Table of contents
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Russia ‒ Land of Opportunity forum
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Vietnam
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Vietnamese and Japanese media
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to take part in the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in an international high-level conference on Afghanistan, Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity
- The Russian Foreign Ministry’s preparations for the presidential election
- Situation unfolding in Syria
- UK’s accusations against Russia over the Skripal case
- Developments in Myanmar
- 20th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry’s veterans’ organisation
- Regional charitable public fund of socio-legal and additional material aid to the veterans of the diplomatic service “The Fund of the Veterans of the Diplomatic Service”
- Reports of the potential formation of a Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society
- Excerpts from answers to questions:
- Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process
- Situation with employees of the Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom
- UK’s intention to expel more Russian diplomats if British diplomats are expelled from Moscow
- US support of the UK position in the Skripal case
- Possibility of the Skripal case being discussed in the framework of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
- Plans to create a full-fledged army in Kosovo
- Current situation in Russia-UK relations
- Moscow’s reaction to events surrounding Soviet monuments in Lithuania
- The Astana process for a settlement in Syria
- Gina Haspel’s appointment as the new CIA director
- Possibility of the United States joining UK sanctions against Russia after yesterday’s meeting of the UN Security Council
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Russia ‒ Land of Opportunity forum
Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver remarks at the Russia ‒ Land of Opportunity forum in Moscow. He will speak about the world and Russia’s opportunities in it. The forum participants are those who took part in projects held on the Russia – Land of Opportunity (RLO) platform, which was established at the initiative of President Vladimir Putin. The forum participants will discuss the development of transparent means of climbing the social ladder and personal fulfilment of talented young people as well as professionals.
Sergey Lavrov’s remarks will be streamed on the Ministry’s official website and social media accounts.
I think it will be an interesting discussion. I suggest that you watch it.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Vietnam
On March 19 and 20, Sergey Lavrov will visit the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He plans to hold talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh and to meet with other Vietnamese leaders.
The officials will discuss the current state and the possibility of further strengthening the comprehensive Russian-Vietnamese partnership, including our political dialogue and cooperation in trade, the economy, research and technology, as well as in the fields of military technology and culture. They will focus on preparations for the Russian-Vietnamese cross-year in 2019, as well as discuss current global and international questions of mutual concern.
Following the talks, the parties plan to sign a plan of cooperation between the foreign ministries of Russia and Vietnam for 2019−2020.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan
On March 21 and 22, Sergey Lavrov will visit Tokyo, where he will meet with Foreign Minister Taro Kono.
The ministers plan to discuss the entire range of matters related to bilateral relations, including political, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian questions. They will also talk about current international problems, including the developments on the Korean Peninsula and in Syria, as well as interaction at multilateral organisations.
This visit will be part of a series of meetings held between the Russian and Japanese foreign ministers in the second half of 2018 and the beginning of 2018. It will also be the main stage in preparations for the upcoming visit by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Russia in May of this year.
Following the talks, the parties plan to sign a plan of cooperation between the foreign ministries of Russia and Japan for 2018−2019
We will publish reference material for Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan on the Ministry’s official website.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Vietnamese and Japanese media
Let me share a little secret with you: as we speak, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is at an interview with Vietnamese and Japanese media. In his interview, the Foreign Minister will talk at length about Russia’s cooperation and relations with Vietnam and Japan.
The interview will be released on Friday evening.
On March 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair the annual meeting of Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund’s Board of Trustees to review the performance in 2017 and outline priorities for 2018−2019.
The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund was established back in 2010 in accordance with the Directive of the President of the Russian Federation with a view to supporting public diplomacy, promoting international activities of Russian NGOs and drawing civil society institutions into the foreign policy process.
On March 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in an international high-level conference on Afghanistan, Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity, that will be held in Tashkent.
This event is designed to facilitate the emergence of a broad international consensus on the main principles of a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, promote regional cooperation on security matters, as well as ways to draw Afghanistan into trade, transit, energy, cultural and humanitarian cooperation with Central Asia and beyond.
We view the Tashkent conference as a follow-up to the efforts by the international community, including within the Moscow format and the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, to promote stability in Afghanistan and put the country back on track for sustainable development.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s preparations for the presidential election
We are not ashamed of saying that our foreign missions have done a lot to prepare for the presidential election outside of Russia. Why do we say this and provide these assessments? The fact is that the geography of early voting has been expanded.
I would like to point out once again that we have opened 394 polling stations in 144 countries (as against 378 for the previous presidential election and 365 for the Duma elections).
The geography of early voting has been expanded. The number has grown from 270 (during the Duma elections) to 356 in 90 countries. This form of work has never been used on such a scale before. Over 150 such ballots took place as of the end of the day on March 14.
The manning of the polling station commissions has been completed. These are headed by 44 ambassadors and 62 consuls general.
We had problems and we are still facing a few hitches. For example, apart from Ukraine (we regularly reported on problems in Ukraine and posted relevant comments on the foreign ministry website), only Latvia and Estonia made it difficult for us to establish polling stations. As we already mentioned, the authorities in those countries did not allow us to open additional polling stations or organise remote voting.
According to consular registration statistics, about 1.8 million Russian citizens live or are in temporary residence abroad. The Russian Foreign Ministry and its foreign missions are doing their best to enable all those wishing to do so to enjoy their constitutional rights.
I again would like to draw your attention to the fact that our foreign missions (embassies and consulates general) regularly post updates on preparations for and the holding of early voting on their websites and social media accounts.
On March 18, all citizens of this country will hold elections and participate in them. You can follow the voting practically online: I mean the Russian Federation’s foreign missions.
If you have questions or want to cover the elections in some particular country, our embassies’ websites provide both hotline and press-service telephones (people in charge of press accreditation). Please use this opportunity. If you have any problems, contact the press centre of the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department. For our part, we will provide all the necessary assistance.
The military and political situation in Syria remains very tense. Nevertheless, we note a gradual shift in the development vector towards stabilisation and the building of peaceful life in the country.
Russia, being committed to UNSC Resolution 2254, continues to work towards an early political settlement in Syria and the eradication of the remaining seats of international terrorism. On March 16, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the foreign ministers meeting of the guarantor countries of the Astana process – Russia, Turkey and Iran – which is to be held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. The issues to be discussed include the situation on Syrian land, de-escalation processes and specific measures on restoring peace and security there.
The Russian military in Syria have continued to actively pursue contact with local armed groups in order to persuade them to lay down arms and distance themselves from terrorists. Detailed information on how the situation is unfolding “on site” is published by the Defence Ministry of the Russian Federation.
Syria’s government forces are conducting a large-scale counter-terrorist operation in Eastern Ghouta. The Syrian authorities, with the active support of the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides and in compliance with the provisions of international humanitarian law, take all possible measures to minimise civilian casualties and to arrange safe passage for the civilians from the areas controlled by militants. Daily five-hour humanitarian pauses continue. Two new safe corridors have been created. One of them was opened by the Russian military in the south of the enclave, near Jisrayn and Mlikha, and the other, at the initiative of the Syrian side, in Harasta. About 60 individuals, including 26 children, were evacuated from the liberated town of Misraba. On March 9, the local authorities allowed the entry of another humanitarian convoy, organised jointly by the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross and the Syrian Society of Red Crescent, and carrying humanitarian aid for 12,000 people.
The extremists, for their part, continue to boycott the humanitarian pauses, and sabotage initiatives on evacuating civilians from combat areas. The Faylaq ar-Rahman group opened fire on a convoy of civilians who tried to use the Jisrayn-Mlikha corridor, killing a woman and two children. The terrorists also fire artillery and mortars on residential districts of Damascus. On March 11, several dozen mortars hit the Syrian capital. The shelling targeted the districts of Qaymariyya, Barza, Bab Tuma, Al-Qassaa, Bazuriyya, Hamidiyya, Shaghour and Rukneddine. According to the Syrian Interior Ministry and Health Ministry, on that day alone, four civilians died and 26 were wounded.
We once again call on our regional and international partners to take part in a genuine and mutually respectful cooperation for the sake of reaching an early political settlement in Syria, and prevent the disruption of joint efforts to normalise the situation in that country. We would like to send a separate warning to Washington and to remind it about the need to rigorously comply with international law and the inadmissibility of military actions against the sovereign state of Syria, a member country of the United Nations.
UK’s accusations against Russia over the Skripal case
Yesterday, we posted the Ministry’s statement on this subject on its official website.
As declared yesterday, the Ministry certainly intends to take retaliatory measures in response to the UK’s announcement of relevant unfriendly steps and measures with regard to the Russian Federation. These retaliatory measures are at the elaboration stage and will be adopted shortly.
I would like to inform you that the Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom has sent several diplomatic notes to the Foreign Office with the aim of starting an active dialogue with London concerning the situation involving the use of chemical agents on UK territory. The notes called for the beginning of concrete joint work towards providing material and all possible information. They also spoke of the need to engage the Chemical Weapons Convention and the OPCW institutions and capabilities and contained a strong request for Russia to be allowed access to Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen.
The Foreign Office was sent a separate document regarding the broadcast and published information on the likelihood of official UK structures launching a cyberattack against the Russian Federation.
There were 4 notes all in all. In response, we received meaningless non-committal messages. As of today, the UK is refusing to cooperate with Russia on its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and as an OPCW member state. Among other things, this was stated to the OPCW. We tried to make London revert to legality so as to address the existing matters and serious problems.
We are extremely concerned over the developments that took place in the UK several days ago. It is with much concern that we accept the entire incoming information on the use of chemical weapons in the UK. I can officially confirm that as of now London is refusing to provide any factual information on the case in hand. The possibility of making samples of the substance discovered at the scene of the crime available to Russia is not even mentioned. I can also officially confirm that London has failed to provide Russia any details, data or information capable of shedding at least some light on this tragedy either through bilateral channels or at international organisations.
We can see the continuation of this information and political show as well as an obvious information and political campaign. We are witnessing an attempt to use, among other things, the mechanisms of the UN Security Council in order to stoke with a renewed force the anti-Russia hysteria and campaign. I think that many members of the international community have drawn conclusions on the degree of trust that London deserves.
We once again officially call on the UK to provide all available material related to the incident (as they describe it) involving proliferation of chemical weapons on the territory of this country.
We continue to closely monitor the developments taking place in Myanmar, whose authorities are doing their best to launch a peace process there. Tension persists in some regions of Myanmar, where irreconcilable ethnic armed groups are staging clashes. In particular, the explosion of improvised bombs rocked Sittwe, the capital of Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State.
The Myanmar authorities are working to create conditions for the return of those who had fled from their homes in the Rakhine State to Bangladesh. Camps are being established for receiving these people, and tight security measures are being taken.
The Myanmar government is giving priority attention to the humanitarian situation in the Rakhine State. Schools, which closed last year following the extremist attacks, are reopening. In early March, the fifth group of young volunteers went to the Rakhine State to deliver and distribute humanitarian aid among the residents of the affected villages and the internally displaced persons. Work is underway to resume round-the-clock electricity supplies to the northern parts of the Rakhine State.
The authorities are verifying the documents of over 8,000 refugees whom the Bangladeshi authorities turned over to Myanmar in February. To prevent militants from entering the Rakhine State, the border guards of Myanmar and Bangladesh are patrolling the common border and have increased the number of police and border guard roadblocks.
The Myanmar government is trying to supply the international community with reliable information about the developments in the Rakhine State. In February, it organised three visits by members of the diplomatic corps to the border areas, which foreign and local journalists visit regularly.
20th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry’s veterans’ organisation
On March 28, we will mark the 20th of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans. It was established at a general meeting of veterans and registered with the Russian Justice Ministry in January 1998.
The founding fathers of the veterans’ organisation included prominent diplomats such as member of the FM Collegium Nikolai Sudarikov, Ambassador Georgy Farafonov and Minister-Counsellor Nikolai Kustovsky. One of its current members is Hero of the Soviet Union Sergey Romanovtsev. The Council used to have three Heroes of the Soviet Union, a full cavalier of the Order of Glory, as well as three Heroes of Socialist Labour among its members.
At present, the Council of War and Labour Veterans comprises 1,558 members, including some 500 female veterans who are also members of 34 grass-roots veterans’ organisations at the Ministry’s departments. Among them there are 158 veterans of the Great Patriotic War, 20 Merited Workers of the Diplomatic Service of Russia, 112 Merited Workers of the Foreign Ministry, 144 ambassadors and 250 minister-counsellors.
The Council’s priorities are socioeconomic assistance to the veterans (healthcare services and financial aid), as well as help in the organisation of various events.
The Ministry officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, pay special attention to the veterans and their organisations and help them to deal with their problems.
Sergey Lavrov regularly meets with the leaders and active members of the Council of War and Labour Veterans.
We believe that this work should and will be continued.
A regional charitable public fund of socio-legal and additional material aid to the veterans of the diplomatic service “The Fund of the Veterans of the Diplomatic Service” has been established at the Foreign Ministry’s Council of War and Labour Veterans.
The main goal of the fund is to facilitate the targets and tasks of the Russian Government’s policy on social support for veterans, disabled and the disadvantaged, as well as veterans of the diplomatic service who are going through hard times.
A Supervisory Board headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been established for implementing the fund’s strategy and determining priority areas of its activities.
Considering the fund’s important role in providing socio-legal and material aid to veterans of the diplomatic service, the fund’s Council headed by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Vladimir Chkhikvadze (Ret.) invites government, public and other organisations, representatives of business circles and all interested citizens to take part in its work.
I must say that even young people can envy the vigorous activities of our veterans. We will regularly inform you about them.
Reports of the potential formation of a Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society
Before the briefing we received a request from the Azerbaijani media to comment on a report by a Russian news agency on the holding of the round table discussion “Free Artsakh - 30 Years” on February 22, which was attended by the employees of the permanent mission of the Republic of Artsakh in Moscow headed by Permanent Representative Albert Andryan. The report also mentioned the establishment of the Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society in Russia.
We found out what it was all about. There is no mission of the Republic of Artsakh in Moscow, as it was formulated in the question. To my knowledge, Mr Andryan mentioned in the report is in reality a counsellor of the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia. At any rate, he is accredited by the Russian Foreign Ministry in this capacity.
To be honest, I see no need to comment on the establishment of a Russia-Artsakh Friendship Society. We have most diverse public organisations. The main point is that this should not violate Russian law.
Excerpts from answers to questions:
Question: At the moment, the President of the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh republic, who is currently visiting the United States, is meeting with US congressmen. He is also planning to hold meetings with expert circles and at analytical centres. Could it have to do with some new circumstances concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement? Is it possible to talk about the prospect of the Nagorno-Karabakh leader paying a similar visit to Moscow in the future?
Maria Zakharova: You know, I find it pretty hard to give my comments, when someone from a certain region visits another region, when it does not concern the Russian Federation. Since it has to do with the US Congress, then, I believe, your question should rather be addressed to the United States. As for the Russian Federation, I know nothing about such meetings. I can be more precise. I can say that we are committed to all our obligations concerning a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement within the framework of the existing agreements. We are actively trying to assist in promoting a really full-format solution to this very complicated problem.
Question: Yesterday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meeting with his Turkish counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, noted that the situation in the South Caucasus is always present on the Russian-Turkish agenda. Does it mean that the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is also periodically discussed by Russia and Turkey?
Maria Zakharova: The issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is being discussed with a whole number of our partners. This involves the co-chairmen, the countries of the region. This is normal and is part of our diplomatic work.
Question: The day before, there were media reports alleging that pressure had been put on Russian diplomats in the UK even earlier. Specifically, some of our colleagues quoted Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying that even his appeal to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson failed to solve the visa problem plaguing our diplomatic staff. Is this so? It would also be nice to get your comment on the statement entitled “Crimea is Ukraine” posted on the website of the US Department of State in response to President Putin’s visit to this constituent entity of Russia.
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the pressure placed on Russian diplomats in the UK and the solution of the visa problem, I can say that yesterday you could draw your own conclusions from Ms May’s pronouncements as to whether there was pressure or not. This is the manner in which the prime minister of that country (a nuclear power, let me remind you again) for some reason deemed it possible to deal with Russia and Russian diplomats. In principle, she was addressing Russian citizens yesterday and said something about friendship and love for our people. We saw yesterday how the UK sees its love for Russians. We continue to see this, apart from other things, at international organisations, where this love is particularly conspicuous. Regrettably, far from all people can see this, because talks are held behind closed doors. There, our British colleagues are really at ease “loving” the Russian people across the board. But I can say that they always get a fitting reply.
As for the “visa war” (and I certainly can describe the situation in these terms), we have for a long time thought it right to try and reach a settlement through Russia-UK bilateral channels. We did make comments, of course, but we were very polite. But if London has taken steps that everyone knows of today, let us tell the whole story and this is what we did yesterday.
In fact, Russian diplomats have been literally squeezed out for a number of years. The British authorities were putting all sorts of obstacles in their way, specifically through the use of the visa mechanism. It looked very simple. After visas issued to Russian diplomats expired, relevant diplomatic notes for visa extensions were sent (as you understand, diplomats do not leave the territory of a state and remain embassy employees). These extensions had no time limits. There was no timeframe for executing the documents and receiving a reply from London. As you understand, visas are issued within established timeframes stipulated by the agreements: relevant international documents specify terms of interaction between the diplomatic staff and the authorities of a country of residence. Apart from everything else, there is common sense pure and simple. All of that was trampled underfoot by UK officials. Visas were not extended for many Russian diplomats and embassy employees. During high-level meetings, at the level of foreign ministers, the Russian side repeatedly mentioned the need to solve the existing problem, because at some point we came to realise that the situation had been specially created rather than cropped up by chance. To reiterate, every expedient was used to maximally complicate the work of the Russian embassy staff in the UK.
As for the DOS statement that Crimea is Ukraine, it reminds me of a lecture I heard on dreams once.
Question: Yesterday, it was announced in the UK Parliament that in the event that Russia expels British diplomats from Moscow in retaliation for Britain's expelling Russian diplomats, Britain would do the same and will expel more diplomats. Who will win in this “competition” when each side responds with tougher measures?
Maria Zakharova: You should ask London. The question of who wants to win or can win should be posed to those who have unleashed this campaign. And we have not the slightest doubt that this is a campaign. From the very beginning, we requested all available information on the circumstances of the incident. From the very beginning, we proposed using international law documents and mechanisms not just for settling the issues (which are impossible to settle in one or two days) but for beginning a thorough analysis of what happened.
As a reminder, in an extraordinary event that occurred in Europe, according to the British side (and we still have not received any official data), a chemical poisoning agent was used to attack a citizen of Great Britain and a citizen of Russia. Everything that was required to be done from the Russian side was done. In response, we received zero information, zero data and a clear unwillingness to cooperate. So all questions should go to them. Do they want to win? What do they want to win in? How do they conceive of victory in this case? We are certainly not the ones to be asked these questions.
Even amid this hysteria we saw from London, this show, even in this format and these circumstances, we acted in the most constructive way possible and made efforts to maintain a normal (although this is not normal in the usual sense of the word) dialogue rooted in law. This is not about sympathy or special feelings we should have for each other. This is about standard legal work to investigate what happened. Once again, this is an informational and political campaign in which the conclusions were made on the first day. What is there to talk about?
Question: What chances are there to normalise relations with Great Britain? But probably this is also a question for them as they caused this mess.
Maria Zakharova: Chances for normalisation... I will think about the answer.
Question: What is your reaction to yesterday’s statement by the US Ambassador during the UN Security Council meeting and the very fact that the United States unconditionally backed Britain’s stance in the case of Sergey Skripal?
Maria Zakharova: An excellent question. Thank you very much. We, too, have some questions about that. Is this the position of the US Ambassador to the UN, of the US Department of State, of those American structures that deal with non-proliferation, including chemical weapons, of the US Presidential Administration? Whose position is this? Was it coordinated?
If this is part of a global campaign, then there is no need for it to be coordinated. For those taking part in such propaganda shows, this is very easy to do, as there is no need to verify the facts, no need for concrete data, no need to understand what kind of information they use. Actually nothing is needed, all they need to do is to stick to the mainstream – the mainstream of Russophobia – and support everything that has to do with this Russophobia.
I have one question: When some delegation or another declares that it stands in solidarity, for example, with UK Prime Minister Theresa May and what she said, what is this based on? Did anyone provide any information to them? If so, are they concealing it? We, for our part, understand that, in all probability, nothing was provided. So what do these allegations rest upon? No one has provided anything to us, nor has anyone provided anything to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Do you see? There are such things as samples and substance: samples of the substance that was found. Does anyone, except the British authorities, possess this specific information? No one does.
How can you stand in solidarity for things that you cannot comprehend because you do not have the original concrete data? This is just incredible! Everyone is speculating on the origin of the substance without having the slightest idea what substance they are talking of. Just as easily, you, your colleagues or simply people off the street can come and support Theresa May. It is a matter of ignorance, rather than facts, of ideological support, rather than investigation. This ideological support is what we are seeing. It has nothing to do with investigation, as Britain has not provided any data to anyone.
You and I, we all saw that Theresa May had some telephone conversations with her European partners and, perhaps, with someone else. But I’m not sure that samples of a chemical substance can be provided over the phone. I understand that technology (especially following statements by certain officials in London on the possibility of cyber attacks against Moscow) is virtually unlimited. But still, samples of a chemical substance cannot be provided over the phone. After all, this is a kind of work that takes experts to perform. When talking of aggression against some state, the more so when it happens at the UN Security Council, people have to present factual evidence.
Let me say again: Why, prior to bringing this matter before the UN Security Council, did no one want to discuss it at a conference of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? There is a whole organisation for such matters. Are they playing for time? Do they want to “polish up” something and present it later, perhaps? Are they afraid or reluctant to present it now? The truth is obviously being concealed. No one is providing information about the incident to anyone. We do not even know the circumstances of how it happened. Was there an attacker, or many attackers, a group of people, an organised crime group or a private person?
Who was it? How did it all take place? No one knows that. Yet, conclusions of a truly cosmic scale have already been made.
Question: Is there a legal mechanism that Russia can use to include this issue on the agenda of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?
Maria Zakharova: Of course there is. We have discussed it. We released an official statement and handed over a corresponding diplomatic note to Great Britain. Let's say it again. Several concurrent steps have been made. Russia sent a diplomatic note after British Prime Minister Theresa May announced to the whole world that Britain was attacked and that the traces and the origin of the poisonous agent, which was not made available to anyone (only Britain has it), are somehow linked to Russia. A diplomatic note was sent to the British Foreign Office through the Russian Embassy in London with a proposal to use the mechanism of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in particular Article 9.2. We also said this publicly in order to avoid things such as “Theresa May might not be updated about something” or “Theresa May might not have read something.” We have run into these kinds of things. Look, for example, into how a meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and former US State Secretary Rex Tillerson was organised. We made the information about this meeting available, while we and you were told that they were not informed. That's why we did it. Just to avoid such things as “the note didn’t come,” “the Russians didn’t send the note,” or “the Russians made it up.”
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov publicly spoke about our proposal to official London, which was to use the corresponding paragraph of the corresponding article of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In addition, speaking at a meeting of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the same day, Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW, Russian Ambassador Alexander Shulgin described in detail the Russian proposal regarding the work under the convention, which was addressed directly to the British delegation in the presence of experts and delegations from other countries. We have not received any response to this, either. The debate in the OPCW continued. Britain declined our proposal to use this mechanism.
We have explained everything we knew about this mechanism, assuming that our colleagues from Britain or other countries may not be aware of certain things. We said that according to this mechanism, ten days are given to draft an answer to a cooperation proposal. However, at the same time, it is necessary to make all the materials and the data that the UK has at its disposal available to Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said that if this article is not acted upon for some reason, the OPCW has other mechanisms which can also be used. Already at the next meeting of the organisation, Permanent Representative of Russia Alexander Shulgin presented to the British side all possible options for working on the Convention in the OPCW. However, what we received in response was a volley of propaganda and an actual refusal to work with the Convention. This is what we have as of today.
You also saw and heard what took place in the UN Security Council. Go over the remarks by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vasily Nebenzya. This is another political show, but this time with the involvement of UN Security Council mechanisms. I want to reiterate what we have repeatedly stated. Russia is officially announcing its willingness to work with all mechanisms that imply work within the OPCW and on its platform, using the appropriate tools.
However, at the moment, this trend is only gaining momentum, with London refusing to work within this legal framework. Everything has been transferred to the public sphere. This is another campaign and the next step in taking Russophobic hysteria to a new level.
Question: Wess Mitchell of the US Department of State said during his visit to Pristina that the United States supports the transformation of the Kosovo security forces into a fully functional army and that nobody has a veto right when it comes to Kosovo security. Can you comment on the situation? Do you think that pushing for establishing a full-fledged army in Kosovo can lead to deteriorating security in the region?
Maria Zakharova: We know this for a fact. It is not a question whether we think so or not, we have spoken about that with confidence. The formation of Kosovo and the way it was done, the goals pursued during the disintegration of Serbia and the sundering of a territory from a sovereign state, the way the new entity was invested with media and political support and what that all has led to – all this is undoubtedly a grave source of instability on the European continent. Creating armed forces in an entity, which in no way has approached the state character, will further aggravate the already tense situation in the region.
Question: British Prime Minister Theresa May said that not only diplomats would be expelled from the country. The UK is prepared to freeze Russian assets and cancel the Royal family’s visit to the FIFA World Cup to be held in Russia. What do Russia’s measures in response to Great Britain entail?
Maria Zakharova: Response measures are being worked out and will be made public shortly.
Question: In you view, how dangerous is the current situation?
Maria Zakharova: What scale do you suggest for evaluating it – in percentage points? A colour scale? There are currently different colours for danger levels. What paradigm are we talking about here? If you are asking whether the current situation is dangerous, it is definitely dangerous. Let me repeat, the leader of a nuclear power goes to her parliament, that is, two branches of government meet, those who take critically important decisions, and groundlessly accuses another country of aggression against her own country, gives 24 hours, issues ultimatums and generally acts in a way that is detached from any reality, which in itself is the most scary and dangerous, because the actions are not commensurate with the real situation. It creates the impression that it was a sort of a talk show without real communication or knowledge of international law and the way the world lives, but is rather an opportunity to speak out and make a multi-part saga out of it. In this respect, the situation is extremely dangerous, without a doubt.
As to the scale, please figure out a paradigm, and we will think it over. I think what matters is not the degree of danger but understanding the absolute irresponsibility of those who came and keep coming to power in a number of countries on the wave of populism. These people come with empty promises. Even if earlier politicians used to make promises and proposals to their people as they were fighting for power, being aware from the outset that some of them would never come true, it was not dangerous. Whereas today there is a perception that we are watching a real crisis of the political system in many countries, when not only an external factor is needed to solve internal problems, but a large-scale non-stop campaign which presupposes the use of the complete arsenal of declarations, measures, threats to impact domestic, internal processes. I have no doubts that British Prime Minister Theresa May’s actions also have a domestic subtext. Perhaps, she wanted to present herself as a strong leader but she presented herself the way she did. I think there is no use in offering an assessment of her. You saw everything yourselves.
Question: My question concerns the German political refugees who are currently staying at the Russian Embassy in Riga. Sources claim that the issue of transferring Marcus Bergfeld to Moscow has been settled – he will be here basically tomorrow. I would like to understand if the refugees will be granted temporary or political asylum? Mr Bergfeld is a former serviceman who served at an airport in Germany where, according to him, US nuclear weapons are stored in case of war. Does this mean the value of this classified information, which he happened to obtain and is ready to share with Russia, has been confirmed? Will help be rendered to unite him with his family and children who are currently in Germany?
Maria Zakharova: I do not have information on the matter. I can only clarify this if it is regarding the Russian consulate, and offer you the information.
Question: Can you forget about your telephone and come to Bulgaria?
Maria Zakharova: I will definitely think about your invitation to visit Bulgaria, thank you. Unlike Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who did not accept the invitation of the British side to visit the UK, I accept your invitation that was made sincerely and in person.
Question: The city council of Vilnius demanded that the Lithuanian military history association “Forgotten Soldiers” remove the headstones on the graves of the Red and Imperial Russian Army soldiers at Antakalnis Cemetery before March 31. The Russian Ambassador to Lithuania Alexander Udaltsov said that even though Russia is reluctant to do so, it is ready for a symmetrical response to such initiatives meaning Lithuanian graves in Siberia. How possible is this response and what needs to happen for Russia to review its attitude towards Lithuanian graves on its territory?
On Tuesday, the Justice Ministry of the Russian Federation included the International Elections Study Centre registered in Lithuania on the list of organisations whose activities are undesirable in Russia. Can you comment on the situation? Also, do you think there is an attack on the Russian presidential election by the West?
Maria Zakharova: While answering earlier questions, I gave a fairly salient narrative of what is going on regarding the Russian Federation, in particular, on the part of Great Britain. Did London set out to make this story coincide with our domestic processes? I think we will learn about this one day. This is an attempt to smear our reputation (I hate this word, but I cannot come up with a better one) and do anything it can to resuscitate the campaign to contain Russia and keep it isolated. It did not work before; they failed to create a united front where entire regions would join the isolation coalition, but the desire to do so remains. This is the reason behind these attempts. There is no doubt that these attempts will continue, judging by what is happening on the part of official London and how it is being supported, in particular, by representatives of the US political establishment, because the stakes are too high to give them up.
Our reaction to the incident with the headstones was voiced by our Ambassador to Lithuania Alexander Udaltsov. I can only add that this is part of a history re-writing campaign. Monuments are visualisations of historic dates, memories and events. Not everyone reads or refers to historical chronicles, all the more so now that a lot of time has passed since the end of World War II. Whereas earlier new generations learned about the events from their older family members, today this natural historical memory within a family is fading one way or another, in particular, in Eastern Europe, because there are no witnesses to those events who can talk about everything. The new generation will indeed not acquire the historical truth “with their mothers’ milk.” This is why since olden times people created such things as monuments so that people could visually remember, know and preserve this memory as they walk or drive by. Unfortunately, the more time passes, in particular, since World War II, the fewer people know and refer to authentic sources. Therefore the removal of monuments is an attempt to clear this information platform so that nothing prevents building new concepts narrating a modified history of World War II. This is happening throughout Eastern Europe. Not in all, but in many countries, in particular, those you mentioned, in Poland and a number of others. For example, there are sort of hybrid efforts where the authorities are doing everything they can to avoid the dismantling process, sincerely honour the memory of our Red Army’s and our soldiers’ contributions to the liberation of those countries, but a lot of political movements stand up for the demolition of monuments. This is why vandalism and desecration continues. Currently, a large-scale global attempt is underway to clear the information space (and monuments are part of it) so that nothing will impede to build up a new so-called modified history of World War II.
Regarding the specific response measures you mentioned, I will make enquiries and give you that information.
Question: On March 13, 2018, the United States announced a meeting would be summoned on the southwestern zone in Syria, which operates under special terms. Has the meeting taken place, or will it take place? Can we say the platform in Amman is still operating?
On March 16, 2018, the ministers of foreign affairs [of Iran, Russia and Turkey] will meet in Astana. Is the next regular round of talks in Astana being worked on in the previous format, or is it too early to discuss this?
Maria Zakharova: It is definitely not too early to ask about the Astana platform and the process underway. The format and the level of participants in the process can differ depending on the situation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, along with heads of corresponding agencies and the country's leadership, have repeatedly confirmed Astana's relevance and the process that is taking place there with Kazakhstan playing an effective, very important role as the host. As regards the announced meeting, I will look into it.
Question: My question concerns the appointment of the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency. According to reports in US media, Gina Haspel was involved in torture.
Maria Zakharova: Not only in the media, by the way. Advocacy organisations released a special statement on this.
Question: The detention and outright kidnapping of Russian citizens and the use of torture against them by western and US special services is a regular occurrence. Can a new spike in these activities be expected in connection with this appointment?
Maria Zakharova: I have not heard of cases of Russian citizens being tortured, though they are kidnapped, detained and sent to prisons. If you have any materials, forward them to us, please. I can only say there are issues of, so to say, improper detention of Russian nationals, with a lack of medical aid and access to contacts that should be provided to a person as a prisoner, an arrestee or even a convict. However, as regards torture, let us be more careful with words. This is not about populism, this is about being specific. From my side, I will seek more information on what you are talking about.
This is an internal US appointment. This is a decision of the US Administration. As regards the reaction by non-governmental organisations, I think they have every right to express concern over various decisions, because they are non-governmental organisations involved in human rights issues. Once again, this is a solely internal appointment that has been made by the leadership of a sovereign state. If they believe this will make their work easier, more efficient and better, that is their decision.
Question: Do you expect the United States to join Britain’s sanctions against Russia following yesterday’s meeting of the UN Security Council?
Maria Zakharova: This is up to the United States to decide. We see that a number of representatives of the political establishment have made a career, and some even a fortune, let us be frank, on the introduction of the anti-Russia sanctions, the lobbying of anti-Russia laws and the adoption of anti-Russia measures. All this lobbying for corresponding laws does not come free, which is something that we also need to understand. The political system in the United States allows for direct lobbying for money and for influencing legislative bills. People, in the United States in particular, have made a career, a name and many even a fortune on this anti-Russia campaign. Many have just tried to keep afloat with this Russophobia for decades. So, in what way this campaign will continue in the United States, how they will spin it – this question is definitely not for us. We can spend a long time discussing who has benefited from this. There is not a single parameter or motive that could prompt the Russian Federation to either commit such things or refuse to cooperate in this case. Today, we are eager to begin concrete work on the issue with the British side. We cannot understand why specific information has not been provided – not only to us, but to anyone. Even if it is provided in some closed format to those who backed this campaign, it will raise still more questions. Why are the existing international mechanisms not being used? Why is all this happening? We see the desire to take this anti-Russia campaign to a new level, it is obvious.
What was happening inside the UN walls yesterday leaves no doubt that this case has yet another track, namely an attempt to tie up all elements related to chemical weapons, including the problems that are currently being whipped up in Syria – endless accusations against Damascus of the alleged use of chemical weapons and support from Russia – with what happened in London yesterday. Look at the logic that was spelled out yesterday and is being suggested to the so-called expert community: here is proof that official Damascus in Syria uses chemical weapons and Russia supports it, and the final point in all that is the fact that Russia used chemical agents on British territory. Can you see how nicely all this fits together? This is where it is all heading. One of the tracks of this campaign is to tie up all these elements and “press through” the chemical weapons plot in Syria. No one is making a secret of that. Leaks, statements and comments to that effect have been pouring in. This is part of a huge well-orchestrated plan.
Nobody who supports, retranslates or quotes all these versions thinks or asks themselves why Moscow or Damascus need it. Damascus finally has a real chance to restore peaceful life. And suddenly, when most of the territory has been liberated from terrorists, when people are returning to their homes, for example, in Aleppo, and agreements are starting to be made, official Damascus starts using chemical weapons. Why? What for? This is what the West accuses Damascus of. When this idea starts to collapse under its own absurdity, a massive information strike is necessary (or the people behind this flight of fancy think so) to make it work. They made up a story about Moscow allegedly using chemical weapons in the United Kingdom. Why would we need this in the spring of 2018? Have any of reasonable people asked this question? Is there any sense to it? Who benefits from this situation? Those who have been making up stories about Russian aggression for several years.
Yesterday the Foreign Office published a really amazing video on its website: “The pattern of Russian state aggression.” Our aggression allegedly started in 2006, with the Litvinenko case. It seems that before this we were a normal country, and then everything started to fall apart. The next fact presented is dated 2008, meaning Russia’s “disrespect” for Georgia’s sovereignty. In fact, before this, it was called Russian “aggression” towards Georgia, and now it is called “disrespect” because it has been proven that is was Mikheil Saakashvili who was the aggressor. The next stage involves cyberattacks on German official agencies followed by aircraft violating the air space. Then a photograph of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, probably, to leave no doubt that it was he who was behind all these events, personally. I have one question: Why does this video not include cyberattacks and interference with the US election, which we are blamed of? Does official London admit we have nothing to do with it? They listed everything, including the cyberattacks on German official agencies. Or does the UK have doubts in this regard?
It is all just total nonsense. Logic does not work here. But the massive scale of the media used, as well as the public diplomacy and speeches at the UN Security Council and the UK parliament form the whole picture. All this is really very dangerous for global peace and stability.