Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich, 2 December 2014

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of European Affairs and Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Belgium Didier Reynders who assumed the functions of Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE) will come to Moscow for a working visit on 8-9 December.

Didier Reynders is to meet the Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov for an exchange of opinion on a wide range of issues comprising bilateral cooperation, the problems of the Council of Europe in the context of the six-month Belgian chairmanship of the CMCE. The two ministers will also discuss the most acute issues of mutual interest on the international agenda, including the situation around Ukraine, and the situation in the Middle East.

During his stay in Moscow Didier Reynders will be received by the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Sergei Naryshkin. A number of other meetings with Russian officials are scheduled.

The Belgian Foreign Minister will visit the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) under the Foreign Ministry to meet the students and professors there.

 

We have paid attention to the resolution On Supporting Ukrainian Sovereignty and Democracy adopted during the regular session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at the Hague on 24 November this year which is another example of myth-making. The myopic character of these assessments can only raise eyebrows.

As usual lately, all the "recommendations" are heavily politicized: the blame for fomenting the internal Ukrainian crisis is unjustly put exclusively on Russia. The consistent efforts of our country at peaceful settlement of the conflict and the continuing violations of the Minsk accords by the Ukrainian forces, and the use of heavy weapons and equipment against civilians continue to be ignored. In general, it is far removed from objectivity.

The persistent emphasis on the decisions of the NATO Bucharest summit of 2008 which declared that "Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance" only motivates Kiev to revise the country's non-aligned status. Such an approach, as we have repeatedly noted, carries a strong destructive charge creating additional obstacles in the way of internal Ukrainian settlement.

 

Some media, including the newspaper Izvestia, have carried materials suggesting that Russia intends to revise the Helsinki Final Act. That calls for an explanation. The crux of the matter lies elsewhere. We are not advocating the adoption of any new comprehensive documents, but are seeking to form an effective platform for discussing modern challenges to European security architecture. The principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act have not lost their relevance, they need to be reaffirmed in today's context and a consensus needs to be reached on their interpretation and implementation. Such an attempt was made in the form of the European Security Charter signed at the Organization's Istanbul Summit in 1999.

As early as 2008 Russia proposed launching a broad discussion of this issue as part of drafting a European security treaty. Various ideas of international coordinating mechanisms were proposed. However, all the Russian proposals on improving the European security system constantly ran into the demands of our partners to comply with some preliminary conditions or their argument that it was unacceptable to interfere in anyone's internal decision-making process. Practice has shown that this logic leads to a dead end.

We consider the work on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 to be a model of political will displayed by all the states at the time for an equal and open dialogue. We urge everyone to follow that example. The "Helsinki plus 40" process launched by the OSCE ahead of the jubilee of the Helsinki Final Act next year offers a good opportunity for such a broad discussion. Like 40 years ago, it could help resolve the problems that have piled up, clarify the "rules of the game" in relations between states and strengthen the foundations of security and cooperation on the continent.

 

We continue to closely follow the course of the investigation into the causes of the crash of the Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine. We regret to note that it is only now – more than four months after the disaster – that the authorized officials have visited the scene of the event to examine, gather, record and study the fragments of the aircraft. We can only hope that such a delay will not have a negative impact on the investigation of the causes of the tragedy which, under UN Security Council Resolution 2166, must be comprehensive, thorough and independent and must be conducted in accordance with the international civil aviation guidelines.

In this connection one feels some concern about the statement by the representatives of the Netherlands agency responsible for the investigation which suggests that many of the plane's fragments (including those with strike element marks) "present no interest" to the investigation commission and are likely to be left on the scene of the disaster. We believe the experts and the public at large have a good reason to ask the question to what extent this approach meets the criteria of a complete and objective investigation of the crash and makes its results trustworthy.

 

We are closely following the situation over the return of the items from the exhibit "Crimea: Golden Island in the Black Sea" from a Netherlands' museum to Crimea's museums. This issue is still open. The Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam, where the items were exhibited, has, in violation of the contracts signed with the Crimean museums, decided to hold the "Crimea: Golden Island in the Black Sea" exhibit items from the collections of four Crimean museums and has declared that the exhibit items will be returned to the party specified by a Netherlands Court decision. The museum's position was prompted by Ukrainian demands to hand over the exhibits to Kiev.

We have always proceeded on the basis that this problem should be settled between museums through negotiation. However, in spite of the efforts of the Crimean museums that aim has not been realized. From our information, on 19 November the Crimean museums filed a lawsuit with a court in Amsterdam against the Allard Pierson Museum demanding compliance with the obligations under the contracts and a return of the exhibit items to Crimea. We consider this to be a legitimate and logical step. Museum pieces should not be held hostage due to various political implications. The collections should be kept intact, the archeological pieces should remain where they were found, where they have been stored and studied for decades.

As for the exhibits, they remain in the Allard Pierson Museum. On 24 November this year, in the presence of the representatives from the Crimean museums, the procedure of moving them to the museum's storage facilities was begun. From available information, this work has been conducted in a professional manner and without any risk of damage to the exhibit pieces.

The situation in Syria remains tense. In spite of the successes of the government forces in certain areas no fundamental change has yet taken place.

A significant part of Syrian territory, in terms of population and area, is controlled by terrorists who are establishing their own rules and brutally suppress any manifestation of dissent. The people are forced to reconcile themselves to this and adjust to the new "power."

The US-led coalition, having failed to defeat the terrorists near the town of Kobane on the Syrian-Turkish border has shifted the focus of its air raids to the densely populated city of Raqqa on the Euphrates. In the absence of independent sources of information it is hard to tell who suffers more from this: ISIS or the civilian population which has been caught in the middle. In any case, there are no prospects for the early liberation of that city without coordination with Damascus.

Meanwhile, ISIS is gradually spreading to the West of the Euphrates replacing or absorbing the units of other groups, including Nusra and the Islamic Front. Last week they announced the creation of an "emirate" in Al-Hajar al-Aswad, a suburb of Damascus.

The "secular" anti-government units that were in evidence at the early stages of the conflict have been demoralized and have ceased to be an independent factor. The war has long stopped being "their war" and has turned into a confrontation between government forces and the terrorists and extremists who threaten the integrity of the Syrian state.

In this situation Moscow believes that its task is to continue to assist Damascus in the fight against terrorism while simultaneously supporting the efforts aimed at political settlement of internal Syrian problems in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012 through a broad internal Syrian dialogue without preconditions and external diktat. We assume that the terrorists are posing a threat that calls for the resolute consolidation of all the patriots of Syria and we urge everyone to do so.

 

Because the media reports about the crash of a minibus in the Thai holiday resort of Pattaya in which Russians were involved are unreliable, I would like to give you the latest information received from the Russian Embassy and the Honorary Consulate in that city..

On the night of 2 December a minibus taking Russian citizens from Pattaya to Ambassador City Jomtien on the outskirts of the city, was involved in a road accident. As a result, 13 people suffered of whom 11 were Russians and 2 were Thai citizens. The victims were taken to a Bangkok Hospital and to the Pattaya Memorial Hospital in the city of Pattaya.

From the latest information, 10 Russians suffered light or medium injuries. They received medical assistance and were prescribed outpatient treatment. One Russian, Mr Kuznetsov, born in 1987, a resident of the city of Kemerovo, is in serious condition. He has been operated on and is now in intensive care at Pattaya Memorial Hospital.

The members of the Embassy Consular Department and the Honorary Consulate of Russia in the city of Pattaya are in constant contact with the wife of Mr Kuznetsov and with the hospital's medical personnel.

 

Question: Do you know what the reaction of Russia's foreign partners in the South Stream project has been to the statement by President Putin that the project has been cancelled?

Answer: I have encountered panicky reactions, but it would be best if you direct this question to the potential participants.

President Putin clearly set forth our position yesterday. There can be no other opinions or other options on this issue.

Question: Since the beginning of March this year the Western countries have been accusing Russia of supporting self-defense forces in Southeastern Ukraine and have been imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation. Aside from partial restrictions on the import of Western products Russia has not taken any other measures. Will the list of retaliatory measures be extended any time soon? Are there any prerequisites for the normalisation of relations with the US and the EU?

Answer: This subject has been discussed frequently. I would like to draw your attention to the interview granted by President Vladimir Putin to the Turkish agency Anadolu on the eve of his visit to Ankara where this subject was also touched upon. Mr Putin stressed that the unilateral restrictions with regard to our country introduced by the US, the EU, Australia and some other countries are illegitimate. The Russian President stressed again in his interview that such pressure is causing not only immediate economic damage, but is threatening international security. We hope that common sense will prevail; we are aware of the economic benefits of further cooperation with Russia which is a major trading partner of the European Union. The volume of trade with the US is not as significant, but the spheres affected by the sanctions imposed by the US administration are also fairly sensitive for the American economy. We stress the need to give up the fallacious logic of restrictions and threats and to switch to the search for constructive solutions, including in the serious crisis in Ukraine.

Question: Could you please comment on the statement by the press secretary of the Ukrainian National Security Council, Lysenko, who said that Russian special units are engaged in military action near Donetsk Airport as well as the claim that the latest humanitarian convoy that arrived from Russian territory is a cover for arms deliveries to the separatists?

Answer: Mr Lysenko is given to making high-profile statements which have never been based on facts. US journalists should pay attention to the work of their Russian colleagues there, including in the Donetsk Airport area, to see who is actually doing the fighting. The best proof of what is taking place is images from the scene and not statements by officials.

Question: The OSCE has declared that the Kiev authorities and LPR representatives have agreed on a ceasefire starting 5 December. How would you rate the chances for de-escalation?

Answer: I have taken note of the brief report of the OSCE monitoring mission about these agreements. If it has really happened (apparently these are important agreements between the military in the framework of the new control and verification mechanism created by Ukraine, Donetsk and Lugansk with assistance from the Russian side), then this is a very important step towards de-escalation and real progress in complying with the Minsk accords, especially the 19 September memorandum under which the parties pledged to stop the military confrontation and pull back heavy weapons and multiple rocket launchers to within a stipulated distance. If this is so, we can say that a real chance is emerging for the parties to mitigate the tensions in southeastern Ukraine. As more information becomes available we will be commenting on it.

Question: Will a bilateral meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry take place on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council? Will there be a meeting in Basel on Ukraine in the Geneva format?

Answer: During the course of ministerial meetings (especially in multilateral venues) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov always has many bilateral meetings and conversations. The OSCE ministerial meeting in Basel is no exception. As for contact with US Secretary of State John Kerry, they recently had substantive talks in Vienna during the last round of negotiations on the Iran nuclear problem.

I do not have exact data, but as far as we know, the American side has not asked for such a meeting. But I can't rule out the possibility that Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry will have a talk "on the go" or will find some other format for a talk if it becomes necessary in the framework of the ministerial meeting.

Question: The US State Department has declared that America could toughen the sanctions if it realizes that Russia and Iran are increasing their economic cooperation. What would Russia's reaction be? Are we afraid of additional sanctions? Are we going to retaliate?

Answer: On the sanctions issue, especially in the context of the statement by a State Department spokesman during a briefing, we see a piling up of subjects of vastly different "calibers." The recent round in Vienna resulted in some very important agreements which the parties, including the US, have agreed to finalise over the next few months in order to achieve a full settlement of the problem.

We have repeatedly said that sanctions are absolutely illegitimate, especially in this context. The sanctions component of the talks is understandable. After the discussions in Vienna there is an understanding of how mutually acceptable solutions can be found. Therefore, before making strong statements one has to delve into the "substance" and look at the agreements, some of which have been achieved with the active role of the US Secretary of State.

As for being afraid, there are few things that we are afraid of.

Question: How would you comment on media reports that President Obama has signed a directive allowing the US to keep several hundred more military personnel in Afghanistan, in 2015, than had been agreed upon earlier, even though as late as May, 2014 Barack Obama said that all American troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2016?

Answer: We have noted the media reports (I stress that these are media reports because the White House has not officially informed us about this document) about a secret US Presidential order to increase the strength of the American contingent in Afghanistan that will remain in that country after the ISAF mandate expires on 31 December. If this information is correct, it does not come as a surprise to us. Washington has long talked about the need to adjust the schedule of its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan to the real needs dictated by the military-political situation in that country and the objectives of those who remain. Of course, much would depend on how well prepared Afghan national security forces are to assume full responsibility for stability in the country. So far there are no signs that these forces are capable of ensuring stability and security.

Naturally we assume that any adjustment would not contradict the provisions of the agreement on the status of American troops recently signed between the US and Afghanistan. It is unacceptable that their presence in Afghanistan pose a threat to other states.

We are still convinced that the further presence of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan expected to last until the end of 2016 requires a corresponding decision by the UN Security Council. It should clearly define the parameters of any new "robust support" operation as well as the mechanisms of reporting to the Security Council and the interaction of the foreign troops with the UN mission in that country.

Question: Is a new treaty on alliance and strategic partnership between Russia and South Ossetia being developed (similar to the treaty signed with Abkhazia in 2014)?

Answer: You know the statements by the Russian President and Foreign Minister on that subject. The document you are referring to reflects the process of the development of an extensive treaty foundation for our relations with this friendly neighbouring state.

In cooperation with our partners, we are constantly working to improve the international and legal framework of interaction with South Ossetia. For us, this is a separate area of foreign policy and the treaties and agreements need not be analogous to those between Russia and Abkhazia. There may be a different form for the development of relations based on the agreements signed and approved in 2008.

Question: What do you expect from the next round of Geneva talks on security and stability in Transcaucasia on 9-10 December?

Answer: Like in the course of the previous rounds, the Russian delegation is ready to work constructively, to approach discussions in a flexible manner and take into account the interests of all the participants. This was our course during the previous rounds. We believe that all the other participants should adopt the same approach. We will continue to give prominence to the theme that is of fundamental importance for us: the signing of binding agreements on the non-use of force between Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia. We will review again the work of the joint mechanism of preventing and reacting to the incidents on the Georgia-South Ossetia border and discuss pressing humanitarian issues.

I admit that we are worried by Tbilisi's attempts to represent the recently signed Russia-Abkhazia Treaty on Alliance and Strategic Partnership as a threat to the Geneva discussions. We have repeatedly provided all the explanations to show that these fears are groundless. I can repeat with all responsibility that nothing threatens the Geneva process which is extremely important for all of its participants. We sincerely hope that the Georgian delegation in its new composition will not try to start a meaningless politicised slinging match under imagined pretexts instead of discussing the real problems of strengthening security and stability in the region.

Question: Do you expect an international fallout from Russia's refusal to go ahead with the South Stream project?

Answer: Honestly, I do not quite understand what fallout you have in mind. President Putin said clearly that "you can't force people to like you." We will find other forms to implement our plans in connection with gas supplies to other regions. It is up to those who effectively derailed this project to calculate the consequences. This should really give cause for thought.

Question: After his visit to Russia on 26 November this year Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid Muallem said that he had agreed to meet with the representatives of the Syrian opposition in Moscow. What is the current status of that process? Will such a meeting take place in the near future?

Answer: I wish I could tell you the exact date of such a consultative meeting. So far, preparatory work is underway and we are contacting the opposition. If you follow attentively the statements of the leaders of the Syrian opposition Hadi Al-Bahra, Burhan Ghalioun and Moaz al-Khatib you will have noticed that they have different approaches to settlement. The more opposition representatives are present at the meeting the better. At present painstaking work is underway to design a format that would not supplant direct dialogue between the government and all the opposition forces in accordance with the principles laid down in the Geneva communique of 30 June 2012.

I can't be more specific at this stage. I can merely confirm that the work is underway. We believe that the idea of such a meeting in Moscow would not be rejected in principle by the opposition forces. It is another question in what form the opposition will be represented. But that question should be addressed to them. I would like to repeat that their participation must not be limited to the National Coalition. There are many other forces opposing the regime, including some inside Syria, which are also interested in having a dialogue on ways to normalise the situation. We will take into account all these aspects.

Question: Given the deteriorating relations with the West, there is a growing trend in Russian foreign policy towards broader cooperation with Eastern countries. Could you comment on the interaction between Russia and China within APEC and the G20? Have the Western sanctions strengthened trade and economic interaction between Russia and China?

Answer: The Russian President dwelled on this issue in detail during his visit to China and when attending the G20 summit in Brisbane. In this situation I would merely like to stress that the "pivot to the East" is something that has largely been invented by journalists and politicians. We have always combined the Western vector of our policy with the Eastern direction where our strategic partner, the People's Republic of China, occupies the dominant position. The recent trip by President Putin to attend multilateral meetings in the APEC format in Beijing has shown that the potential for cooperation with the APR countries is growing. Although we are expanding our activities in the Eastern direction we are not renouncing interaction with the West; that remains an area in our foreign policy. It is not our fault that it has taken the form that it has today and that the mechanisms of cooperation have been dramatically curtailed. We hope that our Western partners will take a close look at this mistaken line and will decide to restore our dialogue. The reference to "many vectors" in Russia's foreign policy reflects the geographical scale of our country which is simultaneously a European power and a major Eastern partner for the Asia-Pacific states.