Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 10, 2016
10 February 201621:37
Table of contents
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Munich Security Conference schedule
- On holding the fourth ministerial meeting of the International Syria Support Group
- The information backdrop surrounding settlement in Syria
- Photo evidence of torture by US military in Afghanistan and Iraq
- Turkish UN Ambassador Halit Çevik’s complaint about Moscow rejecting dialogue with Ankara
- The first anniversary of signing the Minsk Agreements
- Consultations between Russian and Japanese deputy foreign ministers
- Russian-Iranian Agreement on the Facilitation of Mutual Travel for Certain Groups of Russian and Iranian Citizens
- Presentation of the Russian submission regarding the borders of the Arctic Ocean’s shelf to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
- The “Blagoy case”
- Excerpts from replies to questions
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Munich Security Conference schedule
As you know, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will participate in the Munich Security Conference, which implies many events, specifically numerous bilateral and multilateral meetings on its sidelines.
I will enumerate some of the events whose format is being elaborated. The four international intermediaries for the Middle East settlement are due to meet on February 11 and we hope they will. Particularly, Mr Lavrov intends to meet with Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, US State Secretary John Kerry and China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi. He will also take part in the work of the International Syria Support Group, about which I will speak in greater detail.
On February 12, Mr Lavrov intends to meet on the sidelines of the conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, and his colleagues from many countries.
On February 13, he will partake in a ministerial panel discussion to be attended by US, German and other diplomats. Several bilateral meetings are also scheduled for the day.
So I have briefly outlined Mr Lavrov’s draft schedule in reply to numerous questions about his plans for Munich.
On holding the fourth ministerial meeting of the International Syria Support Group
On February 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the fourth ministerial meeting of the International Syria Support Group on the sidelines of the 52nd Munich Security Conference.
The participants will review collective efforts made so far to resolve problems that have forced UN and Arab League Envoy to Syria Staffan da Mistura to call for a pause in UN-sponsored talks between the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and opposition representatives in Geneva until February 25.
During the scheduled meeting, the Russian side is planning to set forth its principled stance that the delegation of the opposition’s High Committee for Negotiations may not advance pre-conditions for launching the inter-Syrian dialogue in Geneva, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution No. 2254.
Meeting participants will have to accomplish another no less important task and resolve the issue of involving Kurdish representatives in the Geneva talks. We are confident that the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party, which controls over 15 percent of Syrian territory and is effectively fighting ISIL, should not remain outside the Geneva process. Moreover, we cannot allow this party to be deprived of its right to take part in the determining their country’s future. Such attempts are being made, and you know about them. I’d like to note that those external parties blocking the involvement of Kurdish representatives in the intra-Syrian dialogue and who are resorting to outright blackmail to achieve their goals, including domestic goals and interests, should not and cannot have any right to juxtapose themselves against the opinion of all the other members of the International Syria Support Group. It’s simply unacceptable to impede the work that has been launched through compromise, by searching for mutually beneficial solutions on very complicated issues. At the same time, many members of this established group are indeed divided on very important issues. Moreover, it should be recalled that it was agreed during the talks in Vienna format that the sides will do their best to ensure that the Syrian opposition delegation would include as many members of the opposition as possible as an essential pre-condition for launching a full-fledged negotiating process in Geneva.
More specifically, participants in the Munich meeting of the International Syria Support Group will discuss ceasefire arrangements for Syria and ways of delivering humanitarian relief aid to besieged and remote cities and communities.
On the whole, we consider the main task of the International Syria Support Group, an influential and well-balanced international format, to be the effective facilitation of a confident beginning and sustained continuation of the inclusive negotiating process as the only alternative to resolving the Syrian crisis by political methods in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
The information backdrop surrounding settlement in Syria
The recent media coverage and the general portrayal of the situation in Syria have been shaped by both political leaders of the foreign countries and the media.
Over the past months, huge efforts have been made to convene the parties around the negotiating table for talks and close the gap in the positions of the sponsors of the respective oppositional groups. What we are witnessing now, or at least reading in the media, or hearing from officials of some western states, is disappointing and disturbing. We can’t but speak out about this because the resulting tense atmosphere may adversely affect the course of negotiations – particularly, the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and the future of the Geneva talks.
In this respect, I would like to quote US Secretary of State John Kerry who recently claimed that the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria are killing large numbers of civilians, including women and children. This was said by the head of a foreign relations body, one who is in constant contact with his Russian counterpart. We are and have always been ready to provide the US colleagues with any information upon first request. Moreover, for a long time, we have offered to provide any assistance necessary to the US in order to resolve any of their concerns – and mostly to ensure that all the actions of the parties involved in the political resolution of the conflict in Syria and the fight against terrorism were successful.
And therefore it was rather unexpected to hear such statements from a person who is perhaps more aware of the situation in Syria, Russia’s intentions and actions in that country than anyone else in Washington. First of all, we constantly provide reports from the Defence Ministry. Second, as I said, because US Secretary of State John Kerry is in very close contact with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Mr Kerry’s American colleagues are constantly in touch with Russian diplomats. Diplomatic contacts between our countries have not been cut off. And so it is unacceptable to make such irresponsible statements, especially considering that US Secretary of State John Kerry has all the information required in order for US officials to make the necessary conclusions.
As before, neither Russia nor the media have been supplied any data, facts, photographs or any reliable evidence to prove these claims.
We are constantly raising the issue of cooperation between our military forces in order to resolve any concerns of our US colleagues and be more efficient in our fight against terrorism in Syria. You are well aware of the answer we have received. We offered clarification as to who is bombing whom, who is attacking whom, where the moderate oppositional forces are located and where ISIS is based. To this day, despite our many requests and suggestions at various levels and in various formats, through different channels, we have not heard any clear answers and, most importantly, have not seen any specific actions. For one thing, this is happening because our American counterparts are consistently avoiding any specific steps to coordinate their actions with us. We managed to develop rules to avoid any incidents in the air but this is not enough. We are facing a threat that does not view the world based on the principle of “friend or foe”. Perhaps some are still under the illusion that terrorism will somehow pass them by, but this is not going to happen. History has proved this.
As the US-led coalition has been delivering air strikes in Syria and Iraq to fight the Islamic State, as they put it, since October 2014, we have every reason to believe that the United States has accumulated sufficient intelligence data about terrorist bases in Syria. Why doesn’t Washington want to share that information, including with Russia? What are they trying to hide? Why are they making statements with no reference to facts? I think this question will remain rhetorical: neither we nor the media will find out the truth.
The “vibes” coming from US officials are immediately picked up by the leading American media. CNN broadcasts obviously politicised materials on the subject. The latest “discovery” was the parallel drawn between the Russian Air Force operations in Syria and Russia’s anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya. We watched the video several times thinking we might have misunderstood it, but no. Originally, American commentators said Russia’s air strikes in Syria were an exact copy of the Soviet operation in Afghanistan, but a month later they realised it was a far-fetched comparison and started to sing a different tune – about Chechnya.
It might not be such a bad thing: at least a few decades later, the leading US media have finally admitted that Russia was fighting international terrorism in Chechnya. We all remember that at the time they called Chechen militants “freedom fighters” that Russia was “suppressing” in the North Caucasus. Chechen “freedom fighters” regularly appeared on US and British television. Hence, these parallels bounce back at the American media, missing the target. These reports also demonstrate a lack of professionalism.
The question is: when will we finally move on from propaganda to action? Is it only when terrorists decide to pay a visit to these journalists and politicians who are engaged in propaganda?
It is like with refugees: the problem was only noticed when they turned up on the doorstep of wealthy Europeans. Previously, we were the only ones who expressed concern about the threat coming from regime change in the Middle East.
There’s no better way to describe unsubstantiated statements made by Western politicians and media publications that are not accompanied by any action other than as plain hysteria.
I’d like to elaborate on a few other aspects typical of the current media environment. Many Western media, including in Germany, are concerned that the legal Syrian army is approaching the Syrian-Turkish border. Can you imagine? People are writing serious reports on this “problem.” Particularly worrying for them is the fact that the Syrian army is doing quite well. We are talking about the legal, recognised border between two sovereign countries.
When a nation’s army pushes militants out and successfully fights extremism and terrorism, it is surprising that “unbiased” media would get emotional and critical about it. Interestingly, German and Turkish press began filing simultaneous worried reports on the issue as if following somebody’s instructions.
It is understandable and even logical the reaction of Turkish media and officials as militants are being attacked along Turkey’s border. We have repeatedly said that a dangerous two-way road goes through the Syrian-Turkish border: weapons and equipment go to the militants one way, and illegal oil and trade violating international law go the other way. Now it is clear why the successful operations of the Syrian army cause such concern in Turkey. The dirty business of the Turkish officialdom has to be defended, including through controlled media.
In addition, there’s the problem of the genocide of the Kurdish people. Apparently, the official Turkish authorities are haunted by it as well. Perhaps, they are pursuing a different goal, namely, that while the world sleeps and under the guise of some strange purported goal they want to occupy a specific territory, which is contiguous to Turkey, even though it is part of another sovereign state.
The above just goes to show what compliance with international law, respect for sovereignty, etc. are all about. Where is the international community? Where are the media? Why isn’t anyone covering this? Why are they writing the exact opposite of what’s happening? It’s amazing.
We are constantly being accused (and have virtually been pounded with such accusations over the past few weeks) of Russia being responsible for thwarting the intra-Syrian negotiations in Geneva by our continued airstrikes. I will briefly go back in history. Just think back to what you did one year ago today, and it will help you remember the statements made by our Western colleagues with regard to Syria and the Syrian settlement. Can you imagine − one year ago today − our Western colleagues in Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin, to name a few, seriously discussing the possibility of talks between the opposition and the official Damascus side? If one year ago someone said that such talks will be held in Geneva in 2016, then, I think, a number of capitals would follow Germany’s suit and blame the media, which would have made such an assumption, of providing misleading information. No one saw it coming, and I'll explain why: all the efforts and forces, all the political and military capitals were focused solely on regime change in Syria and President al-Assad’s resignation. This mantra was repeated daily at all levels. Only Russia, including the Foreign Ministry, insisted that there was no alternative to the political and diplomatic settlement amid efforts to fight terrorism. We talked about the need to start a direct dialogue between Damascus and the opposition.
I'm not even talking about the events that took place two to three years ago, when the crest of the “fascination wave" with the so-called Arab spring hadn’t yet settled. Even a year ago, no one could not only accept, but believe that talks between the official Damascus side and the opposition are even possible. Yet, today, they are trying to make us responsible for the failure of these negotiations. This is a blatant lie, absolute low-grade misinformation. We’ve done a lot to make sure that these negotiations are taken seriously by our partners as a viable project not only in theory, but that they also have a good chance of being implemented. We’ve done a lot of preparatory work that began long before the autumn of 2015, when we formed the Syrian opposition groups and arranged the Syrian opposition meetings in Moscow, where, by the way, the West wouldn’t let a number of the Syrian opposition members go, banning them directly from participating in the "Moscow meetings." They are trying to fool us, as if we are children. Well, we are aware of their plans, but they are also trying to deceive the international community when they say that we have disrupted the negotiations. I believe that those who hope to pull it off have a poor memory and absolutely no understanding of what’s going on.
There’s one more point I’d like to highlight. It concerns allegations that the Russian airstrikes are contributing to the increase in the flow of refugees.
I’ll spend a minute talking about these refugees. I remember well how EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini focused on the refugees in her conversations with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during their meetings on the sidelines of various international forums. That didn’t happen a month or two ago, but 12 to 18 months back. A number of politicians in the European Union knew what was about to happen, and now it turns out that it’s our fault again.
As you are aware, the Russian Aerospace Forces started their mission in Syria at the request of the Syrian government in the autumn of 2015. Hundreds of thousands of refugees came to Europe one year before that and have kept coming since then. The issue is not that Russia is, as always, responsible for this, no. By the way, following that line of thinking the JFK murder mystery may soon be solved as well. It is important to look deeper into the problem − without resolving the situation in Syria and other neighbouring countries, there’s no way to stop the refugee flow. It is simply impossible. Go ahead and read what the Russian leaders were saying 12 to 18 months ago. Russia was saying that it’s imperative to start out by addressing the basic issues, such as settling the situation, bringing life back to normal, creating and raising living standards in the region, stopping hostilities and cutting supply lines that keep active the fighters who are destroying the peace. We covered all of that. The second issue concerns EU migration policy. Let’s face it, it is incompetent and has allowed big mistakes to be made. Is that also Russia’s fault? That’s strong.
It is necessary to understand (and I think many understand it) and fully realise that until order is restored in Syria and the chaos is stopped, until the appropriate framework or prerequisites for the intra-Syrian settlement are created, and until not only in Syria, but also Iraq terrorism is vanquished, the refugee flow will only increase. It’s important that everyone, including our European colleagues, realise this, so that they don’t spend their time searching for fictional enemies of Europe, especially where there aren’t any, and understand the origins of the crisis and its root sources. We were aware of the concerns on the part of European politicians in Brussels with what’s going on, and we addressed this a year ago. What does Russia have to do with that today?
Secretary Kerry and many others spoke about the humanitarian crisis in Syria, even linking it to Russia’s airstrikes. Gentlemen, where were you four years ago? How are the Syrian children in 2013 different from the Syrian children in 2016? Or, you simply haven’t seen them? Your actions have been fuelling great numbers of extremist groups for years on end. Why didn’t you think about children and women back then? I'm not even talking about the fate of other countries in the region.
There’s a good saying, "If you want to make the world a better place, start with yourself." Few people have paid any attention to the consequences of the air strikes by the US-led coalition, the consequences which have been published in reputable Western media outlets. I can’t say whether it's true or not, but I saw these facts and I can’t help sharing them with you. For example, recently, BBC posted on its website information with reference to the Airwars independent monitoring group to the effect that 846 to 1,100 civilians, "non-combatants," in their parlance, died in the wake of over 9,500 airstrikes carried out by the coalition in Iraq and Syria from August 2014 to January 2016. I hope our Western colleagues will comment on these figures before providing their assessment of Russian aerospace operations.
Photo evidence of torture by US military in Afghanistan and Iraq
It’s important that US Secretary of State John Kerry shares concern over the situation in Syria: as regards the humanitarian disaster and human rights. But he should ask himself some questions as well.
The 198 photographs from prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, posted on the American Civil Liberties Union website, are telling and needn’t be described. That’s as regards the actions that the US military and politicians, who are now accusing us, committed in these two countries.
It’s worth noting that human rights campaigners had struggled to publish those photos for more than a decade but faced strong opposition from the Pentagon and other [US] agencies, and up until now the majority of the “torture archive” of 2,000 photographs remains classified. This is in regard to the question of who is judging the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces and with absolutely no good reason. Similarly, the US authorities, citing national security interests, have been stubbornly refusing to prosecute the CIA, Defence Department and Justice Department employees, who for years have been inventing and polishing various savage methods (we used to call them torture), and senior US Administration officials who authorised those methods. That’s the background to what is happening now.
We find it absolutely unacceptable that US officials publicly allege that Russia uses “dumb” bombs in Syria, which supposedly kill civilians. These are pure allegations unsubstantiated by any facts. Our Defence Ministry has reacted to this before. Unfortunately, these allegations keep mounting and are shaping into tactics. Who is saying this? From whom are we hearing this? From the people who applied those very methods in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
In conclusion, let me quote Seth Moulton, member of the US House Armed Services Committee. Speaking about Russia’s actions in Syria, he said that Russia is reaching the goals in Syria much more clearly than the United States. This is an opinion voiced during an internal debate. I will quote an excerpt and then give a reason for it. He said: “Russia is doing much better in this respect. Every 18-year-old Russian kid from Kursk knows his country’s strategic, political plan in Syria.”
I’m not aware of what every 18-year-old kid in Kursk knows, and I hope that his head is full of things other than this because of his age and the upcoming spring. But I can confirm what Mr Moulton said, namely that our people understand precisely what we are doing in Syria for the simple reason that we don’t change our principled approaches. Maybe, that’s the crucial difference.
Turkish UN Ambassador Halit Çevik’s complaint about Moscow rejecting dialogue with Ankara
Turkey is again pretending that Moscow is ignoring calls for dialogue. We see this as nothing more than a propaganda trick (various Russian leaders and representatives of the Presidential Administration have spoken on the issue) aimed at absolving all responsibility for shooting down our plane and killing the crew commander on November 24, 2015. It’s an illusion and a mistake to think that this act committed by Ankara will receive no response. We have repeatedly aired our approach to this.
Let me repeat that the line the Turkish government has been sticking to, namely its categorical refusal to admit its guilt for shooting down a Russian plane and killing our servicemen, its stubborn unwillingness to hold those responsible accountable, its tireless propaganda with regard to Russia’s activity in Syria and its persistent use of double standards in the fight against international terrorism do not create conditions for the resumption of a full dialogue with Turkey in the foreseeable future.
Of late, we have seen worsening anti-Russia rhetoric from Ankara, with groundless accusations against us, which have nothing to do with reality.
The first anniversary of signing the Minsk Agreements
As you know, February 12 marks the first anniversary of signing the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements. As you remember, the leaders of Normandy Four countries – the presidents of Russia, France, Ukraine and the Chancellor of Germany – worked on this document. They conducted an exhaustive and protracted marathon negotiating session in order to search for a compromise solution. The value of the document, finalised by all the parties, is that it was coordinated with the warring parties in Donbass themselves. The Package of Measures also received wide international acclaim as a foundation for eventually resolving the crisis in Ukraine, and it was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.
Owing to the Minsk Agreements, active hostilities have been virtually stopped along the entire front line, and the threat of their possible escalation into an all-out Ukrainian bloody civil war has been staved off. All this has made it possible to considerably reduce the level of military tensions in southeastern Ukraine. Heavy weapons systems have been withdrawn from the contact line to preset areas. A supplementary agreement on withdrawing armored vehicles and artillery systems with a caliber of under 100 mm has been signed and implemented. Mine disposal operations are being conducted in some sectors of the conflict zone.
At the same time, it is still impossible to attain a complete ceasefire. Mutual trust levels remain low. Moreover, the so-called voluntary battalions siding with the Ukrainian Armed Forces are openly voicing their reluctance to observe the Minsk Agreements and their intention to continue “war until we prevail,” as they say. At the same time, Kiev is, as usual, cynically blaming self-defence fighters for all provocations and the aggravated situation, even claiming that they are allegedly shooting at themselves. This has already become a good, or rather a bad tradition.
In this connection, it is very important at this stage to eliminate persistent violations of the ceasefire agreement and to ensure the warring parties’ full compliance with agreements on the withdrawal of their weapons systems and on the stage-by-stage disengagement of forces, so as to minimise the threat of direct contacts between that units of the Ukrainian army and Donbass self-defence fighters.
No one wants the war to resume, as this would spell extremely negative consequences for the process of the domestic Ukrainian political settlement. Unfortunately, this process is still proceeding by fits and starts, first of all, due to the lack of political will on the part of Kiev. The official authorities in Kiev are bluntly refusing to directly negotiate with Donbass representatives, and they continue to deliberately ignore the legitimate rights and demands of the people in southeastern Ukraine. This is the crux of the entire problem. In effect, we are witnessing the virtual sabotage of most Package of Measures provisions by official Kiev.
Notably, we would like to mention a number of specific examples. Authorities in Kiev refused to work with Donetsk and Lugansk on the constitutional reform that stipulates the de-centralization of powers with due consideration for the specifics of certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. This made it impossible to implement reform. The Ukrainian side failed to formalise a permanent local government procedure (special status) for Donbass. An amnesty law banning the prosecution and punishment of persons involved in the 2014-2015 developments in southeastern Ukraine has not been approved, although the Verkhovna Rada had approved such a law with regard to Euromaidan protesters. Nor does Kiev strive to honour its obligations on rebuilding the damaged infrastructure in Donbass and restoring its socioeconomic ties with the rest of the country. Moreover, the region’s blockade is continuing.
On the contrary, Donetsk and Lugansk were firmly determined to compromise on the above-mentioned issues.
One can say that life itself has shown us that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements.
The sooner Kiev comprehends the need for fulfilling its obligations in line with the entire Package of Measures, the more quickly the peace settlement will proceed. It is to be hoped that all of us will be able to witness the establishment of durable and lasting peace and tranquility in Ukraine.
For its part, Russia is ready to continue its efforts, together with its partners, in the search for a political solution to the domestic Ukrainian crisis.
Consultations between Russian and Japanese deputy foreign ministers
On February 15, consultations will be held in Tokyo between the Russian and Japanese deputy foreign ministers. Russia will be represented by Igor Morgulov.
The deputy ministers will discuss the entire range of bilateral issues, including our political dialogue, trade and economic cooperation and prospects for their further development, as well as current international issues such as the situation on the Korean Peninsula.
The sides are expected to exchange opinions on the timeframe of the third round of the interdepartmental talks on a peace treaty.
The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Facilitation of Mutual Travel for Certain Groups of Russian and Iranian Citizens, which was signed in Tehran on November 23, 2015 following talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani, came into force on February 6, 2016.
This agreement provides for visa facilitation procedures for Russian and Iranian business people and individuals participating in research, cultural and humanitarian exchanges, including faculty members and students.
An important element of the new procedure is the opportunity to receive business visas upon the direct invitation of the leading organisations of the two countries’ business communities. In Russia, such organisations are the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI of Russia); the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RUIE); the OPORA Russia public association of small and medium-sized enterprises; the Russian Union of Commodity Producers (RST); and territorial chambers of commerce and industry.
We hope that Russian-Iranian business cooperation will be boosted by the agreement’s provision on the issue of multiple entry visas for participants in long-distance road haulage between Russia and Iran. In Russia, such visas will be issued by the Association of International Road Carriers (ASMAP). In addition, the crews of ships calling at Russian and Iranian ports will not have to apply for visas.
This agreement will greatly simplify contacts between ministry and department employees, who will be able to apply for one to five-year multiple entry visas for participation in official events aimed at promoting Russian-Iranian cooperation.
We are confident that the implementation of this agreement will help further strengthen Russian-Iranian ties in all spheres and will also enable the sides to advance consistently towards the removal of all barriers hindering mutual travel by Russian and Iranian citizens. In our opinion, this will be fully in keeping with the new quality of relations between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On February 9, Russian Minister of Natural Resources and Environment and head of the Russian interagency delegation Sergei Donskoi presented the submission for the extension of Russia’s continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean at the 40th Session of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in New York.
The presentation was an important part of Russia’s efforts to extend the limits of its continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. The issue concerns the underwater area of 1.2 million square kilometres located more than 350 nautical miles from the shore.
This submission, which was presented in New York yesterday, is an updated version of its submission of December 20, 2001 and hence should be considered as a matter of priority.
Russia has provided detailed information on the key elements of the submission, focusing on additional research and technological substantiation of its rights to continental shelf in the Arctic based on large-scale research that has been conducted in the region over the past few years.
The submission to the UN Commission and the Commission’s recommendations following its consideration will not decide the issue of the final delimitation of the continental shelf between Russia and neighbouring Arctic nations.
We hope to maintain constructive cooperation with the Commission during its consideration of Russia’s submission.
I would like to say a few words about a currently topical European issue, specifically, freedom of the media, speech and information.
We are extremely concerned and alarmed with a mounting media campaign or the virtual persecution of Ivan Blagoy, a special correspondent of TV Channel One in Germany. Currently, everything is escalating into legal pressure, although unprecedented media pressure is already being applied. They are accusing or trying to accuse the journalist of inciting ethnic hatred. We are surprised that such wording exists in modern Europe. For some reason, no one has recalled this wording in connection with other cases. The current atmosphere being incited around this incident amounts to direct pressure on the media and an encroachment on freedom of speech and self-expression.
At first glance, all this may seem unreal and unrealistic because we are talking about a state which has been upholding and defending the basic principles required for building and maintaining a democratic society for a long time and which has always been perceived by us as a classic example of a state with dominant democratic and liberal values and traditions. We have always treated our German colleagues and partners in this manner. But what we are now seeing can only make us apprehensive. The assessment of this story is not the issue. All of us realise that in a free and open society one can and has the right to discuss any television coverage. Although it is more appropriate to discuss another aspect, namely, the actions of law enforcement agencies and the hushing up of information. We are witnessing undisguised hypocrisy, rather than mere double standards.
Let’s recall the numerous news reports we have seen on Western and German television channels that clearly provided misinformation, rather than hypothetically incited any hatred or strife. I would like to mention several examples, including the classic reenactment of saving Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq. Was anyone, including European human rights organisations defending the authenticity of TV stories, interested in these materials? Or take the simulated expulsion of Iraqi invaders from the US embassy in Kuwait. In late January 1991, photos of birds in the Persian Gulf that became filled with black oil (after Saddam Hussein allegedly pulled the plug on oil reservoirs) were released worldwide. All this was widely circulated by the media, including European media outlets. Did anyone criticise themselves, repent or apologise? We saw nothing of the kind. For example, there was a news story about a Bosnian nun allegedly raped by Serbian assailants, as well as many other stories. Does the European professional community respond to these stories in any way, and are they correcting their mistakes? Or have they only responded to Blagoy’s story alone nowadays?
Take, for example, the work of ZDF correspondents in Russia. As you remember, the so-called “news report” was released not long ago featuring an interview with a young man who feigned as a volunteer from Kaliningrad who allegedly sided with Donbass self-defence fighters. He later admitted that they had paid him for starring in the documentary. Why isn’t German society, including public and human rights activists, asking any questions of ZDF if indeed Germany is focusing on the authenticity of TV news reports?
Here is another example. Unfortunately, representatives of the Scandinavian press fancy stories about so-called Russian submarines that allegedly surface time and again in some European countries’ waters. Did they ever print a denial and apologise to the Russian side for constantly circulating this frightening information? This did not happen even once. Those submarines either turned out to be whales or components of some technical system or a contraption that has nothing to do with the Russian Navy or the Russian side in general. If you are so preoccupied with the authenticity of TV news reports, you should start with yourselves and you should assess your own stories.
I don’t recall a single incident whereby a Western journalist working in Moscow who wrote that he or she had seen a Russian tank convoy roll towards Ukraine offered an apology. We have never seen any apologies or denials of such reports. But we already understand that everything is Mr Blagoy’s fault.
Quite recently, my colleague, German Foreign Ministry Spokesman Martin Schaefer, with whom we maintain a very constructive relationship and cooperate on a number of issues, noted that a thoughtful reader will eventually make a correct assessment and sort things out. I would agree with this assertion because it certainly is correct. But the problem is that it’s impossible for this thoughtful reader to make the correct assessment when he or she is subject to an endless supply of propaganda. At the very least, it should be interspersed with authentic information, at least sometimes.
Excerpts from replies to questions:
Question: At a recent joint news conference with Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifah, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia will soon come up with a new or updated security concept for the Persian Gulf. Could you please describe the new elements of this concept?
Maria Zakharova: Russia traditionally pays primary attention to security in the strategically important Gulf region. I’d like to recall the background of this issue. A relevant concept was advanced in the early 1990s in the context of Kuwait’s invasion by Iraq. I’ll describe its basic provisions in brief.
This document provides for a stage-by-stage move, on the basis of equitable cooperation among all regional and other interested parties, to resolve conflicts, elaborate trust-building, and eventually, establish a sub-regional integral system of collective security and cooperation with relevant mechanisms and organisational structures. This is a complicated phrase but it relies on specific proposals. This system is supposed to act as a prelude to establishing a common regional structure of the post-crisis model in the Middle East.
Russia updated its concept several times in the past few years. We tried to promptly introduce into this document the changes caused by regional developments. The current version of this concept considers such major factors as the adopted agreements on the Iranian nuclear programme and the tangible increase in terrorist activities in the Middle East and North Africa.
At present, Russia has started to introduce the updated version of this document to its partners. We are going to use both the bilateral format and the established multilateral mechanisms for this purpose. We assume that this issue will be discussed at a regular ministerial meeting of the Russia-Gulf Cooperation Council Strategic Dialogue, which we plan to host in Moscow next spring. We’ll inform you of the time and dates in due course. There are other ideas, for instance, an exchange of opinions on our concept with Gulf academic circles and external players, such as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We think it would be useful to hold such an event in a Gulf country.
Question (via interpreter): Russian media reported yesterday that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov intends to present his new plan for a peaceful settlement in Syria. Could you please describe this plan in greater detail? When is he going to do this?
Maria Zakharova: Who said that Russia will present a new plan? Could you be more specific? I don’t have this information.
Question (via interpreter): I’m equally confused. This information appeared on the wire of a Russian news agency.
Maria Zakharova: I haven’t seen any reports about new plans. Media often tend to simplify things in a bid to present some sensational news.
The Russian delegation is going to Munich to attend the meeting on the Syrian settlement with its suggestions in hand, but I wouldn’t call them a new plan. Now it is important to preserve what has already been done, so as not to miss the chance or break the thin ice that has just started to appear at the talks between Damascus and the opposition.
Just to repeat — I don’t know about a new plan or programme. We often hear about them from journalists on the eve of various meetings. I believe this is the result of a peculiar interpretation of someone’s words.
Question (via interpreter): NATO foreign ministers are meeting today and tomorrow, talking about putting a thousand more troops from Britain and America, possibly, in each of five or six Eastern European countries near Russia’s border. What is Russia’s response?
Maria Zakharova: At our weekly briefings, we talk about the oppression, including militarily, of the situation on our borders. We say that we don’t understand the reason behind it. Above all, this policy doesn’t threaten Russia but rather the strategic stability and security that should be a priority for Europe. This security and stability should be in place for everyone. We have come up with a concept of undivided security that we have been actively promoting. We believe that there cannot be countries on our continent that have more security at the expense of others’. We know why it is being done. It is the concept for keeping Russia at bay in all respects, which our Western colleagues, mostly Washington, are pursuing. It is not news to us, and we always respond to it.
I’ll say it again – it is not a threat to Russia but rather an obstacle for the European continent on its way to overall global security. Has military reinforcement, be it NATO’s, British or American, ever defended anyone from terrorism? Let’s look at the Paris attacks. Did NATO summon its forces and defend people from terrorists? No, they couldn’t, but they are good at using the “Russian threat” to build up their defence budget and deploy new forces. It is time to wake up and see that we have a common enemy – international terrorism and accompanying new threats and challenges that are sadly not new anymore: organised crime, drug trafficking and slave trade, which are all links of the same chain. This is our common enemy, and redeployment of troops won’t help solve any of these shared security problems.
Question: Russian State Duma deputies have suggested that the 1921 Moscow Treaty of Friendship and Brotherhood between Russia and Turkey be denounced. This treaty is equally important for Azerbaijan because it made Nakhichevan an autonomous region within Azerbaijan. Duma deputies said they had already proposed denunciation to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. What is your position? How can this treaty be annulled without affecting other countries’ interests, including Azerbaijan’s?
Maria Zakharova: I can confirm that the Foreign Ministry has received a request from State Duma deputies to break off the treaty. For now, I can say that the request has to be examined in more detail in due course, which will be done in line with the established procedure. We have to study the initiative. I can say that we maintain good relations with Azerbaijan and would not do anything to damage our partnership. On the contrary, we will do our best to improve our relations with that country. We have very strong ties in various areas.
Question (via interpreter): If you feel that the Russian air strikes in Syria are being misinterpreted, could you explain possibly and extend on what is the main aim of targeting areas around Aleppo, where it is a bastion of the Syrian opposition? What is the aim of these air strikes?
Maria Zakharova: I respect any questions without branding them as good, bad, difficult or easy. Nearly every day, our Defence Ministry comments on what air strikes are carried out and what their targets are and why. Please, ask them, and they will give you a clear, specific answer with videos, data and maps of Aleppo and other areas. We are the Foreign Ministry, and our colleagues at the Defence Ministry are working on the questions you just asked.
I have the impression that the Defence Ministry’s information is not taken into consideration by the media or even our diplomatic colleagues. Don’t they watch these briefings? The Defence Ministry holds regular briefings, and all the information is published on their website. I am not an expert, and I can’t say for sure what targets they are working on because there are other highly professional people who have all the relevant information.
Question: During the past several months, I have often seen the opinions of different experts, journalists and politicians, both in the West and in Russia, to the effect that the era of a unipolar world order, which began about 25 years ago, effectively ended with the start of the large-scale operation by the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria. I would like to hear your opinion. Do you share this view? Or does the unipolar world era still continue?
Maria Zakharova: My impression is that the unipolar world never materialised in the first place. They wanted to make the unipolar world concept a dominant one but the problem is that sometimes there is a big divide between reality and fantasy. This is precisely the case for one simple reason. It is not that somebody refuses to obey somebody else. As a general rule, this is true, but this is not the point. It is another matter that when a number of countries or one country declare a unipolar concept as dogma they should be aware of the responsibility that they assume. The question is whether, in declaring and assuming responsibility for the implementation of a unipolar world concept, one state or a small group of countries can in fact put it into practice. What is this? Unipolarity and the responsibility of one group of states to the entire world is a matter of addressing and resolving global issues.
During the period that you outlined, the number of global issues has increased, not declined. Remember what US President Barack Obama said a year and a half ago addressing a UN General Assembly session – I believe it was in 2014 – specifically that the world has become a safer place. Did the world become safer in 2015? Did the world become safer in January 2016? Look at the series of bloody terrorist attacks or humanitarian disasters in the Middle East. Where has the world become safer? We see the US-led international coalition building up its efforts. If the world has become safer, why build them up and why return to Iraq? What is going on in Afghanistan? Therefore, there has in fact been no unipolar system for one simple reason. No one country or group of countries is able to handle the responsibility of resolving global issues. This is impossible
Further evidence of the fact that there has been no and there is no unipolarity is that during the period you mentioned a large number of other poles have emerged – economic, political and cultural centres of attraction, which are impossible to ignore or not take into account. I believe that it was simply a utopian theory or the declaration of intent by a certain group of countries regarding the implementation of this concept. It has added up to nothing in reality. I hope I have provided sufficient reason and evidence of this.
Question: You said earlier today that it’s an illusion that anybody can avoid terrorism. Given that Russia today is fighting terrorism on a large scale and far from its national borders, a question arises over the logic that terrorism is unavoidable and must be fought. Naturally, it is too early now to talk about this, but when, sooner or later, the Syrian conflict is resolved, would it be logical to expect that Russia will continue fighting terrorism in other countries where it exists? For example, in Nigeria, where the Boko Haram group is active.
Maria Zakharova: We did not move into Syria uninvited. Indeed, for years we had talked about a terrorist threat in Syria and the region as a whole. We said it and our analysis showed how this threat was developing, how it was growing and what would happen next. That was the way things were, but we did not come to Syria on our own. We came there at the request of the Syrian government, a state that was suffering from the terrorist threat.
As for whether Russia will continue fighting international terrorism, you see only one aspect of the problem. There is footage of warplanes in the air and the Russian Aerospace Forces at work. I believe that you are wrong to imply that terrorism can only be fought by force. We have not stopped and will not stop our fight against terrorism on the battlefield of international law, among other things. There are a lot of mechanisms to this end in which Russia is actively involved, including the UN, the SCO, which was created largely through the efforts of Russia and our other SCO partners, and the mechanisms that exist there. Look at the UN Security Council resolutions that are aimed at fighting terrorism. I believe that even these examples are enough to show that our efforts in this respect are ongoing.
Another thing. A great deal depends on bilateral partnership and cooperation between countries in fighting terrorism, including information sharing, a search for ways of working out joint antiterrorist strategies and simply daily work to bring terrorism and everything related to terrorism under control. I would also like to draw your attention to Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya information agency yesterday. Tomorrow, another interview with him will be published by Interfax and it will focus on Russia’s efforts to fight international terrorism.
Question: Do you know what’s happening at the Turkish border? Several days ago thousands of people left Syria – according to them, as a result of Russian Aerospace Forces’ operations. Can you comment on these claims?
Maria Zakharova: I spoke at length about the statements regarding the new wave of refugees allegedly resulting from the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Russia’s operation is solely targeting ISIS. These people are fleeing from ISIS rather than from the Russian military. The reports create the impression that the Russian armed forces are actually on the ground. Just this once, I will allow myself to cover a topic unrelated to the Foreign Ministry. This has been said many times before but I will repeat it: there are no Russian ground forces in Syria. The backdrop shaped by the media that implies a Russian ground presence is incorrect.
I can only reaffirm that the humanitarian crisis in Syria must be a priority as we have repeatedly told our partners. We are by all means sending humanitarian aid to Syria, which we also report to you. We understand very well that for several years people have been leaving Syria in despair – and not because of Russia’s air strikes as it is reported in the media, but they are fleeing from terrorism and the general crisis in the country.
Question: You mentioned the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the talks in Geneva. What does Russia think about Saleh Muslim and his party’s participating in the Geneva talks?
Maria Zakharova: Again, I can refer you to the statement by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in response to your own question at the news conference on January 26. Specifically, he spoke about PYD and our approach to this issue. I can’t add anything else. Our approach remains the same. We assume that without the Kurds, the talks may not bring the result we all hope for, that is a final resolution to the crisis in Syria. I already explained why: these people live there and control that area. Decisions about the country’s future can’t be made without them.
Question: As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said today, challenges and complicated situations in the world are not becoming fewer. One of them is the detention of Russian nationals by US security services in third countries. The first incident took place in Liberia involving Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko. The Russian Foreign Ministry contacted the US Department of State requesting that his health be monitored and asking for assistance with a visit by independent Russian doctors. Yaroshenko underwent surgery which took 40 minutes, and 20 minutes later he was thrown back in his cell without any medication, anaesthesia or painkillers. It appears that they don’t listen to us. What action is the Foreign Ministry going to take? Is there a chance the US will listen to us?
Maria Zakharova: Yes, there is a chance and they do listen to us. First, the situation with Yaroshenko and the unauthorised detentions and arrests of Russian nationals are closely monitored by the Foreign Ministry at all levels. Our embassy in Washington, D.C., is involved as well as our consulates across the US, the headquarters and personally Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who regularly discusses this issue with his US counterparts. We provide facts and evidence, express our concerns and understanding of what has to be done. I can assure you they hear us because Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov raised the issue of Yaroshenko’s health in his talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry. I remember how our American counterparts, members of Mr Kerry’s delegation reacted. They were not sure that Yaroshenko’s health required any surgery but we insisted and the American side took measures to arrange the surgery. This confirms that what we say is actually based on fact. He in fact needed the surgery. Later, we heard a statement by Yaroshenko’s attorney quoting his client’s request for additional medical help. We immediately responded to the request. We are constantly watching the situation and resolving any issues the best we can, and will continue to do so.
Of course, we would like to see a drastic change and make sure our nationals are not arrested in third countries. But if and when it happens the Foreign Ministry will keep abreast of any developments in the fate of Russian nationals.
I read social media as well as regular media and come across stories about ordinary people on vacation abroad who may need help. We look into every single case, I assure you. We do everything to make sure that the quality of our services is up to certain standards. If there are any complaints we deal with them and make improvements. I understand that our work is not always perfect but we really try to do our best.
Question: The Pentagon is reported to be looking for a pretext to redeploy a biggish contingent of forces to Iceland (where a major US naval base existed in the past). What does Russia think of this?
Maria Zakharova: We feel sorry for Iceland, of course. They should ask the local inhabitants – it’s a question for a national referendum. Your question is similar to that of your colleague’s: Why is this being done? Will Iceland feel safer? Is it threatened by anyone? Is anyone subverting its national interests? If something did subvert Iceland’s national interests, it was the EU sanctions against the Russian Federation and the West’s insistence that non-EU countries join those sanctions as well. This is what really subverts Iceland’s national interests and is inflicting direct damage to people who have cooperated with Russia.
Question: Iceland joined the European sanctions against Russia, but your country responded only a year and a half later, although legally Iceland is not an EU member. If Iceland stops signing papers from Brussels, will Russia lift its counter-sanctions against Iceland?
Maria Zakharova: Will Russia’s retaliatory measures be abandoned, if Iceland stops signing Brussels papers? They are called “retaliatory” precisely for this reason. The initiative to impose sanctions on both EU and non-EU countries that supported its policies was not ours. Honestly speaking, we even couldn’t have thought about that. It was a policy directed against our country and we had to respond to defend ourselves. The Russian leaders repeatedly said at all levels that this was not our choice and we were responding to our colleagues’ actions. As you understand, imposing retaliatory sanctions is the prerogative of the Russian leadership and Government. In this respect, we will certainly be guided by moves taken by some or other countries. It is the introducers of sanction policies who should revise them in the first place. After all, sufficient time has passed for them to understand that the sanctions are primarily a hindrance to citizens of European states, whether EU members or non-EU countries supportive of Brussels and its policies.
I saw a lot of relevant statistics and I don’t think that it is particularly supported, diffused or promoted by the leaders of those countries, as figures speak for themselves. Of course, it was like “shooting oneself in the foot.” I don’t know what their target was – possibly they were aiming at us – but eventually they only hit themselves.
Question: We’d like to know the Foreign Ministry’s official position on the start of the South Korean-US THAAD talks. Do you think its deployment will increase tensions in the region and encourage a new arms race?
Maria Zakharova: A relevant comment was published earlier today. If necessary, I’ll read it. We are concerned over reports about the US and South Korean decision to start official talks on the possible deployment in South Korea of US THAAD antimissile systems. This measure is presented as a response to the DPRK’s nuclear test on January 6 and its launch of a carrier rocket on February 7.
We note that Pyongyang’s chosen course in the missile and nuclear spheres and the disdain for international law demonstrated by it cannot but evoke resolute condemnation. We stated as much immediately after North Korea took relevant steps. This causes serious damage to the security of states in the region, primarily the DPRK itself.
We state at the same time that these events have been exploited by Washington to expand the deployment geography of its global antimissile defence system, this time by deploying its THAAD antimissile systems in the Republic of Korea.
The stationing of elements of the US global antimissile defence system in a region characterised by a difficult security situation can trigger off an arms race in Southeast Asia and add to complications to dealing with the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear problem. All of this again proves the correctness of the Russian position, which consists in the recognition that a sine qua non for the Korean settlement is creating in Southeast Asia a comprehensive system of peace, heeding the security interests of all states in the region.
In a broader sense, this step can only increase the US global antimissile defence system’s destructive influence on international security and strategic stability.
We hope that Washington and Seoul will carefully consider the possible consequences that these developments can lead to and draw the necessary conclusions.
This position has been communicated to the US and South Korean parties through diplomatic channels.
Question: South Korea announced today that its sanctions against North Korea would include the suspension of its operations at the jointly-run Kaesong industrial complex in North Korea and notified a number of countries about its decision, including Russia. Has Russia formulated its stance on the matter?
Maria Zakharova: I have no information about the suspension of operations at the Kaesong industrial complex.
Question: I’d like to congratulate you on your professional holiday, Diplomats Day, and wish you success on all fronts.
The other day, Еditor-in-Chief of the Ekho Moskvy radio station Alexei Venediktov made a statement that created ballyhoo in the media. Headlines mentioned a new, tough card that Russia allegedly plans to play in Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr Venediktov later added that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his Turkish colleagues should know that Russia is able to aggravate the Karabakh conflict when and if it deems necessary, disregarding the feelings of locals. This adds salt to the wounds of the Armenian and Azerbaijani people.
Maria Zakharova: What you’ve said sounds as if Mr Venediktov is trying to intimidate Azerbaijan. I hope I’m wrong. I don’t think he is capable of this. As of now, I can say that Russian journalists and experts express different opinions on many issues. It is their personal views that don’t reflect or can differ from the official opinion of the Russian authorities. We maintain close contacts with Baku, and our Azerbaijani colleagues can be assured of our cooperation. Concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, both Armenia and Azerbaijan should be confident of our cooperation. Don’t fall for provocations but rather listen to and hear what the Russian authorities say on the matter. Experts and journalists are free to think differently, but we’d like them to act proportionately to the measure of their popularity and responsibility.
Question: Will Saudi Arabia and Iran attend the meetings of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG)?
Maria Zakharova: We believe that the format of the group has been settled, and we have no information about any changes. You should address this question to these two states. I have no information about any changes to the group’s format.
Question: Was their involvement proposed from the beginning?
Maria Zakharova: The ISSG format includes those parties that attended the previous meetings. There were no plans for changing the format, either by expanding or by reducing the group. As for who will represent different countries, ask the countries in question. I have no information about any changes in the group’s format. However, we insisted that all players on whom the situation depends should be represented in the group.
Question: What does Russia expect from the upcoming meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry?
Maria Zakharova: I can tell you that we’ll certainly discuss current issues, considering that the meeting with Mr Kerry was planned and prepared and will likely be held before the ISSG meeting. Mr Lavrov and Mr Kerry will talk about Syria, of course, but I think that they will also discuss other current issues just as is usually done at meetings of these two officials. I can’t provide any details as the agenda for the meeting is being prepared now.
Question: Foreign Minister Lavrov has said in a recent interview with Moskovsky Komsomolets that Russia has information about contacts between ISIS, a terrorist group that has been prohibited in Russia, and Turkish authorities. They allegedly discuss forms of interaction and the delivery of smuggled goods after the traditional delivery routes are blocked. Will you provide this information to your Western partners? Will you raise this issue in Munich?
Maria Zakharova: I keep saying that we are ready not just to provide information but also coordinate our moves and exchange information with our Western colleagues in any form convenient for them. But the trouble is that, unfortunately, we don’t see any interest on their part. Yesterday I spoke in an interview with a Dutch journalist about the provision of information by our American colleagues, when we complain that they don’t share information with us but only make unsubstantiated accusations against us and don’t provide any information to us. We have been talking so long about this that something has changed at some level, and a Russian representative was shown a photograph and a drawing during a diplomatic meeting. But when the Russian diplomat said, “Good, we will analyse it,” the reply was: “Just look, don’t touch.” I think this is indicative. We are ready not just to share information but also to cooperate on all issues. We established the Information Centre in Baghdad immediately (after the launch of Russian air operations in Syria), and we also have a venue in Jordan, which have different formats and fit every taste. The ball is now in the court of our Western, including US, colleagues.
Question: Some time ago, you issued a protest over a body-search procedure for Russian military service personnel from the Joint Centre. It turned out that these service personnel collaborated with militants and assisted them in training Donbass militants. Yesterday, the Ukrainian Security Service released evidence to this effect. To what extent is this activity in sync with the purpose of inviting Russian military officers to cooperate?
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that the accusations and references to local self-defence forces and Donbass representatives as terrorists and militants, as well as the so-called antiterrorist operation, are not in keeping with reality. You see, this is logical within this system of coordinates. If official Kiev representatives call Donbass representatives terrorists then any person who shakes hands with a Donbass representative automatically becomes a terrorist accomplice. This is absolutely correct within this system.
I would like to say that other than official Kiev nobody else in the world (for all the differences that we used to have on the issue of a peace settlement in Ukraine with our British, US and many European colleagues) at any stage has referred to what is going on in southeast Ukraine as a counterterrorist operation. None of them have used this word. You will not see it used in any international document. What’s more, I have not even heard the Western media – and you know which side they have always played on – refer to Donbass terrorists. This is simply not the case. So you should not live in a reality that is not shared even by [your] close allies. There are no terrorists and there are no antiterrorist operations there. These are inventions and fabrications. There are people who have been brought to the point of despair and who, unfortunately, chose a way of upholding their rights in this way because they had no other option. So it is wrong to suggest that contact with them is tantamount to supporting militants. This logic is a dead-end with regard to the realisation and implementation of the Minsk agreements. According to Kiev, it is impossible to come to terms with terrorists or even sit down at the same table with them. Nobody in the world but Kiev describes them as terrorists. This is my answer to your question.
Question: Is there no problem with the fact that they receive decorations for participation in combat operations against the Ukrainian army?
Maria Zakharova: I’ve answered your question. The problem is that a counterterrorist operation has been declared against their own people, while there are no terrorists of any kind there. There are none, and not just because Russia says so. Let’s not talk about this now. To repeat, please give me a quote from any Western leader you trust who would talk about a counterterrorist operation, terrorists or terrorist activity in southeast Ukraine. There are no such quotes. There is not a word in any international documents to the effect that Kiev is fighting terrorists. If you follow this utopia and convince yourself that there are terrorists there, the issue is not even about Russia or Russian servicemen, who can be endlessly accused. The issue is that it will be impossible to find a way out of this quandary for the Ukrainian people.
Question: You mentioned that a ceasefire will be a central issue at the Munich meeting tomorrow. Is Russia willing to suspend the military operation to ensure a positive atmosphere for the resumption of talks, as the opposition insists?
Maria Zakharova: I believe that airstrikes by the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces [ADF] create a wonderful atmosphere for the fight against terrorism. It is difficult to think of a better example of a more effective and conducive atmosphere than the one that is being created by the ADF. I believe that an effective fight against terrorism in and of itself creates a very constructive atmosphere. The only question is that this counterterrorism atmosphere is a very big problem indeed for those who support terrorism. In this context, it is essential to understand exactly who they want to support – the opposition that really sees a possibility and prospect for a political settlement in its country to live together in peace or the opposition that adheres to terrorist principles and goals. The ADF are unlikely to create a positive atmosphere for the latter but for those who really want to cure Syria of terrorism, build a democratic state, hold free elections and advance democracy, the ADF are precisely what’s needed.
Question: Could you comment on the UN Human Rights Council report, in particular regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s regime. It mentions tens of thousands of people who were subjected to violence in prisons. What is Russia’s position on the idea of creating an international tribunal on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: I have not seen this data. I can only repeat that we have never idealised Syria’s political system. We have regularly criticised Damascus’ record, including on human rights and the observance of democratic principles, among other things. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has openly stated at talks and presentations that democratic reform in Syria is long overdue. From our perspective, democratic reform refers to the entire complex [of issues] – human rights, etc. All of this was long overdue. It came too late and provided fertile soil that provoked popular unrest. We have talked, and we continue to talk about this openly. There is no need trying to suggest that we are covering up something that was done wrong. This is not the case. I would really like your truly popular and influential publication to bring this point home to your readers in the region. We are not in the business of supporting the Syrian regime. We believe that the internal situation in Syria is the concern of the Syrian people themselves.
However, as long as the country is infected with terrorism – and there is no getting away from this fact – it is impossible to talk about any improvement in the humanitarian situation. There is an ongoing fight against terrorism there. We urge the entire world, first of all, to deal with the issue of terrorism, stop fuelling it, deliver joint strikes [against it] and decide who is a terrorist and who is the moderate opposition, and in the meantime promote an atmosphere conducive to talks between Damascus and the opposition to find ways towards a political settlement. We have also identified the goal of this political settlement – the way everyone wants Syria to be. The word “democratic” takes centre stage – with the plurality of opinions, freedom of choice, etc. To reiterate, does the fact that the issue of terrorism has not been resolved and that there is constant support for terrorist groups from the outside benefit the Syrian people? Definitely not.
As for tribunals, I would not like to speculate on this issue either. There are relevant international mechanisms and procedures. At this point, I have no factual material to respond to this question.
Question: I congratulate you on Diplomats Day. Under these difficult circumstances, you work actively and efficiently.
Could you comment on the fact that in the late 1990s-early 2000s, CIS citizens from Central Asia, including Tajikistan, were invited to come to Russia on a large scale, but in 2015, over 350,000 people for unknown reasons were put on a “blacklist”, banned from entering the Russian Federation? What is the Foreign Ministry’s position on the issue? This is not the time to address the issue – after all, foreign citizens are involved.
Maria Zakharova: Thank you for your congratulations and wonderful words.
I understand that this is a migration issue. We have a migration policy that you know about very well. It is open and we discuss it with our colleagues, including in Tajikistan. If citizens of a particular country are banned from entering Russia, are deported or “blacklisted”, apparently meaning denied visas, this is based on a corresponding decision of law enforcement agencies in connection with the violation of Russian law by foreign citizens. In this case, a person may be denied a visa on absolutely legitimate grounds.
If you have evidence suggesting that a visa or permission to enter Russia was denied on grounds other than the violation of Russian law you are welcome to submit this evidence and we’ll look into it and get back to you.
Question: The Republic of Tajikistan and Russia have visa-free travel.
Maria Zakharova: I was talking in general, referring to the entrance permit. What black lists are you talking about?
Question: Black lists for minor offenses.
Maria Zakharova: Are these people barred from entering Russia? They must have committed some offense. If you doubt that people are denied entrance for violating Russian law rather than other reasons, please tell us about specific cases and we will provide feedback. The rules on this issue are the same for all.
Question: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey have announced the possibility of sending 150,000 troops into Syria – ostensibly to fight ISIS. Can you please comment on this? Also, how would Russian forces react to this?
Maria Zakharova: The question is whether the Western coalition has any strategy on the events in Syria. Does this strategy exist or not? We have seen continuous changes in the approach to a Syrian settlement in the past four years or more. Every year, or even more often – every half a year – statements are made about some new plans. Meanwhile, these are the responsible countries – those who make these statements claim global leadership. There should be some strategy, some understanding of one’s own actions.
As for the introduction of ground troops, first, it is inappropriate to forget that the matter deals with a sovereign state. If everyone is so sensitive and scrupulous about sovereignty in some countries, it would be fair to apply the same basic principles to Syrian sovereignty. Therefore, in our understanding, which conforms to universally recognized norms, the introduction of troops should be coordinated with the country in question, no matter what good intentions might justify it.
The second point is strategy. Strategy implies a goal. What is this being done for? To counter terrorism? In this case the coalition should announce that it has a new stage in fighting terrorism. Meanwhile, these statements are being made by individual countries rather than on behalf of the coalition. This suggests the following questions: are the independent activities of each country taken singly? Is this the end of the coalition? Is this being done in parallel with the actions of the coalition? How could this take place? If the coalition exists, it should act in a concerted effort. If it doesn’t, it should say, “We are no longer a coalition.” By the way, two months ago there was an attempt to create one more, parallel coalition. What’s this? It would be good to explain this.
Now the next point – the coordination issue. We haven’t heard statements by all the members of the coalition, and, even more important, we don’t know the position of the coalition. Is this a joint operation or operations by individual countries? All this looks like hysterical, chaotic movements that do not pursue any goal except one – to do something but without a clear idea what exactly.
As for your second question, let’s wait for the formulated position of those who call themselves a coalition. Probably, they will somehow develop this idea and tell us on what they have agreed or what individual members of the coalition want to achieve. It’s a complete mess at this point. It is important to consider the domestic political goals that these or other countries pursue in their policy of “statements”. We have often said that for many countries (the United States is a good example of this), international activities are aimed at gaining various domestic political objectives.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
