The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 17, 2016

17 March 201620:29
496-17-03-2016

Working visit of German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Frank-Walter Steinmeier
Forthcoming talks of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry
Russian and Swiss foreign ministers exchange messages of greetings
Mediated inter-Syrian talks in Geneva
Inapplicable comparison of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ operations in Syria to Soviet Armed Forces’ operations in Afghanistan
Czech Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek’s statements
Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski’s statements
Escalation of violence in southeastern Turkey
Disappearance of lawyer Yury Grabovsky in Ukraine
The publication of materials from the meetings of representatives of Russian and Ukrainian journalists’ organisations titled Two Countries - One Profession, prepared by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
The situation around the Russian sailor from the ship Bourbon Liberty 251
Investigation into the death of Mikhail Lesin in the US
Threats to restrict RTR-Planeta broadcasting in Latvia
Journalist Graham Phillips detained in Riga
US bill on countering Russian “propaganda and disinformation”
US District Court for the Southern District of New York accuses Iran of 9/11 terrorist attacks
Replies by Foreign Ministry spokesperson:

Working visit of German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Frank-Walter Steinmeier

German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Frank-Walter Steinmeier will pay a working visit to Moscow on March 23.

He is expected to hold talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss topical issues of Russian-German relations. In this context they plan to focus on the preparations and holding of the Russian-German cross year of youth exchanges under the patronage of the Russian and German foreign ministers.

The ministers will continue exchanging opinions on key international issues, including the progress in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements on settling the Ukrainian crisis, the developments in Syria, issues of European security, struggle against international terrorism, and the OSCE agenda in the context of the German OSCE Chairmanship in 2016.

Forthcoming talks of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry

As you know, the media published the first comments on the forthcoming visit to Moscow by US Secretary of State John Kerry. The dates of the visit are still being discussed and we’ll inform you on specific agreed-upon dates later on.

I can confirm that we are planning to welcome Mr Kerry in Moscow next week. His visit will take place at US initiative.

He is expected to hold talks with Mr Lavrov to discuss settlement in Syria, developments in the Middle East and North Africa and topical bilateral issues.

Russian and Swiss foreign ministers exchange messages of greetings

On March 18, it will be 70 years since the restoration of our diplomatic relations with the Swiss Confederation.

In this context the foreign ministers of the two countries are supposed to exchange messages of greetings.

In his message Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasised that Russian-Swiss relations are demonstrating immunity to changes in the political environment and stand out for meaningful political, parliamentary and interdepartmental contacts, active joint actions in the world arena and steady deepening of cooperation in most diverse areas.

Running a bit ahead, I’ll tell you that a working visit to Moscow by Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter (Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation) is expected to take place tentatively in the middle of April. Additional information coordinated with Swiss colleagues will be presented later on.

Mediated inter-Syrian talks in Geneva

Mediated, indirect inter-Syrian talks were resumed under the UN aegis in Geneva on March 14. Efforts to facilitate the political process in Syria and achieving settlement based on the mutual accord of the Syrian parties on the country’s future arrangement are among priorities of Russia’s foreign policy.

Russia’s efforts – be it in the format of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) or the conduct of a counterterrorist operation by the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria in full conformity with the universally recogniszed norms of international law and legality – are aimed at creating favourable conditions for ensuring comprehensive peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis and, naturally, final eradication of the hotbed of terrorism on Syrian land.

During contacts we are urging our international and regional partners to do their utmost to promote success of the Geneva negotiations. As we’ve already said, it may happen that there will be no other chance to achieve peace and stability in Syria in the foreseeable future. Everyone should realise that those who will try to question or derail peace talks that are being resumed in Geneva, have opted for continued violence in Syria.

I’d like to note that the Government delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic is already working in Geneva. Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, held a meeting with it on March 15. Representatives of several groups of the Syrian opposition, both émigré and from Syria per se, have arrived and continue to arrive in Geneva. It is very important to have complete representation of the Syrian opposition at the talks, including the Kurds that have been in the forefront of anti-terrorist struggle.

We have invariably emphasised the need for clear-cut implementation of the principles of inter-Syrian dialogue that are registered in the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012, the ISSG documents and UN Security Council Resolution 2254. No separate isolated group should be singled out from a broad range of the Syrian opposition and allowed to position itself or be presented as the only equitable partner of official Damascus at the negotiations. It would be inappropriate to ignore the fact that the opinions of the members of the Syrian opposition are hugely dispersed. On the one hand, this may create difficulties at the talks, but on the other hand, this may stabilise the negotiating process and eventually reflect in the adopted decisions the multi-religious and multi-ethnic character of Syrian society that unites all Syrians without exception.

Inapplicable comparison of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ operations in Syria to Soviet Armed Forces’ operations in Afghanistan

President Vladimir Putin spoke in detail today about the results of the Aerospace Forces’ operations in Syria and their future tasks. I believe many of you have seen the live broadcast or read the text of the President’s address. In this context I’d like to once again draw your attention to his speech and the Aerospace Forces’ new mission, about which the President spoke in detail.

Also, I’d like to call out those who tried to convince others, and most likely themselves several months ago, when the Aerospace Forces began their operations in Syria, that it would be a new Afghanistan for Russia. The possibility was raised by some Western politicians and, unfortunately, by many Western, regional and even Russian journalists. They provided seemingly convincing and reliable arguments when comparing the Russian Aerospace Forces’ operations in Syria to Soviet Armed Forces’ operations in Afghanistan. Of course, this information campaign – and I have no doubts whatsoever that this is what it was – was largely boosted by Western politicians and even national leaders and heads of international organisations.

I’d like to remind you about that campaign’s protagonists. The first to make this comparison in October 2015 was Federica Mogherini, the EU High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. She said Russia “risks being trapped in a sort of Afghanistan scenario in Syria.” Several days later, US President Barack Obama warned that “with Afghanistan fresh in [their] memory” Russia risked getting “bogged down in a … civil conflict” in Syria. High-ranking Turkish officials took up the story, including Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who echoed his colleagues, though quite a bit later as is often the case with him, saying that Russia will withdraw in defeat from Syria like it did in Afghanistan.

I have spent much time thinking what could encourage this comparison. It’s obvious that they wanted to hurt us, because Afghanistan is a very painful issue for our people. But now I think I know why our Western colleagues used this comparison. One of the possible reasons is that back then in Afghanistan and currently in the Middle East the Western intelligence services actively supported, including financially, and were actually the first to start financing Islamic radicals, in this case the forerunners of ISIS. This is probably why our Western colleagues are drawing these parallels. In light of the recent statements by Russian leaders, the issue is not that Russia can or cannot get bogged down in Syria but that the West collectively can be dragged into a quagmire in the Middle East just as the United States was in Vietnam.

Now that Russia’s Aerospace Forces have shown the world what their goals in Syria really are and, most importantly, that they can act effectively to achieve them, we should look at all of the above statements in a different light, recognising their true worth. And they are not worth much.

As I said, Russia has clearly outlined its goals it Syria. Our operations there were absolutely transparent, thanks to our colleagues at the Defence Ministry. Therefore, all of the aforementioned comparisons and parallels are absolutely groundless and inappropriate. I’d like to ask you to consider what you hear and read in the Western media more carefully.

The first reaction of the international community, and I am referring to serious deep-thinking people, to President Putin’s statement leaves no ground whatsoever for comparing the operations in Syria to Afghanistan. I won’t draw from the statements made by politicians, but here is what the Western media wrote on the matter. The US online resource Foreign Policy has written the following: “Putin’s surprise announcement Monday that “the main part of our military groups will begin their withdrawal” from Syria could offer a rare reason for optimism that there could be a diplomatic solution to the country’s unrelenting carnage.” The President of the UN Security Council, Ismael Gaspar Martins, has said the pull-out means that the “war is taking a different step,” offering an opportunity for negotiations. US analytical centre Stratfor, which has never shown love for Russia, has pointed out that Russia’s military success in Syria has weakened ISIS and consequently reduced the terrorist threat.

Marcus Papadopoulos, Publisher/Editor of Politics First magazine, twitted the following several days ago: “The #Russian military campaign in #Syria has devastated the terrorists there,” and “Thank you, #Russia, for having brought about a turning-point in the fight against terrorism in #Syria.”

Czech Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek’s statements

Regrettably, today I’ll have to talk about some inaccurate statements. In particular, we’ve taken note of Czech Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek’s statements, who said in an interview with a Czech newspaper that Russia sent Europe a number of refugees via various northern routes. He said there was proof that “our Slavic brethren helped us by sending us as many refugees as possible.”

At the previous briefing, I cited figures that served as a base for global organisations and agencies that are dealing with refugees and that publish or share their views on migration flows. I hope that the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic has access to the Internet so it can study the statistics on the origin and the number of refugees arriving in Europe.

I’d like to ask my colleagues to refer to this statistical data in the reports and interviews they provide to their chiefs to avoid such obviously absurd statements.

The reasons for the migration crisis in Europe (let’s repeat it for the 20^th time) are commonly known. First, these are the irresponsible efforts of our Western partners to “democratise” a number of Middle Eastern states in their own way and at their own discretion. This has turned into chaos of statehood which has in turn triggered an unprecedented surge in terrorism and violence, and resulted in desperate problems and suffering for the average person. Probably the absence of facts and statistical data is behind these endless accusations against Russia. Actual statistics will reduce these baseless accusations to nothing.

Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski’s statements

Unfortunately, it was not just our colleague from the Czech Republic that has given less than accurate statements. We’ve taken note of Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski’s statements that “the Tu-154 crash near Smolensk in 2010 could be the result of a conspiracy.” He elaborated this idea, but I won’t quote it, you can find it yourselves.

I’d like to point out that any parallels can be drawn: one can compare the operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria to the invasion of Afghanistan or accuse Russia of migration from the Middle East to Europe, or state that a plane crash is the result of a conspiracy. But, nevertheless, facts and analytical research do exist. It would be desirable that one first gets familiar with these materials and then makes reasonable statements with the facts in mind.

Escalation of violence in southeastern Turkey

Despite the assertions of this state’s authorities on the successful completion of the “counter-terrorist operation” in several districts of southeastern Turkey, the level of violence, unfortunately, has not subsided there. Many new districts in the Kurdish-populated provinces of Bingöl, Mardin, Tunceli and Sirnak have been declared closed security zones, and this means curfews and the ensuing restrictions for local residents.

Human rights organisations and media outlets are reporting the death of civilians as a result of Turkish air strikes and mass human rights violations during special military operations. According to representatives of the People’s Democratic Party, 150 civilians have been killed in the long-suffering city of Cizre (Sirnak Province) alone as a result of hostilities that were launched in December 2015. In all, about 500 people have been killed in this province during clashes.

According to some estimates, the number of displaced people who have been forced to flee from southeastern Turkey to other regions of the country could reach one million.

We are once again calling on Ankara to create conditions that will end the violence and resume the peaceful settlement of the Kurdish issue. We believe that the resolution lies solely within the political framework.

Disappearance of lawyer Yury Grabovsky in Ukraine

We are receiving alarming reports from Kiev about the possible disappearance of Ukrainian lawyer Yury Grabovsky. As you know, he defended the interests of Russian citizen Alexander Aleksandrov who was being prosecuted for alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

The situation seems all the more suspicious because it is unfolding against the backdrop of threats to physically assault and prosecute another Ukrainian lawyer, Oksana Sokolovskaya, who is representing another Russian citizen, Yevgeny Yerofeyev, who is facing charges in the same case with Aleksandrov. On March 15, Sokolovskaya was forced to ask the panel of judges of a Kiev district court to provide her with personal body guards.

This strange coincidence regarding the lawyers of Russian citizens may be an indication that the authorities in Kiev fear that charges against the defendants may be unfounded, that the defendant’s innocence will be proved during a trial, and that not a single weighty argument will be left to back the prosecution’s case.

Until now, we have witnessed the harassment and persecution of Russian journalists and media representatives in Ukraine. Unfortunately, this seems to be continuing not only with media outlets but also with Ukrainian lawyers. One gets the impression that Kiev has begun to go after lawyers who are not afraid to defend the interests of Russian citizens in court, more seriously.

We expect that this situation which can probably be described by an undiplomatic term, “lawlessness,” which seems apt and certainly appropriate in this context, will be duly assessed by Ukraine’s Western sponsors and friends of the incumbent Ukrainian government which is doing its best to honour the standards of democracy and to protect human rights.

The publication of materials from the meetings of representatives of Russian and Ukrainian journalists’

organisations titled Two Countries - One Profession, prepared by the Office of the OSCE

Representative on Freedom of the Media

We are familiar with this document. We are grateful to Ms Dunja Mijatovic for her attention and, most importantly, for her efforts in establishing greater mutual understanding and constructive dialogue between the two countries professional journalists unions, as well as for her willingness to improve the professional standards and ethics of journalism and enhance the safety of journalists in the context of crisis in Ukraine.

We support the joint denunciation by the journalists' organisations of cases of violence against the media and the calls to investigate the deaths of journalists. We are also pleased by the fact that their position is in line with the numerous statements made particularly by the Russian side regarding the unacceptability of obstructing the work of professional journalists.

We find it especially important that the forum is expanding and involving in its seminars and discussions representatives of the younger generation - students and recent graduates of journalism departments in both countries, and welcome their attempts to produce joint reports and documentaries on current issues that concern not only the Russian and Ukrainian public but also the international community at large.

However, we believe that these consistent efforts by the OSCE specialised agency could be more productive if it included media representatives from eastern Ukraine – Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. The problem in this case and in the Ukrainian crisis in general lies in the fact that one part of the Ukrainian society simply does not hear and is refusing to hear the other part of the Ukrainian society. Therefore, an internal Ukrainian dialogue, and in this particular case a dialogue between media professionals of all regions, is crucial for the consolidation of the Ukrainian society.
We call on the Representative Office on Freedom of the Media to fully use its authorities and coordinate its actions with the OSCE field presences in Ukraine, involving journalists, in particular from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, in its media projects. They should not be shying away from this.

The situation around the Russian sailor from the ship Bourbon Liberty 251

We continue to closely monitor the situation with the Russian national Ivan Rudny, who along with other crew members of the French vessel Bourbon Liberty 251 was captured by pirates in the territorial waters of Nigeria in late February.

The Russian Embassy in Abuja is in constant contact with the Nigerian authorities and representatives of the ship owner. According to the information we have, the health condition of the Russian citizen is satisfactory.

We will keep you informed as more information becomes available.

Investigation into the death of Mikhail Lesin in the US

We continue to insist that the US provide complete information on the circumstances of former Minister of Press, Broadcasting and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Mikhail Lesin’s death in Washington, D.C. on November 5, 2015. Several days ago, the Russian Embassy in the United States passed Prosecutor General Yury Chaika’s letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch with an official request to issue investigation records under the 1999 Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

The Russian Embassy in Washington is in contact with the US Department of State, the investigative agencies and the local police. The American side says that the investigation is not yet over. They are pursuing several versions of the death. The results of several tests are expected, which may allow investigators to reach certain conclusions.

I’d like to stress in particular what I just said because a number of spokespersons for the US diplomatic service based both in Washington and in Moscow have claimed that all the data had been delivered to the Russian side. This is not so, as confirmed by other US representatives, who say that the investigation is not yet over. We are in contact with them and continue to request this information. It is not infrequent that our American colleagues are not always well informed as to what their other (American) colleagues are doing. Therefore, in this particular case we of course would appreciate the information to be consolidated and consistent.

As for the controversial reports (if you follow this subject) about the cancellation of Mikhail Lesin’s visa a month after his demise, the US authorities (we also checked on this) have confirmed that this is a standard immigration document handling procedure related to foreign nationals who die during a short-term stay in the United States. There is nothing sensational about it.

Threats to restrict RTR-Planeta broadcasting in Latvia

A separate section will be dedicated to the freedom of expression and media protection.

We have noted a statement by Ms Aija Duļevska, Chairperson of the Latvian Regulator – the National Electronic Media Council, who allowed for the possibility that a decision could be approved to ban a Russian TV channel, RTR-Planeta, from broadcasting in Latvia. The reason is allegedly “serious violations” on the air, which, frankly speaking, no one has noticed aside from Latvia’s authorities.

In this connection, we’d like to warn the Latvian regulator against hasty actions in this area. Against the background of constant speculation, including in EU countries, about their commitment to civil rights, this step could be viewed as nothing less than another instance of disregard for human rights and freedom of expression. The latter seems to be recognised and proclaimed solely in word. We simply need to understand whether or not Latvia is renouncing its declarations, concepts and the global approach to the unacceptability of intolerance towards different views and political analysis. We can take this decision, but it should be justified and honestly admitted. If Latvia doesn’t renounce this approach, we’d be interested to know how the international and professional communities regard these measures, if the Latvian Government does take this step after all.

We’d like to remind you that the leading international specialised human rights organisations have repeatedly condemned these banning practices and called for media pluralism and free access to various information sources.

Regrettably, clamping down on the rights of precisely the Russian mass media and their representatives and the journalists specifically has become a Latvian trademark. Very often, the officials, obviously feeling that they are unable to dominate the official point of view by other means – the only point of view allowed in that country for upholding its views in the media – start squeezing the dissent out physically.

We would like to believe that the Latvian “monopoly on the truth” will at last be assessed by the related international organisations, primarily the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

We will not ignore this subject, nor other similar facts related to the infringement of Russian media rights. I can guarantee this. People must understand that they won’t get away with it: all cases of this sort will be presented from this rostrum and submitted to the relevant international organisations. And the more such cases arise, the stronger the Russian arguments will be.

Journalist Graham Phillips detained in Riga

The journalist Graham Phillips was detained in Riga yesterday. He worked some time ago for several Russian television channels, particularly Russia Today and Zvezda.

He was detained while covering an important social event - a procession of Waffen SS veterans in Riga. Phillips had all the necessary press badges and identity papers on him. The officers did not offer any explanations for his detention as they delivered him to the police station, where he was charged with breach of the peace and disregard of police orders. Phillips was deported after authorities charged him with an administrative offence, which prohibits him from entering Latvia for three years.

In light of the specifics of the difficult situation, when this journalist was forced to do interviews in such unfavourable conditions, we doubt that the police behaved appropriately.

When [foreign] journalists work in Russia without visas or accreditation in violation of the host country’s law, and Russian authorities take the necessary steps to force them into compliance with the law, such measures are qualified as intolerance and encroachment on freedom of the media. And indeed the act regulating foreign correspondents’ work in Russia has not been amended for 20 years, and everyone knows it.

Many arguments are provided to us to protect journalists. However, our argument, that no one objects to journalists’ working in Russia as long as they obtain visas and accreditations, is shrugged off. Latvia has introduced its own special rules for journalists working in the country, and a move like this cannot even be qualified as being political. Where are all the neighbouring countries, international agencies and great powers and why are they blind to this? Why do they encourage Latvia’s attitude toward the media by showing their tolerance for such behaviour?

The Phillips controversy creates the impression that the journalist was singled out of a group of his colleagues on purpose and the steps taken against him pursued a certain goal.

I reiterate that the current developments in Latvia are not surprising. They are links of the same chain. We hope that statements by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media will also reflect this outrage.

US bill on countering Russian “propaganda and disinformation”

We have taken note of the introduction of the Countering Information Warfare Act in the US Senate. As far as we can tell from the text, the goal of this bill is to counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations in light of the growing concern in the United States and many European capitals about Russia’s allegedly distorted portrayal of its actions in Ukraine and along the peripheries of the European Union and NATO.

If Russia’s portrayal is distorted, then there must be both a correct portrayal and an “approved” presentation of the situation in Ukraine, and a portrayal that doesn’t correspond to or that differs from the approved presentation. But what is the yardstick? Who has set the rules for a “correct” understanding and assessment of the situation in Ukraine? I’d like US authorities – the Senate, the Senators who submitted this bill, or the US State Department – to make public the “correct” portrayal of the situation in Ukraine, so that we know that you publish the correct portrayal and the journalists use it to write their stories. All this is taking place in a highly specific situation where focused sanctions lists are approved against Russian journalists and news agencies, and where they are denied entry into and are deported from the countries concerned.

We have talked about this more than once. But I’d like to say again that all of this is part of a big information campaign. It is not the only case where public opinion is misled and where restrictions are adopted for the operation of Russian media outlets abroad.

It was with the same purpose that NATO set up the Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. The provisions are very similar. I know that it may sound incredible, but I’d like to remind you that this centre is based in Latvia. The circle is narrowing. I just talked about the Latvian policy on the media.

I’d like to add that it’s strange that a bill that infringes on the freedom of the media was prepared in the United States, which holds dear – this is really so – the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which says that “Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

I’d like to remind US lawmakers that freedom of the press cannot be divided into categories, that it is an integral notion that must be applied to all irrespective of geographic borders, political considerations or the situation in any part of the world. I just quoted a precept that is inviolable to you.

Also, I’d like to say that this looks incongruous considering that it has been the United States that has routinely protested a document that Russia has introduced at each UN General Assembly in the past few years. Fortunately, the assembly approves it every time; the United States has failed to prevent its being adopted. I’m referring to the UN General Assembly resolution on combatting the glorification of Nazism, which was an undeniable truth in the 20th century. I’d like to remind you that the United States protested this resolution because its experts believe that it “fails (…) to distinguish between offensive expression (…) and actions,” and because they do not consider “curtailing expression to be an appropriate or effective means of combating racism.”

What I mean is that in the 20th century the international community unequivocally identified Nazism, fascism and related ideologies as unacceptable. But the United States says it cannot support this resolution because it allegedly limits freedom of expression. At the same time, decisions are adopted and bills are introduced in the United States that not only limit freedom of expression but actually spell the death of a large group of Russian journalists and media outlets. This is preposterous.

US District Court for the Southern District of New York accuses Iran of 9/11 terrorist attacks

I must remark on the perplexing workings of the US justice system, in particular, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York’s accusations against Iran of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. You may have heard of this Federal Court ruling, according to which the Government of Iran must pay $10.5 billion in damages to the families of 9/11 victims and to insurance companies.

It is not entirely clear what Iran has done wrong. Is it guilty because it has not been able to prove that it wasn’t involved in abetting terrorists? I wonder what the United States has been doing in Afghanistan for the past 15 years if Iran is responsible for everything. Like it or not, it makes you wonder. The United States invaded Afghanistan following a UNSC decision. After the terrorist attacks, the Americans widely condemned Al-Qaeda, and the UNSC issued a mandate for the United States to conduct a military campaign in Afghanistan. In turn, Russia has for many years requested and proposed to the United States that it should report to the UNSC on its operation in Afghanistan in line with the UNSC decision. But this did not happen.

Now that Iran is held responsible for everything, a question arises: maybe the United States hasn’t reported to the UNSC on its operation in Afghanistan because it realised it should never have started the operation. This is completely absurd. It is possible, of course, that the United States confused Iran with Afghanistan. But the main question remains: was the New York court unaware of the UNSC decision, or did the US invade the wrong country 15 years ago?

Replies by Foreign Ministry spokesperson:

Question: In connection with the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow, I would like to ask whether frequent telephone conversations and personal contacts with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov can lead to a turn in Russian-US relations. Can both sides overcome the crisis in their relations?

Maria Zakharova: I wouldn’t characterise the Russian-US dialogue so simply. As far as Russia is concerned, the number of contacts, including those with US Secretary of State John Kerry, does not influence the Russian-US dialogue. We are open to complete cooperation. I wouldn’t assume that we’re waiting for a certain number of meetings or telephone conversations, and then Russia’s position will drastically change in some respect. The Russian stance is clear: we are ready to cooperate with the United States on all issues on the bilateral and international agendas, on a scale of interest to both countries and as many times as global issues demand.

We did not unilaterally curtail cooperation with the United States, and we did not close any current or previous formats of dialogue. We continue to work with them as before. Of course, the US has obviously modified its stance on Russian-US dialogue recently, but this issue should be addressed to them, rather than us. We have never presented the US with pre-conditions or any other terms at international organisations, in bilateral or any other possible formats. We believe this to be unproductive, and that it doesn’t meet global interests. Russia continues the dialogue, and we are ready to expand it still further. This question should be asked in the US.

Of course, the attainment of compromises and solutions depends on the number of meetings, telephone calls and other contacts. This is what diplomacy is for. I repeat, we don’t need any specific number of meetings or telephone calls for a full dialogue with the United States. We are expanding our relations, and we are ready to discuss the issues on today’s agenda.

Question: On the inter-Syrian peace settlement, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted once again the other day that the Syrian Kurds should take part in this process no matter what. This is not happening. Yesterday, the Kurdish Supreme Committee announced the creation of an autonomous region in northern Syria. As you know, Turkey vehemently opposes the Kurdish decision to declare autonomy. What is the Foreign Ministry’s stance on this issue?

Maria Zakharova: Mikhail Bogdanov, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister, addressed this issue in great detail today. We believe that the current and future administrative system in Syria is a domestic Syrian issue which should certainly be addressed during work on the Syrian constitution, between representatives of official Damascus during contacts with representatives of the opposition at the negotiating table. Of course, if expert assessments or the assistance of the international community in providing consultative services on this issue are required, then we are ready and open to this. But, first of all, this issue should be addressed by the Syrians themselves and done so as stated above.

In any event, we have proceeded and continue to proceed from the assumption that the future of Syria is as an integral state with equal opportunities for everyone, including representatives of various religions, denominations and ethnic groups. We see Syria’s future as a secular and democratic state. But it is up to the Syrians themselves to determine its specific outlines.

I think it’s correct to say that it is necessary to include the Kurds in the dialogue, to the talks that have now begun in Geneva, to future talks and to other possible formats of cooperation and dialogue between Damascus and the opposition. It should be noted that this is a considerable part of the population who have their own voice and who are fighting for their future against terrorism and ISIS with weapons in hand. We believe that involving the Kurds in the talks is necessary and mandatory. We regularly inform our partners and colleagues of this stance.

Question: When Russia launched its military operation in Syria, certain circles in the West expressed displeasure. Currently, Russia is withdrawing its forces from Syria. And again we hear displeased comments. Certain “experts” are looking for reasons behind some or other Russian steps and comparing the operation in Syria to the USSR’s Afghan campaign. Do you have the impression that too few people are concerned with combating terrorism in the region?

Maria Zakharova: We’ve had this impression for years. And this is one of the reasons why the Russian Federation began acting the way it did several months ago. We saw that the Syrian tragedy was being transformed into a global intrigue and that Syria became hostage to that intrigue. The major players are pursuing their own interests, while Syria is growing weaker with each passing day. This is the background for the growing problem of international terrorism. We said so at the biggest forums. A case in point was Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address at the Munich Security Conference a year ago. This year, everyone was speaking about this. But the previous year, he was practically the only one who broached this subject, urging the international community, instead of tackling putative threats or looking for threats where there were none, to start analysing the situation emerging in the Middle East and North Africa, which would threaten everyone, including the Europeans. Our analysis indicated that the political intrigue made everyone forget the growth of extremism and terrorism, and refrain from controlling it. It was clear that all of this would lead to a horrible finale, and so a decision was approved to commit Russia’s Aerospace Forces to Syria.

Question: What, in your opinion, is it that explains the easy and rapid concessions to Turkey made by the European leaders each time the country wants to whet its growing appetite under the guise of helping to deal with the refugee problem? Turkey has been trying to join the EU since 1963, but without success. President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades declared yesterday that he would oppose Turkey’s accession to the EU in Brussels today. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, if I am not mistaken, said the same thing earlier today. What explains Europe’s submission to Turkey rather than vice versa?

Maria Zakharova: I don’t want to comment on the cooperation and dialogue between the EU and Turkey, because that is the business of both sides’ official representatives. I can only share unofficial assessments. The reason is likely to be the fact that the EU lacks a clear policy of its own that would meet precisely European interests. We can see this, for example, as we analyse the Ukraine situation, where the EU had neither a policy nor a vote of its own for quite a long time. Its subsequent steps were directed against its interests and led to huge political and economic losses.

If we look at the situation in the Middle East, not just in Syria, we’ll see the same thing, with the EU following in the wake of someone else’s ideas, which eventually brought about new losses. Possibly one of the reasons is that over the years the EU has lost its identity in international affairs and pursues a policy not of its own making.

I don’t know any other group of countries that would primarily harm themselves as they follow a foreign policy line. We can see this in the European Union, and our view is shared by others. We have direct contacts with representatives of EU countries. Some of them are beginning to say in public that this policy is erroneous in a number of respects and contradicts the EU’s interests. Many countries that are unable to defend their position in public say so behind the scenes. There are a lot of those who claim that they are sick and tired of sanctions and sanction pressure but can do nothing because they have to toe the European foreign policy line. They’ve confided that decisions are often approved on their behalf; no one asks their opinion, and they learn about the decision shortly before or during the voting. Occasionally they are not even informed. And that’s to say nothing of how some or other decisions tally with the majority views. Populations are not asked about anything at all, but now they have stopped consulting even with the political establishments. Decisions are adopted by certain very narrow groups in European countries and by the Brussels bureaucracy, while no one cares about citizens’ opinions. Possibly this is one of the reasons. But again this question would better be addressed to the EU.

Question: Contacts between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir point to a growing rapprochement on the Syrian crisis. Are there grounds for compromise in the interpretation of the Syrian issue? Can you confirm that King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia will visit Russia next month, considering that Saudi Arabia still insists on the immediate resignation of Bashar al-Assad?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding statements by Saudi Arabia and other countries and political forces on the immediate departure of Bashar al-Assad, comments which have been made for the past few years, although the word “immediate” should not be used in this case at all, all these statements not just come into conflict with internal legislation but are also outside the law in general. There is the UN Charter, which clearly prohibits interference in other countries’ internal affairs. There are also many other documents and provisions of international law according to which these statements fall outside the boundaries of law.

The Russian position on whether Bashar al-Assad must or must not step down is well known. It is based on the aforementioned principle of international law and on our understanding of regional realities. We’ve seen the so-called immediate departures or rather liquidation of the heads of Iraq and Libya and similar attempts in other countries, some of which succeeded while others, fortunately, did not, and we’ve seen the consequences of these policies. So, there is not just a legal but also a practical element in these situations. Not a single country in the region has benefited from a change of government. One can keep talking about an “immediate departure” but there is the law and there is what occurs in practice, and both show that such scenarios are not just inappropriate but, in this case, absolutely insane.

If the European Union is really concerned about migration, and if countries and nations want the ISSG members to do everything in their power to stem the exodus of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, they should understand the possible consequences of President al-Assad’s “immediate departure”. Maybe they should ask their political analysts and experts to prepare detailed forecasts – we talked today about the US intelligence services’ assessment of possible developments in Syria under this scenario – of what would happen after al-Assad’s “immediate departure”, in particular, how many people would migrate to EU countries, to which countries they would move, what would happen in the region, and what would happen to the political process which has taken such colossal efforts to launch.

As for the visits of the heads of state to Russia, this is the competence of the Presidential Executive Office and President Putin, who should comment on these issues and who regularly do so.

Question: It is said that Saudi Arabia has allegedly started to speak highly about Russia’s policy in Syria.

Maria Zakharova: Maybe they’ve just run out of bad things to say?

Question: We recently visited two Russian border-crossing points, Gukovo and Donetsk. However, we were left with a strange impression, to put it mildly. Some people complain that weapons and mercenaries are going across sections of the Russia-Ukraine border, 350-400 km long, that are not under the control of Ukrainian border guards. The OSCE has no authority to control this border, as the observer mission’s mandate only applies to two points, i.e., a stretch 2-3 km long. The mandate expires on April 30. Will it be prolonged? Will it be extended to the entire 400 km?

Maria Zakharova: OSCE observers have been deployed at Gukovo and Donetsk since late July 2014. Their mandate was approved by the OSCE Permanent Council in keeping with the Berlin declaration of the Russian, German, French and Ukrainian foreign ministers of July 2, 2014. The declaration does not provide for an extension of the monitoring zone you asked about.

It may be recalled that our invitation to allow OSCE observers on our territory was an act of Russia’s goodwill. We accepted them even without waiting for the main condition of the Berlin declaration to be met, i.e., a mutually coordinated ceasefire to come into effect. In spite of this, we took this step.

The monitors’ mandate is extended every three months. In addition to OSCE monitors, there are also Ukrainian border guards at Gukovo and Donetsk. During the 20 months of their presence, OSCE monitors have not recorded any movement of Russian service personnel or military equipment across the border. As you know, on the Ukrainian side, OSCE special monitoring group patrols regularly go to the border area and they have not reported anything of the kind, either.

I’d like to draw your attention to reports, including media reports, regarding a significant concentration of weapons, military equipment and service personnel west of the line of contact in Donbass, a territory controlled by the Ukrainian armed forces. This refers to tanks, self-propelled artillery systems and multiple rocket launch systems. Some of them are moving up to the line of contact while others are on standby at a tactical separation distance in the Dnepropetrovsk, Zaropozhye and Kharkov regions. Such reports arouse our concern as a member of the Normandy format contact group on Ukraine. In this connection, we urge the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine to check this information, closely monitor Ukrainian military installations in the said parts of the country and reflect this in its reports.

We not only do what we are directed to do but also proactively make proposals that go beyond special injunctions. For a long time no violations have been identified. Meanwhile, there are obvious violations that need looking into.

If you as a journalist are in possession of certain information pass it to Russia, the OSCE, the Contact Group, make it known, and it will trigger a check. It is difficult to keep highlighting Russia’s violations of its obligations in the absence of facts. The [story of the] alleged intrusion of Russian armour into Ukraine under the guise of humanitarian convoys will soon be two years old. Everyone called for action to be taken but nothing was done. We would like the assessment of this situation to be based on real facts. I’ve presented our assessments to you. However, if you believe there is evidence requiring a check, pointing to violations, pass it to us. There will be no objection on our side.

Question: I’d like to start with the statement of a fact. Unfortunately, there is severe censorship in Bulgaria. For some reason everything to do with Russia is suppressed. Because of threats, I even had to open my own news agency. It’s amazing that correspondents from Germany, a country that was defeated in World War II, are present here while Bulgaria has recalled its national TV correspondent.

At the previous briefing, you said you were described as a regulator of Russian-Bulgarian relations. Have you been to hero city Stalingrad?

Maria Zakharova: I’ve been to Volgograd.

Question: In the archives, I found what you in fact look like. It’s a 12-year old photo. You look like the Homeland Mother Is Calling statue, definitely not a regulator.

Question: What specific action will the Foreign Ministry take to investigate Russia Today’s reports about atrocities against Kurds, as Sergey Lavrov was told yesterday? The TV network issued a petition urging the UN Human Rights Council to investigate the situation in western Turkey where security forces are conducting operations against Kurds. Do you support this initiative?

Maria Zakharova: After Russia Today asked Mr Lavrov a question at a news conference yesterday about an investigation into crimes against the Kurds we requested them to present more detailed information, which we received yesterday. I can say that Mr Lavrov has been briefed on the situation. Our experts will look into the available materials and then we’ll be able to share our assessments. These materials are being analysed.

Question: Rosneft has suspended its work in Iraq and is developing a new oil deposit with a Kurdish government. Today a representative of Iraqi Kurdistan said a Kurdish delegation would arrive in Moscow. Does this mean that Russia’s cooperation with Iraqi Kurdistan could go beyond the economic scope (oil production) and into politics? What are the prospects of this political interaction?

Answer: Our cooperation with Iraqi Kurds is coordinated with Baghdad. This is a fundamental principle of Russian foreign policy, our stance and approach to bilateral relations. There must be a clear understanding that we are operating at an interstate level. First, Moscow talks to Baghdad and then to the regions or regional representatives. This is our universal approach. As for this particular project, I’d redirect you to Rosneft. But I will also take up this issue to be able to provide you with more details on the project next time.

Question: The United States has announced further sanctions against North Korea. The sanctions list includes a ban for North Korean citizens working abroad to transfer money to North Korea. About 50 North Koreans are working in Russia at the moment and are sending substantial sums of money home. What does Russia make of the US sanctions policy?

Answer: Our position here is well known. We recognise sanctions coming from the UN Security Council as a collective decision of the international community worked out on the basis of consensus, dialogue, compromise, respect for others’ interests, and an understanding of the situation in the region concerned, all in an effort to improve the situation and bring a settlement to a crisis. We do not recognise unilateral sanctions pressure. In this case, I must refer you to the collective sanctions approved by the UN Security Council, which are substantiated and used to defuse the situation in the Korean peninsula. I believe we should stick to this format.

Question: Russian companies fearing a possible second wave of “boycotts” from the EU and the US might suspend their operations in North Korea. For example, Gazprom announced yesterday that it was freezing its operations in North Korea for these considerations. Do you think this decision had been discussed with the government? What will happen next if other state corporations do the same?

Answer: I will have to find out more about this question and then give you an answer.

Question: Is it possible that, apart from European security issues or the Syrian issue, local conflicts, including the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, will be discussed during meetings with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and US Secretary of State John Kerry, considering the fact that the German Foreign Minister is also the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office?

Maria Zakharova: I have no information that this issue will be included in the agenda of talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry. The question regarding the agenda of Russian-German talks should also be specified. Even despite a previously approved agenda, the parties often raise other current issues.

Question: Nowruz will be celebrated on March 20. How would you congratulate nations celebrating this holiday?

Maria Zakharova: This holiday will be celebrated on March 20. I believe that I still have time to prepare for it, and we’ll certainly do that.

Question: Today, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented on a video posted by US presidential candidate Donald Trump which, according to Mr Peskov, casts Russia in a somewhat negative light. Have you seen this video, and does the Foreign Ministry have any thought on it or on Mr Trump’s behaviour with regard to Russia?

Maria Zakharova: I saw that video yesterday. We have already replied to this question and commented on the issue. During the previous briefing, we touched on the fact that the Russian issue is always being raised during US election campaigns. We respect the election process in the United States, and we don’t intervene in it. On the contrary, we don’t try to evaluate any election candidate because it’s impossible to influence the expression of anyone’s will, regardless of the country in question, including large ones with powerful economies, or developing ones, etc. We take this approach with the election campaign in the United States. One cannot help but be surprised that the “issue” of Russia has become, in my opinion, common in US elections. It’s like there is nothing else to talk about. When they are using the image of the President of Russia, you want to ask: Why are you doing that, you’re not electing him, you’re electing your president.

The President of the United States will have to address domestic issues. Of course, the US president will also have to deal with the international agenda. But the domestic national situation, including social issues, education, healthcare, unemployment and racial discrimination, etc., is mainly what the US President does. The domestic “media market” has many issues that the US President will have to address. Sometimes I think that constantly bringing up Russia is an attempt to avoid the pressing issues on the domestic agenda. Speaking of recent election campaigns, including those in Russia, I can’t recall serious candidates endlessly referring to the image of any specific international leader in their speeches. We will again ask US presidential candidates not to mention Russia, at least during their election campaigns. We are already helping in Syria and in other regions to the best of our ability. Possibly, the US presidential elections can do without us.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 17, 2016

Table of contents