Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions following the meeting with President of the International Committee of the Red Cross Peter Maurer, Moscow, March 24, 2022
24 March 2022 16:02
610-24-03-2022
Ladies and gentlemen.
Today, once again, we have had the pleasure of welcoming the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mr Peter Maurer, to Moscow.
The Russian Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence have close and regular contacts with the ICRC. We closely cooperate with our colleagues from the Red Cross to help normalise the humanitarian situations in various regions of the world, including Syria, Afghanistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Yemen, Myanmar and Ethiopia.
In recent years, we have closely cooperated in Ukraine after the coup d'etat that occurred there in February 2014 and the armed conflict began, unleashed by the radical nationalists who came to power in that country. A ceasefire was achieved, and the Minsk agreements were signed. All these years, the Red Cross has been making a dedicated effort in the territories that the Kiev regime has cut off from supplies. The Red Cross was among those who helped resolve the most difficult humanitarian problems in that region. We have discussed the new situation in Ukraine in terms of the humanitarian needs of the population.
Peter Maurer's visit will also include a meeting at the Russian Ministry of Defence. This will take place this afternoon. The discussion will focus on specific matters concerning access to, and delivery of humanitarian aid, and the need to evacuate civilians. They should have the opportunity to travel in the direction they choose.
We also spoke at length about the political side of the matter, and how the Kiev authorities and nationalists who control various communities in Ukraine are trying to prevent civilians from leaving, using them as human shields. They deploy heavy weapons in residential areas and commit other actions that run counter to international humanitarian law.
We listened to the recommendations of our colleagues from the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the decisions that they consider important for more effective consideration of the problems of humanitarian access and the availability of humanitarian corridors. Peter Maurer prepared these recommendations following his trip to Kiev. We appreciate the committee's readiness to direct available resources towards the residents of Ukraine, the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics who need help. We note that the Red Cross traditionally strives to act as an impartial and independent mediator within the framework of its mandate.
Unfortunately, we have no particular reason to expect the Ukrainian authorities to fulfil, in due faith, their obligations under international humanitarian law. We hope that measures will be taken to ensure the exchange of information through the ICRC in a way that contributes to resolving the humanitarian problems, not politicising them. We sincerely hope that the mediation efforts of the Red Cross will bear fruit.
We agreed to continue discussing the above matters at our Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defence.
I am sure that Peter Maurer and his team will prepare additional considerations following today's talks. We will be ready to consider them. In turn, we will regularly send our assessments of the situation to our colleagues in the ICRC, as well as our vision of certain problems that require immediate solutions in terms of humanitarian law.
I am sincerely grateful for today's meeting, and most importantly, for the effort the International Committee of the Red Cross is making on the ground.
Question: Where will the diplomatic negotiations lead? Today, the Europeans are united as never before as regards the unprecedented sanctions against Russia. Has this surprised Moscow?
Sergey Lavrov: Are we surprised that the West is united to such an extent? Not at all. We have been aware for a long time of how our US colleagues work with the active support from other Anglo-Saxon countries. We know the threats, blackmail and arm-twisting they use to achieve this unity.
I have many good friends in Western countries. They tell me how this happens. Approximately in the same way, the former UK PM, Theresa May, claimed in 2018 that Russia was "highly likely" to have poisoned the Skripals. She started urging the entire European Union (the UK was still a member at the time) to expel Russian diplomats. As this issue was being decided, I asked a friend from a European country whether the UK had provided any proof (when it asked them to expel Russian diplomats) aside from the unsupported and flimsy claims of highly-likely she had already voiced? My friends in the EU said that London had forwarded nothing beyond what had been asserted in public. But in response to related questions, they allegedly gave assurances that they would certainly provide proof that would be "incontrovertible." But do expel the Russian diplomats as soon as possible, they urged.
Sometime later, I took the trouble to ask the same friends whether the UK had supplied any facts regarding the Skripals to substantiate their allegations of "highly likely." They looked down and said that no one had given them anything whatsoever. But it was done, and the diplomats were expelled. We know what methods they use to achieve this unity.
We are ready for the West to take the path of Russophobia. The West does not like a situation where a regime it has nurtured and armed against Russia, a regime it has set on a path of neo-Nazi ideology and practice over the years, has to face responsibility for its crimes. The West regarded Ukraine, under its current authorities, as a tool for its Russophobic policies and a lever for containing Russia. As an "invaluable" tool, the Kiev regime has been allowed a lot during these last eight years, including the killing of peaceful civilians, the prohibition of the Russian language, culture and journalism, and the exclusion of ethnic Russians from the category of indigenous peoples of Ukraine. If you are a Russophobe, do whatever you want!
Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin said Russia must get rid of its traitors. What does this mean in practical terms?
Sergey Lavrov: There is a big debate in society. The value of the assurances of the indivisibility of security made by the West all these years has now become clear. The West used to tell us that we are all one big human civilisation. Now we proceed from the premise that every citizen of the Russian Federation has the right to make a choice. If people who want to live abroad make this choice, it fully conforms to our law. This is their choice.
Question: We are seeing how our diplomats have intensified their efforts since the start of the special military operation. Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya continues to ask his US colleagues about the bio-laboratories. American and other Western media cite Russia's diplomats more often than their own. What is the strength of Russian diplomacy?
Sergey Lavrov: It's not up to me to assess Russian diplomacy. We are always trying to follow the behests, practice and heritage of our great predecessors. They always strove to proceed from facts in taking diplomatic steps. This is what is happening now with the discovered documents on the many military bio-laboratories in Ukraine that have been created and operated by the Pentagon. We simply presented the UN Security Council with the documents signed by representatives of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency that deals with military programmes. The documents describe the areas of research in these laboratories, which are far from harmless. Instead of explaining how these bio-labs were set up and what they did, the US representative said in response that all this was a lie.
This is one of many examples. When it is important to learn the facts, media representatives usually address Russia's Permanent Representative rather than a Western representative. Let's put it straight - they don't provide many facts for their audience.
One more example. There was a big uproar over "the poisoning" in Salisbury, which led to a huge anti-Russia campaign. It appeared that there were no facts - just the "highly likely" assumption. The same applies to "the poisoning" of blogger Alexey Navalny and the Malaysia Airlines crash over Donbass. All these allegations are based on some dubious assumptions that are not backed by facts. Meanwhile, it is Russia that demands evidence on all these cases (and many others). Our British friends have conveniently forgotten about Salisbury, and our German colleagues would like to forget about the episode with Navalny.
The answer is - be honest. Always account for your words.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
