Briefing by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Alexey Zaitsev, Moscow, January 27, 2022

I would like to draw your attention to a subject that is bound to be of interest to all journalists. We have received a great number of questions about this issue. This is our reaction to the US response to the Russian proposals on security guarantees. We published Mr Lavrov’s response on our website several hours ago. The news agencies have already caught up with it. It largely answers all of your potential questions on this subject.

Sergey Lavrov’s interview with four radio stations

At 11 am on February 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be interviewed on major foreign policy issues and the current international agenda. This interview will be broadcast live by four radio stations: SPUTNIK, Echo of Moscow, Govorit Moskva and Komsomolskaya Pravda.

Watch the broadcast in the video section, in Russian, on the Foreign Ministry’s website and its social media accounts.

Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with the ambassadors of the PRC, the Republic of Korea, DPRK, Mongolia, Vietnam and Singapore

On January 31, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plans to hold a reception for the ambassadors of the countries that celebrate the New Year according to the lunar calendar – China, the Republic of Korea, the DPRK, Mongolia, Vietnam and Singapore.

The meetings of the Foreign Ministry’s top executives with the diplomats representing these countries on the eve of the Lunar New Year have become a good tradition that promotes the strengthening of friendly ties and understanding with the states in this region. This year, the Foreign Minister will take part in this event for the first time.

Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming visit to the PRC

On February 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit China.

During talks in Beijing, the foreign ministers of the two countries will discuss major bilateral issues with an emphasis on the preparations for the Olympic summit between the Russian and Chinese leaders on February 4. They will also talk about coordination in the international arena and review major regional and global issues.

Update on northeastern Syria

The situation in northeastern Syria was sharply aggravated after an attack in the early hours of January 21 by ISIS militants (outlawed in Russia) on Al-Sinaa prison in the village of Al-Hasakah, northeastern Syria, which holds the most dangerous ISIS terrorists. The prison is guarded by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces. Suicide vehicles laden with explosives were used in the attack, and ISIS was able to get inside the prison, free the inmates and gain a foothold in nearby residential quarters.

Supported by US military aviation, the Syrian Democratic Forces units continue to mop up the neighbourhoods occupied by terrorists. The US airstrikes on the positions of the militants who offered stiff resistance destroyed the technical college and the economic department of a local university. A fuel depot was destroyed as well. The parties suffered significant losses. There are also losses among civilians. According to the UN, about 45,000 civilians were forced to flee with some of them moving to the area controlled by the Syrian government.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry put out an official statement on January 22 in connection with the developments in Al-Hasakah, calling the ISIS attack and the response by the Syrian Democratic Forces crimes that led to the tragic loss of life and the mass exodus of local residents, as well as to the significant destruction of civilian infrastructure. Damascus used the same language to describe the US actions, emphasising “barbaric” nature of the US air raids. The statement emphasises that despite the difficult circumstances caused primarily by the Western sanctions on Syria, the Syrian authorities provided every possible assistance and support to the people who fled the area of hostilities. In this context, UN humanitarian organisations, including UNHCR, the WHO and UNICEF, are also called on to make vigorous efforts to immediately help the internally displaced persons, and the UN Security Council to take effective measures to protect civilians residing in northern and northeastern Syria. The United States and Turkey have once again been called on to end their illegal military presence in Syria.

Clearly, neither the Americans nor the local Kurdish government are able to ensure reliable security in northeastern Syria, in areas under their control. The successful ISIS attack on Al-Sinaa prison was yet further evidence of the failure of the US military that, according to official Washington, are there to put an end to ISIS. Several hundred terrorists who are now at large undoubtedly pose a security threat not only to Syria, but to other countries in the region and beyond as well. The legitimate Syrian authorities will now face the additional dangerous challenge of neutralising a significant number of escaped gunmen who are capable of wreaking much havoc.

We reiterate our position whereby Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be unconditionally respected and the legitimate authorities must reinstate control over all regions of that country after the foreign military contingents, that are deployed there illegally, pull out of Syria. This is the only way to finally eliminate the presence of international terrorism in Syria and to ensure sustainable stability and security in and around Syria.

Instability in west and northwest Africa

We continue to closely monitor the developments in Burkina Faso, where President Roch Kabore was removed from power on January 24 by a military coup. The Patriotic Movement for Preservation and Restoration, a military government led by Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Damiba, took control of the country and suspended the Constitution, dissolved the Government and the National Assembly, closed the borders and imposed a curfew.

These events in friendly Burkina Faso are alarming. We have a principled position against unconstitutional actions to change governments. We call for the immediate release of President Roch Kabore of Burkina Faso, as well as the country’s speedy return to civilian rule.

We are also concerned about the drastic deterioration of the security situation in Mali, where numerous terrorist groups affiliated with ISIS and Al-Qaeda have become more active. The efforts by the Malian transitional authorities who have to wage a daily uncompromising struggle against the Islamists, to achieve peace and stability in the country are significantly complicated by Paris’s decision to drawdown France’s Operation Barkhane and the recently heightened tensions between Bamako and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

We welcome the steps taken by the African Union to achieve a compromise between the Malians and the leadership of ECOWAS on scheduling elections and determining other parameters of the electoral process. It would seem that under the circumstances, elections need to be carefully prepared, considering the possible changes in the security situation, in order to ensure that the forthcoming vote is truly democratic and representative.

At the same time, we believe it is important to continue to urge Mali’s leaders to pursue a balanced, measured and realistic policy to resolve the current crisis.

Afghanistan update

We have noted the visit to Oslo by a Taliban delegation where they met with official representatives of a number of foreign countries this week, as well as with Afghan civil society activists. We consider these meetings as a step towards international recognition of the Taliban, as well as progress towards greater trust between the ruling regime in Kabul and representatives of other Afghan socio-political forces.

We consider it expedient to continue the dialogue between the Taliban and civil society activists on the territory of Afghanistan in the future.

Update on Ukraine

The past week has clearly shown the artificial character of the domestic conflict in Ukraine. Some Western countries are trying hard to fuel it in an effort to divide the historically common peoples of Russia and Ukraine and create a hotbed of instability, complicating relations between the EU countries and Moscow. We are convinced that without “Western aid” the conflict in eastern Ukraine would have ended long ago. Moreover, the conflict that began with the advent of nationalists to power in Kiev most likely would have never happened.

It has been a relatively calm period on the line of contact in Donbass. According to the reports of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM), the number of ceasefire violations has gone down compared with the first weeks of January.

On Monday, January 24, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Alexey Danilov said that he did not see any grounds for the assertions by some in the West of Russia’s “impending invasion.” New Defence Minister Alexey Reznikov has a similar view. For our part, we have said many times that our country is not going to attack anyone. We consider unacceptable even the idea of a war between our peoples.

However, Ukraine’s overseas handlers have a different view. They seem to be determined to stick to their story that Russia is supposed to attack Ukraine, infuriating the entire West. They are doing all they can to make it a reality. When something goes wrong with their plan, they start fuelling tensions artificially: order the evacuation of their embassy personnel from Kiev, increase arms supplies and yell even louder about the mythical Russian threat. They even specify the time they are planning for Russia to “attack” Ukraine somewhere between today and the middle of February.

Those who dare express opinions that differ from the official view in the ostensibly free and democratic West, lose their jobs and even their sense of security. German Vice Admiral Kai-Achim Schönbach had to resign after he said that Ukraine lost Crimea forever and dismissed as absurd statements about Russia’s plans to attack Ukraine. Croatian President Zoran Milanovic’s name was added to the database of the notorious Myrotvorets extremist website for saying that there is no place for Ukraine in NATO. The aforementioned admiral’s name is also on this website. Let’s recall that the name of popular journalist and writer Oles Buzina was also listed on this website among other “enemies of Ukraine.” He was murdered.

This destructive influence explains the lack of progress at the talks between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk on settling the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The meeting of the Contact Group and its sub-groups on January 25 and 26 again failed to produce any results. Kiev representatives are openly subverting the negotiating process and dodging the discussion with Donbass its proposals on political aspects of settlement.

Yesterday in Paris, the political advisors of the Normandy Four leaders had a difficult time. We believe the main result of their eight-hour conversation was that all of them confirmed the absence of any alternative to the Minsk agreements and the need to implement the measures on consolidating the ceasefire regime under the agreement of July 22, 2020. We hope the participants in the next meeting in Berlin in two weeks will manage to find solutions to the problems that have piled up over seven years and start tackling the issue of the Donbass status.

We urge the Ukrainian authorities to finally show independence, think about the interests of their own country and its people and find a sustainable political solution to the current conflict in direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. We hope the NATO countries will stop fuelling the conflict in eastern Ukraine and abstain from interfering in the domestic affairs of that country. This should allow the contracting Ukrainian parties to resolve their differences in a direct dialogue between themselves.

55th anniversary of 1967 Outer Space Treaty

The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, continues to be relevant 55 years after it was signed on January 27, 1967.

That unique document, which was surprisingly far-sighted for its time, laid a solid foundation for further development of the international legal framework for outer space under the auspices of the UN. A series of multilateral agreements was adopted during the subsequent period, detailing the treaty provisions in various areas, which has enabled us to successfully expand mutually beneficial cooperation with foreign partners in space exploration to this day.

Looking back at the journey towards the stars that humankind has travelled, which included a considerable number of breakthroughs and truly historic events, it is important to note that the Treaty has provided the much-needed stability for the multilateral regulation of space research, including thanks to the basic rules it contained for carrying out activities in outer space, and the system of checks and balances it established.

Today we need to continue to follow the letter and spirit of the Outer Space Treaty as closely as before. While working to develop private initiative in space, states must bear in mind that governments, not private players, have the status to regulate space activities.

We consider all attempts by certain countries to replace the existing universal norms of space law with some of their own practices and standards counterproductive. We believe the Outer Space Treaty has no alternative in this context.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 77th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops

Exactly 77 years ago, on January 27, 1945, Soviet troops liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau (Oswiecim), where millions of innocent people died. In 2005, this day was declared International Day in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust by a resolution of the UN General Assembly cosponsored by Russia.

January 27 is a day of mourning for the over 6 million victims of the targeted extermination of the Jewish people by the Nazis. On this day, memorial events are held around the world by Jewish organisations. In Russia, the Federation of Jewish Communities held an official Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Centre on January 27. A memorial evening Keeper of Memory – the main highlight of the Russian Jewish Congress’s Memory Week beginning on January 17, 2022, will also be held on January 27. All events marking the Holocaust Remembrance Day help to preserve the historical truth about the terrible events that took place 77 years ago; they remind us of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Soviet Army, of the heroism of all peoples of the former USSR and their contribution to saving Jews in Europe. Representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry traditionally take part in the memorial events.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov has sent messages to Russia’s Jewish organisations.

The Holocaust is one of the greatest crimes against humanity in terms of its scope and cruelty. The truth about the Holocaust includes more than gas chambers and furnaces, execution trenches and pits – it is also about the heroes who hid Jews from the Nazis and, as much as they could, prevented an even greater number of victims, about Soviet liberator soldiers and participants in uprisings in extermination camps and ghettos.

Unfortunately, shameful practices such as rewriting the history of WWII and glorification of what the Nazis and their minions did, can still be observed in some countries, including those calling themselves exemplars of democracy. They are waging a war on memorials – monuments to the Soviet Army soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe are being destroyed and desecrated.

Russia is categorically opposed to any distortions of history and rehabilitation of Nazism. Every year, it submits a draft resolution on combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to the UN General Assembly. On December 17, 2021, the document was approved by 130 votes at the plenary session of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly. (The liberated countries of Europe abstained (49), while the United States, a former ally in the anti-Hitler coalition, and Ukraine, one of the Soviet republics most affected during the war, now an independent state, voted against it.)

On January 20, 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted, also with Russia’s support, a resolution condemning attempts to deny the Holocaust.

Russia will continue to expose and defend the truth about the victims of the Holocaust, the genocide of the Soviet people and other Nazi crimes at various international platforms.

78th anniversary of ending the Siege of Leningrad

Today, on January 27, our country marks another date that is as important as any other in the history of the Great Patriotic War and WWII, which is the Day of Lifting the Nazi Siege of Leningrad. On this day, 78 years ago, soldiers of the Leningrad, Volkhov and 2nd Baltic fronts defeated German troops, forcing them back from the city and liberating almost the entire Leningrad Region. The Siege of Leningrad lasted 872 days from September 8, 1941, until January 27, 1944, when the city marked the end of the siege with a fireworks display.

The Battle of Leningrad was the most protracted and bloody one during the war. The fighting on the approaches to Leningrad and the siege, until it was lifted, took a heavy a toll on the city, with the total number of defenders and civilians killed ranging between 1.5 and 2 million, including at least 800,000 residents of Leningrad, who died of starvation during the first winter of the siege in 1941-1942.

The only route that connected besieged Leningrad with the rest of the country was an ice road across Lake Ladoga, which was named the Road of Life. On November 22, 1941, the first convoy of GAZ-AA lorries, or 30-cwt lorries as they were referred to, left for besieged Leningrad, carrying food for residents of the city. The lorries were used to bring food to the besieged city and take exhausted people out to other parts of the country. This work entailed great risk as the Germans bombed the length of road. Every journey was potentially a driver’s last. Not all vehicles made it to the shore of the lake, with hundreds of them ending up at the bottom of Ladoga. In all, during the winter of 1941-1942 that proved to be the direst for the besieged city, drivers serving on the Road of Life brought 361,000 tonnes of cargo to Leningrad and took 500,000 people out of the city, primarily women and children. Nobody knows if there has been another vehicle in the history of humankind, which saved as many lives.

One of those vehicles was found at the bottom of Lake Ladoga, when it was surveyed in 2020; it was restored and, since November 2021, has been on display at the Breaking the Siege of Leningrad Museum, which we talked about at the previous briefing. This vehicle, which is truly a symbol of the endurance and courage of the defenders and residents of Leningrad, has been brought to Moscow, on the initiative of Valentina Matviyenko, Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and Distinguished Citizen of St Petersburg, and temporarily installed today outside the building of the Foreign Ministry of Russia.

We invite everyone who has the opportunity to go to Smolenskaya-Sennaya Square in the next few days to see with their own eyes the historical evidence of those horrible years and pay tribute to the defenders of Leningrad, who made an invaluable contribution to the defeat of Nazism.

The 190th anniversary of the birth of Russian diplomat and statesman Nikolay Ignatyev

January 29 marks the 190thanniversary of the birth of Nikolay Ignatyev (1832-1908), a prominent Russian diplomat and statesman who enjoyed success in military, diplomatic and public service.

After graduating from the Imperial Military Academy in 1851, he was appointed military envoy to London. In 1857-1858, he headed the military and diplomatic mission in Khiva and Bukhara. In 1859-1861, he served in China as an ambassador-at-large. Acting as a mediator between the parties in the Anglo-French-Chinese war, he managed to achieve the signing of the 1860 Convention of Peking between Russia and the Qing Empire, which defined the eastern Russian-Chinese border and outlined in broad strokes the western Russian-Chinese border.

For his successes on the diplomatic front, he was promoted to the position of a Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Asian Department. With the aggravation of the situation in the East, he was appointed envoy to Constantinople in 1864. In 1867-1877, he served as Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Russian Empire to the Ottoman Porte. He consistently spoke out in defence of the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula. After Russia won the 1877-1878 Russian-Turkish war, Ignatyev took part in drafting and signing the 1878Treaty of San Stefano which was vastly important in liberating the Balkan peoples. The day of its signing is a national holiday in Bulgaria.

In 1881, Nikolay Ignatyev served as Minister of State Property, later Minister of the Interior and a State Council member. For his services, he was awarded the rank of General of the Infantry and numerous awards, the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, among others.

In 2019, the Foreign Ministry supported an initiative to erect a monument to Nikolay Ignatyev in Vladivostok. In September 2020, the first monument in Russia to Russian diplomat Nikolay Ignatyev was unveiled in the village of Ignatyevo, Blagoveshchensk District. In addition, the Foreign Ministry took part in putting together the duology, The Ignatyev Family: 800 Years of Service, which was presented at the House of Russia Abroad in May 2021.

Answers to media questions:

Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the Alliance is considering increasing its presence in the east, including possible deployment of additional combat groups. How will his remarks affect the talks on security guarantees?

Alexey Zaitsev: Such statements by the NATO Secretary General create an unfavourable environment for the dialogue on security guarantees. They go to show that it has become common practice for the Alliance to bolster its negotiating position with military capabilities. Russia is not threatening anyone. We understand why NATO is throwing tantrums about the Russian threat in front of the countries of the Alliance: how else would they explain and justify the need for the military containment of Russia?

For decades, the Alliance has consistently reinforced its eastern flank, taking over the territories of new member states and creating new infrastructure and weapons depots. Reconnaissance aircraft are present in the air space near the Russian borders almost around the clock. NATO strategic aviation is practicing attacks on Russian facilities and command and control centres. NATO military planning is entirely geared towards the same goal which is “deterring” Russia and achieving military superiority on all potential theatres of war and in all operational environments. The threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is lowered conceptually and technically. The sea is used for projecting power. As a reminder, Romania and Poland are home to the US global missile defence system with the capability of launching Tomahawk missiles.

Question: In an interview with Romania’s PRO TV on January 21 of this year, President of Moldova Maia Sandu said that Russia had sent people to the Transnistria war in “an attempt to stop the process of the Republic of Moldova gaining independence.” How do these words tally with statements of Moldovan leaders about their willingness to conduct a pragmatic dialogue with Russia?

Alexey Zaitsev: We paid attention to this interview with President of the Republic of Moldova Maia Sandu.

The assessments of Russia’s role in the Transnistrian conflict you have mentioned are beneath criticism. Let me remind you that Russia is a guarantor and intermediary in Transnistrian settlement. It is common knowledge that Russia did not “send” its troops there: the 14thArmy was deployed in the region since the Soviet times and became the force that stopped the carnage. Today, Russian peacekeepers continue maintaining peace on the banks of the Dniester. In this context, it is hardly appropriate to claim that the presence of Russian troops in the region is a key to resolving the Transnistrian problem.

We urge Ms Sandu and other Moldovan partners to do away with far-fetched historical digressions that have little basis in reality and focus on resolving the outstanding problems in Russia-Moldova relations, including the artificial issues created by Chisinau. We urge them to provide positive momentum to the Transnistrian settlement process, including the resumption of dialogue with Tiraspol on all aspects of a comprehensive settlement.

For our part, we are ready for constructive, pragmatic cooperation with Moldova, to whose people we are bound by an eventful common history and close cultural and historical ties.

Question: What can you say about the EU Council’s January 24 statement on European security, which depicted Russia as the main troublemaker in Europe?

Alexey Zaitsev: The “conclusions” of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on January 24 confirmed that the EU has an extremely ideological approach to the new world order. Obviously prompted by the anti-Russian wing, the text was written in a confrontational style and follows Cold War patterns. Meaningful analysis and perception of European security problems have been replaced with politicised assessments. There is an obvious reluctance to address the root causes of the deteriorating situation and to understand that NATO’s unrestrained expansion is clearly dangerous. Instead, the EU promotes a “trench” philosophy and wants to present everything in the friend-or-foe paradigm (or ally-adversary, to use the current terms).

All this runs counter to the principle of indivisible security that was set forth and repeatedly affirmed by the EU countries and in OSCE documents adopted at the top level, including the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, the 1999 European Security Charter and the 2010 Astana summit declaration.

The EU’s “conclusions” are permeated with hypocrisy. It is emphasised that “spheres of influence” are unacceptable in the 21st century. That said, a number of EU functionaries openly declare that the Western Balkans belong to the EU (President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said this at the EU-Western Balkans summit on May 6, 2020). Or that “whenever we are present in the region, there is no space for others” (as former Head of EU diplomacy Federica Mogherini told ambassadors of the EU countries on September 3, 2018). In one-on-one conversations, EU officials bluntly say that Mali and the CAR are the EU’s “backyard.” EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell also said that after the departure of the US and NATO, it is necessary to prevent Afghanistan from falling into the hands of Russia and China.

In essence, the issue of European security is reduced to Ukraine. The pathological inability to acknowledge its mistake of supporting the Ukrainian coup d’etat in 2014 and stop openly abetting the Kiev authorities that are discriminating against Russian speakers, is preventing the EU from facilitating the settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict (via direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk). It doesn’t allow the EU to take a broad view of the situation in Europe either. It also prevents the EU from understanding that the implementation of the Russian proposals on the legally binding security guarantees from the US and NATO will create the necessary conditions for the stable development of all countries of our common continent (regardless of their membership in military blocs or unions). It will also enhance European security, thereby allowing the EU to ensure its required strategic autonomy and independence.

The “conclusions” lay special emphasis on the principles of territorial integrity and the non-use or threat of force. The EU should recall at this point the 78 days of barbarous bombing of Yugoslavia by some of its members in 1999. They dropped cluster bombs and rounds with depleted uranium, killing 2,500 people, including 89 children.

We are surprised by the EU’s call for dialogue after it unilaterally decided to immediately freeze the entire diverse system of cooperation with Russia in 2014, including in foreign policy and security. It refuses to engage in top-level contacts or discussion of security issues.

Simply put, the EU’s desire to take part in discussing Russian proposals on security guarantees looks strange against the backdrop of such “conclusions.”

Question: Where do we stand regarding the creation of a Commission for Delimiting the Armenian-Azerbaijani border? Will the diplomats have more meetings with Russia’s mediation to set up this commission?

Alexey Zaitsev: We continue to work closely with our partners to implement the Statement by leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia adopted in Sochi on November 26, 2021, which, among other things, provides for creating a bilateral Commission for Delimitating the Azerbaijani-Armenian Border and its subsequent demarcation with Russia acting in advisor capacity. We are confident that creating the commission and launching the delimitation process will help prevent border incidents and will make an overall important contribution to normalising relations between Baku and Yerevan.

We plan to hold contacts between the parties involved in these talks. The media will be informed about the results in due course.

Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently stated that the Alliance is ready to discuss arms control and other European security-related issues with Russia. Yesterday Moscow received an answer regarding security guarantees. Is the thesis about non-deployment of weapons in Ukraine articulated in that written answer, or will Russia have to continue the confrontation regarding this issue, or are there any positive developments that offer a reason to continue the talks? As a follow-up, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the decision regarding further steps is now up to Moscow, but at the same time, Washington is ready for any scenario. Does Moscow have an action plan, and what will be the first steps based on the response that you received from the Americans yesterday?

Alexey Zaitsev: Thank you very much for the long and detailed question. I would like to direct you to the answer to this question given by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which I mentioned at the start of our briefing. It deals with everything in detail. This is all we can say on this matter at the moment.

Question: Within the framework of sanctions imposed on Russia due to the situation around Ukraine, the United States is considering the possibility of banning supplies of Russian raw materials to Europe. Germany is concerned about this and insists on exceptions to restrictions regarding the energy sector. At the same time, Germany is not against imposing other sanctions in the event of an alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine. How does Moscow assess this contradictory policy of Berlin towards Russia?

Alexey Zaitsev: As far as we understand, the issue is about the news reported by Bloomberg citing unnamed sources regarding Germany’s alleged demands to protect the energy sector against the potential impact of possible US-imposed sanctions on Russia in the financial sector. In the absence of confirmed official information in this regard, including from Germany, we cannot comment on the substance of the matter.

Nevertheless, I would like to make clear that our position on energy cooperation with Germany has remained unchanged for decades. We see it as a key element of bilateral trade and economic cooperation, which is not only mutually beneficial, but also makes a significant contribution to ensuring energy security of Germany and the rest of Europe. Despite the current challenging foreign policy situation, our trading partners continue to share this approach.

Question: Zoran Milanovic, the President of Croatia, which is a NATO member, has said in an interview that his country would withdraw its troops from NATO forces in Eastern Europe in case of an outbreak of conflict in Ukraine. This statement can be regarded as an open refusal to honour Croatia’s obligations under NATO. What is Moscow’s attitude to such statements by bloc members?

Alexey Zaitsev: As far as we know, NATO and its member states never pledged to defend Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Ukraine is a partner country of the bloc, and the principle of collective defence set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty does not extend to it. Therefore, such statements made by NATO member states do not contradict the obligations they assumed when joining the alliance. Tensions in Europe will certainly decrease if NATO withdraws its troops from East European countries. This is what we are calling for. It is one of the fundamental points in our security guarantee proposals for NATO.

Question: India is a close ally of Russia. Has the Russian side briefed the Indian side on the ongoing situation when it comes to Eastern Europe? If so, when and how?

Alexey Zaitsev: A sustainable strengthening of our privileged strategic partnership with New Delhi is among our foreign policy priorities. Our bilateral cooperation is developing successfully in trade, the economy, energy, military technical, scientific, technological, space, humanitarian and other spheres.

Russian-Indian political dialogue has traditionally been very active. We have a common view on the concept of multipolarity and identical or similar views on the main peace and security issues. Our countries stand out for respecting the universal norms of international law set out in the UN Charter and against the use of force. We uphold the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

During our bilateral contacts, we exchange views on a broad range of issues, including the fundamental issues on the global and regional agenda. We inform our Indian partners, in the spirit of confidence, about the most important aspects of security guarantees in Europe, including the Russian-US talks.

Question: What is your attitude to the statement on Russia and Ukraine made by the German Navy chief (at a conference in India)?

Alexey Zaitsev: I take it that you are asking about the retirement of Chief of German Navy Kay-Achim Schoenbach. We are not going to comment on his retirement following the statements he made. This is an internal matter of Germany.

As for the essence of his statements made at a conference in India, we can only say that they reflect not only the Vice Admiral’s personal views but also the views shared by a large part of the German military and political elite. We regularly receive indications of this attitude via our diplomatic offices in Germany. Many people in Berlin have a sober view on the true nature of the geopolitical processes, into which several Western countries forced Ukraine in 2014, on the legitimacy of the choice made by people in Crimea to reunite with Russia, and on the validity of Russia’s requirements of legally binding security guarantees on its western border.

However, NATO’s bloc discipline, which the United States is enforcing and the German government is abiding by, in most cases stifles the voices of reason that are trying to make a point in Germany. They are encroaching on the right to think freely. This situation is highly indicative.

Question: I have a question regarding the visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Beijing. The Pakistani Prime Minister will go to Beijing at the same time. Are there any plans for a bilateral meeting between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in Beijing?

Alexey Zaitsev: By tradition, we do not comment on presidential events. For comment, please inquire at the Press Service of the Presidential Executive Office.

Question: The situation in Yemen is still far from settled. People continue to die and the Arab coalition has persisted with its air attacks. In response, the Houthi Ansar Allah movement delivers strikes at infrastructure facilities in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. After a recent rise in tensions, the Foreign Ministry of Russia issued a statement, and on January 24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with his UAE counterpart. Iran claims that the Yemeni issue was discussed during Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to Russia and his talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. At the initial stages of the conflict, Moscow held meetings with representatives of different Yemeni forces. Then a lull set in. Given the latest contacts on Yemen in Moscow, can we say that Russia intends to step up its efforts in this area? How could this be manifested?

Alexey Zaitsev: We are following closely the developments in the Yemeni Republic and around it. A press release published on the Foreign Ministry’ website on January 25 expressed concern over the new surge of tensions in Yemen, where a fierce armed confrontation has continued for the past seven years.

The Yemeni agenda is regularly discussed in the course of our contacts with our regional and international partners, including at the highest and high level. The state of affairs in the Yemeni Republic was one of the main topics during Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan on January 24. We proceed from the assumption that the current spiral of violence in Yemen makes it incumbent on the international community to take coordinated steps aimed at reducing the confrontation between the sides to the conflict and encouraging them to start a constructive dialogue designed to search for peaceful solutions in order to overcome the destructive military and political crisis as soon as possible. We have pursued this kind of work for a long time. Moscow has established trust-based contacts with all leading Yemeni political forces, including the Houthis. Simultaneously we are encouraging the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg to take more vigorous efforts to draw up and promote a plan for settling this protracted conflict.

Question: The Foreign Ministry of Russia has denied recent media reports that delegations of the Taliban and the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan came to Moscow for talks. Are such talks likely to be held in the future?

Alexey Zaitsev: As we made it clear earlier, we are ready to provide the Moscow venue for talks between the Afghanistan stakeholders in order to facilitate an early resolution of the intra-Afghan peace process.

Question: Recently, US State Department Spokesman Ned Price went on record as saying that Washington was not prepared to make concessions on a number of issues but was expecting concessions from Moscow. If the US takes steps, it hopes that Russia will reciprocate. What is the Foreign Ministry’s view on this rhetoric with regard to the continuing talks? Is Russia ready for some reciprocal steps over and above those outlined in the draft agreements?

Alexey Zaitsev: Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has provided an exhaustive comment on this topic.

Question: This week, several countries announced plans to evacuate diplomats and their family members from Ukraine, or to allow the departure for those of them wishing to leave the country. Some states advised their nationals to refrain from travelling to Ukraine, and Japan even called on its citizens to leave this country immediately. You have already commented on the decision by the US Department of State, but what is your assessment of these statements in general, including from countries who are not involved in any way in this new spiral of tensions around Ukraine? Is there any reason for sounding the alarm at this scale? Is the Foreign Ministry preparing plans for evacuating Russian nationals in case Russophobic behaviour reaches a dangerous level and becomes a threat to their lives?

Alexey Zaitsev: I provided quite a detailed comment on the developments in Ukraine in the first part of this briefing.

Regarding plans to evacuate Russian nationals, we have said many times that planning of this kind is an ongoing effort for us. In fact, the Foreign Ministry has a dedicated department devoted to these matters, and embassies have their own teams for drafting various contingency plans. We do not have any specific plans, but we are ready, to the best of our ability. Ensuring the safety of Russian nationals and the staff at our missions abroad is something we do on an ongoing basis.

Question: Two Afghan women, Tamana Paryani and Parwana Ibrahimkhel, were abducted from their homes last week. For the past few months, they have been taking part in anti-Taliban protests. According to media reports, one of these activists was beaten beyond recognition. They are still in detention. Has the Foreign Ministry taken note of this incident? Have you contacted the new Afghan government on this matter?

Alexey Zaitsev: We closely monitor human rights issues in Afghanistan. The Foreign Ministry calls on the new Afghan regime to respect all fundamental civil rights and freedoms. We have noted that the Afghan authorities, in particular Acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, said that they are keeping a close eye on this incident and are examining the details of what had happened.

Question: What is the scale and level of Russia’s current diplomatic relations with Ukraine?

Alexey Zaitsev: On February 14, it will be 30 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Anniversaries of this kind usually provide an opportunity for taking stock of what has been achieved so far. Unfortunately, we have little to write home about.

Relations between our two countries continue to deteriorate, which is due to Kiev’s determination to continue its confrontation with Russia. Political contacts are scarce, inter-parliamentary and region-to-region ties have been curtailed, and our multifaceted ties in multiple spheres are falling apart. After 2014, Kiev unilaterally downgraded its diplomatic relations with Russia. Since late 2016, a Charge d’Affaire has been heading the Russian Embassy in Ukraine.

Against this challenging backdrop, and despite multiple provocations by the Ukrainian authorities and local nationalists, Russia’s foreign missions in Ukraine, including the Embassy in Kiev and our consulates general in Odessa, Kharkov and Lvov continue their business as usual and perform their tasks.

Question: The Western media and many politicians in the United States and Europe keep talking about “the concentration of Russian armed forces in Western Russia.” Little is known, however, about the movements of the Ukrainian armed forces along the eastern borders, including on the dividing line with the LPR and DPR. How can this be explained?

Alexey Zaitsev: We have said and repeated that we proceed from the premise that we are free to move our forces around the Russian territory the way we deem fit. At the same time, we have every right to ask what faraway countries are doing with their armed forces and weapons in countries which are close to Russia. This is a real question.

I commented on Ukraine and the movements of armed forces on its territory in the first part of the briefing.

Question: Yesterday the Foreign Minister, when he was speaking at the State Duma, said that he hoped that the United States response would be constructive, that it would not continue with aggressive lines, and he said that if that did not happen there would be appropriate response measures. I realise you cannot comment on the substance today, of the details of what happened, what occurred in that letter, but is the letter constructive? Do you believe and is there going to be a requirement for appropriate response measures? Specifically, what would those response measures be?

Alexey Zaitsev: I have said several times already that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov provided an exhaustive comment on this topic.

We have received the response. Once we review it and carry out the interagency coordination procedures, they will be presented to the country’s leadership – President Vladimir Putin, who has the authority to take the appropriate decisions.

Question: Is it now possible, in connection with the difficult global epidemiological situation, to facilitate issuing travel passports and visas for members of mixed families living abroad?

Alexey Zaitsev: Under Paragraph 17 of the Russian Government’s Directive No 635-r of March 16, 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, visa issuance restrictions and those regarding entry to the Russian Federation do not apply to family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, adoptive parents, adopted children and guardians of the Russian Federation’s citizens, foreign nationals or stateless persons constantly residing in the Russian Federation, provided that the concerned individuals present copies of documents confirming their kin or guardianship.

On September 1, 2021, Article 1.3 of Federal Law No. 270-FZ on amending the Federal Law on the Procedure for Exiting and Entering the Russian Federation of July 1, 2021, as well as Article 5 of the Federal Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation, entered into force. The latter clause makes it possible to issue multiple private visas to the closest relatives of Russian citizens for a period of up to 12 months and to extend their stay in the Russian Federation for the entire duration of such visas without the need to draw up invitations at territorial divisions of the Russian Interior Ministry for obtaining them.

Under the Federal Law, the closest relatives of Russian Federation citizens having the right to obtain such visas, include spouses, parents (adoptive parents), children and adopted children, the spouses of children, siblings, half siblings, grandparents and grandchildren.

A decision by a head of a diplomatic mission or consular agency of the Russian Federation on issuing a visa to a foreign citizen shall serve as legal grounds for issuing this visa. For this purpose, a citizen of the Russian Federation shall submit a written application regarding the entry of his or her close relative, a foreign citizen, into the Russian Federation.

Question: Can Russian compatriots reaching retirement age get permanent travel passports that would be valid for an indefinite period?

Alexey Zaitsev: The Federal Law No 114-FZ dated August 15, 1996, on procedures for exiting and entering the Russian Federation, sets forth the procedures for receiving and issuing Russian travel passports. Under this document, any Russian national, regardless of age or place of residence, can choose between a five- and ten-year passport. The law does not provide for granting permanent passports to citizens of any kind.

Another thing to keep in mind is that under the law the passport application procedure for a citizen of the Russian Federation 14 years of age or older includes verifying whether the applicant is subject to any temporary restrictions on exiting the Russian Federation, in which case the application can be denied. This includes, among other things, being a suspect in a criminal case or facing criminal charges, failing to comply with a court ruling, etc. The law does not provide for any exemptions from these procedures for people who reach the retirement age.

Additional materials

Photos

The main foreign policy news

International security

Briefing by Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department Alexey Zaitsev, Moscow, January 27, 2022

Additional materials

Photos

The main foreign policy news

International security

Share selected