Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 24, 2015
24 December 201520:11
2533-24-12-2015
Meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Bin Mohammed Al Attiyah
Details of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar Khalid Bin Mohammed Al Attiyah’s visit to Moscow have been published on the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
On December 25 in Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Dr Khalid Bin Mohammed Al Attiyah to discuss a range of issues related to the further development of Russia-Qatar relations. The parties will exchange opinions on the most pressing issues on the Middle Eastern and international agenda.
With regards to the Syrian issue, the ministers will thoroughly discuss further action within the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), including the outcome of the recent ISSG ministerial meeting in New York and a UN Security Council meeting.
Another subject of the upcoming talks will entail stronger political coordination within the strategic dialogue between Russia and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG), which will convene for its next ministerial meeting in Moscow in 2016.
The parties also have plans to discuss the strengthening of security in the Gulf area, including those based on a Russian concept that has been approved by our CCASG partners.
A Contact Group meeting in Minsk
On December 22, the final meeting in 2016 of the Contact Group took place in the capital of Belarus. The group will continue to look for solutions to practical questions on how to resolve the crisis in Ukraine.
There has been progress in the discussion of mine clearing. Specifically, thorough progress continues in the majority of areas that were earlier designated as having priority. A specialised subgroup has agreed on a general approach to security guarantees and coordination of this work, including the registering of sites subject to mine clearing. Generally, the parties agreed to finish the clearing of all the 12 priority sites by the next meeting of the Contact Group scheduled for January 13. The group members have already started identifying the next priority sites.
Unfortunately, due to the position of the Ukrainian side, the briefing by representatives of the Joint Centre on Control and Coordination was sabotaged. The fact is that Eduard Basurin, Deputy Commander of the self-defence forces of the self-proclaimed DPR, was included in the Donetsk delegation and came to Minsk specifically to speak at the briefing. His appearance came as a surprise to the Ukrainian delegation despite the fact that his participation was discussed at the previous meeting of the Contact Group a week before the final meeting in this format.
All this is happening under rather difficult circumstances at the line of contact, when the future of the truce depends on the level of trust between both sides’ military personnel, making the situation more and more fragile due to increasingly frequent provocations. In this context, the appeal by Martin Sajdik, Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, for an immediate ceasefire starting December 23 and continuing through the entire holiday season was timely. We believe that the silence in Donbass must extend beyond Christmas and New Year. This is a goal that we must achieve.
In his statement, Mr Sajdik also covered the continued work of the Contact Group in 2016, expressed his dedication to strict compliance with the Package of Measures and supported the further active participation of Donetsk and Lugansk representatives in the Minsk process.
On our part, we believe it is necessary to ensure the continuation of consistent efforts to carry out the February 12, 2015 Package of Measures in its entirety and that it is thoroughly based on direct dialogue between Kiev and Donbass as a key prerequisite for a comprehensive and long-term resolution of the Ukrainian crisis.
Situation with Oleg Khlyupin
Russian national Oleg Khlyupin (born on 23.11.1985) is currently under arrest at Detention Centre No. 13 in Kiev. Last March, the Ukrainian Security Service opened a case against Khlyupin accusing him of attempted participation in a terrorist organisation (Lugansk People’s Republic) under Article 15 Part 3 and Article 258-3 Part 4.1 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code.
Since the receipt of official notice from Ukraine on the detention of a Russian national, the situation has been under special control of the Foreign Ministry, our representative office in Ukraine and the Embassy’s Consulate. In early May, we initiated the involvement of experienced Ukrainian attorney Valentin Rybin as a defence attorney in the Khlyupin case. Rybin established the Odyssey Foundation for Legal Support of Foreign Nationals. He has been defending many Russian and Ukrainian nationals currently being charged for their participation in the events in eastern Ukraine.
Unfortunately, it has to be noted that our Ukrainian counterparts intentionally prevented the access of consular services to the Russian national. Only on September 16, after Khlyupin and his defender refused to review the indictment, the Ukrainian Security Services finally provided access.
Moreover, it is not the first time when, on the one hand, Kiev has denied Russian diplomats access to Russian nationals who were detained or arrested in Ukraine, and, at the same time, Kiev speculates on these cases and plants reports and comments in the media claiming that these Russians were abandoned and their fate is of no concern to us.
I gave you only one example. The fate of this Russian national has been and will be of great concern to us. It is clearly obvious that the consulate was denied access intentionally.
From conversations with Oleg Khlyupin it became obvious that on February 20, 2015, he entered the self-proclaimed republic from Russia to visit his blind disabled father currently living in the Lugansk Region in an area under Kiev’s control. He attempted to cross the dividing line near Stanitsa Luganskaya and was captured by armed forces. For twelve days, he was subject to abuse, torture and death threats from Ukrainian personnel, specifically, members of so-called territorial battalions (including Aidar and Tornado) as well as officers of the Ukrainian Security Service. As a result, the Russian national was delivered to Kiev by the Ukrainian Security Service in a car trunk and was officially arrested. Brainwashing is the only word that will correctly describe what the officers of the so-called Ukrainian Security Service exposed Khlyupin to.
It has to be stressed that this approach and the policy of “anything goes” are exercised towards almost all supporters of the self-proclaimed republics who have been detained by the Ukrainian officials in the east of the country. As expected, Khlyupin’s testimony was recorded on camera. At a meeting with the Russian consul present, our citizen said that before the filming, make-up artists worked for four hours to disguise his bruises resulting from his beatings. After four hours of make-up, his face probably more closely resembled a mask. It is horrifying to imagine what was underneath it.
On March 4, as the protocol of detention was being drafted, Khlyupin was advised by an investigator to refuse services of his public defender. He accepted the advice. The attorney who eventually worked with Khlyupin was in fact cooperating with the investigation and persuaded his client to sign a false confession, accompanied by verbal guarantees of further release.
Initially, Khlyupin was placed at a Ukrainian Security Service detention facility for particularly important detainees. Later, when the investigators realised that the Russian national was completely innocent, he was transferred to the Kiev Central Isolation Centre of the Ukrainian Penitentiary Service where he has remained until now.
Subsequently, Khlyupin denied his false confession. During the pre-trial period of investigation, the investigators repeatedly advised him, including the use of threats, to forego the lawyer he had selected.
When Khlyupin was still at the detention centre, he was visited by representatives of the Ukrainian institution of human rights envoy who did not express particular concern with his fate, the situation and especially his health. Khlyupin was also visited by the International Red Cross Committee.
In October, the indictment was forwarded to the Belovodsky District Court of the Lugansk Region. The current videoconference hearings, unfortunately, complicate the presence of Russian Embassy representatives in court for security reasons. The court ruled to extend his arrest until January 12, 2016.
The Russian Embassy arranged the provision of essentials to Oleg Khlyupin, such as clothes and food. The embassy is in contact with the defendant’s family.
We qualify this case as being completely without a legal basis, lacking legitimacy, one hundred per cent politicised and the unlawful treatment of a Russian national by Ukrainian special services.
We will certainly continue to not just monitor the situation but strongly insist on justice for Oleg Khlyupin. Despite the planted reports and speculation, the Russian Embassy and diplomats continue to take action for his release.
UNSC Resolution on Libya
On December 23, Russia, guided by the necessity to urgently solve immediate problems and pave the way for improving the situation in Libya, supported the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2259 , which aims to restore Libya’s territorial integrity and the unity of its governing institutions.
Over the course of work on the text of the resolution we managed to cover the fundamentals that, in our view, will contribute most to Libya’s prompt exit from this difficult period characterized by a power vacuum, which arose in 2011 after NATO’s intervention, gross interference in Libya’s internal affairs and the brutal killing of Muammar Gaddafi, all of which brought about the most woeful and tragic consequences for the whole nation.
The adopted resolution emphasizes the need for a dialogue between the future government of national accord and all influential political forces, who must be committed to the formation of stable, inclusive bodies of government, and guarantee their active involvement in the political process.
In this relation, we are welcoming the efforts in that direction made by the UN and Mr Martin Kobler, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya. We assume that the United Nations mission will interact with all patriotic forces in order to resolve the fundamental issue – to ensure national reconciliation in Libya. The settlement of the Libyan problem can only be achieved by the Libyan people, the Libyans’ fate should be decided by Libyans themselves.
The task of restoring the territorial integrity of the nation may not be solved without the elimination of the terrorist threat posed by ISIS and other terrorist organisations, which currently face heavy fire in Syria, but who are trying to gain a foothold on Libyan soil. It is in the interests not only of the Libyan people but also of all the countries in the North African region, as a matter of priority, to summon all their strength in order to prevent this scenario.
On the whole, we believe that the adopted resolution is just the beginning of our joint efforts on the Libya settlement, which will open up opportunities for interaction with all the sides in Libya, eventually allowing the country to achieve true unity and stability.
Inter-Yemeni consultations in Switzerland
From December 15 to 20, the next round of consultations between the delegations of the Yemen government, the Houthi movement of Ansar Allah, and the General People's Congress (GPS) was held in Switzerland under the auspices of the UN to address the ongoing armed conflict in Yemen.
For the first time, the participants of such talks generally agreed on the tools for solving the priority issues of a political, military and humanitarian nature, including a swap of POW and political prisoners. Also, an agreement was reached on confidence-building measures, allowing humanitarian access to the country’s third largest city of Taiz and other areas. The next stage of the inter-Yemeni contacts under the UN auspices is scheduled for mid January 2016.
We are very satisfied with the fact that the parties in the internal conflict in Yemen have found the courage to overcome mutual mistrust and hostility and to start a dialogue at the negotiations table. We welcome the announced ceasefire and call for its strict observance.
As we see it, the key task at this juncture is ensuring the prompt and countrywide observance of the ceasefire and refraining from violence, as well as the lifting of maritime and air blockades. This would open a way to settle the dramatic humanitarian situation in Yemen, would alleviate the sufferings of the civilians and would make the overall situation less tragic. It is now necessary to lay a reliable foundation for the much-needed building of a full-scale political process which would result in the restoration of Yemeni statehood and the rule of law on the basis of the respective decisions made by the UNSC and the National Dialogue Conference.
China proposes Syrian government-opposition meeting
I would like to answer your questions on Russia’s opinion of the Chinese proposal to host a meeting between Syrian government and opposition representatives.
As Russia sees it, the broadest possible range of opposition forces should appoint their spokesmen and formulate the shared stances (a platform) for talks with the Syrian government. We consider it necessary to take into account the results of the Syrian opposition’s numerous meetings in Moscow, Riyadh, Cairo, Astana, Damascus and at other venues, all of which we regard as important. We think the achievements of all those meetings must be reckoned with. We regard every such meeting as contributing to the UN-sponsored launch of negotiations for a political settlement of the Syria crisis in compliance with the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012, and the Vienna statements of October 30 and November 14, 2015, approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2254 of December 18. We expect Mr Staffan de Mistura, UN Special Envoy for Syria, to apply final touches to the relevant efforts, as he has been instructed following the results of the latest meetings and other events in New York.
Russia finds the Chinese initiative to be promoting that stated goal and hopes that it might make a stride toward an all-around Syrian settlement.
The Amnesty International report on the Russian Air Force action in Syria
On the eve of the present briefing, we received numerous questions about Russia’s opinion of the Amnesty International report that accuses Russia of air strikes causing massive civilian casualties.
The Defence Ministry has commented on the issue in the utmost detail. I can only confirm our assessments. We share our military experts’ opinion, and reiterate that the report does not include sufficient facts. We cannot regard as hard facts information cited without reference to reliable and duly checked sources. All this produces a deplorable impression of human rights activists’ work on the Syrian track.
The Syrian conflict has been aflame for four years now. Combat against international terrorism is ongoing, causing the deaths of children, women and seniors. Regrettably, these facts are not mentioned while instead a politicised approach to these events is preferred. We see regularly reproduced documents, which are obviously forged – it doesn’t take expert analysis to see they are not authentic.
Such organisations as Amnesty International have sufficient potential for a proper – comprehensive and profound – analysis of the situation with human rights in Syria. We appeal to this and other organisations to do their business as they should instead of using fakes with a clear purpose.
The migration crisis in Europe
We are greatly concerned to observe the situation related to the massive influx of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa into Europe. Essentially, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. This is how we described it previously and this is the way we see it now. It is the result of irresponsible and short-sighted interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states in order to destabilise them and change uncooperative governments in the region by force.
The irresponsible and short-sighted nature of this interference raises a number of questions. As you may have seen, an article has appeared in the Western press to the effect that the actions by the US administration and representatives of the American political establishment were carefully planned. This refers to the forcible change of government in Syria, which was to be brought about methodically, step by step. It could be argued that the exodus from the Middle East is the result of an ill-considered policy. It seems to me that the jury is still out on this. Possibly, it was in fact a well-considered policy – at least, this point has been made in many publications.
I’d like to touch on statistics. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as of today the number of refugees and migrants who have come to Europe stands at 972,500; the number of those killed or reported missing at sea is 3,625. In 2015, the main EU countries accepting the bulk of this immigration were Greece (818,700) and Italy (150,200), while the primary source countries of migration exodus are Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia. Turkey alone has taken in over 2.2 million Syrian refugees, according to the same source.
We consider it important to ensure effective control over the flows of migration, create additional channels of legal migration, and rule out the possibility of terrorists getting into European countries together with people who really need help. It is also necessary to make the distinction between refugees in keeping with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol hereto and illegal economic migrants who are simply taking advantage of the current situation.
As a matter of fact, in our assessments, we have been able to distinguish between these concepts from the outset.
Today, we note the low effectiveness of the EU countries’ efforts to resolve the crisis. The reason is not so much the mass character of this phenomenon as the lack of a coordinated EU position regarding practical measures to address this challenging and, unfortunately, growing problem.
All of this is seriously affecting the situation of these refugees, who, on their way to Europe, are encountering significant problems, including an untimely death. The figures speak for themselves. The chaos (it is difficult to describe the situation in any other way) that we are seeing on EU borders, including within the Schengen zone, is fraught with the loss of control over the situation. We have already seen such examples.
We urge all our European colleagues to take a more responsible approach towards their international obligations in ensuring and protecting the rights of refugees, taking guidance, among other things, from UN Security Council Resolution 2240 of October 9, 2015 relating to the situation in the Mediterranean.
Russia believes in the intensification and coordination of efforts by the international community to find political solutions to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, and to fight international terrorism, above all, the Islamic State, on the generally recognised basis of international law, with the key role relegated to the UN.
The main task today is to eliminate the root causes of the current migration crisis, primarily achieving a peace settlement in Syria and Libya. We note that this realisation is gradually, albeit not as quickly as we’d like it to, coming to European capitals.
It is equally important to provide assistance to the primary source countries of migration with their social, economic and institutional development. I spoke earlier today about the efforts that are being made, in particular, to assist Libya.
We believe that the states responsible for provoking conflicts should also assume responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to their victims.
Norwegian media reports regarding ISIS oil supplies to Turkey
Globalisation is making itself felt, and all issues can be traced to it in some way or another. I’d like to say a few words about Norwegian press reports regarding ISIS oil supplies to Turkey.
As you know, recently, the Norwegian daily Klassekampen published excerpts from a report by Rystad Energy, a reputable consultancy, prepared in July and commissioned by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. Judging from the story, the main conclusion of the report is that the bulk of oil that the terrorist organisation ISIS produces in the parts of Syria and Iraq that it controls is shipped to Turkey in numerous convoys of heavy trucks that have been converted to transport petroleum products. I’d like to note that the report was prepared in July. Rystad Energy experts note that the black market for ISIS oil has been operating in Turkey unimpeded for many years, due, above all, to the connivance and corruption of the Turkish authorities.
So, the Russian information regarding the smuggling of ISIS oil across Turkish territory, and then sold in order to finance the terrorist activity of this criminal organisation, has now been confirmed by other sources. It turns out that competent Norwegian experts brought this to the attention of their authorities long ago. Unfortunately, this important aspect was evidently not reflected in Oslo’s official approaches towards the resolution of the Syria crisis and the fight against ISIS. Presumably, the country’s authorities are reluctant to spoil relations with their NATO ally, i.e., Turkey, and perhaps do not want to wash NATO’s dirty linen in public. Who knows.
As is known, Russia is working to cut off terrorist oil supply routes. We count on effective interaction with other countries to this end.
I’d like to remind you that not so long ago, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared his readiness to resign if there was conclusive evidence to the effect that Ankara is buying oil from the terrorist group or that Ankara is involved in this process. I’d like to quote the Turkish president: “The accusation that Turkey allegedly buys crude oil from ISIS is unacceptable, and to say this is amoral. You can't just say things, you need to present evidence. If documents exist – let's see them. If this fact is proven, I will not stay in my position,” President Erdogan told reporters on the sidelines of the climate summit in Paris.
What is his position now?
The expansion of US sanctions against Russia in light of developments in Ukraine and Crimea
As you know, the US government has expanded anti-Russian sanctions, and many people have asked us to comment on this move. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov already gave his comment. I would like to add a few words to those assessments.
I cannot but repeat once again that we don’t see any reasonable logic in such moves. It looks like the American political establishment appears to be guided exclusively by its desire to pique, undermine and hurt Russia. What’s more, the new restrictions were imposed on the heels of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s talks in Moscow, which saw an in-depth discussion on possible interaction on the most acute international and regional problems, including Ukraine. On the one hand, together with the Americans we are searching for ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, while on the other hand, our partners are taking steps in light of that very problem to somehow punish Russia. Moreover, all this is being done after the consensus adoption of a UN Security Council resolution on Syria in support of the Vienna Process, which was drafted in close cooperation with our American colleagues. So, we see a highly limited understanding of cooperation with Russia on the international arena. The fact that this move by the US Administration coincided with Brussels’ decision to prolong EU sanctions is not a chance occurrence.
The implementation of the Minsk Agreements is further proof that the US Administration’s approach to these issues is illogical, out of touch with reality and devoid of sound judgement. The process continues and certain progress has been made: a fact acknowledged by everyone. Oddly enough, the new sanctions list includes Vladislav Deinego, who represents the Lugansk People’s Republic at the talks with Ukraine. The latter circumstance makes it hard to talk of Americans’ realistic approach to the Ukrainian settlement. How can they create obstacles for those who are instrumental in advancing and implementing the Minsk Agreements?
Evidently, the Obama Administration is trying to somehow compensate for the ineffectiveness of the earlier sanctions by pushing them further along this absurd path. Lots of questions arise, but some things are totally incomprehensible, for example, why the Yalta film studio has fallen out favour and come under the US restrictions. It is very hard to understand. Even less comprehensible is what harm the Azov Distillery and the Novy Svet Champagne Plant could have caused to the Obama Administration. Is this something personal?
We have also been asked how Russia will respond to these moves by Washington. You know, there will certainly be a response. In time we will think of something special for our American colleagues.
The completion of a US missile defence base in Romania
There is one more topic illustrating the Americans’ unique understanding and interpretation of international cooperation and joint effort. On December 18, it was announced that a missile defence base at Deveselu in Romania had been completed and placed under the US Navy command. In the first six months of 2016, after a testing period and equipment checkups, the facility will reach operational readiness. This will mark the end of the second phase of a “phased adaptive approach” to the deployment of components of the US global missile defence in Europe.
We have repeatedly voiced Russia’s view and assessments regarding the US missile defence plans, noting that they clash with the goals of strengthening international security and stability. Nevertheless, the United States and its allies have stubbornly pursued this destabilising and dangerous programme. The arguments used by Washington look more and more implausible.
It should be noted that the Aegis Ashore missile defence complex deployed at the site in Romania includes MK 41 universal missile systems that are installed on US Navy ships and can be used to launch both interceptor rockets and Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles. This gives us reason to regard their deployment on land as a direct violation by the United States of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
Another act of vandalism at the Soviet soldiers cemetery in Kalisz, Poland
We are forced to return to the issue of vandalism at Soviet soldiers cemeteries in Poland.
Despite repeated statements made by the Polish authorities that they are investing efforts to guard and maintain the graves of Soviet soldiers in Poland, the war on our memorials and military graves continues. Yet another act that cannot be described as anything other than vandalism, happened at a cemetery of Red Army soldiers in Kalisz, where 11 tombstones of those killed during liberation of this city in January 1945 were desecrated on December 20. This is the second such incident with the same burial this year. The first one, as you know, happened in February.
We consider such actions a direct result of the destructive campaign to review the liberating role of the USSR and the Red Army during WWII, which was launched in Poland at the official level. However, it is vital to think of the people, and not only of ideology. Those who liberated Poland were ordinary soldiers, and we are talking about the fates and memories of concrete people. They gave their lives for the lives of the future Polish generation. We must bear this in mind when we are told yet again that everything is all right, nothing is happening and the desecration of yet another memorial was a sheer coincidence. We must always remember the contribution of concrete people, and not the ideology that dominates in the country at a particular time.
We strongly protest against this case of anti-Russian vandalism. For many years, we have tried to diplomatically and politely inform the Polish side of our concerns. But the current situation can only be described as a barbarity. This protest has been delivered to the official Poland, including the interim charge d'affaires for Poland in Moscow.
We are waiting for a response from the Polish government and demand that immediate measures are taken to restore the damaged tombstones and to prevent such barbaric incidents in the future. Taking into account that the offender was detained, we will carefully monitor the upcoming trial, the results of which, in our opinion, will become an impartiality test for the Polish justice system.
The situation with memorial to Polish soldiers killed in WWI located in Monte Cassino, Italy
I would like to continue this theme but from a slightly different perspective. Sometimes you address your partners and they seem to not hear your requests, because to them, the issue is not as relevant, substantial, sensitive or important as it is to you or for other partners. Some people may think that the issue of protecting war memorials is probably not all that important or serious to the Polish party. But this is a misconception. In fact, Polish diplomats, citizens and officials are very concerned about much less offensive incidents that happen with respect to their soldiers.
Polish diplomats in Italy are hard at work protecting the Polish military cemetery in Monte Cassino. To them, this site is sacred as a memorial to Polish compatriots killed on Italian soil during WWII. As you know, in 1944, during the long-lasting storm of the height where a Benedictine monastery is located and where the Nazi defence line blocked the way to Rome, over 1,000 Polish soldiers were killed fighting alongside the Allies.
Now let me explain what it was that stirred up the Polish diplomats’ discontent. The Italian civil and church authorities permitted to hold a Christmas fair on a site adjacent to the cemetery.
As our colleagues in Italy learned, after the Polish diplomats inspected the site, the Polish Embassy sent a letter of protest to the Italian Foreign Ministry and addressed the monastery leadership condemning its actions.
The Polish diplomatic mission saw it as the violation of moral principles and also the UNESCO standards on buffer zones around international landmarks. All of this goes to show that they care about memorials after all. But well, if you care so much about your memorials, then you should also care about those who fought to defend the same values together with your soldiers.
I will take the liberty of suggesting that those Polish soldiers whose honour is now being defended by the Polish Embassy in Italy would have shared our opinion. They probably divided soldiers not according to their ideology, but into those who were attacking Poland and those who were defending it.
The Polish Embassy demanded that Italy’s government solves this issue.
In the conversation with Polish colleagues, the employees of the Russian Embassy in Rome expressed regret about the incident, emphasising that the Polish party should now understand the Russians’ feelings better when Soviet memorials are desecrated, in Poland included.
The incident with the Polish military cemetery was covered in the Italian press. According to the media, the Christmas fair in Monte Cassino was dismantled.
The Foreign Ministry launches new Twitter account
With the New Year approaching, we are happy to announce the launch of a new Twitter account @RUSSIA for social media users who are interested in Russia. It has been in service for some time in testing mode, and now we are ready to offer it to the Internet community.
This new resource, which was created with support from the editorial board of Russia Beyond the Headlines (RBTH), will cover major non-political events – cultural, sports, research, technology, humanitarian and economic events involving Russia– that take place both in and outside Russia.
The foreign ministries of many countries have similar accounts, a fact which is hardly surprising since diplomats know better than most how their country is presented in the media and perceived by people.. We are launching this new account to provide first-hand information about the most interesting events in our beautiful, diverse and unique country and about its wonderful people. We hope you’ll like it.
We promise to retweet interesting items about Russia that your media outlets can publish.
Excerpts from answers to media questions:
Question: Yesterday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Selahattin Demirtas, leader of the People’s Democratic Party. What issues did they focus on?
Maria Zakharova: You must have heard Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s comment made during his meeting with Mr Demirtas. Media representatives attended the beginning of the talks. Mr Lavrov listed the issues seen as topical by the Russian side during talks with Mr Demirtas.
Of course, the sides focused on the regional situation. Yesterday’s discussion reflected counter-terrorist operations and issues linked with the regional situation that are part of the international agenda,.
Question: Does Russia have any plans to help the people of Iraqi Kurdistan in their fight against ISIS?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has commented on this. You can read about it in his opening remarks during talks with the leader of the People’s Democratic Party. He made a very clear statement on this issue.
Question: Selahattin Demirtas, leader of Turkey’s People’s Democratic Party, wanted to open his party’s mission in Moscow. What does Russia think about this proposal?
Maria Zakharova: I will have to look into that. At the moment I don’t have any specific information on this issue.
Question: During his Moscow visit, Selahattin Demirtas, leader of Turkey’s People’s Democratic Party, did not conceal his intention to test the waters to see if there are any opportunities for reconciliation between Moscow and Ankara. Is that so? If so, how successful has he been?
" rel="111">Maria Zakharova: Let me give you a thorough answer that is not limited to one specific example. Every country and its representatives have the right to conduct mediation efforts. We believe that Russia and Turkey are sovereign states that conduct their policies in line with national interests. Each of our two countries understands this perfectly well. At least I can vouch for the Russian Federation, although there are serious doubts as to whether Turkey realises what it has done. In any event, as sovereign states, we proceed from a perception of our own interests. We have set forth our stance and our assessments of what has aggravated our relations with Turkey. We also stressed that our assessments do not concern the Turkish people. We have repeatedly stressed at the top and high level that, although this aggravation in bilateral relations will certainly affect the people in our countries, it is directed solely against the Turkish authorities, who were in charge of the operation that led to the tragedy when a Russian plane was shot down. We have commented on this issue regularly. All of us have heard the Turkish side’s statements. The issue boils down to whether Turkey’s political leaders who approved the incident realise what they have done, rather than to mediators or mediatory efforts.
I’d like to stress once again that we respect any attempts by our colleagues who realise the entire complexity of current Russian-Turkish relations and ways to normalise them. But the key question for us is whether the Turkish side comprehends what it has done. We can see that Turkish leaders are only exacerbating the situation at a breathtaking pace. Why are they doing this? It’s absolutely unclear.
Question: You have mentioned the Amnesty International report. Now, we would like to return to that stop-press document. The Foreign Ministry refers to this organisation as authoritative when its opinions coincide with Russia’s and when they benefit Russia, for instance, when the ministry cites its information about human rights violated in the West. However, whenever Amnesty International criticises Russia, the arguments presented in its reports are qualified as dodgy. Would you agree with that?
Maria Zakharova: When I commented on the report, I did not say that Amnesty International was not an authoritative organisation. I merely said that, as an authoritative organisation, it should concentrate on making a genuine and profound analysis of the situation. Whether our opinions coincide with those of Amnesty International or not, we proceed from the fact that it has been active for a long time, has sufficient influence, and should do its utmost to make sure that its conclusions are objective.
As for citing or evading certain information, you know that we comment on such matters actively whether our opinions are consonant with Amnesty International’s or not. We underscore the essence of our objections to that organisation. In this particular instance, we don’t say that it’s an inferior agency and so we don’t agree with it. We say merely that we disapprove the use of information from unverified or unreliable sources.
This is not a matter of disapproving of facts cited by Amnesty International. What we object to is the use of unverified information from unreliable sources. Every time we use information that confirms our opinions, we also pay attention to its sources. I don’t see any double standards in this. It’s like relations with other countries: we may agree with them on some matters and disagree on others, and we discuss all of these matters.
I reiterate what I said in my introductory remarks: we recognise the influence and reputation of Amnesty International, and that is why we expect it to use reliable sources and check their information.
Question: Is Russia absolutely sure that Russian air strikes are not killing civilians in Syria?
Maria Zakharova: The Defence Ministry is providing this exhaustive information. You see, the Russian Federation is providing complete information about the targets of the air strikes. The Defence Ministry is asking its foreign colleagues to assess any specific information being provided by Russia. If you think this information is incorrect, please submit data via military and secret-service channels. If you don’t wish to do this, then please make a public statement. So far, we have not received any information disavowing the statements of the Russian Defence Ministry either publicly or via the appropriate channels. We are hearing that 80 percent of Russian air strikes are allegedly directed against civilian facilities. I just heard Turkish representatives say 90 percent. This is what it’s all about. The situation is like the tanks that “flew over” or “crawled underground” from the Russian Federation to Ukraine. Everyone knew about them, but no one was able to provide at least one photo, despite modern capabilities, satellites, drones, etc. The same is happening here. We’ve heard a story about a civilian hospital allegedly bombed by the Aerospace Force. The Russian Defence Ministry provided photos showing that this facility is intact.
Again, no one is saying that operations of this scale offer a 100 percent guarantee that everything will proceed as planned. Anything is possible. We are saying simply that you should share data (that you consider to be absolutely authentic) that you are absolutely sure that there are no terrorists in certain regions, and that civilian facilities or the moderate opposition are located there. And we’re also saying that if you have any information about post factum casualties, submit it. But we’re not receiving this information. Why would you quote various sources at certain “competent” agencies, without naming these sources and organisations or while using information from agencies that can hardly be called as such in order to prove what Russia is allegedly doing? There is a multitude of appropriate channels, there is the UN which has noted that it cannot confirm data contained in the Amnesty International report. We’re facing the following impasse: while providing complete information, we’re asking that you give us the appropriate information (that something is wrong) via any channel. This isn’t happening; at the same time, the media is publishing reports and quoting those who have reportedly seen something, through some third-hand sources, etc. This is the problem.
Question: What’s your response to the situation around the Orthodox Church in the Rovno Region in Ukraine? How should Russia react to it, and is there hope that the international community will react?
Maria Zakharova: Not only should we react, but we are reacting to it. The Foreign Ministry has made appropriate comments, and all of them have been posted on the website. In addition, Moscow is reacting not only via the Foreign Ministry or other official agencies, but also on the public level. I’ve seen the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church and public associations. What is going on around Orthodox churches is indeed outrageous, because this involves the seizure [of property] based on nationalism and bordering on barbarity. We are deeply concerned about this.
It’s also important to remember the great number of international law documents that have been adopted by the international community to maintain an interreligious dialogue and protect religious shrines and cultural heritage sites. It turns out that this wide array of documents in international law, the entire legal framework is simply not working in Ukraine. This also arouses serious concern. We note and comment on all such instances. In addition to our official comments, we also bring them up at international organisations and seek (with a pretty good success rate) to incorporate passages highlighting these kinds of actions into the relevant resolutions or statements by international organisations.
On December 21, a comment by the Information and Press Department was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website in connection with reports regarding the recent attack by radical nationalist elements in Ukraine on the Assumption Cathedral near Rovno. I will not cite it. It has been posted on our website. We note both the general trend and we issue statements on each specific case, which we also submit to international organisations.
Question: Earlier this week, Iranian media reported that next week Russia will go ahead with the construction of two nuclear reactors in Iran. The locations have not been disclosed. Russia has not confirmed these reports. Can you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: You are not the first to ask this question. Regarding the peaceful use of atomic energy, we are collaborating with Iran in building the Bushehr nuclear power station. As you know, the first unit there was put into operation long ago. Work is currently under way on the implementation of the November 2014 protocol to the 1992 agreement between Russia and Iran on cooperation in building a nuclear power plant in Iran, which provides for the construction of additional four power units at Bushehr.
Maybe there were some difficulties in translating the Iranian report. I’ll talk about some of our areas of cooperation. Another area of our bilateral cooperation is related to the the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme. This refers to the transfer of low-enriched uranium from Iran to Russia in exchange for natural uranium, as well as assisting Iran in converting the uranium enrichment plant at Fordow into a facility to produce stable isotopes for medical and industrial purposes. These are areas where we cooperate with Iran. Again, maybe this information was incorrectly translated.
Question: A spokesman for the Armenian Defence Ministry has said that what is going in Nagorno- Karabakh is war. In other words, it’s not just a violation of the ceasefire agreement but a real war. What’s the Foreign Ministry’s position on this issue and how does Russia assess this tense situation?
Maria Zakharova: As you know, in keeping with earlier agreements, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met on December 19 in Bern under the auspices of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to address a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Even though there was no breakthrough, the presidents had an opportunity to talk one on one, discuss the proposals on the table and clarify their positions on disputable issues. They reaffirmed their commitment to continue working in the Minsk format. Naturally, the unsatisfactory situation around the border and the line of contact was addressed.
Russia takes a positive view of the progress of the top-level political dialogue aimed at resolving the conflict solely by peaceful, political and diplomatic means. We believe that the summit is a step in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue that resumed last year in Sochi and continued in Wales and then in Paris. We act on the assumption that the mediation activity of the Minsk Group co-chairs will continue. In addition, as before, Russia will take independent action to help the sides achieve a compromise based on the approaches coordinated by the co-chairs.
Question: On October 30, some foreign nationals were expelled from the Moscow Institute of Culture. These young people were admitted on interstate agreements, and had reached year three of their degree course. They had many achievements and letters of gratitude. They were friendly, and had no failed assignments. For some unclear reason, their university showed lack of organisation and so they couldn’t do their practicum during the summer, and thus were expelled in late October. The students were left without accommodation, and I can’t find them now. Do you believe the university had a good reason for this?
Maria Zakharova: I can tell you at this point that you can give me all the details. You have, I’m sure, all the specific names of the university and the people involved. We’ll submit the necessary requests, and will try to clear this up. I’m not prepared to answer this now because we would need to look into it. Foreign journalists often ask us questions about students. The cases vary and we look into them. Sometimes, it’s academic performance, sometimes discipline, or some other thing. If it’s not their performance or other objective factors that led to them being expelled, we’ll obviously address it. We’ll gladly learn the details from you and answer this question soon, next year.
Question: The Governor of the Odessa Region, Mikheil Saakashvili, has accused Mr Inal Ardzinba, who is deputy to Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov, of attempting to stir separatism in Ukraine and particularly in Odessa. How justified are those accusations, in your opinion?
Maria Zakharova: We try to pay as little attention as possible to what Mr Saakashvili says, because this is just dangerous for our health. However, in this case we are dealing with an accusation, and Mr Saakashvili is in office. He is not merely a flamboyant public figure, but a high-ranking Ukrainian official. For that reason we have to track his statements on Russia, especially when specific people are named.
We have analysed the statement that the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office suspects a Russian citizen, Mr Inal Ardzinba, of a grave offence, which consists of attempts to change the state border of Ukraine and thus violating constitutional order. The investigative authorities have allegedly established the fact that in January-April 2015 the suspect, in conspiracy with other individuals, recruited like-minded people in Russia with a view to creating the prerequisites for illegally proclaiming a sovereign state, Bessarabia, on the territory of the Odessa region. Mr Inal Ardzinba is also suspected of committing another extremely serious crime by participating in the “Donetsk People’s Republic” terrorist organisation and contributing to its operations.
We are also aware of Mr Saakashvili’s recent conversation with journalists at a presentation of new special operations forces, during which he announced the doubling of a rapid response force in Bessarabia, because, in his opinion, Mr Inal Ardzinba, the First Deputy to Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov, destabilises the region.
When we learned about it, our first reaction was to get to know Mr Ardzinba, an alleged superman who can change the Ukrainian border and who can be overcome only by doubling the rapid response force. It makes you proud of Russians who can apparently do such things by themselves.
Seriously, accusations of stirring separatism in Odessa and Ukraine against the chief advisor at the Department for the CIS, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have nothing to do with reality, are devoid of any evidence and are based solely on fiction and fantasies. Let me remind you that this is not the first time that we’ve heard such accusations from Ukrainian officials. Let me also remind you that the Ukrainian leaders talked about some kind of a “Russian trail” in the killings of people by snipers on Maidan Square on February 20. Ukraine’s General Prosecutor’s Office later refuted these speculations. It would be helpful if our Ukrainian colleagues dealt with such sensitive and serious issues in a more professional manner.
We’ve heard more than once Mr Saakashvili insulting this official during live broadcasts on Ukrainian television. I’m not going to elaborate on Mr Saakashvili, his case is clear, and his recent conversation with Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov leaves no doubts about that whatsoever. But there is another aspect to this issue. The choice of Mr Ardzinba as a victim was not accidental for Mr Saakashvili. It seems that Mr Saakashvili still can’t get over what happened with Abkhazia. It’s clear that the main purpose of these vociferous and outrageous statements is to distract public attention from the main issue that Odessa is facing along with other regions, which is the dire social and economic crisis ravaging the country, as well as a lot of other issues. I think these statements could also be underpinned by the fears that have been stirring in Mr Saakashvili’s conscience since 2008.
Returning to the question by Kommersant newspaper on whether we remain unbiased in our assessments of statements coming from individuals and organisations, I want to say that our assessments are absolutely free from any bias. We believe these accusations to be far-fetched, although sometimes Mr Saakashvili talks business, even though it doesn’t happen too often. Specifically, he recently said that all SMEs are telling him that the situation has never been as bad as it is now, neither under Leonid Kuchma, nor under the “Orange Revolution,” or under Viktor Yanukovich. This is related to corruption in Ukraine, among other things. In this case it’s hard to disagree with Mr Saakashvili. Is our perspective unbiased? It is.
Question: What are your expectations for the upcoming Vienna meetings on the Syrian settlement?
My second question is about our Polish colleague. Can you please clarify why the opposition Polish newspaper Wyborcza is responsible for the actions of the government in this particular case?
Maria Zakharova: It is responsible just like Rossiya Segodnya’s correspondent, from the point of view of the Polish authorities, is responsible for their negative or biased attitude towards Russia. Look, for a long time we have not only been watching, but have also been hoping and taking appropriate steps to resolve the situation with Leonid Sviridov from Rossiya Segodnya and to help the Polish authorities come out of a deadlock of their own making. This is a long story. We provided our comments and said that these were biased assessments and that all of this was happening under pressure from the media, and is at odds with freedom of speech. We called on our colleagues at various international organisations to respond. We’ve done our best to avoid having to take retaliatory actions later. Our correspondent was expelled from Poland even though he had done nothing wrong. He had not violated any visa regulations or entry rules. He wasn’t implicated in any inappropriate activities. No one has ever told him or Russian officials why he was expelled. That’s the question. Once again, for a long time, we’ve been doing all we could to ensure that this situation doesn’t end like it’s now ending. But since such steps were taken with regard to a Russian reporter, we had no choice but to follow Russian law, which clearly states that we can use the rule of reciprocity in such cases.
We have not analysed the materials of the Polish correspondent who works in Moscow; we didn’t say that we have preferences for a particular Wyborcza or Polish television correspondent. We didn’t do so because, in my opinion, it would be censorship. Our decision was based exclusively on reciprocity as stated in Russian law. We are sorry for this. I'm much more pleased to see larger numbers of journalists from many media outlets and many countries at my briefings. I find it hard sometimes to respond to acute and unfair questions, but it's better than having to do the paperwork to expel a correspondent from our country. Our job is to make sure that our position is known everywhere, including Poland, or any other country. Our choice is to work, explain, prove, convince, or maybe even try to change someone’s opinion by providing more information. But when our people get hurt, we’ll fight back.
Regarding the Vienna meetings, as you may be aware, we have been issued appropriate instructions. It was agreed to start a dialogue as soon as possible, including under the umbrella of the UN and the leadership and effective participation of UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. We hope that we’ll set this process in motion in January. As soon as we have achieved specific objectives, we’ll think about the next meeting in this format. The countries themselves will decide where and when it will take place. Most importantly, any such meeting must bring specific results. The meetings are held not for the sake of meetings, but for the sake of exchanging views on specific progress made on various issues.
Question: At the recent press conference by President Vladimir Putin, our Ukrainian colleague Roman Tsimbalyuk asked him about the possibility of exchanging Natalia Savchenko. As you know, this year Russia and Estonia went through a certain period when spies were arrested and then exchanged. Is it possible to exchange Natalia Savchenko, Oleg Sentsov, and others? The supporters of Ukraine and the self-proclaimed republics post their opinions on Facebook. In particular, the Inforesist group came up with an idea that Ukraine is now trying to detain as many Russians as possible to gather enough “exchange material”. Is that possible at all?
With regard to migrants, Estonia will have to take in about 1,300 refugees. There’s no public consensus on this issue in our country. Many are against it. Some say that there may be terrorists among them, or people who will later on bring their families in, and their community will expand uncontrollably. In this regard, is Russia monitoring what’s happening a few dozen kilometres away from its borders? Are you watching for the possibility of refugee camps being built near the Russian border?
Maria Zakharova: Let's start with the second question. In my opening remarks, I read out two pages of text about the immigration crisis, which address your question. Of course, we are concerned about it. Europe is not an abstract notion for us. An American reporter wrote that Russia "is trolling Europe about refugees and the migration crisis." We are not. This is a serious matter for us. You have correctly pointed out that all of that is taking place in the immediate vicinity of our border. Whatever happens in the countries engulfed by the migration crisis may affect us. In addition to that, many Russian people live in these countries, go there on holiday or work there. It concerns us directly. Thus, we are not just keeping track of it, but are in constant touch with our colleagues, including through the EU. We discuss the migration crisis during our regular meetings with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini. We are using relevant international organisations as avenues to promote documents that could be instrumental in settling the crisis. We have been saying from day one that this problem should be addressed at the root. We believe that the most important thing is to bring the situation in those countries back to normal. You can, pardon my language, "reshuffle" refugees and establish quotas forever, but if you don’t resolve problems in their home countries, their numbers will continue to grow.
I absolutely agree with you that it is difficult for Europe to be clear about who is entering their territory, which of these people are migrants and refugees, and which of them have a murky past. It also concerns us. We are aware of what international terrorism is like. It exists in the form of cells and “terrorist families” in the broadest sense of this term. We keep track of it all. Most importantly, we keep track of it not just for ourselves. We are willing to cooperate on these issues with each country and association of countries. Put this question to your countries, because they are not willing to do so. It’s not through our fault that our cooperation with NATO in combatting terrorism was curtailed. By doing so, the alliance is hurting its own people. We offer cooperation and collaboration, but we see that the doors are closed, and we are being told that there’s no need for us. We can discuss our disagreements regarding Ukraine all we want, but that won’t prevent terrorism from spreading. Therefore, we not only observe and contemplate things, but we are willing to work on them, I reiterate, with each individual European or any other country, as well as country associations.
With regard to Natalia Savchenko, this is a legal matter. You all know about this, and we talked about this many times. That’s all I’m going to say on this subject.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
