Briefing by Foreign Ministry official representative Maria Zakharova, August 27, 2015

 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with the members of the group monitoring the implementation of decisions following consultations in Moscow

 

On August 31, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will receive Qadri Jamil, the leader of Syria’s Popular Front for Change and Liberation, Hassan Abdel Azim, General Coordinator of the National Coordination Committee for the Forces for Democratic Change and other representatives of the group monitoring the implementation of decisions following inter-Syrian consultations in Moscow.

The meeting is designed to help speed up the launch of the political process in Syria on the basis of the June 30, 2012 Geneva Communique.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s traditional meeting with students and faculty of MGIMO University 

 

At the beginning of the new academic year, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold a traditional meeting with students and faculty of MGIMO University, one of the leading universities in Russia and a core educational institution of the Foreign Ministry. He will address the future diplomats and give them encouragement, and review the most urgent foreign policy issues. By tradition, his speech will be followed by a discussion.

MGIMO has long established itself as one of the leading centres for preparing highly skilled foreign policy experts and for analysing situations in the most diverse spheres.

For media accreditation, contact the Foreign Ministry website.

 

Russia’s Presidency in the UN Security Council in September 2015

 

In September, Russia will take over the Presidency of the UN Security Council.

The work of the Security Council next month will be intensive, with the opening of the UN General Assembly session and the holding of general political debates. This year the United Nations will celebrate its 70th anniversary and the majority of the heads of state and government will attend large-scale high-level events in New York.

The central event of the Russian month in the Security Council will be an open ministerial meeting on September 30 on the maintenance of international peace and security, notably, the settlement of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and the countering of the terrorist threat.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Russia-proposed subject. It would be no exaggeration to say that a very complicated, indeed, a critical situation is taking shape in the Middle East and North Africa. New crisis are flaring up in addition to the old ones such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. The region is swept by bloody conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya that are feeding each other, thereby facilitating the spill of instability into neighbouring countries. A number of states face a real threat of losing their territorial integrity.

All this is creating conditions for a sharp increase in terrorist threats. ISIS, an unprecedented threat, emerged as a result of continued instability in Iraq, followed by attempts at external interference in the conflict in Syria, in part, through flirting with the armed opposition. ISIS militants are committing heinous crimes, trying to establish control over vaster territories, claiming the formation of quasi states and declaring their geopolitical ambitions.

 Under these circumstances, there is an urgent need for conducting a comprehensive and honest analysis of the nature of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and determining the areas of our collective efforts with a view to building effective regional security on the basis of the UN Charter. The existing issues can be truly resolved only in the case of a comprehensive approach, on a firm foundation of international law, without double standards and with reliance on the Security Council prerogatives.

The event is expected to be followed by the adoption of a statement by the President of the Council, emphasising the urgent need for adopting measures on settlement and prevention of new conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, and defining possible further measures on curbing terrorist risks in the region. We count on broad and engaged participation of UN member states at a high level.

I would like to emphasise that the holding of this meeting fully meets the goals of the initiative of President Vladimir Putin on forming a large anti-terrorist front against the ISIS threat.

Now I’d like to say a few words about other major items of the September agenda. The UN Security Council will discuss the developments in Libya and its condition under sanctions. It is also expected to extend the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya.

The UN Security Council will continue working on Syria’s “chemical” file, and humanitarian aspects of the conflict in that country.

 The participants will discuss the situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and the developments on the Golan Heights in the context of the activities of the UN Disengagement Observer Force deployed in that area.

The Security Council will listen to a report by the chair of its committee on sanctions against Iran.

UN Security Council members will review the performance of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, which is contributing substantially to the consolidation of stability in that region. The Security Council is expected to adopt a statement for the press based on the results of the session.

The Security Council will assess progress towards stabilisation in Liberia. We expect the participants to adopt a resolution on extending the mandate of the UN Mission and changing the policies of sanctions against Liberia.

The Council will also discuss inter-Sudanese relations and the activities of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei. Members of the Council will meet with representatives of the countries that supply contingents to the UN missions in Haiti and Liberia.

Russia will strive to ensure that the work of this main UN body is as smooth and effective as possible, on the basis of constructive cooperation of all Security Council members.

 

Conference on global leadership in the Arctic

 

An international conference, entitled Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement and Resilience, will take place on August 30-31 in Anchorage, Alaska, the United States. It will focus on a discussion of the consequences of the ongoing climate change for the Arctic region and the prioritisation of joint efforts to ensure its sustainable development in these conditions. The Russian delegation at this event will be led by Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak.

Work is underway on preparing the final documents. We believe it is paramount to ensure the leading role of the Arctic states in promoting wide-ranging international cooperation in the Arctic and formulating a constructive agenda for the region, including environmental activity and climate issues. We believe that a partnership policy is key to the present and future of the Arctic.

 

Situation in southeastern Ukraine

 

The situation in southeastern Ukraine remains complicated. Artillery attacks on residential areas, and elsewhere, continue; people are being killed and civil infrastructure is being destroyed. Violations are reported of the arrangement for the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the line of contact between the parties to the conflict. Concentrations of Ukrainian armed forces are observed in some areas close to the line of contact, which undermines trust and can lead to further escalation of the crisis.

On August 26, meetings of the Contact Group and its four working groups on political, humanitarian, economic and security issues took place in Minsk.

The preparation of an agreement on the withdrawal of tanks, mortars of 120-mm caliber and below and artillery systems of 100 mm caliber and below is moving sluggishly. Some progress has been made on certain economic issues, even though there are still problems related, among other things, to the implementation of the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements of February 12, 2015, specifically the provisions on resuming the operation of the banking system, which should enable people living in the region to receive pensions and other social benefits.

Discussions on political issues are moving haltingly. Serious disagreements remain with regard to practical ways of implementing the Package of Measures on constitution reform in Ukraine, granting Donbass a specials status and holding local elections in the region in compliance with the relevant law. It was agreed that the relevant working group will continue efforts along these lines on a weekly basis.

Humanitarian issues, including the exchange of detainees and the provision of humanitarian assistance to local residents, were also discussed.

A positive proposal was made in Minsk yesterday, namely, to ensure a real ceasefire and refrain from shelling attacks by September 1, the start of the new academic year, so that this day is not marred. We hope that this idea will be put into practice.

It was agreed to hold the next meeting of the Contact Group and its working groups on September 8.

On the whole, it should be noted that all parties concerned point to the need to continue the efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis within the existing formats and that the Minsk Agreements still serve as a sound foundation for a settlement. The provisions recorded in the Package of Measures should be implemented in an honest, consistent and comprehensive manner.

The Russian side continues to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Donbass. Today, the Emergencies Ministry delivered humanitarian supplies to Lugansk and Donetsk. This is the 37^th convoy, with the total weight of humanitarian assistance provided since last August exceeding 45,000 tonnes.

 

Situation in Syria

 

The recent period in Syria was marked by continued intense military confrontation between government forces and terrorist groups. Despite air strikes by the US-led antiterrorist coalition, the jihadists have not been stopped or put to flight. The Syrian army continues to bear the brunt of the fight against international terrorists and extremists. The confrontation is especially acute in the Damascus suburbs, the Zabadani region and the provinces of Homs, Hama, Idlib and Aleppo.

We resolutely condemn the crimes perpetrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups against Syrian civilians. They subject Syrian cities and villages to indiscriminate mortar and rocket attacks on a regular basis, abduct people, destroy social and economic infrastructure and deprive civilians of basic necessities. Several days ago, dozens of Damascus residents, including women and children, were killed in intense shelling of the capital by terrorists.

We were dismayed by reports of yet another act of destruction committed by ISIS against a world heritage site in Syria. The destruction of the Baal Shamin temple at Palmyra has become the latest in a series of notorious crimes perpetrated by the militants against world culture and human values. We were outraged by reports stating that militants beheaded 82-year-old Khaled al-Asaad, a retired chief archaeologist of Palmyra, who refused to show terrorists the place where the most valuable museum exhibits were hidden.

Against this backdrop, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative on the formation of a broad antiterrorist front with the participation of the Syrian and Iraqi armies, “moderate” Syrian opposition units, Kurdish militias and the main regional and international players to jointly combat the rising terrorist threat is all the more relevant.

We are confident that a common antiterrorist front consisting of all those in Syria who see their homeland as a free, sovereign and secular state, where representatives of all ethnic and religious groups enjoy equal rights and live in peace and security, will consolidate trust and create a favourable atmosphere for the advancement of the political process.

As a follow-up to the consultative meetings in Moscow in January and April between representatives of the Syrian authorities and their political opponents, we continue to take concrete steps to unite the opposition on the constructive basis of formulating a common platform to establish a substantive dialogue with the Syrian government. Over the past several days, consultations have taken place in Moscow with delegations of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, Syrian opposition members who joined the Cairo 2 executive committee and the “internal” Syrian opposition.

These contacts will continue in the next few days. We urge regional and international partners to join in our efforts in the interest of achieving an early political settlement of the crisis in Syria, based on the provisions of the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012.

 

The destruction of Syrian chemical weapons

 

We note with satisfaction that Syria’s military chemical capabilities have been virtually eliminated under the international community’s supervision in full compliance with UNSCR 2118. The Syrian chemical weapons, their components and precursors were removed from Syria a year ago. According to the latest report by the Director General of the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons dated July 2015, about 1 percent of the total amount of 1,300 tonnes of toxic chemicals removed from Syria remains to be destroyed. Due to technical difficulties encountered by a US contractor, this process is expected to be completed by late 2015.

Twelve former Syrian chemical weapon production facilities continue to be successfully dismantled, with half of them, including all of the underground tunnels, effectively destroyed. In regards to the remaining six surface hangars, the completion of the work on five of them can be expected in the near future. The work is not performed at one facility due to unsafe conditions in the area.

 

The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme agreements

 

Work is underway to start the practical implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA). This work is carried out in several areas.

An extraordinary meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors was held on August 25, during which the agency received a mandate to carry out verification activities as part of the JCPOA. This is an important step forward that will allow the IAEA to agree with Tehran on the specific outline for future verification activities.
We believe a separate resolution of the Board of Governors is to be adopted, at an appropriate point in time, which would put the agency’s participation in the JCPOA implementation on a solid foundation to ensure the sustainability of this process.
The agreement is currently being reviewed by the legislative bodies of the United States and Iran. We are closely monitoring it. We hope that it will end well, without any disruptions.

Together with the Iranian side, we are taking preparatory measures in the areas covered by the JCPOA, which suggest the implementation of bilateral Russian-Iranian projects, in particular, on establishing the production of stable isotopes at the facility in Fordow and exporting Iranian low-enriched uranium.

In accordance with the JCPOA provisions, 90 days following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, namely, October 18, comes the so-called Adoption Day, after which Tehran will begin to implement practical measures to bring its nuclear programme in line with its obligations under the JCPOA, whereas the United States and the European members of the Big Six will start drafting a legal framework to lift their unilateral sanctions on Iran. We have no reason to doubt that all parties will faithfully honor their commitments.

 

The situation in the Republic of Yemen

 

The situation in the Republic of Yemen remains a matter of grave concern. High levels of armed confrontation are present almost across the entire country. Exchange of fire takes place in provinces, such as Ta’izz, Sa’dah, Hajjah, Al-Bayda, Ad Dali, and Ma’rib. The shelling and aerial bombardment of densely populated areas and civilian infrastructure continue. Civilian casualties have been reported. Despite the withdrawal of the Ansar Allah units and Yemeni army units, which support this movement, from several southern provinces, including Aden, the situation in these areas remains unstable. The attacks on representatives of international organisations continue. In particular, on August 25, the headquarters of the ICRC in Aden were raided and ransacked.

The humanitarian situation has deteriorated in the past few days. According to the UN, 4,000 people died since the beginning of the conflict, and about 14,000 were wounded. As many as 21.1 million people are in need of humanitarian aid. There’s an acute shortage of food, drinking water and medicine.

Russia strongly advocates the immediate cessation of bloodshed, the early launch of negotiations between the Yemenis with an eye towards restoring the government system in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and relevant inter-Yemeni agreements, including the outcome of the National Dialogue Conference.

In this regard, we support the efforts of Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who is actively involved in seeking compromise solutions. His proposals for a ceasefire, which would facilitate overcoming the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and help resume the political process, deserve serious attention. For our part, we will continue to provide necessary assistance to Mr Ahmed in his mission.

 

The Middle East peace process

 

The Middle East peace process remains a complicated matter. There have been no full-fledged contacts between Palestinians and Israelis for over a year now. Uncertainty remains in matters related to the Gaza Strip, which is further compounded by the lack of actual progress towards overcoming the split in Palestine.

Therefore, there may be reshuffling in the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). There were reports about a planned meeting of the supreme governing body of the PLO – the Palestinian National Council — in the coming weeks. We believe that the reinvigorated activities of the all-Palestinian groups on a consolidated basis would be important for achieving the national aspirations of the Palestinians.

The lack of progress towards achieving a Israeli-Palestinian settlement directly impacts the situation "on the ground." Tensions on the West Bank increased markedly during the summer. Acts of extremism, in particular, on behalf of radical Israeli settlers, have become noticeably more frequent. The situation in and around the Holy Places in Jerusalem remains unsafe.

In this situation, Russia continues to take steps to overcome the impasse in the peace process and resume the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Traditionally, we assign a major role in this matter to the Middle East "quartet" of international mediators, which remains the leading UNSC-authorised facility to promote an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. The quartet continued to focus on establishing close relations with regional stakeholders. To this end, special representatives of the "quartet" travelled to Cairo and Amman in June and July. The agenda includes organising similar contacts in a number of other Middle Eastern capitals.

 

On the situation in Mali

 

Despite the international community’s persistent efforts, including the signing of the Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali last May and June, alarming news have increasingly often come out of this African country as of late.

On August 15, the sides of the domestic conflict in Mali resumed hostilities that led to the loss of lives, including civilian casualties. A new round of confrontation may wreck the entire course of the peace process in Mali.

Moscow resolutely condemns the violation of the ceasefire regime and calls on all sides of the conflict to consistently implement the agreement’s provisions.

We support the activities of the Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) that is operating under fairly tough conditions, which requires closer coordination with the Mali authorities on all issues of its mandate.

The June 29 UN Security Council resolution has charged MINUSMA with a large share of responsibility in facilitating stabilisation, monitoring ceasefire, measures on implementing the aforementioned agreement and protecting civilians. We would like to note that the Mali Government also bears special responsibility for ensuring peace and security in the country.

We are concerned that new armed clashes are taking place on the backdrop of continued provocations on the part of jihadists, which are aimed against peacemakers, among others.

On August 5, an unidentified group made an armed raid against the office of the Russian airline UTair, involving the use of firearms and grenades. None of our citizens or locals were hurt by sheer luck.

On August 7, jihadists attacked a hotel in Sevare (central Mali) where MINUSMA employees were staying. Terrorists also abducted an employee of UTair who was later freed.

It transpires that the leaders of Mali and all interested parties in that country should focus on effectively countering the raids of terrorists to prevent the wrecking of the fragile truce.

 

On current developments in Afghanistan

 

We are concerned by the continued aggravation of the situation in Afghanistan.

The death of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, led to the escalation of the domestic conflict in Afghanistan. This is graphically borne from the unprecedented escalation of terrorist activity across the country, including Kabul where recent terrorist attacks on the Afghan Defence Ministry’s training centre, the Police Academy, the Camp Integrity US military base, an explosion by the airport and an attack on NATO’s convoy claimed the lives of about 100 people and injured over 400.

We are also alarmed by the activity of extremists in the country’s northern provinces, on the Tajik-Afghan border and areas bordering Tajikistan where an attempt on the life of Afghanistan's First Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum was made during an anti-terrorist operation.

We resolutely condemn terrorist acts that mostly kill civilians and call on the Afghan authorities to focus all efforts on ensuring domestic security and resuming peaceful negotiations with the Taliban.

 

On the opening of a NATO facility in Georgia

 

We paid attention to the reports that during NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s stay in Georgia, the sides opened a joint NATO-Georgia Joint Training and Assessment Centre. The said facility is designed for conducting drills and training sessions to enhance interaction between NATO member-countries, their partners and Georgia.

We regard this as a continuation of NATO's provocative policy aimed at expanding its geopolitical influence, which it often does using NATO partner countries’ resources. Moreover, the deployment of this NATO military facility in Georgia will become a serious destabilising factor for regional security.

The conclusion rests on tragic experience. There is no doubt that the statement regarding the prospect of Georgia’s NATO entry at its summit in Bucharest in April 2008 engendered the illusion of an anything-goes policy in the minds of Georgia’s leaders and prompted them to make a criminal attempt to subdue South Ossetia. To this day, Georgia has not reconciled itself to the irreversible consequences of this venture – it claims the territories of the independent neighbouring republics and is stubbornly avoiding the conclusion of non-aggression agreements with them. Those who continue dragging Tbilisi into NATO under these circumstances should realise the extent of their responsibility.

In the meantime, Russia will continue fulfilling its international obligations on reliably ensuring the security of its allies – the Republic of South Ossetia and Republic of Abkhazia. In the process, it will duly consider any new moments in the development of NATO-Georgia cooperation.

From answers to media questions:

Question: US diplomats attributed the issuance of a limited US visa to Valentina Matviyenko, the speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, to the fact that the planned Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting was not a UN event, so the United States did not assume the responsibility of a host country. Could you comment on this statement? Does Moscow plan symmetric measures in response to this?

Maria Zakharova: Literally half an hour before the briefing, I read Valentina Matviyenko’s remarks and statement, which addressed all aspects of the incident in a comprehensive and profound manner.

Let me remind you that it is not today and not yesterday that the Foreign Ministry became involved in this issue. For a very long time, we have been working on it, raising it with our US colleagues at various levels, and making relevant comments. Yesterday, unfortunately, the Foreign Ministry had to issue a statement expressing indignation at the US decision, as a result of which Ms Matviyenko’s participation in major international events in New York, specifically the World Conference of Speakers of Parliament and a meeting of Women Speakers of Parliament, was thwarted. As is known (Ms Matviyenko stated this today, as did the Foreign Ministry), the visa, which was issued after a long delay, contains an array of unacceptable restrictions on Ms Matviyenko’s presence in the United States. In particular, she is not allowed to participate in all meetings and other events organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I would like to stress that this event is taking place at a UN venue. Under these circumstances, the visit by a delegation of Russian lawmakers, led by Ms Matviyenko, to New York became impossible. She told the media about the reasons earlier today.

We believe such actions by the US authorities are totally unacceptable. They constitute a violation of generally accepted norms, including legal norms, and are at odds with the obligations of states hosting multilateral forums on their territory. Washington’s actions effectively block the possibility of presenting approaches, in particular by a Russian delegation, which differ from US political guidelines and priorities.

As mentioned previously, this “visa incident” brings up the question of the US’s moral right to host major international events in the first place. After all, holding such forums imposes a great responsibility on the host country. This is enshrined in various international acts. There is no and there can be no freewheeling here. This is a great responsibility, but most importantly, these are obligations that are assumed by the host country.

I would like to make a few comments in the context of this situation and the statements by our US colleagues that I have read, for example, to the effect that this decision is a matter of principle and related to the US policy of not granting visas, as a matter of principle, to people blacklisted in connection with the Ukraine crisis. This talk about principles sounds a bit strange, especially to those who are privy to the story, which may not be known to everyone. The United States has granted visas to some persons on this list. What about principles then? The most interesting part is that, several weeks later, those visas were cancelled. In other words, Russian citizens were asked to return their passports to the US Embassy only for their visas to be annulled. What about principles or a consistent approach here? All of this resembles an “anti-Russian hue and cry.” I see no principles or consistency here.

Regarding the claim that this event has nothing to do with the UN, I have a feeling that, after all is said and done, the event has nothing to do with the United States, since it did not organise this forum or invite Ms Matviyenko. All it had to do was to issue permission to enter the country that hosts an international event.

The UN connection is not a trick, exaggeration or ploy. The event is indeed taking place on a UN platform. “Platform” refers to the building. Surely you understand that not a single event at the UN can take place without its approval. I believe no one has any doubt that the subject matter of the event is directly related to problems that are, in effect, fundamental for the UN. I would advise our US colleagues to pay closer attention to the subject about which they speak so confidently and categorically.

Regarding measures in response to this, I believe that Ms. Matviyenko’s reply was exhaustive. I can add that such incidents do not pass unnoticed. All of this definitely leaves a negative flavour in the history of bilateral relations and diplomacy as a whole. I do not know why this is being done. I understand that many of our statements and explanations are ignored by Washington. However, if they do not listen to us, maybe they will listen to people whose views the Americans have respected for decades. I am referring, in particular, to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s recent interview with The National Interest. I would like to quote the comment that aptly sums up what Washington is doing today: With regard to Russia, the United States has lost all sense of proportion and context, [Kissinger said]. You cannot put it any better than that.

Question: The sentencing of Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov by a Russian court has drawn sharp criticism from the US and EU countries. How does Moscow assess the statements of its foreign colleagues? Could you comment on Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk’s statement to the effect that this, as well as similar cases regarding Ukrainian citizens, will be put on the UN Security Council’s agenda?

Maria Zakharova: Of course, I have seen all of the reports related to the sentencing of Oleg Sentsov and Alexander Kolchenko. As far as I can glean from the media (this issue is not in the Foreign Ministry’s purview), on August 25, a trial took place at the North Caucasus District Military Court in full compliance with Russian law. An investigation was carried out, the court examined the case and delivered a verdict. The Foreign Ministry has no and can make no comment on decisions issued by judicial bodies, which are sovereign. At the same time, I cannot but respond to the part of your question concerning the international reaction. In our opinion, it is overpoliticised.

In particular, I would like to consider a statement by the US State Department made at a briefing on August 25, claiming that the verdict is at variance with the Minsk agreements. Such statements do not match reality and distort the essence of the aforementioned agreements, which have been published and are available in the open domain, so there is no need to indulge in speculation; suffice it to read them. For the benefit of those not in the know, I will explain that, first, Mr Sentsov and Mr Kolchenko, who were taken into custody and convicted in accordance with Russian criminal law and the code of criminal procedure, are definitely not “hostages or falsely imprisoned persons,” who are to be freed under the Minsk agreements. Second, the Minsk agreements provide for measures to settle the conflict in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Geographically, their status has simply nothing to do with the Republic of Crimea.

Question: Could you comment on Poland’s proposal to expand the Normandy format by joining it and participating in talks on a peace settlement in eastern Ukraine, as well as new Polish President Andrzej Duda’s flurry of political activity. Tomorrow he is flying to Berlin, where he will call for stepping up pressure on Russia over the situation in eastern Ukraine?

Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on proposals regarding the expansion of the Normandy format. Formats are not established to exist in isolation from a situation but to influence its development. What counts is not the format as such but the effect it can make. We believe that the existing format should simply function effectively.

Regarding the possibility of various “players,” states joining [this format], we have also said that we welcome this, urging countries that have corresponding influence on a particular party to the conflict in southeastern Ukraine to intensify this influence and possibly also pressure on each party to advance towards a peace settlement.

What is important is not expanding the format, but rather the active efforts by all states involved in it in some way or other. If they really want to, why not provide corresponding assistance? There is nothing to stop them from doing so.

As for pressure on Russia, I don’t know what kind of comment you expect from me. Surely, it is up to a particular politician to make a particular proposal. Whether pressure on Russia is beneficial to Poland, this is a question that should be put to the Poles. Do they benefit from such pressure and who stands to gain from it?

We believe that during the year or year and a half of pressure, sanctions and threats, it has become obvious that this is a dead-end approach and policy, which is good neither for those who come under pressure, nor for those who exert pressure.

I am not aware of any examples where such an approach could be described as successful. There is pressure that can be exerted through international organisations so empowered. The UN Security Council can use sanctions and pressure of various degrees of intensity, but no one country in the world can exert pressure on another, as this amounts to interference in internal affairs. Nor can it urge other members of the international community to exert pressure on another country. Why this is being done, this question should not be addressed to me. I would like to reiterate that I have been reading more and more expert assessments (we publish all of this on our social media accounts) suggesting that this is a dead-end approach. The main question is this: What do they want to achieve?

Question: Yesterday, we learned that Russian citizen Maxim Senakh was detained in Finland upon the request of the US Department of Justice. Shortly after, a comment on this matter was posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website. Why did the Foreign Ministry react so strongly to this detention, and how  does it affect the relations between Finland and Russia in general?

Maria Zakharova: With all due respect, your question sounds strange to me, because our duty, as the Foreign Ministry, is to react to everything that happens with Russian citizens abroad, especially when it comes to detaining a Russian citizen using such unlawful methods.

Indeed, yesterday we issued a relevant statement. The case in point is an arrest of a Russian citizen upon the request of the US Department of Justice. It took place in Finland. We realise that this is not an isolated incident, but part of an established American policy. I’m not into using strong language, but, by and large, this can be referred to as witch hunting. Unfortunately, this policy of hunting and attacking Russian citizens throughout the world has become a system. It has nothing to do with justice or the enforcement of justice. If they needed to curb some criminal activities, the most logical step would be to first send relevant information to the authorities in the suspect’s country of nationality, all the more so as Russia and the United States have signed an agreement for cooperation in criminal matters. However, they choose to never do so. Again, this has become regular practice, rather than an exception. Seeking the detention of Russian citizens in other countries is a flagrant violation of internationally recognised procedures.

Yesterday, we also provided an appropriate response to the Finnish authorities, stating that we expect Finland’s competent authorities to strictly comply, in respect to Russia’s national Maxim Senakh, with all of the constitutional guarantees and international norms in the sphere of human rights and consular relations. We proceed from the assumption that a Russian citizen cannot be extradited to the United States where he faces an absurd sentence of over 100 years in prison. As you are aware, and we, too, mentioned this on many occasions, there are frequent, to put it mildly, cases of a violation of prisoners’ rights, in particular, prisoners of Russian nationality, which we keep telling our American colleagues during talks and in our public statements. I can also confirm that our embassy in Finland is doing its best to resolve the situation and maintains contact with Maxim Senakh and his lawyers.

Question: Japanese Foreign Minister planned a visit to Moscow in late August, but after Prime Minister Medvedev’s visit to the island of Iturup, the Japanese side has reportedly decided to postpone it. What does the Russian side think about this situation? Will the visit take place? If yes, when? On what terms? And, more broadly, will this hitch in the talks between the two ministries affect President Putin’s planned visit to Japan? Will it take place before the end of this year?

Maria Zakharova: I may have not mentioned it at the beginning of this briefing, but I thought that you should be aware that it is the presidential press service that provides comments on the President’s schedule of international contacts. Please direct all of your questions related to President Putin’s international visits to the presidential press service.

Now, back to your question. We’ve seen Japan’s media report an alleged cancellation of its Foreign Minister’s visit to Russia. First, frankly, I haven’t seen any official statements on this matter from the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Accordingly, this concerns the media interpretations with reference to some sources. Second, there were no specific arrangements for the visit in terms of its timing or format. Hence, you can’t call off something that wasn’t agreed upon in the first place.

Russia and Japan maintain a good and constructive dialogue. We discuss issues of cooperation and other issues that exist between all states. We have an absolutely normal dialogue. If an appropriate decision is made, and the date and the format of a visit are agreed, we will definitely make it public at our briefing or through our Information and Press Department.

Question: Norway is launching a TV show about Russia that has invaded a portion of that country. Could you comment on this? Will there will an official response from the Foreign Ministry?

Maria Zakharova: I have seen reports on this show, as well as a comment from our embassy. I have not seen the film, so right now I would prefer to make no comment on it and would refer you to the Russian Embassy’s comment. I hope very much that cinema will remain cinema and not become a subject for discussion by foreign policy agencies. Although, to reiterate, I have not seen the film yet. I hope there is nothing wrong with it.

Question: On the 25^th, a directive was issued to open Russia’s trade mission in Abu Dhabi. Could you comment on the development of relations between Russia and the UAE?

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that your question answers itself. If we open a trade mission, our trade relations are developing well. We expect this trend to continue. I see nothing that can overshadow it.

Question: In connection with the escalation of tensions in relations between Russia and the West, could this affect the work of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh, which, as is known, includes Russia, the United States and France? Could this halt the preparations for a meeting between Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev?

Maria Zakharova: I will respond to the first part of your question. We hope it will not. I hope Russia’s disagreements with certain countries, which arise, though none of which through our fault, will not affect the work of the Minsk Group. For our part, there can be no impediments, issues or problems. We participate in this format and take our obligations very seriously, understanding how serious the subject on the group’s agenda is.

Question: Last week, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that if the US proposed a meeting with US President Barack Obama, Russia “would take a constructive view of this proposal.” Was such a proposal made last week? Are there any plans for a meeting with Barack Obama?

Maria Zakharova: I have just said that we will adhere to our format. Everything that concerns Vladimir Putin’s schedule is the purview of the presidential press service. This is our premise. Everyone should be doing his job.

Question: You have spoken about Russia’s efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Donbass. There are reports saying that certain international humanitarian organisations have encountered difficulties in accessing Donbass. Thus, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s columns have been unable to enter the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics from the Ukrainian side since July 25. The leadership of the self-proclaimed republics purportedly wants international organisations to submit to an accreditation procedure not only in Kiev but also on their territory, but this can significantly complicate these organisations’ relations with Kiev. Can Moscow encourage the republics to simplify access to the region for humanitarian organisations?

Maria Zakharova: I am aware that this issue is under consideration and on the agenda, as a number of humanitarian organisations have expressed their interest and desire to provide humanitarian assistance and work in these territories. This is a purely technical matter. I understand that there are no serious problems there. However, since this concerns the humanitarian aspect, we hope that all problems will be settled in the near future. As far as I know, a number of agencies have gone ahead with their operations and encountered no difficulties.

Question: You have spoken about the Minsk talks. Yesterday, after a meeting of the contact group in Minsk, OSCE representative Martin Sajdik asked the LifeNews TV network for help in ensuring security at the start of the new academic year. He does not speak very good Russian. Could you comment on why the representative of this organisation has turned to a TV network, specifically to our TV channel?

Maria Zakharova: He turned to you, so you should have asked him why he did.

My only guess would be that your network has been on the frontline since the outbreak of the hostilities in southeastern Ukraine. We not only follow but are also closely involved in all moves to ensure the freeing of your reporters. Maybe it is simply that you have really gained extensive experience working in these complicated conditions. I would like to say that when I address these subjects in the media, it is extremely important for me to know how involved reporters are in this work and how well they know the situation from within. After all, there is a lot of speculation and fantasising on the Ukraine crisis and very few people who really work “in the field” and have first-hand information. I know that LifeNews does have first-hand information. I would like to stress that this question was not prepared in advance and we are not promoting just one channel. Simply, I know that your people are working and thanks to them, we receive unique footage of what is happening in southeastern Ukraine. Unfortunately, I have to say that Western reporters are not working there. I cannot say that no one is working there, but on the whole, they are not working there. So, while you can address and analyse a topic based on facts, many others, those who make conclusions – far-reaching conclusions – do not have such facts or they take them from some strange sources and have no way of verifying them.

As for who asks you, or why, you should straighten things out there and then, not through me.

Question: Let’s get back to Syria. We know that US Special Envoy for Syria Michael Ratney is headed for Moscow, or may have already arrived. Can you tell us who he’ll meet with and what we can expect?

Maria Zakharova: He’ll meet with [Deputy Foreign Minister] Mikhail Bogdanov. If other meetings at other levels are added to his agenda, we’ll notify you.

Question: Can you comment on news from Syria and on diplomats’ reports from the Middle East that Russia has allegedly increased its cooperation with and assistance to the Syrian government and is sending military personnel and weapons there? At the same time, Russia has called for creating a broad coalition to fight ISIS. Have they really increased military and technical assistance to the Syrian government?

Maria Zakharova: I have no information on this issue. Russia has always helped Damascus in its fight against terrorism and has never made a secret of it. As for the increased support, I need to check this information. I don’t have it at this moment.

Once again, we are supporting Syria’s struggle against terrorism, and have always done so. We have also upheld our right to help Damascus fight this evil, which is no secret. On the contrary, several years ago we tried to convince those who thought that the Syrian government was fighting “democratic forces” that, unfortunately, it was not a new round of the Arab Spring but a terrible tragedy that has been growing in the region, in particular the terrorist threat. We have upheld that stance, and it turned out that we were right. Everyone knows this now too, regrettably, because we see what turn the fight against ISIS has taken under the patronage of the international coalition.                     

Question: During the Moscow talks between the Syrian government and moderate opposition, a government aircraft dropped a vacuum bomb on the Douma neighbourhood in Damascus. How do these actions correspond to the initiative on a peaceful settlement?

Maria Zakharova: It was Russia who proposed creating a coalition, and I don’t see what a vacuum bomb has to do with it. The idea we’ve proposed is to rally the efforts of all those who are fighting terrorism on the ground but that have been doing it separately so far. Therefore, we proposed consolidating the efforts of all the forces concerned to make the antiterrorist struggle more effective. Again, I see no connection [to the bomb].

Question: Can you tell us about the debates on a UN resolution on illegal migration to Europe from Africa? Sergey Lavrov said Russia was willing to cooperate on this matter.

Maria Zakharova: We reaffirm our willingness to engage in full cooperation with the countries concerned, primarily the EU, on ways to overcome the consequences and resolve the issue of illegal migration to Europe.

We watch television reports from Europe and are perfectly aware of this problem. The EU is in the midst of a huge migration crisis. According to the latest data, the EU Frontex border protection agency stopped 107,500 people from illegally entering the EU in July 2015. This is a very large figure. The same resource says that 340,000 illegal migrants moved to Europe from January to July this year. The overall figure for 2014 was 280,000. It’s obvious that the EU cannot adequately respond to the increasing migration issue, which definitely points to major failures of its migration policy.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was ready for constructive cooperation with its European partners to find a solution to migration issues, including as part of the EU initiative on a UN Security Council resolution on a comprehensive approach to the issue of illegal migration to Europe from Africa.

However, when discussing major crises we need to always take into account the causes so as to prevent any repetition in future. Next time, our foreign colleagues should adopt a wiser policy with regard to foreign countries and international relations as a whole, knowing what can happen.

We discussed the possible consequences [of this policy] several years ago, when crises flared up in the Middle East and North Africa through the meddling of some of our foreign partners – I won’t name them here as you know who I’m talking about. We must remember this when draft resolutions are sent to the UN Security Council proposing military strikes against other countries, closing airspace, government changes, etc. We must consider these issues very responsibly, remembering the source of crises such as the one that’s hit Europe.

We know about the suffering this has brought to Europe, but we must also take into account the suffering of those who are trying to get to Europe. They are deprived people and their troubles are incomparably worse than the complications their arrival brings to Europeans.

Question: There have been various comments in Japan and Russia about the trips of the Russian government members to the southern Kuril Islands. The Russian Foreign Ministry commented on this as follows: “The Russian Federation will not take into account Tokyo’s position while drafting the working schedule of the Russian government members.” Dmitry Medvedev said that “we want to be friends with Japan,” but that this should not be connected with the Kuril Islands, which are part of the Russian Federation.” Japan thinks that Russia wants to stop all talks on territorial issues. Could you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: I have nothing to add to the comprehensive comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry that you cited.

Question: On September 3, Beijing will host a parade devoted to the 70^th anniversary of Victory over Nazism and Japanese militarism, which will be attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin. How do you evaluate China’s contribution to the common victory?

Maria Zakharova: Personally, I have no moral right to evaluate China’s contribution, as this has long been done by the international community and does not require any additional comments. After World War II, the international community and then the United Nations delivered their final verdict on the invaluable contribution of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition to the victory over fascism. Therefore, let me wish China the best for their festivities on September 3. We believe they will be held at the highest level.

Thank you.