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

Old December 11th, 2021 #41
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 talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Chad Mahamat Zene Cherif, Moscow, December 7, 2021



7 December 2021 - 13:29






Minister Cherif,

Colleagues,

We are delighted to welcome you to Moscow.

There has been consistent progress in the relations between Russia and Chad. We have established regular political dialogue, including as part of the Russia-Africa Summit, which took place in October 2019 in Sochi.

Our foreign ministries maintain close and regular contacts. In 2013, we signed a cooperation plan with then Foreign Minister Moussa Faki Mahamat, and this plan still lies at the core of our regular consultations.

Moussa Faki Mahamat recently visited Russia as Chair of the African Union Commission, and I had a meeting with him. I would like to emphasise that he has been a worthy representative of your country in this high position of pan-regional importance.





The parliaments of our countries have built a positive track record in their relations. I do hope that they will resume once Chad has formed its new National Assembly.

Today, I expect us to discuss bilateral relations. So far, economic ties have been quite modest, but we have proposals on ways to improve this situation. We will also discuss military and technical cooperation, which we always do as part of our contacts.

We have been working together effectively within the UN. Russia is grateful to Chad for supporting many of its initiatives. We are looking forward to hearing your assessment of the peacekeeping efforts on the African continent, especially considering Chad’s serious and proactive commitment to these efforts.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4986974






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Chad Mahamat Zene Cherif, Moscow, December 7, 2021



7 December 2021 - 18:05







Ladies and gentlemen,

We have discussed almost all of the entire agenda of our relations, including bilateral economic, humanitarian, and education issues, and military-technical cooperation and international problems, including coordination of our efforts at the UN and the settlement of conflicts in Africa.

We have traditionally maintained friendly relations that we continue to develop along the principles of equality, mutual benefit and respect at the most diverse levels.

We emphasised our interest in further promoting the entire package of bilateral ties, paying special attention to making them more effective and increasing the scale of trade, economic and investment partnership. We have modest figures for now, but we have agreed to help the relevant departments and business circles develop direct contacts. In our estimation, we have opportunities in energy, geological prospecting, IT, agriculture and healthcare.

In this context, we noted the intensive activities of the Association for Economic Cooperation with African States (AECAS) that was created following the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in 2019. A couple of months ago an association delegation visited Chad’s capital of N’Djamena. It had useful talks with the Division of Mines and Geology. Now they are drafting proposals on various forms of cooperation with Chad. Our colleagues promised to express their wishes regarding areas where Russian companies, with their Chadian partners, can be useful.

Our humanitarian contacts are traditionally well developed. We continue educating specialists for the Republic of Chad, something that has earned a good reputation over the years. Today, several hundred Chadian citizens study at our universities. In all, about 2,500 Chadians have received an education in our country.

We are grateful to Mr Minister and his colleagues for the detailed information on the domestic situation in the country, including preparations for a general election. We support the constructive steps made by the transitional government with a view to reaching political unity and stability. We are positive on the government’s plans to hold a nationwide and inclusive dialogue.

We maintain good cooperation between our foreign ministries. The 2013 Memorandum laid the foundation for this cooperation. We will expand our coordination at the UN and other multilateral venues and regularly hold consultations on related issues.

We discussed African affairs at length: the difficult situation in the Sahara-Sahel zone that was destabilised after NATO’s aggressive attack on Libya. This was followed by an inflow of terrorists and smugglers, and volumes of illegal weapons from the north to the south of Africa. These criminals were particularly attracted to this area and the Lake Chad region.

We discussed in detail the developments in this part of Africa, as well as in Libya, the Central African Republic and Mali.

We share the opinion that a nationwide dialogue, with the major political forces of society, is the only way to normalise the situation in a given country. In the process, it is necessary to mobilise all available resources of the Africans themselves and the international community for fighting terrorist groups.

We talked to our partners about Russia’s efforts to maintain the joint forces of the Sahel Five which are in the process of being created. This is nearing completion now. We will continue supporting it with arms and hardware and personnel training, including peacekeepers.

We consider it very important to help Africa put an end to this evil and other challenges and threats, including drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime. We will always support the resolution of African problems by the African themselves. In the meantime, the international community represented by the Security Council and other structures, should grant them moral, political, legal and material assistance.

I am grateful to you for our talks. Our colleagues support the holding of a second Russia-Africa summit in 2022. We will keep you posted on these developments.






Question:

A report by the US Department of State reads that during their talks, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky agreed on the need for a peaceful, diplomatic settlement in Donbass. At the same time, Mr Zelensky believes that it is Ukraine’s armed forces that will bring peace to Donbass. This is what he said yesterday, speaking before the Ukrainian military. What can you tell us about Ukraine’s two-sided approach? Do you think Kiev is ready for a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the southeast of the country?



Sergey Lavrov:

You called Ukraine’s position “two-sided.” I think you paid them a compliment. They have so many people, so many minds. Any of them can change their opinion several times a day. This is true of President Zelensky and his ministers. Former Deputy Prime Minister and new Defence Minister Alexei Reznikov said yesterday that Ukraine should invite (or has already invited) the Brits, the Americans and the Canadians to the frontline in Donbass. Two hours later he said they would not be invited. Apparently, his seniors told him he had gone too far. This process is described as a stream of consciousness. There are many streams flooding in different directions.

As for the principle of a peaceful settlement, there is no alternative. Having talked with his curator from Washington, President Zelensky promised to follow this but then said the opposite. This only confirms what I just said. Peaceful settlement can only be achieved through straight, unequivocal implementation of the Minsk agreements. Everything is written in these agreements and translated into UN languages. I am confident that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is familiar with this document although he is trying to interpret it in an unacceptable manner that contradicts the text.

The document reads that Kiev must coordinate everything with Donetsk and Lugansk. Our American colleagues are presenting the issue in a different way. They claim that Russia needs to observe the ceasefire, withdraw its heavy weapons and ensure the development of socio-economic ties between Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. They praise the Kiev regime for once again extending any action on the law on the special status of these republics and on working for the amnesty law. Meanwhile, the Americans should know that Kiev is using these documents to undermine the Minsk agreements.

An important event will take place in Russian-US relations today: a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and US President Joseph Biden via videoconference. We will clearly explain our approaches to settlement in Ukraine and the need to compel the Kiev regime to fulfil its commitments that are written in black and white in the Minsk Package of Measures. Judging by what we see, Kiev will not listen to anyone except the United States. We will see how the conversation ends. We are very concerned about Kiev’s attempts to provoke its curators.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4987354






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video address to mark the 30th anniversary of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Moscow, December 8, 2021



8 December 2021 - 13:00






Colleagues and friends,

This year we mark 30 years since the day the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was established.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was essential to prevent the complete breakup of centuries-long comprehensive ties between our nations, ensure social and other rights of the people, and create stable mechanisms of cooperation between the new independent states.

The Commonwealth in many ways made it possible to solve these large-scale tasks. During the first years of its existence, an entire range of agreements were signed in the economic, social and other spheres. A system of sector-specific cooperation bodies began to emerge. Later, this foundation was used to create other multilateral formats in the post-Soviet space: the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Union State and the Eurasian Economic Union.

Today, the CIS is a fully fledged international organisation and a popular dialogue platform to discuss a wide range of topics, from policies and the economy to security, education and culture. I praise the traditionally trust-based dialogue with our colleagues in the format of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers. The sincere discussion allows us not only to compare our positions on the most topical, sometimes acute issues, but also to coordinate our efforts. We are grateful to our partners for their traditionally broad support and co-authorship on Russian resolutions at the United Nations. The promotion of agreed approaches at universal and generally recognised multilateral associations makes it possible for us to speak with one voice of like-minded countries.

Developing joint political statements has become a good tradition. The range of topics of our consultations between foreign ministries are expanding. This year, in addition to the statement on the 30th anniversary of the Commonwealth, we adopted joint documents to ensure biological safety, develop cooperation in the field of migration, and strengthen international law. It is important to continue such a useful practice.

Every year, the range of the CIS’s practical activities expands, and new areas of mutually beneficial cooperation are explored. During the pandemic, the Commonwealth promptly set up work to counter the spread of COVID-19 and exchange information between the member states, as well as establish a dialogue to mitigate the socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic.

Against the backdrop of international instability and greater tensions on the external borders of the CIS, we must continue to focus on all dimensions of security, the fight against transnational crime and drug trafficking. The aggravation of the situation in Afghanistan, the buildup of military-biological activities of Western countries in the post-Soviet space and other challenges dictate the need for elevating this work to a new level within the framework of the Commonwealth and by combining its efforts with the CSTO, the SCO and other interstate associations in Eurasia.

We continue to pay close attention to the environment, climate change and green economy. It is important that a changing energy balance should promote the sustainable socioeconomic development of the Commonwealth countries and strengthen their energy security. On the international scene, we counter efforts to politicise the climate issue and attempts to use it as a tool of unfair competition.

We cherish the invaluable support of the Commonwealth countries in the fight against the glorification of Nazism and the falsification of history. We jointly uphold the truth about the Great Patriotic War, all the more so as our fathers and grandfathers paid a tremendous price for Victory. We will continue to devote the closest attention to this subject.

Cultural and humanitarian cooperation continues to develop actively despite the pandemic. We are implementing a programme called Cultural Capitals of the Commonwealth, and the Interstate Fund for Humanitarian Cooperation also holds its events. It has been decided that 2023 will be designated the Year of the Russian Language as the language of interethnic communication in the CIS. This will undoubtedly help further strengthen its positions in the Commonwealth states.

Colleagues, friends,

We consider efforts to establish friendly, equitable and truly partner ties within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States as our unconditional foreign policy priority. The outgoing year has been very effective in this regard. All of the Commonwealth statutory bodies held their meetings, including heads of state and government. Their participants adopted important decisions on strengthening cooperation. This is largely thanks to our Belarusian friends, now presiding in the organisation.

I am confident that such high-level contacts will also continue during the presidency of Kazakhstan next year. I wish every success to our Kazakh friends. I hope that our future joint work in the Commonwealth will contribute to the well-being and prosperity of all our nations and help promote stability and security in the region.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4987851






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on air incidents above the Black Sea



8 December 2021 - 17:53



The military activity of the United States and NATO member states along the perimeter of Russia’s borders, including military flights and dangerous manoeuvres by naval ships, continues to mount. The US military and its NATO allies have gone from attempts to test the strength of our border protection system to provocations against civilian aircraft, which jeopardises the safety of the airspace and puts human lives in danger.

In connection with these provocative actions, on December 8, the US Embassy in Moscow received a note of protest warning about the dangerous consequences of this reckless behaviour.

The note enumerates recent incidents which did not end in tragedy only due to sheer luck and the quick thinking of Russian pilots and air traffic controllers.

Thus, on the morning of December 3, the US Air Force CL-600 reconnaissance aircraft performed a flight over the open waters of the Black Sea near the area of responsibility of the Russian air traffic services and made a steep descent from an altitude of 11,000 m to an altitude of 9,200 m, having thus crossed the route reserved for civil aircraft. The crew failed to answer the airtraffic dispatchers' repeated calls.

Thanks exclusively to the professionalism and discipline of our aviation services, which promptly gave a command to the pilots of an Aeroflot flight, whose route was crossed by the reconnaissance aircraft, a collision was prevented.

In the same hours and for the same reasons, a Maltese airliner flying from Sochi to Skopje narrowly escaped a collision. Later that day, December 3, Russian military aircraft scrambled to escort the US Air Force RC-135 strategic reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea.

We observe these dangerous situations on a regular basis.

Earlier, on October 6, as the note presented to the US Embassy says, ​​flight PSD093 performed by the Special Flight Detachment Rossiya en route from Anapa to Moscow, at 3:50 pm (Moscow time), when it was above the Black Sea coast between Anapa and Novorossiysk, detected an unidentified flying object that was flying straight ahead of it and failed to establish communication. It was identified as the UAV Reaper (MQ9AReaper) which is used by NATO for reconnaissance missions. To avoid a collision, the air controllers from the Rostov Regional Air Traffic Management Centre swiftly changed the Russian air carrier’s route.

On October 13 at 9:58 am (Moscow time), a US Air Force Boeing RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft got dangerously close to a Boeing 767-300 ER passenger aircraft operated by Azur Air airline which was flying from Ramenskoye Airport to Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. The incident took place in the area of responsibility of the aforementioned Rostov Centre. Given the circumstances, the air controllers instructed the pilots to make a steep descent in order to avoid a collision.

To reiterate, the unacceptable and dangerous activities of the aircraft operated by NATO member countries, with US and NATO military aircraft flying without radio communication or flight plans and failing to obtain air traffic control clearances, are fraught with serious risks to the safety of civil aircraft, which violates basic principles of international air navigation under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944 and other international laws.

Reserving the right to respond to the corresponding challenges posed by the United States and NATO members, we call for a substantive dialogue on security guarantees and a discussion of pathways to reduce military and political tensions and to prevent dangerous incidents in the air and at sea. Otherwise, all the means at our disposal will be used to prevent and neutralise emerging threats.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4988103






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address to the readers of RIAC’s digest “Ten Years in the Global World,” Moscow, December 9, 2021



9 December 2021 - 17:00



Friends,

We are bringing to your notice a unique publication timed to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), which is not only a recognised foreign policy think tank, but also a reputable platform for a broad-based dialogue on key international matters. The council includes prominent Russian diplomats, politicians, public figures, and scholars, many of whom have shared their thoughts and ideas in this digest.

The Foreign Ministry values ​​close business and friendly relations with its colleagues in RIAC. This mutually enriching partnership is much needed today. The ongoing exchange of up-to-the-minute and analytical information allows the council’s analysts to have a better sense of the pulse of current foreign policy activities and helps Foreign Ministry employees to stay informed about the latest innovative concepts when it comes to a theoretical comprehension of the main trends in international relations. We heed the council’s proposals and recommendations on adjusting our foreign policy as they apply to certain items on the international agenda. Continuing productive interaction into the future will add value to our efforts due to the growing need for developing balanced and professional assessments of the ever-complicating international situation.

Indeed, the international situation has become more multidimensional, and the scenarios for future developments are nonlinear and depend on many factors. On the one hand, we are witnessing positive developments stemming from the democratisation of international life. Rising global centres, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region, Africa and Latin America, are strengthening their positions. These fast developing economies do not copy the Western ultraliberal model; they pursue independent policies based on sovereignty and cultural and civilisational identity and use them as a basis to achieve impressive success in a wide variety of areas.

Innovative multilateral associations such as the G20, BRICS, the SCO and ASEAN play an increasingly meaningful role in global politics. We can safely say that the process of forming a more just and democratic, and thus, sustainable multipolar world order has become irreversible.

A number of US-led Western countries are trying to impede the natural course of history. In a futile attempt to preserve a vanishing dominance, our Western colleagues are striving to replace universally accepted norms of international law, including the UN Charter, with the notorious “rules-based order.” Acting outside the UN and other universal organisations, they create various limited ad hoc coalitions and arbitrarily attribute to them the right to speak and act on behalf of the entire international community.

Obviously, this egotistical approach does not help maintain mutual trust in the name of resolving today’s many problems – from international terrorism and cross-border crime to climate change and fresh water shortage. On the contrary, this approach leads to new dividing lines, re-ideologisation and militarisation of international life, and dangerous relapses into “block-based mentality.” Therefore, international cooperation is becoming more difficult, diplomacy is not always effective in settling regional conflicts, and the risks of a conflict between major world players possessing nuclear weapons are on the rise.

Of course, this is not our choice, but as realists, we have to consider the facts and cannot ignore them when forming our own vision of world development prospects. Acquiring its place in the world as a great Eurasian and Euro-Pacific power, state and civilisation, Russia will continue pursuing an independent foreign policy under any circumstances. At the same time, we continue to be one of the key guarantors of the UN-centric international legal system created after World War II. We are making a real, tangible contribution to the strengthening of global security in all of its dimensions, using primarily political and diplomatic instruments based on the strict observance of international law.

Our numerous constructive initiatives are aimed at improving the world situation. This applies to President Vladimir Putin’s idea to convene a summit of the five UN Security Council permanent members to reach agreements on concerted efforts to reduce international tensions in the spirit of the collective leadership of these major powers. One of the priorities is to implement the Russian President’s initiative to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership – a new continent-wide integration contour open to all countries and interstate associations in Europe and Asia.

It is necessary to conduct a broad public discussion of Russia’s role and place in the world and its foreign policy priorities in this current complicated period in the development of international relations, a period that is critical in many respects. This new publication is making an important contribution to this important cause.

The first ten years of the Russian International Affairs Council have been a success. On its anniversary, I would like to wish the members of the council good health, new creative achievements and all the best. I know the connoisseurs of modern foreign policy thought that use this publication will learn many new and interesting things from it.

SERGEY LAVROV




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4988643
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 12th, 2021 #42
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 9, 2021



9 December 2021 - 18:32







Update on Ukraine

The situation in Ukraine continues to cause concern. Kiev, supported by NATO countries, which are supplying the country which is in a state of civil war with weapons, is building up forces on the contact line in Donbass. The number of ceasefire violations registered since the signing of an agreement on additional measures to strengthen the ceasefire in July 2020 has approached 90,000. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission has reported that Kiev is deploying heavy weaponry, including large calibre artillery systems and armoured vehicles, to the eastern regions of Ukraine. It also continues using drones.

The EU has recently joined in the efforts to militarise Ukraine. On December 2, 2021, the EU Council adopted a decision to allocate 31 million euros to “help strengthen the capacities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.” This decision is unlikely to promote peace in Donbass.

Taken together, this has deadlocked the peace talks. The meetings of the Contact Group and its working subgroups held on December 7 and 8 have again failed to produce any results. Instead of honouring the Minsk Package of Measures, Kiev only pretends to be implementing its obligations, avoiding a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk and trying to shift responsibility for the skidding settlement onto Russia, which, as you are aware, is an intermediary of the peace process.

These actions are aimed, in part, at drawing the attention of the Ukrainian people away from internal problems. The level of the shadow economy remains high and has increased to 31 percent of GDP, according to the Kiev authorities. Ukraine’s population is decreasing rapidly. According to UN experts, it is likely to decline to 35 million by 2050. The Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine has reported that there are some 5 million unregistered firearms in the country, which is alarming in light of rampant nationalism.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian authorities have been expanding the legal framework that is undermining the Minsk agreements. During the previous briefing, I mentioned the draft law to allow foreign armed units to come to Ukraine in 2022. This action directly contradicts Paragraph 10 of the Minsk Package of Measures, which provides for the withdrawal of foreign armed formations from Ukrainian territory. The draft law On the Principles of the State Policy of the Transition Period has not been removed from the agenda either. Instead of a special status and amnesty for the residents of Donbass, this document envisages a military-civilian administration and lustration, which has become a fact of life in Ukraine.

Kiev has now turned its attention to Ukrainians with Russian passports. On December 2, 2021, President Vladimir Zelensky submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a draft law amending the law on citizenship of Ukraine, which will introduce fines and even restrictions on the freedoms of Ukrainians holding Russian passports. Just as the draft law on the automatic loss of Ukrainian citizenship upon the acquisition of Russian citizenship, which was submitted last summer, the new bill will flagrantly violate the rights of millions of people in Ukraine.

Regrettably, Kiev’s Western patrons continue to cover up and encourage the non-implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures by Kiev, justify Kiev’s destructive policy towards Donbass residents, and disregard large-scale violations of human rights and the growing neo-Nazi trends. This is harming, above all, Ukraine and its citizens.

We call on Kiev to stop the sabotage of the Minsk agreements and large-scale infringements on human rights, and to ensure strict compliance with the rule of law. We hope that our Western partners and relevant international organisations will encourage the Kiev authorities to work towards these priority objectives.



Forum on the cultural and humanitarian ties of Crimean Tatar organisations with their compatriots in Turkey

On December 10-12, Ankara will host a forum on the cultural and humanitarian ties of Crimean Tatar organisations with their compatriots in Turkey. We welcome this purely humanitarian event. We hope that it will attract the attention of the large Crimean Tatar diaspora in the Republic of Turkey and will also help people get a personal impression of the life of their compatriots in the Russian Crimea. We are sure that the forum will become a solid argument against the myth, promoted by Ukrainian politicians, about “mass persecutions” of Crimean Tatars and their hope that Crimea will be returned to Ukraine.

We would like to express gratitude to the Turkish co-organiser of the forum – the Federation of Crimean Tatar Cultural Associations, chaired by Unver Sel.

It is obvious that consolidated efforts are producing results. Contrary to the expectations of our ill-wishers, information about the real situation in Crimea is breaking, slowly but surely, through the wall of censorship and open bans in the Western media and is helping the international community accept the reality.



Afghanistan update

We support the World Bank’s decision to transfer $280 million to the UN World Food Programme and UNICEF from the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), which was frozen earlier. However, we consider this measure to be insufficient and call for the unfreezing of the remaining funds – over $1 billion – as soon as possible. The Afghan authorities are in need of resources to establish a normal economic life for the population, to restore the civil infrastructure and the operation of socially important facilities.

We consider it important to continue international humanitarian support of the Afghan people. As a reminder, on December 1, the second consignment of Russian humanitarian aid arrived in Kabul, containing 36 tonnes of food. We plan to deliver one more consignment of humanitarian aid before the end of this year.

We welcome the steps taken by our foreign partners to establish a dialogue with the new authorities. In this context, we have noted the statements made by the EU, Germany and Indonesia about their plans to resume their diplomatic missions’ work in Kabul.

We also note the steps taken by the Afghan authorities to ensure women's rights in the country, in particular, an executive order that regulates women’s legal status in various public spheres.



UN General Assembly approves Russia-US draft resolution on international information security

At one of our past briefings, we discussed a joint Russian-American initiative, a draft resolution on international information security, which was submitted to the General Assembly for consideration. The Russia-US draft resolution, “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, and advancing responsible state behaviour in the use of ICTs,” was approved by consensus on December 6, during the plenary meeting of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly.

The document, based on a Russia-sponsored project and elaborated by joint Russian-US efforts in the spirit of the Geneva accords between our countries’ leaders, has been adopted with an unprecedented number of co-sponsors, 108 states.

In terms of its content, the resolution reflects Russia’s key approaches to building an international information security system, namely: preventing conflicts in the information landscape, promoting peaceful use of ICTs, preventing their use for criminal and terrorist purposes, as well as continuing dedicated global negotiations with the central role of the UN. It is fundamentally important that a UN General Assembly resolution has for the first time provided for developing legally binding norms in the field of ICT use. The document expresses support for the new Open-Ended Working Group created at Russia’s initiative and reaffirms its mandate, as set forth in UNGA Resolution 75/240.

The Russia-US resolution creates a favourable framework for further constructive interaction of the global community through the UN Open-ended Working Group. The approval of this document by consensus will mark a return to a single-track negotiation process on international information security. The first substantive session of the Working Group will take place in New York soon, on December 13-17, where we will jointly develop specific agreements and hands-on solutions to achieve our common goal of ensuring an open, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful ICT environment.



Results of the Second Session of the UN Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Second Session of the UN Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction was held from November 29 to December 3, 2021 in New York. The Russian Federation participated in the event as an observer.

The participants managed to build on the success of the first session, which took place in November 2019, and pave the way for further progress.

The Rules of Procedure were approved, establishing consensus as the only method of decision making on procedural and substantive issues; this can be considered an invitation to all interested parties that so far remain outside the discussion framework to join the dialogue and become involved in the process.

In addition, an important decision was made to establish a Working Committee to continue deliberations on various aspects of creating the WMD-free zone amongst members of the Conference during the intersessional period. This should facilitate the work that is geared towards the final result. While being open to all members of the Conference, the Working Committee may also decide to invite observers and experts to contribute to its work.

The Second Session participants approved a report, which summarised the discussion on the sidelines of the event on specific thematic aspects of the future Treaty.

Given the significant results achieved, we hope that the positive dynamics will persist in the creation of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East until the next session of the Conference, scheduled for November 2022.

We are confident that establishing a WMD-free zone will contribute to strengthening peace and stability both in the Middle East and around the world.



A meeting of political directors from member countries of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council charged with implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina

On December 7-8, political directors representing member countries of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council charged with implementing the Peace (Dayton) Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina held a meeting in Sarajevo. Russia was not in attendance. The meeting’s format was incomplete by virtue of unacceptable circumstances, which, from Russia’s point of view, are in flagrant violation of both the legal norms and the existing practice. This has happened for the first time in the 26-year history of the international effort to assist the post-conflict settlement in that Balkan country.

We have repeatedly pointed out to our Steering Board partners that a private individual, such as German national Christian Schmidt, cannot chair Board events, since this seriously detracts from the international community’s status and role in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Regrettably, our remonstrations were not heard.

We have not lost hope that the Steering Board for Bosnia and Herzegovina will revert to the consensual format. In this connection, we are keeping our full membership in this body.

We have categorically refused to join the final communiqué of the Sarajevo meeting, which our PIC colleagues adopted on December 8. We think that this document is an example of undisguised interference in the affairs of a sovereign state and in the life of that country, an example of crude distortion of the real state of affairs in the country, and yet another attempt to impose outside interests on the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We firmly believe that statements of this kind only aggravate the political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was provoked from the outside. It can in no way promote the establishment of an interethnic dialogue, foster mutual understanding, or shape a unifying, future-oriented agenda.

We suggest that those whom it may concern familiarise themselves with the statement issued by the Russian Embassy in Sarajevo. This statement has been posted on the Embassy’s website and quoted by the media in the region.

We call on all participants in the process of post-conflict settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina to respect the Dayton principles and the practice that has taken shape over the quarter century of multilateral cooperation in the name of an early normalisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.



The “Russian trace” in Catalan affairs

We have to return once again to the myth regarding the “Russian trace” in Catalan affairs.

We have commented on the publication – or rather a fake – in the Spanish media alleging that Russia “meddled” in the preparations for Catalonia’s illegitimate independence referendum in 2017. I am referring to the reprints of a fake by US journalist Michael Schwirtz published by The New York Times in September 2021. Russia has repeatedly pointed to the absurdity of the Schwirtz allegations, particularly in the context of his “evidence” (in fact, fakes pure and simple) based on a “10-page European intelligence report.”

This position has been confirmed by a recent story in El Diario, a popular Spanish news website, which quotes the EU diplomatic service as saying in reply to a request from Catalan European MPs (including from Carles Puigdemont, the mastermind of the Catalan referendum) that the “EU Intelligence and Situation Centre has nothing to do with the report mentioned in the New York Times article.”

We can only regret the haste and lack of responsibility with which the European Parliament, based on fake info concocted by overseas “experts,” decided to investigate what they call Russia’s presumed contacts with the Catalan separatists. After all, they could have done this work in advance by sending requests to relevant organisations, obtaining their replies and thus forming an objective picture. But no, this doesn’t seem to be part of the European Parliament’s working methods. The desire to spot the notorious “Russian trace” must have prevailed over the need for the most basic fact checking. This is yet another example of how politicking murders professionalism. We will wait and see whether The New York Times will have the courage to publish a denial in view of the newly emerged circumstances. Given that NYT correspondents are posted in Russia, they might influence their colleagues at home to return to this topic and refute their own claims. I understand that this is hard for them, but it would be the right thing to do from the perspective of staying true to journalism as a profession.



New German government’s plans to relax visa regime for Russian nationals aged 25 and younger

We noted reports from the new German government concerning potential relaxed visa regime for Russian nationals aged 25 and younger. These statements contain the intention to create visa-free travel opportunities for Russian nationals from “important target groups,” as stated in the reports, including young people aged 25 and younger. This initiative is presented as a measure of support for Russian civil society due to allegedly extensive restrictions on civil and democratic freedoms in our country.

We will see how this initiative will be translated into action. In its current form, it raises more questions than it clarifies. We can only feel perplexed by attempts to artificially fragment Russian society and single out “target groups.” It is not clear how this arrangement will apply to young residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, which EU members continue to discriminate by denying visas. How do the authors of this initiative expect to ensure the principle of reciprocity and a similar visa-free regime for young Germans under 25 travelling to Russia? We have many questions and I have just mentioned some of them.

If Germany truly wishes to be instrumental in promoting contacts between people, perhaps it would be logical to return to our proposal of a full-fledged Russia‒EU visa-free travel agreement, without any limitations on categories of citizens. The work on the agreement was blocked by Brussels in 2014. Since Berlin is interested in expanding our contacts, it would be nice if our German colleagues addressed the EU headquarters with this matter.

Also, as an alternative of genuinely collaborative nature, we would like to draw your attention to the idea that was earlier promoted during the St Petersburg Dialogue Forum of the Russian and German public. Following the forum on July 18‒19, 2019, in Bonn, a memorandum on relaxing the visa regime between Russia and Germany was adopted. Among other things, the memorandum calls for mutual cancelation of visas by Moscow and Berlin for the nationals of the two countries aged 18 to 25‒30 who participate in bilateral cooperation programmes.

We are ready to discuss the entire scope of these issues with our German partners.



Human Rights Day

On December 10, the international community observes Human Rights Day. It was on this day in 1948 that the UN General Assembly approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights thus laying a solid foundation for the modern international system of encouraging and protecting human rights.

This international day is a good opportunity to summarise results and outline new goals that would contribute to improving the human rights situation in specific countries and in the world in general.

Russia is unwaveringly committed to the letter and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principles and standards formulated in international human rights pacts and other universal human rights documents. It is our belief that effective fulfilment of international obligations under the existing documents by countries is only possible based on the principles of dialogue and cooperation and engaging all interested parties in the decision-making process concerning human rights.

It is regrettable that some countries pursue a policy of using the issue of human rights to serve their own opportunistic political and economic interests, including to interfere in domestic affairs of sovereign states.

Despite the growing number of global challenges that require consolidated efforts from all members of the international community, there are states (usually those considered to be developed democracies) that still refuse to change their course that can be described as selfish, refuse to abandon aggressive approaches, including illicit unilateral enforcement measures that have a negative impact on human rights. Many countries descend to using the COVID-19 pandemic to promote their vision of human rights norms and standards by rewriting international law that encourages and protects human rights. The same countries actively resort to discrimination, which is prohibited by international law, by enforcing vaccine-based nationalism thus violating the most important human right, the right to life.

Russia has always opposed such approaches and insisted that there is no alternative to constructive international cooperation on human rights, that it is unacceptable to apply double standards and it is important to duly respect national, cultural and historical specifics of countries’ development. It is achieving this level of dialogue and cooperation that our country will always strive for in its activity within international, universal and regional human rights organisations.

Instead of working out together the best way to use international legal instruments and universal mechanisms to promote human rights and improve the human rights situation in different regions, our Western partners are preparing for yet another ideology-driven get-together. I am talking about the “summit for democracy”.



Summit for Democracy

We have commented on this event several times, but the number of questions regarding it is increasing. The summit, organised at the US initiative, will be held on December 9-10, 2021, but December 8 has been declared by the organisers as Day Zero of the event.

To add a patina of legitimacy to this questionable event, they have invited UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who will speak on December 10. The schedule for that day is devoted to human rights, with the traditional Western focus on “empowering human rights defenders and independent media” and “strengthening democracy and defending against authoritarianism,” which provides for discussing the developments in Belarus. The participants will also discuss “protecting democratic institutions,” including elections, the rule of law, and a resilient information space. Just as expected, they will not be discussing the situation in their own countries, instead focusing on the states which have not been invited to the meeting.

The summit’s official theme is to promote “the global conversation amongst governments and civil society.” Strangely, this conversation will only engage a group of select countries. It is a new round of segregation.

Even US media outlets, which provided extensive coverage to the upcoming event, admit that the term “democracy” is being used as a code word, as a way to distinguish “friends” from “foes” within the framework of the United States’ rivalry with Russia and China and attempts to contain them. This story has been invented to more easily identify and distinguish “friends” from “foes.” It is obvious that the US administration is trying to create the broadest possible coalition of “friends” against “foes.” As we pointed out on numerous occasions, a course has been set for creating new dividing lines in international affairs.

The main distinguishing feature of our position is that we are not forcing anything on anyone and do not try to lecture anyone. We are always ready to promote an equal interstate dialogue with all countries and regional associations on the basis of international law. I would like to remind everyone that #UNCharterIsOurRules.

I would like to quote the event’s organisers. Today US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has made a sensational statement in terms of depth and truth: “We have entered a phase in foreign policy and international relations where it’s no longer the formal Greek structure of the Parthenon – the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, and so forth.” At the same time, he admitted that his country is trying to reform the international architecture by establishing new “alliances, partnerships and institutions” that will work in Washington’s interests. In plain English, the United States is doing everything in its power to destroy the international order based on international law led by the UN, and to make use of the chaos it itself has created to promote – no, not even a system but a game designed to engage as many sates as possible to work in Washington’s interests.

I did not expect such revelations, but this is exactly what we heard today. Those who have been invited to the summit and who will take part in it today and tomorrow will be granted the honour of serving US interests. This is sad. This is new dividing lines, a new kind of segregation and yet another proof that international law is being replaced with obscure rules that are changed to suit the interests of a certain state. The mistakes of the past, which cost humankind dearly, will not be used as a warning against repeating them. The world has lived through all that and has paid an enormous price for such mistakes.



30th anniversary of the Commonwealth of Independent States

This year we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

We regard the CIS as a successful regional international organisation and a useful platform for exchanging views on a broad range of issues, from politics and the economy to security, education and couture. The range of CIS activities is growing and new areas of cooperation appear every year. The global coronavirus pandemic has not slowed down but boosted the organisation’s contacts. The CIS promptly responded to the challenge of the pandemic thanks to a solid legal framework in the field of healthcare and coordinated efforts of sectoral cooperation bodies.

The strengthening of friendly ties with our CIS partners is a steadfast foreign policy priority in Russia and proof that states can retain their sovereignty and at the same time join forces to cooperate and promote not only mutually acceptable but mutually beneficial projects, as well as face the challenges together against which no one is immune.

I would like to draw your attention to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video address on the 30th anniversary of the CIS. We intend to continue working to strengthen our foreign policy coordination within the framework of the CIS and to enhance the CIS effectiveness and international standing.

We firmly believe that during this decade the CIS will remain an area of friendship and trust-based dialogue in the interests of our nations and regional stability.



75th anniversary of United Nations Children’s Fund

On December 11, the UN Children’s Fund (UNISEF) marks its 75th anniversary.

In the course of its history, the fund has come a long way from a temporary emergency programme to a key organisation in the UN system that acts in the interests of all children in the world.

Russia has consistently developed cooperation with UNICEF in accordance with our country’s state policy priorities to facilitate international development.

In order to make our interaction with the fund more systematic, predictable and task-oriented, the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the UN Children’s Fund was signed in 2019. Talks are currently underway to expand the participation of Russian suppliers of medicines, vaccines and medical equipment in the fund’s procurement system.



60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the United Republic of Tanzania

December 11, 2021 marks the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Tanzania. Our country contributed to the liberation movement of the Tanzanian people and was one of the first countries to recognise the sovereignty of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, which later formed a unified state.

The Russian Federation and the United Republic of Tanzania currently maintain a partnership and friendly relations based on mutual respect for each other and regard for each other’s interests. They coordinate their steps within the UN and other multilateral organisations and also work together to provide stability and strengthen security in the East Africa region. Bilateral trade, economic and investment relations are developing actively; the contractual framework of our cooperation is also expanding.

To mark the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Minister of Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation of the United Republic of Tanzania Liberata Mulamula will exchange messages of congratulations. We congratulate the people of this country and wish them wellbeing and all the best.



New Reality: New Opportunities international youth forum of Russian compatriots abroad

The New Reality: New Opportunities international youth forum of Russian compatriots abroad will take place between December 11 and 15 in Minsk and Gomel under the auspices of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad with support from the Moscow Government.

The event will bring together over 80 representatives of the youth wing of organisations uniting Russian compatriots living in the former Soviet states who have an active social and public stand in the foreign community. The opening ceremony will be attended by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko. The list of speakers includes Konstantin Kosachev, Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council of the Russian Federal Assembly, Russian State Duma deputies, representatives of the Russian Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), the Russian Federal Agency for Youth Affairs, as well as Russian non-government organisations and foundations engaged in working with the youth.

The agenda will focus on the development of the youth movement of compatriots who live in the post-Soviet space, shaping their leadership qualities and increasing legal literacy.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

Earlier this week, the ECHR handed down a ruling on the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border that the migrants, who are now in Polish territory, cannot be deported to Belarus. What is your comment on the Strasbourg Court’s decision?



Maria Zakharova:

It is highly symptomatic that the European Court of Human Rights has imposed a ban on Poland deporting refugees to Belarus and urged it to provide people fleeing from the West’s war adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria with at least minimal humanitarian standards and a certain wherewithal for survival, including food, clothes, medical services, and, in a number of cases, legal assistance.

We have repeatedly commented on this and called on a “civilised” Europe, a supposed champion of humanism and human rights, to focus on this problem. We pointed out the extremely harsh treatment that the Polish border guards and military meted out to the migrants, many of whom are women and children.

Special-purpose equipment and munitions (teargas, floodlights, water cannons, police dogs) were used against them on many occasions. This is the first quarter of the 21st century. Countries calling themselves “civilised” fight civilians (refugees, migrants) with stun grenades and smoke-puff charges. All of this has been documented by the relevant UN and Council of Europe services and by the EU’s Frontex Agency. On November 16, the Polish services sprayed chemical pesticides, which resulted in 132 persons, including 23 children, getting chemical burns and respiratory injuries. This calls for a thorough international investigation. The correspondents operating on the Belarusian side of the border, whom Belarus allows to cover this situation (the Polish territory across the border is officially an off-limits area) repeatedly witnessed how Polish law-enforcers were pushing people back to Belarus. I think you saw this too. This is evidence of Warsaw’s purposeful violation of international and European law.

Starting in September, Poland introduced a state of emergency in the strip of territory that borders Belarus, something that barred media access to that area and prevented humanitarian organisations from establishing a presence in the vicinity of the border. After the expiry of the state of emergency’s maximum three-month term, Poland approved an amendment to the law on the state border, actually retaining all the restrictions under domestic law. This is not the way to behave for those claiming a commitment to fundamental human rights documents.

The Belarusian authorities are seeking to help the refugees within the framework of their international obligations. They have opened access to the border areas for humanitarian organisations, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration, the WHO, and others. They have also organised regular deliveries of humanitarian aid to the migrants. Minsk’s aid and assistance to the migrants is estimated at $25 million. They have converted the Bremino-Bruzgi logistics centre into a shelter, where most migrants have been evacuated from the border strip. They also convinced some of the people to go back home, with 3,000 people having left Belarus.

Regrettably, the European capitals and institutions prefer to disregard the refugees’ disastrous plight and deny them the very possibility of implementing their right to refuge, instead of urging their ally to live up to its international obligations and restore the rule of law in Poland. The West itself has for a long time painted in bright colours the advantages of the Western way of life and encouraged these people to come and use all the concomitant benefits, including various allowances. At the same time, the Western troops have made life in these countries not only hard to bear but often downright impossible.

Double standards can be seen even in approaches used by relevant UN agencies. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is forcing Tajikistan to receive, at its own cost, more Afghan refugees in addition to the 6,000 who are already there and to accommodate them with families. Moreover, Dushanbe is being urged to perform commitments on letting in even asylum seekers. No calls of this kind were addressed to Warsaw. I didn’t hear of Dushanbe joining any coalitions that invaded and occupied other countries, plundered their natural resources, or engaged in illegitimate economic activities. There was nothing of the kind. But Poland was part of this for decades, including an occupation of Iraq, controlling Iraqi territories, etc.

We welcome the international community’s steps to improve the position of the destitute people on the border with Poland who are seeking asylum and protection from domestic war and devastation in well-off Europe. We would like to believe that the ECHR’s decision will be able to induce our European partners to revise their attitude towards the refugee problem and resume the implementation of their commitments, which they so loudly declare and use to teach others. We hope Warsaw will refrain from the use of force against people in a quandary and will get down to carrying out its commitments on human rights.



Question:

An NGO called the Centre for Independent Journalism recently published a report assessing content with elements of propaganda in Russian media broadcasts in the Republic of Moldova. The report’s authors claim that Russian television provides non-objective information about the situation in the country and creates risks for manipulating public opinion. What are the possible consequences of this report for Russian media broadcasts in Moldova?



Maria Zakharova:

We closely follow the situation with Russian media outlets in the world and in the Republic of Moldova. The report you mentioned has not gone unnoticed.

Indicatively, it was published a year after the country’s Parliament amended the Code on Audio-Visual Media Services and resumed news and analytical broadcasts from Russia. At that time, we praised this decision since it meets the interests of Russian-speaking citizens of Moldova. It should be recalled that 80 percent of Moldova’s population use Russian, one way or another.

Unfortunately, the resumption of these broadcasts was not to everyone’s liking. This probably explains the publication of the above-mentioned survey. The Centre for Independent Journalism, whose experts prepared the report, positions itself as an “apolitical” NGO but does not conceal its ties with the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden. The report’s authors monitored three Russian channels, namely, Channel One in Moldova, NTV Moldova and RTR Moldova, over a period of ten days and decided that their content did not help form correct opinions. This is just fantastic! It turns out that there are correct and incorrect opinions, and that media outlets should broadcast “correct” opinions. We are talking about correct opinions, rather than correct facts; it goes without saying that facts must always be correct. The report does not specify what opinions are “correct,” and who perceives them as such and why. The entire matter has been raised in a splendid and incomparable manner. At the same time, they are writing about the Russian content’s “propaganda elements,” which allegedly threaten the country’s information security.

Any resident of Moldova who has watched Russian channels at least once can see that the report’s conclusions are completely far-fetched. One can disagree with opinions expressed in the broadcasts, one can argue with them and deny them, or one can agree with them and form one’s own opinion using all available data. One can question the opinion of opponents using specific viewpoints that are provided by Russian television channels, information blogs, talk shows, etc.

The “apolitical” Centre for Independent Journalism has produced a politicised report. Its experts tried to discredit Russian channels and to brand opinions differing from views that the Centre considers “correct” or “incorrect” as propaganda. Quite possibly, they are paving the way for reinstating a ban on Russian programmes that had been in force from February 2018 until December 2020.

We hope that the authorities of the Republic of Moldova are sufficiently committed to their obligations, including those assumed by Moldova as an OSCE member state, and other documents guaranteeing the free dissemination of opinions and information and the freedom of speech, and that they will not give in to similar provocative reports and take steps violating the pluralism of opinions, media freedom and the interests of their own Russian-speaking citizens. We are confident that this approach completely meets the constructive and pragmatic nature of bilateral relations that our countries have built up in the most diverse fields.



Question:

Members of the Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by deputy prime ministers of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan held a meeting On December 1, 2021. The event generated certain expectations in the context of statements made in Sochi. What do you think about the work of the Trilateral Working Group to unblock regional lines of communication and economic ties? When can we expect a statement about specific results, as noted earlier during the Sochi meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

The top-level Sochi agreements confirm the readiness of Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders to take further steps towards normalisation of relations. In our contacts with Baku and Yerevan, we are working on their consistent implementation, including efforts to resolve border disputes and to unblock transport ties in the South Caucasus.

As agreed in Sochi on November 26, 2021, it is important to move towards establishing a bilateral commission to delimit and demarcate the state border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Russia providing consultative assistance at the request of the parties. We are expecting both countries to complete the line-up of their national delegations as soon as possible.

Efforts to unblock all regional economic and transport ties also continue within the framework of the Trilateral Working Group. For more detailed information, please contact the press services of the staffs of Russian and Azerbaijani governments, as well as the Office of the Prime Minister of Armenia.

On December 8, 2021, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed matters of implementing the Sochi agreements during his telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan. A press release on the results of the conversation is posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website.



Question:

Despite the commitments under the three trilateral statements, Azerbaijan persists with its aggressive rhetoric and has been making war threats. In particular, speaking in the Quba District on the developments in 2020 in Artsakh, on December 6, 2021, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said: “Let them call the date when the Zangezur corridor will open, and this way there will be no problems.” What do you think about Azerbaijan’s militarist rhetoric, especially taking into consideration that there were no agreements on the so-called Zangezur corridor, and the question of providing this “corridor” has not been discussed, as confirmed publicly by high-ranking Russian officials on several occasions?



Maria Zakharova:

Media outlets often ask us to comment on statements by the parties to the conflict. Russia has a position of principle on this matter, and you know this. We believe it is necessary to refrain from making any statements or undertaking actions that can delay the implementation of the trilateral agreements reached at the highest level or result in an escalation.



Question:

On December 3, 2021, the Azerbaijani military personnel kidnapped Seiran Sargsyan, a 65-year-old resident of Chartar in the Martuni Province, took him to Azerbaijan-controlled territory and killed him. Cameras installed on the Artsakh side recorded this incident. It has to be noted that this was not the first killing of an Artsakh civilian by Azerbaijan, but no one has been held accountable. Don’t you think that this impunity leads to more crimes by the Azerbaijani military personnel against Artsakh civilians?



Maria Zakharova:

Everything Russia does conforms to its role as a mediator and participant in the OSCE Minsk Group. Our country has undertaken a series of peacekeeping efforts to bring about stability in the areas you mentioned. You know Russia’s principled position on this issue. Russia does everything to make sure that the agreements are fulfilled, and avoid any deterioration in the regional developments, although this cannot be guaranteed because we are dealing with a long-standing conflict.



Question:

The process to devise demilitarisation and demarcation mechanisms has yet to get underway. Has there been any progress on specific transport corridors? We know that a meeting has taken place, but there have been no results.



Maria Zakharova:

I have just commented on information we have now. I will share new details with you as soon as I get them.



Question:

According to recent reports, the first 3+3 meeting will take place tomorrow. Any information in this regard?



Maria Zakharova:

I can confirm this. The meeting is expected to be held at the level of deputy foreign ministers.



Question:

Has Georgia refused to take part?



Maria Zakharova:

It is true that Georgian representatives were invited to this meeting, but said that they will refrain from attending it. The first 3+3 meeting of an advisory regional mechanism for the South Caucasus is expected to be held tomorrow. Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko will be representing Russia at this event. Tomorrow, we will discuss the outcomes and the line-up of country representatives in more detail.



Question:

What are Moscow’s expectations regarding the upcoming December 15 meeting in Brussels between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia? In particular, does Moscow expect the sides to reaffirm the agreements reached in Sochi, as well as earlier arrangements on the Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement as mediated by Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

We welcome any efforts to bring the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan back to normal. We believe in the importance of maintaining regular contacts between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is our hope that at their December 15 meeting in Brussels Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan will reaffirm their commitment to fulfilling the trilateral agreements reached at the highest level on November 9, 2020, January 11 and November 26, 2021, as well as voice their support to the efforts by the troika of OSCE Minsk Group members, who are currently focusing on priority humanitarian issues.



Question:

What will be your comment on Azerbaijan refusing to attend a scheduled meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers during the OSCE Ministerial Council in Stockholm? Does this mean that Baku seeks to undermine the negotiating process within the OSCE Minsk Group?



Maria Zakharova:

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group oversaw the planning arrangements for the meeting. You can find the assessment of this situation in the December 4, 2021, statement by the troika on the OSCE website.

This is worth speaking not so much about the past, or events that failed to materialise, but what the parties will have to do moving forward, including their contacts, meetings, etc. I have already mentioned some of them. We do hope that they will be held in a constructive and business-like atmosphere and will bring about tangible results.



Question:

The other day, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement regarding remarks by Alen Simonyan, Speaker of the Armenian Parliament. Did you get any response from the Armenian party? Has this incident been settled?



Maria Zakharova:

There is no need to raise the status. That was a reply to a question, rather than a statement.

We do not see this as an “incident.” It was important to clarify the gist of the matter. The subject was raised on December 8, 2021, during a telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Armenian counterpart, Ararat Mirzoyan. We believe that this subject is closed.



Question:

On December 2, 2021, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke at a news conference following the OSCE Ministerial Council’s meeting and noted that the Russian, US and French foreign ministers had adopted a statement within the OSCE framework as co-chair countries on resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. So far, the statement’s text has not been published and cannot be accessed. What does the statement say, and why has it not been published yet?



Maria Zakharova:

The statement you mentioned is posted on the OSCE website, and anyone can read it. Why was it not published while being issued? The parties coordinated the text still further. There is nothing unusual here. This is normal work. The document was posted after the wordings of all the provisions were specified, including their translations into different languages.

I also advise you to read the statement by the ambassadors, co-chairs of the Minsk Group. This is an irreplaceable source of information on the subject.

I would like to draw attention to the provisions of this document. For example, it urges the parties to completely fulfil their obligations assumed under the statement of the Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders of November 9, 2020 and confirmed in their statement of November 26, 2021. They should renounce hostile rhetoric and provocative actions, and work constructively to resolve such important matters as the delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border and its subsequent demarcation and the resumption of economic and transport ties between both neighbouring states. They should also continue their interaction under the auspices of the Minsk Group’s co-chairs for attaining real progress on humanitarian matters, including the return of all detained persons, mine clearance missions, missing person searches, the voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced people, and the protection of historical and cultural landmarks.

There is no reason for alarm. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has announced the statement. It has been published. Everything can be accessed, and it is possible to read the document.



Question:

How would you comment on the remarks by the European Commission’s spokesman, Peter Stano, on the European Union’s concern over the possible escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? On December 6, 2021, he said while commenting on an article in The Financial Times, that, although we do not comment on various media speculations, when it comes to the escalation of Russia’s military might around Ukraine, we take this matter very seriously, and we have already stated that we possess and receive very alarming information.



Maria Zakharova:

Young journalists who are only starting to cover international affairs, university graduates, students and interns planning to work in the media often ask the following question: “What is a media campaign? Does this amount to confrontation or pressure, influence?” Well, this is what it is. It is a large-scale information attack from several sources. First, information moves vertically, then it spreads horizontally via representatives of governments, NGOs, civil society and media outlets. An assertion about Russia’s alleged invasion of Ukraine was circulated. We can see how this drama is being played by different actors.

At first, even Kiev did not confirm this because it did not follow media reports. Talking to Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty on November 2, 2021, Alexey Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, referred to such reports as misinformation. The Ukrainian party failed to work efficiently on the other side of the line. Ukrainian authorities later modified their position, readapted quickly and said that there was a Russian threat, that they could feel it, and that they were requesting assistance, money, weapons, etc. The statement that you have just quoted also fits into this category.

On December 6, 2021, The Financial Times wrote about US pressure on the European Union in order to change the sceptical attitude towards these conspiracy theories. However, it proved impossible to influence Russia. At the same time, it is now possible to spread the myth about the United States allegedly stopping a new war in Donbass. One wants to remind those who will be writing on this subject in such a manner that they invented this war. The truth is that Ukrainian authorities launched the war in Donbass against their own compatriots. They did this twice, in 2014 and 2015, and they were backed by their Western handlers. For many years, the Kiev regime and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been shooting, blowing up, conducting acts of sabotage and blockading their own compatriots. This truth is not very desirable, and it does not fit into the overall Western concept.

Russia consistently advocates a peaceful settlement of the domestic Ukrainian conflict on the basis of the Minsk Package of Measures, formalised in 2015 by UN Security Council Resolution 2202. Once again, we advise everyone to read it and to compare it with Kiev’s practical actions, supported by its Western partners. We should ask who fails to fulfil specific provisions, who is the aggressor, and who undermines the peaceful settlement plan, based on the UN Security Council Resolution, the Minsk agreements and documents that must be fulfilled by the entire international community?

As for the European Union, it is not involved in the process of resolving the domestic Ukrainian conflict. At the same time, it bears its share of responsibility for escalating the civil confrontation in this country in 2013-2014. This, too, is an undesirable truth that Brussels is trying to forget. EU representatives supported aggressive nationalist circles who had initiated a coup in February 2014. EU representatives also urged the new Ukrainian authorities to forcibly suppress civilians disagreeing with the coup. They supported the new authorities that refused to build a truly democratic and all-inclusive society in the interests of all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of their ethnic affiliation and native language. The EU could report on all this because it is directly responsible. Brussels’ emissaries attended protest rallies and inspired those perpetrating unconstitutional coups in 2014 and earlier. They did everything possible so as not to notice human rights violations, and how people trying to uphold their rights are being killed in Ukraine.

While claiming the right to some “seriousness,” the EU does nothing to facilitate peace in Donbass, but it aggravates the situation still further, trying to portray Russia as a party to the conflict, as is written in the joint statement following the EU-Ukraine summit in Kiev on October 12, 2021. The EU also induces Kiev to revise the Package of Measures, the only possible foundation for resolving the conflict. This is irresponsible. If Brussels were a neutral party, just like it is today, or a sympathiser, then it should not behave in such a way. The words “to aggravate the situation” mean to destroy or take away the lives of peaceful civilians.

Instead of lecturing Russia, they should analyse their own actions, stop ignoring the facts and assume responsibility for their actions. Instead of making further conjectures for dubious political purposes, the European Commission’s spokesman should think about this.



Question:

How would you comment on the news in the Hraparak newspaper about the recall of Russian Ambassador to Armenia Sergey Kopyrkin because of alleged discontent with his work?



Maria Zakharova:

Let us give the newspaper time until December 11. They should publish a retraction. It is fake news, disinformation. Sergey Kopyrkin continues to work and reach goals set by the country’s leaders.



Question:

A comment on military air incidents in the Black Sea region has been published recently. In an interview with our publication, Peter Stano, a spokesperson for EU external affairs, said that the escalation in the Black Sea region could lead to a conflict that would be undesirable for both parties. He urged Russia to hold talks, including within the OSCE. What does Moscow make of this appeal, especially in the light of the recent incident with a passenger liner and a US Air Force reconnaissance aircraft? Does the Foreign Ministry consider the OSCE an efficient platform for such talks, or should there be new mechanisms created?



Maria Zakharova:

There are two options. The first one is that Peter Stano does not understand the facts. We provided them yesterday and spoke about the note of protest that we gave to the representatives of the US Embassy who were summoned to Smolenskaya Square. The second option is that if the EU spokesperson does have this information, he is distorting the facts and engaging in a disinformation campaign. You cannot help but see who is in charge of whipping up the conflict. If there are facts, they are analysed and everything becomes obvious, especially as regards the incident on December 3, 2021 that involved the US reconnaissance aircraft above the Black Sea.

We have cited five cases that happened in the past few months only. Let alone what is happening in the region: the endless NATO exercises and individual exercises by NATO countries (that are held on the sidelines of NATO exercises), contracts worth billions that are not related to humanitarian issues or economic investment, but to the purchase and delivery of all kinds of weapons to Ukraine, including those prohibited by the Minsk agreements and used in the conflict zone, as well as the deployment of “instructors” (who are actually militants). This is an entire range of measures designed to escalate the conflict and not to implement the Minsk agreements.

We inform and warn our partners on a regular basis about the risks to the military and political stability in the Euro-Atlantic region, as well as the negative consequences for European security that are posed by ill-considered, provocative actions by NATO near Russian borders, including in the Black Sea region. Just a while ago, it was a joke that Russia allegedly gathers troops at the NATO borders. Now it is a real “kingdom of crooked mirrors.” We are being accused of conducting aggressive actions against neighbouring countries, while not leaving the territory of our own state. It is not Russia that is deploying its armed forces to countries it does not have a common border with. NATO has expanded to Russian borders, holds military exercises in our border areas and beefs up military contingents in neighbouring countries, and constantly makes aggressive statements calling Russia an enemy, a threat. We conduct actions in our own territory, and we have a right to do so. Russia is a sovereign and independent state.

I would like to remind you of the main argument that our partners use to defend their logic. Russia potentially has the right to move forces on its own territory, but it could be a potential threat to the West, because in a historical context, our country “showed aggression.” It was not us who did that. The countries that later became NATO members not just showed aggression towards Russia, but started wars, including world ones. They killed our people on our territory. Let alone the destruction of infrastructure, buildings, factories, hospitals and schools. When they say that we can do that because it has happened before, please apply the same argument to the NATO countries that said that. They can do that because they repeatedly did that in their history.

We proposed initiatives aimed at de-escalating tensions and preventing dangerous incidents. On the eve of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Stockholm (December 2 and 3, 2021), we suggested that more reliable contacts between our defence agencies be established on these issues. Our proposals were again ignored by the Western partners. On the contrary, the Alliance continues to boost its activity and military infrastructure in our neighbouring countries. Every week, several dozen NATO reconnaissance planes fly along our borders. This is not an online game. These are facts, and all of them are documented.

One of Russia’s priorities, including within the OSCE, is to work on de-escalating tensions, preventing incidents and receiving legally binding guarantees of security on our western borders. Preventing destabilisation in Europe is in our common interests.



Question:

It has been reported that learning Russian will become compulsory for university students in the Central African Republic, and five Russian schools are being built in Tajikistan. What is the Foreign Ministry’s opinion of these developments, and how can they benefit Russia? Are there plans to encourage the teaching of Russian in other Central Asian and African counties and possibly in other regions? Are you working towards this?



Maria Zakharova:

I haven’t seen any confirmation of the news regarding the CAR. As for Tajikistan, we announced the news some time ago. Supporting the Russian language abroad is among the key priorities of Russian foreign policy. It is considered during the development of all aspects of our relations with our foreign partners, including economic, scientific and educational ties. We regard the Russian language as the basis for the identity of our compatriots living abroad and as a means of international communication in the post-Soviet space. On a broader scale, Russian is among the official UN languages.

The relevant objectives are being addressed within the framework of the comprehensive state programme for supporting and promoting the Russian language abroad, which has been drafted by the Foreign Ministry jointly with the related departments and agencies on the President’s instructions. The programme’s events cover all regions of the world and are adjusted to the specific features of individual countries, but it is focused above all on the CIS, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Regarding the situation in Central Asia, it should be said that teaching Russian at schools is a sovereign right of these states. We know that their citizens would like to study Russian, and we welcome these sentiments. We are ready to provide the necessary assistance in this regard to Central Asian states. Increasing the area where the Russian language can be studied is introducing a huge number of people, primarily youth, to a vast amount of global knowledge, scientific and technical information, culture and arts. This is beneficial for geographic, historical and economic reasons.

The Russian language is a means of interethnic communication in nearly all Central Asian republics and has the status of an official language in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Knowing Russian is important for millions of migrant workers in Russia. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have two major regional universities – Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University and Russian-Tajik Slavonic University – where students can receive education in Russian. Russian subject teachers are working at local general schools under a project underway in these republics. New schools have opened with tuition in the Russian language. In August 2021, the construction of such schools began in five cities in Tajikistan. We are considering the idea of building nine Russian-language schools in different regions of Kyrgyzstan. Work is underway in Uzbekistan to establish four branches of Russian universities in addition to the existing 12. There are over 70 mixed schools with tuition in the Russian language (Russian classes) in Turkmenistan, and Russian is taught as an obligatory foreign language at all other schools.

Demand for Russian has been growing throughout the world during the past few years. During my foreign trips, I invariably hear requests for opening more Russian schools because children want to study Russian. This concerns, above all, our compatriots, mixed families and foreigners without Russian roots or those whose ancestors left Russia decades ago who would like to find Russian culture. This is an obvious trend. The Russian government quota for African students at Russian universities has been increased by 25 percent for the 2022-2023 academic year and has reached 3,253 people. Russian is taught at universities in several African states. This is basic information, but much more interesting data are available on the ministry website.



Question:

What are Russia’s expectations of the new German government? When will Sergey Lavrov meet with Annalena Baerbock?



Maria Zakharova:

We hope to have constructive ties with the new German government, which took oath on December 8. We have always wanted to have constructive relations with Germany based on the principles of mutual respect, equality and a balance of interests. We hope to develop constructive and pragmatic cooperation with Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock and all the other members of the German cabinet.

So far, we have not received any proposals for a meeting between the Russian and German foreign ministers. We are open to dialogue.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has scrutinised the coalition agreement under which the new German government will function. When reading the section on Russia, we took note of the message about the depth and diversity of Russian-German relations and the intention to cooperate with Russia. But we have also noticed elements that are unacceptable to us. We will give priority to the former block of intentions. We will form an opinion of the new German cabinet based on its practical actions.



Question:

A large group of the Astrakhan Region leadership, headed by Governor Igor Babushkin, visited Baku this week, where new cooperation programmes were signed between the region and Azerbaijan. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess the expansion of ties between Russian regions and our CIS neighbours?



Maria Zakharova:

In our opinion, the visit was very successful. Igor Babushkin met with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Minister of the Economy Mikayil Jabbarov. The Astrakhan Business Centre opened in Baku in a ceremony attended by Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev representing the Azerbaijani side. Following the Astrakhan Region Governor’s visit, the Government of the Astrakhan Region and the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a Programme for the Development of Cooperation for 2022.

Russia places great importance on the development of region-to-region ties with other countries, cross-border ties, and our regions’ ties with countries such as Azerbaijan. Trade and economic cooperation with that country is supported by 73 constituent regions of the Russian Federation, and 18 of them have agreements with Azerbaijan concerning trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural cooperation. The Russia-Azerbaijan Interregional Forum is a highly demanded platform. The 11th edition is to take place in Azerbaijan next year.

As for region-to-region cooperation with other CIS countries, we will also make sure to share our assessments with you. It is an interesting topic, especially in the context of the CIS anniversary.



Question:

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov mentioned interference in Russian affairs “under the guise of helping to strengthen democratic institutions and civil society,” speaking at a meeting of the Federation Council’s Ad Hoc Commission on Protecting State Sovereignty and Preventing Interference in the Domestic Affairs of the Russian Federation. As Mr Ryabkov noted, there is an information war going on. Is this one of the problems that he is discussing with the Americans as part of the Strategic Stability Dialogue?



Maria Zakharova:

The comprehensive Strategic Stability Dialogue, initiated by the presidents of Russia and the United States, is intended to pave the way for future arms control. Russia believes that its goal is to work out a new security equation that would take into account significant factors of strategic stability and encompass all strategic offensive and defensive, nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.

As for the US interference in our internal affairs, we are counteracting this hostile activity on a systematic basis (we often comment on this). We are doing it in other formats as well. The Strategic Stability Dialogue is valuable in itself.



Question:

A return to the nuclear deal with Iran seems to be of great importance for Biden, the “peacemaker.” How can Russia help in this, perhaps in conjunction with China?



Maria Zakharova:

A Russian delegation led by Permanent Representative to the International Organisations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov is taking part in the meeting of the Joint Commission of the JCPOA today. We hope that the meeting will be effective and will initiate further work at the expert level and in working groups addressing the practical aspects of resuming the full-fledged implementation of the nuclear deal.

We hope that after the technical break that some of the delegations needed to report to their capitals, all partners will return to work without pauses and will work intensively. We can see no other way but to accelerate these consultations, relying on the experience and results of the previous rounds, and accordingly, drawing up lists of steps that the United States and Iran should take to ensure strict compliance with the JCPOA requirements, backed up by UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

Russia has been working on this track for months, while adhering to all its obligations and proposing solutions that should help the parties find or elaborate a recovery package. We encourage our partners to do the same. We keep in touch on all tracks almost continuously. We are not doing this to help just one side achieve a result. We strongly believe that the JCPOA was initially designed to rest on a carefully verified balance of interests. Washington’s return to the implementation of UNSCR 2231 (after the previous administration broke its obligations and unilaterally withdrew from the agreement) is not a subject of bargaining. Any violations committed by the United States must be corrected. We hope that Iran will respond with a reciprocal unfreezing of its obligations, which were suspended in the previous two years (because of US actions). We believe that dynamic and synchronised progress on the part of Washington and Tehran will make it possible to get the nuclear deal back on a stable trajectory. We will do our best to facilitate this.

Our Permanent Mission is one of the most active Russian overseas missions with respect to [providing] information. I advise you to follow their updates both on its website and on social media.



Question:

At a recent meeting with new ambassadors from several countries, President Putin specifically addressed Slovakia thereby stressing the importance of Russia’s interest in improving relations with a related Slavic nation. Our community definitely noted that and responded with enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a serious problem. As you know, thousands of Slovak and Russian citizens living in Slovakia were vaccinated with Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. In January and February 2022, it will be six months since their vaccination and people will want to get booster jabs with Sputnik Light, which has not been sent to Slovakia. The proposal to use the Pfizer vaccine as a booster is dangerous and was, naturally, met with resistance from people. We are talking about thousands of people. For example, I have been asked by others what they should do: fly to Moscow, get a Sputnik Light jab and fly back to Slovakia? There are no direct flights between Russia and Slovakia at the moment. The only way is to fly via Hungary or Austria and the latter has a strict lockdown and exorbitant fines in place. At the same time, it has been reported that Russia and Slovakia’s neighbour, Hungary, are negotiating Sputnik Light distribution.

Has Slovakia addressed Russia concerning Sputnik Light supplies? Perhaps the Foreign Ministry can officially propose, as a goodwill gesture, that Slovakia purchase a shipment of Sputnik Light for those who were vaccinated with Sputnik V?



Maria Zakharova:

Slovakia has not made an official request on this matter. If we receive one, we are ready to consider it. Russian vaccines are supplied to foreign countries upon request.



Question:

During the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden, the Russian side proposed resetting to zero all the restrictions that have accumulated with respect to the operation of Russian and US diplomatic missions. Vladimir Putin said that it could help normalise other aspects of the bilateral relations. Is there any progress on this matter? Have any instructions been issued?



Maria Zakharova:

After each summit, the Russian Foreign Ministry and other ministries receive instructions to fulfill the agreements that were reached. This summit was no exception.

As for the issue you mentioned, I have nothing to share. I can tell you that this matter is on the Russia-US bilateral agenda.



Question:

In the early hours of Tuesday, Syrian state media reported that Israel had conducted a missile attack on the port in Latakia in close proximity to the Russian military base. What is Russia’s stance on this act by Israel considering that Latakia has not been the focus of Israel’s close attention before?



Maria Zakharova:

We condemn this kind of action. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Foreign Ministry senior officials comment on such matters regularly. We object to Syria becoming a battlefield between third countries.

That was Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s response when he was asked a similar question during a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of the State of Israel Yair Lapid on September 9, 2021, in Moscow.



Question:

What instructions were given to the Foreign Ministry following the talks between the Russian and US presidents, within the framework of the working groups established after the Geneva summit?



Maria Zakharova:

Although I feel particularly strongly about the importance of informing the public, it seems to me that the working process comes first. I can assure you that this work is in progress. Let’s give our experts some time to share more than just slogans. They need to be able to show specific facts and results. We will do this in due time.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4988762
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 15th, 2021 #43
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video address for RIAC’s 10th anniversary, December 9, 2021



9 December 2021 - 19:00






Mr Ivanov, colleagues, friends,

The first 10 years of the Russian International Affairs Council have been a success story. The council is a recognised leader among domestic think tanks focusing on international affairs and a popular platform for broad-based dialogue on key global issues. RIAC’s publications often spark lively discussion, including here at the Foreign Ministry. It is only natural that the council members include prominent diplomats, politicians, public figures, and researchers.

RIAC’s educational and awareness raising activities have been duly recognised. I would like to note in particular your online activities, which made it possible to significantly increase your audience to 3 million people. Among other things, these efforts help promote objective information about Russia’s foreign policy and our approaches to the key problems of our time, and thus deserve respect.

Analytical materials prepared jointly with its foreign partners from Eastern and Western countries remain RIAC’s signature product. The council’s theme-based meetings on a wide range of items on the international agenda deserve special mention.

We value our friendly and, most importantly, productive relationship with the RIAC. The ongoing exchange of up-to-the-minute analytical information allows the council’s analysts to better feel the pulse of current foreign policy activities, and Foreign Ministry employees to stay informed about the latest theoretical concepts for comprehending the main trends in international relations. I hope our joint work will keep expanding.

The modern world does not stand still, and international affairs constantly produce puzzles that politicians, diplomats, military and, of course, analysts have to solve. The global system has entered a long historical era of profound transformation, where the role and place of participants in international affairs will be redefined. And it entirely depends on us how timely and correctly we will be able to identify the most promising and most important global and regional trends, and, accordingly, how successful Russian foreign policy will be at promoting the country’s interests in the international arena. So, I am sure that no one will be left without work in the foreseeable future.

Most importantly, keep moving forward, continue to work energetically, and preserve your creative and intellectual drive so that the council’s second decade is no less effective and memorable than the first one.

I wish all RIAC members good health, new achievements and all the best.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4988772






Foreign Ministry statement on dialogue with the United States and other Western countries regarding security guarantees



10 December 2021 - 18:10



We note US President Joseph Biden’s readiness expressed at the December 7, 2021 talks with President Vladimir Putin to establish a serious dialogue on issues related to ensuring the security of the Russian Federation. Such a dialogue is urgently needed today when the relations between Russia and the collective West continue to decay and have approached a critical line. At the same time, numerous loose interpretations of our position have emerged in recent days. In this connection we feel it is necessary to once again clarify the following.

Escalating a confrontation with our country is absolutely unacceptable. As a pretext, the West is using the situation in Ukraine, where it embarked on encouraging Russophobia and justifying the actions of the Kiev regime to undermine the Minsk agreements and prepare for a military scenario in Donbass.

Instead of reigning in their Ukrainian protégés, NATO countries are pushing Kiev towards aggressive steps. There can be no alternative interpretation of the increasing number of unplanned exercises by the United States and its allies in the Black Sea. NATO members’ aircraft, including strategic bombers, regularly make provocative flights and dangerous manoeuvres in close proximity to Russia’s borders. The militarisation of Ukraine’s territory and pumping it with weapons are ongoing.

The course has been chosen of drawing Ukraine into NATO, which is fraught with the deployment of strike missile systems there with a minimal flight time to Central Russia, and other destabilising weapons. Such irresponsible behaviour creates grave military risks for all parties involved, up to and including a large-scale conflict in Europe.

At the same time, statements are made that the issue of Ukraine’s hypothetical NATO membership concerns exclusively Kiev and the Alliance, and that nobody should interfere in this process. Let us recall, however, that NATO countries, apart from the Washington Treaty, have obligations regarding the indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and the entire OSCE space. This principle was initially proclaimed in the Helsinki Final Act and was later reaffirmed in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, which states: “Security is indivisible and the security of every participating State is inseparably linked to that of all the others”, whereas in 1999, The Charter for European Security was adopted at the OSCE Istanbul summit, which stressed that the participating States “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

All these documents were signed by the leaders of the OSCE member-states, including all NATO countries. However, in violation of the principle of indivisible security – as well as in violation of the promises given to the Soviet leaders – NATO has been persistently moving eastwards all these years while neglecting Moscow’s concerns. Furthermore, each new member added to NATO’s frenzied anti-Russia charge.

We have been saying for a long time that such developments are inadmissible. Over the past decades we have offered a number of times to render the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic a legally binding status since the West is obviously inclined to disregard its political obligations. However, we were invariably refused.

In this connection, as President Vladimir Putin stressed, we insist that serious long-term legal guarantees are provided, which would exclude NATO’s further advancement to the east and deployment of weapons on Russia’s western borders which are a threat to Russia. This must be done within a specific timeframe and on the basis of the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security.

To ensure the vital interests of European security, it is necessary to officially disavow the decision taken at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest that Ukraine and Georgia «will become members of NATO» as contrary to the commitment undertaken by all the OSCE participating States not to strengthen their security «at the expense of the security of other States.»

We insist on the adoption of a legally binding agreement regarding the US and other NATO member countries’ non-deployment of strike weapons systems which threaten the territory of the Russian Federation on the territories of adjacent countries, both members and non-members of NATO.

We also insist on receiving a concrete response from NATO to our previous proposals on decreasing tension in Europe, including the following points:

- withdrawal of regions for operative military exercises to an agreed distance from Russia-NATO contact line;

- coordination of the closest approach point of combat ships and aircraft to prevent dangerous military activities, primarily in the Baltic and Black Sea regions;

- renewal of regular dialogue between the defence ministries in the Russia-US and Russia-NATO formats.

We call on Washington to join Russia’s unilateral moratorium on the deployment of surface short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, to agree on and introduce measures for the verification of reciprocal obligations.

Russia will shortly present draft international legal documents in the indicated areas to launch talks in respective formats.

In particular, we will submit a comprehensive proposal on legal security guarantees as part of preparations for the next round of the Russia-US dialogue on strategic stability. We will advocate holding an in-depth discussion of the military aspects of ensuring security via defence ministries with the engagement of the foreign ministries of Russia and NATO countries.

We believe that the OSCE, which includes all countries of the Euro-Atlantic region, should not to stay on the sidelines of discussions on addressing the issues of Europe’s security.

We urge our partners to carefully examine Russia’s proposals and start serious talks on agreements that will provide a fair and sustainable balance of interests in our common space.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4991520






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Izvestia, December 13, 2021



13 December 2021 - 15:21







Question:

Mr Ryabkov, is there any predictability in relations with the United States today?



Sergey Ryabkov:

There is one-sided negative predictability, in fact. As for any prospects for improvement, everything is completely unpredictable. This is a sad conclusion based on the results of the long journey that we have travelled with the current US administration, with Donald Trump, and with Barack Obama. These problems did not emerge yesterday. They have to do with the US tendency, by and large, to deny Russia the role of a major independent player in international relations while trying to impose its own approaches to a whole range of issues, including how we should live in our own country.

All of the above certainly limits our prospects for straightening out relations – at least at the present stage, I would not risk giving any optimistic forecasts. We can definitely say there is predictability in that we will have to continue to deal with just this kind of America and this kind of American policy. And we are ready for this.



Question:

Does this mean we cannot expect any transformation of the US approach to relations with Russia?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We cannot see any progress, with the exception of the launch of several structured dialogues in areas that are certainly important as pivotal aspects of international security – I am referring to strategic stability and ICT security. Even so, we have just created channels for dialogue, and it would be premature to say that we are going to reach some global, significant, breakthrough decisions in the process. We are working towards this; we are striving for this, calling on the Americans to take a responsible approach to international security. We hope that our calls and signals will be heard. At the same time, we will not try and add issues that are not related to strategic stability, ICT security to the mix – such as our bilateral difficulties regarding visas and the activity of foreign missions. These are important questions as well, but we must not allow one to become dependent on the other. We will work where opportunities arise, where the Americans at least try to heed common sense and listen to our approaches.



Question:

Can you tell us about progress on the New START Treaty?



Sergey Ryabkov:

New START has been extended for five years. However, the first of these five years will expire on February 5, 2022. We have launched a dialogue on strategic stability, which will hopefully lead to the signing of a document or several documents that would be a good replacement for New START, which expires in four years.

We are working quite well within the framework of New START, holding meetings of the Bilateral Consultative Commission. The practice of mutual inspection visits will resume as the sanitary situation improves. Meanwhile, we are exchanging information in full measure and issuing notifications in accordance with the treaty. In short, work is proceeding well.

As for the other areas, there have been some wrinkles, which we are working to remove.



Question:

How would you explain the growth in tension over Ukraine?



Sergey Ryabkov:

It is primarily Washington’s geopolitical project, an attempt to expand its sphere of influence by getting new instruments for strengthening its positions, which Washington hopes will eventually allow it to dominate this region. It is also a way of creating problems for us by endangering our security. We have openly pointed out that there are red lines which we will not allow anyone to cross, and we also have certain requirements, which have been formulated exceedingly clearly. I believe everyone is aware of the signal President Vladimir Putin issued that Moscow needs maximally reliable legal guarantees of security. The President has instructed the Foreign Ministry to thoroughly address this matter. We are doing this. In particular, we are preparing definitive proposals and ideas, which we will submit for consideration by the Americans, and possibly their allies.



Question:

Is it possible to mark red lines jointly with the United States?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I believe that this is inherently impossible. There is such a wide gap in our approaches to international affairs and priorities in the so-called Euro-Atlantic that common red lines are unthinkable. There is only one red line we have marked jointly, which is very good. I am referring to the unacceptability of a nuclear war. By adopting the relevant statement issued by our leaders last June, Russia and the United States pointed out that they are aware of their joint responsibility. There will be no winners in a nuclear war, which must never be waged. This has been emphasised most definitely. I believe that this is a major positive factor during the current alarming period in international relations.

As for geopolitical red lines, no, we are rivals and opponents in this sense, and we will not suggest that the Americans do anything like this. We will demand that they do not cross our red lines, which we mark based on our national interests.



Question:

Russia has mentioned the unacceptability of NATO’s eastward expansion. The bloc has replied that it has an open-door policy, and that any country complying with its membership principles can join it. What is Moscow’s attitude to this?



Sergey Ryabkov:

This is really one of the biggest problems in the Euro-Atlantic region. NATO’s unrestrained expansion over the past decades has shown that Western advances, promises and commitments are of little value unless they are legally formalised. Soviet and later Russian leaders were told by responsible officials that NATO would not expand eastwards. We see that the situation is diametrically opposite.

NATO says that every country is free to decide how to guarantee its security, up to and including by joining military-political alliances. I would like to point out that the freedom to join alliances cannot be absolute. It is as it is in human societies, your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. There must be clear boundaries and mutual obligations and responsibilities. This is why the phrase about the freedom to join alliances is always balanced by the phrase that this must not be done at the expense of the security of other states. This is the underlying principle of the OSCE, for example.

Regrettably, NATO’s expansion has long come into a dramatic conflict with this principle. We will continue to tell our opponents, both NATO states and the non-members, which would like to join the alliance, that it is impossible to do both things simultaneously. Therefore, there should be no further expansion of NATO. The attempt to present the matter by saying that Russia has no right of veto here is a futile attempt. We will continue to say that if our opponents act contrary to this truth, they will not strengthen their security but will instead face grave consequences.



Question:

How does the alliance explain the need to move eastwards?



Sergey Ryabkov:

There are no arguments. Moreover, they are trying to deny the validity of the very question of NATO’s eastward expansion. They are rejecting the opportunity to discuss this issue ostensibly as a matter of principle. But this is a mistake that could weaken their own security.



Question:

Joseph Biden announced his readiness to discuss with Russia its concern over NATO’s expansion. When and in what format might consultations on this issue take place?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We see the US readiness to continue discussing this issue, and this is a good sign. We have well-established channels – our dialogue with the United States is conducted in various areas. For one thing, there are the consultations on strategic stability, which I mentioned. Two working groups are involved in this.

One of them will be dealing with actions that exert a strategic effect. Understandably, security guarantees and non-crossing of red lines is exactly what we are talking about now. These are actions with a strategic effect.

We have channels of political dialogue with the United States as well. There are also formats of cooperation and discussion of these issues with NATO countries – albeit, not with all of them but with some, they are active, and we will probably use these formats eventually, as well.

Finally, the OSCE Forum for Security is operating as a pan-European venue in Vienna. After all, the venue of our dialogue doesn’t matter as much. What matters is the gist of our discussion.

For the time being, we do not quite understand how serious our opponents are. Therefore, we still need to conduct some probing surveys to find this out.

I would like to express the hope that this process will lead to a dramatic improvement in the entire strategic stability situation. We are talking about global security, including Russia’s. NATO and the US have now focused on the allegedly threatening concentration of our troops and hardware along the border with Ukraine. But permit me, in the first place, they are talking about our actions on our own territory. Is there a limit to geopolitical audacity, not to say, the impudence of those who are trying to dictate to us regarding what we can and cannot do within our own borders?

There is a second, no less important point: they are concentrating on specific developments in certain areas whereas we lay emphasis on the need to ensure security on a broad scale for decades to come. They are using a microscope whereas we are looking forward through binoculars in an effort to prevent unfavourable developments in the future.



Question:

Do you know the date for talks on visa issues with the United States? What objectives is the Russian Federation pursuing in its consultations with Washington on this? Is there a chance to make any progress in this area by the end of this year or the beginning of the next?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I sympathise with those who are having difficulties with US visas, and I would like to emphasise that the current situation in this area reflects the reluctance of the US to take obvious and very simple decisions. That is, to send the personnel necessary within the quota to Russia, a quota that has been in place for a long time and which has not been filled – neither in Moscow at the Embassy’s Consular Department, nor at the Consulates General in Yekaterinburg or Vladivostok – so they can restore regular service for Russian citizens. Instead, they maintain their absurd accusations to the effect that we are allegedly putting obstacles in the way of this. We haven’t done this; we just cannot unilaterally issue visas to Americans while our personnel cannot enter the United States because visa issuance to diplomatic personnel and holders of service passports has, in fact, been frozen.

It is a vicious cycle. We continue to suggested to the Americans a mutual resetting to restart normal operations at foreign missions. Instead they have ever more requests and ultimatums. The most questionable among them was the request that our diplomatic mission staff who have been in the United States for over three years need to leave. Why, on earth, three and not five years? We are forced to mirror their actions.

Unless the situation in this area changes, US staff here will have to leave here after the same time period. This may simply result in our foreign missions becoming unable to operate any more.

As for meetings, we expect the Americans to regard our proposals seriously – we have made a lot of them. As soon as they respond, we will be ready to arrange the consultations within the shortest notice possible: by the end of this year, by the end of December. So far the United States has yet to give a proper response. We call on them again to resolve this issue and this intolerable situation. It hurts not only our compatriots but also US citizens themselves, who also cannot get timely consular services.



Question:

After the last Russian-US video summit we heard that contacts will continue in a different format. Are there any timeframes or understanding as to when such a meeting can take place?



Sergey Ryabkov:

So far, no. However, the main thing is that we achieved an understanding about the need to maintain contact whether it is in a video format, by telephone or, of course, a face-to-face meeting. Still, it is too early to talk about specifics. Let’s first move at least toward implementing what the leaders talked about on December 7. Once again: the Foreign Ministry is working on this very closely, in accordance with our instructions.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4992391






Statement by Vladimir Yermakov, Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation, Director of the Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the Sixth Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on Agenda Item 11 "General Exchange of Views", Geneva, 13 December 2021



13 December 2021 - 20:39







Mr. Chairperson,

We congratulate you on your appointment to this position of responsibility and wish you success in your work. You can count on the support of the Russian delegation in your constructive endeavours. We are confident that, despite irregular working conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the States Parties will manage to come to mutually acceptable decisions of the Sixth Review Conference (RC) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).

Mr. Chairperson, distinguished colleagues,

The Russian Federation confirms its unwavering commitment to its international obligations. We have been strictly following the existing Compliance Mechanism of the Convention and its Protocols, including the decision on its consolidation adopted at the 2011 RC and reaffirmed at the 2016 RC. We submit our annual reports under the Convention, both in general and under the Amended Protocol II (AP-II) and Protocol V (P-V), in a timely manner. Our interdepartmental delegation actively participates in all events related to the CCW and its Protocols.

Mine and explosive remnants clearance activities of the Russian Armed Forces conducted both in our territory and in foreign countries have been a major contribution to the implementation of AP-II and P-V. Such work has been done, for example, in Syria, Laos, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. We think there is no need to explain the challenging circumstances our military has to work under.

The Russian Federation remains open to cooperation in humanitarian mine clearance. Since 2014, the Russian Ministry of Defence has been holding activities for international exchange of military and technical information, as well as international mine action conferences at the International Mine Action Centre. We invite interested States and relevant organizations to participate in these events.

Mr. Chairperson, distinguished colleagues,

The Review Conference offers every opportunity to conduct an in-depth analysis of the CCW operation over the last five years, as well as to work on and coordinate further joint action based on the object and purposes of the Convention.

The consolidation of the framework of the CCW and its five Protocols is directly dependent on the pace of its universalization. In this context, we call upon all States that have not done so to accede to the Convention, including all its Protocols. We believe that this area of our joint work is a priority.

It is obvious that the CCW, like any international mechanism, needs to be improved to keep up with the changing world. We are talking about making better use of the unique disarmament potential of the Convention on the basis of a balance between humanitarian concerns and legitimate national security interests. This review cycle has confirmed that this balance is fragile and therefore requires support. Conceptually, attempts by certain countries and civil society representatives to use humanitarian concerns, to the detriment of global interests, as an absolute imperative for introducing restrictions and bans on specific types of conventional arms seem weak.

For instance, we disagree with the idea of resuming independent expert work on mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM). Our position is that the MOTAPM are a legitimate and effective means of national defence. Any attempt to present their use as a “particular humanitarian threat” is divorced from reality.

Furthermore, we believe that the calls to add the issue of the use of explosives in densely populated areas for consideration within the CCW framework are untenable. These matters can only be resolved through good-faith compliance with the existing rules of international humanitarian law, primarily the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The issue of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remains relevant. We support its consideration under AP-II. We are willing to continue informal work on IEDs within the Group of Experts.

We note the growing interest in lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). We welcome the results achieved in 2017-2021 by the relevant Group of Governmental Experts (GGE). We reaffirm our willingness to discuss LAWS-related matters within the GGE as an optimal platform on the basis of an agreed mandate and agenda. We believe that the existing rules of international law can be fully applied to LAWS and do not need to be adapted to take into account the specific features of these weapons systems.

The Russian Federation, like many other States, is concerned about the funding of CCW activities. We call upon all countries to fulfil their relevant commitments under the Convention and pay annual contributions on time and in full. We are in favour of ensuring priority financing for the staff contracts of the Implementation Support Unit. We are open to substantive discussions on possible ways to improve the financial situation of the Convention.

The Russian Federation reiterates its commitment to a constructive, result-oriented dialogue will all parties concerned.

Thank you.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4992561






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comments in response to the EU imposing another round of unilateral restrictive measures on Russian citizens and organisations



14 December 2021 - 17:58



The EU continues to impose unilateral restrictions, which is illegitimate from the point of view of international law. More sanctions were imposed on eight Russian citizens and four organisations falsely accused of involvement in a private military company.

The ensuing hysteria in the West speaks primarily to the jealousy of a number of former European metropoles towards African and Middle Eastern states, whose sovereignty and independence they were obviously forced to recognise at some point. In fact, however, the right of these states to choose services provided by private companies on a commercial basis, including security services, weighs heavily upon their European partners and fuels their post-imperial ambitions.

Notably, private military companies are not controlled by official Russian authorities. Independent states individually assess their own security capabilities and have every reason to interact with external partners as they see it. It turns out that by imposing illegal restrictions, the EU is questioning the UN member states’ sovereign right to pursue an independent domestic and foreign policy which comes as direct violation of the fundamental norms of international law.

Notably, the list of the countries, in which EU officials spotted signs of activity of private military companies allegedly affiliated with Russia, includes Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. These countries listed in the decisions of the EU Council have one thing in common, which is that the “export” of Western democracy destabilised them and created conditions for the “import” of lasting problems into the EU itself in the form of illegal migration, a surge in terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking. However, instead of openly admitting its own foreign policy setbacks in the adjacent regions, which Brussels hoped to turn into a “circle of friends,” and working on these problems, the EU is, as it always does, using its favourite tool which is sanctions on Russia.

The double standards inherent in EU foreign policy also make themselves felt in how easy the EU is on private Western military companies, which have entangled entire regions of the globe, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, with their networks, at a time when many of them are implicated in gross violations of international humanitarian law. Just take the notorious US company Blackwater which was involved in the mass shooting of civilians on Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007. However, the EU prefers to turn a blind eye to the blood-stained military mercenaries sponsored by their overseas allies.

We call on the EU to stop its attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign UN member states, start building interaction with all members of the international community on the basis of equality and mutual respect and, finally, to stop imposing unilateral restrictive measures outside the framework of international law.

Russia reserves the right to respond to unfriendly EU moves.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4993050






Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock



14 December 2021 - 18:09







On December 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock at her initiative. This was Mr Lavrov’s first contact with his German colleague after her appointment as Foreign Minister of Germany on December 8, 2021.

Mr Lavrov congratulated Ms Baerbock on her appointment and expressed hope for maintaining the tradition of regular constructive contacts between the foreign ministries of the two countries.

The foreign ministers focused on the exchange of views on the status and prospects for developing bilateral relations after the elections in both countries. The Russian diplomat emphasised the desire to develop a dialogue with the new German government that would promote bilateral cooperation for the benefit of both nations and in the interests of ensuring security and stability in the pan-European and global dimensions.

During the discussion of current international issues, Mr Lavrov underscored the need to give Russia security guarantees in the form of legal commitments on NATO’s renunciation of its eastward expansion and establishing military infrastructure near Russian borders. The new German foreign minister received a detailed explanation on the lack of any alternative to the Minsk agreements on settling Ukraine’s domestic crisis and their implementation by Kiev. Mr Lavrov also emphasised the significance of the influence that Germany can have on the Ukrainian authorities as a participant in the Normandy format.




The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4993060
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2021 #44
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on a ministerial conference on a Common Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea



14 December 2021 - 18:35



On December 14, the second ministerial conference of the countries which in 2019 approved the Common Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea (CMA) was held remotely. Turkey chaired the meeting, which was attended by top officials from the ministries of foreign affairs, transport, the environment, science and higher education of Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldavia, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as those from the European Commission.

Addressing his colleagues, Russian Deputy Foreign Ministry Alexander Grushko noted the importance of mutually beneficial multilateral cooperation in the Black Sea region for the sake of improving environmental conditions there, resolving socioeconomic problems, developing transport infrastructure, and strengthening people-to-people ties and contacts in education, healthcare and more.

Participants in the meeting emphasised the importance of carrying out diverse joint projects in the Black Sea region, expanding cooperation in the maritime economy, as well as pushing forward the research component of cooperation under the CMA’s Strategic Research and Innovation Agendas for the Black Sea. It was noted that carrying out the CMA might help the countries involved improve the political climate in the region.

It was also underscored that joint work on CMA priorities complements efforts by the region’s leading multilateral structures, including the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation and the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790355/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Egyptian public television channel TeN TV, Moscow, December 14, 2021



14 December 2021 - 23:00






Question:

What is your view of Russian-Arab relations? What is their current state and how do they differ from the Soviet period?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia’s current relations with all Arab states without exception are based on mutual respect and are developing dynamically. During the Soviet period, we did not have diplomatic relations with some Arab states, although Soviet Russia was the first state to recognise Saudi Arabia. Today all the extraneous features and the ideological prejudices of the past have been removed. We have close economic ties, and we are rapidly developing investment cooperation and humanitarian and education ties with them. I would like to mention the contacts of Russian Muslims, who regularly enjoy Saudi Arabia’s hospitality when they travel there on their pilgrimage to Mecca. We are also collaborating on the international stage.

I would like to say that we have an opportunity to take additional action to boost our investment cooperation. The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which was created several years ago at President Vladimir Putin’s initiative, has established joint platforms with several Arab countries, primarily the Gulf states, and is implementing ambitious projects in energy, aircraft manufacturing, space exploration and other high-tech sectors. The construction of Africa’s first nuclear power plant, the Russian-designed El Dabaa, will begin in Egypt soon. The UAE is rapidly building up its trade, economic and investment ties with Russia. Our mutual trade is growing at a record pace. Saudi Arabia and Algeria are our leading partners in the Arab world and in North Africa.



Question:

We are talking against the background of the Russian-Egyptian Year of Humanitarian Cooperation, which was declared during a meeting held between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Sochi in 2018. What unites Cairo and Moscow amid the ongoing global changes?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, the cross-year of humanitarian cooperation was coordinated by the presidents of Russia and Egypt more than two years ago. We planned to hold it in 2020, but we had to move it to 2021 because of the pandemic. It was officially inaugurated in Cairo in June 2021. The agenda includes over a hundred various events, to be held in our two countries in the fields of culture, science, education, sport, tourism and other humanitarian contacts. A half of the Russian government – the ministries in charge of these cooperation spheres – are involved in these events one way or another. Many of the planned events have been held and have attracted much attention from people in Russia and Egypt.

Our countries have good relations, which date back to the time when the Middle East and North Africa were fighting for their independence and the right to freely choose their development paths. Our relations have seen their ups and downs, but they have now reached a level we have never seen in our history before.



Question:

You have mentioned the rapid development of our economic ties, joint efforts to build the El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, and the establishment of the Russian Industrial Zone in the Suez Canal Economic Zone. Russian tourists are returning to Hurghada, Sharm el-Sheikh and other Egyptian resorts. Has trade and economic cooperation become the main driver of Russia-Egypt relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, [we are moving forward] by implementing major projects. You mentioned the Russian Industrial Zone. Its potential is huge. It is only being launched, but Russian companies are queuing up for the right to become its residents and to open their facilities there. It is a matter of fundamental importance not only for the Egyptian market. The project has been launched with a view to engaging the entire region. I believe that it will not only promote Russia-Egypt cooperation but will also give a powerful boost to Egypt’s economic growth.



Question:

Arab countries are busy with their own problems and crises. We would like to tell them about Russia’s position on these issues. Let us begin with Libya. Are you following the presidential election campaign there? What is your objective?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia has been contributing to the international efforts in support of a settlement in Libya for many years. Our country has become involved in various international formats since the Libyan Political Agreement was adopted in Skhirat in December 2015. They include the conferences in Paris, Palermo and Berlin. Common principles have been coordinated during these events, but they have not been implemented, have not been translated into action.

In November 2020, the Libyan parties agreed, thanks to the efforts of UN coordinators, to restore their state by creating mechanisms to prepare for elections. Transitional structures have been established. Head of the interim government, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, visited Russia. During the previous stage in the process, we hosted a meeting of the Libyan parties, which was also attended by our Egyptian friends. They helped us and the Republic of Turkey to bring together representatives from the western and eastern parts of Libya.

These efforts, to which Russia has contributed, have helped to launch a generally recognised process, which stipulates presidential and parliamentary elections. The date has been set for December 24. I hope everything will take place as planned. Our priority should not be a formal compliance with the deadline, but a substantive preparation of the elections so that representatives of all the leading political forces take part in them and recognise the election results. I will be frank with you: I see no problem with postponing or rescheduling the election day on the condition that this provision is honoured. The main thing is for all the rough edges, which we have seen during the preparation of the elections, to be removed. I am referring to the inclusive nature of the process and the list of candidates. Attempts have been made at some electoral districts in Libya to prevent some candidates from taking part in the elections. These decisions were later revised. I hope that everyone will be able to participate.



Question:

Do you have a definite position with regard to any of the candidates? The United States seems to be clearly dissatisfied with the candidacy of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.



Sergey Lavrov:

I cannot speak for the Libyan people. The United States has even less right to do so, given that it was involved in destroying the Libyan state in 2011. The then US president, Barack Obama, said the US was attempting to lead “from behind.” It allowed such countries as France to step forward. As it transpires, France had personal accounts to settle with Muammar Gaddafi. I wouldn’t take the liberty and most emphatically recommend that the Americans and Europeans desist from trying to decide the fate of another nation, let alone the Libyan people. Let the Libyans decide it for themselves.

We know that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Gaddafi clan as a whole have a sufficiently numerous support base, as do Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Aguila Saleh, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, and other participants in the presidential race. We will urge the Libyans to ensure the transparency and purity of the electoral processes and find the courage to accept the choice of their people.



Question:

Let me make sure I have got this right: do you believe that the West is to blame for destroying Libya in 2011 and for the Libyans’ suffering over the past ten years?



Sergey Lavrov:

This fact cannot be denied. More than that, everyone recognises the presence of another and larger reality: a black hole has emerged in the place of Libya after the West bombed the Libyan statehood out of existence. The militants and extremists whom the West had armed against Muammar Gaddafi poured south through it, which is the main reason why the Sahara-Sahel region has been gripped by years-long crisis. Today, this zone is one of the most dangerous sources of extremist ideology and a physical base for various branches of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. In response, refugee flows headed northward and Europe is now suffering from this exodus and trying to put up a barrier against it. But you have to bear responsibility for your actions.



Question:

The threat of terrorism is a serious challenge for the countries of the Sahara-Sahel region. Is Russia trying to help those countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

On November 11, I had talks with Foreign Minister of Mali Abdoulaye Diop and on December 7 with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Chad Mahamat Zene Cherif. We maintain close contact with the leadership of the Central African Republic. What they all have in common is the desire to mobilise forces in their fight against terrorism. Branches of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram have a presence in those countries in one way or another. This situation is spreading already to the Gulf of Guinea and groups of militants start to assemble around Lake Chad. They are making raids from their camps, terrorising the local population and mercilessly exploiting the natural resources of the African countries. Few are able to do anything to them.

We are assisting the G5 Sahel. They are setting up joint forces, which are yet at the stage of formation. We are supplying these countries with the necessary armaments enabling them to strengthen their potential to eradicate the terrorist threat. We regularly train servicemen from those countries in the Russian Federation; we train peacekeepers and law enforcement officers at our Defence Ministry’s educational establishments. The UN Security Council is discussing UN participation in the financial support to the G5 Sahel joint forces. According to the available facts, our Western colleagues are not too enthusiastic about this. Russia is prepared to make a step to let the UN understand the need for a more active and substantive support to the G5 Sahel activities in this area.



Question:

Statements by the US armed forces command always contain a warning about the inadmissibility of any Russian military presence in African countries. How do you assess such statements?



Sergey Lavrov:

This kind of imperial thinking and lack of respect for other countries is typical of the United States and the way it acts across the globe, not only in relation to Russia, China and others they call their rivals and adversaries. They treat their allies and talk to them the same way. How did they go about the sale of nuclear submarines to Australia? They just did it.

As for their claims of sole control over entire continents, I think that the countries in the region, in Africa and the Middle East, are sufficiently mature states with extensive historical experience to understand how meaningless such statements are.

US military are not the only ones who declared Russian and Chinese presence in Africa unacceptable. For example, Mike Pompeo, who was my colleague when he was Secretary of State, travelled to several African countries shortly before the end of the Trump administration and publicly urged each of them to avoid trading with Russia or China, because according to them, we only trade in order to “colonise” everyone. The Americans, for their part, do this for the sake of strengthening democracy. The meaningless of these anecdotal statements is quite obvious to everyone.

It is not only the Americans who have this feeling of superiority over all others; our European colleagues have this tendency as well. France declares whenever it has the chance that Russia can’t provide military support to Mali – after Mali’s leaders have officially explained their position in sufficient detail. The Prime Minister spoke at the UN General Assembly and expressed concern that, with the terrorist threat not decreasing, but growing, France decided to draw down forces involved in Operation Barkhane. In particular, they have shut down two bases in the north of the country where the situation is most serious; the third is to be closed by the end of the year. In this situation, the Malian authorities have no other choice but seek compensation for France’s moves. Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and I have recently talked to our French colleagues in Paris in the two-plus-two format. We called on them to eliminate double standards in the fight against terrorism. If we all want to help Africa, we need to do this by combining efforts, not by trying to “fence off” our areas of ​​responsibility, each marking “their” territory, to prevent others from going there. This is the kind of thinking from the century before last, not even from the past century.





Question:

You maintain good relations with Morocco and Algeria. How does this help to settle the Western Sahara crisis?



Sergey Lavrov:

The crisis in Western Sahara should be resolved, as any other crisis, be it Western Sahara, the Palestinian-Israeli or the Syrian settlement, based on the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. Everywhere there are resolutions approved by consensus, which are laying the international legal foundations for solving this or that problem. In Western Sahara’s case, the resolutions imply a direct dialogue between Morocco and the Polisario Front. This dialogue should be resumed as soon as possible. These talks should start and facilitate the elaboration of compromise solutions meeting the interests of both sides. Instability in North Africa and the Sahara-Sahel zone is affecting the general situation and is behind the lack of progress with a Western Sahara settlement. This does not add anything positive. We believe that the developments in the Sahara-Sahel region must on the contrary induce the sides – Morocco and the Polisario Front – to make more active efforts to generate hope in this sector.

If the situation is left as is, the terrorists may try to exploit the desperate plight of the Western Saharan population to spread their “tentacles” there. We know that various extremists, including militants from Al-Qaeda, Islamic Maghreb, and ISIS are thinking that way. Their plans are quite extensive. We have become alarmed: Morocco and the Polisario Front are not only unable to resume direct talks but in November 2020, both withdrew from the ceasefire arrangement that had lasted for nearly 30 years.

We are faced with the threat of an escalation of conflict in this part of Africa. We are certain that all influential countries must urge all sides to practice restraint and insist on political and diplomatic methods of settlement. Against this background, we are against any unilateral steps, just as we are in the context of Palestinian-Israeli settlement. In any conflict, unilateral steps that are not provided for by the basic agreements can only harm the cause and create unnecessary additional risks. A year ago, the United States recognised Morocco’s sovereignty over the whole of Western Sahara. This is not helping anything. On the contrary, this directly contradicts and undermines the generally recognised principles of the Western Saharan settlement, under which the final status of this territory can only be determined by a referendum. We hope that no sudden moves of this sort will be forthcoming in the future and that everyone will use their capabilities to induce the sides to sit down at the negotiating table rather than to support one side against another.



Question:

The Israeli prime minister visited Moscow in October, and then the Palestinian leader visited the Russian capital, too. Does all this reflect Russia's effort to find a new solution to the problem?



Sergey Lavrov:

There can be no new solutions here except for the resumption of direct negotiations within the international legal framework approved by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, which is not questioned by anyone – a two-state solution with agreement on all final status issues.

We cannot support any unilateral steps, above all the ongoing Israeli actions to expand its settlement activity, which no one approves of. This practice has been condemned by representatives of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. These are actually the four members of the Quartet of international mediators, which could (and we are interested in this) be more active in stimulating the parties to resume direct talks. We have seen other unilateral steps such as attempts to change the historical status of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, as well as the expropriation of lands and Palestinian houses by force; some have even been demolished. Such actions have to stop immediately. We insist on convening the Quartet. The members have already met at the expert level. We believe the situation is serious enough to call for a ministerial meeting. We are working with our colleagues on this. So far, Washington prefers to use other methods without bringing this topic up at the ministerial level; at the same time, the United States continues its bilateral diplomacy with the Palestinians and Israelis. If they could guarantee success, that would make everyone happy, I think. However, so far, we see that collective efforts are in order, and we have not been doing enough here.



Question:

You recently met with Mohammad Dahlan who leads the Democratic Reform bloc in Fatah, and with Mahmoud Abbas in Moscow. Is this part of Russia's efforts to achieve a Palestinian settlement?



Sergey Lavrov:

Mahmoud Abbas is the President of Palestine; Mohammad Dahlan is a prominent political figure. It is not just about them. Palestinian unity needs to be restored with the involvement of all local groups without exception. There are about 12-13 of them. We have invited them all to Russia several times. They accepted our invitation. Each time, they tried to work out some common approach, but they have not fully succeeded so far.

I am confident that the restoration of Palestinian unity is of key importance for at least two reasons. First, considering the essence of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, having restored unity in their own ranks, the Palestinians will have a stronger negotiating position. They will disavow statements sometimes made by some politicians in Israel: “Who should we talk to there? They do not represent anyone. It is all fragmented there – Ramallah, Gaza, etc.” Such pretexts for evading negotiations are easy to remove.

Second, the restoration of Palestinian unity depends solely on the Palestinians. Neither Israel, nor any Western partners, nor anyone else can prevent an agreement on this. The stance of the Arab countries that support the Palestinians is unclear. There are differences sometimes. I would put aside the disagreements within the Arab world for now, of course. The Palestinian people have already suffered so much, it is simply impossible to continue with this situation, which is actually conducive to developments on the ground that preclude the creation of a viable Palestinian state. This should definitely suit the interests of all Arab states. We strongly support Egypt, which is helping to restore such unity. We want other Arab countries to join these efforts as well.



Question:

The Arab world endured Cold War troubles before. I would like to ask you: is the Cold War back with us again?



Sergey Lavrov:

The answer to this question could take ages. But I prefer a short answer. Of course, this is a different “cold war.” The previous Cold War happened in a stable, even though a negatively stable world, when not two powers but two socioeconomic systems – capitalism and socialism – confronted each other. Each of them controlled huge territories. Figuratively speaking, each of them controlled half of the world, considering the Soviet Union's influence on decolonisation, including in Africa. The situation is different now, because there are many more players.

The new German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said in his remarks at the presentation of the new government that the world will no longer be governed by two powers but by many influential countries. This amounts to the recognition of multipolarity, which has two sides to it. On the one hand, many critics of the polycentric world argue that multipolarity means chaos. Everyone will be fending for themselves. The number of major players will increase. They will elbow each other for space, feeling constrained, and the world will become more chaotic, they say.

Our position is that multilateralism is objective reality. The rise of China as a leading global economy is imminent. India is developing rapidly. The Asia-Pacific region is becoming a growth driver, replacing the Euro-Atlantic region in this capacity. Latin America wants to determine its identity. This is evident from the recent initiatives advanced by the President of Mexico. Africa is reinforcing its national awareness and a desire to put forth its identity in its relations with the other countries, which have an interest in its huge natural wealth. The goal is not to pit countries against each other in this highly competitive environment but to try to streamline this erratic random movement. This is the objective of President Putin’s initiative to hold a summit of permanent UN Security Council members. This is not because they must decide everything for others, but because the UN Charter entrusts them with special responsibility for international peace and security. By convening for this summit, the leaders of the five countries would draft recommendations for the international community as a whole. I believe that such recommendations would be welcome. The state of negative confrontation must be transformed into dialogue. We are developing a dialogue with the Americans. On December 7, President Vladimir Putin and US President Joseph Biden had a videoconference, which lasted more than two hours. Despite serious differences and widely diverging views between our countries, there is a desire, at least in the United States, to develop dialogue. I hope that the other Western members of the UN Security Council P5 will show such a desire as well. Our strategic partner, the People’s Republic of China, has reaffirmed its readiness and interest in such a summit meeting.



Question:

You have upheld your country’s interests on the international stage for nearly 17 years. Which were the most difficult years?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is an abstract question. I never think about this, because doing your job becomes very difficult when you think that something is difficult. We must work now, and we must look to the future rather than to the past.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790361/






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried



15 December 2021 - 12:09







On December 15, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met with US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried.

They had a detailed discussion of security guarantees in the context of the persistent attempts by the US and NATO to change the European military and political situation in their favour.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790416/






Press release on First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov’s meeting with heads of diplomatic missions



15 December 2021 - 17:14







First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov met with the heads of diplomatic missions of Denmark, Estonia, Great Britain, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden on December 15 in Moscow.

There was an exchange of views on bilateral relations between Russia and these countries. Interaction in 2021 was reviewed, and plans for meetings in 2022 were outlined.

At the request of the ambassadors, Titov built an in-depth case for Russia’s initiative to develop agreements on security guarantees for the states in the Euro-Atlantic space, including the Russian Federation’s interests and concerns.

An engaged dialogue was used to cover the state of and prospects for Russia-EU and Russia-NATO relations, as well as the development of international cooperation in combating climate change, the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences, including the need for mutual recognition of vaccination certificates and increasing interaction within the Arctic Council, which Russia is chairing in 2021-2023.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790491/
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2021 #45
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 15, 2021



15 December 2021 - 20:33







Upcoming briefing by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov

On December 15, during a meeting between Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried, Russia presented its security initiatives to the United States. They had been voiced a number of times in the past by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and were set forth in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Statement of December 10, 2021. On December 15, the initiatives were officially handed over to our US partners. We maintain contacts with them.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov is planning to discuss the details of this ongoing work at a special briefing for Russian and foreign correspondents and journalists. The briefing is scheduled to begin at 2 pm on Friday, December 17.

We will soon post the relevant announcement, and media representatives will be able to apply for accreditation. The briefing will be held via videoconference.



The upcoming OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ 17th Extraordinary Meeting on Afghanistan in Islamabad

The 17th Extraordinary Session on Afghanistan of the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Council of Foreign Ministers is scheduled to be held on December 19 in Islamabad. Its participants will review the situation in Afghanistan. Special Presidential Representative for Afghanistan and Director of the Foreign Ministry's Second Asia Department Zamir Kabulov will represent Russia at the meeting.

We hope that this event will make it possible to coordinate approaches to the Afghan agenda and to focus on coordinated regional and international efforts to provide humanitarian and economic assistance for Afghanistan.

There are plans to hold a meeting of the extended Troika with the participation of the special representatives of Russia, China, the United States and Pakistan, on the sidelines of the event.



The 17th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana Format

On December 21-22, 2021, Nur-Sultan will host the 17th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana Format. According to current practice, apart from high-ranking representatives of the three guarantor countries, namely, Russia, Iran and Turkey, the upcoming event will involve delegations of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Syrian opposition, as well as observers from Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, representatives of the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Meeting participants will conduct a detailed discussion of developments in the Syrian Arab Republic and around it, and focus on efforts to further stabilise the situation on the ground and to advance a comprehensive political settlement under the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. They will also consider ways to mibilise collective efforts to help normalise the humanitarian situation in Syria, including through the implementation of projects to quickly rebuild the country’s social and economic infrastructure.



The UN Security Council meeting on “Maintenance of international peace and security: Climate and security”

On December 13, 2021, the UN Security Council held a vote on a draft resolution concerning climate and security. Russia voted against it.

The draft’s authors, Ireland and Niger, with the support of a number of Security Council members, submitted a document that sought to focus on climate and security, a topic that goes beyond the Security Council’s mandate.

The Russian Federation, together with India and China, does not share these approaches.

It should be mentioned that the co-authors deliberately sought to cause a confrontation, since they were aware that the text they had submitted for a vote was unacceptable for over 80 countries.

We note the lack of objective scientific data on the interconnection between climate and security in the context in which this was formulated. We regard attempts to assign to peacekeeping missions irrelevant functions without their appraisal by experts as counterproductive.

Together with China and India, we have proposed an alternative project that makes it possible to hold a comprehensive discussion of the climatic, socioeconomic and political challenges in the Sahel region with account taken of the region’s specific features represented by Niger, one of the authors of the draft resolution on climate and security.

For our part, we intend to continue proactive efforts to fight climate change at relevant environmental venues, primarily that of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Our partners’ actions are regrettable, particularly in view of the generally successful negotiations in Glasgow in November.



The UN General Assembly’s vote on the resolution “The problem of the militarisation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov”

Last week, the UN General Assembly approved the Ukrainian draft resolution entitled “The problem of the militarisation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.” The main aim of this resolution is to drag the General Assembly into Kiev and its Western patrons’ anti-Russia campaign. We are aware that this venture was clearly spurned by the majority of countries.

Once again, the document has gained less than one-third of the vote, while the number of states opposing the resolution steadily grows from year to year. This trend clearly demonstrates what can be described as the international community’s fatigue with Ukraine’s persistent attempts to turn the United Nations into a platform for settling scores with Russia.

The resolution is based on groundless accusations that Russia is allegedly destabilising the situation in and around Crimea. The document fails to reflect a number of aggressive measures undertaken by Ukraine in the Sea of Azov, where it has redeployed warships and regularly holds artillery exercises.

Our position on the status of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as constituent entities of the Russian Federation is not subject to any revision. The peninsula’s reunification [with Russia] took place in full conformity with international law, primarily the right of nations to self-determination, sealed, let me remind you, by the United Nations Charter.



[About the situation in Ukraine]

The situation in Ukraine is alarming, considering the country’s militarisation, human rights violations and the internal conflict in Donbass.

NATO countries are sending more weapons to Ukraine and are training its military personnel. They are not doing this for the mythical purpose of maintaining stability and security but to add fuel to the fire and scale up the ongoing civil war in the country. I would like to remind you that since 2014 the United States has provided $2.5 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine, including over $400 million this year. Washington has recently supplied 30 Javelin anti-tank missile systems (we have already commented on these “efforts,” which are obviously not aimed at a peaceful settlement in southeastern Ukraine) and 180 missiles for them worth $60 million. In 2022, it plans to send $300 million worth of weapons and military equipment to Kiev. The first batch worth $20 million is to be dispatched in January. It includes video surveillance and communications systems, special transport, drones and so on. This will not help to deal with the humanitarian problems of people in Donbass, will not facilitate a peaceful solution to the armed conflict, and will not create conditions for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

The money could have been used for more peaceful humanitarian purposes, for example, to cover nearly all the pension arrears in Donbass. According to Ukrainian officials, these arrears are estimated at some $3 billion. Has Kiev forgotten about its obligations to those who, they claim, are citizens of Ukraine? It is a rhetorical question, but we would like the Kiev regime to answer it, nevertheless.

Western instructors continue training Ukrainian military personnel, as we point out at nearly every briefing, including downright neo-Nazis, as the recent scandal at the Sagaidachny National Ground Forces Academy showed. Some 10,000 NATO troops, including 4,000 US soldiers and 6,000 troops from other bloc members, have been deployed in the country of “victorious Maidan.”

The Verkhovna Rada is considering a draft law that allows foreign troops to be deployed in Ukraine for participation in nine military exercises in 2022. I call on those who have not read the Minsk Package of Measures to do so now. It has a clause on the obligatory withdrawal of all foreign troops from Ukraine. As for the exercises, I am referring to the multinational drills that are to be held in Ukraine jointly with its Western curators, such as Joint Efforts, Maple Arch and Light Avalanche (these are not the names of X-rated films). There are also the Sea Breeze and Viking drills, the US-Ukrainian Rapid Trident, the UK-Ukrainian Cossack Mace, the Polish-Ukrainian Silver Sabre and the even more romantic Romanian-Ukrainian drills Riverine. All of them have a common concept, are anti-Russia and have nothing to do with restoring peace, tranquillity and security in southern Ukraine.

We have pointed out on numerous occasions that Ukraine’s militarisation is not helping to settle the internal Ukrainian conflict but is only encouraging Kiev to repeat the military gambles of 2014 and 2015. It is common knowledge that they have claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives, have forced hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes, have ruined the civilian infrastructure, and have destroyed the very possibility of resuming normal life in the near future. The destruction is colossal. Millions of lives have been ruined.

In this context, the Ukrainian establishment produced the concept of a referendum on Donbass. This interesting scheme has been mentioned by President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk. What is its essence? It boils down to the following: the future of Donbass is to be decided at the nationwide level but – this is the key element – without the participation of the Donbass residents. Have you seen anything like this before? And the idea has been put forth by those who claim that the Crimean status referendum was illegal, improper and held at gunpoint. These people intend to hold a nationwide referendum on the future of Donbass without the residents of Donbass. How can this be? If they want their voice to be heard, they will have to travel to other Ukrainian regions to cast their ballots. The referendum will not be held in the territory of Donbass. What can I say to this? I am not sure that it is a matter of double standards, and this is not mere hypocrisy either. That’s quite another kettle of fish. I believe that derision is a better word. We are being told that the future of Ukraine cannot be discussed without Ukraine. Here is my question then: Can the future of Donbass be discussed without Donbass? Something should be done with this distorted logic.

The Kiev regime prefers to forget that under the Minsk Package of Measures all aspects of a settlement are to be discussed in a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk as the parties to the conflict. Apart from the will of some political leaders, there is also the Package of Measures that has been approved in a UN Security Council resolution and provides for deciding the future of the region through dialogue.

Regrettably, lawlessness and rabid neo-Nazism have become a fact of life in Ukraine. Opposition parties are being persecuted. Methods of intimidation and violence are being used against the journalists, bloggers, media outlets, editors and ordinary people who try to go against the mainstream, which has turned into a wild train moving at breakneck speed towards an undisclosed destination that looks increasingly like a dead-end. We can see this happening every day. Unfortunately, the international community and relevant organisations, which promptly react to any infringements on freedom of speech in other parts of the world, do not see or prefer to close their eyes to this.

A week ago, Ukraine’s Cyber Police launched criminal proceedings against the scandalous website Mirotvorets. It opened over seven years ago to publish the personal data of opponents of the regime, resulting in assassination attempts (some of them successful), harassment, political persecution and household crimes. This is a modern-day reality in Ukraine. You may recall what happened to Oles Buzina. Despite these activities of the Mirotvorets site, a criminal case was initiated against it only when it started publishing the personal data of children and a girl from Lugansk wrote an open letter about this to the UN Secretary-General.

We hope that this criminal case will be investigated thoroughly and objectively under the watchful eye of international organisations. Many people wonder what Russia has to do with this, and why we comment on such developments. The thing is that there are the personal data of many Russian citizens, public figures and journalists on that website. They have been receiving threats for years. We hope that Kiev will at long last show the legal, political and human will to shut down this extremist resource.

We urge Kev’s Western patrons and international organisations to open their eyes to the developments in Ukraine, because their silence is encouraging its militarisation. They must use their influence to convince the Ukrainian authorities of the need to implement the Minsk Agreements and to preclude an escalation of tension with unpredictable consequences for regional and European security.



Ukraine’s new bill on dual citizenship

We are closely following the Ukrainian government’s legislative initiatives, especially those that concern our compatriots. On December 2, 2021, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky submitted a bill amending the country’s Citizenship Law to the Verkhovna Rada. The new legislation will legalise dual citizenship for Ukrainians living in the West (in the EU, Canada or the United States), while Ukrainians who have adopted Russian citizenship will face sanctions such as fines and even restriction of liberty.

I am sure you have all heard of apartheid, a system that existed in the 20th century. It would seem that this ugly practice would never extend to the European continent or affect the nations that have so beautifully and clearly articulated their adherence to very “advanced” values ​​and approaches to respecting humanistic ideals – human rights, freedom of speech, and other democratic principles. But this bill is segregation of the worst kind. Segregation is a monstrosity that humanity has had to go through. How is it possible that it is brought back by the political leaders of a European state, an OSCE member, a country that associates itself with the European Union and supports the same provisions as the EU, joining the EU while voting in the United Nations and other international platforms, sharing and supporting EU initiatives? Where are all the human rights champions now? This should have called for a most serious discussion at the international level. How could the international community allowed this to happen – not in some uncontrolled corner of the world run by thugs and extremists, but in a state that declares its priorities as similar to those of the Western community, is a member of the United Nations and other international platforms, and participates in leaders’ summits in various formats? This flatly proves not only the absence of any legal culture, but the lack of a basic understanding of the correlation between domestic legislation, international law and the current reality.

Such things and decisions show that there is a legal vacuum in Ukraine. Yet, there is something we understand perfectly well, although I think the West does not – that all this is in line with Kiev’s official policy of direct discrimination against its own residents on the basis of their language and ethnicity. Such initiatives are aimed at the total Ukrainianisation of the country by methods that are incompatible with the goals declared by the Western community in the 21st century and diverting Ukrainians’ attention from the depressing socioeconomic reality. But this is their internal aspect. The root cause directly concerns the international community.

Pursuing such a policy, Kiev is purposefully limiting Russia's ability to support its compatriots living in Ukraine. We are doing this while making every effort to observe Ukrainian laws. In April 2021, the Ukrainian authorities imposed sanctions against Rossotrudnichestvo, which was forced to curtail its work in the country – its legitimate, transparent work focused on helping and supporting our compatriots.

Despite this, we continue to use all available means to support our compatriots. First of all, this concerns the provision of consular services by Russian diplomatic and consular missions in Kiev, Lvov, Odessa and Kharkov. We intend to continue to raise the international community’s awareness of the massive violations of the rights of Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine at the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe and other platforms, and to use their human rights tools. Human rights violations were included in the Russian Federation vs Ukraine interstate complaint lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on July 22, 2021.

We have no other choice but to take urgent action to support Russian citizens who live in Donbass suffering from the inhuman economic and transport blockade imposed by Kiev.

We will continue to provide the necessary assistance to our compatriots in Ukraine. Once again, we call on the Ukrainian government to put an end to the policy directed against its own people.



Vladislav Klyushin case

We are deeply disappointed with the Swiss Federal Criminal Court’s decision to satisfy the US’s appeal to extradite Russian citizen Vladislav Klyushin to the United States. The Swiss law enforcement agencies ignored the lawyers’ arguments on the political nature of the case, and groundlessly dismissed an appeal from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to block Klyushin’s extradition. Instead, they chose to accept the groundless accusations of the United States, which continues to initiate arrests of Russians in third countries and demand their extradition. Russia has repeatedly made diplomatic demarches and voiced deep concerns to Switzerland, urging it to investigate all circumstances of this case in an unbiased and objective manner. Unfortunate, our arguments were not heard by Bern.

The Russian Embassy maintains close ties with Klyushin’s attorneys in order to protect and support his rights, and provides him with the necessary consular assistance. The defence will continue to use all legal rights provided by Swiss laws to block the extradition of the Russian national to the United States. On December 6, 2021, the lawyers submitted a writ of appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.



Fifth anniversary of death of Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov

On December 19, 2016, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia to the Republic of Turkey Andrey Karlov was killed in a heinous and treacherous terrorist attack. He was awarded the title of Hero of the Russian Federation posthumously.

Five years ago, a true professional and patriot of the Fatherland met his untimely death.

We appreciate that the Turkish justice agencies strongly condemned the barbaric act of aggression whose innocent victim was the prominent Russian diplomat. Together with our Turkish colleagues, we held a thorough investigation into the circumstances of this crime.

The consistent development of bilateral dialogue with Ankara, including in some key areas, suggests that the main intention of the organisers of this crime – to undermine the normalisation of bilateral relations at that time as well as collective efforts to stabilise the situation and launch a political settlement in Syria – has completely failed.

This incident provided an impetus to strengthening the security of Russian citizens and missions abroad and redoubling our efforts against terrorism.

We cherish the memory of Andrey Karlov, who was killed in the line of duty and who tirelessly protected the interests of our Motherland.



Foreign Ministry’s mobile app

On December 10, 2021, the Foreign Ministry launched its own official mobile app. It is available at App Store and Google Play.

We hope to provide our audience with more opportunities to monitor the news from the ministry and learn current contact details of our diplomatic missions online. This is the purpose of the Foreign Ministry app that is available in two languages, Russian and English. There is no need to open the ministry website in the browser. One only needs to download the app on a smartphone, tablet or laptop.

The app’s functionality includes the Foreign Ministry newswire, push notifications on new materials, online video broadcasts, and much more. It is possible to view content offline. The navigation is very simple but user-friendly. The interface does not differ from that of the ministry website.

The Press Service section in the app was developed for Russian and foreign journalists and includes announcements, contacts and lists of accredited journalists.

A banner with a link to the app is located on the main page of the ministry’s official website. More than 4,000 users have downloaded the app over the past few days.



Russian Embassy in China creates account in Douyin social network

The Foreign Ministry continues to conquer the digital space and develop its online resources. It is a new area in our digital diplomatic activity, and quite an interesting one, in my opinion.

I’d like to congratulate the Russian Embassy in China with reaching another peak – opening an account in the Chinese segment of TikTok, the Douyin social network.

Douyin is a short-video platform launched in 2018. It belongs to the Beijing-based company ByteDance. TikTok and Douyin are two versions of the same app that are located on different servers.

The first video published on this platform featured Russian Ambassador Andrey Denisov who said a few welcome words and read the famous poem by great Chinese poet Li Bai “Quiet Night Thought.” There are also virtual tours of the historic buildings of our unique embassy complex.

The number of subscribers already exceeds 500,000 with over 14 million views and more than 1.3 million likes. Dozens of thousands of users leave their comments in support of Russia-China friendship.

This February, the Foreign Ministry launched a TikTok account and publishes short videos reporting on talks and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visits, and videos about the everyday life of Russian diplomats and foreign missions, flashmobs marking notable international events and landmark events in the history of Russia. It is a very interesting channel. Come and have a look. Translated Russian-language materials by our colleagues from our embassy in Beijing are also available now.

I would like to use this opportunity to invite everyone who has not subscribed to our accounts yet, to learn about the list of our accounts, there are over 700 of them. It includes the main staff, departments, embassies, permanent missions, consulates-general and territorial representative offices of the Foreign Ministry in Russia as well as our diplomats’ blogs.

To learn more, go to the Social Media tab at the Press Service section on the ministry’s website.

I would like to say the following to our Chinese friends:

请在社交网络上订阅俄罗斯外交部和俄罗斯驻华大使馆的资源。关注我们的动态!掌握俄罗斯外交政策的第一手资料。 保证会让人乐在其中。

Sign up to the social network accounts of the Foreign Ministry and our embassies.



Region-to-region cooperation between Russia and the CIS countries

At a briefing last week, I promised to provide an update on region-to-region cooperation between Russia and the CIS countries. I am now about to deliver on that promise.

The Russian regions’ cooperation with the CIS countries is of a strategic nature and is a priority area in our foreign policy. It remains a standing item on the agenda of the contacts at the top and high levels.

The annual region-to-region cooperation forums contribute significantly to the development of ties between Russian regions and their CIS counterparts. The 8th Forum of the Regions of Russia and Belarus dedicated to Scientific and Technical Cooperation between Russia and Belarus in the Digital Era was held via videoconference on June 29 - July 1, with the participation of President Vladimir Putin and President Alexander Lukashenko.

Region-to-region ties are at the core of trade and economic cooperation with Kazakhstan, with 76 out of 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation participating in them, ensuring steady growth in trade between our countries, which is expected to exceed the record high of $20 billion by the end of this year. The 17th Forum of Region-to-Region Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan was held online on September 28-30 and focused on Cooperation in Environmental Protection and Green Growth. President Vladimir Putin and President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev addressed its participants. A number of interstate and region-to-region agreements and commercial contracts between economic agents were signed following the forum. The forum re-affirmed the importance of this mechanism for boosting the most important areas of interaction.

The 2nd Forum of Region-to-Region Cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan was held in a mixed format in Moscow on November 17 with the goal of creating a single space for establishing and reinvigorating direct business ties and practical interaction between the two countries’ regions. President Vladimir Putin and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev sent video addresses to the forum participants. Thirty-nine investment agreements, totalling $4.5 billion and 455 trade agreements, worth $1.6 billion, were signed on the sidelines of that event. The regional administrations are expected to start working on 75 new investment projects in promising areas.

Region-to-region ties with Tajikistan are quite dynamic, which was unanimously noted during the 8th Conference on Russia-Tajikistan Region-to-Region Cooperation held in the city of Bokhtar, Republic of Tajikistan, on November 29-30. The event was attended by officials from the central, regional and local governments, public figures, entrepreneurs, researchers and analysts from Russia and Tajikistan. The participants discussed approaches to expanding interaction between the two countries in industry, logistics and the digital economy, agriculture and advanced urban solutions, as well as cooperation in youth affairs and education. Two agreements were signed between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan. The bilateral Interparliamentary Forum on Region-to-Region Cooperation, which will tentatively convene in Tajikistan in February-March 2022, has an important part to play in promoting bilateral ties.

The Russian-Turkmen intergovernmental agreement on promoting region-to-region cooperation, which was signed in Moscow on March 30, will provide the regulatory framework underlying this area of ​​interaction with Turkmenistan.

About 70 constituent regions of the Russian Federation maintain relations with all regions of Armenia. Nineteen Russian regions have already signed agreements on trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural cooperation with the Armenian regions.

The 8th meeting of the Russian-Armenian Region-to-Region Forum was held in Yerevan on October 18-19. A plenary session on region-to-region interaction between the two countries and a meeting of co-chairs of the joint working group on Russian-Armenian region-to-region cooperation at the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation between Russia and Armenia were held as part of this meeting. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 3124-r On Signing a Programme for Region-to-Region Cooperation between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Armenia for 2022-2027 was signed on November 2.

We focus particularly on promoting the Republic of Crimea in the international arena. Crimea Days in Armenia were held in Yerevan on April 28-30. To promote its contacts with Belarus, the Crimean delegation took part in the Belarusian Innovation and Industrial Forum which was held in Minsk on September 28-30. On October 7-8, Minsk hosted a presentation conference focusing on the Republic of Crimea’s economic potential. Representatives from Crimea took part in international exhibitions AGRO WORLD Kazakhstan and FOOD EXPO Kazakhstan in Astana on November 3-5, and on November 17, delegates from the Government of the Republic of Crimea took part in the 2nd Forum of Region-to-Region Cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan.

At our briefing last week, we highlighted the ties between Russian regions and Azerbaijan in the context of Astrakhan Region Governor Igor Babushkin’s visit to Baku on December 6-8. An opening ceremony for the Astrakhan Business Centre in Baku was held as part of the visit programme, and a Memorandum of Cooperation between the Astrakhan Business Centre in Baku and the Azerbaijan Business Centre in Astrakhan was signed.

In general, this cooperation is making strides. In 2021, business missions from Moscow, and the Rostov, Saratov, Tambov, Tyumen and Yaroslavl regions, Krasnodar Territory, Adygea, North Ossetia and Khakassia visited Baku. Business missions of companies from the Bryansk, Vladimir, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kirov, Novgorod, Rostov, Saratov and Ulyanovsk regions, Perm and Krasnodar territories, Dagestan, the Republic of Crimea and Khakassia were held via videoconference.

Moscow ($780 million), the Moscow Region ($378 million) and the Stavropol Territory ($154.5 million) were leading trade and economic cooperation with Azerbaijan in January-September 2021.

The contractual basis for region-to-region cooperation between Russian regions and the CIS countries is being improved. This year, 10 agreements on cooperation in various areas have been concluded between the constituent regions of the Russian Federation and their CIS partners. Soon, the Russian Government will give the green light to another agreement between the Sverdlovsk Region Government and the Government of the Republic of Belarus.



Unveiling a monument to Fyodor Dostoevsky in Florence

It would not be an exaggeration to say that in 2021 the whole world is celebrating the 200th birth anniversary of the great Russian writer, philosopher and thinker Fyodor Dostoevsky. Various international projects, including Russian-Italian undertakings, are being implemented as part of the celebrations. For example, the State Museum of the History of Russian Literature opened a unique exhibition, “Russia and Europe in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Work and Fate,” in Milan in September 2021. This was done under the aegis of the 2021-2022 Russian-Italian cross Year of Museums.

On December 14 of this year, a bronze monument to Dostoevsky was unveiled in the Parco delle Cascine in Florence (Tuscany, Italy). Why precisely this place? The writer lived there at one time and completed his novel The Idiot. Made by the Russian sculptor and member of the Russian Academy of Fine Arts Aidyn Zeynalov, the monument is installed next to an alley named after Dostoevsky. The unveiling ceremony was attended by Presidential Adviser on Culture Vladimir Tolstoy, representatives of the Russian Embassy in Italy, President of Tuscany Eugenio Giani, Mayor of Florence Dario Nardella, representatives of the public and the academic community, and journalists. The Italian participants thanked Russia for donating the sculpture to the city of Florence and praised bilateral cooperation in culture and the humanities.

It was possible to implement this project owing to support from the municipal and regional authorities as well as Italy’s Ministry of Culture. The unveiling of the monument to the great Russian writer in the year of his 200th birth anniversary provides yet more evidence that no unfavourable situations or conditions can weaken the strong bonds of friendship between our two nations. Therefore, this approach and precisely these landmarks should become our priorities in other areas as well.







Answers to media questions:



Question:

The G7 countries have denounced Russia’s military build-up and aggressive rhetoric towards Ukraine, as the G7 foreign ministers say in their joint statement. Earlier you called these accusations an information campaign. What, in your view, was behind its launch? What might it lead to?



Maria Zakharova:

We have perused the G7 foreign ministers’ statement on Russia and Ukraine, published following their meeting in Liverpool. The G7 ministers were joined by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. The statement reflects the current state of the Western community’s “collective mentality.”

Familiar as we are with present-day realities, we saw nothing constructive in it. This is the same old set of trite allegations, clichés and accusations hinging on an utterly false premise that Russia is engaged in “military preparations” against Ukraine.

We have repeatedly said that Russia has the full right to deploy and redeploy military units in its own sovereign territory at its discretion and that it has no aggressive designs. We have provided relevant explanations for many years.

On December 10, the Russian Foreign Ministry published its Statement on Dialogue with the United States and Other Western Countries regarding Security Guarantees to the Russian Federation. This statement is intended for the member states of both G7 and NATO and outlines specific proposals on how to reduce tensions over Ukraine. Indicatively, the G7 ministers chose to avoid mentioning this important subject in public. We doubt that they will be able to solve this problem by hushing it up or evading a discussion of issues raised by the Russian Federation. We hope to receive intelligible feedback.



Question:

Moldovan authorities have banned a number of prominent Russian public activists, political analysts and experts, including representatives of the Civic Chamber, the Institute of CIS Countries and the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, from entering the country. How do such bans correlate with the statements by Moldovan leaders on their readiness for pragmatic dialogue with Russia?



Maria Zakharova:

We have commented on this outrageous incident when Russian citizens were prohibited from entering the country via Chisinau International Airport. We are talking about prominent Russian public activists, political analysts, historians, etc. They contacted the Russian Embassy in Moldova, which assisted them, whenever possible, during their stay in the transit zone, as they waited for a flight back to Russia.

As far as we understand, the actions of the Border Police Force of the Republic of Moldova were linked with the December 12, 2021 election in Transnistria. It appears that the election frightened the Moldovan government, which started indiscriminately extraditing everyone from the country.

Each extradited person had certain reasons for visiting Moldova, including participation in social and political events, meetings with Moldovan partners and compatriots, scientific research and personal reasons. Some Russian citizens had been officially invited by their Moldovan partners. Moldovan authorities chose to ignore these circumstances, and Russian citizens spent hours waiting for a return flight through the night.

Regardless of the real reasons behind the Moldovan authorities’ decision to ban contacts between representatives of our countries’ civil societies, this hardly correlates with statements on their readiness for constructive and pragmatic dialogue with Russia. I am not talking about democratic standards to which Chisinau remains verbally committed. We would like this to be translated into real life as well. Notably, these standards stipulate a respectful attitude towards civil society institutions and their representatives.

We hope that Chisinau will renounce such unfriendly steps, which will not go unanswered, and that the country’s authorities will focus on expanding Russian-Moldavian cooperation.



Question:

Dzhokhar Dudayev Park has been opened in a suburb of Istanbul. What is your attitude to this?



Maria Zakharova:

Our principled position regarding the installation of any kinds of monuments to extremists, terrorists, militants and collaborators remains unchanged, and it applies to any location where this may happen.



Question:

The Estonian Ministry of Education has published a plan for the transition of Russian schools to Estonian-language curricula by 2035. The Prime Minister of Estonia said that the plan offers equal opportunities to all Estonian citizens. Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

It is obvious that first the Estonian authorities did away with Russian-language higher education and vocational training, and now they have shifted the focus to secondary and even preschool education.

We fully agree with the report presented the other day by the independent NGO, Estonian Human Rights Centre, according to which the shared narrative of Estonia as a developed democracy cannot be shaped without a fair attitude to national minorities. The current developments in the Estonian education system can only be described as a forced assimilation of Russian-speaking children, who are deprived of the right to receive an education in their native language. The action plan for the transitioning of state general education schools to Estonian-language curricula by 2035 allows the state to unceremoniously interfere in the affairs of local governments and to dismiss unsuitable school principals. Representatives of the Russian diaspora, which constitutes approximately a third of Estonia’s population, have not even been invited to take part in the debates and the decision-making process, although the Estonian authorities are fully aware of the predominantly constructive attitude of Russian speakers to integration and proficiency in the state language, provided they have a legal opportunity to receive an education in their native language. None of that is taken into consideration.

We demand that the relevant international organisations – the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe – provide an objective assessment of Tallinn’s failure to comply with its international legal commitments in this sphere and comment on discrimination against the language rights of national minorities in Estonia.



Question:

Nursultan Nazarbayev has suggested giving Azerbaijan observer status in the EAEU. What is Russia’s view on this initiative? How can the EAEU and Azerbaijan benefit from cooperation?



Maria Zakharova:

The initiative proposed by Nursultan Nazarbayev, who is rightfully regarded as the ideologist of Eurasian integration, is worthy of attention. The EAEU is open for any state that shares its goals and principles and is interested in promoting integration. First of all, this applies to the CIS countries that are closely cooperating with EAEU member states.

The EAEU is rapidly developing, improving the instruments of economic interaction with due regard for the best international practices and is actively modernising its transport infrastructure. The EAEU has created a cutting-edge system of technical regulations based on international experience. Despite the current difficulties caused by the pandemic, the majority of its macroeconomic indicators are showing positive dynamics.

We believe that the development of dialogue between Azerbaijan and the EAEU in any format would contribute to mutual trade, the unblocking of transport arteries in the region and the implementation of ambitious infrastructure projects. Bear in mind, however, that all decisions on upgrading the level of interaction with the EAEU are taken by the consensus of all the member states and the interested party following a comprehensive expert analysis of the possible economic consequences of such decisions.



Question:

The history of relations with the United States points to the negative predictability of the country. The recent US actions, such as its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the Iran nuclear deal, show that it does not honour its commitments. How can we expect NATO to guarantee its non-enlargement under these circumstances?



Maria Zakharova:

A few days ago, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg once again questioned Russia’s idea of a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in Europe. He said that the idea was not credible. But it is his statements that are not credible. Didn’t NATO countries’ representatives assure us that the bloc would not expand eastward? Didn’t they tell us that the planned deployment of US BMD systems in Poland and Romania was aimed exclusively against the potential Iranian threat? Didn’t they keep silent when the United States pulled out of the INF Treaty? Many young experts will be hard put to believe that this is exactly how NATO explained its actions.

In fact, NATO is doing everything it can to destabilise the continent and undermine the foundations of European security. We have advanced proposals regarding such a moratorium more than once, including proposals on the verification measures that would allow Western countries to see that there are no such missiles in the European part of Russia.

But these measures must be based on reciprocity. We can see from the recent Western actions that they are not ready to accept verification measures, which will stipulate the inspection of BMD facilities in Poland and Romania, including the Mk 41 launchers for Tomahawk missiles. Are they ready to let us inspect them? The answer is no.

NATO promises cannot be trusted if they are not backed by actions. We have presented our proposals, and we will move forward based on their practical reaction to them.



Question:

The whole world is witnessing Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry regard the response to this by the world media and the official authorities of foreign countries as a manifestation of double standards, given their focus on scandals involving journalists in Russia? Why is there no official position?



Maria Zakharova:

Our position or theirs? Russia has regularly commented on this topic. There was a relevant comment immediately after the court ruling. Initially we spoke about the hypocrisy and double standards. Now, based on data from international experts, we are speaking about the use of harassment and torture against this public figure and journalist. You may call him whatever you like. In any event, he is a man committed to freedom of speech, a principle of fundamental importance for international relations. Through his life and actions, he has defended the values that many people mention only while making official statements. Russia has regularly provided its assessment of developments involving Julian Assange. Our Western partners’ actions over the last few years smack of real cannibalism. This is not about double standards, or about trampling upon noble principles and ideals. This is about annihilating a person, taking revenge for his position and courage, for his deeming it necessary (obviously conscious of the possible risks) to share with the people of the world sensitive information shedding light on lies and the deception practiced by a number of states. Proceeding from a position based on these false assertions, Western countries launched an invasion and an aggression that took the toll of numerous civilian lives. Everyone’s life is priceless. But in this case, dozens and hundreds of thousands of people died. It is their story that the WikiLeaks website and Julian Assange were telling.

Why is the international community’s response so insipid? We can’t put it this way. There are people and public figures in various spheres, who are aware of all the dangers of this inhuman approach for Western civilisation, an approach fraught with the destruction of the fundamental principles of democracy. They hold pickets, publish articles and appeals, sign open letters, petitions, etc. There are a number of NGOs whose members are professionals from different countries. These people have drawn attention to the fact that the US words about the “legal” basis of the Assange case hide quite different words that the United States cannot guarantee that inhumane and humiliating measures will not be used against Julian Assange if this extradition takes effect. The international professional community has also noted this fact.

I fully agree with you. The official EU authorities, which talk every day about freedom, democracy and human rights, have never, during all these years, made any official statements. There were no statements from G7. Who should they address? Themselves? After all, Julian Assange is being treated in a way not befitting a human being by the US and UK, the G7 tone-setters. There were no attempts to submit the Assange case for consideration by an EU summit. I am not speaking about sanctions [against both states], although it is clear to everyone that they are killing the man. He is no longer the man who set out on this years-long journey while [virtually] in custody at an embassy. But at that time, he at least was able to communicate with the outside world. While he was being dragged out of there, it was obvious what had been done to him, given that he had had no chance to move about freely or get whatever is needed to any person – from sunshine to walks, etc. We saw to what he had been reduced, we saw a totally different man! I am not even mentioning the real persecution that the “beacons of democracy” organised against him. If this is part of the Western civilisation’s mentality, the rest is null and void automatically. No other interpretation is possible. The situation is quite serious.



Question:

Late last week, Finland announced the purchase of 64 US-made Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters. What does Moscow think of this step? Does the Russian Foreign Ministry fear that this substantial buildup of the Finnish Air Force could aggravate the situation near Russian borders?



Maria Zakharova:

In the past few years, Finland has been strengthening its military-political cooperation with NATO and some of its member countries, primarily the United States. Against this backdrop, we do not see the decision of the Finnish authorities to purchase 64 US-made Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters as unexpected. Indicatively, Finland did not opt for European fighter models, including a Swedish offer, unveiled during the bidding.

In effect, this concerns the scheduled replacement of a similar number of McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet fighters, now serving with the Finnish Defence Forces.

We have repeatedly stated that we respect the sovereign right of each country to determine its path and destiny, and to formulate its own approaches to maintaining national security, including the procurement of equipment for the national armed forces.

As far as Finland is concerned, Helsinki’s commitment to the traditional policy of non-alignment with military alliances and blocs is a principal aspect. We see this commitment as an important factor of stability and security in the Northern European region and on the entire European continent.



Question:

Head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin called Lithuania a “beacon of democracy” and promised assistance in strengthening the country’s armed forces to deal with Russia, Belarus and China. How do you generally assess this angle on the matter, also in the context of the previous question? What goals do you think the United States is pursuing, and is Russia going to take any retaliatory measures? If so, what measures?



Maria Zakharova:

Apparently, the fire in that “beacon” has been snuffed out by a storm – especially considering what is happening in that country in this respect. In recent years, it has been increasingly using repressive measures to fight dissent, even involving the Lithuanian special services and its government-controlled justice. Russia has cited many examples. We do this regularly. We have witnessed Lithuanian border guards treat refugees in a barbaric and cruel manner. Is it even appropriate to feed weapons to a state that behaves in this way towards specific people? Let other “luminaries of democracy” answer that, those who believe their fire has not been blown out yet.

It is quite easy to figure out the reasons for this kind of militarisation. The Lithuanian government keeps up this hysteria about possible “Russian aggression” to fulfil a foreign political order to “contain” Russia. Now they have started a similar rhetoric about China. The Baltic countries and China are not even located close to each other. Until recently, they have been explaining their discontent by referring to some historical background in relations with Russia, but with China, they are unlikely to find a similar rationale. Yet, they are now feeling threatened by China as well.

This policy cannot be a product of the Baltic countries. The political establishment in those states is being used as a tool. Instead of mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation in the economic, cultural, and political spheres, their choice is in favour of endless aggressive rhetoric that harms the interests of their country and their people, but fulfils the orders of other organisations and other countries. The question is (I understand that it will remain rhetorical): Do Lithuanian people need any of this?



Question:

Verkhovna Rada Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk said that to vote in an all-Ukrainian referendum, if one is organised, residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics will have to travel to regions that are under the Kiev government’s control. If the Kiev authorities deny the LPR and DPR residents the possibility of voting, as the speaker said, will Russia recognise the results of such a referendum?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already said all I can about this “referendum,” a fabrication we have heard from the Kiev regime. It makes no sense to talk about any mythical, possible, potential results.



Question:

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Ankara and Yerevan will appoint special representatives to take steps to normalise relations in the near future. In Russia’s opinion, how might these steps change the situation in the South Caucasus?



Maria Zakharova:

We have repeatedly commented on the normalisation of relations between Armenia and Turkey and the possible role Russia could play in this process. In addition to our comments, we have been taking steps in that direction, and not only in recent years, but decades ago. I would like to remind you of Zurich.

We believe that the normalisation of Armenian-Turkish relations will contribute to the improvement of the general situation in the region and the creation of an atmosphere of trust and neighbourliness, both in the region and between countries and peoples. From this point of view, we welcome the intention recently shown by Ankara and Yerevan to launch a bilateral dialogue to discuss ways to normalise relations. We believe the appointment of special representatives by the parties is a logical and reasonable step to extend this mutual aspiration. For our part, we are ready to support this process in every possible way.

On December 10, Moscow hosted the first meeting of the 3 + 3 consultative regional platform attended by Armenian and Turkish representatives; this should also promote rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, as well as between other participants in this format. The parties agreed to focus on hands-on matters, such as measures to increase trust, cooperating in the transport, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian fields, and addressing common challenges and threats.

The aforementioned possibility of resuming direct flights between Istanbul and Yerevan meets the goals and spirit of such agreements. We will promote and welcome any steps by Turkey and Armenia that would contribute to building mutual trust and rapprochement between countries and peoples.



Question:

Armenia asked Russia for mediation in relations with Turkey. Mevlut Cavusoglu’s statement and the appointment of special representatives – has all that taken place owing to Russia’s mediation?



Maria Zakharova:

I have already commented on Russia’s mediation. Don’t limit our efforts to some isolated actions. Let’s proceed from the premise that this has been our position not only this year or in the past few years. We have traditionally held this position. I quoted Zurich as an example. We promote positive and correct approaches and encourage countries to resolve problems (by strengthening ties and friendship) when it concerns a region close to Russia.



Question:

What is Moscow’s opinion of the results of the meeting between Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev in Brussels? To what extent will this promote the implementation of trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan?



Maria Zakharova:

We have already talked about this. I will repeat: we welcome the continuation of direct contact between Azerbaijan and Armenia when they are held at the top level.

The meeting between Mr Pashinyan and Mr Aliyev took place just last evening – information on the issues they discussed keeps coming in. We are analysing it.

We hope the results of the Brussels discussions will facilitate the further implementation of trilateral agreements between the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia of November 9, 2020, January 11, 2021 and November 26, 2021.



Question:

There are recent reports that our compatriots from Ukraine have received Russian citizenship and residence cards. It was mentioned that this was part of RT’s “Not One on One” project. What is this project about? Does the Foreign Ministry advise people to use it? Is there information on how many of our compatriots from the former Soviet republics and other foreign countries have received Russian citizenship in the past few years?



Maria Zakharova:

Receiving Russian citizenship is a special moment in the lives of those who apply for it. Our embassies and consular offices deal with this almost every day within their competences. They consult people, receive applicants, help them prepare documents and send these documents to the relevant agencies. The Foreign Ministry does a lot of work on this. I do not even say how important it is.

I will quote some figures to show you the amount of work done by our diplomats and consuls. In 2018, our foreign offices processed documents for Russian citizenship for 49,775 people (including over 30,000 children); in 2019, that number was 51,093 people (including over 28,000 children). In 2020, the processing of documents dropped due to obvious reasons, such as lockdowns, the pandemic and inability to travel inside countries (many embassies and consulates suspended personal appointments for these reasons under the local requirements in various countries). So, in 2020, Russian citizenship was granted to 30,160 people (including more than 21,000 children) and the figure for 2021 was 28,684 people (including over 24,000 children).

As for the “Not One on One project,” it is a joint initiative by the RT television channel and the Interior Ministry of Russia. It was launched in June 2018 after a series of publications about our compatriots that encountered red tape or other difficulties and problems when applying for Russian citizenship. The goal of this project is to inform a broad audience about the rules of migration and the procedures, and, moreover, to render targeted assistance to foreign nationals who want to acquire Russian citizenship.

Over 120 people that failed to receive the required documents addressed the RT editorial office. Assistance in issuing documents (temporary and permanent stay permits) was granted to 85 compatriots, and another 53 people received Russian passports.

This year, residents of Australia, the United States, Canada and Germany began to take part in the project. All of them ask for help in moving to Russia and applying for Russian citizenship. Although the goal of the project is to help our compatriots, it was decided to assist foreign nationals as well. The Interior Ministry is providing the necessary support and assistance to the project.



Question:

You said the other day that the NATO countries are moving militants, disguised as military instructors, to Ukraine. What is Moscow’s view of the situation on the border with Ukraine? How will Moscow respond to potential provocations by the West and Kiev?



Maria Zakharova:

Since you are using the word “provocations,” you must be guided by the answers that we have already given. This is exactly how we assess the situation, noting that tensions are deliberately escalated in this region and near our border. We have also recorded provocative actions. We sent relevant documents describing these facts and protesting these actions to the United States, for one. We have informed you about all this in detail.

We are not simply stating that some actions are taking place but are giving them a political and expert analysis and are making efforts to reduce tensions in this region.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790521/
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 18th, 2021 #46
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Statement



16 December 2021 - 11:56



The Russian side strongly believes that the guilty verdict brought in by the German court against the citizen of the Russian Federation Vadim Sokolov on December 15 in the case of the murder of Georgian citizen Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, former terrorist gang leader in the North Caucasus, in Berlin on August 23, 2019, is extremely biased and is clearly a case of an explicit political put-up job. We insist that the Russian citizen is innocent. He has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Germany against the unjust verdict.

We strongly reject the unfounded and far-fetched accusations which were concocted with the assistance of foreign security services and affiliated agencies claiming that Russian government bodies were involved in the murder of terrorist Khangoshvili, who lived in Germany with the knowledge of the German authorities. The only theory that was planted in Germany’s mainstream media shortly after the murder in August 2019 relied on falsified facts and unfounded speculations, posts from social media and online platforms that have lost credibility a long time ago as participants in almost all recent hybrid operations against Russia. They used testimony obtained under duress and fake evidence that was obtained, according to those who supplied it, with the use of illegal and even openly unlawful methods.

Interestingly, other legitimate theories related to the crime in Tiergarten Park in Berlin were neither considered nor explored by the investigators, prosecutors and the court.

We are deeply disappointed by the fact that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany chose, under the guise of the above verdict, to perpetrate another unfriendly action against the Russian Federation and proclaim persona non grata two diplomatic employees of the Russian Embassy in Germany, who were not and could not have been involved in the Zelimkhan Khangoshvili case, which fact the German authorities are well aware of. Berlin should rest assured that Russia will respond proportionately.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790612/






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s meeting with US political analyst Thomas Graham



16 December 2021 - 12:02







On December 16, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov had a meeting with renowned US political analyst, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian Affairs Thomas Graham. They discussed topical issues of bilateral relations, as well as several international and regional problems.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790617/






Press release on Moscow’s UNODC anti-drug events to combat the Afghan drug threat



16 December 2021 - 14:45



On December 15-16, the International Trade Centre in Moscow hosted a meeting of a working group of experts of the Paris Pact on promoting cross border cooperation in countering the Afghan drug threat. It was attended in person and via video by over 150 delegates from 31 countries and 14 international and regional organisations, including from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the SCO, the CSTO, the CIS, the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Center (CARICC) and the Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (EAG).

Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov made welcoming remarks at the meeting. Considering the changes in the domestic political situation in Afghanistan and its potential to spill over into adjacent regions, he emphasised the importance of the Paris Pact format, a unique mechanism of international dialogue on drug-related problems in Afghanistan. He also reaffirmed Russia’s unwavering political and donor support for the efforts of regional organisations to counter the smuggling of opiates and methamphetamine from Afghanistan.

Experts from the Russian Interior Ministry and Rosfinmonitoring (Federal Financial Monitoring Service of the Russian Federation) shared with their colleagues the assessment of the drug situation in Afghanistan and their practices in training anti-drug personnel and countering the laundering of money from opiate trafficking.

A ceremony marking the launch of the UNODC’s updated regional programme for Afghanistan and neighbouring countries in 2022-2025 took place on the sidelines of the Paris Pact expert meeting on December 16, 2021. Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department for New Challenges and Threats (DNCT) Vladimir Tarabrin welcomed the UNODC’s new strategy for Afghanistan that is designed to reliably curb the drug, criminal and terrorist risks in the country and prevent their spread to other regions. Mr Tarabrin noted the willingness of our country to continue providing technical aid to strengthen the anti-drug capabilities of the Central Asian countries, including UNODC’s programmes for training law enforcement personnel in the academies of the Russian Interior Ministry, and to help these countries to prevent youth drug addiction. Mr Tarabrin expressed the intention to pursue mutually beneficial cooperation with all interested parties in order to curb the Afghan drug threat.

The results of the Moscow events laid the foundation for further international discussion of the anti-drug measures taken to address the situation in and around Afghanistan.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790674/






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the draft law on sanctions on Belarus under consideration in Lithuania



16 December 2021 - 15:50



We are extremely concerned about the news of a possible ban on the transit of goods from Belarus through Lithuania.

We are convinced that this path will lead to a dead end since it can affect the provision of supplies to the Kaliningrad Region and negatively affect the economy, social status and quality of life of the residents of that Russian region.

At the same time, we were surprised to learn that Poland, without prior notice, tightened the requirement to present PCR tests at the Russian-Polish border and reduced test validity to 24 hours. We understand the complexity of the epidemiological situation and the need for proper measures to combat the pandemic. However, we believe steps that affect the daily lives of many people should be discussed with the international stakeholders and announced in advance.

Of course, if adopted, the above restrictive measures will not go unnoticed by Russia. We call on our partners not to follow the path of undermining economic ties, but instead to do everything possible to normalise the situation and comply in full with Lithuania’s international obligations to ensure Russian cargo transit to and from the Kaliningrad Region, in particular, the 1993 Russian-Lithuanian intergovernmental agreement on international road transport and other agreements.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790681/






Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on important advances in IAEA-Iran interaction



16 December 2021 - 16:01



On December 15, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi reported to the IAEA Board of Governors about the agreements reached with Iran on a number of fundamental matters related to IAEA verification activities in Iran.

In particular, the issues at hand include continuing interaction on safeguards, including the exchange of information and contacts between experts, the provision of samples of the CCTV cameras used by the IAEA for the necessary analysis to the Iranian authorities, and most importantly, the reinstallation of such cameras at the plant which produces centrifugal rotors in Karaj. All of the above will be carried out within the agreed upon timeframe.

We welcome these agreements. We support the mutual commitment of the IAEA and Iran to continue cooperating both within the framework of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and under the requirements of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and in light of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The good news is now more important than ever in terms of stimulating the ongoing talks in Vienna, which resumed on November 29, to re-establish the full implementation of the JCPOA, which continue almost without interruption. We hope that through the joint efforts of all parties involved and with the support of the IAEA, the difficulties in the implementation of the 2015 nuclear deal will be overcome, and tensions surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme will subside, which is fully in line with the interests of non-proliferation and strengthening security at the regional and global levels.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790686/






Press release on Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO



17 December 2021 - 13:36



During the December 15, 2021 meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry, the US party received a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees and an agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

The US party was given detailed explanations regarding the logic of the Russian approach, as well as the relevant arguments. We hope that, the United States will enter into serious talks with Russia in the near future regarding this matter, which has critical importance for maintaining peace and stability, using the Russian draft treaty and agreement as a starting point.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790809/






Let's take a look at these documents






TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES



17 December 2021 - 13:30



Unofficial translation



Draft



The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties",

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:

shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;

shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.



For the United States of America
For the Russian Federation





The source of information - https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso...90818/?lang=en






AGREEMENT ON MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND MEMBER STATES OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION



17 December 2021 - 13:26



Unofficial translation



Draft



The Russian Federation and the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

reaffirming their aspiration to improve relations and deepen mutual understanding,

acknowledging that an effective response to contemporary challenges and threats to security in our interdependent world requires joint efforts of all the Parties,

determined to prevent dangerous military activity and therefore reduce the possibility of incidents between their armed forces,

noting that the security interests of each Party require better multilateral cooperation, more political and military stability, predictability, and transparency,

reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the Rome Declaration "Russia-NATO Relations: a New Quality" signed by the Heads of State and Government of the Russian Federation and NATO member States in 2002,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties.

The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties.

The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities.

Article 2

In order to address issues and settle problems, the Parties shall use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the NATO-Russia Council.

The Parties shall regularly and voluntarily exchange assessments of contemporary threats and security challenges, inform each other about military exercises and maneuvers, and main provisions of their military doctrines. All existing mechanisms and tools for confidence-building measures shall be used in order to ensure transparency and predictability of military activities.

Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties.

Article 3

The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region).

Article 4

The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.

Article 5

The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.

Article 6

All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.

Article 7

The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.

In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Article 8

This Agreement shall not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, nor the rights and obligations
of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 9

This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with the Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States. With respect to a State that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall enter into force from the date of its deposit.

Each Party to this Agreement may withdraw from it by giving appropriate notice to the Depositary. This Agreement shall terminate for such Party [30] days after receipt of such notice by the Depositary.

This Agreement has been drawn up in Russian, English and French, all texts being equally authentic, and shall be deposited in the archive of the Depositary, which is the Government of ...


Done in [the city of …] this [XX] day of [XX] two thousand and [XX].




The source of information - https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso...&clear_cache=Y
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 20th, 2021 #47
Mick Walker
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 996
Default Neutrality for Ukraine Is the Right Answer

The best solution to the current Ukraine crisis is for all parties to agree to Ukrainian neutrality, but this is exactly what Western governments and the Ukrainian government refuse to consider.*US and NATO officials have said that Russian demands to rule out further NATO expansion to the east is a non-starter. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba explicitly rejected Ukrainian neutrality in his latest*article*for*Foreign Affairs, and he repeated his demand that Ukraine’s future membership in the NATO and the EU essentially be guaranteed:

“That means making it plain that Ukraine is part of the West and a future member of the EU and NATO and that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable.”

Kuleba presents this position as part of an effort to deter Russia, but it risks goading Russia to take military action.*Intensified Western support for Ukraine is far more likely to provoke Russia than it is to deter them, and ordinary Ukrainians could end up paying the price for the policymakers’ hubris.

More here...

https://anti-empire.com/amp/neutrali...-right-answer/
 
Old December 26th, 2021 #48
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Published on December 17, 2021





Deputy FM Sergei Ryabkov holds a special press briefing focused on Russia’s security.









Statement by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, H.E. Mr.Alexander Pankin, at the 44th meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, 17 December 2021



17 December 2021 - 19:13







Dear Chairman,

Your Excellency Secretary General,

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, Colleagues,

Let me from the outset once again congratulate His Excellency Ambassador Lazar Comanescu with taking office as BSEC Secretary General as well as his first successful steps in this capacity. We appreciate the productive outcome of our recent interaction in Moscow and stay open for the further fruitful cooperation.

We have approached a milestone event in the BSEC activities. Next year, on June 25, our Organization will celebrate its thirtieth anniversary. As we see it, the key achievements in this context are the formation of the Black Sea region's own identity as well as its emergence as an independent actor of the world economy. We believe that it would be relevant to hold a regular summit of Heads of State and Government in conjunction with the upcoming landmark date. We will contribute in every possible way to the preparation of this event in order to adopt a meaningful and substantive statement in support of BSEC.

Current challenges and opportunities pose new tasks for BSEC and its Member States. The coronavirus pandemic and disruptions in global chains have stressed the need to expand the regional dimension in global economy, the more so in the face of the attempted protectionism, and unfair competition on the part of former economic leaders struggling to maintain their dominance.

Additional prospects are opening up for the Black Sea region as the world economic relations are becoming polycentric and production capacities are being redistributed in favor of newly emerging economic powerhouses - the countries from BRICS, Africa and the Asia Pacific. Such developments allow the Black Sea countries to reinforce their uniqueness and capacity, as well serve as an important building block in promoting the concept of "integration of integrations" and a seamless economic space in line with the initiative of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to establish the Greater Eurasian Partnership with the participation of countries from the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), ASEAN, SCO, Africa and EU.

We attach great importance to enhancing BSEC practical tools and resource base. We intend to further carry out major infrastructure projects in the Black Sea region, such as the TurkStream and the South Stream, nuclear power generation facilities, transport and logistics complexes. We welcome the concrete results of BSEC and BSTDB technical assistance projects, implemented with a $1 million funding from the Russian Federation. The formats launched within their framework are focused on achieving progress in sustainable development, investment in real economy, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, digitalization of international trade, etc.

We regret that these positive trends are facing the politicization of the BSEC working processes and expert dialogue on the part of certain Member States and provocative behavior of some extra-regional players charged with escalation of confrontation and tensions, trying to yield the Black Sea region to their selfish interests. We hope that this futile policy will gradually fizzle out, giving way to reasonable and constructive approaches.

We believe that the development of BSEC-EU relations is bringing added value. We insist that they should be based on equality and strict compliance with interstate decisions. It is inadmissible for BSEC to become a "technical agency" of the European Commission or rubber-stamp the Brussels-designed standards. It is in everybody's interests to ensure the principle of non-discrimination in BSEC reaching out to other third partners and in particular the prompt conclusion of a memorandum of understanding with the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC).

We would like to specifically note the active efforts of BSEC Secretary General Lazar Comanescu to enhance the productivity of international cooperation within this platform. We note the success of our Georgian colleagues in implementing their chairmanship functions. We congratulate them and wish all the best to Moldova as the next Chairman. We are ready for close interaction with the troika mechanism partners, as well as at the bilateral level, to ensure continuity, coordination and synergies in our actions.

We are planning to devote Russia's BSEC Chairmanship in July-December 2022 to matters of connectivity in the Black Sea region. We hope to stimulate the transition to green and digital economy, taking into account the circumstances of the Black Sea region, and give impetus to developing the trade, transport and energy flows. We will be happy - pandemic situation permitting - to welcome everyone in Moscow and our Southern regions. Working together with the relevant Russian agencies, we are going to propose ideas on reducing risks in the energy sector, strengthening national financial markets, payment and rating systems. We also have in mind to organize experience sharing in assessing the seismic resistance of buildings and structures. A particular focus will be placed on ensuring access to vaccines and their mutual recognition, along with vaccination certificates and digital platforms.

I would like to once again thank the Secretary General and all our colleagues for cooperation.

Thank you for your attention.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790906/






Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Russia’s reciprocal list of British citizens denied entry to the Russian Federation



17 December 2021 - 20:04



As known, in August 2021, under far-fetched and absurd pretexts, the British government, relying on its national sanctions authority, announced personal restrictions on seven Russian citizens over their alleged direct responsibility for the poisoning of Alexey Navalny.

We consider London’s latest unfounded anti-Russian attack to be practical confirmation of the British government’s intention to continue its destructive course in bilateral affairs. We are forced to state that the British authorities’ consistent efforts to ratchet up sanctions completely undermine Russia’s attempts at various levels to put interstate relations back on a constructive track.

In response to London’s unfriendly actions and based on the principle of reciprocity, a decision was made to impose personal sanctions on a proportionate number of British representatives who are deeply involved in anti-Russian activities. They have been denied entry to the Russian Federation.

These measures were introduced in accordance with Federal Law No. 114-FZ On the Procedure for Exiting and Entering the Russian Federation dated August 15, 1996.

Once again, we call on the British leadership to abandon its confrontational policy with respect to our country. Any and all unfriendly actions will be met with an adequate and proportionate response.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790925/






Foreign Ministry statement on the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the Treaty on Open Skies



18 December 2021 - 09:00



As of December 18, 2021, the Russian Federation is no longer a party to the Treaty on Open Skies (Treaty) and has consequently ceased to be a member of the group of States Parties stipulated in its provisions.

The decision to join the Treaty was not an easy one for us. However, we adopted it in the interests of stronger international security. A major argument in favour of that decision was the participation of the United States, which called for military transparency but was reluctant to open its territory to confidence-building measures.

The decades after the adoption of the Treaty showed that it has served well as a confidence- and security-building instrument and has created additional opportunities for an objective and unbiased assessment of the member states’ military capabilities and activities.

Russia is withdrawing from the Treaty with a feeling of having done a good job to keep up its viability. Over two decades, the Russian Federation accounted for the largest number of observation missions of all the member states (we conducted 646 observation flights and received 449 of the 1,580 observation flights made under the Treaty). Russia was the first state to use digital observation equipment under the Treaty.

We did our best to implement and preserve the Treaty not on paper but in real life, sometimes taking big steps towards the other states parties. A case in point is the developments of 2018, when all the member states were unable to make observation flights because of Georgia’s destructive position. Russia’s gesture of good will helped to find a way out of the deadlock and to resume the implementation of the Treaty. Only those who are immune to objectivity can accuse us of adopting an unconstructive approach.

Regrettably, all our efforts to preserve the Treaty in its initial format have failed. The Treaty fell victim to the infighting of various influence groups in the United States, where hawks gained the upper hand. Washington set the line towards destroying all the arms control agreements it had signed.

Even when the balance of interests, rights and obligations of the member states was disrupted by the United States’ withdrawal from the Treaty, Russia did everything in its power to find a compromise solution. We proposed several options to settle two fundamental problems, namely, the non-transfer of information collected during observation flights to states that are not party to the Treaty and guarantees of our right to conduct observation flights over US military facilities in Europe. However, some countries value bloc discipline more than the interests of peace and international security. Their support for the Open Skies Treaty has been limited to empty declarations that have no practical use.

This has left us no choice. Russia’s withdrawal from the Treaty was predetermined. We cannot and will not neglect the interests of our national security.

We respect the decision of the other states parties to continue implementing the Treaty. We hope that their joint efforts will be constructive and fruitful. However, it is obvious that the effectiveness of the Treaty will decease dramatically without the United States and Russia as member states: the area of its application will diminish by approximately 80 percent, and the number of Open Skies missions planned for 2022 will plunge.

Responsibility for the deterioration of the Open Skies regime lies fully with the United States as the country that started the destruction of the Treaty.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790948/






Press release on the outcome of the seventh round of negotiations to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)



18 December 2021 - 12:12



On December 17, a meeting of the Joint Commission of the JCPOA closed the seventh round of Vienna talks on restoring the full implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal. The participants noted that significant progress had been made, which paved the way for the next stage. The delegations will hold further consultations in their capitals.

Many complex political issues have remained, however, with solutions yet to be found. However, all the participants have reaffirmed their determination to strive for the earliest possible achievement of their common goal of bringing the implementation of the JCPOA back in the initially agreed framework, without any additions or exemptions.

There is a general understanding that the negotiation process will resume in Vienna in the near future. The parties expressed their readiness to make the necessary efforts to ensure that the eighth round of talks ends with the achievement of a mutually acceptable agreement in a short time.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1790958/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during a meeting with Foreign Minister of South Ossetia Dmitry Medoyev, Sochi, December 20, 2021



20 December 2021 - 14:57






Mr Medoyev,

Friends,

We are delighted to meet again. This is our second meeting; we saw each other in January of this year. This is a good sign and means that we are constantly striving to coordinate our actions in bilateral relations as well as in the international arena when it comes to regional matters.

Our presidents are regularly in touch, as are our colleagues from security councils, governments, ministries and agencies. We place great importance on bilateral contacts between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. This way we can regularly identify additional steps that need to be taken to fulfil the agreements reached at the highest level.

I would like to note that trade between our countries is growing. It actually surged by nearly 70 percent in the first half of this year. We have every chance of reaching significantly higher levels than before Covid-19 by the end of the year.





As for responding to Covid-19, we note that the effort invested by Russian as well as South Ossetian doctors and the supplies of the Russian vaccine have helped stabilise the situation, and the number of cases has begun to decline. We will continue our work on this track.

After today’s bilateral meetings, I will also meet with our colleague from Abkhazia. Then we will hold a bilateral meeting and look at the processes known as the Geneva International Discussions on South Caucasus, as well as on other aspects of Russian and South Ossetian external relations.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791160/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Abkhazia Inal Ardzinba, Sochi, December 20, 2021



20 December 2021 - 15:00






Mr Ardzinba,

Colleagues,

We are delighted to welcome you in Sochi. This is your first visit to the Russian Federation as Foreign Minister of the Republic of Abkhazia. We met with your predecessor, Daur Kove, in March 2021.

Today’s meeting reaffirms your commitment to maintaining intensive contacts, to coordinating our actions to support agreements reached between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Abkhazia Aslan Bzhania, as well as inter-governmental agreements. All this is important for strengthening bilateral economic, cultural, humanitarian and security cooperation. We would like to review the regional situation and joint foreign policy activities.





I would like to note that we will hold trilateral talks with Dmitry Medoyev, our colleague from South Ossetia. During these talks, we will mostly focus on the work of the Geneva International Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus and other aspects of our states’ international activities.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791165/






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Interfax News Agency, December 18, 2021



20 December 2021 - 16:56



Question:

Are our proposals to the United States and NATO regarding security guarantees an ultimatum to the West, the last attempt to reach out to them or a final warning to make them stop?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We do not speak in the language of ultimatums with anyone. We have a responsible attitude towards our own security and the security of others. The point is not that we have issued an ultimatum, not at all, but that the seriousness of our warning must not be underestimated.

The security situation in Europe, the Euro-Atlantic region and Eurasia has indeed greatly deteriorated recently. This has happened because of a series of concerted actions by the United States and its NATO allies, which, generally speaking, can be described as an attempt to undermine Russia’s security and to create a hostile environment around us. We cannot accept this.

Ukraine is in the focus of this policy. Ukraine’s decisions are not independent but are subject to change in the situation. When the West provides unconditional and unqualified support to Ukraine, certain quarters in Kiev play up to the worst Western objectives and formulas. And the possibility of Ukraine eventually joining NATO, which some Ukrainian officials keep talking about, is categorically unacceptable to us. We will do our best to prevent this.

We reject the very presentation of the issue. We can discuss all the pros and cons, but we unequivocally demand that NATO withdraw the decision adopted at its Bucharest summit in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia become NATO members. That decision should be called off and revised, which will be seen as a small, not comprehensive, but small step in the right direction. The West does not appear ready to do this. This is why our comprehensive, all-encompassing proposals raise a number of outstanding issues, primarily for the United States but also for its allies, which should be settled urgently. We are monitoring their reaction, which is not encouraging so far. We are ready for talks on this basis, but so far we can only see that our proposals have been rejected under far-fetched pretexts.

The statement adopted by the North Atlantic Council on December 16 is vivid proof of this. Ninety percent of the text consists of time-worn ultimatums to Russia. We are not issuing any ultimatums to anyone, and we will not allow others to do this towards us. The statement goes on to say that what Russia demands, what it is demanding, is not an outstretched hand but a harsh demand, which allegedly has nothing to do with NATO. The alliance is free to decide which countries can join it, and NATO’s relationship with Ukraine is a matter only for Ukraine and the 30 NATO Allies.

No, this is much more a matter concerning Russia, as I am stating clearly now. The time of diplomatic parlance is over. We have to explain things at the elementary level, to spell them out. The potential NATO membership of Ukraine is above all a matter of concern for the Russian Federation.



Question:

Have we set any deadlines for an answer? Do we have a Plan B, shall we say, in case the answer is no?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have not set any deadlines. We proposed meeting and talking right now without dragging things out, without delay. Instead of talking to you here, I was actually ready to be in Geneva today for talks with Ms Karen Donfried, US Assistant Secretary of State, or with any negotiators Washington would assign for this purpose. The Americans were told that our interdepartmental delegation at these negotiations would be headed by a supervising deputy minister; they are aware of this. We are waiting for their response. We can be any place they name, at any time, starting tomorrow. Just a few hours to pack and we have it all ready. We have a clear approach, which we have worked on for quite some time, so there are no technical, political or organisational obstacles for starting such negotiations as soon as possible.

As for Plan B, we continue to expect the other side to show a serious approach. We understand they need time to read all this, discuss it and wrap their minds around it. As I understand it, certain discussions on this took place on December 16, at NATO and in the European Union. This is all clear. But by and large, if they confirmed their readiness to meet urgently and negotiate on the basis of our documents – our documents provide a framework for a certain negotiation process – this would be a good answer. True, we cannot be sure – we know this from the experience of many negotiations – that we will immediately reach an agreement in just a few days. Not at all; these are serious matters, but the process needs to start now. It cannot be delayed, given the situation in all its complexity and the totality of problematic aspects.



Question:

You said that understandably it would be impossible to come to an agreement right away. Does this mean that we are ready to compromise to reach an agreement?



Sergey Ryabkov:

This matter has been repeatedly discussed, including over the last few days, in contacts with US representatives and via other channels. We cannot understand the basics of the US position, when they say that we should, for example, with regard to the Minsk Package of Measures, do this or that. We have been urging them to put down on paper what they mean, for several months now. But they are not doing this. I don’t know whether they are unable or unwilling. They publish the same statements, sufficiently straightforward and tough statements, over and over again. If we go by what is written in these statements, it would certainly be impossible to come to terms. But any talks imply a search for compromise. The problem is not that there is no will to reach an agreement on our part but that we do not see this kind of will on the other side.

We are saying that there are no far-fetched things in the draft agreement with the United States or in the draft agreement on security guarantees with NATO, and, of course, we are saying this absolutely sincerely, firmly and confidently. This is the Russian Federation’s position on issues affecting our fundamental security interests, a position that is free of rhetoric and expressed in the language of a treaty. No more, no less, and it should be treated as such.

Therefore, when we say we need security guarantees, we naturally are proceeding from the assumption that the reply will be such as will make it possible to say: we have made headway in dealing with this package of key issues in such a manner as to see a substantial improvement in the security situation for us, to see a dramatic change for the better; we are no longer concerned about what may take place in the future in connection with the uninterrupted activities involving the buildup of military exercises, creation of infrastructure, redeployment of forces, reconnaissance flights, development of territories, and so on, practically in the entire Western sector, particularly in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea in recent time.

The situation here could be stabilised through documents of this kind and their conclusion. It could be made better. Without them, however, the situation will remain extremely difficult and tense. No one should underestimate Moscow’s resolve to defend its national security interests. No one should treat lightly our statements regarding the dangerous nature of current developments.



Question:

Is this about mutual guarantees? Are we also ready to give them these guarantees?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Are you suggesting we draft them for NATO? I am not sure at all that they need them. In terms of its approach to security, NATO has long settled on declaring the indivisibility of security for its own members. NATO officials have been saying for quite a while now that they are doing what is necessary to protect themselves against external challenges and threats – real or imagined. That said, they claim they are dealing with their security themselves.

We also plan our security ourselves. But the problem and the difference is that we are suggesting coming to terms on this issue. We would certainly not draft NATO’s position, trying to guess what its members would like to receive in return for meeting us halfway. That’s funny. We will not do this, it would be methodologically wrong. So far, the other side is not even indicating a willingness to start talks. We will have to wait and see. If they come up with a real position, it would lead to a real negotiating process that, I hope will start soon and take place behind closed doors.



Question:

What about guarantees of non-aggression against Ukraine or other actions regarding this country?



Sergey Ryabkov:

They want us to take actions in our own territory. Naturally, we are rejecting this demand in both its essence and form. This demand is unacceptable and inappropriate. They are not asking for additional security guarantees in this context. We provided guarantees when the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994.

I would like to emphasise that, with complicity from their Western patrons, our Ukrainian colleagues are turning this memorandum upside down. The Budapest Memorandum guarantees the security of Ukraine as a non-nuclear state in the context of the NPT. Guarantees have been ensured and provided from this viewpoint. However, the Budapest Memorandum document does not mention a word about government coups in Ukraine or subsequent actions. To be clear, we must note that this memorandum does not say anything about the possibility that part of the Ukrainian population living in Ukraine at that time decides whether they should continue living there or return to the Russian Federation.

The Budapest Memorandum is not about that. It sets out security guarantees for Ukraine as a non-nuclear state, and nothing more. The Foreign Ministry has said this many times, and this situation provides us yet another opportunity to emphasise this point.



Question:

But if we consider a worst case scenario, which apparently is still on the table, if the Americans refuse to provide security guarantees, that would give us a free hand, among other things, regarding President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko’s proposal on deploying our nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus. Is this so?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We take all our obligations very seriously, under all the treaties to which Russia is a party. We have obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, please note that for many years we have been raising the issue with NATO members that the practice of deploying US nuclear weapons on the territory of NATO member states that the NPT deems as non-nuclear – not just deploying, but also holding training sessions involving those countries’ crews and equipment on how to use nuclear weapons – that that practice, in our opinion, grossly contravenes the treaty. They tell us no, it does not run counter to the treaty. They tell us, years ago, back when the NPT was under discussion, the Soviet delegation agreed with the Western interpretation. Well, they did not. We have searched the archives, and our approach was there. Back then, we – Moscow, the Soviet Union – expressed our approach, and it was reflected in the records of the talks. Still, for the sake of signing the Treaty, the matter was just left as it was, each with their own opinion. Well, here we are now – just like 50 years ago, each sticking to their position. I am not drawing any parallels with Belarus, just reminding you of the various attitudes to the other side’s claims in such matters.



Question:

You mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis. That involved nuclear weapons as well, didn’t it?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the most difficult moment in the entire history of the Cold War, when the world was really teetering on the brink of a nuclear conflict. With so much done since that time with regard to arms control and not only that, with the progress made in comprehending the concepts and doctrines of the use of nuclear weapons, it is simply impossible to discard this experience and rewind back to 1962.

But we are concerned about the ease with which our NATO opponents treat matters like deploying nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons in different situations, where things become increasingly uncertain and blurred, where the threshold is lower, including due to capacity – that is, thinking logically, what they are doing makes it easier to go about using nuclear weapons, including on the battlefield. This is noticeable, and it raises our concerns, not just objections. We urge them to choose a different path. For example, one that we tried with the Biden administration, issuing a joint statement on the unacceptability of a nuclear war.

But there are escalation risks; there is the risk of an incident, which cannot be ignored. These risks cannot be taken lightly, they need to be addressed, and we call for this, too. Instead, we have to read a lot of moralising statements by our opponents. These lectures cannot change our position, I would say; if anything, they are strengthening it. On the other hand, they reveal the other side’s unwillingness, primarily that of the United States, to address real security threats in a serious manner.



Question:

Reportedly, the United States is trying to persuade the EU to synchronise tough financial and economic measures against Russia. Do we have the tools to respond to these measures, and will the sanctions affect our position during the talks on security guarantees?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We run into this all the time. Clearly, we are used to it and have adapted to it. I don’t want to make fun of what’s happening, because these are all not very good developments. The Western community’s programmed and differently formatted policy actions on Russia simply strike the eye. One gets the impression that the people who participate in these discussions are overwhelmed by the idea of ​​collective responsibility for what is going on. That is, no one can or is willing to offer an alternative, and things are unfolding arbitrarily. We have to reckon with this and, in all appearance, this will continue into the future, because those who hope for a possibility for Russia to review the demands that the West puts forward as a condition for taking steps on the sanctions track are naive. I am not even saying there is almost no such thing as lifting the sanctions that were imposed earlier. But that's okay; this is a separate major topic, which is also revealing. But I am on to something else here. Routine statements coming from the West about its willingness to develop constructive relations with Russia and maintain a constructive dialogue with us if Russia does what the West insists on are worthless. This is expressed in different ways; in the most terse and concise form it is expressed like it’s up to Russia, while we, the West, stand ready; it’s Russia’s choice.

Yes, all right, we re-read it, which made our eyes even sorer, and that’s all there is to it. That is all we got from it.



Question:

Still, will the sanctions affect the talks on security guarantees?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We suggest reaching an agreement on the aspects of the situation in the sphere of tough security that are currently causing the greatest concern. But this is all a product of NATO's constant and steady eastward expansion, which has recently been accompanied and supplemented by the military and the military-technical development of the neighbouring countries that are not formal NATO members. In addition, this goes hand-in-hand with intensified and openly provocative actions designed to see our reaction, whether it will be tough, or whether we will be willing to adjust our approach to a certain extent. That is, if I did not engage in diplomacy, I would refer to it as teetering on the brink of war. I would not want to touch on this in my assessments and reasoning. We do not want this, and we do not need a conflict. We want to reach an agreement on a sound basis. We want to move these multi-pronged activities which are, to a large extent if not entirely, anti-Russia, harmful and pre-planned, where all the roles have been assigned, to move them away from ourselves in order to get certain guarantees for normal coexistence in this space and in this area.

So, sanctions or other tracks in our activities do not fit into this logic in any way. This is an independent, separate group of questions that we have created in a form that is fairly direct and clear for our opponents, thus showing, among other things, that this is no joking matter, but, instead, needs to be dealt with right now, starting tomorrow.



Question:

What about the “sanctions from hell” which the Western countries are threatening to impose against us? Aren’t they a threat to our security?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I would like to share one observation with you in this connection. Not long ago – a year or two ago, it seemed to us that some issues like the one you mentioned now were discussed in the West if not with some trepidation but at least with the understanding that they concern fundamental, serious things. Now the Bucharest Nine comes into play. This is the most anti-Russia wing in NATO and the EU, with which the White House conducted special consultations, apparently explaining its own interpretations of our proposals – I don’t know, this is just my supposition. Now the situation has changed. They are imposing on others its internal NATO and internal EU narrative that Dostoyevsky, whose 200th birthday we just observed, would have described as “anything goes,” absolutely anything. These people are simply removing the limits of what is possible and acceptable in discussing various issues. But they ignore the fact that following the same logic as NATO, we will take care of our security ourselves and will sooner or later start pushing the limits of what is acceptable for us. We have already expressed our opinion in a slightly different way and will continue speaking out. So, this is a serious issue.



Question:

But if, say, they reject our proposal, will that untie our hands?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We will use the appropriate methods and approaches we need to ensure our security. We do not want a conflict and we would like to come to terms on a reasonable foundation. Any diplomatic action, any initiative or any proposal is a test of negotiability for those who are being addressed. Before we come to any conclusion on what to do next we must make certain the answer is negative. It could be a flat “no,” or emotional to some extent, or neutral. It could be anything. I do not want to anticipate it but I hope the answer will be at least relatively constructive so we can start our dialogue and talks. It is unclear what will happen, but let’s wait and see. Later there will be many options in different areas. However, talking about them now is counterproductive because we are trying to focus on our own proposals.



Question:

So, there will be separate talks on security guarantees, not as part of the dialogue on strategic stability?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We suggest a separate negotiating track on security guarantees – bilaterally with the US – that would include interdepartmental delegations.

As for a strategic stability dialogue, two rounds are over and we are preparing for a third one. We are working on our position, hoping the other side will specify potential decisions. That said, it is clear we will have to talk and discuss security guarantees, all the more so since one of the two working groups is called “potential and actions that could have a strategic effect.” NATO’s actions are having a strategic effect and it’s negative for us. Something needs to be done in this respect. They should stop or we need to stop them. I hope we will discuss this through a separate channel but we will also work on this in the format of strategic stability dialogue. I mean with the United States, I don’t mean NATO.



Question:

Do the Americans continue to insist on China’s involvement in our dialogue on strategic stability or do they want to discuss these issues via a separate US-China channel?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I have read reports that influential experts, including retirees and analysts, have published several articles on the Chinese factor, and this certainly creates a certain background and context. However, this question did not come up during our meetings, discussions or in conversations with the Americans this year after the June meeting between the presidents. As I see it, the United States has certain channels for discussing arms control with Beijing, and there is a five-sided format as well – the nuclear Five that holds useful meetings. This work is intensive now, on the eve of the NPT review conference. I hope there will be results that we can announce at the conference or in that context. China is very active there. In other words, there is no lack of venues. As for our dialogue on strategic stability with the US, the China factor only appears at US initiative. However, our position remains the same: we respect China’s position and consider it its sovereign choice, as is the case with Britain and France. We are very interested in their participation in this process. A sovereign choice is based on the national interests of these states and these interests may coincide with different arms control formats. We will not coerce anyone to do anything. We urge Britain and France to show a responsible attitude towards the situation. Just as with NATO, we cannot ignore the opportunities that the US allies have in different areas, and we will deal with this, too.



Question:

Should we expect consultations on visa issues be held before the year is out?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We do not have any consultations scheduled for what remains of this year. These matters continue to be discussed by the embassies. I want to confirm what has been said on several occasions, our Ambassador Anatoly Antonov mentioned this, and we mentioned this here as well: there is some progress on matters of secondary importance. Some categories of travelers, such as guests of embassy employees, can obtain visas more easily. Making travel arrangements for the specialists who are temporarily posted for various assignments, including building maintenance, has somewhat improved. Even though the room for improvement is vast and a good deal of work remains to be done, we managed to fix certain things of secondary importance, but there are no signs of us getting any closer on issues that matter most.

If the Americans don’t stop and continue to demand that our employees leave the country before January 30, we will respond in kind, and later the same number of their diplomatic mission employees will have to leave our country as well. The most severe personnel shortages, both here and there, will ensue. I’m not sure why the United States would want this. From time immemorial, embassies and consulates have worked to maintain normal bilateral relations and to facilitate dialogue. Unfortunately, visas have become a problem in our relations.

We never relent in urging the Americans to try to get this off the ground, but so far to no avail. It is not very clear how to interpret their approach, and why it is so uncompromising and does not take into account obvious needs, including those of the United States. Do they really think that we will be willing to unilaterally meet them halfway when our people are not able to rotate or simply travel to the United States, and have to apply for visas in third countries, while Washington gets what it needs? This runs counter to the logic behind diplomatic relations, not to mention the state of relations between Moscow and Washington. They cannot count on anything like this. This is one aspect of the matter.

The other aspect is that sometimes it appears that our colleagues have at some point underestimated our resolve to respond asymmetrically to their endless anti-Russia moves. When, in April, Russia was on the receiving end, again, of a whole series of completely groundless illegal sanctions, it was, in my opinion, a balanced and reasonable decision to respond by introducing a ban on hiring local personnel. Since then, they have been tying their destructive moves, such as failure to make available the required number of consular officers, which lead to non-issuance of visas or other enormous difficulties, and much more, to this decision. And they have also ratcheted up the pressure on our embassy.

But we do not even propose figuring out who started it and who is responsible for what, even though the situation here is absolutely indisputable, when back under the Obama administration we waited for many months, without responding even to the initial expulsion of a large number of our employees. But now, right now, let's not waste the time figuring out who did what, why and when. We just need to put the most problematic demands on hold and say: while this is not happening, let’s try to use the time to find solutions. Had this happened, I don't think any Foreign Ministry employees who engage in relations with the United States would be here, because I would have been sitting in Geneva for the security guarantee talks, while my colleagues would have left, the next day, for Helsinki or Vienna in order to work on removing these visa irritants. Our wives would have forgiven us even if we hadn't been able to make it back in time for the New Year.



Question:

That is, there will be no consultations on visas before the year is out?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No.



Question:

We are saying that we are demanding or will demand that the United States compensate us for seizing our diplomatic property and denying us access there. Is a legal claim for compensation already being drafted? Has it been presented to the Americans? And if so, what is the approximate amount of damages?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The issue of diplomatic property is not being addressed. No progress has been made due to the US stance. We put a very fine point on this with the Americans at all levels, to reiterate, literally at all levels, including the highest level with no effect, at least, not the effect that we need. At this point, we would like to especially emphasise the need for our maintenance teams to at least tour the grounds in order to inspect the premises, to take stock and assess damage and see what is still there and what is gone. We are in the dark about this, we are not allowed there. And then we will see what we can do with regard to the steps that you mentioned.



Question:

Towards the end of Donald Trump's presidency, we were saying that our relations had hit the bottom. Now, almost a year after Joe Biden has been in office, have we pushed off the bottom? Second, you told us in your interview last year that you were not expecting anything good in our relations with America, and that we should move to a two-track approach in our relations with the United States consisting of total deterrence, including military deterrence, and selective dialogue. Are we carrying out this policy now?



Sergey Ryabkov:

With regard to whether we have reached the bottom, I think that thankfully we didn’t break through the bottom and, in some respects, we are still moving forward and everything is not hopeless. However, in some areas the potential for deterioration is clear. We must deal with it before things collapse even more. Our proposals regarding security guarantees are a signal that there are many reasons for alarm in the western direction in general, from the point of view of military-political aspects of security. This needs to be addressed. Another area where we do not see much reason for being particularly optimistic are things related to bilateral irritants, such as visas, etc. The path forward here is obvious, though. There’s not even need for any talks. All you need to do is just make a political decision and have people get together and write down on paper a sequence of steps on either side which shouldn’t take more than several days. It is a very simple thing to do. The reluctance on the American side to do this clearly shows their lack of political will to improve relations. So, we have made some progress on some tracks and we will keep moving down that positive path, as best we can, being mindful of the risks.

I believe that the two-track approach is the only possible way to deal with the Americans at this point. But this is my subjective opinion. Our policy does not reproduce in the least what, for many decades, has been practiced and, moreover, officially declared by the West with regard to Moscow as the capital of the Soviet Union and then the capital of the Russian Federation.

The two-track approach was first stated in the report by Pierre Harmel, former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister of Belgium, in the 1967 NATO report. And they have been sticking to it since then. You can call something by different names, but that doesn’t change what it is. Is the Higgs boson a particle or a field? Both.

I am not getting caught up in my own words about the two-track approach. I know one thing. We need to achieve, what the Biden administration’s top officials famously refer to as “stable and predictable relationship” with Moscow. What we need is a stable and predictable relationship with Washington. We can get there by demonstrating our serious approaches and intentions in a variety of areas, while remaining open to dialogue. The other side often has a problem, and it appears that it will arise again following our proposals, which is that they are good at showing firmness bordering on rudeness, but they are rather unprepared for dialogue. So, just like the communicating vessels, we will also be balancing. You can call it a two-track approach or whatever you like. Our foreign policy is presidential policy, and we carry out the decisions that are made by the leader of our state.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791222/
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 26th, 2021 #49
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta on December 20, 2021



20 December 2021 - 21:42







Question:

Mr Grushko, discussions of the action plan regarding NATO’s expansion, which Russia has proposed to Washington, are ongoing. You have mentioned a “military-technical alternative,” if NATO rejects Moscow’s proposals. What do you have in mind?



Alexander Grushko:

If our concerns are disregarded and NATO countries are not ready to show military restraint, we will have to use the response instruments at our disposal. There is no other option. If the other side decides to project, let alone use force, that is, if it applies its defence capability as a means of economic or political pressure, this will be unacceptable to Russia, and we will find methods to neutralise these threats.



Question:

What methods could this be?



Alexander Grushko:

For example, if strike systems capable of reaching our command centres within a matter of minutes are deployed in the territory of NATO countries, we will have to create an appropriate situation for them.



Question:

It is said that the Russian proposals sound like an ultimatum and that they leave the West no space for compromise.



Alexander Grushko:

I don’t see them as an ultimatum at all. Our proposals are absolutely clear. The time of undertones and taking words on trust is over. The seriousness of the situation calls for measures that stipulate a frank face-to-face conversation. For example, our NATO partners, who are talking about enlarging the alliance, say that Russia doesn’t have a say on this matter, that the accession procedure is stipulated in the Washington (North Atlantic) Treaty, and that all countries have a right to freely choose methods of ensuring their security, including by joining military alliances. This is where our NATO partners put a full stop. But the other part of the formula says clearly that by making such a choice these countries must also respect the security interests of other parties. It should be remembered that NATO’s expansion is a policy, an “open door policy.”

Let us look back at 1990 and 1991 and imagine Mikhail Gorbachev talking with Francois Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, James Baker and other leaders about the parameters of Germany’s reunification in the context of European security. Can you imagine these politicians replying to Gorbachev’s concerns about NATO’s potential eastward expansion in the language their successors are using now? Can you imagine them saying, “Sorry, but we have the Washington Treaty, all countries are free to decide what alliances to join, and the Soviet Union has no say on this matter?” Moreover, Germany’s status and NATO membership were discussed by the Soviet Union and the other great powers. And they coordinated a formula according to which the Alliance would not expand eastward or even deploy its troops in the territory of the former GDR, and that the Russian party would be notified about any international activity. The parties also coordinated the largest possible number of troops and agreed that the Bundeswehr should be scaled down.

Here is another example. Our partners claim that our demands on the non-deployment of troops affect NATO’s core. But if the Alliance demands that we pull our troops back from the border with Ukraine even though they are deployed a thousand kilometres away from NATO’s borders, why can’t Russia demand that the bloc withdraw its troops and armaments from its borders? The proposals we have put on the table are open and clear and show our partners what Russia thinks about the current state of military security.



Question:

How did the parties end up in this situation?



Alexander Grushko:

This situation did not just happen out of the blue. Even after 2014, when NATO almost completely curtailed cooperation with the Russian Federation and simply discarded the positive agenda that had been achieved with such difficulty, we proposed specific steps that could, if not improve the situation amid the destruction of security mechanisms, at least achieve some de-escalation. That was our response to NATO’s calls to take steps to lower tensions. We agreed. And where has that got us? The line of contact between Russia and NATO is extending. During the Soviet era, the contact was only along the Turkish and Norwegian borders. Who created this line of contact and now says they are concerned about Russia's activity? What, do we have to tighten our belt now? Pull our forces back to the Urals?

Our approach is well grounded and based on the new reality. Even if we compare it with 1997, when NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act, which included NATO’s pledge not to deploy additional substantial combat forces in the new member states on a permanent basis or change its nuclear strategy, configuration of nuclear weapons and infrastructure – these commitments are also in question now. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said the Alliance could deploy nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe. This is a serious challenge to the very foundations of European security. NATO used to play with phrases such as “temporary deployment.” Now they are talking about a fully sustainable and rotational presence. This, in fact, means a permanent presence. All of this directly affects our security. If you read the reports by the leading Western political science centres, they frankly admit that NATO has created new vulnerabilities for itself by moving its borders to the suburbs of St Petersburg. At the same time, the distance from Tallinn to St Petersburg can be covered by bike; NATO combat aircraft can reach St Petersburg in less than ten minutes. This factor cannot be neglected. It must be taken into account in military planning, and we will certainly do so.

NATO expansion has turned the Baltic region, which used to be one of the most peaceful regions, into a theatre of ​​military rivalry that no one needs, least of all Russia. During the Cold War, NATO believed it had one vulnerable spot – the Fulda Gap, a series of passes through the hills the Warsaw Pact tanks could hypothetically use to reach the English Channel. Now the alliance is concerned about the Suwalki Corridor, a 65-kilometre-wide strip linking Poland with Lithuania, squeezed between the Kaliningrad Region, a Russian exclave, and Belarus. It connects NATO with its Baltic members, which fear they could be cut off in the event of a conflict. Apparently, NATO’s eastward expansion has compromised the alliance’s own security. If NATO had remained within the borders our Western partners promised to Mikhail Gorbachev, who would they have to defend themselves from now? The whole expansion process was, in fact, a way to prove the alliance’s relevance. But today, it is affecting fundamental security interests. And when we talk with our Western partners, and they complain about military activities on the border between Russia and Ukraine, we reply: “Look at the map.”



Question:

Are we ready to concede some of the requirements set forth in Russia's proposal to the United States, or have we taken a tough stance?



Alexander Grushko:

We have a tough stance, but our message is very clear to the West. We expect a substantive dialogue with the United States. We have already formed a team, and we are willing to start talking as soon as the Americans are ready.



Question:

Is the limited communication between the Russian and US military a problem?



Alexander Grushko:

Of course. The fact that military contacts have been cut off poses a danger. We need to discuss issues such as moving exercise grounds away from the contact line, we need to jointly improve mechanisms for avoiding unintentional military incidents and set the permitted approach distances for warships and combat aircraft – all this requires the involvement of communication channels between the military. These things should be discussed by experts. Yet, for some reason, NATO considers this a political matter. If we are serious about de-escalation, if we want to take steps to deflect the danger of military incidents and all the risks, we will have to reopen those channels. Indeed, what we are doing today is a reaction to the lack of any reasonable movement towards lowering risks.



Question:

Have you had an answer from the United States so far?



Alexander Grushko:

No, not as far as I am aware. But we are ready to start work; we put the cards on the table. The West knows how we see the military security architecture in Europe.



Question:

Does this mean Russia is trying to significantly change the picture of relations in the world?



Alexander Grushko:

Strategically speaking, the world is rapidly adopting a new agenda, which includes a multipolar order and the need to harmonise relations between several global centres that are gaining strength. The unipolar and bipolar worlds are a thing of the past. Change necessitates a positive agenda. Climate change, digitalisation, fighting the pandemic, social change driven by the new technological transformation – all this requires a fundamentally new level of interaction. The world needs a global unifying approach in these fields, not dividing lines. So far, we are struggling with an agenda inherited from the Cold War. We wanted to leave it in the past, but they are forcing it on us again. And we cannot ignore what is happening on our borders and affecting our fundamental interests.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791324/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Vice Chair of the Council of Ministers and Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bisera Turkovic, Sochi, December 21, 2021



21 December 2021 - 14:02






Madam Minister,

Colleagues,

Welcome to Sochi.

Taking this opportunity, allow me to offer you my best wishes on your recent birthday. I wish you good health and all the best to all your close ones.

We are just five days away from the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. Our staff has drafted congratulatory messages to this effect, and we will exchange them today.

This may be a short period, from a historical perspective, but over these years, we have accomplished quite a journey from mutual diplomatic recognition to building a constructive, multi-faceted partnership. Much has been done to promote trade, economic, investment and humanitarian ties. There are no outstanding, unresolved issues in our bilateral relations. Our missions to international organisations have been quite effective at working together, which is also worth noting.





We are interested in further developing our friendly relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. We will make every endeavour to support and accompany your country in its development based on the Dayton Accords. Russia is one of the guarantor countries of this agreement.

We have quite a packed agenda before us, and will discuss all these matters today.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791438/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions during a joint news conference following talks with Deputy Chairperson of the Council of Ministers and Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bisera Turkovic, Sochi, December 21, 2021



21 December 2021 - 18:42






Ladies and gentlemen,

I had talks with Deputy Chairperson of the Council of Ministers and Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bisera Turkovic. The talks were productive and held in a candid and friendly manner.

Minister Turkovic's visit is timed to coincide with a significant date in our relations. In a few days, we will mark 25 years of diplomatic ties between Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We welcomed progress in our relations across all areas, which include political dialogue, inter-parliamentary contacts and inter-regional and inter-municipal ties, and highlighted intensive cooperation between many universities in Russia and BiH.

Madam Minister informed me about an important decision that was taken in response to Russia’s request. I’m talking about the leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina agreeing to open a branch of the Russian Embassy in Banja Luka.

We agreed to step up work on 12 drafts agreements and treaties that will expand the legal framework underlying our interaction.

Trade and economic ties are important. Russia is one of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s leading trade and investment partners. After a minor decline in 2020, trade grew by over 85 percent in the first nine months of this year.

The co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation met in October to outline ways to promote our interaction.

We emphasised the importance of implementing major projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Gazprom Neft, Sberbank, Zarubezhneft and other Russian operators.

Cultural ties are expanding. We are very happy that increasing numbers of Bosnians are interested in learning Russian and getting a higher education in our country. In this regard, we will increase the number of scholarships provided to students from Bosnia and Herzegovina by 50 percent in the upcoming academic year.

Russia’s Spiritual Culture Days were held in Sarajevo in November. They confirmed a keen interest in the cultural and historical heritage of the peoples of our country. We are grateful to our friends in BiH for their willingness to support our request to open a Russian Cultural Centre.

We have strong cooperation through our representatives at the UN, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. We discussed the situation in the Western Balkans. We reiterated our support for the fundamental common framework agreement on peace - the Dayton Agreement - which codified independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of BiH, the equality of the three state-forming peoples and the corresponding constitutional powers of the two entities.

We are convinced that Bosnia and Herzegovina is an established state and the foundations laid down by the Dayton Agreement must be fully respected. Undoubtedly, we consider the attempts to manage processes in this sovereign country from the outside an atavism which must be eliminated immediately.

We also discussed the general situation in the Balkans. Russia reaffirmed its commitment to further facilitate the solution to any problems arising here based on a mutually respectful dialogue at the regional level with an eye towards overcoming existing differences exclusively through political and diplomatic means.

We agreed to maintain close communication on the basis of the Plan of Consultations between our ministries that was signed in Sarajevo in 2020. Consultations at the level of deputy ministers and directors of the corresponding departments are pending.

I am sincerely grateful to Bisera Turkovic and her delegation for the productive work.







Question:

On December 26, it will be 25 years since Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) established diplomatic relations. What can you say about Russia’s role in settling the situation in BiH now and in the future?



Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to thank Bisera Turkovic for her high praise of Russia’s role in the implementation of the Dayton Agreement and, in general, in the development of BiH as an independent and sovereign state.

When I was Russia’s permanent ambassador to the UN, BiH was elected a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in the late 1990s. Twenty years have passed since then but the protectorate over BiH is still preserved as the Office of the High Representative. The Peace Implementation Council, of which Russia is a member, made a decision in the late 2000s to curtail this office (a decision was adopted in 2006 and a programme in 2008) to enable the Bosnians themselves to resolve their national development issues. Certain terms were formulated but the Bosnians themselves were supposed to resolve their issues and fulfil the terms. This was not a task for the High Representative. Moreover, we do not think the current office-holder, Christian Schmidt, is in there legitimately, because he was not appointed by the consensus of all three state-forming nations and the Peace Implementation Council and approved by the UN Security Council.

As a matter of principle, only the people of BiH have the right to decide their destiny in accordance with the Constitution’s provisions on the distribution of powers and making decisions. With respect to the part that depends on us, Russia will do all it can to facilitate these developments and reach consensus on all issues. Our Bosnian friends are aware of this.



Question:

Yesterday, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov had a telephone conversation with National Security Advisor to the US President Jake Sullivan. Following the conversation, US officials stated that they are open to dialogue with Russia on security guarantees in bilateral and multilateral formats, provided Washington’s concerns are taken into account. They are going to present a list of their own concerns. Does Moscow consider this Washington’s statement a response to our proposals on security guarantees? What does Moscow think about the proposed dialogue formats? Is it ready to consider Washington’s concerns?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, this is a response to our proposals, but only on the organisational side of things for the time being – US willingness to start dialogue on bilateral issues and Russia-NATO relations. These matters must be seriously discussed within the framework of the OSCE at some point. It is there that the Euro-Atlantic countries, at the top level, signed onto the principle of equal and indivisible security, in accordance with which all OSCE countries pledged not to advance their own security at the expense of the others’ security. We have an understanding on formats and departments that will be represented at the future talks. The main point is to start them on a practical level.

Are we ready to discuss Washington’s concerns? We are ready to discuss everything, but we haven’t received them so far.



Question:

France and Germany have said that they are ready to go back to the Normandy format to discuss the situation in Ukraine. When and where can such a meeting take place?



Sergey Lavrov:

I haven’t heard such statements. If they have indeed made them and mentioned that the purpose of the initiative was to discuss the situation in Ukraine, we would like to understand what exactly they are talking about. If it is about implementing the Minsk Agreements, a draft document should be worked out to be discussed at the next Normandy format meeting (which the Germans and French, according to you, are proposing).

When this topic was being discussed a couple of months ago, we conveyed our vision of the results of a possible meeting. Paris and Berlin refused to discuss it. Our proposals were built in full conformity with the Minsk Agreements both in essence and in terms of the succession of steps. There is an impression that this initiative aims not so much at ensuring Kiev’s compliance with its obligations, which it keeps neglecting, but rather at trying to dilute the Minsk Agreements and making it easier for Kiev to dodge the implementation of the documents it had signed, which were approved by the UNSC.

Many Ukrainian leaders officially state that the Minsk Agreements are obsolete and should be replaced, and that a new negotiation format is needed. President Vladimir Zelensky and his staff, ministers and government members said publicly a number of times that they would not have any dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Nobody in Berlin or Paris reined them in for making such statements, which directly undermine the fundamental principle of the Minsk Agreements. Our German and French colleagues kept silent even in the situation when Vladimir Zelensky, a president of a multilingual country, stated in an interview that if some Ukrainian citizens want to speak Russian and consider themselves Russian, they should clear out to “their Russia.” This was stated publicly. We brought the outrageous statements by the Ukrainian leader to the attention of our colleagues in Paris and Berlin. They kept an embarrassed silence and no response followed. We want to understand what they intend to discuss when they speak about the need to convene in the Normandy format.



Question:

Yesterday, you met with foreign ministers of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What did you discuss? Did you talk about Russia’s relations with these republics in the event of Georgia’s accession to NATO?



Sergey Lavrov:

We discussed the entire range of our relations. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are our allies. This status is fixed in the corresponding treaties that were signed in 2014 and 2015. These treaties clearly set the task of developing allied relations and deepen integration. Proceeding from these treaties, Russia has coordinated over 100 documents with each of these independent states. We are expanding our economic, investment, social and humanitarian cooperation. We are ensuring the security of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We have Russian military bases there in accordance with the signed treaties. They reliably meet the requirements of our allies in ensuring the security of their borders. We will firmly abide by our allied commitments.

We did not discuss hypothetical scenarios, including attempts to force Georgia into NATO despite the will of a large part of its population. Our position on NATO’s expansion is well known. If the alliance continues moving closer to the borders of the Russian Federation, it will be crossing a red line. Following the instructions of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, we made proposals on ensuring Russia’s security in the context of overall security in the entire Euro-Atlantic region. They clearly show our view of the situation and demonstrate Russia’s sincere desire to prevent negative developments under the scenarios that are drawn by certain NATO strategists.



Question:

How is the Foreign Ministry protecting the rights of the Russian citizens who are involved in incidents during their stay in Abkhazia for different reasons and those who have bought property or are doing business there?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t remember any serious problems in South Ossetia. There were cases in Abkhazia when Russian tourists got into trouble. The property of Russian citizens is also subjected to actions that are not quite legitimate. There were questions about the activities of entrepreneurs. Our Abkhazian colleagues understand the need to step up their efforts in all of these areas. This concerns criminal offences committed against Russian tourists and the property of our citizens.

The Commission on Protecting the Property Rights of Russian Citizens in the Republic of Abkhazia was set up long ago. It has recently held a regular session. Its participants adopted positive decisions on the return of property to many Russian nationals. However, this is not yet the ultimate resolution of the problem. Foreign Minister of Abkhazia Inal Ardzinba assured us that the leaders of the country and Sukhum will do all they can to resolve these issues once and for all.

An Abkhasian court of law will soon resolve the case of one Russian businessman, which has been in the works since 2016. He opened a production line in Abkhazia, which was captured by raiders. Our numerous appeals to the relevant agencies of Abkhazia have finally produced results. A positive verdict on compensation was passed by a court. Now it is necessary to wait for the completion of this process.

Talking to our Abkhazian friends, I emphasised that the appeal of the Abkhasian market for Russian investment will directly depend on how such cases are reviewed and settled. The young Republic needs it.

Overall, they heard us. We will continue working in all of these areas.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791593/






Joint Statement by the Representatives of Iran, Russia and Turkey on the 17th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana Format, Nur-Sultan, 21-22 December 2021



22 December 2021 - 14:06



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

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

2. Expressed their determination to continue working together to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries. Condemned the increasing terrorist activities in various parts of Syria which result in loss of innocent lives including the attacks targeting civilian facilities. Reiterated the necessity to further continue their ongoing cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, while ensuring the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure in accordance with international humanitarian law. Expressed serious concern with the increased presence and terrorist activity of “Hayat Tahrir al‑Sham” and other affiliated terrorist groups as designated by the UN Security Council that pose threat to civilians inside and outside the Idlib de-escalation area;

3. Reviewed in detail the situation in Idlib de-escalation area, agreed to make further efforts to improve the humanitarian situation in and around the area. Highlighted the necessity to maintain calm on the ground by fully implementing all agreements on Idlib.

4. Discussed the situation in north east of Syria and agreed that constant security and stability in this region can only be achieved on the basis of preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives under the pretext of combating terrorism. Reaffirmed their determination to stand against separatist agendas in the east of the Euphrates aimed at undermining the unity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries.

Expressed grave concern, in this regard, with increasing hostilities and all forms of oppression by the separatist groups against civilians in east of Euphrates.

Reiterated their opposition to the illegal seizure and transfer of oil revenues that should belong to Syria;

5. Noted that ongoing local settlement process in Daraa and Deir Ezzor may contribute to stabilization efforts.

6. Condemned continuing Israeli military attacks in Syria which violate the international law, international humanitarian law, the sovereignty of Syria and neighboring countries, endanger the stability and security in the region and called for cessation of them. Stressed that the Israel's abuses of civil aircrafts as a cover in its aggressions on Syrian territory is a stark violation of international regulations, endangering lives of civilians.

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

8. Emphasized the important role of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, created as a result of the decisive contribution of the Astana guarantors and in furtherance of the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi;

9. Noted the convening of the 6th round of the Drafting Commission of the Syrian Constitutional Committee between 18-22 October in Geneva and called for holding of its 7th round as soon as possible with a constructive approach by the Syrian parties. In this regard, reaffirmed their determination to support the Committee's work through continuous interaction with the Syrian parties to the Constitutional Committee and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen, as facilitator, in order to ensure its sustainable and effective functioning;

10. Expressed the conviction that the Committee in its work should respect the Terms of Reference and Core Rules of Procedure to enable the Committee to implement its mandate of preparing and drafting for popular approval a constitutional reform as well as achieving progress in its work and be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement without foreign interference and externally imposed timelines aimed at reaching general agreement of its members;

11. Reiterated grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Syria and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which presents a profound challenge to health system, socio-economic and humanitarian situation in Syria. Rejected all unilateral sanctions, which are in contravention of international law, international humanitarian law and the UN Charter.

12. Emphasized the need to eliminate the impediments and to increase humanitarian assistance to all Syrians throughout the country without discrimination, politicization and preconditions. Welcomed the adoption of Resolution 2585 (2021) by the Security Council on 9 July 2021, reiterated their determination to facilitate full implementation of the Resolution.

13. In order to support the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Syria and the progress in the process of the political settlement, called upon the international community, the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies to enhance their assistance to whole of Syria through early recovery and resilience projects including the restoration of basic infrastructure assets – water and power supply facilities, schools and hospitals as well as the humanitarian mine action in accordance with the international humanitarian law;

14. Highlighted the need to facilitate safe, dignified and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to their original places of residence in Syria in compliance with international humanitarian law, ensuring their right to return and right to be supported. In this regard, called upon the international community to provide the necessary assistance to Syrian refugees and IDPs and reaffirmed their readiness to continue interaction with all relevant parties, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other specialized international agencies.

15. Welcomed the successful operation of mutual release of detainees on 16 December within the framework of the Working Group on the Release of Detainees/Abductees, Handover of Bodies and Identification of Missing Persons. The operation confirmed once again the willingness of Syrian parties to strengthen the mutual trust with the assistance of the Astana guarantors. It also reaffirmed the determination of the Astana guarantors to increase and expand their cooperation within the Working Group, which is a unique mechanism that proved to be effective and necessary for building confidence between the Syrian parties. Agreed that the scale of future operations on the release of detainees needs to be increased, and the activities of the Working Group - to be extended to the handover of bodies and identification of missing persons.

16. Took note with appreciation the participation of delegations of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon as observers of the Astana format as well as representatives of the United Nations and the ICRC;

17. Expressed their sincere gratitude to the Kazakh authorities for hosting in Nur-Sultan the 17th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format;

18. Decided to convene the 18th International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format in Nur-Sultan in the first half of 2022 taking into consideration the pandemic situation. Reaffirmed their intention to arrange another ministerial meeting in the Astana format. Also recalled the Joint Statement of 1 July 2020 to hold the next Tripartite Summit in the Islamic Republic of Iran as soon as conditions permit.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791660/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO, Moscow, December 22, 2021



22 December 2021 - 21:47






Esteemed colleagues, friends,

I am delighted to welcome you all at a General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO.

We meet once a year. Although it appears that we do not meet very often, tremendous work is conducted in between our plenary meetings. I would like to sincerely thank all those who will be mentioned in today’s remarks and those who will not be mentioned. It is impossible to name everyone.

Russia retains leading positions in UNESCO and actively defends its intransient values that remain completely relevant 75 years after this Organisation was established. We are witnessing certain trends on the international scene, and they are linked with the attempts of our Western colleagues to ensure their domination in every way. Unfortunately, this can also be seen in UNESCO’s activities.

We are witnessing attempts to set up non-universal organisations that are conceived as venues where the West will dictate its own approaches and interests in all areas that must be included in the UN’s culture, science and education agenda. They are trying to deprive UNESCO of the right to discuss the subject of journalists, freedom of speech and access to information and to discuss these matters elsewhere.

I am confident that the UN Secretary-General clearly perceives the danger to the World Ogranisation UN, posed by such actions. We will strengthen the UN and the entire Secretariat in every possible way, so that they aim to retain their tasks, set by member states, in the most responsible manner.

The Russian party works constructively and creatively at UNESCO and in strict compliance with its statutory designation. We rely on the principle of universality, the equality of member countries, all-round dialogue free from any ideological components, especially attempted ideological dictate. One can mention many successful Russian initiatives. I would like to note the institution of the Russia-UNESCO Mendeleev International Prize in the Basic Sciences. This is the most prestigious UNESCO award. The first awards ceremony was held this past November on the sidelines of the UNESCO General Conference that involved UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, the head of the Russian delegation, Minister of Science and Higher Education Valery Falkov and President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeyev. Academy Member Yury Oganesyan from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna and University of Bologna (Italy) Professor Vincenzo Balzani received the prestigious award.

The implementation of the Russia-UNESCO joint research grant, Green Chemistry for Life, patronised by PhosAgro Co., helps strengthen Russia’s traditional leading positions at UNESCO. The holding of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development in 2022 opens wide prospects for Russian organisations and scientists.

I also want to mention the activity of the International Competence Centre for Mining-Engineering Education under the auspices of UNESCO. It has become a popular platform for holding major forums in the context of the development of Russia’s relations with the United Kingdom and Germany. I would like to express my special thanks for that to Vladimir Litvinenko, rector of the St Petersburg Mining University.

One of UNESCO’s oldest programmes, Man and the Biosphere, marks its 50th anniversary this year. Over the past few years, three Russian natural areas in the Astrakhan, Kemerovo and Kostroma regions were included in the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The nature reserve in the Republic of Tyva received the status of a transboundary nature reserve with Mongolia. Overall, the Russian network of biosphere reserves currently counts 48 sites, ranking first in the world.

Joint work has begun as part of Global Geoparks programme: the UNESCO Executive Board approved the creation of Russia’s first geopark, Yangan Tau, in the Republic of Bashkortostan.

Russia makes a weighty contribution to the ethical understanding of scientific and technological achievements. At the initiative of academician Alexander Chuchalin, the Russian Committee for Bioethics launched a unique project to create a special collection of “golden pages” from the heritage of great thinkers and doctors in the field of bioethics.

The Russian Committee for Artificial Intelligence Ethics, the world’s first such consultative agency under the Russian Commission for UNESCO, is conducting major work under the leadership of academician Alexander Kuleshov. Our experts took part in the development of the Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence adopted by the organisation’s General Conference. A relevant national AI Code of Ethics was developed as well. We see good prospects for Sberbank’s initiative to establish the UNESCO prize in science and AI ethics.

International sports cooperation has also brought good results. I would like to thank Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matytsin for his personal contribution to improving dialogue with UNESCO. I also want to congratulate him on his re-election as Vice Chair of the Presidium of the Conference of Parties to the International Convention against Doping in Sport.

I should mention the efficient work of the Russian Committee for UNESCO Education Programmes and its chair, Rector of the Peoples’ Friendship University Vladimir Filippov. Together with the Russian Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Education, the committee prepared detailed reports to UNESCO, developed national indices of reaching the UN Sustainable Development Goal in education.

The Coordination Committee for Russian UNESCO Chairs led by Vladimir Yegorov is working actively.





I would like to use this opportunity and to thank the Head of the Republic of Altai Oleg Khorokhordin on opening the first UNESCO chair at Gorno-Altaysk State University.

The National Council of the UNESCO Associated Schools and its National Coordinator Nella Pruss gave a splendid account of themselves during the pandemic. They helped facilitate uninterrupted exchanges of practical methods for adapting to distance learning courses. I am confident that this experience will remain in high demand, even after the pandemic ends, and after COVID-19 disappears.

We can see that the more active involvement of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in UNESCO activities has good potential. We are interested in the systemic involvement of Russian representatives in meetings on education matters. We hope that both ministries will pay particular attention to the rather sensitive matter of revising the Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974). This subject touches upon important matters concerning the progress of humankind in general and every person in particular. We will assist the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in developing a rational, comprehensive and effective policy in this area reflecting our world outlook.

UNESCO’s activities in the area of communications and information are becoming more important in the political, cultural and humanitarian contexts. Russia has decided to donate money for these purposes in 2022-2025, and the sum will be used to support the Organisation’s work in such areas as ensuring the safety of journalists in armed conflict zones, raising the level of journalism education and professional ethics, coping with misinformation and limiting the arbitrary blocking of online resources. All these aspects are topical. We hope that the professional community in Russia and other countries will vigorously support these efforts.

We are grateful to the Republic of Sakha Yakutia and the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area-Yugra for helping organise events of the International Year of Indigenous Languages in 2019. However, this remains a highly topical item of our agenda. We hope that the Russian Federation’s constituent regions will also contribute to holding the International Decade of Indigenous Languages from 2022.

We prioritise matters of preserving cultural and natural heritage and increasing Russia’s share in the UNESCO World Heritage List. For this purpose, a special expert council has been established at our Commission. It consists of representatives of the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

At the initiative of the leadership of Tatarstan, in June 2022, hospitable Kazan will host the 45th session of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO’s most prestigious international event. In the year of the 50th anniversary of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, it will take place under the chairmanship of the Russian Federation. It comes with many responsibilities, but at the same time reflects the respect that the global community shows towards our achievements in this area.

I am sure that Kazan, with its vast experience, will organise the session at the highest possible level. The formation of the organising committee is concluding; the draft agreement with UNESCO and the event agenda are being developed. I am confident that all our relevant agencies and interested regions will actively join this work.

Despite the pandemic, UNESCO’s “club” movement has been developing in Russia. In 2020-2021, events were held in Russia and abroad to mark the birth anniversaries of prominent Russian writers Ivan Bunin and Nikolay Nekrasov. We are thankful to the Gorky Institute of World Literature and Manezh Museum and Exhibition Association for organising the events to mark the 200th anniversary of birth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky at UNESCO headquarters. The Russian party has sent an application to include the writer’s manuscript archives in the UNESCO international register of documentary heritage, Memory of the World. Plans call for holding events to mark the birth anniversaries of Alexander Ostrovsky, Sergey Rachmaninoff and Feodor Chaliapin.

Cooperation between the Moscow Government and UNESCO is also developing successfully. The Russian capital – given its huge cultural potential – is at the forefront of promoting national education, science and culture all over the world. We note the successful holding of the 6th World Folkloriada in Ufa. We will certainly continue to provide assistance to holding the International Delphic Games.

Colleagues,

Our cooperation with UNESCO (I named only a small part of this cooperation) is, of course, much broader. I am sure that through joint efforts, we will be able to give added impetus to the cultural, educational and scientific exchanges that are so needed today. The Russian Foreign Ministry will provide all possible assistance.

I would like to thank all those present here and those who could not be here today for their active work during the entire year. It has always been like that. I am sure that this work is truly captivating and gives an important boost to the well-rounded development of your agencies and each of our citizens.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791766/
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 26th, 2021 #50
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 RT television channel, Moscow, December 22, 2021



22 December 2021 - 22:52






Question:

The United States continues to ignore Russia’s proposals on collective security mechanisms and requests that the red lines that Moscow has marked are not crossed. One of them concerns NATO’s eastward expansion. In this context I have two questions. What is the reason for its silence? How long will Russia wait? In principle, can the collective West accept Russia’s proposals for a peaceful coexistence?



Sergey Lavrov:

This is probably the most important question now. I cannot say that our initiatives are being ignored. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke in detail about this at the expanded meeting of the Defence Ministry Board yesterday. He said that the issue had been on the agenda of a recent videoconference with US President Joseph Biden, who expressed readiness to look at Russia’s concerns. We have presented our vision for possible agreements. One document is a draft treaty on security matters between the Russian Federation and the United States. Another is a draft agreement on addressing security issues in Russia-NATO relations. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg regularly makes inadequate statements. He is planning to leave this post soon, though. His term will expire at the end of the year. The rumour is that he will become Norway’s next central bank governor (or at least he is applying for this post). A central bank governor must clearly and precisely comply with the organisation’s fundamental operating principles. European and Euro-Atlantic security is based on several principles that were coordinated and signed at the top level in the form of political commitments, including the fundamental principle of equal and indivisible security. According to it, as the heads of state and government agreed explicitly, no single state or group of states in the Euro-Atlantic region and the OSCE space will strengthen its security by infringing on the security of others.

Mr Stoltenberg has said openly and quite arrogantly, pompously that no one may violate the principles of the Washington Treaty, under which the doors are open to any aspirant wishing to join the North Atlantic alliance. We are not a member of this organisation or a signatory to that treaty. But we signed a much broader Euro-Atlantic document, which applies to the whole of the region and includes the principle of indivisible security. If Mr Stoltenberg thinks that NATO members can brush off this principle, which has been formalised in the documents signed at the top level, he should indeed look for a new job, because he is clearly underperforming in his current position.

As for the real reaction of our American colleagues (not the rhetorical one I have just mentioned), I would describe it as business-like. A series of talks have been held at the level of foreign policy aides to the presidents of Russia and the United States. During the latest conversation the parties coordinated the modalities for their further collaboration. It has been agreed that the first round early next year should be bilateral contact between the American negotiators and our own. They have been named, and they are acceptable to both parties. After that, we plan to use the negotiating platform to discuss the second document – the draft Russia-NATO agreement – in the foreseeable future, preferably in January.

The other day President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone with President of France Emmanuel Macron and Federal Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz. They indicated their interest in these matters as well. President Putin has reaffirmed that we would propose discussing security guarantees at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

There are three possible tracks. There is agreement on the necessity of using them, at least between Moscow and Washington. I see no reason why this approach should run counter to the interests of any state in our common region. The Americans have said that they are ready to discuss some of the concerns we have put on paper, that our other concerns are unacceptable to them, and that they have their own concerns as well. We are ready to discuss them, but they have not yet presented them. After we coordinate organisational matters, there will be a lot of hard work on the essence. But, as President Putin has said, it cannot last forever, because the situation around us has been going from bad to worse in recent decades. NATO’s military infrastructure is approaching our border. We were deceived at every turn, starting with verbal promises and ending with the political commitments set down in the Russia-NATO Founding Act. This time, as President Putin has said, we want to see legally binding guarantees. Even though we know that the West can easily violate legally binding guarantees and pull out of these agreements, as happened in the case of the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Nevertheless, it is much more difficult to drown legally binding guarantees in words, as the President has said, than verbal promises or political commitments. We are ready for this work. We will do our best to make our message loud and clear. I hope that this, together with our efforts to ensure a reliable defence capability, will convince our partners to take us seriously.



Question:

As you know, RT has launched its German broadcasting service, but in less than a week the Eutelsat 9 satellite “removed” our channel, under pressure from a German regulator. They are threatening to take us to court and close us. YouTube, in turn, where we also offered our stream, deleted our channel on its launch day. Is the Foreign Ministry aware of these developments, and to what extent? Do you intend to undertake anything specifically to support our network and journalists?



Sergey Lavrov:

Make no mistake, we are aware of these developments. Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has commented on this matter many times. We are keeping a close eye on the environment in which Russian journalists work abroad, since discrimination against them has been all too common. RT and Sputnik have yet to be accredited by the Elysee Palace. Just a few days ago, President Vladimir Putin talked to his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, on the phone, and during the conversation he pointed out this fact, expressing hope that our French colleagues would do everything to enable the Russian media, including RT, to operate in France in the same journalist-friendly environment as the French journalists enjoy in Russia.

We would like the same principle to apply to RT in Germany and to any other Russian media outlet facing discrimination abroad. I believe that what happened in Germany was outrageous. From the outset, the German authorities went to great lengths to generate negative publicity about the channel, targetting the general public, as well as officials, even though some officials did try to distance themselves from what the German “regulator” was doing. It all started with attempts to block banking services, after which they refused to register the channel and prevented Luxembourg from doing so. Our colleagues in Serbia have been able to register the German-language RT channel as per the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, to which Germany is a party and must abide by its provisions.

By all accounts, they will now try to shift the blame to social networks like YouTube, pretending that it was their initiative and that they are guided by their own in-house “criteria,” while the German state has nothing to do with this. This is not the way things are. The German state must be involved, since Germany has undertaken to ensure freedom of information and assumed these commitments. It is not YouTube who is to blame but the state on whose territory arbitrary actions of this kind take place.

We have been witnessing discrimination against the Russian media for many years now. Quite often, we have been tempted to respond in kind, in a tit-for-tat manner. However, until recently there was a prevailing belief that we did not want to go along the same path of “strangling” the press and the media, following in the footsteps of our Western partners. That said, just as with efforts to ensure Russia’s security, this patience has its limits. I cannot rule out that this unacceptable situation will persist, leaving us with no other choice but to respond.



Question:

There have been important developments in Latin America over the past twelve months. For example, Chile has recently held its presidential election, handing the victory to Gabriel Boric, a left-wing politician. The left also carried the election in Honduras. It remains in power in Nicaragua and Venezuela. At the same time, the United States continues to treat this region as pertaining to its sphere of influence. Do you believe that the shifting political winds in some of these countries can be interpreted as Latin America becoming more mature, from a political standpoint, or this region still “belongs” to the Americans, as they continue to believe, remaining their “soft underbelly,” so that Latin American countries remain guided by the rules the United States sets in the spirit of the recent Summit for Democracy.



Sergey Lavrov:

Over the past 50 or 60 years, and maybe even a longer period, the political landscape has changed in Latin America many times, swinging either to the left, or to the right. Today, we are witnessing a new round, with the arrival to power of vital forces who are focused on the national interests of their countries. I do think that this reflects a more general trend: the neo-liberal project has failed abysmally. Here is what I want to emphasise: the Russian Federation has never proceeded in its relations with Latin America depending on what government is in power. We want to promote friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation with countries and their people, instead of just working with specific governments depending on their political preferences. Unlike the United States, Russia does not view Latin America as an arena for geopolitical games. The current US administration has not repeated the statements we heard from former National Security Adviser to Donald Trump, John Bolton, who said that the Monroe Doctrine was still relevant. From a practical standpoint, however, this policy, this mentality lives on, including in the specific policies the United States promotes.

We work with all countries without exception, as well as with subregional organisations in Latin America and the Caribbean. Only in the past twelve months we had contacts with our colleagues from Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, and Belize. I had a meeting with representatives of the Central American Integration System on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, and on the sidelines of a G20 meeting I met with my Argentinian counterpart. We have always emphasised our commitment to making our bilateral ties politics-free.

As for multilateral structures and organisations, like most Latin American countries, we will stand for the values, norms, purposes, and principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Last year, Venezuela initiated the establishment of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter. It has rapidly gathered more than 20 participants. I do believe that more countries will join this mechanism, including those from Latin America. To an extent this is a response to the attempts by the United States and its closest allies to “move away” from international law and proceed in their statements, arguments and politics from the “rules-based world order” of their own making. They are the ones who shape these “rules” within their narrow circle, where no alternative points of view can be heard, and where there are no disputes. Accordingly, this does not provide fertile ground for truth to emerge.

At the same time, I do see that the current US administration is beginning to be a little bit more pragmatic in its assessments of these developments. They are starting to explore other options regarding Venezuela. They are beginning to understand that they will have to engage in dialogue with the government of President Nicolas Maduro, who consolidated his mandate in the election. Similar developments are unfolding in Bolivia with the restoration of a genuine democracy after the quite questionable undertakings of the previous governments, and the list goes on. I hope that Washington understands and perceives the reality in a country like Nicaragua as it is. We want extra-regional powers to proactively contribute to shaping a Latin American and Caribbean identity as a major centre of gravity in the emerging multipolar world order. We value our relations with regional and subregional structures in this region, especially the Council of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), with which we have a mechanism for political consultations. We had to put these contacts on hold during the pandemic. Mexico is currently the CELAC chair and is looking forward to the resumption of our meetings. We will proactively support this attitude. We cooperate, among other things, on high technology, energy, agriculture, space, nuclear energy, healthcare and medicine. Russia has already transferred its vaccine production technology to several Latin American countries – Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Nicaragua. They are proactive in their efforts to master this technology and set up manufacturing. I think that these relevant contacts will pave the way to a more comprehensive cooperation on pharmaceuticals, healthcare, and medicine.



Question:

There are many issues that are of interest to our multi-million Arab audience, but, regrettably, we are short of time and cannot ask about everything. We would like to discuss Iran with you. The West proceeds to accuse Iran of continuing nuclear escalation, which, in their opinion, may lead to the collapse of the JCPOA talks. At the same time, Tehran says that the EU is engaging in disinformation instead of serious talks. What is Russia’s position and what is needed for these talks to achieve success?



Sergey Lavrov:

To my regret, our Western partners are attempting to distort facts in the same way as I outlined while answering the previous, the first question. NATO is impetuously approaching our borders, but the escalation is “blamed” on Russia which has armed forces that are not leaving its territory. It is the same here. The Trump administration withdrew from all agreements – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action itself and the UN Security Council resolution that endorsed it – but the blame is again laid on Iran. When Donald Trump did that, the Iranians took no steps that would be inconsistent with their commitments under JCPOA for more than a year. It was only after it became clear that Washington’s decision was irreversible that the Iranians began using opportunities afforded by JCPOA itself, which concerned Tehran’s voluntary obligations, related to some or other aspects of its nuclear programme. They restricted or stopped the implementation of only the voluntary obligations. And each time they emphasised: “Yes, we are doing this, we are increasing the percentage of enrichment or launching more technologically advanced centrifuges, but as soon as the United States returns in full to the implementation of its commitments, we won’t be holding things up.” It is this principle or understanding that the current Vienna talks are based on. Between April and June, there were six rounds of talks, during which the Americans and the Iranians were not sitting at the same table. A group of coordinators from the European foreign policy service was at work there as were the delegations of China, Russia, France, Germany, and the UK. Following the six rounds of talks, a “package of understandings” was formed, which allowed us to hope that we would be able to definitively come to an agreement. Then, there followed an inevitable pause because a new government was being formed in Iran after the elections. At this juncture, our European colleagues were displaying a sort of fussiness and impatience, urging Iran to do all that as soon as possible. We reminded them that Iran had waited for more than a year for the Americans to return to this understanding and that it withdrew when its wait proved futile. So, it was all quite natural.

I would not overdramatise anything. It is clear that the Iranians have a new team. But they have “mastered” the material quite rapidly and professionally. They have drafted proposals which at first met with a hostile reception from some Western participants, but eventually they admitted that these proposals had the right to exist and could be studied. The work is proceeding precisely in this way. The problems that were arising were related to image rather than substance. Who – the United States or Iran – should be the first to say: “OK, I am back and ready to perform my commitments?” Iran was convinced that the Americans should do that because they were the first to leave JCPOA. The Americans believed that Iran was the first to start violating its commitments and therefore should make the first step regardless of the fact that Washington had carried out none of its obligations at all. Together with our Chinese friends and based on a measure of understanding from the European participants, we insisted on synchronising these moves and elaborating a package of reciprocal steps. This is what the negotiators are doing in Vienna right now. They have paused for a while ahead of Christmas. But the talks will resume before the end of the year. Iran is confirming that it will return to the full implementation of its obligations, including the application of the protocol additional to the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, if the United States resumes full implementation of its obligations and stops threatening it with sanctions that are incompatible with both JCPOA and Resolution 2231. I think that we have a good chance. The important thing is to keep in mind the generally accepted principle that underlies the current proceedings, namely, nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed. We need a good, well-adjusted package, and it is quite real.



Question:

As you are aware, Foreign Minister of France Jean-Yves Le Drian has warned of “grave consequences” in the event of Russia invading Ukraine. Can you say why our interaction with Western officials has recently turned into endless threats?



Sergey Lavrov:

You should ask them about this. This gives me no pleasure, but neither do I have any negative emotions about it. We have become accustomed to our Western colleagues speaking haughtily and making statements that reflect their vision of themselves as power brokers and as politicians who are without sin and can never be wrong. The French authorities have made numerous statements about conducting a “demanding” dialogue with Russia. They continue to make demands of us. I believe that President Putin and other members of the Russian leadership have spoken a great deal during the past few weeks about the “escalation” for which we would be punished, and it seems that they have already prepared a package of sanctions, just in case, like social networks that are encouraging users to buy things for potential use in the future. Our Western colleagues probably think that this principle can also be applied in politics.

We have explained many times that our armed forces are operating in our own territory. We also asked what the Americans, Canadians and the British and their offensive military systems and strike aviation are doing on the border with Russia, for example in the Baltic states. We asked what their warships are doing in the Black Sea in violation of the principles of the Montreux Convention. They have not provided any reasonable explanation, only more threats. Instead of making threats for no reason, our European colleagues would be better to get down to their own direct responsibilities. France, acting together with Germany in this case, should make Kiev comply with the Minsk Agreements instead of trying to deflect attention, as it is doing now, by using the smokescreen of accusations about Russia allegedly aggravating the situation and planning to take over the whole or part of Donbass or even the whole of Ukraine. This is obvious.

Vladimir Zelensky and his regime are trying to dramatise the Crimean issue. Nothing of this was taking place several years ago. Back then, people hoped that Kiev would implement the Minsk Agreements, one way or another, which Vladimir Zelensky promised to do when he was running for president. But when he assumed office, he became aware that he either does not want to or cannot implement his promise, or that neo-Nazis or the far-right will not allow him to do this. This was when the issue of Crimea was raised as nearly the main symbol of Ukrainian policy, but actually in order to draw public attention away from Kiev’s inability to implement the Minsk Agreements. This has led to the establishment of the Crimea Platform and all the accompanying features. This is empty talk and hot air. Everyone is perfectly aware of this, including our Western colleagues who are playing with this “toy.” What they must do, instead of playing games, is force Vladimir Zelensky to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk Agreements. They say openly what should be done, by whom and in what order. It is Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. First an amnesty, a special status and elections on conditions coordinated between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk under OSCE guidance. Only after that will the Armed Forces of Ukraine resume control over the entire length of the border.

They have proposed reversing the order now, saying “Give our border back to us, and after that we will decide if there will be a special status or not.” Take the Ukrainian draft law On the Principles of State Policy of the Transition Period, about which President Putin spoke with President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel on many occasions, and which he mentioned yesterday in a conversation with Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The Ukrainian government has submitted it to the Verkhovna Rada. This bill prohibits Ukrainian officials from implementing the Minsk Agreements. It stipulates lustration instead of amnesty, a military-civilian administration instead of a special status, and no elections coordinated with that part of Ukraine. It only stipulates “regaining control over the occupied territories,” as they say.

Although France and Germany have promised to dissuade Zelensky from promoting this bill, energetic efforts are being made to include it in the legislative process. They have submitted it to the Council of Europe. The Council’s Venice Commission said that in its opinion it is fine. It said something on the legal techniques but did not mention that this bill directly contradicts the relevant UN Security Council resolution.

I would like to tell my good friend Jean-Yves Le Drian and my German colleagues that it would be fitting for them to busy themselves with this matter. This would draw their attention away from their groundless preoccupation with the nonexistent escalation.





Question:

The Western media continue stoking tension around the Ukrainian crisis. For example, CNN has long been perorating about thousands of Russian soldiers amassed on the Ukrainian border. You have said many times that this effort to build up tension amounts to a special operation, which prompted Russia to make an unprecedented step in November 2021 by disclosing the contents of diplomatic talks with France and Germany. At the time, it was said that this move was designed to prevent the distortion of Russia’s position on the peace process in Ukraine. Have you achieved this objective by making your diplomatic contacts public?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do believe that this initiative has served its purpose. It is not my intention to appeal to anyone’s conscience or make someone feel ashamed. This is a matter of diplomacy. Emotions are a poor adviser in this realm. A healthy dose of cynicism is what we need here, as one of my colleagues has said. As far as healthy cynicism is concerned, the talks you have referred to were quite telling. They completely refuted the statements we had been hearing before going public. In fact, there were allegations that Russia was blocking the Normandy format. This is not true. The fact that Kiev seeks to distort the Minsk Agreements and turn them upside down is a matter of grave concern for us. As I already said in my answer to the previous question, the French and the Germans have co-sponsored these documents and are parties to the Normandy format, but they are beginning to side completely with the Ukrainian regime.

They used to tell us that there was no alternative to the Minsk Agreements, which everyone had to implement. On October 12, 2021, there was the Ukraine-EU Summit, during which what Russia “must do” was stated, while Kiev was said to have done a great job, fulfilling its obligations within the Normandy format, as well as the Contract Group. President Vladimir Zelensky recently had meetings with the heads of Germany and France on the sidelines of the Eastern Partnership summit in Brussels. Once again, Kiev’s actions to carry out the Minsk Agreements received full support. What this means is that either our colleagues acknowledged their inability to ensure the implementation of the provisions that we set forth together, or they are knowingly seeking to undermine the Minsk Agreements for the benefit of the Kiev regime. How the situation will evolve from here I do not know, but we will insist that these documents are fulfilled in good faith, because there can be no alternative ways of interpreting them. It is said in these documents that what comes first is the ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons and restoring economic ties. This has yet to be accomplished. Moreover, some areas of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions are still enduring an all-out trade, economic and transport blockade.

When we issue Russian passports to these people, who find themselves on the brink of dying, as well as grant subsidies to their companies so that they can operate on the Russian market and generate revenue for their employees, we stand accused of undermining the Minsk Agreements.

As for the citizenship controversy, this is ridiculous. The Poles, the Hungarians, and the Romanians issue passports to people belonging to their ethnic groups who live in Ukraine. This has been going on for decades now, and no one was worried about this. But now they are beginning to attack Russia. These are not just accusations coming from the Kiev radicals, but the West is also beginning to sing along. This is sad.

During the Geneva summit, the US President said that he was interested in using opportunities the United States can offer to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements without undermining the Normandy format – these were his words. He also pointed out that he understood that they provided for granting these territories a special status. Russia actively supported this initiative. We discussed the same approach during US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s visit to Russia. Then Assistant Secretary of State Karen Donfried came here to discuss the Ukrainian affairs. They all reaffirmed the need to decide on the special status for Donbass as per the Minsk Agreements. This is what Secretary of State Antony Blinken told me in Stockholm on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in early December 2021.

Let us hope that if the United States understands the need to put an end to the outright sabotage efforts and the scandalous agitations by the Kiev regime, this will only make us happy. Some political observers have been trying to guess whether this will be a question of some kind of “trade.” They have been arguing that fulfilling the Minsk Agreements could pave the way to an agreement on containment measures in the context of Russia’s initiatives on security guarantees, including guarantees that NATO would stop its eastward expansion and ruling out any deployments of weapons that may be a threat to us in neighbouring countries or locations from where they may pose a threat to the Russian Federation. I will not comment on these attempts at “fortune-telling.” What matters to us is that the Minsk Agreements are fully implemented, including the requirement for Ukraine to ensure that the rights of ethnic minorities are respected, as per the Ukrainian Constitution, as well as the European conventions the Ukrainian state has signed. This also applies to broader security guarantees and bringing more clarity and predictability into the relations between Russia and NATO.



Question:

What do you think about the likelihood of this situation escalating, an armed conflict, and if this is the case, how will your ministry respond?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our philosophy has been well known for a long time now. It can be found in the lines of a popular song titled “Do Russians Want War?” We do not want war. President Putin conveyed this once again. We do not need conflicts and we hope that no one else sees conflicts as a preferable course of action. We will strictly ensure our security with the means that we deem necessary. We want the hotheads out there be mindful of this. There are lots of them in Ukraine, and some politicians in the West are trying to add fuel to aggressive actions in Ukraine as well. Their calculus is simple: the more irritants there are at our borders, the more hopeful they will be in their ability to put Russia off balance, so that it does not stand in their way as they try to control the geopolitical territories in question. Speaking at the Russian Defence Ministry Board yesterday, President Putin made it clear that we have all the necessary capabilities to provide an appropriate response, including military-technical, to any provocations that may unfold with regard to us. To reiterate, the path of confrontation is not our choice. It is up to our partners. I see the fact that the leadership of the United States has rather promptly agreed with us upon the organisational framework for further steps (despite a serious amount of work to be done on the substance of the issue), as a positive step in the run-up to the New Year.



Question:

You mentioned the fact that Germany had changed its stance on the Minsk Agreements. Russia-Germany relations have worsened over the past several years. Official Berlin is blaming Moscow for that. Why is that?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already touched on this issue. Listen to what Germany’s Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen (when she worked in the German government and now on behalf of the entire union) are saying. The message is as follows: we are interested in normal relations with Russia, but it must change its behaviour first. I had a good telephone conversation with German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock. I reiterated my invitation to visit Russia, and she accepted it. I noted the fact that the new German government’s coalition agreement contains a thesis about the depth and diversity of Russian-German ties and a commitment to a constructive dialogue. It has other approaches to relations with Russia as well, including offensive “mantras” to the effect that our civil society is being infringed upon every step of the way, the demands to put an end to destabilisation in Ukraine, and much more.

According to the traditions of German democracy, coalitions must be combined in a variety of ways. This does not always work out in a homogeneous manner. This is life and we take it as a fact of life. The coalition is led by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The most productive periods of interaction, coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation between Moscow and Berlin are associated with SPD leaders. We hope that the SPD coalition partners will focus more on ways to build a positive agenda. An approach where one side is doing everything correctly and is flawless, whereas Russia supposedly must “change its behaviour, is not viable.



Question:

The US military presence remains a perceptible threat for Syria’s territorial integrity. Russia has repeatedly urged the US to withdraw its forces, but they are still there. How much longer will this problem persist? What could prod the United States into pulling out its troops? What are its true aims?



Sergey Lavrov:

Its true aims are rather clear. The Americans have never concealed them, for that matter. They have placed under their control the hydrocarbons, the [oil] fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, and agricultural lands. This done, they started doing their best to nurture local Kurdish separatism. This is common knowledge. Arab tribes traditionally dwell on parts of the territories where this is taking place. And this does nothing to add harmony or prestige to the US “planners” in Syria, including how they treat the Kurdish factor or take into consideration relations between Kurds and Arabs.

The situation over there is difficult and this has much to do with Turkey’s position. Ankara regards Kurdish organisations cooperating with the Americans as chapters of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which it regards as a terrorist group. The Kurds themselves (specifically the Syrian Democratic Council, the political wing of the Democratic Union Party) should decide what they will do. At some stage, the former US President, Donald Trump, said they were leaving Syria because they had nothing to do there. The Kurds immediately began asking everyone (including Russia) to help them establish a dialogue with Damascus. Several days later, Trump’s statement was disavowed, with someone in the Pentagon saying that they were not yet leaving. The Kurds immediately lost interest in a dialogue with the Syrian leaders. Understandably, the Americans will eventually leave. They are getting more problems where they have imposed their rules, including the Rukban refugee camp and the 55-mile zone around Al-Tanf. But in real terms, they are unable to ensure the functioning of these facilities. Besides, there are many thugs and terrorists among the refugees. I am confident that the Kurds should take a position of principle. We are ready to help them in this. They keep coming to Russia. Not so long ago, President of the Executive Committee of the Syrian Democratic Council Ilham Ahmed was here on a visit.

We are explaining to our Turkish colleagues that we are totally reluctant to encourage trends that Turkey regards as negative. On the contrary, our task is to help implement in practice the requirement to respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Taking into account the interests of ethnic minorities is one of the key conditions. The United States is aware that they feel uncomfortable and out of their element there. While they are there, the dialogue between the military is rather effective from the point of view of preventing unpremeditated incidents. There are trust-based consultations on exchanges of views regarding the political process and prospects for implementing the UN Security Council resolution.



Question:

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said frankly some time ago that the United States was actively trying to overhaul the existing world order by forming new alliances, partnerships and institutions, designed to work in Washington’s interests. Are these attempts a serious threat to Russia? What specific steps are the Russian diplomats and national leaders taking to prevent the diminution of the UN’s effectiveness?



Sergey Lavrov:

This topic is not new. I have mentioned the fact that the United States and its allies no longer use the term “international law.” They say that everyone must respect the “rules-based world order.” This is from the same series. The UN includes a huge number of programmes, funds, specialised agencies, and regional economic commissions, where all countries without exception have their representatives. They are open to the participation of all UN members. But in parallel, platforms with the same agendas are being established outside the UN.

The Paris Peace Forum proclaimed that it would create a mechanism to protect journalists and enforce media freedom. Many other initiatives on ensuring cyber security, strengthening international humanitarian law, etc., were also put forward. But there are UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, or any other body where all the rules are coordinated on a universal basis. The UN Charter is also a rule. We are not against rules as such. We are in favour of universally supported rules.

Our Western colleagues see a threat to their interests in a number of areas (media freedom, access to information, the situation in cyberspace, etc.). According to their claims, coordinating universally acceptable rules at the universal UN venue will allegedly impinge on their interests, which they unilaterally would like to make preferable in this or that sphere of human activities. This is the source of it. The West wants not only governments but also businesses and civil society institutions to be present at venues where they are making their “rules,” thereby eroding the intergovernmental nature of agreements that might otherwise be stable. This is the line, policy, and course that they are actively promoting. We think that this is a wrong interpretation of what is needed today for international relations.

My counterpart, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has declared that the United States cannot but play the leading role and define the rules in the modern world. Allegedly, many of his interlocutors (practically all over the globe) tell him each time how fine it is that the United States is back and ordering them around. Mr Blinken added that whenever they failed to do that, someone else stepped in to lead, or chaos reigned supreme. This philosophy is rather egoistic. To overcome the trend for a return to diktat and hegemony, President of Russia Vladimir Putin has suggested convening a summit of the UN Security Council’s permanent members. He did this, not because they are more senior than the others but because they bear a special responsibility under the UN Charter, which implies the need to coordinate common ideas on how to strengthen international peace and security. The rest of the international community has accepted these recommendations with interest.

We are promoting this idea, it is in the works. Today, at the preparatory stage, we are discussing the specific parameters. We will actively use it to defend international law and the organisations of which Russia is a member, including the UN, CIS, CSTO, EAEU, BRICS, SCO, and G20. G20 is a “concentrated” image of the entire UN membership. It includes the leading Western nations (G7), the BRICS countries, and their soul-mates. This is the venue where we can and must work out recommendations that are later submitted for consideration by the existing universal formats, primarily the UN.



Question:

The MH17 court in The Hague denied a request by the defence lawyers to disclose information about witness S-45 and to provide a transcript of interrogation where he argued that the missile that shot down the Malaysian Boeing was not launched from the spot that the investigation claims it was launched from. When will the decision on this case be announced? How will Russia respond to the accusation?



Sergey Lavrov:

We will respond when the ruling is announced. We are closely following the process, primarily because the issue is about Russian citizens who are defendants at this point. We are witnessing the attempts to create the impression that this is not a criminal case, but a state problem, since Russia allegedly was behind these people. This is absolutely unacceptable and is a case of carrying out attempts with unsuitable means. This is an inherently criminal process. We consider it as such. Any impartial lawyer understands that this is the case. There are multiple inconsistencies, failure to follow the rules of an impartial trial, clerical work, and interrogation of witnesses. Almost all the witnesses are on a secret list, including the one you mentioned who could have shed light on the facts that have been ignored by the investigation so far. And the fact that the request by the defendants' lawyer was rejected without any explanation also speaks volumes. They ignored the simulation experiment conducted by Almaz-Antey which proves that the statement about the specific type of missile used in the attack is not corroborated by facts. Our Defence Ministry provided documents confirming that the missile in question was manufactured in 1986, deployed at a military unit in Ukraine and remained there until it was fired. All of that information was ignored.

I would like you to look at the facts that are more political by nature, but are highly convincing. Representatives of Malaysia were the first to arrive at the crash site. It was their aircraft, their airline. They and the militias (who are referred to as “separatists,” “terrorists” and the like), found the black boxes. The militias made these boxes available for study without even trying to hide them. The boxes were sent to London for expert analysis, but the results have not yet been released. In other words, the militias helped sort things out in the very first hours following the crash. The Dutch showed up much later. Interestingly, Holland, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine created a joint investigation team, but left Malaysia out. The Malaysians were invited to join it five months later, although under ICAO rules, the country that owns the aircraft in question should be part of the investigation from day one.

The third fact, which those who accuse the Russian state are stubbornly turning a blind eye to, is that several days after the tragedy, we initiated the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution which instructed the ICAO to start an impartial investigation and established its underlying principles. Since then, this organisation has remained rather uninvolved in the investigation which was usurped by this joint investigation team, which Malaysia was invited to join only later in the year. In addition to Almaz-Antey’s simulation, the results of which were ignored by the investigation, Russia provided primary data from its radars which were also turned down as proper evidence, even though they provide absolutely irrefutable data. At the same time, no one is asking Ukraine to disclose its radar data. The court was satisfied with Kiev saying that that the radars were not operating at that time. Nobody is asking Ukraine to provide a transcript of conversations between the air traffic controller and MH17; the lady who was on the phone in the control room has vanished.

Questions abound. No one is asking the Americans to show satellite data, which, they claim, irrefutably prove that the investigation is on the right track. The investigative authorities simply added a record that the United States possesses these satellite images. The investigation found this statement quite satisfactory.

The list of absurdities, blatant violations of the principles of impartiality and sweeping hard facts under the rug goes on and on. Of course, relatives in the Netherlands tried to open another trial on Ukraine not closing its airspace. Their appeal was turned down and deemed irrelevant.

Back to where we are now. In the spring, Russia saw the first wave of accusations in connection with the fact that we were conducting military exercises on our territory near our western borders. No one spotted any hostilities there, because there were none. However, only because of the exercises, the United States formally directed its airlines not to fly over the area. In other words, the US authorities considered the exercises a good enough reason not to fly over the area, whereas at a time where everyone knew perfectly well that a real war was going on in Donbass in July 2014, the airspace was not closed. Now everyone is keeping bashfully silent and believes that this is irrelevant and Ukraine shouldn't have closed the airspace. This incident, just like many other developments involving Western approaches to a particular event in international life, is rife with double standards.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791774/






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the newspaper Oslobodjenje on the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations established between the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina on December 26, 1996, published on December 24, 2021



24 December 2021 - 08:00



Question:

In a few days we will mark an important day, the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. How would you describe the current state of bilateral relations and their outlook for the next 25 years?



Sergey Lavrov:

Anniversaries offer an opportunity to look back at past achievements and map out new goals for the future.

It is no secret that we started developing relations in a difficult period for both our countries. The late 1990s was a time when a bloody conflict ended, and Bosnia and Herzegovina started rebuilding peaceful life in a new format under the Dayton Accords. You probably know that Russia, working together with the other international mediators, did a great deal to restore peace. This explains our bilateral interest in developing friendly and mutually beneficial ties. We have achieved this goal within a relatively short period of time through concerted efforts.

Russia appreciates the mutual understanding which has come about in relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, its ethnic groups and even individual communities. The probable reason for this is our common Slavic roots and numerous historical and spiritual links.

Our countries maintain a regular political dialogue. Several days ago, on December 21, I had a warm and very fruitful meeting in Sochi with my colleague, the Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bisera Turkovic.

We continue to improve the legal framework of our bilateral cooperation. We are currently discussing the signing of about a dozen new interstate, intergovernmental and interdepartmental documents.

We are satisfied with the efficient operation of the intergovernmental commission on trade and economic cooperation. Its co-chairs met in Kazan in October. We are preparing for the next full-scale meeting.

Major Russian companies are working successfully in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including Sberbank, Gazprom Neft and Zarubezhneft. Gazprom is a long-time supplier of natural gas to your country. We are now discussing several interesting projects aimed at diversifying the spheres of our companies’ operation. I am sure that their implementation will be in the interests of your citizens.

We are working together on plans to open a Russian Culture Centre in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have done a great deal of groundwork in the fields of culture, humanitarian ties, education and sports.

We have good ties in the common fight against the pandemic. This year, we have delivered 200,000 doses of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, which has an excellent track record, to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are ready to consider any future requests from our partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including for the delivery of the Sputnik Light single component vaccine.

In other words, we have accomplished a great deal and are working on many projects. I have no doubt that our relations will continue to develop in a busy and fruitful manner in the next 25 years as well.



Question:

What are Russia’s interests in the Balkans? Croatia is a European Union member, and your country has economic interests and capital in this country. Russia has a very developed relationship with Serbia. Against this backdrop, what do Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Northern Macedonia, Montenegro, and Albania mean to Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

Peace, security and stability in the Balkans are our main interests. There is no need to search for any hidden meanings behind Russia’s policies. This will not lead you anywhere. We work with everyone on an equal, mutually beneficial, transparent footing, rooted in the international law, primarily the UN Charter.

The myth about Moscow’s “malicious influence” is an outright fabrication. The local Russia-phobes have been persisting in their efforts, worthy of a better cause, to spread this message in order to poison the atmosphere of cooperation in the region. This probably serves the interests of some extra-regional actors who prefer “fishing in muddy water.”

Forcing an artificial choice on the Balkan states to side either with the European Union or with Russia is counterproductive and unfair. This provokes the creation of new dividing lines in the region and stands in the way of cooperation.

Quite often the will of the people from Balkan states is being ignored, and this is being done on purpose. Just look what came out of this in Montenegro – it was literally “dragged into” NATO, contrary to the will of the majority. Why do they have to “bend countries across their knee” to impose the Euro-Atlantic agenda on them? By the way, everyone remembers all too well what NATO has done to this region in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the consequences of depleted uranium shelling will be felt here for many generations to come.

I have already mentioned the state and prospects of Russia’s relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina in my answer to the previous question. Serbia is Russia’s key partner in the Balkans. We value our strategic partnership with Belgrade and strive to promote our ties across the board. We have developed multifaceted relations with Croatia, which is not only an EU member, but also a NATO country. This is a telling example showing that mutually beneficial ties are possible as long as both sides are willing to move in this direction. We are interested in promoting a positive agenda in our relations with Northern Macedonia and Albania.

As for Kosovo, for obvious reasons it presents a separate case, and Russia’s position on this matter is well known. We stand for Belgrade and Pristina achieving a viable and mutually acceptable solution based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This solution must be approved by the Security Council since this is a matter of international peace.



Question:

Relations between Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina amount to interstate relations. Consequently, any matters arising should be addressed in line with agreed-upon principles. At the same time, people here, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are convinced that Russia prioritises contacts with only one part of the country, and this is viewed as support for forces aspiring to secessionism. Of course, I am talking about Republika Srpska in this context, as well as frequent candid statements by Milorad Dodik, Head of the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats and member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He claims that there is unambiguous support from Russia behind his calls for secession that threaten peace. Is that true?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I cannot agree with an assertion that the initiatives of Milorad Dodik, member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are a threat to peace. I do not subscribe to such claims, and I consider them groundless. Russia, as a guarantor state of the Dayton Peace Agreement, addresses its obligations in the most responsible manner and very closely follows the developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I will not conceal the fact that we are concerned with an unprecedented decline in the level of interethnic dialogue and trust in the country that has hit an all-time low during the entire post-conflict period. In our opinion, this is linked with foreign-backed attempts to revise the Dayton ethnic-administrative system in favour of unitarising and centralising Bosnia and Herzegovina to the detriment of the constitutional powers of the basic state-forming peoples and entities. This policy is extremely dangerous for the national and regional situation, as well as for the overall European situation. We are warning partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina and foreign players about this.

Former High Representative and EU Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Dr Valentin Inzko seriously soured the domestic political climate with his completely irresponsible behaviour in connection with amendments to the Criminal Code. It was absolutely baffling to stage such a provocation virtually on the eve of his resignation, to slam the door and force everyone to sort out the consequences of the ensuing chaos. Actually, his conduct shows once again that the foreign protectorate institution in the person of the High Representative has already outlived itself and has become a source of problems. It has long since been time to abolish this institution and to free sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina from external patronage which is humiliating for its people.

There should be no doubts regarding the specifics of the perception of relations between Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have adhered, adhere and will continue to adhere to the positions of the Dayton Peace Agreement. We fully support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the equality of its three constituent peoples and two entities with broad constitutional powers. We consider this concept to be adequate and functional, and we believe that it takes the entire range of interests of the country’s peoples into account.

We proceed from precisely this assumption, while building upon ties with the general institutions of state authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as with institutions at the level of entities, cantons and municipalities, in full compliance with the constitutional allocation of spheres of responsibility between them.

Indeed, Republika Srpska is very much interested in expanding practical ties with Russia, and, of course, we reciprocate. However, cooperation with the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also continues to develop successfully. Twin city relations have been established between Sarajevo and Moscow’s Central Administrative Area, between Sarajevo’s Stari Grad Municipality and Moscow’s Alexeyevsky District. Sarajevo University interacts with nine Russian higher education institutions, and Mostar University cooperates with three of them. Gazprom Neft is expanding the chain of petrol stations in the entity, and Sberbank also maintains a large-scale presence here. By the way, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the main consumer of Russian gas.



Question:

The Russian Federation is a member of the Steering Board within the Peace Implementation Council under the Dayton Agreement. Why does Russia oppose with so much vigour the new High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Christian Schmidt, while calling for consistent advances in the implementation of the Dayton Agreement? After all, the refusal to recognise the High Representative, who derives his mandate from the Dayton Agreement, could create new problems around the Peace Agreement and result in its erosion, don’t you think?



Sergey Lavrov:

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina is an international legal document approved by the UN Security Council. There is no alternative to the UN Security Council when it comes to approving candidates for the position of the High Representative, as set forth in Annex 10 to the Dayton Agreement. The rotation of High Representatives has been going on for a quarter of a century now. Neither the constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nor the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council approved Christian Schmidt’s candidacy by consensus. Russia and China suggested submitting the appointment to the UN Security Council for approval, in keeping with the existing rules, but this initiative was blocked.

In this case, who does Christian Schmidt represent? Maybe a dozen foreign ambassadors in Sarajevo? He clearly does not represent the international community represented by the Security Council. In keeping with Chapter VII of the UN Charter, this body continues to keep a close eye on the developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering all this, we cannot recognise Christian Schmidt as the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, even if we do respect him as a prominent German politician. Nothing in our approach erodes the Peace Agreement. On the contrary, it is the efforts to support an illegitimate appointee and steps to do away with the consensus rule within the international community that undermine the Dayton Agreement.



Question:

Bosnia and Herzegovina was surprised by Russia’s opposition in the UN Security Council to the resolution on Srebrenica. Our country has yet to hear Russia’s explanation on its refusal to support an item considering not only the existence of a clear verdict by the International Tribunal, but also the clear condemnation by the overwhelming majority of the international community?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am surprised that you have not paid attention to the remarks by the late Vitaly Churkin, who represented Russia in the UN Security Council during the July 2015 meeting, or his statement after the meeting. He provided a comprehensive and exhaustive explanation of why we voted on the draft resolution the way we did. By the way, it was at Vitaly Churkin’s initiative that the UN Security Council members at that meeting observed a minute of silence in memory of all those who died in Srebrenica.

I can only reiterate that Russia understands the serious consequences of artificially politicising matters which are so sensitive in terms of political stability in the Balkans. We have a responsible approach to decision-making in international structures, primarily, the UN Security Council, and seek to do everything to bring about inclusive reconciliation and honour the memory of all the conflict’s victims.



Question:

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a small country, but we often hear it said that it - and not just it - is a victim of Russia-US global confrontation. What are Russia-US relations today?



Sergey Lavrov:

With regard to the thesis about Bosnia and Herzegovina as a “victim of Russia-US confrontation,” I have noted this more than once, Russia does not resolve its problems at the expense of anyone's interests. We do not confront our partners with an absolutely false choice of “you are either with us or against us.” Our principled position is well known: regional problems need regional solutions based on an inclusive dialogue and taking into account the positions of all stakeholders.

At the same time, notably, recently Washington has been avoiding discussing with us not only Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the Balkan issue in general. We hope that the Biden administration will muster enough political will and reason not to turn the Balkans into another spot of anti-Russian confrontation; otherwise it will have disastrous consequences for Europe as a whole.

Speaking about Russia-US relations, they are unhealthy. A lot of irritants have piled up. The Americans are pursuing an openly unfriendly policy by imposing sanctions, making unsubstantiated accusations against us, and taking other hostile steps which create a toxic atmosphere and make calm and professional communication impossible.

Nevertheless, we have managed to maintain quite intensive contacts. I held talks with Antony Blinken on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Stockholm on December 2. On December 7, the presidents of Russia and the United States held a video conference, which made it possible to take a kind of inventory of progress in implementing the agreements that had been reached during the Geneva summit.

Of course, the main topic of discussion was the problems associated with the Ukraine crisis and the lack of progress in implementing the Minsk agreements. President Vladimir Putin used specific examples to highlight Kiev's destructive policy aimed at dismantling the Minsk agreements and the agreements reached within the Normandy format, and expressed serious concern about Ukraine's provocative actions against Donbass.

The presidents agreed to direct their respective teams to begin a serious dialogue on developing long-term legally binding security guarantees on Russia's western borders. On December 15, we handed over to the American side our drafts of a Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees and an Agreement on Security Measures for the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We are waiting for them to respond.

We believe that, first of all, it is important to lower the degree of confrontation caused by the way our US colleagues are looking after their Ukrainian protégés. The course on dragging Kiev into NATO with the prospect of deploying attack missile systems near our borders creates unacceptable threats to Russia’s security thus provoking serious military risks for all parties involved, up to a large-scale conflict in Europe.

Of course, Russia-US relations have a positive side to them as well. Thus, in accordance with the Geneva agreements of the leaders, a mechanism for consultations on strategic stability has been launched. The two meetings of the Russian and US interagency delegations took place in a businesslike and professional atmosphere.

In addition, as agreed in Geneva, the Russia-US dialogue on information security resumed. We want cooperation in this area to cover the entire range of problems of malicious use of information and communication technology, and not to be limited to individual issues.

President Putin made clear that Russia and the United States - the largest nuclear powers - have a special responsibility for strategic security on our planet. A full-fledged dialogue between Moscow and Washington would objectively help ensure global stability and settle regional conflicts.

In closing, I would like to wish the staff and readers of Oslobodjenje a happy holiday. I wish you good health, prosperity and all the best in the New Year.




The source of information - https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1791944/
__________________
Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?
Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.
(c) Alan Alexander Miln
 
Old December 26th, 2021 #51
Mick Walker
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 996
jewsign Poking the Russian Bear: US-NATO Aggression and Russia’s Red Line

Following the Taliban’s victory over US-NATO forces in Afghanistan, Washington is walking into another death trap, but this time on Russia’s borders with the neighboring Ukraine.* So now, Washington’s non-partisan bureaucrats and the Military-Industrial Complex are calling for ways to fight “Russian aggression”.*

.

On November 30th, a report published by Reuters*‘Putin warns Russia will act if NATO crosses its red lines in Ukraine’*said that Putin mentioned what is at stake if NATO expands eastward while they deployed the Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Poland and Romania:

*.

The Russian leader, who questioned why NATO had ignored repeated Russian warnings and expanded its military infrastructure eastwards, singled out the deployment in Poland and Romania of the Aegis Ashore missile defence system.* He made it clear he did not want to see the same launch MK41 systems, which Russia has long complained can be used to also launch offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles, in Ukraine.

“Creating such threats (in Ukraine) would be red lines for us. But I hope it doesn’t come to that. I hope that a sense of common sense, responsibility for both our countries and the world community will prevail,” said Putin

To make matters worse, US senators from the Republican party submitted a bill that calls for $450 million in military aid to the Ukraine with new sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 project. The bill will also label Russia a*“state sponsor of terrorism”*according to a December 18th*report from rt.com,*‘Russia reacts to US ‘state sponsor of terrorism threat’:

More here...


https://www.globalresearch.ca/poking...d-line/5765452
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.
Page generated in 0.92029 seconds.