Special briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 6, 2015

This special briefing will be dedicated not only to the situation surrounding the Syrian settlement and actions taken on the ground and in the air to combat the Islamic State. I would describe the topic of this briefing as "the anti-Russian campaign launched in the media in connection with the start of the Russian military confrontation with the Islamic State at the request of official Damascus.”

After the military component of the anti-terrorist operation by the Russian Air Force began in Syria at the request of the official Syrian government, the international media have launched a strong anti-Russian campaign to condemn the allegedly illegal, illogical and incomprehensible actions by Russia in Syria. We have read various accusations, including that we are pursuing our own, exclusively Russian interests in that region, where we are supposedly using fighting against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups as a cover. Literally in the first hours of the operation, they blamed us for the deaths of civilians, including children.

The Western media are acting in a fairly simplistic manner. You can see this for yourself on a daily basis. First, they publish statements by officials from countries that still, for whatever reasons, don’t understand the consistency and the logic of Russia's policy in that region. These statements set the tone for numerous reports and publications with further comments and links to a variety of unconfirmed, informal or unnamed sources. The key message of these statements is that Russia’s goal is to destroy the "moderate opposition" (exactly their words) in the region.

As a rule, all this is illustrated with pictures from archives or images that are entirely unrelated to this situation, region or period of time, and are backed by video footage, which, in fact, isn’t related to this situation either. It wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that almost all Western media are using these tactics in their work.

I’d like to mention some specific examples to illustrate what we are talking about so that you may recognise in these reports the media you represent. Later on we will put our heads together with you to think about what to do to prevent this from happening in the future.

Not long ago, on October 2, Foreign Policy, a fairly respectable and often-quoted publication, ran an article by Reid Standish (https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/02/russias-information-campaign-spreads-from-ukraine-to-syria/). The author writes that Russian airstrikes in Syria have hit the Army of Conquest, an alliance of rebel groups that rivals the Islamic State. The author cites information from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.  I quote: “Russia announced on Friday that it had bombed camps outside the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa, but it is also believed to have targeted areas controlled by an assortment of rebel groups in the same round of sorties.” In terms of serious journalism that does not serve someone’s interests but describes the events taking place on the ground, how can one cite information with a lead-in “it is also believed?” Who believes? If you are a serious journalist, one who is quoted by UN experts and representatives of official agencies in their reports, then you cite facts, present photos and produce specific information about events on the ground. How can a serious journalist write about events that result in victims and human lives without references?

Such publications rely on a clear-cut and well-prepared (I wouldn’t say well-orchestrated) foundation. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said about Russia’s strikes in Syria: "It looks like a classic bit of Russian asymmetric warfare.” We are speaking about serious policy. We have been talking about a struggle against a truly global evil. How can such descriptions be used by an official government representative?

British Prime Minister David Cameron provided his assessment of the Syrian developments, referring to the Russian anti-terrorist operation in Syria as a "mistake." The issue does not simply concern a political assessment, but rather also the reaction of the international community to our specific efforts to combat international terrorism. If it is a mistake, then what is this about? This is how they form public opinion. People watching TV in their kitchen trust the people on TV, and believe this is a mistake. In such cases, it’s important to back up one’s words with specific materials and facts because government leaders are accountable for their words and people’s lives depend on them. According to David Cameron, Russia is "backing the butcher Assad, which is a terrible mistake for them and for the world. It's going to make the region more unstable. Most of the Russian air strikes, as far as we've been able to see so far, have been in parts of Syria not controlled by ISIL, but controlled by other opponents of the regime." This is something that a head of a state said, allowing himself to use emotional assessments and call our actions a "mistake" without providing specific facts.

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter had a similar reaction when he used words such as “perhaps,” “maybe,” and “it seems” to describe Russia’s actions. We are not talking about a minister of culture, sports, or tourism here, but the Defence Secretary.

As you may be aware, Russia and the United States have finally restored the communication channel between their respective defence departments. If words like "perhaps, maybe, and it seems" make you doubtful of certain issues, you can always pick up a phone and call the other party to dispel those doubts. Then, you can make public assessments that are clear and to the point. If, after such phone conversations, which can be had at the request of the US side at any moment, you still have concerns, you can talk about them publicly, but first run them by us.

Russia can be criticised for its lack of openness or non-transparency in recent years, but the level of openness demonstrated recently by our Defence Ministry, particularly with regard to the Syrian conflict, is unprecedented. The ministry holds regular briefings, provides answers to questions and makes available all information, photos and video materials. This concerns the public sphere of work with reporters. Perhaps, not everyone knows this but we are open to contacts between our two countries’ military experts. If someone has concerns, we are willing to provide an answer. Why go to a news conference or a briefing and say words like "perhaps,” “it seems,” or “maybe" when you can pick up a phone and call your Russian colleagues who will dispel those concerns. Of course, after such statements, the international media come up with appropriate headers claiming that Russia’s true goals in Syria do not include the Islamic State.

I was part of the Russian delegation in New York during the UN General Assembly session. The day after Russia's decision to assist the Syrian government in fighting ISIS, I watched the news. All US and Canadian TV stations covered it. The underlying message of these stories was in the roll captions or the text on the screen: "What are Russia’s true goals in the region?", "What are Russia’s goals in Syria?", "Is Russia really fighting ISIS?” This is how the public opinion is formed. Where is the objectivity and the room for the coordination and assistance that we are referring to? We call for cooperation and interaction. But an unequivocal sentence was handed down: "Russia’s objectives in Syria are not what it lets on publicly".

Recently, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the United States continues to believe that Russian military aircraft in Syria are delivering strikes mainly on territories occupied by the Syrian opposition, not the Islamic State. Josh Earnest said that he saw news to the effect that at least a couple of strikes in recent days were aimed at ISIS-controlled territory, but there’s no indication that Russia has changed its strategy towards focusing more effectively on fighting ISIS. They concentrate their efforts on the territory held by the Assad regime's opponents, which can also harbour extremists. This is what the White House spokesperson said.

The tragedy, which I’m about to mention, didn’t happen a year or two ago. However, I think that human memory is capable of holding events that date back 14 years. I’m talking about the September 11 attacks when we felt the pain of the United States, knowing full well what terrorism is all about. When Washington declared that it was a threat to national security and a strike against the United States, Russia supported the United States in the UN Security Council, provided assistance in fighting terrorists without asking if they were real bad guys or not so bad. If someone engages in terrorist activities, blows up buildings, or kills children, they are terrorists.

By way of a reminder (maybe this is the root of the problem), the international community has so far failed to develop a single term to describe terrorism.

Each country has domestic legislation governing this area. We are well aware of that. But should this stop us from fighting the terrorist threat? Did it prevent Russia from supporting other countries in their fight against terrorism?

For us, international terrorism is really a matter of national security. We have experienced this. We know what it is and we don’t want it in our country again. It is too painful for us. We count on your understanding.

There is another thing I cannot help but mention, that supports the general concept. Many media outlets claim that Russia is hitting targets near the cities of Hama, Homs, Rastan, Idlib and many others, where, according to reporters and officials, “terrorists have never made an appearance,” and that the target of attacks is “the moderate opposition” and civilians. For example, the BBC, citing AFP, is publishing a map of Russian Air Force strikes on Syrian territory.

Memory cannot be so short lived. Before the start of Russian airstrikes, the same media outlets were tripping over each other to talk about Islamic State positions in these areas. For example, in early August, wide coverage was given to the abduction of 200 Christians by ISIS rebels in the Homs province. Is that some other Homs province? Are there many such provinces in Syria? Or is this hypocrisy, if, first, they say that rebels abducted 200 Christians in the Homs province and then, literally a month and a half later, they claim that there are no ISIS forces in Homs, and ask what exactly Russia is bombing there.

Reports about the capture of 200 Christians did not go unnoticed by our US colleagues and were actively promoted by the US State Department, which strongly condemned the hostage taking practice. Is it not terrorists who take hostages? Or are there “good” terrorists who were “good” in August and have probably become “very good” now? This is some kind of sick logic.

About a week ago, Western media reported in detail on the execution by ISIS rebels of seven men in the city of Rastan for their untraditional orientation. And then they ask us who we are bombing.

On July 29, the Americans delivered an airstrike on an ISIS tactical subunit in the Idlib area, which was immediately reported in a statement on the operation by the coalition that is designed to wipe out the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

The use of photo and video materials in the media, as well as, unfortunately, by official agencies, is a separate story.

On Day 1 of the operation, it was reported that a moderate opposition leader was killed as a result of Russian military operations. When a journalist prepares a story it does not matter where this information comes from. However, with the modern level of media technology you can check within five minutes what was previously reported on this issue. So, it was earlier reported that the person in question was captured by ISIS back in January 2014, while other media sources said that he was killed in the summer of 2015.

For the sake of objectivity, if you don’t have any other sources to verify your information or for some reason you are unable to reach the Foreign Ministry or the Defense Ministry, have courage enough to say in your newspaper or magazine story that according to other sources, as it was in this case, the man in question was killed long ago. That is being not done. I can even tell you why. We had very many meetings and talks with our colleagues on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session (some expressed support for the Russian position, while others sought clarification on certain issues). However, there were several meetings where our colleagues, virtually all as one, said this: “Perception is more important than reality.” What is happening now is in fact the shaping of this perception, which is more important than reality, and reality is the fight against ISIS. As for the examples that I have mentioned, they serve precisely the purpose of shaping the perception that, unfortunately, can become the new reality that [people] will believe. It will differ from the present reality that threatens all of us “on the ground.”

The allegations that the Russian Aerospace Force is responsible for civilian deaths and, which is particularly sordid, the deaths of children, are a topic in its own right. The photographs on the slides were made several days before the start of the Russian air force operation. They often show photographs of bombed cities but they don’t say what city it is or when the photo was made, and they don’t provide the coordinates. The captions just say something like “Russia is bombing [Syria]”, “people are fleeing in a panic”, or “a kid brings bread to his family that is hiding from Russian bombs.”  All of this is pure propaganda. If you show a kid who is bringing bread to his family, then you should also show a kid whose parents were beheaded by ISIS, which the Russian military are fighting in the region. If we are talking serious journalism, then stop feeding people propaganda and acting on orders from above, because you’re are creating a new reality, you’re turning a distorted perception into reality.

There are many examples like this. I’d like to remind you again that hourly reports on the Russian aerospace forces’ operation in Syria are posted on the Russian Defence Ministry’s website. The Russian Defence Ministry is open for interaction and answers all questions it receives. The Foreign Ministry is acting likewise. 

I don’t think I need to give you the links to the Defence Ministry’s website, as I’m sure that you know them. The only thing I’d like to ask is that you use information from that site. I don’t say that you have to accept it or agree with it, but you should use it as an alternative source of information.    

We read US State Department briefings every day, which contain absurd accusations, including of Russia’s unwillingness to join the international coalition. And they repeat this almost every day. We have said more than once that we are not opposed to joining forces against ISIS, but we can’t join the coalition on its conditions because they run counter to international law. We said this clearly and openly. We even provided an example, saying that the international coalition in Iraq is acting perfectly legally because it is doing this with Baghdad’s agreement. If the coalition does the same in Syria, its operation there will become legitimate, and we won’t have any reasons to say otherwise. But our partners don’t hear our arguments. Instead, they say every day that we refuse to cooperate. There’s only one thing we have refused to do, which is to join illegal operations. We took the same stand over 10 years ago when an anti-Iraqi campaign was planned. And we’ve been proved right. The only decision we can make now is to refuse to take part in illegal actions. We can’t join them because there’s no UN Security Council decision or consent of the Damascus government. Why do they keep talking about our refusal again and again? People in the countries whose officials keep saying this are developing a biased attitude to Russia.

I was asked by a Western TV network today if Russia is not apprehensive about the lack of coordination in Syria, where accidents involving Russian fighter planes and coalition aircraft are possible. They asked me if Russia feels responsible. We are doing more than just feeling responsible. About two months ago, Russia proposed a two-track solution to the Syrian crisis. It provides for joining the efforts of all those who are fighting ISIS on the ground and in the air and for exchanging information and intelligence. The second track calls for redoubling efforts towards a political settlement based on the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012. We did it in full awareness of our responsibility, and we knew that accidents cannot be ruled out. The only safeguard against this is to coordinate efforts. We didn’t make our proposal secretly or behind closed doors but publicly, during negotiations and through diplomatic channels. We called public attention to it, and we spoke about it repeatedly. So why are we being accused of provoking accidents?

And one more thing. During one of the interviews, I asked a British journalist if he knew that it was his country that had severed any military ties with Russia. So why is Russia being labelled irresponsible now? We are open to contact and willing to answer any question through diplomatic channels, including military diplomats. You just need to dial and ask your question. Or you can propose some other form of information exchange, which we may accept. It’s a matter of coordination. You can’t refuse any contact and at the same time accuse us of failure to coordinate our actions.

In particular, US Department of State Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said in a daily briefing that the US sees “Russia’s decision to undertake military action in Syria” as “a strategic mistake.” This sounds very strange, as there have been several high- and top-level meetings, our presidents have met, and the Russian Foreign Minister and US State Secretary talked during the UN General Assembly. If what we’re doing is wrong, go ahead and suggest what we should do. We’ve made our proposals and we are open for dialogue and keep urging our partners to coordinate efforts. 

Mr Toner also said the US hasn’t seen Russia “live up to what it’s saying, live up to its words with action, which is (…) to take the fight to ISIL.” This means that they don’t want to hear what we say publicly or through diplomatic channels, and that they are only trying to mould public opinion. They keep saying that Russia has been demonstrating unwillingness to join the coalition operations. As I said, we’ve put forth our stance, which is that we will only join a legitimate operation, for which there are prerequisites. Our stance is not based on our vision of the situation but on international law, which has become everyone’s concern in the past few years.

Another aspect that looks not only strange to us but which we can’t understand is the accusations of our alleged reluctance to share information. I want to say, for the nth time, that we have launched this counterterrorist operation at the request of the Damascus government, that counterterrorist operations are not conducted through briefings or news conferences, and that our counterterrorist operation has been launched to fight terrorists. If you have any other questions about these actions and operations, Russia is open for contact with our foreign colleagues. You can do this through the Russian Defence Ministry.

Answers to media questions

Question: Yesterday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry reported a second intrusion into Turkey’s airspace by Russian aircraft. This time, it was a MIG-29. What is your comment?

Maria Zakharova: The Russian Defence Ministry has issued a statement. Our colleagues will be ready to answer concrete questions, if, in your opinion, the statement they made is not enough. The Defence Ministry provided an exhaustive commentary on this score. We at the Foreign Ministry have confirmed that the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Russian Ambassador in Ankara. This falls into our frame of reference and we reported this. Let me quote the Turkish statement: “There is no crisis in our relations.” Judging by news agency reports, Ankara regards the incident as “settled”.  But as of this minute I have only agency information.  

Question: I mean the second aircraft. What you said is about the Saturday incident involving a SU-30. I am referring to today’s incident with a MIG-29. The Turkish Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian Ambassador in Ankara once again.

Maria Zakharova: If the available commentary is not enough, you’ll be given additional explanations by the Russian Defence Ministry.

Question: How can you comment on a recent CNN report claiming, with reference to a Pentagon source, that Russia may start a land operation in Syria?

Maria Zakharova: This is yet another point that has been mooted during the last few days. It’s a sordid affair because parallels are being drawn with the Afghan campaign. Everyone is aware that it is a black page in Russian history and knows full well that there will be no return to the past. Statements of this kind are made by those who have forgotten, or reject, or refuse to quote the statements by the Russian leaders, including the President, the Defence Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Speaker of the Federation Council, who all said that there was no question of a land operation in Syria. All quotes are simply being ignored, but every time some anonymous Pentagon sources start commenting on the Russian Federation’s intentions. First, if the Pentagon has an opinion, it would be honest to present it in public. Second, you can pick up the phone and call the Russian Defence Ministry, which will provide you with full information. Third, if the case in point is serious media – and we still hope that the CNN is a serious media outlet – and you are referring to Pentagon sources, please quote the Russian leaders, who declared that there was no question of a land operation.

Question: I found a Moscow Times issue in Moscow with a front-page headline reading “Russia Can’t Sell Its Syria Propaganda.” A Moscow-based newspaper is saying this! How can you comment? Is it possibly because Russia is unable to state its position that the West is criticising you?

Maria Zakharova: I am pleased that you’ve found an alternative media outlet in Moscow. When they say that there are no alternative views in Moscow, please show them this newspaper and confirm that the Russian press presents all points of view.

Question: Yesterday, a Ukrainian representative at the political subgroup said that a telephone conversation between the Normandy Four foreign ministers was scheduled for tomorrow. Is this true? Will Mr Lavrov take part?

Maria Zakharova: I have no information of this sort and I cannot confirm that this telephone conversation will take place. If it’s been planned, we’ll inform you.

Question: Russia criticised the Western air raids in Syria, saying that they wouldn’t achieve their goal. Why is Russia’s air operation in Syria any different? Sergey Lavrov said Russia’s air strikes are aimed at ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups. Since this is a military operation, do you have a list of groups you’ll be attacking? Which are terrorist groups, according to Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Let’s begin with your first question. It is for military experts to assess efficiency, although we said that ISIS positions have not declined, while the number of crimes and the scale has grown over a year of the coalition forces’ operation there. The difference is fundamental but simple. As you said, if air strikes are ineffective, why is Russia delivering them? We’ve explained our position over and over. Maybe we haven’t found the right words?

First, we began our operation there at the request of the Syrian government, and it’s extremely important that we are coordinating our operation with the Syrian army, which is fighting ISIS on the ground. This is a fundamental issue. In our opinion, this is why the coalition has been ineffective. You can’t fight ISIS in the air without coordinating your efforts with those who are fighting it on the ground. In Syria, it is the Syrian army who is doing this. This is what we’ve been trying to explain. I sincerely hope that if you quote what I said today, maybe it will become clear that we encourage joining efforts and coordinating operations with the Syrian army. We see that the Western coalition is unwilling to coordinate its operation with the Syrian government and the army that is fighting ISIS on the ground. From now on, the Syrian army’s operations will be reinforced with air strikes. This is the fundamental difference. We have been trying to explain this to the coalition for a year. If this is a matter of pride, then I suggest you go against your pride, which is certainly difficult to do after four years of rejecting coordination. But the trouble has grown to an unacceptable level. You must see, at long last, that it’s time to act. Had you joined forces with the Syrian army, your operations would have been effective. But you haven’t, so we’ve joined the fight.  

As for terrorists and lists, you know that terrorist groups are very fluid. There are big terrorist groups such as ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, and there are small groups. For example, the United States repeatedly bombed a group named Khorasan in 2014, and this hasn’t raised any questions. Khorasan is not ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra. I’m not sure if it is on the US list of terrorist organisations. Yet no one asked why the US bombed it.

There are many terrorist and extremist groups, apart from ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, but they keep mutating. This is partly because of the import and export of terrorists and their mobility: they can form a union one day and fight each other the next. They may coordinate their operations today and join the other side tomorrow. I’d like to quote Sergey Lavrov, who said: “If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist.” The criteria are clear. 

Question: What’s Turkey’s stance in the Syrian conflict? What are its interests and whom is it supporting?

Maria Zakharova: This is for Turkey to say.

Question: The Russian Aerospace Forces have joined the counterterrorist operation in Syria. It is believed that it’s impossible to defeat ISIS with airstrikes alone. Will the Russian army fight ISIS in Syria? Is Russia willing to attract more countries in the fight against ISIS, for example China?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding the number of states that should fight ISIS, it is for each individual state to decide if it is ready, that it is combat ready for this, and if it thinks it possible to join the fight. What matters is that this issue doesn’t concern any one region alone such the Middle East or Europe, let alone the United States, but that it’s a common problem. So, if a county has the capability and potential resources for this fight, no obstacles should get in the way of joining the fight. The key issues in this situation are coordination and interaction.

As for sending Russian troops to Syria, we spoke about this at length today. As President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko said, this possibility is not being considered.

Question: A TV series called Occupied recently premiered in Norway. It’s about Russia seizing the Scandinavian countries and Norwegian oil fields. Can you comment on series like this?

Maria Zakharova: Television shows are made for viewers. If there is some other subtext, then that is, of course, regrettable. I don’t watch such shows.

Question: Two years ago there was no Islamic State in Syria. It turns out that members of the so-called moderate opposition abducted two high priests, ate a soldier’s heart, seized many towns and caused damage to the Syrian people. Is that “moderate opposition”?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding the “moderate opposition” you mentioned and certain military units that, according to our US partners, are purportedly fighting against ISIS on the ground, I’d like once again to draw your attention to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s comment yesterday at a news conference following his meeting with the foreign minister of Laos. We actually asked our American colleagues who exactly they mean when they advise us to coordinate our efforts with some Free Syrian Army. Where are these people, and what are their “call signs”? We have yet to receive an answer to this question from Washington.

Question: How do you assess the role of the international coalition in Iraq, which seems to be working in conjunction with the Iraqi government and army?

Maria Zakharova: I can only repeat our previous comments to the effect that closer coordination will lead to greater effectiveness in the fight against ISIS. It is senseless and dangerous to refuse to cooperate with those who are willing and able to contribute to the fight against this terrorist organisation for some political motives, for considerations of political expediency.

Question: What are the military success stories?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding military success stories, I advise you to go to military experts.

Question: State Duma Defence Committee Chairman Vladimir Komoyedov has said that the competent agencies are blocking attempts by those wishing to participate in combat operations on both sides from getting to the Middle East. What kind of volunteers are those? Is there any information about this?

Maria Zakharova: No, there is no information. I understand that he has made new comments on the issue today. To reiterate what I said earlier, there is no question of any official campaign regarding participation in ground operations. There are no official plans to call up, sign up or recruit any volunteers. Apparently, this is some kind of misunderstanding. We have a large number of political figures, deputies, who have their own opinion and who have the right and obligation to express it, of course. We comment on our official position and it is unequivocal: There are no, and there can be no ground operations or any troops on the ground. Russian leadership has stated this in no uncertain terms.

Question: On the issue of volunteers, is it against Russian law if a person goes to Syria as a volunteer to fight under Bashar Assad? You’ve said forcefully that Russia will never repeat the Afghan experience. Could you say why you are so sure about that?

Maria Zakharova: There are clear-cut and unambiguous statements that I have repeatedly cited today.

Regarding Russian laws, I can give you references so as not to misquote anything on the possible participation of volunteers.

Question: Russia has been criticised precisely for the fact that it is collaborating with the authorities that have killed thousands of their fellow citizens and have thus become illegitimate. Can you comment on that?

Maria Zakharova: First of all, I’d like to say a few words about authorities becoming illegitimate. Can you cite any international document that speaks about the illegitimacy of these authorities – cite it or at least name it? Maybe there is some decision by an international agency that has ruled that these are illegitimate authorities? I understand that there is no such quote and no such document.

We have heard various world leaders on different levels speak about the illegitimacy of this government, supporting their allegations with what you’ve just said. The question is not that we have said it is the best government in the world, with wonderful and remarkable people. We can see very well what the regime has done wrong and we have repeatedly expressed our assessments. Importantly, these assessments were made not in the past few years, but four and even more years ago. We have a realistic and objective view of what is going on in Syria.

The question is about the consequences of the forcible overthrow of the regime – something that many Western leaders speak so fervently about, leaders, who, by the way, put their signatures on the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012. This document says in no uncertain terms that any political changes in Syria should happen through national accord and that the Syrian people should decide their own fate. So, all statements to the effect that the regime should be bombed, removed or changed are at odds with the Geneva Communique, which was approved by, among others, the UN Security Council.

The question is what will happen if this scenario is forced. We’ve seen this course of events in Libya. We saw that the figure of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was first demonised and then he was eliminated and we saw what happened as a result.

If we go back in time and ask all of you, including the media, what scenario you would have preferred and what path you would have chosen – removing a leader that was certainly not an angel or preserving a country and a nation and preventing the state from becoming a “black terrorist hole” – I’m more than sure that each of you would have voted for the second scenario. We talk about this, and call for efforts to deal with ISIS, at the same time promoting the political process. However, it seems that the second part of our proposal doesn’t exist; it’s as if Russia did not initiate the Geneva Communique that speaks unequivocally about the political transfer of power, as if Russia is not working with Damascus and is not stimulating political change, reform and political transit, as if Russia has not provided the Moscow platform for dialogue between the opposition and official Damascus. It’s as if there is none of that. This is also a question of objectivity. There is no getting away from this and we understand very well that this is a wide-ranging issue. However, if we are being pushed towards a Libyan scenario we will not be involved in that, because Syria will detonate with far greater repercussions than Libya.