27 December 201618:51
2446-27-12-2016
Today the official Foreign Ministry website will
publish extensive and comprehensive content on the main foreign policy results
of the outgoing year. Considering the large format and scale of this material,
I will not announce it here, but you will have an opportunity to read it on our
department’s official website.
It will be possible to receive a more detailed
coverage and ask questions at a special news conference with Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov, which will be held, by tradition, in January 2017 (most likely
after the first ten days in January). We will announce accreditation in advance
but I already invite you to attend it.
We are pleased to note positive changes in the
military-political developments in Syria.
On December 22, Syrian Government troops occupied the
districts of east Aleppo, which were controlled by illegal armed units and from
which militants were cleared. The Syrian command announced the restoration of
security and stability in the city and its full liberation from extremists. We
view Aleppo’s liberation from criminal gangs as a major stage on the way to
stabilising Syria, while preserving its unity and territorial integrity and
preventing the degradation of its state institutions.
Although the militants left many ruins in their wake,
left behind weapons and ammunition and mined many buildings and key facilities
of the city’s infrastructure, peaceful life in gradually being restored in
Aleppo. Russian soldiers are helping the local population to do this. Military
engineers from the International Mine Action Centre of the
Russian Armed Forces cleared up mines and explosives on several dozen
hectares of urban territory. A military police battalion transferred from
Russia was immediately deployed in Aleppo. It will carry out various tasks as
part of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria. One
of its tasks will be to ensure the security of Russian service members,
personnel of mobile hospitals and humanitarian convoys.
Celebrating the city’s full liberation, its residents
went into the streets of Aleppo. They congratulated one another on the victory.
Many people carried Syrian and Russian flags and thanked Russian and Syrian
service members. But to use an expression we all know well, this is a holiday
with tears in the eyes.
We are learning more and more details about the city’s
life under terrorists and extremists. Mass graves containing many dozens of
people were discovered in Aleppo. It turns out these people had been tortured and
brutally murdered. Regrettably, there are grounds to believe that more terrible
discoveries lie ahead. In the near future, Russian soldiers will give the media
evidence of war crimes committed by terrorists in Syria, which will receive
wide media coverage. We hope that the international community will ultimately
give a proper assessment of the mayhem of violence and the bullying of Syrians
by bandits and terrorists.
We have taken note of a very strange statement by UK
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, although at this point perhaps nothing should
come as a surprise to us anymore. He said that UN representatives should not be
allowed into eastern Aleppo, adding that this is unacceptable. The [Syrian]
regime and those who support it should immediately comply with their
obligations, and with UN Security Council Resolution 2328, to ensure that all
civilians are protected. He went on to say that the Syrian army’s control over
Aleppo does not mean a complete victory, as Bashar Assad is extremely dependent
on foreign armed groups and Russian air support, and has also caused
large-scale destruction in the country, including atrocities, and so on. It was
a wide-ranging statement.
I understand very well and am aware of the fact that
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is not a career diplomat. But not to such an
extent!
We will not comment on these passages – which, in my
view, have already become “antiquated” – to the effect that “Bashar Assad must
go.” If Boris Johnson is not aware, only the most rabid opposition, extremists
and militants are continuing to talk about that. His colleagues have long
changed their vocabulary on the issue.
I would like to set the record straight on
humanitarian monitoring in Aleppo, including in the context of the recently
adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2328 on the issue. Judging by the
statements made by our British colleague, he has no idea whatsoever about what
is going on there. However, that is hardly surprising if one is only guided by
the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Even before the resolution was adopted, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, the Syrian Red Crescent and the World
Health Organisation were instrumental in providing direct humanitarian
assistance to the people of Aleppo. ICRC personnel also monitored and
accompanied the evacuation from eastern Aleppo. At the same time we have
repeatedly spoken in favour of UN agencies’ involvement in these efforts.
Corresponding agencies became involved in the effort on December 15. As of
right now, there are over 100 UN officers, with more than 30 acting directly in
the eastern part of the city, which was freed from extremists. More personnel
are expected to be sent there. It is strange that Mr Johnson does not know
about that, or pretends not to know.
As such, we note that UN Security Council Resolution
2328 is a “suprastructure” to the ongoing work, which is, on the whole, being
successfully conducted by international aid agencies.
Our European colleagues regularly attempt to make
Russia accountable for inciting the civil war in Syria and for the humanitarian
situation. I have just quoted a statement by British Foreign Secretary Boris
Johnson. We constantly hear claims and accusations that are devoid of
substance, context or any evidence. They take absolutely no trouble to try to
search for, collect and analyse any facts. Of course, this is in vain, as once
you read the press that, by the way, some of them cite, then many things become
clear.
For example, I discovered an article in a central
Bulgarian newspaper, Trud, from December 12, which reports about Bulgarian
military ammunition found in a rebel munitions depot in one of the liberated
districts of Aleppo. And the report is about serious munitions, and in large
quantities. In particular, dozens of cases were found containing 122 mm
missiles for the Grad multiple missile launcher, 73 mm shells for anti-tank
weapons and 40 mm mortars for portable anti-tank mortars. With reference to
cover documents, the article names the producing and the exporting companies.
Moreover, the Syrian army is reported to have found another eight depots
abandoned by the terrorists, with 2 million munitions for heavy machine guns
and 4,000 missiles for Bulgarian-made Grad multiple missile launchers.
All the above products are manufactured, as you
understand, under expired Soviet licences that were given to Bulgaria. I would
like to stress that Russia has been conducting negotiations with Sofia since
the late 1990s on signing a bilateral agreement on licensing that would
regulate, primarily, the export of military goods to third countries.
Regretfully, the Bulgarian side is in no hurry to conclude the agreement.
Apparently, the lack of regulation in this area suits some Bulgarian officials
perfectly well.
Of course, this is a convenient position: selling to
some country that does not use Russian military equipment and armaments, and
the Bulgarian producers do not care where the middleman is going to sell their
products. The issue is quite different, as this is not a matter of selling
safety pins, it is about selling deadly goods that kill, among others, Syrian
civilians, whose fate is of such great concern to the European Union.
This discrepancy is confounding. A great many questions arise in this respect.
For example, in which other conflict zones could these illegally produced
weapons land? As far as I understand, this question does not worry anyone other
than us: neither Washington nor Brussels.
This is not the only instance showing that the Western
bloc countries, in fact, assist in stoking, extending and inciting the Syrian
conflict. This is why I am calling on our Euro-Atlantic critics to speak less
and to do more to take up measures on curbing supplies of weapons to
terrorists. As to the loss of innocent life our partners are so fond of
recalling, why don’t you immediately recall whose weapons kill them all? Here
is an example for you. I know that everyone in the European Union nowadays is
concerned about the spread of information, propaganda and fake news. Here is a
particular article, and those structures can definitely check its credibility,
speak with the author, look into the materials and dismiss or confirm it. Will
you finally start taking care of business?
It has been over two months since the operation to
liberate Mosul from terrorists began. However, the situation is still far from
being resolved. ISIS still controls the western, right bank part of the city,
and about 20 per cent of its eastern, left bank part. They also control over
half of the Nineveh Governorate, of which Mosul is the administrative centre.
Such state of affairs in no way derogates from the
efforts by Iraqi forces, the Iraqi People’s Militia and the Kurdish units,
which have done a lot to liberate Iraqi territories from ISIS. We welcome their
further steps in this regard, difficult though they may be. We will provide
further support to the friendly Iraq. It is important that this spot of international
terrorism is exterminated in that long-suffering country.
At the same time, civilians cannot be treated as
“collateral damage” in the context of this anti-terrorist operation. The number
of victims in the air strikes and shellfire by the US-led anti-ISIS coalition
is rapidly increasing.
The humanitarian situation is deteriorating. According
to the Iraqi authorities, the number of civilians who fled besieged Mosul has
reached 125,000. Their situation remains very serious, they are out in the
open. The assistance provided by, among others, UN agencies, is clearly not
enough. The forecasts seem even more dismal.
Amid the events in the north of Iraq, our western
partners and the mass media they control continue to “smooth over” the
representation of the events around Mosul. But concealing the actual state of
affairs becomes more and more difficult day by day, given that the situation in
the Syrian city of Aleppo no longer gives cause to hold the full attention of
the western public.
We are pleased to note positive developments in
Lebanon. Despite the unstable situation in the region, the Lebanese have
managed to overcome the more than two-year-long power vacuum crisis. Lebanese
President Michel Aoun’s approval of the Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Saad
Hariri has become a landmark event on this thorny path. This became possible
due to the implementation of a package of agreements between major Lebanese
political forces, which had worked out joint compromise solutions aimed at restoring
and maintaining the activity of the executive power in Lebanon. As expected,
this week Saad Hariri will address the parliament with a governmental
statement, aiming to receive a vote of confidence.
Russia adheres to a coherent policy of supporting the
Lebanese in their own solutions to the intra-Lebanese issues, developed through
a dialogue and solely within the legal framework. We are certain that the
efficient work of all state governance bodies will allow Lebanon to look to the
future with confidence, counter all of today’s challenges and threats, and
support peace and stability on the Lebanese territory.
We also reiterate our commitment to further supporting
the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Lebanese
Republic.
Distortion of Russia’s policy in
Yemen by Saudi media
A few words about Yemen. Not about the situation in
the country but about Russia’s approach to resolving this crisis since our
country’s policy in this area is clearly being distorted by the regional media
– particularly, in Saudi Arabia.
We are surprised that Asharq Al-Awsat, a very
influential and respectable newspaper in the Middle East, published in Great
Britain, is unaware of Russia’s stance on Yemen. It has been repeatedly stated
by Russian officials at various levels and constantly commented on by the
Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department. Our stance on
Yemen has always been principled and consistent. This is where we cannot be
criticised. Russia strongly supports the UN efforts to stop the war in Yemen as
quickly as possible. We believe there is no military solution to the Yemeni
problem. If anybody has such intentions, this is a dead-end track that will
sabotage the work of UN Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to
reach a long-term peace and hold the next round of intra-Yemeni talks.
Moreover, the situation is threatening Yemen’s integrity as a state. We insist
on resuming the political process and restoring Yemen’s statehood. The
unsubstantiated accusations of “double standards” put into a headline (I am
talking about a particular publication) are nothing but an attempt to shift the
responsibility for the consequences of a destructive military operation in
Yemen from those who are in fact employing these double standards, on us, a
country that is pursuing a very clear and consistent line with regard to Yemen.
We are ready to repeat our statements made on November 30 that Russia, as
required by UNSC Resolution 2216 mentioned in the article, does not welcome any
unilateral action from the parties to the Yemeni conflict, be it establishment
of separate government bodies or removal of government institutions from the
capital, even more so the termination of international flights to and from
Sana’a, which is aggravating the already disastrous humanitarian situation in
the country. By assisting the UN in finding a solution for Yemen, we, through
the Russian ambassador to Yemen, who is currently in Riyadh, are maintaining
contact with the legitimate authorities. At the same time, through our
temporary charge d’affaires in Sana’a, we interact with those who are in
opposition to the legitimate government, that is the Ansar Allah movement and
the General People’s Congress party. Frequent meetings with Yemen’s
representatives are held in Moscow, as we regularly report.
Perhaps this media outlet does not think it necessary
to follow official information from Moscow and would rather rely on some
secondary indirect sources. This is not the right practice. We regularly
publish our comments after every meeting of the Foreign Minister and deputy
foreign ministers. Russia’s unique opportunities are in demand and are welcome
by all Yemeni people to return peace as soon as possible, and by no means
obstruct the efforts to resolve the crisis by political means, which is claimed
by the article’s author in a very biased and unjustified manner. This does not
stand up to criticism. I don’t even think it is worth commenting on the absurd
claim that Russia is allegedly using the events in Yemen to its advantage to
pursue its own geopolitical goals and as leverage to fulfil its ambitions in
the Syrian problem. I have stated our principled approach. We will continue to
inform you on our efforts to resolve the crisis in this country.
The UN Security Council vote of
December 23 on the draft resolution for further sanctions against the Republic
of South Sudan
On December 23, the draft UN Security Council
resolution proposed by the United States delegation, which demanded an arms
embargo and extended targeted sanctions against South Sudan, failed to receive
the nine votes necessary to adopt it, as stipulated by the UN Charter. Eight
Council members – Russia, China, Malaysia, Venezuela, Japan and all African
representatives, i.e., Angola, Egypt and Senegal – abstained from voting on the
document, which might seriously undermine the prospects of a peaceful settlement
of the South Sudanese conflict, if approved.
The authors of the draft obstinately turned a blind
eye on the recent progress of the South Sudanese settlement, particularly the
national dialogue launched by President Salva Kiir and Juba’s accord to deploy
regional defence forces in the country. They ignored the opinion of regional
forces, mainly members of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development
(IGAD), whose leaders spoke out against more UNSC restrictions of South Sudan
at their summit of December 9. Their opinion was also shrugged off by the
authors of the draft, as well as the legal concern of countries that send
peacekeeping contingents to South Sudan and are justifiably wary of the
negative impact of the proposed sanctions on the host party with the blue
helmets.
All that did not stop our American colleagues, who
knew from the start that their draft would not score the necessary number of
votes but tried to get it through the UNSC nevertheless. It’s no surprise,
then, that their action was stopped by the Council majority. In this
connection, we would like to express satisfaction with the responsible position
of the Council members who did not approve the dubious and counterproductive
document.
We, on our part, would like again to underscore that there
is no alternative to a political settlement of South Sudanese problems, and the
necessity of an urgent resumption of full-fledged dialogue between the
government and the armed opposition to stabilise the situation in the country
and bring it back to normal as soon as possible.
The developments in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The complicated domestic situation persists in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo as the issue of the presidential elections has
not been settled. Oppositionists crop up sporadically in some cities to demand
the incumbent president’s resignation. According to official reports, nine
people died, including a police officer, and 275 demonstrators were detained
during the December 20–21 clashes with police.
At the same time, some signs of stabilisation
have become visible over the last few days. The dialogue between the
authorities and certain opposition forces resumed in Kinshasa on December 21,
mediated by the National Episcopal Conference of Congo. Government institutions,
public transport and retail trade are being conducted normally in the country’s
capital.
We are monitoring Congolese developments closely, as
before, and will keep you informed about them.
Release of Russian sailors from
the Saronic Breeze vessel
On December 23, crew members of the Saronic Breeze
refrigerator ship, Russian nationals Nikolai Troshchikhin, Alexander Vilms and
Nikolai Frolov, who were captured by pirates on November 30 to the south of the
coast of Benin, safely returned home.
We would like to express our gratitude to all those
assisting and participating in their release.
Trilateral consultations on
Afghanistan held in Moscow
Moscow recently hosted the third round of trilateral
consultations on regional issues involving envoys for Afghanistan and senior
officials of Russia, China and Pakistan. The participants also met with Deputy
Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov.
The parties noted the deterioration of security in
Afghanistan and expressed particular concern over the increasing activity of
extremist groups in the country, including the Afghan wing of ISIS.
The participants agreed to continue taking efforts to
further promote the national reconciliation process in Afghanistan, under the
leadership of Afghans themselves, and maintaining the known principles of the
armed opposition’s integration into civilian life. The Russian federation and
the People’s Republic of China, as permanent UN Security Council members,
reaffirmed their readiness to take a flexible approach to exempting certain persons
from sanctions lists in the efforts to establish a peaceful dialogue between
Kabul and the Taliban Movement.
The parties agreed to continue consultations in an
expanded format, and would welcome the participation of Afghanistan in this
regard.
Situation in Ukraine
Unfortunately, the outgoing year was virtually wasted
in terms of resolving the Ukrainian crisis. The Ukrainian authorities are
mainly responsible for this as they continue talking about the need to
consolidate society, to reunite the country, and do nothing in practice to
overcome the current split, avoiding direct dialogue with their compatriots in
Donbass as well as ignoring people’s suffering caused by the region’s isolation
introduced by Kiev. Judging by the latest events in the country’s southeast involving
fierce armed clashes near Debaltsevo last week, the Ukrainian “party of war” is
trying again to take the upper hand, to distract the population from the
problems they are facing, and of course, the blame for the tragic consequences
of these misguided actions has been put on Russia.
This totally immoral policy fails to surprise anybody
in our country, and it no longer surprises many abroad too. We are talking
about European politicians and Kiev’s American partners who have clearly
expressed their perplexity, to put it mildly, about Kiev’s actions. Sadly, this
behaviour, actions and steps have become normal for many officials in the
Ukrainian government. We are completely taken aback by the wild jeering
concerning tragic events in our country. We are talking about Ukrainian
officials and public figures, who have a good tandem on these issues.
Unfortunately, we cannot see any unity from them on other more important
issues, but when something tragic happens, in Russia for example, part of
society gets consolidated. And then we witness their civic stance, sharp wit
and various artistic talents. How crazy this is.
For example, some politicians in Kiev have made an
absolutely immoral comment about the murder of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov
in Ankara. The entire civilized world, I mean officials, heads of state,
foreign ministers, public figures, most of the media, nearly all, except
extremists, terrorists or ISIS members, expressed their condolences. One of the
most important messages was made by the UN Security Council president. However,
Ukraine, which has declared itself part of the civilised world seeking to
civilise itself even more, failed to find any official who would publicly
express a few words of condolences. Let me say this again, even official representatives
in the countries that do not share Russia’s position on many issues said Andrey
Karlov was an outstanding diplomat. But Ukrainian officials did not utter a
single word. Moreover, their officials asked us whether we understood why they
refused to express condolences to Russia on such occasions. We do understand
why. The current authorities in Kiev rely on extremists and nationalists. You
are simply afraid to express condolences. We know many officials in Kiev with
whom we met at the negotiating table. We know they have a good command of the
diplomatic etiquette. But they are afraid that the nationalism and extremism
that form the basis of their government would simply sweep them off and never
forgive them for their sympathetic statements. This is a very dangerous trend
(and we have discussed it at length) to comply with this extremist beast at all
times, feeding it this motivation. We know only too well what these nationalist
beasts grow into. I am talking about a situation when they are aware of their
power or of the authorities’ weakness and encouragement.
Instead of condolences over the murder of Russian
Ambassador Andrey Karlov in Turkey, Kiev either rushed to justify the culprits
and make heroes out of them, or engaged into some absurd speculations. I have
an impression that instead of implementing the Minsk Agreements and their
direct social commitments to the people of their country, particularly
residents of Donbass, instead of looking for solutions to the many years’
crisis (we have been witnessing only its active phase in the past three years,
but it had been building up for a long time!), I have an impression that the
whole Kiev officialdom is concerned about the problem of Russian hawthorn.
Ukraine – arbitration claim under
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
On December 22, the tribunal was formed according to
the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to consider Ukraine’s arbitration
claim for the sea waters adjoining the Crimean Peninsula.
The tribunal includes Judge of the UN International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Vladimir Golitsyn appointed by Russia, Vaughan
Lowe (UK) appointed by Ukraine, and judges of the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea Boualem Bouguetaia (Algeria), Alonso Gomez-Robledo (Mexico)
and Jin-Hyun Paik (South Korea) appointed by the Deputy Chairman of the
Tribunal under the 1982 Convention. Jin-Hyun Paik is the President of the
tribunal.
In response to Ukraine’s claim, the Russian Federation
says it is a responsible participant in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
and has been meeting its international law obligations in the sea areas
adjoining its coast, including the Crimean Peninsula.
Its participation in the tribunal formation has no
impact on the Russian Federation’s positions regarding any aspects of this
case.
A bill on protection of and state
support for the Russian language in Ukraine
Yesterday, a bill was registered in Ukraine’s
Verkhovna Rada on the protection of and state support for the Russian language.
Information about this was published on the Ukrainian parliament’s official
website. Though this is, undoubtedly, an internal matter for Ukraine, it has an
international dimension in accordance with obligations with regard to honouring
human rights, assumed by that country in relevant international organisations.
We welcome this initiative by people’s deputies from
the Opposition Bloc. Given the illegal pressure on the Russian-speaking
population of Ukraine and the closure of Russian cultural centres, the fact
that the bill has been registered is a very important and timely move. The
document contains clauses that will make it possible to protect the rights of
the Russian-speaking population at the state level. You can read this document
on the Ukrainian parliament’s official website.
The bill describes initiatives such as the
introduction of quotas on the Ukrainian radio as an infringement on the rights
of Russian-speaking citizens and a violation of Article 10 of the Ukrainian
Constitution. The bill obliges executive authorities to prevent harassments
against the Russian language.
The Russian language should be used in such areas as
education, culture and state administration without any restrictions.
I would like to note that voices calling for
normalising ties with Russia are becoming louder in Ukraine. Dozens of people’s
deputies and public figures have urged the revival of trade, economic and
cultural ties between our
countries.
Circulation by terrorists of a
“hit list of Russian diplomatic missions”
We have received a lot of questions from the media
regarding the so-called “hit lists of Russian diplomatic missions” that have
been circulated by terrorists and have been publicised by the media without
proper commentary and with direct coverage of the demands, appeals and
terrorist ideologies contained in them. Doubtless, such actions are beyond the
law as they directly encourage and disseminate terrorist ideology. On the other
hand, this is yet further evidence of the extremely high terror threat level
and of the fact that the terrorists have long forgotten any notions of law,
morals and basic humanity.
The emergence of the lists was a sensation. We have
been approached and asked what we think about it and how we can comment on all
that. It must be understood that if there are those who kill tens of thousands
of civilians, including women and children, without spreading any lists and
without asking anyone, what would they care about diplomats and diplomatic
missions? Any subtleties of international law mean nothing at all for the
terrorists’ ideology, they will stop at nothing. The question is solely in how
we are going to respond to it. For our part, I mean the media and public
opinion more than the foreign office. Such information assaults are definitely
targeting public opinion, and it is also a provocation for society, for people
of a certain mindset, as well as an incentive for them to take up certain
activities.
The threats to our embassies are an apparent sign of
political impotence, of course, of ideological bankruptcy of the characters who
have lost their human identity. We see them being defeated in one conflict zone
after another, and this is why, failing to win face-to-face, they are starting
to shoot in the back.
We understand that under such conditions, we have to
be better protected, including better protection for our diplomatic missions
and diplomats. Certainly, a great deal depends on the Russian side, but the
role of the host states is also very important, in fact, it is paramount
according to international law. I would like to stress that professionalism of
respective agencies and effective, honest partnership are required here.
Unfortunately, we sometimes lack both.
These “hit lists” appeared on the internet not just in
the name of terrorist ideologues. Some “respected” western media outlets do not
just publish them without proper commentaries, they relish them. Rather than
analysing them from the point of view of their compliance or non-compliance
with their local legislation, they start projecting these scenarios on the
future. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we are a young
democracy, of course, our democratic process is not as old as many democracies
in Europe, but under our legislation any mention of a terrorist organisation
should include a reference to the fact that the organisation is banned by
Russian legislation, with clarifications. This does not affect freedom of
speech in any way and has nothing to do with it. But if the UN declares an
organisation to be a terrorist one, one should not be shy to say so.
Our foreign colleagues, journalists, unfortunately, do
not explain much to the public, they do not accompany those publications by the
mandatory and much needed commentaries, explaining who is right and who is to
blame, who is a criminal and who is a threat for the whole world. This leads to
an absolutely intolerable situation, and western political and public circles
get lost in the issues of fighting global terrorism, and confuse the public.
Anti-Russia statements
Unfortunately, the threats we receive don’t always
come from terrorists. This is surprising, and I spoke about this in an
interview, but I nevertheless want to say a few words about it at today’s
briefing. It will be an update with quotations. Before that, I spoke broadly
and quoted from memory. Today I will provide the exact quotations about the threats
we received this year not from terrorists but mostly from our civilised
colleagues and officials from many countries.
Out colleagues said on the sidelines of the UN General
Assembly meeting on September 27, 2015 that countermeasures will be found to our
military victories, that the forces we are fighting on the ground may get hold
of new shoulder-fired manpads with which they will be able to down our
helicopters. It was not the moderate opposition but our “civilised” partners
who said this. “We have been asked to give you, Russians, a very tough signal.
It will be very difficult to keep back the fury of the people and the
controlled opposition, a fury that has been provoked by your actions.” This was
said on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on September 30, 2015, during
talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his “civilised” colleagues.
“Be informed that this will face Russia with yet another new wave of jihadism,”
they said.
To clarify, let me reiterate that I am quoting
official representatives of Western countries.
US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said on October 8,
2015: “This will have consequences for Russia itself… in coming days the
Russians will begin to suffer casualties in Syria.”
According to The Wall Street Journal, Defence
Secretary Ashton Carter, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford
and CIA Director John Brennan voiced increasingly tough views in White House
meetings, calling for new measures to “inflict real pain on the Russians”.
State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said on
September 29, 2016: “Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and
they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft… The war
will continue. And … more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft
will be shot down.”
On August 8, 2016, former CIA Deputy Director Michael
Morell called for “covertly” killing Russians and Iranians in Syria. He said:
“We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the
Russians pay a price.”
You understand that such statements made by former rather
than current officials are designed to influence public opinion and send a
clear signal to certain forces in certain countries.
Professor Roman Kuzniar, former Foreign Affairs Adviser
to Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, said on April 21, 2016 about the
incident with the USS Donald Cook: “The Russian aircraft could have been shot
at. It’s a pity the Americans did not do it.” This is a clear call to action,
and it’s clear where this action would lead.
Another of our “civilised” European colleagues, head of
the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag Volker Kauder called for
holding demonstrations against the Russian policy in Syria. He said he cannot
understand why demonstrations are not held at the Russian embassy in Berlin
against Russia’s intervention in support of Bashar al-Assad. What is this if
not a direct call to those who later did what he had recommended? They acted
differently, shooting at Russian embassies in some cities, holding demonstrations
that disrupted public order and threatened the safety of Russian offices in
other cities. And then a Russian ambassador was killed.
Similar calls were made in October 2016 by UK
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. He described Russia’s actions in Syria as
incommensurate horror. You probably remember him saying that he would like to
see demonstrations outside the Russian embassy, and two or three weeks later
such protests were held, and these were very generously funded and
well-orchestrated protest actions, not some weak demonstration with two or
three posters. Where did the protesters find the money? Who paid for their
protests? Who called them to Russian embassies? Who fuelled this hatred, which
eventually led to the assassination of a Russian ambassador? All of this was
done by the “civilised”.
Of course, US Permanent Representative to the UN Samantha
Power holds the pride of place in this anti-Russia campaign. She has been
openly spreading lies at the UN Security Council, which is a very special place
for international law and history.
There are also voices that are not very loud, even if
they tried hard. I am referring to our Baltic colleagues. Former Defence
Minister of Lithuania Rasa Jukneviciene said that Russia would draw benefits
from the murder of Andrey Karlov “first, by using it to prove that they are
also fighting terrorism, second, by expecting that this will stop protests over
the Aleppo atrocities, and third, by continuing to sow chaos, anxiety and
fear.” Zygimantas Pavilionis, former Lithuanian Ambassador to the US and
currently a member of a nationalist-oriented party, spoke in the same vein.
According to him, Russia will use Karlov’s murder to try to split the alliance.
Are you in your right mind? “The Kremlin needs this to sweet-talk the Trump
administration.” I cannot imagine a more plain admission of one’s mental
illness. They don’t seem to understand that by saying this they expose their
diagnoses, which are best kept secret. Mr Pavilionis also added that “Kremlin’s
connection to Islamists is a fact.” He said this so that the world would find
out about him.
This deliberate anti-Russia propaganda, which was
conducted for a long time at various levels, has resulted in the murder of a
Russian ambassador. The blame is on all those who contribute to this propaganda
campaign.
Alleged Russian cyberattacks
An unprecedented anti-Russia campaign has been recently
launched at the prompting of the outgoing US administration.
The biggest accusation is that Russia allegedly launched
cyberattacks at the US information space with a view to interfering in US
internal affairs, in particular, the election system. Russia is being presented
as a monster that is ready to encroach on the holy of the Western holies – its
democratic principles. Of course, these allegations have not been supported by
any facts. You probably remember that we appealed to the United States to
produce evidence of this at our briefings, in the Foreign Ministry’s comments
and in statements made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and interviews he
gave. We asked for at least something, even the smallest facts. We did this
publicly and during bilateral talks. You can ask our American colleagues how
often Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has asked US Secretary of State John Kerry
for this evidence. In response, we heard nothing but another helping of
nonsense and accusations. It was an orchestrated campaign; nothing was left to
chance.
The current trend in the West is to explain their
failures by Russia’s alleged high-tech interference in their internal affairs.
The media have branded Russia as a global aggressor and cyberbully. Yet another
full-blown anti-Russia campaign is gaining momentum in the West. At the same
time, the uproar caused by Edward Snowden is subsiding; he is not recalled and
quoted as often as before, and his revelations are all but forgotten. Snowden’s
accusations were backed with undeniable facts and exposed the US activities to
create a global cyber-spying and cyberattack system, going as far as to tap
telephones all over the world, including the leaders of allied states, which
undermined the fundamental Western principle – the right to privacy. They are
trying to hush this up.
The story about the alleged Russian hackers is an attempt
to counterbalance the revelations made by Edward Snowden and other employees of
US companies who are connected with cyberspace and real exposures. A few years
ago, everyone was talking about them, and investigations were launched into the
US cyber policies. Nobody is talking about this now. There is only one country
that is involved in cyberattacks, but there is no proof of its alleged crime.
Instead of begging for forgiveness and stopping its doings in the global
information space, Washington and its partners are working hard to shift the
blame on Russia. In fact, they are nurturing a specific image of Russia and the
belief that it is guilty of the crimes they themselves have committed.
There is one more vital aspect of this anti-Russia
hacking campaign – doublespeak, when the Russian media’s highly professional
work is presented as cyber-interference in the Western information space.
Everything is thrown in – cyberattacks, hackers and the Russian media – to
create a negative image of our journalists. The purpose of all these actions is
to prevent the public from getting access to full and reliable information.
Excerpts from answers to media questions:
Question: What are the prospects
of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in 2017? What steps is Moscow planning to
take in this regard?
Maria Zakharova: We continue
dealing with this issue as a co-chair of the Minsk Group. We will do everything
to intensify the normalisation process. As for the schedule, we will tell you
about it as we receive relevant information.
Question: Before asking a
question, I would like to say that the tragedy of the Russian plane crash
caused pain in the hearts of millions of people all over the world – there were
our friends, colleagues and comrades among the dead. I would like to express
sincere condolences to the families and friends of the dead and to all Russian
people in connection with this tragedy.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by telephone with
his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu. There were many reports about
preparations for a meeting in Astana. Are there any details on this score?
Maria Zakharova: I have seen many reports that contain inaccurate information. I don’t
think this is done on purpose. Some people simply do not understand what this
process is about. First, this is a planned meeting. In other words, work is in
progress on its date, format and participants. Second, this meeting will by no
means replace the Geneva process. This is a different venue, different format
and different goals that will be specified. Naturally, the main goal remains
the same – peace settlement in Syria. The meeting in Astana will be slightly
different. Right now this is all work in progress. It would be wrong to say
that much will be achieved in the next few days or weeks because this will
require time. All experts believe that this will take place in the medium term.
This process cannot be put into the pending tray. That is all I can tell you at
present.
Question: In early December three pro-Russian political writers were detained in
Belarus. One of them is our author Yury Pavlovets. Another one is Sergey
Sheptenko and I don’t know the name of the third one. They are accused of
fanning strife whereas in their articles they called for rapprochement with
Russia and warned the leaders of Belarus from flirting with Belarusian
nationalism and moving towards the West following Ukraine’s example. They have
been arrested and are still behind bars. I would like to find out the Foreign
Ministry’s position on this issue because Russian Ambassador to Belarus
Alexander Surikov has made only a vague statement about them, saying that they
are Belarusian citizens and it is up to Belarus what to do about them.
Meanwhile, de facto they are our compatriots and I think Russia should pay
attention to this problem.
Maria Zakharova: I do not agree that our Ambassador to Belarus Alexander Surikov
gave a vague comment on this score. On the contrary, he commented in detail on
the detention of Yury Pavlovets, Dmitry Alimkin and Sergey Sheptenko. They did
cooperate with Russian publications, for instance, Regnum, and so the
ambassador expressed Russia’s view on this issue. I would like to say that we
share the ambassador’s opinion that it is inadmissible to use such words as
“inferior people” or “inferior state” as regards Belarus and Belarusians. You
are saying they warned Belarus against moving to the West and flirting with
nationalism. This was your quotation and I cannot comment on it. I must say
that words like “inferior people” and “inferior state” are simply taboos for
people who influence public opinion because they can fan ethnic strife and
xenophobia. They do not help create a positive atmosphere in Belarus although
you are saying that this was the goal of their work.
Question: Yury Pavlovets, who was published in Russia, did not say these words.
Maria Zakharova: We are talking about three journalists and I must say we have
given a very clear assessment of the words and expressions they used and not in
private conversations but in their published materials. We reaffirm our
absolute commitment to the freedom of speech and understand the need to protect
the rights of journalists and media representatives. As it follows from the
comment by Russia’s Ambassador to Belarus Alexander Surikov, we are in constant
contact with our Belarusian colleagues on this issue. Let me repeat that we are
fully committed to the freedom of speech and are ready to protect it as well as
journalists. We can hardly be accused of failing to observe these standards or
neglecting the destinies of journalists cooperating with the Russian media. We
keep these issues at the forefront of our attention, in response to your
persistent requests and inquiries.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment