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

Old January 17th, 2020 #61
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 for the media following talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Istanbul, January 8, 2020



8 January 2020 - 20:02



Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, in addition to the launch ceremony for the TurkStream gas pipeline that you witnessed, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan held intensive bilateral talks. They adopted a joint statement following the talks. I would like to highlight several points of this document.

The presidents confirmed their firm determination to advance and expand the bilateral partnership across all areas in every possible way.

As concerns the international agenda, they discussed the developments in the Persian Gulf triggered by the unlawful and very risky campaigns of the United States in Iraq against Iranian citizens, including Commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Qasem Soleimani. On account of the events of the past few days, the presidents spoke assertively in favour of resolving all the issues in the Persian Gulf and the region in general solely by peaceful means and in line with international law.

When it comes to Syria, President Putin and President Erdogan expressed determination to seek resolution of the Syrian crisis in all its aspects based on the documents that were adopted during the Astana process, and particularly emphasised their commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations according to the September 17, 2018 and October 22, 2019 memorandums.

The two leaders agreed upon a common stance regarding the Libyan settlement in accordance with UN Security Council decisions. I would like to underscore the appeal addressed by Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the Libyan conflict parties, which is to immediately stop military action and declare a ceasefire from midnight on January 12, 2020, that is, starting from the morning hours on Sunday.

The presidents expressed their readiness to facilitate the success of the Berlin process promoting peace in Libya. President Putin and President Erdogan support inclusivity of the process both in terms of involving all the Libyan parties and bringing aboard Libya’s neighbours.

Foreign and defence ministers of Russia and Turkey were instructed to continue contacts in the days ahead in order to promote the approaches to the Libyan crisis stated above.

I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and friend, Foreign Minister of the Turkish Republic Mevlut Cavusoglu, for fruitful and constructive cooperation, as always.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3989857






Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova to a question from RIA Novosti as regards a UN Security Council draft statement on the incident outside the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019



9 January 2020 - 22:04



Question:

On January 2, 2020, the US delegation at the UN Security Council circulated the Security Council’s draft statement for the press denouncing the attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. Iran was peremptorily branded as the organiser of this attack. How would you comment on this document?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Federation invariably and consistently upholds the principle of inviolability and security of diplomatic missions. We were ready to work on the US draft this time as well.

But a few hours later, the US military delivered a strike at Baghdad’s civilian airport, which killed several people, including Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commander of its Quds Force. True to its anti-Iran policy, Washington, without offering any proof, has accused Tehran of masterminding the attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad and used an extrajudicial method to punish the Iranian general.

Against this background, the US attempts, in subsequent days, to promote their UN Security Council draft statement turned into a search for justifications for their unlawful and violent action. In this specific case, the UN Security Council’s approval of the proposed statement would have amounted to a display of disregard for the use of force in violation of the UN Charter and for the principle of respect on the part of all countries for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3990765






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution extending the mechanism for cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria



13 January 2020 - 12:23



On January 10, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 2504 extending a UN operation delivering humanitarian aid across the Syrian border to civilians and reauthorising two border crossings, Bab al-Salam and Bab al-Hawa in the Idlib de-escalation zone, for a period of six months. We note with satisfaction this step towards the scrapping of a mechanism that violates Syria’s sovereignty and does not correspond to the real situation in that country.

The al-Ramtha (Jordan) and Al Yarubiyah (Iraq) crossings were done away with because they are virtually no longer used. At the same time, there are ample opportunities to deliver aid to the northeastern and southern regions, including those outside the control of Damascus, such as the Rukban IDP camp, from inside Syria. We expect that in the next six months, the relevant UN bodies will explore and work out, in coordination with the Syrian government, alternative routes for delivering humanitarian supplies to all Syrians who need them throughout the country without any discrimination. We presume that in doing so, they will observe the guidelines for the provision of humanitarian assistance documented in UNGA resolution 46/182. These principles and the decision are referred to in the preamble to UNSC Resolution 2504. These documents clearly state that humanitarian assistance should be provided at the request and with the consent of the recipient country, while respecting its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity.

The situation on the ground in Syria has changed dramatically since 2014 when UNSC Resolution 2165 was adopted. The government has regained control of most of the national territory and is taking the necessary steps to assist those in need, to facilitate the return of refugees, and conduct the post-conflict reconstruction. Yet, it is also widely known that these efforts are actively opposed by Western countries that have imposed unilateral economic sanctions against Syria, are implementing humanitarian projects only in areas outside Damascus’ control, artificially delaying the stay of refugees abroad, putting forward political preconditions for unlocking funding for post-conflict reconstruction, trying to provoke a fuel crisis, and shamelessly plundering Syria’s natural resources. Western donors openly boast that they are not giving a cent to restore the basic infrastructure (water and electricity supply facilities, or roads), the construction of housing and demining efforts. Because of the sanctions against Syria, building materials, medicines and medical equipment, baby food and textbooks, and other items, though not of prime necessity, but of key importance to the survivors of an armed conflict, cannot be imported into Syria.

As a reminder, the cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria in 2014 was launched as a temporary and emergency measure. We believe that after the expiration of UN Security Council Resolution 2504 on July 10, 2020, humanitarian assistance to the Syrians should be carried out in coordination with Damascus, as provided for in international humanitarian law.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3991259






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, Moscow, January 13, 2020



13 January 2020 - 19:28







Ladies and gentlemen,

We would like to inform you about the progress we have reached at this time. Intensive consultations with the participation of the Libyan parties and the support of the Turkish and Russian foreign and defence ministries have been underway since this morning.

The participants discussed the document that will allow them to flesh out the issues linked with the ceasefire that was announced starting at midnight on Sunday, January 12, in response to the appeal made by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan in their January 8 joint statement in Istanbul. The participants also spoke in detail about the draft of the final document from today’s meeting. It became the subject of serious talks.

Today we can say that definite progress has been made. Prime Minister of the Libyan Government of National Accord Fayez Mustafa al-Sarraj and Chairman of the High Council of State Khalid al-Mishri have just signed it. Commander of the Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar and Speaker of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives Aqila Saleh have a positive view of this document and asked for a bit of extra time until tomorrow morning to make a decision on its signing. I hope this decision will be a positive one. The Turkish and Russian representatives will continue helping the parties implement the agreements that are being discussed now.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3993236






Interview of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with the Daily News Sri Lankan newspaper, published on January 13, 2020



13 January 2020 - 22:30



Unofficial translation



Question:

Since the end of the Cold War and the inception of the multipolar world order, you have spent many years engaged in international affairs and geopolitics. Are there any peculiarities in the relations between Sri Lanka and Russia originating in that period?



Sergey Lavrov:

The relations between our states have always been intrinsically valuable and independent from international developments. They have always been and continue to be based on the principles of equality, trust, mutual respect and consideration of one another's interests. The peculiarities specific to certain periods of history are of marginal significance, since they do not affect the inviolability of the bonds of friendship uniting our peoples.

The only thing to have undergone major changes over the past 25-30 years is probably the model of our trade and economic cooperation: the leading role has shifted from the public sector to the private sector, primarily due to the market transformations in the national economy.



Question:

The Indian Ocean has become a ground for turf wars, especially in the context of the Indian Ocean states and coastal countries increasing their engagement in politics and economy and international trade flows continuing to play a crucial role for major world markets and industrial centers. How important is Sri Lanka's location in the Indian Ocean in terms of Russia's strategic interests?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Indian Ocean should not be a cockpit of rivalry but an area of cooperation between costal and island nations jointly creating the conditions for sustainable social and economic development within regional entities, such as, for instance, the IORA, SAARC or BIMSTEC. This would also benefit Russia, given that the Indian Ocean region partly covers the territory of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. For example, Sri Lanka is a SCO dialogue partner.

Unfortunately, we have recently been witnessing persistent attempts of extraregional powers to reshape the established order to serve their narrow interests. The concept of a "free and open Indo-Pacific region" promoted by the United States has not a unifying but a destructive potential. Its true objective is to divide the regional states into "interest groups", weakening the newly-established regional system of inter-state relations to assert dominance.

Any new idea regarding the strategic development of the region should facilitate the establishment of a common area of cooperation. The regional architecture should be built in a concerted effort based on the principles of indivisible security, rule of international law, non-interference in the internal affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes and non-use of force or the threat of force.

It is known that Sri Lanka is located at the crossing of transit routes through the Indian Ocean. In this context, its significance can hardly be overemphasized. We welcome the plans of the new leadership of the state headed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to transform the island into a major commercial and financial center of Asia with focus on developing transport infrastructure, modernizing the agricultural sector and attracting high-tech investments. We believe that the execution of these plans would benefit both Sri Lanka and its foreign partners in the region and beyond.



Question:

Sri Lanka first maintained close economic ties with the Soviet Union and now enjoys ones with Russia. Are there any particular fields of economic cooperation that you plan to discuss during your visit?



Sergey Lavrov:

In recent years, the Sri Lankan-Russian turnover has been floating around 400 million dollars. It clearly does not reflect the existing potential, which was also pointed out during the talks between President Maithripala Sirisena and President Vladimir Putin held in Moscow in 2017. The heads of our states set a target of increasing the turnover to 700 million dollars. In this respect, the Sri Lankan-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation is instrumental. It is its prerogative to elaborate concrete measures.

However, it can already be said that one of such measures could be diversifying the Sri Lankan export. It is dominated by just two items, tea and textile, accounting for about 90 percent of the country's trade. Russia is willing to offer Sri Lanka the products of its domestic industries, particularly the air-craft industry. Collaboration in the energy sector, as well as cooperation in agriculture and in the introduction of advanced information and communication technologies look quite promising. Tourism remains another important area of joint action, since Sri Lanka has become a popular tourist destination among Russians.

I expect these and other issues related to practical interaction to be substantively discussed during my visit to your country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3993275






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka Dinesh Gunawardena, Colombo, January 14, 2020



14 January 2020 - 16:57






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


Question:

There is a flurry of analytical reports by experts and various news agencies suggesting that the Libya conflict, given the interference of foreign countries in it, might become another Syria. Do you share these fears? What is the difference in the approaches taken by Russian diplomacy to resolving the conflicts in Libya and Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

If Libya could become another Syria, the Libyan people would only benefit from this. Unfortunately, at the moment, Libya does not have statehood. The statehood of Libya was destroyed by NATO’s bombing in 2011, and all of us, primarily, the Libyan people, still have to deal with the consequences of this criminal unlawful venture. We would like to join the efforts by the Europeans, including the Germans, the French and the Italians, as well as Libya’s neighbours – Algeria and Egypt – and the UAE, Turkey, Qatar and the Russian Federation to channel them in one direction in order to urge the Libyan parties to the conflict to reach an agreement through negotiations, rather than to continue to sort things out by using force.

As you know, during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Istanbul on January 8 of this year, Russia and Turkey came up with a ceasefire initiative for Libya. As a follow-up to this initiative, yesterday Moscow hosted a meeting between Libyan representatives, which was also attended by the Russian and Turkish defence and foreign ministers. We will continue to work on that. So far, no final agreement has been secured.

As for Syria, since you have compared these two countries, thanks to Russia’s active support in response to the request from the country’s legitimate government, Syria managed to escape the fate that NATO intended for Libya. Some 90 percent of Syrian territory is controlled by the legitimate government. Areas of terrorist activity still remain, primarily Idlib, but the extremists there are gradually losing ground. Speaking of the connection between Syria and Libya, unfortunately, the extremists largely flee to Libya to continue wreaking havoc in that country.

Of course, the problems plaguing the northeast of Syria are yet to be resolved. They have been caused, primarily, by the illegitimate presence of the US military in the area, who are vigorously encouraging separatism on the right bank of the Euphrates. We can confidently say that as these remaining issues are resolved, the control of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government over the territory of their country is steadily expanding.

Another difference between the situation in Syria and Libya is – and it is not to Libya’s advantage – the political process which began due to the responsible approach that had been taken to it by all Syrian parties to the conflict with support from external players. Currently, we are working to achieve precisely the same result, i.e., that all Libyan parties to the conflict exercise the same responsibility for the fate of their country.



Question:

Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev instructed the Foreign Ministry to draft measures on ensuring the security of Russian citizens in the Middle East. Have these measures been drafted? What do they amount to?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian Foreign Ministry cannot resolve such issues single-handedly. We are cooperating with our colleagues from the special services and civil aviation security experts. Following a collective analysis based on the opinion of professionals, we inform our citizens about these measures via special applications. You may read these recommendations in the relevant application.



Question:

The media wrote that the Russian Foreign Ministry advised Aeroflot to limit its flights to Tehran at night. Is this true?



Sergey Lavrov:

Aeroflot itself decided to move flights to Iran to the daytime. This is no secret.



Question:

This is following from the issues between the US and Iran. There is a concern that if the situation escalates, it could affect the region, particularly in terms of things like tea, rubber and fuel prices in Sri Lanka. So if there is an escalation in tensions between Iran and the US, will Russia intervene and help this region, in particular Sri Lanka?

And if I may ask a follow-up to that question, there is a concern that there is a proxy war in Iraq between the US and Iran. Could that happen here in Sri Lanka? Could there be a proxy war in Sri Lanka between the US and China, taking into consideration the focus on Sri Lanka right now from the international community?



Sergey Lavrov:

Needless to say, nobody can be satisfied with what is happening in the Gulf area, where nervous tensions are heightening and are already affecting actual actions that lead to the loss of human life.

Of course, we cannot ignore the fact that everything started from the moment when the United States said unequivocally that all troubles of the region without exception are triggered by Iran, that Iran is the main terrorist (although nobody can prove this), and that Iran should stop exerting influence on anything that is happening around its borders

In parallel, the United States walked out on its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme and began to impose sanctions on all those who conducted legitimate trade with Iran, which also escalated tensions.

Washington’s illegal actions reached their peak with the murder of Qassem Soleimani, an official representative of the Iranian Government who was on a visit to neighbouring Iraq. This is beyond international law and humanism.

We are against the escalation of tensions no matter where they emanate from. We are not going “to intervene,” as you said, in US-Iran relations, if you mean physical action by this word. We are calling on the United States and Iran to display restraint and resolve all problems through dialogue. As far as I understand, the US is saying it is ready for dialogue with Iran but “without any preconditions,” although what it calls suffocating sanctions against Iran are ramping up during proposals on such dialogue. It so happens that while inviting Iran to dialogue without preconditions, the United States itself lays them out by subjecting Iran to pressure via sanctions. Many politicians have been trying to facilitate the start of US-Iran contacts in order to reduce tensions. We have a positive attitude towards the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron and the efforts of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and we are ready to help if the parties are really interested in this.

We understand the concern of Sri Lanka over the negative consequences of the conflict in the Gulf area, which may affect exports of traditional goods. However, your producers will not be the only victim. The Gulf has many transport routes that are of strategic importance for the global trade of many goods, including energy sources.

Therefore, it is in our common interests to build trust in the Gulf and beyond. This is the aim of the Russian proposal that we again presented at a special conference in Moscow last September. I am referring to the start of efforts to create a collective security system in the Gulf and around it.

Let’s hope that all interested parties will start discussing ways of reducing tensions and developing neighbourly relations.



Question:

What concrete steps will be taken to enhance security and anti-terror cooperation between Russia and Sri Lanka?



Sergey Lavrov:

Foreign Minister of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Dinash Gunawardena and I expressed satisfaction with the development of our security cooperation. Russia supplied and is ready to continue supplying Sri Lanka with weapons that its army needs to ensure its defence capability and security.



Question:

What investments, if any, can Sri Lanka expect from Russia in the coming years?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our Sri Lankan friends are interested in attracting investment from the Russian Federation, in part, in exploring and producing hydrocarbons and building tourist infrastructure. I am sure that businesspeople from both countries should step up their direct contacts to discuss these ideas in practical terms.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3993912






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the decision of the United Kingdom, Germany and France to formalize the dispute resolution mechanism under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme



14 January 2020 - 19:33



The decision of the JCPOA’s European participants to launch the dispute resolution mechanism, as stipulated in paragraph 36 of the JCPOA, and their appeal on this matter to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who coordinates the work of the JCPOA’s Joint Commission is profoundly disappointing and of serious concern.

We see no reason for this step. Quite possibly, the ill-conceived actions of the E3 could lead to a new escalation of the situation around the JCPOA and will make it impossible for the nuclear deal to be returned to the initially coordinated framework, which is what the European Three allegedly wants.

The dispute resolution mechanism was created for entirely different purposes. The reasons that led to complications during the implementation of the JCPOA are well-known and are not linked with Iran. When the mechanism was drafted, no one could predict that the United States would unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA. Unfortunately, despite serious efforts exerted by the concerned parties since Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May 2018, it has so far proved impossible to restore the former stability to the agreements.

Tehran’s decisions to suspend its voluntary obligations under the JCPOA are of a retaliatory nature and, first of all, constitute a response to rude violations of agreements and UN Security Council Resolution 2231 by the United States. At the same time, the Iranian nuclear programme remains under permanent and unprecedented [in terms of the scale and depth of its verification] IAEA control. Iran fully complies with the JCPOA, fulfils the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and applies the Additional Protocol. The transparency of Iranian nuclear activities is a key aspect of the entire nuclear deal.

We take note of statements by E3 leaders who say they do not accept the policy of maximum pressure with regard to Iran and their commitment to the JCPOA despite US pressure. At the same time, despite a display of their readiness to work on creating reliable and effective ways for circumventing obstacles that have been created by Washington, the E3 is either not prepared or cannot allow this to take place. We also note serious drawbacks regarding E3 countries fulfilling comprehensive safeguards.

The Islamic Republic of Iran would have no reason for renouncing initially agreed upon JCPOA parameters if and when these numerous problems, that are diverse in terms of their origin and essence, are eliminated.

Tehran agreed to accept the JCPOA’s restrictions with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme in the interests of reaching a compromise with due consideration for the balance of interests and mutual obligations. These restrictions were of a temporary nature from the very beginning, and they aimed to create opportunities for the IAEA, so that it would be able to receive answers to its questions with regard to Tehran. In reality, these questions were resolved in less than six months. Nevertheless, Iran was ready to honour all the terms of the nuclear deal in conditions of due reciprocity and a responsible attitude on the part of all other partners.

The JCPOA remains a topical issue despite all the challenges. We advocate its purposeful and comprehensive implementation under the parameters that were coordinated during the conclusion of the agreements in 2015 and formalised in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

We are insistently urging the E3 not to aggravate the situation and to refrain from actions that could jeopardise the nuclear deal.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3994344
__________________
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 17th, 2020 #62
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 15,170
Default

Did Lavrov resign along with the other ministers in Putin's cabinet? I'm guessing that could make Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov the new Foreign Minister. Or else Putin could appoint someone else. I still say make Maria Zakharova the new Minister.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old January 17th, 2020 #63
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan View Post
Did Lavrov resign along with the other ministers in Putin's cabinet? I'm guessing that could make Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov the new Foreign Minister. Or else Putin could appoint someone else. I still say make Maria Zakharova the new Minister.
Ray, at the moment I have no information about the composition of the new government of Russia
__________________
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 18th, 2020 #64
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with the Times of India newspaper, published on January 15, 2020



15 January 2020 - 01:30



Unofficial translation



Question:

What areas of cooperation will be in the focus of your visit to India and will determine the strategic partnership between the two states in 2020? What do you think about the Indian-Russian cooperation in general?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is a special year for our countries. Twenty years ago, India and Russia signed the Declaration on Strategic Partnership.

Developing relations with New Delhi is among our absolute foreign policy priorities. I am pleased to state that the Indian-Russian relations are characterized by self-sufficiency, not being subject to the influence of "ever-changing foreign policy winds". And this is vividly evidenced by regular leaders’ meetings and increasing contacts at all levels. Further strengthening of our multi-faceted cooperation is in the fundamental interests of our peoples and in line with the task of enhancing international and regional security and stability. I am convinced that our Indian friends share similar logic.

During the visit, we plan to discuss with our colleagues topical issues on the bilateral agenda, primarily taking into account the results of the Indian-Russian summit that was held on September 4-5 last year in Vladivostok. The discussions will be mainly focused on the prospects of increasing trade and economic cooperation which is the foundation for expanding the entire system of the Indian-Russian partnership. Certainly, we are interested in a constructive exchange of views on the key issues of our time.

I also plan to take part in the Raisina Dialogue annual international political conference.



Question:

How can India and Russia protect their interests in trade and investment, including in the defense sector, from unilateral sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Against the background of the increasingly aggressive use of financial sanctions by the U.S. Administration, Russia continues its policy aimed at gradual de-dollarization of the economy. Together with our main partners, including India, we work on developing economic and legal mechanisms to reduce the negative impact of restrictions on bilateral trade and investment ties.

Expanding settlements in national currencies is one of our priorities. Relevant intergovernmental agreements on settlements and payments were concluded with China and Turkey last June and October. Within BRICS, agreements were reached on the mutual opening by the Central Banks of relevant correspondent accounts. We consider that de-pegging from the dollar in mutual settlements is an objective response to the unpredictability of the U.S. economic policy and the outright abuse by Washington of the dollar's status as a world reserve currency.

Currently, New Delhi and Moscow are vigorously working to prepare a new intergovernmental agreement on the mutual protection of investments, which will by far increase investor protection for both sides. The agreement on a free trade zone between the Eurasian Economic Union and India which is currently being negotiated should also contribute to this.



Question:

India is interested in foreign investments, including from Russia, for implementing the Make in India programme. What could attract Russian entrepreneurs? How could both sides realize the unfulfilled potential of the economic partnership?



Sergey Lavrov:

Full investment cooperation is essential to the development of the whole complex of bilateral relations. This topic has traditionally been one of the central issues on the agenda of the Indian-Russian negotiations, including at the highest level. A broad range of coordination mechanisms is at our disposal, allowing for customization of the individual parameters of our interaction taking into account the traditionally close cooperation between our countries and good prospects for its development. Paying heed to the wishes of the business community, we seek to create the most favourable environment enabling Russian businesses to enter the Indian market. We are confident that our Indian partners intend to do the same.

We maintain fruitful cooperation in strategic areas. Russian companies are ready to actively join in the Make in India programme. They certainly have a stake in the harmonization and optimization of the import and export procedures, as well as facilitation and standardization of technical, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements. Yet, India's asymmetrical tax treatment of foreign business as compared to the regime enjoyed by Indian entrepreneurs in Russia remains the sticking point. Consultations on the removal of trade barriers are underway to make our domestic markets more attractive for mutual investments.

Today, such tasks as qualitatively improving the bilateral trade pattern and shifting its focus from commodities to high value-added products are taking priority. We need to move forward, build a portfolio of joint projects, forging new technological alliances in advanced, knowledge-intensive industries.



Question:

What new areas of the Indian-Russian bilateral as well as multilateral cooperation involving third countries could be developed in the energy sector?



Sergey Lavrov:

India is the third largest energy consumer in the world, while Russia is one of the world's key producers of hydrocarbons. Thus, the strategic interests of our countries in this area coincide.

We are establishing cooperation in geological exploration, joint development of oil and gas fields in the territory of the two countries, including offshore projects, which will eventually allow India to become the first non‑Arctic state extracting resources in the Arctic. Specifically, Indian companies participate in the development of oil and gas fields under the Sakhalin-1 project, as well as the Vankor oil and gas condensate field. The Rosneft oil company, in its turn, is a shareholder in one of the region's largest refineries, Vadinar.

We are looking into ways of improving the energy supply routes from Russia to Indian partners. Relevant agencies are studying the prospects for expanding cooperation in hydro- and heat power industry, energy efficiency, as well as in the design and construction of facilities that generate energy from renewable sources.

The Kudankulam nuclear power plant is the flagship project of our peaceful atom cooperation. We are working to develop energy cooperation in a trilateral format, following the example of the Ruppur nuclear power plant project in Bangladesh.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3994333






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a plenary session of the Raisina Dialogue international conference, New Delhi, January 15, 2020



15 January 2020 - 19:00






Good morning and bon appetit to those who have some food on their tables.

I would like first of all to thank the organisers of this conference for the invitation. I understand this is a young forum, but it managed already in a few years to acquire importance, popularity and reputation. It is indeed very appropriate that we get together more often than in the past to discuss where we are in international relations and which way we are heading.

We are convinced that the overriding trend of global development is the objective process of the formation of a multipolar world. New centres of economic might, financial power and political influence emerge. India is obviously one of them. And it is important to make sure that no serious matter of the global dimension is considered without these new centres of influence.

As President Putin recently mentioned, we believe that the equitable and democratic world order should be based not on the balance of brutal force, but rather should be built as a concert of interests, models of development, cultures and traditions. Actually, such structures are being organised in international relations. I would mention BRICS and RIC, which was the first step towards the creation of BRICS and brought together Russia, India and China. I would also mention the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which India joined recently and made even more embracive, if you wish.

And I would mention the G20. The creation of the G20 was the recognition that the G7 cannot anymore decide any issue of any significance. The G20, which embraces the G7, BRICS and like-minded countries who support the BRICS’ position on many occasions. This is a workable organisation, especially in a situation when the developing countries have grievances regarding the lack of progress in the reform of the Security Council. Since I mentioned the reform of the Security Council, I would say that the deficiency, the main and probably the only deficiency of the Security Council, is the underrepresentation of developing countries. And we repeatedly reiterated our position that India and Brazil absolutely deserve to be on the Council together with an African candidate, and our position is that the purpose of the reform is to make sure that the developing countries enjoy a better treatment in the central organ of the United Nations.

The UN Charter is the anchor of any discussions that we are having as well as the principles, such as the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal matters, respect for territorial integrity, peaceful resolution of disputes. They should be applicable to each and every situation in the world. They should be the guiding point for any discussion to develop any new ideas in the world arena.

Unfortunately, those who do not like the emergence of a multipolar, more democratic world, they try to hamper this process. If you have noticed, our Western friends use the language of international law less and less. Instead, they coined a new concept, which they call rules-based world order. And what kind of rules they offer, you can easily understand if you take a look at what is going on in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, when in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which requires a consensus on any new ideas, they voted through by minority of the member states of this convention a decision to give the Technical Secretariat a function to attribute guilt. This is a very blunt example of how they perceive the rules which they promote, the rules designed in a very narrow circle and then presented as the final solution for any world problem. I think that this way is very dangerous. By unilateral matters, by trying to impose upon others your own egoistic ideas, we are getting farther from the situation when we must handle the global issues of transnational nature, such as terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime, food security, water security, as well as many other things, including the dangers of bringing weapons to outer space, the danger of weaponising cyberspace and many other risks. We can handle them only together.

Speaking of this region, we have the common continent, the vast huge continent of Eurasia, and many people were trying, many great people were trying to promote the ideas of making this continent really united and competitive in the global world. You remember when Charles de Gaulle had a vision of Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. Then the ideas were broadened from Lisbon to Vladivostok. I believe now we can indicate that what we actually have in mind when we speak about Eurasia is the entire space from Lisbon to Jakarta. And when we had a summit in 2016, the Russia-ASEAN Summit, President Putin shared his vision of the Grand Eurasian Space, which would include the Eurasian Economic Union, the ASEAN members, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation members, and we should be open to all countries who are part of this common geopolitical space, part of this huge continent, including members of the European Union and any other countries that are not members of any organisation but that have been established on this territory.

And we have been promoting Asia-Pacific Cooperation in the context of these ideas together with our friends from ASEAN and all partners, dialogue partners of ASEAN, developing what we called cooperative structures, cooperative architecture for the Asia-Pacific Region, centred on the various formats invented by ASEAN: the ASEAN Regional Security Forum, ASEAN plus dialogue partners defence ministers, many other institutions have been respected and have been usefully promoting cooperation between ASEAN and all its partners, and of course, not least, the East Asia summits were very successful.

Speaking of the rules-based world order, unexpectedly a new concept was coined, Indo-Pacific Strategies, not Asia-Pacific but Indo-Pacific Strategies, initiated and promoted, first of all, by the United States, Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea. When we asked the initiators about the difference between Indo-Pacific Strategies and Asia-Pacific Region cooperation, they said: “Well, Indo-Pacific is more open, more democratic.” If you look at it closely, I would not go into details, it is not at all the case. It is an attempt, I think, to reconfigure the existing structures of the Asia-Pacific Region and to move from ASEAN-centred consensus-seeking forms of interaction to something that would be divisive. You know what is meant by these Indo-Pacific Strategies, and we appreciate the position of ASEAN itself and the position of India, the position which clearly says that these Indo-Pacific Strategies should not be discussed in a way which would imply that somebody should be contained by this cooperation.

And of course, when we ask those who promote this new terminology whether the Indo-Pacific region includes East Africa, for example, they say “no”. Does it include the Persian Gulf as part of the Indian Ocean? No. So, it is rather tricky, you know, and we have to be careful with this terminology, which looks very benign but might mean something else.

Since I mentioned the Persian Gulf, we are very concerned about what is going on there. There are many ideas floating around. The Americans want a coalition and the Europeans want a coalition, but with a slightly different mandate. Recently we had military exercises with China and Iran, exercises meant to see how we can ensure the safety of shipping in this area, which is crucial for the global economy.

Many years ago, in a situation which was less dangerous than today, we suggested to the Persian Gulf countries to start thinking about a collective security mechanism, something like the OSCE for Europe, starting with confidence-building measures and inviting each other to military exercises. We talked to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Three of them supported this initiative immediately, and three other countries said they needed more time. Recently we revived that idea and had a conference in Moscow in September on the collective security system and a confidence-building system in and around the Persian Gulf. Iran has proposed a non-aggression pact for the GCC countries. Our proposal is a bit broader and more far-reaching. It is not just about not fighting with each other, but about being more transparent and cooperative with each other. We believe that, apart from the Gulf countries – the GCC plus Iran – the participation of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the EU, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is necessary. The idea is still on the table and we hope it will be looked at.

The last thing I wanted to say is about Eurasia. The Eurasian economic project could be very promising in harmonising various integration groups in this space, including the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. The interest we see in the activities of the Eurasian Economic Union, which Russia created together with its neighbours, is proof of this. We have already signed free trade area agreements with Vietnam, Singapore and Serbia. We signed agreements with Iran and China. We are negotiating with Israel and Egypt. The Eurasian Economic Commission has an agreement with ASEAN. I believe this process will certainly be moving forward.

The 21st century is the time when we must get rid of any methods of dealing in international relations which smack of colonial or neo-colonial times. Unilaterally imposed sanctions are not going to work. This is not diplomacy, so I don’t believe we should discuss sanctions and other non-diplomatic means when we think about the future of the world.

I would like to conclude by recalling that 20 years ago Russia and India signed the Declaration of Strategic Partnership. Some years later “privileged” was added to the term “strategic partnership”, and a few years ago our Indian friends proposed to call our relations “an especially privileged strategic partnership.” We want to develop such relations with all countries of the region and we hope our Indian friends will be promoting the same ideology.

Thank you very much and I am ready to take your questions.







Question:

Across the Atlantic there is a lot of talk of a deal-making. But most of the deal-making seems to have been done by Russia. You’ve intervened decisively in Syria. After that we’ve seen your actions over the last few years and in the last few months particularly in Libya, where something that was happening under the Berlin process has been taken over by Russia. You almost got a ceasefire agreement signed, but then something went wrong. How hopeful are you of things turning out the right way in Libya now, after Haftar has walked out of the agreement as it seems?



Sergey Lavrov:

Commander of the Libyan National Army Marshal Khalifa Haftar and President of the Libyan House of Representatives in Tobruk Aguila Saleh said they needed more time to consult with their people. Aguila Saleh was saying that he is the head of parliament and the parliament members must be briefed, must be informed.

We are not overdramatising the situation. These things happened in the past. There were meetings on Libya held in Paris, Palermo and Abu Dhabi. When they met in France, a date of elections was even announced, which is past two years ago. Then there were Palermo and Abu Dhabi. It is a pity that the Abu Dhabi deal failed, because it was really about the key political matters, such as power sharing and sharing the wealth of the country in a way which will make everybody satisfied.

Actually, the ceasefire which President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for has been announced by both groups – the Libyan National Army and the fighters who support the Government of National Accord in Tripoli. Unfortunately, the document was not signed by everybody. But it was signed by Prime Minister of the GNA Fayez Mustafa al-Sarraj and Chairman of the High Council of State Khalid al-Mishri. As I said, Haftar and Saleh said that they needed more time for consultations. We never pretended that this would be the final meeting to resolve each and every issue. We have been promoting this meeting in Moscow as a contribution to the conference in Berlin, which will be held this coming Sunday, to which we recommended the conference organisers to invite all Libyan parties. I believe they are considering our proposal positively. It would be really crucial to make sure that whatever is decided in Berlin is acceptable to all parties.

This is a process, it is a thing in the making, and we will continue to contribute to the success of this endeavour.



Question:

Let me turn to the idea of Greater Eurasia, which you spoke about. You spoke at length about the Asia-Pacific. Here I would say – forget labels, forget what they call the Indo-Pacific, forget who owns which label. But the fact remains that, by whatever name you call it, the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean is the key to the idea of a united or economically integrated Afro-Eurasia, which includes the Greater Eurasia. Now where do you see Russia’s role in this? You know, Russia has become a very active player, even when you talk of an Indo-Pacific strategy, even if you want to call it something else – Russia has just held major exercises, which you described.



Sergey Lavrov:

You know, it’s not that we are against philosophical terminology. But terminology must be understandable. We used to say “Asia-Pacific Region”. There is the Indian Ocean Commission, which embraces all littoral states, as you know, and when people say, we want to develop cooperation in Asia-Pacific in the form of Indo-Pacific strategies, you immediately ask questions – do you include African countries or the countries of the Persian Gulf? No. And do you include all those who have been known as part of the Asia-Pacific Region? Yes. Why do you need to call it Indo-Pacific?

And you know the answer. The answer is to contain China. And it is not even hidden. And as I said, our Indian friends are smart enough to understand this trap and not to get into it. We prefer to promote formats which are not divisive but which unite. And I mentioned the format which was created at the initiative of the late Minister and Prime Minister Primakov, RIC – Russia-India-China. We are going to meet this year, I think in March or April. This will be our 17th meeting in this format. Subsequently, it was this format that gave rise to BRICS, which is also a unifying format, which is not against anybody.

The same is true for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, where under one roof we now have the former Soviet republics, India, China and Pakistan; Iran is an observer, and we are supportive of the Iranian request for full membership. Most of the countries support this request and I am sure it will be satisfied.

And these organisations, they also extend the offer of cooperation to others. BRICS, when it meets, we always have an outreach meeting. Now, at the initiative of China, we have the BRICS+ format in addition to the outreach. Outreach is normally for the neighbouring countries of the country where the conference is held, the summit is held. So BRICS + is also a new cooperative proposal.

That’s why we need to understand what is behind some terminology. By the way, what is wrong with “international law”? Why do our Western friends insist at each and every conference, whenever you have a declaration, a statement or communique, that the rules-based world order must be key, not international law?

Think about it. The international law is resolutions of the Security Council on Palestine. The rules which the Americans want to apply to Palestine – the Golan Heights, the embassy in Jerusalem, then the legitimacy of the settlements – I am not challenging the sovereignty of the United States to do whatever they please. But then, if you ignore the rules embodied in international law, in the United Nations Charter, then let us discuss how we treat international law in general.

Or take the situation I mentioned already in the OPCW. In UNESCO, there are attempts, in the absence of consensus, to promote the adoption of a comprehensive anti-doping convention, giving the Secretariat the right to attribute [guilt] – as in the case of the OPCW.

Now, speaking about weapons of mass destruction. there is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) , which has been with us for about 20 years already, and from the day of negotiations on this convention, we, together with many others, have been promoting the need to have a verification mechanism, like the Technical Secretariat at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Most of the participating states were in favour and still are. The Americans almost single-handedly blocked the creation of such a mechanism. Instead, we suddenly heard last year from the United Nations Secretariat a reference to the resolution of the General Assembly of 1987, and the 1988 UN Security Council resolution providing for the creation of a UN Secretary General’s mechanism to investigate cases of possible use of chemical, biological and toxin weapons. The UN Secretariat proposed the idea of creating an “intermediate potential” for investigating suspected use of biological weapons. We said, wait a moment. There is the Convention. How does this initiative relate to the provisions of the Convention?

And there are many other examples.

There is another interesting point. Our good friend Ban Ki-moon, before he left the post of Secretary-General, in one of his annual reports coined a new expression: preventing violent extremism. This term was immediately supported by many speakers when this report was circulated. We asked why only violent extremism should be prevented. Why should we all not prevent extremism in any form? And then we understood what happened, because it was not the Secretary-General and the Secretariat that explained the meaning to us. It was a group of our Western friends. And in a nutshell, their vision of this prevention of violent extremism concept is as follows: extremism is born in authoritarian societies where the dictators do not give enough democracy to the people. Therefore, the concept goes, the international community must reach over the heads of these dictators to civil society and explain to civil society how to make their country democratic. As simple as that. Ignoring all principles of international law which make the states primarily responsible for fighting extremism, terrorism and any other criminal methods. So it is not just terminology. It’s a very important substantive trend that we are witnessing. And we want to stick to international law, to the United Nations Charter, making the world more democratic on the basis of the principles enshrined in it. The UN Charter, for instance, endorses sovereign equality of states. But we all know that practice is different.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3994885






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at an MGIMO University branch in Uzbekistan, Tashkent, January 16, 2020



16 January 2020 - 18:00







Mr Kamilov, Mr Islamov, friends,

To begin with, I wish a Happy New Year to you.

I’m happy to be here today at an event that is being held as part of opening an MGIMO University branch in the capital of Uzbekistan. I’m pleased to speak before the students and the faculty led by our university graduate Mr Islamov. Clearly, opening an MGIMO University branch is an important step in our foreign policy cooperation in the sphere of education and coordination of our actions. It also reflects the growing interest in the Russian language and education, which is actively supported by President Mirziyoyev. As far as I understand, you now have eight branches of Russian universities in Uzbekistan. This is not the final number. Today, during our conversation, President Mirziyoyev said there are plans to open several more branches of Russian universities. We will do our utmost to cooperate in these endeavours.

Last year, MGIMO University marked its 75th anniversary. Over the past three quarters of a century, it has come a long way and become a truly unique research and training school. I’m confident that you will carry on the glorious traditions of training highly qualified specialists in international affairs in a wide range of areas, primarily, of course, the diplomatic service, but not only it, because MGIMO University graduates are in demand in other public services and private businesses.

The efforts to train such specialists are all the more in demand, as the importance of diplomacy and the ability to negotiate has increased many times over. I would like to note that tectonic processes are underway in the modern world that are associated with the ongoing redistribution of the global balance of forces and the formation of a fundamentally new, more democratic and pluralistic, multipolar international order. New centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence are emerging in the Asia-Pacific Region, Latin America and Africa, which many refer to as the continent of the future, the potential of which remains untapped. I’m confident that this historical era will last a long time, but this is an objective process, and it can’t be stopped.

Western countries – the historical West, as they say – have been dominating in the world perhaps for at least five hundred years. This era is now receding in the past. It is time to share power and influence and to make agreements with new strong players. Unfortunately, our Western colleagues are trying to torpedo these processes and hold on to their position of power, but life makes them act according to the objective trends of global development instead of based on unilateral geopolitical attitudes. Today, alongside these processes and the need to develop relevant forms of interaction and cooperation, the demand for a completely new level of trust and coordination among all these leading international players is growing in order to face the serious challenges and threats that cross borders today. There is no way to hide from them behind national borders. Terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime, as well as cybercrime, which today requires new non-standard approaches to prevent it from causing huge damage to all the countries in the world, are among the most terrible threats. I do not even mention such a traditional issue as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. By the way, climate change is another one of these threats and risks. They can only be addressed together under the umbrella of the United Nations, on the firm ground of its Charter and other universally applied norms of international law.

Organisations of which Russia and Uzbekistan are members operate on the grounds of mutual respect, equality, the search for a balance of interests, compromise and consensus such as the CIS and the SCO. Russia’s work at BRICS and in the Russia – India – China format, which we abbreviate as RIC, is also based on these principles. I would also like to mention the G20, the establishment of which several years ago as well as the creation of the mechanism of its summits reflect the West’s growing understanding of the need to abandon its dictate in the world economy and to come to terms with the new centres of power. As you know, the G20 includes the G7, which until recently tried to govern the global economic and financial processes alone, BRICS countries and a range of rapidly growing economies of the developing world, which share the vision of the BRICS on principal issues. Without doubt, the G20 is turning into a forum for political discussions, which allows large powerful countries that are not members of the UN Security Council to get involved.

Of course, it is clear that political coordination needs to improve, given that reckless – let’s call a spade a spade – actions by our American partners and their closest allies, unfortunately, led to disastrous consequences in the Middle East. Iraq was destroyed, and is now struggling to restore its integrity and ability to bring life in the country back to normal. Libya was also destroyed, and they have a long way to go before rebuilding their statehood. An attempt was made to do the same in Syria. However, this time, responding to the request from the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Federation provided, I believe, very effective assistance to the Syrian people in warding off the threat posed by global terrorism and the Syrian people have repelled it. Some less significant challenges facing the country have yet to be addressed. We helped the Syrian people to defend the statehood of their country. I believe this should serve in the future as a good example of how to prevent this sort of aggressive and reckless attempts to decide the fate of whole regions from overseas or any other place on Earth, for that matter.

The situation around Iran is doing much harm to strategic stability as it has evolved into a crisis after the US unilateral arbitrary pullout of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF Treaty) – a pullout which is, essentially, responsible for dismantling this very important agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as for giving rise to tensions in the context of arms control, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the limitation of arms, primarily, nuclear weapons.

We are also seeing ongoing attempts to use unfair methods of competition – now we move to the economy. Washington is still trying to impose American approaches outside the G20 and the World Trade Organisation formats. It is impeding the WTO activities as the WTO mechanism for settling disputes cannot function properly because of the US position. Meanwhile our American colleagues are trying to push through on a bilateral basis their decisions on how to resolve global problems, having no scruples in actively resorting to protectionism and unilateral unlawful economic sanctions, openly abusing the status of the dollar.

It seems to me that these methods of waging trade and other wars, including hot wars, have no prospects in the future. Rather these will be methods of building cooperation while abstaining from dictating others, as well as threats and zero-sum games. As I said before, we need to promote the value of dialogue, consensus and mutual respect. Only in this way can we move along the road to resolving global issues based on truly sustainable decisions, instead of short-term ones that are geared to some domestic political events or electoral cycles.

We are now introducing multilateral diplomacy formats such as the Astana process. Russia, Turkey and Iran are actively involved in resolving the Syria crisis, not only in terms of stabilising the situation on the ground but launching the political process as well. The Constitutional Committee became operational. This is an ongoing effort. It is no accident that the Astana process has drawn the attention of other countries as well, with Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon having an observer status in this multilateral format. Moreover, when we address the Syrian, Libyan or any other international issue, we never force anyone to do anything against their will and never impose anything on anyone.

We are pursuing a foreign policy that promotes pragmatism and realistic solutions rather than putting forward high-profile initiatives designed to produce an immediate propaganda effect, but which contain zero specific steps to bring a solution to a particular problem. Our initiatives aim to unite the efforts and capabilities of various states. For example, an initiative to form the Greater Eurasian Partnership, which President Vladimir Putin put forward during the Russia-ASEAN Summit in May 2016, serves this purpose. This partnership is supposed to combine the capabilities of the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN member countries. Similarly, we propose adopting collective approaches to agreeing upon general principles for promoting non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There are many challenges in this area that are related to our Western colleagues’ attempts to steamroll the verification procedures for themselves and their unwillingness to transparently consider the problems in these areas.

Of course, like any other responsible country, we want to have a friendly external environment and neighbourly relations and to maintain constructive interaction with all our foreign partners without exception in all formats around the world with the understanding that our colleagues are willing to reciprocate.

So, we note with satisfaction that Russia and the Central Asian countries are linked by alliance and strategic partnership based on the principles of international law, respect and consideration for each other's interests, as well as the search for a balance of interests when considering any issues.

This, of course, fully applies to our alliance and strategic partnership with Uzbekistan. Our trade is steadily growing, and our leaders have set the goal to reach the level of $10 billion. So far, we have reached about half this amount. Upcoming events, including a meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, will be used to outline concrete steps to implement the tasks set by the presidents.

We have ambitious joint projects ranging from energy, including nuclear, to engineering. The total volume of Russia’s investment in the economy of Uzbekistan exceeds $9 billion, with over 1,700 enterprises with the Russian capital operating in Uzbekistan.

We work closely at various multilateral venues, including the UN and the CIS, which Uzbekistan is currently chairing, and the SCO. These links are deep and effective.

We believe the CIS fully serves its purpose as a structure in the post-Soviet space where all new states may discuss any arising questions. I think the full unifying potential of the Commonwealth has not yet been unlocked. We share the priorities of Uzbekistan’s CIS presidency this year and are ready to do everything we can to help implement them.

We consider important our joint work in the SCO and support active cooperation between Uzbekistan, on the one hand, and the EAEU and CSTO, on the other. I discussed this today with President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev and my counterpart, Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov.

The Eurasian Economic Union is developing fairly quickly and successfully. Common markets of goods, services, capital and workforce have been created. International contacts with third countries are growing. Free trade agreements have been signed with Vietnam, Singapore and Serbia. Contracts with Iran and China have been signed. Talks are underway with Israel, Egypt and many other countries including Latin American states, as well as with international integration associations, including ASEAN. Ties between the SCO and the EAEU are growing stronger.

We are conducting useful dialogue with our Uzbek friends on the best ways to develop practical cooperation with the EAEU.

Friends,

This year we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Our peoples fought against Nazism shoulder to shoulder and together with other Soviet nations made a decisive contribution to the liberation of Europe and the rest of the world from the Nazi horrors. The victory laid the foundations of the modern international security system, including the establishment of the United Nations. The principles of its Charter are immutable. For all of their novelties, any reforms of international organisations and relations, which will be numerous, must by all mean rely on these principles that have universal value and are recognised by all countries without exception.

We must cherish the memory of the exploits of our fathers and grandfathers and must not allow anyone to rewrite history, call into doubt the results of World War II, or justify the crimes of the Nazis and their accomplices. Of course, attempts to revise the decisions of the Nuremberg Trials are unacceptable. We are witnessing such fairly active attempts in several countries, and regrettably, in European Union states that are continuously presenting themselves as a model of democracy. This is a very dangerous trend and must be countered.

We are looking forward to the arrival of our dear friends for the celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War on May 9, 2020. Naturally, we are looking forward to the arrival of our friends from Uzbekistan. I am confident that this great holiday will be observed in Moscow, Tashkent and other cities of our two countries. I know that the Park of Victory is being restored in Tashkent, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to take part in its opening ceremony.

In conclusion, I would like to wish students success in their studies. You will ensure the continuity of our foreign policy cooperation, primarily the foreign policy course of your state. I hope you will take part in forming and developing the agenda for cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan. I hope the knowledge and skills that you will receive at this MGIMO branch will help you in all your undertakings.

Thank you very much. I am ready to answer your questions.



Question:

We are studying economics, and we have even tried to apply systems modelling to it. But the range of multilateral organisations that are open to Uzbekistan make this foreign economic model extremely complicated. Which multilateral organisations, integration mechanisms and regional agreements could be most effective for creating this model and for the success of Russia-Uzbekistan relations? I hope our choice is not limited to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)?



Sergey Lavrov:

In principle, the economy is the basis for everything else. As you know, social being determines consciousness. Each country must make its own choice depending on its understanding of national interests, development goals and the form of development that will help it enhance the living standards. You can share your experience and solutions, but the choice ultimately rests with the government of sovereign states.

As I said, we maintain an intensive dialogue on economic matters. Our bilateral ties have been developing very rapidly and effectively in the past few years in accordance with the decisions taken by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev. As for multilateral formats, these include first of all the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which has a free trade zone. Russia and Uzbekistan are working fruitfully within the CIS. We welcome the increase in Tashkent’s involvement in the CIS over the past few years. Uzbekistan holds the CIS presidency this year. By the way, the latest CIS summit held in Ashgabat in October 2019 adopted the Declaration on Strategic Economic Cooperation. This shows that new goals can be set at the CIS and attained in a more efficient manner if undertaken collectively, which is proof that serious attention is being given to the economy within the organisation. I have already mentioned the free trade zone.

As for the EAEU, it is also a form of dialogue. Uzbekistan is pondering the forms of interaction with the EAEU, especially since the establishment of the system of observer countries more than 18 months ago. Overall, the EAEU is a massive organisation with a combined population of 182 million, a common market of capital, goods, services and workforce, as well as a collective GDP of approximately $2.2 trillion. It is an impressive indicator as well.

The development logic at the EAEU was the same as in many other associations around the world, including the European Union. First we created a free trade zone and then proceeded to the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, ultimately creating the EAEU, which Kyrgyzstan and Armenia joined as member countries.

I have mentioned the EAEU’s foreign relations, which are extensive. I believe that Uzbekistan will be able to see its prospects in this association during the ongoing consultations, in which Russia is actively involved.



Question:

President Vladimir Putin yesterday proposed changing the fundamental law to directly guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in the international legal framework. Does this mean that Russia will follow in the footsteps of the United States, where the priority of national law is being implemented most fully? There are many examples when the Americans disregard international conventions and court decisions.

Could this lead to Russia’s withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian Constitutional Court has issued an explanation according to which the provisions of the Russian Constitution prevail over everything else. This is not a unique situation. Some Western countries, in particular Germany and Britain, have such provisions as well. The US Constitution interprets international law as a matter of little importance, and this is how the Americans have regarded it.

I would like to note that a country only assumes international obligations after ratifying agreements or treaties. Ratification must be formalised in a federal law. Laws must not contradict the Constitution. There is no contradiction here. We are committed to all of our obligations under the documents which we sign voluntarily and which our Parliament, made up of representatives of the people, ratify, making these documents part of our legal framework.



Question:

All of us realise that Russia and Uzbekistan need each other. The term “strategic partnership” describes our partnership. What three main components of the strategic partnership can you name in this Russian-Uzbek union?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are both strategic partners and allies. In 2005, our countries signed the Treaty on Allied Relations. This document remains in force and is a pillar of our collaboration. All agencies, including economic agencies, defence ministries, the Security Council, law enforcement agencies and secret services, maintain very close ties. We address many tasks while maintaining the security of Uzbekistan and the whole of Central Asia where the threat of terrorism and illegal drug trafficking is quite serious. We have reached large-scale agreements in the area of modernising the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan and reequipping them with modern Russian weapons. Military-technical cooperation continues to develop very well. I believe that the security sphere is among the main and most tangible aspects.

The economy is the second no less outstanding direction. I have dwelled on this in great detail. Mutual investment volumes continue to expand, and we are adopting additional decisions allowing Russian and Uzbek companies to trade under easy-term plans and to reduce material and temporal outlays.

I believe that we have a rather packed programme of economic cooperation that, with due consideration for new tasks, will be discussed in great detail during preparations for the state visit to the Russian Federation by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev, scheduled for this year.

We are preparing a meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. On the whole, we are discussing dozens of major aspects to further expand our collaboration.

I would also like to mention cultural and humanitarian cooperation. I have already touched upon the fact that the people of Uzbekistan are highly interested in the Russian language and Russian-language education. We appreciate this very much. We appreciate the fact that Uzbekistan ranks among the countries contributing the greatest number of students to Russian higher education institutions. Over 29,000 students from Uzbekistan study in Russia, including over 6,000 at federal-budget expense. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev has asked us to increase the number of scholarships which we provide each year. Most likely, we will support this request. We will see to it that the request materialises into specific decisions in the near future.

Apart from security, the economy, cultural and humanitarian collaboration, it would be wrong not to mention the fourth area, namely, foreign policy coordination. We voice common positions on an overwhelming majority of matters regarding the international and regional agenda. This is manifested most vividly on the Afghan track where Russia and Uzbekistan act hand in hand. They perceive national reconciliation and the creation of favourable conditions that would allow all ethnic, political and social groups, as well as religious denominations, to feel comfortable in Afghanistan as the only goal that can pacify the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Only the people of Afghanistan themselves can accomplish this. All the initiatives by Tashkent and Moscow are aimed at creating favourable conditions, which will allow the people of Afghanistan themselves to reach agreement without any external advice.

The range of our relations is sufficiently diverse. I repeat, they are allied and strategic in real life, rather than on paper.



Question:

You are paying an official visit to Uzbekistan as Acting Foreign Minister of Russia. What position can you assume in the future?



Sergey Lavrov:

Are you a journalist? You should enrol at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

All these years, immediately after graduation, I always honestly discharged my duties, instead of merely holding any positions. I continue to do this today.



Question:

Today you had a meeting with President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Have you mentioned Uzbekistan joining the EAEU? If so, what will the criteria be, and will it happen immediately or gradually?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already mentioned that the decision should be made by the country itself that wants to somehow diversify its external economic contacts and is using various formats. We, as friends, strategic partners, and allies at the level of governments and deputy prime ministers, are discussing in a very specific, substantive dialogue how the EAEU can interact with Uzbekistan. We are providing information and giving assessments, but the decision, of course, will be made by the President and the Parliament of Uzbekistan. This is the framework in which Shavkat Mirziyoyev and I have discussed it today.



Question:

What have you agreed on?



Sergey Lavrov:

Get a degree from MGIMO.



Question:

You probably know how widespread the topic of artificial intelligence is in the modern world. It is even supposed to be used in international affairs, to analyse socioeconomic processes, and in modern politics. Can you comment on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Modern technologies are definitely of great help in both studying and working, primarily in terms of quickly gathering information from various sources, and the ability to compare facts. Now that life is changing so rapidly (this has never happened before, including in the international arena), it is important to have information, to know how to obtain it and use the facts derived from access to information.

In this sense, all areas of life are now being revolutionised. No wonder digitalisation of the economy has become the watchword in all countries, including Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that the players who possess modern technology to the greatest extent will have the strongest position on the world stage.

Speaking specifically about diplomacy, in addition to the unconditional advantage that I mentioned (quick access to reliable information from different sources and the ability to compare it), probably neither artificial intelligence, nor anything else can replace a diplomat as a person. With all the scope for saturating your memory with knowledge, and the ability to simulate the development of a particular crisis, to reach a solution it is crucial to sit down with a person or several people that matter, look each other in the eye and start just discussing the interests of the parties involved and trying to find a balance between these interests. No machine will ever be able to replace face-to-face contacts.

Diplomacy is the ability to negotiate. You can’t reach agreement with a machine – it is a cold tool. A machine can beat anyone in chess. This is a highly intellectual game, but all the moves are prescribed, so all you can do is change their order, invent new methods of defence or attack. The game has rules that never change. In diplomacy, situations may arise that only a living creature with a natural, human intellect can identify and resolve.



Question:

What is the structure of the Russian Foreign Ministry?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is available on our online resources, on our website. We have recently established a new, 42nd department, which will deal with cyber threats. It is the Department of International Information Security. We have some 3,500 employees. Some departments deal with regional affairs, including four European departments, one North American and one Latin American department, four Asian departments, as well as one African and one Middle East department. Some departments are not concerned with regional affairs but with a particular function, such as the UN and the OSCE, or relations with NATO and the EU. We have four really important CIS departments, one that deals with CIS affairs and other multilateral organisations in the post-Soviet space, including the EAEU and the CSTO, plus the CIS departments that are in charge of European, Central Asian and South Caucasian affairs.



Question:

You have said today that Russia will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. How will the Foreign Ministry contribute to this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian Foreign Ministry is directly involved in the events held to celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Personally, I am a member of the Organising Committee for Celebrations of the 75th Anniversary of Victory. We plan to celebrate this event in every country, but especially in the countries where WWII battles took place, when our soldiers liberated Europe.

We are holding a series of events involving the maintenance of monuments, memorials and graves in cooperation with the host countries. These events have attracted public attention and active support in the overwhelming majority of states. Attempts have been made in some countries, primarily in the Baltics, to subdue the memory of the war and the great sacrifices it involved, primarily among young people. This is a different part of our work. It calls for daily efforts to attract the attention of international organisations to the importance of compliance with the provisions of the UN Charter and respect for the decisions of the Nuremberg Trials.

This is what our diplomats are doing. We have submitted an initiative to hold a special UN General Assembly session in May this year. Uzbekistan co-authored that initiative. We have also proposed holding a special event and adopting a declaration of the 75th anniversary of Victory at the OSCE. There are many more events involved, which together comprise a key priority sphere of our operation this year.



Question:

We know that you made the acquaintance of many students from other countries, including Uzbekistan, at MGIMO, and that you interacted with many of them after graduation. Do Uzbek graduates have any special character traits? Do these traits have any influence on Uzbekistani diplomacy?



Sergey Lavrov:

Every ethnic group and nation has specific features. I studied together and remain friends with many citizens of Uzbekistan who have become business and diplomatic leaders. I will not name them here so as not to offend anyone by not naming them. All MGIMO graduates regardless of their nationality and origin must be, above all, professionals committed to their countries. The most important thing is for the knowledge you receive to be used for the benefit of your people and your country and for strengthening its positions on the international stage, including when it comes to defence, the economy and culture. I believe that Uzbekistan, whose culture dates back hundreds if not thousands of years, has very many talented people who will be able to effectively attain these goals if they receive a good education.



Question:

There are many interpretations of international law. Some believe that this area continues to develop dynamically, and others claim that it obviously lags behind the requirements of modern life. What is your perception of modern international law?



Sergey Lavrov:

To put it simply, international law always lags behind international life because it is necessary to formalise and coordinate it. International law should be universally acceptable in order to become effective. As a rule, this implies conventions that are the subject of lengthy talks sometimes lasting many years. The concerned parties sign and ratify them. Conventions aim to respond to certain real-life events. For example, this concerns cybersecurity and cybercrime. Today, hackers steal money, cheat with card accounts and use cyberspace to undermine the functioning of vital infrastructure systems ensuring the operation of the energy sector and other areas. So far, there is no tool to combat this threat. We submitted a proposal to the UN sufficiently long ago (several years ago), and they approved it. The proposal was submitted following its coordination by SCO countries, including with the involvement of Uzbekistan, so as to draft generally acceptable rules for the responsible conduct of states in media space that would be universally interpreted and applied. Expert groups were established several times; and each of them took a short step forward. A working group has been established in which all UN member countries are currently involved. We have submitted the draft rules of responsible conduct to its members for consideration.

Here is a classic example. In the United Kingdom, when they want to build a path across a lawn, they first allow people to walk on it. Stones will be placed where they have trampled a path. One can say just about the same about international law. First, it is necessary to understand in what direction we might find an international-law tool. Of course, it is necessary to fulfil a convention after it has received international-law status, has been ratified by all states and has acquired mandatory status for them.

The main problem is that various parties, including our American colleagues, are now freely and boldly handling and interpreting international law. We have noted this today, while replying to a question by a Kommersant correspondent. Please note, this is a very interesting thing, and I discussed it in India yesterday at a plenary meeting of the multilateral conference Raisina Dialogue. I noted that our Western colleagues were using the expression “international law” less often. They have already started talking differently and urging everyone to comply with, honour and fulfil rules on which the international order hinges. No generally accepted document formalises this non-legal term. When we ask about the difference, they reply that the difference is that it is necessary to abide by rules on which the international order is based. And what are these rules? Does this amount to international law? If this is so, then why do we have to invent something?

In real life, for example, we have the ratified Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (more than 190 states committed to it). The West did not like the fact that we caught the OPCW Technical Secretariat juggling around with the facts, in particular when it was investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. We literally caught them manipulating the facts and we demanded that their behaviour should change and that they stop putting the blame on just any party, in this case, on Syria. Instead of dealing transparently and collectively with this, the West, by voting, pushed the decision to give the OPCW Technical Secretariat the right to name the perpetrators (although under the CWC, its only function is to respond to a party’s request to establish whether a prohibited substance was used by sending an inspector). Everything else is up to the UN Security Council. Despite the minority of votes (86 versus more than 100 votes of the participating countries) they have pushed the decision through that undermines the Convention. Now the OPCW Secretariat is trying in every possible way to evade being transparent about how it is implementing the Convention.

Now roughly the same is happening with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Biological and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BTWC). The Americans refuse to create a multilateral, universal mechanism for verifying the implementation of this document, which would be understandable and transparent for everyone. They are trying to deal with all matters through closed-door, secretive bilateral contacts and agreements with individual countries; they are especially active in the post-Soviet space. We have signed a memorandum with Uzbekistan on closely cooperating in the field of biosafety and on the promotion of our common interests.

Take the Middle East peace process. There is an international law in the form of a UN Security Council resolution on the need to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is an international law. But our American colleagues said that they will have their own rules. And those rules would lead to a ‘deal of the century,’ something the Americans have been promising for four years now but no one has seen yet. Meanwhile, they have recognised the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights as legitimate, as well as moving their embassy to Jerusalem, and said that the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, established against the UN Security Council requirements, are now legitimate for the United States. So this is how it works, there is international law – and there are rules.

I have mentioned the WTO. The United States has simply blocked the dispute resolution mechanism through procedural tricks. When someone becomes concerned that the Americans are dishonest on the global markets, with trade deals or whatever, there is nowhere to complain to. So the Americans use this situation to offer bilateral channels, using threats, ultimatums and other pressure tools, trying to push their interests to the detriment of the interests of others.

We must respect international laws, I mean everyone. This is a serious matter for the international agenda.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3995547
__________________
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 22nd, 2020 #65
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry’s answers to media questions for a news conference on Russia’s diplomatic performance in 2019 - PART I



17 January 2020 - 12:54



(When quoting, reference to the ministry’s site is required)




Question: There is a persistent threat of terrorism. Radicals continue staging bloody raids around the world. What is Russia doing in this connection?



Answer:

Terrorist activity indeed presents a serious, if not the main threat to international peace and security. Following its military defeat in Syria and Iraq, ISIS has morphed into a ramified underground terrorist network and is moving its operations to other regions. This terrorist organisation has not abandoned its plans to recreate the caliphate and is trying to spread its influence into Central and South Asia, build up its presence in the Asian Pacific region and promote interaction with Islamist groups in North and West Africa.

We are especially worried about the problem of foreign terrorist fighters, who often leave the areas of armed conflicts not to save their lives but to stage terrorist attacks around the world. In light of their commitment to radical ideas, combat experience and connection to the terrorist “international”, they pose a serious risk to security because they are planning acts of violence and recruiting new members. Their destructive actions could promote a serious aggravation even in the regions that are free from terrorism.

We believe that systematic efforts must be taken at the bilateral level and on international platforms, primarily the UN, to prevent and combat the threat of terrorism based on the solid international legal framework. We would like to point out that the UN must play the central, guiding and coordinating role in the international efforts in this sphere based on the UN Charter, the norms and principles of international law, UN Security Council resolutions and the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, as well as universal antiterrorism conventions and protocols.

For our part, we have been traditionally focusing on in-depth discussions of a wide range of counterterrorism topics at the UN, including with a view to boosting international efforts in this sphere. For example, in September 2019 two events were held at the initiative of Russia’s presidency of the UN Security Council – ministerial debates on counterterrorism cooperation between the United Nations and regional and subregional organisations, including the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO, as well as a meeting on promoting cooperation with African countries in the name of regional peace and stability.

We believe it is important to enhance the effectiveness of practical operations and make more active use of the potential and instruments at the disposal of the ad hoc agencies of the UN Security Council, including the Counter-Terrorism Committee, the 1267/1989/2253 ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee and the 1988 (Taliban) Committee, as well as the 1540 Committee when it comes to preventing terrorists from getting hold of weapons of mass destruction.

It goes without saying that a key role in the revamped UN counterterrorism system is played to the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT). In 2019, we continued to contribute to the UNOCT’s efforts aimed at providing relevant technical assistance through projects and activities with a particular focus on Central Asian countries, including when it comes to the implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in Central Asia. We also helped to prepare a new UNOCT project, to be implemented jointly with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to cut short arms deliveries to terrorists. We hope this project will be launched soon, again with a particular focus on Central Asia.

We are extremely concerned about the possible proliferation of terrorism from the Middle East to Central Asia via Afghanistan, where ISIS is increasing its control over an ever larger territory. I would like to point out in this connection that in May 2019 the UN Security Council adopted sanctions against the Islamic State’s Afghan branch, ISIS Wilayat Khorasan, at the Russian-US initiative. We hope to be able to continue this cooperation with a view to adding other regional ISIS “branches” to the 1267/1989/2253 ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida sanctions list. We also hope to be able to carry on a committed and substantive discussion on this subject, as well as on the other potential joint Russian-US counterterrorism actions within the framework of the relevant bilateral dialogue.



Question: What about Russia's efforts to ensure international information security and fight cybercrime?



Asnwer:

In 2019, we vigorously promoted Russian approaches to ensuring international information security at international platforms.

In June, the UN Open-ended Working Group on international information security was established at Russia’s initiative, the most important mechanism on these issues at the UN.

During the 74th session of the UN General Assembly a resolution on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security was adopted by a majority vote, essentially a compromise and a non-confrontational text welcoming the launch of the UN Open-ended Working Group. But the voting results showed that the vast majority of countries share Russia’s logic.

Breakthrough results have also been achieved in ​​promoting our initiatives at the UN to combat cybercrime. The UN General Assembly largely approved the Russia-sponsored resolution on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes. It calls for the creation of an ad hoc open-ended intergovernmental committee to develop a comprehensive universal convention on this matter.

A number of major related regional events have been organised at Russia’s request including the Central American forum on cybercrime and international information security in Guatemala on May 28-29, and an international forum on the use of ICT for peaceful purposes in Havana on July 8-10.

A joint statement was adopted by the Presidents of Russia and Turkmenistan on cooperation in the field of international information security, and a corresponding bilateral intergovernmental agreement was signed.

Russia held a range of other bilateral negotiations and consultations on this matter and participated in various international forums and conferences.



Question: The situation in Syria, Russia’s contribution to the defeat of terrorism in that country and efforts to achieve an inter-Syrian settlement through the Astana format - how would you evaluate the Constitutional Committee’s work? What are the prospects for rebuilding Syria? What is Russia doing in this area?



Asnwer:

Syria noticeably stabilised in 2019. That was achieved thanks to the conclusion and implementation of the Russian-Turkish agreements on Idlib and northeastern Syria – the memorandums of September 17, 2018 and October 22, 2019. That actually curbed the bloodshed on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, and also moved the country closer to establishing a long-term security based on the restoration of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In Idlib, we are taking steps to neutralise terrorist activity and prevent a surge in tension. It is obvious, however, that we cannot turn a blind eye to the aggressive attacks by terrorists, as those cannot remain unpunished indefinitely.

On the political track, Russia has continued to work on promoting an inclusive political process consisting of and led by Syrians with the support of the UN, as provided for in UNSC Resolution 2254. An important achievement of the Astana format was the formation and launch of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva last October in accordance with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. That gave the Syrians their first opportunity during the years of the crisis to engage in a direct dialogue on their country’s future without outside interference. At the end of 2019, members of the Committee encountered some difficulties while working to reach agreement on an agenda for their future work. We consider this natural, especially at the start of negotiations.

A strengthening of comprehensive international assistance to Syria with humanitarian aid provided to all without politicisation, discrimination or preconditions would be of great help in creating a stable political process. We are also confident that there is no alternative to mobilising assistance for a voluntary, dignified and safe return of Syrian refugees and IDPs to their homes.

Our position in support of humanitarian assistance under international humanitarian law and our opposition to politicising the humanitarian dossier was reflected in the discussions at the UN Security Council on extending UN operations delivering humanitarian aid across the Syrian border to civilians. The adoption of Resolution 2504 marked a transition towards resolving humanitarian aid issues in coordination with the Syrian Government, with unconditional respect for the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.



Question: What are the prospects for the Middle East settlement and the intra-Palestinian reconciliation? What about the Middle East issues at the UN Security Council? Could you give an assessment of the “deal of the century” promoted by the US?



Asnwer:

The current state of the Middle East settlement process remains critical. The Americans continue to add fuel to the fire by trying to make the existing international legal framework for the Palestinian settlement less clear.

We fundamentally disagree with the US’s recent decision to stop considering the Israeli settlement activity a violation of international law, hence recognising “the real situation on the ground.” We regard this as another example of the wretched practice of legitimising the policy of fait accompli aimed at undermining the internationally recognised framework for the Middle East settlement process, along with such US steps as recognising Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and moving its embassy to Jerusalem.

In these conditions, it is as important as ever for the international community to step up its efforts to support the legal framework for the Middle East settlement, which includes the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions, the Madrid Principles and the Arab Peace Initiative and provides for the establishment of an independent, sovereign, territorially united Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with the capital in East Jerusalem.

It is important to preserve the solidarity on the Palestinian issue at the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. In this context, we note the resolution condemning the US statement on the Israeli settlements adopted at the extraordinary session of the Arab League Council of Foreign Ministers on November 25, 2019.

The quartet of international mediators – Russia, the United States, the EU and the UN – is the universally recognised mediation format for the Middle East peace process. However, for the last two years it was in fact paralysed by Washington’s unilateral steps to promote the “deal of the century.” We are ready to search for ways out of this situation both as part of the mediation quartet and in coordination with other partners with a constructive attitude and MENA countries. In particular, we discussed this during the talks with UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov and EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process Susanna Terstal held in Moscow in December 2019.

We can see how persistently and methodically Washington makes efforts to break the recognised international legal framework for the Middle East settlement. By developing its “deal of the century” – by the way, its political aspect has not been voiced yet and a lot of speculation has already grown around it – the Trump administration is trying to do away with the notion of the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and replace it with unclear palliative economic support measures for the Palestinians. This means a conceptual revision of the peace process’s basic principles as well as the groundwork done by the international community over many years.

The attempts to take the search for a durable political settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict off the table are counterproductive. The only reliable way to overcome all the existing disagreements is via direct talks between the parties. It is dangerous to refuse to resume them, also because the unsettled Palestinian issue continues to fuel extremist sentiments in the region and beyond, and radicalise the young generation of Palestinians. The Israeli settlements and the demolition of Palestinian buildings remain a constant irritant. Sometimes skirmishes break out around the Gaza Strip and tensions escalate in Jerusalem, which are more difficult to ease every time.

It is obvious that the existing split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip plays into the hands of those opposing the two-state solution. The key condition for the resumption of the direct Palestinian-Israeli talks is the consolidation of Palestinians at the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Until then, Israel will continue to avoid resuming the dialogue under the pretext that none of the Palestinian political organisations represents all the Palestinians.

We are actively cooperating to overcome the intra-Palestinian split. With this in mind, Moscow hosted the third meeting between the main Palestinian political parties and movements in February 2019, after which most of its participants adopted the Moscow Declaration reaffirming their intention to restore national unity as soon as possible.

In this regard, we welcome the readiness to take part in the general elections confirmed by all the participants (elections for the post of president and to the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestinian National Council) based on the previous intra-Palestinian agreements. We hope that the elections will take place as scheduled in all the Palestinian territories.

We believe that this positive intention must receive active support. We believe it is important for all the responsible players to use their influence to secure the progress and help the Palestinians overcome their spit.



Question: What do you think about the situation in the Persian Gulf? What are the prospects for advancing the Russian concept to maintain security in the Persian Gulf zone? How do the concerned players perceive it?



Answer:

In the spring and summer of 2019, a chain of events took place in the Persian Gulf zone and drastically escalated the already high tension in this strategically important region. We consistently advocate a thorough and objective investigation of the then attacks on civilian vessels and non-military facilities.

At the same time, we are concerned over Washington’s hasty and categorical statements that unequivocally blamed Iran for the attacks. Obviously, the United States was primarily guided by its own domestic policy considerations. It probably believed that it would therefore become possible to persuade Tehran to make concessions, to renounce its missile programme and to stop the alleged interference of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the domestic affairs of other countries by ratcheting up pressure on it.

We have the same critical opinion of Washington’s idea to establish a naval coalition and to authorise it to maintain shipping safety in the Strait of Hormuz. We assume that such steps will only formalise the existing demarcation lines and expand the regional conflict potential still further.

We consider the January 3, 2020 US operation against Qasem Soleimani, the Commander of the Quds Special Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and his associates in Baghdad to be a deliberate act that undermined security and stability in the region. The act was perpetrated on the territory of a sovereign UN member state without its prior consent. We are urging all parties to act in a restrained manner, to display common sense and to prioritise diplomatic means.

Under these conditions, the Russian concept for establishing a collective security system in the Persian Gulf zone is becoming even more topical. Unlike confrontationist plans being suggested by Anglo-Saxon countries, we are offering a constructive unifying agenda to the region, and we suggest establishing mechanisms that would help jointly respond to the challenges and threats.

By the way, the Hormuz Peace Initiative, suggested by Iran, hinges on similar principles. However, its potential participants do not include states located outside the region. At the same time, the Russian concept calls for involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as the European Union, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in practical steps to implement it.

On the whole, members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf have responded positively to our proposals. However, some states still consider it premature to raise the question of launching their practical implementation. They believe that the relevant conditions are not yet ripe because Iran and its Arab neighbours allegedly harbor profound mutual mistrust. One can hardly agree with this logic. We remain convinced that it is possible to overcome accumulated disagreements solely by launching mutually respectful dialogue that would heed the concerns of all the parties involved. The earlier the talks get underway, the faster real chances for changing the current situation for the better would appear.

To be honest, the current explosive situation in the region is a direct consequence of the fact that the Persian Gulf states have so far failed to streamline effective communications channels. We consider it to be our job to help them in this respect.

First, we decided to hold a roundtable discussion at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow in September 2019. The discussion involved members of political analysts’ circles and the academic community from various countries of the region and other countries. We are ready for further collaboration on this subject.



Question: I would like to ask about Russia’s contribution to resolving the domestic Libyan conflict. With what external players does Moscow work for these purposes?



Answer:

Efforts to facilitate the attainment of a Libyan peace settlement remained a high-priority task of Russian diplomacy in the North Africa region throughout 2019.

Russia has always opted for well-balanced approaches and has not sided with any party to domestic Libyan processes in the hope of obtaining any special dividends and preferences. It has maintained smooth relations with all of the country’s influential public-political forces.

This principled position allowed us to obtain an objective assessment of Libyan developments, to better understand the motivation of the main Libyan protagonists and to plan our actions accordingly.

Regarding the latest escalation of the armed confrontation in this country, we maintained constant contacts with the warring parties since its beginning in April 2019. As consistent advocates of resolving any contentious matters by peaceful methods, we insistently urged them to stop bloodshed and to sit down at the negotiating table. Russian representatives focused on the Libyan peace settlement, while meeting with Fayez al-Sarraj, the Head of Libya's Government of National Accord, and the Government’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohamed Siala on the sidelines of the Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in October 2019, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Libyan Interim Government in the Eastern Region Abdelhadi Al-Huwaij in Moscow in December 2019, during contacts with Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Commander of the Libyan National Army, and other influential Libyan figures.

We coordinated our approaches with influential regional and international players involved in Libyan affairs. President Vladimir Putin regularly discussed the Libyan peace settlement matters with President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, President of France Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister of Italy Giuseppe Conte and other foreign leaders.

Russia was invariably involved in collective international efforts aiming to overcome the Libyan crisis, with the leading role of the UN. We readily responded to the German initiative on holding a summit on Libya in Berlin. We are actively involved in preparing for this forum. At the same time, we are convinced that, while helping the Libyans to resolve their problems, the international community should not impose any ready-made options on them. The unsuccessful experience of all the numerous earlier multilateral meetings on the subject of Libya show that this approach has no future.



Question: What are the prospects for resolving the domestic political crisis in Ukraine? How could Russia help solve this problem? What comments would you make concerning the steps taken by the authorities in Kiev to limit linguistic and educational rights and freedoms?



Answer:

Unfortunately, the change of power in Ukraine during the summer of 2019 did not lead to progress in resolving the conflict in Donbass. Having proclaimed the cessation of war in the southeast of Ukraine as one of its priorities, the country’s new leadership is in no hurry to deliver on its promises. The situation remains complex and tense. Although the truce declared in July was supposed to be unlimited, it has not yet led to a complete ceasefire. The draft amendments to the Constitution on decentralisation, submitted in December to the Verkhovna Rada, really concerned not decentralisation but the reform of the administrative-territorial structure with strengthening the central government’s powers.

At the same time, President Vladimir Zelensky, unlike his predecessor, managed to achieve the implementation of the decisions of the Normandy format summits of 2015-2016 on the disengagement of forces on three sections of the line of contact and written fixation of the Steinmeier Formula. This allowed for holding the next, fifth Normandy format summit on December 9 in Paris. Its main result was unanimous confirmation that there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements as the basis for resolving the crisis in Ukraine. The four states’ leaders made clear recommendations to the Contact Group on specific areas of the settlement. The first steps have already been taken. The Verkhovna Rada extended the law on the special status of Donbass until December 31, 2020, and on December 29, 2019, an exchange of some detained persons took place.

Yesterday, on January 16, the Contact Group met for the first time this year in Minsk. We hope that its participants will continue constructive work to find compromise solutions to the existing problems.

We presume that the crisis in Ukraine can only be overcome by political methods through a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. We are ready to facilitate this. Russia will do its best to ensure that all the provisions of the Minsk agreements are implemented in their entirety and sequence, including a ceasefire, the disengagement of forces, the withdrawal of hardware, an amnesty, the lifting of the economic and humanitarian blockade, and the granting of constitutionally guaranteed special status to Donbass and the holding of local elections there. The keys to all the doors to the settlement are in Kiev.

The establishment of lasting peace in Ukraine meets our interests and should have a positive effect on our bilateral relations.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly commented on numerous facts regarding human rights violations in Ukraine, primarily in the linguistic, educational and religious fields. We draw attention at all international venues to the policy of forced Ukrainisation, which is carried out by the authorities in Kiev. We are talking about millions of Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine and representatives of national minorities.

The country continues to attack the Russian language, which suffers double discrimination – in relation to the Ukrainian language and the languages ​​of the EU countries. At the same time, the heroisation of Nazi criminals Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych is underway, with torchlight processions held in their honour. The symbol of Victory in WWII – the St George ribbon – is banned in Ukraine. Monuments are desecrated, history is being reviewed, books and films from Russia are banned, and soon people will be fined for using the Russian language. There are calls to cleanse Ukraine from Russian-speaking children. All this happens in the country that declares that its goal is to join the European Union. Even Kiev’s Western curators find it harder to turn a blind eye on what is happening there. There are more calls for the local authorities to implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe on amendments to the laws on education and the state language and to bring them in line with international human rights obligations.

The settlement of the Donbass conflict is connected with the language issue. One of the key elements of the Minsk agreements, the inevitability of which was confirmed by the Normandy format summit held on December 9, 2019 in Paris, is the right of this region to linguistic self-determination. Actually, the attempt of the Maidan authorities in 2014 to abrogate the law “On the foundations of the state language policy,” according to which Russian had the status of a regional language in certain areas, was one of the factors that provoked the crisis.

We urge international human rights agencies not to ease the pressure on official Kiev so that the rights of the Russian-speaking population and the national minorities are properly ensured. This is in the interest of Ukraine itself, since peace and harmony in society are the key to stability.



Question: Eurasian integration. How is EAEU cooperation with other countries and integration associations developing?



Answer:

In 2019, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) turned five. Its member states are using supranational institutions and universal rules in a variety of economic areas in order to address their development tasks. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that the integration project is a success and is bringing favourable results to all of its participants as well as partners that established close mutually beneficial contacts with the EAEU.

Last year was especially important in terms of the Union’s international activity. The result of our countries’ fruitful work was the EAEU entering into free trade agreements with Singapore and Serbia in October. They are aimed at building up trade and creating more beneficial conditions for Eurasian goods on foreign markets.

We would like to note the great significance that we attach to the implementation of the Interim Agreement now in effect, which leads to establishing a free trade zone between the EAEU and Iran. On this occasion, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani attended the EAEU summit held in Yerevan on October 1, 2019. This agreement will serve as the basis for expanding trade and economic cooperation with Iran.

Tangible progress has been made in EAEU-Egyptian talks on trade liberalisation. Experts are to agree on mutual tariff commitments and finalise some systemic provisions. We continue our work to draw up a free trade agreement with Israel and plan to launch a similar process with India this year.

Work is underway to align the EAEU and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. We regard the implementation of the EAEU-Chinese Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation as well as last year’s Agreement on Customs Information Exchange as practical steps in this area.

Interaction between the EAEU and ASEAN has been making great strides. In 2019, they approved the programme of cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and ASEAN as a follow-up to the Memorandum of Understanding on economic matters between the Commission and the ASEAN Secretariat. Free trade agreements between the EAEU and Vietnam are being put into practice, and a similar agreement with Singapore will become effective this year. Work is underway in line with the memorandums with the governments of Cambodia and Thailand, and a similar document was signed with the Government of Indonesia last year.

The EAEU also puts great effort into cooperating with the SCO member countries. The Union concluded two previously mentioned agreements with China and a preferential agreement with Iran, and intends to start talks with India. We welcome the willingness of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) and the SCO Secretariat to formalise their bilateral dialogue.

The alignment of the EAEU and the Belt and Road Initiative as well as the integration of the EAEU with ASEAN and the SCO are in line with the formation of a new integration association – the Greater Eurasian Partnership, which is to harmonise the cooperation between multilateral entities being established in Eurasia and unite the potential of the countries in the region. Our understanding is that the partnership will be open to be joined by all interested countries and will be based on the principles of openness and mutual respect.

The EAEU and its members are facing ambitious tasks to develop common supranational regulations. We count on the efficient work of the members of the new EEC Board headed by Mikhail Myasnikovich, whose experience leading the Belarusian government and the upper chamber of parliament is much needed to develop integration and perform the functions vested by member states in the EEC, to begin this February.

We also wish good luck to our Belarusian partners who will chair the Union bodies in 2020.



Question: Is there progress in implementing President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to establish the Greater Eurasian Partnership?



Answer:

Last year can be rightfully considered a breakthrough in the implementation of the idea of the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

It is significant that President Vladimir Putin’s initiative was actively supported by our strategic partner, China. The relevant provision is included in the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China on the development of their relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation entering a new era, signed on June 5, 2019 following the state visit of President of China Xi Jinping to Russia.

In addition, the Russian and Chinese leaders agreed on parallel and coordinated promotion of the initiatives of the Greater Eurasian Partnership and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which will help develop regional associations as well as bilateral and multilateral integrational processes for the benefit of the nations on the Eurasian continent. In order to implement this agreement, the two governments were instructed to develop concrete ways of coordinating work in this sphere following the 24th regular meeting of the prime ministers of Russia and China (St Petersburg, September 17–18, 2019).

The agreement on trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and China signed on May 17, 2018 remains the foundation for practical cooperation in the area of coordinating the EAEU development plans and the Belt and Road Initiative. The document came into effect on October 25, 2019. We regard embarking on its practical implementation as a crucial current task, which includes the establishment of the mechanisms envisaged in it.

The Russian-Chinese Working Group on aligning the EAEU development plans and the Belt and Road Initiative is addressing the issues concerning the comprehensive coordination of the integrational initiatives. Moscow hosted its sixth meeting on December 19, 2019, which the parties regarded as very productive.

The initiative to establish the Greater Eurasian Partnership is among the EAEU’s priorities, as recorded in the decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council dated October 1, 2019, On Main Areas of the International Activities of the EAEU for 2020, which sets the task to build new cooperation formats. It is emphasised that the implementation of projects in the area of coordinating the EAEU development plans and the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the promotion of cooperation with key regional economic associations and the largest national economies in Eurasia, remain its important elements.

The idea of “integration of integrations,” of establishing a common economic space in Eurasia, is gaining new supporters. The participants in the fourth Meeting of Speakers of Eurasian Countries' Parliaments (Nur-Sultan, September 24, 2019) announced their support for this concept in their final statement.

The Greater Eurasian Partnership is being established objectively on the continent in the form of a wide network of free-trade zones. For example, on October 1, 2019 the Agreement on Free Trade between the EAEU and Singapore was signed on the sidelines of the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in Yerevan. On October 25, 2019, such an agreement was signed between the EAEU and Serbia and the Interim Agreement on the establishment of a free-trade zone between the EAEU and Iran came into effect. A decision was made to launch talks on drafting a preferential trade agreement between the EAEU and India.

We believe that Greater Eurasia has a great future. This area will remain a priority on the agenda of the EAEU and Russia in 2020.



Question: What are the main results of the CIS activities in 2019?



Answer:

The consolidation of traditionally close partnership in the Commonwealth of Independent States remained Russia’s foreign policy priority.

The CIS is successfully resolving its tasks and continues dynamically developing as a modern regional organisation. The members of the CIS are displaying increasing interest in this structure. In 2019, the highest CIS charter-based bodies adopted a solid package of documents aimed at deepening economic, cultural, and humanitarian and law enforcement cooperation.

The CIS summit in Ashgabat on October 11, 2019, adopted a Declaration on Strategic Economic Cooperation of the CIS member countries. It is designed to make fuller use of the socioeconomic potential of each CIS country and the CIS as a whole, expand equitable, mutually beneficial and comprehensive cooperation, promote economic ties and enhance the competitiveness of national economies.

In 2019, the CIS countries signed a Convention on Cooperation in the Digital Development of Society with a view to creating conditions for introducing modern information and communications infrastructure and new technology.

Despite foreign pressure, the CIS countries managed to preserve their positive dynamics in trade. In the three quarters of 2019, their foreign trade amounted to $762.8 billion, which is a 0.2 percent increase over the corresponding period of 2018.

The signing of a programme of action on invigorating partnership between the foreign ministries of the CIS countries is a concrete result of their diplomatic activities.

The CIS countries promoted their coordinated positions on urgent global issues at international venues. In 2019, the CIS adopted at our initiative a joint statement on support for practical steps to prevent an arms race in outer space.

In 2019, the CIS presidency was held by Turkmenistan. We believe it not only successfully coped with this task but also displayed a proactive approach in this regard, setting a high bar for its successor. I am convinced that fruitful versatile cooperation in the CIS will continue under the presidency of Uzbekistan, which assumed this role in January for the first time.

Humanitarian cooperation made steady headway. It remains a serious unifying factor that is aimed at meeting the interests of the people, improving their wellbeing and creating a healthy and positive atmosphere in society and interstate relations.

Large-scale projects in this area were successfully carried out. The number of their participants is constantly growing. These are events under the project “Great Victory Achieved Through Unity,” the forum of the creative and academic communities, the Cultural Capitals of the Commonwealth interstate programme (Brest received this status in 2019), and many others including those related to the thematic Year of the Book announced in 2019.

This year will be the Year of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, during the past year we focused our humanitarian cooperation on preparations for the celebrations of this date and working with our partners to preserve historical memory and prevent any falsifications of history. Russia has issued anniversary medals devoted to the 75th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War and will forward them to other CIS countries for awarding war veterans.

We consistently promoted the positions of the Russian language in the CIS space as a unifying cultural factor and one of the basic instruments of integration in the post-Soviet space.

A certain impetus was provided for cooperation in sports. The Games of the CIS Countries were established. The first Games will be held in Kazan next August.

Emphasis was also laid on expanding cooperation in fundamental sciences and university education, including the CIS Network University, which unites 38 leading universities from nine CIS states.

The CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly and the CSTO Parliamentary Assembly were involved in active cooperation aimed at countering new challenges and threats. Respected international agencies are joining it as well. The second conference on countering international terrorism was held with success in St Petersburg in April 2019. The work on improving the legal and regulatory foundation of the CSTO Parliamentary Assembly continued.



Question: Concerning the 2019 CSTO presidency. Russia’s priorities for the CSTO presidency.



Answer:

The CSTO, having considerable force and means at its disposable continues to display its efficiency, its ability to properly and timely react to a changing world.

The results of CSTO activities in 2019 were summed up at the CSTO Collective Security Summit in Bishkek on November 28, where a significant package of documents was adopted, including the CSTO Heads of State joint statement for enhancing international and regional security.

Countering new challenges and threats has remained a major focus of interaction, primarily countering international terrorism. The CSTO’s weighty contribution to this area was noted by the UN during the central event of Russia’s presidency of the Security Council last September.

Special attention was paid to Afghanistan. We regularly compare notes with our allies on the situation in that country under the framework of the Special Task Force within the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers. The Collective Security Council adopted a number of extra measures targeting de-escalation along the Afghan-Tajik border areas. Also, a joint statement by the CSTO member-states is in the making on the situation in Afghanistan.

Russia will continue its role as the Organisation’s president until the next session of the CSTO Collective Security Council. We have proposed to our partners a substantial schedule of events in all areas of CSTO activities.

The efforts of Russia’s presidency will be targeting a consistent implementation of the CSTO Collective Security Strategy until 2025, thwarting and decreasing threats to collective security.

Among Russia’s priorities is the stepping-up of the CSTO’s combat potential, improving combat training and alignment within the CSTO Collective Forces and boosting their mobility. To this effect, the CSTO 2021-2025 military cooperation plan is being drafted, which will be put up for approval at the next summit.

The Organisation’s streamlining of its crisis management system will continue during Russia’s CSTO presidency, basically through doubling down on the CSTO Crisis Response Centre’s activities. It has among its priorities analysis and forecasting of the military-political situation, while taking into account possible new “hot spots” emerging near the CSTO borders.

Russia is set to boost its joint fighting against terrorism. The practice of holding joint operations to identify and liquidate terrorist groups will continue in the CSTO space, as well as identifying terrorist bases and their financing sources. Included in this is a plan to increase the capabilities of the collective security system forces and means for resolving anti-terror issues and to use the Russian Army’s experience in Syria for training them. Anti-drug cooperation within the CSTO will be stepped up. Work is underway on the five-year CSTO Anti-Drug Strategy (2021-2025) which will contain a list of specific measures to curb drug manufacturing and trade and strengthen the border regime.

Great attention will be devoted to expanding the CSTO’s peacemaking potential. Its legislative foundation will be amended, which will allow CSTO contingents to participate in UN peacekeeping operations.

Strengthening cooperation with all interested international organisations and states is also one of Russia’s priorities. In the context of ensuring security in the Eurasian space, the CSTO aims to enhance contacts with the CIS and SCO with emphasis on countering the terrorist threat. The CSTO will maintain dialogue with the UN and OSCE in areas of mutual interest. During the Russian presidency, new opportunities to establish CSTO’s interaction with third countries are emerging in connection with the introduction of the status of CSTO observer and CSTO partner nation.

A crucial area of activities will be the joint celebration by CSTO member countries of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. The CSTO drafted a joint schedule of anniversary events. President Vladimir Putin has invited all CSTO leaders to take part in the celebration in Moscow on May 9, 2020. Following the decision of all CSTO defence ministries, the member countries’ military units will take part in the Victory Parade on Red Square.



Question: Russian-Belarusian relations. Prospects of cooperation within the Union State.



Answer:

Belarus is our closest ally and partner, and our relations with it, as President Vladimir Putin noted in his speech at the sixth Forum of the Russian and Belarusian Regions held in St Petersburg in July 2019, are built on the principles of neighbourliness, mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.

Last year, December 8 marked the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State. A lot of things have been accomplished over the years, above all to provide equal rights to Russians and Belarusians.

To date, work aimed at deepening the integration of Russia and Belarus is still underway. A Programme to implement the Union State Treaty was drafted and initialed by the Russian and Belarusian prime ministers in September 2019 in Moscow.

Work on industrial “road maps” is underway and is focused on their implementation. There are 31 road maps in total, which embody the trajectory of the further integration of our countries in almost all areas economic life: finance, industry and so on.

Talks between the presidents of Russia and Belarus held on December 7 in Sochi and December 20, 2019, in St Petersburg were dedicated to integration as well. These talks followed consultations between the prime ministers and key ministers of the two countries.

Cooperation between foreign ministries, as is traditional, is developing effectively. Another Programme of Coordinated Actions in Foreign Policy for 2020–2021 was signed at the joint meeting of the Boards of the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministries. It will ensure cooperation on topical issues of the global agenda and promote the initiatives at the UN, OSCE and other multilateral platforms.

Of course, there are areas of dispute in our bilateral relations. Everyone has heard about them. This is natural considering the intensive nature of the Russian-Belarusian trade and economic ties. The main thing is that we have a constructive and professional dialogue, one aimed at achieving mutually beneficial solutions with long-term positive effects on the economies of both countries.



Question: Russia-Georgia relations. Developments around Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Geneva discussions on the South Caucasus.



Answer:

Despite the absence of diplomatic relations, Russia remains Georgia’s second largest foreign trade partner and the main importer of its goods. In the first ten months of 2019, bilateral trade amounted to $11.1 billion.

Regrettably, the process of normalisation in bilateral relations was negatively affected by the provocation of Georgian radicals in June, in response to which we had to temporarily suspend flights between Russia and Georgia. We hope Tbilisi will learn its lesson from this.

A meeting of the Russian and Georgian foreign ministers took place on the sidelines of the 74th UN General Assembly in New York. This was their first meeting in 12 years. The ministers had a frank talk about bilateral issues. However, Tbilisi’s comments on the results of the conversation were somewhat disappointing.

We remain interested in the consistent normalisation of bilateral relations.

We have actively facilitated the development of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as modern democratic states, as well as the expansion of their international ties, socioeconomic progress while promoting their security.

Political dialogue was actively developed at the highest level: Vladimir Putin held working meetings with President of Abkhazia Raul Khadjimba and President of South Ossetia Anatoly Bibilov. Last April Sergey Lavrov conducted talks with Foreign Minister of Abkhazia Daur Kove.

Bilateral inter-governmental commissions on socioeconomic cooperation were involved in effective work. The Russia-South Ossetia commission held its 20th session and the Russia-Abkhazia commission conducted its 18th meeting. The sides expanded the legal and regulatory foundation of their relations, including the implementation of the Russia-Abkhazia interstate agreement on alliance and strategic partnership of November 24, 2014, and the Russia-South Ossetia agreement on alliance and integration of March 18, 2015.

Russia is an active participant in the international Geneva discussions on security and stability in the South Caucasus. Four regular rounds of this unique negotiating format took place last year. This format ensures direct dialogue between Georgia on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the other. It is important to treat it with care. There is no alternative to it for the time being.

The situation near the border between Georgia and South Ossetia was complicated last year. The deployment of a post of Georgian security agencies near the South Ossetian village of Tsnelis became a destabilising factor. The response of Tskhinval was excessive as well. We are urging both sides to show restraint and review disputable issues in a constructive manner in the framework of Geneva discussions and the mechanism of presenting incidents and responding to them. The Tsnelis crisis confirmed the need to start dialogue on delimitation and demarcation of the border between Georgia and South Ossetia. The Russian and South Ossetian delegations continue reminding the other side about this.

We believe NATO’s accelerated activities on Georgian territory are a real threat that can escalate tensions, and the main challenge for regional security in the South Caucasus. We are seeing the buildup of advanced political and military-technical cooperation between NATO and Washington, on the one hand, and Georgia, on the other. We hope the United States and NATO will take our warning seriously and stop pushing Tbilisi toward confrontation with Moscow.



Question: How did Russia-Armenia relations develop in 2019?



Answer:

The past year proved to be fairly intensive and fruitful for Russia-Armenia relations. After a certain pause that was linked with the reform of Armenian government institutions, we continued our traditionally friendly and versatile cooperation.

Political dialogue was intensive. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan had six meetings with President Vladimir Putin and four meetings with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The sides agreed in principle to step up cooperation between the heads of different departments in order to use more fully their available potential.

Exchanges between MPs, regions, public organisations and media were expanded as well as military-technical, scientific, educational and cultural contacts. Russia has remained Armenia’s major foreign trade and investment partner. Six joint working groups were active in the framework of the inter-governmental commission on economic cooperation.

The sides productively coordinated their efforts at different global and regional venues and in common integration associations. We would like to make special mention of Yerevan’s efficient presidency of the Eurasian Economic Council.



Question: How did Russia-Azerbaijan relations develop in 2019?



Answer:

Last year our strategic partnership with Azerbaijan steadily developed in all major areas. Open and trust-based dialogue between President Vladimir Putin and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev largely facilitated the promotion of bilateral cooperation. In 2019б the two leaders met three times: on the sidelines of the One Belt One Road forum in Beijing on April 26, at the Valdai Club on October 3б and on the sidelines of the informal CIS summit in St Petersburg on December 20. First Vice-President of Azerbaijan Mehriban Aliyeva paid a visit to Moscow (November 20-25, 2019). Government and parliamentary contacts made steady headway. Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko paid an official visit to Baku in April.

Russia is one of Azerbaijan’s main trade partners. In January-October 2019 trade amounted to $2.5 billion, which is a 25 percent increase over the relevant period in 2018. Five roadmaps are being successfully implemented. They are aimed at raising our bilateral strategic partnership to a fundamentally new level. Relevant departments started drafting a new additional map on cooperation in innovative development and the digital economy. At present, 950 joint ventures operate in Azerbaijan. Russia’s investment in Azerbaijan reached $4.5 billion, and Azerbaijan’s investment in Russia amounts to $1.5 billion.

By tradition, joint cultural, humanitarian and educational projects are being carried out at a high level. Days of Russia’s Culture in Azerbaijan were held in 2019. Days of Azerbaijan’s Culture will soon be held in Russia.

We are successfully cooperating with Baku in different international venues.



Question: Russia’s efforts on Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.



Answer:

There were no noticeable changes in Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. There is some progress in the adoption of “small steps” for which the foreign ministers set parameters at a meeting in Moscow on April 20 following the agreements reached by the President of Azerbaijan and Prime Minister of Armenia in Vienna in March 2019. The situation on the border and contact line remains relatively calm. There is a hotline between Yerevan and Baku. The exchange of journalists was held. Zaven Karapetyan and Ilvin Ibragimov were released. Talks on other prisoners are underway. The ICRC is involved in them. We believe these facts testify to the intentions of the sides to make specific steps to prepare the population for peace.

However, no progress has yet been made on the substance of this settlement. This issue was discussed during Mr Lavrov’s recent trips to Yerevan and Baku. There is hope that the sides will resume substantive discussion of the issue in the foreseeable future. For our part, we will provide necessary assistance together with our French and American co-chairs of the Minsk Group.



Question: What is the current state and prospects for Russia-Moldova relations? The Transnistria settlement.



Answer:

Significant changes have occurred in Russia-Moldova relations following the peaceful transition of power and the formation of a new ruling coalition. The second half of the year was marked by the unprecedented dynamics of different level contacts between our countries and by important events. The tone was set by our presidents, as before. Vladimir Putin and Igor Dodon met six times in a bilateral format and on the sidelines of multilateral events.

The new Moldovan technocratic government of socialists confirmed in November 2019 outlined its commitment to further boosting diverse Russia-Moldova cooperation. The Moldovan Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow, the first after a long break since 2012, laid favourable foundations for such cooperation. A number of inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary contacts took place as well as talks by foreign ministers.

We note with satisfaction that Chisinau made a turnabout in its position towards practical exploration of observer status at the EAEU and more active involvement in CIS affairs.

Important decisions were taken in trade and economic cooperation following a meeting, after a long recess, of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation and the Second Russian-Moldovan business forum. There are obvious grounds for steady progress in pragmatic Russian-Moldovan interaction in trade, the economy, humanitarian and other areas.

The situation on the Transnistrian settlement track, despite the positive changes of the last several years, remained uneasy. Basically this is due to electoral and post-electoral processes on the right bank of the Dniester, where there have been three governments changes within the past year. Contacts between political representatives of the parties to the conflict in the 1+1 format have vanished. The number, and the quality, which is key, of the meetings between Moldovan and Transnistrian experts have decreased. Some aspects of the dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol have suffered setbacks. As a result, the parties were unable to approve the final protocol at last year’s only official meeting in the 5+2 format in Bratislava on October 8-10, 2019. Subsequent efforts to sign it on the sidelines of the Bavaria Conference on confidence-building measures in the Transnistria conflict also failed.

However, the future of the negotiating process should not be dependent on whether a formal protocol has been signed. Even though the list of steps and their timeframe are impossible to formalise, there is work to be done in the Transistrian settlement. Some outstanding issues remain and they were listed in the draft protocol, which, even though unsigned, remains a baseline of the work to be done for both parties.



Question: Developments around the Korean Peninsula. Russia’s efforts to reduce tensions and implement the Russia-China roadmap.



Answer:

Recently, military activities in the sub-region were substantially reduced owing to the DPRK’s moratorium on nuclear tests and launches of long-range missiles and the renunciation of large-scale military exercises by the United States and the Republic of Korea. The inter-Korean dialogue was resumed, ties between the United States and the DPRK, including top level, began to develop. On the whole, the situation has developed in conformity with the first and second stages of the Russia-China roadmap for the Korean settlement. However, later on the settlement process of the peninsula ground to a halt, largely because the sides were not ready to meet each other halfway in practical terms or to carry out the agreements reached.

Regrettably, last year contacts between Seoul and Pyongyang were reduced to naught because, to the great disappointment of the North, the South did not rush to develop practical cooperation with the North and offered only symbolic measures of inter-Korean rapprochement, such as joint celebrations of memorable dates and other humanitarian steps. This was obviously contrary to the 2018 Panmunjom and Pyongyang Declarations whereby both sides promised, among other things, to develop economic cooperation, and renounce the arms race and militarisation of border areas. Needless to say, in this context Pyongyang failed to understand Seoul’s decisions to retain anti-North Korean restrictions, equip its Air Force with the latest US fighters and other hardware and continue conducting joint exercises with Washington, even if on a limited scale.

The US-North Korean dialogue also had its ups and downs. After making a joint statement in Singapore on June 12, 2018, US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un failed to develop permanent working contacts. In February of the past year they tried to repeat the success of their first summit but without success. Their meeting in Hanoi ended ahead of schedule and with no results. Finally, the two leaders agreed in Panmunjom on June 30, 2019, to establish a permanent working group but its first session in Stockholm on October 5, 2019, did not produce any results.

We think the main reason for such failures is the desire of both Washington and Pyongyang to resolve all of the region’s problems in one go. These problems are indeed closely interrelated and must be resolved as a package. However, it is always necessary to start with one single issue and plan the succession of specific steps in advance. The Russia-China roadmap reads in clear terms that the United States and the DPRK must primarily normalise bilateral relations, and Pyongyang agrees with this in principle. It demands that Washington should take steps aimed at enhancing mutual trust and give up its policy of hostility. Without openly objecting to this, the Americans continue imposing sanctions on North Korea and refuse to make promised concessions unless North Korea starts its unilateral disarmament. Naturally, due to the lack of trust Pyongyang is not ready for this.

Despite these expected difficulties there are no grounds to say that we had no success in the Korean settlement during the past year. One example is how Russia substantially consolidated its cooperation with all the parties involved. We continue working shoulder to shoulder with China in this area. Indicatively, both the DPRK and the Republic of Korea have increasingly often shared our positions on different issues and are vitally interested in deepening dialogue on the sub-region’s issues. Despite all the problems in bilateral relations, even the United States openly declares its intention to continue coordinating efforts with Russia on the Korean issue and admits that it borrows many of our ideas.

During the past year the situation in the sub-region was generally calm and the sides emphasised their commitment to political and diplomatic dialogue. So we have grounds to say that our efforts were not in vain. Obviously, the number of reasons for concern is not decreasing in the new year. I am referring, in part, to recent reports that the DPRK does not see any point in maintaining a moratorium on nuclear tests and long-range missile launches because the United States is simply marking time and is not reducing its pressure on North Korea. Nonetheless, judging by deeds rather than words, the states involved continue displaying reasonable restraint and are not interested in the sharp aggravation of the situation. For our part, we will continue motivating our partners to keep up this spirit and encourage them to take further constructive steps.

Apart from other benefits, permanent work with other countries is helping us understand better their positions and find points of contact with them. It is on this basis that Russia and China have drafted a new document that develops the roadmap, that is, a plan of action on the comprehensive settlement of the problems of the Korean Peninsula. This document formulates principles of further joint work, which are common for all sides, and proposes responses to major military, political, economic and humanitarian challenges. A whole package of measures has been elaborated. Their parallel implementation will allow the sides to move forward together on the basis of a stage-by-stage approach and reciprocity. Let me add that the United States, the DPRK and the Republic of Korea have put into gear a plan of action. In 2019, they set forth their preliminary considerations regarding this plan and Russia and China took them into account in the updated version of the document that was disseminated among their partners in late November.

Finally, we hope that similar regular contacts with the countries involved in the Korean settlement will allow us to launch in the future the third stage of our roadmap. I am referring to the development of a full-scale multisided discussion of all the problems in the sub-region and their resolution, in accordance with the plan of action, because they can be only settled by common efforts and with due respect for each other’s lawful interests and concerns. As we see, attempts to do this by two or even three countries do not produce results.



Question: Cooperation in the SCO. Priorities of Russia's presidency in the organisation.



Answer:

Priority areas of Russia's foreign policy activities in 2019 included promoting and enhancing interaction in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. These efforts received additional momentum and were taken to a new level when Russia took on the responsible mission of the presidency in this alliance last June. It required comprehensive re-evaluation of the work done and a thorough analysis of existing opportunities and accumulated experience in cooperation.

It can be said without exaggeration that today the SCO has actually grown into an influential and efficient inter-state association with a consistently increasing role in global and regional affairs. The organisation is seen as a stable and predictive partner open for mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation, which is acknowledged even by our opponents.

The SCO is firmly committed to those fundamental principles and norms of international law that are enshrined in the UN Charter, and consistently advocates equitable and respectful cooperation with all interested states. It is no coincidence that today the SCO space boasts impressive geographical scope as well as massive political, economic, civilisational and human potential. This has resulted in an ever-growing interest in our organisation, which is evidenced by a substantive list of countries willing to join the SCO in some form or other, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Syria, Israel, and others.

In this context, Russia views consolidating the SCO, as well as boosting foreign policy coordination, primarily in the UN, as a high-priority task of its presidency. The SCO's role was acknowledged at a ministerial-level debate on cooperation between the UN and regional and sub-regional organisations in maintaining peace and security and contribution by the CSTO, CIS and SCO in counterterrorism efforts, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presided over and in New York in September 2019.

Joint efforts by the SCO member states with active involvement of the SCO Secretariat resulted in a third high-level special event held between the UN and the SCO entitled Cooperation to Promote Peace, Security and Stability: Preventing the Linking of Terrorism with Organised Crime and its Financing Through Drug Trafficking, which took place in New York in November. All SCO member states were co-authors of the UN General Assembly's resolution against the glorification of Nazism, which was adopted in December.

For the first time, consultations between foreign ministries were held on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and biosecurity. We appreciate our partners' support of Russia's proposals.

We believe that developing parliamentary work in the SCO would be of particular importance for advancing political dialogue. In this context, Russia's Federal Assembly is considering convocation of a meeting between heads of legislative bodies.

Active and efficient joint work is underway on security issues. The efforts of the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) are producing positive results. Given the obvious link between terrorism, drug trafficking and trans-border organised crime, the Russian side, using RATS as a foundation, is developing a concept for a multifunctional centre to address new challenges and threats, which will be presented to partners for their consideration. In June, the joint exercise of competent bodies of SCO member states Sary-Arka-Antiterror 2019 was held in Kazakhstan; the Spider Web international anti-drug operation took place in July, and the events of the first stage of the joint border operation Solidarity were carried out between June and August. The main stage of the Centre 2019 strategic command-and-staff exercises in the Orenburg Region involved some 120,000 servicemen from all SCO member states.

Economic development remains an enduring priority. In this context, systematic work has to be launched based on the Programme of Multilateral Trade and Economic Cooperation of the SCO Member States, approved by heads of government in Tashkent in November, with a focus on the implementation of projects in food, transport and energy security, as well as innovation, high technology, and development of remote and rural areas in the digital era. We expect that developing direct contacts between the regions of SCO member states will bring practical results. The first SCO Forum of Regional Heads is scheduled for May 2020 in Chelyabinsk.

We deem the alignment of national development strategies and multilateral integration projects, including the development of the EAEU and China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), as well as promoting the initiative of Greater Eurasian Partnership with the aim of creating an expansive space of open, mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation, as extensive and prospective areas of cooperation.

The SCO is distinguished by its shared commitment to boosting links in the cultural and educational sphere. Efforts are being made to strengthen cooperation in healthcare, culture, tourism, education, science, and technology. People-to-people contacts are also being actively promoted, particularly those between young people, as well as inter-civilisational exchanges. One of next year's landmark events is the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the victory over Nazism in WWII. The caring attitude of SCO member states toward the memory of the heroic deeds of all our countries will be enshrined in the leaders' joint statement.

Work as part of Russia's presidency in the SCO is being implemented in accordance with the tasks and goals set by President of Russia and based on a plan that includes over 90 events. Active efforts are being undertaken to execute these tasks, yet there is much to be done.



Question: I would like to ask about the 2019 BRICS results and the key areas of Russia’s chairmanship in the Organisation in 2020.



Answer:

Cooperation in the BRICS format was steadily growing in 2019. The government of Brazil supported its momentum, allowing for progress in the three key areas – the political, economic and people-to-people dimensions. We believe that our Brazilian partners’ work is worthy of high praise.

BRICS has turned into a powerful factor in international relations. Our association is not a closed elite club but rather a living system which reflects the interests of a wide range of developing countries and states with emerging markets. The 11th BRICS Summit in Brasilia on November 13-14 attests to this. Its overarching theme was protecting sovereignty and supporting multilateral approaches to world affairs. BRICS nations stood up against the unacceptable practice of protectionist and unilateral measures bypassing the WTO and UN, and the illegitimate extra-territorial application of national legislation. They called for strengthening the multilateral system, including the UN, WTO and IMF, and confirmed their commitment to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Climate Accord.

A significant practical result of BRICS in the past year was the agreements on enhancing cooperation in trade, investment, science, innovation, healthcare, energy and joint counterterrorism efforts.

Russia assumed BRICS chairmanship on January 1, 2020. Taking the baton from Brazil, we naturally aim to maintain the existing rate of interaction and even to speed it up in some areas. The key goal is to raise the standards of living and the quality of life of the BRICS peoples through deepening strategic partnership. The priorities of our chairmanship were announced by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin during the BRICS Summit in Brasilia.

The motto of Russia’s chairmanship is BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared Security and Innovative Growth.

Among the key issues is the steady consolidation of the BRICS countries’ coordination on international platforms. We intend to deepen counterterrorism cooperation, including drafting the BRICS Anti-Terrorism Strategy. We will pay due attention to fighting money laundering, corruption, transnational crime in general.

Among the priorities of the economic area of our chairmanship is the implementation of the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership and building up the potential of the New Development Bank.

Over 50 projects totalling $15.1 billion have been approved since the New Development Bank was launched. Thus, in December 2019, the Bank decided to issue a loan on renewing the Russian Railways locomotive fleet and establishing advanced engineering schools at 30 Russian universities and colleges. The Bank’s management is striving to reach a project financing level of $8-10 billion per annum in the near future. The Bank has begun lending in national currencies, and the first bonds were issued in the financial markets of China and South Africa. The plans include opening regional branches in Moscow and India. The possibility of increasing the number of the New Development Bank stakeholders is under discussion.

We are determined to increase BRICS countries’ coordination on the G20 agenda. Other priorities are the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, integrating national payment systems, establishing cross-border payment infrastructure, and stepping up cooperation in energy, competition and customs regulations. We plan to work hard together on protecting the environment and responding to emergencies and accidents.

There is an expanded programme within the BRICS people-to-people dimension, in particular, in sports and youth contacts and interparliamentary cooperation. We are set to further develop the BRICS Network University. We will continue the practice of holding the BRICS Games, film festival, and the academic, civic and media forums, as well as meetings between twin cities, young diplomats and young scientists.

The schedule of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship contains about 150 events, including 20 ministerial meetings. The 12th BRICS Summit will be held in St Petersburg in July 2020, and an informal summit will take place on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Riyadh. Meetings of the BRICS Foreign Ministers and the BRICS National Security Advisors are set for June in Moscow. BRICS meetings of various levels will be hosted by about 15 Russian cities.



Question: What are the current state and prospects of cooperation in the RIC format?



Answer:

Last year cooperation between Russia, India and China got a new boost. At the meeting held as part of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires in November 2018, the three countries’ leaders agreed to meet on a regular, annual basis on the sidelines of various international forums. This agreement is already in effect: Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping met in June 2019 during the G20 summit in Osaka.

RIC is not an organisation, structured international forum or a bloc aimed against someone. RIC is a dialogue mechanism based on the member states’ coinciding and close approaches to addressing key current problems. Let’s elaborate: this means recognising the shared responsibility for the way the world develops: towards a balanced multipolar architecture or a universal dictate. First of all, Russia, India and China speak in favour of the unconditional supremacy of international law and universally recognised norms of interstate communication, and all countries’ respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and principles of free trade. They do not accept heavy-handed methods and illegitimate unilateral sanctions as well as any unfair business practices. RIC reaffirmed that such solid common ground exists at the previously mentioned meeting in Osaka.

In addition to contacts at the highest level, the RIC foreign ministers also meet regularly. Last year, such a meeting took place in Wuzhen, China, when the ministers adopted a detailed joint statement with their assessments on a wide range of global and regional problems. This year, Russia, which chairs RIC now, is preparing to host the next meeting of the ministers. We have many things to discuss, considering fairly disturbing trends unfolding in the world.

We would like to note such a significant element of cooperation at RIC as contacts between the three countries’ young diplomats (aged 25–35). Last October, we received young diplomats from India and China, who toured Tver and the Tver Region in addition to Moscow. We believe such ties to be especially important, because they focus on those who will lead national diplomacy in the near future. It is essential that at the very beginning they realise the significant opportunities and high demand for close cooperation between Russia, India and China in order to ensure peace, stability and equal, mutually beneficial cooperation at the global and regional levels.

Business contacts have been established between the financial monitoring services. Exchanges between other agencies, including defence ones, are being discussed. The academic dimension of RIC is also noteworthy: the three countries’ political analysts have been meeting annually for 17 years. We believe that events must not be forced in the development of cooperation within RIC. We will move with the speed and in the areas which equally meet the needs and capabilities of all the participants.



Question: What about strategic stability, including in the context of the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the prospects of extending the New START, and US activities in deploying a global missile defence system. What steps is Russia going to take in this connection?



Answer:

The situation in international security and strategic stability is invariably deteriorating. The main reason is the US’ actions: they are trying to achieve total domination and are promoting the ideas of “peace through strength.” In doing this, they are revising such basic principles as indivisible security, equality, parity, mutual consideration of interests and reliance on binding and verifiable agreements.

The United States is purposefully destroying the system of bilateral control and disarmament regimes in order to get rid of their limitations. We have repeatedly mentioned the Americans’ destruction of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. Since then, they have been building up their global missile defence and deploying anti-missile systems in various regions of the world. The United States claims that they do not recognise any restrictions in this area, although it is evident that their actions continue to have an extremely unfavourable effect on the international and regional strategic balance, security and stability. Washington has also been focusing of late on the formation of a space-based anti-missile group, actually declaring their intention to place strike forces in orbit. This is a very dangerous plan.

On August 2, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the INF Treaty. As a result, it expired. What’s most outrageous is that they justify this by referencing a violation of the treaty allegedly committed by Russia. The United States has not presented any evidence to support their accusations against us because there is no and could not be such evidence. However, under the guise of the blatant anti-Russian propaganda campaign, they got rid of the international treaty that did not suit them. The Pentagon is now publicly saying that they intend to start deploying ground-based short- and intermediate-range missiles as soon as possible and are accelerating the pace of developing such weapons. Their flight tests have already begun.

We have taken measures to maintain stability and leave open the possibility of a dialogue. It was declared at the top level that Russia will not deploy its ground-based short- and intermediate-range missiles in the regions where the US-made weapons will not be. In his September 18 address to the leaders of a number of countries, the President of Russia suggested considering the possibility of imposing a reciprocal moratorium by the United States and other NATO countries. We are ready for a dialogue on all the relevant matters. Meanwhile, we see no interest in this from our Western colleagues.

As for the prospects for the START Treaty, it expires in February 2021. Russia deems it necessary to extend it. This treaty is the last international legal instrument that limits the nuclear missile potential of the two largest nuclear powers on a reciprocal basis. It makes their activities in this area predictable and verifiable. The Russian President made it abundantly clear that we support the extension of this treaty without any preconditions and we suggest that the United States do the same without any artificial delays. The Americans were sent the relevant official proposal but they do not seem to be in any hurry to explain their position. We will continue working with them in this area. There is not too much time for decision making.

In the modern world it is impossible to achieve military supremacy that will make it possible to dictate one’s will to others. Russia is always open to equitable and constructive cooperation with the United States as well as with other countries and international organisations. We will do all we can to restore the dynamics of arms control and fill it with substantive content. We fully realise our responsibility for maintaining and consolidating peace, security and stability and intend to consistently counter destructive trends in international affairs.


Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

Persistent attempts by some Western countries to subordinate the work of multilateral intergovernmental non-proliferation agencies to their geopolitical interests and erode the independent status of their secretariats are a source of concern.

The situation in the OPCW is the most graphic example of this. Using their numerical advantage in this organisation, the United States and its allies are purposefully trying to replace international law with their own “rules.” In the process they are violating the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention and giving the OPCW Technical Secretariat the functions that are the exclusive prerogative of the UN Security Council.

One of the reports by the Fact Finding Mission on Chemical Weapons Use Allegations in Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018, resulted in a scandal. After this incident, the United States, Britain and France dealt a missile strike on Syrian territory. This is why the report was made to order in the anti-Syrian vein. Both Russia and Syria provided the OPCW with information about the fraudulent nature of this incident. International experts share this opinion. Further tangible evidence of bias was provided by a series of publications on the Wikileaks website, which point to the juggling of facts and manipulation with the conclusions of the mission’s members. However, the heads of the OPCW Technical Secretariat are ignoring all these facts and refusing legitimate requests to publish expert evaluations or organise meetings with members of the mission. Such actions lead to the further degradation of this once authoritative organisation and the destruction of its prestige.


Open Skies Treaty

We consider this treaty to be an important confidence building measure for enhancing transparency in the military area. We are aware of its significance and the necessity for it being fully functional. In connection of the information we have on the US’ potential withdrawal from the treaty, we would like to note that Russia will do all it can to maintain it. We rely on the common sense and wisdom of our partners. We deem it necessary to settle existing differences on the treaty’s implementation at talks with due consideration for the concerns of all sides. We are ready for joint practical work with all participants in the treaty.

At the same time, US withdrawal from the treaty will deal a serious blow at the entire system of European security and will compel us to take appropriate steps.



Question: Regarding the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme, what can be done to maintain this agreement? What is our country doing to safeguard the commercial and economic interests in Iran?



Answer:

The decisions taken by Iran on January 5 regarding it being forced to extend the suspension of its voluntary commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on its nuclear programme are the result of the controversies that have piled up under the agreement, so all current member countries need to work hard to resolve them. We see no other effective solution to the issue of salvaging this nuclear deal.

We believe the efforts to maintain these comprehensive agreements and ensure continuous implementation should remain the priority objective for all parties. We are calling on all parties involved to be guided by these considerations and to not give rise to more tensions and uncertainties regarding the prospects for the Iran nuclear deal, which remains a global asset.

We appreciate Iran’s official assurances that the suspension stage they have announced is a concluding one. We expect the IAEA to confirm this.

We attach even greater importance to Tehran’s willingness to promptly return to honouring the requirements of the deal in full as soon as its legitimate concerns regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the Iran nuclear deal by other parties to the deal are lifted. As for this, gaps do exist and they have been discussed many times. Hopefully, the necessary solutions will be found in the long run. Much in this respect hinges on our European partners.

Iran’s statement to the effect that it no longer considers itself bound by any restrictions in the JCPOA should be considered in the context of everything that has been happening around the agreements since the US unilateral pullout in May 2018. Washington’s ensuing massive attack on the Iran nuclear deal and the countries that continue carrying out the agreements approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has become a serious obstacle to the efforts to implement the deal. This is where the original causes of the current crisis around the Iran nuclear deal are rooted. They are well known and clear to all members of the international community, so nobody stands a chance of shifting the blame to Iran.

Tehran’s refusal to observe the restrictions imposed under the JCPOA on the development of their facilities and their technological capability to enrich uranium does not of itself pose any threat, in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran closely cooperates with the IAEA and all its activities are under the agency’s constant monitoring. We note the commitment pledged by Iran to cooperate with the agency and its willingness to maintain cooperation at the previous level, which is unprecedented in terms of the scale and the intensity of inspections.

We emphasise that the temporary suspension applies to the items in the Iran nuclear deal that are not covered by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. Iran agreed to this in 2015 in order to reach a compromise as it proceeded from the balance of interests and the principle of reciprocity built into the deal. It was not Iran’s fault that this balance was upset.

The Russian side remains fully committed to the Iran nuclear deal and the objectives set in it, and we are ready to continue working to achieve them. The challenges that the international community faces as the comprehensive agreements are being carried out require political will and a resolute collective answer, primarily, from the main participants in the Iran nuclear deal. We believe that when these challenges are dealt with the Iranian side will have no reason to digress from the agreed upon requirements. We urge all our partners to not veer from the path designated by the JCPOA and to create conditions that will help resume a sustainable way to implement it.

The development of trade and economic cooperation is one of the priorities in the diversified relations between Russia and Iran. Unfortunately, economic ties are not keeping pace with the high level of the political dialogue, however, there is huge untapped potential in this area. According to preliminary estimates, in 2019, trade between the two countries exceeded the figures for 2018 significantly, reaching over $2 billion.

We worked hard to develop measures that would minimise the impact of the US sanctions on our trade and economic cooperation with Iran. In this context, we worked to use national currencies in trade on a larger scale. In particular, in 2019, the Russian rouble accounted for over 40 percent of all currency payments for goods and services made under transactions between Russia and Iran.

The work to carry out major joint projects facilitated by a Russian government loan continued, including the construction of the Sirik Thermal Power Plant and the project to electrify the Garmsar - Ince Burun railway line.

Ministers of Energy Alexander Novak and Reza Ardakanian, who are co-chairs of the Permanent Russian-Iranian Intergovernmental Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, cooperated effectively. The latest meeting of the commission took place in Tehran and Isfahan on June 16-18, 2019. The ministers coordinated specific plans and projects to help promote bilateral business relations.

A Temporary Agreement for creating a free trade zone between Iran and the EAEU, which went into effect on October 27, 2019, is to provide additional impetus to trade. We have paved the way for developing a valid agreement on creating a free trade zone. We expect the work of the experts from all sides to be well coordinated.



Question: In 2019, Russia and China celebrated the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations whereas during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia the leaders announced that bilateral relations had entered a new era. What are the reasons for the success of this cooperation?



Answer:

In 2019, the year of the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations, Russia and China continued to successfully develop comprehensive partnership relations declaring that they had entered a new era. Russian-Chinese strategic interaction has taken on strong and consistent momentum in terms of development, and today it can be described as the best it has ever been.

Our cooperation is rooted in the generally accepted norms of international law; it is devoid of ideological blinders and is not directed against any third party. We do not impose our approaches and values on each other, nor do we interfere in internal affairs. Our partnership with China is determined by the underlying interests of our peoples and that is why they are self-sufficient and not prone to external opportunism.

We have managed to phase out the sensitive issues of our common past and have left them to the discretion of historians. The borderline issue has been completely settled. Today, Russian-Chinese dialogue is a mutually respectful and trust-filled communication between two equal entities. This makes it possible to not only maintain positive achievements but also to expand cooperation and solve the most complicated issues that inevitably arise with such a large number of contacts. In a sense, it is a new type of interstate relations marked by flexibility and stability with a creative and long-term nature.

A broad and long-term bilateral contractual legal framework is based on the Treaty of Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation of July 16, 2001. A multi-level architecture of interaction was established with a top level dialogue as a key component. Thus, the leaders of the two countries met several times in 2019 including during the Second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in April, Xi Jinping’s state visit to Russia in June, and the BRICS summit in Brasilia in November. The ultimate level of mutual trust between our leaders certainly influences all other levels of bilateral contacts.

The mechanism of regular meetings between prime ministers plays a coordinating role in expanding cooperation in trade, the economy and in the humanitarian area. Five intergovernmental commissions headed by deputy prime ministers as well as several dozen subcommissions and task groups successfully operate within this framework. Most major ministries and agencies have established direct communication.

This institutionalised dialogue in practical areas produces a solid practical result. China is our largest trade partner. In 2019, bilateral trade reached yet another record, exceeding $100 billion. The first trans-border Russian-Chinese gas pipeline has been launched. Investment interaction, cooperation in hi-tech areas and agricultural trade are expanding.

Regular meetings between parliament speakers, the Russian President’s Executive Office and the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, annual consultations of high representatives for strategic security and public security, justice and law enforcement are also important elements of the system of multilevel relations.

Ties are also growing at the local administration level. These ties saw a significant boost with the successful 2018-2019 Cross Years of Russian-Chinese inter-regional cooperation. Another important, large bilateral project starts in 2020-2021: the Cross Years of scientific and technical and innovation cooperation. Strong exchanges are underway in the cultural and humanitarian areas and in public affairs.

We enjoy a united front with the PRC, which makes it possible for us to effectively defend our common interests, increase the authority of the multilateral associations we are part of, and positively impact challenges both globally and regionally, which includes substantial contributions to facilitating peace processes in “hot spots.”

Sergey Lavrov and his counterpart State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi maintain constant contact; last year they met six times and have regular telephone conversations.



Question: Russian-Indian relations in 2019.



Answer:

We prioritise our relations with India. They are self-contained, do not depend on the internal or international political situation and meet the core national interests of both countries.

The Russian-Indian political dialogue was very intensive last year. We interact within the United Nations, BRICS, RIC, the SCO, and the G-20. We successfully coordinate our approaches on the current international agenda, including a settlement in Afghanistan, stability in the Middle East and North Africa and the building of a new security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region.

We highly appreciate the results of the annual Russian-Indian summit in Vladivostok held on September 4, 2019. The talks between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have confirmed the maturity of our countries’ special and privileged strategic partnership and the continuity of our course toward stronger bilateral relations. We have signed important documents expanding the legal framework for cooperation in a variety of areas and adopted the joint declaration, “Reaching New Heights of Cooperation through Trust and Partnership.”

Our leaders repeatedly coordinated their positions at many multilateral fora: the SCO Heads of State Council in Bishkek (June 13), the G-20 meeting in Osaka (June 29) and at the BRICS summit in Brasília (November 13).

Our Security Councils, foreign ministries, as well as defence and economic agencies have held productive meetings.

The co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission for Trade, Economic, Scientific and Cultural Cooperation as well as the Intergovernmental Commission on Military Technical Cooperation held meetings.

Our bilateral trade is stable and maintained at a high level. Hydrocarbon supplies from Russia to India are increasing. We have signed a comprehensive Action Strategy for advancing bilateral trade, economic and investment cooperation. We are drafting an updated intergovernmental agreement on the encouragement and mutual protection of capital investment. Consultations on the removal of trade barriers and the increased use of national currencies in our transactions are held regularly. We have succeeded in organising joint events on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Forum and the Eastern Economic Forum. The Russian-Indian strategic economic dialogue is ongoing. Interregional exchanges are also actively maintained.

Our interaction in energy, primarily in the “atoms for peace” area, is advancing as planned. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant project is on schedule. The trilateral interaction involving Dacca in the construction of a nuclear power plant at Rooppur (Bangladesh) is being stepped up efficiently.

Our cooperation in the military and military-technical areas is growing stronger. We have signed intergovernmental contracts on AK-203 assault rifle production in India, as well as on the manufacture of parts for Russian (Soviet) weapons and military equipment. Major contracts for S-400 Triumph air defence missile systems with New Delhi and the building of Project 11356 frigates for the Indian Navy are being carried out. In December, we conducted the Indramulti-service military exercise.

Much progress is observed in the joint development of the Indian manned space flight programme and the reciprocal deployment of GLONASS and NavIC tracking stations catering to the national satellite systems.

Contacts in science, education and culture are expanding. An intergovernmental agreement was signed on joint audiovisual production. We also continue consultations on some draft intergovernmental agreements to promote reciprocal recognition of academic and scientific degrees in the general and the medical professions. A festival of Indian culture took place in Russia in September through December, 2019. Tourist numbers in both directions are also increasing.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3995958
__________________
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 22nd, 2020 #66
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry’s answers to media questions for a news conference on Russia’s diplomatic performance in 2019 - PART II



17 January 2020 - 12:54




Question: Russian-Japanese relations in 2019. Prospects for signing the peace treaty.



Answer:

The positive dynamics in our relations with Japan was maintained in 2019. The pace and direction were set by bilateral summit meetings in Moscow in January, on the sidelines of the G-20 meeting in Osaka in June, and at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September.

We maintained effective contacts between the heads of the security councils, between the foreign ministers, in the “two plus two” format involving the heads of the foreign ministries and ministries of defence, within the framework of the strategic dialogue at the level of deputy foreign ministers , within the dialogue on strategic stability and other consultations between our foreign ministries.

Ties between our defence and law enforcement agencies have expanded. The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy visited Japan for the first time in 18 years in November 2019. At the end of November, we held consultations on the implementation of the 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas beyond the Territorial Waters. The anticorruption agencies have begun practical interaction.

Interparliamentary and interparty exchanges also made progress. A delegation of the Federation Council headed by Deputy Chair Iliyas Umakhanov attended the Japanese Emperor’s enthronement ceremony in Tokyo in October. A number of meetings at the Federation Council and Japanese Parliament leadership level as well as meetings under current consultation mechanisms and coordination groups were held in September-November.

The Russian and Japanese Council of Governors resumed deliberations after a nine-year break (Moscow, May).

Special attention was given to building up trade and economic cooperation. Work was underway on Russian priority projects and the Japanese Eight-Point Cooperation Plan using the current mechanisms of political dialogue. Meaningful achievements in the last year included major Japanese corporations working in the Arctic LNG-2 project, arrangements on the construction of a methanol plant in Volgograd, agreements for establishing a Russian-Japanese Center for Preventive Medicine and Diagnostics in Khabarovsk, and Russia’s first center for the treatment of cancer with heavy carbon ions in Obninsk.

Meanwhile the issue of mutual trade recovery growth continues: in 2019 a downward trend in mutual trade was recorded again: the decrease was 2.3 percent in January-October against the same period in 2018; it totaled $17.16 billion.

We expect that the results of the 15th meeting of the Russian-Japanese Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Affairs (Moscow, December) will contribute to promoting the comprehensive development of ties, a task set by the leaders of both countries, and will bring a new quality.

Humanitarian exchanges also increased. 2019 marked the conclusion of unprecedented projects like the Cross-Year of Russia and Japan, which comprised about 700 events by both parties in a broad range of areas, including the economy, culture, science, education and exchanges between defence agencies. Russian-Japanese cross-years will be continued: 2020-2021 have been declared the years of interregional and twin-city exchanges.

Pursuant to the summit understanding on expediting talks on the peace treaty based on the Joint Declaration of 1956 (Singapore, November 2018) we had three rounds of dialogue at the foreign ministerial level (Moscow, January 14 and May 10; Munich, February 16) and relevant talks between deputy foreign ministers (Moscow, March 21).

The talks showed that substantial differences in the parties’ positions persisted. Given this, we see no alternative to a lasting and detailed effort to bring Russian-Japanese relations to a new level that will allow engaging in an efficient search for mutually acceptable solutions to sensitive bilateral issues.

Russia’s position of principle on the problem of the peace treaty is consistent and invariable: its resolution must be based on Tokyo’s recognition of the outcome of WWII in full, including the indisputable sovereignty of the Russian Federation over the South Kuril Islands. At the same time, it is necessary to develop practical cooperation in an all-round manner, work out measures of confidence building in the military-political area and bring our positions in international affairs closer together.

To this end, a special emphasis was made on launching joint economic activities involving Japan, on the Kuril Islands in the five areas approved by our leaders – aquaculture, greenhouse facilities, wind-power engineering, tourism and waste treatment. A number of pilot programmes were carried out, including a test tour of Japanese citizens to the Iturup and Kunashir islands. We deem it important to continue the search for mutually beneficial plans of cooperation, which will meet the commercial interests of the companies involved, the goals of socio-economic development of both countries’ neighboring regions and finally make a real contribution to stronger trust and neighborly relations between the Russian and Japanese peoples.



Question: Developments in Afghanistan. What Russia has done to promote the national reconciliation process.



Answer:

Conditions in Afghanistan remain difficult: the active operations of ISIS, an international terrorist group, have further aggravated the serious military and political situation in recent years.

We believe that there is no alternative to settling the Afghan conflict through political and diplomatic means. In order to do this, it is necessary to recognise the Taliban as an essential part of the Afghan nation. We firmly believe that international efforts must contribute to an immediate and successful conclusion of the US-Taliban talks aimed at ensuring the gradual withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, as well as the launch of inclusive intra-Afghan peace talks.

In order to fulfil these tasks, Russia is taking steps to promote the Afghan national reconciliation on the regional platform: as part of the Moscow consultations format, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the SCO–Afghanistan Contact Group. A regular meeting of this group took place in Bishkek on April 19, 2019, and the Contact Group Roadmap was signed at the SCO Heads of State Council Meeting on June 13–14, 2019, in Bishkek. Last year, we also helped launch the meetings with broad representation as part of the intra-Afghan dialogue, the first round of which was held in Moscow and the second in Doha. The third meeting is scheduled to take place in Beijing this year.

The experience of cooperation on these platforms has shown that it would be beneficial to organise consultations in a more restricted format involving Russia, the United States and China at the first stage, with Pakistan joining later. We believe this group’s task is to create favourable international conditions for the launch of direct intra-Afghan talks on peace and the post-conflict political system in Afghanistan.



Question: Russia-Turkey relations. Implementation of major investment projects with Russia’s participation (TurkStream and Akkuyu NPP). Interaction between Moscow and Ankara on important regional matters (Syria and Libya).



Answer:

We are satisfied with the across-the-board progressive development of Russia-Turkey cooperation, each area of which is marked by significant and, in some areas, groundbreaking achievements. We consider this to be a legitimate result of hard, but invariably effective cooperation with Turkey. Both our countries are really interested in building up bilateral relations based on each other's interests and mutual respect.

The scale of interaction and the complexity of the problems requiring our most active involvement dictated the need for an intensive dialogue focused on reaching practical agreements at all levels.

President Putin met with President Erdogan eight times over the past year, with the Turkish leader making five visits to Russia, where he participated in the High-Level Cooperation Council. The TurkStream gas pipeline was officially launched in Istanbul with the participation of the respective heads of states on January 8.

Further convergence of the two countries’ positions on pressing issues of international and regional agenda, primarily the Syria and Libya conflicts and the situation around Iran, is among important results of the year in Russia’s relations with Turkey. This was reflected in the Joint Statement adopted following the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan on January 8. As you may recall, the document expressed mutual concern about the recent events in the Middle East. Both Russia and Turkey operate on the premise that there is no alternative to political and diplomatic ways of resolving contradictions in the region, rejecting reliance on force and escalation of violence and establishing a substantive dialogue between the opposing sides.

We maintained a close inter-ministerial dialogue. The 7th meeting of the Russian-Turkish Joint Strategic Planning Group co-chaired by the foreign ministers was held in Antalya on March 29, 2019. There were at least 10 rounds of specialist consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers and directors of departments of the Russian and Turkish foreign ministries.

Defence ministries, general staffs and security services maintained regular contacts.

The interaction between the parliaments has noticeably intensified. Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko paid an official visit to Turkey on May 15-17, 2019. Speaker of the Grand National Assembly Mustafa Sentop visited Russia on July 1-3, 2019, with an official return visit to participate in the Development of Parliamentarism International Forum. On October 11-12, 2019, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin took part in the Third Conference on Countering Terrorism and Strengthening Interregional Cooperation in Istanbul. Bilateral meetings also took place on the sidelines of the Fourth Conference of the Speakers of Eurasian Countries’ Parliaments in Nur-Sultan on September 23, 2019, and as part of the 141st Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Belgrade.

Progress in Russia-Turkey cooperation is largely due to continually expanding trade and economic ties. In this regard, Turkey is one of our key partners. For example, mutual trade increased by 2.5% in January-October 2019 to a total of $21.7 billion.

On a separate note, we note the successful implementation of strategic projects that go far beyond bilateral ties in terms of their importance. The TurkStream gas pipeline is extremely important for strengthening European energy security. Two pipelines with a total throughput of about 31.5 billion cubic metres of gas per year will be used to supply Turkish and European consumers with the Russian natural gas.

Another major joint project, the Akkuyu NPP, is under construction as planned. It will bring our cooperation with Ankara to the strategic level in the most advanced energy spheres and at the same time showcase the quality and reliability of advanced Russian nuclear technologies internationally. Our goal remains unchanged. It is to ensure the launch of the first power unit in 2023, the year of the 100th anniversary of the Republic of Turkey.

We expect to see a new record number of Russian tourists who visited Turkey in 2019. However, we will continue to pay special attention to the safety of our fellow citizens during holidays and ensuring their interests and rights, which is a vital priority for us.

The cross Culture and Tourism Year, which recently ended in Istanbul, was very rich in events.

Cooperation between the foreign affairs and defence ministries of Russia and Turkey as part of multilateral efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis was high on the list of the Russian diplomacy’s priorities.

Particular focus was on joint steps with our Turkish and Iranian partners in the Astana format to overcome the crisis in Syria in the interest of giving another impetus to the political process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We believe that the assistance provided by Russia, Turkey and Iran to Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Geir Pedersen played a significant role in launching the Constitutional Committee in Geneva.

We maintain contacts with Ankara in order to closely monitor the challenging situation in various Syrian regions and quickly take practical measures to normalise the situation on the ground in accordance with the agreements included in the Russian-Turkish Memorandum on normalising the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone of September 17, 2018, and the Memorandum of Understanding of October 22, 2019. Efforts are being made, primarily by the military of the two countries, to ensure the functioning of the demilitarised zone in Idlib and to prevent shelling by terrorists of the positions of the Syrian government forces and Russian military facilities and joint patrolling in northeast Syria.

The situation in Libya is a cause for concern for Ankara and us alike. As already mentioned, this issue was discussed during a number of bilateral contacts at the high and top levels, including the visit by President Putin to Turkey on January 8. We appreciate the fact that our Turkish partners remain supportive of a peaceful resolution of the Libyan conflict, primarily, in the context of preparations for a multilateral forum on Libya under the UN auspices. We reaffirm our readiness for further exchange of views with Turkey and coordination of our countries’ efforts in the interest of advancing the political process and de-escalating tensions in that country.



Question: I would like to ask about the development of Russia’s relations with Latin American countries and Latin American integration associations in 2019, as well as the prospects for resolving the situation around Venezuela.



Answer:

At times the 2019 developments in Latin America brought to mind the forgotten flaming continent concept.

It goes without saying that domestic political processes unfolding in a number of Latin American countries had their own causes and dynamics. At the same time, against the backdrop of the complicated regional situation, the United States is trying more actively to reformat the region in line with its geopolitical interests and the “controlled chaos” theory. Efforts to change undesirable regimes or send vacillating regimes in the “right” direction, to disunite regional integration processes and to impose rigid neo-liberal concepts became integral parts of this policy. The “de-mothballed” Monroe Doctrine served as its ideological foundation.

It appears that the United States did not expect what happened next, as its plans started bogging down. The region turned out to be more complicated and more diverse than Washington’s simplistic calculations. Despite tough and stifling sanctions and “colour revolution” methods, the United States failed to execute its blitzkrieg against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

Amid the regional turbulence, tangible demand continues to grow for Russia’s more significant role in Latin American affairs, and this is hardly surprising. We do not view the region through the prism of geopolitical interests, and we don’t want it to turn into an arena of confrontation with anyone.

We perceive the Latin American continent and the Caribbean basin as an important element of the emerging multipolar international order. Therefore, we are interested in strong, politically united and economically stable regional countries in their entirety and in unity in diversity. The Russian approach towards collaboration with the Latin Americans is logical: we do not pit anyone against anyone, we don’t create demarcation lines or artificial barriers, we don’t divide partners into those who are with us and against us, and we strive to strengthen cooperation of a de-ideologised pragmatic basis with mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.

This constructive philosophy made it possible to expand fruitful cooperation with Latin American states in various formats and in numerous areas.

We actively expanded political dialogue at various levels, both with leftist and rightist-centrist countries. We have never had any prejudices or made any exceptions.

We would like to once again thank Brazil for its productive presidency of BRICS, and to congratulate Argentina’s Rafael Grossi on his appointment as IAEA Director General.

We are ready to expand contacts with existing continental integration organisations, and we perceive such cooperation as something mutually beneficial and de-ideologised. Improving ties between the Eurasian Economic Union and the Pacific Alliance states are a case in point. We are ready to resume dialogue with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC); in this context, we are counting on the leading positions of Mexico’s presidency of the Community in 2020, as well as the efforts to impart specific forms to Russia’s collaboration with the Central American Integration System after this country receives observer status with the association. On the contrary, we cannot accept ideologised approaches that exceed the framework of correct communications of the incumbent leaders of the Organisation of American States (OAS), who have become a tool for interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign countries.

It is important that we voice similar views on the need to strengthen multilateral foundations in global affairs, the UN central coordinating role and norms and principles of international law in our contacts with all Latin Americans, regardless of their governments’ political orientation. This allows us to voice agreed-upon positions on many key problems of the modern world. We are confident that this will make it possible to expand spheres of mutual understanding on matters where our views may differ.

The situation in Venezuela became a problem that, without exaggeration, split Latin America and the Caribbean basin last year. We are convinced that, with the exception of a small number of countries, albeit influential, that continue to claim that all options are on the table, most states agree that it is possible to resolve the situation only by relying on national legislation and norms of international law. They advocate a search for agreements by the people of Venezuela themselves through all-inclusive national dialogue and without any unconstructive foreign interference. They reject any possible scenarios involving the use of force, not to mention military force.

Naturally, the shared perception that the sanctions introduced by the United States are illegal and increasingly inhuman, that they are not in the interests of the people in Venezuela, and that they aggravate the already complicated regional economic situation is becoming more widespread.

According to opinion polls, the people of Venezuela are tired of confrontation; they want politicians to address everyday national problems, rather than fight each other. We believe that the situation in Venezuela is showing signs of tentative improvement, and this instils the cautious hope that the concerned parties will move towards a political settlement. The Roundtable of National Dialogue has launched its work, and it is gradually becoming a platform for coordinating the complicated positions of domestic political forces. Naturally, it is important that it represents as many parties as possible. The rotation of the leaders of parliament, whose members oppose Nicolas Maduro, creates an opportunity for scaling down confrontation.

Russia will continue to facilitate efforts to resolve the crisis by political and non-violent methods, including through dialogue with the Latin Americans, the European Union, the People’s Republic of China and other partners.



Question: What are the results of the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi? What are the prospects of cooperation between Russia and African countries?



Answer:

2019 became an unprecedented year in the history of Russian-African relations. On October 23–24, the first Russia-Africa Summit was held in Sochi co-chaired by presidents Vladimir Putin and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. It was attended by delegations from all 54 African states recognised by the UN (most of them were represented by top officials) as well as heads of the executive bodies of the African Union and other leading regional organisations and integration associations in Africa, including the African Export-Import Bank.

Following the summit, a declaration was adopted establishing a completely new dialogue mechanism: the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum, which should make Russian-African cooperation system-wide and comprehensive. Meetings at the highest level held every three years will act as a managing body of the Forum. Between the summits, practical issues will be addressed at the annual political consultations between foreign ministers of Russia and the African countries that are the current, previous and future chairs of the African Union.

A large economic forum was held together with the summit, with over 6,000 representatives of business circles, official delegations and Russian government agencies participating in it. An important package of commercial documents, including over 50 contracts worth about one trillion rubles was signed on the sidelines of the forum.

Cooperation with African countries is developing in all areas. The political dialogue has become more intense, inter-parliamentary contacts are strengthening and the legal base is being updated. The most important areas of cooperation include combatting terrorism, extremism, cross-border crime and drug trafficking, as well as developing military-technical and military ties. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia makes a significant contribution to adopting practical measures to define the status and mandates of peacekeeping operations based on the African solutions to African problems principle.

In the economy, the main task is to double trade with the continent in the next several years. Russian economic agents are successfully operating in Africa in such areas as the oil and gas industry, geological exploration, extraction of raw materials, agriculture, fishery and high technologies. In particular, ALROSA is participating in Catoca, a large diamond-mining project in Angola; RUSAL is implementing bauxite-alumina projects in Guinea; and Vi Holding, Rostec and the Russian Export Centre are taking part in the exploration of the Darwendale platinum deposit in Zimbabwe. The creation of a Russian industrial zone in Egypt, where Russian companies localise assembly capacities to later supply their products to African markets, can serve as an example of effective industrial cooperation. The peaceful atom is another prospective area. Bilateral cooperation agreements have been signed with a number of countries, including Rwanda, Ethiopia, the Republic of the Congo and Zambia. Practical work with Egypt is already underway.

There is tangible progress in cooperation with integration associations. The memorandum on the basis of relations and cooperation between the Russian Government and the African Union and the memorandum of economic cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the African Union were signed on the sidelines of the summit in Sochi.

We will continue to promote the human resource potential in African countries. In 2018, over 2,000 African students were admitted to Russian universities with government scholarships. In total, over 17,000 Africans are studying in Russia on contractual basis.



Question: What do you think about Russia-NATO relations in the context of the anti-Russian activity of the Alliance?



Answer:

Our relations with NATO have seen various stages and have had their ups and downs. There were crises related to the bombings of Yugoslavia in 1999 and the events in Georgia in 2008. But those times cannot be compared to what is happening now. For instance, after Mikheil Saakashvili’s military venture in 2008, we did not stop our practical cooperation but the political dialogue did somewhat slow down for a short time at the initiative of the Alliance. In September 2008, the NATO leadership said that the Western countries cannot afford the “luxury” of abandoning cooperation with Russia in counteracting the common security threats, first of all, terrorism. So, they understood the situation well at that time.

We tried to put our interaction with NATO on the partnership track. At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, we agreed to move towards an equal strategic partnership. We also implemented mutually beneficial practical projects.

Our current relations with the Alliance have declined to the lowest point since the end of the Cold War. At last year’s NATO summit in London, Russia was named the first among the threats to Euro-Atlantic security.

These are not just empty words. NATO countries have been consistently building up their military presence near our borders and have been working on improving the redeployment of forces to the ‘Eastern flank.’ Their military exercises are becoming more intensive, while their scenarios look like large-scale preparations for a major military conflict. We are also witnessing a systematic development of the European segment of the US/NATO missile defence system.

The activity of the alliance is moving to new operation environments. In addition to land, water and air, NATO has established a foothold in cyberspace and in outer space. There are suggestions that the Alliance should participate in Middle Eastern affairs more actively, and to react to the challenges posed by China to the West.

As for Russia, the Alliance has officially announced that it will adhere to the so-called double-track approach, which means a combination of containment and dialogue. At the same time, the dialogue prospects are contingent on “positive changes” in our behaviour. This was again voiced in London. Restrictive measures against the Russian permanent mission to NATO in Brussels keep hampering the work of our diplomats.

The situation is taking a dangerous turn. We have repeatedly offered the Alliance the opportunity to take reciprocal steps in order to relieve military tensions. The first steps can be small: for instance, we could agree on the sites of military exercises and how to avoid dangerous incidents. However, we have not received any response to our initiatives. The dialogue between military experts has been frozen. The existing contacts between Russia and NATO’s supreme military leaders – Russia’s Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Tod D. Wolters and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Stuart Peach – are good but it would be impossible to ease tensions without a concrete conversation between experts.

The Alliance still cannot overcome its Cold War mentality. Russia is a convenient enemy for them. At the same time we can see that many NATO member states are beginning to realise how damaging this strategy is. We hope that an attempt will be made to reconsider the relations with Russia as part of the analytical process on the future of the Alliance launched at the London summit.

On our part, we remain open to dialogue in case NATO shows an explicit readiness for building a constructive mutual understanding with our country.



Question: Could you speak about Russia-EU relations, including energy cooperation, and the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project under US pressure?



Answer:

Our relations with the EU are going through hard times. This is the choice of the EU, which is trying to suspend large-scale mutually beneficial cooperation – from summits to sectoral dialogue – against the backdrop of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis. This decision together with the attempts to present our common neighbours with the artificial choice of being “either with Russia or the EU” led to serious destabilisation of the situation and the deepening of the “dividing lines” in Europe.

The prospect of linking the development of EU-Russia relations with the settlement of the situation in Donbass is equally myopic. The entire package of versatile Russia-EU cooperation has become a hostage of the Kiev authorities.

I hope that the EU will be able to look pragmatically at relations with its biggest neighbour and will move away from the counterproductive policy of “deterring” Russia. Russia and the EU have many more aspects that unite us rather than separate us. As the recent US illegal actions on Iraqi territory have shown, it is in the interests of Russia and the EU to stand together against the destabilisation in the region that is important for both of us. It is fraught with many trans-border threats and challenges, including terrorism, illegal migration, organised crime and drug trafficking.

We see that the EU is gradually coming to realise the need to improve the situation. Cooperation with the majority of the EU member states is making headway. The first contacts with the new EU leaders that started working in early December 2019 took place. We believe that the beginning of a new institutional cycle in the EU provides an opportunity for a new start in our relations.

We continue to be important trade and investment partners for each other. Let me recall that in the best years our trade with the EU amounted to $417 billion. Had it not been for Brussels’ sanctions games, our trade with the EU could have reached half a trillion dollars, which would allow it to be in its best shape amid increasing global competition. Even despite a substantial reduction, the EU countries account for about 42 percent of trade with Russia. In turn, Russia is the EU’s fourth largest trade partner.

Naturally, energy certainly remains an area where Russia and the EU have developed successful and mutually beneficial cooperation for over half a century. Let me recall that in 2018 Gazprom supplied Europe with a record 201.8 billion cubic metres of gas. The figures for 2019 are expected to be at about the same level. In addition, a steady growth of LNG supplies from Russia was recorded last year.

The launch of the TurkStream gas pipeline on January 8 of this year was the latest example of Russia’s real contribution to ensuring the energy security of the EU member countries. According to the available information, the first gas on this route has already reached not only Turkey but also Bulgaria and Greece.

Despite all difficulties, infrastructure projects with Russia’s participation, including the Nord Stream 2, are being implemented. We know that far from all EU countries welcome this project. There are opponents of it both among the EU countries and the EU institutions. It is common knowledge how the EU adopted amendments to the so-called “gas directive.” Regardless of any attempt to convince us of the contrary, they were exclusively aimed against this project.

Washington’s activities to destroy this initiative deserve special mention. It has included provisions on sanctions into its law on defence spending in 2020, which amounts to undisguised interference in European affairs. A number of American senators are making direct threats to specific contractors that are involved in the Nord Stream 2 project. Obviously, they are not concerned about European energy security but are trying to push expensive US LNG to the European market. This is a flagrant example of dishonest competition under the cover of political slogans.

The Nord Stream 2 project will be completed despite the continued pressure. Realistically minded Europeans must see the obvious benefit from the construction of an additional export gas route. However, there are countries that are ready to work for their overseas partners against the interests of their own compatriots.

So, it is clear who really contributes to enhancing EU energy security.



Question: US-Russian relations in the context of the Russophobia unleashed in Washington. What is the Foreign Ministry doing to rescue the illegally abducted Russians serving prison sentences in the US?



Answer:

In 2019, the situation remained difficult in the dialogue with Washington. On the one hand, the US President continued to speak regularly of the need to normalise relations and establish constructive cooperation with Russia. Donald Trump reaffirmed that attitude during a very substantive meeting he had with Vladimir Putin in Osaka on June 28.

Over the past year, Sergey Lavrov’s contacts with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been quite intense, and they also talked about ways to stabilise bilateral relations. They have exchanged major visits – the head of American diplomacy visited Sochi on May 14, and on December 10, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the invitation of Mike Pompeo, visited Washington, where he also met with Donald Trump. Professional meetings have taken place at other levels, including as part of the counter-terrorism dialogue, which resumed in December 2018, covering strategic stability issues and the regional agenda.

Nevertheless, we cannot cite any significant improvement in the atmosphere and quality of the relationship. Despite all the US authorities’ statements of interest in mutually beneficial cooperation, in practice, they have acted inconsistently, delayed the implementation of our proposals to restore dialogue, and, under pressure from their domestic opponents, launched new unfriendly policies against Russia. The general US aggressiveness in global affairs also persisted, as well as their tendency to dictate to others, and their reluctance to come to terms with the realities of the emerging multipolar world has not changed.

Washington steadily intensified its pressure with its anti-Russia sanctions, and they did not even try to hide that they were using that policy as an instrument of unfair economic competition. Obviously, the policy of artificial restrictions and prohibitions in the context of today’s global economy has its limits, and ultimately, it will inevitably hit the interests of the United States proper. This much is clear from Washington’s recent moves against Nord Stream 2, which looked to come from frustration more than anything else, and which failed to block the energy project that is beneficial for both Russia and Europe.

The collapse of the INF Treaty, finally terminated on August 2, provoked by the Americans, was a crushing blow to the entire architecture of international security. We called on the United States to take a cue from Russia and commit to refrain from being the first to deploy medium- and shorter-range ground-based missiles, which they already began testing, but got a straightforward decline in response.

Washington continues to maintain uncertainty about the future of the START Treaty, which expires on February 5, 2021, even though the Russian side has proposed extending it as soon as possible without any preconditions. We will certainly take all the necessary steps to ensure our own security, as we did after the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. However, we would like the Americans to bear in mind the inevitable negative consequences of their steps, including the escalation of the arms race and tension in the world.

We understand that the difficulties in our bilateral relations are largely fueled by what is happening in the United States, which is also going through a difficult stage of internal development. There are political forces there that keep playing the Russian card in their inter-party campaigning even after the Special Counsel investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller, completed last spring, confirmed that any 2016 election conspiracy allegations involving Russia were groundless. As the next US presidential election approaches on November 3, new bursts of Russophobia should not be ruled out.

We certainly take this factor into account when assessing the prospects for dialogue in 2020. For our part, we will continue to be guided by a pragmatic approach, including responses to aggressive attacks. At the same time, Russia has no interest in generating any new conflicts. We are open to a joint search for solutions to problems that are important to both our countries and the whole world – if only we would see a genuine willingness to do business honestly and maintain a balance of interests on the American side.

Russian initiatives to build up cooperation in various areas remain on the table. Many of them can be implemented in the near future – for example, launching, as the presidents agreed, the Business Advisory and Expert Councils, exchanging letters of guarantee of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and taking steps to strengthen strategic stability. But we will judge our American colleagues’ interest in cooperation by their actions, not their words.

We have proposed, for some time, addressing head-on the problems in our bilateral relations. One of the most serious problems concerns the arrests and even abduction of Russians in third countries that you mentioned. The US authorities are actually hunting for Russians. They are deliberately ignoring the bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty but simply prefer to arrest our citizens abroad. This goes as far as straightforward abductions, as was the case in 2010 with Konstantin Yaroshenko in Liberia and Roman Selezneyov in the Maldives in 2014. Viktor Bout, who was detained in Thailand and sentenced to 25 years after refusing to admit arms trafficking allegations, has served 12 years in prison.

With Russophobia in full swing in the United States, their law enforcement agencies’ and special services’ actions against Russians have long been politically motivated. Once arrested, our citizens suffer from a biased attitude, and experience psychological, and sometimes physical pressure. Confessions are knocked out of them, and they are often forced to cooperate. If they deny their guilt, they are sentenced to extraordinary prison terms.

Everyone remembers what happened to Maria Butina, who was arrested in Washington in the summer of 2018 as part of the witch hunt. They tried unsuccessfully to accuse her of meddling in American internal affairs, but actually convicted her on account of her Russian citizenship, forcing her to incriminate herself through the harsh conditions of her detention. Only after 15 months of imprisonment, on October 26, was she finally returned to her homeland.

We are taking all possible measures, of course, to protect the rights and interests of Russians. In addition to our overseas agencies’ ongoing work to provide them with consular assistance, we regularly and directly raise these questions during political meetings with the US administration, including at the highest level. We demand the return of the Russian prisoners, make specific proposals such as the application of the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

The ministry also updates the warnings on its website for our compatriots annually, recommending that they carefully weigh the risks when planning foreign trips.

The Foreign Ministry also continues to make every effort for the return of six Russian state properties in the United States, which, despite their immunity, were illegally seized by the American authorities in 2016-2018. These include two out-of-town recreation centres for the Embassy in Washington and of the Permanent Mission to the UN in New York, Russia's Trade Mission in Washington, two Consulate General buildings in San Francisco and the residence of the Consul General in Seattle. Those properties were absolutely legally acquired between the 1950s and the 1990s and have had a diplomatic status registered with the State Department since that time.

We regularly raise the issue of returning our property during our contacts with US representatives at various levels – unfortunately, so far, to no avail. Therefore, we have highlighted to international organisations and other countries Washington’s abuse and violation of its obligations.

Note that the 1947 Agreement between the United States and the United Nations on deploying its headquarters in New York does not mention any rights of the American authorities – for whatever reason – to seize the property of other UN member states. On the contrary, it says that the premises of the missions and the residences of their employees, even those located outside the area of ​​central institutions in Manhattan, have full diplomatic immunity. So this makes the seizing of our Permanent Mission’s recreation facility on Long Island in December 2016, where several workers with their families lived permanently, a clear violation of that agreement and of wider international law.

We have not ruled our filing a lawsuit in a US court, even though the objectivity of the American justice system – which meekly obeys its executive authorities and special services citing vague national security considerations – is questionable. The completely biased trial of Maria Butina, which took place a year ago in Washington orchestrated by the FBI, was an eloquent example of that.

For three years now, the Russian Embassy in the United States has been sending notes every two weeks requesting permission to inspect the seized property, but our employees have not been allowed to enter the seized buildings. To date, over 300 requests have been sent, but not one of them has been satisfied. This raises serious concerns about the condition of our property, including the serviceability of the utility systems, the failure of which can lead to serious structural damage, let alone the predictable quick wear without proper maintenance.

If the US authorities are for some reason wary of Russian diplomats, could they maybe allow their own journalists to visit some of the sites? As owners, we do not mind and even invite media representatives from all over the world to go there. It would also be very interesting for us to find out what the American special services are doing there.



Question: What were Russian-French relations like in 2019, considering the agreements reached at the highest level?



Answer:

2019 saw a warming in Russian-French relations. Stepping up bilateral contacts and expanding their agenda show that the political dialogue with France is gradually returning to the level appropriate for two nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The trajectory and pace of development of bilateral ties was set by Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron during their personal meetings and telephone conversations as well as their exchange of messages regarding cooperation between Russia and France, the termination of the INF Treaty and the strengthening of confidence and security in Europe. Following the talks at Fort de Bregancon, the presidents made the decision to promote bilateral cooperation in the area of strategic stability and security in Europe.

The resumption of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council with the foreign and defence ministers after a seven-year-long break was another important event last year. This format remains an important means for our countries to work out common answers to the security challenges in challenging regions and the entire world.

On June 24, Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev visited Le Havre, where he had talks with Prime Minister of France Edouard Philippe. Fruitful cooperation continued between the Russian Security Council and the French Secretariat-General for National Defence and Security. On November 15, Russian-French interagency consultations on international information security took place in Moscow.

The regular session of the Russian-French Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Council (CEFIC) held in Moscow on December 10 was substantive. We hope that the implementation of the agreements reached there will make it possible to expand bilateral cooperation in these areas in the near future and dispel French companies’ worries about US sanctions.

France remains a key investor in Russia. According to the data of the Bank of Russia, as of April 1, 2019, France’s direct investments in Russia total $18.3 billion. The French companies Total and Engie together with their Russian partners carry out ambitious projects in the gas industry, such as Nord Stream, Nord Sream 2, Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2.

An agreement has been reached to hold the large festival Russian Seasons in France in 2020 (over 270 events in 64 French cities) and the cross-year of interregional cooperation in 2021.



Question: Relations between Russia and Germany in 2019. What can you tell us about the expulsion of two Russian diplomats?



Answer:

In 2019, President Vladimir Putin and Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel maintained regular dialogue. Mr Lavrov met his German counterpart Heiko Maas six times. On January 11 this year, Ms Merkel and Mr Maas visited Moscow together. The positions of Moscow and Berlin differ on many issues but this does not prevent us from exchanging opinions with a view to settling international crises, including the conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

On November 14 last year, Moscow hosted a plenary session of the Russian-German high-level interdepartmental working group on security policy issues.

Economic cooperation has made steady headway. The German business community is interested in expanding its presence in the Russian market and localising manufacturing in Russia, and consistently opposes the Brussels spiral of sanctions. This was clearly reflected during President Putin’s traditional annual meeting with the executives of German companies in Sochi on December 6, 2019.

According to statistics published by Germany, German companies invested 3.26 billion euros (the highest figure since 2008) in 2018. The figure for the first quarter of 2019 was 1.76 billion euros. Today, the aggregate amount of German investment in the Russian economy exceeds $18 billion, while reciprocal Russian investment in Germany is $9 billion. Despite a 12.9 percent reduction in trade to $38.5 billion in the first three quarters of 2019 against the same period in 2018, Germany remains one of our main foreign trade partners. Germany’s share of Russia’s foreign trade in the first three quarters of 2019 was 7.9 percent (second after China with 16.3 percent). The construction of the Nord Stream 2 project is in the final phase. Despite US sanctions against this project, Russia and Germany are confident that it will be completed.

Bilateral inter-parliamentary ties are increasing and becoming consistent. Contacts between twin cities are being expanded at the regional and municipal levels.

Cultural and humanitarian contacts and ties between public organisations are developing successfully. On December 7, 2019 the Hamburg-based Elbphilharmonie (Elbe Philharmonic Hall) hosted a ceremony to close Russian Seasons with the participation of Russian Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky and former German President Christian Wulff. This large cultural programme included over 450 events in 90 German cities. In August 2020 it will be followed by the reciprocal programme of the Year of Germany in Russia.

On December 2-3, 2019, the Russian-German University Science Forum reviewed the intermediate results of the cross year of 2018-2020 scientific and educational partnerships held under the patronage of the Russian and German foreign ministers. Under the plan, it will come to an end on September 15 with the participation of Mr Lavrov and Mr Maas. The theme of the forthcoming cross year (“The Economy and Sustainable Development”) has been agreed upon. On July 18-19, 2019 Bonn hosted the 18th St Petersburg Dialogue Russian-German Public Forum that reaffirmed the public demand for improving bilateral relations.

As for the case of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, we would like to note that Berlin’s decision to declare non-grata two staff members of the Russian Embassy in Berlin, which we consider an unfriendly and completely unfounded act, could not go unanswered. We had to take retaliatory measures and expel two German diplomats from Moscow. We believe that Germany had no grounds to complain about unsatisfactory cooperation from our agencies in investigating the murder of this terrorist. We have maintained contact with the German intelligence services via partnership channels since August 2019. The Germans had information about the location of this terrorist and criminal, who was to blame for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, long before this crime was committed. Using the same partnership channels, our intelligence services raised the issue of extradition. Regrettably, we did not reach a mutual understanding at that time. However, as President Vladimir Putin said, Russia is ready to provide the required support to the German law-enforcement bodies in revealing the circumstances of this murder.

We are convinced that considering Khangoshvili’s criminal past, he had many enemies, including those in the criminal world. We urge Berlin to resume practical cooperation on this case, in part, with a view to conducting the effective cooperative fight against international terrorist groups. We hope the German leaders will refrain from further media, propaganda and especially political escalation of tensions that is fraught with more complications for the Russian-German relations.



Question: Russian-Serbian relations. How do you estimate developments in Kosovo and beyond?



Answer:

Russian-Serbian relations have reached the level of true strategic partnership. They are based on cultural and historical affinity, as well as shared approaches to and assessments of the past and present. This is especially important in view of the attempts to rewrite history, in particular, to belittle our countries’ achievements in the fight against Nazism. Serbia is planning to hold a large-scale Immortal Regiment March on the eve of Victory Day. We support this idea.

We look forward to seeing President Aleksandar Vucic at the celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory in Moscow on May 9, 2020. We hope that a Serbian military unit will take part in the parade on Red Square.

Economic cooperation is developing steadily. In January-October 2019, bilateral trade grew 15.5 percent on a year-on-year basis. The bilateral Intergovernmental Committee on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation is working actively: its next meeting is scheduled to take place in Kazan in March 2020.

On October 25, 2019, t Serbia and the Eurasian Economic Union signed a Free Trade Agreement, which will give a new impetus to the strengthening and diversification of bilateral trade and economic ties.

The laying of pipes has been completed in the Serbian section of the TurkStream transit pipeline. For many years, Russia has been a reliable supplier of energy to Serbia and the Balkans. The region’s energy security will be ensured.

Firm ties have been established between the Russian and the Serbian Orthodox churches. They are based on the shared understanding of the historical spiritual heritage and contemporary issues, primarily in the context of Phanar’s disgraceful attempts to formalise its authority over the Ukrainian Orthodox Church using non-canonical methods. These manoeuvres by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople have caused severe damage to the entire Orthodox World. It is very important that Serbian Patriarch Irenaeus and leading hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church invariably support the Russian Orthodox Church with regard to the issue of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.

Regarding the events involving Kosovo, the post-election chaos and the scramble for power continue in the territory and there is no agent capable of resuming dialogue with Belgrade. The environment for negotiations is unlikely to improve given the radical views of the nationalists who won the October elections.

In general, the dialogue under the auspices of the European Union has not been working for a long time. The EU’s mediation potential has been largely devalued. For a long time now, Brussels has not been able to influence the Kosovars and induce them to take a reasonable and constructive approach in their talks with Serbia. One example of this is the 100-percent anti-Serbian discriminatory customs duties introduced by the Kosovo authorities in November 2018 that are still in force. In addition, since April 2013 Pristina has sabotaged the fulfilment of the obligations they had undertaken with the EU’s mediation to create a full-fledged Community of Serbian Municipalities in Kosovo with significant executive powers to ensure the interests of Kosovo Serbs.

We consider the plans to create a “Kosovo army,” plans supported by the leading NATO countries, to be a major threat to regional security. This is a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which stipulates that all armed groups of Kosovo Albanians must be demilitarised, allowing only multinational contingents in Kosovo.

We have pointed out on numerous occasions and will continue to point out to our Western partners the non-transparency of the activities of Camp Bondsteel, which was initially deployed as part of the peacekeeping activities under UN Security Council Resolution 1244, but has now formally and in effect turned into an American base.

We hope that the Hague-based Kosovo Specialist Chambers investigating the atrocities committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army will soon get down to work. All those guilty of committing grave crimes (including murder for the purpose of organ harvesting) exposed by PACE rapporteur Dick Marty in his report must be tried and brought to justice regardless of the offices they hold now.

Russia’s position on Kosovo is well known. We are in favour of Belgrade and Pristina reaching a viable and mutually acceptable solution based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This solution must be in compliance with international law and receive the approval of the UN Security Council, because it affects international peace and security.

We are ready to continue providing support for our Serbian partners on the Kosovo issue. We will only agree to a solution that will satisfy the Serbs themselves.



Question: Could you tell us about the work with compatriots in 2019?



Answer:

In 2019, work continued on expanding partnership with the multinational, multi-faith and multimillion-strong Russian World. The Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad coordinated the implementation of the federal and regional programmes dedicated to work with the Russian community.

The collaboration with organisations of Russian compatriots living abroad was aimed at boosting their activities and strengthening their ties with the Russian Federation.

There was a special focus on further consolidation of the communities, protection of the compatriots’ rights and lawful interests, primarily in Ukraine and the Baltic states, Russian-language education abroad, the development of the compatriots’ media, strengthening the role of young people, and the fight against the falsification of history, anti-Russian sentiments and prejudice in the countries where the compatriots live.

At the compatriots’ initiative, coordinating councils of the Russian communities were created in 100 countries to organise their activities. Close interaction between regional and global coordinating councils has been established, including their regular meetings in Russia and elsewhere.

About 1,000 major events, including over 40 youth meetings, five regional conferences, 85 country conferences and two meetings of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad, were held under the auspices of the Government Commission with support from Russian foreign missions and compatriots’ organisations in Russia and abroad.

On October 30–31, the Female Compatriots and Generation Continuity International Thematic Conference was held in Moscow under the auspices of the Government Commission and the World Coordinating Council. It was attended by 155 leaders and activists of the Russian community and prominent female representatives of the Russian diaspora from 93 countries. The participants in the forum decided to join the activities of the Eurasian Women’s Forum and study the possibility of establishing an international non-governmental organisation of Russian-speaking women in order to develop ties between female compatriots’ communities around the world.

We supported Russian regions’ work with compatriots, which refers primarily to Moscow, St Petersburg, the Republic of Tatarstan, the Republic of Crimea, the Leningrad, Kaluga, Kaliningrad, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk, Orenburg, Samara, Ulyanovsk and Yaroslavl regions, the Yamal-Nenets and Khanty-Mansi autonomous areas, and the Altai, Krasnodar and Stavropol territories. We encouraged the regions’ interest in using the potential of compatriots members of the business community abroad. The compatriots involved in business were invited to take part in a business forum (Salekhard, April), an international conference (Khanty-Mansiysk, June) and the Entrepreneur Compatriots: Prospects for Cooperation Conference (London, November).

Work to support ethnic communities abroad continued. Specifically, the third congress of the European Alliance of Tatars took place in Vienna in October. We supported the holding of the national Tatar festival, Sabantui, in a number of countries.

In most countries, our compatriots initiated and inspired public events to celebrate Victory Day, protect the historical truth and counter anti-Russian sentiments with the support from the Government Commission and in cooperation with Russian foreign missions. The geography of such events as the Immortal Regiment, St George’s Ribbon and the Memory Candle has expanded significantly. These involved about 1.5 million people and were held in more than 120 countries. Currently, Russian communities abroad are actively preparing events commemorating the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

The effort to protect the rights and lawful interests of Russian compatriots living abroad remains an important element. Platforms of the universally recognised human rights mechanisms and agencies of the UN, OSCE, the Council of Europe as well as bilateral channels are used. Compatriots from Baltic states and Ukraine took part in discussions at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (Warsaw, September 16–27). Contacts were established between the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad and the heads of the Russian Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

The foundation for the support and protection of the rights of compatriots living abroad provides for the activities of 26 centres of legal assistance for compatriots living abroad, including the re-established regional information and legal centre for North Africa and the Middle East. The centres’ activities are aimed first of all at improving the legal awareness of compatriots. The Foreign Ministry has established cooperation with law firms and constructively-minded non-government organisations.



Question: Measures taken by the Foreign Ministry in response to the violation of the rights of Russian media in a number of foreign states.



Answer:

The situation related to the freedom of speech and the media in the world remains unsatisfactory. In violation of their international commitments, some Western countries (primarily the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Latvia and Lithuania) continue to practice restrictions and pressure as regards Russian media, particularly the RT and Sputnik news agencies and their media partners in the host countries. The position of journalists in Ukraine is a source of serious concern. Ukraine maintains a policy of systematic reprisals against journalists.

The Foreign Ministry continuously monitors the position of the Russian media abroad through its diplomatic missions in host countries. We maintain operational contact with Russian media news offices and respond via diplomatic channels upon identifying any violations of their rights.

In specific cases we summon heads of foreign diplomatic missions to the Foreign Ministry.

Using available potential, we regularly express our position, including by publishing comments on the Foreign Ministry’s website and its official accounts in social media.

We use related international venues (the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the OSCE) and bilateral contacts to protect the rights of Russian media and alert specialised institutions to the problem of restrictions and sanctions. We pursue an assertive policy in this vein and work to make all states effectively implement the existing international legal security guarantees for journalists in their territory. We oppose the inclusion of unofficial or non-inclusive West-centric approaches to media freedom in conceptual frameworks drafted by related international organisations.

In this context, we derived some benefit from the OSCE meeting held in Moscow on November 6 with the Foreign Ministry’s assistance. During the discussion, we managed to clearly express to our partners that we were concerned about the discrimination against the Russian media by the Western authorities and the toughening of government media and internet regulation in the West. Specifically, we conveyed to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir our apprehensions over the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), a non-transparent media regulation project contemplated by the Reporters Without Borders, and the media “white lists” drafted within its framework.

We would like to say most emphatically that the Russian side allows all foreign journalists without exception to pursue free and unhindered professional activities in Russia in full conformity with this country’s commitments to the UN, the OSCE and other international organisations. However, we will always be compelled to respond in kind to any attempts to restrict the operations of Russian media abroad and to create a hostile atmosphere for them.



Question: In 2020, we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. What steps will the Foreign Ministry take to preserve historical memory and counter the falsification of history and in general attempts to revise the internationally recognised results of World War II?



Answer:

It is no secret that an open and undisguised “historical aggression” has been launched against this country. There is no doubt that this is being done for political and time-serving purposes. The goal of the states involved in this is not only to slander modern Russia as the successor of the USSR but also to conceal their own unseemly role in conniving at the Hitler regime and to justify the outrageous excesses committed by their neo-Nazis as well as their rogue war on the monuments to [Russian] liberator soldiers. Another aim is to promote a distorted outlook on the entire postwar system of international relations.

In this context, we attach special importance to our efforts to preserve the historical truth, including by submitting relevant documents to international organisations. Our resolution on countering the glorification of Nazism is given an invariably broad support at the United Nations. The plenary meeting of the 74th UN General Assembly on December 18, 2019, approved this document by an impressive majority of votes (133 votes “for” and two votes “against,” with 52 abstentions). For the first time, the total number of states co-sponsors of the resolution reached 62. The upcoming anniversary of Victory loomed large in remarks the Russian representatives delivered at the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly.

At Russia’s initiative that was co-sponsored by Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and China, a separate item on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II was put on the agenda of the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly, which happens to coincide with the 75th anniversary of Victory in t World War II. . The UN General Assembly is expected to hold a special ceremonious plenary meeting within the framework of the said agenda item some time before May 9, 2020.

There is no doubt that an international dimension is of much importance in the context of joint efforts to prepare the celebrations in honour of the 75th anniversary of Victory. Numerous official delegations from foreign countries will attend the ceremonies in Moscow on May 9, 2020. Invitations on behalf of the President of the Russian Federation have been sent to heads of state and government of foreign states and to heads of international organisations. Guests of honour from among prominent public figures and politicians are expected to come to Moscow. Delegations of 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War veterans and WWII veterans, who fought on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition, from foreign countries will be invited to Moscow as well.

The Foreign Ministry’s missions abroad will hold numerous memorial, protocol, information and cultural events as part of the preparations for the 75th anniversary of Victory celebrations. These include official receptions, functions, meetings with war veterans who will be awarded anniversary medals, ceremonies at monuments and memorials to Soviet soldiers, conferences, contests, documentary photo exhibitions, film festivals, concerts, and public screenings of the best Soviet and Russian movies dedicated to the Great Patriotic War. Special attention will be paid to upgrading the Russian (Soviet) military burial sites in foreign countries.

Associations of Russian compatriots living abroad will be encouraged to organise numerous public and political events, such as the St George’s Ribbon, Memory Watch and the Immortal Regiment March.

In cooperation with the Federal Archive Agency, the Foreign Ministry’s Archive Service is conducting extensive and meticulous work to identify new material on the entire range of WWII issues, including the prehistory of the war. These materials are used to validate this country’s position on historical matters at the highest level and are emerging as a valuable acquisition for Russian and international academic communities. In his coverage of prewar historical events, President Vladimir Putin relied, among other things, on documents from the Foreign Ministry’s archives.

The ministry is taking part in a long-term historical project, At the Headquarters of Victory, which has been ongoing since 2015. The most recent exhibition as held in May-June 2019.

We provided over 300 unique documents from the ministry’s archives for the exhibition and the online project “The Year 1939. The Beginning of WWII.” The exhibition was co-organised by the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Archive Agency.

The Federal Archive Agency will open, a large exhibition entitled “Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt” in April. The Foreign Ministry is taking part in the preparations for this. The display will confirm that the Soviet Union appreciated cooperation with the leading powers of the anti-Hitler coalition and that their leaders, in turn, recognised the Red Army’s key role in the rout of Nazism. In line with the established practice, an online project of the same title is being created to enable audiences at home and abroad to access the documents.

The ministry’s archive materials are displayed at a large exhibition dedicated to the liberation of Europe from Nazism and entitled “On the Road to Victory: Historical Sources Testify” in the State Central Museum of the Contemporary History of Russia. The exhibition traveled to 21 countries as part of this international project.

The Foreign Ministry’s archives will contribute unique documents from the Great Patriotic War to the album “On the Diplomatic Fronts” to be published for the 75th anniversary of Victory.

Special mention should be made of the bilateral commissions of historians, which can conduct unbiased discussions on the most sensitive issues. We are carrying out scholarly and educational projects with colleagues from a number of European countries, which make it possible to truthfully reflect the history of war years.

Efforts to counter the falsification of history are regularly made at numerous international venues, including the UN. Cooperation is maintained with the Russian Historical Society and societies of military history, Russian and foreign NGOs and academic institutions.



Question: In 2020, the world will mark the 75th anniversary of the UN. What events is Russia planning to mark the anniversary at a high level? How does Russia assess the effectiveness of the UN in addressing global problems? Please comment on Moscow’s position on UN reform.



Answer:

First, there are two important dates in 2020 – the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II and the establishment of the UN. For Russia, as a country that played the decisive role in the defeat of Nazism, and one of the founders of the global organisation, the historical correlation between these two events is of particular significance.

The Second World War was the most devastating catastrophe in the history of mankind. It is important to remember the mistakes of that time to be able to avoid a recurrence at a new historical stage. With this in mind, Russia, with a number of other member-states, initiated including an item on celebrating the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII on the General Assembly’s agenda and on approving a relevant resolution.

As for the UN anniversary, we deem it necessary to promote a positive unifying agenda with an emphasis on there being no alternative to the UN’s central and coordinating role in world affairs , strict compliance with the UN Charter and other international laws, and the consolidation of a truly multipolar world order. The anniversary should not be an occasion for advancing polemic agendas that will only divide the member-states. However, such unscrupulous efforts are being made now, as President Vladimir Putin said.

We plan to hold a series of events at the UN venue in New York that will highlight our country’s role in the defeat of Nazism and the creation of the UN. An extensive programme of anniversary events is planned in Russia. The reference is to a series of research-to-practice conferences, forums, roundtables, exhibitions, the Vitaly Churkin Moscow International Model UN and UN models in a number of Russian regions.

Second, the growing instability in various regions of the world and the emergence of new global challenges and threats are becoming a serious test for modern international relations, something that lays an additional burden on the UN. The key to the organisation’s effective functioning is the constructive interaction of the member-states and the coordinated work of its Secretariat.

In this context, individual Western countries’ attempts to redraw the modern system of international relations to suit their ends citing ‘multilateralism’ as a specious reason are deeply disturbing. Multilateral platforms, including UN mechanisms, are being attacked. Key international law frameworks are being destroyed. The concept of a “rule-based” world order is being increasingly introduced into the global agenda, ever more frequently accompanied by pressure on those who disagree with the use of financial and economic sanctions, trade restrictions and other unilateral measures.

This unconstructive policy pursued by some of our partners complicates the elaboration of collective decisions within the UN, including on the most acute problems. However, it would be premature to confirm a radical weakening of the organisation, which has a strong safety factor. So far, no one has been able to propose anything more perfect or effective, or to question the viability of the fundamental principles of the UN’s work, including the independence and sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

At the same time, there is no doubt that the current situation suggests a need to further increase the importance and authority of the UN. In this regard, we note the initiatives by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to reform the organisation’s activities in three main areas: the peace and security section, the governance system and the system for assisting development. The reform can be considered mostly complete, but we still have to see the effectiveness of the measures taken.

The debate on the UN Security Council reform has not progressed much over the past year due to the persisting and deep-seated contradictions between the main negotiators on the main components of the reform: categories of membership of a renewed Security Council, its size and regional representation. Russia’s position remains unchanged: while not rejecting any of the reform versions, we call for finding a formula for expanding the Security Council that will enjoy the widest possible support from the UN member- states; ideally, a consensus. Only in this way can we ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of a renewed Security Council.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/3995958
__________________
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 23rd, 2020 #67
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on Russia’s diplomatic performance in 2019 Moscow, January 17, 2020



17 January 2020 - 22:30






Colleagues,

Our views on current international issues have been presented by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in great detail and more than once, including at the annual news conference in December last year and the other day in the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly.

I would like to point out in my opening remarks that the world is still running a high fever, as we can clearly see. The main destabilising factor is the aggressive policy of several Western countries, primarily our American colleagues, aimed at destroying the international legal framework of security and replacing international law with their own invention, a “rules-based world order.” Examples include Washington’s destruction of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), unwillingness to discuss the extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), deliberate fanning of tensions in the Persian Gulf, attempts to revise the generally recognised basis for a Middle East settlement, NATO’s increased military activity near the Russian border and attempts to take over the multilateral mechanisms for controlling WMD.

The lack of trust in global politics and the economy is being aggravated by methods of unfair competition, such as unilateral sanctions, protectionism and trade wars. The latest example of this was the US attempts to hinder the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project contrary to the opinion of the leading EU countries.

Washington is blatantly abusing the privileges it has as the host country of the UN Headquarters. Acting at its own discretion in violation of international law, Washington has denied the representatives of “undesirable” countries the opportunity to attend events held at the UN platform. This could be yet another manifestation of the “rules-based order.”

Russian diplomacy is pursuing an independent multivector policy set out by the President of Russia and has been working to reduce international tensions and to strengthen the democratic principles of international communication based on law. We are doing our best to maintain all aspects of global and regional security.

Our top priorities include the fight against international terrorism, in particular in Syria, as well as efforts to promote a political process here and to settle the current humanitarian problems of Syrians. Our achievements last year include the launch of the intra-Syrian Constitutional Committee through the concerted efforts of the guarantor countries of the Astana format. Syria’s post-conflict rehabilitation and its reintegration into the Arab family are gaining priority now. We will do our best to promote this.

We also contributed to efforts to overcome other conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, including in Libya and Yemen. The situation in the region could be greatly improved through the implementation of Russia’s Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region. We presented a revised concept last summer at a seminar attended by experts and researchers from the regional countries.

Russia traditionally prioritises expanded collaboration with its partners in the Eurasian space, primarily within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Union State, the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union. I would like to single out our achievements in promoting Eurasian integration, including the EAEU’s expanded foreign ties. As you know, free trade agreements were signed with Vietnam in 2016 and with Singapore and Serbia in 2019. Agreements on trade and economic cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Union and the People’s Republic of China, as well as an interim agreement with Iran, entered into force last year. Active talks continue with Israel and Egypt. It has been decided to launch a negotiating process with India. All these actions are in line with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership that would be open to all the countries of our common continent, Eurasia.

Russian-Chinese relations of a comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation continued to expand. In June 2019, President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia, with the sides announcing that bilateral relations had entered a new era. Moscow-Beijing foreign policy coordination exerted an important stabilising influence on the global situation.

Special and privileged strategic partnership with India, diverse ties with ASEAN countries, as well as other Asian and Latin American states, continued to become stronger. Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the African continent received a substantial impetus. As you know, the first Russia-Africa summit in history took place in October 2019, and its results elevate Russian-African dialogue to an entirely new level.

We managed to make headway in resolving the domestic Ukrainian crisis. A Normandy format summit took place after a three-year interval after the new Kiev leaders managed to start fulfilling the decisions of the two earlier Normandy Four summits. We hope that the December 2019 decisions in Paris will make it possible to move ahead in implementing the Minsk Package of Measures. But, of course, these decisions should not remain on paper, like during the Poroshenko regime.

This year, there are plans to continue maintaining global security and strategic stability, including efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space and the unacceptability of weaponising cyberspace. We will completely activate the potential of the UN, the G20, the CIS, and the Eurasian Economic Union, as well as the possibilities opened up by Russia’s presidency of BRICS and the SCO. We will focus on our work with the four other permanent UN Security Council members, including on such key aspects as the preservation and consolidation of the UN’s central coordinating role in global affairs and the inviolability of the principles governing international affairs as set forth in the UN Charter. An overwhelming majority of states supports us in these efforts.

In conclusion, I would, of course, like to note that two major anniversaries occur this year: the 75th anniversary of the Victory in World War II and the Great Patriotic War, as well as the 75th anniversary of establishing the UN. We will continue to do everything possible to combat the falsification of history, to preserve the good reputation of victorious soldiers and to prevent a revision of the internationally recognised results of the defeat of Nazism. Many responsible countries of the world have joined us in defending the historical memory. I would also like to note the contribution of our compatriots living abroad to this work. We are looking forward to seeing our foreign partners at the May 9 celebrations in Moscow.

Thank you, I am ready to answer your questions.







Question:

We know that Russia and China plan to jointly celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in WWII in 2020. Our countries have done a great deal to help build the post-war world order. What role are they playing now in the maintenance of global stability? How would you describe Russian-Chinese cooperation in this sphere?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already spoken about our strategic relations with China. We hold similar views on all the key international issues. Our views and approaches have been incorporated in a number of joint documents signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping, including the Joint Statement on Developing Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Interaction Entering a New Era signed in June 2019 during the Chinese leader’s visit to Russia, which has advanced our strategic relations to a higher level.

We are closely coordinating our moves at the UN. We try to support one another and to uphold the principles of the UN Charter that serve as the basis of the global organisation. We support one another at the UN Security Council when considering issues that imply the need to uphold these principles in each particular crisis situation, as we did during the recent discussion on the delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria. We coordinate the way we vote and invariably support justice, trying to prevent the adoption of decisions which our Western colleagues often try to impose on us so as to further their unilateral agenda disregarding the need for reaching consensus.

I mentioned the decision on extending the cross-border assistance mechanism, which was ultimately adopted taking into consideration the position of Russia and China. Our Western partners used every trick in the book to keep open one crossing point for humanitarian deliveries, called Al Yarubiyah, on the Iraqi-Syrian border. They claimed that the closure of that crossing would amount to a humanitarian disaster for the Syrians living in the north-eastern regions. We knew that this was not so. Our Western colleagues only wanted to preserve the Al Yarubiyah crossing so as to legitimise the illegal presence of the US-led coalition forces east of the Euphrates. An objective look at the humanitarian deliveries east of the Euphrates shows that over two months last year, in October and November, UN forces supported by the Syrian Government delivered more than 420 truckloads of aid, including 162 tonnes of medical goods, equipment and medicines, from Damascus and Qamishli to the north-eastern regions, whereas only slightly more than 100 trucks used the Al Yarubiyah crossing in the past 20 months. Deliveries made via that crossing were many times smaller than the aid delivered with the assistance of the Syrian Government and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent.

This is one example of how we use facts to protect the truth together with our Chinese partners and to prevent the use of the UN Security Council and its decisions as instruments of unilateral pressure on dissenting regimes.



Question:

At what stage is the Syrian crisis now? What is preventing its resolution? Can we expect to see relations restored between Syria and Turkey, the European Union and the Arab world this year?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would say the Syrian crisis is now in an advanced stage of settlement. There has been progress on almost all tracks – in the military, political, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas. Economic recovery is lagging slightly behind, because our Western partners and several countries in the region have put forward their preconditions. What’s more, those preconditions change depending on what happens in real life. First they said they would remove the restrictions on providing assistance to Syria for the return of refugees and economic recovery as soon as the political process begins. The political process has been launched; now they are saying they need to wait until it yields results. It looks like they will keep lifting the bar, changing their demands during the game. This is definitely not helping to get results.

What is important is a decisive victory in the fight against terrorism. The remaining islands of resistance from ISIS and al-Nusra are mainly in the Idlib de-escalation zone and on the eastern bank, where there are about 10,000 ISIS members in my estimate. They are mostly in camps controlled by the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), mainly Kurdish units. There have been alarming reports we are verifying now that that the SDF release terrorist fighters to go and freely settle in other parts of Syria for a bribe. This information raises concerns. We have long warned our American partners, who have influence on the SDF, that they should prevent the escape of militants from camps where they are held in custody. Unfortunately, there is a risk that this can happen.

I have already mentioned the Syrian Government’s cooperation with the UN, citing an example that underscores that there are no longer any reasons for maintaining UN operations to deliver humanitarian aid across the Syrian border without consulting the Syrian Government. Humanitarian assistance really helps to create conditions for the return of refugees.

Russia is also doing a lot bilaterally – in addition to contributing to the relevant UN funds that provide assistance to Syrians and other peoples in the region – including through our military deployed on the ground, the military police and other units. We are assisting in efforts to restore vital systems such as water and electricity supply, and the most basic educational and healthcare services. We urge all countries to follow suit, without trying to politicise humanitarian assistance or making any geopolitical demands for it.

On the political track, as I said, we have seen a result in the form of the Constitutional Committee, which has set up a small body responsible for preparing and drafting the constitutional proposals and adopted the core rules of the procedure. Two meetings have been held, and a third one is being organised.

Next week, we are expecting a visit by Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Geir Pedersen, who also plans to visit Damascus. I hope that these negotiations and his contacts with the Syrian leaders will result in drafting a schedule for the Constitutional Committee’s further work.

We are certainly confident in the need to correct the mistake made when Syria was expelled from the Arab League in 2011. That country needs to return to the “Arab family,” as the President of Russia has repeatedly said.



Question:

Russia and Italy have long discussed the Libya crisis. What mistakes do you think the current and past Italian cabinets have made in recent years regarding Libya? What can the Italians do now compared to the past? What do you expect from the conference on Libya in Berlin?



Sergey Lavrov:

The main mistake was not made by Italy, but by our NATO colleagues. As far as I know, in 2011, Italy did not play the critical role in taking the decision to bomb Libya and to overthrow the regime in violation of the UN Security Council resolution. I will not list the names of the leaders of that epic adventure as I think everyone knows them. Then, Libyan statehood was destroyed and has not been restored so far.

There have been many attempts to assist the Libyan parties in reaching at least some kind of agreement and returning their country to normal life. There was the Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat, which is still regarded by most external parties as containing the basic principles for a Libya settlement. Of course, life goes on, and other things can be added, all the more so as agreements were signed in Abu Dhabi earlier last year, which also concerned state power in Libya but which, unfortunately, were not implemented. A conference was held in Paris where a specific date for elections in Libya was set. But, as you know, we should never get ahead of ourselves and set overly concrete goals. Diplomacy is an unhurried process. There was a conference in Palermo, where useful work was done as well.

In response to our Turkish colleagues’ proposals, we volunteered to try to contribute to these efforts. We invited the leaders of eastern and western Libya to meet, and they accepted our invitation. We had talks with the delegations led by Commander of the Libyan National Army Marshal Khalifa Haftar and Chairman of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives of Libya Aguila Saleh, representing one side, and Prime Minister of the Government of the National Accord of Libya (PNS) Fayez al-Sarraj and Chairman of the High Council of State Khalid al-Mishri, representing the other side, which lasted over seven hours. There is a text that we believe is quite balanced. It calls for a ceasefire and the beginning of a political process. It was signed by Fayez al-Sarraj and Khalid al-Mishri. Marshal Khalifa Haftar and Aguila Saleh asked for extra time. Most importantly, the truce, which was announced before their arrival in Moscow, is being respected. This is a definite step forward. Let's hope that the truce remains in place, preferably indefinitely. At least German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas recently met with Khalifa Haftar in Benghazi and stated that the marshal had confirmed his commitment to a ceasefire. This is already a useful development.

We supported the initiative to hold the Berlin Conference from day one, because the more countries are willing to help the Libyans create proper conditions for a settlement, the better. Persuading these people to do anything is not easy, so we must work together. We will participate in the conference in Berlin on Sunday for these reasons. We participated in all five preparatory meetings. I believe that the final documents have been agreed upon almost in full. They are fully consistent with the decisions adopted by the UN Security Council on a Libya settlement and do not contain any provisions that are at odds with its decisions. We tried to bring them to a proper condition during the talks. What matters now is that after the Berlin Conference - if everything goes as planned and the UN Security Council supports its results - the Libyan parties do not repeat their past mistakes and do not put forward additional conditions or blame each other. So far, relations between them have been very tense. They don’t even want to be in the same room, not to mention talk or meet with each other.

We will participate in this conference alongside our Italian colleagues. I have a morning meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio in Berlin before the conference.



Question:

Will Russia have a new foreign policy doctrine, in you view, given the latest constitutional amendments proposed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and new appointments? We know that the foreign policy course is determined by the President. We are accustomed to you always referring to the “supremacy of international law.” We understand that these amendments are to enhance Russia’s sovereignty and that this is a necessary step to protect our common national interests. What changes may follow in practice?



Sergey Lavrov:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has already commented on our attitude to international law and the way it corresponds to our laws and the Russian Constitution. According to the Constitutional Court’s explanations given some time ago in response to a relevant inquiry, the Constitution contains basic, fundamental rules determining all our actions. No international agreements should contradict our Constitution.

I want to draw your attention to the following. Any international agreement adopted by the Russian Federation, to which it accedes, is signed and submitted to the Russian parliament – the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation – for ratification. Ratification takes the form of a federal law. Thus, our international commitments, first, become part of our legal system, since they become a federal law, and, second, a federal law cannot be adopted if it runs counter to the Constitution.

I do not see here any pretext or reason for speculating or searching for any hidden meaning.



Question:

Protesters in Lebanon approached the perimeter of the Russian diplomatic mission in Beirut yesterday. Could it be a message to Russia in connection with its policy in that region from outside parties that support and drive the revolutionary process in Lebanon?



Sergey Lavrov:

We appreciate the way the Lebanese leadership and the relevant services responded to that incident. I don’t see any reason to invent a conspiracy theory or a plot.

As far as I understand, the Embassy is near a centre holding those arrested for participating in the riot, whom the protesters are trying to free. Two tear gas grenades fell on the Embassy grounds. They caused no harm to people or property. As I have said, Lebanese services assured us that they would pay greater attention to the security of our diplomatic mission.



Question:

You began your remarks by saying the world is “running a high fever.” Indeed, over the past year, we have seen rallies around the world. Protests have flared up in various parts of the world, from Latin America to Hong Kong. However, the key question is – what is causing this infection, and how? In most cases, we have seen support for these movements from Washington, that is, we saw that these sentiments were being fueled artificially.

In the first week of 2020, pressure from the United States began gaining new momentum, with the US-Iranian crisis. How much should we fear the continuation of this trend in 2020? Are we in for more “Venezuelas” – states with dual governments? What do you think awaits Iran in 2020?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is difficult to make any forecasts. According to one of Viktor Chernomyrdin’s great aphorisms, “Forecasting is a thankless job, especially when it comes to predicting the future.”

It is truly difficult to “predict the future,” primarily in relation to how our American colleagues will behave. You have listed some examples of their actions. It is difficult to predict what they will invent this year, but nothing can be ruled out.

I have mentioned many times that they are trying to replace international law with some rules-based order, something the West primarily needs. This is an attempt to delay the forming of a democratic and polycentric world order, which is an objectively unfolding process. The West is trying to deter the development of major powers. We can see how much effort the trade dialogue between China and the United States is taking.

Just in case, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has a dispute resolution body. But that body has been impotent for more than a year because the United States is blocking the appointment of participants in its mechanism, and it does not have a quorum. Instead of resolving the emerging problems in world trade through a universally agreed upon international legal mechanism in the WTO dispute settlement body, the United States prefers to deal with its competitors one on one.

Just this morning I read that the European Commission has expressed concern that the recently reached US-Chinese agreement might be violating the principles of free trade and WTO rules. The European Commission has reserved the right to return to this issue later.

But as regards questions that directly relate to international security and weapons of mass destruction proliferation problems, here too, they are making attempts to take these processes into their own hands and preclude a transparent, universal dialogue with the aim to reach consensus-based decisions that will be approved by all.

You can see what is being done at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). I have talked about this more than once. The Technical Secretariat has been, completely illegally, given the function of determining guilty parties, in flagrant violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC). They are trying to apply just about the same approach to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BTWC), where Russia, and most other countries, helped create a verification mechanism. The Americans are actually single-handedly blocking this decision and are trying to advance their own interests, including in post-Soviet countries, through the secretariats of international organisations, including through the UN Secretariat, as well as through their closed-door, non-transparent, secretive bilateral contacts. Biolaboratories are being set up with the Pentagon. These are all very serious things. Again, these things cause everyone’s concern. But the Americans do not want to consider them honestly, with the participation of all parties, signatories to the BTWC.

You mentioned Iran. There is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian nuclear programme (JCPOA), which is an integral part of international law, approved by the UN Security Council in a binding resolution. This is an international law. The Americans decided to apply their own rules – and abandoned this comprehensive plan. Not only did they stop fulfilling their obligations, but they also forbid everyone else to trade with Iran. At the same time, Iran is required to abide by the document that President Donald Trump dubbed “the worst deal ever negotiated,” adding that a new one needs to be adopted. But Iran still must comply with it. Everyone should obey the United States and refrain from trading with Iran, but Iran must still fulfill its obligations. This is an alarming situation. And it is taking an even more dangerous turn now: three European countries parties to the JCPOA – UK, France and Germany – have sent a letter to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, in which they said they wanted to launch the dispute resolution process provided for in the JCPOA proper. This letter was closed, but it is known to have been received.

So what is happening is close to what President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned about. He said that at some point the Europeans would take advantage of the situation in Iran, some of Iran’s future actions, to be able to shift the blame onto Iran for everything that happened. Iran – we have also mentioned this before – has, in fact, suspended only the commitments it voluntarily assumed, in addition to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and the obligations under the Additional Protocol to it. Everything Iran is doing in the nuclear field is open and accessible to IAEA inspectors. Iran is now the most verified country of all the NPT member countries.

When European countries said Iran is now obligated to take certain measures, they regretted that the United States withdrew from the JCPOA, but addressed their demands to Iran, harshly and with an accusatory tinge. Just yesterday, I read the news that German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer confirmed the rumors that before the foreign ministers of Germany, Britain and France wrote that letter, the Americans advanced an ultimatum to those three countries, threatening to levy 25 percent duties on automotive and other products if they do not abandon the JCPOA and begin to advocate the development of a new treaty that would satisfy the United States. That was directly stated by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who called for tossing out the old deal and signing a new one, which would not be Barack Obama’s deal, but Donald Trump’s.

The methods used by our American partners are quite diverse. I simply cannot predict what might happen in the future, although we continue the dialogue with the Americans on all problems, as well as with the Europeans.

A few days ago, the deputy heads of the foreign affairs agencies of Russia and the United States had a regular meeting on strategic stability. They discussed the entire range of issues on the agenda, including the topic of predictability. I cannot say that any impressive result has been achieved, but the dialogue continues. We are determined to continue working to ensure that our world still has at least some agreements that will hold back and control weapons, especially nuclear weapons, and require the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It was for a reason that Russian President Vladimir Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly highlighted the role of the five nuclear powers that are permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is not a privilege but a huge responsibility to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council and to have the right of veto. This is actually a responsibility that cannot be easily discounted; our President’s call to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to recognise and demonstrate their responsibility, in accordance with the UN Charter, for everything that happens in the field of military-political security in the world, must be heard.



Question:

I would like to ask about the three Russian journalists killed in the Central African Republic. It was reported recently that local law enforcement agencies incinerated the journalists’ clothes, which were material evidence in the case. Has the Russian Foreign Ministry contacted its CAR colleagues? How could this happen to material evidence if the investigation into the journalists’ murder is not over in Russia yet?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, we contacted them. Frankly, I have not heard about the incineration of the clothes. But our Investigative Committee has indeed opened criminal proceedings. We have commented on this more than once; in particular, our official spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, has done so. We noted that the investigation must be conducted by the concerned authorities, in this case, Russia’s Investigative Committee. We also expressed the opinion of the Foreign Ministry, which is responsible for creating conditions for the foreign travel of our citizens. We notified everyone, especially journalists, but also other professionals, that the objectives indicated in their visa applications correspond to the real goals they are pursuing upon crossing the border. This is a huge tragedy. We will insist that the investigation be completed. I know that journalism is a dangerous profession and that, regrettably, your colleagues die every year. It is best to notify the Russian authorities when you plan to work in hot spots, so we know at the least where our citizens might go. I understand that you have a right not to inform us about your plans. But I would like you and your colleagues to consider this request for reasons of your own safety if you plan to travel to dangerous regions.



Question:

You said in Nagoya last year that Russia had forwarded a list of Russia’s specific [security] concerns [to its Japanese colleagues]. I believe that you are concerned about the deployment of US missile defence systems in Japan. What [security] guarantees should Japan give to Russia to make progress at the talks possible? Your concerns cannot be eliminated completely as long as Japan and the United States remain allies.



Sergey Lavrov:

You have said it all. It is a very serious matter indeed and a vital part of our dialogue with Japan, and not only when it comes to the peace treaty. As a matter of fact, we do not want any threat to Russia to come from the territory of a good neighbour, as we see Japan.

It is true that we have certain concerns. They have been formulated and are being discussed within the framework of a dialogue being held by our deputy foreign ministers as well as by the secretaries of our national security councils. The Secretary General of Japan’s National Security Council, Shigeru Kitamura, visited Russia yesterday. He met with the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev and President Vladimir Putin. These issues were on the agenda. You mentioned that Japan is deploying land-based missile defence systems on its territory. Our Japanese colleagues told us long ago that they were doing this to protect the country from the threat coming from the Korean Peninsula and that these systems would be operated exclusively by Japanese crews. They said that these systems would be subordinate to Japan’s Self-Defence Forces. We are trying to specify the details pertaining to these matters, though this is not the main point.

Japan is deploying anti-missile launchers it buys in the United States, launchers that the Americans have used to launch not only anti-missiles but also attack, including cruise, missiles. This class of weapons was prohibited under the INF Treaty until the Americans discarded it. This means that attack missiles can be deployed near our border. We need to take this into account, of course. We do not suspect the Japanese authorities or political elite of evil plans against Russia, not at all. But they do have a military alliance with the United States, as you said. If you read the documents, statements and decisions made within the framework of this alliance, you will see that the United States is using it in the interests of its containment policy towards Russia. To them, Russia is an opponent, and Japan is part of this military strategy of its close ally, the United States. Of course, we want clarity regarding this matter. We want to understand how our cooperation will develop if the Americans are trying to involve Japan in their policy, which has been legally declared to be spearheaded against Russia. A dialogue is very important. But we want absolute clarity.



Question:

The impeachment procedure will likely begin in the US Senate on Tuesday. Many people in the West say this will weaken US support for Ukraine and strengthen Russia’s position. What is your opinion?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is your impeachment. You are an American and should know better.



Question:

You said in October 2019 that BRICS was the embodiment of multipolar diplomacy. What key goals were attained last year? And, can you say a few words about the 2020 goals?



Sergey Lavrov:

I will not waste time on this now. This is about facts. Our programme has been posted on Russia’s BRICS presidency website. We can send out more copies, if needed. We have prepared answers to frequently asked questions about the organisation. We will post them on the website, and you will be able to go there. The plans for our presidency include over 100 events. Many of them will be held not only in Moscow and St Petersburg, but in other cities as well. For example, ministerial meetings are to be held in the Urals. I believe this is a good idea. The crown event of Russia’s presidency, the BRICS summit, will be held in St Petersburg in the latter half of July. We are preparing for it now.



Question:

The Latvian parliament yesterday accused Russia of falsifying WWII history. It is a fact, however, that history is most often falsified in the Baltic countries. The worst part is that international organisations believe them. As a result, we have scandalous documents like last year’s resolution by the European Parliament that casts equal blame for the war on the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. How could we allow this to happen? What can Russia do to protect its interests and historical truth? What steps should it take?



Sergey Lavrov:

How did we allow neo-Nazism to flourish in the EU? Because we cannot use force to influence the situation. But we can and have been criticising the EU for this. Unfortunately, they look away and avoid discussing the matter. At best, they talk about the importance of respecting freedom of opinion and expression. This is why they abstain every year during the UN General Assembly vote when we submit a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism and preventing the revival of any form of xenophobia. By the way, the US and the Ukrainians both vote against this, which is not surprising either. Americans do not want to see any restrictions on their actions, and Ukrainians, if they support our resolution, will be unable to stand up against the neo-Nazi radicals who are strengthening their influence in Ukraine.

But I cannot agree that international organisations are supporting them, as you say. The international organisation I have mentioned – the UN General Assembly – adopts a resolution renouncing neo-Nazism and the glorification of Nazi criminals by an overwhelming majority of 130-140 votes every year. The European Parliament is an international but not a global organisation. Many events are taking place at the European Parliament, as well as at the EU, at the initiative of a minority and they are explained by the rules of consensus and the need to respect the opinions of others. However, this is an aggressive minority. You were correct that the Baltic and several other countries are playing first fiddle in this.

As for the facts provided by President Putin in his speech at the informal CIS summit held in St Petersburg in December 2019, the reaction to them showed that the cap fits. You may remember that President Putin said he was writing an article based entirely on facts and new data from the Russian archives. By the way, yesterday the Defence Ministry published declassified archive documents about who liberated Warsaw and how it was done. The Polish diplomats said they would like to make use of President Putin’s idea and browse the archives. Timing is everything, as they say. The archive materials are available, and it would be very interesting to hear what the Polish side says after studying them. There will be more attempts to slander Russia by falsifying the results and causes of WWII and to use these lies to weaken Russia’s position on the international stage.

An international event will be held in Jerusalem for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which President Putin will attend. We know for a fact that our Polish colleagues – President Andrzej Duda said he would not attend the event, possibly because President Putin would – have been trying to convince their Western colleagues (the event will be attended by US officials and some European leaders) to put forth the Polish view on Russia’s attitude to WWII. This is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, considering the event they want this to take place at.



Question:

Kazakhstan conducted several special operations to return some 600 citizens from Syria, including 400 children. More recently another operation resulted in bringing about 14 children from Iraq after their relations with relatives from Kazakhstan were established through DNA tests. How do you assess Kazakhstan’s efforts to bring its citizens home from that region?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe these are actions that any sovereign state has the right to take in order to fulfil its obligations to its citizens. We are dealing with the same issues. Our military, special services, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights are working to return our children from Iraq and Syria. We have exchanged experience with our colleagues in Kazakhstan. I was in Uzbekistan yesterday. Our Uzbek friends are also rescuing their citizens, at least the wives and children. The fighters are a separate issue. I have already touched on the problem now emerging in eastern Syria, where militants are escaping from detention camps. In most cases, those women had been drugged, meaning they had not travelled to those places of their own free will. The children are definitely innocent. I certainly want them to return to their normal environment and grow up to be normal people, not under the influence of radical terrorist ideas.



Question:

Do you think the Polish authorities’ actions in cemeteries are appropriate? Specifically, I mean the demolition of monuments by bulldozers? Ex-President of Poland Lech Walesa said in an interview with Channel One he would visit Russia. What do you think about the possibility of Nobel Prize winner Lech Walesa replacing the current President of Poland Andrzej Duda?



Sergey Lavrov:

Concerning their treatment of the monuments, I have already briefly discussed the topic of the outcome of World War II. I am confident that we need to rely on, and stick to, historical facts. We are always open to dialogue based on archival documents. For a long time, Poland and Russia had a system of bilateral mechanisms and communication channels, including the Strategic Committee led by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, with the participation of many other government departments.

That system involved a group of historians who studied difficult issues from the past, but always built their positions on proven facts. Some time ago, this group prepared a book on a certain stage in our relations, on our shared history with Poland. Cooperative articles were written on a number of episodes from that period; on those where historians’ opinions differed, Polish and Russian views were laid out separately.

I believe this should resume, and should not be linked to any attempt to turn history into propaganda. As our Polish colleagues demolish monuments, they also state their position arguing that Poland never agreed to maintain the monuments that are not in cemeteries. They are ready to protect only memorials at gravesites. This is a small-minded approach. If we use it, we will lose our sense of decency. We are talking about people who died, who gave their lives, the most precious thing they had, for the liberation of Europe. So I fully share the position of those (including President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman) who condemn the destruction of the monuments from that war.

As for Lech Walesa, he is a respected person and known as a completely independent politician. He has his own opinion, which he does not hesitate to express and defend. If he is interested in coming to Russia, that’s up to him. We will be happy to help make his stay here as comfortable as we can. As for meetings at the political level, this question is not for me.



Question:

What do you think about Russian-German relations after Chancellor Merkel’s recent visit? Was there a breakthrough? This was her first visit to Moscow in five years.



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think contact between President Putin and Chancellor Merkel need to be aimed at some kind of a breakthrough at this point. They regularly meet on the sidelines of various events (there was a meeting in Paris recently before the Chancellor arrived in Moscow) and talks over the phone. These are working, substantive and pragmatic relations. No one is trying to convince the other party that someone is wrong and that ideological differences must be resolved before anything else can be done.

We understand there are sanctions. Unfortunately, Germany adopted this policy following the coup in Ukraine, which took place in a situation where Berlin's position was ignored and the putschists regarded it as a nonentity. After all, Germany guaranteed the agreement that the putschists trampled on. I have already mentioned this. Unfortunately, along with some other European countries, Germany then simply shrugged and spread its hands in a helpless gesture and put up with the illegal acts committed against its will and the provisions of the document that it signed. It began to look into the Ukraine crisis from the point in time where Russia responded to the will of the residents of Crimea, and Crimea rejoined Russia following the referendum. Our Western colleagues count from here. The way this coup occurred and the way its leaders immediately passed a law repealing the rights of the Russian-speaking people and the putschists from national-radical organisations demanded that the Russians “get out” of Crimea - none of that “counts,” but was “before.” The West only got upset when the Crimeans did what they dreamed of during the decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s the problem.

Merkel’s visit was not anything extraordinary. Our German colleagues were especially interested in the success of the Berlin Conference on Libya, and focused a lot on this. Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel spent about an hour talking face to face. Meanwhile, we spoke with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and his staff. Of course, they talked about the economy and energy, including Nord Stream. All of that was mentioned in the opening remarks, during the news conference and in the answers to questions. I believe this was a normal, solid working visit. This is what the pragmatism of our relations with Germany is all about.



Question:

Regarding Iran, you criticised the United States and three European countries a lot, but didn’t mention what Russia can do now to prevent the further escalation of the conflict with Iran?



Sergey Lavrov:

I hope you are following our remarks and initiatives. We believe what is happening to the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) is untenable. The plan was for Iran to limit its nuclear programme to certain variables with regard to enrichment, the amount of heavy water available at each particular moment and enriched uranium reserves (about 4 percent). Iran assumed commitments that call for more than universal non-proliferation agreements, requirements and IAEA documents. In response to what it will accomplish beyond its usual international commitments, it promised to see restrictions on trade with Iran removed (the West did not agree to provide real favourable terms and conditions). This wasn’t delivered, either. The United States made it illegal for everyone to trade with Iran, and is threatening with sanctions. The Europeans did some tough talking and even said they would create a mechanism for trading with Iran bypassing the dollar and the United States. This was created more than a year ago and is called INSTEX and is used exclusively for servicing transactions involving solely humanitarian goods that are not subject to US sanctions. They said that subsequently, when the mechanism becomes operational, it would apply to servicing trade in other goods, including oil, as well, which is of paramount importance for Iran. For over a year, this mechanism has not been used for a single transaction. One was started, but never finished. It involves medicines worth $10 million. You be the judge of what kind of a drop it is in the ocean.

When Iran says it will “suspend” the implementation of its voluntary commitments, we, of course, believe that this does not help the cause, but gives the Americans a reason to further aggravate the situation. But we see the reason Iran is forced to act this way. It is not saying no to everything else that is mandatory for all states parties to the INF Treaty. We believe that the Europeans should and can do much more.

There is a problem stemming from private business solutions. You cannot force a private company to trade at a loss. If a company has interests and investments directly related to the use of the dollar in the United States or elsewhere, the company itself must decide on where it is going to operate. We understand what kind of a solution that may be. But there are companies that do not have any commitments or interests in a territory that US lawmakers can somehow limit or squeeze.

The question of what we should do next is being discussed literally now. Our deputy foreign ministers are in constant contact with the European Foreign Service that coordinates the JCPOA. I think we will need to hold a meeting soon to figure out what’s going on and who thinks what. Our partners, the so-called Western Troika (Great Britain, France and Germany), assure us that their actions, criticism and demands on Iran are designed solely to save the JCPOA, nothing else. At about the same time that we saw these assurances coming from the three capitals, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed repealing the deal concluded by former President Obama and concluding another one that suits the current President, Donald Trump. Then they tried to disavow everything, but as you know the spoken word takes flight. Regarding what we will do next, I think we need to hold a meeting of political directors of the remaining JCPOA members, including the European troika, and Russia, China and of course Iran, sit down and have a candid conversation.



Question:

A new Government is being formed in Russia. Will you keep the post of foreign minister? Do you want to?



Sergey Lavrov:

You have probably been working as a journalist for a long time, and understand everything. See, everyone is laughing. Three days ago I was asked to become acting foreign minister, and I am doing this.



Question:

What is your impression of your meeting with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi? Have you come to an agreement on trading in national currencies?



Sergey Lavrov:

We did not discuss this during my meeting with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. We have mechanisms for servicing our foreign trade and economic ties, which are the responsibility of the Intergovernmental Commission. It meets quite often; the next meeting will take place this year.

We mostly discussed political issues on our agenda, such as our cooperation within the SCO and BRICS, especially in light of Russia’s presidency of these two groups this year. We also talked about developments in the Asian-Pacific Region, including the introduction of a new term, the Indo-Pacific. We used to have the Asian-Pacific Region, but our American colleagues are promoting the Indo-Pacific. They are promoting the Indo-Pacific Strategy now just as they introduced the term “rules-based order” in the past.

We did not discuss our attitude to the term, name or concept, but the attitude of Russia and India to the development of relations on a multilateral basis in our common region. We have almost identical approaches to this. Neither India, nor Russia supports the attempts to use the concept of the Indo-Pacific Strategy to create confrontational configurations in this region. We believe that we must continue to cooperate based on the multilateral organisations that have been created on the initiative of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). They include the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the meeting of ASEAN defence ministers and dialogue partners (ADMM-Plus). Another important mechanism is the East Asia Summit (EAS), where we can discuss absolutely any issue without exception. In this context, it was very useful for us to see that the positions of Russia and India are nearly identical.

The problem of terms is another matter. I have raised this question with our American and Japanese colleagues, and we can also ask the Australians (the concept is mostly promoted by the United States, Australia, Japan and South Korea) whether the replacement of the term “Asian-Pacific” with “Indo-Pacific” means that East Africa will be involved in this new cooperation process. The answer is “No.” Or does this mean that the Persian Gulf will become party to these discussions because it is an extension of the Indian Ocean? No again. It turns out that the participants are the same as in the Asian-Pacific region but some of them would like to draw dividing lines. This is what it is all about. Those who are advocating this concept make no secret of this. It was very important for me to establish that our Indian friends are fully aware of this.



Question:

What is Russia’s opinion on the numerous attempts to discuss Kashmir at the UN Security Council?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have always believed that the Kashmir problem should be settled through direct talks between India and Pakistan in accordance with the declarations and decision these two countries have adopted. We also adhere to this position when it is proposed that the Kashmir problem be discussed at the UN.



Question:

How will the crisis between Iran and the United States affect the peace process in Afghanistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think the aggravation of relations between Iran and the United States will probably not be conducive to resolving any crisis in the region, but only increase tensions. The tragedy with the Ukrainian plane is a serious wake-up call and signal to start de-escalation rather than engage in constant threats and military flights in this region.

In practical terms, we know that the United States is one of the main players in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It leads an entire coalition, has its troops deployed in Afghanistan and has resumed talks with the Taliban. We support this. We believe it is critical to reach an agreement, which will allow talks to begin between all the Afghans. After all, this pre-requisite advanced by the Taliban was accepted. We are trying to help this process. In parallel with our own contacts with the Taliban, who we are encouraging to agree on things and start a direct dialogue with other political forces in Afghanistan, we have a tripartite channel of communication with the Americans and the Chinese, which was recently joined by Pakistan. We believe it would be the right thing to do, if Iran joined the United States, China, Russia and Pakistan in their informal exchanges about how to promote a settlement. In principle, this is possible. As I understand, what stands in the way is the anti-Iranian slant of the US policy and Iran’s reluctance in this situation to talk with the Americans and help them resolve particular issues.

From all points of view, it is nevertheless necessary to de-escalate relations between the United States and Iran, but this will require state wisdom. These relations are unlikely move away from the dangerous line if Washington continues to publicly blame Iran for all the region’s sins. Whatever country you take, Iran is to blame for everything. Everywhere you look, Washington is demanding that Iran stop developing ties and exerting influence. This is unrealistic. All countries in this and other regions have their interests. They project them onto their friends and neighbours. Most importantly, these interests should be advanced legitimately. Unfortunately, this does not always happen. Look at the illegal presence of the antiterrorist coalition in eastern Syria, which, in fact, contributes to fuelling the separatist sentiment. This is actually a serious problem. So, it’s best for everyone to sit down and talk.

As you may be aware, Iran first proposed to conclude a non-aggression pact between Iran and the Arab countries of the Gulf, and then came up with the Hormuz Peace Initiative to cooperate on ensuring security in these waters. We practice a similar approach. I have already mentioned in my opening remarks that we have put forward a Concept of Collective Security in the Gulf and adjacent areas. We have in mind not only the need to gather all the Gulf coastal countries, Arabs and Iranians at one table, but also to reinforce their efforts with the participation of external players. I mean the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union. I think that this configuration can be used to launch the work of a conference on security and trust in this region. If this process can be started, other countries in the region could join it later, more broadly, other countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Unfortunately, the differences between individual Arab countries of the Gulf and the Iranians are too deep. In our contacts with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Iranians themselves, we want them to start a dialogue among themselves. There seems to be an understanding of this, but so far we have not been able to convince our friends to begin this work.



Question:

I have a question about the Ukrainian Boeing. It was widely discussed last week. The Iranian and Russian approaches were compared in connection with the MH17 flight, and not in a completely favourable way. Do you agree with Margarita Simonyan that in this case Iran acted “like a real man” unlike other countries, including Russia?

I wanted to ask about the Foreign Ministry’s position that it made public last week. Until recently, various representatives of the Ministry said it was Western misinformation. Although in fact there was a lot of evidence, and even without access to intelligence it could be seen with the naked eye that something had happened at an altitude of 2,500 metres. It turned out that this was not true. Do you see any reason to apologise to the families of the people who died?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not recall the Foreign Ministry officially saying that the version that the plane was shot down was misinformation. You can refute me if you have facts.



Question:

I think your deputy Sergey Ryabkov provided the comment.



Sergey Lavrov:

We did not and could not have made any official statements. We only wanted the truth to be established. As, in fact, we want to establish the truth with regard to the Malaysian Boeing. Answering the previous question, I mentioned the tragedy with the Ukrainian plane in connection with escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran. I don’t want to justify anyone. This was a human error. I think everyone has already realised that it was unintentional. The surviving families are entitled to claim compensation. I think Iran will look into these claims. They admitted that it happened by mistake. I do not want to convince anyone that this could not have happened. Of course, I would like this not to have happened. But, in an unprecedented operation that undermined and called into question all the conceivable norms of international law, the Americans destroyed the commander of the Quds special forces of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, General Qasem Soleimani. The Iranians responded. As we later found out, they notified Iraq before responding. There are many media reports that the Americans were duly notified, made note of it and took it for granted. But there’s information that after this attack the Iranians were expecting another US attack. They did not know in what form, but there were at least six F-35 fighters in the airspace right on the Iranian border. This information is subject to double-checking, but I want to emphasise the nervousness that is always part of such situations.

With regard to Iran’s approach and Russia’s approach, frankly, I do not understand what difference you are talking about. Once again, I want to emphasise that we, as in the case of the Ukrainian Boeing, want to have clarity with regard to the Malaysian Boeing. Let me remind you of some things that our colleagues, in particular, the Dutch, are trying not to mention. First, Russia co-sponsored UNSC Resolution 2166, which contained requirements to ensure an investigation in strict accordance with the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I will not provide examples of the rules that should have been complied with, but they have not been respected. Among other things, UNSCR 2166 required that the investigators report regularly to the UNSC. Not a single report was filed. A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was formed consisting of Ukraine, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Malaysia, whose Boeing was downed, was not invited. It was invited only three months later to participate in a criminal investigation team, even though it was already part of the technical team. By the way, if they had complaints against us, they could have invited us to join the JIT. No one wanted us there, but we actively cooperated nonetheless: we did everything the Netherlands-created JIT requested at any particular moment. We even gave full-scale demonstrations. Almaz-Antey Concern, which produces the Buk air defence system which was allegedly used in the shooting down of this plane, showed how this could occur in a real-life situation. They provided primary radar data. To our question about the data from the Ukrainian radars, we received the strange answer that they were not available. Then someone said that the radars had been turned off accidentally. All the radars in Ukraine that were observing this part of the airspace were “turned off” at some point, the same way the video surveillance was turned off in the morning when the Skripals were found on a park bench. It’s just that a camera that was watching their house was turned off and then turned on. There’s no answer to the question as to why the conversations between the Ukrainian dispatchers on that day were not published in full. Now, five years after the crash some recordings of the telephone conversations between Russian representatives, representatives of Donbass, have been published. It took them five years to locate telephone records. What about the Ukrainian air traffic controllers? There’s no need to make any efforts to get them. These records must be made public. They just don’t want to. This begs the question: where is the data from the US satellites? It was mentioned that they exist.

The most interesting part is that when Malaysia was not invited to participate in this investigation right from the outset, the four countries that formed a group with Ukraine (they did not mention it, but we know it for certain) initially agreed among themselves that any information that went outside should be approved by all four members of this group, including Ukraine. When the Dutch MPs asked their government why Ukraine was never asked about the reasons for not closing the airspace, the Dutch government remained silent. There are many such questions. When the Dutch investigation, despite the fact that we provided everything we could in response to their requests, publicly declared (my colleague Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok also did this) that Russia did not cooperate with the investigation, we showed them what we did and asked why they had made such statements. Do you know the answer? "Russia has not cooperated because it has not admitted its guilt."

Australia and the Netherlands suggested that we hold consultations. We agreed with the understanding that we would consider all matters of interest to us, and this was agreed upon. In addition, we would answer their questions. But we wanted to discuss everything I have just mentioned with them. They shunned these discussions and tried to present things as a state of affairs in which the investigation was not finished, and we were the culprits and, they say, let's start talking about compensation. Is that what “real men” do or what? Not sure? I don’t think so.

So, when they approach this matter, the Skripals or chemical weapons in Syria exclusively from the “highly likely” standpoint, this is the very same story with which we started our conversation today, where instead of international law they make up the rules that are good only for them and force others to believe in them.



Maria Zakharova:

If I may, since Sergey Ryabkov was quoted incorrectly, I will cite his words, because otherwise we will provide an excuse for incorrect interpretations.



Sergey Lavrov:

Lies, let me put it bluntly.



Maria Zakharova:

On January 10, Sergey Ryabkov literally stated the following in Tokyo, I quote: “I’m deeply convinced that it is impossible to try to score political points using this terrible human tragedy. We need to let the experts analyse the situation and draw their conclusions. Starting any kind of games here is, at least, unseemly.” Here’s another direct quote: “There’s no reason to make any loud statements at this point.” End of quote.



Question:

The New START Treaty is set to expire in February 2021. President Vladimir Putin and you are saying that no messages are forthcoming from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, and that it is still unclear whether the Treaty will be extended or not. But everything changes. Quite possibly, Russia is ever more persistently sending messages to Washington that it is high time to address this matter.



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, I discussed this during my first trip to Washington in 2017 and also in December 2019. Yesterday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov also discussed this matter with US Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Christopher Ford. The US side is not providing any final response and is trying to suspend discussion of the issue. In suspending the matter, they are constantly introducing the subject of involving the People’s Republic of China in these talks, although we have explained our position so many times. The President of Russia has repeatedly noted that we will take part in any specific multilateral negotiating process if all the parties to this process agree. We would also take part, if the Americans believe that it is pointless to continue this process without the PRC, and if China also wants this. But the People’s Republic of China has made numerous official statements that it will not take part in such talks, explaining this by the fact that the structure of the Chinese nuclear forces differs drastically from that of the United States and the Russian Federation. We have stated that we respect this position of the PRC, and that we will not force China to change it. Why should they do this, and how can we force them to change their position? For some reason, the United States is convinced that we should undertake to talk China into responding to the US proposal. I believe that this proposal is incomprehensible. The United States boasts highly efficient channels for dialogue with China, and they have just concluded a trade agreement.

Therefore I will once again reaffirm the fact that we completely respect the position of the PRC. We will take part in any multilateral configuration of talks, if everyone coordinates it. But this takes time, and if, in principle, political conditions become ripe, and if the concerned parties are ready for this multilateral process, then the talks themselves would take months, and the New START Treaty is set to expire within a year, in February 2021. President Vladimir Putin proposed to President Donald Trump and to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo [when he visited Sochi in May 2019] to agree to extend this Treaty, to say the least, so that there would be some insurance policy in place, while they were trying to launch a new multilateral negotiating process. This is our position, and it remains in force. We suggest extending the New START Treaty without any preconditions, and the President of Russia reaffirmed this once again at a meeting with top leaders of the Russian Armed Forces in the autumn of 2019. I hope that the Americans have heard us. We have discussed this many times, but we have not received any clear and understandable messages from them so far.



Question:

As you know, Russia will hold the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2021-2023. How are we preparing for it? What is the role of our northern Arctic regions, in particular, Yamal? Do you think our Arctic agenda is effective?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe we have a packed Arctic agenda. It is the result of the efforts of a large inter-departmental team. It reflects our interests regarding security, navigation, the economy, energy, environmental protection and the rights of indigenous people. Indigenous peoples take part in the Arctic Council’s activities. There is a special format. They regularly attend and speak at ministerial sessions. Essentially, the Arctic Council is one of the few institutions that, so far, is not associated with ideology or policy. The council makes very important decisions on cooperation in emergency situations, in particular, perish the thought, in the event of an oil spill, and also on scientific cooperation, the regulation of fishing in the Arctic Ocean and many other decisions. There is no reason for bringing military working methods to the Arctic. In this connection, we do not believe it is right to try to draw NATO into this high-latitude region but we are in favour of resuming the previous practice where the chiefs of staff of the armed forces from the member countries of the Arctic Council met only to ensure the required level of confidence. We suggest that meetings like these be resumed, beginning, probably, with expert consultations.

The Arctic Council is carrying out its activities. Our agenda will ensure continuity. Currently, Iceland holds the chairmanship of the council. We maintain regular contact with the minister and we will continue to meet. As 2021 draws near, a specific agenda will be formulated to seamlessly continue the processes coordinated by all council members regarding the economy, climate protection, environmental protection in general, and, of course, the processes aimed at making the living conditions of indigenous peoples as comfortable as possible.



Question:

First of all, on behalf of myself and the Sputnik team working in Estonia, I would like to thank the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Estonia and personally Maria Zakharova for the support you provided to the Sputnik team in Estonia when we were going through hard times. I would like to remind my colleagues here that the Estonian authorities plan to bring criminal charges against the Sputnik employees in Estonia. We may be sentenced to five years in prison for working with the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency. So, to avoid imprisonment, the majority of our employees had to terminate their employment contracts from January 1. However, we hope to continue to get assistance from the Foreign Ministry.

Yesterday, during the discussion of the outrageous situation with Russian journalists, your Estonian counterpart Urmas Reinsalu said that – I am quoting him – it has to do with the need to enhance the defence of Europe and defend freedom in Europe. That is, if we go to prison, Europe will be free. Please comment on this situation.

Do you think, given this rhetoric and, to put it mildly, the undiplomatic statements regarding Russia that were made not only by Estonian government members but the President of Estonia as well, that President Vladimir Putin will attend the Finno-Ugric Congress in Estonia this year at the invitation of [Estonian President] Kersti Kaljulaid? Did you receive an invitation from Urmas Reinsalu to take part in the celebration of the centenary of the signing of the Treaty of Tartu?



Sergey Lavrov:

You provided facts that hardly require in-depth comment. As for the concrete actions against Sputnik, I think they are outrageous. As things stand, we are requesting a response from the OSCE every day. The Council of Europe came up with a statement that more or less denounced these actions. We want to draw the Council of Europe’s attention to the fact that it is their members who are speaking on the issues that fly in the face of the European values they preach. The fact that the European Union is swallowing this, unable as it is to do anything about it, is another blot on the European Union’s reputation. We have already seen plenty of these blots. I have already mentioned what caused the Ukrainian crisis.

I am also worried by the enviable perseverance with which the leading countries of the European Union, in particular, our French colleagues, are promoting initiatives to classify the media, identifying them as either a media outlet or a propaganda tool. I think these two things are of the same ilk, I mean, what is happening to you in real life and what is now being formulated as a concept by high-ranking officials.

As for Estonian statements and speeches, my colleague has said many times that a border treaty will not be ratified because it revokes the Treaty of Tartu and that the Pechory District must be returned to Estonia. As for the Estonian President, she asked for a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow and he met with her. It seemed to me that she adequately assessed the situation when she said that we were neighbours and that, of course, we had disagreements but we had to remain good neighbours. Something must have happened to her after she returned to her country. It is sad, because we have never tried to avoid cooperation with our colleagues. Our only requirement and a requirement of international law is that they put an end to the infamous phenomenon of statelessness, which is another blot on the European Union’s reputation. Some positive trends in this field are emerging as they have started to grant citizenship to people by virtue of them being born in the country. However, they have still a long way to go before getting to the standards that agree with European values.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4001740
__________________
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 24th, 2020 #68
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement for the media on the outcome of the Berlin Conference on Libya, Berlin, January 19, 2020



19 January 2020 - 23:58






The Berlin Conference on Libya, which lasted about five hours, is over. It took rather long, about four months, to prepare it. It was preceded by five rounds of consultations at the level of senior officials. This resulted in the preparation of a detailed document that contains recommendations on ways to overcome the ongoing Libyan crisis. This document is divided into chapters, one of which has to do with efforts in the sphere of security and stipulates measures for attaining a lasting ceasefire. There is also a chapter on the political process and one on settling Libya’s economic problems so as to ensure that all its religious, ethnic and political groups have access to the country’s natural wealth. There is also a chapter on humanitarian problems and human rights, as well as on the support which the international community led by the United Nations (UN) should give to all of these processes.

Russia was involved in these preparations from the very beginning. We attended all the five preparatory rounds. It was at our insistence that the conference organisers abandoned their initial idea of meeting without the Libyan parties. Invitations to the conference were sent to the Libyan leaders – Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord Fayez Mustafa al-Sarraj and Commander of the Libyan National Army Marshal Khalifa Haftar. It was at our initiative as well that the range of participants from among Libya’s neighbours was expanded, because their interests must be protected and their views are extremely important for lasting agreements.

The third element on which we insisted was that the conference documents reproduce, clearly and unambiguously, the key provisions of the UN Security Council resolutions on Libya, primarily the provisions on the absence of a military solution and the importance of achieving a settlement through the efforts of the Libyans themselves without any foreign interference.

We managed to formulate the final statement of the conference so that all the practical recommendations and proposals that should be adopted have been approved by the Libyan parties.

Of course, the document emphasised the role of the UN Security Council, to which the document will be submitted for analysis, consideration and approval.





President of Russia Vladimir Putin put forth our position and pointed out that the Libyans’ opinion would be taken into account when the Berlin conference’s recommendations were discussed at the UN Security Council. This opinion should be expressed clearly before the UN Security Council starts working on the document.

The situation is difficult. The Libyan parties have made a small step forward since the January 13 meeting held in Moscow. They have agreed to send five delegates each to a military committee that will be established at the UN’s initiative to discuss all issues related to the ceasefire. As you know, the ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey took effect after midnight on January 12. Today we agreed that the ceasefire was largely respected, although there have been violations on both sides. The countries that can influence the situation on the ground in Libya pledged today to abstain from any steps that could provoke the Libyan parties into resuming full-scale hostilities, and said that they would encourage compliance with and consolidation and strengthening of the ceasefire.

The military committee comprising five representatives each of Fayez al-Sarraj and Khalifa Haftar will work under UN supervision to coordinate practical confidence-building measures for a more permanent ceasefire.

Overall, we believe that the conference was very useful. It is clear that the final decision will be made by the Libyans themselves. And it is clear that a serious and sustainable dialogue between the Libyan parties is so far impossible because of the vast differences between them. At the same time, the recommendations and proposals sealed in the final document of the Berlin conference will complement the list of international initiatives aimed at encouraging the Libyan parties to coordinate the conditions for launching talks and reaching agreements.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4001846






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with CSTO Secretary-General Stanislav Zas, Moscow, January 20, 2020



20 January 2020 - 14:57







Mr Zas,

We are glad to receive you here in Moscow for the first time as Secretary-General of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). We are confident that your rich political and government experience in all of your previous positions, including the head of the Belarus Security Council, will make your work more effective. On our part, we promise to support you in all of your endeavours and the actions of your Secretariat to implement the decisions made by the heads of state and other charter bodies of the CSTO.

I am very glad to meet with you and would like to once again congratulate you on your appointment.

***

The proposals of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who has assumed the CSTO presidency for this year, were supported in Bishkek. I think it would be absolutely right to start preparing practical measures on all of these issues now.





***

The celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory are playing the main role in the initiatives and priorities of the Russian presidency. Apart from the political, memorial, purely military and information components, this event has a legal element because there are attempts to call into question the legal results of World War II. Vladimir Putin made several statements in this regard. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko also regularly emphasises that rewriting history is unacceptable. I am convinced that all CSTO countries agree on this, as our joint work shows. We will do our best to assist you in all areas of your activities that are authorised by heads of state.

We will discuss this in more detail today.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4002433






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 34th meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation, Moscow, January 21, 2020



21 January 2020 - 13:36






Colleagues,

We have convened for a regular meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation.

Last quarter, we met to discuss the development of interregional cooperation and interregional forums and conferences. Work in this sphere has proceeded energetically with due regard for the recommendations adopted at the meeting and subsequently approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

In some cases, the format of interregional meetings provides for the personal attendance by the heads of state. This is proof of the attention our work is being given at the top level. The range of subjects we address is expanding and includes now not only trade and the economy, which is what we began with, but also culture, humanitarian matters, education and sports, as well as events held to promote people-to-people contacts. Allocations for holding such events are increasing, including from the federal budget.

Our interaction includes efforts to further expand the geography of our cooperation. Proposals on establishing interregional platforms are being discussed by our colleagues in Iran, Greece and India. This spring, we are planning to hold a large-scale meeting of representatives of Russian and Moldovan regions. Agreements have been reached to hold a Russian-French year of interregional cooperation in 2020. Similar events were held recently with our German colleagues.

We can report positive achievements in the sphere of international associations. The EAEU plans include economic events to be attended by representatives from the member states’ regions. A Forum of the Heads of Regions of the SCO member states is being established at Russia’s initiative and in accordance with the Plan of Events for Russia’s SCO presidency approved by President Putin. The first meeting of the new forum is scheduled to take place in May this year.

The involvement of Russian regions in the activities of interregional platforms meets their development plans and helps to promote a positive international agenda. We will continue to cooperate with and provide all-round support to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Today we will be discussing inter-municipal cooperation, which is not unlike interregional cooperation. The development of inter-municipal cooperation is having a positive effect on trade and tourism and is promoting research, educational and cultural relations and people-to-people ties.

Good results have been achieved in this sphere of late. Last year, Ryazan hosted the first Russia-China Municipal Forum, which was attended by 70 Chinese delegates and over 80 Russian representatives. Sister relations have been established between 44 municipal and administrative territories in Russia and South Korea, plus 26 Russian and 32 Japanese municipalities are involved in the Russia-Japan inter-municipal cooperation.

The first Russian-US Municipal Forum was held in Moscow in October 2019. I would like to note that the annual Fort Ross Dialogue on US-Russian Relations, which has been held for many years, is attended by representatives of municipal authorities as well. Also, a US-Russia Mayors’ Summit was held two years ago.

Inter-municipal ties are being developed with European partners, including between sister-cities. For example, relations are maintained between some 150 pairs of urban and municipal entities in Russia and Finland. Preparations are underway for a regular conference of Russian and Finnish sister-cities and municipalities, which is scheduled to take place in the Tver Region in June.





Inter-municipal ties are growing stronger between Russia and Germany (I mentioned interregional ties before). A Twin-City Partnership Meeting between Russia and Germany was held in Dueren last year.

Last year, Russia’s Twin Cities International Association (TCIA) signed a memorandum on cooperation with the Association of Towns and Communities of Slovakia.

The joint Russian-EU programmes of cross-border cooperation include multifaceted projects involving the municipal authorities of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The work of our representatives at the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities offers opportunities for strengthening ties with foreign partners.

Naturally, our attention is focused on the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Of course, we would like to see a more dynamic development of existing and the establishment of new ties between the municipalities of the Republic of Crimea and foreign partners. With this aim in view, we will continue to use the opportunities of the International Humanitarian Livadia Forum and the Yalta International Economic Forum.

Overall, we believe that inter-municipal cooperation has good potential. I am referring, in particular, to the BRICS Friendship Cities and Local Governments Cooperation Forum and the initiative on establishing a non-governmental Secretariat of Sister-Cities and Municipalities of the Caspian Region.

There are many topics we need to discuss. Let us hope that today we will be able to map out our future progress in this sphere.

Of course, we also believe that we should review the legal framework of the international activities of Russian municipalities, including in the context of debates on the improvement of public authorities. I hope that ultimately we will enhance the standing of municipalities, including in international affairs.

It is obvious that this objective cannot be achieved without resource, expert and administrative support. We will promote initiatives that provide for holding seminars and preparing recommended practices for local governments. We should probably use the ongoing discussions on improving the bodies of public authority to consider incorporating inter-municipal cooperation into a federal targeted programme so as to ensure sustainable financing for it.

In general, I believe that a seamless coordination of the efforts of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Cultural Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), the Russian Justice Ministry and other federal bodies of executive authority, as well as the regional authorities and Russian NGOs is especially important at this stage.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4003039






Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a general meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, Moscow, January 21, 2020



21 January 2020 - 18:58






Mr Ivanov,

Colleagues, friends,

We are attending a regular meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC). However, it is not a completely regular gathering, as in a couple of weeks from now, on February 2, we will be marking 10 years since the signing of the Presidential directive On the Establishment of the Non-profit Partnership Russian International Affairs Council. I would like to use this occasion to congratulate all of you and us on this anniversary.

The council has developed very interesting and sustainable traditions since then. The Foreign Ministry appreciates the comradely relations we maintain with RIAC, which has become a key think tank in the field of international affairs both in Russia and on the international arena. We set high store by RIAC’s efforts to provide intellectual nourishment for Russian diplomacy, as well as give expert and analytical support to Russia’s foreign policy.

We especially need this now when the global situation is not just difficult, but also explosive and unpredictable too. President of Russia Vladimir Putin put forth the essence of the current stage in international affairs in his recent speeches, and it was also discussed at the events held at the Foreign Ministry.

In a word, we are in the middle of a long era marked by an objective development of a new, fair and more democratic multipolar world order. This process is accompanied by heavy fighting between those who have ruled global affairs for centuries and the rising economic and political power centres.

Humankind certainly stands to lose from some of our Western colleagues’ insistence on the logic of not even yesterday but yesteryear, hoping to regain their global domination. Moreover, they have started acting more impulsively and aggressively.

I would like to say a few words about the system of global strategic security, which is being destroyed. The Americans have destroyed two of the three fundamental documents – the ABM and the INF treaties. The New START Treaty, the last instrument of strategic stability, is hanging in the air. Russia’s proposals for extending it were long ago sent in advance to our American partners and have been publicly reaffirmed, including by President Putin. We have not received any reply yet, but we do see movement in the opposite direction, towards building up tension in the sphere of strategic stability and nuclear arms. In addition, NATO has launched a very dangerous game of expanding its operations to two new media – outer space and cyberspace.

We have said more than once that the justification offered for this policy is the “rules-based order”, which aims to replace the system of international law that developed after WWII, with the United Nations Organisation at its centre.





Unwillingness to create and respect new universal rules of the game, which would be codified in the system of international law, is only building mistrust. This leads to the appearance of new seats of instability and conflicts. The risk of any local confrontation growing into a global threat is increasing many times over.

As you well know, Russia does not just play the role of a critic. We are advocating a constructive and universally acceptable international agenda based on the central coordinating role of the UN, as sealed in the UN Charter, as well as on the values set out in the UN Charter such as the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in others’ internal affairs and a peaceful settlement of disputes.

We remain open to the most serious dialogue on the fundamental principles of a stable world order. More than that, we have submitted proposals to this effect. As President Putin pointed out in his annual address to the Federal Assembly, the five nuclear countries who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council have a special role to play in this. We will continue working to raise the responsibility of these leading powers.

Regrettably, our Western partners, while pursuing a policy of containing Russia, have deliberately suspended or curtailed many dialogue platforms and bilateral channels of communication between Russia and the European Union, including within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council. The role of “second tracks” and informal channels of communication, such as RIAC, as we see it, is increasing in these conditions.

RIAC is an independent organisation, which allows it to make use of different views and opinions, including opposing ones. The statistics of RIAC’s operation is self-explanatory. Mr Ivanov will talk in greater detail about this later. As far as I know, over the past year RIAC held more than 100 events attended by Russian and international experts, including large conferences on Russia’s relations with China, the Middle East, the West, India and other leading countries and organisations.

We greatly appreciate RIAC’s analytical work. Last year it published a number of excellent papers, including forecasts, which do help us in preparing proposals for the leadership on new methods to further promote Russia’s foreign policy.

I would like to mention RIAC’s traditionally substantial role when it comes to education. RIAC and its partners organised two [summer] schools for young experts. Over 80 students from Russian and other universities, including American, British, Korean and other Asian universities, have had onsite training at RIAC. Other new forms that have gained in popularity include the RIAC Urban Breakfasts, a contest for young foreign-affairs journalists, plus webinars. RIAC’s website is one of the most popular and respected sources of foreign policy information. I was delighted and pleasantly surprised to learn that the number of RIAC’s contributors is approaching 1,000. This is a very large group of experts, which allows RIAC to present a broad range of expert views on foreign affairs. It is very good that there are many young experts among the council’s contributors.

Colleagues,

This year we will celebrate two major events, the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Organisation. You are aware, of course, about the information background accompanying the preparations for these events. I firmly believe that we must abide strictly by historical facts and archival material. Russia has demonstrated unprecedented openness when it comes to declassifying such material for the benefit of the general public. I believe that RIAC will give serious analytical and practical attention to these subjects this year, especially over the next few months, and that it will use its entire expert and analytical potential to prevent dialogue on these subjects from sliding into politics, leaving history to the historians and preventing any attempts to rewrite the history and outcome of WWII or to disparage the heroes of the Great Patriotic War and the liberators of Europe.

On that note I would like to conclude my remarks and to wish every success to your highly commendable and close-knit staff.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4003236
__________________
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 25th, 2020 #69
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, January 23, 2020



23 January 2020 - 20:42







Russia’s presidency of the CSTO, the SCO and BRICS in 2020

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the opening ceremony of the 28th International Educational Christmas Readings

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


Working visit by South Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Awut Deng Acuil

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the joint meeting of the Supervisory Board and the Board of Trustees of the Foreign Ministry’s MGIMO University

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



Update on Syria

On the whole, the situation in Syria has stabilised considerably. Peaceful life is returning to the country. Its economy and social life is being restored. It is necessary to support this positive trend, especially against the backdrop of the complicated regional situation.

Hotbeds of tensions still persist in the territories that are not controlled by the Syrian Government, notably in Idlib, some districts on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and around Al-Tanf.

In Idlib, the Russian and Turkish militaries made another attempt to establish a ceasefire in early January. However, the radical groups ignored this attempt again and continued shelling Syrian troops positions and nearby residential areas. They have been launching up to 60 attacks a day. Thus, on January 16, the militants shelled residential districts of Aleppo with multiple rocket launchers, killing seven and wounding 18 civilians. Dozens of Syrian military personnel were killed or wounded. Under the circumstances, government troops are compelled to react to these aggressive acts of terrorism. They are conducting limited operations to neutralise terrorist activities and reduce the threat emanating from Idlib.

Three humanitarian corridors have been created to help civilians leave the de-escalation zone. About 1,500 people have used them since January 13. Regrettably, the terrorists are impeding the evacuation of civilians and they are shelling checkpoints. This is further confirmation of what we have said more than once: the Idlib problem will not be resolved as long as it is controlled by terrorists that have been identified as such by the UN Security Council.

The situation on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River has improved, largely owing to the implementation of the Russian-Turkish memorandum of October 22, 2019. Russian and Turkish military regularly patrol the agreed upon sections of the border in Kobani and Qamishli. In addition, the Russian military are working hard to restore destroyed infrastructure (water and electricity supply facilities, elevators and bridge crossings). They are rendering medical aid to civilians and supplying them with food and the basic necessities.

Russian experience makes it clear that there is every opportunity for the delivery of humanitarian relief to northeast Syria from the interior regions of the country in coordination with the Syrian government, as is required by the main principles of rendering humanitarian aid. Now that Damascus has retaken control of over 90 percent of the national territory, it is no longer necessary to maintain the cross-border mechanism in the form that was established in 2014. I would like to emphasise again that this mechanism was created as an emergency and temporary measure that must be brought in line with the standards of international humanitarian law and the real situation on the ground.

The situation in the US-occupied 55 km zone around Al-Tanf and the Rukban refugee camp in this territory remains complicated. The UN plan on the evacuation of the remaining residents of the camp has been delayed for the fifth month because of the refusal of Washington and the militants under its control to provide the required security guarantees.

We believe that the illegal US occupation is the real reason for the wretched plight of the camp’s residents. Humanitarian convoys will not solve this problem, particularly because this relief simply does reach them and is misappropriated by the militants. Importantly, the refugees do receive necessary humanitarian and medical assistance when they leave Al-Tanf for government-controlled territories.

Despite local hotbeds of tensions, we continue working to promote the political settlement of the Syrian crisis. We attach much importance to the work of the Constitutional Committee. As I noted earlier, the issues related to this committee will be discussed in detail at Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen on January 24.

In addition, we believe it is very important at this stage to step up international efforts to provide Syria with humanitarian aid without politicisation or discrimination. We think this will create conditions for the voluntary, safe and proper return of refugees. In all, about 760,000 refugees and over 1.3 million IDPs have returned home since the beginning of the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria on September 30, 2015. Of this number, some 530,000 refugees have returned since the middle of July 2018.



White Helmets’ video of alleged efforts to rescue children from a “Russian air attack”

We received a request from the Izvestia Multimedia Information Centre to comment on a recent video by the White Helmets, something presented as an operation to rescue children from an air attack by Russian warplanes on the village of Kafar Taal near Aleppo.

We consider the recent material released by the White Helmets, a sham humanitarian organisation, to be another cynical provocation aimed at discrediting Russia’s efforts to counter terrorism in Syria.

Notably, planted stories like this one, which these pseudo-rescuers use to gain the media spotlight, are, in our view, nothing else than odious materials. The weaker the position of the terrorists in Syria, primarily in the remaining terrorist stronghold in Idlib province, the more often these materials tend to appear – an almost daily occurrence recently. Other information, which the Syrian Government has made public at the UN more than once, on the regular attempts by the White Helmets to stage-manage new shows of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, this in collaboration with terrorist groups, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. These efforts are designed to create a grim information background and direct, through manipulation and juggling the facts, another wave of criticism at what Russia and the Syrian Government are doing in the region, while disregarding the obvious progress in the political settlement process. I am referring to the Constitutional Committee, which was created and has started its activities.

Russia has repeatedly provided public evidence of stable ties existing between the White Helmets and terrorists groups, of crimes committed by this pseudo-humanitarian organisation and their involvement in stage-managed chemical attacks. We spoke about this in detail recently at the UN in New York. Investigations conducted by independent foreign and Russian experts have corroborated this information.

Those who sponsor the White Helmets are not baffled by these newly discovered facts. This new stage-managed video directly shows that they still tend to use humanitarian activity as a cover and employ this organisation, while providing an information smokescreen for terrorist crimes and creating additional obstacles to Syria’s return to a peaceful life.



Developments in Afghanistan and Russia’s assessment on the status of the negotiating process in the light of the contacts between the US and the Taliban and Washington’s charges that Iran supports radical elements in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Tensions are running high in Afghanistan. The armed opposition, as represented by the Taliban movement, has brought no less than half of the country’s territory under their control. This situation is being used by international terrorist groups, primarily ISIS, to increase their activity. We are still concerned about their consistent efforts to organise a bridgehead in northern Afghanistan in order to destabilise the situation in the neighbouring Central Asian countries. A graphic illustration of these intentions was the recent attack by ISIS militants on a border post in Tajikistan. We also see that after official Kabul’s statements about the defeat of the ISIS militants in the east of the country, they are once again becoming more active in that region. So, the threats of extremism and terrorism, as well as of drug-trafficking, which is linked to the first two threats, coming from Afghanistan still exist.

In this situation, Russia welcomes the resumption of talks between the United States and the Taliban in Qatar after their suspension last December. We believe that if the United States and the Taliban reach an agreement shortly, an intra-Afghan peace process could be initiated. In our opinion, the necessary conditions for this exist now.

As for the recent accusations of support for radicals in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan levelled by the United States at Teheran, we believe these have not been substantiated at this point and do not help to create a positive atmosphere for achieving a sustainable settlement in Afghanistan.



Update on Venezuela

An array of diverse and important events have occurred in Venezuela recently. Regrettably, these events combined did not bring the conflicting political forces to a joint constructive search for compromise agreements to normalise the domestic political situation.

The obvious need for negotiations as a way to resolve the existing contradictions in Venezuela can be seen in the progress of the so called “roundtable of national dialogue” between Nicolas Maduro’s government and the so-called moderate opposition. However, disregarding that, radical politicians, whose popular support continues to decline, have not ceased their provocative actions and continue to demand more support from their foreign patrons.

After the new parliament leaders were elected on January 5, the former speaker of the National Assembly defied the loss of his post and arranged an alternative gathering of his proxies who reconfirmed his authority, after which, he swore himself in. The illusion of this duality of power, now also in the National Assembly, which is aggressively promoted by the opposition, in fact, just paralyses this important legislative body, something that obviously affects the overall situation

Washington’s sanctions pressure on Caracas and its officials, which runs counter to international law, also hinders the search for solutions to the intra-Venezuelan conflict. In the latest development, the US Treasury has blacklisted the elected speaker of the National Assembly Luis Parra and the deputies who stood up for him. This punishment can only be reversed if they disavow their decision and support Juan Guaido instead, according to Washington. This is a most “impressive” interpretation of democracy, indeed.

The US sanctions policy against Venezuela and its people, which has gone beyond all imaginable limits of counter-productiveness and anti-humanity, while international law has long been forgotten and dismissed, does nothing but aggravate the socioeconomic crisis and boost emigration to neighbouring countries. We are not the only ones who see the disastrous results of US policy: the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, admitted recently that US economic restrictions were having an extremely negative effect on the situation in Venezuela. I am referring to his words not so much to highlight the situation in Venezuela – it is obvious – as to point out that even the EU (which is unusual) is drifting away from its earlier position of “cold” non-interference and disregard for the humanitarian problems and is beginning to acknowledge the facts. Stating facts that are contrary to the view of their Big Brother in Washington makes the change in the EU’s position clear.

By the way, we have noted a somewhat shifting rhetoric from US administration officials on Venezuela. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement of January 9 publicly confirmed a refusal to use force and did not rule out the possibility of talks with the Maduro government. These are appropriate words which we would like to see reinforced with action. However, the situation is the opposite now: recently the US Southern Command announced a joint drill with the Colombian army in that country, while the US Treasury announced sanctions against 15 Venezuelan aircraft.

Russia’s cooperation with Venezuela is aimed, among other things, at preventing these hostile actions from inflicting irreparable damage on the sovereignty and independence of this state and at minimising the suffering of ordinary Venezuelans. We are focusing on joint economic projects, many of which have a humanitarian component and target the improvement of the socioeconomic situation in the country and the wellbeing of its citizens. Last year, we mentioned the Russian supply of vital drugs like insulin. I would like to add that in late 2019 Russia sent 1.5 million doses of flu vaccine and is set to supply 3 million doses annually in 2020-2022.

Nevertheless, our detractors continue to look for a hidden agenda. Failing to find it, they resort to the time-honoured method of fraudulent information plants and fakes with a main objective to undermine trust-based relations between Russia and Venezuela and to build up a toxic atmosphere around Russia’s presence in Latin America. One such “sagacious” analytical conclusion was presented by Bloomberg stating that Russia had allegedly waited for the change of guard at the Venezuelan Parliament before making a decision on expert assistance to Caracas in the financial area. I want to reiterate that Russia and Venezuela’s cooperation is proceeding in all areas in the spirit of pragmatic mutually-beneficial partnership without imposing any conditions, especially of political nature, which is in stark contrast to the favoured tactics of the so-called “friends of Venezuelan democracy.”

Regardless of a historical period or the political situation, we are unfortunately facing attempts to distort Russia’s conceptual approach and practical steps in the global arena, to present it as a guilty party, to blame it for someone else’s mistakes and errors. The situation in Venezuela is no exception. The man posing as the country’s “acting president” stated in an interview with the Spanish newspaper La Razon that his team “will insist on the use of pressure mechanisms, both diplomatic and backroom, against Russia” so as to make it give up supporting Nicolas Maduro. And this was said by the man whose representatives, figuratively speaking, are running after Russian delegations to find accidental encounters so as to report them to the media. This looks more like the global provocative behaviour of people who are totally unaware of what good upbringing is and who have only a vague notion of modern international relations.

Now that a Venezuelan opposition delegation is touring Europe, we would like to remind our responsible partners, especially our European partners, of the urgent need to reconvene intra-Venezuelan talks with the broadest possible spectrum of political forces. Under the current conditions, Venezuela and its people are badly in need of a peaceful, political-diplomatic resolution to the domestic conflict, a resolution that is initiated by the Venezuelan themselves via an inclusive dialogue, while honouring national legislation and international law. This is the kind of resolution that the world community must support.



Bolivia update

The situation in Bolivia remains tense. The tenure of the previous head of state and members of parliament has formally expired today. To fill in the legal vacuum caused by the cancellation of the October 20 voting returns, the country’s Constitutional Court decided to extend the mandate of the interim president and members of parliament until the candidates who will win the upcoming May 3 general election take their oath of office.

The Russian side respects the sovereignty of Bolivia and does not comment on this decision. At the same time, we cannot but note that a substantial share of the country’s population opposing the incumbent government perceives this decision as politically controversial, to say the least. The risk of tensions flaring up once again persists. This, as well as the danger of reverting to the risky practice of involving the armed forces in the suppression of peaceful manifestations cannot but cause concern.

We believe that only the fastest possible establishment of legitimate institutions of state authority following a democratic and transparent election held with the participation of all political forces without any discrimination can return that country to normal life. It goes without saying that the incumbent leaders have a special responsibility for a peaceful transition process that would pave the way for a fair, open and democratic election. The international community has every right to expect them to implement effective measures for facilitating the election process and guaranteeing the constitutional rights of all Bolivian citizens.

We consider any interference by foreign states in the election process to be unacceptable. This is also unacceptable as a matter of principle with regard to countries that are ready to groundlessly accuse others of similar actions and which act openly in the interests of political forces wielding power in another country. We would like to recall that no one has abolished the sovereignty of Bolivia, although many have already tried to influence it.

We would also like to reaffirm the fact that we perceive the incumbent leaders of Bolivia as purely interim; they assumed office because the situation in their country exceeded the constitutional framework. With due consideration for this, the authorities bear special responsibility for the decisions they make, including those on foreign policy matters, and for fulfilling their country’s international obligations.

This fully applies to unfailing compliance with the universal requirements of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, namely, the immunity of diplomatic missions and their properties. We share the recommendations on this score that are contained in the report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of December 10, 2019.

Unfortunately, the disputes that have taken shape in relations between Bolivia and a number of the continent’s states introduce an additional element of disagreements between countries of Latin America, a region that has traditionally prioritised the concept of unity in diversity. We hope that, by acting in line with mutual respect and norms of international law, they will be able to resolve the emergent bilateral disagreements.

Russia sees a peaceful Bolivia as an important economic partner and a respected political player in the Latin America/Caribbean region. We are convinced that all citizens of that country also need a stable Bolivia.



US sanctions against Cuba

Yet another package of sanctions that Washington has introduced against Havana proves that the US is consciously disregarding one of the basic principles of the modern world order, human rights protection, as it seeks to “strangulate” the Cuban economy. The ban on US chartered flights (as of March 11 of this year) that follows the ban on regular flights to all airports in Cuba except Havana (imposed on December 10, 2019) is yet more proof that the illegal unilateral measures are hitting ordinary citizens both in Cuba and the United States, who are being brazenly denied their inalienable right to freedom of movement. In 2019, for example, the island was visited by 552,000 Americans, including Cuban Americans. Today, US-based citizens will be unable to visit their families in Cuba. To reiterate: the reason for this is not a natural calamity, or the deterioration of the humanitarian situation, or a political crisis, or a terrorist threat, or a pandemic, but entirely the self-indulgence of the people in Washington, who have chosen precisely this method to influence Havana’s policy.

Besides this, the White House continues to violate international law, including the UN Charter, by putting into effect exterritorial Title III of the Helms-Burton Act and restrictions against carrier companies doing business with Havana. This involves, among other things, numerous visa and financial restraints as well as constant pressure brought to bear on Cuban doctors with contracts outside Cuba. All of this is causing condemnation and rejection in the greater part of the international community. Let me remind you that this was confirmed by the UN General Assembly vote on November 7, 2019, when an anti-blockade resolution was introduced (187 pros, 3 cons, with 2 abstentions).

For our part, we are categorically against these steps. We are solidarising with the people of Cuba, our strategic partner and ally, in that this unlawful blockade should be immediately lifted.



Settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict

We continue to monitor the settlement process in Donbass and the situation in the rest of Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov provided our views on this process at a recent news conference. We would like to say the following on this subject, considering that we received relevant questions.

We welcomed the improvements that took place in the settlement process in 2019 in the context of the preparations for and the holding of the Normandy format meeting in Paris. Kiev had to implement the decisions taken at the previous meetings, which included committing the Steinmeier Formula to paper and disengaging forces in three areas – Stanitsa Luganskaya, Zolotoye and Petrovskoye.

New steps in the right direction were made after the Paris summit. On December 29, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk exchanged detainees. Shooting decreased on the contact line, and there were completely silent days during the New Year and Christmas holidays. The Verkhovna Rada extended the law on the special status of Donbass for another year, even though it has not become effective yet. During the Contact Group’s meetings on December 18 and January 16, first Donetsk and Lugansk, and then Kiev presented their proposals regarding new disengagement areas.

Taken together, this shows that real, concrete and positive results are possible when there is political goodwill and a responsible approach. We hope that the Ukrainian authorities will demonstrate such goodwill more often. Regrettably, so far there are problems with that.

For example, the disengagement of forces in Zolotoye and Petrovskoye has not been completed or verified. The Ukrainian side has not dismantled fortifications or cleared mine fields. Moreover, the self-defence forces and the OSCE SMM had reported the return of the Ukrainian troops and military hardware, which is alarming.

The law on the special status of Donbass has been extended for another year, although the Minsk agreements stipulate its unlimited duration, but the Verkhovna Rada seems unwilling to do this. The law should also incorporate the Steinmeier Formula, and the Ukrainian Constitution should include guarantees of compliance with the special status of Donbass.

We were also surprised by Kiev’s ambivalent attitude to decentralisation amendments, which were submitted to the Verkhovna Rada twice and revoked as many times. In fact, these amendments do not stipulate decentralisation but a reform of the country’s administrative structure and the strengthening of the central authorities. They do not even mention Donbass. I would like to remind everyone that under the Minsk agreements, Kiev should discuss the future of Donbass and its status, decentralisation and the constitutional reform through a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.

In this context, we are alarmed by the calls made in Kiev, including by Foreign Minister Vadim Pristaiko, to rethink the Minsk agreements. We hope it was his personal opinion and that he knows that the participants in the Normandy format meeting in Paris, including President Vladimir Zelensky, have reaffirmed the lack of alternatives to the Minsk Package. We hope that the Ukrainian authorities will focus on the consistent implementation of all of its provisions in the coming period.

To conclude, I would like to say how regretful it is that the Western media and international organisations avoid visiting Donetsk and Lugansk. The OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama, who visited Donbass on January 20-21, paid no attention to the invitations sent him to visit the two self-proclaimed republics. I would like to point out once again that it is impossible to form an objective view on the developments or take successful actions towards a settlement without direct contacts with the parties to the conflict.

I would also like to urge the media once again, because we have done this more than once, that they should periodically, regularly or continuously cover the developments on the ground. And they should do this not only from the Kiev-controlled territory but they should also travel to the other side, because up until now they have been publishing a great deal of information that is unreliable, to put it mildly, or completely false. Their reports mention Donbass many times, yet these media have no cameras and do not send correspondents or delegations there.



International Holocaust Remembrance Day and 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by Soviet troops on January 27

As you know, the President of the Russian Federation is in Israel and spoke at the dedication of the Memorial Candle monument to the defenders and residents of besieged Leningrad during World War II. The President said that January 27, 1944 closed one of the most dramatic and heroic pages in the history of the Second World War: the siege of Leningrad was finally lifted. His remarks are available on the official Kremlin website.

I would like to say a few words about January 27, 1945, when Soviet troops liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau where millions of people were brutally tortured and killed. Allow me to remind you that in 2005, the UN designated that day International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Russia was a co-sponsor of the relevant UN General Assembly resolution.

Unfortunately, we have to admit that many states, including those that call themselves model democracies, show shameful tendencies such as glorification of the Nazis and their minions and the rewriting of the history of World War II. We are witnessing a criminal war on monuments – we used to say it was ‘unscrupulous’ or ‘unworthy,’ but it is probably time we stop using diplomatic language, and speak bluntly. Monuments commemorating the Red Army soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe from Nazism are being destroyed and desecrated in a number of European Union member states, in particular Poland.

Russia is strongly opposed to the falsification of history and the creeping rehabilitation of Nazism. In this regard, our country annually submits to the UN General Assembly a draft resolution on combatting glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Once again, this resolution was adopted on December 18, 2019 at the plenary meeting of the 74th session of the UN General Assembly. The document was approved by an impressive majority of 133 votes, with 52 abstentions, and 2 votes against it. The total number of its sponsors for the first time reached 62.

Furthermore, over the past few years, Russia as the main sponsor has been initiating the inclusion in the text of a clause condemning any attempt to deny the Holocaust.



German Government’s response to September 19, 2019 European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe

We have noted the reluctance of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to give a public assessment of the European Parliament’s September 19 resolution. The document adopted is openly revisionist from the perspective of historical truth; the sponsors seem to be trying to plant the false idea in Western public opinion that WWII allegedly started because of the August 23, 1939 non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, deliberately omitting the preceding political and diplomatic steps of individual countries, primarily the 1938 Munich deal, which entailed the dismemberment of sovereign Czechoslovakia and certain participants’ tacit consent to the Hitlerite Anschluss of Austria. Meanwhile, those events in many respects led to the broad tragic consequences – something we have repeatedly talked about.

In November 2019, in response to a relevant request from the Left party opposition members in the Bundestag, officials in Berlin said that they were not authorised to comment on European Parliament resolutions. At the same time, the vast majority of the 96 German members in the European Parliament had voted for the adoption of that document, including all representatives of the CDU/CSU bloc, as well as all but one representative of the SPD – the parties comprising the German government coalition. All right, they might not be authorised to comment on the European Parliament’s decisions, but they could and should have commented on the political approach and stance pursued by the ruling party and the elite.

Given this circumstance, as well as the special sensitivity of the topic of the Second World War in German history, the German Government’s disengagement from the discussion of the resolution is puzzling. The German authorities have failed to find proper words of condemnation for particular clauses in the resolution, or just did not consider it necessary to distance themselves from them publicly.

We consistently and resolutely oppose the tendency to rewrite global history and use it in opportunistic political interests increasingly shown by certain political groups in Europe. We urge our partners to follow suit and adopt this approach to be able to learn lessons from history for the sake of strengthening Europe’s present-day stability and security.



Dutch Foreign Minister Stephanus Blok’s statements on the MH17 crash

We cannot overlook the media statements by Foreign Minister of the Netherlands Stephanus Blok in connection with the January 8, 2020 air disaster near Tehran. He drew far-fetched parallels between the downing of the Ukrainian passenger airliner, Flight PS752, and the Malaysian Boeing MH17 that crashed in Ukraine in July 2014. We understand that this is also part of a campaign because all questions addressed to us, including by the British media, also tended to link the two.

The leading Dutch diplomat took advantage (very inappropriately, as we see it) of the tragedy in Iran that had its own causes and specifics to launch another series of attacks on Russia and advertise The Hague’s threadbare subjective approaches to the MH17 accident.

Citing the PS752 crash, he urged Russia to provide what he called “satisfactory” replies to the Joint Investigation Team’s questions. Please note the term “satisfactory.” What he possibly means is that Russia’s replies should confirm rather than refute the JIT’s conclusions – not answers to questions per se but what they consider to be the right answers.

Undaunted by the lack of proven facts, Mr Blok is putting into circulation what he terms as his “personal feelings.” In his view, the Russian foreign minister feels out of his element at the mere mention of MH17. Therefore, he claims, it would be better if the Russians admitted their guilt and agreed to pay compensations to the families of the victims, thus relieving the tensions. This is a strong approach, to be sure! I have just one question to ask: What other revelations can we expect from the Dutch physiognomists?

In the past, there were rainmaking rituals. Feelings like “they should admit their guilt and provide satisfactory answers” have nothing to do with justice.

On the other hand, there is nothing new in the Dutch kingdom. The subjective assessments prevail.

At the same time, no one doubts that objectively the investigation conducted by the Netherlands is facing serious problems. We have repeatedly said as much and provided a number of proofs that overturn the JIT’s version. I am referring, among other things, to a full-scale experiment carried out by Almaz-Antey, the primary radar data that rule out any possibility of a missile being launched from the area identified by the JIT, and the Russian Defence Ministry’s confirmation that the missile, which the JIT believes shot down the Malaysian liner, was a piece of Ukrainian property. We have repeatedly informed the Netherlands and the Dutch public about the existence of this evidence, including as part of comments and statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry and a reply by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to grievances with regard to the “Tsemakh case.” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about all this at his January 17 news conference dedicated to Russian diplomacy’s performance in 2019.

Moreover, ever new facts are disclosed in the Netherlands, which show that the Dutch government agencies were not characterised by a good-faith, non-opportunistic and impartial approach to air disaster investigations even before the MH17 tragedy. It was a shock (rather than a joy or a surprise) for us to learn from press publications how the Dutch Safety Board had distorted the causes of a Turkish Airlines plane crash near Amsterdam in 2009. As we understand, this was done to please Boeing, an American company. Why did I say that we were shocked? Because there must be a red line. After all, we are talking about the efforts of not just officials but governments and professionals, who are trusted by people and must reveal the truth. Honestly speaking, it takes your breath away to read stories about how, in reality, the Netherlands investigated the tragedy. Throughout all these years, it appears, we have been dealing with people who have much to hide. What is the likelihood that the same is not happening today, given the results and the oddities that we notice in the proceedings and that we are turning the spotlight on? This is a big question. What does the Ukrainian Boeing crash in Iran or the Malaysian Boeing tragedy several years ago have to do with this? What is the connection? There is no connection at all! All of this, in an odd sequence, is being fed to readers and the public. This seems impossible. But this is being done by officials, by the government, rather than by people who are not members of investigation teams or government agencies and who write novels or invent new conspiracy theories. To tell the truth, this makes one uneasy.

I would like to say on top of what has been said that it is, in the first place, unacceptable and just mean in relation to the families and friends of the victims to cash in on the tragedy in Iran so as to promote politically biased charges against Russia. Mr Blok’s peremptory demand that Russia accept the blame for the MH17 crash in Ukraine just because Iran has shot down a Ukrainian aircraft is irrelevant, unacceptable and illogical. The Dutch minister forgets the key difference between the two incidents: the Russian evidence in the “MH17 case” proves that the accusations against Russia are totally unfounded. Mr Blok is also neglecting the facts that clearly implicate Ukraine which failed to close its airspace over the conflict zone despite concerns expressed by the Netherlands Parliament.



Pneumonia outbreak in China

Due to the outbreak of a new strain of coronavirus, denoted 2019-nCoV, that causes pneumonia, we would like to comment as follows.

The virus has mainly affected Wuhan (Hubei province), Beijing, Guangdong province, and there is a possibility that it will spread further. The first case of the new coronavirus was identified in Hong Kong. The patient with the first diagnosis was a tourist from Wuhan.

As of the morning of January 23, the number of confirmed cases had reached 600 and 17 people had already died. China is taking the appropriate precautions to stop the disease from spreading. In particular, the transit service with Wuhan has been suspended; the local airport has been closed; trains and the city transport system are not running. Tourist activity has been put on hold.

Russia’s Federal Supervision Service for Consumer Protection and Welfare, in coordination with Russian diplomatic missions in China, is monitoring the situation closely and enforcing quarantine control at ports of entry and in border areas.

On our part, we recommend that Russian nationals consider the situation when planning trips and travelling to foreign countries (there have been reports of isolated cases in the United States, South Korea, Japan and Thailand), take the necessary precautions, maintain personal hygiene and follow the updates that we regularly post on the Foreign Ministry’s websites and the Foreign Assistant mobile app that is available for all platforms.

The Russian Embassy in Beijing, whose consular district covers the Hubei province with its capital, Wuhan, has requested information about Russian nationals currently in the region from competent Chinese authorities.



Prospects of BRICS expansion

We appreciate the continued interest in cooperation with BRICS from other emerging markets and developing economies. There were questions regarding its possible expansion as well. Overall, we welcome this interest in the association’s work. At the same time, it is understood that an expansion requires a carefully weighted and delicate approach. At this point, this is not an issue on the BRICS agenda. It seems it is not the right time at the moment to accept new members.

The BRICS five is still a young multinational association. Right now, it focuses mainly on increasing the efficiency and strengthening the five-side mechanisms of strategic partnership. Another important field of work is establishing solid international links with external partners and like-minded associates from different continents who share our ambition to reinforce multi-lateral approaches to global issues. For this purpose, we have launched such formats as BRICS Outreach and BRICS Plus. This said, the BRICS five is building a consistent dialogue not only with certain developing countries and states with dynamic emerging economies but also with their integration unions. The main goal of this cooperation is to produce collective responses to the widest range of current international challenges for sustainable development and long-term economic growth. This serves as a foundation for BRICS to become one of the pillars of the renewed global architecture of multilateral cooperation.

During Russia’s BRICS presidency this year, we intend to continue the consistent course for strengthening the existing BRICS institutions, further building of an external circle of the five’s friends and allies, including through active promotion of the dialogue with the states that have dynamically developing economies and their associations in the Outreach and BRICS Plus format, a dialogue that has proven itself rather effective.



Update on North Korean workers

The Russian Federation strictly complies with the international sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including UN Security Council Resolution 2397, under which (Clause 8) all DPRK nationals earning income in the member states’ jurisdictions should be repatriated to the DPRK by December 22, 2019.

The majority of North Korean workers have already left Russia. The remaining approximately 1,000 North Koreans can no longer be regarded as employed due to the fact that their work permits have expired and they are no longer earning any income in Russia. The DPRK is taking measures to help organise their return back home. This could not be done before December 22, 2019 because there are only two flights a week out of Russia run by a North Korean airline and there are a limited amount of trains as well. We are strictly complying with all our commitments.



Events for Year of Folk Arts and Crafts

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


Mikhail Gusman’s birthday

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








Answers to media questions:



Question:

Since 2015, Russia has been successfully providing support to Syria in its fight against terrorism and supplying humanitarian aid to help the country rebuild its economy. We keep receiving detailed information from you during the briefings and from the Defence Ministry. We are aware of what’s happening in the country. As you said today, 90 percent of the country was liberated. Commenting on the terms for withdrawing US troops from Syria, Deputy Commander of the US-led military coalition to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) Alex Grynkewich recently said that the Syrian government would not be able to provide effective command in fighting terrorism. What’s your take on this statement and Syria’s ability to wage war on terrorism?



Maria Zakharova:

Syria encountered international terrorism with a magnitude and global reach that was previously unheard of, not only in Syria itself but in any other state in the region. Syria and a number of other countries of the Middle East and North Africa, and the entire world have witnessed an attack on a sovereign state, a region and, by and large, the whole world, not just by a terrorist organisation, a cell or individual terrorists, but a new type of terrorist organisation that had declared itself a state. Its goals and objectives were so horrible and global that, I think (and many experts agree), no one had any antidote to them initially.

This was exactly what President Putin said when addressing the international community from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly in 2015 when he urged everyone to unite in fighting this threat in the way they did during World War II. This indicated an unprecedented level of threat from terrorists not only for one state, nation or region, but the world in general.

Back then, Russia’s call was not duly appreciated, was not even heard or understood. So, Russia began to act as it knew it should, which brought results.

I think that it’s not up to the Western coalition to speculate on whether Syria is capable or incapable of fighting this threat. This threat had to be confronted by all the countries, collectively, which we have repeatedly mentioned, and it is what we called for and – most importantly – what we were willing to do.



Question:

The Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun published documents dating from 1956, according to which Japan temporarily gave up territorial claims to the Kuril Islands. Can you comment on this find? Will it affect the relations between our countries?



Maria Zakharova:

An intensive dialogue is underway with Japan in accordance with the agreement reached at the highest level in Singapore in November 2018. It was dedicated to expediting talks on a peace treaty on the basis of the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956. As is known, this document contains provisions on ending the state of war and restoring diplomatic relations.

As Russia’s representatives have repeatedly pointed out, significant differences in the parties’ positions remain unresolved. We presume that the starting point for overcoming them is Japan's recognition in full of the outcomes of World War II in the peace treaty, including the sovereignty of our country over the southern Kuril Islands, as the spirit and the letter of the declaration clearly indicate.

I would like to note that at some point the declaration ended up being unfulfilled because Japan made unreasonable claims regarding the southern Kuril Islands thus violating it.

Clearly, resolving the peace treaty problem will require lengthy and painstaking joint work to comprehensively develop Russian-Japanese relations in all areas in order to take them to the new level.



Question:

In the run-up to the Defender 2020 military exercise, General David L. Goldfein, Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, said the Russian air defence system resembled Swiss cheese and was all riddled with holes. The Americans allegedly know all these holes and, if necessary, they can penetrate them.



Maria Zakharova:

This is what mice think when they see a piece of cheese, and they end up in a mousetrap instead.



Question:

According to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a new US strategy directed against America’s enemies is unfolding after the killing of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds special weapons and tactics force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This new strategy can also be used against China and Russia. Is he threatening that similar killings of Chinese and Russian officials or military officers are possible? Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

This statement hinges on a very strange logic which remains outside the context of any law, be it national legislation or international law. The United States should decide whether it is acting in line with certain legal norms or according to the might-is-right principle, implying that a weapons-toting country can dictate its terms.

We have provided our assessments regarding the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. They are reflected in the Foreign Ministry’s statements of early January. We said that the world was facing a previously unknown situation (at least, we are talking about the last few decades) when a state acting as a sovereign and democratic UN member state that did not withdraw from any fundamental UN documents, primarily the UN Charter, deliberately murdered a state official of another sovereign state which is also democratic and which is also committed to the relevant fundamental international agreements.

We said this situation was creating a new reality, and we interpret it in a different way from Mike Pompeo. In our opinion, this does not open a new page, but this pushes the world towards even greater instability and the danger of plunging into a completely bottomless pit of confrontation and total loss of mutual trust. These actions do not open up any alternative options.

There were some other statements. This morning, I saw statements by US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook who claims that Iranian officials who have replaced Qassem Soleimani may suffer the same fate at the hands of Washington, if they continue killing Americans.

They are already making such statements. I repeat, we consider them to be unacceptable, they remain outside the law. Representatives of sovereign states simply have no right to make such statements because they carry a direct threat.

Certainly, there are many examples of states or their representatives conducting illegal, wrongful and unlawful actions in line with direct or indirect orders or without any orders at all. Unfortunately, this happens. The world is not perfect. But this calls for relevant evidence that should lead towards lawful investigative activities. These can be internal procedural actions or international investigative teams. However, in this particular case, everything was resolved without a trial and investigation, let alone any evidence. We have repeatedly heard numerous statements by US diplomats and representatives of the State Department and other agencies that there was nothing specific indicating Qassem Soleimani’s direct involvement in any actions that he wanted to perpetrate and that would threaten the United States. Consequently, this amounts to completely unproven measures that could be interpreted as direct threats or those directly escalating into aggressive actions and that remain outside the legal framework.



Question:

The Turkish media yesterday cited former Turkey officials who know, or presume to know that Russia allegedly plans to recognise the “unrecognised” territory in northern Cyprus or even to demand a military base there. The Russian Embassy has already declared these reports to be untrue. Would you care to add anything in this regard?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to say that we have prepared comments based on the opinion of our experts, and that we planned to publish special comments on this topic in the fake news section.

Since you have brought this up, I can tell you that we have taken note of this information. As far as we are aware, it was only published in the Cypriot media. According to it, a retired Turkish official alleged that Russia could make a deal with Ankara regarding its recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and even demand a naval base in the northern part of the island, allegedly for the protection of its economic interests. We will certainly post our comments regarding this information in the fake news section.

Russia has always adhered to a position of principle regarding a settlement in Cyprus, advocating a solution based on the respective UN Security Council resolutions on a bi-communal and bi-zonal federal Cyprus. We continue to advocate our position at international venues, including in favour of upholding the current mandate of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).

I would like to point out that the above allegation was likely orchestrated by those who are doing their best to sour Russia’s relations with Cyprus. At the same time, attempts have been made to torpedo Russia’s business projects, force our regional partners to abandon mutually beneficial cooperation and do direct damage to the fabric of bilateral relations.

We hope that those who have initiated this scandal will refrain from fostering strife in the Eastern Mediterranean and will instead rely on international law to help maintain security and stability that are critical conditions for a normal life in that fragile region.

As you know, we promptly respond to such news by providing our official position to lay such fake news bare. However, I wonder why the Euro-Atlantic agencies designed to combat disinformation are sitting on their hands. NATO and the EU have established special committees, commissions and other bodies. There are many of them. Why aren’t they combating this disinformation? Why do they pretend not to notice it? It is their space and a zone of control of the organisations headquartered in EU capitals. We provide all the necessary information. I have no doubt, I’m sorry to say, that we won’t get any reaction from them this time again, even though it could be a real feast. This is simply incredible. Millions of euros are invested and have been spent to set up organisations fighting disinformation in Europe. But what is the result? Have they at least created a mechanism of response to such fakes? Something does not add up here.



Question:

I have a question that is of concern to Cypriots, Greeks, Egyptians and people from many other nations. You probably heard about the aggressive acts and provocations by the Turkish Government, which has violated Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone and threatened to do this with regard to Greece. The Turkish Government claims that islands cannot have a shelf or an exclusive economic zone. We would like you to comment on the practical actions or on compliance with the Law of the Sea.



Maria Zakharova:

I would be delighted to comment on this. I believe you pointed out correctly that I should not focus on theory, which you know very well as it is, but rather talk about the practical aspects of the matter. I will request information regarding this, and we will forward it to you. It will include both a theoretical part and case studies connected with your question.



Question:

I have a question about a recent decision made by the Greek Supreme Court. According to the media, the court has overruled a complaint made by Russian citizen Alexander Vinnik’s lawyers regarding a decision to extradite him to France and the United States. Could you comment on the situation?



Maria Zakharova:

The Russian Embassy in Athens maintains direct contacts with Alexander Vinnik, his family and certainly his lawyers. They are also in contact with the Greek law enforcement agencies.

On the subject of legalities, we really do hope that a legal decision will completely take into account the legitimate interests of the Russian citizen.



Question:

Good afternoon. I would like to ask you about a rather interesting interpretation of history presented by the European Union, probably, with a certain amount of US assistance. Notably, this implies the odious article by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki where he equates your predecessors, the Soviet Foreign Ministry, with the Third Reich’s war criminals, including Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels and others. This is very serious. This is not a conversation at a pub somewhere in Brussels or Munich. This statement has been made by the country’s official who heads the government of a respected and sufficiently large European Union state. I believe that a new stage of history’s falsification has begun. How would do you combat this?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, this amounts to lies. This is direct lies, rather than misinformation and fake news. The article mentioned by you contains many such falsehoods. This is not the only mendacious thesis voiced by Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki. We replied fairly quickly to this text, although, to be honest, we could not even think that we would face such lies on the part of a statesman, an official representative of the state, the head of the government. I can say that this is not the only example. It shows the approach of some members of the Polish political elite and a considerable part of leaders in Warsaw who have chosen the subject of history for addressing a number of tasks. Of course, reviewing history comes first for them. Catering to one’s own political interests is the second thing. And I believe that catering to others’ interests is the third thing.

You have said that this is very serious. Yes, this is indeed very serious because everything written in the article by Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki abolishes the decisions made by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. If one accepts what is written in this publication, then this completely runs counter to the results of the Nuremberg Tribunal. In principle, this is beyond the boundaries of law. Who and, most importantly, on what grounds could have done this, remains a big question.

Another important thing is that this is not the only statement that has been made by a Polish official. This is not a one-off. According to our information, some time ago, in fact over the past few weeks or so, a decision was adopted in Poland to launch a large-scale disinformation campaign against Russia regarding the history of WWII, or in our case, the Great Patriotic War. They prepared and approved a package of classical disinformation measures. One decision provided for preparing and publishing information such as has been posted by Politico. I have questions to that media resource as well. Either its staff don’t know where Warsaw is located, what the Red Army was and when WWII was waged, which means that they are completely ignorant people, or they have posted complete lies. Writing that the Red Army did not liberate Warsaw, even though dozens of history papers have been written about this and collections of documents chronicling that event have been published, amounts not simply to providing the platform for disinformation but taking part in it too.

As I said, we will respond to each attack made by Polish or any other representatives. The most important thing is that we will continue to wholeheartedly uphold our position and we will do this ever more actively. Our position is very simple: the historical truth about WWII and the Great Patriotic War is inviolable. The foundations of this approach were formulated during the Nuremberg Trials and in the documents based on their outcome.



Question:

The Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office has charged three Russian citizens with attempting to poison Bulgarian citizens with organophosphates in 2015. The Bulgarian prosecutors said European arrest warrants had been issued for these Russians. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry know their names? Do you have any details?



Maria Zakharova:

I am sure that the Russian Embassy in Bulgaria is monitoring these developments. I will request additional information. For now, I can only tell you that such cases are the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies. This does not mean that you should place an enquiry with them, but that the countries investigating such cases should cooperate with the law enforcement bodies of the countries whose citizens have been charged with or are suspected of breaking the law.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4004544
__________________
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 February 1st, 2020 #70
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a working meeting with Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria Geir Pedersen, Moscow, January 24, 2020



24 January 2020 - 15:34






Mr Pedersen,

We are delighted to see you in Moscow. The first time you visited us in this capacity was on January 21, 2019, almost exactly a year ago.

Over the period that you have headed your office, I believe we (I mean the international community interested in the Syrian settlement) have been able to achieve some very positive shifts.

The situation on the ground is definitely improving. The territory controlled by terrorists continues to shrink. The Syrian government has regained control of a large part of the border with Iraq and Turkey. Efforts are being made to suppress the remnants of terrorist groups both in the Idlib zone and in northeastern Syria.

The second major sphere of our ​​work is the humanitarian part of the settlement process. Here, the continuing terrorist threat I have already mentioned has a direct negative effect. Terrorists are hindering the delivery of humanitarian relief, misappropriating the goods successfully delivered to the relevant regions of Syria. This is something that requires special attention and consideration, including in Geneva, where the humanitarian task force is based. It is essential in the context of restoring the Syrian statehood and creating conditions for the return of refugees to territories controlled by the legitimate government that the international community enables the largest aid delivery possible, especially with the coordinating role of the UN.





However, we can see the obvious bias of some of the Western donors, double standards on their part, as the key Western capitals do not want to send aid to territories controlled by the government, but focus on areas controlled by the opposition, including by radical opposition groups. The second task force in Geneva, the humanitarian affairs group, definitely needs to focus more closely on this situation.

The third track, which will probably require the greatest attention during our talks today, is the political process, and the work of the Constitutional Committee. We value your personal and your team’s approach to creating the conditions for the negotiators to develop a culture of dialogue and trust in each other. This is a very important, integral component of success.

Just like you, we are not overdramatising the fact that there are no extraordinary achievements in just a couple of months after the Constitutional Committee was established. This had not been planned. This is an absolutely natural situation. We will do our best to facilitate your efforts to create the necessary conditions for progress at the next session of the Small Body, which will meet when you consider it possible to schedule it.

So, we indeed have something to talk about.

Welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4005011






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the unfriendly actions by Bulgarian authorities



25 January 2020 - 15:01



On January 24, Bulgarian authorities decided to expel a diplomat from the Russian Embassy in Bulgaria and an employee from Russia’s Trade Mission in that country without presenting any reasonable evidence to support their decision.

Russia regards this step by Bulgarian authorities as openly unfriendly and provocational, and also at odds with constructive relations between Russia and Bulgaria and the traditional mutually respectful bilateral ties. We reserve the right to take retaliatory steps.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4005243






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of the 28th International Educational Christmas Readings, “The Great Victory: Heritage and Inheritors,” Moscow, January 27, 2020



27 January 2020 - 18:55






Your Holiness, colleagues, friends,

I am happy to join you in greeting the hosts, participants and guests of the 28th International Educational Christmas Readings.

It is a great honour for me to be able to speak again at the opening of this forum, which has firmly established itself as a respected platform for a constructive and candid exchange of views on many key issues of our time. The initiatives and recommendations that are developed as part of it make a meaningful contribution to ensuring harmonious development in Russia, strengthening civil, inter-ethnic, and inter-faith peace and harmony, and to rallying society around eternal values.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of victory over Nazism. At the cost of inconceivable sacrifices and massive efforts that were unprecedented in world history, our country played a decisive role in destroying the Nazi war machine and liberating the European nations and the world in general from the brown plague and the ideology of Nazism.

The threat to the Fatherland required the full mobilisation of not only our economic and organisational potential, but spiritual aspects as well. The peoples of the former Soviet Union illustrated examples of outstanding unity, courage, fortitude, patriotism, and a willingness to give up their lives for a just cause.

The Russian Orthodox Church also contributed to this common effort. In the very first days of the war, it called upon everyone to defend the Motherland, organised fundraising for defence, provided moral support to soldiers and civilians, including those who ended up in a territory temporarily occupied by the enemy. It strongly condemned collaborators and traitors.

Regretfully, I have to note that the attempts to rewrite the history of the war and use it as a tool in dirty geopolitical games have increased. This scourge has severely affected a number of European states, in which the glorification of Nazi henchmen had, in fact, become part of state ideology and policy. The shameful attacks on the monuments and graves of the liberating soldiers continue in Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Poland, the Czech Republic and a number of other countries in an enlightened Europe. Their goal is clear. It is to rake up historical and political complexes and phobias, to radically revise the international legal results of World War II and the results of Victory, including the fundamental principles of state-to-state communication as found in the UN Charter.

It is regrettable that the memory of the war, its lessons and legacy are increasingly becoming prey to fleeting political interests. This is absolutely unacceptable. Contemporary and future politicians, statesmen and public figures must protect the good name of both living and fallen heroes, civilians, and the victims and accomplices of the Nazis. President Putin spoke emotionally about this in detail at the opening ceremony for the monument in honour of the Leningrad Siege and the Holocaust commemoration forum in Jerusalem on January 23. Our ministry is working hard to preserve the historical truth about the Great Patriotic War. In addition to our CSTO and CIS allies and partners, the vast majority of the international community agrees with us on this. The annual Russian initiative, On Combating Glorification of Nazism, traditionally enjoys widespread support at the UN. On December 18, 2019, at a plenary meeting of the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, a resolution was approved which condemns attempts to acquit Nazi movement members and the organisations recognised as criminal by the Nuremberg Tribunal rulings. The unacceptability of the destruction or desecration of memorials in honour of the liberators was emphasised.





A special item, “The 75th anniversary of the end of World War II,” was included on the agenda of the current 75th session of the UN General Assembly at our suggestion. A special UN General Assembly meeting is scheduled to coincide with this anniversary.

Commemorative, awareness and cultural events are being held abroad as part of the Victory anniversary celebration. We assign a special role to cooperating with the associations of Russian compatriots who have already begun organising sociopolitical actions, such as the St George Ribbon, Memory Watch, Red Star of Victory and, of course, the Immortal Regiment. The growing participation of young people in patriotic actions, which were not ordered from above, but are held at the call of the heart, is critically important.

The anniversary celebrations will culminate in May 9 celebrations in Moscow. We anticipate the participation of many official delegations from foreign states, representatives of foreign public circles and veterans living abroad.

Your Holiness, colleagues,

The legal foundation of international architecture laid in the wake of the Great Victory remains the most important pillar in effectively overcoming the challenges and threats that are common to all peoples and in maintaining global and regional stability. This is what President Putin’s initiative on holding, this year, a special summit with the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which, under the UN Charter, have a special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, is designed to achieve. The leaders of China and France have already supported this initiative. It is called, in the most serious way, without politicisation or ideologisation, and without regard to electoral cycles, to consider ways to reduce tensions, which have been dangerously mounting in recent years, and to stop the world from sliding into confrontation.

Meanwhile, the diplomatic service will continue to do its best to counter attempts to falsify history. We are open to close cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religions in our country in the interest of educating young people in the spirit of continuity of eras and generations and strengthening Russian society’s moral and spiritual foundations.

I know that these Christmas Readings will make the most important and effective contribution to these efforts. I wish all participants every success and good health in 2020.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4005976






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to the organisers, participants and guests of a memorial event marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day



27 January 2020 - 21:00



Greetings to the organisers, participants and guests of the memorial evening marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau (Oswiecim) Nazi concentration camp by the Soviet Red Army.

The Holocaust, one of the most tragic events of the 20th century, will always remain in human history as an unprecedentedly atrocious attempt to translate the principles of a misanthropic ideology into action. Our common duty is to do everything we can so that such horrifying crimes never happen again.

Obviously, ignoring lessons of the past is fraught with the most dangerous consequences. It is important that we continue to cherish the memory of the millions of Holocaust victims as well as those who sacrificed their lives to save concentration camp prisoners and liberated Europe from the brown plague. Certainly we need to redouble our efforts against any intention to rewrite history, vindicate Nazis and their henchmen.

The Russian Jewish Congress, with which the Foreign Ministry productively cooperates, makes an invaluable contribution to this work. I wish all of you every success in your noble initiatives and all the very best.

SERGEY LAVROV




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4006319






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of South Sudan Awut Deng Acuil, Moscow, January 28, 2020



28 January 2020 - 14:57







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

Question:

What are the reasons for the escalation in Idlib? What is the situation on the ground fraught with? What will happen with militants in this area?



Sergey Lavrov:

These questions are regularly answered at briefings in the defence and foreign ministries. The militants that are almost fully controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (the organisation Jabhat al-Nusra turned into and whose cover it is using) regularly violate ceasefire agreements. A ceasefire was announced at the initiative of Russia and Turkey in early January. Since then, radicals in Idlib have violated it dozens of times. They are attacking and shelling from different weapons and positions the Syrian army and civilian facilities. Attempts to send drones to attack the Russian air base in Khmeimim have not stopped. Needless to say, such armed provocations, during which dozens of civilians and Syrian army personnel have been killed and hundreds wounded this month alone, cannot remain unanswered. We are supporting the efforts of the Syrian army to suppress these provocations in the Idlib zone.

Now I will say a few words about the lot of the militants staying there. First, if they are ready to disassociate themselves from terrorists as the Russian-Turkish memorandum of September 17, 2018 requires, they should do so. For the time being, we see that Jabhat al-Busra is playing the prevailing role in the guise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which has been identified as a terrorist organisation by the UN Security Council and major regional players. They are consolidating their positions. Thus, many militants that are not members of terrorist structures go to fight in Libya, contrary to UN Security Council resolutions that declare unacceptable any interference in the Libyan domestic crisis. While militants are leaving the Idlib zone, the influence of the radicals there is becoming even stronger.

Yesterday I discussed this in detail over the telephone with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu. We agreed to streamline our work on the implementation of agreements to separate the armed opposition that is patriotic and is ready to take part in the political process. Its members must disassociate from terrorists that are recognised as such by the UN Security Council. These agreements must be carried out.

Naturally, we are doing all we can to persuade the Syrian leaders to respond proportionally to these provocations, fully taking into account the requirements of international humanitarian law and civilian needs. Militants from armed formations should stop any contacts with terrorists, while the latter should surrender – there can be no mercy for them. Humanitarian corridors have been created especially for civilians to get out of this zone. Terrorists continue to attack them, impeding civilians leaving and trying to use them as a human shield. Therefore, I would like to repeat that it is necessary to carry out honestly and fully the Russian-Turkish agreements without trying to gain time to let terrorists strengthen their positions and replenish their reserves.



Question:

US President Donald Trump is hoping for “the deal of the century.” However, the Palestinians consider it to be a new plan against them, which is designed to get around the law and agreements with Israel. What is Russia’s position on this issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

The “deal of the century” that the United States wants to offer for the Palestinian-Israeli settlement has been advertised for many years but we have not seen it. We were not told any details about it during our contacts with the Americans. All we were told was that it will resolve all the problems in one go. We know how the US administration always wants to find radical solutions to many international problems. However, this does not always produce positive results.

We have heard comments on the gist of the “deal of the century.” There are some leaks. If these comments are authentic, it represents a fundamentally new approach to the resolution of problems between Palestine and Israel. This approach differs from everything that has been recognised by the international community as the foundation for a settlement so far (UN Security Council resolutions, the Madrid principles and the Arab Peace Initiative). Therefore, right now I am simply saying that this is what we think about it if these rumours are true. But, of course, we need to wait for the official publication of this proposal. I hope it will be published and will not be closed to the international community. When the text is published, it will be most important to identify the positions of the sides, primarily the position of the Palestinians because, as I far as I know, this proposal is about the creation of a Palestinian state, an issue on which the international community has adopted resolutions. Needless to say, it will be essential to understand the position of the Arab friends of Palestine and the Arab League, considering that it has made the Arab Peace Initiative, which was approved by the international community, an inalienable part of resolving the problem of the two states – Israel and Palestine.

Naturally, I would very much like the quartet of international mediators – Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU – to analyse the situation as well. The mechanism, which has by and large remained idle in the past few years, is not being used in the search for mutually acceptable solutions. But let us not make any preliminary conclusions because rumours are rumours. We must wait for official proposals and understand the specific attitudes of the interested parties to them.



Question:

Are there plans to evacuate Russian citizens because of the complicated epidemiological situation in Wuhan, China, due to the spread of coronavirus?



Sergey Lavrov:

A special commission of the Russian Government is dealing with these issues. Members of this commission, for instance, Rosturism (Federal Agency for Tourism) and Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare) have already expressed their opinion in this regard. We have nothing to add to their statements. All information is published on their websites. All our citizens, those who are in China now or planned to visit, can review it, and we hope they will come to the right conclusions and stay safe.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4006404






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the disruption of the visit by deputies of the Second Chamber of the States General of the Netherlands to Moscow



29 January 2020 - 11:29



Moscow is not particularly surprised by the decision of the Second Chamber of the States General of the Netherlands to cancel another trip to Russia citing entry restrictions on Sjoerd Sjoerdsma, a Democrats 66 party representative. The Hague interprets the situation as if it was precisely this circumstance that created an insurmountable obstacle to the parliamentary delegation’s visit to Russia.

In this regard, we deem it necessary to clarify that the Dutch side was informed in advance that Sjoerdsma’s inclusion in the group that planned to visit Russia on February 25−27, 2020, at the invitation of the State Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs, was undesirable. This was done on January 14, at the Russian Foreign Ministry, during the meeting with the Dutch charge d'affaires to Russia. The Dutch deputy in question is known to be not only unfriendly to Russia, but also openly aggressive – his statements concerning our country verge on insults. In 2013, he called for the termination of the Year of Russia in the Netherlands and the Netherlands in Russia. In 2014, he demanded a boycott of the Sochi Winter Olympics, and in 2018, he called for the FIFA World Cup to be moved to another country. In the context of investigating the circumstances of the Malaysian MH17 crash, he emphatically and rudely insisted, contrary to common sense and legal procedures, on “punishing” Russia right away.

It is now clear what the Dutch MPs were counting on when deciding to include Sjoerdsma in their delegation. Despite our warnings, they carried out this deliberate provocation in full awareness of the possible consequences. They sought a scandal rather than a constructive discussion on ways to improve Russian-Dutch relations and on issues regarding the international agenda.

Having cancelled their trip to Moscow under the pretext of “deputy solidarity” considerations, the Dutch authorities are now reverting to the old routine of blaming Russia for disrupting the parliamentary visit.

Apparently, The Hague had no interest in this visit or any attempts at direct contact between the two countries' elected representatives, which would have been the first since 2008.

This is nothing new, as we have repeatedly remarked. The Dutch Foreign Ministry is following the same old Strategy on Russia.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4006798






Article by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “Russia and Vietnam: A friendship that has lasted decades” for the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry’s “The world and Vietnam” print edition, which was published on January 29, 2020



29 January 2020 - 20:00



The year of 2020 holds many anniversaries in the history of Russian-Vietnamese ties. One of the most important is the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations. On January 30, 1950 the Soviet Union was one of the first countries to recognise the young Vietnamese state, laying the foundation for long term friendship and close cooperation between our two countries.

We were together during the difficult years of Vietnam’s fight for freedom and independence, repelling a foreign aggression and pursuing postwar peaceful development. Cooperation between Moscow and Hanoi has stood the test of time. It has become stronger and acquired a versatile and truly special character.

It is gratifying that the traditions of solidarity and mutual aid, which were established by the previous generations, are being preserved and augmented under new historical conditions. The interstate Treaty on the Foundations of Friendly Relations signed on June 16, 1994 remains a reliable foundation for this. We marked the 25th anniversary of the signing of this major document in 2019. Our cooperation acquired a strategic character in 2001 and became a comprehensive strategic partnership in 2012. Now it continues to be vigorously developed on a broad range of issues for the benefit of the peoples of Russia and Vietnam.

We maintain a consistent and meaningful dialogue that is distinguished by a high degree of openness and mutual trust. General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam Nguyen Phu Trọng visited Russia in September 2018. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin went to Vietnam in November and December of the same year. Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Nguyen Xuan Phuc came to Russia in May 2019, and Chairwoman of the National Assembly of Vietnam Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan visited in December of the same year. These close contacts are an important factor in developing Russian-Vietnamese relations and allow the two countries to compare positions on bilateral and international issues, which is instrumental in the constantly difficult situation in the region and the world as a whole.

Our dialogue on defence and security is traditionally close and trustworthy. Exchanges of delegations from political parties and public organisations are becoming more intense.

We are pleased to note the dynamic development of economic ties both in traditional areas (power engineering, industrial production, transport and agriculture) and new, advanced sectors (the digital economy, e-government, smart city technology and ICT security).

Trade is growing. Symbolically, Vietnam became the first country with which the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) signed a free trade agreement in May 2015. The implementation of its provisions and a package of bilateral agreements allowed the two countries to increase trade to $6.1 billion by 2018. This is a record figure for the entire post-Soviet period.

Energy cooperation is a major element in Russian-Vietnamese comprehensive strategic partnership. The flagship of our cooperation – the Vietsovpetro joint venture – has been successfully operating for almost four decades. In cooperation with Petrovietnam Oil and Gas Corporation, the leading Russian companies Gazprom, Rosneft, NOVATEK and Zarubezhneft are carrying out projects on the exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources both in Russia and in Vietnam and diversifying their cooperation on the basis of the latest scientific and technical achievements.

Bilateral cooperation is becoming increasingly innovative and science intensive. The project on building a centre for nuclear science and technology in Vietnam with the assistance of Rosatom Corporation is a graphic example of this. The centre will become a leading research institution in Southeast Asia. I am convinced that the training of Vietnamese nuclear engineers in Russia will guarantee its future success.

Both countries are proud of the joint Russia-Vietnam Tropical Science and Technology Research Centre as there is no such facility anywhere else in the world. Today, the centre is conducting large-scale research in environmental protection, tropical medicine and materials engineering for Russian and Vietnamese agencies and companies.

According to the agreements reached at the top level, the Year of Russia in Vietnam and the Year of Vietnam in Russia are being held in 2019 and 2020 for the first time in the history of bilateral relations. The programmes include over a hundred events that are designed to promote cooperation in the trade, economic, military, military-technical, scientific, technological and humanitarian areas. They will also enhance cooperation between the regions in the two states.

The Russian audience was impressed by the opening ceremony of the cross years, which took place on May 22, 2019 in the Moscow Zaryadye Concert Hall in the presence of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Xuan Phuc.

Education is a traditional area for bilateral cooperation. Vietnam continues to send the highest number of citizens to Russia for an education. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese professionals have received educations in various disciplines at Russian colleges and universities. Many of them occupy high government positions, are the backbone of the officers’ corps and work at large companies and at research and cultural institutions. This academic year, students from Vietnam have been awarded 965 state grants. This is one of the highest quotas for foreign students and postgraduates.

We welcome the growth of Vietnam's popularity as a destination for Russian tourists. Last year Vietnam was visited by about 600,000 Russians. The number of Vietnamese tourists in Russia is increasing as well. Youth exchanges are making rapid headway. In the past year and a half the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs and the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union have organised three youth forums.

I would like to make a special mention of our cooperation on the world arena. When it comes to major global and regional issues, our views on the whole coincide. We and our Vietnamese friends are firmly committed to the creation of a more just and democratic multipolar world arrangement that is based on international law, primarily on the key provisions of the UN Charter. Additional opportunities for consolidating foreign policy coordination are opened up by Vietnam’s election as one of the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for 2020−2021 and its Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2020.

In 70 years of diplomatic relations, Russia and Vietnam have amassed considerable creative experience of cooperation in different areas. This can and should be used for enhancing bilateral ties. Importantly, our peoples have carried feelings of friendship and sincere mutual empathy through the decades, and nothing can change this. It is necessary to maintain this unique heritage and pass it on to the younger generation. They are destined to pick up the baton in the effort to continue expanding and deepening the comprehensive Russian-Vietnamese strategic partnership.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4013494
__________________
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 February 1st, 2020 #71
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, January 30, 2020



30 January 2020 - 20:55







Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with ASEAN Secretary-General Dato Lim Jock Hoi

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Ann Linde

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend the opening of a photo exhibit dedicated to the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Indonesia

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming visits to Mexico and Venezuela

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


Diplomats’ Day

As you know, February 10 marks a professional holiday in Russia – Diplomats’ Day, established by a presidential executive order of October 31, 2002. The date of the holiday is connected with the earliest mention in official chronicles, February 10, 1549, of our country’s first state agency in charge of foreign affairs – the Ambassadorial Department (Prikaz in old Russian).

In keeping with tradition, we are preparing a number of events for this date that include a gathering attended by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the laying of wreaths at memorial plaques that honour diplomats who were killed in the war years and in peacetime when performing their official duties. We will publish materials about the history of the Russian diplomatic service, as well as about its most prominent figures, on our online resources. The Foreign Ministry’s Department of History and Records will prepare thematic exhibitions, as this year marks the 250th birthday of Adam Jerzy Czartoryski and the 200th birthday of Nikolay Girs, two foreign ministers of the Russian Empire.

Of course, we are looking forward to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s traditional congratulations to all employees of our ministry.



Update on the spread of the coronavirus in China and other countries

According to the Russian Embassy in Beijing, there are 182 Russian citizens whom we have contacted in Hubei Province, including 122 in Wuhan, as of 10am Beijing time, January 30.

The Russian Embassy and consulates-general in China are closely following the situation; they stay in touch with our compatriots and continue specifying the number of Russian citizens in the areas to which the disease has spread (as of January 30, there was no information on Russian citizens infected with this virus on Chinese territory).

The Foreign Ministry is doing all it can to assist the Russian agencies involved in this maintain contact with Chinese departments while responding to the risks of the coronavirus spreading.

The Chinese authorities are taking emergency measures to localise the disease, treat infected people and prevent the further deterioration of the epidemiological situation.

Hubei Province can help provide foreigners with everything they need, including medical aid. Foreign citizens are allowed to leave the province (not by public transport) but only after a 14 day-quarantine and with the permission of its authorities. These conditions were determined by the medical restrictions required to localise the coronavirus.

According to the Chinese National Health Commission, 7,711 confirmed cases of pneumonia caused by the novel coronavirus were recorded as of January 30 in 31 provinces/autonomous regions/cities under the central authority. During January 29, 38 deaths were recorded (37 in Hubei and one in Sichuan). A total of 124 patients were released from hospitals (21 patients on January 29). There were 12,167 suspected cases of pneumonia caused by the coronavirus (on January 29, there were 4,148 suspected new cases).

There are 10 confirmed cases in Hong Kong, seven in Macao and eight in Taiwan. A total of 170 people have died of the disease.

I would like to draw your attention to the information for Russian citizens in Hubei Province, which is published on the Russian Embassy website in Beijing. They are asked to provide their contact data for emergency connections.

On January 24, Rostourism and the Turpomoshch Association launched a hotline. In accordance with the recommendations of Rostourism, tour operators have stopped selling tours to China, and have cancelled charter programmes for incoming tourists. For the time being, only return flights are allowed. On January 29, Rostourism recommended that Russian citizens abstain from tourist trips to China until the epidemiological situation returns to normal. Rospotrebnadzor has organised sanitary and quarantine control at state border checkpoints and border areas and introduced monitoring of flights coming from China.

Outside China, the disease has been confirmed in Thailand (14 cases), Japan (11), Singapore (10), Australia (7), Malaysia (7), the United States (5), France (5), Germany (4), UAE (4), Republic of Korea (4), Canada (3), Vietnam (2), Cambodia (1), Nepal (1), Finland (1) and Sri Lanka (1).

On January 26, the World Health Organisation identified the coronavirus international danger level as “high” but has not yet described it as an international emergency. It is closely monitoring the situation for relevant decisions and qualifications.

The Foreign Ministry is cooperating around the clock with Russian agencies, Chinese government bodies and the Chinese Embassy in Moscow. Our Embassy officials are working with the relevant agencies in China for prompt action that is primarily aimed at ensuring the security of our citizens. In the process, we understand that all of us must pool our efforts. Under the circumstances, the international community and all countries can use their best experiences for cooperation in overcoming the consequences of the spread of the virus.



Distortion of history

The whole world came together to mark the International Holocaust Remembrance Day and 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp. We all bowed our heads in memory of the victims and liberators. It seemed that this could offer a dignified way for bringing our countries, peoples and politicians closer together. There were many statements and comments over the past days, absurd in their form and at times horrendous in terms of their meaning, begging one deplorable conclusion. The practice of rewriting history and unprincipled and unrelenting efforts to impose an alternative vision of the causes, course and consequences of the biggest tragedy of the 20th century have been gaining momentum and reached a critical point. Just as when we discuss pandemics and how we can and must fight them, develop vaccines and antidotes, by the same token we must realise that we are dealing with a real historical virus that can be lethal. It could be that this virus has spread globally. Today, mines are being laid around the pillars of the international relations architecture while prioritising momentary political gain, and sometimes personal ambition and interests or as part of political put-up jobs. In other words, we are witnessing efforts to undermine the world order that was designed to prevent new global shocks such as world wars. I am referring to the Nuremberg Trial verdicts, the demise of which is fraught with catastrophic consequences.

Let us now turn to the more recent past. Remember what our Western partners were saying some 15 to 30 years ago? They are beginning to forget it, but we remember everything. I will share some of their quotes today.

January 2005, when the International Holocaust Remembrance Day was observed for the first time, marking 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski made a clear and unambiguous statement that read:

“The Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was liberated on 27 January 1945 by Soviet troops. Some of the liberators are among us here today – those who saved the prisoners and uncovered the Auschwitz horror to the World. I had the honour today to present them with distinguished Polish decorations. With profound respect for the soldiers’ sacrifice of blood, Poland pays tribute to all the combatants, all who died a heroic death marching in the ranks of the Red Army to liberate our homeland from Nazi occupation.

We remember the enormous contribution of Russians and other peoples of the Soviet Union to the victory over Nazism. We remember that it was on the eastern front that the outcome of World War II was determined to an enormous extent; that it was the Red Army that seized Berlin. Twenty million killed – soldiers in action and civilians murdered by the Nazis – were a terrible price, which the nations of the Soviet Union paid for this historic victory. Together we bow our heads to their sacrifice.”

I would like to reiterate that it was the President of Poland who said this, not the Russian President. Has anything changed since then? Yes, something has changed. But these changes had nothing to do with what happened 75 years ago. The changes were the minds of today’s politicians in Poland, and elsewhere.

The rhetoric has changed radically over the past 15 years. Today’s head of the state in Poland, Andrzej Duda, mentioned the Red Army soldiers only once during his remarks at the Auschwitz museum, and did so in a perfunctory manner. It may be that the presence of the few Auschwitz survivors who still remember these horrible events and the liberation that took so long to materialise for them prevented the Polish President from completely losing touch with reality. But what will happen when these survivors will no longer be with us? Speaking at a place that stands witness to a misanthropic ideology, the Polish President did not dare say an outright lie while looking straight into the eyes of the people who saw the human embodiment of death and evil within those walls. I would like to ask once again: what will happen in five or ten years? What will be the statements coming from the Polish politicians then? Unfortunately, the time will come when all those who survived the horrors of Auschwitz will have passed away. Will it stop us from believing their recollections, archives and documentary chronicles?

However, there are those for whom moral obstacles do not matter. Speaking at the World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem, US Vice President Mike Pence talked about allied forces that liberated Auschwitz. For some reason he forgot to mention the undeniable fact that it was the Red Army soldiers who liberated the concentration camp. I have a feeling and certainty that he did that on purpose, despite the fact that Ivan Martynushkin, who was one of the first to enter the horrible grounds of the camp on January 27, 1945, was in the audience as a special guest, direct witness and one of the last remaining participants on those events.

Former Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski went even further in his anti-Russian frenzy. He went as far as to demand compensation from Russia for ‘Poland’s suffering’. The Red Army liberated Poland from the Nazis: 600,000 of Soviet servicemen fell in the process, and of those who survived only a few have lived to this day. I think that they would be best placed to provide an adequate response to this outrageous statement. But we can stand up and defend their memory today. It is a pity that there are very few people left who witnessed the Yalta Conference. We will mark the 75th anniversary of its opening on February 4. It is there that the Soviet negotiators, headed by Joseph Stalin, ensured that Polish statehood be restored, while our Western partners showed little interest in this.

As for the compensation Jaroslaw Kaczynski demanded, he should have known better. As far as I am concerned, I promise to compensate for everything with information.

As hard as it may be to imagine, today’s politicians in the West have all of a sudden lost their memory and good judgement. Those who intentionally distort history today remember and know everything all too well, and can access the archives. As a matter of fact, they are pursuing other goals. The carbon-copy ‘mistakes’ committed by both the US embassy to Denmark and Der Spiegel, a prominent German weekly magazine, in their social media postings, claiming that American troops liberated Auschwitz, are all part of the same sequence. In fact, everyone will read and repost the original story, while it is left up to the users whether the correction statement and excuses resonate the same way. They will probably be compelled to do so without delay. This is how these falsifications are fed to the audience.

All this presents a creeping threat. History is being attacked on the information front. What do they want and what are the true objectives of those who are doing it? It may well be that they want to teach new generations a different kind of history for them to know and believe, leaving no place for the Red Army’s glorious victories, how it defeated the Nazi army despite being outnumbered by it, or the sacrifice of the Soviet people on the frontlines and behind the lines. There will be no place for the Munich conspiracy, the forest brothers, virulent antisemitism in Poland or in other free and sovereign countries that are proud of their freedom and seek to rewrite history. There will be nothing left apart from momentary political considerations, serving their interests and gain.

Let me share with you a historical episode as an example showing how the processes we are talking about are unfolding. I have already mentioned 2005 and the statement the Polish leader made at the time. By the way, I don’t know whether the 2005 statements by the President of Poland were refuted by his successors. Could it be that he was ostracised after that and had to withdraw his statement? After all, what he mentioned in his remarks never happened, it is now claimed.

Here is another example from our recent past. An Associated Press article (a source trusted by the abovementioned figures) on the visit to Israel by President of Poland Lech Walesa in 1991 read: “Walesa was praised for his fight against Communism and as a leader of a new Poland. But everywhere on his visit, including in Parliament where aging Holocaust survivors sat before him as legislators, the Polish leader met the past.” What an image. But why was it forgotten? Why are we rewriting history even we remember and know it?

We saw an opposite situation in Poland only a short time later, by historical standards. The country adopted a law making it illegal to talk about the responsibility of the Polish people and state or their complicity in crimes committed by the Third Reich. I have a question in this regard. Back in 1991, Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir spoke about those who absorbed anti-Semitism “with their mother’s milk.” In 2001, in an interview with Der Spiegel, Avigdor Nielawicki, a survivor of the Jedwabne pogrom in which up to 2,000 people lost their lives, said: “I think it is horrible that many Poles still don't admit to their country's anti-Semitic past. They have to understand: the perpetrators were Polish.” It turns out that what could be said in a respected Western magazine in 2001 today could cost the author a fine or a prison sentence. How is this possible? After all, we are dealing with the past, events that happened 75 years ago. How could it be that no one understands that the events that took place 75 years ago do not change? What changes is the way they are treated depending on the political situation. This is a crime in itself.

Lithuania has taken similar steps to what we saw in Poland. I have a question: Where are we headed? Where is humankind going and Europe in particular? Has it forgotten its experience of 75 years ago? How will the minds of new generations in Poland and Lithuania be framed? What kind of reality will Europe live in? A time will come when tweets will be regarded as the ultimate truth.

How long will it take before the evil that was crushed in Berlin in May 1945 and buried for good during the Nuremberg Trials resurfaces? If humankind forgets its past, will it manage to counter these trends once they emerge? The answer is no. There will be no antidote.

I wanted to tell you that even against this backdrop the statements by President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, who literally equated the role played by the USSR and the Third Reich in unleashing the Second World War, “enabling the Nazis to launch the deadly flywheel of the Holocaust,” are outrageous. This statement did not come from a person who takes a stand as a neo-Nazi or declares himself to be one. These were the words of a President of a country that aspires to new democratic heights. And after that the Ukrainian authorities ask themselves why their people do not want to live in the same country as them. The resurgence of neo-Nazism is the aftermath of the Maidan coup has been clearly a problem for the international community. How can these statements be understood? Torch processions and celebrations of killers responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of lives have become all too common. But statements of this kind go beyond all boundaries. By saying so, the President of Ukraine betrayed his own people. In the trenches and on the battlefield, when soldiers and officers stood up to the Nazi tanks with a single grenade in their hands, they were all part of a united Red Army that succeeded in doing what others were unable to do, and many did not want to do. It was the Red Army that liberated humankind from the Nazi plague. Period. Equating the responsibility of the killer and the victim is a crime and a moral outrage.

I would like to make a special note of Leonid Kravchuk’s case, who went as far as to claim that Hitler and Stalin met in Lvov. He claimed that there was documentary evidence, and that it was not a secret. “They tried to come to an agreement,” he said. I have one question for Leonid Kravchuk: What kind of pills have you been taking? What prompted you to make statements of this kind? Do you realise that to some extent you are part of the political establishment representing a UN member country? By the way, the soldiers of your country won the right to be in the UN. Are you in your right mind? Is there anyone left in Ukraine who can give them basic history textbooks on the Great Patriotic War, the Second World War? This is beyond all reason. It seems that he later said that he was not aware of any documents confirming his earlier statements. How can this be? Let me point out once again that these are people who shape public opinion.

I would like to reiterate that we will comment, present facts and provide quotes on every statement distorting the history of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War, no matter how frequent and how many such statements there are.



Update on Russian national Alexander Vinnik

On January 23, Alexander Vinnik was extradited by the Greek authorities to stand trial in France, despite him being a Russian citizen and despite Russia’s request for extradition.

The Russian Embassy in Paris maintains regular contact with Vinnik’s lawyers and provides any necessary consular assistance to them.

We cannot accept the unhelpful position taken by France, which did not duly notify Russian representatives of Vinnik’s arrival in France where he was moved from one hospital to another on January 24, a move that we were not informed of either. For three days, repeatedly and under various pretexts, our consular staff’s requests to meet with the Russian national have been turned down, which is a flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963.

This is likely being done to exert psychological pressure on the Russian national and make him feel like he is on his own, that nobody is addressing his situation or cares about him and that his country is not taking measures to protect him. But this is not true.

We are also outraged at how a Paris trial court heard the Alexander Vinnik case on January 28. The Head of the Consular Department at the Russian Embassy in France was not allowed to be present in the courtroom. The lawyers said they and their client had not been given the floor. At the same time the court did not make allowances for the health condition of Vinnik, who grew weak after a 40-day hunger strike, so he had to stand during the court session. Is this France’s new interpretation of human rights? They even refused to give Vinnik a glass of water. The court ordered that Alexander Vinnik be held in custody during deliberation.

The lawyers have talked about several inconsistencies in the case and the violations of legal procedures committed by the French authorities.

We believe pressure like this on the defendant from French judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies is unacceptable. If Paris hosts the Paris Peace Forum, where members of civil society can present opinions and where the main subject they choose to speak on is human rights, then please observe the human rights of one specific individual. Incidentally, we are not talking about a maniac or a murderer. I urge France to not overstep legal boundaries.

The Russian Embassy in France will lodge a relevant diplomatic complaint.

We will continue to work to ensure the rights and safeguard the interests of our compatriot. We will insist that the French authorities extradite the suspect to Russia and observe his rights. We are in regular contact with his lawyers and are providing all the necessary assistance.



The US Deal of the Century

This subject has evoked many questions. We have voiced our initial assessment of the so-called Deal of the Century. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on this matter at a news conference on the results of 2019, and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov has also provided his comment. But I would like to speak on this subject in some detail because we have received many questions.

On January 28, US President Donald Trump unveiled the political aspect of the so-called Deal of the Century at a meeting with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House. The US administration drafted this plan for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

We analysed this 181-page document. It proposes territorial exchanges that would give Israel control over parts of the West Bank – I repeat, this is stated in the so-called programme. The Palestinians are to receive land plots in the desert near the Egyptian border. The document also proposes ways of resolving other fundamental issues of the final status, including Jerusalem, refugees, etc.

I would like to note that the Palestinian and the Israeli people should have the final say on matters of a lasting and equitable peace settlement since it has to do with their future.

President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas has already described the deal being proposed by President Trump as unacceptable, calling it an attempt to deprive the Palestinians of their historic right to self-determination and full-fledged statehood.

At the same time, we are closely following the response of Arab capitals to the US initiative. So far, their assessments have mostly been negative and sceptical.

I would like to remind you that all matters the document deals with are reflected in the well-known international legal framework of the Middle East process, including resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the Madrid Principles and the Arab Peace Initiative.

We reaffirm our readiness for constructive future work in line with collective efforts aiming to reliably and comprehensively resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are ready to closely coordinate our actions with our Palestinian and Israeli partners, as well as Middle East and North African states, members of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators and all parties interested in a speedy achievement of a lasting peace in the Middle East.



Libya update

We continue to perceive the situation in Libya as tense. The ceasefire declared on January 12 by the Libyan National Army of Khalifa Haftar and forces loyal to the Fayez al-Sarraj-led Libyan Government of National Accord is regularly violated by both sides.

At the same time, certain pre-requisites for stabilisation have emerged following the January 13 contacts in Moscow between Russian and Turkish inter-departmental delegations with representatives of the western and eastern Libyan camps, as well as the January 19 international conference on Libya in Berlin.

It will take long and painstaking work to implement the joint understandings and agreements reached in Moscow and Berlin. At the same time, full involvement of the Libyan warring parties and their support for these efforts remains a crucial factor.



Venezuela update

We have taken note of the recent attempts to find new pretexts for interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela taken by those who continue to try to depose the legitimate president, Nicolas Maduro. For example, some participants of the Anti-Terrorism Conference held in Colombia last week took advantage of the event to claim that a “terrorist threat” is allegedly coming from the Venezuelan government. This sounds very much like Leonid Kravchuk’s statement about the alleged Hitler-Stalin meeting, a fake of the lowest order. By giving a political slant to the discussion on one of the biggest modern-day challenges, the sponsors of such events are crossing a very dangerous line and giving leeway to real terrorists. We call on the responsible countries in the Western Hemisphere to refrain from politicising international anti-terrorism cooperation.

At the previous briefing, we mentioned the US-Colombia war game held in direct proximity of the Venezuelan border. We have taken note of the assurance made by the US Ambassador to Colombia to the effect that these exercises are not directed against Venezuela. It is gratifying that our message has been heard.

However, almost simultaneously, US Defence Secretary Mark Esper held a news conference in Miami following his visit to the US Southern Command. The Pentagon chief said that Venezuela was a major destabilising factor and a national security challenge to the United States. Admiral Craig Faller, Commander of the US Southern Command, added that resisting this challenge called for building up cooperation with allies, and he cited the above mentioned exercise as an example of such cooperation. These statements have really made my day.

In light of the above, we are concerned about the growing US military activity on the northern border of Venezuela. At the same time, Caracas has been accused of ties with terrorists. This is a war of words complemented with practical steps. I would like to ask a question, even though the answer is obvious: Are these links in the same chain? Our conclusion is that the military scenarios remain on the agenda of the White House, which seems to be ready to make use of any available resources to change the Venezuelan government.

So far, Juan Guaido, former leader and now only a member of the National Assembly, remains the main US battering ram used against the legitimate Venezuelan government. He declared himself acting president of Venezuela on January 23, 2019 and since then has been living under this illusion, which his Western partners are encouraging. It is not surprising then that one of the leading persons at the Colombian conference was Guaido, who last year crossed into Colombia with the help of the Rastrojos drug trafficking group. I just wonder who helped him leave the country in violation of the ban this time.

A look at domestic developments in Venezuela shows that the people are becoming increasingly fed up with the calls for civil unrest and would rather settle domestic differences through talks and without any use of force. As for Juan Guaido, instead of making all these foreign trips (many people wonder who is picking up the tab for them), he could emulate the responsible Venezuelan politicians who have been working together on a daily basis at the National Dialogue Roundtable to coordinate compromises that would help return political confrontation into the constitutional framework. But the radicals refuse to budge. They have promised to boycott this year’s parliamentary election and have refused to join the talks on an agreement with broad electoral guarantees.

In this context, Russia continues to advocate a widely representative dialogue between Venezuela’s political forces in strict compliance with the national constitution. Only the Venezuelans themselves can decide their future. We believe that the international community should focus on building up trust between the opponents and should refrain from imposing any settlement on them.



The unfriendly moves by the Bulgarian authorities

We consider the actions undertaken by the Bulgarian authorities in recent days as unfriendly steps. There remain a lot of questions as to why this had to be done in the form, in which it was done, and as to the rationale behind these actions.

On January 24, the Bulgarian authorities declared the First Secretary of the Russian Federation Embassy in the Republic of Bulgaria persona non grata and an employee of the Russian Trade Mission in Sofia – “person regarded as undesirable.” Contrary to the practice accepted in such cases, the event was leaked to the media, which blew it up into an information campaign. And we have evidence to this effect. The Russian Embassy was notified about this decision only after it was splashed across the media. Moreover, they provided nothing in the way of evidence to prove the Russian diplomats’ guilt, or material, or grounds for these decisions.

The expulsion is justified by their “probing into the country’s electoral system” and their “focus on energy projects.” This does not hold up against criticism. What, in the opinion of the Bulgarian decision-makers, should diplomats do? What do diplomats sent to missions abroad generally do? They study laws, explore opportunities for cooperation, make contacts with representatives of the authorities, public organisations, civil society, and the diplomatic corps, organise events, hold talks, give receptions or have business fora, open exhibitions, etc. If there are any problems, they are addressed through diplomatic means, whereas all this is simply a PR campaign, just a show.

Somewhat earlier, on January 23, the Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office charged three Russians with the presumed poisoning, in 2015, of Bulgarian business owner Emilian Gebrev and three other Bulgarian citizens. For all the vagueness of their so-called “body of evidence” and speculations in the spirit of “highly likely,” this story seems to be nothing else than yet another part of the anti-Russian campaign masterminded, it appears, by members of Bulgaria’s political establishment, [who are involved in this] despite the fact that we are developing mutually beneficial relations.

We see in the string of recent events a purposeful wish and intention to disrupt the implementation of the recent bilateral agreements and just to poison the atmosphere of friendship and mutually beneficial and respectful cooperation that should prevail in relations between our countries and our peoples. We reserve the right to respond. The entire responsibility for these groundless and provocative steps lie on the Bulgarian side.



Another series of US and Canadian sanctions

It was reported yesterday that the US and Canada had introduced new sanctions against eight citizens of Russia and Ukraine, including the new acting governor of Sevastopol and Prime Minister of the Republic of Crimea, as well as against the company operating the long-distance train service between the Russian mainland and Crimea.

We are well aware that the whistle-blower is Washington, while Ottawa just meekly follows the Big Brother. But both seem unable to accept the objective reality that almost six years ago, Crimea and Sevastopol voted freely and rejoined Russia in its wake. For some mysterious reason, the United States and Canada, which pose as democracies, are stubbornly denying the residents of the Russian Crimean Peninsula the right to a democratic choice. Incidentally, these sanctions, pressure, political assessments, endless forums and accusations would have come in handy and at a premium, when the residents of Crimea were eager to hold a referendum, while the central authorities [of Ukraine] prevented them from doing so for years on end. Where were your sanctions? Where was the human rights endeavour? All of this is a cynical game.

Each time, Washington-sponsored attempts look even more absurd. These actions failed to bring the results that Washington and Ottawa expected in the past, and so will they now. No amount of sanctions can disrupt the railway service between Crimea and the rest of Russia, as the US seems to be dreaming about. Their instigators will only parade their impotence once again.

Politicians in Washington and Ottawa have crazy perceptions. They would prioritise law and democracy but at the same time think that citizens in this country can be punished with a ban to enter the United States or Canada. They are focusing their retaliation on the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, who took advantage of the existing legal mechanism and made their choice. These decisions, as I see it, betray the fear that Russians will come into direct contact with Americans and Canadians, who will learn the truth about the events in that period and people who were directly involved in them. And this will be the real truth, rather than what is written in reports by people, who have never set foot in Crimea. They will learn the truth from those who took the decisions and continue to do so today.

I would like to note that by their unfriendly moves, the authorities in the US and Canada are not creating a backdrop favourable for the missions of their new ambassadors to Russia, who have recently arrived in Moscow. Their assurances that they are willing to promote constructive relations [with Russia] are from the outset questionable.



EU’s decision to include seven Russian nationals on the EU blacklist on the pretext of their involvement in organising elections in Crimea

The European Union is acting in a similar vein. As you are aware, the EU decided to put seven Russian nationals on its blacklist on the pretext of their involvement in organising elections in Crimea. Apparently, the EU is still struggling to drop the practice of illegitimate sanctions as well. This is exactly how we interpret the Council of the European Union’s decision of January 28 to impose restrictive measures on seven Russian nationals – representatives of local administration, elected government bodies and election commissions in Crimea and Sevastopol.

Essentially, this is yet another punishment of the Crimeans for free expression of their will. This policy has been pursued since March 16, 2014 when the referendum took place. The people who come up with such decisions are completely fine with the fact that the nature of these decisions contradicts the very essence of the European project that declares its adherence to democratic values.

The European Union cannot find the strength to admit the obvious. Democratic processes are successfully developing in Crimea. Local residents’ active participation in the single election day on September 8, 2019 once again attests to this fact.

Tellingly, European governing bodies waited almost five months to announce this decision. I think it is also part of the campaign. The sanctions by the United States, Canada, the EU, and the meeting of the EU−Ukraine Association Council in Brussels all came in one salvo. Apparently, this gesture was meant to be a signal of support of the Kiev officials. It is sad that the EU is trying to encourage its Ukrainian proteges at the expense of its relations with Russia while maintaining a wall of silence on the obvious problems in Ukraine associated with discrimination of ethnic minorities and growing neo-Nazism.

On our part, we will draw necessary conclusions from this step by the EU that does not correspond with the request by major European capitals for normalisation of the relations with Russia. Of course, we will not leave this decision of the Council of the EU without a tit-for-tat response.



Joint press statement following the EU−Ukraine Association Council meeting

I cannot help but comment on the joint press statement released after the EU−Ukraine Association Council meeting in Brussels on January 28.

Supposedly, the document should cover exclusively the bilateral interaction between Ukraine and the EU. I think they have things to talk about, things to declare and things to focus on in their further movement. Partially, it is true. The document does contain a message about the importance of respecting the rights of national minorities in accordance with Ukraine’s obligations in the United Nations and the Council of Europe. There is also a proposal to the Ukrainian officials to establish a “substantive dialogue” with the representatives of national minorities in the country in order to take their opinion into account, and to fulfill the recommendations of the Venice Commission within the Council of Europe with regard to the discriminative laws on language and education. It is strange that the language chosen is so subdued, which is uncharacteristic of the EU with its sharp statements. Everything is generalised and sounds like a recommendation, when it should simply be stated: they did not do the job; they are not going to do it; they adopted this in spite of it; they are acting out of accord with the very documents they adopted. We sincerely hope that Kiev will listen to the calls, even if soft, for observing the rights of the Russian-speaking population.

At the same time, the document is full of confrontational cliches with reference to Russia. The background of Crimea’s reunification with our country was once again seriously distorted. Once again, they are trying to shift the responsibility for the intra-Ukainian conflict onto Russia. Allow me to remind you, this conflict did not come out of the blue but was a result of the anti-constitutional coup in February 2014, the coup that was not only supported but stimulated by the West. We all remember all too well the calls from Western capitals: “keep going,” “good job,” “history is being made on these squares.” All these words are on record. Yet again, instead of calling for a comprehensive and objective investigation into the MH17 plane crash in July 2014 over Donbass, it is demanded that Russia admits guilt for what happened. More nonsense. These and other carbon-copy anti-Russian statements make it from one EU document into another, like ritual invocations.

This is not bringing anything positive to Russia-EU relations nor, in any way, helping to resolve the conflict in Donbass.



Situation around Russia’s Sputnik news agency in Estonia

We have repeatedly pointed out Estonia’s gross violation of its international obligations on media freedom and flagrant abusive treatment of the Russian news agency Sputnik bureau in Estonia, which had to close due to unprecedented administrative pressure.

All employees of the agency’s Estonian bureau were forced to resign on January 1 under threats of criminal prosecution by the country's authorities (and this, in 21st century Europe!). They were forced to terminate their contracts with their employer, Rossiya Segodnya, on the grounds that they were threatened by the sanctions arising from its Director General Dmitry Kiselev being blacklisted – a fantastic excuse of the same type as the ‘Adolf Hitler met with Josef Stalin’ story, an argument of the same level and quality. As a reminder, this media outlet is a Russian state-owned enterprise and is not under any EU sanctions, while the unlawful EU restriction introduced personally against the head of the agency does not concern Sputnik. All that Estonia and its officials are saying is far from reality. We have repeatedly highlighted this here in this room as well as at international organisations’ platforms.

In particular, at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council on January 18, Russian diplomats complained of an intimidation and pressure campaign waged on journalists by the Estonian authorities and once again called on OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir to require Tallinn to revise its discriminatory media policies.

Representatives of relevant international organisations, journalistic and human rights associations have spoken out in defence of the Russian media, including the aforementioned Mr Harlem Desir, OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, the leaders of the European Federation of Journalists and many others. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, announced her intention to follow the situation closely on the sidelines of the winter session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe this week.

Once again, we demand that the Tallinn authorities comply with the commitments Estonia has made as a free sovereign state and end its repressive media policy that violates the fundamental principles of international law regarding freedom of expression and equal access to information. We hope that the Estonian authorities will finally heed the opinion of the international community, return to the legal space and stop their campaign to exert direct pressure on a foreign news agency.



Estonia marks 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Tartu

I have been asked to comment on Estonia celebrating the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Tartu between the former RSFSR and the former Republic of Estonia.

The state of Estonia that functioned from 1918 to 1940 lost its status as a subject of international law due to its accession to the Soviet Union, and the Treaty of Tartu lost its force, since both parties that signed it were included in one subject of international law – the Soviet Union. Furthermore, it is not on the registry of existing UN international treaties now.

As you know, none of the agreements reached by the members of the anti-Hitler coalition (Soviet Union, US, UK) in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam on the post-war structure of Europe questioned the Baltic republics acceding to the Soviet Union. The Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe drew a line under this issue.

Unlike the Russian Federation (the continuator of the Soviet Union), today's Estonia is a new state formed following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and one of its successors, recognised as such by the international community.

It follows from the above that the Treaty of Tartu of 1920 is invalid and belongs to history. This is our official position which I am spelling out again specifically for those who celebrated.



Update on Soviet memorials in Poland

Regrettably, we have to return once again to the “war” against Soviet memorials in Poland, where they started a new wave of desecrating monuments to Soviet soldiers who lost their lives while liberating that country from Nazi invaders during WWII.

In early January, five headstones were flattened at the cemetery in Jelenia Gora, where the remains of Soviet soldiers are to be found. An act of vandalism was committed on a monument on the common grave of Red Army soldiers who liberated the city of Starachowice from the Nazi invaders 75 years ago. It took place on the night of January 17, on the eve of the anniversary marking the liberation. On January 26-27, on the anniversary marking the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by the Red Army, insulting words were painted on the monument at the Soviet military cemetery in Gniezno. This is how some people express their emotions although a civilized state and educated people call this vandalism.

We see that Warsaw is making its numerous statements in the context of its current “revision of history.” It is impossible not to notice it because it is clear as a bell. Equally obvious is the situation around our memorial heritage in Poland, which is unthinkable for any civilized society. It is indecent to deny this. The shameful desecration of Soviet graves is a direct consequence of historical lies and absurdities.



Joint operation of Group-IB, Interpol and the Indonesian police on detaining a cyber gang

Data Privacy Day was observed on January 28. This is an important topic on the current foreign policy agenda. In recent years, Western countries have established a bad tradition – to exploit the subject of hacking and systematically accuse other states, nations and companies of all kinds of cybercrimes without quoting any facts. The truth is very different from a whole lot of fairy tales and there are plenty of dreamers. Now that hackers are using cyberspace for illegal acts against individuals and whole countries, Russia is one of the most active participants when it comes to international cooperation on cybersecurity.

The operation code-named Night Fury carried out in December 2019 became a graphic example of such cooperation. The cyber police of Indonesia working together with Interpol arrested three Indonesian residents, who were members of a cyber gang that stole information from bank cards belonging to customers of online shops in Australia, Brazil, Great Britain, Germany, Indonesia, the United States, and other countries. The Russian Group-IB, experts in the prevention of cybercrime, played a key role in the operation. The job is ongoing in another five regions.

This is the first successful international operation against cybercrime in the Asia-Pacific Region. This is an important example of the international scale of cybercrime as well as of the efficiency of international cooperation and the exchange of information when it comes to countering cyber threats and the coordinated cross-border fight against cybercrime regardless of the Russophobic theories coming from Western spin doctors.

This cooperation is in the vein of the line that Russia is consistently upholding. The goal is to elaborate universal positions on countering cybercrime under the auspices of the UN and consolidate international cooperation in this field. The majority of countries support this way of doing things, which is confirmed by the results of voting on the Russia-initiated UN General Assembly resolution on combatting cybercrime.



Holding the 20th Winter Diplomatic Games

On February 8, the 20th Winter Diplomatic Games will be held at the suburban Moscow Country Club, a branch of the Foreign Ministry’s Main Directorate for Servicing the Diplomatic Corps (UPDK). The traditional sports event will take place in the run-up to Diplomats’ Day.

The event will involve heads and employees of diplomatic missions accredited in Russia, senior Foreign Ministry and UPDK officials, merited Russian athletes, and members of the cultural community.

Olympic champion and Russian State Duma Deputy Speaker Svetlana Zhurova, representatives of the Russian Olympic Committee and other guests are expected to attend the 20th Winter Diplomatic Games' opening ceremony.

Winners of the biathlon, cross-country skiing, table tennis, Russian billiards and futsal competitions will receive prizes.

The event will feature an interesting cultural and entertainment programme.

For accreditation and additional information, go to: https://updk.ru.



Foreign Ministry report on the human rights situation in certain countries

On February 7, Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law and Deputy Director of the Department for Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights Grigory Lukyantsev will unveil the ministry's regular report on the human rights situation in certain countries at the Foreign Ministry Press Centre.

The report continues the Ministry’s efforts to draw the attention of the international public at large to the increase in human rights violations in a number of countries.

Human rights organisations and experts have detected substantial human rights problems on the European continent and on the other side of the Atlantic. Racist views and prejudices, migrant phobia, Afrophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and many other terrible manifestations continue to spread. Against the backdrop of such tendencies, the problem of protecting the rights of national minorities and ethnic groups, primarily linguistic and educational, has become considerably aggravated. First of all, one should note discriminatory measures by the authorities of the three Baltic states and Ukraine against the Russian-speaking population.

I will not list all the problems and achievements. We will give the floor to the Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Grigory Lukyantsev.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Could you elaborate on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla in Santiago de Cuba?



Maria Zakharova:

I would not like to forestall these talks. The Foreign Ministry website will certainly publish materials coordinated with the Cuban side and available to the media directly before Mr Lavrov’s delegation leaves for the region. But this is to be a topic for discussion.



Question:

What was Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido’s role in organising the Regional Conference Against Terrorism that took place in Colombia on January 20?



Maria Zakharova:

He was one of the sources of inspiration behind it. I have said enough today about his role. We proceed from the assumption that if Venezuela is somehow concentrating on and consolidating around the negotiating process, the key representatives of the opposition could be less devoted to international tourism and more to domestic problems. This is important today.



Question:

Readers of the Natsionalny Kurs asked us to convey their thanks to the Russian foreign ministry and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for their clear-cut stand against the falsification of history. It is nice to hear how you enunciate what is, in our view, a correct position.



Maria Zakharova:

It is not “in your view” that it is a correct position. In this case, there cannot be a right or wrong position, according to someone’s opinion. There were the Nuremberg Trials. The rulings and judgments were recorded, with relevant signatures put under them. This is a documented international legal process.

If we are saying that someone has not even just the desire but a deep-down resolve to renounce the Nuremberg results, then they should say so and call for this, honestly and truthfully. Look at how many “courageous” and “resolute” people make statements on WWII. But if they are reluctant to deny the results of Nuremberg, then no one can have a second, third, or fifth opinion on the outcome of the Second World War.

The publication of new documents and archive materials is a contribution to the process and helps historians in their work. But this does not abolish the results of Nuremberg. After all, what has begun now, at this historical moment, has begun for a reason. The last witnesses of those events – not only veterans but also those who saw everything with their own eyes and can tell their life story – have either left us, or are on their way out, or will be gone soon. And then all hell will break loose!



Question:

President Putin has repeatedly stated that the disintegration of the USSR was a tragedy. Many millions of Soviet citizens suffered as a result of it. Today, many people, including some of our readers, are going to court to challenge the legality of the disintegration of the USSR. Some courts are considering these cases. If there are court precedents of this kind, how does the foreign ministry regard new relations with former constituent republics of the USSR? I know that this is a difficult question.



Maria Zakharova:

It is a very simple question. Your comment must not preempt any court decision. This refers to administrative and criminal cases as well as to international trials. It is simply impossible. There is a government position, but then you should ask the relevant agencies. But it is unscientific to preempt possible court decisions and say what will happen afterwards.



Question:

According to media reports, the Serbian Parliament has been considering a bill on lowering the electoral threshold from five to three percent ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for April of this year. Certain opposition politicians in that country and some EU representatives are criticising these intentions. What comments would you like to make regarding this?



Maria Zakharova:

First, I would like to say that this is an internal affair of our friend, sovereign Serbia. Let me remind you that any outside interference is contrary to the basic international legal norms.

Second, this state’s electoral system, including legislation, meets all modern democratic requirements, as it was repeatedly confirmed by international monitors following a number of Serbian elections.

I think that what we are talking about now is the intention to use double standards in an attempt to manipulate information for political purposes.

I would like to remind you that according to the 2009 findings by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the 3-percent threshold is ideally suited to ensure a wide parliamentary representation of diverse political forces. Incidentally, the same organisation and the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged the Council of Europe member-countries in 2010 to consider the lowering of legislative barriers higher than 3 percent to parties’ getting to national parliaments and to remove other obstacles preventing small political parties and independent candidates from being represented in elected bodies of power. This is not so much a comment on intra-Serbian decisions as a reference to international documents.

We are confident that Serbia has the right to address this issue in accordance with the existing legislative procedure, whereas the critical comments and assessments are senseless and ungrounded.



Question:

There are numerous speculations in connection with the coronavirus, including apocalyptic. Is there any clarity as to the timeframe for granting Russian experts access to the US biological laboratory in Armenia?



Maria Zakharova:

No, I have no information on this. I will inquire.



Question:

Foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia held talks in Geneva yesterday and are having more talks today. Does Russia as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group have any expectations?



Maria Zakharova:

We proceed from the assumption that the trio of co-chairs should approve a statement today. It must be available on the OSCE website. It makes no sense to forestall it.



Question:

Beating your wife is a sign of love. It’s a strange kind of love between Russia and Bulgaria, one related to diplomats. To me, love between our two countries should consist of who loves the other more, or in the frequency of air travel. Bulgaria has expelled several Russian diplomats. What I would like to say is that either their creativity is failing or their actions are inappropriate. Bulgaria’s former foreign minister, Solomon Passy, expressed the view that this was bringing us closer to a situation where Bulgarian diplomats will be expelled from Russia. This would reduce the embassy staff, which is too big anyway. It is rumored that Bulgaria wants to sell part of its embassy building in Russia. If so, please comment on this, because the Bulgarian public is keen to know the details.



Maria Zakharova:

Why are you asking me this? Anything regarding the Bulgarian embassy should be addressed to the Bulgarian foreign ministry representative who can comment on it. Personally, I’m not planning to buy anything like this.

I talked at length about diplomats today. If you can be more specific, please ask your question again, although I covered this subject in detail. What specifically do you want to know about the diplomats?



Question:

When will Russia announce its symmetrical response?



Maria Zakharova:

You will be the first to know.



Question:

Thank you for covering the theme of historical memory. Today, there is inadequate coverage of the Moscow militia’s involvement in the Patriotic War of 1812. We are preparing a new issue of our magazine that will be devoted to the Moscow militia that fielded several divisions manned by workers and members of public organisations, including the foreign ministry. We would like you to contribute a story on the involvement of foreign ministry staff in the militia, specifically on their participation in the 1812 war. We will write you a letter, if you do not object. We would like to obtain materials like this.



Maria Zakharova:

We will happily support this. By all means!



Question:

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab claimed the other day that the most serious recent attacks on his country’s telecommunications sector had originated from Russia. He said the threats differed in that they came from both cybercriminals and government sponsored units involved in cyber activities. But he failed to cite even one example of this interference, nor name a single organization behind the attacks. What is Russia’s attitude to these charges?



Maria Zakharova:

This is just more chatter from London. Unfortunately, this is the only comment I can offer. Any high profile statements that are not corroborated by facts (after all, they don’t need to be so public in nature but can be passed to the Russian side via international agencies as a body of evidence) are just more chatter. We have heard a lot of this from London. Another anniversary of the Skripal story is coming up, which again will be more chatter. We’ll talk with them when we have the facts.

Incidentally, I would like to remind you that I have talked many times about cyberattacks on the Foreign Ministry’s information resources, to mention just this issue. I always cited facts and figures. We are ready to discuss this subject with the relevant experts. We’ll talk when we have facts. The rest is just words.



Question:

President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared the other day that Russia was not performing its obligations within the framework of the Astana and Sochi formats. What is Russia’s response to these claims?



Maria Zakharova:

We are committed to our obligations.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4014412
__________________
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 May 17th, 2020 #72
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 1 television channel for the documentary Antarctica: 200 Years of Peace, Moscow, February 2, 2020



2 February 2020 - 05:00






Sergey Brilyov:

Good afternoon, Mr Lavrov.



Sergey Lavrov:

Good afternoon.



Sergey Brilyov:

I don’t suppose you’ve been to Antarctica?



Sergey Lavrov:

Not yet, unfortunately.



Sergey Brilyov:

Let me tell you about it. I flew there from Chile. At the airport, I asked where border control is? They replied that there’s no need for it, because I wouldn’t be leaving Chile but would only be travelling to Chile’s Antarctic sector. Why didn’t the Soviet Union try to get a sector?



Sergey Lavrov:

Nobody tried to get any sectors. Antarctica, which was discovered 200 years ago by the first Russian expedition of Faddey Bellinsgauzen and Mikhail Lazarev, is a continent where international relations, as it was decided after long disputes, are guided by the Antarctic Treaty signed 60 years ago. The 1959 Antarctic Treaty sets out the principles that regulate the activities of all countries in Antarctica. First of all, the contracting parties pledged to use Antarctica for peaceful purposes only, preserve its biological resources and prohibit all activities relating to Antarctic mineral resources, except for scientific research (the latter provision was confirmed by the contracting parties for at least 50 years at their meeting in Madrid in 1991). The treaty also bans any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapons. There is also a provision on cooperation based on mutual respect and conducted in the interests of the whole of humankind.

Bellinsgauzen and Lazarev were the first to discover that Antarctica is a continent. British and American expeditions went there after them, but Russians were the first to discover that Antarctica is not an ice wall but a continent. Therefore, Antarctica does not belong to anyone. It is true that last century a number of countries – Great Britain, Norway, Chile, Australia and New Zealand – made claims for a part of the continent and adjacent waters of the Southern Ocean, which are called “sectors.”



Sergey Brilyov:

They marked triangles on the map.



Sergey Lavrov:

That’s right, triangles. Back then, the Soviet Union and the United States made a joint statement on peremptory non-recognition of any claims and refusal to divide Antarctica into sectors in order to preserve the continent as the common heritage of the humankind where research projects are implemented to the benefit of all. That mutual agreement was sealed. There is a right to claim a part of Antarctica, but there is a huge distance between laying claim and getting it. Therefore, this issue is not on the agenda now.



Sergey Brilyov:

It appears that Russia’s and the United States’ stance on Antarctica is one of the issues that they have complete unanimity on.



Sergey Lavrov:

That is true – and this is not the only issue. Since its discovery, Antarctica has been a sort of honeypot, a continent that everyone sought to claim a part of. It even came to serious interstate disputes.



Sergey Brilyov:

There was even shooting.



Sergey Lavrov:

There was. But ultimately everything was settled by peaceful means, and I think this experience should be used to settle today’s conflicts.



Sergey Brilyov:

Antarctica was almost a reason for a recent war. I mean the Falklands (Malvinas) War waged for the islands located slightly north of Antarctica.



Sergey Lavrov:

They are not part of Antarctica.



Sergey Brilyov:

But overlooking it. How sure can we be that the Antarctic Treaty will remain in effect and the world will not descend into another armed conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

I believe no one wants to undermine the Treaty. The 43rd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting will be held in May−June this year. It will also mark the 200th anniversary of the discovery of Antarctica by Russian explorers. There are no signs of putting the Treaty at risk. On the contrary, I believe that cooperation on the South Pole is a remarkable example of relations between countries that set their ideological differences aside to focus on research and a peaceful development of this shared heritage.



Sergey Brilyov:

Can you tell me as a diplomat, not a researcher, why Russia has so many bases in Antarctica?



Sergey Lavrov:

As a matter of fact, a scientific view is more important here. I doubt that diplomats would have made such a huge number of discoveries as our scientists. Take the discovery of a subglacial lake made at the end of last century. This lake was covered by a four-kilometre layer of ice and so had no contact with the Earth’s surface for millions of years. This unique discovery is helping us to learn increasingly more about the Earth and its origins. As for diplomacy, this offers us direct benefits because we can share experience, demonstrate the achievements made by our people and thereby strengthen Russia’s international standing. When we are doing well in the economy and science, it is easier for us to “make” foreign policy.



Sergey Brilyov:

It is said that Antarctic stations are like mineral claims. Or is this a geopolitical fantasy?



Sergey Lavrov:

Stations are nothing more than stations. We don’t need visas to fly to Antarctica. It is a unique part of the world. I believe that we should tread very carefully when it comes to initiatives on modifying the regime set out in the Antarctic Treaty.



Sergey Brilyov:

I have a question for you as a canoer. Just to imagine that Bellinsgauzen and Lazarev set out in their sloops across the ocean into that ice region… Come to think of it, this is a heroic part of global history.



Sergey Lavrov:

I am not a canoer. Rather I’m a rafter. A raft is more reliable than a canoe. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine how they travelled back then. By the way, our diplomats greatly contributed to organising that expedition. All our ambassadors and consuls general located along the expedition’s route were instructed to provide assistance, including food and equipment such as binoculars and spy glasses, as well as many other items. Of course, the fact that there were no major problems during the expedition – nobody died or got scurvy, as many had feared – is proof of the attention given to it by the state, including the diplomatic service, along the entire route.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4016132






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article titled “Russia and Indonesia: 70 years of fruitful cooperation” published in the Indonesian national newspaper Kompas, February 2, 2020



2 February 2020 - 20:00



This year, Russia and Indonesia are celebrating the 70th anniversary of their diplomatic relations. Any significant date is always a good occasion both for summing up what has been achieved so far and for drafting plans for the future.

Our compatriots had the good fortune to discover Indonesia, a nation with a distinct identity, back in the 19th century, when Russian maritime expeditions started visiting the archipelago. In 1806, two sailing-ships, the Nadezhda and the Neva, under Ivan Krusenshtern and Yury Lisiansky, engaged in the first Russian circumnavigation of the earth, and approached the shores of Indonesia. The Ryurik, a brig with a scientific expedition led by the famous Russian navigator Otto von Kotzebue on board, did the same in 1818. Between 1883 and 1889, highly valuable oceanological experiments were carried out in the Java Sea by the corvette Vytyaz under the outstanding Russian admiral Stepan Makarov. The prominent Russian scientists and naturalists Nikolai Miklukho-Maklai, Alexander Voyeykov and Vladimir Karavayev worked on Java and other islands in the latter half of the 19th and the early 20th century.

The fact that Russia paid much attention to maintaining contacts with the Indonesians was confirmed by the establishment, in 1894, of the first Russian full-time consulate in Batavia, the capital of the Dutch East Indies. Somewhat earlier, in 1890, the Pamyat Azova and the Vladimir Monomakh, the ships on which Crown Prince Nicholas, the future Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, made his Eastern voyage, dropped anchor in the same harbour.

After Indonesia proclaimed independence in 1945, the USSR gave the young state all-round support. On December 27, 1949, largely due to the USSR’s efforts, the UN recognised Indonesia’s sovereignty over most of the territories of the Dutch East Indies. On January 25 and February 3, 1950, both countries’ foreign ministers exchanged telegrams on the establishment of diplomatic relations.

Jakarta found Moscow to be a reliable friend that assisted its efforts to assert its statehood, develop its national economy, and strengthen its positions internationally. In 1956, President Sukarno paid his first visit to the USSR, with the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, paying a reciprocal visit to Indonesia in 1960. The transfer of western New Guinea to the Indonesian jurisdiction in 1963 was made possible with the help of the Soviet Union (the Netherlands had retained a hold on it contrary to all earlier agreements).

The USSR helped Indonesia to build the Friendship Hospital and the Gelora Bung Karno Stadium, as well as transport and industrial infrastructure facilities that are in operation to this day. Great strides were made in military-technical cooperation. A case in point is a Soviet submarine in the city of Surabaja. Donated to the Indonesian Navy in 1959, she was called Pasopati and has now been transformed into a museum.

Despite the difficult period of the 1960s−1980s, Russian-Indonesian relations have stood the test of time, keeping their traditionally friendly nature. Today, Indonesia is an important partner for Russia in South-East Asia and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. A regular dialogue has been established at the top and high levels. A strong contractual and legal infrastructure has been created, based on the 2003 Declaration on the Foundations of Friendly and Partner Relations in the 21st Century. Taking our relations to the level of a strategic partnership is on the agenda. Russia and its Indonesian friends continue to work proactively on this task.

The two countries’ interparliamentary ties are making headway. Heads of the legislatures hold regular meetings, relevant friendship groups function successfully.

Created in 2002, the Russian-Indonesian Joint Commission on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation, which includes eight working groups, coordinates joint collaborative efforts. Russian companies like Russian Railways and Rosneft are involved in major infrastructure projects in Indonesia. There are fine opportunities for expanded collaboration in hi-tech areas, including aircraft manufacturing and information/communications technologies. Strong potential has been created in the field of reciprocal agricultural supplies. Russia is ready to share its nuclear energy experience with its Indonesian friends. On the whole, we proceed from the assumption that it is in our common interests both to maintain the existing levels of practical cooperation and to do whatever is necessary to promote our business ties.

The high level of mutual trust creates a favourable atmosphere for the advancement of military and military-technical cooperation. Senior officers hold regular meetings; Russian troops participate in joint exercises in Indonesia. Supplies of Russian weapons and military equipment remain an important component of defence cooperation.

The two countries cooperate closely in confronting security challenges and threats. The related agencies have established a regular, productive dialogue.

Ties in the area of education, culture and sports are being strengthened. Inter-regional exchanges are bringing in a handsome payback. Russian tourists appreciate the hospitality at the Indonesian health resorts.

We set great store by the existing close contacts between the foreign ministries of Russia and Indonesia. Our foreign political collaboration is based on the identity or closeness of approaches to the main contemporary challenges. I would like to single out in particular our effective coordination at multilateral venues, primarily the UN, where Jakarta became a non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2019.

Russian foreign policy prioritises the strengthening of relations with ASEAN, which reached the level of strategic partnership in 2018. I would like to use this opportunity to express gratitude to our Indonesian friends for their effectiveness in coordinating the Russia-ASEAN dialogue partnership.

We appreciate Jakarta’s interest in the Eurasian integration processes. This was reaffirmed in 2019 through the signing of the Memorandum on Cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the Government of Indonesia.

I am confident that the traditions of friendship and mutual understanding, traditions tested by long decades, create the necessary prerequisites for the further expansion and intensification of cooperation. The key to success consists in the feelings of respect and mutual sympathy, which unite the two nations and remain unchanged. We see in this a firm basis for Russian-Indonesian cooperation to reach new frontiers.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4016185






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with ASEAN Secretary-General Lim Jock Hoi, Moscow, February 3, 2020



3 February 2020 - 14:15






Mr Secretary-General,

We are glad to welcome you and your delegation to Moscow. I hope your stay will be beneficial and pleasant, as was mine in Jakarta in 2017 when we opened Russia’s permanent mission to ASEAN. ASEAN is one of the most influential, authoritative and successful regional organisations. It is the core of many multilateral associations in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Relations with ASEAN are a priority in Russian foreign policy. We consider ASEAN to be our reliable partner in building an open and well-balanced system of equitable and indivisible security. Importantly, we believe that the 10 ASEAN countries are playing the central role in this system.

We appreciate the fact that the Secretariat you head played a constructive and active role in raising Russia-ASEAN dialogue to a strategic level in 2018.

One of the results of this achievement was the improvement of our coordination at the UN and other international venues on key regional and international issues that are vital for Russia and ASEAN, including the efforts to counter terrorism, drug trafficking, transnational crime and WMD proliferation, and to ensure arms control and information security.

In parallel, we are developing our cooperation in practical areas, including energy, the digital economy, agriculture, healthcare and environmental protection. To consolidate our versatile ties with ASEAN we are actively using the St Petersburg International Economic Forum and the Eastern Economic Forum, which are regularly attended by representatives of your states.





Last year, Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad was one of the main guests at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. We expect ASEAN representatives to attend relevant top-level events this year.

We are closely following the integration processes that are taking place in the Asia-Pacific Region. We are monitoring the analysis of these processes in ASEAN. Naturally, we see prospects in the alignment of relevant ASEAN plans with the initiative put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the ASEAN summit in 2016, notably, the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership with the participation of the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the SCO and ASEAN.

I think it is symbolic that the first meeting during your visit took place at the Eurasian Economic Commission with the Chairman of its Council, Mikhail Myasnikovich. This was his first day working in this position.

I am confident that your visit will promote our strategic partnership in all areas, practical cooperation and coordination of our actions on the international stage.

Welcome.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4018040






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu



3 February 2020 - 18:07







On February 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu during a phone call upon the initiative of the Turkish side.

The ministers had a thorough discussion of the Syrian peace process, focusing on the current situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone. They reaffirmed it was necessary to strictly comply with bilateral agreements, above all those reached following the meeting of the two countries’ presidents on September 17, 2018, in Sochi. In this context, the officials stressed the need to separate the moderate opposition forces from terrorists and immediately put an end to provocations against the Syrian civilians and army.

The ministers discussed further practical steps of the Astana Process guarantor countries to normalise the situation on the ground and promote the efforts of the Syrian Constitutional Committee. They reaffirmed that there was no alternative to a comprehensive solution of the Syrian crisis by political and diplomatic means.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4018501






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message to Norwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Spitsbergen Treaty



4 February 2020 - 15:00



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a message to Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ine Eriksen Soreide on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Spitsbergen Treaty signed in Paris on February 9, 1920.

Sergey Lavrov writes in his message that the Spitsbergen Treaty is a vital multilateral document that formalised the unique legal status of the archipelago. The Treaty recognised Norway’s sovereignty over Spitsbergen and guaranteed the rights and legitimate interests of the other parties to that international treaty, including Russia. It created the foundation for the cooperation of the concerned states in the interests of development and the use of the Archipelago’s vast territory. The traditions of peaceful coexistence and neighbourliness were not interrupted even during the Cold War and, in general, remain valid to this very day. Science and education are actively developing on the Archipelago. Coal mining, which constituted the basis of economic operations on Spitsbergen for years, is being increasingly complemented with tourism and the service sector.

At the same time, the Foreign Minister’s message reiterates the importance of Norway complying with the letter and spirit of the 1920 Treaty when it comes to the guarantees of “equal liberty of access and entry” to the Archipelago and the possibility to conduct commercial and economic operations there “on a footing of absolute equality.” In particular, we are concerned about the restrictions on the use of the Russian helicopter, the deportation procedure adopted exclusively for Russian citizens on Spitsbergen, the unlawfulness of Norway’s fisheries protection zone, the unreasonable extension of nature protection zones where economic operations are limited, as well as several other problems.

Russia is the only country, apart from Norway, that for decades has conducted economic operations on Spitsbergen, and we do not intend to curtail our presence there. On the contrary, we have long-term plans for strengthening, diversifying and modernising it. The Russian Federation is interested in developing lasting and constructive cooperation with Norway on Spitsbergen and in promoting a dialogue on practical matters.

Our Norwegian partners are invited to conduct bilateral consultations to lift the restrictions from the operations of Russian organisations on the Archipelago. We expect a positive reply from the Norwegian side.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4019093






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Moscow, February 4, 2020



4 February 2020 - 17:15






Question:

Tensions in Idlib are escalating. Everyone continues to make quite tough statements. People are dying. What can Russia do in this region? Can we somehow help launch diplomatic collaboration between Syria and Turkey and scale down tensions at least temporarily?



Sergey Lavrov:

No one, not even Russia with its capabilities regarding the Syrian peace settlement that have expanded considerably over the past few years, can provide assistance on its own. When the terrorist ring closed around Damascus, the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic asked us for military assistance. Russia responded under a decision of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, and the situation changed drastically.

It should be recalled that during that period, in the summer of 2015, none of our Western and other foreign partners even mentioned the need for a political process. Everyone expected a military victory over the so-called “Bashar al-Assad’s regime.” When that regime, which, in reality, is the legitimate government of a country, a full-fledged UN member, not only held out but also reclaimed most of the lost territories, with the assistance primarily from Russia and also from Iran (which also received the relevant legitimate request), various parties which had never discussed the political process before began to talk about this matter more insistently. Understandably, this changes the situation on the ground. I would like to recall that Russia, Turkey and Iran played a decisive role in launching a political process.

Staffan de Mistura, the previous UN Special Envoy for Syria, delayed the start of fair and equitable talks between the government and the opposition under the colossal influence of Western countries and tried to secure more favourable terms for al-Assad’s opponents under the Geneva format. The talks were put off several times in 2016. The process began in April, and all this was later rescheduled for May, then August, September and October. Therefore, the Geneva format produced no results. At that time, in late 2016, Russia, Turkey and Iran showed initiative and established the Astana format, which aimed for the first time to bring together the government of al-Assad and representatives of the armed opposition, rather than the foreign-based opposition that virtually does not represent anyone and which leads an affluent life in the capitals of regional countries and in Europe. In effect, those looking at each other through gunsights “on the ground” sat down at the common negotiating table together for the first time.

The Astana process has stood up to reality. A year after it was launched the level of violence “on the ground” has considerably declined. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress was held in Sochi, leading to the adoption of documents that have become the foundation for the political processes we are now seeing, including its 12 principles. The Astana process helped the new UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Geir O. Pedersen, to form functioning parties from the opposition, the government and civil society, and to coordinate order in the work and rules of procedures, etc. Let me emphasise that this was done with Turkey, Iran and Russia’s permanent and consistent support. This is contrary to the actions of Western states that tried to disrupt the forming of the Constitutional Committee, and as a result, it began functioning a year later than it could have if our German and French colleagues had implemented the agreements reached at the summit of Russia, Turkey, France and Germany in Istanbul on October 27, 2018.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Committee process is underway. In parallel, as you know, the Astana process initiated the concept of de-escalation zones. Four de-escalation zones were established. The power of the lawful government was restored in three of the former de-escalation zones. The armed opposition joined the political process. Meanwhile, all those identified by the UN Security Council as terrorist groups herded together into the remaining de-escalation zone of Idlib and also nearby Aleppo and Hama. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan reached special agreements on this zone.

This issue was reviewed twice – in September 2018 and October 2019. In both cases Russia and Turkey adopted specific documents that included their commitments to oversee Idlib, primarily in terms of civilian security and the distribution of humanitarian relief – food, medications and other humanitarian goods, and guarantees of overall security in the context of ending the conflict. A truce agreement was signed with the reservation that the terrorist groups blacklisted by the UN Security Council would not and may not be covered by the truce. At the same time, the sides agreed to create a 10-20 km demilitarised strip in this de-escalation zone. This was done to reduce the risk of attack from the radicals in the Idlib zone against Syrian military personnel and the Russian Khmeimim Air Base that had been attacked by drones dozens of times.

Yesterday I talked again with my Turkish counterpart – Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. Our military personnel are constantly in touch.

Regrettably, so far, Turkey has failed to fulfil a couple of its key commitments that were designed to resolve the core of the Idlib problem. It was necessary to separate the armed opposition that cooperates with Turkey and is ready for a dialogue with the government in the political process, from the terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra, which became Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Both are blacklisted as terrorist groups by the UN Security Council, so neither Jabhat al-Nusra nor the latest version, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, has anything to do in Idlib. The most we agreed on back in 2019 was that each party must observe the truce. But even after a third reminder by Russia and Turkey to those in the Idlib zone, the criminals I mentioned have not ceased their provocative actions. Another attack by a drone against our base in Khmeimim was made the day before yesterday. It was curbed by our air defence systems. Syrian military positions and civilian facilities beyond the Idlib zone are regularly subjected to shelling.

Another reason for this state of affairs is that the 10-20 km demilitarised strip has not been established inside the Idlib zone, something we reminded our Turkish partners of as well. We will push for complying with all the provisions of the decisions made by the presidents of Russia and Turkey. Reportedly, Turkish troops are being deployed in the Idlib zone, and there have been clashes between them and the Syrian army. Our military are monitoring this situation. According to our information, which has been made public by the General Staff, the Turkish military have advanced to certain locations inside the Idlib de-escalation zone without notifying us, and we were thus unable to notify the Syrian army about it either. Strikes were delivered, and Turkey is threatening retaliation. This is very sad. We urge them to strictly comply with the 2018 and 2019 Sochi accords on Idlib.

The second issue arising from the risks and threats from the Idlib de-escalation zone is the fact that hundreds of militants, including al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters, are moving from there to Libya in order to build up hostilities in that country. Again, based on the factors that I mentioned, Russia cannot overcome this challenge alone, but it can push for the unconditional and full implementation of the existing agreements on Idlib. We are discussing this with our Turkish partners.



Question:

During his visit to Kiev, President Erdogan gave an evaluation of the Crimean Tatars’ situation in Crimea. What can you tell us about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

Nothing new was expressed regarding Turkey’s position on Crimean Tatars. During talks with President Putin, which take place regularly, President Erdogan speaks from the same positions. We are aware of Ankara’s stance. We believe that one needs to see what is happening in Crimea with his own eyes, not second hand. Many people have visited Crimea, and more are continuing to go there, and not just cultural figures at festivals like the jazz festival in Koktebel, or cultural and economic forums. In addition to representatives of civil society, business and culture, many politicians, including from Western and NATO countries, as well as members of parliament, go to Crimea. They all can see for themselves that everything that is being said about human rights violations with respect to Crimean Tatars in Crimea is a blatant lie.

Any appeals to Russia to allow foreign observers in are worthless cheap talk. If someone wants to go there – by all means go there, no problem, from mainland Russia across our beautiful new bridge. Those who relentlessly demand the admission of observers insist that they go to Crimea from the territory of Ukraine, thereby emphasising the politicised nature of their visit. They are oblivious to the fact that anyone who wanted to, has already been there a long time ago and seen everything they wanted to see. Perhaps, these are the people who will support Mr Dzhemilev and the other leaders of the so-called Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people’s criminal plan to march on Crimea in early May and who will stop at nothing. Western advocates of this position on the Crimean Tatar issue are adding fuel to these initiatives, which will only end badly. But at the very least, we will not allow anyone to jeopardise the safety of the people in Crimea.

President Erdogan has an open invitation to visit Crimea. He has not turned it down. He was invited to attend the upcoming opening of Simferopol’s largest mosque. There has never been a mosque in Crimea. Under Ukrainian rule, no one ever thought about Crimean Tatar religious rights. As you may be aware, their language received the status of an official language, along with Russian and Ukrainian, only after Crimea reunited with Russia. Only then did political reform and land amnesty take place.

So, no one has ever come up with a single fact that the rights of the Crimean Tatars or any other ethnicity in Crimea have ever been violated.

Of course, I very much hope that our Turkish neighbours will nevertheless be objective in their Ukrainian policy, on one hand, and in their Crimea policy, on the other, and avoid playing into the hands of the nationalist politicians and radicals who are planning this march on Crimea, including the use of force, and will not encourage these sentiments by resorting to Bandera-like rhetoric.





Question:

Today there is a lot of news in the media on preparations for the next big US exercise in several East European countries. In the context of a new cooling in Russia-NATO relations, are we seeing a new cold war brewing? For example, Defender-Europe 20.



Sergey Lavrov:

A big operation was carried out to build up armed forces in Europe during the Cold War, including increased US presence. There was operation Return of Forces to Germany (REFORGER), when the US came to practically live in Germany, which has dozens of military bases today. There is an enormous number of foreign militaries in today’s Germany. But this is NATO’s concern.

Defender means there is a need to defend. Defend from whom? They say not from Russia, but from an enemy that can rival the military potential of NATO. It is difficult to find a proper, comparable target to apply this force to, because if we look at the official data – not Russia’s but foreign information – on military expenses and military equipment, NATO members in Europe alone, without the US, have almost twice as much military force as we do, in all kinds of armaments (tanks, military aircraft, attack helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles, armored vehicles, attack ships and submarines). I have no idea where they have found an enemy that can rival them. We are definitely not the prevailing military force in Europe, NATO is. Even though the entire space here has too many military facilities and armaments, even though NATO’s progress eastwards has already created serious problems in the area of strategic stability in Europe, NATO continues to unite with the EU. NATO members try to hold joint military exercises and involve neutral states such as Finland and Sweden under the pretext of their EU membership. They have come up with the “military Schengen” in the context of cooperation between NATO and the EU, which includes upgrading all the transport routes to the Alliance’s eastern border so that the largest military hardware can go east easily. I believe this is enough to realise how dangerous such games can be. Of course, we must respond to this. The Defender exercise scheduled for April-May (however, the preparations began long ago) means deploying over 30,000 units of US equipment and over 20,000 US soldiers in addition to the troops that are already stationed there, which I have mentioned. By the way, formally this is a US military exercise, but NATO partners are invited, too. It is interesting; I don’t know why it is so. A possible reason for this is that it is easier for the Americans to plan and implement everything as they want, without binding themselves even symbolically by some NATO discipline, although at NATO, the Commander of the US European Command is at the same time the NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe. This exercise involves over 40,000 people in total. Of course, we will respond. We cannot ignore these processes that raise great concern, but we will respond without creating any unnecessary risks.

This is inevitable. I hope that any normal military officer and politician understand this. Those who provoke such unjustified exercises want reciprocal measures to follow, to continue to escalate tensions. However, there is also another important aspect here: everything we do in response to NATO’s threats to our security we only do in our own territory. All our nuclear weapons are also located in our own territory unlike the American ones.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4019314






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde, Moscow, February 4, 2020



4 February 2020 - 18:26






Madam Minister,

I am pleased to welcome you and your delegation to Moscow. Thank you for accepting our invitation. I hope we will have the same open dialogue as with your predecessor, Margot Wallstrom.

It is no secret that our relations are not at their best. We still have differences on an entire range of issues, but dialogue must continue. We are ready to cooperate to the same degree as you are.

Last year Prime Minister of Sweden Stefan Lofven visited St Petersburg to take part in an Arctic event and met with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. This gave a boost to resuming our contacts. In your previous role, you also visited the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), and I hope you had useful meetings there, too. Contacts between various Russian and Swedish agency heads were also being established or resuming. This is also beneficial.





We appreciated that Prime Minister of Sweden Stefan Lofven sent his greetings to the new Prime Minister of Russia, Mikhail Mishustin. In his message, he stressed Sweden’s determination to develop cooperation in areas of mutual interest. We share this approach.

There are many plans for various areas of bilateral relations. I hope that today we will discuss them in detail, as well as international and regional issues, above all, security in Europe and in the Baltic region.

Welcome. I am sure this will be interesting.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4021359






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to questions at a news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Sweden Ann Linde, Moscow, February 4, 2020



4 February 2020 - 19:31






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

Question (retranslated from Swedish):

Do you believe Russia and Sweden stand a chance of getting back to truly good relations, given the difficulties that have emerged in recent years due to the serious difference of opinion on the Ukraine issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

We see no obstacles to normalising relations. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, there are disagreements but they should not impede cooperation. It is now clear to everyone that the European Union has driven itself into a corner when several years ago it approved the so-called Five Principles, which tie the full normalisation of relations with Russia to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

Not only has the European Union reconciled with the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine that was carried out by ultra-[nationalist] radicals in February 2014 but it has recognised the coup. The European Union failed to comment in any way on the first action by the putschists, who decided to strip the Russian language of its special status and talked about annihilating Russians or forcing them out of Crimea. The European Union tacitly agreed to all this.

The EU supported the war that the coupists launched against their own people in the east of Ukraine because the latter refused to accept the coup and asked to be left alone so they could figure out what was going on. I will tell you straight that we had a hard time trying to persuade the people in Donbass to join the talks in the Normandy format, which eventually produced the Minsk Agreements that were endorsed by the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, for four years the Poroshenko regime did nothing to implement the document that has no alternative.

Despite the hysterics of the neo-Nazis, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky found the strength to start carrying out Kiev’s commitments. The first steps on the disengagement of forces and hardware were made, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s formula on the link between the elections in Donbass and the granting of a special status to this region was put on paper. This made it possible to hold a third Normandy summit in Paris in December 2019. Ms Minister mentioned this fact and the need to implement the commitments agreed upon.

The authorities in Kiev assumed a number of commitments. Under the Minsk Agreements, they committed to permanently include the special status of Donbass in Ukrainian legislation. The only way to do this is to reflect this special status in the Ukrainian constitution.

The second commitment that Kiev assumed during talks with Donetsk and Lugansk via the Contact Group was the disengagement of forces and hadware in three new sections. But it should be recalled at this point that in Paris, Russia, France and Germany were ready to support the approach adopted earlier, notably on the disengagement of forces and weapons all along the contact line rather than just three sections. Regrettably, to the surprise of the other parties, President Zelensky and his delegation were unable to take this step, which would be fully in line with the Minsk Agreements. Therefore, the answer to the question of how to overcome the current situation is as follows: it is necessary to fully and consistently carry out the Minsk Agreements, which requires specific moves by Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk.

I probably tired you out with this. I apologise for discussing your question in such detail, but it seems to me that the way you put it revealed a serious lack of information on the history of this issue.

As for Crimea, this is even easier to explain. It is simply necessary to respect the will expressed by the Crimean people. Those who would like to make sure this will was absolutely sincere should simply go to Crimea. The opportunity is there, and many people are taking it. We are happy to welcome any unbiased people to this region of Russia who want to see how the peoples in this republic live.





Question (for Ann Linde):

The Swedish Defence Committee stated that Russia is a threat to Sweden. It did not even rule out the possibility of an attack. Did you discuss these issues during today’s meeting? Did you manage to remove at least part of this concern?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Ann Linde):

We discussed this today. The threats and risks are mounting. We exchanged our views on NATO’s unprecedented plans to move towards our borders and involve neutral countries (like Sweden and Finland) in its military exercises. We suggested to our Swedish neighbours that we develop a trust-based and open dialogue between our militaries like we did with Finland three years ago. Our Swedish colleagues promised to consider this proposal. I hope we will continue this conversation. We are ready to discuss any issue with our partners in an absolutely open manner.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4021383
__________________
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 May 20th, 2020 #73
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 Prensa Latina News Agency, February 5, 2020



5 February 2020 - 17:00



Question:

What is your opinion of the new US punitive measures to toughen the embargo against Cuba that has been in place for almost 60 years?



Sergey Lavrov:

We can see that US attempts to reformat the Latin American region in line with its geopolitical interests aim to overthrow the “undesirable regimes” in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. The archaic Monroe Doctrine serves as the ideological foundation. In the run-up to the presidential election, the White House continues to ratchet up sanctions against those states which preserve their national independence, sovereignty and identity. This openly anti-human policy runs counter to the generally accepted principles of international law, including the UN Charter.

An overwhelming majority of members of the international community condemn and reject lifting the waiver on Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, the ban on chartered and regular flights to all Cuban airports, except the Havana Airport, restrictions against transport companies cooperating with the island, numerous visa and financial restrictions and the campaign against Cuban doctors. The November 7, 2019 vote on the anti-blockade resolution at the UN General Assembly vividly confirms this.

I repeat: Washington’s sanctions against Havana prove that, in an effort to stifle the Cuban economy, the United States deliberately violates human rights, and ordinary people always suffer, above all.

We see the introduction of additional restrictive measures as a manifestation of Washington’s inability to break the will of the Cuban nation and to impose its own opinion and values. We emphatically reject these steps and stand in solidarity with our Cuban friends. We insistently call for the complete repeal of the financial and economic embargo, so as to ensure the country’s full-fledged socioeconomic development, implement the principle of the sovereign equality of states and guarantee the legitimate rights of the Cuban nation.



Question:

Cuba and Russia are marking 60 years since resuming diplomatic relations. What can you tell us about the current state of political, economic and cultural cooperation between our countries in the run-up to the anniversary?



Sergey Lavrov:

This year on May 8, we are marking the 60th anniversary of resuming diplomatic relations. This is an impressive span of time. We have achieved significant progress over these 60 years.

Today, Cuba is Russia’s priority partner in Latin America and the Caribbean. Our multidimensional collaboration, based on strong traditions of friendship and cooperation, and objective commonality of interests, is looking towards the future. Our mutual determination for strengthening the Russian-Cuban strategic partnership has been confirmed in the course of regular high-level and top-level contacts.

The history of our bilateral relations is inseparable from the name of Fidel Castro, the leader and creator of the Cuban Revolution, and genuine leader of the persevering and tenacious people of Freedom Island. His was a personality of global scale, without exaggeration. We specifically developed an itinerary that will honour the Comandante’s memory, including a visit to Santa Ifigenia Cemetery, where other fighters for Cuba’s independence also rest in peace. This has great significance for me because in the eyes of many generations of Russians Fidel remains an example of true service to one’s country and people.

It is symbolic that President of Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez will visit Russia to attend the events marking the 75th anniversary of defeating Nazism. We see this as further confirmation of the brotherly ties connecting our nations.

Our bilateral and practical cooperation has many dimensions. Along with our Cuban friends, we continue to build a model for long-term mutually beneficial cooperation that is not affected by external conditions and focuses, among other things, on ensuring Cuba’s energy and food security. We appreciate the fact that Cuba’s leaders have assigned Russia a special role in modernising Cuba’s national economy and upgrading the country’s socioeconomic development model.

This direction was once again confirmed during the 17th meeting of the Russia-Cuba Intergovernmental Commission in September 2019 in Moscow. We are working on large joint projects in energy and metal production, transport infrastructure, developing IT, communications and space technologies, biopharmaceutics and biotechnology. Russia supplies railway and vehicle equipment. We are building a maintenance base for this as well.

Russia and Cuba are expanding cultural and humanitarian links, including education exchanges. Our country is a regular participant in the Havana International Book Fair, theatre and film festivals. Every alternate year Moscow and Havana host the weeks of Cuban and Russian cinema, respectively.

Every year, 100 Cuban students come to Russia to learn the Russian language, study Russian literature, and many other things. Cuba has the Pushkin Institute, a Russian language learning and testing centre at the University of Havana. Russian is taught as an optional class in two secondary schools in Havana.

Together, we celebrated the 500th anniversary of the Cuban capital. Havana also hosted St Petersburg Days. The golden dome of the National Capitol in Havana is once again showcasing its shining beauty after a renovation by Russian experts.

Russia and Cuba closely coordinate foreign policies. This coordination is based on adherence to the unshakable principles of international law, including respect for sovereign equality between states and non-intervention in their internal affairs.

We are optimistic about the future of Russian-Cuban relations which we value very much. We know that our Cuban friends approach these relations in a similar fashion.



Question:

Russia believes the development of integration processes in Latin America to be very important. However, recently we have seen a trend towards restraining the activities or even eliminating such regional organisations as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). What do you think about this?



Sergey Lavrov:

I agree that today the integration processes in Latin America are in a difficult phase. We can see a certain imbalance in regional integration building, not without interference from the outside. This is also true for UNASUR, because some of its members left to establish an alternative organisation, the Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (PROSUR). We proceed from the fact that the Latin Americans must be the ones to choose the most suitable forms of regional cooperation.

Russia is ready to develop mutually beneficial cooperation with all regional integration organisations. We have always spoken in favour of a united and politically and economically stable Latin America: this is the only way for the region to become a pillar of the emerging multipolar world. In addition, the high degree of unity and mutual understanding, and the ability to find collective answers to the topical challenges we face today have always distinguished Latin Americans.

We see the potential of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which we regard as a unique regional platform promoting a unifying agenda based on non-confrontation. We hope that with the help of Mexico, which is chairing CELAC, the Latin Americans will be able to overcome their internal differences based on the working programme adopted in Mexico City in January 2020. After CELAC overcomes these differences, we would be able to resume the Russia – CELAC dialogue mechanisms in a way that would suit our partners.

We also see good opportunities to expand cooperation with our regional partners in such areas as the aerospace sector, natural disaster prevention and relief (using the regional Russian-Cuban fire rescue centre located in Havana) and the establishment of a regional antimicrobial monitoring system (involving Mechnikov SA, the Russia-Nicaragua Biotechnology Institute Project), which are priorities for CELAC.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4021963






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US visa issuance



5 February 2020 - 18:27



We regret to say that the situation around issuing visas to Russian officials travelling to the United States on business is not improving but continues to deteriorate. Despite our multiple requests to remove obstacles, US visa refusals are occurring on a large scale. This is Washington’s deliberate and intentional policy.

Back in 2017, diplomats leaving for the Russian Embassy and consulates general in the United States, and the permanent mission at the UN met with difficulties. Later, the Russians sent to the United Nations Secretariat in New York were on the line. Last year, many of those who were supposed to take part in the plenary sessions of the UN General Assembly and its committees were denied entry.

Refusals continue, including for employees of the Foreign Ministry sent to work at the UN Headquarters. Delegation members travelling to UN events and other international forums cannot enter the US. The situation has become absurd: visas are denied to senior officials from Russian agencies and experts whom the Americans have officially invited.

This undermines important talks and the comprehensive work of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has recently noted it was necessary to ensure normal conditions and regular visa issuance for the functioning of the UN. The operation of Russian diplomatic missions in the US is obstructed. The US authorities show they are ready to violate their own international obligations.

In an attempt to justify this destructive approach, the US administration refers to the visa difficulties the US foreign missions have to face in Russia. However, these arguments do not hold water. Russia was not the one that began the “visa war” that has been waged against it for three years. All our recent steps have been reciprocal, and Washington knows this very well.

We have been long calling on the United States to completely normalise visa issuance for officials, including those working at diplomatic missions and the UN, without preconditions. Russia is always ready for this. We hope that common sense will prevail in Washington and that it will stop undermining the effective holding of international events that the United States undertakes to host on its territory. Otherwise we will insist they be held in other countries with a more favourable political climate.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4022026






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla of Cuba, Santiago de Cuba, February 5, 2020



6 February 2020 - 09:14







Mr Minister,

My dear Bruno,

I am sincerely grateful for the reception that you have organised for me and my delegation in Santiago de Cuba.

I fully share your assessment of our relationship. We are absolutely committed to the agreements that were reached during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with President of the Republic of Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez in Moscow in October 2019. These agreements primarily concern improving the mechanisms of economic cooperation, especially in the context of the illegitimate sanctions that the United States continues to increase.

All these matters will be substantively considered during the planned meeting of the Russian-Cuban Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Research and Technical Cooperation in Moscow. It will focus on steps that must be agreed upon for the practical implementation of the cooperation programme in fuel and energy.





Our top-level contacts will certainly continue this year. We are expecting Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez to attend the events in Moscow to mark the 75th anniversary of Victory in WWII and the 60th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations. High Cuban delegations have also confirmed that they will be taking part in a number of other events due in the next few months, including the Moscow Conference on International Security, the St Petersburg International Legal Forum, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum and other occasions. Russian delegations, in turn, will participate in the upcoming University 2020 international educational forum in Havana.

You have just mentioned another field of our interaction – the coordination of foreign policies. We believe it is exemplary.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4022309






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following talks with Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico Marcelo Luis Ebrard Casaubón, Mexico City, February 6, 2020



7 February 2020 - 03:46






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

Question (retranslated from Spanish):

Do Mexico and Russia plan to launch a dialogue between President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro and the opposition on resolving the crisis in that country?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia and Mexico believe that it is necessary to address all of Venezuela’s problems by solely peaceful methods through dialogue between all political forces, rather than in line with the Monroe Doctrine, as Washington suggests, or through attempts to provoke an armed confrontation and to obtain a pretext for an armed interference.

Mexico co-founded what we call the Montevideo Mechanism. It also supported Norway’s initiative to promote the Oslo process. Unfortunately, this process has now stalled because of the unpredictable behaviour of the self-proclaimed Mr Juan Guaido. There have been some positive shifts; I am talking about national dialogue, launched between the Government President Maduro and the patriotic opposition. Understandably, this dialogue does not involve all of the country’s political forces. Just like Mexico, Russia advocates a more inclusive dialogue. No one can step in to resolve problems facing the people of Venezuela for them, but it is quite possible to obstruct their efforts to come to agreement. We are witnessing attempts that, as I have said, aim to provoke pretexts for an armed intervention. Russia and Mexico agree that this would be absolutely unacceptable.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

What companies are interested in Russia’s involvement in megaprojects of Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador?



Sergey Lavrov:

As for Russia’s role in President Lopez Obrador’s plans to develop the economy and the social sector, participants in a meeting of the Russian-Mexican Joint Commission on Economic, Trade, Scientific and Technical Cooperation and Sea Navigation will discuss these matters. Most importantly, we need to receive specific proposals from our Mexican friends as regards various areas to which, in their opinion, Russian companies can effectively contribute. The Mexican side has extensive information about the capabilities of Russian companies. We hope that it will be possible to formulate and discuss proposals that can help implement Mexico’s plans with the involvement of Russian companies during the participation of Mexican delegations in forums taking place in Russia. I am talking about the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Eastern Economic Forum, the International Industrial Trade Fair INNOPROM and the Russian Energy Week. All these annual events are highly popular, and Mexican delegations have already participated in some of them.

Today, we have invited our colleagues to send their representatives to the relevant forums due to take place this year. We would like to receive proposals on the specific areas where our Mexican colleagues believe Russian companies could contribute to the implementation of Mexico’s economic development plans.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

You said that economic advances and changes were impending. During the talks did you discuss further efforts to develop the Mixed Commission on Economic, Commercial, Scientific and Technological Cooperation and Maritime Navigation?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Mixed Commission on Economic, Commercial, Scientific and Technological Cooperation and Maritime Navigation has not met since 2011. Today, we agreed that its operations must be resumed. Its next meeting will be held in Mexico later on this year. The specific timeframes will be coordinated by our economic ministries.



Question (retranslated from English):

You are going to Venezuela now. Is Russia interested in negotiating an exit for President Maduro? Could Mexico play any role? After all Mexico, unlike other countries in the region, has stayed on the sidelines on whether to back Guaido or Maduro. What are you actually going to take to Caracas as a proposal?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not take proposals to other capitals. We always respect our dialogue partners. You started by asking whether Russia could negotiate the terms for President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro’s departure. We have been down that road before. The EU, represented by the so-called Lima Group, was promoting an initiative to this effect. We do not think that these initiatives are useful or productive.

Our position – and that of Mexico – is that a national dialogue without preconditions is needed. If there are those who think (as our Western colleagues do) that a dialogue is a good thing but only if its aim is to discuss the regime change criteria, then, pardon me, this is imposing recipes from the outside rather than mediation. We hear from Washington that there can be no options other than the replacement of the current Government and President. They are openly making threats that all options are “on the table.” They regularly stage provocations, as was the case with the so-called human rights commission. This is not our approach, nor that of our Mexican partners. A dialogue without preconditions! It is only then that all sides will be able to come to terms on mutually acceptable solutions to overcome the current crisis. If the outcome of a dialogue is predetermined, this is diktat, not mediation. This is just about all I wanted to say.



Question (retranslated from English):

What comments would you make on the reports on the death of Russian and Turkish soldiers in northern Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

All comments were issued in Moscow. I have nothing to add.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

Is Russia planning to support the call by OPEC+ to cut oil production, as was suggested at a recent emergency meeting? How would you comment on the reports that the United States is going to introduce sanctions against a number of oil companies, including Rosneft?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are actively supporting cooperation within the framework of OPEC+ and collaboration between oil exporting countries, including both OPEC and non-OPEC countries. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia had a telephone conversation the other day, where this topic was also discussed, including in the light of the coronavirus epidemic’s consequences for the global economy, which is slowing down, something that is certain to influence the oil market. We are interested in holding further consultations to define the optimal market regulation measures that would be acceptable for all oil exporters. The aim is to preclude the roller-coaster effect that can harm both producers and consumers.

As for the second part of your question, I do not quite understand what compañeros you mean. I heard yet another series of threats coming from Washington; they intend to punish everyone who cooperates with Venezuela in some way or another. We are used to this. We are used to hearing US officials say, without any scruples, that Washington is committed to the Monroe Doctrine and that this doctrine should be acted upon. If Latin American countries feel comfortable under this tutelage, it is your sovereign right. I think that this is an insult to all Latin American countries, no matter what position they hold on Venezuela or any other international problem.





Question (retranslated from English):

Can you comment on the recent attacks by the Turkish Armed Forces on the Syrian Army which is Russia’s ally?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already replied to this question that has already been raised. We provided all comments in Moscow. I can only say that we are in touch with our Turkish colleagues. We have reached agreements that clarify the regime of the Idlib de-escalation zone where our Turkish colleagues pledged to disengage the opposition that cooperates with them from Jabhat al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorists. Unfortunately, these terrorists still rule supreme in the Idlib zone; therefore it is necessary to fulfil this obligation, no matter what. We discussed this with my Turkish colleague, Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu who called me a few days ago. The very next day, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the Republic of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The second obligation implies the need to establish a so-called weapon-free area inside the Idlib de-escalation zone. We also coordinated this aspect. This goal has not been achieved yet. Our military are addressing these specific matters on the ground as per instructions from Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. All efforts to suppress the terrorists are legal because no ceasefire agreements on Idlib and on complying with the ceasefire regime apply to terrorists who are outlawed and are not covered by any agreements.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

What are the purposes of your visit to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean? What is your position regarding hypothetical Russian assistance to President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro?



Sergey Lavrov:

The purpose of my visit is quite obvious. When Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon and I met in September 2019 on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, he kindly invited me to visit Mexico. I have arrived in line with his invitation. We find it customary to accept an invitation.

Speaking of our relations with Venezuela, we do not stipulate any methods to support the Venezuelan authorities, except normal trade and economic ties. On the other hand, your American colleagues and ours are obsessed with the idea of their regional diktat. I have already mentioned official statements that the Monroe Doctrine is absolutely legitimate and lawful. This doctrine as well as all US actions in this context aim to undermine lawful, legitimate trade and economic ties in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and provisions of the World Trade Organisation. We are doing nothing, except what is allowed by international law. I hope that everyone who understands the unacceptability of current US actions with regard to Venezuela and a number of other countries will send the appropriate messages because this is not just a matter of a specific crisis in Venezuela or anywhere else, but concerns the destiny of the open global international trade system. Our American colleagues rudely ignore and undermine these principles. We also discuss this matter with them. Unfortunately, they show understanding at a certain level, but a striving to prevent anyone from contradicting the United States by any means prevails. It is impossible to go far using this position, but the realities of the modern world should someday force the Americans to realise that it is necessary to work in a multilateral format, rather than try to reinstate the absolutely futile unipolar model of the international order. This model is no more, and it will never reemerge.



Question:

It was reported earlier that Russia and Mexico were building up their military and technical cooperation. Have they managed to reach new agreements in this area? What share of the Latin American market does the production of the Russian defence industry sector currently hold?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that our military-technical products take a rightful place on the Latin American market. They are reputable. Many Latin American countries value quality, price and the warranty maintenance, and our products have all of that. In Mexico, the most important facility in this regard is the helicopter maintenance centre: a while back, some 50 Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters were delivered to the country. In Veracruz, there is a centre that provides helicopter repair and maintenance services, as well as training for Mexican helicopter operators.

As for future prospects, the Mexican party is now considering a concrete proposal by Rosoboronexport, including additional contracts on helicopter deliveries.



Question (translated from Spanish):

Have you spoken about the nomination of Mexico as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council? Will Russia support Mexico’s candidacy?



Sergey Lavrov:

Mexico is one of the region’s leading countries. It has an impeccable reputation in terms of approaches to international challenges such as strategic stability, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and most importantly, respect for the founding principles of the UN Charter. A group of Latin American and Caribbean states approved Mexico’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2021-2022. There is no reason why the resolution to approve its membership in the UN Security Council should not be adopted by consensus. We hope that we will interact even more closely with our Mexican friends at the UN when they will be directly involved in the work of the Security Council in addition to solving issues discussed by the UN General Assembly and other UN bodies.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

Can it be guaranteed that Russia-US relations will not affect relations between Russia and Mexico?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have made a point of bringing along a quotation that caught my attention. Probably it will answer your question. Lisa Curtis, Senior Director for South and Central Asia on the National Security Council, was speaking at a Heritage Foundation conference in Washington the other day, and this is a quote from her remarks. Asked about Washington’s estimate of Secretary of State Pompeo’s recent tour of Central Asia (he visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan after a stopover in Ukraine and Belarus), she said this: “Russia has always had a tremendous amount of influence in this region and we do not expect that to change. We are not trying to match that. We just want to be present; we want to provide alternatives for the countries. We want to continue to protect as much as we can their ability to be sovereign, independent nations, as we have always done since they became independent.” If we put “Russia” instead of the United States and “Latin America” instead of Central Asia, I am ready to subscribe to each of these words. It is another matter that our US colleagues, while promoting these entirely correct postulates, are certain that they have the right to be present anywhere they want and that they alone can be present in the Western Hemisphere. If you read or listen to the cock-and-bull stories they write or spread by word of mouth about Russia’s role in every single Latin American crisis, you will probably understand that analysing international developments is something that requires a slightly more serious attitude. When the well-known John Bolton, while still holding his White House job, declared that no one (meaning Russia, China and other outsiders) should not so much as think of “meddling” in the Western Hemisphere, where the Americans are the chief decision-makers, the instinctive pride of countries in the region, pride for their independence and what has been achieved by the Latin American and Caribbean nations since independence, should probably snap into action. Russia has never used friendships as a hostile tool, be it in Latin America or anywhere else. Regrettably, our US colleagues believe they have a license to do just about anything, and so they are likely to stir up all their dialogue partners against China and most certainly against Russia. But these are clearly wrong methods whereby to gain international prestige. International prestige is earned through one’s own example and power of persuasion rather than gross blackmail, diktat, or sanctions. But so far I see nothing else in the arsenal of US diplomacy.



Question (retranslated from Spanish):

Is the Trump presidency a threat to world peace?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are doing our best so that the great powers, including Russia and the US, become aware of their responsibility for not allowing a global conflict to flare up. About a year and a half ago, we suggested that the United States reiterate what the USSR and the US said in the previous epoch marked by the end of the Cold War, when General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan signed a statement to the effect that a nuclear war cannot be won, there can be no winners in such a war, and therefore it must never be unleashed. One and a half years ago, to placate the world public opinion, we urged the United States to reiterate verbatim what had already been said by our two countries in that era. The proposal is still “on the table.” Washington has promised to reply soon. Hopefully the answer will be in the affirmative.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4025776






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a briefing in the OPCW on revealing confidential information during the drafting of a report by its Fact-Finding Mission on the alleged use of chlorine in the Syrian city of Douma on April 7, 2018



7 February 2020 - 18:28



On February 6, Director-General of the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Mr Fernando Arias Gonzalez, shared the findings of the investigation into possible breaches of confidentiality during the drafting of a report by its Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Syrian city of Douma on April 7, 2018.

Two unnamed OPCW inspectors from the OPCW Technical Secretariat were charged with a list of violations: disclosing classified information, failing to abide by the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality and neglecting the Code of Conduct for Staff Members of the Secretariat.

Mr Arias hired outside professionals for the investigation to make it truly “independent” and “transparent.” In reality, it did not clear up the incident, which was unflattering for the Secretariat. The names of the investigators remained confidential as well.

The investigation failed to answer the main question: did the inspectors at fault present true facts showing that the issued report was politically biased and designed to confirm the version of the chemical attack by government forces with a view to justifying the missile attack on Syria carried out by the US, Britain and France on April 14, 2018 without any investigation and in violation of the UN Charter and universally recognised norms of international law.

“A high degree of confidence” in the conclusions of the FFM final report on Douma of March 1, 2019 was expressed at the briefing. The countries that took part in the investigation were warmly thanked. Judging by what we have seen, this primarily applied to the United States that influenced OPCW staff and sent a special delegation of “experts” to OPCW headquarters in The Hague. They “persuaded” the Technical Secretariat to ignore numerous facts proving that the chemical incident in Douma was staged by the White Helmets. In the process, the top staff of the Technical Secretariat dodged any discussion and ignored numerous questions from the OPCW member state delegations.

The results of the Secretariat-organised meeting create the strong impression that the already irregular situation at the OPCW is continuing to degrade fast. This suggests a logical conclusion: the briefing was designed to sidetrack attention from the gist of the problem, notably, egregious manipulation and abuse in the OPCW, which are not duly denounced because of the position of the Western countries in The Hague where they are replacing international law with certain “rules” that they created. This is done for one purpose only: to finally turn the OPCW, once a prestigious and strictly specialised technical international organisation, into a tool for implementing the geopolitical goals of the US and its Euro-Atlantic allies.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4028709
__________________
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 May 25th, 2020 #74
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 Executive Vice President of Venezuela Delcy Rodriguez, Caracas, February 7, 2020



7 February 2020 - 18:55






Madam Vice President,

Mr Minister,

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the invitation to visit Venezuela.





We have very close relations at all levels. Our presidents meet regularly. The last time they met was in Moscow in October 2019, where very important decisions were made to further develop our partnership. New approaches and mechanisms for our cooperation were agreed upon that were designed to protect economic relations between Russia and Venezuela from the illegal interference of the United States, which attempts to dictate its terms to other states and spread its legislation extraterritorially.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4028805






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting with representatives of the Venezuelan National Dialogue Roundtable, Caracas, February 7, 2020



7 February 2020 - 21:55






Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues, friends,

First of all, I would like to thank you wholeheartedly for inviting me to speak at the National Dialogue Roundtable. It is the only effective format of talks between the Government and opposition in Venezuela. Regrettably, all the other formats have failed because of the ultimatums presented by the radical part of the opposition, which, as far as we can see, cares more about its own ambitions than about the future of their country and people.

It is a great honour for me to take part in this event, which is proof of the high level of mutual trust between our states.

Venezuela is a long-time partner of Russia in Latin America and the world as a whole. We are impressed by your country’s independent position on the international stage. We would like Venezuela, just as any other country, to be independent, politically stable and economically successful.

Regrettably, the ongoing crisis in and around Venezuela is rooted in the large-scale campaign launched to overturn the legitimate Government with the use of all available options, including military force, as the campaign’s organisers say. We consider such scenarios completely unacceptable. We will work consistently to ensure that they are condemned by the international community. We are acting in this spirit in our contacts with the United States, as well as at the UN Security Council. We insist that everyone must honour their international obligations under the UN Charter, which stipulate, in particular, a peaceful settlement of disputes and avoidance of the use or threat of force, as well as interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

We condemn the illegitimate methods of financial and economic pressure being used against Venezuela. I am referring to the sanctions and the attempts of extra-territorial application of national legislation. These restrictions and totally illegitimate external pressure are the main causes of the economic recession in Venezuela.

The obvious objective is to foster discontent and provoke social unrest by blocking the operations of the financial, oil and gold producing sectors of the Venezuelan economy. It is obvious that these sanctions affect above all the ordinary people regardless of their political affiliations. It is especially disgraceful that the unilateral US sanctions are having a negative impact on the implementation of social and humanitarian projects. A glaring example of the consequences of the recent banking restrictions is the blocking of the treatment programme for cancer patients carried out through a joint Venezuelan-Spanish project.





We have no doubt that the lifting of sanctions as soon as possible is a key priority for all patriotic Venezuelans. I am sure that the participants of this roundtable are keenly focused on this topic.

Our position of principle is that any crisis, including the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, can only be settled with political and diplomatic methods, through an inclusive dialogue of the Venezuelans and with due regard for the positive achievements of previous negotiations. We noticed that this roundtable has helped to coordinate a number of practical solutions. You have coordinated ways to return to the constitutional framework, overcome the split and resume the work of Socialist deputies at the National Assembly. There is no doubt that the regular amnesties, the renewal of the National Electoral Council and discussions on economic reforms are accepted with sympathy by the Venezuelan people, who clearly have had enough of confrontation and call for street protests and foreign interventions. It is very important that unlike the other negotiating formats, your roundtable is truly inclusive, because it is open to any political parties, as I have been told and as we can see from our contacts.

This has obviously provoked the wrath of the Government’s radical opponents and their foreign sponsors, who are trying to discredit your dialogue. But I believe that they will not succeed. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with President Nicolas Maduro on September 25, 2019 that we consider any refusal to maintain dialogue as something irrational, detrimental to the country and jeopardising the well-being of the Venezuelan people.

We believe that the ambitions of certain politicians must not be allowed to dominate the interests of society as a whole. We also hope that, as you agreed, you will pursue a common approach towards the coordination of the new format of the National Electoral Council and towards preparations for the 2020 election to the National Assembly. I am sure that this election is the only opportunity for the Venezuelan radicals to avoid a political demise. The election is their chance to return to the civilised framework and to take part in the public judgement of the country’s political forces. Only the people can decide whether politicians can meet the expectations of the country and all its citizens.

I would like to conclude my address with a quote from a great Venezuelan, the Liberator Simon Bolivar, who said that only the people know what will benefit them, and the people alone are the masters of their fate, not any rulers or factions. “Only the majority is sovereign,” he said. These are great words, and I am sure that they are applicable to any country, any nation and any period in history.

Russia is ready to provide all-round assistance to you work. I can assure you that if our support is needed in any way or form, we will not hesitate.

Once again, thank you for the invitation. I would like to wish you all the best in your noble efforts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4028921






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks at a meeting with President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro, Caracas, February 7, 2020



7 February 2020 - 23:00






Mr President,

First of all, please accept the kindest greetings and the wishes of Russian President Vladimir Putin for your continued success. He has warm recollections of the September 2019 meeting with you and the substantial agreements achieved there.







Today Executive Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza and I discussed specific steps needed to ensure the timely and effective implementation of all the agreements. We paid special attention to the steps being taken by Venezuela and Russia to protect our trade and economic ties from the illegal sanctions and egregious pressure being exerted on Venezuela by the United States.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4029057






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference with Executive Vice President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Delcy Rodriguez following talks with President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro, Caracas, February 7, 2020



8 February 2020 - 00:05






Madam Executive Vice President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I feel at home in Venezuela. Let me express my sincere gratitude for the hospitality that has been accorded to our delegation.

Our visit was very eventful. A lengthy and very frank conversation with President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro has just come to an end. In the morning, we held talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs Jorge Arreaza and Executive Vice President Delcy Rodriguez. The talks were also attended by the Venezuelan Government ministers in charge of economic issues.

We focused on the specific issues that need to be addressed so that we can promote our strategic partnership. While discussing these matters, we were guided by the agreements reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro during their meeting in Moscow on September 25, 2019.

We have firmly underscored our commitment to and respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty and our solidarity with the Venezuelan leaders and the people of Venezuela in their opposition to the illegal pressure brought to bear by the United States and its accomplices. We reject illegal sanctions, methods of blackmail and diktat in international relations, and any other steps that undermine the principles of the UN Charter, primarily interference in internal affairs of sovereign states and attempts to threaten the use of force.

A movement in defence of the UN Charter, in which our two countries are actively involved, is gaining strength at the United Nations. I am quite sure that this is a highly urgent task.





We have agreed upon our moves to achieve greater international coordination and arranged to build up trade, economic, investment and humanitarian cooperation in the face of the illegal sanctions. There are particularly good prospects for coordinated actions in such fields as energy, natural resources, various industries, agriculture and transport.

It goes without saying that we will promote our military-technical cooperation to reliably ensure our friends’ defence capability, particularly in the face of external threats. All aspects of our material collaboration and practical cooperation will be discussed at the session of the High-Level Commission on Trade and Economic Interaction scheduled for May of this year. We have also expressed full support for the efforts being taken by President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro and the Government to establish a national dialogue and to ensure that all strata of society participate in the decision-making on the fate of their country. That this fundamental and consistent course enjoys wide-ranging public support has been confirmed today, when we attended a special meeting of the National Dialogue Roundtable with the participation of Government and opposition representatives.

What is of particular importance is that the national dialogue is open to the involvement of any other representatives of the Venezuelan public, as confirmed by President Nicolas Maduro and other interlocutors. I think it is highly positive and farsighted that the Venezuelan leaders have expressed readiness and even come up with an initiative to invite outside observers to monitor the local electoral reform. This confirms our Venezuelan friends’ openness to the entire international community and their readiness to uphold in deed the truly democratic principles of their country’s structure. It is the Venezuelan people alone that have the right to decide the fate of their country. Russia will do its best to support precisely this approach. For this purpose, we will use the relations of strategic partnership with Venezuela. Insofar as diplomatic ties are concerned, these relations, as you may know, will mark the 75th anniversary in March. We have arranged to fittingly celebrate this occasion.

In conclusion, let me stress that we are looking forward to President Nicolas Maduro’s visit timed to the events in honour of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War to be held in Moscow on May 9.

Once again, many thanks indeed for your splendid hospitality.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4028967






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message of greetings on Diplomats’ Day, Moscow, February 10, 2020



10 February 2020 - 00:01






Colleagues, friends,

Today we are celebrating Diplomats’ Day. First of all, I would like to offer my sincere greetings to all our diplomatic staff and veterans on their professional holiday, the holiday of hard-working people dedicated to their work who sincerely love their Motherland and stand up for our national interests in the international arena.

A diplomat is above all a patriot. Their most important qualities are honesty, integrity, reliability, eloquence in writing and speaking, extensive knowledge, and readiness to give their all. Russian diplomacy has a history of several hundred years and is famous for its traditions. At all times diplomats served our Fatherland with honour, fulfilling their duty to the end, including in armed combat, if needed, as was the case during World War II and the Great Patriotic War.

Guided by the experience and example of our predecessors, we will continue solving a broad range of issues in line with the foreign policy course approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The agenda includes efforts to preserve peace, enhance strategic stability, resolve crises and conflicts by political and diplomatic means, promote the idea of a broad Eurasian integration, strengthen bilateral cooperation and enhance interaction within multilateral associations including the United Nations, G20, BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, RIC (Russia, India, China), Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth if Independent States and Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

We will continue advancing economic diplomacy and securing the interests of Russian citizens and our compatriots abroad. And this year, as we mark the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory, it is imperative that we redouble our efforts to counter any attempts to falsify the history of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, or to revise the universally accepted international legal results of the establishment of the UN.

Thus, much is to be done to live up to the trust of the country’s leadership and the Russian people. An important element of our success is reliance on the principles of the link between the times and the continuity of generations. We all had mentors who generously shared their experiences and taught us the basics of diplomacy and the subtleties of the diplomatic craft. I would like to take this opportunity to express my most heartfelt appreciation to our dear veterans who are still in our ranks and continue to contribute to the common cause.

Friends,

I wish you all good health, wellbeing and new achievements for the benefit of Russia. Once again, happy holiday.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4029113
__________________
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; May 25th, 2020 at 02:22 PM.
 
Old May 25th, 2020 #75
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 from Rossiyskaya Gazeta editorial office and its regional partners during a business breakfast, Moscow, February 10, 2020



10 February 2020 - 00:15



Question:

There are numerous reports in the media about preparations for the upcoming Defender-Europe 20 military exercise, due to take place this May in a number of Eastern European countries. This will be the largest US military exercise in the past 25 years. Given the considerable cooling in relations between Russia and NATO, are we witnessing the birth of a new Cold War?



Sergey Lavrov:

During the Cold War, there were large-scale operations aimed at expanding the armed forces in Europe, including a more substantial US presence. This included Operation Return of Forces Germany (REFORGER), when the Americans made themselves at home in Germany and now they have dozens of military installations there. Germany now has a tremendous foreign military presence, but that is NATO affairs.

Regarding the Defender-Europe 20 exercise, we would like to ask who it is that they want to defend themselves from. They say it is not intended to defend themselves from Russia but from an enemy that has a comparable military potential. In that case, it is difficult to find a target for these efforts that would have a comparable scale. If we look at the official data (not Russia’s but foreign) on defence spending and military equipment, including all types of weapons without exception, such as tanks, warplanes, attack helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles, armoured personnel carriers, warships and submarines, then we will see that NATO’s European members alone, without the US potential, surpass the Russian Armed Forces by over 100 percent. I don’t know where they have found a comparable enemy.

Of course, Russia is not a dominant military force in Europe. NATO has this status. Although the region is already filled to overflowing with military installations, and although NATO’s eastward expansion has already created serious problems in the area of strategic stability in Europe, NATO continues to merge with the European Union. NATO is trying to hold joint exercises and to involve in them neutral states, such as Finland and Sweden, under the pretext of EU membership. They have invented the term Military Schengen in the context of NATO-EU military cooperation. It provides for the modernisation of all transport arteries all the way to the Alliance’s eastern border in such a way that the largest military equipment would be able to move eastwards unhindered. I believe that this alone is enough to understand the danger of these games.

Preparations for the Defender-Europe 20 exercise, due to take place in April-May 2020, were launched a long time ago. In addition to the already deployed military contingents in the region, there are plans to redeploy many thousands of units of US equipment, as well as over 20,000 US service personnel. This is formally a US military exercise, but other NATO members and partners are also invited to take part. This is an interesting aspect. I don’t know the reasons for this, but it can probably be explained by the fact that the Americans find it much easier to organise and implement everything under their own plans, without abiding by any symbolic NATO discipline, although the Commander in Chief of United States Army Europe also serves as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. This exercise is to involve over 40,000 officers and soldiers. Naturally, we will respond. We cannot ignore processes that cause grave concern, but we will respond in such a way as not to create any unnecessary risks.

This is inevitable, and I hope that any reasonable military commander and politician realises this. Those who provoke such absolutely unwarranted exercises want to see retaliatory measures that would aggravate tensions still further. But an important point to bear in mind is that all our efforts in response to the creation of security threats with regard to Russia by NATO are take place exclusively on Russian territory. Equally, Russia keeps its nuclear weapons on its own territory, unlike the United States.



Question:

Strategic stability matters have long been one of the pillars of Russia-US relations, and to some extent guaranteed stability around the world. However, over the past years the US administration has taken steps that reversed these achievements, at least in part. In particular, the US is openly hampering the renewal of the New START. Do you believe that the situation may change after the US presidential election? Back in the days when Rex Tillerson was US Secretary of State, you had an agreement to establish a working group for resolving disputed matters. Is it working on renewing the New START?



Sergey Lavrov:

Let me begin with your last question. The group is working, albeit without much success. There were 12 or 13 meetings over the past years. I cannot recall the exact number. Even before Rex Tillerson, meetings of this kind consisted of a Russian representative merely listing to his US counterpart the concerns, unacceptable actions by the US administration, citing examples and handing over memos to this effect. These documents contained all the possible grievances, from the seizure of Russian diplomatic property and voluntarist cuts in the personnel of the Russian diplomatic missions, to the kidnapping of Russian nationals Viktor But, Konstantin Yaroshenko, Roman Seleznyov and to name just a few. There were also problems related to how Russians were treated in US prisons, whether they enjoyed normal conditions, etc. The American side would promise us that they would look into these matters, at the same time advising Russia to stop interfering in US domestic affairs, arguing that everything is related, and that there is no crime without punishment. The same old story over and over again, as the saying goes.

During my trip to Washington last December, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and I agreed to give a new impetus to the Russia-US dialogue in order to achieve at least some progress. US President Donald Trump has also said that we needed to get along.

The new US Ambassador to Russia, John Sullivan, arrived in Moscow. He assured us that he wants to facilitate progress at least on some specific matters, although before that we need to put our bilateral relations back on track. The prospects for making specific steps have been quite hazy so far. We somehow managed to revive counterterrorism dialogue. This is one of the fields that should be free from any artificial barriers. Over the past years there were a couple of instances when the US passed on intelligence enabling us to prevent terrorist attacks in Russia. We have also been doing it since the Boston Marathon attack. It could seem that we have resumed contacts along these lines. When in October 2019 Washington proposed continuing consultations, we agreed on adopting a joint statement on counterterrorism as part of my visit in order to send a positive signal, showing that Russia and the US can share the same positions and subscribe to them. But when I arrived there it turned out that they were not able to get the necessary approvals on time, or something like this. Today, working with our US partners on specific matters is a challenge.

But let us go back to strategic stability. This is a matter of concern for Russia and the US, and also for the rest of the world. The very framework of the international architecture is falling apart. The INF Treaty followed in its demise that of the ABM Treaty. They rejected our proposal to introduce a moratorium on building and deploying missiles of this kind. They accuse us of deception regarding the INF Treaty, arguing that the moratorium we propose boils down to the following: we already have Iskander systems that can deliver missiles that are banned under the treaty, while the US lacks intermediate-range means of delivery. They argue that we want to maintain our intermediate-range missiles, while denying the US the possibility of building them.

We have a clear and specific answer to these allegations. In the fall of 2019, after the US withdrew from the INF Treaty, President of Russia Vladimir Putin sent a message to more than 50 heads of state and government, including the US, all NATO members, as well as other non-NATO neutral European countries, and Asia-Pacific countries (since the US also intends to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in this part of the world as well). We have not made this message public, but I can tell you that it sets out the background of this question, stressing that there is not a single fact to back the claim made by the United States that we tested the 9М729 missile on a range prohibited by the INF Treaty. Since the US has satellite imagery, they could at least show us a single image confirming their allegations and contradicting Russia’s arguments. They have no evidence of Russia violating the treaty. The US refused to attend a demonstration of a new cruise missile organised by the Russian Defence Ministry together with the Foreign Ministry in January 2019, and advised other NATO countries against attending. They called it just a show and a sham. This is not a proper way for transacting serious business. If you want to prove that it was a sham, just come here and prove it. During the event, participants could ask questions and provide comments. Russian representatives answered questions for two hours during the briefing. However, out of all the NATO members only Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey were represented. But they lack the kind of expertise the US has on these matters. The presence of US experts at the demonstration would have helped them better understand what they are dealing with.

President Vladimir Putin’s message said: we suggest that the US and its allies join our moratorium on the deployment of medium and smaller-range missiles, including the creation of a possible verification mechanism. They are attempting to disregard this altogether, avoiding any mention of it as a matter of principle. They tell us: no, you are cheating, you do have missiles of this sort, they are on alert duty, they were developed long ago and deployed in violation of the treaty that was in force at that time. As for the moratorium-cum-verification proposal, they are attempting to drown it in verbiage. Only President of France Emmanuel Macron said in public that he still had problems with regard to how Russia had implemented the treaty, but he was ready to respond to President Putin’s message. All other NATO members (obviously, on orders from Washington) are keeping mum.

The Americans have plans to deploy medium and shorter-range missiles in the Asia Pacific Region. In this context, Japan and South Korea are mentioned. Both countries have declared that they have no intention of allowing the deployment of these missiles. But if the Americans are keen to deploy the missiles there, I do not think that this is impossible. Some exotic mid-Pacific islands are also mentioned. As is clear – and they are not concealing it – these measures are aimed at containing China. But the geographic distances are such that, if the US medium and shorter-range missiles are deployed at those points, much of Russia’s territory will be exposed to an attack, while in case of Japan or [South] Korea, the entire Russian territory all the way to the Urals will be covered. Of course, we will have to respond. This is why we have been explaining in very concrete terms to the ASEAN and APR countries, including Japan and South Korea, what risks these “games” are fraught with.

As for the New START Treaty, we have repeatedly proposed its extension. President Vladimir Putin told his US counterpart at the G20 summit in Osaka last June how important it was to extend the Treaty and do this as soon as possible. Last May, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Sochi, President Putin drew his attention to this fact as well.

The Americans are constantly trying to impose on us an option involving China’s accession to the debate on the medium and shorter-range missiles as well as the New START Treaty. But China has repeatedly stated in public that it will not join these talks because the structure of its nuclear forces is radically different from that of Russia and the United States. In terms of numbers, these forces are also a far cry from the level where China would be ready to talk of some balance. If China suddenly changes its mind, we will be pleased to participate in multilateral talks. But we will not try to convince China. If the Americans are quite sure that it makes no sense to take any further steps on the New START Treaty without China, let them get down to business on this all on their own. We, for our part, believe that it does make sense to extend the New START that will expire in one year’s time. If we fail to do this, there will be no such agreement after February 5, 2021.

Even if a multilateral process gets under way, it will be utterly protracted. There are no talks on such a serious theme that could be concluded in just a few months. Therefore, we ought to have a safety net in an extended New START Treaty even from the reputational and political point of view: no one should accuse Russia and the United States of letting a legally binding instrument in the area of strategic stability collapse. We have told the Americans as much. They are still silent. Are they worried that we might put forward some preconditions to the extension of the treaty? Nothing of the kind! President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made public statements to the effect that we suggest extending the New START Treaty without preconditions. But the Americans would respond with media plants to the effect that China should join the agreement.

To reiterate: If it comes to multilateral talks on the New START Treaty and everyone agrees to participate, Russia will certainly be part of this process. But what the multilateral arrangement implies is not just conversations with three parties. There are another two official nuclear powers – the UK and France. There are India and Pakistan, the de-facto nuclear powers, although they are not parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There are also a couple of countries possessing nuclear weapons. We are prepared to participate in talks on further nuclear weapon cuts or restrictions in any configuration. We think that the extension of the New START Treaty is an absolute must because we should have a basis for subsequent talks and practical actions.

The Americans are keen to know more about our new weapons. We have already mentioned the fact that the Russian military are prepared to consider some of these new weapons, at least Avangard and Sarmat, in the context of the Treaty’s criteria. The rest is not subject to limitations under the 2010 treaty, but we are ready to discuss this topic as well. True, this will be in the context of circumstances that, properly speaking, were the original cause of the efforts to develop these arms. And these circumstances were linked to the collapse of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Today, two decades after the ABM Treaty ceased to exist, any matters related to new types of weapons must be discussed solely in the context of all factors influencing strategic stability. Apart from antimissile defences, one such factor is the US Prompt Global Strike concept that has picked up steam and also the use of non-nuclear strategic weapons. The aim is to reach any point on the globe within an hour at the least. Of course, this is a new destabilising factor. Add to this the official US refusal to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and plans to deploy weapons in outer space. Incidentally, these plans have been announced not only by the Americans but also by the French. The latter used vague and general wording and we are trying to understand, through our dialogue, what the new French space doctrine is all about. On top of this, NATO has publicly declared that space and cyber are now their official employment environments, involving, as I understand, the recourse to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

There are a lot of things going on over there. Of course, we are ready to discuss our new weapons, as for that matter the new weapons of other countries, and do this with account taken of the totality of factors that influence strategic stability. And if they suggest that we place our weapons under restrictions, while developing without restraint what I have just referred to, this conversation will lead us nowhere, of course.

Speaking about Defender-Europe 20, I have mentioned Germany. We know that there is a small group of countries within NATO and the EU, which are stoking historical phobias with regard to Russia. They are constantly urging others to contain Russia and refrain from relaxing the sanctions pressure that is preserved under an absolutely ungrounded pretext that we are not complying with the Minsk Agreements, which is a separate theme. But all of a sudden, FRG officials, of all people, have joined in a public discussion of the said phobias and a likely attack on Europe. Some time ago, President of France Emmanuel Macron said that NATO needed a radical reform. He also claimed that the alliance was brain dead and something had to be done about it. Do you recall that Berlin publicly disagreed with this conclusion? My German counterpart, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, said they did not agree with Paris. So, it turned out they needed NATO, Germany did, because no one but NATO would protect the Federal Republic. We immediately asked Berlin against whom they wanted NATO to defend them? There was no reply. Somewhat later, a similar statement came from Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel. And again, our German colleagues have been so far unable to explain who Germany was so afraid of.



Question:

Is it safe to say that the era of a united Europe is ending, now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union? Will the European Union ever be able to acquire a united voice?



Sergey Lavrov:

People, including journalists and political analysts, now unequivocally perceive the term United Europe or Greater Europe as a synonym for the European Union. Nevertheless, Russia would prefer to perceive Greater Europe and United Europe as a common space between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural region, just as Charles de Gaulle predicted.

It is already possible to talk about a common Eurasian space between Lisbon and Jakarta in the context of current integration processes in Eurasia and in the context of establishing the Eurasian Economic Union and its contacts with ASEAN and the SCO. I don’t see why not. In 2016, President of Russia Vladimir Putin put forward the Greater Eurasian Partnership initiative at the Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi. He noted that we want to base our concepts on life, to recognise the existence of integration processes and to establish ties between them by determining and singling out common feasible projects within the EAEU, ASEAN and SCO framework, rather than through some artificial agreements being imposed from above.

Therefore we perceive a Greater Europe and a United Europe as our common space. By the way, the European Union subscribed to this concept at the OSCE summit in Astana in December 2010. There, for the first time in many years, a political declaration was adopted. To do justice to that summit’s Kazakhstani hosts, no political declarations have been passed at OSCE summits since then. The approved declaration proclaimed the need for building and consolidating a common security and cooperation space in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian region, and this really amounts to OSCE space. Of course, Eurasia is broader than the territory occupied by the OSCE’s Eurasian members, but nevertheless. This concept implies that we have a common space that should cover the entire territory where our predecessor, in the first place, had spread European civilisation. That process was not bloodless, but this is a fact.

When we held a Russia-EU summit in Khabarovsk, the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso felt completely bewildered. He walked along the local embankment and around the city and noted that it had taken them 12 hours to fly from Brussels to Khabarovsk, but they were still in a European environment. They thought this was amazing. I believe that the incumbent younger EU politicians could also try and comprehend the significance of this civilisational achievement and civilisational process. At the same time, European civilisational norms asserted themselves here without undermining the rights of indigenous nations whose prosperity we always underscored, including within the framework of international organisations.

Now, about the European Union’s unity, I have already noted that the organisation has a small but very aggressive group of countries that induce everyone to confront Russia and to continue sanctions until Moscow fulfils the Minsk Agreements. Former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko took advantage of this, and the new Ukrainian authorities are also. They will do nothing because the Minsk Agreements will not be fulfilled without their efforts, and the European Union will retain sanctions against Moscow in line with its logic. For its part, Ukraine will obtain certain subsidies in the form of Western assistance. This amounts to some obsession with sanctions, rather than practical politics. However, it is common knowledge that the European business community is sustaining tens, if not hundreds, of billions of euros in losses as a result of these sanctions. Therefore the European Union’s Russophobic minority is obviously speculating on the consensus principle. Many representatives of EU member countries are telling us, off the record, that they oppose sanctions, and that sanctions are harmful. But they abide by the solidarity and consensus principle. In my opinion, consensus denotes a situation where everyone agrees. And there should not be any consensus if anyone opposes sanctions, as they tell us they do during bilateral contacts; and there are many such countries. So far, it turns out that this Russo-phobic minority actively and rudely misuses the consensus principle, so as to persuade everyone else to link the regime of sanctions with the fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements, and this linkage is absolutely artificial and absurd.

Regarding Brexit, democracy has worked, as the British themselves say. In all, 51% of UK residents called for leaving the EU. This was followed by doubts, remorse and vacillations. The Conservative Party experienced changes as a result, and the people who gained power brushed these vacillations aside. The UK always kept to itself in the European Union and always tried to play its own game; this, too, is a fact. They obtained economic and trade privileges but kept their distance in the political context and tried to promote their own interests and those of Washington in the European Union. It is pointless to hush this up. It is therefore hardly surprising that they were involved in many intra-EU processes. This special path was obvious even when the UK was an EU member. Therefore I don’t think that the EU will suffer greatly as a result of Brexit. If this helps it to be a more integral association, to strengthen its independence and autonomy without Russophobia, then we would only welcome this trend. And London played an important part in promoting this Russophobia.



Question:

Some relations with Ukraine have been restored since Vladimir Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine, at least those between presidents and their assistants. However, observations of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry suggest that it still holds back from contacting Russia directly. Perhaps it is trying to shake off the grave legacy of Pavel Klimkin and Petr Poroshenko. Is there any chance of resuming not quasi, but solid diplomatic relations with Ukraine?



Sergey Lavrov:

You are right. I met my Ukrainian counterpart Vadim Pristaiko once, at the Normandy format summit in Paris last December. It was during some a break; we said hello to each other. In fact, we have had no reason for further contact, because clearly we cannot talk about bilateral meetings or visits. This is not because of Russia: Ukraine withdrew its ambassador and threatened to cut off diplomatic relations. Now, however, someone has mentioned it is possible that Vladimir Zelensky will decide to return the ambassadors. We would not object. Even in today’s conditions, Russia and Ukraine are closely connected in the economy, transport, cultural affairs and family ties. And, of course, it makes no sense to constantly create new barriers: either for air travel, or for railway transport, or just for communication. A person goes to Crimea, and that’s it: the Ukrainians cannot shake hands or even meet with them. This is barbaric; ultra-radical national radicalism.

We met with Pavel Klimkin, but on the sidelines of several events: in Minsk, where the Minsk Agreements were adopted; in Paris, where a Normandy format summit took place; and later, in the same connection, in Berlin. Meanwhile we both attended the ministerial meetings in the Normandy format and the OSCE Council of Foreign Ministers. We met and talked every time at these forums: sometimes with our assistants or just face to face. I can’t say these conversations were aggressive. A lot of our Ukrainian partners have a pragmatic attitude to the existing problems that are detrimental to the Ukrainians and Ukraine, among others. However, in public almost all of them speak differently. Perhaps there is such a request now, which cannot be dealt with because of the enormous influence of various nationalists, including those who march around the streets carrying SS flags and torches. Normal politicians have to keep this in mind.

However, we are interested in contacts. Vladimir Putin communicated with Vladimir Zelensky in Paris, which, as you know, resulted in an agreement on gas that is important for both countries and Europe as well, and also for creating a more constructive atmosphere.

A prisoner exchange took place. Vladimir Zelensky has announced that, in addition to the December Russian-Ukrainian exchange there will be a Ukrainian-Ukrainian exchange, which means Kiev and Donbass will exchange people arrested in the context of the Donbass conflict. Of course, it is a positive fact that Vladimir Zelensky has shown his political will despite the very difficult domestic political situation in Ukraine, and implemented the decision of the two previous Normandy summits: the 2015 Paris summit and the 2016 Berlin one. There is progress regarding prisoner exchange, as well as regarding the disengagement of forces and equipment. It is very important that a final document was adopted at the 2019 December summit in Paris, which, in addition to the need to continue disengaging forces and equipment as well as to comply with and prevent all violations of the ceasefire, envisages the importance of a political process according to the Minsk Agreements, including the Steinmeier Formula, and the need to permanently include the special status of Donbass, which the Steinmeier Formula is connected to, in Ukrainian law, just as we agreed in Minsk in the context of the constitutional decentralisation reform.

However, we were sad that this document, prepared in advance and agreed by assistants to the Normandy format leaders and foreign ministers, was “opened” by the Ukrainian delegation and personally by President Zelensky right at the beginning of the meetings, first of all regarding the disengagement of forces and equipment. Those who prepared the summit reached an agreement (the Ukrainians signed this) to disengage forces and equipment along the entire line of contact. However, Vladimir Zelensky said decisively that he was not ready to do this, and the disengagement was only possible at three areas in addition to Petrovskoye, Zolotoye and Stanitsa Luganskaya. According to Zelensky, the disengagement in Stanitsa Luganskaya, Petrovskoye and Zolotoye took more than five months, and if this speed was expanded to the entire line of contact and the villages along it, it would take 10 to 15 years. This logic is quite strange, because if we applied the time taken to every area, the disengagement would take half a century. So Vladimir Putin suggested that the parties begin with the three areas, but work towards the goal of making the contact line military-free. A flat refusal was the answer.

I will not reveal a great secret by saying that we know that it was at Washington’s insistence that the Ukrainian delegation held this position at the Normandy summit in Paris, because the US doesn’t want to see the Minsk Agreement implemented and the contact line safe for both sides. It seems that maintaining this conflict in a certain controlled phase complies with the US’s interests, regarding their geopolitical views of the post-Soviet space. But let me repeat that we all believe that the further work of the Contact Group (and this is where all the issues regarding both exchanges and disengagement must be addressed) will still be aimed at the full implementation of all the agreements and also the humanitarian and economic issues that are ignored by Kiev in the form they must be addressed according to the Minsk Agreements.

And, of course, there is the political process. We are concerned with Vadim Pristaiko’s recent statements that if Russia doesn’t take some positive steps soon, Kiev may begin to think about an alternative to the Minsk Agreements. And what are the alternatives? The ones our American colleagues, and the Kiev authorities with them, are actively promoting. They say, give us the border first, and everything will be okay. President of Russia Vladimir Putin, responding to these statements, repeatedly drew attention to the kind of people who were assembling under the neo-Nazi flags in Ukraine and how they were threatening to use force. Even the members of the new government, the new Verkhovna Rada deputies, say that a power scenario cannot be ruled out. Can we give these people full control over the border? This would mean forgetting about the special status, elections and everything else. The locals there would simply be suppressed. And even if the Ukrainian leaders have every intention of preventing outbreaks of violence against people living in Donbass, I cannot see the volunteer battalions, which still have a lot of power there, being ready to execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Everyone saw how Vladimir Zelensky took a trip to the frontline to talk them into disengaging the forces in the areas agreed back in 2015.



Question:

Unprecedented measures to support the Far East are being taken. But the region sees another resource – providing visa-free travel opportunities for its nearest neighbours, such as China, Japan and Korea. Do you think this is possible, all the more so as people from western Russia seldom fly to Sakhalin Island and the Far East because they consider it too expensive and remote. Can the Far East become visa-free for tourists?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Far East has already become visa-free, to a certain extent, on an experimental basis, so far. A system of free e-visas has been operating for 18 months now. They will not always be free, but dozens of countries now use them. A special list of states is appended to the Government’s resolution for introducing e-visas in the Far East. China, Japan and South Korea are included in this list. The Government of the Russian Federation has approved mid-term plans to introduce a system of e-visas for all Russian regions, so as to accommodate all foreigners wishing to visit this country. But, considering the substantial cost of the relevant equipment and technologies, we will issue these visas on a paid basis.

An extremely convenient e-visa application form is available. To the best of my knowledge, about 110,000 people from all countries, not only those from the three mentioned countries, requested e-visas to visit the Far East throughout 2019. At the same time, about 40 percent of e-visa holders did not use them. Therefore, we also need to analyse the experience of using e-visas. But the President and the Government have made a principled decision to start issuing e-visas for visits to all regions of the Russian Federation.



Question:

Today is Diplomats’ Day. Russian diplomacy boasts an immensely rich history dating back to the 1549 Ambassadorial Department or the Posolsky Prikaz. Could you name three distinguishing features of the Russian diplomatic school?



Sergey Lavrov:

Three?



Question:

You can name four or even more. Would it be fair to say that the Sergey Lavrov School has emerged in modern diplomacy? I have heard this concept from various people, including our opponents.



Sergey Lavrov:

Speaking of Russian diplomacy’s distinguishing features, this, first of all, would be professional work that requires an ideal knowledge of foreign languages, to say the least. Today, people wishing to apply for a job at the Foreign Ministry must be fluent in at least two foreign languages. This work also calls for deep study of the history of diplomacy, as well as a specialisation in a region or a global issue of a functional, rather than geographical nature. It is also necessary to know the facts, down to the smallest detail. Given current opportunities, including artificial intelligence and gaining access to online data, a person who has no basic knowledge can click on websites and read various materials, but this knowledge would evade him or her.

It is necessary to take advantage of these opportunities. Machines, artificial intelligence, etc. can access large data volumes and conduct initial assessments. But humans have to make specific decisions, no matter what. I cannot imagine a situation when robots would address matters regarding Syria, Libya, Palestine, etc.

Since the days of the Russian Empire, the national diplomatic service prioritised specialisation. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the Americans and the Europeans prefer a different approach. They consider it necessary to rotate personnel from Africa to Europe, from Europe to Latin America and from Latin America to Asia. Diplomats work for two or three years in every region. Judging by our experience, this is not enough for two reasons. These assignments are not long enough. In practice, a person who has arrived in a new country becomes acquainted with the situation in the first 12 months. He or she starts producing results during the second year. And if he or she is transferred to another country during the third year, then this person will have many reasons to get distracted from their main work. Therefore, our diplomats spend four to six years on an assignment abroad. Trainees and young diplomats spend less time abroad, and we stipulate longer assignments for senior colleagues and ambassadors. Russian diplomacy also differs in terms of organising the rotation process. Western diplomats are not supposed to have any in-depth knowledge of the countries where they work. Since the days of the Russian Empire, we had the so-called dragomans, who specialised in just one country or even one of its regions or any specific matter. These people proved invaluable when any specific matter became a subject of major politics. Although this is no longer in high demand, knowledge of a topic, the geography of any specific region that a person deals with or knowledge of a major issue being discussed at the UN, the OSCE and other multilateral organisations is a highly important quality.

Speaking of the Lavrov School, I would prefer not to personify modern diplomacy. First of all, the national foreign policy is charted by the President. Indeed, the course set by the head of state determines the direction of our foreign policy and its goals. This course, formalised in all versions of the National Foreign Policy Concept that have been passed since 2000, allowed us to acquire entirely new qualities on the international scene and to restore our status as a great power. I will call things by their proper name: This includes the status of a key player on all major international matters and the status of a country without which it is hard, if not impossible, to address global matters. All our partners, including Western countries that have declared sanctions and which note the need to continue a tough line with regard to Moscow, confirm this. Everyone advocates for dialogue with Russia.

This calls for following the traditions established by Alexander Gorchakov, Andrey Gromyko and Yevgeny Primakov. The greatest achievement of modern diplomats is that we were able to work in such a way, so as not to undermine this tradition but to strengthen it in every way, under the President’s instruction.



Question:

Which of your business trips was the most difficult and why? Having come home from a business trip and taking a little rest did you ever think, “Good Lord, all is well. Good for you, Sergey.”



Sergey Lavrov:

Just as Pushkin said, “Good for you, you son of a bitch.” If you start talks without planning for a final result, it’s best not to bother with it at all. This doesn’t mean that you always get what you want. Nobody can ever hope for that. But if you want to reach a goal you must clearly define it. Needless to say, every goal must be realistic and allow for compromise because diplomacy implies an agreement with someone. This is not something you invent and are trying to reach on your own. It is always a dialogue and an orientation towards a consensus that can only be reached through compromise.

As for business trips that stand out in my mind, we talked about Syria today. At the beginning of autumn 2013, when the Americans were seriously planning to strike Syria, the delegates arrived at the G20 summit in St Petersburg. No meetings between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were planned. And, Obama had taken offense because of Snowden who received refuge in Russia, and he cancelled his visit to Moscow for a previously scheduled summit. But why feel offended? Snowden asked for refuge because he was threatened with the electric chair. Furthermore, his passport was cancelled while he was flying from Hong Kong to Moscow to make a change. So, the US President cancelled the planned meeting even though a very interesting document on strategic stability was being drafted. He is prone to putting personal things above government goals. The same happened when he slammed the door when leaving his position in December 2016. He took Russia’s diplomatic property and expelled the diplomats, leaving Donald Trump an abominable legacy in Russian-US relations that is still being felt in some degree.

However, Obama still came to the G20 summit in St Petersburg. There were no plans for a bilateral meeting even “on the go.” During one break there was a pause and Obama requested a conversation with Putin. He said it was impossible to tolerate the situation in Syria. This was when the first reports on the use of chemical weapons against civilians were published. During this conversation our President proposed an initiative to persuade Bashar al-Assad to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. In principle, the initiative was supported by both presidents, and US Secretary of State John Kerry and I were instructed to get it all lined up. We worked on it in Geneva and later on in New York in September of the same year. We prepared a UN Security Council resolution that was unanimously adopted and fulfilled 100 percent. Military and other specialists on chemical arms from Russia, the US and China took part in carrying it out. This was an international operation followed by the OPCW experts confirming the complete absence of chemical arms in Syria. After that, the OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. All of us were fully satisfied with the work done. It is sometimes difficult to reach an agreement even on paper, and in this case, besides seeking approval of all words and sentences, the sides carried out everything in practice.

US attempts to question the judgement on the fulfilment of the commitments by Damascus is a different story. This judgement was universal and signed by all parties.

I also felt deep satisfaction after the work on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. It took several years to come to terms on it at many meetings in Lausanne, Geneva and Vienna where many issues were resolved in the Iran and P5+1 format, the US-Iran format, and during my bilateral talks with John Kerry. This was really productive partly because we agreed on everything on paper and also because it was approved by the UN Security Council and got off the ground. At any rate, Iran was fulfilling its binding and voluntary commitments.

At first, there were no attempts to stop lawful trade with Iran. Tehran made unprecedented commitments in addition to the mandatory obligations under the NPT, the agreement with the IAEA with an additional protocol. Iran agreed to take 5-7 additional steps that were described in the JCPOA as optional.

When the United States made an about face and said in 2018 it would not fulfil the commitments and banned trade with Iran for all countries, Tehran showed patience for a long time but eventually started reducing its voluntary commitments. Let me emphasise once again that Iran took unprecedented voluntary commitments in addition to the universal ones. It did not receive any unprecedented gains under the universally agreed plan – in response, its participants resumed ordinary, non-preferential trade with Iran. When Washington banned normal trade with Iran for all countries, Tehran stopped carrying out its voluntary commitments under the plan. The United States demanded that it resume its commitments, in exchange for which it promised to simply trade with Iran, no more than that. But this is nonsense, an instance of unacceptable arrogance!

One more example is the OPCW-confirmed agreement on Syria’s chemical demilitarisation that is now being revised by the US administration. The JCPOA was also verified by every participant and approved by the UN Security Council. Now it is being torn down by the United States, which calls into doubt Washington’s ability to implement unanimously endorsed decisions that were made binding by UN Security Council resolutions.

Of course, I will mention again the Minsk agreements. They were also unanimously approved by the UN Security Council and are now put to the test by the US, among others. Washington wants to persuade everyone that at first the Ukrainian government and occupying troops in the guise of UN peacemakers must establish complete control over Donbass. Deal-making skills are again a problem at this point. However, we are still hoping to work with all of our partners, seeking the implementation of everything we agreed on and reaching new agreements that will reduce tensions and help settle the many conflicts that, regrettably, persist in the world.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4029123






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a ceremony of laying flowers at memorial plaques on Diplomats’ Day, Moscow, February 10, 2020



10 February 2020 - 13:38






Friends and veterans,

Every year we begin this day – Diplomats’ Day – with this ceremony to honour the memory of and pay respect to our comrades and predecessors who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of our country during the Great Patriotic War, suffered during the years of political repression and laid down their lives in the call of duty after the war was over, including quite recently.

This is an eternal reminder of how important and dangerous our work is and how much devotion, self-perfection and courage it requires. This year we will mark the anniversaries of several of our great predecessors, including those who also sacrificed their lives for our homeland, in particular Alexander Griboyedov. There are also other anniversaries, which we will rightly celebrate in order to preserve the memory of those who created our diplomatic service and in a way not only strengthened the country’s position, but also established its foundations. This year we will also mark two jubilees: the 75th anniversary of the Yalta Conference, which we are currently celebrating, and the future 75th anniversary of the United Nations, the signing of its Charter in San Francisco and, finally, the beginning of the UN General Assembly’s deliberations in the autumn of 1945.





A lot has been said about the lessons of those days; there is an ongoing discussion in which some of our Western (and not only Western) partners are trying to whitewash accomplices of the Nazis and misrepresent the role of the USSR and all the peoples of the USSR that made a decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazism. It goes without saying how important this work is in our everyday diplomatic activities. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has made this subject a priority this year and for the future, because the attempts to rewrite history and thereby influence world developments at the present stage will continue. We must be fully armed to render these attempts futile.

On this day we reaffirm our determination to do everything to pursue the Russian foreign policy course set by the President and do our utmost to be worthy of our great predecessors. It is for the Russian people to decide whether we succeed or not.

Once again, I congratulate you on our professional holiday. In particular, I want to express the wish that our veterans remain in the ranks as long as possible and pass over their invaluable experience to young people. I wish you health and success.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4032168






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the ceremony to cancel the stamp dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Moscow, February 10, 2020



10 February 2020 - 14:00






Mr Dukhovnitsky,

Mr Tsereteli,

Friends,

It is nice to see that the Foreign Ministry’s Reception House is hosting another ceremony to cancel another important postage stamp, this time one marking the 75th anniversary of the Yalta Conference and launching, as it has already been said, a new series, The History of Russian Diplomacy.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the staff of the Marka company and my colleagues from the Department of History and Records, everyone who worked on this.

We are quite satisfied that cooperation between the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Agency of Communications continues to develop steadily. We praise our colleagues’ efforts to popularise Russia’s rich foreign policy legacy and to immortalise the memory of outstanding Russian diplomats who did a great deal to protect the national interests of their Fatherland and strengthen its positions on the global stage.

There have already been stamps dedicated to Yevgeny Primakov, Andrey Gromyko, Andrey Karlov and the uniforms of Russia’s diplomatic service, as well as the 100th anniversary of the Diplomatic Courier Service. And quite recently, last November, we held a cancellation ceremony for a commemorative envelope that is devoted to Anatoly Dobrynin. By the way, just today Aeroflot’s management has informed us that, following our request, an Aeroflot plane that will be put into operation in the summer will bear the name of Anatoly Dobrynin. Today we carry on the good tradition of commemorating our compatriots, predecessors and important dates of Russian diplomacy with stamps. It is quite symbolic that we are doing this on Diplomats’ Day.





The Yalta Conference is a very important date in the diplomatic history of World War II. This is where the pivotal decisions on the key issues of the postwar international order were made, including the establishment of the United Nations. The conference, held among the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition, took place in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation. Back then, the Big Three leaders were able to put aside their differences and ambitions, and to develop constructive approaches in order to end the war as quickly as possible and create a sustainable international security architecture.

I believe that today it is also necessary to turn to the common pages in our history, when the world is facing numerous challenges and threats. Recently, when speaking at the Remembering the Holocaust: Fighting Antisemitism forum in Jerusalem, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed: “Destruction of the past and lack of unity in the face of threats can lead to terrible consequences.” I think that our partners will recall this invaluable experience in order to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for all of humankind. Russia is always open for such constructive work and puts forward corresponding initiatives, which, as we hope, will get positive feedback.

Friends, Our Ministry is ready to implement new joint initiatives. As far as I know, there will be another stamp to mark another historical date, the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Of course, we will carry on with our efforts to jointly ensure continuity and to encourage such initiatives.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4032241






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting on Diplomats’ Day, Moscow, February 10, 2020



10 February 2020 - 18:30






Colleagues,

Allow me to open this meeting on Diplomats’ Day

(The anthem of the Russian Federation is played)


***


My dear friends,

We review our work in this meeting on this day every year. To my great regret, we lost some of our colleagues during the past year. I suggest observing a moment of silence in memory of all those who are not with us anymore.


***


I would like to wish all of you a happy holiday once again. We meet in this hall every year. I am very pleased to see many familiar faces. These include, of course, our veterans, colleagues and teammates from the Presidential Executive Office, the Government staff, the Security Council, the Federal Assembly and various ministries and departments. On behalf of the Foreign Ministry staff, I would like to thank our colleagues from other departments for their assistance and support, for their team spirit. All of this helps us to work on the most complicated tasks under the foreign policy course as defined by the President and to implement it in practice.

We received a message of greetings from President Vladimir Putin. I would like to read it.

“To the staff and veterans of the Foreign Ministry the Russian Federation,

“Russian diplomats have always deliberately and consistently defended the interests of our Fatherland. While continuing the glorious traditions of our predecessors, you carry out your duty with honour and deal with challenging and responsible foreign policy tasks.

“Thanks largely to the efficient work of Russia’s Foreign Ministry, we have managed to reach a certain degree of stability in Syria and launch an intra-Syrian Constitutional process. We are seeing visible results in the development of Eurasian integration and the EAEU’s foreign relations, as well as of allied relations within the CSTO. We are improving cooperation with China, India, other Eurasian countries as well as Latin American states. The dialogue with African countries has reached a new level.

“At the same time, the international political situation is becoming more turbulent, which means that an even more proactive approach is needed to provide strategic stability and form a just world order. To this end, we should use our position at the UN Security Council, and the opportunities provided by the current Russian presidency in the SCO and BRICS, and participation in the G20, APEC and other multilateral organisations.

“It is important to build up efforts to protect the rights and interests of our compatriots abroad, and to protect the Russian language. And, of course, the preservation of the historical truth about the Great Patriotic War is an undisputable priority. This is especially important against the backdrop of the 75th anniversary of Victory that we will mark this year.

“I am sure that you will continue to work proactively and creatively while defending Russia’s interests and strengthening its position on the global arena. The country’s leadership will continue to pay due attention to providing support and resources to the diplomatic service.

“I wish the Ministry staff new professional success, and good health, high spirits and longevity to our esteemed veterans.

Vladimir Putin.”





***


We also received a message of greetings from Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin who noted the contribution made by domestic diplomacy to consolidating Russia’s potential. Kind and informal words are also included in messages from the heads of the Federation Council and the State Duma Federal Assembly, chairs of the parliamentary committees, heads of executive government bodies, regional governors and representatives of the business community.

Colleagues,

The trust placed in us is a great responsibility. Russia’s foreign policy service has been charged with the responsible tasks of creating a favourable external environment for ensuring Russia’s dynamic development and improving the living standards of its citizens. These tasks must be resolved under difficult conditions. Hoping to maintain global domination, the United States and some of its allies continue to rely on military and economic pressure. Rejecting the realities of a multipolar world, they continue thinking in terms of an archaic deterrence policy, dividing lines and geopolitical zero sum games. They are trying to introduce a Western-centric “rules-based order,” to replace universally recognised standards of international law.

Against this backdrop, Russia, as a key global centre, is pursuing a line of strengthening the legal foundations of interstate communication, raising the UN’s prestige, reducing international tensions, achieving the political-diplomatic settlement of several regional conflicts, and searching for collective responses to global challenges.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory. Together with all peoples of the former USSR this country played a decisive role in achieving this victory. President Vladimir Putin noted: “I believe each of us cannot forget and will never forget the feat of our fathers. I would very much like our colleagues in the West in general and in Europe in particular, to keep this in mind.” The President said this at the informal CIS summit in December 2019. It is important to continue countering any attempt to falsify history and glorify Nazis and their accomplices. Needless to say, it is necessary to neutralise any attempt to revise the universally recognised results of World War II. Not only our allies and partners in the CSTO, the EAEU and the CIS but almost all of the international community agree with us on this issue. This is graphically confirmed by the broadest support of Russia’s traditional initiative on countering the glorification of Nazism.

This year we will observe the 75th anniversary of this global organisation. It is impossible to overestimate the continuing relevance of the fundamental principles of its Charter. The UN Security Council continues to bear special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. President Vladimir Putin suggested holding a summit with the five powers in the UN Security Council to update the approaches to securing global stability with the firm foundation of the UN Charter and in accordance with the dictates of our time.

This year is the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly adoption, at Soviet initiative, of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It would be appropriate to recall today that this country played a tangible role in the process of decolonisation and provided young states with all-round assistance and support. They remember and appreciate this. The results of the first Russia-Africa summit bear this out.

We continue working to make the developing multipolar system more fair. We want it to be based on cooperation rather than confrontation. We want globalisation to be progressive. This process must be accessible to all humankind rather than a narrow group of the elect. The overwhelming majority of states in Asia, Africa and Latin America stand in solidarity with us in this regard. They reject colonial and neocolonial approaches whether through the use of crude armed force or blackmail through illegal economic sanctions.

Friends,

At this critical stage of global development, life itself requires much. I am convinced that the diplomats at the central office, regional offices and missions abroad will think outside the box and be proactive with a view to producing results, all the more so since issues of social protection for our employees are being steadily resolved owing to the attention of the national leaders to our activities (this was mentioned in the President’s Address). Progress has been made in improving and expanding housing, medical and health resort support. Efforts are being made to perpetuate the memory of diplomats, including the construction of a departmental memorial complex at the Federal Memorial Cemetery. The project on creating a modern educational centre for the Foreign Ministry on advanced studies of rare and Oriental languages is being planned. Work in these areas will continue.

In conclusion, I would like to wish all of you a happy holiday. I wish our veterans all the best and wish all of you new success for the benefit of our homeland.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4032647






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with German Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas



11 February 2020 - 17:59







On February 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Germany’s Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas at the latter’s initiative.

The ministers exchanged views on the UN Security Council discussion of draft resolutions on settling the armed conflict in Libya with consideration for the International Conference on Libya, held in Berlin on January 19, 2020 and the first session of the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission, which took place under UN aegis in Geneva.

The Russian minister confirmed the need to facilitate accord between the Libyan parties, without which no international initiatives will work. He emphasised that it is necessary to fully consider the positions of Libya’s neighbours and the African Union.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4034967






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 5th anniversary of the Minsk Package of Measures to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine



11 February 2020 - 19:06



February 12 marks the 5th anniversary of signing the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements which is the only way to overcome the conflict in Donbass.

This document was designed to resolve two issues, namely, to stop the civil war and to ensure lasting peace. This domestic armed conflict stemmed from the coup and anti-popular policy of Ukraine’s nationalist government. The new government trampled on the rights and freedoms of the people in southeastern Ukraine and attempted to suppress a peaceful protest through military force. It didn’t work out. The people of Donbass have proven that they can stand up for their rights, freedom and identity.

When they signed the Package of Measures in Minsk five years ago, the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk agreed to remain part of the Ukrainian state on condition of amnesty and after the government granted the region a constitutionally guaranteed special status, which then President of Ukraine Poroshenko promised to deliver. After that, elections were to be held in Donbass and Kiev was to regain control over the border. All this was supposed to be done before the end of 2015.

The signed agreements were supported by the Normandy Four, approved by the UN Security Council and, thus, became part of international law. Implementation was closely monitored by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. We very much appreciate and support SMM efforts, which, according to the mandate, were to be based on the principles of impartiality and transparency.

Today, it may be appropriate to remind everyone what the Package of Measures, which many are trying to distort, is all about. The Foreign Ministry posted an authentic copy of this document on its website.

Unfortunately, none of its provisions have been implemented in full. Despite several agreements, there has never been a complete ceasefire. Shelling along the line of contact continues, and the military equipment has not been withdrawn. Donbass has not been granted a constitutionally guaranteed special status, and no amnesty has been extended. In fact, Kiev sabotaged the Package of Measures immediately after it was signed.

The small-steps approach has led to some progress. Two major exchanges of detainees were held in five years, during which about 500 prisoners were freed. The Ukrainian authorities complied with the additional agreements signed in 2015 and 2016 on disengaging forces in the pilot areas and the Steinmeier formula only in 2019 and only after a new president had been elected. These agreements were Donbass’s major concession to Kiev.

The Normandy Four’s most recent decisions, mostly political, made during the summit in Paris are being implemented but not as fast as we would like. Here, we see Ukraine go through the motions and not even think about starting a direct dialogue with Donbass. Other political aspects of the Minsk agreements such as constitutional reform and determining local election modalities are not being implemented, either. Apparently, Zelensky forgot about his election promises to alleviate the economic and transport blockade of the self-proclaimed republics.

The settlement process is further complicated by Ukraine’s aggressive rhetoric, criticism of the Minsk agreements and calls to revise them, as well as the idea of ​​introducing an international occupation administration in Donbass under the guise of a UN peacekeeping force, which runs counter to the Package of Measures. Kiev’s legislative initiatives, the notorious acts on reintegrating Donbass, education, the state language and the draft law on a new administrative and territorial structure, which they peddle as compliance with the decentralisation obligations, further aggravate the situation.

It even came to the point where Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal investigation into ex-president Poroshenko’s possible treason when he signed the Package of Measures. It remains unclear whether this is a manifestation of internal political strife or an attempt to cast doubt on the Minsk agreements. In any case, revising them will result in unpredictable consequences for an intra-Ukraine settlement.

Russia advocates the full and consistent implementation of all the provisions in the Package of Measures. We support the efforts of our Normandy format partners and the OSCE as the coordinator of the Contact Group and urge them to encourage the Ukrainian government to fulfill its obligations in full and as soon as possible.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4035015






Russian BRICS Chairmanship Statement on the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic Outbreak in China, issued on February 11, 2020 at the 1st Meeting of BRICS Sherpas/Sous-Sherpas in St.Petersburg



11 February 2020 - 20:02



The BRICS countries support the firm commitment and decisive efforts of the Chinese Government to combat the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic. They express deep sympathy and support for all whose families are in mourning and wish a speedy recovery to those who are ill.

The BRICS countries are ready to cooperate closely with China and calls for the international community to strengthen cooperation within the WHO framework, in order to prevent, protect and control regional and global public health safety, providing a coordinated public health response to the epidemic outbreak.

The BRICS countries commit to work together in a spirit of responsibility, solidarity and cooperation to bring this outbreak under control as fast as possible. They underline the importance of avoiding discrimination, stigma and overreaction while responding to the outbreak.

They support strengthening of scientific research cooperation on infectious diseases that pose threat to public health, as well as of joint efforts to detect, prevent and control pandemic infections using modern methods and technologies, including test systems, developed in BRICS countries.

The BRICS Chairmanship acknowledges that China expressed its appreciation for the friendly support of the BRICS partners and constructive cooperation on this matter to ward off this shared threat as soon as possible.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4035151
__________________
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; May 26th, 2020 at 02:05 PM.
 
Old May 26th, 2020 #76
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, February 12, 2020



12 February 2020 - 22:02






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the 56th session of the Munich Security Conference

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


Russian and Italian foreign and defence minister meeting in the 2+2 format

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


A visit to the Russian Federation by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Al Safadi

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



Measures on the novel coronavirus outbreak in China

First, we would like to note that on January 31 President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin sent a message to President of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Xi Jinping with words of support and sympathy in connection with the coronavirus outbreak. Our Chinese friends were also offered any assistance we could provide.

On February 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi. Mr Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to help China counter the epidemic.

An Emergency Response Centre on preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus infection has been established in Russia following instructions from Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. The Foreign Ministry is part of this effort in cooperation with other related federal government bodies. We have informed you about this regularly. A national action plan has been adopted. The Foreign Ministry has also formed the Emergency Response Headquarters, which is coordinating the work in this area. I believe that you are receiving updates from our offices abroad – embassies, consulates general and permanent missions. I would like to remind you that we have hotlines and accounts on social media that are available at all hours, the Foreign Ministry’s accounts, and the websites of our consular services and foreign missions. I would like to draw your attention to the Foreign Assistant app that you can download on any device (smartphone, iPod or computer). This programme will allow you to access information on any country online while traveling.

At present, in close cooperation with our Chinese partners, Russia is taking all the necessary measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus here. The Russian Government has adopted a number of directives (No. 140-r of January 30, 2020, No. 153-r of January 31 and No. 194-r of February 3, 2020). The Russian embassy and the consulate general in China are closely monitoring the situation and staying in touch with Russian citizens that are in China’s districts where the disease has spread.

In close cooperation with our embassy in Beijing, on February 5 the Defence Ministry evacuated Russian and some CIS country citizens from Wuhan in Hubei Province by plane. Our compatriots who wanted to leave the areas affected by the ourbreak in China were taken home. Evacuation corridors are regularly organised at the state checkpoints in the border areas for Russian citizens to leave China and Chinese citizens to leave Russia.

Our diplomatic missions have hotlines where Russian citizens in China can contact our diplomats and receive help.

On February 9, the Emergencies Ministry delivered Russian humanitarian relief to Wuhan with the Foreign Ministry’s support by a special aircraft. At China’s request, over 23 tonnes of humanitarian cargo including personal protection items, which China is short of, were sent to the districts affected by the coronavirus.

I would like to do something that I rarely do. Usually we give our political views and then reply to questions. Sometimes our emotions run high. We always support our positions with facts. It is probably pointless to appeal to conscience, morals and ethics but we do this, too. Today, I would like to emphasise this. To be honest, reading the foreign press, monitoring reports from Western news agencies and watching television, I am shocked that all this appears on the territory of states that not only consider themselves civilised but who also preach the lofty ideals of democracy and upholding human rights at international venues. Frankly, I don’t even remember such almost undisguised derision as regards China and its people that the writers of these many reports allow themselves. They are using disinformation and fraudulent facts, and are showing a lack of respect and sympathy which is so badly needed by the country and people that have been hit with the unprecedented spread of a new virus. At the end of the day, they should come to their senses, gather their wits and recall or probably read again everything that was signed and everything that was declared by the UN and its agencies. These principles must be recalled and not just at political meetings. We need to abide by these principles in life. If a country and its people are fighting such a dangerous and challenging epidemic, it is possible and necessary to display sympathy.

In this context, I would like to support the Chinese people, our Chinese friends, and do this not only on my own behalf but on behalf of all commiserating Russian people that are sending us letters and calling us, asking us to convey words of support to China in these uneasy times. They are asking us to do this in Chinese since it’s still an official UN language.

Dear friends,

We really want China and the Chinese people to act as one and unite in countering the epidemic to protect China as the ancient towers of the Great Wall do. Russia feels for the people of China through these difficult times. We are fully behind them and we would like to sincerely wish them every success in overcoming this epidemic.



Syria update

The situation in Idlib is highly charged. The fighters of the terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and affiliated units have intensified attacks on the Syrian government forces. They are shelling nearby cities, including Aleppo, and are using drones to attack the Russian air base at Khmeimim. As a result of this, 150 civilians have been killed and 300 injured over the past month. Syrian military casualties include over 400 dead and over 900 wounded. We believe that this aggravated situation is rooted in Turkey’s neglect for its obligations under the Sochi Memorandum signed on September 17, 2018 and the fact that Ankara is moving the so-called moderate opposition units it controls to northeast Syria, the zone of its Peace Spring Operation and Libya.

Nevertheless, Russia remains committed to the Idlib agreements reached in Astana and is resolved to continue to work jointly [with Turkey] to implement them. Our main current objectives are to bring down the level of violence on the ground, to ensure the safety of the guarantor countries’ military personnel in and around the de-escalation zone, as well as to prevent the aggravation of military confrontation as a result of the ill-considered use of force.

We hope that Russian and Turkish representatives continue working on a comprehensive solution for Idlib. A Russian interdepartmental delegation visited Ankara a few days ago, and we are now coordinating a schedule of further interdepartmental contacts, about which we will update you in due time. It should be pointed out that all de-escalation zones in Syria were devised as a temporary measure, which must not in any way infringe on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country or hinder the fight against the terrorist groups that have been declared as such by the UN Security Council.

Terrorists also maintain their presence in the other parts of Syria, including east of the Euphrates. We see the revitalisation of sleeper cells there, contrary to the declarations on the routing of ISIS issued by the United States and its allies. The terrorists stage regular violent attacks on Kurdish units and are doing their best to damage basic infrastructure in other parts of Syria as well. On January 27, they attacked several oil storage facilities in the port city of Baniyas. On February 3, mortar attacks were launched against oil and gas facilities in Homs. There are serious concerns about the Al-Hawl refugee camp, whose population includes the families of ISIS fighters, foreign terrorist fighters and other militants. The situation at the camp is approaching a humanitarian catastrophe, and the delivery of aid there has been largely restricted.

In this context, I would like to mention the Russian efforts being taken to evacuate the children of Russian citizens from Syria. Thanks to the contribution of a Russian interdepartmental working group that was in Syria between February 1 and 6, we have removed 35 Russian children from Al-Hawl. On February 6, 26 of these children were flown back to Russia, while the other nine remain in Damascus to complete travel formalities.

Other destabilising factors include the Israeli strikes on Syria. Such unilateral actions are infringing on Syria’s sovereignty and are putting at risk the lives and safety of civilians. This happened on February 6, when a civilian aircraft carrying 172 passengers barely escaped destruction during Israeli airstrikes.



Former US Vice President Joe Biden’s statement on Afghanistan

We have noted a statement by former US Vice President Joe Biden on Afghanistan that was made at a campaign rally. I realise that, considering the presidential election race is now entering its final stage, we will hear many extravagant statements from US representatives. In his statement, Joe Biden provides an extremely negative assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and casts doubt on the country’s prospects for asserting itself as integral unified multi-ethnic state.

This statement by a former US leader did not surprise the Russian side. The US leaders claim that they have been fighting terrorism in Afghanistan for over 18 years as well as building a democratic Afghan state. As we know, Washington has failed to achieve any of these goals. In this context, Joe Biden’s words should be understood as an open admission by the US establishment of its powerlessness in these matters and the failure of its Afghan campaign, as the Russian side has repeatedly stated. I would like to point out that we are not talking about a human rights activist here, a person representing some humanitarian organisation or even an expert. This is a representative of the highest level of the US executive branch who, for many years, had all the levers for influencing this situation. In this regard, it comes as no surprise that there has been a highly negative reaction to the US politician’s rhetoric among Afghan society and political circles, including representatives of the government of Afghanistan, which cooperates closely with the United States.

In our opinion, all this once again confirms that the United States and its allies have exhausted the limits of their presence in Afghanistan. It is high time to withdraw the international military contingent from the country. The people of Afghanistan themselves should sit down at the negotiating table and determine the destiny of their own state because no one else can do this for them.



Ukrainian information space update

Today, we are marking another anniversary of the Minsk Agreements. Prior to this, we published an extensive commentary containing our assessment of the situation as a whole and the current stage of the efforts being made to implement the Minsk Agreements. I am not sure that the word “stage” is appropriate in this context. I think we should focus on the definition contained in our statement: the “imitation” of efforts to implement the Minsk Agreements by the Ukrainian side. I would like to discuss the developments taking place in the Ukrainian information space as a separate item.

We again have to turn the spotlight onto the situation regarding freedom of expression in Ukraine, where the Kiev regime has been systematically consolidating its hold on the media and bringing increased pressure to bear on dissenting information sources.

Arousing serious concern are its latest legislative initiatives in the media sphere. The bills “On the media” and “On countering disinformation” actually envisage a number of substantial restrictions for the media and in fact impose state censorship on stories that the authorities find embarrassing for themselves.

It is difficult not to see that these antidemocratic legislative initiatives are directed exclusively against Russia. Specifically, we are facing yet another Ukrainian attempt to oust Russian information content and deprive the population of an opportunity to receive unbiased and objective information on domestic and world events. Even if one cannot describe some single source or a group of sources as fully objective, then at least one is witnessing an attempt to deprive their own population of an alternative and additional point of view.

Judge for yourselves: one of the bills directly instructs the media to cover the Russian leaders’ activities in a negative way. The plans are to legitimate the ban on “popularising and producing propaganda for the government agencies of the aggressor state.” Judging by the policy that Kiev pursues with regard to the Donbass residents, it is Ukraine that is the aggressor state. And the most horrible thing is that it is an aggressor state towards its own people. The same bill contains an exoneration (or denial) of an armed aggression and annexation of Ukraine’s territory as well as violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Clearly, these restrictions, given the right interpretation, can be extended to any journalistic writings.

There is also a proposal to turn down registration applications from news agencies whose governance bodies are located in Russia. But do European and world conventions, or material, agreements and declarations that regulate journalists’ professional activities say anything of the kind? Where is this allowed or encouraged in principle? What documents stimulate this sort of behaviour? This behaviour, on the contrary, is criticised by national and supranational professional communities.

Apart from this, the Ukrainian media market will be closed to companies whose owners or beneficiaries are Russian citizens or tax residents. Relaying signals from Russian territory is banned as well.

Kiev is also tough on dissenting national media. Last week, the Security Service of Ukraine searched the office of Channel 1+1. In so doing, the officers declared that criminal persecution had nothing to do with “pressure on the media or impingement on the freedom of expression.” But what were they doing there? Carrying out a maintenance inspection? Checking the electrical wiring? What are we talking about? Where are the related international organisations? Where are all those who are tracking the developments in the field of media rights and freedoms through a magnifying glass? Concern has been expressed by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir and related Ukrainian and international NGOs, including the Ukraine National Union of Journalists, the European Federation of Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders. The problem is that this is just a one-off and gentle response, quite unlike what they organised for the benefit of Oleg Sentsov or Nadezhda Savchenko. After all, they know how to stand with placards at embassy gates, write petitions, stage daily flashmobs, organise support rallies, or snap photos. As a gesture of goodwill they even deliver food to the channel’s office. I know that Ukrainian journalists are fond of things like that and know how to do them.

We hope that the Kiev authorities will heed the international community’s opinion, reread the commitments signed by their predecessors, stop their arbitrary treatment of the media, and step once again back onto the path leading to the civilised world that they are so eager to join. We once again call on the Kiev government to comply with the international obligations in the field of media freedom and freedom of expression they have assumed.



Russian-language media in the Baltics

We are worried about the aggravated situation concerning the Russian and Russian-language media in the Baltic countries. Similar measures, founded on nothing but political reasons, towards the Russian media adopted by the governments of various countries are instruments of pressure on the media and are part of an anti-Russian campaign being waged against Russian journalists and media. If there were some facts, they would have been mentioned. But here we only see identical political measures aimed at putting pressure or containing those concerned, or simply aggressive acts.

On February 4, the Latvian State Security Service conducted searches of the Riga office of Baltic Media Alliance that includes 25 television channels in the Baltic countries that broadcast programmes by Russia’s Channel One and Ren TV.

As an official pretext for the searches, Riga claims that a certain group of people, including the co-owners and board members of the Alliance Oleg Solodov and Alexey Plyasunov, are suspected of violating EU sanctions. This pretext can be used to crank out many similar situations and can be used against any media. However, against the backdrop of the system-wide prosecution by Latvian authorities of Russian-language information sources, this case looks like it is a fake, and the statements made by the Latvian security agencies are Riga’s failed attempt to justify its discriminative and repressive policy towards the media. And once again we are asking, where is everyone? Where are all the protesters in front of the embassies of the relevant countries, first of all Latvia, and other EU countries? Where are the flashmobs and the supporters?

The fact that the Latvian district court upheld the decision of the National Electronic Media Council to stop broadcasting nine Russian channels confirms once again the fact that Latvia is not going to review its attitude towards Russian-language media resources. Moreover, President of the Republic of Latvia Egils Levits yesterday asked the Latvian parliament’s commission on human rights and public affairs to increase the share of television programmes in the official EU languages in the country’s cable networks to 80 percent. What can I say? Yes, it is much better to concentrate on the languages of Old Europe like Spanish and Portuguese. This is very relevant for Latvia. Does anybody else see it?

We consider these steps a direct violation of the rights and freedoms of the media and the discrimination against the Russian-speaking population of the republic whose access to information in Russia is being restricted.

Other Baltic republics show similar trends.

As of January 1, 2020 the government of Estonia forced Sputnik Estonia to suspend its operations, by using unprecedented pressure and even threats to start a criminal prosecution against the employees of the Russian news agency.

In Lithuania, Sputnik is also being put under pressure. In May 2019, the authorities in the republic issued a 5-year entry ban for the agency’s news editor Marat Kasem. Let me remind you that last year, the country banned the broadcasting of the Russian channels RTR Planeta and Rossiya 24 under various pretexts; the Russian media resources’ websites were also blocked.

It is obvious that we are dealing with a blatantly Russophobic campaign. By the way, representatives of these countries are taking part in the Paris Peace Forum at various levels (officials and civil society representatives). Some of the forum’s sections are devoted to freedom of speech, democratic processes and freedom of the press. How are they feeling there? What is the point of attending such forums when you destroy any other alternative point of view in your country using political means? Moreover, you have no respect for the rights of national minorities. I truly believe that any people, any country deserves to be called by its name. Okay, national minorities is an accepted term, but it is still insulting. People who were born and raised in these countries, who contributed to its prosperity and evolvement while speaking and thinking Russian, should be respected. Most importantly, their rights are protected at an international level.

We urge the international human rights NGOs and relevant international bodies to assess the situation concerning the position of the media and the rights of journalists in the region. First of all, we are expecting a response from the OSCE.



World Radio Day

Tomorrow, February 13, marks World Radio Day, proclaimed by the UNESCO General Conference in 2011 and timed to coincide with the first broadcast of the UN Radio in 1946.

This year, “Radio and diversity” is the theme of World Radio Day. It is expected to focus on such issues as pluralism and combatting discrimination against radio journalists based on their race, social status, age, religion or gender. I am telling you all of this after what I said and you knew about the Sputnik radio station, among other things, in the countries also united by UNESCO. How is this possible? It is a paradox.

I would like to stress that recently Russian radio broadcasters have been discriminated against frequently and had to face attempts to limit their activities by any means from several countries’ authorities.

Just a few examples. The Ukrainian radio segment: after the law on the state language was adopted in May 2019, the Kiev authorities introduced language quotas on television and radio stating that at least 90 percent of the national and regional media broadcasts must be in Ukrainian. In fact, the radio content is also censored by the state. How do they determine these 90 percent? Based on what? On the number of people living there? On the popularity of the language? How is this indicator determined? Perhaps Ukraine held some consultations with its international partners, non-government organisations or specialised agencies? By the way, they could have asked UNESCO whether this innovation corresponds to the internationally recognised rules and norms in this sphere.

The Sputnik radio has faced politically biased obstacles in the United States. In February 2019, a US company that produces content for it, RIA Global, had to register as a foreign agent at the demand of the US Department of Justice. This makes its operation more difficult: it directly affects the company’s activities and entails financial and legal problems as well as an entire range of other problems it now has to face.

Apart from RIA Global, the US Department of Justice demanded that several of Sputnik’s partner companies broadcasting the Russian radio station’s programmes at FM frequencies register as foreign agents.

Often radio programmes are not used to provide socially important information to people but as a tool for propaganda, disinformation and simply lies. We have already mentioned the December 10 broadcast of the Crimea: Realities radio programme at the Foreign Ministry’s website, where articles with false information about Russia are exposed. The radio hosts accused the Russian authorities of preventing foreign officials, international observers and monitoring groups from accessing the peninsula. We call them every day, organise press tours and trips, and consult with journalists. Many of you here in the audience have taken part in such trips. Our main goal is to open Crimea to foreign visitors, official delegations, non-governmental organisations and journalists as widely as possible. And yet such total fakes appear. The situation is completely the opposite. Russia is constantly inviting foreign representatives, as I have said, including journalists. This is not just about organised tours or trips. There is every opportunity to visit Crimea independently. We are only needed when you require help or assistance in organising an interview, if you come across problems or too much red tape. If you want to go there and see everything for yourselves, there are no barriers. You should see for yourselves what the real situation on the peninsula is and then compare it to the message of the Crimea: Realities programme. The violation of the visa requirements can be the only reason to prohibit entry to Crimea, but this is the usual practice in any country and does not discriminate against people who want to visit Crimea. Of course, there are security restrictions due to the anti-terrorism and anti-extremism measures carried out in full compliance with the national law, like in any other countries. In fact, there are no other barriers.

We hope that World Radio Day will not become another reason for political speculation but for the professional community’s honest discussion of broadcasters’ problems and development prospects in the industry in strict compliance with the high standards of the quality and objective journalism. Despite new media formats appearing in recent years, radio programmes remain one of the main formats of broadcasting for general audiences as well as a socially important communication channel.



Russian linguist Maria Konoshenko’s Kpelle dictionary comes off the press in Guinea

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



Remarks by Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova at the conference “Disinfo horizon: Responding to future threats”

We took notice of the remarks made by Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova at the conference “Disinfo horizon: Responding to future threats.”

Ms Jourova’s alarmist speech reproduces well-known cliches regarding the imagined “threat posed by Russia.” Instead of providing evidence, she reiterated certain peremptory speculations derived from research studies issued by politically motivated centres.

In an attempt to accuse Russia, she mentioned such stories as the Malaysian Boeing disaster and the “Skripal case.” Staggering examples! Plenty to talk about with Ms Jourova! If in her high EU position Ms Jourova has inside information about how the investigation into these incidents is proceeding, we would like to ask her to say why Russia has been denied the opportunity to participate in the investigation, while Ukraine, which is still hiding the air controllers who were in charge of Flight MH17, is a member of the investigative commission. Why did the Russia-supplied hard evidence and findings of an expert study fail to be attached to this case? This is what concerns disinformation.

It would also be extremely interesting to learn Ms Jourova’s opinion as to why the UK, while exiting from the EU, refused to grant Russia consular access to Russian citizens Sergey and Yulia Skripal and why they are being concealed from the public. After all, it’s a conference, “Disinfo horizon.” In the UK, this horizon is boundless. Where are the Skripals, if this topic has resurfaced in the context of disinformation? What would have been easier than to take all the British media publications over nearly two years, analyse them and come to a conclusion that it is impossible to invent a larger-scale disinformation campaign than that related to the “Skripal case?” There is not a single interview with the main figures in this case in Britain. We saw just one statement that Yulia Skripal clearly read from a written text or a teleprompter, a statement filmed by an unknown cameraman and an unknown media outlet. More likely than not, this video was made by the secret services and presented as an exercise in reading. She was not available for questioning. Journalists were not in either direct or indirect contact with her. No one actually knows anything about Sergey Skripal himself. Are you serious about citing this as an example of Russia’s disinformation policies? But it’s absurd, it’s a lie pure and simple! I am not feeling embarrassed or inhibited in this sense. To reiterate: falling back on these specific examples of Russia’s alleged disinformation activities is a bad case of lying.

We do not think it possible to leave unnoticed Ms Jourova’s attempt to rewrite history after the example of some of her EU colleagues. She is hinting at the Soviet Union’s responsibility for unleashing the WWII.

This is not the first time that Ms Jourova superimposes her personal convictions upon the position of the organisation she represents. Moreover, she is passing it off as a European position. We believe that this is inappropriate in the current historical realities. We think that one should bear responsibility for one’s words and offer explanations. We would also like to refer all those who are unsure of which powers bear responsibility for WWII to read the documents of the Nuremberg Trials. Many of these have been digitalised and are available on archival websites in the Russian segment, specifically the website of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and affiliated organisations.

This hostile rhetoric is not contributing any positive overtones to EU-Russia relations, which are not in the best of shapes as it is. More than that, this verbal license in attacks on Russia, one that is peremptory and unsupported by facts, is just dangerous and may lead to incidents similar to the one that happened the other day in Torun, Poland, where some unidentified men attacked a group of people, who were speaking Russian. As I understand, there were representatives of different states among them. People in high positions must not engage in provocations.



Dismantling of the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army in Leszno

Poland has committed another act of state vandalism intended to destroy the Soviet memorial legacy in that country. On February 7, the authorities of Leszno in the Greater Poland Voivodeship started pulling down a monument erected in 1946 to honour the Soviet soldiers who died while liberating the city. Again, turning a blind eye to the international commitments stemming from Russian-Polish treaties and agreements, Poland continues its shameful war against Soviet monuments, zealously increasing the already enormous damage caused to Russian-Polish relations.

The Polish authorities, pursuing populist goals, have gone beyond the boundaries of civilised behaviour in an effort to reinterpret WWII events in a way that suits them and to blot out the pages describing the decisive role of the Red Army in saving Poland from the Nazi invaders, cynically insulting the memory of 600,000 Soviet soldiers who died during that country’s liberation.



Publication by the Polish Institute of International Affairs

We have paid attention to an article by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) entitled “World War II in Russian Foreign Policy,” which states that Russia allegedly refers to events related to WWII, in order to, among other things, brand Poland as an anti-Semitic state with a view to “undermining European unity” and “augmenting the differences” in relations between Poland and its foreign partners: Israel, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania and Armenia.

I do have more to say, but I want to stray from the subject a little bit. In addition to the historical subjects of WWII, “Russia is guided by the idea of undermining European unity.” Did anybody in Poland say such things to London? Now is the right time to make such a statement on behalf of Poland, the European Union, Brussels and various groups of EU member-states, criticising London and blaming it for undermining European unity. There is a clear reason to do so. But I have not seen this done. It’s no use holding back. By the way, a couple of sanctions may well be imposed against the country which abandoned the EU so treacherously. They are in place and spelled out in all EU materials, documents and agreements. What has Russia got to do with it? What have Poland, Russia and EU unity got to do with it?

There is another interesting aspect. We constantly hear from EU countries some terms related to all-European unity. My colleagues draw our attention to the fact that unfortunately we also have begun to use the same expressions. But all-European unity and EU unity are different things. The EU is the EU, and Europe is Europe. There are a great number of large countries that are not EU members, but still European. Please, do not forget about that, my European colleagues.

The article also says that history is an important tool of “Russian propaganda,” which, it its turn, is disseminated by Russian media. Russian diplomats are also allegedly involved in this activity using such forums as the UN, PACE, the OSCE, etc. But, indeed, we have not started this. Since the end of the Nuremberg Trials, we have been invariably observing its decisions throughout all these years notwithstanding the name of our country and its political system. We have never called these decisions into question. Our policy has not changed at all. However, Poland and many Western countries are changing their position. It is Polish leaders who are changing their position and statements to quite the opposite. It is Poland that is destroying monuments to heroes of World War II. It is Poland that is lying when it says that the Red Army did not liberate Warsaw but occupied it from the point of view of those real liars. It is Ukraine and Poland which went as far as saying, and Poland set the tone, that it was not the Red Army but some Ukrainian army that liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. It was not Russia’s position. I will say it again, Russia has been following the same principles that provided the foundation for the postwar world and were recorded in the final documents of the Nuremberg Trials. So, if you, ladies and gentlemen from Warsaw, are saying that history has become or is an instrument of propaganda, say it about yourself. Not a single statement in our position on the history of WWII or the Great Patriotic War has changed.

We regard such plants and statements as the desire of some countries and ruling circles in some countries to manipulate public opinion and deprive their citizens of access to independent sources of information. Regretfully, in some countries this trend is especially alarming and is spreading not only in the information space, but also in science, which is equally dangerous. In a number of East European countries, such an attitude by local authorities looks exceptionally cynical, because it borders on attempts to whitewash the crimes of the Nazis and their accomplices as well as anti-Semitism.

As we pointed out on many occasions, the Russian Federation will firmly oppose any attempts to falsify history. The calls for counteracting dissemination of an unbiased image of the events of the past are well in line with the current policy of ridding the memories of the Polish liberation by the Red Army in 1944-1945 from the minds of the Polish people. Such calls may be equated with the blasphemous “war against monuments” to Soviet soldier-liberators, a tide of desecration of the graves of our warriors who died for the liberation of Polish lands from the Nazis.



Incident involving Russian citizens in Phuket, Kingdom of Thailand

We received a lot of questions regarding the tragedy involving Russian citizens that took place on the island of Phuket, Kingdom of Thailand.

According to the Russian Embassy in Thailand, on February 10, two tourist speedboats collided off the eastern coast of Phuket, resulting in 21 injured Russians aboard one of the speedboats. All of them were taken to hospitals in Phuket. Two underage Russian citizens died from their injuries. To date, all the victims have been discharged from hospitals.

According to our data, the tragedy is also being investigated by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

This issue is under the priority control of the Russian Interior Ministry and Russian foreign missions in Thailand, whose employees provide the necessary assistance to the injured Russian citizens.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

You have spoken a lot about rewriting history. You recently commented on Poland’s statement that the USSR occupied Ukraine and Belarus. Our foreign colleagues use a rhetorical device: they equate our country with Nazi Germany, communism with fascism, and Stalin with Hitler. They say that Stalin caused great harm to our country and was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Russia, indeed, has a very controversial attitude towards the history of the late 1930s - early 1940s and the figure of Joseph Stalin. According to the Levada Centre polls in 2012 (this organisation is recognised as a foreign agent, so it can hardly be suspected of liking Stalin), 70 percent of our country’s residents have a positive attitude towards Stalin. If we have our own internal contradictory attitude to that period of history, to the man who led our country when we fought Hitler’s Germany, does this weaken our negotiating position abroad when we talk about upholding the historical truth and fight the rewriting of history?



Maria Zakharova:

This is both a historical and rhetorical question. This is a topic to be discussed by academic societies, historical associations, scientists, experts and representatives of civil society.

Today I have repeated many times what our attitude is based on in the context of World War II. This is not only the Russian attitude, not only the attitude of our people, including historians, military, civilians, scholars, experts and journalists. This is a question of the international proceedings against Nazi criminals, initiated by the winning countries, which were guided by international law. They were guided not only by their political views; they used the law and legal instruments, perhaps for the first time on such a scale, as well as their national anger and pain for the final and implacable condemnation of Nazism and fascism, in order to put an end to it, and so that this issues would never be reviewed again – as it is done in the legal space. I think that these people – the experts and specialists who dealt with this issue, proceeded from the need for an international tribunal from this point of view. They didn’t want this to be about political views, about the views of that generation; they wanted a legal opinion that would remain for centuries. That is why we always avoid using only the national assessment of these events. It has been given. In the context of World War II, the Great Patriotic War, we always tell our colleagues – Polish colleagues, or those from the UN, etc. – that the revision of the Nuremberg Trials decisions is tantamount to reviewing the results of World War II. And that is inadmissible.



Question:

You have said that Warsaw has been playing this game for too long, and that you have information about the Polish side’s plans for purposefully neutralising historical facts of World War II that Moscow will unveil. What could be the eventual outcome of Polish authorities’ attempts to call history into doubt? And are any consequences possible?



Maria Zakharova:

Everyone should understand that the tragedy might repeat itself. When they open a tightly packed Pandora’s box with a bloody and terrible legacy, stamped with all the seals having international and legal weight, when they take out images, garments and suits of those years, when modern generations start wearing them and use them as a historical asset, when criminals replace heroes, and when heroes are called anti-heroes, this is fraught with only one thing – repetition of the very same mistakes with the same disastrous consequences. I am not imposing the opinion of a representative of the executive branch on the educational and academic community, but I believe that we can only advise school administrations to start lessons each week and each year, from primary school on, by remembering the disastrous consequences and huge casualties that humankind sustained during World War II. We should think and act in such a way, so that children would realise from the very early age that humankind must not repeat this tragedy. We can accomplish this by preserving moral and spiritual memory not only as a sign of respect for the fallen victims but also as a vaccination of sorts to protect people from mistakes and tragedies of the past. As I see it, few people in modern Europe understand this today.

On the whole, highly complicated international processes are taking place in the world. They are connected with migration and the elimination of fundamental traditions on which the states had hinged and to which nations had aspired. As an immortal novel notes, “everything got mixed up.” Religions no longer serve as reference points for European civilisations. The younger generation either renounces this or does not perceive this as a reference point or a motive for existence in society. They have introduced so-called amendments to the norms of public and personal morality and public conduct that are completely alien to European civilisations. The world is starting to lead a new life. The attempts to reinterpret historical events that took place 75 years ago would doom our future generations to repeating these terrible and bloody mistakes.



Question:

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said that, on February 16, Munich will host a meeting of a commission for implementing the decisions of the International Conference on Libya that took place in Berlin on January 19. Will Sergey Lavrov attend this meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

We know about this German proposal, and we are currently assessing whether the Russian side will attend and at what level.



Question:

You have noted that the situation in Syria has reached its boiling point. There is also the question of whether NATO gets drawn into the process because, according to a representative of the ruling party, Turkish leaders want to ask the Alliance for help because their forces are under attack in Syria.



Maria Zakharova:

I have not read these reports in great detail. What consequences do you expect from Turkey’s appeal to NATO? What exactly should happen?



Question:

The Syrians are targeting Turkish service personnel.



Maria Zakharova:

Just inform NATO about this? As if NATO does not know what is going on. Considering the fact that the Alliance is brain-dead, as President of France Emmanuel Macron has noted, I believe they should think twice before appealing to NATO. But this is the sovereign right of members of this wonderful organisation to decide what they should do. I want to know the purpose of this appeal. I believe that, if NATO had the potential to resolve crises in this region, this potential would have been activated long ago. But this potential is not available.



Question:

NATO should provide assistance when a member country is under attack, but the Turkish forces are in another country.



Maria Zakharova:

You took the words right out of my mouth. It is hard to come under attack when you are in a state that did not invite you there.



Question:

The Turkish leadership, namely, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has openly accused Russia of attacking civilians in Idlib. How would you respond to these accusations?



Maria Zakharova:

We reject these accusations. We are setting forth our position. We do not conceal the fact that Russia and Turkey disagree on a number of matters, including this one. Russian experts who recently travelled to Turkey for precisely this purpose have now come back. Contacts with our Turkish colleagues may take place in the near future, and I have also mentioned this. These contacts will aim to clarify all the difficult and complicated items on our agenda.



Question:

In the context of the coronavirus, journalists are increasingly recalling Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words (at the meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights on October 17, 2017) that Western organisations were actively collecting biological material of Russian citizens all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical locations. We remember that the President wondered why they were doing it purposefully. Kurchatov Institute President Mikhail Kovalchuk said many times that the West had stepped up work to develop a new bacteriologic weapon that can affect certain ethnic groups without infecting others. In the future, it can become a new weapon of mass destruction. In this context, do you believe it is possible that the situation in China with the spread of coronavirus was influenced from the outside? Perhaps it is time to sound alarm at high-level diplomatic forums due to this new danger that the humankind may face from a completely new and merciless weapon of mass destruction.



Maria Zakharova:

There are several aspects to your question I would like to comment on. You said that President of Russia Vladimir Putin asked a rhetorical question: “Why do our Western partners do this? Why do they collect biological material?” It was asked in a public space for everyone to think about. Experts know the answer very well. There is no different reading here. Experts, specialists and representatives of relevant agencies know very well why and with what purpose biological material is collected and what biological labs do. This is why we have mentioned during the briefings over the recent years the activities of biological labs located in neighbouring countries. This raised a lot of criticism against us: it is not our concern; why do we care; these are sovereign states. Of course. And today we can see how the world shuddered when an epidemic broke out in a sovereign state. Nobody knows what medicines should be used to treat it or what can be done to prevent it completely. This means our questions were well-grounded.

The answer to your question on what the agent was and how such a large mass infection took place should be directed to specialists, who will conduct the necessary research. There can be no political answer. This is an issue of facts, or we will turn into British politicians, like Theresa May, saying “highly likely.” We will not do this.

At the same time, indirectly, at the second or third level, foreign countries’ involvement in the situation regarding the coronavirus in China is obvious. Look how it is used in the media or political statements in order to misinform, undermine trust in China and blacken its image. Beijing is talking about this, presenting facts, data and materials and trying to refute this. Of course, at the second or third level, foreign countries’ involvement in this situation is obvious. We can say this with absolute certainty.

It is high time the international community focused on such challenges and threats. Instead of hunting non-existent Russian hackers all over the world and using the “highly likely” situations to their benefit, they could have concentrated all the resources, capabilities and scientific achievements on problems like this many years ago.

The Munich Security Conference starts in several days. The conference events are held at various venues all year round, but the key event will begin in a couple of days. In fact, it must be devoted to such challenges and threats. Year after year, the Munich Security Conference discusses some imagined threat from the East, from Russia. It is never confirmed, and all this is becoming absolutely outrageous. People who take advantage of this are professional aggressors and denouncers of Russia, who have grants, receive money and theses to promote.

They operate beyond decent people’s fields of work. However, they are invited, and their speeches are listened to, while the real threats and challenges such as terrorism, development of new forms of extremism, teenage extremism, drug trafficking and now pandemics, which are, unfortunately, becoming regular (for example, the Ebola epidemic several years ago) do not get enough attention, which they must get.

It was reported recently that Russia and China were named among the main threats in the new US budget, and the United States wants to allocate $700 million to counter Russia’s influence. This report cited an official document published by the White House. I don’t know who will implement this, but the White House published it. Can you imagine such a sum being allocated to counter Russia politically? This money can be spent on humanitarian aid and support for research centres working to find answers to the latest challenges and threats. Instead, almost a billion dollars is spent to counter Russia.

There was also information that the US Department of State created a new office of special envoy to counter Chinese influence at the UN and other global institutions. This is beyond the pale. We are going back to the roots of mistakes made at the beginning of the 20th century, which we seemed to have left behind. A special envoy is not appointed to negotiate, address complicated issues, find solutions or consensus, but to counter an entire country, a country that never attacked anyone but was an object of aggression. As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at the UN General Assembly: “China is a country of hardworking and courageous people” that has much to offer at the global stage. Appointing a special envoy to counter such a country is beyond all bounds of decency, as is allocating money to counter Russia.



Question:

Russia is being accused of violating the sovereignty of different nations. One of the latest statements to this effect was made by Kay Bailey Hutchison, the US Ambassador to NATO. She claimed that each NATO country suffered from cyber or hybrid attacks carried out by Russia. Would you please comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

There are thousands of attacks on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s information resources every day. There are perpetrators who do it. Last year we presented statistical data on which countries those attacks emanate from. However, geography alone does not offer us a complete picture. A person can stay in one country and launch a cyber attach in the interests of totally different agencies, countries or organisations.

Statements regarding the countries being targeted by attacks from Russia need to be substantiated by facts and documents. Cybercrimes are investigated by private companies apart from international organisations. They can be contacted, commissioned to do a study, and one can get the results. At present, anything that has to be substantiated by facts but fails to provide them and moves towards political claims is just propaganda.



Question:

The anniversary of the Soviet Army’s withdrawal from Afghanistan will be marked on February 15. What is the current perspective on this date?



Maria Zakharova:

Just the same as a year ago. Our position has not changed. There is official material on this which I can send you.



Question:

Anton Kalinin of the trade mission of the Russian Federation in Japan was summoned by Tokyo police to be questioned regarding the theft of classified information. He ignored the police request and came back to Russia on February 10. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s position on this? Are any diplomatic actions planned by Anton Kalinin?



Maria Zakharova:

Have you been asked to ask this question? Or is it a question from a media outlet? If it is a plant via Japanese media ahead of the talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Japanese counterpart Toshimitsu Motegi due to be held in Munich, then it is not a good act, not a good step made by the Japanese side to corrupt the atmosphere ahead of the talks. If the Japanese side has questions, they can always be asked via diplomatic channels. It is the way your question is worded that makes me come to this conclusion. If you want to ask something relating to reality, I am ready to listen to your question. But the way your question was presented implies that you were told to ask it.

What kind of diplomatic actions should Anton Kalinin take? What exactly do you mean?

(Silence ensues in response).

Everything is clear. So it appears I was right.



Question:

Ukraine’s first president Leonid Kravchuk said that Russia is guilty of the war in Donbass. In particular, he said that Russia took advantage of Ukraine’s problems and quickly resolved its own issues it kept under the table.



Maria Zakharova:

He was the one who said that Hitler and Stalin met in Lvov before the war, wasn’t it? Don’t make fun of this man. It is obvious that his statement is ludicrous. There are actors whose actions can affect something – special representatives, representatives of foreign policy departments, special envoys representatives of the sides – their statements might be absurd but they affect the political agenda, one way or another. What’s the use of discussing statements made by people who make odd, foolish, crazy claims which do not influence the agenda? I do not think it is worth neither my time nor yours. What if he spots extraterrestrials, should we also comment on this? And he may spot them, by the way.



Question:

On January 29, the Estonian parliament accepted a draft statement that accuses Russia of allegedly promoting its special perspective of WWII history. In doing so, they are apparently following the example of Poland and Latvia, which adopted such statements. What do you think can be done to stop this outrage?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, we should acknowledge this outrage, as you have said; we should not ignore it and must give a clear response. I can tell you that many countries would like to openly speak on this matter but they just cannot afford it. They feel restricted in their actions by the block discipline and fearful as they are either aware of the imminent revenge from their “big brother” or are unwilling to mar relations with their neighbours. There is a large scope of issues.

Previously, war veterans who took part in the fight against Nazism were the ones who prompted a reaction; they demanded that their governments, political parties and leaders give a clear and adequate response. This generation is stepping down and their voice is no longer heeded. Their children and grandchildren obviously do not deem this issue of primary importance for them due to a number of reasons.

Also, we should not forget that over the past 30 years these countries have made efforts to change the attitude of people to these issues. Mostly young people were targeted, with new history textbooks and new literature. I remember perfectly well that even in our country active efforts were made in the early 1990s to promote the so-called new interpretation of WWII and the Great Patriotic War. I remember that criminals – in the literal sense of the word – posing as researchers, wrote and published one book after another under false names. Those people were convicts and traitors, who received money from the same sources that supported collaborators who then fled to the West, including to escape justice. Efforts were made to infect our country as well but our nation’s immunity against this disease was so strong that these attempts failed. Although strong and massive, these attempts were rejected.

Just recently, attempts have been made to reinterpret the key events of WWII, the Great Patriotic War, the Siege of Leningrad and the deeds of the siege survivors. Efforts were made to present actions by residents of the besieged city in a totally different way. A number of other historical events and fundamental aspects related to WWII and the Great Patriotic War were also subject to reinterpretation. Actually, this was a blatant attempt at wrecking our historic refusal to review the results of WWII.

So we should not ignore this. We should make comments based on documents, present them, digitise as many of them as possible, showcase them, translate them into foreign languages, and promote them as our responses.

I remember someone previously asking a question about Poland’s consistent and purposeful approach in this regard, including at the government level. Indeed, we do have information that decisions were made at the government level in Poland on launching a special campaign to disavow everything that Russia says. This decision was taken recently. I think this explains the recent salvo of articles by Polish diplomats and foreign policy service representatives ranging from minister and deputy ministers to ambassadors that are totally departed from reality and facts. They even came down to claiming that the Soviet Union occupied Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus in 1945. When a statement was made claiming that the Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated not by the Red Army but by the Ukrainian army, I thought this was the worst lie we could expect from them. After all, there are facts, maps, photographs, and video footage available. But when they say that the Soviet Union occupied itself – this is beyond the bounds of sanity. This is indeed propaganda based on the “the worse the lie, the more people believe it” principle.



Question:

What is Russia expecting from the Munich Security Conference?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already mentioned our expectations. Yet I can say again that first, we do have them meaningful, and second, we expect a constructive dialogue in various formats. We expect bilateral meetings to be meaningful and productive, and the panel discussions to be engaged and providing opportunities for effective communication with our partners on pressing issues. That's about it.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4036847
__________________
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 May 28th, 2020 #77
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 Security Council Resolution endorsing the results of the Berlin Conference on Libya



13 February 2020 - 20:00



On February 12, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2510 endorsing the results of the Berlin Conference on Libya. The Russian delegation abstained from voting because the document’s British authors declined to take into consideration certain aspects that Moscow views as principled.

During the discussion on the draft resolution, Russian representatives adhered to a clear and consistent position, formalised in the UN Security Council’s earlier resolutions on Libya. This implied the fundamental principle of the Libyan peace settlement under which only the Libyans themselves can determine the future of their country, and this principle should apply to all recommendations for the Libyan parties, including those by the UN Security Council. It should be recalled that the Russian side’s decision to support the concluding provisions of the Berlin summit was motivated precisely by the need for subsequently coordinating them with the Libyans.

The Russian side insistently persuaded its Security Council colleagues not to approve the resolution posthaste and to demand that the Libyan parties agree with the conclusions of the Berlin conference. Other Council members, who were not invited to Berlin, noted the principled importance of this move. The Libyans have just launched the dialogue, including within the framework of the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Committee. The formulation of effective ceasefire parameters, mentioned in the Berlin communique and which could be formalised by the UN Security Council resolution, should become the result of its work.

However, the British authors decided to take a shortcut and to pass the UN Security Council resolution more quickly, apparently without thinking whether it would be viable or not. They rejected our constructive proposals, and the approved resolution therefore contains many unbalanced provisions and also envisages possible sanctions for failure to fulfil so far non-existent aspects and urges the Secretary-General to submit his recommendations on this score. For example, this concerns the ceasefire agreement that has not yet been reached.

We doubt that such ultimatums and unilateral approaches will help advance the Libyan peace settlement. The insistent promotion of plans, drafted without any consideration for the Libyans’ opinion, evokes even greater doubts.

Russia will continue to work with all the key Libyan players and will motivate them to achieve a permanent truce as soon as possible and to discuss the entire range of matters linked with restoring the unity of the Libyan state and normalising life in the country.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4039952






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks during a roundtable meeting at the Primakov Readings forum on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 15, 2020



15 February 2020 - 18:54





Dear friends and colleagues,

Thank you for the invitation. It is indeed quite important to continue this tradition of the Primakov Readings.

Yevgeny Primakov was a great man, a great thinker and practitioner. And this is particularly important these days. I can hardly add anything to the analysis of the situation in the world presented by Alexander Dynkin, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO). The multipolarity which Primakov foresaw is being shaped in real life, in the economy, in finance and technology. And of course, political influence comes with all this as well. The countries that have achieved success in the above areas would like to be more influential on the global arena. There is an attempt to stop or slow down this process of multipolarity being shaped but these attempts only delay an outcome and delay a deal (if we speak about deals in this world). Statistics from the IMF show that the GNP of all the BRICS countries is already higher than the GNP of G7, and this trend is supposed to continue.

So the option that we all have is to use these kinds of gatherings – the Primakov Readings, the Munich Conference, meetings of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) – any gathering of political analysts, to assess the situation. There is another option – and here we go back to Yevgeny Primakov being a practitioner. What are we going to do about this? Listening to the debates at this conference, you can draw certain conclusions. Alexander noted that US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper declared a new cold war against China. Others said that it is absolutely necessary for this conference to develop an approach to containing China, to responding to the Chinese challenge, to the Russian challenge – to contain each of these countries, separately or both of them at the same time.





This discussion as it is structured, including the report of this conference, is not intended to use this gathering of wise and experienced people to develop some kind of recommendations for Track 1 as it is called. And I think one of the deficiencies of this conference is that people just want to make some spectacular statements that will make headlines but will have no influence and no effect on the real relationship between the countries.

Yes, the new polycentric bipolarity as Alexander described might be something in the offing but we either watch it evolve or we shape things slightly more constructively.

I do not have any specific initiative in mind but I would like to remind you that a couple of weeks ago in Jerusalem, President Putin proposed to think about a summit of P5, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, – not because it is an exclusive club, exceptional countries being together but because they have, under the UN Charter, which, thank God, is still alive, special responsibility for anything that takes place in the area of international peace and security. This proposal is on the table. It would be interesting to hear your views about it.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4043242






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during the 56th Munich Security Conference, Global Disorder – Other Opportunities for a New Agenda, Munich, February 15, 2020



15 February 2020 - 21:34






Ladies and gentlemen,

This year marks the 75th anniversary of Victory in WWII. Sadly, there are attempts to brazenly distort history and to equate the liberators of Europe with Nazi murderers. These attempts will remain on the conscience of those behind them. No one and nothing can belittle the decisive role of the Red Army and the Soviet people in defeating Nazism. At the same time, we will always keep in our minds the spirit of Alliance during the War and the ability of the states to unite and fight the common threat regardless of ideological differences.

Nowadays we are lacking this kind of unity, when the threats and risks to humanity have never been at such an all-time high since the post war period. The strategic stability and non-proliferation treaty system is being destroyed right before our eyes, the threshold for using nuclear weapons is getting lower, regional crises are multiplying and international law is being trampled upon, including through military interference in affairs of sovereign states, illegal sanctions and harsh protectionist measures that undermine global markets and the system of trade. We are witnessing barbarisation of international relations which degrades human habitat.

We need a direct and honest exchange of views on how to save the world for future generations. President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposes starting such a discussion at a meeting of the heads of state representing permanent members of the UN Security Council. To be clear, this is not about creating another private club to take behind-the-scenes decisions about the fate of humanity. Our idea is that the five states which, under the UN Charter, bear special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, show political will and make recommendations in the interest of improving the entire atmosphere of international communication and restoring trust between all nations.

The credibility crisis is especially acute when it comes to European affairs. The escalation of tension, the eastward advancement of NATO's military infrastructure, the unprecedentedly massive military exercises near Russia’s border and pumping inordinate amounts of money into defence budgets create unpredictability. The Cold War patterns have once again become a reality. Before it’s too late, it is time to say no to promoting the “Russian threat” phantom or any other threat for that matter, and to go back to things that unite us.

The principle of equal and indivisible security should be the starting point of such a dialogue. As you may recall, it was proclaimed at the highest level in important documents such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe and the 2010 OSCE Astana Summit declaration.

In today’s world, Euro-Atlantic stability cannot be achieved without truly global cooperation in fighting international terrorism, illegal migration, human trafficking and other cross-border challenges. Many of them have taken on threatening proportions as a result of bloody conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. The international community must create a favourable environment for the peoples of the countries of that region to resolve their problems through inclusive national dialogue without any outside interference. I believe it is unacceptable to turn the territory of these countries into an arena of geopolitical confrontation and settling accounts, or use terrorists to achieve self-serving geopolitical goals.

Guided by international law, Russia will continue to promote a settlement in Syria as part of the Astana process and UN mechanisms and to help bring the Libyan parties closer together as the only way to restore the country's statehood destroyed by NATO. Russia’s Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region is designed to provide lasting normalisation of the situation in the region. Of course, we will be promoting a balanced approach in our attempts to find a fair solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on existing international agreements. We will continue to stress that replacing legally binding decisions on the Iranian nuclear programme with illegitimate unilateral moves is unacceptable.

The negative impact of innovative ground-breaking technology on global stability must be prevented. The initiatives designed to prevent the arms race in outer space and to prevent the militarisation of cyberspace are designed to achieve this. We are prepared to join efforts on other pressing issues of the global agenda, including epidemiological threats. In this regard, I would like to note China’s open and responsible approach to international cooperation in combating the spread of the coronavirus.

To reiterate, the global challenges are so huge that countries can cope with them only if they join forces and strictly observe the principles of genuine multilateralism. The attempts, under the banner of multilateralism, to impose someone’s own rules and “privatise” the international organisations’ secretariats are getting in the way of such efforts. The situation at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is an egregious case in point.

It is important to stop these dangerous trends and unequivocally reaffirm the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, including sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their domestic affairs. It is imperative for all the Charter principles to be equally respected by the member countries and the UN and other international organisations’ top officials.

Along with the UN, global governance needs flexible multilateral mechanisms that promote a positive agenda and try to strike a balance of interests. This includes the G20 and BRICS, whose participants represent cultural and civilizational diversity of the modern world.

The SCO, the EAEU, the CIS and the CSTO contribute to developing constructive approaches to Eurasian challenges. President of Russia Vladimir Putin put forward an initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership open to all associations and states of our vast common continent, including EU members.

Colleagues,

Russia is and always has been opposed to coercive measures and has welcomed political and diplomatic means of resolving disputes, which, let us be honest, inevitably arise due to human nature itself. But peace has never been something you can get for free. It requires constant, sometimes the most laborious efforts.

Prominent nuclear physicist, Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrey Sakharov once said: “Nuclear war might arise from an ordinary war. The latter, as is widely known, arises from politics.” It is hard to disagree with that. All diplomats, politicians, the global community, including everyone present here, are responsible for preserving peace. I am sure that we can do it if we take a responsible approach.





Question:

We all are concerned about the developments in Idlib, but I would like to ask a question about the relations between Russia and Turkey in general; it is a certain riddle to me. How would you describe these relations, are you allies or opponents?



Sergey Lavrov:

Is this a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’?

Our relations with Turkey are very good. It does not mean that we have to agree on everything. Actually, I think that there can be no full accord on any issue between any two countries. If there is one, it would look like pressure has something to do with it.

The Syrian conflict appeared at the stage of the so-called Arab Spring, when Libya was destroyed, and Tunisia and some other countries of the region were on the brink of destruction. When extremists, terrorist groups almost besieged Damascus in the summer 2015, nobody thought of any humanitarian norms or a political process; everyone expected a military solution that would result in the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad government. Russia has answered this legitimate Government’s call for help. Now we have managed to help the Syrian Government and the army to reverse the situation, primarily with regard to counteracting terrorism.

At some point we all relied on the UN. The Geneva process was established, and I personally took part in these efforts together with former US Secretary of State John Kerry. The talks were middling at best, and we could not reach any positive result. Later on, our UN colleagues decided to postpone the Geneva meetings until better days. Then, seeing that the impasse had become chronic, Russia together with Turkey and Iran proposed to begin a political process under the auspices of these three countries. Moreover, we suggested that the opposition should be represented not by immigrants who live in other capitals, but by those who had a real influence on the people fighting with the Syrian army on the ground. We managed to do that by launching the Astana process. We are sincerely grateful to Kazakhstan for providing us with a hospitable platform in their ca[ital. I do not want to seem too presumptuous, but, given there are no other examples, the Astana process remains the most efficient instrument to assist the UN in reaching the objectives of Resolution 2254 of the UN Security Council.

It was not easy, because Russia, Iran and Turkey have different goals as regards Syria and the entire region. I will not dwell on it, we all know what I mean. We were united by the desire to prevent the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic, the cradle of many great religions and civilisations, where Muslims, Christians and other confessional groups have been coexisting for many hundreds and thousands of years. We wanted to establish peace in the country and to begin a political dialogue. We managed to do that, and helped the UN initiate the process which is now underway as part of the Constitutional Committee. It was formed and was ready to operate as early as at the end of 2018. We all know the story: our Western colleagues in fact categorically demanded that the UN did not support proposals made by the Syrian Government and the opposition. An entire year was spent on infighting over two or three names that our Western colleagues did not like for some reason.

We lost a year. The situation could be different now. Nevertheless, we do not harbour resentment and try to proceed from reality. And the reality is that we have finally convinced everyone in doubt to approve this committee. It has held two sessions, and preparations are underway for a third one. Today I have met with Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria Geir Pedersen. We are not overreacting at the fact that the committee is making slow progress, but, of course, we do not want to give the impression that it will function forever. Most important is that the Syrians reach an agreement among themselves.

In this sense, our relations with Turkey are very important considering Russia’s opportunities, as well as Iran’s, by the way, in its contacts with the Syrian leadership and Turkey’s ability to influence the opposition and members of military groups on the ground. Let me note that Russia is interested in seeing other countries in contact with the opposition positively influence it as well; first of all, the Persian Gulf monarchies. Our goal is to unite efforts and help create comfortable conditions for the Syrians to work in.

Let me make another point directly connected with Idlib, which you mentioned at the very beginning: the defeat of terrorism is unavoidable. Our American colleagues have already announced several times that they defeated ISIS and destroyed terrorism in Syria, as well as in Iraq. But let me note that, in addition to ISIS, there also is Jabhat al-Nusra, which is now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which, like ISIS, is considered a terrorist organisation by the UN Security Council. Now it controls a larger part of the problematic Idlib security zone. This is one of the last terrorist strongholds, but at least the only one on the western bank of the Euphrates.

Today I have met with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, my colleague and friend. Our agreements with Turkey include ensuring a ceasefire, establishing a demilitarised zone, and, what’s most important, separating the normal opposition from terrorists. These agreements do not mean we will stop our uncompromising fight against terrorist groups. This is a difficult task. Terrorists try to use civilians as a human shield. We have seen this in the infamous refugee camp of Rukban and in the Al-Hawl refugee camp, controlled by Kurd squads in cooperation with the Americans, above all, and in other regions of the world. The task is not easy, but contacts are underway between Russian and Turkish experts, diplomats, military personnel and security officers to find ways to execute the Idlib agreements I have mentioned. The next contacts are scheduled for next week.



Question (retranslated from German):

I find your statements on Syria inconclusive. How can the Russian Government guarantee Syria’s sovereignty while Turkey has a military presence in Idlib, Afrin and other parts of northern Syria? It is obvious that Turkey is there to stay. I was not convinced by what you said.



Sergey Lavrov:

This is not complicated. The purpose of what we are doing in Syria is not to convince you. You are a journalist, as far as I understand. You have every right to view what is happening there based on your understanding of these developments. We are doing on the ground what is required under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Among other things, it guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. It is the UN Security Council that guarantees Syria’s sovereignty, not Russia.

Apart from the Idlib problem, the developments on the eastern bank of the Euphrates are the main challenge, since this is where the gravest violations of this sovereignty are taking place with the establishment of parallel government institutions with clear separatist aspirations. We regularly raise this issue with our US colleagues who maintain their proactive presence on the eastern bank.

I have already mentioned the problems associated with the Rukban and Al-Hawl camps. There are also problems with the Al Tanf zone. All this has to do with the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. We act in strict keeping with the UN Security Council resolutions. Our utmost priority is to fight terrorism, address the humanitarian needs of the population and facilitate the return of refugees. By the way, the European Union is adamant in its refusal to take part in efforts to enable people to return to their homes, waiting for real progress in the political process. Before that, they refused to commit to any efforts until the Constitutional Committee was launched. It is now up and running, but the European Union has not provided any assistance to enable the return of refugees, as we can see.

The UN Security Council resolutions also provide for a constitutional reform and political process as another priority. It is for this purpose that we established the Constitutional Committee. Together with Turkey and Iran, we helped Syrians agree on this essential mechanism. This is what we are doing. It is up to you whether these efforts look convincing or not. We are used to criticism. It helps us find creative solutions. We are looking forward to your feedback and constructive advice.



Question:

While I see a kind of consistency in what you say about Syria, when you talk about integrity and sovereignty, but when you go to Libya, you do not support a UN-recognised government, but you support Marshall Haftar, which is a recipe for partition. My question is: what do you really want to achieve in Libya, since you back a faction, which basically means splitting the country apart?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have to disagree with you since the UN Security Council recognised Marshall Haftar and the Libyan National Army he heads as a party to the conflict, as was also confirmed during the recent Berlin Conference on Libya. The UN Security Council welcomed the outcomes of the Berlin Conference on Libya, calling on Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj and Commander-in-Chief of the Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar to address matters related to respecting the ceasefire, implementing agreements on economic affairs in this country, and advancing the political process (preparing elections, the constitution, etc). Therefore, Khalifa Haftar is not a symbol of separatism but rather a side to the conflict as recognised by the international community, including the participants in the Berlin Conference on Libya and the UN Security Council. This conflict started with the breakdown of the country called Libya following a plainly unlawful campaign carried out, as you remember, by NATO in 2011.

To answer the question on what Russia is doing in Libya, we are trying, alongside other external actors, to help Libyans restore what has been destroyed following an egregious violation of the UN Charter. That is my brief answer to this question.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4043519






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Italian daily La Stampa published on February 17, 2020



17 February 2020 - 06:00



Question:

What are the priorities regarding the Russian-Italian agenda? Do you expect any kind of special support from the Italian government related to sanctions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our relations with Italy, which is our important international partner, are steeped in history and traditions. We have many years of successful cooperation under the belt and a significant mutual trust capital. Unfortunately, Washington’s and Brussels’ anti-Russian steps have exerted a negative impact on their dynamics.

Trade has been hit hard. Bilateral trade is almost half of what it used to be. It dropped from $53.8 billion in 2013 to $26.9 billion in 2018. Available estimates show that the Italian manufacturers’ losses total about $2 billion.

We are aware that many people in Italy are in favour of returning back to the previous level of bilateral relations. There’s interest in building a Russia-EU dialogue on a pragmatic, mutually beneficial and non-confrontational basis. Of course, we welcome this line of thinking.

Italian entrepreneurs are firmly determined to continue to work in our country and are very concerned about the current state of affairs. For our part, we are ready to help your companies make a transition from mostly supplying to Russia products marked Made in Italy to production cooperation based on the Made with Italy principle with an emphasis on localising manufacturing in Russia.

Against the backdrop of the changing global economy structure, interaction in the field of innovation, including digital services, artificial intelligence, and waste-free production, is becoming increasingly important. The annual INNOPROM exhibition in Yekaterinburg is a good platform for discussing these matters and establishing mutually beneficial business contacts. In July, Italy will become a partner country of the exhibition.

The parliament-to-parliament cooperation plays an important role in enhancing mutual trust. We hope that hosting a High Russian-Italian Interparliamentary Commission meeting in Moscow in March will be an important step in promoting this cooperation.

The importance of cultural and people-to-people exchanges and contacts can hardly be overestimated. With this in mind, we are willing to continue to support the Russian-Italian Civil Society Dialogue Forum.

We look forward to a positive outcome of the Russian-Italian talks between the foreign ministers and the defence ministers in Rome on February 18. We see them as a good opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the key problems of our time and to try to agree on coordinated steps. We plan to use the two plus two format meeting to discuss pressing international issues, such as strategic stability and arms control, Russia-NATO relations, and the situation in the Middle East, including Syria and Libya.



Question:

Following the Berlin Conference on Libya, the situation on the ground appears to be spiraling out of control again. What is Russia’s position on this and what part can it play in this context? The EU plans to act as a guarantor of Libya’s territorial integrity. Does Russia share this approach?



Sergei Lavrov:

I believe claiming that the situation in Libya following the Berlin Conference “is spiraling out of control again” is not entirely correct. A more correct way to put it would be that the situation has not seen dramatic changes, which is not surprising. The differences between the main participants in the Libyan conflict have exacerbated to the point where overcoming them as part of one event, even a representative event such as the Berlin forum, is impossible. Meetings have already been held in Paris, Palermo and Abu Dhabi, but they failed to bring any improvements. So, the main challenge facing the international community now is to get the Libyans to agree on the provisions of the Berlin Conference’s final document.

There are positive developments, though. The 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission is now operational, and practical preparations for launching the Forum for Political Dialogue are underway. Intra-Libyan economic consultations are in their early stages. These trends need to be consolidated, and progress should be made on all settlement tracks at once.

With regard to EU plans to guarantee, as you put it, Libya’s territorial integrity, this language is not entirely clear to me. The Libyans themselves should act as guarantors in this matter, and the international community should help them create a proper environment bearing in mind that only the UN Security Council can provide universal guarantees. For our part, we plan to work on this.



Question:

Is there room for Russian mediation in the US-Iranian crisis? What is your position in the context of recent events in Tehran?



Sergey Lavrov:

If you are referring to the escalation in tensions in US-Iranian relations at the beginning of the year, our position is the same. We are against any action that runs counter to the principles of the UN Charter and that leads to increased tensions in the region. The January 3 attack at Baghdad Airport, which killed the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Qasem Soleimani, was a glaring violation of international law. By the way, this was at a civilian airport. So I will repeat what I said during my recent trip to Sri Lanka. These American actions are beyond the pale.

Russia stands for overcoming any difference through dialogue, at the negotiating table. This is the goal of its Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region that was presented last summer. In contrast to the confrontational solutions suggested by some countries, we are offering the region a constructive, unifying agenda, and we urge the leaders in the region to create mechanisms for a joint response to challenges and threats. We are convinced that the consistent implementation of this initiative would be a major step towards improving the situation in the entire Middle East and would create an atmosphere of mutual trust.



Question:

What do you think about the US administration’s plan for a peaceful settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict?



Sergey Lavrov:

The United States suggested resolving one of the oldest conflicts of our times in one go, its usual style. In so doing Washington actually ignored the universally recognised international legal foundation for settlement in the Middle East, which includes UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The United States suggests resolving the key issues of the final status of the Palestinian territories – borders, communities, East Jerusalem and refugees – with unilateral concessions to Israel.

This approach is unlikely to help improve the situation. This is born out, in part, by the categorical rejection of “the deal of the century” by the Palestinians.

We are convinced that real progress towards a fair two-state solution to the Palestinian issue requires, first, “genuine” efforts from both sides of the conflict, and, second, international support for the process that is balanced and unbiased. In this context we support the position expressed in the final statement of the latest session of the Arab League foreign ministers on the need to hold multilateral talks on the Middle East settlement under international aegis. We believe that the Quartet of international mediators could assume such a role since it is the only UN Security Council recognised mechanism for facilitating the Middle East peace process. As a member of the Four, Russia is ready to help find compromise solutions. During our contact with the Palestinians and Israelis we will keep persistently urging both sides to display a constructive line with a view to settling the existing problems at the negotiating table.



Question:

Do you expect the new European Commission to improve or restore relations with Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

The past few years have been a period of lost opportunities in our relations. Acting under the principle of the least common denominator, the European Union is still absurdly linking the prospects for cooperation with the internal Ukrainian settlement. Cooperation in several areas has been suspended at Brussels’ initiative. Unilateral restrictions that cost the economies of the European countries billions of dollars are being extended. Our closest trade and investment partners in the EU, including Italy, are sustaining substantial damage. This situation objectively hurts the vital interests of our citizens.

Many EU countries are increasingly prone to think that it is time to restore the steady development of our relations. We hope that the new leaders of the European Council and the European Commission will also realise that this vicious “status quo” is incompatible with the ambitious goal of turning the EU into a “top-tier geostrategic player.”

For our part, we are ready for joint efforts to promote Russia-EU cooperation on an equitable, mutually beneficial basis. We have never given up the idea of building a truly united Greater Europe without dividing lines, which would include Russia, the EU and our common neighbours. Under the circumstances, the alignment of the potential of the Eurasian Economic Union and the EU could be a major step on this road. Apart from anything else, such cooperation would facilitate the creation of a space of peace, equal and indivisible security, and broad international cooperation from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4043641






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions following the 56th Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 17, 2020



17 February 2020 - 18:10






The Munich Security Conference is over. You have seen all the speeches. Our media have already made assessments. I will be glad to answer your questions.



Question:

Did you discuss with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo President Donald Trump’s participation in the meeting of the UN Security Council permanent members proposed by Russia? Is the US position now clear? Did you discuss extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)? Did you manage to reach any agreement?



Sergey Lavrov:

We discussed an entire range of issues. You can find this in the materials circulated by the press services of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department. We touched upon all the problems on the agenda of our strategic dialogue, including those in the competence of the UN Security Council permanent members and arms control issues. We agreed to continue an in-depth, professional conversation on them.

I had a feeling that there was certain movement towards a more constructive approach from our US partners.



Question:

President of France Emmanuel Macron has said many times that it is necessary to involve Russia in European security and to change the strategy towards Russia. Are there any real proposals in the area of European security for Russia, including from France?



Sergey Lavrov:

In fact, there are proposals from France. I would say that France demonstrates true political and geopolitical vision, pragmatism and readiness for a dialogue, given all the reservations made by President of France Emmanuel Macron regarding his view on the sanctions and Russia. He called on everyone to accept reality. Russia exists and influences a lot of processes in the world. Moreover, Russia is right next to Europe. This sounded off key, considering that most of the European and American speakers spoke about a decline in the West’s influence, some with concern, some with regret. But the conference’s motto, Westlessness, was reflected in several facts: first, our Western partners started to look for culprits inside the Western camp and pointed at Washington, accusing it of forgetting about Europe’s interests, carrying out its own policy and ignoring the Europeans’ problems and its responsibilities to them; on the other hand, fingers were also pointed at Russia and China. At China, above all. Perhaps this was something new for such large discussions: that China has firmly taken the top place in the list of main threats our Western colleagues voiced.

In fact, it turns out that 99 percent of the conference was about who is to blame and who will be the best at presenting their accusations to everyone else, be it Europe, China or Russia. Of course, in a situation like this President Macron’s speech was absolutely sensible and aimed at searching for solutions instead of culprits, or making excuses for idleness and inactivity.

You have mentioned his proposal to launch a dialogue on security architecture with Russia. Yes, there are concrete proposals. By the way, after the US destroyed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and it ceased to exist, President of Russia Vladimir Putin sent detailed messages to all the leaders of Western and other major countries with Russia’s view of the situation and called on them to save the last agreements on this type of nuclear arms from disappearing. He noted that Russia had introduced a moratorium until US-produced missiles of the corresponding class were operational and deployed anywhere in the world – and then reciprocal measures would follow. However, until then Vladimir Putin has announced a moratorium.

In his message to the leaders of the Western world, he called for the same moratorium, which most Western colleagues either ignored or replied that Russia had deployed prohibited missiles in the Kaliningrad Region and now called for joining the moratorium when others do not have anything deployed. So nobody except Mr Macron noticed that in his message Vladimir Putin expressed his readiness to discuss possible measures to verify such a mutual moratorium. Mr Macron noticed this and said he was interested in such a dialogue. France and Russia will discuss these topics, but to make concrete decisions we need multilateral talks, as well as consultations involving the US, which, after destroying the INF Treaty, is now laying the groundwork to deploy these once prohibited armaments both in Europe and Asia. The US does not hide this. Japan, Korea and islands in the Pacific Ocean are mentioned.

Since Mr Macron proposed a multilateral dialogue – between NATO and Russia – it was interesting to read the interview that NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg granted to the French newspaper Le Figaro. Asked about his attitude to President Macron’s call to start a dialogue with Russia, Mr Stoltenberg said that there was a dialogue, an institutional one, and that all the issues, including arms control and transparency, were being discussed. In all evidence, he meant the Russia-NATO Council by the institutional dialogue. It exists formally and met several times over the past years, but each time the proceedings were reduced to a dialogue made up of monologues. At least, Russia made proposals to begin a detailed discussion on issues that might promote and strengthen trust as well as transparency. All that NATO replied were slogans like “Ukraine,” or “Let’s consolidate the Vienna Document 2011,” which was adopted in a completely different military and political situation, when there was not so much NATO infrastructure near the Russian borders, and so on. Over these years, they have advanced in our direction and pumped their “military muscle.” They organise military exercises involving over 40,000 personnel and 35,000 units of equipment, with half of them being American, which has been unprecedented for decades.

Today, when the 2010 balance has been dramatically disrupted, they suggest that we start talks on how to calm the situation. This will not do. What is more important is that our NATO colleagues and Mr Stoltenberg are being sly when saying that they are open to a dialogue with Russia. They are open, but to a dialogue that they understand as an opportunity for airing their grievances against Russia, primarily over Ukraine. Despite their current propaganda for the NATO-Russia Council, there was not a single NATO-Russia Council meeting that took place without an attempt, in the form of an ultimatum, to impose on us a discussion of the Ukrainian problems in this format. We always answer (and I said so to Mr Stoltenberg during our meeting here in Munich) that NATO has nothing to do with Ukraine. We have dialogue with those Western countries that are engaged in Ukrainian settlement, first of all the participants in the Normandy format, France and Germany. We also stay in touch with the Americans, because they would also periodically join the Ukraine conversations over the last couple of years. But NATO as such has no relation to the Ukrainian problems. NATO can only aggravate these by its constant incantations to the effect that they are expecting Ukraine, with their arms open, to join the alliance. This can only aggravate the crisis and undermine efforts aimed at implementing the Minsk Agreements.

Speaking about other things, let us not forget (I also reminded Mr Stoltenberg about this) that it was NATO that discontinued all practical forms of our collaboration, including in what it concerns the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, equipment supplies to the Afghan security forces, counterterrorism on a more general, global scale, as well as other practical areas of our erstwhile cooperation.

Perhaps it is no longer professional to pretend that NATO still maintains a constructive approach for the sole reason that they occasionally condescend to suggest convening the Russia-NATO Council for yet another round of discussions. By and large, there is emptiness behind all their talk that NATO has conducted with us a dialogue on arms control, transparency measures or trust building.

Several days ago, when I reminded NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg here in Munich that Russia was still expecting replies to our detailed proposals, he only got away with some awkward remarks that all of these would be considered later. The proposals were made by the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces about a year ago, and they are utterly specific. First, to come to terms on pushing both Russian and NATO exercises back from the line of contact to an agreed specific depth. Let us sit down and arrange it. Silence!

Second, ensuring security over the Baltic Sea and in the Baltic region as a whole has been neglected for quite long. The Russian military have suggested that we negotiate for military aircraft using transponders in the Baltic airspace, like civilian planes do now. And the second most important measure is to coordinate the minimum admissible approach distance for both Russian and NATO warships and military aircraft. Silence again! Of course, the circumstances being what they are, we would look forward to the ideas reiterated by President Emmanuel Macron more than once getting into NATO’s head, so that we can understand, if it is sick or otherwise.





Question:

When will the next Normandy format summit be held? And is there a reason to meet?



Sergey Lavrov:

There can be only one reason to meet – if the decisions of the previous summit, in December 2019 in Paris, are implemented. So far, we have not seen any progress in any of the areas. Kiev is stalling the disengagement of forces and equipment. Allow me to remind you that disengagement along the entire contact line was agreed upon even before the Paris summit. Yet, during the actual meeting, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky categorically refused to sign this obligation and insisted that disengagement should be agreed on in three specific locations only. The three locations are still being discussed, and the Ukrainian side does not seem too eager to agree on this matter at all.

Neither has there been much progress in cooperation on demining, which is another important agreement from the Paris summit. In this case, movement keeps stumbling on the pathological unwillingness of the Ukrainian authorities – formerly led by President Petr Poroshenko and now President Vladimir Zelensky – to comply with the requirements of the Minsk Agreements on establishing a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. It is clearly impossible to disengage forces and equipment on the ground without a direct dialogue, and equally impossible to agree on demining. And yet, according to statements by officials in the Ukrainian administration, they are ready to negotiate with the residents of Donbass, but not with the people elected by the residents to ensure a normal life in these territories, which continue to be the target of an unlawful and unacceptable trade and economic blockade by Kiev.

Furthermore, we have not seen any advancement on the political track, namely with regard to Ukraine’s commitment, also made in Paris, to include the Steinmeier Formula in Ukrainian legislation and to stipulate all aspects of the legal status of Donbass in Ukrainian law permanently. This is almost a direct quote from the decisions made in Paris. So we are waiting for all these decisions to be fulfilled. Before convening a new summit, we need not only to accomplish what we have agreed on earlier, but also to understand what draft decisions we are taking to the new summit. And that will only begin when the process of implementing the previous decisions is completed. So when our colleagues cite April as the tentative date for the next Normandy format summit, it should be taken as wishful thinking, just some idea they have. Again, the Normandy summits are held to approve lists of agreements and recommendations that cannot be implemented without substantive and constructive work in the Contact Group, where Kiev, Donetsk, and Lugansk are also represented.

We can see that both our Ukrainian colleagues and their European partners are trying to play with this, and trying to shift the entire settlement process from the Contact Group to the Normandy format because, according to their logic, Russia is a party to the conflict. But that logic is flawed, and not mentioned in either the Minsk Agreements or UNSC Resolution 2202, which unanimously made these agreements a part of international law. Therefore, this work has to be done in the Contact Group. Otherwise, our Western colleagues will have to admit defeat in their role as guarantors of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.



Question:

Turkey claims it is complying with its obligations in Idlib. At the same time, a source reports that Syrian militants are getting weapons from Turkey, including man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems. You said Turkey has not fulfilled its key duty of separating the moderate opposition militants who are willing to negotiate with the Government from the terrorists. What steps are being taken to avoid aggravation of the situation in Idlib? Who is responsible for the escalation? Will new agreements be discussed at the talks today during the Turkish delegation’s visit to Moscow?



Sergey Lavrov:

You correctly noted that the key agreement on Idlib, which was documented in Sochi in 2018 as a Memorandum approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, concerns separating moderate opposition militants that are willing to negotiate with the Government from terrorists labelled as such by the UN Security Council. This primarily refers to Jabhat al-Nusra and all its variants (the most recent, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham). This differentiation is the key to everything else. Because of the lack of progress on this track another agreement was necessary – to create, until the separation is achieved, a demilitarised strip inside the Idlib de-escalation zone, so that all those who were and continue to shell Syrian troop positions, Syrian civilian infrastructure and our air force base, should leave. So far, this agreement is also being implemented with some difficulty, although our Turkish colleagues have deployed observation posts there. Admittedly, their presence made the situation worse and the terrorists continued to attack the Syrian positions and our air base – something that could not be left unanswered, of course. These attacks have been suppressed by the Syrian armed forces with our support.

As for possible ways to resolve the situation in Idlib, you were correct that another round of negotiations between the interdepartmental delegations of the Russian Federation and the Turkish Republic is taking place in Moscow today. All the facts are on the table; the military representatives of the two countries that are on the ground in the Idlib region in Syria are considering changes in the situation and are in constant contact with each other. They have a complete understanding among themselves, as we heard from both the Russian and Turkish militaries. I hope that they will be able to propose ideas on de-escalating this situation based on the agreements reached between the presidents of Russia and Turkey.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4046843






Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a ceremony to award war veterans with medals commemorating the 75th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War, Munich, February 17, 2020



17 February 2020 - 18:26






Friends,

Veterans,

We mark the important dates of the Great Victory. In May, a military parade dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War will be held. Of course, as we celebrate these events we pay tribute to the bravery and heroism of Red Army soldiers and those who worked on the home front, to all those people who helped forge this Great Victory at the cost of their health and their lives. I am honoured to carry out the instruction of Russian President Vladimir Putin and award you with the medal commemorating the 75th Anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War. This is to show that we value your contribution, while we realise, as we look at the numerous medals and other decorations you are wearing, that this is not, of course, the only official sign of honour for your contribution to what was achieved at the cost of enormous self-sacrifice by all the peoples of the Soviet Union. We take a deep bow before you.

I would like to name the heroes who are present today.

David Dushman volunteered to go to the front in 1941and was enrolled for service in a tank unit. He fought in battles near Yelnya and Smolensk, the Battle of Kursk, forced a crossing over the Dnieper and took part in the liberation of Byelorussia, Warsaw and the Auschwitz concentration camp. Of course, this is a heroic and outstanding biography. He was seriously wounded. David Dushman was awarded the Order of the Red Star, the Order of Glory (3rd Class) and the Order of the Patriotic War and was decorated with the Medal For Valour twice.

Alexander Nogaller, the chief doctor at an artillery regimen and the head of a field hospital department, showed gallantry fighting through the war from Moscow to Berlin. He was awarded two orders of The Patriotic War, the Order of the Red Star and 20 medals.

Solomon Brandobovsky fought on the Western and the Caucasus fronts. He was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War and the Medal For the Defence of Kiev, the Medal For the Defence of the Caucasus and the Medal For Battle Merit.

Alexander Merlin was 17 when he was conscripted into military service in the border troops in Russia’s Far East. He fought in the war with Japan in August–September 1945. Alexander Merlin was awarded the Medal For Victory over Japan and the Medal For the Defence of Leningrad.

Mikhail Lifshits was young when he lived through the siege of Leningrad. After the war, he served in the Airborne Forces and fought in Afghanistan. He was awarded the Order of Valour and received several army awards and decorations for distinguished service.

Grigory Levitin and Ella Vinogradova also struggled to survive the grueling siege of Leningrad, adding to the bravery and fortitude demonstrated by the residents of the besieged city.





***

I will certainly report on our meeting to Russian President Vladimir Putin. His instruction to present you with awards is not a simple ritual. I know that these medals mean a lot to you and to all of us because they help highlight historical truth and help us not to forget or defame the heroic acts that you and millions of Soviet people carried out. They also help to stop attempts to equate those who tried to bring Europe to its knees with those who liberated it. Unfortunately, we see attempts like these being made today. I know that the activities of your Council of Veterans and when you personally talk to people, you always tell the truth. No one can tarnish this truth.

Once again, thank you very much. I wish you all the best for the upcoming holiday.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4046854
__________________
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 May 28th, 2020 #78
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 during the joint news conference following Russian-Italian talks between foreign and defence ministers in the two-plus-two format, Rome, February 18, 2020



18 February 2020 - 18:09






Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to express my gratitude for the hospitality we traditionally receive in Italy.

I completely agree that the fourth joint meeting between the Russian and Italian foreign and defence ministers was held in a constructive manner. The last time we met in this format was in 2013. We find that resuming work in this format is timely and important.

The meeting was preceded by separate talks between the foreign and defence ministers. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and I were also received by Prime Minister of Italy Giuseppe Conte.

Following our talks, we came to share the opinion that it was necessary to cooperate within this mechanism, which will make it possible to carry out a deep and detailed analysis of the key modern problems both from the diplomatic and military-political points of view. Today we have outlined a number of areas in which we will try to take joint or coordinated steps.

We focused on security in the Euro-Atlantic region. The situation in this sphere remains unsatisfactory. We believe this is a direct result of the policy of “containing” Russia pursued by the US and several allies, including through recklessly expanding NATO, strengthening the Alliance’s eastern flank, and bringing the military infrastructure immediately adjacent to the Russian border. In this context, we have once again recalled the need to implement the corresponding decision of the 2010 OSCE Summit in Astana signed by all the OSCE members at the highest level, which includes the statement about commitment to the concept of comprehensive and indivisible security based on cooperation. I think no proof is needed that NATO members’ actions are at odds with this statement.

We had a detailed discussion of strategic stability, including issues related to the US withdrawal from the Intermediate‑Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). We reaffirmed Russia’s readiness, reiterated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, not to deploy missile systems in regions unless similar US-produced missiles are deployed there. We drew our colleagues’ attention to the fact that last autumn President of Russia Vladimir Putin sent a message to all the NATO leaders as well as leaders of several other countries in order to call for a joint moratorium on the deployment of such systems, but most of them have not given concrete responses yet. President of France Emmanuel Macron was the only exception. I noted with satisfaction that several days ago Foreign Minister of Italy Luigi Di Maio also said in an interview that Italy saw no reason to decline President Putin’s invitation for a dialogue and called for accepting it. We welcome this approach.

We discussed the developments around the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). As you know, there are problems with its prolongation. The US does not reply to our numerous suggestions to do it right now. We spoke about the Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the US officially decided not to ratify. All of this, of course, does not create a favourable atmosphere in the context of preparations for the next Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons scheduled to take place in a couple of months.

We had a productive exchange of views on urgent regional issues. In part, we have the same view on the need to ensure the peace settlement in Libya through broad national dialogue. We discussed ways of implementing decisions made at the Berlin Conference last January. Russia considers it essential that further progress should be based only on motivating the Libyan sides to agree to specific practical steps. Naturally, it is necessary to respect the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. We agreed to maintain a close dialogue on Libya and hold special consultations on this issue in the foreseeable future – in a few weeks.

As for Syria, we have a common view on the need to ensure consistent and effective work the Constitutional Committee, launched in Geneva in October 2019, with the decisive role of the Astana format guarantors. Today, it is also essential to eliminate the remaining hotbeds of terrorism and create conditions for the return of refugees and IDPs. It is necessary to restore the destroyed infrastructure for this purpose. We drew the attention of our colleagues to the need to urge the international community to respond to the situation “on the ground” and start rendering real aid to the Syrians in resolving humanitarian issues without politicisation, discrimination or preconditions.

We have a common position on Arab-Israeli settlement that can only be reached through negotiation on a universally recognised foundation of international law and without unilateral moves.

We reviewed the situation in Ukraine through the prism of full and consistent implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures that was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202. We quoted specific facts explaining to our Italian friends how the implementation of the Minsk agreements is artificially slowed down.

We emphasized the need for close coordination of efforts in countering common challenges and threats, including terrorism. In this context, we noted the importance of the bilateral interdepartmental working group on combatting new challenges and threats. It will hold a regular meeting in Moscow this year.

We spoke in detail about relations between Russia and the European Union. We are grateful to our Italian colleagues for their constructive position on this issue, which is aimed at normalising these relations.

We reviewed the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme. We welcome Italy’s interested approach to this problem and its desire to contribute to a settlement. I am convinced that these efforts are most useful.

Needless to say, we also spoke about cooperation in the UN, in part, in the context of the forthcoming 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. As you know, this victory made it possible to establish the unique global organisation.

During the bilateral conversation with Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio we talked about the current items on the bilateral agenda with respect to the agreements reached at the top level. We reviewed the schedule for political meetings and the work of the mechanisms created by our countries. We are beginning to restore their activities at a fairly steady pace. The High Russian-Italian interparliamentary commission will meet in Rome in May. We look forward to seeing Mr Di Maio at the INNOPROM-2020 exhibition in Yekaterinburg next July, where Italy will act as our partner. Naturally, we expect to see the traditionally representative Italian delegation at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in June. The Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial and Financial Cooperation session, which is headed by Mr Di Maio on the Italian side, is scheduled for the second half of the year in Russia.

In general, I think our talks were useful. I would like to thank our hosts once again for their hospitality and productive discussions.





Question:

The European Union said – and Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio confirmed today – that a mission will be established in Libya, including ground forces, ships, and aircraft. How does Russia see this step? Does this mean a re-run of the scenario of NATO intervention in Libya?



Sergey Lavrov:

We spoke in detail about the decision adopted at yesterday’s meeting of the EU Ministerial Council. Our position is that we should scrupulously observe UN Security Council decisions and not take any steps that could be seen as disrespect for the United Nations supreme body’s prerogatives in maintaining international peace and security. The explanations that our Italian friends gave us about the EU’s plans to use their naval, air and even ground forces to help enforce the arms embargo in Libya have made a few things clear. Our colleagues also promised they would provide a more detailed and more specific concept that underlies this EU decision. Of course, if this is about compliance with the UN Security Council decisions – which it is – then the mechanisms for implementing such decisions must absolutely be coordinated with the UN Security Council; this is self-evident to us, and we conveyed this idea to them today.

The same approach was very clearly indicated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin during the preparation and holding of the Berlin Conference on Libya – no national or regional mechanisms can be used for these purposes simply at the request of a party or group of countries. Our Italian colleagues have assured us that they understand this. In this regard, we mentioned the 2011 situation during our discussion, when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya and inviting all interested countries to participate in enforcing it.

That was an invitation to a gross abuse by the North Atlantic Alliance of the trust that the UN Security Council had in those willing to help enforce its decisions, as the no-fly zone meant a ban on Muammar Gaddafi’s use of combat aircraft, and they remained grounded. That is, the no-fly zone was established just as the UN Security Council required. At the same time, interested countries, such as NATO member states, began an aggression against the Libyan state citing this same UN Security Council resolution. I am far from comparing the intentions of Italy and its partners in the European Union to enforce the arms embargo with those actions by the NATO member countries. We perfectly understand the lawful, legitimate, and obvious reasons why Italy wants to streamline this matter, and the reasons the EU countries are interested in preventing weapons from being delivered to Libya illegally. I am confident that by contacting the UN Security Council, our European colleagues will be able to reach a solution that will suit them and ensure compliance with international law, including the prerogatives of the UN Security Council.



Question:

After the resumption of the 2+2 negotiating format, will intergovernmental consultations between the two countries also be resumed?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have a mechanism for interstate consultations, co-chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte that includes a number of ministers. They have not been held for several years, but the mechanism is in place and has not been cancelled. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are now gradually but confidently restoring the mechanisms of interaction that existed between our countries. This is another example – the revival of the 2+2 format. I know that we will achieve the full function of all the instruments that have worked effectively in our bilateral relations and have brought mutually beneficial results.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4047979






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi, Moscow, February 19, 2020



19 February 2020 - 16:08






Ladies and gentlemen,

The minister and I have held productive, concrete and result-oriented talks, during which we focused on the bilateral agenda, and importantly, regional and international affairs.

With regard to the bilateral agenda, we focused on the need to act on the agreements reached at the most recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which was held in Amman in November 2019.

Our regional ties are expanding. The leaders of Chechnya and Adygea visited Jordan in late 2019.

Our traditionally extensive people-to-people contacts are expanding. On a separate note, I would like to convey our gratitude to the Jordanian leaders and personally King Abdullah II for their unvarying attention to the needs of pilgrims from Russia.

We are on the same page with our Jordanian colleagues when it comes to resolving crises in the Middle East and North Africa. Above all, we share the need to respect the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the countries in the region and to promote an inclusive national dialogue with the participation of all ethnic, religious and political forces of each state, be it Syria, Iraq, or Libya.

Regarding the Syrian settlement, we appreciate Jordan’s contribution, as an observer, to the Astana format. Like our Jordanian friends, we believe there is no alternative to total eradication of the terrorist threat emanating from Syria and other countries in the region.

We focused on creating proper conditions for the return of the refugees, of which there are many in Jordan. Largely thanks to the decisions that are being worked out as part of the Russian-Jordanian operational headquarters for the return of Syrian refugees that was created a few years ago in the Jordanian capital, we have had real successes, albeit on a limited basis so far.

Today, we discussed Jordan’s initiatives to carry out specific projects to restore the civilian infrastructure in southern Syria and to create other conditions for the return of the refugees from Jordan. We are supportive of these projects.

Representatives of the United Nations and the United States join, from time to time, in the activities of the Amman-based Russian-Jordanian operational headquarters for the return of Syrian refugees. We urge our foreign partners to establish close coordination of efforts and to remove political or any other artificial obstacles that interfere with providing humanitarian aid to Syrian civilians, including in the interest of having the refugees return to their homes.

We are on the same page regarding the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which we covered extensively today as well. Russia and Jordan have traditionally been committed to the existing international legal framework for resolving this conflict, including UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.

Today, we emphasised the fact that the attempts to resolve the conflict based on the fait accompli policy or using unilateral actions benefitting one of the parties to the conflict are counterproductive, which is corroborated by the vast majority of the countries’ response to the so-called deal to the century, which our US colleagues came up with.

A dialogue and concerted efforts of all the parties involved are needed to resolve this issue. In this regard, we supported the decisions taken at a meeting of the League of Arab States (LAS) in Cairo in early February, which included a proposal to make a transition to an internationally-sponsored multilateral negotiating process. We are prepared for this. We believe the quartet of international mediators with the participation of the LAS could serve as a basis for such a multilateral process.

Of course, we appreciate Jordan’s desire to help find a solution to the Palestinian issue. We note, in particular, that its role is important since King Abdullah II is the custodian of holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem.

In any case, it so happened that now that the “deal of the century” was put forward by the United States, the Palestinian issue came to the forefront of international politics, even though it had remained on the back burner until recently. So, you always need to be aware of the upside and to take advantage of an increased focus on the unacceptability of a deadlock in this matter, and to try to mobilise the international community to help find a solution that will be acceptable to both parties.

We welcomed the steps that have been taken in Iraq to overcome the domestic political crisis. Forming a new government as a result of a dialogue involving all political forces and ethnic and religious groups of that country was an important step forward. We will continue to support our Iraqi friends as they move towards stabilising the situation. Of course, any outside interference in this matter is unacceptable.

Avoiding external interference in domestic affairs is important for the efforts to create proper conditions for a settlement in Libya as well. We share the belief that this crisis can be overcome exclusively through an all-Libyan national dialogue. Everyone who, in one way or another, has an influence on various political and other forces in Libya should encourage them to sit down and talk. The first steps in this direction have been made, but additional difficulties have arisen again.

We, in Russia, are convinced that to ensure a steady Libyan settlement, it is necessary for the external players to avoid coming up with mixed and competing initiatives and to concentrate on aligning the actions so as to encourage the Libyan parties to start a dialogue based on the UN Security Council resolutions.

All in all, the talks confirmed the significant and promising potential of our bilateral partnership and coordinating our efforts in the international arena.





Question:

We heard from Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu that President of Russia Vladimir Putin might meet with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan if the Moscow talks on Idlib did not produce results. Meanwhile, speaking in Parliament, President Erdogan just said that he was not satisfied with the results of the Moscow talks, that starting military operations in Idlib is just a matter of time, that the region will not be left to the regime and its associates and that this is the final warning. Turkey has said all this. What do you think about the Moscow talks? Will there be a summit meeting? Will this be a bilateral meeting or an Astana format summit? A couple of hours ago, Iran said it would take place soon.



Sergey Lavrov:

As for the Russia-Turkey talks in Moscow yesterday and the day before, the sides did not reach a final agreement on how to implement the terms on Idlib negotiated by President Putin and President Erdogan. We did not propose any new requirements. We believe it is necessary to carry out everything our leaders agreed to. Let me recall that the key agreement on Idlib was the disengagement of the armed opposition that cooperates with Turkey from the terrorists. According to the agreements, terrorists are in no way included in the ceasefire regime, the cessation of hostilities. The disengagement of militants and terrorists, the wards of our Turkish friends, by the deadline fixed in the September 2018 Sochi memorandum was not carried out even after a year. Meanwhile, provocations from the Idlib zone and the shelling of Syrian armed forces positions, civilian facilities and the Russian Khmeimim base have continued.

At their second meeting last autumn, President Putin and President Erdogan agreed to create a demilitarized strip within the Idlib de-escalation zone. This 15-20 km wide area was supposed to be free of all militants and weapons to keep the militants and terrorists from shelling positions beyond the Idlib zone in blatant violation of the agreements reached by the two presidents. This buffer strip along the entire perimeter of the Idlib zone has not yet been established. Moreover, Syrian army positions and civilian facilities are being shelled and attempts to attack our Khmeimim air base continue. Naturally, confirming their commitment to the initial agreements on Idlib, including the truce agreement, Syrian armed forces are responding to these unacceptable provocations. We support their position.

Since the terrorists, and militants that are collaborating with them, are resisting moving back from the perimeter of the de-escalation zone and they are continuing their provocative actions, they are being pushed away from this perimeter as far as possible from the targets they are trying to attack. These Syrian troop actions are a response to the glaring violation of the agreements on Idlib.

Contrary to some assessments, I would like to emphasise that the Syrian troops are pushing the militants and terrorists back on Syrian territory, thereby restoring the control of the lawful Syrian Government over their own lands. While pushing back these thugs that refuse to observe the truce, Syrian troops have already reached the M-4 and M-5 roads. Ensuring traffic on these roads was also a specific part of the two presidents’ agreements on Idlib, which hadn’t been accomplished until recently.

I am talking about this in such detail because judging by the coverage of the situation in Idlib, you might think that nobody remembers what was agreed on in September 2018 – October 2019. Hysterical comments by some Western analysts may suggest the impression that at one time Russia and Turkey agreed to simply “freeze” the situation there, not to deal with the terrorists and let them do what they want, shelling everything around them from the so-called “de-escalation zone.” This is not true. Nobody has ever promised the terrorists that they won’t be touched in the Idlib zone. Read the agreements of President Putin and President Erdogan and everything will fall into place.

Naturally, we will continue reviewing the situation with our Turkish colleagues and ways to implement what was agreed on. Importantly, it is necessary to implement the agreements in order to produce results rather than restore the initial situation of a year and a half ago. We will work at this at all levels, including the top level. Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov mentioned this in his comments yesterday. I haven’t yet heard about preparations for the presidents’ meeting.



Question (to both ministers, retranslated from Arabic):

Much was said today about the situation in Idlib and Aleppo. What do you think about the situation in other parts of Syria, notably in the area of the Rukban camp on the Syrian-Jordanian border where armed opposition groups are deployed?



Sergey Lavrov (adds after Ayman Safadi):

We were trying to help the Syrians in Rukban to return home but US-controlled brigands used them as human shields. We involved the UN in our efforts. Several attempts to send humanitarian convoys there were made but these criminals did not always allow them to reach those who wanted to be helped. We suspected that the contents of these convoys were used to support the militants. Eventually, the UN gradually reduced its effort there for security reasons. In general, for over a year we have had the impression that Rukban is preserved in its current form to provide the United States with an excuse to maintain its illegal presence on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

A stable settlement of the Syrian crisis implies the withdrawal of all armed contingents that are there illegally, as is required by UN Security Council Resolution 2254 that emphasises the need to fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4048982






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the sixth anniversary of the armed coup in Ukraine



20 February 2020 - 20:00



Six years ago, we all witnessed the tragic events in the centre of Kiev. They reached a peak with the bloody coup that shook the entire country, led to Crimea’s secession from Ukraine, and the still ongoing armed conflict in Donbass. Ukraine was hit by a large-scale system-wide crisis. To a great extent, it was provoked and actively supported by Western countries, primarily the United States. Everything that happened in Ukraine later can only be described as endless political chaos, lawlessness and rampant ultra-nationalism. Active attempts to distort the truth and conceal the facts behind groundless accusations were made at the same time. However, one cannot run from the truth. It cannot be concealed. Sooner or later it will become public.

At the end of last year, a scandal broke out in Ukraine over materials that exposed the forged lists of Maidan victims, heroes of the so-called Celestial Hundred. These materials were published by former Justice Minister Yelena Lukash. It transpired that some people on the lists died because of health problems, and not even in Kiev, rather than from bullet wounds.

Michael Caputo’s documentary “The Ukraine Hoax: Impeachment, Biden Cash, Mass Murder” was shown in the United States the other day. It describes in detail the string-pullers of the so-called “revolution of dignity” and its underside. The Ukrainian authorities have already rushed to ban its demonstration and dissemination in social media. The same was done with other films on unknown Maidan events – the Italian film “The Hidden Truth about Ukraine” exposing Georgian snipers and Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire.”

An unbiased investigation of all aspects of the tragedy could throw light on the sad events of February 2014. But those who came to power by overthrowing legitimate President Viktor Yanukovych had things to conceal. They immediately started destroying the evidence and creating myths about a “popular uprising.”

Earlier, on February 21, 2014, having just signed the agreement with Yanukovych, with German, French and Polish mediation, the Maidan victors actually trampled down this document. The implementation of this document could have brought about the prospects for reaching a peaceful settlement and overcoming the crisis. But instead of looking for compromise and forming a government of national unity, the then opposition preferred to take a path of confrontation and violence. All this was taking place with the tacit approval of the European guarantors of the said agreement. Eventually these Western “peacemaking” efforts had serious consequences for Ukraine. They are all well known.

At the presidential and parliamentary elections last year, Ukrainian voters expressed their opinion on the rule of the Maidan authorities with a vote of no-confidence. They voted for positive change. The new leaders of the country correctly grasped the attitudes of society, but they remain unable to offer an alternative and are actually continuing the failed policy of their predecessors.

Many people in Ukraine hoped that active and deep reforms would soon allow them to make up for lost time, but their expectations did not materialise. No miracle happened. Any change happens so slowly that it almost looks like an imitation. There is no real progress in the anti-corruption struggle. Ukraine has undergone de-industrialisation. Impoverishment and social stratification continue. The country’s population is in decline. Populism is playing a dominant role in economic policy. As a result, in six years Ukraine has turned from a generally affluent state into one of Europe’s poorest countries. And its degradation continues. If Maidan’s main slogan was to expedite Euro-integration, we only see that the results speak for themselves. Neither the EU nor NATO is waiting for Ukraine.

Large-scale violations of human rights and freedoms and discrimination against its citizens on ethnic or linguistic grounds are becoming common for Ukraine. Many independent Ukrainian journalists and media outlets are being harassed. A merciless war against the country’s heroic past has been launched under the slogan of “de-communisation.” Its history is crudely distorted and falsified.

The people are becoming tired of all this. Disappointment and apathy are growing. This is a breeding ground for cultivating the ideas of neo-Nazism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Nationalists have become the real masters of the country. Having come to believe in their impunity, they are dictating their terms to the authorities and give a tough response to official Kiev’s steps at home and abroad when they do not satisfy their claims. This situation is giving rise to serious doubt in the ability of the current national leaders to fulfil their election promises to stop the war in Donbass and overcome the existing split in society.

It is obvious today that the 2014 Maidan events have not brought anything positive to Ukraine but have merely aggravated the existing problems. To resolve them it is necessary to give up the struggle against fictitious enemies and start the process of creation. If Kiev continues its confrontational policy, Ukraine will inevitably destroy itself.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4050737
__________________
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 May 28th, 2020 #79
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, February 20, 2020



20 February 2020 - 21:01






Foreign Minister of Tajikistan Sirojiddin Muhriddin’s official visit to Russia

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s trip to Geneva

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Prime Minister and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Edi Rama

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


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with member of Fatah Central Committee Hussain Sheikh

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


Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn’s visit to the Russian Federation

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


Update on Russian citizens aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship

As we have been reporting, including through our overseas agencies, our priority at the moment is to establish and maintain contact with Russian citizens abroad in countries where the virus has been found and is being fought and in others where no cases have yet been identified, but one way or another, we are making an effort to keep in touch. As always, I ask you to go to the official accounts of our foreign missions, as well as to their websites, and their telephone hotlines to monitor the status of those traveling abroad. In this regard, I would not like to reiterate the content from the accounts of our embassies and social media, but will specifically update you on the situation with the Russian citizens who are now on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

We are closely following the measures taken by the government of Japan to control the spread of the coronavirus among the passengers and crew of the cruise ship. As we understand it, the situation is far from optimistic. Over the 14 days of quarantine, the number of infected people has increased 60-fold. Today alone, the coronavirus was diagnosed in another 79 passengers bringing the total number of cases to 621. Unfortunately, two patients have died. This information has already been published in the media.

The Russian Embassy in Japan has kept in touch with the Russians on board the ship from the first days of the quarantine (there are 24 Russians aboard). One of our compatriots, diagnosed with coronavirus, was hospitalised to a specialised medical institution in Okazaki (Aichi Prefecture). Given the high risk of infection, his wife was also sent there. We are in touch with them and with the attending physicians. According to incoming reports, two more Russians have tested positive for COVID19 and will be hospitalised soon.

As you know, on February 19 and 20, the Japanese authorities cleared six Russians and issued them certificates for having passed the 14-day quarantine, COVID19-negative. They have been put up in hotels with the Russian Embassy’s assistance.

The Russian Embassy in Japan continues to keep in touch with the Russian passengers on the ship in this difficult situation, and is ready to provide any necessary assistance in resolving consular and visa issues.

I would like to use this opportunity, while speaking with reporters today, to ask Russian citizens to not hesitate to contact our embassies. I repeat – we have telephone hotlines, accounts on social media, and websites with all the contact information that they need. If they need any help or support, or if they have questions, we have information available that can help them in this difficult situation. Once again, please be aware of our mobile app, Overseas Assistant. Please, do not just be aware of it, but use it.



Developments at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons regarding the chemical incidents in Syria

As you know, on February 7, the Foreign Ministry’s website published the comment on a briefing in the OPCW on revealing confidential information during the drafting of a report by its Fact-Finding Mission on the alleged use of chlorine in the Syrian city of Douma on April 7, 2018. I would like to talk about this again, with some new points.

We were surprised by the format of this event, when Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Mr Fernando Arias Gonzalez was allotted only 15 minutes to speak on the substance of the matter, after which representatives of the Chemical Weapons Convention States Parties were invited to ask questions – and there were a lot of questions – but only in written form, although the audience was ready for a verbal discussion. There was nothing resembling a dialogue.

I would like to say that the event was announced as devoted to a particular subject and to be held in a corresponding format that implied communication.

The inept approach used to demonstrate the Technical Secretariat’s point of view and assessments regarding this absolutely scandalous matter, not to mention the ban on media and NGO representatives’ attendance, is simply astonishing. And we see this happening at a specialised international organisation that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013, mainly for successfully carrying out the major international operation to remove chemical weapon components from Syria, with support from Russia, China, the US, Norway, Denmark and several other states, and to destroy them later at chemical facilities in Great Britain, Finland and Germany as well as aboard the MV Cape Ray, a US cargo ship.

Unfortunately, since the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons was successfully completed through a joint effort at the end of 2015, the situation has changed drastically. Today, thanks to former OPCW experts who care about the organisation’s reputation and the integrity of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the politically biased falsification of the reports by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission, unprecedented in its cynicism and scale, has become public knowledge. The conclusions on the resonant chemical provocation in Douma that accused Damascus of using chemical weapons, were a striking example of the manipulations used to justify the missile strike on Syria by the US, Great Britain and France, when in fact the White Helmets pseudo-humanitarian NGO and special services of some foreign countries sponsoring it were behind this provocation. It seems that the national affiliation of these special services is quite clear, since the same provocative scenario with the use of toxic chemicals and warfare poison gases is repeated again and again since 2013–2014, followed by either sanctions or missile strikes. This happened in Eastern Ghouta, Khan Shaykhun, Al-Lataminah, Saraqib and during other similar incidents.

All of this can be confirmed with reliable facts. In particular, numerous independent experts, specialists, public figures, politicians and media representatives speak about this. In fact, we see that representatives of different social groups share the same point of view, which is rare in today’s world. As I have already said, these are experts who worked directly for the OPCW and formed their own opinion based on documents, evidence, witness testimonies and their own analysis. Their position is shared by the media and representatives of the countries directly involved in the investigation either at their own initiative or due to accusations or imposed sanctions. They went as far as sending a joint appeal to the CWC States Parties and the UN Secretary-General personally, as the convention’s depositary, calling them to sort out the situation and adopt immediate measures to restore trust in the OPCW. We hope that this appeal will be heeded and that justice will prevail, by which I don’t mean an abstract concept of justice, but a very specific one – legal justice. Apart from political assessment, a legal evaluation must be given to everything that we have seen happening at the OPCW (and to which there is testimony and witnesses) in recent years. We strongly hope that those behind these falsifications at the OPCW will stop their dirty and provocative scheming.



The EU’s plans to launch a new military operation to oversee compliance with the UN weapons embargo on Libya

We have noted the comments on the European Union considering plans to replace the current EU Naval Force-Mediterranean Operation Sophia with a new military operation to oversee compliance with a UN weapons embargo on Libya, made by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell following the meeting of the EU Council for Foreign Affairs on February 17. As we understand it, the EU is contemplating this action but they have not taken a final decision as yet.

We believe that when developing a new operation or, at least, when discussing its format, the European Union and all those who are working on this, will be committed to coordinating these [plans] with the UN Security Council. No actions should be taken that could be seen as a failure to honour the exclusive rights of this supreme body to maintain international peace and global security. I would like to remind you that, in the context of Libya, several countries and political forces have already ignored the decisions that are binding on them, as well as UN Security Council recommendations. We are still seeing the consequences of this.

In this connection, there is information that needs to be clarified. According to officials, Brussels believes that the existing UN mandate for Operation Sophia is allegedly enough to replace the operation with another mission and there is no need to ask for a new mandate. We remember 2011, when the NATO countries and their allies outrageously distorted the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and used armed force against a sovereign state, Libya, the result of which was a destroyed country and an exacerbated migration crisis in Europe.

It would be appropriate to remind you of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words both during the preparations for and at the Berlin Conference on a settlement in Libya of January 19 this year that no national or regional mechanisms can be used to achieve a settlement in Libya based on the wish of a specific country or a group of countries. To repeat, we are still seeing the consequences of this kind of approach.

We believe that by coordinating its efforts with the UN Security Council, our European colleagues will be able to arrive at the needed decision. It is important that by doing so they will ensure compliance with international law, including the rights that belong to the UN Security Council.



The announcement of the final presidential election results in Afghanistan

On February 18, the Afghanistan Independent Election Commission announced the final results of the presidential election, naming incumbent President Ashraf Ghani as the winner of the election.

We noted that Ashraf Ghani’s key rival in the presidential campaign – Chief Executive of the Unity Government Abdullah Abdullah – did not recognise the results announced by the Election Commission and announced the creation of a parallel government. There is information that other presidential contenders may support this position.

Russia is concerned about the controversy around the results of the presidential election in Afghanistan, which could further worsen the political situation in the country. All this could have a negative impact on the launch of an inter-Afghan peace process.

We urge all of the country’s political forces to find an effective solution to the current situation, that will meet the interests of the Afghan people and help them establish lasting peace in Afghanistan.



Shelling in Donbass

We are deeply concerned over the reports on hostilities along the line of contact in Donbass.

According to Lugansk representatives at the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) on ceasefire and stabilisation in southeastern Ukraine, the situation sharply deteriorated near the disengagement line in Zolotoye on February 18. The Ukrainian army launched intensive fire from various mortar systems. The attack was repelled by the Lugansk People’s Republic militia.

Indicatively, this provocation occurred ahead of the UNSC meeting on the fifth anniversary of the Minsk agreements. Let me remind you that the meeting was summoned upon the initiative of the Russian Federation.

We expect this incident to be considered at the next meeting of the Contact Group in Minsk on February 26.



The sixth anniversary of the armed coup d’etat in Ukraine

Tomorrow, February 21, is the sixth anniversary of the armed coup in Ukraine.

Six years ago we all witnessed the tragic events in the centre of Kiev. Those tragic events were not caused by an emergency or a natural disaster. They had been provoked many years earlier by external forces, the Western nations. There were numerous attempts to stage a coup d’etat. Sometimes legal instruments were employed to this effect when the legislation was distorted but at least referred to one way or another. Six years ago they discarded the law in principle since there was an urgency to reshape the political landscape in Ukraine.

It culminated in a bloody coup that shook Ukraine to its core, led to Crimea’s exit and the still ongoing armed conflict in Donbass. The country faced a large-scale system-wide crisis. Let me reiterate, it was provoked and actively supported by Western nations, primarily the United States. All subsequent developments in Ukraine can only be described as endless political chaos, legal nihilism, and a rampage of ultra nationalism. Active attempts were being made concurrently to distort the truth even about these events, to hide real facts behind groundless allegations. However, you know that the truth always prevails and facts are stubborn things. All that just cannot be concealed. Sooner or later everything comes to light.

At the end of last year Ukraine was rocked by a scandal over materials published by former Justice Minister Elena Lukash referring to the falsified list of Maidan victims, the heroes of the so-called “heavenly hundred.” It appears that the list included people who died not from gunshot wounds during the unrest but from health problems, and not in Kiev but elsewhere. This is just one detail.

Recently, Michael Caputo’s documentary The Ukraine Hoax: Impeachment, Biden Cash, Mass Murder was released in the United States. It gives a detailed account of the people who stood behind the “revolution of dignity” as well as behind the scenes. Ukraine has already banned screening the film and sharing it on social media in Ukraine. Try to get a chance to watch it, break the information blockade.

The same thing happened with other films and documents that tell us about the unknown pages of Maidan. For example, the Italian film, The Hidden Truth about Ukraine, about Georgian snipers, and Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire.

An unbiased investigation of all the circumstances of the February 2014 tragic events could shed light on those sad developments. But those who came to power by overthrowing Ukraine’s legitimate president Viktor Yanukovych had to conceal a lot of things. They immediately started to destroy evidence and invent myths about a “popular uprising” and so on. There were those who did not agree and were unhappy, there were gross political mistakes in various areas but the fact is that it was a constitutional coup, a military operation that was staged by well-trained and armed people. They did not look like “angry housewives” or underpaid workers or retirees. Those people looked like commandos who had been trained in special camps for years, and that’s who they were. They knew how to equip themselves, dress and behave accordingly in the street, which means conduct combat operations. Look at the footage made at the time and compare them with peaceful rallies. I think, there is a difference.

Earlier, on February 21, 2014, the so-called “Maidan victors”, mediated by Germany, France and Poland, had barely signed an agreement with Viktor Yanukovych when they “trampled” on that document, a fact that we repeatedly highlighted and brought to the attention of our foreign partners, who, in fact, stood behind that coup.

Meanwhile, compliance with the document could have opened up an opportunity for a peaceful resolution of the situation and allowed Ukraine to overcome the crisis. The so-called opposition opted for confrontation and violence rather than looking for a compromise and forming the government of national unity (this is exactly what was promised to people and declared during talks with foreign partners). Why do I say the “so-called opposition?” Because later, when they seized power, it became obvious who was funding them. Actually, nobody was trying to hide it, I think they were even proud of the fact that those countries and governments had brought them to power. This was not domestic opposition. They were people who were paid and hired to stage a state coup d’etat in a sovereign state.

All that was happening with a tacit approval from the European guarantor nations of the above agreement, who did not even bother to rein in the so-called “revolutionaries.” Why should they be reined in? They were doing exactly what they had been commissioned and paid to do. As a result, such “peacemaking” initiatives of the West, as they were called, led to terrible consequences for Ukraine. They are well known.

A more detailed assessment regarding this matter will be posted on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.



Statements by UK Permanent Representative to the UN Karen Pierce regarding Russian humanitarian aid to Donbass

We have taken note of what Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN Karen Pierce said during a recent UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine. She said, in part, that Russia “does nothing to ensure the safe delivery of international humanitarian aid so desperately needed by many of the communities” in Donbass. Knowing that her statement was being broadcast and the whole world could be listening, the UK representative said once again that Russia should “focus on facilitating the safe delivery of international aid.” Remember the Skripal case? That was nothing! They lie even when their lies cannot fool anyone, because there are not just facts but tens and hundreds of hours of recordings showing Russia not only delivering but also collecting humanitarian aid. I can tell you this as a Muscovite. I think that you have seen it as well. By the way, I have seen it during my trips to other Russian cities as well. As for Moscow, there have been tents around the city for several years, where people could donate things for humanitarian aid. They have donated not only money but also clothes, toys, books and household appliances the Donbass people needed. Yet speaking at the UN Security Council, the UK representative urged Russia to ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian aid and claimed that we are doing nothing towards this end.

At the same time, she demanded that Russia “immediately cease the practice of sending uninspected ‘humanitarian convoys’ across the border” to south-eastern Ukraine. This is surreal.

Frankly, I cannot believe that this was said, but it was indeed. Something is rotten in the United Kingdom. I would like to recount facts not only for our British colleagues but for all British people. They should know what rigmarole their official representatives spread at meetings.

I would like to say once again that Russia was the first country to send humanitarian aid to Donbass. It took place at a time when the Ukrainian armed forces waged active military operations. To believe the UK press, The Guardian, for example, those big white trucks were carrying tanks and weapons rather than humanitarian aid from Russia. I remember all these publications. I remember how people posted alarmist stuff in the social media, demanding that something be done to stop the delivery of tanks disguised as humanitarian aid. I remember seeing the photos of those white trucks that allegedly carried tanks. No, they were delivering humanitarian aid, which had been properly inspected, and then people unloaded clothes, medication and everything else that is called humanitarian aid from these trucks.

Since August 2014, Russia’s Emergencies Ministry has delivered over 85,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Donbass. Once again, it included food, medication, children’s toys and toiletries. Information about this is freely available. At some stage – I believe we reported this every week – we posted information and photos about this in the social media. As I said before, people stood on the streets for days collecting donations for humanitarian aid. Ask civil society organisations and the NGOs, and they will tell you. But it appears that London does not want to know this; on the contrary, it wants to distort facts.

As for Karen Pierce’s invitation to Russia to focus on facilitating the safe delivery of international aid to Donbass, I would like to redirect her impassionate speech to Britain and its representatives and to other Western countries. We invite them to convince the current Kiev authorities to lift the economic, food and transport blockade of south-eastern Ukraine. What have you done towards this? Have you talked with anyone? Have you raised these issues in your talks with the previous disastrous president or with the incumbent one, who still holds promise? When did you raise these problems officially? People in Donbass have lived in a total blockade for years. Moreover, this has been reported in international documents which you have recognised.

To conclude, I would like to say that the practical actions the Western countries could take to lift the blockade would really make life easier for the people of Donbass, who have endured so much suffering.



Representation of five permanent Security Council members in UN Secretariat

Incidentally, as we discuss the UN and the falsifications that our Western friends indulge in, I would like to draw your attention to a publication in The Times. I am referring to a comment by Andrew Foxall that contains insinuations in the UN context. It repeats the entire list of hackneyed grievances against our country. Among other things, the Director of the Russia and Eurasia Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society categorically accuses Russia of trying to undermine international law enforcement cooperation through steps such as putting “its people” in influential posts at international organisations. I would like to say that this topic has also turned up in other media outlets, but since we are on the subject of The Times, I would like to respond publicly. Actually, we have not seen such a high-key blend of accusations and falsification for a long time. It will be interesting to know – since this article has been released – how far from the truth the writers were when they ventured to publish this nonsense.

I will not go into much detail and I hope that the authors of future publications will be able to study the facts in-depth. I will just offer a brief awareness lecture for The Times on the real representation of the permanent members of the UN Security Council in the global organisation’s bodies.

As a reminder, a national of any state that is a member of the United Nations can have a job at the UN Secretariat. At the same time, a significant proportion of these posts is quota-based, and the quotas are largely based on the countries’ contributions to the organisation’s budget and, of course, on their populations. This system is aimed at ensuring its balanced operation, with its member states’ views taken into account as much as possible. This was not Russia’s invention. It was a joint decision that has worked for everyone for many years. Let's take a closer look at the situation.

Here are some basic facts.

The United States is the biggest contributor to the UN budget and accordingly accounts for more than one-third of the top and senior posts at the UN Secretariat. The total number of Americans serving there, excluding its special institutions and programmes, is 2,546; 116 in leadership positions.

The second place in terms of financial contributions belongs to China. However, its citizens are represented far more modestly: 572 Chinese, and only 21 of them in high posts.

Now, about the Russians: they hold 565 posts of various ranks, and only 19 of them serve in senior positions at the UN Secretariat.

At the same time, the British, who are so concerned about the Russian presence at the UN, have 846 jobs at the Secretariat, including 53 leadership positions.

So, based on the generally accepted UN classification – not some random expert’s ideas – Russia, along with the United States and China, are underrepresented on the UN bodies. What does this mean? It means they are not fully using their quotas in taking positions there. Incidentally, the UK, along with France, belongs to the overrepresented category. The United Kingdom is entitled to 114 positions funded from the UN regular budget, but the UK has exceeded this limit by sending 126 representatives to the UN. We, in turn, must express predictable concern over this overrepresentation situation, because it suggests that the service of citizens of some states is financed at the expense of funds allocated by other countries. This is actually why the allocation of UN representation quotas is contribution-based.

In general, there is a noticeable pro-Western tilt in the UN personnel policy. To date, 59 of the 156 top-level secretariat posts are held by representatives of leading Western countries, who, at times, are vigorously lobbying for opportunistic interests. We used to say “their national interests,” but we can narrow this concept down now because with certain countries, it is not really about their national interests – they are either still undecided about those or have chosen to get away from it all. They are upholding the political interests of the current leadership, which can even differ radically from their declared national interests of some three to five years ago.

The current ruling coalition often uses discriminatory approaches to shut candidates from underrepresented countries from the competitive selection. Furthermore, as you know, the United States, abusing its position as the host country of the UN headquarters, arbitrarily denies visas to members of foreign delegations, in particular Russian ones, which is a gross violation of the UN Charter and the UN Central Services Location Agreement.

It is not surprising that in the present favourable situation, the Western powers fear any changes in the current balance of power, and are using unscrupulous methods to promote their own interests, while forgetting that the main purpose of any international organisation is to form a unifying, rather than competitive agenda.



Developments in the case of Russian citizen Alexander Vinnik

Considering many questions, the fallout produced by this incident and sometimes cynicism that seems astonishing even today, we continue to publicly comment on this case.

On February 17, a French court rejected the defence counsels’ appeal to change his detention to house arrest. Trial proceedings also evoked dismay: the lawyers were not allowed to speak in private with their client, and the judge interrupted Mr Vinnik’s speech by saying that all this was of no interest.

The lawyers and relatives of Mr Vinnik spoke about their impressions of the “most humane court in the world” at a news conference in Paris on February 18. I strongly advise you to watch this news conference.

The Russian Embassy in Paris maintains permanent contacts with our compatriot and his representatives and provides the required consular assistance.



Le Monde delays refuting false information about the Russian Foreign Ministry

On February 6, the Russian Embassy in Paris delivered a letter from the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department refuting false information published by the daily to Le Monde Editorial Director Jerome Fenoglio.

We are following this case very closely. In doing this, we are motivated by France, which has launched a crusade against fake news, the falsification of information and inauthentic facts. We are very closely following various events organised by the French leaders, all statements being made by President of France Emmanuel Macron and his appeals addressed to all of us to fight fake news. That is why, bearing in mind Paris’ invitation to engage in joint work, we sent the relevant documents to Le Monde immediately after noticing the publication of false information by the daily.

Exactly two weeks have passed. We have been told that the editorial director still has not found the time to deal with this. Unfortunately, Le Monde readers have been misled by the publication of false information for two weeks. We insistently ask Mr Fenoglio to find the time to read our letter and give us the opportunity to respond and put an end to the situation where French readers’ are adversely affected by the dissemination of false information.

I promise you that we will certainly follow how Le Monde responds to our call to publish the truth.



Norway’s refusal to hold bilateral consultations on problem aspects of Russian economic and research activity on Spitsbergen Archipelago

On February 12, we received a reply from Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ine Eriksen Soreide to a message from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in connection with the 100th anniversary of the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty.

Unfortunately, the Norwegian side did not react with understanding to the Russian proposal on holding bilateral consultations to discuss problem aspects of Russian economic and research activity on the archipelago. On the whole, some assertions made in the message, as well as recent statements by representatives of the Norwegian leadership in the context of the Treaty’s 100th anniversary, differ completely with our interpretation of this document. We should bear in mind that Spitsbergen was classified as no man’s land until 1920 and Norway assumed sovereignty over the archipelago in line with certain terms. Over the past few years, Oslo has been violating the Treaty’s provisions that specify Norway’s obligations in this connection.

We cannot accept this approach. As we have repeatedly stated, there is no question of sovereignty over Spitsbergen (by the way, I have read such opinions in many materials); rather there is a need to search for ways of resolving specific difficulties facing Russian operators on the archipelago.. Unfortunately, the number of such problems continues to increase because of the Norwegian side’s counterproductive position, and these problems are becoming increasingly complicated.

Oslo’s policy of limiting the Russian presence on the Spitsbergen Archipelago damages bilateral relations. We don’t understand the persistent reluctance of Norwegian authorities to search for constructive ways of overcoming this negativity. This line cannot facilitate our positive cooperation.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

New sanctions against Russia were announced yesterday, specifically, against a Rosneft subsidiary, under the pretext of Russia’s cooperation with Venezuela. Is it possible to consider, in the framework of the UN Security Council, introducing legal redress against the countries imposing illegal sanctions? Specifically, when sanctions are imposed on such countries as Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and Syria.



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to draw your attention to the comment published on the Foreign Ministry website following the anti-Russian steps of the United States that you have mentioned, in particular, with regard to one of Rosneft’s subsidiaries. You know our stance regarding sanctions, it is not a secret. We always stress that Russia is strongly against the unilateral restrictive measures which the United States uses, in its pursuit of global hegemony, to bend the entire world to its own will, contrary to international law and its obligations. These sanctions have not affected and will not be able to affect Russia’s course in international affairs, including on the cooperation with the legitimate powers of Venezuela, Syria, Iran or any other country that may be affected or the cooperation with which may be affected by similar unilateral restrictions.

It is not uncommon that when US officials use their administrative leverage, in addition to geopolitical goals, they simply want to create advantages for US companies that cannot sustain honest competition from private companies, including Russian producers in the global market. We believe the current steps can be characterised as such.

The destructive sanctions policy of the United States is increasingly undermining the freedom of global trade which the United States at once time supported. The country declares it on paper but de facto it is pursuing the opposite course of action and implementing a policy that is inconsistent with its own declarations and statements and that is creating even bigger international tensions.

We have also repeatedly stated that Washington should finally realise that it will not achieve anything by putting economic and military pressure on Russia. It is a delusion. The only thing Washington is able to do is to aggravate the crisis in the bilateral relations.

As concerns your proposal to use UN mechanisms, we are already using them. We are discussing these issues in competent committees, at the UN General Assembly and during our contacts with senior officials of the UN Secretariat. Certainly, I will ask our experts and specialists if there is a specialised body in the UN that could be additionally involved.



Question:

The temporary ban on citizens of China entering Russia is taking effect today. Are there plans to impose similar restrictions or bans on citizens of other countries – specifically, Japan where the situation with the coronavirus, as you noted today, has grown considerably worse recently?



Maria Zakharova:

I would like to point out that all the action that the Russian Federation is taking to prevent this epidemic from spreading, including at the international level, are not politicised. This is a very important aspect and I hope you will mention it in your reports. These measures are not based on political considerations. It is solely a matter of safety, healthcare and assessment by our experts that are members of the competent control centre under the auspices of the Russian Government, a matter of the current situation and the steps that need to be taken. I can tell you one thing: we are analysing the situation on a daily basis, information comes from various sources and experts are studying it from the perspective of healthcare, medicine and, respectively, security in this context but not based on any political considerations. Politically, we are expressing full support for the countries, mainly China, that are involved in this unprecedented fight against this epidemic. We have spoken about this repeatedly, at all levels. Decisions are being taken based on the statements that I have already mentioned. As soon as we receive relevant information, we will be taking necessary steps.

This is not an issue for the Russian Foreign Ministry to handle. These decisions are to be made by a separate body, a body that is not political. They are being taken in the course of the control centre’s operation and following its meetings. The control centre includes representatives of various agencies, the priority being given to representatives of the agencies responsible for healthcare.



Question:

Iran is honouring its obligations under the JCPOA, as the IAEA has confirmed. Despite a striving to demonstrate their independence, European countries, in particular Germany, France and Great Britain, are acting like America’s vassals. Do you see any positive or negative changes in the Western position?



Maria Zakharova:

The logic of vassals does gain the upper hand on some matters, but not in this case. I do not agree with you, because the countries you mentioned held the fort for a long time. They tried to steer an independent policy. We must admit this. When the US refused to honour its obligations – I cannot say that it withdrew from the agreement, because withdrawal should proceed in accordance with a certain mechanism – when the US refused to recognise the JCPOA, the other signatories reaffirmed their commitment to the document.

Neither must we forget that an attempt was made to create individual implementation mechanisms that had not been stipulated in the document. There should have been a financial body to oversee the payments.

It is for you to judge these countries’ activities. As for me, I can only say that their efforts could have been more vigorous, especially considering their energetic activities regarding other matters where such energy is not even needed. It is obvious to me that until recently these countries tried to steer their own line and to speak in their own voice on this matter, even if they cannot be fully independent. Of course, it is difficult to resist the United States' pressure. A decision to stop speaking independently on this matter was not taken overnight. These countries took one step back after another from their sovereign line in international affairs.

I cannot speak on their behalf. But I can provide our assessment of their actions. They tried quite actively to save that agreement. You can see this in their public statements and in what was said at the meetings held on this topic. But this became increasingly difficult to do, because the United States maintained pressure and their immunity to keep up their independent position even on this particular matter was undermined. Why? Because as soon as a state starts to deviate from a sovereign foreign policy in the national interests on the international stage, it becomes more difficult to uphold its sovereignty in practical matters. In fact, it becomes impossible. I suggest that you take your question to them.



Question:

The INSTEX mechanism [for trade with Iran] was created more than a year ago, yet it has not implemented a single deal. Does it exist at all?



Maria Zakharova:

I have no information about its shutdown.



Question:

US President Donald Trump plans to visit India in a few days. What does Russia think about the US President’s plans?



Maria Zakharova:

A visit by the head of state to a sovereign state is a matter of their bilateral relations. We believe that sovereign states are free to develop bilateral relations and to implement their foreign policy and international plans if these do not contradict international law and do not pose any threat.

This particular example is a case of two sovereign states implementing their relations. I believe that the only thing we can comment upon, if necessary, is the results of the upcoming visit. We will monitor the visit and wait for the results, and we will certainly comment on them if they are relevant to the regional or international agenda.

We are committed to the right of each sovereign state to pursue its own foreign policy and to maintain contacts with other sovereign states within the framework of international law.



Question:

What could you say about the Taliban’s “peace deal” with the United States? What do you think will happen after the United States and its allies leave this region?



Maria Zakharova:

The results, even tentative results of the Taliban’s contacts with US representatives have not yet been summed up.

Believe me, I don’t have any facts regarding the withdrawal of the US contingent from Afghanistan that you don’t know. In this case, I’m quoting facts that all of you know: the facts linked with the US past and the statements made by the leaders of that country on the withdrawal of its troops.

One cannot rely on Washington’s statements of intentions. This is pointless and inexpedient. All US statements on troop withdrawals were changed in short- or medium-term perspective as regards the numbers of withdrawn troops, dates of withdrawal or the fact of withdrawal as such. This is why it is useless to rely on such statements. The United States has a national tradition – to change its statements all the time. Therefore, it will be necessary to look at the results of agreements if they are reached after all, and draw relevant conclusions from that.



Question:

There was a one-person protest in front of the Foreign Ministry building today organised by a national liberation movement that is upholding national sovereignty. Its poster emphasised the need to establish a priority of the Constitution over decisions of international organisations. It was linked with the amendment to Article 79 of Russia’s Constitution, which was proposed by President Vladimir Putin. According to his proposal, the decisions of international bodies based on Russia’s international agreements and their interpretations should not be carried out in this country if they contradict the Constitution. Do you think this norm will help the Foreign Ministry to better defend the interests of the country, its people and assets abroad?



Maria Zakharova:

In our work we are always guided by the correspondence of the Russian legislation, primarily, the Constitution and its ensuing legal framework to the signed international agreements. Not a single delegation or a representative of the country will assume responsibility for signing an agreement that directly violates Russian legislation.

There were attempts to do this in the 1990s on several issues but later everything returned to normal and national interests based on national legislation, first and foremost, the Constitution, indeed became a guiding light for all activities at home and abroad. Of course, there was a sad moment in our history. The more memoirs are published and documents declassified, the more interesting things we learn. Let me repeat that we have not had any problems like this since a certain moment – the adoption of the foreign policy concept, the assertion, recording and implementation of our national interests. All decisions are made in strict compliance with our Constitution and legislation.

As for the amendments that are now being drafted, specialists in international law are taking part in this process in cooperation with other experts. I would like to draw your attention to Sergey Lavrov’s comment on this issue.



Question:

At their latest meeting, Foreign Minister of Japan Toshimitsu Motegi invited Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to visit Japan. When will this visit take place?



Maria Zakharova:

For the time being, I cannot say anything definite about the schedule that would include this visit. I will let you know as soon as I get this information.



Question:

How does the Foreign Ministry react to the US support for the Three Seas Initiative? Is it seen as an attempt to establish an anti-Russia alliance in East European countries?



Maria Zakharova:

I will find out.



Question:

Judging by the Turkish statements, they are not satisfied with the outcome of the Russian-Turkish talks held in Moscow and Ankara. President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued an ultimatum demanding that Syrian forces withdraw within 10 days from the areas it had recently occupied. A similar warning had been issued previously to Russia. Are there plans to send a Russian delegation to Ankara again?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain daily contacts with our Turkish partners on a number of issues at the level of our foreign and defence ministries. There are no gaps in these contacts. As you know, Russia has an embassy in Turkey which has an embassy in Russia; our military experts maintain regular contact on the ground and the foreign ministers also speak with one another by phone. Of course, there is also the public space, which is being used to analyse the other side’s statements.

Mutual visits by delegations are made whenever necessary, and this can happen at any time or be postponed until later. We will announce them after the dates have been arranged. I believe this is of secondary importance compared to the fact that we keep up the contact.

In the event of any complications on the ground we prefer to use diplomatic channels, whereas some countries consider it admissible to make all kinds of statements. In our opinion, in such cases it is better to make use of the available expert channels which have huge potential.

As for demanding that the Syrian Government or Syrian forces do anything in Syria, the first thing to remember is that Syria is a sovereign state. The Syrian armed forces are operating on their own land. This must be the basic principle. Of course, the Syrian army is interacting with military personnel from Russia and other countries, yet the international community must never forget the basic principle I have mentioned. Such statements should be made through special channels, which will be more effective.



Question:

The Hague Court of Appeal has reinstated a $50 billion award for former Yukos shareholders. Should we raise the alarm regarding the possible seizure of Russian property abroad?



Maria Zakharova:

We raised the political alarm long ago and not only over this matter. As you know, Russia has stated more than once that the Hague Court of Appeal does not have the power to hear this case, and its decision is politically motivated and has been adopted in violation of the legal procedure. We have announced that we will appeal against it at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. Our lawyers are analysing the means of giving a practical form to our concerns.



Question:

I have a question about Sputnik Estonia. President Vladimir Putin said at the news conference in December 2019 that Russia would not assist those who want to drive our countries and our peoples apart. Two months have passed. I don’t think that Sputnik’s problem has been settled. I believe that the situation has deteriorated for Sputnik and Russia. In this connection, does the Russian Foreign Ministry intend to use its right to take “mirror” actions against Estonian journalists?



Maria Zakharova:

First of all, we will not take similar actions; we will act differently.

Second, Estonia’s policy in this sphere is a policy of total discrimination and violation of all its commitments. We have said so when commenting on such actions, and we will continue to say this at international venues. There is something else I would like to say. Regrettably, the current policies of Estonia, Ukraine and a number of other Western countries, as we say, are creating a vital evidentiary basis of political involvement and the political contract these countries are implementing. There must be an explanation for each individual case and action. When media outlets are persecuted, the first question is why. Did they publish unreliable information, engage in subversive activities incompatible with the status of journalists or reporters, or violate the law and migration or visa regimes? In this particular case, nothing of the kind and nothing even close to the above happened, absolutely not. Nevertheless, a number of countries have taken symmetric actions. It is a ruse that is easy to see through. Taken together, this is the evidentiary basis of a political contract these countries are implementing. Why do I say “evidentiary basis”? Because one day we may use it. The more they behave like this, the more evidence they will provide on the ground, evidence which will ultimately be turned against them. With this, I would like to conclude my answer to your question.



Question:

In one of its tweets the US Embassy in Russia draws the attention of the Russian leaders to the persecution of the followers of Jehovah's Witnesses, and urges them to respect the constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Could you explain why this religious organisation is considered extremist and is banned in Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

I can explain this not from a political point of view but draw your attention to the legal aspects of this decision. There are no political motives behind it. Any department will quote legal grounds as an answer to your question. You said the US Embassy demands respect… But in order to demand something, it is first necessary to fulfil something.

The United States has long given up on international law and some other areas by conducting activities that are incompatible with the status of a law-based state. It is enough to mention illegal arrests, detention in solitary confinement for three months without indictment, pressure on the media, harassment of countries and peoples and use of human rights issues for political purposes. Remember what happened at the Munich Security Conference – a real unmotivated “crusade” against China. What can the Americans demand after this?

What can they demand? They should repent and repent what they have done. To begin with, they should explain to the international community what was done in the past few years as regards individuals – Maria Butina, Viktor Bout, Konstantin Yaroshenko and dozens of other people, as well as entire countries and nations. Take just the anti-Russia campaign! How does it tally with law? And now they are concerned whether certain actions are justified or not. It is not appropriate for the United States to raise legal issues. It has discredited itself. I am referring not to some specific political movement in the US or a certain administration but to the state as a whole. It has completely left the legal field. I have not even mentioned acts of aggression against other countries. Millions of civilians were killed. Probably tens of millions became refugees as a result of acts of US aggression against other countries, which lasted for decades. And now the embassy tweets some demands.

The US executive and other government bodies must observe elementary norms of law. I understand that there is always a desire (that is part of US policy) to protect the whole world and demand implementation of lofty ideals. I think it is necessary to be specific. Maria Butina spent over three months (117 days) in solitary confinement. I understand this is not about defence of civilisation against an attack by aliens but simply about the life of a specific person. What about the protection of her rights and freedoms? Where is the humanity here? Where is freedom, including freedom of religion? It is wrong to turn propaganda tricks into indictment. They made a tweet and we will reply today.



Question:

Did the Chinese Government respond to Russia’s decision to impose travel restrictions on Chinese nationals?



Maria Zakharova:

If you go online you will see that the Chinese Foreign Ministry held a briefing like we do. A similar question was asked there and Official Spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry Geng Shuang has already given an answer to it. I do not want to repeat it.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4050747
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old June 24th, 2020 #80
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 accusations against Russia of carrying out large-scale cyberattacks on Georgian websites



20 February 2020 - 22:10



We would like to comment on the accusations from the authorities of Georgia, the United States, Great Britain and several other European countries that Russia allegedly carried out large-scale cyberattacks on Georgian websites, servers and operating systems.

It is clear that this obviously planted information is unsubstantiated and politically motivated. There is not, and cannot be, any evidence of Russian official agencies’ involvement in malicious activities in Georgian online networks.

The fact that Washington, London, Tbilisi and others synchronised their propaganda efforts is worth noting. It took almost four months to blame Russia for an incident that allegedly took place on October 28, 2019. Once again, all the accusations are based on the notorious “highly likely” concept.

It is regrettable that Georgia does not want to abandon its policy of demonising Russia and learn its lessons from last year’s crisis. All this further sours our bilateral relations that are already complicated. We still believe that overcoming our current disagreements and continuing to normalise relations are in the essential interests of the Russian and Georgian nations. We understand that there are forces that do not want to accept this.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4050783






Press release on the decision of The Hague Arbitration Court concerning coastal state rights in the case of Ukraine v. the Russian Federation



22 February 2020 - 11:11



On February 21, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued a decision in the case of Ukraine v. the Russian Federation, which Ukraine initiated in 2016 under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or Convention) to protect its coastal state rights allegedly violated in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait.

In a preliminary phase of the proceedings, the court only heard the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation to jurisdiction. The Russian Federation is satisfied that this decision takes into account our main argument, which is that the dispute in reality concerns Ukraine’s claim to sovereignty over Crimea. It is obvious that to have a jurisdiction to rule in this case the Arbitral Tribunal would have needed to establish first of all which state should be regarded as coastal with regard to Crimea. However, the Arbitral Tribunal, which was established to deal with “the interpretation or application” of UNCLOS, does not have the authority to determine the state affiliation of dry land. It is of crucial importance that the decision was taken unanimously.

We will thoroughly analyse the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusions with regard to our other objections in order to take them into account when we prepare our reply memorandum on the merits of the dispute, which we will submit to the Tribunal by August 20, 2021.

The Russian Federation hopes that during the next phase of the proceedings the Arbitral Tribunal will fully take the Russian position into account and will therefore dismiss all Ukraine’s claims.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4055397






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answer to a media question at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan Sirojiddin Muhriddin, Moscow, February 24, 2020



24 February 2020 - 18:39





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

Question:

Turkey has been supplying armed groups in the Idlib de-escalation zone with dangerous weapons, including American man-portable air defence systems. Don’t you think such actions deviate from the spirit of the Sochi accords and Turkey’s own commitments? Shouldn’t these agreements be reviewed based on the new realities of the Syrian army’s advancement, including control on international motorways? What can be expected from the upcoming quadripartite meetings?





Sergey Lavrov:

The agreements on Idlib involved the creation of a de-escalation zone where the moderate opposition ready to negotiate with Turkey would be separated from terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or any groups listed as terrorist organisations by decision of the UN Security Council. This was the first task. The second was to move any heavy weapons away from the outer perimeter so that they cannot attack the Syrian army’s positions, civilian targets and Russia’s Khmeimim air base. The third was to ensure the smooth operation of two motorways, the M4 and M5. Immediately after the agreements were reached in September 2018 and reaffirmed in October 2019, it became clear that the de-escalation zone was turning into an escalation zone. The militants, who did not want to be separated, attacked targets from outside that zone from there. The agreements reached between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan never stated that terrorists would not be hit back if they attacked, which is precisely the way they are acting. This was not unexpected by anyone. I am sure that the Turkish military on the ground can see and understand the situation perfectly well. Moreover, terrorists have more than once attacked our positions, the Syrian troops, and Syrian civilian infrastructure from the locality of Turkey’s observation posts.

The issues now arising in connection with Idlib definitely need to be addressed. They were considered during the two rounds of consultations in Ankara and in Moscow attended by diplomats, and members of the military and security services of our countries and a recent regular telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The next consultations are being prepared, which we hope will lead us to an agreement on how to make that area a true de-escalation zone, so that terrorists would not feel so much at home there.

As regards Jabhat al-Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, we are concerned about some Western states’ attitude to these terrorist organisations, in particular the US. Both groups are officially included on the lists of terrorist organisations by the UN Security Council; they are also included on the national list of terrorist organisations in the United States. Nevertheless, it is not the first time that Washington officials, including US Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey, have made statements suggesting they do not see Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as such a terrorist organisation, but envisage the establishment of a dialogue with it as a possibility in a certain situation. This is not the first time we hear such transparent hints, and we consider them completely out of the question.

Allow me to remind you that in 2016, the Presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama agreed and instructed me and former US Secretary of State John Kerry to coordinate with the military and reach agreements that could effectively resolve the Syrian crisis at that stage, in autumn 2016. The arrangements were serious and far-reaching; the only precondition was the US commitment to separate the armed opposition that collaborated with Washington and the US military from terrorists. It was Jabhat al-Nusra then, before it assumed a new guise. The agreement failed to be implemented, because the Americans could not – and many say they did not want to – to separate those who collaborated with them, but continued to help Jabhat al-Nusra hoping it was strong enough to oppose the legitimate Syrian government and preferring to keep it in case they would need it to reinforce the military action against the legitimate president and government of Syria.

If we consider all these facts as one chain of events, we get a rather serious picture. I emphasise once again that we will categorically oppose any attempts to justify the terrorists identified as such by the UN Security Council. I hope that the ongoing contacts between the Russian and Turkish military with the participation of diplomats and security services will lead to positive results, ensuring that the terrorists are not running the show in that part of Syria, or in any other area, for that matter.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4055559






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the High Level Segment of the 43rd Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, February 25, 2020



25 February 2020 - 15:20





Madam President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

Today, when the situation in the world is becoming more and more complicated, when old hotbeds of tensions have not been resolved, and when new ones emerge, the task of devising new approaches to ensuring humankind’s stable and sustained development that meet the spirit of the times is coming to the fore. Obviously, people, with all their needs and rights, will benefit most from all these efforts. Russia consistently proceeds from the need to devote equal attention to all human rights categories, and not just civil and political rights, but also to economic, social and cultural rights. Otherwise, it would prove impossible to protect the interests of socially vulnerable populations, including women, children, large families, senior citizens, people with disabilities and unemployed persons.

Unfortunately, the approach of Western countries aiming to replace generally recognised norms of international law with a certain rules-based international order hampers joint constructive efforts to comprehensively guarantee human rights. Fundamental socioeconomic rights are ignored, while political rights are liberally interpreted in an aggressive manner and over-emphasised. Accusatory rhetoric, including the so-called resolutions dealing with specific countries, is used more and more often as a pretext for meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign states and imposing illegitimate unilateral sanctions. Quite often, they are used during attempts to change undesirable governments which don’t share the highly dubious “values” that have been unilaterally invented by the West and which ignore the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world. This faulty practice incites confrontation and eventually hinders the ability of individuals to realise their legitimate rights.

Reliable guarantees of rights and freedoms have nothing in common with double standards. One cannot help but be surprised over the fact that some Western colleagues paying lip service to democracy deliberately turn a blind eye to the glaring suppression of fundamental human rights in Ukraine. The openly discriminatory laws On Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language and On Education, as well as the bills On the Media and On Countering Misinformation that have been submitted to the Verkhovna Rada, trample upon the rights of national minorities and de facto establish state censorship. Not only do these innovations run counter to Kiev’s international obligations, but they violate the Constitution of Ukraine. Although the Venice Commission has confirmed their discriminatory nature, Ukrainian authorities have done nothing to rectify this situation; nor do they intend to do so. I consider it a matter of paramount importance that the UN Human Rights Council assess this unacceptable situation and demand that the rights of all national minorities without exception be unfailingly honoured. We should not forget that the Minsk Agreements, which were approved by the UN Security Council and which have no alternative, also call for this.

Serious problems can be seen in other states as well. In the Baltic countries, the suppression of media freedom, the prosecution of dissent and the infringement of the rights of ethnic minorities, including the shameful status of statelessness, have become standard practice. Extremist parties, movements and groups that spread the ideology of Nazism, racial superiority, discrimination and xenophobia are feeling increasingly confident.

We urge our Western colleagues to use their influence on their protégés. In response, we hear tentative references to concern about freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. In fact, it turns out that Western democracy thus greenlights the spread of Nazi ideology, the praise of Nazi minions and torchlight processions under the Waffen SS banner. This "political correctness," in fact, justifies the anti-human ideology.







To feed someone’s self-serving interests, there are an increasing number of attempts to revise not only the Nuremberg Trial verdicts, but also the internationally recognised outcome of World War II. A drive to falsify history is taking on an increasingly cynical form. Civilised Europe is bashfully silent, as it continues to watch the sacrilegious “war” on monuments and memorials in honour of those who, at the cost of their lives, saved the peoples of the continent from total extermination. Perpetuating the memory of the murderers and criminals involved in the "implementation" of the theory of racial superiority is hushed up as well. This orgy of forgetfulness must be stopped. Victory in WW II must be declared the historical heritage of humankind.

Of major concern are attempts to use the religious factor as a tool in geopolitical games. Inter-religious faults are getting wider, and religious shrines in different parts of the world are being increasingly desecrated. Believers and clergy are attacked, persecuted or killed. The number of Christians, who have lived in the Middle East for centuries, has declined sharply, or they have disappeared from this region altogether. The international community and the UN Human Rights Council must block the path to the extremists who rear their heads. So far, some of our colleagues, whether they want it or not, have been focusing on justifying the mayhem caused by radical and terrorist groups. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the exhortations on the possibility of concluding a ceasefire agreement with these criminals as is the case when discussing the situation in Idlib. This is not concern for human rights, but capitulation to terrorists or even emboldening them in flagrant violation of universal conventions and numerous UN Security Council resolutions.

An unprecedented migration crisis is connected directly with rampant terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa stemming from NATO aggression against Libya in 2011. To permanently resolve this crisis, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes that force people to leave their homelands. Stabilising the situation in the countries in the region by promoting an inclusive national dialogue and, most importantly, ending illegal interference in their domestic affairs and observing the principles of the UN Charter has come to the fore. This approach, rather than the attempts to use human rights slogans in geopolitical games will make it possible to find a sustainable long-term solution to the problems facing common people and to ensure their rights starting with the most important, the right to life.

Madam Chairperson,

Modern challenges and threats are of a global and cross-border nature. To overcome them successfully, it is important to strengthen existing multilateral institutions, to maintain an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding in interstate relations, and to decisively eliminate double standards. The United Nations Human Rights Council can and should contribute to these efforts. We consider the council a key tool that is designed to ensure a constructive, depoliticised and multilateral dialogue based on universally agreed to and generally accepted criteria. It is futile to impose on anyone the “values” that reflect the state of public morality of a small group of states, no matter how much they may think of themselves.

Human rights discussions should be representative and pluralistic. For these purposes, Russia has nominated itself for election to the Council for 2021-2023. I would like to assure you that we will make every effort to advance collective principles in its work with the aim of developing consensus approaches and saying no to confrontation.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4058794






Statement by H.E. Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, February 25, 2020



25 February 2020 - 15:34






Dear Mr. President,

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to address Members of the Conference on Disarmament (CD).

This year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Its creation, as you know, was owed to the Victory in World War II. Thus, it is the Great Victory that laid the foundation for the modern world order based on the supremacy of international law. This solid foundation was used for shaping the system of multilateral agreements on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation (ACDNP) which guaranteed maintenance of international peace and security for many decades. A unique UN disarmament machinery was established, with the CD being its key element. Here, at the Geneva forum, the most important international instruments, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), had been developed. We are to mark the 50th anniversary of its entry into force on 5 March.

Regrettably we remember that nearly 75 years ago, by dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US became the only State to have ever used that most horrible weapon and triggered the nuclear arms race the effects of which still linger. Yet, we need to underline that in the second half of the 20th century we did the utmost by join efforts to ensure strategic stability and prevent such tragedies.

Regrettably during this century dangerous and destructive trends caused by the resurgence of the aggressive foreign-policy egocentrism of one state have been accumulating. The Washington's withdrawal in 2002 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, that was crucial for strategic stability, was a heavy blow to the entire ACDNP architecture. Recently, the desire to dominate everywhere and to impose its own "rules" on the international community at the expense of other States' interests and international law has become a prevailing element in the US policy. All multilateral agreements or mechanisms that challenge such a dominance are declared "obsolete and ineffective".

Last year the US denounced the INF Treaty. This was immediately followed by flight tests of the US weapon systems that had been earlier prohibited under the Treaty. Intentions to place such systems in various regions of the world are being declared. Russia, while having stated that it would be forced to take symmetrical steps, exercised the highest degree of responsibility and committed it self unilaterally not to deploy ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles in the regions where the similar US systems will not appear. We urge the US and its allies to declare the same moratorium. We are aware of attempts to undermine the credibility of our initiative. But let me remind you that we proposed to dispel suspicions through elaboration of a possible verification regime for such a mutual moratorium. Ignoring this honest offer means that true causes of the INF destruction have nothing to do with Russian position and actions.

The plans of the US, as well as those of France and NATO as a whole, to place weapons in outer space are taking shape. We are convinced that it is not too late to develop measures acceptable for all to prevent confrontation in outer space. The Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects remains the only relevant constructive proposal which is on the table at the CD. The document is comprehensive and ready for full-fledged negotiations. In the meantime while the work on that treaty is underway, political commitments on No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space are to play a stabilizing role. The initiative is steadily gaining more and more supporters.

Another reason for concern is uncertain future of the New START Treaty. Speaking last year from this podium I outlined why we consider it important to preserve it. Extending the Treaty would be a reasonable step to prevent further deterioration of the strategic stability, to avoid a complete collapse of mechanism for control and limitations nuclear and missile domain and to buy some time for deliberations on approaches to methods for control of new weapons and military technologies. Given all these circumstances Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to the US to extend the New START Treaty without any preconditions. We are waiting for a response.

We note with concern that new doctrinal provisions adopted by Washington significantly lower the "threshold" for use of nuclear weapons. Notably it is taking place against the backdrop of the US refusal, I would like to stress an official refusal, to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, on-going placement of its nuclear weapons on the territory of some NATO allies and continued so-called "nuclear sharing missions". It got to the point that the US conducted military exercises to imitate use of nuclear weapons against targets on the Russian territory. Europeans are also engaged in these exercises.

In order to ease these artificial tensions and to leave door open for further strategic dialogue we proposed at least to reaffirm or at best to strengthen the Gorbachev-Reagan formula that “a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought”. We believe that in the current situation such a statement would send a positive message to the entire international community. Yet there is no answer from Washington to this proposal for as long as 18 months now.

We expect that all interested States to engage in constructive work at the NPT Review Conference that will start in New York at the end of April. I will not prejudge anything. I would only emphasize that in the current challenging environment it is important for this forum to succeed in strengthening non-proliferation regime regardless of whether an outcome document is agreed or not. The Treaty is self-sufficient, its provisions have stood the test of time, and their revision or loose interpretation under current difficult circumstances would only be harmful.







In the NPT review context the first Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction as well as Their Delivery Systems held in November 2019 was an important positive event. Russia played an active role in convening the Conference. Its major outcome is the launch of an open and inclusive dialogue to seek ways to settle this long-standing issue.

At a time the “nuclear deal” with Iran was a significant success in non-proliferation. Five years ago the world community sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on reconciliation around the Iranian nuclear program (JCPOA) was unanimously adopted through the UNSCR 2231. It was an example of effective solution to a crisis which risked evolving into a “hot” conflict. Progress was achieved when all parties involved demonstrated genuine willingness to hear each other and take into account mutual interests. As of today, however, we witness how the US refusal to comply with its international obligations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter as well as inability of European colleagues – no matter how hard they try – to implement their part of the “nuclear deal” leads to the disintegration of this unique achievement in multilateral diplomacy. Iran had no other choice but to react by employing legitimate means provided by the JCPOA. Tehran has suspended the implementation of exclusively voluntary restrictions but has been complying with its legal obligations under the NPT and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. A meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission is to take place tomorrow in Vienna. It is of course a chance, though not of 100%, to curb the escalation before it is too late.

Deep crisis continues to cover all the elements of the UN disarmament machinery. At any venue substantive dialogue tends to be neglected and discussions politicized. We are disappointed with Western countries actions to transform once quite successful professional multilateral disarmament structures into a means of pressure on "undesirable" States. That was the case with the OPCW, where our Western colleagues imposed their absolutely illegitimate decision to assign to the OPCW Technical Secretariat attributive functions that is a flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and infringement on the UNSC prerogatives. Similar steps are also undertaken in the context of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) - elaboration of a legally binding universally acceptable multilateral verification regime is being blocked. Instead, we face attempts to use the UN Secretariat to “cover up” the US non-transparent activities carried out on a bilateral basis with the partners of their interests in the sphere of biosecurity.

2019 was the first year the substantive session of the UN Disarmament Commission did not take place due to the denial by the US authorities to grant visas to the head and members of the Russian delegation. The US obstructive behavior did not allow to agree on the CD annual substantive final report. We observe US colleagues’ attempts to introduce an ideological element into the activities of the UNGA First Committee.

All these developments lead to further divisions within the international community and distract its attention from real international security problems. We call upon US colleagues to return to a normal track of respectful inter-State dialogue and interaction in accordance with the UN Charter and the Agreement on the United Nations Headquarters on the US territory.

At the current session of the CD we take note of certain promising signs. Under the Algerian Presidency the P6 contacts were resumed. We welcome that. The process of agreeing a CD programme of work has been re-launched. Re-establishment of subsidiary bodies with a research mandate is also under consideration. This step would certainly be useful with an understanding that it must not substitute advancing to the main goal, i.e. the earliest commencement of negotiations.

It is important for all of us to demonstrate political will to find solutions acceptable to all. With a view to reaching consensus on the start of negotiations based on a comprehensive and balanced programme of work, we once again urge the CD Member States to consider in a responsible manner the Russian initiative to elaborate at the CD an international convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism. Strengthening the international legal framework for countering WMD-terrorism – the threat that is quite real – meets the interests of all States without exception. The CD negotiating process could be revitalized on the basis of this unifying framework.

We also encourage Member States to think about how to end the degradation of the international arms control architecture. The UNGA resolution “Strengthening and developing system of treaties and agreements on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation” reflects the need for a new impetus to efforts on this track. It was adopted by 174 States with five abstentions. Nobody voted “against”. Now we need to translate the collective political will provided for in the document into the language of practical steps. Russia is ready for that job. We are open to engagement with all the members of the international community on the basis of the principles of equality and consensus decision-driven approach through balance of interests.

Such multilateral cooperation in solving global problems is what the UN founding fathers looked forward to. The UNSC permanent members are called upon to play a special unifying role in developing updated and up-to-date proposals to ensure stability on the planet based on the UN Charter. At this critical stage, they must exercise their utmost responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

As you might be aware, Russian President Vladimir Putin invited his colleagues to hold a P5 UNSC summit. Undoubtedly, such a summit would be a starting point for pivotal decisions in the interests of the entire international community. The reaction to this proposal is encouraging. We will work to make it happen.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4058832
__________________
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 03:35 AM.
Page generated in 2.49052 seconds.