Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 26, 2015

Moment of silence in memory of the Russian military personnel killed in Syria

 

A tragedy happened the other day: a Russian military plane was shot down while flying a counterterrorist mission to protect all of us against international terrorism. People have died, Russian citizens, Russian military personnel.

I suggest that we have a moment of silence for the deceased.     

Thank you.

 

Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem

 

Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem came to Moscow on November 25.

In accordance with the agenda of his three-day visit, Mr Muallem met with State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin and Chairman of the State Duma International Affairs Committee Alexei Pushkov. Today, Mr Muallem met with Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. On November 27, he will hold intensive talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The two officials will focus on launching a political process towards settling the Syrian crisis. Committed to the political process, Russia has always called for this and urged all international and regional parties who can influence the Syrian forces to promote the intra-Syrian dialogue based on the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012. We have also been doing this within the framework of the recently established International Syria Support Group co-sponsored by Russia.

We reaffirm that it is Syrians who should decide Syria’s future and who will lead it, as stipulated in the international legal documents on this issue. In the current situation, external forces must create conditions for intra-Syrian dialogue and support the political process without forcing their own solutions or roadmaps on Syrians.

In accordance with an agreement reached by the International Syria Support Group, conditions for launching a dialogue between Damascus and the Syrian opposition should be in place by the end of the year.

The Syrian government has already established a list of its representatives for the intra-Syrian dialogue. As for opposition groups, they’ll have to work out a common political platform and designate negotiators. We reaffirm our firm intention to work towards a representative opposition delegation that will include representatives of all internal and external opposition forces. This is a key condition.

During the planned talks, Mr Muallem intends to discuss measures to strengthen trust between the Syrian government and opposition politicians in the interests of promoting intra-Syrian dialogue. On November 9, the Syrian government issued a unilateral commitment on the non-use of indiscriminate weapons and called on the opposition forces fighting it to act likewise. Russia has made a similar appeal several times.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Muallem will also discuss Russian-Syrian relations and their future development in different spheres, including Russia’s humanitarian assistance to the conflict-affected Syrians. Hostilities underway across Syria and unilateral Western sanctions against Syria have had a negative impact on Russian-Syrian trade. At the same time, Moscow and Damascus are optimistic that Syria will come roaring back en route to social and economic recovery. Preparations for this are already underway.

The diplomats will also focus on the safety of Russian citizens and Russian offices in Syria.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working meeting with plenipotentiary representatives and ambassadors of countries, members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and senior officials of CSTO Secretariat and Joint Staff

 

On December 1, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold a traditional meeting with plenipotentiary representatives and ambassadors of countries, members of the CSTO. CSTO Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha and Colonel General Anatoly Sidorov, the recently appointed Chief of the CSTO Joint Staff, as well as senior officials of the CSTO Secretariat and Joint Staff, will also take part in the meeting.

Meeting participants are to discuss relevant issues of international and regional security, foreign policy coordination, primarily concerning the fight against terrorism. They will review preparations for the upcoming meeting of heads of state of CSTO member-countries and a working meeting of ministers of CSTO member-countries on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Belgrade on December 3-4.

 

 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to the Republic of Cyprus

 

On December 1-2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to the Republic of Cyprus. He is to meet with President of the Republic of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades, hold talks with Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides and meet with Yiannakis Omirou, President of the House of Representatives, and His Beatitude the Archbishop of Cyprus Chrysostomos II.

There are plans to exchange opinions of relations between Russia and the European Union, to discuss the Cypriot settlement, the situation around Syria and in the entire Middle East, as well as some other topical issues. I would like to emphasise that Nicosia has promptly responded to the destruction of a Russian aircraft by Turkish aviation, and that it has voiced complete understanding for the Russian stance. Russia and the Republic of Cyprus have voiced coinciding or similar stances on many issues. Both countries advocate resumed constructive cooperation between Russia and the EU, strengthening the central role of the UN in international relations as the universal institution for maintaining peace and security.

We believe that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Cyprus will, doubtless, help strengthen cooperation and further promote rapprochement between our countries and peoples.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in OSCE Ministerial Council meeting

 

On December 3-4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is to attend the 22^nd meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Belgrade.

The upcoming ministerial meeting will take place against the backdrop of a terrorist spree that has already reached Europe and virtually engulfed it and neighbouring regions. The ministers of OSCE member-countries are to discuss the origins of terrorism and the need to pool efforts in the fight against this evil. We are counting on an open and depoliticised dialogue.

The situation with the immigration crisis and the influx of refugees into Europe will also require attention. The concerned parties will assess the causes of these developments and examine specific options for assisting countries from which refugees are arriving and to support countries receiving immigrants.

There are also plans to hold a detailed discussion of resolving the crisis in Ukraine and the OSCE’s role in this process. The ministers are to focus on assessing the implementation of the Minsk complex of measures, including its political aspects.

A discussion of the future of European security will also figure prominently in the Belgrade meeting’s agenda. We hope that the Ministerial Council meeting will lay a solid foundation for continuing this dialogue in 2016 and for expanding the Helsinki + 40 process.

Over ten draft concluding documents are being reviewed in the run-up to the Ministerial Council meeting. I would like to single out the importance of passing cooperation declarations for the purpose of countering international terrorism, intolerance towards Christians and Muslims as well as decisions on the Helsinki + 40 process. We also hope that the sides will support a draft Russian resolution regarding pluralism and freedom of the media.

We are ready to conduct an open discussion at the upcoming ministerial meeting and to launch constructive work on draft final documents.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with heads of diplomatic missions of Latin American and Caribbean countries accredited in Moscow

 

On December 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold, for the second time this year, his regular meeting with heads of diplomatic missions of Latin American and Caribbean countries accredited in Moscow.

During the meeting, there are plans to conduct a comprehensive review of the current state of the Russian Federation’s relations with regional countries and to chart promising aspects of future mutual relations, with due consideration for the Joint Statement by the Russian Federation and CELAC on the Establishment of a Permanent Mechanism for Political Dialogue and Cooperation between Russia and CELAC, approved in New York in September 2015.

Meeting participants will separately discuss the most relevant issues of the global agenda, including multilateral efforts to establish an international anti-terrorist coalition. All the most relevant international meetings are focusing on this major issue.

This format of direct dialogue between the Minister and representatives of Latin American countries has become a good tradition and helps establish trustful and confidential contacts and a useful exchange of opinions on a broad range of issues of mutual interest.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the opening ceremony of the archival documents exhibition dedicated to the 125^th anniversary of Russian-Mexican diplomatic relations

 

On December 8, an exhibition of documents from the archives of the Russian and Mexican foreign ministries will open at the Russian Foreign Ministry with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov taking part. The exhibition is part of a series of 2015 events marking the 125^th anniversary of the establishment of Russian-Mexican diplomatic relations celebrated on December 11.

Ambassadors of Latin American countries accredited in Moscow, academic and mass media representatives are invited to take part.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Italian business people

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Italian business people held upon the initiative of the Italian-Russian Chamber of Commerce will be held on December 9. This event reaffirms the interest of Italian businessmen in continuing their activity on the Russian market. Let me remind you that over 400 Italian companies are operating in Russia, including such leaders as Finmeccanica, Pirelli, Eni, Enel and others. 

We expect an open and constructive exchange of views on the current challenges of bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as a discussion of further mutually advantageous cooperation.

 

Results of an emergency meeting of the Permanent Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation

 

We’d like to go back to what we’ve begun with, for we can’t help starting our analysis of the international situation and events with this topic. Let me begin not only with the Russian statements, which you have heard in connection with the tragedy in the Syrian sky, where a Russian aircraft has been shot down.

Let me quote what Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said in RAI interview on November 25: “What has happened to the aircraft looks like a political phantasmagoria – a NATO country, Turkey, shoots down a Russian plane.” You couldn’t say better: it is, indeed, a phantasmagoria. But there is yet another definition for it – a tragedy!

On November 25, the CSTO Permanent Council held an urgent meeting convened at Russia’s initiative, with a Russian Armed Forces General Staff official reporting on the incident. To reiterate, on November 24, the Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian military aircraft, Su-24, involved in the antiterrorist operation in Syria as part of the Russian Aerospace Forces grouping. The partners were provided with an electronic map of the terrain and radar data indicating that the Russian aircraft had not crossed into the Turkish airspace and was shot down over Syria.

The participants in the meeting paid homage to and expressed condolences over the loss of Russian servicemen.

The Permanent Council members declared that such actions were inadmissible and expressed a common view that they could impact negatively the international counterterrorist efforts. They also stressed the need for consolidating the international effort in the fight against the terrorist threat that was increasingly reminiscent of a world-scale calamity.

 

Ankara’s “concerns” about the condition of Turkomans in northwestern Syria

 

It didn’t pass unnoticed that on November 21 Turkey’s UN ambassador  sent a letter to the Chairman of the UN Security Council, which expressed “serious concern” with the condition of Turkoman civilians in northwestern Syria as a consequence of  the Syrian army’s antiterrorist effort in that area, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces. We have also heard the rumours regarding the Turkish permanent mission’s intention to request a convening of the UN Security Council on this issue, which circulated in New York with reference to the TPM.

We have repeatedly responded to different kinds of insinuations concerning alleged civilian casualties resulting from Russian air attacks. Let me repeat that all these unfounded assertions have nothing to do with reality. The Russian ASF approaches the selection of targets for attacks with absolute thoroughness. This applies in full measure to the said northwestern area in the Syrian Arab Republic as well.

The Russian Defence Ministry regularly briefs the world public on what targets have been attacked, what missions have been assigned, and how they have been performed. A regular Defence Ministry briefing is scheduled for today. You will be provided with exhaustive information.

As we see it, Ankara, judging by all appearances, is unconcerned with the fate of civilians. Rather it is anxious about those whose true colours you could see on the footage distributed by the world media in connection with the Turkish Air Force shooting down a Russian Su-24 aircraft. This footage was available on television and in the Internet. I’m addressing my Turkish colleagues in Ankara: Are these people the ones you’d like to pass off as civilians? Are these heavily armed people in headbands peaceful civilians? I know many people who live in Turkey – I have many friends there – and they are civilians. The people that Ankara is trying to defend by all available – and sometimes, as we now understand – criminal methods, have no relation to peaceful civilians or just civilians for that matter. They are armed thugs who, as you saw in the news, were firing at the Russian pilot and later jeered over his body. Is this the notorious moderate opposition? Are they the people who fight for what you call democracy?  Are these the values that are supposed to replace the legitimate government in Syria? Are you mad? But if this is not the case, if they are not the people defended by Ankara, then we expect the official authorities in Turkey to provide relevant disclaimers  and confirm that these people are unrelated to Turkey and that Turkey abhors what they have done to the Russian pilot. We expect these statements from Turkey. Either you confirm that these people are under your protection and then we’ll see what this “moderate opposition” is all about and who the defenders of the so-called “democratic values” are, or you reaffirm that you are totally unrelated to them and express your attitude to their actions.

 

NATO response to Turkey shooting down a Russian bomber aircraft

 

We cannot accept the NATO response to Turkey shooting down a Russian bomber in Syria.

Pressured by Turkey and under the pretext of solidarity, NATO has actually authorised Turkey and its other member states to commit any kind of unlawful action that torpedoes international efforts against ISIS and directly endangers global peace and security.

The diplomatically correct appeals for order and de-escalation reveal graphically NATO attempts to shift the responsibility for the situation on Russia. Worse than that, NATO hasn’t even bothered to express its condolences.

I would like to explain to the people who have never been to NATO Headquarters that predominantly military officers occupy them and, in fact, it’s hard to find a civilian on the premises. I think these people should have an idea of the honour and dignity of officers and gentlemen. If they did not see the footage of a dead soldier being gibed viciously, it means they deliberately turned a blind eye to it because it was impossible not to see it, and it is even more shameful to keep silent about it.

Russia hopes that NATO leaders are aware of the risks and negative implications of such short-sighted and opportunistic policy that counterpoises the organisation against the entire world and against concerted efforts to meet contemporary threats and challenges.

 

For those who haven’t heard yet

 

I have heard and read many statements by Turkey and prominent international affairs experts about the tragedy over Syria several kilometres from the Syrian-Turkish border.

Having studied these statements, I thought of launching a new column, “For those who haven’t heard yet”, which, unfortunately, will become a permanent feature. For those who haven’t heard yet, I’d like to quote President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, as well as the regular Defence Ministry briefings.

As you know, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said that on November 24, two planes of “unknown nationality” (it’s strange that a NATO member in possession of modern tracking and monitoring equipment was unable to identify them) violated Turkish airspace. According to Mr Erdogan, one of the planes left the Turkish airspace, while the other continued on its course. He then provided the Turkish version of what happened after that.

I’d like to tell you once again what the Russian Defence Ministry said on this issue. Lieutenant General Sergey Rudskoi, Chief of the General Staff’s Main Operations Directorate, made the following statement during a briefing on November 24: “A missile hit the SU-24M plane when it was flying over Syria. The plane crashed in Syria four kilometres from the border. According to the objective control data, our aircraft did not cross the Turkish border. This information is supported by the Syrian Air Defence Force. Moreover, the radar tracking service of the Hmeymim Airbase has reported that the attacking Turkish Air Force plane violated Syrian air space.”

The next argument, which has been used most actively, including in Turkey, is that the Russian plane “had been warned 10 times during a period of five minutes.” For those who haven’t heard yet, the Russian Defence Ministry has said the following: “No attempts have been made by the Turkish plane to radio or to establish visual contact with our crew.”

As for numerous accusations of delivering strikes “not only at ISIS positions,” I’d like to remind you about the October 7 meeting with the military attachés of the anti-ISIS coalition countries at the Russian Defence Ministry. The meeting was hosted by Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov and Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, then Chief of the General Staff’s Main Operations Directorate. They called on the countries concerned to provide information available to them on the location of ISIS terrorists in Syria, and also provided to the military diplomats the detailed maps of Syria with the areas and individual facilities controlled by ISIS, which the Russian General Staff has compiled.

I’d like to add that, two weeks later, we have only received one answer, from the German military attaché in Moscow. It said that the information they had received from Russia would be used in their subsequent operations. To this day, not a single anti-ISIS coalition country has indicated a single area or facility controlled by ISIS.

It is claimed that on October 1, Russian aircraft bombed the Al Farooq Omar Bin Al Khattab Mosque in the town of Jisr al-Shughur in Idlib. On October 30, the Russian Defence Ministry issued aerial photographs of the mosque made the day before, on October 29, which clearly show that the mosque had suffered no damage.

The Russian authorities provide not only political and military statements in reply to these accusations, but also factual material such as maps, photographs and data. What Turkey has provided so far is nothing but words, but no hard facts.

When we ask our partners where they get the information that blames Russia, they reply, for example the US Department of State, that it is available on the internet and on social media networks. If they believe this kind of information, I’d like to inform the US State Department and our Turkish colleagues that according to information on social media sites, the family of Turkish President Erdogan is involved in the oil business with the ISIS terrorists. You can find it on the social media. Why don’t they cite it, and why don’t they react to it? A draft resolution has been submitted long ago to the UN Security Council to prohibit this illegal oil trade and any financial and economic ties with terrorists. Why don’t our partners use the social media information on this issue in support of this draft?

I’m urging all sides to analyse the information about all the times Turkey violated the air space of neighbouring countries. I’d like to attract your attention to information that is available not only on the social sites, but also in the media. Last July, [the US-based political journalism organisation] Politico published an article and infographics on Turkey’s air space violations into adjacent countries. Our partners should also take note of the number of times Turkish air space has been violated and by whom. A comparison of these facts could provide detailed and very indicative conclusions.

Since the issue concerns the reaction of, not so much diplomats as we’d hoped, civilized people, the comments by a US State Department’s press representative were absolutely inadequate. According to them, those who shot at the Russian pilot as he parachuted to the ground had “every right to defend themselves.” They also said that they [the US] “don’t have a clear understanding of everything that happened” and that they need to “determine what happened.”

I’d like to remind you that when the Malaysian plane was shot down over Ukraine  a year and a half ago, it took the State Department and other US government bodies only a few hours to form a clear opinion and to blame the tragedy on Russia. The situation with the Su-24 plane was clear to everyone: a plane was hit, and the pilot who parachuted from the plane was shot by people on the ground. But it turns out they need additional information to form an opinion, and that those who shot the pilot had the right to defend themselves.

The US State Department keeps telling us that the necessary information can be found on social media, and that it can be used as conclusive evidence during official talks. I’d like to tell the State Department’s Office of Press Relations that there is exhaustive information on social media sites, including photographs, about the people who shot the Russian pilot. We have grounds to believe that the US has precise information about these people. Considering that Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner has promised “to determine what happened” and said they need “to gather the facts,” we expect a statement from the State Department on who was dancing around the dead body of the Russian pilot.

When the US State Department officials said they don’t want “to rush to judgments,” this raised some serious questions. I understand that the armed cutthroats who danced over the dead body of the Russian pilot they shot knew little about humanitarian law. This is clear from the look on their faces. What humanitarian law? Their faces said everything. But you, respected officials from the US State Department, NATO, the EU and other countries, aren’t you aware of international humanitarian law? We thought you should have at least heard about it. By shooting our pilot, these people have violated international humanitarian law, in particular, a provision according to which attacking persons who are recognised as hors de combat (outside of combat) is prohibited.

If those who planned and perpetrated these actions thought this would weaken the counterterrorist struggle, which Russia is waging jointly with other countries, they have miscalculated. The fight will be continued in all directions. As I said, you will be regularly informed about this fight by the Defence Ministry of Russia. We will also do this at international organisations and through our partners.

 

The UN Security Council resolution on combating terrorism in the Middle East

 

The UN Security Council recently passed, unanimously, French-sponsored Resolution 2249 on counteracting the terrorist threat in the Middle East. At the suggestion of the Russian Federation, it sets down clearly that the UN Charter forms the foundation for the fight against terror. It is important that the resolution refers to the documents adopted by the International Syria Support Group on October 30 and November 14 of this year.

We see this resolution as a political appeal that does not change the legal principles of the anti-terrorist struggle and marks a step towards forming a broad antiterrorist front proposed by President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation through organising comprehensive cooperation between states in stopping all manifestations of terrorism and eliminating its causes. As a follow-up to this resolution we deem it extremely important to focus on cutting the financing of terrorism through illegal trade in oil, oil products and art values, conducted by the Islamic State and its accomplices. To reiterate, the corresponding proposals on that score will be submitted to and actively promoted at the UN Security Council.

 

An attack on Russian journalists

 

I would like to say a few words about an attempt on the life and health of Russian journalists that occurred several days ago and by a happy coincidence did not lead to tragic consequences. I am referring to RT and TASS correspondents who were covering the armed conflict in Syria. The Russian journalists had on them all the identifications as media workers, yet they were shot and wounded. We assume that the incident should attract the attention of the UN specialised agency on media workers’ safety, that is, UNESCO. There exists a whole range of universally recognised and supported international legal documents protecting journalists in such cases. These documents should not remain just pieces of paper, but must work.

I would like to reiterate a question. Are those who shot Russian journalists moderate opposition? Are those who posted photos of Russian correspondents and wrote “Kill them if you see them” moderate opposition?

To finish with this topic let me quote German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel who had this to tell the newspaper Die Welt in connection with the downing of the Russian SU-24 bomber by the Turkish Air Force: “The incident shows for the first time that we are dealing with a player who has been described in various parts of the region as unpredictable. That player is Turkey, not Russia.” We hear a lot and it is written down in many concepts that it is necessary to build up efforts, including military and military-political efforts, in connection with Russia’s unpredictability. You can judge for yourselves who is unpredictable.

 

The situation in Belgium

 

The National Security Council of Belgium at its emergency meeting on 21 November decided to upgrade the level of terrorist alert in the Brussels metropolitan area to the maximum level of 4 (“serious and imminent threat”) keeping level three alert (“possible and probable threat”) for the rest of the country. The reason is that the Belgian police and security are looking for several people who may stage terrorist attacks comparable to the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris. The Belgian special services have information about the presence in Brussels of terrorists who are ready to use weapons and explosives, including “suicide belts.”

The Belgian Interior Ministry’s Crisis Centre has recommended to its citizens to avoid crowded places and has called on them to be especially vigilant. Raids have been carried out and people suspected of being members of terrorist groups have been arrested in the notorious Molenbeek community, which the media call a jihadist base in Europe, and in other parts of the city. Security has been tightened on the Belgian-French border, at railway stations and international airports, mass sports and cultural events have been canceled, metro stations, schools and shops have been closed, heavy armour has been brought into the city centre and the streets are patrolled by police and the military. The top alert level has been extended at least until November 27.

Let me say that measures have been tightened at all Russian offices in Belgium to ensure the security of the staff and their family members. We urge all the Russian citizens in Belgium to be cautious and follow the recommendations of the local law and order officials.

 

Situation in Ukraine

 

We are constantly being told that we almost deliberately launched the counter-terrorist operation in Syria to forget about Ukraine. Well, this is just not so. We will continue to raise this subject regularly until the situation there is brought back to normal.

A video conference of the Contact Group on Ukraine held on November 24 focused on issues of security, compliance with the ceasefire and procedures of verification of arms pullback. For the first time the heads of the Russian-Ukrainian Joint Coordination and Control Centre (JCCC) will be invited to the next CG plenary session in Minsk scheduled for December 8.   

Although the CG members did not specifically discuss the topic of a political settlement as it is being discussed by experts in the related subgroup, which held a regular meeting in Minsk at the same time, Russia again drew attention to the need for Kiev to establish a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. The aim is to enable the sides to find mutually acceptable solutions to the political implications of settlement as a priority for the successful implementation of the entire complex of the Minsk accords.

I would also like to draw your attention to the report of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), which monitored the recent Ukrainian campaign to elect local government bodies. The report was published last week. From the results of two rounds of elections (on October 25 and November 15) the mission revealed serious flaws in Ukrainian electoral legislation and enforcement. The ODIHR’s preliminary findings note the flaws in the Law of Ukraine On Local Elections, which, the report says, had been adopted in haste and in violation of OSCE obligations, a lack of a level playing field for political parties, the disfranchisement of 1.4 million displaced persons, the creation of barriers for the participation of ethnic minorities, the control of oligarchic structures over regional and national media outlets and much else.

The observers’ main conclusion is “shortcomings in the legal framework, which caused most of the problems during the elections, and a lack of trust in the agencies responsible for organising and conducting the elections.” The report also stressed the need for all-encompassing reform.

In this connection, all the more surprising is the desire of Kiev, obviously in contradiction to the Minsk Package of Measures and the position President Poroshenko himself articulated during the Normandy Four summit in October, to hold local elections in Donetsk and Lugansk under the current undemocratic law On Local Elections.

Another subject connected with the developments in Ukraine is that in the early hours of November 22 alleged “unidentified persons” in the Kherson region blew up the power transmission lines that supply electricity to Crimea based on a Russian-Ukrainian contract. The resulting power shortage led to rolling power cuts. Many social and commercial facilities were left without electricity.

Hot on the heels of that event, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk seems to have demanded that the destroyed infrastructure be immediately restored and then, on President Poroshenko’s instructions, rushed through a government resolution on a temporary ban of cargo transport to and from Crimea, as demanded by extremists as well as members of the nationalist Right Sector who are blocking food supplies on the border of Crimea. In effect, official Kiev has let itself be led by pro-extremist people who were engaging in undisguised blackmail. It has to be said that these people do not represent the opinion of the majority, on the contrary, they form an aggressive minority of Ukrainian society. Unfortunately, the country’s leadership has allowed itself to be drawn into another dangerous policy that brings suffering to ordinary Ukrainians who will have to pay the price. History shows that the language of threats, blockades and pressure has never benefited anyone and has never brought the desired results.

It is notable that the self-proclaimed leaders of the Crimean Tatar people (I stress “self-proclaimed”) who previously were urging the Kiev authorities to cut power supplies to the peninsula, are now at pains to deny the responsibility for the crime that can only be described as extremist and terrorist.

What happened is a tragic illustration of the state of the current Kiev regime, its capacity (or otherwise) to make decisions on humanitarian matters that affect the interests of the people. One has the feeling that Ukraine has lost state power and that the people in Kiev are not in control of the situation in the country and simply do not know what they are doing. The government is totally dysfunctional. Of course, when we hear these same people speak about alleged human rights violations in Crimea, we want to ask them: does anything that has happened so far meet any humanitarian standards? 

 

New stage in training Ukrainian military by US instructors

 

Reports say that on November 23 at the Yavorovsky test range in the Lvov region American officials announced the start of a new stage of their programme to train and equip the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Between April and November, 300 servicemen of the 173d US Airborne Brigade trained three battalions of the Ukrainian National Guard (780 men) in urban warfare and in handling American weapons. Significantly, the end of the training coincided in time with the aggravation of the situation on the “contact line” in Donbass where the newly-trained soldiers were apparently sent.

Now the Americans and their NATO allies – Lithuanians and Canadians – will train a new bunch of Ukrainians, this time around five battalions. Obviously, these far-from-pacifist preparations are not conducive to de-escalation of the situation and may have a negative impact on the uneasy truce in the country’s southeast.

Incidentally, the presence of foreign paratroopers and weapons in Ukraine serves as a crude violation by Kiev of the Minsk Package of Measures. In particular, it violates point 10 envisaging the withdrawal of all foreign units, military equipment as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. It does not say that the provision applies only to the eastern regions. The Kiev authorities have assumed an unequivocal obligation that contains no reservations and applies to the entire territory under their control.

The American colleagues would also do well to pay attention to the reports about the arrest in Kuwait of ISIS envoys (widely reported in the media and available in social networks) who were buying portable anti-aircraft complexes in Ukraine and sending them to terrorists in Syria via Turkish territory. This points to a link between the jihadists whom the United States seems to be fighting and the Ukrainian forces with whom Washington works closely. Conclusions are for everyone to make.

 

Parliamentary elections in Myanmar

 

The official results of the November 8 elections for the Union Parliament of the Republic of Myanmar and the legislatures of national and administrative districts were announced in Naypyidaw on November 20. According to the Union Election Commission, the National League for Democracy, the biggest opposition party, won the majority of votes.

In the opinion of representatives of the Russian Election Commission who had been invited by the Government of Myanmar to watch the process of voting, the poll was open and complied with the country’s law. The election, which saw a massive turnout, was a milestone on the way of political and socio-economic reforms initiated by the Myanmar Government.

We believe that the process of transformations that has been successfully implemented in the country in recent years, will continue in the context of long-term stability and consolidation of the whole society.

We are prepared to further develop the traditionally friendly relations with Myanmar and build mutually beneficial cooperation in various areas with due account of the new political reality.

 

Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski’s call to annul the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act

 

A guest from the United States, the legendary Jill Dorothy, is present here in the audience. Jill, could it ever occur to you back in 1997 that we would start discussing the annulment of this Act?

We perceive these statements as part of the initial ideological brainwashing of Western public opinion in the run-up to the NATO summit in Warsaw in July 2016. We consider these statements to be extremely dangerous and absolutely provocative.

We see this as a striving to make the NATO course to deter Russia by military means irreversible and also to legitimise the bloc’s attempts to change the current balance of forces in Europe and to rule out the very possibility for building a system of equal and indivisible security on the continent that would meet the genuine interests of European countries.

This statement evokes particular dismay against the backdrop of repeated public assurances by top NATO leaders and most NATO countries concerning their commitment to the clauses of precisely the Russia-NATO Founding Act, which is a cornerstone and a fundamental agreement in the area of European military security.

Hopefully, the alliance realises the long-term negative consequences of implementing this “initiative,” provided that this is an initiative, rather than a chance statement. All this can cause the situation to escalate out of control and completely wreck the current system of European security.

 

North Atlantic Council at level of foreign ministers to enter into talks with Montenegro on its accession to NATO

 

The possible political decision to enter into talks with Montenegro on its accession to the alliance, to be taken by the North Atlantic Council at level of foreign ministers on December1-2, will become another serious blow dealt by the bloc against the current system of Euro-Atlantic security. As you see, these blows are delivered from various directions.

This move is fraught with the powerful potential for confrontation and does not meet the interests of maintaining peace and stability on the Balkan Peninsula and Europe in general. Moreover, it can complicate the already complicated Russia-NATO relations still further. Although it’s highly questionable whether these relations exist at all, because, as you know, NATO, rather than Russia, unilaterally froze them.

We are no less concerned about the possible consequences of artificially dragging Podgorica into the alliance for our bilateral relations with Montenegro in the context of Russia’s longtime friendly and spiritual ties with Montenegro’s people. This concern is based on negative historical experience linked with earlier stages of NATO’s expansion.  

 

New British strategic doctrine

 

We took note of the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 that was published by the British Government on November 23.

The document devotes considerable attention to relations with Russia. To quote from the document: “At the NATO summit in Lisbon in 2010, we committed to work with our Allies to build a partnership with Russia. But since then Russia has become more aggressive, authoritarian and nationalist, increasingly defining itself in opposition to the West.”

“Russia’s behaviour will continue to be hard to predict, and, though highly

unlikely, we cannot rule out the possibility that it may feel tempted to act aggressively against NATO Allies.”

On the one hand, this military doctrine of a permanent member of the UN Security Council does not rule out the possibility of aggression against NATO countries. On the other hand, a NATO country has attacked a Russian aircraft. In this connection, one is inclined to ask: “Do you have any idea about what is happening in the world? Or are you writing from hearsay?” While calling Russia an aggressor or a potential aggressor, the very same doctrine notes: “Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and notwithstanding our differences, we will seek ways of cooperating and engaging with Russia on a range of global security issues.”

In other words, London is virtually recognising Russia as some kind of a threat. Although terrorist attacks in Egypt and Paris have obviously prompted British analysts to include compromise clauses regarding cooperation to deal with common challenges, they don’t abolish tough rhetoric about an ‘aggressive Russia’ based solely on their own lop-sided perception of Ukrainian developments and not confirmed by any facts whatsoever.

If a basic official document perceives Russia as a threat to UK national security, then, obviously, we would have to base our behavior with regard to London in line with solely pragmatic approaches and not to aspire to cooperation only for the sake of cooperation.

 

The bans on Alexandrov Academic Ensemble holding concerts in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia

 

While the world unites in global counterterrorism efforts, the Baltic states unite in the fight against singing. As you know, the Baltic authorities have decided to ban concerts of the world-renowned Alexandrov Academic Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army. Apparently, they feel threatened by people who can sing.

One country announces a war against monuments; another one wages war against songs. This would have been funny if it weren’t also insulting for WWII veterans, who were the key audience of these concerts dedicated to the 70^th anniversary of Great Victory.

Obviously, these steps are causing damage to our cultural dialogue with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and have no positive impact on our bilateral relations.

 

The visa regime between Russia and Mongolia

 

Several Russian websites quoting the Mongolian Foreign Ministry provided misinformation on the restoration of the visa regime between Russia and Mongolia.  We urge our colleagues to be more accurate and precise in citing such publications as they misinform the citizens. We receive many questions and are therefore forced to respond.

Apparently, this information appeared because its authors were inattentive while reading or mistranslated the news on the Mongolian Foreign Ministry’s official website which claimed the reintroduction of a visa regime with 42 European and Latin American states, which was cancelled by resolution of the Mongolian Government in June 2014, with no reference to the Russian Federation.

Let us remind you that the Russian-Mongolian intergovernmental agreement on reciprocal conditions for citizens’ travel came into effect on November 14, 2014, envisaging a 30-day visa-free stay on each other’s territory.

 

From answers to media questions

Question: Does Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plan to have a meeting with the Turkish community leader during his visit to Cyprus?

Maria Zakharova: We’ve already received requests to comment on the possibility of a meeting with Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci within the framework of the visit. I can say that the Turkish Cypriot leader was offered a compromise option for such a meeting on “the green line,” which would take into account the interests of both communities on the island. However, Mr Akinci turned down that offer. He insisted that the meeting should take place at his residence in northern Cyprus. Such a meeting could have been interpreted as an element of Russia’s official recognition of the Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus. In our opinion, that would have harmed our fundamental position on the Cyprus settlement.

Russia supports the efforts to bring about a comprehensive, fair and viable solution to the Cyprus issue based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions that provide for the formation on the island of a two-community, two-zone federation with a single international legal self-determination, sovereignty and citizenship. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia will continue to facilitate a settlement, coordinated by the Cypriot communities, that should serve the interests of all Cypriots. This refers both to Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. To reiterate, we are opposed to any attempts to impose on the participants in the intra-Cyprus dialogue any settlement recipes or artificial negotiating schedules, etc.

Question: Could you comment on the action outside the Turkish embassy in Moscow as a result of which windows were smashed.

The Turkish General Staff has released an audio record of warnings issued by the Turkish side to the Su-24 bomber crew. Have you studied it? Could you comment on it?

Maria Zakharova: There are a lot of various recordings on the Internet. Some clips are interesting and funny. How many days did it take to manufacture a new “masterpiece”? I don’t even want to comment on the value of this audio recording.

Regarding the action outside the embassy, no doubt, Russia as a host nation will do everything that it takes to ensure the safety of diplomats whatever their country of origin. This is all I can say as an official spokesperson.

On the human level, I will say that the tragedy has affected all of us. It is not a matter of numbers, not of how many people were killed, one or over 200. You see, the death of one or two people is as tragic to us as mass killings. To reiterate, it is especially painful that these people died not as a result of a stupid accident or mistake. They were performing their duty to protect us all against terrorists.

You can’t even imagine the number of email and handwritten letters, telephone calls and comments on the social media that we are receiving from Russian citizens in connection with this tragedy. If you are a representative of Turkish media, maybe you will write about this so that people in Turkey know. Here is, for example, a real letter. There is a return address and the writer’s full name. On November 24, Yelena wrote: “I’m praying for our pilots. What perfidy! Let terrorism come to Turkish soil. Then they’ll understand.” I fully support what she says at the beginning but cannot agree with what she says in the end. Each of us knows what terrorism is. She is mistaken if she thinks that terrorism has not come to Turkish soil. It has, long ago. What makes it particularly excruciating and incomprehensible for us is how it can be that people who understand and have firsthand experience of the horror of terrorist attacks were unable to appreciate what Russia is doing. When people are blown up in Turkish cities we show unity with the Turkish people. We also empathise with them and speak about the unacceptability of such actions and about the need to fight terrorism at all levels. We know where this evil comes from and we try to stop it because this evil is spreading throughout the world. How could they have shot down an airplane that did not in any way – factually, theoretically or hypothetically – jeopardise Turkey’s security? How could they have failed to express condolences to a friendly country and its people, a country that has over many years sought to prove on the ground that we are friends. You see, we haven’t heard a word of condolence from Turkish officials. How is this possible?

After all, we’ve always supported Turkey when it fell on hard times. We’ve been in unity with the Turkish people who have suffered as a result of terrorist attacks. The Turkish leadership has been unable to pronounce a single word to apologise not just to Russian officials but even to our people, to the families of our servicemen. These people were killed in the line of duty.

We’re receiving mountains of such letters and I understand our people’s feelings. I’ve never urged anybody to go and vandalise the embassy, and none of my colleagues have. We are also diplomats. We work abroad and we understand very well that all sorts of things can happen. However, I understand the feelings of each of us because this is how I personally feel, sharing their indignation and incomprehension regarding, first, how this could have happened, and second, how a state that declares its adherence to universal human values, considers itself civilized and speaks about its commitment to fight terrorism is unable to find words of empathy for the people who have lost their near and dear. Try to help the Turkish audience understand this as well. 

Question: Is a prospective coalition with Turkey possible at all, after the tragic incident in Syria?

There are rumours of many joint Crimean-Turkish projects frozen. What can you say about the developments on the peninsula?

Maria Zakharova: As for the statement by the Crimean top authorities that they are freezing Turkish projects and whatever has a connection with Turkey, I cannot add a word here: this is a well-motivated and substantiated decision.

In connection with the anti-terrorist coalition and our combat against international terrorism, we remain as resolute as before, and we haven’t retreated an inch.

As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday, the incident will bring serious consequences. We will call the attention of our colleagues and the entire international community, within the framework of current processes, toward the elaboration of a universally shared concept of who are terrorists, particularly in the Syrian settlement context, and who sponsors them behind the scenes. I repeat for those who have been appealing to us all the time to do so, that all this is in social networks. We all know who supplies arms to what groups and why attempts are made to pass militants for moderate oppositionists. All this is known. So I reiterate that we are no less determined than before to fight terrorism along different channels. We will fight them militarily, politically and legally, and at international venues.

As for our relations with Turkey, our country’s leaders said explicitly that the tragedy will cast a shadow on all aspects of bilateral relations. I say once again that it wasn’t a tragic error but, as we see it, a planned deliberate action. Not a single word of condolence and sympathy has come from the Turkish leadership about our citizens’ deaths, and this bears out our assumption.

Question: Sergei Lavrov has noted that the attack on the Su-24 looks like a planned act of provocation. He also said that Turkey is a member of the US-led coalition and so one might conclude that Turkey could have coordinated the attack with the US. Does Russia believe the US approved this attack and wanted the aircraft to be destroyed?

Maria Zakharova: I’d like all of you to go to the primary source, that is, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Russian and foreign media outlets, which was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website yesterday.

I’ll explain why there is a view that this could have been a planned provocation. We’ve been instructed so long to use the media and the Internet that I’d like to remind you that on October 19, Komsomolskaya Pravda (this information is available not only in the Russian newspaper but also in foreign media outlets) published an article citing a well-known Turkish blogger who suggested that Turkey was planning such an action, in particular an attack on Russian aircraft. This was written in black and white in several languages a month and a half ago. So when you realise that this has already been written about, when you see how this was done in cold blood, when you hear statements that were made without a trace of regret or sympathy and when you see the steps that were immediately taken, all of this suggests that it could have been planned beforehand. We cannot rule this out.

Foreign Minister Lavrov said we have signed an agreement with the United States to prevent conflicts during the conduct of counterterrorist operations in Syria. Under this agreement, the US, which leads this coalition, is to inform all coalition members about the actions and steps taken in this situation. We are fulfilling our part of the agreement in good faith. The question arises: What about the US? It was stated – and neither Turkey nor any other party has denied it – that the Russian plane was flying a mission as part of the counterterrorist operation. This is obvious. This is self-evident. Nobody argues with that. The point is we haven’t violated a single agreement. We’ve acted in keeping with our obligations. There are questions why, under the agreement we signed, the other party took no action.

According to information at our disposal – and our top foreign policy officials said this – if a certain country uses US warplanes then, in the course of combat operations, it is to coordinate the delivery of strikes with the US. We know that this is current procedure. It would be important if US reporters asked the US side for an explanation. If this procedure exists and if it has been declared, was it followed in this case? If not, why not? If it was, then how did the US reply to the query? Many of these questions remain open. The cold blooded manner in which this was done leaves no doubt that the action could not have been an accident, a confluence of circumstances. Nobody doubts this.

We’ve lived through many developments. The world has lived through many developments. Different things have happened, including tragic, catastrophic things. However, we’re all human and we all have words. Words express our thoughts. If we haven’t heard a single word for the Russian people since the incident, this is further evidence of the way it was carried out.

Question: A five-month old Umarali Nazarov, a citizen of the Republic of Tajikistan, died of unknown causes in St Petersburg in the early morning of October 14. Has a formal investigation into the cause of his death been opened?

Reportedly, nationals of the Central Asian countries are fighting on the side of ISIS. Many get there through Turkey. Does this make Ankara an accomplice to terrorism?

Maria Zakharova: As we said on October 20, a criminal case was opened in connection with Umarali Nazarov’s death. It is being monitored by the St Petersburg prosecutor's office. The investigation has not been completed, and talking about the results is premature. Alongside other concerned departments, the Foreign Ministry is working to ensure that the necessary procedural steps are carried out with due diligence. I can assure you that the necessary steps are being taken to clarify the causes of this incident. Importantly, the truth must be determined. That’s what matters.

With regard to your second question, I can say that we have a lot of questions for Turkey. Since they’ve dealt a blow to those who were on a mission to fight terrorists, what else can you say about the actions of that country? Definitely, they are accomplices to the terrorists, nothing else. If they protect individuals who are all universally recognised as criminals, it’s collusion. Look at the photos of these people. Of course, there is the presumption of innocence. But Turkey was protecting some heavily armed men who were shooting at our pilots. If you protected these people, then go ahead and confirm it. If not, refute the allegations. We have lots of questions for Turkey regarding media reports and social media posts on interaction with terrorists in oil transactions, and other kinds of assistance to groups that are involved in related activities.

I would like to note, and Minister Lavrov mentioned it earlier, that all of these questions came up before, not just since this tragic event, but much earlier. The fact that we didn’t talk about them publicly every day doesn’t mean that we didn’t pose them to the Turkish side, and our other partners. We talked about it constantly. Our language will now become tougher, and we will bring these issues up on an almost daily basis.

Question: Sixty Turkish businessmen who arrived in Russia on tourist visas to visit an exhibition were detained in Moscow. Do you have any information about this?

Maria Zakharova: I hope they came here to enjoy an exhibition at the Pushkin Fine Arts Museum? I have no information on this.