended, that is, he could have told Pompeo to meet with you outside Washington, and any normal person would have understood that he needed to avoid such contacts in the current political situation. I was told that Trump’s decision to meet with you was based first of all on the respect he feels for you, because he meets with foreign ministers only rarely. Second, he wanted to tell his opponents, “Surrender!? Not on your life!” Or as Pyotr Stolypin said, “You will not intimidate me.” Was your meeting, which was held under very difficult conditions for Trump, successful or rather formal?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I believe that it was a coincidence that our meeting was held on the day when the House Committee launched the impeachment procedure. We coordinated the date a month before my trip to Washington. It is a tradition of Russian-US relations that when the chief diplomat visits the capital city of the partner he is received by the head of state. It is a long-standing tradition.



Dimitri Simes:

Is it only true for Russian-US relations? It doesn’t seem to be a norm for relations with other countries, does it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Quite so, but it is a matter of principle in Russian-US relations. Both sides always respect this rule. When we meet in Europe on the sidelines of international events, a reception given by the president is not on the agenda. This rule applies when we visit each other’s capitals. My meeting with President Trump was not formal or purely official. It was constructive; we discussed about a dozen essential matters, including bilateral relations, strategic stability, arms control and regional conflicts, including in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Korean Peninsula. We had a direct and open discussion on all these topics, without any attempts to smooth things over. We sometimes differ dramatically, for example on Iran’s nuclear programme and several other matters. But we are set for dialogue, as President Trump has reaffirmed. I see this as a matter of fundamental significance. He has sent a clear signal to his establishment and the staff of the White House and State Department: The US should continue to talk with Russia. We believe that this is the only correct option.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

The New START treaty is pivotal when it comes to strategic stability. Vladimir Putin noted this when answering Dimitri Simes’ question during the annual news conference held on Thursday. Mr Lavrov, do you think that, based on your Washington talks with Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo, the chances of an extension of the New START are increasing or falling?



Sergey Lavrov:

Difficult to say really. I believe that this matter remains in limbo, just as was the case before. In addition to what President Putin said at the December 19 news conference, I would like to remind you about what he said at a regular meeting with the senior officials of the Defence Ministry and the Armed Forces. At the start of that event, which was traditionally held in Sochi, he said concerning the New START that we are ready to extend it immediately and without any preliminary conditions. This addition is very important, because until recently the US seemed to allege at the talks that our questions regarding US compliance with the treaty were designed to hinder its seamless extension. This ambiguity has been settled, and our American colleagues have no more pretexts at their disposal. We hope that they will respond constructively, because as President Putin said, if the treaty is no more, the last instrument for arms control and the last instrument in the field of strategic stability will be lost. This subject was discussed at length in Osaka. President Trump said that China should be involved in the negotiations. President Putin replied that we had asked the Chinese about this, and our Chinese colleagues publicly commented on this US initiative. They said that the Chinese strategic nuclear forces were a far cry from the Russian and US nuclear forces when it comes to scale and structure. And therefore they see no reason for joining the talks and would not take part in them. We told our American partners in Osaka that since the Chinese had officially stated their position we respect it. If Washington believes that China must take part in the talks by all means, they should discuss this with Beijing.

In principle, we are ready to discuss multilateral approaches, but in this case we should also consider inviting France and Britain, if we have in mind the legally recognised nuclear states. There are also states that have declared possession of nuclear weapons and those that do not admit or deny having them. This process should begin someday in the future, but we will not force our Chinese strategic partners to sit down at the negotiating table when they don’t see themselves there. President Putin suggested in Osaka that we should at least negotiate the extension of the New START, which should remain the load beam in arms control and confidence building structure, and that its extension should be complemented with talks on the involvement of other states.

This time in Washington, when China’s position was discussed, we pointed out what the Chinese had said about the incompatibility of arsenals. The Americans said an interesting thing there; they said they did not insist on arms control or reduction but would rather like to discuss a set of mutually acceptable conditions, transparency and rules of behaviour. I believe that it is an interesting approach. However, to decide on its acceptability to us and the other potential partners the Americans would like to invite, we need to see the US concept on paper.

We are committed to the extension of the New START in the bilateral context. We are also ready to discuss it in the multilateral format if – and I repeat, if – the other countries consider this possible, but we will not force anyone to join this format. We believe that the Americans, if they are convinced that a new format is a must, should clearly formulate their conviction and put it down on paper.



Dimitri Simes:

I talked with members of the US administration after your visit. The White House had very positive views regarding it. The State Department was more wary. The US military said a few very interesting things: Russia is correct to emphasise the importance of strategic stability, but the US military I had talked with believe that the New START, in its current form, does not ensure it.

First, there is the Chinese factor. And second, both Russia and the United States have created new technology that is not covered by the treaty. Does the New START provide a basis for moving forward? Or can the sides reach informal agreements on the rules of the game you have mentioned and also exercise what the Pentagon describes as reasonable restraint on the deployment of new weapons, which the Americans see as a better guarantee of strategic stability than this treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

Otto von Bismarck once said that in military affairs, you have to judge not the intentions, whether reasonable or unreasonable, but the potential. This rule still stands. A treaty cannot cover all the existing problems in the field of strategic stability and those that will accumulate with the development of new technology.

We have told the Americans within the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the New START that we had presented our new systems, including hypersonic ones. We believe that the Avangard and Sarmat systems are covered by the treaty. We are ready to incorporate these systems into the New START, of course when it is extended. We have shown the Avangard system to the Americans and we will also be ready to demonstrate the Sarmat in due time. The other systems President Putin has presented in the Address to the Federal Assembly in March 2018 are not covered by the treaty. We said that we were ready to hold separate talks on these Russian systems and the new US technology. These talks can only be held as part of broader discussions on the entire range of matters related to strategic stability.

We have formulated the New START Treaty. One of the decisive factors was the Americans’ agreement to include in the preamble the phrase on the sides’ recognition of the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, which means above all missile defence systems. We never refused to discuss the entire range of matters related to strategic stability with due regard for all the aspects that can affect strategic stability, including strategic offensive nuclear arms, the conventional strategic arms the Americans are creating within the framework of the Prompt Global Strike programme, as well as missile defence. Of course, now that we see that the BMD system has no connection to defence against Iran but is a truly global system, we insist on discussing the plans to deploy weapons in space, which not only the United States but also France has announced. The US refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not strengthening stability and confidence either. Therefore, we should not only extend the New START but also launch talks between all the key players on the entire range of these matters.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Earlier this week, this earned a tough commentary from Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov: “The situation in the world remains unstable and the developments are increasingly more dynamic. This is largely due to certain states’ desire to impose their own principles on sovereign states, including with the use of force. The political, economic and information pressure brought to bear on states attempting to pursue independent policies, including on Russia, is without a precedent. Under these circumstances, one cannot rule out the emergence of crises that may slip out of control and grow into a large-scale military conflict.”

This is a “large-scale conflict” that NATO countries are preparing for. How close is the danger arrow to the critical line on the diplomatic measuring instruments?



Sergey Lavrov:

Diplomacy is primarily presenting ideas and arguments in an attempt to convince a partner. Therefore, if we take the rhetoric that we hear from the NATO circles, both from the member countries and the General Secretariat, their Russophobia is off the scale. One of the most striking impressions for me was the debate on French President Emmanuel Macron’ initiative to start reforming NATO and to discuss what is to be done with the North Atlantic Alliance (his famous remarks on “brain-dead” NATO and the need to find a cure and lead it out of this state). Germany was among those who took issue with him by default. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas led the way, followed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said that this approach to NATO was wrong; the alliance should remain what it is in effect, because, for example, it is only NATO that can defend Germany. To be honest, I was amazed by these statements – statements that come from Germany, the EU and European leader, rather than from some tiny country with a Russophobic mentality and historical phobias. Therefore, these ideas, this paranoia have sunk very deep. I think that it is of fundamental importance for diplomacy to change the narrative, as they say today. President Macron is trying to do this as are a number of other NATO and EU leaders. We believe that the new composition of the European Commission and decision-making bodies of the EU, including the European External Action Service, will have to formulate their attitude to dialogue on military and political security on the European continent and to the same dialogue with Russia and other non-EU and non-NATO countries.



Dimitri Simes:

You may remember that Henry Kissinger was once asked about Europe’s position and he replied: “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” I think that even today it would be hard to say with much certainty what the European telephone code number is. Don’t you think that this code has shifted from West to East over the past 20 years? If you speak about NATO and the EU, you are increasingly aware of their Polish-Baltic accent. Or is it an exaggeration?



Sergey Lavrov:

No. I agree with you. I have repeatedly said that, to my great regret, the NATO and EU position towards Russia is determined by a rather aggressive and noisy Russophobic minority. This is really so. When countries that are aware of the abnormality of the current relations between Moscow and the West explain to us during bilateral contacts that the current stage is what it is because there is the consensus rule, that they are against sanctions but have to join the consensus, I usually remind them in a comradely kind of manner that consensus is the lack of objections and that a single objection will be enough for consensus to fail, if both organisations, NATO and the EU, do operate on the basis of consensus (which is really the case). Complicated processes are in progress over there and it is clear to many people that they cannot go on in the old way any longer.

I think that it will be a priority for the new EU leaders to formulate this position. They have the five principles that were invented several years ago, which still underlie relations with Russia. These are about a well-known thing: Russia must implement the Minsk Agreements and then the sanctions will be lifted. In the meantime, the EU will work with our civil society and with our neighbours based on the Eastern Partnership programme and will extend it to Central Asia. So, it is stressed that they will work with them in a special way in spite of their relations with us. These five principles will clearly lead no one anywhere.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

While meeting with you, Donald Trump said the United States was interested in expanding trade and economic relations with the Russian Federation, and that $27 billion in trade was not enough. At your meeting with Mike Pompeo, you discussed the Russia-US Business Council on which Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump had agreed in Helsinki. But this agreement was not implemented. Almost at the same time the US defence budget was approved which stipulated separate sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project. The bill on the much-discussed “Sanctions from Hell” was drafted, too. The US Congress is also drafting a bill that declares Russia a sponsor of terrorism. Under these circumstances, one would like to ask the following question: What’s the use of talking if the United States is saying one thing and doing something completely different?

You have said in connection with sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project that nothing threatens it. Why are you so confident?



Sergey Lavrov:

They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest. Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security. Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.

I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented, and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.

US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Will Russia respond to the sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will respond to the sanctions in a way that will not inflict losses on ourselves. But we will certainly respond. And, of course, we will take this into account while building upon our relations. I consider this situation hard to understand because I knew most of these Congressmen, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, primarily members of the Democratic Party, either personally or indirectly. I never believed that politicians could make such decisions that do not befit serious political figures.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Mr Lavrov, you spent many years in New York and Washington. What can you say about the current atmosphere in the United States, as compared to previous years?



Sergey Lavrov:

To be frank, this atmosphere reeks of McCarthyism. I was not in the United States during that period, but, judging by textbooks, I can imagine that similar things did happen. Dimitri Simes can also speak his mind on this matter, including the “witch hunt,” for example. But US President Donald Trump and journalists who are trying to figure out what is happening there have already made such statements. It is sad when these endless election cycles are starting to make virtually everything else a hostage to the domestic US political struggle. Elections take place every two years, and it is necessary to do something during them, so that the enemy will feel defeated. But this is democracy, what can we do about it?



Dimitri Simes:

McCarthyism is a complicated and interesting matter. As you may guess, I was thinking a lot about it while in Washington. When CNN were commenting on President Putin’s reply to my question, they said I was the head of a Washington think tank that was under investigation and mentioned in Robert Mueller’s report, because they had consulted Donald Trump’s campaign on Russia. Just imagine: having no ties with Russia but consulting the winning candidate’s campaign. This seems to them so reprehensible and speaks for itself.

On the other hand, I must say honestly that I know very few cases where, unlike McCarthyism, someone was fired or destroyed. What I see is rather an atmosphere of fear, when people preventively start practicing self-censorship. If someone in Congress raises his or her voice and calls into question the new orthodoxy on Russia, they face a crackdown and their accusers state they reiterate “Putin’s line.” In this way, even leading members of Congress get insulted.

I have a different question for you. All three of us visited Nur-Sultan a month ago to attend a conference sponsored by the former President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, whom you know well, was also present at the event. In both his public remarks and private conversations he said one simple thing about sanctions: They will not make us cringe, we will follow our line, we are a sovereign and proud state. When I hear European politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her ministers, it is not clear what reply we can expect from them to US sanctions if they follow. Do you think they will challenge the sanctions or that they will simply make a noise for a little while and then toe the line?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t know. I cannot judge for them.

I would like to go back to McCarthyism for a second. The lack of imprisonments can possibly be explained by the fact that McCarthyism was unleashed by a party in power, while today’s neo-McCarthyism is being unleashed by a party in opposition. If this party will later come to power, we will likely see what you have just said. We would not like this to happen at all. America is our partner, we are trading with America, and we would like and must cooperate for the benefit of universal peace. We would like America to be stable, like any other partner of ours. The same refers to the European Union. We are eager to focus on a positive agenda – trade, investment, earnings, higher living standards for our citizens…

As for Foreign Minister of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif and his statements, we have repeatedly urged the Americans and other colleagues to keep this in mind, while discussing the Iranian nuclear problem. Iran cannot be treated the way Washington is trying to do it. Not only do Americans grossly violate the UN Charter by refusing to comply with the UN Security Council’s binding resolution but they also rather rudely address the demands to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country with a one-thousand-year-old civilization, traditions, and an immense sense of dignity. In effect, the Americans said that they would not fulfil this resolution but that Iran was certainly due to continue doing whatever it should under the resolution. As for the rest of those who got the right to trade freely with Iran in exchange for what it had done to restrict its nuclear programme, they are also banned from trading with it. This means no one can take any steps that were approved by the resolution with regard to opening economic ties with Iran. Iran, for its part, must continue doing what it has subscribed to. This is nonsense. I know it is not always that the US has enough experts on the Middle East. But this is an obvious matter. You don’t have to be a Harvard alumnus with years of history studies behind you.



Marina Kim:

Let’s talk about the outcome of the Normandy format meeting in Paris and the prospects for Ukraine’s implementation of the Minsk agreements.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Yes, but first let’s conclude our discussions on global security. The United States has destroyed the INF Treaty, the support pillar of the international security system. Washington has announced its deployment plans for intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. This means that the United States has always had such missiles. Is the matter of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, which worries both the East and the West, on the agenda of Russian-US talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

It was discussed. I mentioned it at the talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and at the meeting with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House.

The situation is alarming, because the United States, which made a point of withdrawing from the INF Treaty, made no secret of the fact that it had long been creating missiles prohibited under the treaty. The point that it has tested a cruise missile so soon after the withdrawal and had recently launched a strike cruise missile from a launcher that was designed, they claimed, for missile defence is fresh proof of what we said long ago – that it is a dual-purpose launcher, just as this is written on the site of its producer, Lockheed Martin, which offered a system that can accommodate both air defence and strike missiles. This has become a fact now. The Americans say that they cannot sit on their hands while China (they keep mentioning it) is building up these systems whereas the United States has nothing of the kind. They have mentioned the importance of deploying such systems in the Asia-Pacific region, directly indicating Japan and South Korea. Just a few days ago, I spoke about this with my Japanese colleague, Toshimitsu Motegi. He continues to say that Japan will have full control of the Aegis Ashore systems it is buying from the United States within the BMD framework. But the above facts make us wonder if intermediate- and shorter-range missiles would soon appear near our border, in particular, in Japan and South Korea. Whatever the reason for the US intention to deploy these missiles there (they continue to openly cite China), this would not mean much to us because of who the official target of these missiles will be. First of all, we would not like China to be this target. China is our strategic partner. Anyway, this would destabilise the situation. As for us, these missiles, if they are deployed in Japan or South Korea, will be able to reach targets all the way to the Urals. Of course, we will insist that new rules are adopted in this sphere after the destruction of the INF Treaty.

In October of this year, President Putin sent a long letter to over 50 heads of state and government to present our views on the situation following the collapse of the INF Treaty and suggest ways to prevent the arms control situation from going into a tailspin. The President reminded the international leaders about our moratorium on the creation and deployment of such missiles and invited them to join our moratorium. He recalled that the offer we made to NATO last summer remained unanswered and invited them once again to discuss a mutual moratorium.

We did not make the letter public, because we wanted to heed diplomatic rules while we waited for an answer. But the essence of that letter was leaked in the West, and therefore I am not breaking any diplomatic rules and customs talking about it here.

The letter said openly that we are ready to discuss a moratorium that will include verification measures, something the West claims we never wanted to have. The West claims that we offer them a moratorium because we have already created and deployed such missiles and are okay. And now, being in possession of these missiles, we allegedly want to force the West to accept the moratorium when the West has no such missiles. We have answered to these allegations in the letter by openly declaring readiness to discuss verification measures.

The only leader to have replied to that letter was President of France Emmanuel Macron, who wrote that he was ready for dialogue even though he could see some faults with our side as well. None of the other NATO leaders have replied. US President Donald Trump sent a brief note saying that they would continue looking for ways to overcome the hitches in our bilateral relations.

What I mean is we have offered yet another constructive solution to the current situation: to extend the New START without any preliminary conditions and to consider verification measures within the framework of a moratorium on the missiles prohibited under the INF Treaty. But all we got was dead silence in response. The only exception was President Macron.



Dimitri Simes:

You mentioned China. Of course, it is impossible to understand current global politics, as well as, I believe, Russia’s foreign policy, without talking about relations with China. Recent discussions on relations with Russia held in the US often included relations with Beijing. It is said that it is not in US interests to push Russia towards China. This is an argument against deliberately fanning the conflict with Russia. I myself have said so and have written about this more than once. Many people in the US establishment have the following answer to this argument. The traditions and political cultures of Russia and China, as well as the economic situation in these countries are so widely different that a Moscow-Beijing rapprochement will not go too far, either in China or Russia. Russia and China only want to create the impression of a growing rapprochement between them, while in fact they have major differences and mismatched interests. Moscow is coming to see that China as a superpower would be a big problem not only for the US but also for Russia. What can you say to that?



Sergey Lavrov:

China behaves completely differently on the international stage. It is not trying to humiliate anyone with ultimatums. It is true that China is using its economic might in strict compliance with the rules established by the Bretton Woods system, including the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank. The founding fathers of globalisation may feel offended that they are being outplayed by the rules they themselves established. This is life, competition; the free market and the rules established at Bretton Woods are still in effect today. They have tried to modernise them, for example, at the WTO.

As President Putin has said more than once, Russia and China have no plans for a military union. But we are allies when it comes to politics, the protection of international law and polycentric international relations. Our economies have different potentials, but our international cooperation, including with China and within the EAEU and the SCO, is based on mutual respect. We are trying to harmonise these processes, through mutual agreement with China, with projects within China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The ASEAN countries have shown interest as well.

We believe that all countries on the huge Eurasian continent – the member states of the SCO, the EAEU and ASEAN – should combine their efforts while leaving the door open for the EU so as to align all the integration processes. Otherwise we will be unable to use the common natural competitive advantage of the countries on this huge continent.

As for the United States and attempts to play on Russia and China, it’s an old story. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger delved into this when they were young people. Of course, we monitor the Western analysis of this issue. By the way, we touched on this during our talks in Washington. I cannot talk about the details, for understandable reasons.



Dimitri Simes:

But you did touch on this, right?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we did. When it was proposed that Russia be readmitted to the G7 and that the G8 be relaunched, the majority of analysts explained this in terms of what you said, a desire to put a distance between Russia and China. The G7 is an unrepresentative group. It cannot decide anything. This was admitted when the G20, which includes the G7, BRICS and other major economies, was created. As for the latest comment regarding Russia, China and the United States, Henry Kissinger talked about it when we met in New York this autumn. He wrote a book about China several years ago. It provides valuable insights. He said that it would be ideal for the United States if its relations with Russia and China are better than relations between Russia and China.



Dimitri Simes:

This seems logical from the US viewpoint, doesn’t it?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, but this is unrealistic. We will not undermine our relations with China to please the Americans. But the idea of attaining one’s goals through positive means, by promoting cooperation rather than sanctions and ultimatums, deserves consideration at the very least.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

The current situation in the relations between Russia, the United States and China is quite the opposite of what Henry Kissinger talked about because the United States is conducting a policy of double deterrence against both China and Russia. This is why the United States has bad relations both with Russia and, no doubt, with China. I think the US will never again manage to reach parity in its relations between Russia and China.

You were in Paris and took part in the talks. A Ukrainian source even said that at some point your nerves couldn't take it anymore. Frankly, I can hardly imagine this because I have known you for a long time and I cannot imagine that you could be unrestrained in your communication even with a Ukrainian delegation.

In Paris, did you have a feeling that Kiev still intends to live up to Minsk agreements? Was there any difference in the approach of Vladimir Zelensky’s team and that of Petr Poroshenko, with which you haven’t had a dialogue for quite a time? Is there any hope that Zelensky’s team will be able to move the Minsk process forward?



Sergey Lavrov:

A lot of questions. First, as for the Minsk agreements, the main achievement of the Paris meeting was the adoption of a document, which in its initial lines proclaimed that all the participants are committed to carrying out the Minsk agreements in full. Then it set forth the specific measures that the Normandy format is asking the Contact Group to consider and adopt, including the disengagement of troops and hardware, mine clearing, an exchange of “all identified for all identified” (POWs), work at the advisor and minister levels to specify the legal aspects of Donbass special status, including the Steinmeier formula into Ukrainian law, etc. All these are specific steps for the implementation of the Minsk agreements. However, President Putin said that after returning to Kiev members of the Ukrainian delegation, starting with President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadim Prystaiko, as well as Minister of the Interior Arsen Avakov, who was present but behind the scenes, started making statements, which in essence strike out everything written in that document. By the way, this began even in Paris. It was very demonstrative when the Ukrainians started to “disclose” an earlier agreed document and Vladimir Zelensky said firmly that he would not be able to support the disengagement of forces along the entire line of contact.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Does this mean he is unable to support the disengagement of forces as required by the Minsk agreements?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Minsk agreements include this as a goal and we should proceed towards this goal. In Paris, there was a phrase that the Normandy leaders urged the Contact Group to coordinate the disengagement of forces and hardware along the entire line of contact. This phrase was integrated into this document a month ago.

President Vladimir Zelensky said he was unable to support this because it was a very remote goal and that the disengagement that had already occurred in three locations – Stanitsa Luganskaya, Petrovskoye and Zolotoye – had taken him more than five months to accomplish. So, projected forward, disengagement at this rate will take seven or even ten years. So he could agree only to the Normandy format calling on the Contact Group to coordinate disengagement in another three locations. Vladimir Putin replied, “Let’s write this down so, but in parallel to the call to disengage in three locations, let’s say that we are basically in favour of forces and hardware being disengaged along the entire line of contact”. This was roundly rejected. It is a serious indication that President Zelensky’s hands are tied even on key issues of his election campaign, where he was saying that his priority was to stop the war and prevent further deaths. He either has certain commitments to those who want no end to the conflict, or he is just aware that he may have problems at home.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

How did Chancellor Merkel and President Macron react to the “disclosing” of this document? After all, this is a clear sign of disrespect for the parties who coordinated this position.



Sergey Lavrov:

They were surprised. Unfortunately, they were unable to “raise their voice” at least on this topic and confirm the disengagement of forces and hardware along the entire line of contact.



Dimitri Simes:

Were they unable or unwilling?



Sergey Lavrov:

Probably unable, because…



Dimitry Simes:

Because they did not want to?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, probably because of this.



Dimitry Simes:

I would like to understand your opinion. Perhaps I am asking for an undiplomatic answer, which is inappropriate and impossible, but I will try…



Sergey Lavrov:

We will sort it out.



Dimitri Simes:

What you and Vyacheslav Nikonov said shows that the Ukrainian delegation and the President of Ukraine were not well-versed in diplomatic protocol. This is understandable. This can change with experience and over time. Another train of thought suggests that Ukraine is unable to reach consensus with Russia because Ukraine’s new identity hinges on confrontation with Russia, rather than just because of Donbass and Crimea. This is how they present themselves to the West, they request subsidies for this, and they want to consolidate their nation with this approach. To what extent is this possible? What do you think?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that this is largely so. This began long before the events of February 2014 and subsequent developments. The so-called first Maidan protests took place in late 2004 and early 2005. At that time, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court stipulated a third round in the presidential election, although the Constitution says nothing about this. In turn, Russia could not be associated with these developments in any way, but European politicians, including the governments of European countries, NATO and European Union members noted openly that Ukraine needed to choose between Europe and Russia.

This Russophobia has been deliberately and consistently imposed for a while now. It is possible that an entire generation of people affected by this propaganda has now matured. So this variable, is of course, present in our relations, and we have repeatedly urged our European colleagues to change their mind, not to build new walls, not to dig new demarcation lines but to work together. We suggested jointly promoting their Eastern Partnership concept covering six CIS countries. We suggested doing the same with their new concept for Central Asia. They don’t even want to note in their documents that the concerned countries are located in the European region of the CIS and the South Caucasus, as well as the five Central Asian countries, and that all of them are either members of the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. They simply ignore all conceptual European doctrines with regard to them. This is too bad. But I do believe this mistake will eventually be understood, and that it will happen sooner rather than later.

Regarding Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his team’s experience, his team does include career diplomats who have repeatedly worked for the government of Ukraine. So I don’t think the situation with these experienced negotiators is really bad. Recent talks on natural gas and other cooperation show that, despite the difficulties, Ukraine realises the need to search for mutually acceptable solutions. Still it is hard for me to say to what extent our Ukrainian colleagues are capable of coming to terms.

Two examples of what was agreed on in Paris. I already talked about the disengagement of troops and hardware. But even when the Contact Group met this week to discuss these three new areas of disengagement, the Ukrainian party, according to my information, specified three unpopulated areas where the disengagement would not have any effect on the security of people and civilian infrastructure. However, they flatly refused to designate these three new areas for separation and disengagement of forces in locations where it is important to alleviate the threat to civilians.

Another example is also very important: in Paris, the Contact Group was urged to coordinate the lists of all prisoners who had been identified, so they can be exchanged. The objective is to exchange all for all, but despite these years of comparing lists, it turned out that not all of them had been confirmed by both sides. There are lists that both parties recognise as lists of people who do exist and everyone knows where these people are and how they have to be freed and exchanged. This was explicitly recorded, and this is what the leaders discussed: Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky agreed in the presence of Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron that these people had been identified and the relevant lists had been made up, so they would be exchanged. Now the Contact Group has introduced a new criterion; indeed, there are people whose identity has been established but not all of them have been legally cleared. This means a new obstacle that will prevent people from returning home for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

This is not a question that should be put to a diplomat. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is an enigma for many. You met with him, looked him in the eye and heard his arguments. Is he capable of showing political will and control over his country’s elite in order to secure any positive and important change in relations between our countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not doubt that he as a person, politician and president wants this. At the same time we see those people in Ukraine who are doing whatever they can to prevent him from doing this and also to preserve Russophobic sentiment in the country’s foreign policy and the conflict in Donbass, which suits many. This is deplorable but we will be prepared to the extent possible to try to help him, in particular, we will urge Donetsk and Lugansk to take as constructive approach as possible to implementing the decisions that will be agreed on in the Contact Group at the suggestion of the Normandy format.



Dimitri Simes:

I remember having a lunch with you in New York many years ago. You weren’t a minister yet. You were Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN. Even before I met you, I was attracted by your remarks and speeches at the UN, which remarkably differed in tone and robust sarcasm from a slightly submissive and timid tone of Russian diplomacy that was prevalent at the time. When we had our first lunch, you said something like that: “Dimitri, it is a gross mistake to predict Russia’s behaviour based on what is happening today. It is not the behaviour Russia is likely to display over a lengthy period of time.” You were right. If we look at the coming year, we see that it is full of challenges, which you have eloquently and convincingly portrayed. Speaking of opportunities, you said, if I understood what you meant, that US President Donald Trump takes a different approach to relations with Russia than the majority in Congress and he will not be ousted any time soon – rather he stands a chance of being re-elected. His foreign policy will probably reflect his personal preferences to a greater extent after that. This may have an impact on Ukraine because, if President Vladimir Zelensky also wants to deliver on the promises given to the voters and seek peace with Russia, a change of position in Washington may give him more room for manoeuvre.

You just talked about French President Emmanuel Macron, who started seeing the flaws of NATO. To what extent do you think next year could become a year of progress or even a breakthrough in the efforts to ensure global security?



Sergey Lavrov:

To the extent to which we will be able to convince our partners of the need that we must all cherish the emerging signs of the understanding that the current situation is abnormal and take care of them, because they will bring us to the negotiating table and allow us to begin talking without ultimatums and without unfounded accusations and also allow us to judge any event by the same standards, that is, by the standards of international law.

We just talked about Ukraine. Today, any talks on Ukraine with our Western partners begin with them saying: “if not for your annexation of Crimea” or “if you had not occupied Donbass.” We say: why don’t we begin with February 2014, when the anti-constitutional coup happened, rather than with March 2014? The putschists trampled on the signatures of Germany, France and Poland on that agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they broke, thereby spitting in the face of these European countries. There was nobody who even urged them to observe the agreement, which they had violated – nobody. This was swallowed, this was accepted as if giving to understand that it would be like flogging a dead horse.

A bit later, in 2014, there was a coup in Yemen and Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia, where he still remains. The entire international community shares the opinion that to settle the conflict, President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi has to return to Yemen and bring members of the opposition to the negotiating table. Are these not double standards? The answer is obvious. I do not know why Yemen is a better country than Ukraine or what the difference between the two is. So, when they tell us we must do something, we reply that they must realise that their connivance led to what happened in Ukraine and their silence after the first law passed by these new authorities, the putschists, revoked the law that had safeguarded the rights of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority – true, it was not adopted but this was a show of the new authorities’ political instincts – their silence allowed those who used force on Maidan to threaten publicly that they would drive Russians out of Crimea and to send “trains of friendship” to the area, that is, militants to seize the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as it was called at the time. While all this was happening, the West and NATO member countries called on the new authorities to use force proportionally, that is, they were not even opposed to the use of force by the putschists against the rest of the people.

Neither Crimea, nor Donbass attacked anyone. They were labelled terrorists only because they said: the authorities are not legitimate, please do not harass us, we want to understand what is happening. They did not attack the rest of Ukraine. The putschists attacked them, declaring them terrorists.

Of course, a serious blow was delivered to the reputation of the European Union. It is pertinent to say that this was not the first one. If we take the successful performance of the European Union in Kosovo – they volunteered to be a mediator between Pristina and Belgrade, we will remember the agreement on creating a community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo, which was signed in 2013. The agreement was signed and coordinated, while the Serbian municipalities were vested with rights, including the right to have symbols of a semi-state, along with the rights concerning the people’s daily lives, like the right to speak their native language and others. Pristina is refusing to comply. The European Union is helpless. So, of course, we would like to see that the understanding of their proactive and fair role in the world affairs prevails in the European Union. The other day, I heard the Queen’s Speech to Parliament by Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and she said that after we exit the European Union, we will, among other things, be much more active in foreign policy affairs. You see, it is a strange sequence: while we are members of the European Union, we do not appear to be very active and now that we are on our own, we will do something in this area. Of course, I would also like to wish the European Union as a potentially very strong foreign policy player to be more self-reliant.



Vyacheslav Nikonov:

Mr Lavrov, we are meeting ahead of the New Year.2020 is a symbolic year. It is the time to sum up the results: the first twenty years of the 21st century, twenty years of the Putin presidency, and fifteen-odd years that you have headed the Foreign Ministry. How would you draw the grand balance of the year and the first fifth of the 21st century?



Sergey Lavrov:

Vladimir Putin drew the grand balance at his annual news conference. Yes, this number is symbolic: one-fifth of the century, 2020; all of this makes one tempted to make generalisations. But right now, we are in the middle of a major historical period. We are midway. This way should lead to fundamentally new international relations, primarily between the leading world powers. Everyone is increasingly conscious of the growing urgency of this goal. But we are yet to reach it. Our aim is to change the attitude towards each other on the international arena and to seek to start a conversation based on mutual respect, regard for each other’s concerns and a search for a fair balance of interests within the framework of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.



Dimitri Simes:

You know, Mr Minister, history is written by winners, as they say. You have just demonstrated that each country has a chronology and logic of its own, and, of course, this is perhaps impossible to overcome. But one would like to believe that the gap could somehow be bridged.



Sergey Lavrov:

I can’t hold back a comment in connection with what you just said about history being written by winners. If this is so, the Minsk Agreements should be implemented from A to Z, to the last comma.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3968263
__________________
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 January 6th, 2020 #55
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 mechanism for the cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid to the Syrian Arab Republic



23 December 2019 - 14:08



On December 20, the UN Security Council held a vote on two draft resolutions on extending the authorisation for the mechanism that allows cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid to the Syrian Arab Republic without agreeing it with the Syrian government. The first draft, tabled by Belgium, Kuwait and Germany, was supported by 13 members of the Security Council, while Russia and China voted against it. The second draft, prepared by Russia, was voted for by five council members (Russia, China, South Africa, Equatorial Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire), while four members abstained (Belgium, Kuwait, Germany and Indonesia) and six voted against (the United Kingdom, France, the United States, the Dominican Republic, Peru and Poland). As a result, the mechanism of cross-border humanitarian access has not been renewed and will be shut down on January 10, 2020.

While discussing draft resolutions and during the vote, Russia’s representatives adhered to a clear and consistent position: they did not speak against the mechanism itself, but contended that it must be brought into line with the current developments in Syria and with the provisions of international humanitarian law. Cross-border humanitarian aid deliveries to the Syrian Arab Republic began in 2014, when the country was faced with a grave humanitarian situation against the backdrop of terrorist mayhem, while the Syrian government could not control a large part of its territory.

However, in the past five years, the situation has changed radically: the terrorists have been almost completely eliminated and the Syrian authorities have been restoring the unity and territorial integrity of the country, as well as working on providing urgent humanitarian aid, including with the support of the UN. It is noteworthy that it is Damascus through which humanitarian aid is delivered to the infamous camp of Rukban, located in the area occupied by the US, around Al-Tanf on the border with Jordan, and to the Al-Hawl camp east of the Euphrates River, on the border with Iraq. Only two border crossings, in the Idlib de-escalation zone, are operating out of the four crossings outlined by UN Security Council Resolution No. 2165 of 2014. The Jordan border crossing has been closed since 2018, and the Iraqi crossing only let through seven humanitarian aid convoys out of 2,000 this year, and even those seven crossed the border before the Syrian troops regained control over the Qamishli District.

At the same time, in accordance with international humanitarian law, humanitarian aid must be delivered upon an agreement with the government of the recipient country. The Syrian government has officially requested that the UN stop cross-border humanitarian assistance. In the framework of their commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, the international community should take into account and respect the Syrian government’s request.

Based on the above, the Russian party prepared and submitted a draft resolution that seeks to extend the delivery of humanitarian aid via two border crossings in Idlib by six months.

However, our Western partners, apparently guided by political considerations and not the needs of the civilians in Syria, voted against our draft. It is obvious that to them, the cross-border mechanism was important only as a tool to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, and not as a way to help those in need. For the same reasons, harmful economic sanctions were imposed against Syria, prohibiting imports of medical supplies, construction materials and equipment that Syria’s population of 22 million needs so badly after the nine-year-long crisis. In addition, the Western countries are blocking the allocation of funds for the humanitarian recreation of the country (including the construction of houses, schools, hospitals and water and electricity supply facilities), which is crucial for facilitating the voluntary, safe and dignified return of refugees and IDPs, in accordance with the UNHCR standards. But it is still not enough: the US and its allies in the “anti-ISIS coalition” before the eyes of international community are illegally trading Syrian oil and are keeping their illegal military presence in the country’s northeast to do so.

Such actions are not only a blatant violation of all provisions of international law, international humanitarian law and the UN Charter. They are a glaring example of disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries, the politisation of purely humanitarian issues and the use of civilians’ needs to shamelessly loot a country’s natural resources.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3975548






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions during Government Hour at the Federation Council, Moscow, December 23, 2019



23 December 2019 - 17:35






Ms Matviyenko, members of the Federation Council, colleagues,

I am grateful to you for the opportunity to speak before you as part of the Government Hour.

We at the Foreign Ministry value our relations with both chambers of the Federal Assembly. We appreciate the lawmakers’ interest in our work which we find helpful. We welcome our parliamentarians’ focus on consistent promotion of Russia's priorities in the international arena using parliamentary diplomacy methods. In turn, we do our best to support your endeavors in the interests of the effective implementation of our foreign policy as set out by President Putin.

Joining our efforts in this area is important today. I don’t think I need to elaborate on the fact that the international situation remains tense. Our US colleagues and their allies are trying to slow, including by force, the objective process of creating a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order. They try to hold back new world centres that appear and to strengthen their own position not only in Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific Region (APR), but Africa and Latin America as well.

The architecture of strategic stability and arms control is being dismantled unilaterally. After the ABM Treaty, the United States scrapped the INF Treaty. Now they are dragging out the adoption of New START. Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, refusal to ratify the CTBT and plans for militarising outer space are part of the same plan.

The European security space continues to be fragmented. NATO's military activities near our borders are intensifying. The NATO countries’ military budgets are growing. Widespread use of aggressive and unfair methods of competition, as well as gross abuse of the status of the dollar, exerts a negative impact on the global economy.

The idea of “rules-based order” was invented by a number of Western capitals based on their unwillingness to accept the realities of multipolarity. Its purpose is to replace generally recognised standards of international law with a set of their own foreign policy goals, which vary depending on the political situation. In fact, the West would like to replace the cooperative work at universal multilateral formats, primarily the UN, with “private get-togethers” and then impose their decisions on everyone else.

As a responsible state and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has been working to prevent these destructive plans from coming to fruition. Many people in the West clearly dislike that, as well as our foreign policy as a whole. This is why they are trying to shift the blame for others’ mistakes and wrongdoings onto us. In fact, they want to punish us for independence and self-sufficiency in international affairs.

Have no doubt: no degree of pressure will force us to deviate from our policy of protecting the national interests of our foreign policy and the fundamental principles of international law, first of all those sealed in the UN Charter. We must be able under any circumstances to defend the security of our country and to uphold the people’s confidence in the future.

At the same time, confrontation is not and will never be our choice, as President Putin has said more than once. In contrast with the destructive line pursued by Washington and its allies, we are advocating a positive international agenda aimed at creating a healthy and neighbourly international environment and at strengthening all aspects of international and regional security. Towards this end, we use the potential of membership in the key global governance organisations, primarily the UN and the G20, especially since the latter group has many current issues on its agenda. Other positive examples of multipolar diplomacy are BRICS and the SCO, the summits of which Russia will host next year.

Colleagues,

The focus of global politics and economy is shifting from Euro-Atlantic to Eurasia. Close relations with Eurasian countries and integration associations are an undeniable priority for Russia as a major Eurasian power. We have recently scored many positive achievements in this field. We see a constructive development of interaction within the CIS, the Union State and the CSTO, which is really helping to build regional security. Our cooperation within the EAEU is especially important. The EAEU’s dynamically growing external ties are evidence of the success of this integration initiative. It has signed free trade agreements with Vietnam, Singapore and Serbia and an interim agreement with Iran. The agreement on trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and China has come into effect. Talks on free trade areas are underway with Israel and Egypt, and it has been decided to launch such talks with India as well.

Our strategic cooperation with China is growing stronger. It was announced during President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Russia in June this year that our bilateral relations had entered a new age. The Russia-China foreign policy alliance plays a vital role in supporting stability in international affairs.

Our privileged strategic partnership with India is advancing. Our ties with the overwhelming majority of other Asia-Pacific partners are deepening.

There is also the RIC format of Russia, India and China, which remains effective and which had given rise to BRICS some time ago.

An increasingly important current goal is to harmonise Eurasian integration processes from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. This goal has been set in President Putin’s initiative of a Greater Eurasian Partnership comprising the EAEU, SCO, ASEAN and all other countries of the continent. We are working towards this goal, including by aligning the development plans of the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Of course, we would like to see the European Union and its member states among its participants. There are no obstacles to this.

We are promoting our political cooperation and practical interaction with African and Latin American countries. The first ever Russia-Africa Summit was a major diplomatic event this year. The implementation of the agreements reached at the summit will make our interaction really comprehensive and multifaceted.

As for the United States, we have said more than once that we are ready to maintain contacts on the principles of mutual respect and a balance of interests. A pragmatic interaction between our countries is vital for stability in international affairs. Our proposals in this respect are well known. The ball is now in the US court.

Colleagues,

This country’s peaceful development is closely related to how efficiently main external threats are neutralised. Russia is greatly contributing to the political and diplomatic efforts to deal with numerous crises and conflicts. It is largely thanks to the concerted work of the Russian military and diplomats that much damage has been inflicted, on “remote approaches,” on international terrorism. Syria’s statehood has been preserved. This year, the guarantor nations of the Astana format – Russia, Iran and Turkey – managed to launch the Constitutional Committee tasked with achieving a political settlement of the Syrian crisis.

Most certainly, we intend to help stabilise the situation in the entire Middle East even further, including in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Lebanon. This is the aim of President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to form a broad anti-terrorist front, as well as that of the Russia’s Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region and the neighbouring areas.

The internal conflict in Ukraine remains a serious destabilising factor. It can be overcome only through the consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures that was approved by the UN Security Council, something that, of course, requires a direct dialogue between the sides. It is what is said in the final document of the Normandy format summit, which was approved in Paris on December 9. We are ready to continue acting as mediators at the Contact Group. And, of course, we will do our best to stop discrimination against Ukraine’s Russian speaking citizens.

We will continue promoting Russian initiatives in spheres such as preventing an arms race in space, creating mechanisms to counter chemical and biological terrorism, and coordinating an international “code of conduct” in the cyberspace.

As before, we will focus on rallying the multi-ethnic and multi-faith Russian World, promoting economic diplomacy and defending the rights of Russian journalists abroad. The importance of a civilisation-to-civilisation dialogue grows objectively against the background of multipolar consolidation. In 2022, Russia will host an IPU and UN-sponsored world conference on interreligious and interethnic dialogue. We are ready to collaborate closely with the Russian legislators to aid its effective organisation.

Colleagues,

Next year will be marked by celebrations in honour of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. We are doing our best to oppose falsifications of history, preserve the reputation of soldiers who won the war, and generally prevent a revision of the international legal results of the defeat of Nazism, including the verdicts of the Nuremberg Trials. Our allies and partners stand with us in this regard, as has been confirmed by the CIS summit which was held in St Petersburg, where President Vladimir Putin made a relevant statement. The overwhelming majority of the world community solidarise with us as well. The Russian resolution against the glorification of Nazism that was approved by the UN General Assembly several days ago is dramatic confirmation of my point. We will continue to render the necessary support in upgrading foreign contacts and ties to the regions you represent. The Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has acquitted itself well. We will continue to provide venues at the Ministry and our foreign missions for the regions’ presentations and to assist their business missions abroad.

Russia will continue to act in a responsible way and to work, jointly with like-minded people, to strengthen the legal, democratic foundations of international life based on the principles of the UN Charter. We will be guided by the primary objective of assisting in the creation of maximally favourable external conditions for this country’s development and the growth of its citizens’ wellbeing.

I would like to wind up my opening remarks at this point. Thank you very much. I am now ready to answer your questions.







Question:

When you were talking about the international results of the year on the Great Game TV programme, you pointed out a number of important aspects in the world politics against the backdrop of rampant Russophobia. Can you speak in greater detail about the statement by German Chancellor Angela Merkel that NATO is the only organisation that is able to defend Germany? To what extent is it in line with the position of other NATO countries that believe in the need to build a new architecture of trust, as well as with the real state of affairs, specifically the recent sanctions against German and French companies involved in laying the Nord Stream 2 pipeline?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the statements from Berlin in the context of the discussion of Emmanuel Macron’s opinion on NATO’s future, I can hardly add anything else to that. I was astounded to hear from Germany that only NATO can defend it. The question is, defend from whom? Look at Germany’s neighbours and draw your own conclusions.

As regards our common approaches to the situation in the Euro-Atlantic region: in the 1990s Russia and NATO concluded agreements and proclaimed the goals of indivisible security, when no country would provide for its own security at the expense of others. We were told at that time that no substantial forces would be deployed in the new NATO countries on a permanent basis and many other steps were taken to build up trust. Of course, it is regrettable that the West is simply retreating from all those understandings at the US initiative, and our Western colleagues made those declarations and admirable political statements in the 1990s solely because they regarded Russia as a subordinate partner, a weak geopolitical player. Now, when under new conditions we are attempting to stand for the same principles of equality, mutual benefit and assurance of common and indivisible security, the West is not comfortable with it any more. This is probably part of the common policy of deterring the Russian Federation that is currently pursued by the United States and its close allies. I think that most NATO members are not happy about it at all. I think President Macron’s proposal to look at the general situation in the strategic context and discuss ways to develop relations with Russia reflects such opinions. Hopefully, they will be put into practice.

Concerning the sanctions – there is nothing to talk about here. I think that after the United States showed again that its diplomacy boils down, above all, to different methods of intimidation – sanctions, ultimatums, threats – when its closest allies are punished for working to address their economic problems and their energy security. I don’t think any country in the world should be under the illusion that the United States will keep the promises it makes. The United States will desert it at any moment.



Question:

I have a question in the context of the point you made about the promotion of our interests in Europe. Kamchiya is a beautiful health resort on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria, owned by the Moscow Mayor’s office. Its first-class amenities and furnishings are not inferior to those of Orlyonok and Artek. There is every reason to use this venue to work with our compatriots in the European Union. We have explored this matter, and figured out the conceptual basis for a project. No one objects to its implementation, and it has been supported by both the Moscow Government and the Federal Government. However, there has been no progress since 2015. Meanwhile, the threat of losing this property is more than real. Is it not time for the Government to address this issue and create a Russian humanitarian centre at the Kamchiya resort as the main foreign cultural and humanitarian platform for promoting our interests in Europe? What is your assessment of the prospects for the implementation of this project and also its relevance?



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree that it is a unique project. If we talk about “soft power,” it is an ideal model of soft power in the most positive sense – a place that enjoyed tremendous popularity with young people, athletes, among those who want to develop contacts between people, between citizens of Russia, Bulgaria and other countries. We are concerned though about the negative trends developing around this project. Some of the buildings have been shut down, while others have been leased out. There are ownership questions, tax debts, and other disturbing factors piling up. Following Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Bulgaria in March, the Foreign Ministry prepared a note on the implementation of all the agreements, in which the crisis involving this resort was a highlight. One of the proposals was for the Moscow City Government and the Russian Government in particular represented by the Ministry of Education to work out options for transferring this property to the federal government and providing federal financing. The deadline was set for June, and the relevant reports were submitted. But, unfortunately, the bureaucratic machine moves slowly, so I don’t know if I am disclosing a big secret, but Valentina Matviyenko was also there, and we are now preparing to consider this issue at an operational meeting of the Russian Security Council permanent members. I hope that, with the involvement of the Prime Minister and all agencies that can facilitate the implementation of the project, we will be able to stimulate this decision under the leadership of the President. And I hope this will be done quickly, because, in our estimation, the situation is degrading very rapidly.



Question:

Is the attitude of the international community, primarily the EU and the US, towards the reunification of Crimea with Russia changing? I mean are there some unofficial statements maybe, behind-the-scenes conversations, if you can share these things?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can say that everyone understands everything, be it in public or behind-the-scenes. Their persistent reiteration of Crimea in all Russophobic statements on Ukraine, as well as in many other topics (we are now blamed for everything, including in Syria and in Libya, we are to blame again), makes one doubt the adequacy of the people involved in real foreign policy. If they cannot understand that Crimea is part of Russia, and had been removed from Russia for three decades by some quirk of fate and contrary to the wishes of its residents, an abnormal situation – it means they have no clue about history. I will not, for obvious reasons, share my discussions on this topic with my colleagues, but I can assure you that serious people have for a long time now understood everything. The continued use of the “Crimean trump card” in the rhetoric some of our Western colleagues like can only mean one thing – they are obsessed with containing Russia more than with anything else. They simply do not have more reasonable, more adequate arguments that could be used in a serious conversation.



Question:

The Ad Hoc Commission of the Federation Council on Protecting State Sovereignty and Preventing Interference in the Domestic Affairs of the Russian Federation, guided by the Bangladesh resolution of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) on the role of parliament in respecting the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, uses methods of inter-parliamentary diplomacy to conduct an active dialogue with its partners on ways to limit interference in sovereign affairs.

However, it has been argued that the nature of new challenges and threats in the 21st century has not been clearly formulated. It’s hard to argue with that, because one of the few global documents on this subject is UN General Assembly Resolution 36/103 adopted 49 years ago. A lot has changed since 1965. We held a videoconference with our partners on this topic, during which it was proposed that an international group should work out a framework document that would provide answers to all these questions. Meanwhile, decisions taken at the “private get-togethers” you have mentioned are not at all favourable for us.



Sergey Lavrov:

We appreciate the active stand our MPs have taken on this sensitive issue. We see that the Ad Hoc Commission is playing a vital role in this. We will do everything we can to help you.

You have mentioned precedents in the field of international law, however, the UNGA resolutions are not binding documents but recommendations. Nevertheless, when decisions are adopted by consensus, this says a lot. The resolution adopted in 1965 approved the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty. It was the first UNGA legislative initiative that received consensus approval. The resolution condemned armed intervention and all other forms of interference in the domestic affairs of states, as well as the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce states into taking any actions. Since then, the UNGA and the international community have not slackened their efforts in this field.

Five years later, in 1970, the UNGA adopted Resolution 2625 to approve The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. A considerable part of the declaration has to do with the inadmissibility of interference in the domestic affairs of states. I would like to add that the declaration also clearly states that there is no contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination. But the governments that wish to ensure full support for their territorial integrity must respect the principle of self-determination on the domestic stage and also represent the interests of the entire population living on the territory of the said state. This observation clearly pertains to the situation in Donbass and Crimea.

In 1981, the UNGA adopted one more document, The Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States. It provided details of the obligations and responsibilities of each state. It set out, inter alia, the duty of states to refrain from any action or attempt to destabilise other states, to abstain from any defamatory campaign, vilification or hostile propaganda for the purpose of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other states, and to refrain from the exploitation and the distortion of human rights issues as a means of interference in the internal affairs of states. Our Western partners are doing this especially often. We regard this block of regulations as very important and comprehensive, covering all the existing forms of interference, possibly with the exception of cyberspace, which is being used as a medium for the above activities. It should be said that these documents were adopted by consensus in 1965 and 1970, but in 1981 our Western colleagues voted against, possibly because they planned to violate their commitments sealed in the resolutions that received consensus approval from the UN General Assembly.

Here is a recent example. When foreign-orchestrated state coups and unconstitutional changes of government became trendy, we proposed relevant provisions for a resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, which was adopted for the past three years at the initiative of Latin American countries. It calls on states to refrain from the extraterritorial use of national legislation, from attempts to use force to overthrow legitimate governments or to interfere in the internal affairs of any state. Documents regarding this have been drafted and adopted not only at the UN but also at the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO. Of course, these are not binding documents but recommendations. There are no internationally binding documents regarding this; the only, but very significant, exception is the UN Charter. I believe that we can and should work out detailed provisions for a binding document now. On the other hand, we must be realistic: there are precious few chances for the adoption of such a document in a format that would guarantee non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Our Western colleagues have long outlined their position, and they will stick to it. Yet we must persevere in any case, because we have rock-solid arguments in support of our position.



Question:

Most of us are not professional diplomats, but, I am sure, everyone in this room will agree that the foreign missions of the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Cultural Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) play a special role in implementing Russia’s foreign policy. But we are becoming convinced, while contacting the heads of Russian cultural centres in foreign countries, that their budgets are quite modest. Occasionally, they suffice only for salaries and rent. This problem is particularly pressing in the CIS states. Do you think it is urgently needed to upgrade the funding of the Russian cultural centres and possibly make them functionally akin to recruiting organisations involved in the Education Exports project?



Sergey Lavrov:

We certainly see that it is necessary to continue energising Rossotrudnichestvo and its chain of Russian science and cultural centres. I would not say that problems related to shortages of funding are particularly pronounced in the CIS countries. But on the whole this problem, which is nothing new, is quite pressing indeed for both Rossotrudnichestvo and our cultural centres abroad. When Mr Konstantin Kosachev headed Rossotrudnichestvo, there was a special meeting dedicated primarily to the need to substantially increase the funding of Rossotrudnichestvo’s programme activities, rather than just to provide for employees of these centres abroad. As you said, the lion’s share of money was and is spent on salaries. Therefore, we have President Vladimir Putin’s support; it is yet to materialise as specific government decisions, but we are working on this issue, and a relevant policy has been approved.

As for Rossotrudnichestvo’s involvement in the Education Exports project, I am unaware, to what extent this has been reflected in the Russian university quotas for foreigners, but Rossotrudnichestvo, via its centres, is really involved in selecting candidates for Russian education grants. I think that if this arrangement is not formally extended to the Education Exports programme in the direct manner, this can be easily done. In any case, this will be the right thing to do, because, along with the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, our foreign missions have a much clearer idea of the most effective way to share the government education grants.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, first of all I would like to thank the Russian Foreign Ministry and you personally for solving an important problem concerning my region. At one of the meetings with you, we complained that there was no consular service of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Altai Territory. Today, an honorary consul is based in Barnaul and a visa-free regime has been introduced between our countries. All of this facilitates the development of inter-regional relations. Following on from the topic related to developing friendly and cultural ties between our two countries, my question is about popularising the Russian language in Mongolia, where people are increasingly keen to know it. This is particularly necessary in a situation, where Mongolia is witnessing intensified domestic political struggles ahead of its 2020 parliamentary elections and more active impacts on the country’s public life, placed by US specialised centres. At what stage is the implementation of the Protocol of the 22nd meeting of the Russian-Mongolian Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, where readiness was expressed to support the Mongolian proposal on sending Russian language teachers from Russia, organising a general education system in Mongolia and sending Mongolian teachers to Russia for specialised training?



Sergey Lavrov:

This depends on purely practical steps like selecting specialists, creating legal infrastructure, and providing funding. We are actively disseminating the experience of refresher training of local Russian language teachers that was pioneered by Tajikistan. The Federation Council heads are helping us with this. This is a highly effective arrangement implying refresher training at courses in Tajikistan and the organisation of special events for teachers from Tajikistan, who come for this purpose to the Russian Federation. Currently we are extending this arrangement to Mongolia. I cannot indicate the specific timeframes because there are purely technical things involved: We have to select people for long-term employment abroad, etc. But this is one of our priorities in promoting the Russian language.



Question:

A month and a half from now, we will be marking the 75th anniversary of the Yalta Conference, where the leaders of the United States, Britain and the USSR discussed the postwar world. What is our Foreign Ministry’s attitude to this anniversary? How much focused are the US and the UK on the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in connection with these events?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will be marking the anniversary of the Yalta Conference as we celebrate the anniversaries of all without exception memorable events related to the Great Patriotic War and WWII. I cannot say now what the US attitude to this specific anniversary is like. We have discussed with our US colleagues the situation emerging in connection with the May 9 celebrations. As you may know, President Donald Trump, along with the other leaders of countries that formed the Anti-Hitler Coalition and leaders of other states, received President Vladimir Putin’s invitation to take part in the celebrations dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Victory to be held on Moscow’s Red Square on May 9. Donald Trump repeatedly, including during my visit to Washington, stressed the importance of this celebration and his interest in attending these events, if his schedule permits it.

We have just mentioned yet another date: Right ahead of May 9, yet another date, the 75th anniversary of the meeting at the Elbe, will be marked. The NGOs and veteran organisations in Russia and the United States, which maintain regular contacts, have plans to celebrate this event.

I think that our experts will also hold conferences and meetings dedicated to the anniversary of the Yalta Conference.

But the governments have not coordinated events of this kind, at least not at this stage.



Question:

The release of five Russian citizens, arrested by law enforcement agencies in the Arab Republic of Egypt, remains unresolved for over 12 months. The students were detained in Cairo on August 14, 2018. Only five and a half months later, it became possible to find out that four of them were kept in a Cairo prison, and it is still unclear what happened to the fifth person. The parents of the detained students claim that their sons did not commit any heinous crime, and their only probable fault is that they may have inadvertently or through ignorance violated the country’s immigration legislation by failing to extend their visas on time. It should be noted that these people had not committed any illegal actions in the past, nor were they prosecuted in Russia or elsewhere. I contacted the Foreign Ministry and the Consular Department of the Russian Embassy in Egypt, as well as the Egyptian Ambassador to Russia, but the matter remains unresolved so far. I would like to ask you what measures are being taken, and what needs to be done in order to secure the fastest possible release of our compatriots who are kept in maximum-security prisons in Cairo and to establish the whereabouts of Mr Khizir Dugiev.



Sergey Lavrov:

We have been taking measures ever since we found out that these people were detained and arrested on suspicion of being involved in the activities of the so-called Islamic State and spreading extremist ideology. To our great regret, the authorities of Egypt, a friendly country towards Russia, are reluctant to fulfil their obligations under the bilateral Consular Convention, which was enacted in 1975. We sent over 20 official requests for information about the reasons for the arrest and specific facts. The Egyptian side did not reply to even one request. They have told us verbally that the investigation is classified; therefore, our officials are not allowed to attend secret interrogations and court hearings. We made 24 requests to allow Russian consular officers to visit our citizens. The Egyptian side recently complied with only two requests, made in July and November 2019. Our citizens voiced certain complaints, including the inability to get elementary medical assistance. We officially notified senior penitentiary officials about this. Naturally, we will demand an explanation as to why they found themselves in this situation. It has been a long time, and I hope that our Egyptian colleagues realise the need to fulfil their obligations under the Consular Convention.

Speaking of the fifth person, Mr Khizir Dugiev, we know that he arrived in Egypt on a tourist visa from Saudi Arabia, and communications with him have been lost since the summer of 2018. We are urging the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice to help establish the Russian citizen’s whereabouts. We sent another note 45 days ago and have failed to get any response. Our colleagues say they know nothing about him.

We will continue to demand that the Egyptian side pay attention to this subject. We are raising it at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. We raised this matter in the summer of 2019 at a meeting between Russian and Egyptian foreign ministers in the 2 + 2 format in Moscow. At my upcoming meeting with Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sameh Shoukry, I will present him with another detailed letter on this topic.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, I think many of our colleagues would join me in saying that not all our ministers have credibility like you and even make us proud. In your report, you mentioned continuity as the basis for the stability of international legal acts adopted earlier, in particular, in 1981, and even before that. I hope this applies to domestic legal acts as well. In this regard, I have a history-related question.

In 1989, our parliamentarians adopted several legal acts based on a parliamentary investigation and gave an unequivocal assessment and description of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at the Second Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union. Recently, there has been a trend to revise and re-evaluate this document in retrospect, and this pact is portrayed almost as the highest achievement of our country's foreign policy. What do you think about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

In 1989, when the decisions that you mentioned was made, I think everyone expressed their opinion and gave their assessment based on the knowledge available to the delegates of the Congress of People's Deputies at that time (if memory serves, this document was adopted at that congress). Frankly, following those decisions made by our legislative branch and the resolutions dedicated to that date, as well as to the sad events that occurred in relations between the Soviet Union and a number of countries of Eastern Europe, when all the i’s had been dotted in our relations with Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries of the former Warsaw Pact, I thought we were we entering a new era. Perhaps, that’s what everyone thought, including the deputies. Agreements were signed, which I mentioned, that NATO would not expand to the east and that we would have a single and indivisible security, and we will leave history to historians. By and large, that’s what the atmosphere was like back then.

We have seen, in recent years, an actual history aggression against Russia which started long before the events of February and March 2014. Our country, the former Soviet Union, the constituent republics of which have done so much to defeat fascism, is blamed for sharing responsibility for the outbreak of World War II with Hitler. I believe the discussion that has been unfolding in recent years has been spearheaded by our Western colleagues. So, if they shamelessly distort history, if they want to see in history only what is good for them and keep silent about what their predecessors did in their high posts on the eve of World War II and shortly after World War I, then a deep study of the sources and documents is the only answer.

President Vladimir Putin focused on this subject in detail during the informal meeting of the CIS leaders in St Petersburg on December 20. I believe that a conversation about those times should be based solely on the facts. We presented the facts which in 1989 few paid attention to. Then everyone thought it was the end of history, and the West won the Cold War and everyone should recognise only the things that are beneficial to the West. It was like that, unfortunately. However, over the past 20 years of this century, we have been able to slightly change the attitude towards Russia as a country which will always be in leading strings and will never cease repenting and apologising (I mentioned this earlier). We do not deny the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. We are far from idealising this document. We are just showing a retrospective and, if you will, the epistemology behind it. President Putin said he was writing a large article on this subject. I think this is a useful work that will help us see history in all its aspects, not just a selected few.



Question:

Mr Lavrov, I would like to hear your opinion about simplified border crossing regulations between Russia and South Ossetia. We are one people, and you are well aware of this. Family ties, transport crossings, and vehicle imports represent a major problem today on the border between South and North Ossetia. You are aware that everyone who lives there is a Russian citizen. I would like to hear what you think about this and, of course, your words of support.



Sergey Lavrov:

Excuse me but are there any problems with crossing the border? We do not have visa regulations there.



Question:

It’s about importing vehicles and the border crossing.



Sergey Lavrov:

You should ask this question to the border guards. We are only in charge of border crossing by people. Transport issues are addressed by law enforcement agencies, but there are no visa regulations.



Question:

Could you briefly share with us the results of your visit to the United States, your meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Trump? Do you see any prospects for normalising relations with the United States and in what areas? In this regard, President Putin unequivocally stated that we are willing to renew START-3 without any conditions and to sign it any time. What is the position of the United States? Is there still hope for stability and security in this area?



Sergey Lavrov:

During my visit to the United States, we discussed bilateral, regional and international items on our agenda with an emphasis on global security and strategic stability. We noted that normal interaction has resumed in some areas, albeit not a lot. Two rounds of consultations on counter-terrorism have already taken place. They started a long time ago, but were left hanging by the Obama administration. Contact between the special representatives for Afghanistan have taken place and continue − in a tripartite format − with China, and occasionally Pakistan. There are talks on Syria, both military and diplomatic. We have a channel of interaction on the Korean Peninsula. I can’t say that we are making equally good progress in all these areas, but the fact that these channels are available helps us better understand each other and creates an opportunity for the United States to hear our point of view, including on the Korean Peninsula, which could take on a new dimension of crisis at any minute.

Yes, I drew attention to START-3, including in Washington during the talks with Secretary Pompeo and President Trump. What President Putin said is a direct answer to the attempts to cash in on the situation related to START-3 and to pass our questions regarding the actions taken by the United States when it takes certain carriers off the list, for our reluctance to renew START-3 and an attempt to “blame” everything on the United States. It’s just the other way round. When Vladimir Putin said we were ready to renew the treaty without any preconditions and any time, in any case, before the end of the year, they lost their trump card. Now, the Americans will have to somehow state their position. They always try to drag China into the picture, but you are aware of our position. China has publicly stated that it is not interested, not willing and considers it unnecessary to participate in the talks to reduce its nuclear capacity, because it is incomparable to that of Russia or the United States. We respect this position. If the United States is convinced that there is absolutely no alternative to extending the negotiating process to other countries, then the United States should, probably, first talk directly with these countries and, second, put on paper its vision of the agenda for this kind of contact.

When Mr Pompeo and I discussed the unjust nature of the claims against us, and that we were not in the process of talking China into anything, he said that Washington was not focusing on cutting back capacity, but establishing some generally acceptable terms, transparency and rules. If so, let them put this on paper. We told them this. But we are not going to talk anyone into anything.

If the Americans accept our proposal for an unconditional renewal of the treaty, we believe the entire international community will benefit from it. We will not allow a situation where there will not be a single tool to regulate strategic stability. We can renew the treaty and continue discussions about specific steps to implement it. The United States can then, not being rushed in any way, advance its multilateral initiatives, which, to reiterate, I would like to see spelled out on paper. So far, we haven’t seen any of that.



Question:

We have seen international institutions, agreements and organisations deteriorate in recent years and we see that the US pullout of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has practically ruined the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which claimed that Iran had not committed any violations. We see that by declaring trade wars and the like they have played down the role of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

I could cite many other examples. Say, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) – it seems to be an international sports agency – has 14 or 15 members representing one continent, one group of countries, who can take a decision to ban an entire country from the Olympic Games, thereby reducing the authority of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I could also mention the [US] pullout of the INF Treaty and the dismantling of the stability and security system. What do you think will happen in general to international institutions and international rules, which are trampled on and eroded every day? Good or bad, but it is a system of international rules, which all countries are supposed to observe.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, the situation is alarming. Not only are our Western partners trying to introduce rules they have developed to replace the universal rules of international law but they are making obvious attempts to privatise the secretariats of international organisations. The most graphic illustration is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Their scandalous practices have come out now, because many conscientious experts who worked under contracts with this agency have flatly disagreed with the practice of manipulating the investigation results obtained at the site of the incident that occurred in Douma, Syria, in April 2018. The report based on the analysis made remotely, which contained plenty of remarks, like “most likely,” or “we have every reason to believe,” or “there is no other persuasive explanation,” put all the blame on the Syrian government. If you remember, we undertook a number of measures at the time to show that the incident had been fabricated and staged. We took the “victims” of the alleged chemical attack that the White Helmets had shown on TV to The Hague. They gave a truthful account of events, which they had experienced first-hand, and their story completely refuted the White Helmets’ speculation that underlie the report of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, thereby turning this secretariat into a disseminator of false information. This should not be left without a response.

Ms Matviyenko, you mentioned that WADA decisions are made by fifteen people, including eleven NATO members, as well as Australia, Japan, one African country and one Latin American country. Those behind what is happening in the OPCW represent more or less the same group of countries.

I am not saying that someone should not be held liable. Violations of doping rules do happen in Russia – we have recognised this much. That is the reason why we have radically reformed the relevant agencies – the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, and a laboratory was set up at Moscow’s Lomonosov State University. But doping rules are violated in most countries too, including respected European sports powers. We all know about this. So, when all the anti-doping zeal is spent on joining the rhetoric of those who go out of their way to restrain Russia on all tracks, we have every reason to believe that this kind of action is politically-motivated. We are on the alert for the response to the Investigative Committee’s report that Grigory Rodchenkov had submitted another document. That one was falsified in relation to the database, and distorted the database. Let's see how WADA will be able to openly, transparently and honestly discuss this topic. In the same way, we will look at how the OPCW, through its Technical Secretariat, will be able to openly and honestly discuss those facts that have emerged in the public space and simply debunk the myth of the Secretariat’s independence and objectivity.

But the problem is much bigger. Madam Matviyenko, you were absolutely right that this trend is also observed on a number of other multilateral platforms. It is necessary to rally the international community – no matter how trite this phrase might sound – to counter such trends. It is crucial to uphold the universal norms enshrined in the UN Charter – it goes without saying – and in the various international conventions. With regard to ​​chemical disarmament, there is the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In accordance with this Convention, any issues related to the activities of the Technical Secretariat can only be addressed by consensus. So our Western colleagues have violated this consensus, meaning the requirements of the Convention, by giving the Technical Secretariat atypical authority infringing on the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. This violated international law and established those rules that we are talking about. The decision was taken by less than 50 percent vote of the States parties to the Convention. The Convention can be changed by amending, discussing, accepting and unanimous ratifying. This is the legitimate way of doing this. Yes, it would be longer than the rigged trials that are trying to act faster by privatising the secretariats of international organisations, but in any case, only a consensus, an evolution of international law through consensus can ensure the sustainability of global development.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3977671
__________________
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 January 7th, 2020 #56
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 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, Moscow, December 23, 2019



23 December 2019 - 19:15






Mr Minister,

We are pleased to welcome you to Moscow. This meeting is timelier than ever. Our bilateral relations are developing dynamically as agreed upon by President Putin and President Assad.

The 12th meeting of the Permanent Russian-Syrian Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation has taken place during your current visit. It is my understanding that the results are very substantive and forward-looking. Resuming fully functioning state institutions and economic projects is on the agenda. In fact, Syria is already on its way to a peaceful life. This became possible primarily after the Syrian army, with the support of Russia’s Aerospace Forces, regained control over many Syrian territories and continues to do so.

We are convinced that finalising the process of restoring Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity will be the best context for overcoming the problems associated with ensuring the rights of various ethnic and religious groups in Syria. We believe that the international community should take into account what is happening in your country as it builds plans to assist the Syrians on their way back to peaceful life.





In addition to socioeconomic goals, it is of course important to create proper conditions for the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes.

We are satisfied with the fact that finally, after numerous attempts to prevent this, the political process has begun and the Constitutional Committee is now operational.

We appreciate the opportunity to be able to discuss with you ways to ensure sustainable progress in all these areas.

Of course, continued and uncompromising efforts to defeat the remaining terrorist groups in Syria are an integral part of our common efforts.

We will do our best to fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which provides for full restoration of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This must be done exclusively by the Syrians themselves, without any outside interference.

I am very happy to see you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3977768






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions, Moscow, December 23, 2019



23 December 2019 - 19:18







Question:

Reportedly, the Greek authorities are about to extradite Alexander Vinnik to the United States, not France, as earlier anticipated. Has this information been confirmed? What can you tell us about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Greek court made a rather tricky ruling, as there were three requests by France, the United States and Russia. Contrary to what we discussed here with Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias, who promised to once again review our arguments, including the updated information which includes amendments to Greek law, they did not tell us anything and took the decision, which states that the court recommended extradition (and the Justice Ministry agreed) to France, the United States and Russia, in that order.

Since France, I heard, has waived its request for extradition, it means that Vinnik will go to the United States, which he strongly disagreed with and went on a hunger strike over. We believe this is an absolutely unacceptable approach by our Greek colleagues, who, I emphasise once again, promised to take a closer look at the additional facts we presented to them, but this didn’t happen. We are maintaining close contact with them and are insisting on additional steps to consider our request. The Russian Embassy in Athens is working on this.



Question:

What specific measures can Moscow take to counter US sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream? When would they take effect?



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot tell you everything. This matter requires quiet work and analysis. I can assure you that unacceptable and uncivil moves like this, in violation of all conceivable norms of international law and diplomatic and human behaviour, will not go without response.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3977778






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question on the Sputnik news agency in Estonia



24 December 2019 - 17:21



Question:

What can you say about the recent statement by Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu about Tallinn using “EU sanctions” against Sputnik news agency that he made after the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir urged Estonia to refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions?



Maria Zakharova:

We consider the fact that Estonia’s leaders rejected the recommendations of Harlem Desir, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, regarding the Sputnik news agency in Estonia very disquieting. We believe this is unacceptable and absolutely unreasonable to call the agency bureau an "information operations unit."

Once again, Estonia denied the news agency, which is accredited in the country according to the established rules and conducts its activities in accordance with generally accepted journalistic standards, the right to be called media. This begs the question: on what basis? If official Tallinn has facts to confirm Sputnik’s inconsistency with these purported goals, let it present them publicly. If, as always, such facts are not available, they should apologise for slander.

Estonia’s actions represent a systematic provocation against the Russian media and an act of undermining the existing international legal guarantees of journalistic activities seeking to erode the status of a media outlet and to turn it into an object of direct political pressure.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3982388






Russia’s Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe Ivan Soltanovsky’s interview with the TASS news agency, December 19, 2019



25 December 2019 - 16:30



Question:

What do you think of the results of the outgoing year, which was marked by Russian delegation’s return to PACE?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

The Council of Europe has managed to largely overcome an extremely acute political – and ultimately institutional – crisis by strictly following its Charter. Most member states displayed a commitment to preserving Europe’s unity. It was to a considerable degree caused by our readiness to resolutely uphold our national interests and legitimate rights. The majority of the delegations finally came to realise that the continent’s problems cannot be resolved without interaction and dialogue with Russia.

The Russian delegation is willing to actively participate in PACE based on the principle of equality. We are committed to constructive depoliticised cooperation for building a common legal and humanitarian space from Vladivostok to Lisbon. We expect a reciprocal willingness from the Organisation’s other member states and its Secretariat. It is logical for this willingness to be manifest in everyday routine work rather than under crisis conditions that threaten the very existence of the Council of Europe.

Another positive result of the year is the fact that the Council of Europe began to address the discrimination of Russian-speakers in Ukraine and the Baltic states. This is how we view the recent opinion by the Venice Commission on the Ukrainian law on the state language. At present, the Venice Commission is also reviewing the Latvian law on education. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic also took note of the unacceptable condition of Russian speakers in the Baltic states.



Question:

How could The Council of Europe facilitate the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

The Council of Europe should recall its monitoring obligations regarding Ukraine and pay more attention to human rights in that country with a priority focus on the rights of Russian speakers as well as ethnic minorities and the situation regarding Russian journalists. This work will definitely have a positive effect both on the situation in Ukraine and at the European international organisations. The Venice Commission opinion will not suffice here; the Council of Europe leadership has to send a strong message to Kiev that massive human rights violations we are all witnessing in Ukraine are unacceptable. The Council of Europe should stop feeling sorry for Kiev and paying advances for Kiev’s claims on its European integration.



Question:

In the autumn, the new Ukrainian delegation refused to take part in PACE sessions and instead announced the establishment of the Baltic Plus group with a number of countries which our MPs regard as anti-Russian. What do you expect from the new association in the coming year and do you think it matches the organisation’s spirit?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

We expect, quite obviously, more anti-Russia demarches during the PACE January session from this marginal association devoid of any legal basis, which has announced opposition to our country as its ideological foundation. There are no reasons so far to believe that its members will give up speculations on the topic of the “Russian threat”, which has become the linchpin of their foreign policy.

Such an association does not correspond to the PACE spirit, which under the CoE Charter should operate to ensure greater unity among its member states. In a similar way, we can imagine a parliamentary party in a national parliament with Russophobia as the only item on its programme. Today, even Ukraine and the Baltics have not gone that far.



Question:

What do you think of the Council of Europe’s efforts to work out a mechanism to ensure its member states’ compliance with the Charter commitments?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

In our view, this mechanism must be in full compliance with the Charter of the organisation and have enough restraints against politicised application.



Question:

In early October, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin invited the CoE Secretary General and parliament speakers of the Council of Europe countries to Moscow to attend celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory in WWII. Has anybody confirmed their attendance yet?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

The issue is currently being considered by the Council of Europe Secretary General Marija Pejcinovic Buric. As to the speakers, they will send their replies via Russian embassies in their countries.

I think the 75th anniversary of Victory is a good occasion for the Council of Europe member states and the organisation’s Secretariat to ponder the following: re-writing history and distorting it do not entail just some abstract consequences; they lead to quite real tragedies. Glorifying thugs and Nazi accomplices as national heroes was a factor that led to the Odessa tragedy and the civil war in Donbass. The results of glorifying Nazi accomplices in the Baltics were the split of society, real human rights abuses and ruined lives, which we can see from the examples of persecution of Klaipeda city council member Vyacheslav Titov in Lithuania and human rights activist Alexander Gaponenko in Latvia.

The Council of Europe should carefully monitor the member states’ commitment to the rulings of the Nuremberg Trials.



Question:

France held the Presidency of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers for the past six months, and it was during its presidency that Russia returned to PACE. Now up until May 2020, Georgia will hold the Presidency. Will anything change for Russia in this connection?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

Georgia’s Presidency of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers involves а responsible and honorary task of actively working on the implementation of the goal expressed in the Charter of the Council of Europe – to facilitate the rapprochement among its member states.

We are willing to constructively interact with any nation holding the Presidency of the CoE Committee of Ministers which is dedicated to the goal of strengthening cooperation among all the member states of the Council of Europe. We expect a similar commitment from Georgia’s Presidency.



Question:

What are Russia’s priorities at the Council of Europe next year? What will be most important for us?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

We will continue efforts to ensure human rights for the Russian speakers in Ukraine and the Baltic states, pointing out that the Council of Europe is duty bound to conduct thorough monitoring of the human rights violations and to use its political clout for amending the situation.

Countering violations with regard to Russian journalists in other CoE countries is another priority. We will urge the respective CoE agencies to work more effectively with member states to ensure true equality for all journalists regardless of their nationality or media outlet.

Naturally, we will also focus on the situation at PACE. Attempts to discriminate against Russian MPs under any pretexts are unacceptable. Our plans also include combatting the falsification of history, which some countries use to justify the current human rights abuses.

Our country can also share its experience with other Council of Europe nations in a wide range of areas, from fighting terrorism to regulating migration processes. We are set to promote this experience at the CoE platform.



Question:

New Year is just around the corner. What would you like to wish your colleagues at the Russian diplomatic corps in the New Year?



Ivan Soltanovsky:

To keep working for the just cause, no matter how hard it gets, to keep Olympian calm and to stay in Spartan health.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3967844






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on problems with receiving US visas by Russian officers on the UNSC Military Staff Committee



25 December 2019 - 19:07



In the context of an outrageous situation created in late September of this year by the United States, who denied visas to several members of the Russian delegation to the UN General Assembly session, we cannot but comment on the ongoing sabotage by Washington with regard to Russian UN Secretariat staffers in New York.

This time it is the Russian Defence Ministry personnel who have encountered problems. Russian officers who went through a rigorous selection process and were assigned by the UN General-Secretary’s decision to the UN Secretariat units on military matters have to wait for months to be issued US visas. In some cases, it takes over a year for US visa applications to be processed.

There are outrageous incidents when US visas are not extended for Russian staffers already working in New York, so they have to terminate their contracts and return to Russia. By using this administrative leverage, the Americans are resorting to unfair competition practices and removing Russians from the posts that they are interested in filling with their own military officers.

It is noteworthy that all of this is obviously happening with the tacit consent of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who has ignored the United States’ violation of the UN Charter and the agreement between the UN and the Government of the United States as the host country for the UN Headquarters. These and other regulatory acts stipulate the working conditions and the rights of the UN employees, while the UN Secretary-General as a guardian of these regulations is in charge of ensuring that they are observed.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3983524






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the TASS news agency, published December 26, 2019



26 December 2019 - 10:15



Question:

What are the main results of 2019 as regards conflict settlement in southeastern Ukraine, and what are the key priorities for 2020? Can it be said now, after the Normandy format summit in Paris, that Vladimir Zelensky takes a constructive stance on this issue? After the bilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, can we talk about, if not a thaw in our relations, then at least an opportunity for a constructive dialogue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Unfortunately, the conflict in eastern Ukraine continues. There is still shooting on the contact line. The blockade of the region has not been lifted.

At the same time, there is hope for making progress in the settlement process. Vladimir Zelensky cited putting an end to the war in the southeast of the country as one of the most important priorities of his presidency. In just five months, he has succeeded in doing what his predecessor had stubbornly refused to do for years. I am referring to fulfilling the obligations on the disengagement of troops and heavy weapons in the three pilot areas along the contact line, and adopting the Steinmeier Formula as a legal document, which sets out the procedure for enacting the special status of Donbass on a permanent basis.

This paved the way to the Normandy format summit, which was held in Paris on December 9. You know the outcome of the meeting. First of all, the Minsk Package of Measures was reaffirmed as the only possible basis for a settlement, and recommendations were made for the Contact Group. Now it is important to ensure their implementation. But this will not be so simple, as evidenced by the Contact Group meeting on December 18. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful.

Achieving progress in the settlement is only possible through a direct dialogue between the parties to the conflict – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. We are ready to contribute in every way possible. The establishment of lasting peace in Ukraine meets our interests and will have a positive impact on relations between our two countries.



Question:

During your conversations with the US leaders during your visit to Washington, did you feel a genuine – as opposed to declarative – willingness to move away from the low point in our relations? Is it even possible that 2020, the year of the US presidential election, will bring an improvement in relations, given the Russophobic sentiments? Could the New START extension talks, possibly with the participation of China and European countries, become a springboard for restoring dialogue?



Sergey Lavrov:

The contacts that took place in Washington were useful and helped thoroughly explore the pressing issues on the bilateral and international agendas. Both sides reaffirmed their focus on improving the atmosphere in our relations and achieving results in the areas where we have coinciding interests.

As for assessing the prospects for cooperation in the coming year, we use a pragmatic approach and prefer not to have high expectations. We will assess the attitude of the Donald Trump administration by their practical actions. We are certainly aware of the constraints arising from the internal political situation in the United States, and the election campaign that has just started. Russia's ill-wishers in the Washington establishment may again try to use Russophobia in their election campaign.

So we will continue to respond to unfriendly attacks, if they continue on America’s part. Nevertheless, we believe it would be wrong to put off indefinitely the resolution of problems that are important for our countries and for the whole world. Russia’s proposals for developing cooperation in various areas remain on the table. This also applies to the strategic stability issue, as Russia and the United States bear special responsibility for it as the largest nuclear powers.

In particular, we advocate extending the bilateral New START Treaty, which expires in February 2021, without preconditions or artificial delays. After the Americans undermined the INF Treaty, it is the last remaining international legal instrument that mutually limits the nuclear missile potentials of our countries and ensures predictability in the field of arms control. Given the evasive position of the White House, it is still difficult to say whether this issue will become a springboard for the restoration of dialogue.

Again, New START is a bilateral treaty. It was concluded in 2010 between Russia and the United States. Accordingly, the involvement of other states in extending it is impossible.

At the same time, our American colleagues suggest drawing up another agreement limiting nuclear weapons, a new one. Along with Russia and the United States, they want China to join it but have not yet received its consent. They have not secured the agreement of the UK and France either, while those countries absolutely must be included in such talks. Moreover, they have not even presented their vision yet. They have been toying with this idea since last spring, but they haven’t explained what exactly the new treaty is supposed to limit and how.

As soon as we receive the project, we are ready to give it our full attention. It is also obvious that it will require lengthy negotiations – whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Meanwhile, Russia and the United States could extend the New START treaty now to reassure the international community and prevent a vacuum in the field of strategic stability. We would like to hope that Washington will take a sensible and responsible approach.



Question:

Do you not get the impression from developments this year that Latin America is again entering a phase of coups and that the situation is getting out of control? Does Russia stand to lose much due to turbulent developments in Latin American countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

What happened in Latin America over the past year, indeed, brings to mind the half-forgotten “blazing continent” phrase.

I will not comment on the internal political processes unfolding in various Latin American countries, which have their own reasons and dynamics. But I admit concerns over the United States’ attempts to reshape the continent to suit its geopolitical interests amid the difficult situation, applying the “controlled chaos” theory. This explains the efforts to change unwanted regimes or redirect hesitant ones toward the “right” track, impede regional integration processes, and impose rigid neoliberal patterns. Apparently, the long mothballed Monroe Doctrine has been taken out to use as an ideological basis.

But what happened is something the United States seems to have not expected – their brilliant plans began to stall. The region turned out to be more complex and diverse than Washington’s simplistic calculations presumed it to be. For example, for all the strangling sanctions and “colour revolutions,” a “blitzkrieg” didn’t work in Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua.

The US administration routinely tries to blame flops in Latin America on “hostile external forces,” “Moscow’s intrigues” included. A vigorous political and information campaign is being waged against us, with “secondary sanctions,” mainly financial, generously applied.

At the same time, given the continued turbulence in the region, we sense a tangible demand for Russia to play a greater role in Latin American affairs. And this is not surprising. For us, Latin America and the Caribbean are a valuable foreign policy track. We are not looking at the region from the perspective of geopolitical interests; nor do we want it to become an arena of confrontation.

We consider Latin America and the Caribbean as an important part of the emerging multipolar world order and are interested in the region’s countries – in their unity and diversity – to be strong, politically wholesome and economically sustainable. Russia’s approach to interaction with Latin Americans is utterly logical: we are not setting some countries against others; we are not creating dividing lines or artificial barriers; we are not dividing our partners into friends and foes. Instead, we are willing to strengthen cooperation with all countries on a non-ideological pragmatic basis given mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.

This constructive philosophy allows us to build up fruitful cooperation with Latin American states in various formats and in a wide range of areas.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3983544






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Interfax news agency, December 26, 2019



26 December 2019 - 12:50



Question:

Mr Ryabkov, this not the first time the year is coming to an end with the United States imposing sanctions on Russia, and a new sanctions bill “from hell” is around the corner. Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream are now under sanctions. We already said that we would respond. Is there an understanding of what measures we are talking about? Will they be symmetrical in that they affect US businesses?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No one is forcing us in any way to respond symmetrically. As for taking economic measures to respond to the illegal US sanctions, these measures have been taken a long time ago, they are in force, and relate to imports of specific US goods. We can debate whether these measures produce any meaningful impact considering the size of the US economy and its foreign trade, but it is a matter of finding sectors where we can live without US imports without hurting the domestic market or consumers. There are those who were affected by these measures in the US. I mean the manufacturers of these goods. As for the presence of US investors in Russia, companies working on projects, including in the real economy, various firms who work with Russian partners or are about to establish these ties, of course, I do not expect them to face any pressure or restrictions, since this would be at odds with the course set by our country’s leaders to draw in foreign investment and promote normal relations with all our partners who are interested in working with us.

We will find a way to respond, and it may consist of adding new names on the list of persons who are banned entry to Russia. It is not uncommon for the United States to publish the lists of people facing travel restrictions, but this is not our approach. However, people who played the most active role in promoting this specific decision in the US administration alongside other sanctions initiatives, and there are quite a few people like this, since over a dozen drafts to this effect are circulating in Congress, these people can rest assured that they will not be able to travel in our country as any US citizen would consider normal and natural. They will not be able to cross the border into Russia, and will probably only learn that they are designated when applying for a visa. This is simply one of the ways this can be done.

We will go beyond statements, as the country’s leadership has said. There is no hurry though, since this is not a race to have it done or announced by a specific date. Unfortunately, we continue to witness the same cycles when Russian legal entities and individuals face various restrictions on totally far-fetched and illegal pretexts. It cannot be ruled out that they will continue next year. But we will respond in a measured manner without hurting ourselves, so that the other side knows that this will not be left without a response.



Question:

Do our latest statements on our willingness to extend the New START treaty without preconditions mean that we have set aside our concerns that some delivery vehicles are not being counted in the total?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have never regarded the need to resolve this problem as a precondition for extending the treaty. We have always said that we have a serious concern regarding how the United States was fulfilling its commitments as they artificially removed a substantial number of strategic delivery vehicles from the count. This problem has to be resolved. We said that this issue had to be addressed even before we started to hope – and we still hope – that the treaty would be extended. But we did not link the extension of the treaty to the resolution of this issue. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke recently quite explicitly in favour of extending the treaty. The reason for why we are urging the Americans to address this issue as soon as possible is that we are running out of time and the President has also said this on more than one occasion. If we keep dragging our feet on this we might end up under intense time pressure. We would not like to be forced to bring the attention of the Trump administration to this matter as the [presidential] election campaign reaches its peak. That’s why President Putin has stated this twice publically.

We have used diplomatic channels to officially approach the Americans with a proposal that we promptly start the discussion to extend the treaty in keeping with the article of the treaty that provides for this option. However, we have not set aside our concerns about the artificial removal of US delivery vehicles from the count; we will keep working on this issue. Unfortunately, we do not see any attempts to meet us halfway but this does not mean that the problem will just disappear, not at all, as it is something very important. We see yet again that the United States tends to deliver on its international commitments in a selective way. They pull out of some treaties and agreements for a certain reason and in other cases they act selectively. At the same time, they dare preaching to others, accusing them of failure to deliver in full on their obligations. I remember the situation with the INF Treaty. For years, the Americans openly violated the treaty, and we talked to them about this, but we did not use this as a pretext for pulling out of the treaty.

When they wanted to get rid of the constraints this treaty imposed on them they immediately used a missile that had never been tested for the capabilities that are banned under the treaty, as a pretext. At the same time, 16 days after the termination of the INF Treaty, the Americans tested a [land-based] cruise missile, which was fired from an MK-1 launcher. By that time the MK-1 had already been deployed in Romania for several years. We have nothing to add – they themselves have proved to the world that we were right about this.

As for the other aspects of this matter, target missiles have been tested recently. They are ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles, and are enabled by technology – a rocket stage, to be exact – which was earlier used to launch target missiles. Again we were proved right and we received proof, direct proof of what we had been talking about for many years. It is another matter that it is of no practical significance for the fulfillment of the treaty, because the treat doesn’t exist. We would not like the same to happen to the New START treaty.

Next year, the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the treaty will hold two regular sessions. There might be contact between the ministries on strategic stability. In addition to these sessions, we will keep bringing up this issue as persistently, directly and with a focus on detail as we have been doing this until now, seeking a reasonable reaction from the United States, rather than looking at it as it slips into word juggling that only covers up an unwillingness to deliver on the treaty in full and honour the letter – and not only the spirit – of the treaty. This was about the ability of the United States to honour its obligations under the treaties. Unfortunately, we face a new reality, meaning that those who make decisions in the United States to join certain international agreements are guided by the following logic: “We are allowed to do whatever we want and nobody can do anything about it.” This is the new image of the United States and we will explain this situation to other members of the international community to alert them to the damage that Washington’s policy is inflicting on the international security architecture.



Question:

You said we sent them a proposal via official channels. Have they replied?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No, they haven’t.



Question:

Is it correct that an extended New START would not provide for any further reductions in strategic offensive arms and would be limited to maintaining the strategic arms control regime, and that in this sense the proposals by the United States on mutually acceptable solutions regarding transparency and rules of conduct relating to strategic offensive arms are in sync with Russia’s position and can provide a foundation for extending the existing treaty?



Sergey Ryabkov:

There are several aspects to this. First, it is true that we have been saying for many years that further steps could be made on strategic offensive nuclear arms limitation and reduction. These steps can only be made after taking into consideration all the factors affecting strategic stability.

There are quite a few factors of this kind. Apart from the deployment of weapons in outer space and the continuing roll-out of the US global missile shield with its obvious anti-Russia bias, these factors include the designation by the United States and NATO of cyberspace as a new operational domain, which means that offensive and other operations are now possible in this environment. Another factor is the continuing improvement of conventional weapons, including long-range and high-precision weapons, which blurs the line between nuclear and conventional arsenals of long-range weapons of this kind. The list of these factors goes on.

We believe that further reductions in strategic offensive arms would be impossible without drawing the attention all these aspects deserve and getting to their substance. In addition, we have been saying for several years now that after the conclusion of the New START treaty and considering that Russia and the US comply with its provisions, we have reached a threshold beyond which this topic must be addressed in a multilateral setting, or at least taking into consideration the capabilities of other nuclear powers in the context of ongoing developments. For Russia, taking into consideration the capabilities of Great Britain and France is especially important, since they are the closest allies of the United States, NATO members and countries whose military capabilities are deeply integrated into the NATO framework.

As for the New START, it provides for a multi-layered verification mechanism that has been operating successfully. It includes inspections, demonstrations, information exchanges and so forth. Losing this mechanism with the expiration of the treaty would be a serious lapse, a grave mistake, and a blow to international security and global stability.

The future of the New START remains an open question. In order to have a meaningful discussion on this subject we need to understand what our colleagues on the other side are ready and are not ready to undertake.



Question:

Yes, of course.



Sergey Ryabkov:

We hope the time we can save by extending the treaty for just a few years, and in any case for not more than five years, as the treaty stipulates, will enable us to decide what to do with arms control. Nothing can be ruled out. What you mentioned in terms of specifying the approach of the US is real. But this has been entirely speculative and not sufficiently specified.

We have not received any documents from the United States, and by and large there has been no meaningful professional discussion, especially in an inter-agency setting with experts from the government bodies involved in these issues. We hope these efforts resume in 2020 after a long pause. This is when we will look into this.

Russia maintains open and receptive to proposals. There is no dogma for us when dealing with these questions, and what I mentioned earlier is underpinned by the logic of events and naturally follows from the processes unfolding around the world regardless of nuclear arms control. However, if the treaty is discarded and becomes the last bilateral instrument in this sphere and we no longer have anything like this in our relations with the US, it would mean that the two sides can proceed as they see fit. Considering the technology currently used by the military, this unrestricted freedom would be extremely risky and would definitely do nothing to strengthen security, including the security of the United States following any irresponsible actions like this.



Question:

What is the approximate timeframe for resuming these discussions? Who are you dealing with?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Christopher Ford. He is Assistant Secretary of State. After Andrea Thompson’s departure Christopher Ford took over her duties.



Question:

When are consultations expected to take place?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Quite soon. We have taken note of the statements coming from the State Department whereby the US invited Russia to hold these consultations. It is true that discussions are underway to arrange this inter-agency meeting in the coming weeks, but it remains to be seen who will be hosting whom. We invited the Americans to hold this meeting on multiple occasions last year in order to keep the process, which was revived in July last year in Geneva, going. After pointing out to the US several times that we need to have a meeting, and having received no response, we finally said: fine, in this case we will wait until you are ready and come up with something. So now the US is finally ready, and has invited us to have a dialogue. We accept this invitation. We are now agreeing on the dates. It is not our intention to cause any delay in carrying out this arrangement, especially since it has almost been reached.



Question:

Will this meeting take place in a third country?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Yes. It will not be in Russia or in the United States.



Question:

US President Donald Trump has been invited to Moscow for Victory Day celebrations on May 9. Is his possible visit connected to the possibility of President Putin attending the 2020 G7 summit if President Trump as the head of the summit’s host country invites him? Does Russia expect to receive such an invitation from the US President?



Sergey Ryabkov:

There is no, nor can there be any connection between these events, and it would be strange if we regarded them in this context. As for the celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory, it would be correct from any point of view if the president of a country that was a member of the anti-Hitler coalition and our WWII ally attended the celebrations to be held in Russia.

The G7 and the US presidency of the group is a completely separate matter. We have not made any suggestions regarding this to the Americans or received any such signal from them. By and large, we have no issue with what can happen in this connection. If we receive such a signal from the Americans at some stage, we will consider it. But our president and foreign minister have said more than once that over the past few years the G7 has lost its significance as a global governance tool. All major issues directly pertaining to the global economy, finance and climate, that is, the most topical issues on the international agenda are being discussed at other formats, including the G20 and other associations.

I would like to mention in this connection BRICS, the SCO and the EAEU. We are prioritising multilateral cooperation on these matters at venues that have no connection to the G7. We will continue to monitor G7 meetings held to discuss international topics and issue statements regarding them, but we will not make a great effort here.



Question:

Has Donald Trump replied to our invitation to the May 9 celebrations?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The US President said that he was considering it. We will wait for an official reply, an official reaction.



Question:

And we have not received an official invitation for our president to attend the G7 meeting from President Trump as the head of the host country, have we?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have not received an official invitation, and there is no sense at all in talking about this. It is pointless because, as I said, we have other priorities, and the G7 is not among them.



Question:

Could 2020 be the last year for the JCPOA, because what Iran still has to reduce will obviously not be enough until the end of next year? Also, the UN arms embargo on Iran expires in October 2020. As far as I am aware, the Americans urged us to extend that embargo in August. What is our position? Are we ready, under some conditions, to extend the embargo or will we veto it?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I will start with the second part. Pacta sunt servanda. Agreements must be implemented. If the participants in the JCPOA, co-sponsors of resolution 2231 have once agreed to restrict the supply of certain categories of weapons and military equipment to Iran, weapons that are in the relevant seven categories of the UN Register of Conventional Arms – the supplies of the said products to Iran are currently limited. However, there is another side to the so-called arms embargo. I am referring to the ban on arms exports from Iran. Both will expire next year by virtue of the agreements on the duration of this regime. There can be no question of extending it. We cannot always pander to our American colleagues. Or else they might want us to do something else the next time around. What they are doing in foreign policy is actually over the top. I take it that they will continue what they call the maximum pressure policy with regard to Iran. Accordingly, the chances that the JCPOA will be maintained and will be fully implemented in the future, these chances are being reduced by US efforts, with the connivance from our European colleagues. This should be admitted. We are alarmed by this. We urge all the parties to show restraint and responsibility. We are talking about this with our Iranian friends. We are telling them that their consistent steps to reduce the volume of their own commitments under the JCPOA are adding additional tension to this whole situation, although we understand their logic, and always say it, too.

There is a whole range of matters that the remaining participants in the JCPOA should now be closely addressing. Among them is the preservation of the Fordo and Arak projects. There are also issues related to the so-called supply chain to Iran, the expansion of the scope of operations, the INSTEX mechanism and making it available to third countries outside the European Union. We have repeatedly raised all these questions before our colleagues. We provided details, presentations, and specific proposals. We will continue doing so. Unfortunately, the situation has not yet stabilised, and if anything, the situation around the JCPOA is deteriorating. We support any efforts that can help correct this. This also applies to the French government’s diplomatic initiative and to the efforts that, as we understand, the Japanese government is making, too. The Russian Federation fully supports such steps. However, the United States plays the key role and bears primary responsibility for the potential collapse of this agreement. The United States is the one who initiated what is happening now. They brought the bomb and set fire to its cord. We would rather avoid an explosion, but there is a danger of this happening.



Question:

And will this affect oil? Given that we are taking part of our quota. We are covering Iran’s quotas.



Sergey Ryabkov:

I am not too competent when it comes to how the hydrocarbon market works today. The psychological impact is obvious indeed. But we have not seen any spasmodic fluctuations in prices in recent years, regardless of what is happening on the markets. I think everyone would agree that we have a fairly efficient OPEC+ arrangement. There are ongoing contacts between professionals and a relative balance of supply and demand is maintained on the world hydrocarbon markets to prevent such fluctuations, sudden spikes or landslides that would benefit no one's interests – neither suppliers nor importers. This goal is now being achieved far more effectively than before. And I must say that Iran has actually cut its oil exports significantly, but we remember that when their exports were at its peak, a few years after the JCPOA was put in place, the price and quotas for crude were about the same as now. I have no expectations or predictions here. I am just saying that I do not quite picture an iron-clad direct and unconditional correlation between various events and the oil market situation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3983633
__________________
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 January 8th, 2020 #57
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, December 26, 2019



26 December 2019 - 20:13






We have decided to support Kirill Vyshinsky’s initiative to launch a media response to the completely unacceptable behaviour of the Estonian authorities towards the media, in particular Sputnik Estonia.

We have said many times that any pressure on the media, any form of genuine pressure or intimidation when there has been no violation of the law or the accreditation procedure but only political reasons, is unacceptable. The Estonian authorities refuse to listen to Russian and international arguments.

International organisations and specialised agencies have spoken out in support of Sputnik Estonia. And we believe it is important to focus on this problem today. And this is a real problem for our European continent. If a country believes it is committed to the European values envisaged in many international legal documents, in particular, of the Council of Europe and OSCE, it must adhere to them or shrug off the responsibility and recognise its inability to honour this commitment.

This real bullying, not only of Sputnik Estonia but of every employee that works there, is unacceptable. Try to walk in their shoes, like you are trying on these Sputnik vests today. Ask yourself what it’s like to be in the place of these employees, who, instead of preparing for the holidays and doing their job well, have to think about their future, without violating any laws of the country they are in or any rule of professional ethics.

Please forgive me for this long introduction. But I believe it is high time we all stood together and showed that this behaviour is unacceptable.

I will continue without taking off this vest. I really want everyone who will see photos from today’s briefing to ask: why Sputnik? What is going on? How can this be acceptable in today’s world? Who gave the Estonian authorities the right to act like this?



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

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Uzbekistan

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to Sri Lanka and India

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Ralph Gonsalves

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



Russia’s BRICS Presidency in 2020

Russia will assume presidency of the BRICS international association on January 1, 2020.

President Vladimir Putin set out our presidency priorities at the 11th BRICS summit held in Brasilia on November 14, 2019. The main priority of our presidency, just as of the multifaceted cooperation within BRICS, is to enhance the quality of life in the group’s countries.

We will continue to promote the main three spheres of the group countries’ cooperation, that is, political, economic and humanitarian cooperation. We will need to give more effort to enhancing our coordination at the basic international platforms. We are set to deepen our dialogue on counterterrorism.

We plan to update the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership so as to build mutual trade and investments. Russia will also be working to reinforce the potential of the BRICS New Development Bank.

We will encourage our partners to continue to promote out parliamentary, sport and educational contacts as well as youth exchanges.

Russia’s motto for its BRICS presidency will be BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared Security and Innovative Growth. We have chosen this motto because it fully conforms to the group’s goals.

We plan to hold around 150 events at different levels, including two summit meetings (the official summit will be held in St Petersburg in July, and an informal summit will take place on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Saudi Arabia) as well as over 20 ministerial meetings held in over 10 Russian cities.



Syria update

The situation in Syria has mostly been stable in December, with the exception of the northern regions, which the Syrian Government does not control.

The terrorists doubled the number of attacks on the Syrian Government forces in the Idlib de-escalation zone compared to November. The number of artillery strikes reached 60 every day; over 90 Syrian military personnel have been killed in these raids. Tensions increased dangerously near Aleppo. According to reports, the terrorists shelled the city’s residential districts more than 200 times in December, killing civilians.

The Syrian forces had to respond to that. As for us, we are taking measures to keep the situation under control. However, it is time we did something about the terrorist enclave in Idlib. Russia calls for taking more active measures to implement the Sochi memorandum on Idlib signed on September 17, 2018, primarily when it comes to creating a demilitarised zone and separating the so-called moderate opposition from terrorists.

We are working with our Turkish partners to stabilise the situation east of the Euphrates. On December 23, we held a planned ground patrol along the Syrian-Turkish border. Russian military police are conducting ground and air patrolling of the regions controlled by Damascus. Russian military doctors are helping civilians in the towns of Qamishli and Kobani. They have treated some 7,500 patients since November.

However, this balance remains very fragile, first of all because of the illegal presence of US forces and their allies east of the Euphrates, as well as because of Israel’s air strikes at the Syrian territory.

On December 20, the UN Security Council voted on draft resolutions on extending the authorisation for the mechanism that allows cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid in Syria. Russia prepared and submitted a balanced compromise draft that takes into account the changes that have taken place on the ground over the past five years, as well as international humanitarian law. However, Western countries blocked it for purely political reasons. We regret that our Western partners continue to politicise the humanitarian problem, as their actions indicated more than once, and view the cross-border mechanism as an instrument for undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria rather than delivering aid to those who need it.

For our part, we are providing comprehensive humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people both on a bilateral basis and through special international organisations. In mid-December, the Russian Government decided to transfer $17 million to UN agencies for their humanitarian projects in Syria in 2020. In addition, early next year we plan to start wheat deliveries (approximately 100,000 tonnes) to Syria as humanitarian aid.

Russia-Syria relations are developing rapidly. On December 17, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov, co-chair of the Russian-Syrian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, visited Damascus. On December 19, Damascus welcomed a Russian delegation led by Dmitry Sablin, the coordinator of the State Duma group on ties with the People’s Council of Syria. The Russian politicians met with President Bashar al-Assad to discuss current developments in Syria and the further development of bilateral ties. On December 23-25, Moscow hosted the 12th meeting of the Russian-Syrian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation.



WikiLeaks releases documents exposing data fabrication during the investigation into an April 2018 incident in Douma, Syria

We took note of the release by WikiLeaks on its website of new documents showing that the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), tasked with establishing facts regarding the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, misrepresented facts about the investigation of the incident that took place in the Syrian city of Douma on April 7, 2018. A number of media outlets reviewed these reports, adding their own analysis and comparisons.

In particular, this includes email exchanges between FFM staff and senior officials from the OPCW Technical Secretariat and some of its departments, expressing bemusement and concern over the fact that data provided by experts who were deployed to Douma were ignored, and these staff members were excluded from the work on the final report. This is a very significant point because it casts doubt on the accuracy of the conclusions contained in the report. We also found this document and its early draft online, they are available. I did not see anyone from the OPCW offer a rebuttal of these documents. In this context, as far as I understand, they can be used and relied upon. It is now up to the media to draw the conclusions. Whichever way you look at this, it leads to many questions, and possibly answers as to what is going on within the OPCW.

This clearly shows that the senior officials of this once respected international body have taken an overtly biased anti-Syrian stance regarding the investigations into the alleged chemical incidents involving the use of toxic chemicals and warfare agents in Syria. As much as we regret this, the OPCW has opted for ignoring the multiple questions raised by the state parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the international community despite all the publicity surrounding these outrageous developments. We proceed from the premise that the OPCW is not a private shop, although many try to assume exclusive control over it. This is an intergovernmental organisation that has to provide answers, even if doing this is inconvenient.



Parliamentary hearings in the Netherlands on Iraq bombings in 2015

As you know, our Western partners often profess groundless accusations against our country, among others, of committing various “grave” violations in the Middle East and North Africa, which includes Syria and so forth. We are being accused of “destroying civilian sites,” of allegedly “attacking medical facilities,” or causing “unjustified civilian casualties.” The Netherlands is not an exception. More and more reports to this effect are surfacing in the media at the initiative of the local officials. Most interestingly, the bigger the momentum in anti-Russia coverage, the more facts emerge showing the actual role and the true interests of these countries, including in terms of humanitarian affairs, and what these states and governments actually think about human rights and preserving life in the Middle East and North Africa in general.

I would like to say a few words about the tragic and outrageous incident involving the Dutch military in Iraq. It has been overlooked by the international community. Journalistic investigations carried out by a number of media outlets showed that in June 2015 F-16 fighters of the Royal Netherlands Air Force bombed the Iraqi town of Hawija. Some reports claim that the raid resulted in 70 civilian casualties, while other sources say that there were about 300 casualties.

It turns out that the Dutch government has been trying to conceal this fact for four years. Two defence ministers, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, who is now Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, and Ank Bijleveld who replaced Hennis-Plasschaert in 2017, intentionally concealed and then for a long time denied the number of civilian casualties resulting from this operation in Iraq, including in front of their national parliament to which they report, by the way.

During parliamentary hearings, Defence Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert and Prime Minister Mark Rutte wanted to get away with evasive replies, claiming that the country’s leadership was not briefed on the number of casualties (and consequently this incident was put on the back burner). At the same time they tried to shift the blame on their allies within the anti-ISIS coalition who allegedly provided inaccurate coordinates to the pilots. Finally, they said that residential buildings were destroyed inadvertently when ammunition from the terrorist hide-outs detonated during the bombing. There were also cynical statements made whereby the government was not entitled to inform the parliament of these developments to ensure the “safety of the pilots.” There were a lot of fairy tales.

As far as we can see from the relevant public documents, pressure from the members of the Second Chamber did not yield any results. The opposition failed in its attempts to hold the government to account or adopt a non-confidence vote. However, in the past, it used to take much less for a government official to be forced to resign.

At the end of the day, cabinet members came through unscathed without even providing any persuasive explanation on the death of dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent civilians, and why this fact was hushed up.

This was just one of the examples of Dutch-style fair justice and the determination to constantly shift focus from discussing their own role in international affairs to other subjects, in particular Russia.



Update on Venezuela

Tension persists in Venezuela. Last time we talked about the Venezuelan Government exposing the radical opposition’s plans to attack military garrisons in Sucre to seize their weapons. Last Sunday, a similar plan was implemented in the state of Bolivar. The attack shows that the radical wing of the opposition has resumed the tactic of provocations aimed at inciting armed clashes and at creating an atmosphere of chaos. The prompt and professional actions taken by the Venezuelan armed forces have prevented the terrorists from seizing over a hundred light weapons.

It is obvious that the opponents of the legitimate Venezuelan authorities have not abandoned their plans to stage a military coup. We were alarmed by what President Nicolas Maduro has said about the plans and possible sites of these provocations. I would like to remind you that Russia has warned about the danger of planning any operations in the border regions more than once, including because of their destructive consequences for all countries in the region. I would like to say that Russia firmly condemns any extremist actions and any attempts to justify them. We will closely monitor the investigation into this incident.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to use the tried and tested methods of interference in Latin American and Caribbean countries approved by American ideologists, including the Monroe Doctrine-style ones. It is now laying a legislative trap for sensible politicians who may try to restore US diplomatic ties with Venezuela. Its preliminary condition for relaunching dialogue with Caracas is the recognition of Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president. If approved, the bill will remain in effect until 2025. This is something to be considered seriously. Juan Guaido’s powers as President of the National Assembly of Venezuela expire in 10 days, on January 5, 2020, when the Venezuelan MPs will elect a new president. The countries that respect democracy cannot predict the outcome of the voting. At the same time, Washington wants its puppet to become head of both the legislative and executive branches in Venezuela for the next five years. I can’t remember such a lawless disgrace ever being forced on Latin America, where the United States has gone a long way historically. It is an international judicial knowhow. In addition, it is also an instance of interference in the affairs of a foreign state in violation of the UN Charter and yet another infringement on the political rights of 30 million Venezuelans.

Polls show that the majority of Venezuelans have had enough of confrontation and are ready to take part in the parliamentary election scheduled for 2020 in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution. However, a radical minority is violating the country’s fundamental law to uphold a semblance of their popularity in the country. This is the goal of the reform of the National Assembly rules and procedures, which was presented as a progressive law defending Venezuelan democracy. After the parliament approved this law, some opposition MPs, including a member of their party, Juan Guaido, declared that the law violated national legislation and filed a complaint with the Constitutional Chamber at the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela, which has declared the law “null and void.” This is a travesty of international law and common sense launched by ideologists in Washington or those supported by it.

We urge Venezuelan politicians and their international colleagues to take a sensible look at the changing situation, to respect Venezuelan legislation and international law, to uphold the right of Venezuelans to independently find a way out of the crisis, and to speak out in support of the National Dialogue Roundtable, which has produced positive results.



European Union Council extends sanctions against Russia

We are disappointed by the European Union’s inert policy regarding the extension of sectoral restrictive measures against our country. This is what we think of the Council’s decision of December 19, 2019.

The European Union, unfortunately, has again missed the opportunity to rehabilitate relations with its largest neighbour on the continent. Today it is more than obvious that the unilateral sanctions do not work. They not only resulted in deteriorated Russia-EU relations, which, as we already mentioned, marked their 30th anniversary this year, but also complicated the activity of the EU economic operators on the Russian market. The losses of European Union from the sanctions standoff have reached hundreds of billions of euros.

We still hope that there are sensible politicians in the EU, who should be able to purchase a calculator and make some calculations on it. They are also probably able to reflect on ways to bring relations with Russia in line with the long-term interests of their own countries and peoples. It would seem that it would serve the purpose of implementing a ‘more strategic’ approach in international affairs set by EU leaders.



Holding the International Festival of Crimean Tatar Culture in Istanbul on December 14

On December 14, Istanbul, the Republic of Turkey, hosted the International Festival of Crimean Tatar Culture with the active assistance of the local associations of ethnic Crimean Tatars and business leaders. The event brought together the Haytarma Crimean Tatar Ensemble of Song and Dance, the Crimean Federation of National Kurash Wrestling, the Millet Public Television Company, the Crimean Tatar Museum of Cultural and Historical Legacy, as well as representatives of the Crimean Federal University and the Muslim Spiritual Directorate of the Republic of Crimea.

The aim of the festival was to display the rich cultural heritage of Crimean Tatars and convey the truthful information about the efforts to preserve it in Crimea to the Turkish public. We consider it a very positive event, which will facilitate the establishment of ties between the Crimean Tatars in Crimea and Turkey. These ties must be promoted and encouraged. The most important thing is to give people an opportunity to learn about each other, each other’s achievements and problems, learn about the everyday lives of people through normal cultural relations and communication, instead of using imaginary humanitarian data by the analysts who have not visited Crimea in the past five years.



Initiative to relocate monument to Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev from Prague to Slovakia

We are grateful to the former Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Jan Carnogursky who has contacted Prague-6 municipal authorities and suggested buying the monument to Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev which is located in this district and relocating it to Slovakia and installing it there.

The mocking attitude of local politicians towards the memory of the Soviet military commander who liberated the Czech capital from the Nazi scourge has offended reasonable segments of European society.

We are confident that the initiators of the campaign to rewrite history in line with time-serving political considerations will prove unable to erase the grateful attitude of the continent’s nations towards the Red Army that liberated them from Nazism.

At the same time, we reaffirm our position with regard to monuments: They retain their meaning and significance in those areas where historical events [in whose honour they were put up] had taken place.

Speaking of the above-mentioned decision and other odious decisions by a number of Prague municipalities, we would like to once again urge the state agencies of the Czech Republic not to cite domestic legal restrictions but to start fulfilling their international obligations with regard to memorials and monuments.

What we call the rewriting of the results of WWII is assuming disastrous proportions and absolutely ugly forms. To be honest, we are forced to recheck these incoming reports and information because it was simply impossible to believe them from the very beginning. It appears that educated and reasonable people who are knowledgeable about history not just from textbooks and who are members of generations that recall the postwar world as it looks like decades later as the one that was built with due account for the results of WWII, simply cannot say this. But it turns out that they can.



Remarks by French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian at the conference Beyond 1989: Hopes and Disillusions after Revolutions held at Charles University in Prague

We took note of the speech by Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian on December 6 at Charles University in Prague as part of the conference titled Beyond 1989: Hopes and Disillusions after Revolutions.

We definitely feel compelled to offer a detailed response to the remarks by the French foreign minister. He called for combatting historical relativism and revisionism, warning against any politically-driven attempts to rewrite history, while at the same time going down this untenable path by equating the annexation of Eastern Europe by the Nazi regime and the post-war evolution of this region within the socialist system.

We categorically oppose this distorted logic, especially coming from an official representing France in international affairs, rather than a fringe historian. Interpretations of the post-war decades of Soviet rule in this region may differ, but there is no way the occupation of the Czech Republic or Poland by Hitler can be equated to the period when these countries lived under the people’s democracy. This is what a crime against history is all about. It can be committed inadvertently. Sometimes it can be explained by lack of knowledge. But coming from an educated person, we do not have any right to use any other epithets. This position is totally at odds with objective historical approaches.

It is equally impossible to comprehend why during his presentation in Prague he did not mention the Munich Accords with their disastrous consequences for Czechoslovakia, or the liberation of the Czech capital by the Red Army that suffered heavy casualties in the operation amounting to 11,000 soldiers and officers.

In this context, we cannot fail to question the French initiative to establish an Observatory on History Teaching under the auspices of the Council of Europe. At the outset, Russia was quite positive about this proposal. Now we are not as sure as we were that Paris is not using this initiative to impose an equally biased approach to major historical events.

The call on Eastern European countries to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for enhancing integration within the European Union also sounded strange, to say the least, against the backdrop of the bitter denunciation of the so-called annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR. There is also an attempt to pretend that the Yalta Conference did not yield any results, although it was quite a meaningful event for France. It is astonishing to hear that France never accepted the Yalta world order. There are things that I find hard to believe. It took us some time to respond because we wanted to check whether we understood everything correctly, or not everything was published. Just to remind those who may not be aware of this, it is as part of this world order that the United Nations Organisation was established, and France joined the ranks of the victorious powers and got a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. The Provisional Government of the French Republic did not object to the resolutions of the conference whereby it received an occupation zone in Germany under its control and the right to be part of the Allied Control Council for Germany. France went on to join a number of international instruments adopted in the follow-up to the Yalta agreements. France was represented during the drafting of the German Instrument of Surrender, the Agreement on the occupation zones in Germany and the Agreement on Control Machinery in Germany, and also took part in the signing of surrender documents with Germany and Japan, and preparing peace treaties with Germany’s former allies. I cannot believe that Paris forgot all this.

Of course, there is no getting away from the fact that it was the Soviet Union that played a key role in helping France restore its international standing. Let me remind you that the USSR practically lobbied for France, convincing the allies to accept its point of view. You can read the archives, they do exist.

Unlike the USSR, Great Britain and the United States did not recognise the Provisional Government of France for a long time and minimised military assistance to General de Gaulle’s armed forces in the liberated territories. In this situation the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance that was signed in Moscow on December 10, 1944, played a critical role.

Even considering the audience targeted by this speech, the ideas that were voiced in Prague hardly correspond to the focus on promoting constructive dialogue and cooperation that has been apparent in Russia-France relations in recent months.

Unfortunately, this question gets so much attention in Russia for a number of reasons. We remember all too well where experiments with history can take the world. Not only Russia or the Russian society are concerned. We received many questions after the presentation by the French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian.



Article by Ante Filip Tepic, political scientist at the University of Gothenburg, “Why is Hitler on television every day?”

I was struck by an article that recently came out in Sweden. I realised then that those topics that concern Russia, Russian society, Russian citizens, and Russian historians, one way or another, also concern members of the public in other European countries. Officialdom does not seem to talk much about this, but academics and the journalistic community are beginning to debate this topic.

The article I am talking about focuses on romanticising the image of Adolf Hitler in the local media. The writer provides an analysis of publications and broadcasts on this topic. According to the article, the abundance of so-called historical programmes that praise certain geopolitical achievements of the head of the Third Reich shortly before WWII will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of ultra-right activists in Europe and specifically in Sweden. The question is raised about the need to tell the true story, the truth about those events, rather than snatch things out of context – let alone romanticising that period.

In particular, we are talking about an article by a representative of the University of Gothenburg, a political scientist of Croatian origin, Ante Filip Tepic, who asked the Swedish public a peculiar question: Why is Hitler on television every day? His analysis was published by Expressen, a central newspaper, on December 25. He notes that Swedish educational programmes on the 1930s-1940s events in Europe have acquired a very dangerous colouring of late. He is indignant that the creators of these programmes focus too much on the details of Hitler’s biography, voluntarily or involuntarily romanticising the image of the greatest criminal in human history, creating, in the eyes of an inexperienced viewer, an image of a charismatic 20th century leader. In the author’s opinion, the endless stories about how the founder of the Third Reich instantly gained popularity, hoodwinked many world leaders, destroyed millions of lives sound like some potential inspirational instruction for the younger generation.

The article also says that the hoaxes spread by the local television about the Nazi elite successfully fleeing to South America, can give young people an idea – unfortunately, given their limited knowledge of history – of the impunity of criminals who are responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

This publication is actually quite indicative, because, as it seems to us, the demolition of memorials, the pseudo-expert conferences, the statements made by officials reinterpreting historical events at strange symposiums, the reprinting of literary works by the leaders of the Third Reich are all links of the same chain. Indeed, such a change in the perception of those events is the other side of the same coin.

I think this topic should be given a thought because history is developing cyclically. After some time, we will be facing problems we will be incapable of dealing with.



Detention of Russian sailors involved in criminal schemes to transport illegal immigrants to Greece and Italy

Recently, detentions of Russian sailors serving under contracts with foreign ships have become more frequent at the maritime borders of Greece and Italy. The Russians are charged with transporting illegal immigrants, as a rule, from Turkey, the Balkan states or North African countries.

Now 24 people are held in custody in Greece and 23 in Italy. Some of them have already been convicted, while most sailors are still waiting for a final decision to be made by the local judicial authorities. The Russians themselves claim they have been dragged into this activity fraudulently. Their recruiters allegedly offered them highly paid jobs on cruise boats, through social media or personal contact. It was not until they arrived at their destinations that the Russians realised that matters stood differently.

It should be noted that European courts treat this type of crime uncompromisingly and do not take into account any extenuating circumstances. No acquittals ever happened after a red-handed detention. We would like to emphasise that the punishment in such cases is really harsh – the convicts face imprisonment for a term of from five years to life. The capabilities of our country's diplomatic missions and consular offices in such cases are very limited. Not when illegal actions have been recorded, and ignorance of laws, as you know, does not exempt from liability. Diplomats can monitor the observance of our citizens’ procedural rights and, if those rights are violated, signal to local authorities. However, defence during their trials is performed exclusively by licensed lawyers, as in Russia.

We caution Russian citizens to be very careful when seeking employment abroad, especially if the counterpart is not a reputable large company but random people on social accounts with unproven resources. Do not get deluded – high compensation offered for regular routine work always suggests illegal actions. Moreover, it is rank-and-file workers who get punished. Their superiors generally manage to get off. An irresponsible and careless attitude can lead to extremely grave consequences.

This does not mean that now Russian citizens will not have consular protection and our consular services and foreign missions will not provide them with support and assistance. We just have to be proactive to prevent more such cases and situations.



Changes to the rules for filling out e-visa application forms for foreign citizens

In order to minimise the number of mistakes made by foreign citizens when they fill out e-visa application forms and the number of incidents when travellers are denied entry to the Russian Federation, the following changes were made on the Foreign Ministry’s website for e-visas, electronic-visa.kdmid.ru, on December 17.

The new rules for filling out the application form have been published. Foreign citizens now have to write their names and surnames in strict accordance with the machine-readable part of their passports, irrespective of how they are spelled in the visual part.

Thus, it is a simple and user-friendly process of filling out forms for foreign citizens if they have several names, last names and/or if their names are written in the visual part of the passport with letters of their national language, as well as a unified approach of transport companies and the border service to check that personal data in the e-visa is the same as in the passport. Most of the problems were associated with this discrepancy.

In addition, the size and colour of the font of the most important information have been changed.

A link to the calculator of the allowed duration of stay in the Russian Federation has been added.

A warning was added for foreign citizens that any mistake in the passport information can become the reason for travellers to be denied entry to the Russian Federation. Foreign citizens are advised to double check the form before submitting the application.

At the same time, it should be noted that an e-visa, as well as a regular visa, cannot serve as a guarantee of entry to the Russian Federation. The final decision is made at the border checkpoint, which is in full compliance with international practice.

I would like to say that this issue is one of the most important and problematic. The Foreign Ministry is actively working on it to minimise potential problems.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Quite recently, Yerevan and Moscow reached agreements on admitting Russian specialists to a US biological observatory in Armenia. However, it was noted that specific deadlines will be clarified after departmental coordination and departmental work are complete. Do you have any news on this score?



Maria Zakharova:

I will specify these deadlines, and I will let you know. So far, I have not seen that these deadlines have been coordinated, but I will specify the matter.



Question:

I would also like to wish you a Happy New Year and robust health because one needs to be very fit working in various climatic zones.

And here are some chronological facts for my question. In November-December 2017, WADA barred the Russian national team from taking part in the 2018 Winter Olympics in the Republic of Korea. In late 2017, the US Department of Justice demanded that RT register as a foreign agent. In February 2018, Russian Olympic athletes took part in the Winter Olympics under a white flag. On March 4, 2018, Sergey Skripal was poisoned in the United Kingdom, with British authorities accusing Russia. On April 15, 2018, a provocation was staged in Syria, with the OPCW launching an investigation. On May 15, 2018, Kirill Vyshinsky was arrested in Kiev. On July 16, 2018, the US Department of Justice arrested Maria Butina. I have mentioned the most sensational facts. History moves in circles: On December 9, 2019, WADA suspended the Russian team for another four years. So, we are wearing these vests and supporting Sputnik, rather than RT. One does not have to be a wizard astrologer to realise that, if Russian athletes and sports officials once again go to Japan under a white flag, then Russian citizens would feel even more uneasy throughout 2020. So, here is my question: Is it possible to hold some inter-departmental consultations with sports officials and make them understand that they should not travel under a white flag and take part in Olympic Games and other competitions.



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to say that one also needs absolutely robust health for working with representatives of media outlets.

Replying to your question, I would like to note that we don’t hold such inter-departmental consultations on matters addressed by other agencies. At the same time, we, indeed, collaborate with Russian ministries and agencies, including the Ministry of Sport, on various international-law measures [which have to be implemented and which will be implemented] for defending the rights of Russian athletes. This sufficiently active work is now underway. And I can confirm this. Regarding your specific question on specific symbols, this matter is, of course, addressed at an inter-departmental level, too. But I would say the decision will probably be made in line with the entire combination of factors that should be taken into account. International-law activities are part of the Ministry’s work, and the Ministry largely coordinates the work of national ministries and agencies. Well, this work is proceeding very actively.



Question:

There were reports recently of Russian diplomats being prevented from travelling to the United States to take part in UN events. This is not the first time this has happened and it will not be the last. But what can be done? It is not uncommon for diplomats from Iran, Russia and a number of other countries to have visa problems when planning a diplomatic trip to the US. What was the response from Russia and the international community?



Maria Zakharova:

I believe that we have had this problem before. You mentioned the first year and the first time. When it happened for the first time, it was done somewhat boorishly by the US when Russia had its delegation on stand-by but did not know how many members, and from what agencies and branches of government, would be able to attend the UN General Assembly’s “political week.” This was the way it happened the first time. However, this is by no means the first year or the first time the US has denied visas to Foreign Ministry employees, diplomats and representatives of other Russian ministries travelling to the United Nations and various events, even official events held at the UN.

Let me remind you that in 2015 there was a similar international row with the United States when Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko was unable to attend parliamentary events at the UN Headquarters. Our experts who are not designated on any stop lists or under sanctions, and are experts in specific matters, respected by their foreign peers, are regularly prevented from attending various UN General Assembly committee meetings and other events. Usually, instead of having their visa applications refused, they simply do not issue them on time. Considering the need to make an overseas flight of about nine hours, it is usually too late to change the ticket and impossible to get there on time. This is a long-standing issue. How can it be resolved? Is Russia alone in being treated this way? No, Russia is not alone. When certain US officials or politicians (not the United States as a country and even less so its people) believe that certain people or countries are acting or making statements in an undesirable manner, they become entangled in visa warfare. Is this legal? On the one hand, I have just said that a state has the right to refuse a visa and prevent a person from entering its territory even with a visa. This is a sovereign right. There is one caveat however. The United States has an obligation towards the international community to issue visas to people travelling to events and meetings held by UN bodies, including the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other forums and structures. This is an obligation. This is my first point. However, apart from hosting the UN Headquarters, the US also has other obligations, such as not to hinder the free movement of people or their communications. This includes refraining from intentionally using visa restrictions and rules governing entry to and departure from the country for political purposes and as a punitive measure. This does not refer to criminals, dangerous people or those who pose a national security threat, but to situations where the point of view people express does not coincide with the opinion of government agencies that have the power to deny entry. This is part of the country’s international obligations. Not only did the OSCE, where the US is still a member, discuss these matters, but also adopted documents to this effect.

What is to be done? There are international legal structures and mechanisms that we have recently mentioned in our comments. We will use them, and will keep doing so. But there is also the notion of solidarity that our Western partners have recently reinvigorated and reanimated, by the way. Each country has to understand one simple thing: they will be the next to face this kind of pressure and this unfriendly and illegal policy that can even be referred to as persecution. No one can guarantee anything.



Question:

On December 24, your birthday, the bridge over the Samur River, on the Russian-Azerbaijani border, opened in an impressive setting. What does the Foreign Ministry think about the opening of this bridge, and what is your opinion of 2019 in the context of expanding relations between Russia and Azerbaijan.



Maria Zakharova:

Do you associate the opening of the bridge with my birthday? I thought that Vestnik Kavkaza might link it with the birthday of President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. I don’t make any connection between these events, but I believe this is a nice theory.



Question:

I would like to make the following comment. When the United States declared sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project, it seemed it was only for its own benefit. In effect, the US side wanted to shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and to throw doubt on what happened next …



Maria Zakharova:

This is something obvious. US Ambassador to Germany Richard A. Grenell is a good friend of mine. We worked together in New York City, and he was the US mission’s press attaché. Ambassador Grenell has made a lot of statements on this matter and written many articles dealing with it. He coaxed them softly, but I get the impression that he used some tough leverage for coercing the German establishment and clearly set forth the US approach. They concealed nothing and resorted to open and direct threats. They did not even lobby for this because lobbying is when someone offers interesting and more profitable terms and some options that would open up if the relevant decisions are made. But this was intimidation and a very aggressive approach. No one concealed anything. On the other hand, it would be interesting to know how this tallies with the law that Washington defended for so many years and free-market competition. If you recall, they told us ten years ago that it was absolutely impossible to link the energy aspect and sector with politics, and that these two options were completely different. It would be unacceptable if, God forbid, Russia linked its national interests or international approaches with the energy sector. But, in Washington’s opinion, it is possible and necessary to do this. No one concealed this.



Question:

The preliminary results of the presidential election in Afghanistan were announced this week, and a number of countries have officially recognised them. I would like to know what Russia thinks about this.



Maria Zakharova:

On the one hand, we are aware that the preliminary results of the presidential election in Afghanistan were announced, as you say. But we also noted that some presidential candidates emphatically disagreed with them. In this connection, we are counting on a thorough and unbiased assessment of all existing claims, so as to guarantee the most honest election results that the people of Afghanistan would then accept.



Question:

It has recently become known that the German Prosecutor General’s Office did not send a request for legal assistance in the case of Zurab Khangoshvili, killed in Berlin, until December 6 and 10 — that is, after Russian diplomats had been expelled from the country. Could you comment on this information?



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, I can confirm this. Moscow indeed received official requests from Berlin to provide legal assistance in the investigation of the murder of former member of North Caucasus terrorist groups Zurab Khangoshvili on December 6 and 10. This indeed happened after the German government’s unjustified decision to declare two members of the Russian embassy in Berlin personae non gratae. As a reminder, their expulsion was announced on December 4 and on that day, Germany said the two diplomats should leave Germany because Russia was not showing the proper level of cooperation. But the actual request for cooperation came only two days later. I can, indeed, officially confirm this. And, well, at the same time, I can also say that contacts between the law enforcement agencies and special services of Russia and Germany on the so-called Khangoshvili case have been going on since the end of August. This is also recognised by Berlin.

Although we have mentioned this on many occasions, I can repeat once again that the German authorities’ allegations about Russia’s allegedly unsatisfactory level of cooperation in clarifying the circumstances of the crime, look strange at the very least, and, with the recent confirmation of the dates, are not true. The whole situation seemed strange to us in the first place. We never expected official representatives of Germany to make such statements that Russia was not contacting the German side about that person. You know that we have cited the relevant facts concerning the dates of the relevant inquiries to the German side and the agencies involved. So frankly speaking, in this case, you know Berlin looks somewhat lame.



Question:

Can any retaliatory measures be expected from Moscow to US sanctions against Nord Stream 2 – such as, against American private companies?



Maria Zakharova:

I will not say exactly what the retaliatory measures will be on Russia’s part. But, as you have already heard from Russian officials at various levels, we always respond to such unfriendly attacks. So unfortunately, last time I checked, this symmetrical, or ‘mirror,’ approach was still in effect.



Question:

According to media reports, Estonia’s unprecedented attacks on the Sputnik news agency have been orchestrated by Britain and its special services. What can you say about these assumptions?



Maria Zakharova:

I have seen these reports. By the way, we have had similar questions. I have not seen the term “special services,” but I remember reading that “Estonia, guided by British mentors, is pursuing an anti-Russia policy, in particular, with regard to Russian media.”

Here is what I would like to say. “There is a special and very close bilateral friendship between Britain and Estonia, but also more broadly, the United Kingdom is our key strategic partner, who will continue to make a strong commitment to allied relations and European security. We wish to have the closest possible relationship in all areas, especially in the fields of foreign, defence and security policy, as well as economics and education.”

Do you think I have made this up? Not at all. Do you want to know who said this? It was not a journalist or analyst. It was Prime Minister of Estonia Juri Ratas. Here you are. It is an official statement by the Prime Minister of Estonia. It was made the other day, on the occasion of a visit by – guess who? Yes, the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

The tone in relations between these two countries has been set and explained by their officials. We have not invented this. It is an open fact, and it doesn’t take much effort to find it. By the way, Boris Johnson said in response to this statement by his Estonian counterpart – a quote as well: “NATO (…) has been historically the most successful military alliance in (…) the last 500 years and it’s got a great future. But today we are here to show Britain’s support for Estonia. ...And we will continue for a very long time.”

This is very interesting, historically. And this will continue in Estonia with Britain’s mentorship in various fields. I would like to repeat that it was not I who said this, and it was not our experts who wrote this. This is the heads of two sovereign states talking about their countries’ special relations. And the last but not the least, the deployment of British troops in Estonia is increasing the anti-Russia bias of that Baltic state, including in its attitude to the Russian media. It is also an undeniable fact that the British authorities do not respect international standards in the field of freedom of the media, denying some media outlets, including Russian ones, access to international events held in the UK, as well as denying visas or refusing to prolong visas for journalists. The British authorities also apply discriminatory measures against individual media representatives. What London is doing to Julian Assange is a glaring example of Britain’s violation of all and any journalistic standards.

And now let’s project London’s special relations to the current situation in Estonia. Everything the “big brother” has done before is being done in Estonia, clearly with the support which Boris Johnson and Juri Ratas mentioned. They even recited the fields where these special relations apply.

As for the field of the media, let’s talk about facts, so that nobody can accuse us of mere hypothesising. London and Tallinn, the media, cooperation and special relations. There is an active system of grants under the so-called Baltic Centre for Media Excellence. Many of its donors are British organisations, including the Foreign Office itself and the notorious British Council. The tentacles of certain British agencies have taken hold of the Baltic countries, including the country in question, Estonia.

As for the British Council, you can see it everywhere. Here are a few examples. The Baltic Centre for Investigative Journalism, which has declared the goal of exposing “Russian propaganda,” is located in Riga, Latvia. According to public sources, this centre has prepared secret reports about the mood of Russian speakers in the Baltics for a British intelligence and defence fund. No, we have not made this up. It is not even data that needs to be verified. It is public information. You just need 20 minutes for browsing an online search engine to find many more interesting things. In principle, the logical conclusion is that this centre is working to fulfil the tasks and meet the goals of the concerned services. There are many more such examples. It is notable that few of the joint British-Estonian projects have constructive goals. More than that, they are not focused on EU problems – or Brexit – either. They are paid, instructed and set to act against Russia. And they don’t even make a secret of this. Moreover, it looks like a declared mission to me. And lastly, huge sums are allocated for this. Does it surprise you? Is there anyone who doesn’t know this? Is it a secret? No, it isn’t. I believe that we should be talking about this more often. Regrettably, we had a sad occasion for talking about this today – pressure put on a Russian media outlet. Well, let’s not forget about this; let’s continue to talk about it.



Question:

The Washington Post recently published an article quoting US officials that the US cyber command is planning operations against the Russian elite. Of course, they justify this by possible interference in the US elections in 2020. The idea is that confidential information from Russian politicians and businesspeople could be threatened. Is this threat real? Is there any evidence of such interference and will Russia take any reciprocal actions? Thank you.



Maria Zakharova:

Is this a revelation of a big secret for us? Is it some new reality? This is what has been actively used by our Western partners that interfered in home affairs and sometimes changed regimes. Now many European countries have been subject to media attacks when through the publishing of some discrediting materials pressure was exerted on the domestic situation or international contacts of these countries. As a result, either governments have had to quit or it was necessary to shape some public opinion for adopting some or other decision.

Today, with such statements the United States is legalising its activities. It appears that the United States is behind the video footage of people associated with the Russian speaking environment ostensibly doing something illegal. So we can just thank them for this admission and the evidence of their obviously illegal activities. The US accuses others of doing this but not themselves.



Question:

On December 23, a Turkish delegation came to Moscow to discuss the situation in Syria and Libya. Today, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote that they delayed leaving for three days. Can you tell us anything about this or should we wait for a statement?



Maria Zakharova:

I can confirm that Russia-Turkey consultations took place at the Russian Foreign Ministry on December 23. Maybe you didn’t notice this but I will reveal a great secret: a relevant report was published on the Foreign Ministry website. I think it is better to ask the Turkish delegation why they extended their stay. Moscow is very beautiful and festive now. Maybe they liked it. I have no additional information, but I can check on my side. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have already officially published this information. Naturally, different issues have been discussed, including the urgent situation in Libya. I would like to draw your attention to this press release.



Question:

Tomorrow, on December 27, Russia, China and Iran will hold joint military exercises in the Indian Ocean for the first time. What is your opinion on this? I would also like to thank you for the visas for the filming crew of the TV channel that came to Russia this year.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you very much. I’d just say that you are no exception. We help all journalists promptly process their documents for arrival in our country. We have a fairly simple and transparent procedure for processing travel documents. The press centre does not receive complaints from anyone. But thank you for your kind words.

As for military exercises, I don’t think I should give my assessments. This should be done by military experts and the Defence Ministry. We are conducting these activities openly and legally. We are dealing with issues that are linked with the maintenance of stability and security and the struggle against terrorism in the region. I would like to repeat that this bilateral or multilateral cooperation is always based on a legal foundation.



Question:

What international event do you consider the most important in the outgoing year? Please tell us how you are going to see the New Year in. Thank you.



Maria Zakharova:

I think the main achievement of the outgoing year is the absence of any global upheaval or a new hot conflict. So let me congratulate you on this. As we have said more than once, peace is not a natural situation. For all of us to enjoy it, many experts in different countries and international organisations that are called on to maintain peace must work hard to make it possible. So, they all did a good job this year. I hope this is so. But I won’t make a final statement because there are still several days left before the New Year. But in any event, the 360 days of this year so far are our main common achievement. As for how I will see the New Year in, I will tell you later, probably via social media.



Question:

Regarding the UN Security Council resolution on sending workers from North Korea home. Would you please comment on the current situation? Will Russia report on the fulfillment of this resolution?



Maria Zakharova:

We strongly believe that the sanctions the UN Security Council imposes, including on North Korea, should be scrupulously observed. You know that trade and economic ties between Russia and North Korea are as transparent as they could possibly be and they cover only those areas that are not prohibited under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. To give you an example, we submit all the reports we are required to submit to the UN Security Council Committee [Established Pursuant to Resolution 1718] on Russia’s export of oil products to North Korea and on the transit of Russian coal via the North Korean port Rajin, as well as on the shipments of materials that are required to support port operations, and we do so in a timely manner.

Russian customs agencies take all the necessary measures to prevent goods from North Korea that fall under the sanctions from passing the Russian border. Our customs bodies issue, in a transparent manner, news releases, in which they give detailed accounts of incidents involving the seizing of banned goods. All this information is available.

At the same time, our principled approach to this matter is that it is necessary to more actively use UN Security Council mechanisms to facilitate the settlement of the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The UN Security Council should increase its efforts to encourage Pyongyang to take steps towards denuclearisation. In practice, this means the gradual easing of the international sanctions imposed on North Korea as the country takes practical steps towards nuclear disarmament. Accordingly, we regard the policy of exerting the so-called maximum pressure on Pyongyang, which is pursued by some members of the Security Council, to be counter-productive and shortsighted as it implies that the sanctions should be preserved in full until the process of denuclearisation is over.

In addition, as you know, attempts are being made to sever Pyongyang’s external ties even in areas that are not related to nuclear missiles programmes. Clearly, this impractical position does nothing to facilitate the settlement process. In order to mitigate the negative humanitarian impact on the population of North Korea, Russia insists that international sanctions be eased in a manner proposed by UN-linked institutions carrying out activities in North Korea. We also believe that international restrictions imposed on Pyongyang should exclusively target channels that are used to fund the country’s nuclear missile programmes. These restrictions cannot be used to punish civilians.



Question:

You said that next year there would be a high-level meeting between the Russian and Uzbekistani foreign ministers. This is not a question – rather it is a wish. Every year I come to Sevastopol for the Won Together International Doc & TV Film Festival. This festival is not just about war but it is also about everyday victory. Films from Uzbekistan are included in this festival programme. Do you think the House of Russian Culture in Uzbekistan can help promote these films?



Maria Zakharova:

Which city hosts the festival?



Question:

Sevastopol.



Maria Zakharova:

Let’s take Roman Tsymbalyuk [Ukrainian journalist] with us. We will both see the film and visit Sevastopol. This is a good subject. And you, as a representative of a Ukrainian media outlet, can tell your subscribers what is really happening in Crimea. At the same time, you can also get to know Uzbek films.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3984138
__________________
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 January 8th, 2020 #58
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, December 27, 2019



27 December 2019 - 11:15



Question:

Is there any real prospect of Russia returning to the Group of Eight next year? Was this question on the agenda of your recent meeting with Donald Trump? Did he convey an invitation to Vladimir Putin to attend the summit in the United States? What are your expectations for 2020 in terms of foreign policy, including relations with the US?



Sergey Lavrov:

I suggest we use appropriate terminology. Russia did not leave the G8. Let me remind you that after the state coup in Ukraine in early 2014 the other seven members of the Group refused to take part in events held as part of Russia’s presidency. In other words, the seven countries withdrew from this format, rather than the other way around. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, “if our partners want to come, we will be glad.” I can say that we could receive them in Moscow, St Petersburg, Sochi or for instance in Yalta.

Overall, Russia sees no incentives and has no desire to restore this format. We did not discuss this question during my visit to the United States, and it is not part of the Russia-US bilateral agenda. The G7 was created back in the days of the Cold War. It has become irrelevant in today’s world, primarily due to the fact that it leaves out the new global centres. Without them, overcoming the multiple challenges and threats that we face in today’s world is impossible.

It is not a coincidence that the Group of Twenty offered an effective platform for discussing many key questions related to global economics and even politics. Apart from the G20, Russia is proactive in associations of a new kind, such as BRICS and the SCO, where decisions are balanced and taken by consensus rather than imposed. These are multilateral structures that have already established themselves as reliable foundations for the emerging fair, democratic and multipolar world order.

Giving a forecast for next year is not easy. A lot will depend on whether our Western partners, primarily Washington, are ready to stop using corrupt practices such as blackmail, pressure, unilateral sanctions, and to honour international law, or more generally commit to mutually respectful dialogue for untying the many knots we have in today’s world. Russia on its behalf will continue strengthening collective undertakings in global affairs, supporting global and regional security in all its dimensions, and facilitating sustainable solutions to multiple crises and conflicts by political and diplomatic means, be it in Syria or Ukraine, our neighbour. To this end, we will use the resources that we have as members of global governance institutions such as the United Nations and the G20, as well as the opportunities offered by Russia’s BRICS and SCO presidencies.

We have no illusions regarding the future of Russia-US dialogue, particularly against the backdrop of the challenging environment in US domestic politics and the upcoming presidential election. This is clearly illustrated by Washington’s recent unfriendly steps. On our behalf, we remain committed to taking all the required steps to ensure our security, the interests of Russian citizens and businesses, and to find adequate responses to any aggressive actions. At the same time, we do not seek confrontation. We are open to trying to find solutions to problems that matter for our countries and the entire world. Our proposals to work together on various matters remain in force. Quite a few of them could be carried out in the near future, including launching the Business Advisory Council and the Expert Council, as agreed by our presidents. Our other proposals include exchanging letters guaranteeing non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs, launching dialogue on cybersecurity, a matter that causes so much concern to the United States, issuing a joint statement on the inadmissibility of nuclear war, extending the New START, imposing a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, and taking other steps to enhance strategic stability. Of course, we will judge Washington’s intentions by its deeds rather than words.



Question:

What is the deadline for extending the New START Treaty? If it is not extended, will Russia immediately begin creating and deploying additional strategic arms or will there be a moratorium similar to the one that was introduced after the collapse of the INF Treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia’s attitude to the extension of the New START was clearly put forth by President Putin. We are ready to extend it without any preconditions. As for deadlines, President Putin said that “Russia is willing to immediately, as soon as possible, before the year is out, renew this treaty.”

The deadline for extending the treaty has not been agreed upon, yet the process needs to be completed before the treaty expires on February 5, 2021. This means that we should not only reach an agreement with the Americans but also complete certain procedures at the Federal Assembly, because we will need to amend Federal Law No. 1 of January 28, 2011 on the ratification of the New START. There is not much time left for this.

Russia believes that it will be expedient to preserve the New START, which is the last remaining international legal instrument for restraining the nuclear missile arsenals of the world’s two largest nuclear powers and making activities in this sphere predictable and verifiable. In addition, its extension will give us additional time, which we would be able to use to discuss possible forms and methods of controlling new weapons and military technology.

The United States has not clarified its position on the extension of the New START. However, I believe that it would be premature to discuss any other scenarios.



Question:

The end of the year has witnessed a resumption of activities by the opponents of Nord Stream 2. Could this project be derailed? Considering the unbalanced position of our Western partners, should Russia plan a radical diversification of its hydrocarbon export routes? Is China considered as the most attractive alternative to Europe?



Sergey Lavrov:

The construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is nearing completion, which is why its opponents have redoubled their efforts to derail it. The addition of sanctions to the US 2020 National Defence Authorisation Act is shameless interference in the affairs of European businesses. Some US senators have openly threatened the management of the companies involved in the project. The aim of this is not the protection of European energy security, which Nord Stream 2 will strengthen, but furthering the interests of US LNG on the European market. It is a shocking example of unfair competition and politicisation of energy relations.

We have no doubt, however, that the gas pipeline will be completed even despite this pressure. Europe is aware of the advantages of an alternative export route, although some countries are willing to work for their overseas curators even to the detriment of their own energy security and the prosperity of their citizens, which is regrettable.

Europe so far remains the biggest market for our gas; we deliver some 200 billion cubic metres of gas there annually. At the same time, we are expanding our energy cooperation with Asian-Pacific countries, where the demand for hydrocarbons continues to grow. In early December of this year, we launched the Power of Siberia pipeline, which will be used to deliver up to 38 billion cubic metres of gas to China every year. We are working with our Western partners to develop Arctic resources, including within the framework of the Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 projects. We are developing the transport logistics of the Northern Sea Route so as to ensure the export of Russian energy to Asia Pacific countries.

Russia will continue to diversify its hydrocarbon export routes.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3984282






Main foreign policy results of 2019



30 December 2019 - 10:58



In 2019, Russia focused its efforts on easing international tension and building up multi-sided cooperation with the countries and associations that displayed reciprocal readiness to develop relations based on mutual respect and consideration of interests. Moscow pursued a line towards ensuring the supremacy of international law, preservation of the central role of the UN in world politics, a search for peaceful settlement of conflicts and the prevention of confrontation scenarios, primarily against the DPRK, Iran and Venezuela. Russia paid special attention to enhancing CSTO collective security, promoting the EAEU economic integration and ensuring its participation in the G20, BRICS, the SCO, the Arctic Council and other advanced multilateral associations. The Russian initiative of forming Greater Eurasian Partnership has become established as a concept of long-term political and diplomatic efforts.

The CIS territory is Russia’s traditional foreign policy priority. Russia and Belarus continued their rapprochement in the framework of the Union State – they approved the programme of coordinated foreign policy actions in 2020-2021. The new leaders of Kazakhstan demonstrated the continuity of the course towards deepening allied relations and strategic partnership with Russia. The Russia plus Central Asia informal dialogue mechanism began to work at the foreign minister level. An intergovernmental agreement on ensuring international information security was signed with Turkmenistan. The Caspian Economic Forum, a new format of heads of government meetings, was launched.

The heads of state and government of the CIS countries approved 32 decisions aimed at promoting cooperation in the economic, law-enforcement, cultural and humanitarian spheres. The foreign ministers signed an action programme to intensify partnership between the foreign ministries and adopted a joint statement on supporting practical steps to prevent the armed race in outer space.

As part of the preparations for celebrating the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, the heads of state of the CIS countries adopted a statement on the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of WWII that was circulated at the UN and OSCE and the appeal of the heads of state of the CIS countries to their peoples and the world public in connection with the 75th anniversary of Victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

The CSTO countries enhanced their foreign policy coordination. They adopted a number of joint statements on major international issues. In May, at Russia’s initiative the CSTO foreign ministries sent an open letter to NATO countries with an appeal to deescalate military and political tension and to promote confidence building measures.

The CSTO Collective Security Council endorsed documents on anti-terrorist cooperation and consolidation of the CSTO southern borders, and on the coordination of joint actions to celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

Progress in the settlement of the Ukrainian domestic conflict was made. After a three-year interval the sides conducted a summit in the Normandy format in December in Paris. Guided by humane considerations, Russia facilitated the procedure for the granting of citizenship to residents of some of the districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

The EAEU member states approved a document defining the strategic goals for developing the Eurasian integration until 2025. They also endorsed a concept for forming an EAEU financial common market with a view to launching it in 2025. In the three quarters of 2019, aggregate EAEU GDP increased 1.4 percent, while industrial and agricultural growth was 2.7 percent. The EAEU countries improved the structure of import and export transactions and increased the use of national currencies in their mutual transactions.

The EAEU expanded its range of foreign partners by signing free trade agreements with Serbia and Singapore. It is implementing a programme of cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and ASEAN in 2019-2020. A decision to hold talks on drafting a preferential EAEU trade agreement with India was made. The agreement on trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and China and an interim EAEU-Iran free trade area agreement entered into force. The EAEU and China signed an agreement on exchanging information on commodities and transport vehicles involved in international shipments via their customs borders.

The deepening of Russia-China relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation has harmoniously supplemented Eurasian integration and stabilised the international situation. Bilateral energy cooperation was raised to a new level when the Power of Siberia cross-border gas pipeline became operational. Russia and China announced 2020 and 2021 to be the years of bilateral cooperation on science, technology and innovation. In cooperation with China, Russia has drafted and promoted a new plan of action on comprehensive settlement of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Russia has been strengthening its privileged strategic partnership with India and multi-faceted ties with the ASEAN countries. An updated treaty on friendly relations and comprehensive strategic partnership was signed with Mongolia.

Russia sustained the positive dynamics of its dialogue with Japan to raise the entire range of bilateral relations and cooperation on the international arena to a new level. The sides reviewed issues of joint economic activities in the southern part of the Kuril Islands in this context and the problems of the peace treaty.

Russia continued its vigorous efforts to stabilise the situation in Syria, resolve urgent humanitarian tasks and promote the political settlement of the crisis. It maintained close cooperation with Iran and Turkey in the Astana format.

The Syrian Constitutional Committee was established and launched in Geneva on October 30 with the decisive contribution of the guarantor countries in line with the decisions by the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and UN Security Council Resolution 2254. For the first time during the crisis the Syrians received an opportunity to discuss the issues of their future directly, primarily the constitutional reform.

The signing and implementation of the October 22 Russia-Turkey memorandum on the area east of the Euphrates River made it possible to stop the bloodshed and stabilise the situation in the northeast of Syria.

Relations with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa received a fresh impetus. Russia played an important role in maintaining stable global energy prices. The presentation of Russia’s updated collective security concept for the Gulf countries was a major step.

Cooperation with Turkey included a number of strategic projects: the Turkish Stream gas pipeline was prepared for operation and the first shipment of the S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems was made.

The first Russia-Africa Summit was held in Sochi in October. It laid the foundation for raising relations with the African countries to a much higher level. Over 50 commercial contracts worth a total of over one trillion rubles were signed at the economic forum that took place in parallel with the summit. The Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was established.

Russia dynamically developed relations with most Latin American and Caribbean countries. The destructive plans of the United States and its allies as regards Venezuela were prevented.

Russia established contacts with the new leaders of the European Union and maintained a dialogue with the EU on countering terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime. Several rounds of expert consultations on regional conflicts were held. The difficult phase of the persisting crisis was overcome in the Council of Europe where the lawful rights of Russian MPs were restored. It is necessary to continue working to strengthen the role of the OSCE as a unique forum designed to facilitate the construction of an equal, comprehensive and indivisible security system in Eurasia and the Euro-Atlantic Region.

The domestic political struggle in the United States obstructed the development of constructive dialogue with Washington. The sides maintained contacts on counter-terrorism and a number of regional issues, including the developments in Syria, Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula.

A number of high-level consultations on UN cooperation with the SCO, the OSCE and the CIS on peace and security in Africa were held.

Russia’s resolutions in the UN General Assembly on countering the glorification of Nazism, calling to refrain from being the first to deploy weapons in space, on international information security, fighting cybercrime and consolidating and drafting agreements on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation were adopted.

In response to the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, Russia made a voluntary commitment to not be the first to deploy land-based medium- or shorter-range missiles and suggested that other countries join this moratorium. Moscow tried to compel Washington to fully abide by its commitments on the strategic arms reduction treaty. Its proposal to extend the treaty as soon as possible after it expires on February 5, 2021, remains valid.

Russia hosted major international events during the year: the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Eastern Economic Forum, the Russian Investment Forum in Sochi, the Yalta International Economic Forum, Russian Energy Week, and WorldSkills 2019 (in Kazan in August).

Russia signed bilateral agreements on visa-free travel on ordinary passports for 90 day stays with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Surinam, the Maldives, Palau and the United Arab Emirates. Now there are 89 countries where Russians can travel without a visa.

The number of countries whose residents can travel to Russia on ordinary passports was increased to 57. Russia extended its pilot programme on e-visas for foreigners at checkpoints in the Far Eastern Federal District by including the Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions and the city of St Petersburg.

Representatives of the Russian diaspora from 93 countries took part in the world thematic conference on compatriots living abroad and the continuity of generations. In the first three quarters of this year, about 92,500 people moved to Russia under the programme of facilitating voluntary resettlement of compatriots. In all, over 900,000 compatriots living abroad have moved to Russia since the launch of this programme.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3985482






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the exchange of detained persons between Kiev and Donbass



30 December 2019 - 12:09



On December 29, after a two-year interval, Kiev and Donbass completed a major “all-for-all” prisoner exchange as part of the intra-Ukrainian crisis resolution. A total of 200 people were able to return back home. Their release was the result of the agreements reached at the December 9 Normandy format summit held in Paris as well as the political will shown by the new government of Ukraine.

Moscow welcomes this important humanitarian step, which has allowed dozens of people to reunite with their families and spend New Year’s Eve with friends and relatives. We expect that in 2020, the parties will continue implementing the entire Minsk Package of Measures, primarily in the political sphere, along with the “all-for-all” prisoner exchanges stipulated therein.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3985664






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, December 30, 2019



30 December 2019 - 14:16






Mr Minister,

Friends,

We are delighted to welcome you to Moscow so close to New Year’s Eve. We are grateful to you for this meeting, because it seems very well-timed, primarily in the context of the developments surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Programme (JCPOA). As we know, the JCPOA was approved by UN Security Council resolutions, yet the United States quite arrogantly withdrew from this agreement, and, worse still, is in fact prohibiting the rest of the JCPOA members, and indeed all UN member states, from implementing the resolution that cemented that international agreement. We are eager to exchange views today on how we can help prevent the collapse of the JCPOA.

We are also worried about the growing tension in the Gulf region. We can see how some of our Western colleagues are trying to artificially escalate the tension. To counterbalance such attempts, Russia and Iran, in turn, propose establishing equal, mutually beneficial cooperation in this most important region. Russia has proposed the collective security concept in the Persian Gulf. Our Iranian friends have introduced the Hormuz Peace Endeavor. Both proposals are aimed at joining efforts to stabilise the region. We believe that we are moving in the right direction.





It will also be beneficial today to exchange assessments of what is happening in Syria and our efforts towards a settlement of the conflict, including cooperation within the Astana format framework.

We will discuss the state of our bilateral affairs, first of all, in the context of the agreements reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani, especially in regard to trade, economic and humanitarian cooperation. We have a pretty busy agenda to get through.

Welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3986621
__________________
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 January 8th, 2020 #59
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, Moscow, December 30, 2019



30 December 2019 - 16:23






The meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was very well-timed. We talked in a friendly manner and had a detailed discussion on a number of important current issues.

We thoroughly reviewed our multifaceted bilateral relations in the context of the agreements reached as part of our top-level political dialogue and discussed the guidelines set for our relations during the four meetings between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani that took place this year. There are ongoing intense contacts between the parliaments, security councils, foreign ministries, defence ministries, as well as industry, economy and other ministries that deal with practical issues.

We are vigorously developing our trade and economic cooperation. The scope of interaction is growing, despite the illegitimate unilateral sanctions and the wider US-led anti-Iran campaign. We can clearly see the goal Washington is pursuing – it is trying to intimidate and blackmail other countries into abandoning their mutually beneficial cooperation with Iran. We have a shared position that this policy is contrary to international law and the principles of free trade, and is a blatant manifestation of dishonest and unfair competition.

And yet, even in these circumstances, we have seen and welcomed steady growth in mutual trade – 25 per cent over the first nine months of 2019. According to all estimates, the end-of-year figure will exceed $2 billion. We have achieved substantial progress of the projects agreed on or scheduled to be implemented at last summer’s meeting of the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation held in Iran. We have also made good progress on the EAEU-Iran cooperation track.

The ties between Russian regions and Iranian provinces are also expanding. We agreed to continue to use the significant potential of interregional exchanges as much as possible.

Humanitarian cooperation is also on the rise. In particular, I would like to note that St Petersburg State University is the first university in the world now certified by the Iranian authorities to hold the Persian language qualification exams. We agreed to continue to promote the deepening of our dialogue in the field of culture, in education and scientific exchange. This meets the interests of both our peoples, as there is clear interest in expanding humanitarian contact.

We discussed a number of issues on the global and regional agendas. We have shared concerns about the alarming trends in the international arena, primarily about a number of countries deviating from the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, and other norms of international law, and attempting to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states. We have a common interest in rallying the world community to uphold the fundamental principles and values ​​that were cemented in the UN Charter following the Second World War.

We reviewed the developments surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian Nuclear Programme (JCPOA). Russia is making painstaking efforts to preserve this important international agreement that the United States is trying to undermine in pursuing the destructive policy Washington adheres to. This important achievement of international diplomacy – I mean the JCPOA – is in danger of collapse. Unfortunately, we note inconsistencies in the actions of our colleagues from the European Union who are not entirely fulfilling their obligations under the JCPOA. We are confident that, if this policy of sabotaging UN Security Council decisions, which Washington is imposing on all countries without exception, continues, it could lead to serious negative consequences for the entire region and for international relations.

We also talked about the Syrian peace process. We discussed ways to stabilise the situation on the ground, further antiterrorism efforts, post-conflict restoration, and the creation of conditions for the return of Syrian refugees and IDPs. We talked about the situation in Idlib and on the eastern bank of the Euphrates where our American colleagues continue to fuel separatist tendencies in violation of the UN Security Council’s requirements to respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We highlighted the launch of the Constitutional Committee as an important step in the political process, a UN-supported body aimed at facilitating an agreement between the Syrians on how they want to address the constitutional problems in their country. We are in agreement that the launch of the Constitutional Committee is one of the most important achievements of the Astana format. We agreed to continue working in the trilateral Astana format – Russia, Iran and Turkey – and discussed the schedule of further meetings in this format.

We discussed the developments in the Persian Gulf. Both Russia and Iran support combining the efforts of all interested states to ensure security and stability in that region. As you know, we have proposed the collective security concept in the Persian Gulf. Iran has introduced the Hormuz Peace Endeavor. Both proposals definitely have correlations. Today we considered how they could be promoted relying on the two initiatives being complementary and aimed at the same constructive, peaceful goals.

Overall, we are very pleased with the outcome of the talks. My friend and colleague Mohammad Javad Zarif invited me to visit Tehran next year, and I accepted the invitation with pleasure.







Question (for both ministers):

Which joint efforts can Russia and Iran make to preserve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), considering a US position that runs counter to the norms of international law?



Sergey Lavrov:

You have correctly noted that the US actions run counter to all conceivable standards of international law. The concerned parties reached the consensus agreement as a result of negotiations, and it was approved by the mandatory UN Security Council Resolution 2231. So a decision to withdraw from the agreement flagrantly violates every conceivable and inconceivable standard, principle and rule. And, as you know, the United States is forcing everyone else to avoid fulfilling what they pledged to do in response to Iran’s compliance with the agreements that have been reached. Meanwhile it demands that Iran completely fulfill these agreements in violation of the specific terms under which the agreement was reached and formalised at the UN Security Council.

Therefore we will, frankly speaking, demand that our Western partners face the facts. The United States and the European Union need to start honouring their obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in full. Then Iran, as it has repeatedly said, would once again comply with the specific obligations that it had assumed voluntarily. This would be the ideal solution and the way out of the current situation. Or, if our Western partners are not ready to reaffirm their respect for international law in this manner, then it would be appropriate to declare the JCPOA dead. In that case, no one would be bound by the obligations formalised by the JCPOA. But it goes without saying that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Iran and IAEA’s safeguards agreement and the additional protocol, would remain in force.

Of course, we would like to preserve the JCPOA, praised by all countries without exception as the greatest recent diplomatic achievement and as a very important step in strengthening the plan for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In any event, we have praised the initiatives of our French colleagues, the well-known proposal by President of France Emmanuel Macron, for saving the JCPOA. Our Japanese neighbours tried to promote an agreement for reinstating the JCPOA. Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe has offered ideas on this. To the best of my knowledge, they are facing difficulties, in the context of the position of the US that demands that dialogue resume on its terms alone. This is out of the question. We would prefer to help. If our efforts are of interest, we will be ready to consider ways out of this crisis (that would, first, suit our Iranian friends because this is their issue in the first place), and that would be seen as acceptable by all other parties to the JCPOA. Again, any conditions for saving the JCPOA are on the table. The JCPOA itself stipulates this. When we talk about attempts to find a way out of the situation, we mean nothing else but ways to resume compliance with the JCPOA through the obligations of the involved parties.



Question:

Prime Minister of Italy Giuseppe Conte said recently that imposing a no-fly zone in Libya would help stop the hostilities there. What do you think about this proposal? Do you believe that the cessation of hostilities is the main condition for a political settlement in Libya?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think cessation of hostilities is the main condition for the start of political dialogue. We are convinced that they should be stopped without any preconditions. The Libyans are interested in stopping the hostilities, announcing an indefinite ceasefire and negotiating agreements. Many agreements have been offered by various countries. They were either signed or reached verbally. There have been conferences in France and Italy and a meeting in the UAE. Now there is talk of a conference in Berlin. But all this will keep the situation suspended if the sides do not come to a very specific agreement on considering the interests of all political, clan and ethnic forces in Libya. Only the Libyans themselves can agree on overcoming the crisis into which they were plunged by a NATO aggression under the excuse of support for the Arab Spring.

As for a no-fly zone in Libya, I have a very disagreeable association with this. After all, NATO started bombing Syria after the UN Security Council made the decision to announce a no-fly zone over Libya. The only other step the UN made was to instruct the countries concerned to ensure the no-fly zone plan. Our NATO partners again discredited themselves as deal-making partners and used this resolution to start bombing the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which was a crude violation of this document. So we have bad associations with any proposals on a no-fly zone. Instead of falling into the same trap, all international players without exception should persuade the Libyan sides to stop the hostilities without delay, announce an indefinite ceasefire and reach agreements that they will carry out. Naturally, the UN is playing an indispensable role in consolidating such eventual agreements.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3988439






Press release on the UN General Assembly vote on the Russian draft resolution on countering cybercrime



30 December 2019 - 17:20



On December 27, by majority vote, the UN General Assembly in New York adopted the resolution “Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes,” sponsored by the Russian Federation.

The resolution was co-sponsored by 47 states (Azerbaijan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, Venezuela, Guinea, Egypt, Zimbabwe, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Cameroon, Kyrgyzstan, DPRK, PRC, the Congo, Cuba, Laos, Libya, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nicaragua, Russia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Sudan, Surinam, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Central African Republic, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, the RSA, and Jamaica. A total of 79 states voted in favour, with 60 states against (including the US, the UK, Georgia, the EU, Israel, Canada, and Ukraine) and 33 abstained.

The adoption of the resolution shows that the world community urgently needs to develop a universal, comprehensive and open-ended convention on countering cybercrime due to its having become a transnational, cross-border issue.

The resolution proposed by Russia essentially enhances states’ digital sovereignty over their information space and ushers in a new page in the history of global efforts to counter cybercrime. In practical terms, a negotiation platform is being established under UN General Assembly auspices to develop a comprehensive international convention on countering cybercrime. A special committee with experts from every country would be such an international body. Formerly, the UN Convention against Corruption and the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime took a similar path.

Russia and like-minded nations view the convention as another universal and comprehensive international law enforcement tool which is focussed on crime involving information and communication technologies and is designed to counter their illegal use. The convention must be based on the principles of respecting state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.

The resolution expressly provides that the committee would take into account the respective international and regional instruments and would also take into consideration the final recommendations of the Vienna group of experts on cybercrime.

The Committee is expected to hold its first organisational session in New York in 2020 while substantive work on the text of the convention will start in 2021.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3988579






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the adoption of the law on religious rights in Montenegro



30 December 2019 - 18:14



The situation which has emerged since Montenegro parliament’s adoption of the Law on the Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities causes grave concern.

The atmosphere in which the law was adopted is highlighted by the fact that 17 deputies from the Democratic Front opposition alliance were detained due to clashes in the parliament hall; religious and public figures took part in mass protests which erupted in some of the cities.

The new legislation allows Montenegrin authorities to seize over 650 religious facilities belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church with a possible handover to the schismatic unrecognised “Montenegrin Orthodox Church.” In fact, this amounts to increased administrative pressure on the Serbian Orthodox Church in order to push it out completely from Montenegro.

We are convinced that the legal rights of canonical Orthodox churches must be duly respected. Neglecting their opinions, encroaching on historical realities, attempting to usurp property and artificially creating conditions that lead to disunity among believers are fraught with grave problems.

The law adopted by Montenegro’s parliament and signed by President Milo Djukanovic not only infringes on the interests of the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral of the Serbian Orthodox Church but also make this topic an international issue. The unity and cohesion of the Orthodox world and the preservation of its centuries-old traditions are a guarantee of the normal development of society.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3988667






Comment by the Information and Press Department on escalating tensions in Iraq and Syria



30 December 2019 - 18:17



Moscow noted with grave concern the exchange of strikes between the military-political group Hezbollah and the US military units deployed in Iraq.

According to reports, on December 27, the air base near Kirkuk used by the US military was hit with missiles, as a result of which a civilian specialist was killed and several servicemen were wounded.

On December 29, the United States conducted "precision defensive strikes" against five sites of Hezbollah in western Iraq and eastern Syria, killing 25 and wounding around 50 people. Baghdad has publicly denounced these strikes, which, according to Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, violate the country’s sovereignty and threaten its security.

On our part, we consider such actions unacceptable and counterproductive. We call on all sides to refrain from further steps that could lead to a rapid destabilisation of the military and political situation in Iraq, Syria and neighbouring countries.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3988677






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s reply to a question from Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency about the developments around the Sputnik news agency in Estonia



30 December 2019 - 19:10



Question:

The Estonian authorities continue to claim that they took action towards the Sputnik bureau in Tallinn in line with EU sanctions although the EU resolutions only concern personal restrictions on Dmitry Kiselev. What does the Foreign Ministry think about this issue?



Maria Zakharova:

We noticed that Tallinn repeatedly invoked the EU sanctions to justify the crude violation of the rights of Sputnik journalists to perform their professional activities in Estonia. We will say straight away that we consider illegal any similar restrictions from the EU.

Moreover, we do not know about any unilateral restrictions of the EU that would allow it to commit such a glaring violation of the freedom of speech and opinion. We call on the EU competent bodies, in particular the European Council and the European External Action Service, to give a proper assessment of the conduct of the Estonian authorities and their references to the EU position.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3988705
__________________
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 January 9th, 2020 #60
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 death of IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani



3 January 2020 - 13:06



We were concerned to learn of the death of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Major General Qasem Soleimani in a US military strike on Baghdad airport. This step by Washington is fraught with grave consequences for the regional peace and stability. We firmly believe that such actions do not facilitate efforts to find solutions to the complicated problems that have built up in the Middle East. On the contrary, they lead to a new round of escalating tensions in the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989604






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



3 January 2020 - 20:23







On January 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The parties discussed the situation in connection with the killing by the US military of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Major General Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike on Baghdad airport.

Sergey Lavrov stressed that targeted actions by a UN member state to eliminate officials of another UN member state, and on the territory of a third sovereign country without its knowledge grossly violate the principles of international law and deserve condemnation.

The Russian Minster pointed out that this act by the United States is fraught with grave consequences for the regional peace and stability, does not facilitate efforts to find solutions to the complicated issues that have built up in the Middle East but, on the contrary, leads to a new round of escalation. Moscow urges Washington to give up illegal military actions to achieve its goals on the international arena and to settle all problems at the negotiating table.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989636






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



4 January 2020 - 16:00







On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu.

The ministers discussed the situation around the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Commander of the special-task Quds Force of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who was killed by the US military on January 3, 2019 in Baghdad.

Sergey Lavrov stressed that this US action was a grave violation of the fundamental standards of international law and does not contribute to achieving the counter-terrorist goals declared by Washington.

The parties expressed concern over the potential serious consequences of the US action for peace and stability in the Middle East.

The ministers also covered the Syrian settlement and the state of affairs in Libya in the context of preparing for upcoming top-level contacts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989704






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



4 January 2020 - 16:10







On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter’s initiative.

Sergey Lavrov offered his condolences in the wake of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Commander of the special-task Quds Force of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who was killed by the US military near Baghdad.

The ministers stressed that this US action was a grave violation of the fundamental standards of international law and does not contribute to resolving the complicated issues in the Middle East. Instead, it will trigger a new round of escalation in the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989694






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



4 January 2020 - 17:58







On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi.

The parties exchanged opinions on topical global issues. They discussed the state of affairs in the Middle East at length. The ministers particularly focused on the aftermath of the US air strike at a Baghdad airport that resulted in deaths, including the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Commander of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force. The ministers confirmed that it is unacceptable to use force in violation of the UN Charter and that all countries must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states.

The ministers noted that the unlawful actions of the United States have aggravated the situation in the region. In these circumstances, Russia and China are interested in de-escalation and will take joint steps to create conditions for the peaceful resolution to conflicts.

The heads of the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries confirmed their intention to cooperate closely with regard to the UN Security Council agenda.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989730






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Iran’s announcement of another stage in its suspension of voluntary commitments under the nuclear deal



6 January 2020 - 16:01



The Iranian government’s decision announced on January 5 to continue the suspension of its voluntary commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme is the result of accumulating contradictions within the deal, which all the remaining signatories should continue working to settle. We see no other effective formula for saving the nuclear deal.

We believe that the preservation of the comprehensive arrangements and their sustainable implementation should remain the main goal for all the partners. We call on all the countries involved to be guided by these considerations and not to create additional tension and uncertainty with regard to the JCPOA, which is a global achievement.

We have taken note of Iran’s official statement to the effect that the latest suspension is the final one. We expect the IAEA to confirm this.

It is even more important that Tehran has proclaimed readiness to resume its full commitment to the JCPOA as soon as its legitimate concerns are lifted regarding other signatories’ failure to comply with the deal’s conditions. It is true that there are omissions in this regard, which have been put on the agenda more than once. We hope that the much needed solutions will be eventually found. Much depends on our European colleagues in this respect.

Iran’s statement that it no longer considers itself to be bound by any restrictions under the JCPOA should be viewed in the context of the related developments, beginning in May 2018 when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the deal. The subsequent massive US attacks on the JCPOA and the countries that continued to abide by the arrangements, which were sealed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, have seriously complicated the implementation of the nuclear deal. These are the root causes for the current JCPOA crisis. All members of the international community are fully aware of this, which means that responsibility for the crisis cannot be shifted onto Iran.

In itself, Tehran’s refusal to abide by the JCPOA restrictions on the development of its uranium enrichment facilities and technology does not pose the threat of nuclear proliferation. All of Iran’s actions have been taken in close interaction with and under permanent control of the IAEA. We have taken note of Iran’s stated commitment to cooperation with the IAEA and its readiness to maintain this cooperation at the level that is unprecedented when it comes to the scale and depth of IAEA inspections.

We would like to point out that the suspension is reversible and only concerns those JCPOA elements that exceed the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Iran accepted them in 2015 in order to reach a compromise and based on the balance of interests and the principle of reciprocity under the deal. Iran is not to blame for the disruption of this balance.

Russia remains fully committed to the JCPOA and its goals and is ready to continue working towards their achievement. The challenges which the international community has come across during the implementation of the comprehensive arrangements call for political will and a collective response, primarily by the main JCPOA signatories. We have no doubt that when these challenges are checked Iran will see no reason to avoid compliance with the agreed commitments. We urge all our partners to continue on the path set out in the JCPOA and to create conditions for the resumption of its sustainable implementation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989833
__________________
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 02:31 AM.
Page generated in 1.62577 seconds.