Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 16, 2015

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with a French parliamentary delegation 

On December 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet in Moscow with a delegation of French members of parliament led by Thierry Mariani, a deputy of the French National Assembly and co-chair of the French-Russian Dialogue Association.

The meeting will address ways of building up interaction between Russia and France in dealing with pressing international issues, as well as bilateral cooperation.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to New York

In the afternoon of December 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will fly to New York to attend a meeting of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and other events at the UN devoted to the political settlement in Syria.

Yesterday, Mr Lavrov noted that “Russia supports the idea of holding a regular ISSG meeting on December 18 in New York at the ministerial level. We expect that as a result of this meeting, with the consent of all members, an agreement will be reached to submit for the UN Security Council’s consideration a draft resolution that would reaffirm the principles laid down in the Vienna documents – the Vienna statements of October 30 and November 14, 2015.”

We will keep you up to date on the Minister’s working schedule in New York, which is currently being finalised, and the results of the meetings.

Results of a Ukraine Contact Group meeting

On February 15, a meeting of the Contact Group on Ukraine took place. It addressed the entire range of issues on the agenda, including security, political and humanitarian issues, among others.

As additional information arrives, we will provide detailed coverage of the event. At this stage, we will analyse the general outcome of the meeting. I can say at this point that new mine-disposal agreements were reached and the proposal for a full ceasefire during the New Year holidays was endorsed. The Contact Group will hold another meeting before the end of the year (an agreement to that effect was also reached).

Unfortunately, the discussion of political issues again highlighted serious disagreements between the parties. In this case, we note Kiev’s unconstructive position.

IAEA Board of Governor’s resolution on Iran

I’d like to draw your attention to the Iran resolution that was adopted at a closed IAEA Board of Governors meeting. We provided detailed assessments of this resolution on December 15. They were posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

These included statements by Ambassador-at-Large Grigory Berdennikov at the above mentioned meeting and an interview and comments by Permanent Representative to the International Organisations in Vienna, Vladimir Voronkov.

I can add to this that this resolution is based on the report of the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano to the Board of Governors on past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. This report reaffirmed that Iran has implemented its commitments under the roadmap, which Iran and the IAEA agreed to in Vienna on July 14.

As I said, you can read our assessments and the report on ministry’s website.        

I’d like to remind you that the use of force in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme was seriously discussed in the West several years ago. Russia insisted that only a political and diplomatic solution would be effective. Today we are witnessing the triumph of international law and, of course, diplomacy, which can find a solution even to the most complicated problem. It is frightening to think what would have happened had the idea of a military solution advocated by the world’s hawks prevailed. The consequences would have been catastrophic for this region and the rest of the world.

I believe that this is a good example that proves that emerging international problems or issues should be tackled open-mindedly within the framework of international law and with a clear understanding that the use of force can and have been known to result in disaster.

Efforts to secure the release of the tanker Mekhanik Chebotarev crew

The Russian Foreign Ministry and its missions outside Russia have been working hard to secure the release of the crew of the Russian tanker Mekhanik Chebotarev, which was detained off Libya on September 16.

We have informed the public and the media about our efforts towards this goal as soon as we had new information, and when we didn’t do this it was not because we’d forgotten about our sailors. Today I’ll tell you what we’ve achieved. I’d like to explain the absence of daily comments by saying that some issues are better addressed behind closed doors.

Since the arrest of our crew and tanker, Russia has taken energetic actions at different levels and in different spheres to secure the release of the crew as soon as possible. We told you that two crew members – the ship’s cook Natalya Klyuchnikova and watchman Pavel Magatin – have been released and returned to Russia. The other ten crew members, including the ship’s captain, remain in Libya. A member of the Russian Embassy’s Consular Department in Tripoli regularly visits them. Our citizens are being kept at a military base in Daphnia, 200 km east of Tripoli. We are satisfied with their confinement conditions, health and meals. The sailors receive medical assistance when necessary.

Judging by Libyan sources, the Tripoli prosecutor’s office has extended the arrest of our sailors until the end of the year within the framework of the investigation and preparations for a trial conducted by the Libyan authorities.

I’d like to emphasise that the situation in Libya is extremely complicated. The country’s state institutions were ruined as a result of military interference in the internal Libyan conflict by the United States and several European countries in 2011. One of the worst consequences was the internal political division that split the country into two opposing camps in 2014.

Over the past year, the UN overlooked the restoration of Libyan statehood and the creation of national bodies of authority. In this situation, the Russian Foreign Ministry has been cooperating with all sides without exception that can help secure the early release of the Russian crew. Russian diplomats also used for this purpose the venue and opportunities offered by the international meeting on Libya, which was held in Rome on December 13.

We will continue to take all the necessary steps to secure the safe return of our citizens to Russia.

As I said, the absence of regular comments doesn’t mean that we have stopped working on this issue, even for a day.

Publications in Turkish media

I’d be remiss not to touch upon the tragic incident resulting from Turkey’s criminal actions against the Russian Su-24 bomber which was shot down, killing Russian servicemen.

We monitor the materials published by Turkish media, and are perplexed by a publication where Turkish reporters compare this situation to a similarly awful tragedy that occurred several decades ago, when a South Korean passenger Boeing was downed over Soviet territory. Moreover, these articles cite high-ranking Turkish government officials who draw such parallels and compare the situations.

Of course, you can find a lot in common: there were planes and the sky in both occurrences. People died, too. But when it comes to media and public officials, it’s imperative to see stark differences. Elementary web-browsing skills are enough to see that comparing these two situations is an exercise in futility.

Turkish media report that the Turkish side is comparing these two situations at the official level. In this connection, let me remind you of a generally recognised fact that the South Korean plane was flying without navigation lights, did not respond to inquiries and did not communicate with radio dispatcher services. The Turkish side would benefit from learning about the time the South Korean jet spent over Soviet territory and that it crossed into Soviet airspace several times. The air defence fighters that scrambled to intercept the intruder tried to direct the South Korean Boeing towards the closest airfield. If the Turkish side chose to compare these situations, we would like it to analyse what its aircraft did on November 24, 2015. The jet which violated Soviet airspace did not respond to signals and warnings issued by Soviet fighters and continued its flight. I’d like to ask the Turkish media (as long as they refer to themselves as independent) to familiarise the Turkish audience with the length of time the South Korean Boeing spent in Soviet airspace.

I would like to respond to Turkish diplomats’ remarks published in the media. We have repeatedly pointed out that there are a number of special signals that fighter planes issue to force an aircraft that violated airspace to land or change their route. This involves rocking wings and flashing side lights. All of that was done in relation to the South Korean Boeing. This data is available online, and anyone can check it out. A few minutes before using deadly force, several warning rounds were fired (according to open sources, 243 shells were fired).

Distinguished Turkish colleagues, if you want to compare these situations, then do so objectively. Tell Turkish audiences what it was like then, and what it was like this time.

The situation in Montenegro

The internal political crisis in that country goes hand in hand with lengthy protests, which is indicative of the continued deep split in Montenegrin society, primarily, over the issue of NATO membership.

This thesis was recently confirmed by Prime Minister of Montenegro Milo Dukanovic in his interview with the Russian Kommersant newspaper where he said that as of November 220,000 Montenegrins want their country to join NATO. However, he overlooked the fact that the total number of registered voters in the country is 541,000. Even if you go along with what Mr Dukanovic said, Montenegro's Euro-Atlantic integration is backed by less than half of its registered voters.

We believe that the people of Montenegro must weigh in and say what they want in a national referendum on that issue. It would be a manifestation of the democracy that we have heard so much about.

On Russian historian, writer and TV presenter Felix Razumovsky’s ban on entering Latvia

This is another topic related to double standards. We hereby state that Latvian authorities continue to fight against Russian culture. We are referring to Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis’ absurd and unmotivated decision to ban, in his opinion, the “dangerous” Russian historian, writer and presenter of the “Who Are We?” programme on the Culture TV channel, Felix Razumovsky. from entering Latvia. This episode is another dramatic confirmation of a two-faced approach to basic principles adopted by European countries. 

Certainly, these unfriendly official steps from Riga are a gross violation of its international obligations in media freedoms. Such activities are not beneficial to our relations and most assuredly will be taken into consideration in the bilateral agenda.

On the “Trolls of the 21^st Century: Kremlin inside Western Media” European Parliament conference

We took notice of a conference organised in the European Parliament carrying the amazing name “Trolls of the 21^st Century: Kremlin inside Western Media.”  It should seem that members of the European Parliament are serious people. The name of the conference, however, leaves one with the impression that a new Hollywood blockbuster has been released. The forum’s stated goal is resistance to the Russian information influence. Against the background of the EU and NATO deploying anti-Russian propaganda structures and European journalists’ complaints that media editors do not allow them to give  balanced coverage of the situation in East Europe, for example, and many other international events similar to these, it is strange to hear  allegations that Russia lacks independent journalism and calls to deprive the Russian media of European licenses, or, for example, decisions of several countries to deport Russian journalists,  stop their activities and ban their accreditations.

The aforementioned conference has clearly shown that the full-steam-ahead demonization of Russia and its media  is actually used to crush dissent and discredit opinions different from those inculcated in the West. It seems that the Russian propaganda myth is not caused by concern about freedom of speech but rather is a motive to deprive journalists of the basic principles of freedom of expression and speech.

We get the impression that under the pretense of fighting against some mythical “Kremlin propaganda” (we are used to the situation where no one gives us any evidence), in fact the major goal of this attack is to suppress and eradicate different opinions in western countries’ media. This is a dangerous and alarming tendency.

From answers to media questions:

Question: Russian media outlets, including the Kommersant newspaper, have reported today on the expansion of Russian sanctions against Turkey. Does Russia plan to introduce new restrictive measures against Turkey?

Maria Zakharova: I don’t know anything about this. No comment. 

Question: Relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey can be described as good. What does Russia think about this after its conflict with Turkey? On the Syrian settlement: Russia has raided ISIS targets with missiles launched from the Black Sea. These missiles fly over the area of Iraqi Kurdistan. Two civil flights have been cancelled for this reason. Are these missiles a danger?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding Russia’s stance on the Syrian settlement and the situation in the region as a whole, it has not changed before, during or after the tragic incident provoked by Turkey’s unwarranted action. Our stance on all of these issues has always been consistent, as we have stated more than once.

We had a number of differences with Turkey on regional issues. At the same time, we cooperated with our Turkish colleagues to mitigate our differences and to promote rapprochement. In this context, the tragic incident has forced us to highlight the problems we have had with Turkey over Syria, including publicly. In the past, we discussed this with our Turkish partners openly but behind closed doors, believing that we could influence their stance and bring our positions closer together if we acted as partners and diplomats, without going public. But after a Russian bomber was shot down and Turkey resorted to bombastic rhetoric, it has effectively closed the door to constructive dialogue based on a calm and proper presentation of arguments. 

You should understand that Russia’s stance has always been consistent. The only new element is that after that tragedy we started talking about problems openly, for reasons I have mentioned above.

The Russian Defence Ministry informs the international community about the trajectory of its missiles and flight safety precautions. I’d like to remind you that we maintain close cooperation with Iraq, with the country’s authorities in Baghdad, on all issues including the one you mentioned. As you know, an Information and Coordination Centre has been established in Baghdad. We don’t just answer all of Iraq’s questions, but also coordinate our actions with the Iraqi authorities. I don’t envision any problems in this respect. We have not received any complaints from the Iraqi authorities. Where is Iraqi Kurdistan located? In Iraq. This is the answer to your question.

Question: Will talks between the Syrian government and the opposition begin on January 1, 2016 as planned?

Maria Zakharova: This date has been set as preferable by members of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). This issue is discussed daily. Of course, we’d be happy if agreements were reached as soon as possible, but it’s obvious that this is a very difficult issue and the process is taking longer than planned. We believe that the ISSG member countries will convene in New York in the next few days, or more precisely on December 18, to exchange opinions and proposals on this issue. We hope that practical efforts and the contribution by each country will help bridge the gap between the sides and bring close our main goal, which is a comprehensive political settlement in Syria.