16 November 201716:50
2202-16-11-2017
- Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Azerbaijan
- Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Armenia
- The
situation in Syria
- US
Secretary of Defence James Mattis' statement on Syria
- The
situation in Lebanon
- Situation
in Zimbabwe
- Reports
on cooperation between the US, NATO troops and ISIS in northern
Afghanistan
- Annual
Afghan Opium Survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for
2017
- Spanish
officials’ statements on alleged “Russian interference” in the Catalan
crisis
- Interpretations
of the words of Russian Ambassador to Romania in a number of online
publications
- Speech
by President of German Federal Intelligence Service Bruno Kahl
- Voting
at the UNGA Third Committee on a draft resolution on combating
glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to
fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia
and related intolerance
- Monument
to Soviet servicemen vandalised in Sarnice, Poland
- Establishment
of the Andrey Karlov Foundation
- Monument
to Alexander Pushkin unveiled in Slovenia
- Russian
children participate in the Theatrical Petersburg educational programme
- Russian
law on foreign media
- US
media latest “information” on money transfers to Russian diplomatic
missions
On November 20, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov will pay an official visit to the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Mr Lavrov is planning to hold talks with
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov. The sides are expected to
exchange views on a wide range of bilateral, international and regional
matters.
As we have repeatedly said and as is demonstrated
by concrete actions, Azerbaijan is our important strategic partner in the
Caucasian region. This year, we celebrate the 25th anniversary
of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries.
Russian-Azerbaijani cooperation is rooted not just in years-old traditions of
friendship and mutual respect, but also in the fact that our approaches to key
regional and international issues are very close or identical.
The tone of Russian-Azerbaijani cooperation is set
by political dialogue at the highest level. Regular friendly contacts between
our countries’ presidents are responsible for the rapid pace of development of
bilateral relations, making it possible to promptly address any emerging
problems and coordinate efforts at various regional and international
platforms. We maintain intensive contacts at other levels, including through
parliamentary ties. We develop economic cooperation. Our cultural and
humanitarian ties are traditionally very active.
Russia, in close cooperation with the other
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, continues to assist the parties to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the search for peaceful and mutually acceptable
solutions.
On November 20-21, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov will pay an official visit to Yerevan, during which he is planning to
hold talks with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and meet with
President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan.
The visit marks the 25th anniversary
of the establishment of Russian-Armenian diplomatic relations (April 3) and the
20th anniversary of the “big” Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation
and Mutual Assistance (August 29). The ministers will attend the opening of the
Russia and Armenia: Friendship Forged by Centuries exhibition, as well as the
ceremonial cancellation of the first Armenian postage stamp dedicated to the
above-mentioned anniversaries. A plan of consultations between the Russian and
Armenian foreign ministries for 2018-2019 is expected to be signed.
The agenda of the bilateral talks comprises a wide
range of matters pertaining to bilateral cooperation, foreign policy
interaction within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Collective Security
Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),
and the coordination of positions within the framework of the UN, the OSCE, the
Council of Europe, the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation (BSEC) and
other international forums. The ministers will discuss regional security
matters, including the prospects for the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.
Intensive political dialogue at the top level helps
advance bilateral cooperation. On March 15, the President of Armenia paid an
official visit to Russia. On August 23, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and
President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan held talks in Sochi. Yesterday, on November
15, our countries’ leaders attended the opening ceremony of Days of Armenian
Culture in Russia held at the Tretyakov Gallery.
We will inform you later about possible events that
the Russian Foreign Minister may attend. His schedule is tight, but the fast
changing situation in the world sometimes requires amendments.
The terrorist presence of ISIS in Syria is coming
to an end. The scattered ISIS units are departing for the eastern bank of the
Euphrates River towards the Iraqi border. The Syrian Democratic Forces
supported by the US-led coalition could have finished off the terrorists in the
border areas, but, unfortunately, they are not doing so.
The media are increasingly publishing evidence that
our US partners in fighting international terrorism are, in fact, providing
cover to the extremists, ISIS, in particular.
I’d be remiss not to comment on a story aired by
the BBC on November 13. They ran a big story about how ISIS militants were
evacuated from Raqqa under the “supervision” of the Western coalition. In
particular, they showed footage (we hope it’s authentic, because if it is not,
then corresponding comments should follow, we presume) of an 8-km long ISIS
convoy leaving Raqqa. At the same time, the Russian Defence Ministry accused
the US-led coalition of providing cover for the ISIS militants to withdraw
after the town of Abu Kamal was liberated. According to our military
department, the “allies” not only refused to launch strikes on the terrorists,
but also created obstacles for the Russian Aerospace Forces as they tried to
attack the targets in the specified area.
This behaviour of our “partners” cannot be
considered fair play. Clearly, ISIS has no chance of staying in Syria. Hence,
the question: Where will those hundreds of fanatics, extremists and militants
whom our American colleagues rescued from fire go? This is not the only
question that I would like to ask. There are a few more to ponder. What will be
the consequences of such US actions not only for the countries of the Middle
East, but also for Russia, Europe and Central Asia?
We expect the United States to strictly adhere to
the agreements on fighting terrorism that were outlined in a joint statement by
the presidents of Russia and the United States following the meeting on the
sidelines of the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Danang on November 11.
With the defeat of ISIS and the creation of
de-escalation zones, Syria has actually found itself on the threshold of a
transition from long-standing armed confrontation to reconciliation and
restoration of the unity of society, and socioeconomic reconstruction in the
wake of major infrastructure disruptions. Just like earlier the Syrians needed
help in confronting international terrorism, today they need assistance in
organising a broad intra-Syrian dialogue, establishing a political process,
building up international humanitarian aid, including humanitarian demining,
and saving cultural heritage sites.
Russia is making every effort to provide political
and humanitarian assistance to the Syrians. Moscow is convinced that the new
Russian initiative to convene the Syrian National Dialogue Congress will be
able to give significant additional impetus to the positive trends that have
emerged in Syria and to take the next necessary step towards achieving a
peaceful settlement in that country.
***
I would like to digress and speak from the heart
for a moment. I will say it in plain Russian without any professional jargon.
It’s about the situation with our American colleagues providing cover to the
terrorist militants. We provide numbers and facts, we talk about trends in fighting
terrorism, and we analyse how the militants and terrorists were withdrawn,
shielded and emboldened by the US-led coalition. I would like to address these
words to ordinary people, particularly in Europe. When next time (God forbid,
but, unfortunately, there is such a trend) a terrorist attack takes place in
Nice, London or Paris, and our European friends begin to change their profile
pictures en masse to support their friends, colleagues and fellow citizens,
when central cultural monuments and other sites in European capitals are
illuminated in the colours of national flags, then ask yourself where did the
extremists, militants and terrorists from liberated towns go under the cover of
the United States, where they are now, and what they are doing. These questions
are not so much for the politicians, but ordinary people. Today, now, please
ask yourself: those who were allowed to leave, what will they do next? Perhaps,
there is no point in waiting for the next terrorist attack to deliver this wave
of indignation to today's political masterminds who are behind preserving the
ISIS, the helpers of terrorist groups who are doing their best to preserve
terrorist elements and militants in Syria in order to promote their selfish
political interests in the reconfiguration of the structure of that region.
Think about it.
We were surprised to hear US Secretary of Defence
James Mattis' statements made while addressing journalists on November 13,
claiming that US forces are present in Syria with the permission of the UN. We
would like these questions to be answered by our American colleagues rather
than remain rhetorical and hang in the air in this audience. What specific
mandate was he talking about? Who issued it and when? Maybe there is some copy
of the document that US Secretary of Defence is speaking of? After all, this is
a person who takes serious decisions and whose words have a significant
influence on what is happening not only in the United States but also in the
world. What was he talking about?
I would like to remind everyone that the UN
Security Council is the only body, under its Charter, that is authorised to
make a decision on the use of military force by the international
community. However, it has not given any sanction to the US regarding
Syria. Besides, US units are located there against the will of the country's
legitimate Government, and in fact are acting as occupiers.
Such statements coming from Washington raise major
questions that we asked earlier on the actual purpose of having US units on
Syria's territory. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has repeatedly mentioned
that the United States' sole goal in Syria is to defeat ISIS. As we understand
it, this means that immediately after the terrorist hotspot is extinguished,
which will happen soon (unless actions are taken to withdraw and provide cover
for the extremists), Americans must leave Syrian territory and its airspace.
Hoverer, the Pentagon chief told journalists the US military will stay there
until progress is achieved towards a political settlement. This raises another
question: Is there any contact between the Pentagon and the US Department of
State?
Who is supposed to determine if the progress is
sufficient and how? Is there any tool for this? Where is the mechanism for
measuring political sufficiency? One gets the impression that the US wants to
reserve this right and intends to hold part of Syrian territory for as long as
they wish. The goal behind this approach is to achieve the desired settlement
result by force.
I would also like to remind everyone that under
UNSC Resolution 2254 the decision on the future configuration of Syria and its
leadership can be taken only by Syrians themselves. We all can provide
assistance and offer our ideas, thoughts and designs for the future structure
of the country. But we must do so solely as a supplement to the intra-political
dialogue. Due to the efforts of certain international actors, among which I
should mention Russia, Iran and Turkey, there is a durable trend of progress in
this process.
We are very concerned about the US attempts to set
up camp in someone else's home, and they are definitely not bringing peace and
quiet. We expect, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov already mentioned,
that the US will work out an honest and legitimate stance on its presence in
Syria. It is desirable that this stance be unified and voiced on the
international arena on behalf of the whole government so that we have a clear
idea of what this stance is.
Moscow is closely watching the situation in
Lebanon. As is known, after consultations with the country’s leading political
forces, President of the Lebanese Republic Michel Naim Aoun refused to accept
Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s televised address, which was broadcast by Saudi
Al-Arabiya television channel on November 4, as an official resignation
request. President Aoun is insisting on compliance with the formal procedure
under Lebanese law that requires the resignation request to be submitted by
Hariri in writing and in person to make sure that this decision was made
voluntarily and was not imposed on the prime minister.
However that may be, at present Lebanon’s incumbent
Prime Minister Saad Hariri still remains in Saudi Arabia, where he meets with
foreign officials, including the Russian Ambassador to this country. On
November 12, Hariri gave another extensive interview to Al-Arabiya, in which he
said that he believed he would be able to return to Lebanon in a few days. He
did not rule out that he might disavow his televised address of November 4 but
at the same time pointed to several conditions relating to the understanding between
the Lebanese political forces that form the coalition government he
leads.
Meanwhile there are signs that Lebanese society is
coming together. Lebanese representing various political forces and faiths are
speaking out in defence of their country’s sovereignty. The Lebanese leadership
kicked off a flurry of activity in the capitals of the world’s leading
countries, trying to drum up international support for their country’s
sovereignty. On November 17, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Gebran Bassil
will be in Moscow on a working visit in order to meet with Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov.
Russia’s position on Lebanon remains unchanged. We
strongly support the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
this friendly country and we believe that the Lebanese people should resolve
all issues on their national agenda on their own, and we are against any
outside interference that threatens to upset the existing political and
religious balance in Lebanon.
We note again that the country’s stability markedly
improved after Lebanon overcame the executive power vacuum, Michel Naim Aoun
was elected president of the country and the coalition government led by Saad
Hariri was formed. The smooth functioning of governmental institutions began,
allowing the country to resolve a number of important issues, including the
elimination of the hotbed of international terrorism on the Lebanese-Syrian
border. We believe that the Lebanese will succeed in their efforts to preserve
these positive trends and prevent a new crisis in the government, which could
also call into question general elections scheduled for May next year. Russia
will support these efforts.
We take note of a serious complication in the
internal political situation in Zimbabwe. On November 15, a representative of
the Armed Forces announced on national television that the military uprising
which blocked government buildings in Harare was directed at criminal elements
holding power, whose actions led to a decline in the country’s social and
economic situation. It was emphasised that President Robert Mugabe and his
family were guaranteed safety, and the population was urged to remain calm.
We welcome the statement that Jacob Zuma, President
of South Africa, made on behalf of the Southern African Development Community
(SADC). It expresses hope that the internal disputes in Zimbabwe will be solved
within the limits of the existing constitution, in accordance with both SADC
and African Union principles.
The Russian Embassy in Harare reports that the
situation in Zimbabwe remains calm in general. Nevertheless, we recommend
Russian citizens to avoid tourist travel to Zimbabwe for some time. We continue
to monitor the situation closely.
We took note of the Fergana Information Agency’s
publication, Who Is Helping ISIS Strengthen its Position in Northern
Afghanistan?, citing officials from a number of Afghanistan’s northern
provinces (Sar-e Pul, Balkh, Faryab and Kunduz) as well as Afghan MPs and local
residents, who refer to facts testifying that ISIS terrorists are
strengthening their positions in the districts bordering Central
Asia.
These statements explicitly point out that US and
NATO troops stationed in Afghanistan are protecting and supporting the Afghan
flank of ISIS, including by transporting militants aboard “unidentified
helicopters”, and providing them with weapons, among other things. Once again,
this raises questions about the true aims of the foreign military presence in
Afghanistan.
We call on the Afghan authorities to conduct a
thorough investigation of all the facts mentioned in the article and take
urgent measures to prevent an increased risk of terrorism in the regions
bordering the countries of Central Asia.
We note with concern the catastrophic deterioration
in the situation regarding illegal drug trafficking in Afghanistan. According
to the most recent report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) on Afghan opium, the total area of cultivation of the opium poppy in
that country increased by more than 60 percent to 328,000 hectares in 2017.
Opiate production has also nearly doubled since last year and is equivalent to
900 tonnes of heroin, a record figure in recent years. At the same time,
positive action to eradicate opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is hardly
noticeable and incommensurable with the extent of the rise in drug trafficking.
These statistics indicate that the international community should probably
rethink and, in some way, re-adjust the magnitude and direction of its efforts
to combat the drug problem in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, we have to admit that the law
enforcement activities carried out by the Afghan authorities do not actually
cover the provinces controlled by the Taliban where the opium poppy is
cultivated. The ISIS cells operating in northern Afghanistan are also trying to
use illegal drugs to improve their finances. The opiate industry in Afghanistan
has become a key source for fueling terrorist activities, which further
destabilises that country and beyond.
The UN Security Council designates the Afghan drug
industry as a threat to international peace and stability. Clearly, a surge in
opium production in Afghanistan will have a global impact and lead to further
diversification of drug trafficking routes, the search for new markets for
opiates, the involvement of an increasing number of people in this criminal
business and, ultimately, an increase in the number of drug addicts. Given
these circumstances, the Afghan authorities, with the full support of the
international donor community, will need to make additional efforts in order to
intensify the fight against illegal drug trafficking. Only if we act together,
collectively, on the basis of relevant international legal documents, will we
be able to stop the flow of narcotics coming from Afghanistan.
We believe that regional efforts to counteract
Afghan drug trafficking should be promoted with the use of resources of such
authoritative international platforms as the Paris Pact initiative, the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Collective Security Treaty
Organisation (CSTO).
We are willing to continue to build constructive
cooperation with the Afghan leadership, based on the principle of common and
shared responsibility, in order to overcome the Afghan drug challenge. In
particular, we will continue to assist Kabul in strengthening its anti-drug potential,
within and beyond the framework of the projects we are carrying out jointly
with UNODC and Japan to train law enforcement personnel at educational
institution of the Russian Interior Ministry.
We have taken note of the latest statements by
Spanish Government Official Spokesperson Inigo Mendez de Vigo, Minister of
Defence Maria Dolores de Cospedal and Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfonso
Dastis alleging that “Russian hackers” interfered in the internal politics of
Spain, almost alleging an attempt to change the country’s constitutional
system, in connection with the situation in the autonomous community of
Catalonia.
We deeply regret the fact that the anti-Russian
campaign unleashed by Western media has, this time, taken hold in Madrid at the
official level in the context of the Catalan crisis. Remarks by Spanish Foreign
Minister Alfonso Dastis that Russia allegedly seeks to weaken Spain are
particularly dismaying.
We would like our Spanish colleagues to start
taking responsibility for their words and offer concrete evidence. It is
absolutely unclear what considerations could have prompted the Spanish minister
to make these “revelations”. The Russian side has repeatedly stated its firm
and unambiguous stance on the Catalan issue. Was it not heard in Madrid?
Suffice it to mention the Russian Foreign Ministry statement from October 11,
which was published on the ministry’s official website. Is it possible that the
Spanish Foreign Ministry knows nothing about this and that the Spanish Embassy
in Moscow has failed to properly inform it? Let me point out that communiqués
from the Foreign Ministry’s website are translated into Spanish.
Such disregard for objective factors and the
unwarranted obsession with unsubstantiated accusations, which, as we
understand, were picked up from dubious sources, obviously don’t cast Spanish
diplomacy in a positive light. Similar actions will cause nothing but harm to
Russian-Spanish relations.
Once again, I would like to draw your attention to
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s comment on this issue during
yesterday’s news conference.
With regard to the remarks Valery Kuzmin, Russian
Ambassador to Romania, made at the conference on the promotion of business ties
with Russia held on November 9 in Suceava, we would like to draw your attention
to the unacceptability of some of the interpretations appearing in several
publications on the future of Romanian-Moldovan relations. They arose from
incorrect translation to the Romanian language and selective quoting of some
phrases plucked out of a broader context. An official correction has been
already given by the Russian Embassy in Romania, and the text is available on
its official website.
We reaffirm Russia’s unchanged position on
supporting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova, as stipulated
in the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and
the Republic of Moldova, signed on November 19, 2001.
We have taken notice of the speech given by
President of the Federal Intelligence Service of Germany Bruno Kahl in Munich,
in which he depicts Russia not as a partner, but as a threat to European
security and criticises our country for trying to resume a leading role on the
European continent, which he sees as an attempt to weaken the European Union
and to drive a wedge between the EU and the US.
It is sad that the head of German Intelligence
Service cannot be free from ideological chains and continues to spread phobias
about an alleged “threat from the East.” The election to the Bundestag is long
since over. Also, according to the official statements by the German
leadership, the rumours spread about omnipotent “Russian hackers” and Moscow
trying to destabilise the internal situation in Germany and discredit the
German leadership, have not been confirmed by any facts. At the same time,
Berlin cannot calm down.
It is probably time for such people to stop
frightening German society and themselves with fantasies about Russia’s plans,
which do not even exist in this context. There are facts, after all. It is not
Russia that advances its troops to the German borders; on the contrary, German
units are in the territory of the former Soviet Union again. It is not us who
circles Europe with a network of military bases and anti-missile defences. It
is not us who devises new forms of sanctions. So where does this threat come
from? To whom?
In the context of an overall strengthening of the
threat from terrorism and extremism, about which we have talked a lot today, of
intensifying regional conflicts, crises, humanitarian and climatic problems, we
have to deal with real challenges, which concern all of us. So maybe, instead
of spending time and efforts on hostile rhetoric and the notorious deterrence
of Russia, they should use their energy to normalise relations and promote
constructive dialogue on issues of mutual interest? We would support these
developments, by all means.
In a few hours, the Third Committee of the 72nd session
of the UN General Assembly will vote on the draft resolution, Combating
glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to
fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance, which Russia introduces annually. This resolution is one
of the Russian delegation’s priorities at the UN General Assembly.
The importance of this document has increased
recently. The new draft condemns the war on the monuments to those who fought
against Nazism and fascism, which has become a state policy in some countries
over the past year, as well as the annual marches honouring Nazis and
collaborationists and the neo-Nazi torch marches.
The co-authors of this draft resolution consider
the glorification of the Nazi movement and former SS members, including the
Waffen SS units that were declared a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg
Trials, as unacceptable. It is unacceptable that those who fought against the
anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazis be praised as national
and national liberation heroes.
We are often asked about our attitude towards the
monuments to these people. The answer to this question can be found in the
above draft resolution.
We would like to express our gratitude to the
delegations of the UN member states that proposed constructive amendments to
the text of the resolution and to express hope that those countries that vote
against this vital resolution or abstain will change their position.
Vandals have damaged a monument standing at the
site in Sarnice where Soviet scouts were killed while on a combat mission as
part of the Soviet Army operation to liberate Poland from the Nazi occupiers.
The municipal government has said the monument is
being repaired and the police have been notified. A note of protest has been
sent to the Polish authorities concerned with the demand that those guilty be
identified and held responsible.
Regrettably, this is not the only act of disrespect
for the monuments to our compatriots who died while doing their military duty
in Poland. Each new act of vandalism, no matter how the culprits present it, is
a logical part of Warsaw’s state policy for fighting so-called communist
symbols, a policy that has set loose and is pandering to those who deride our
common history.
We are closely monitoring the situation regarding
memorials in Poland and will respond harshly to any offence against
Soviet/Russian military history heritage there.
On December 19, it will be one year since Andrey
Karlov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation
and Hero of Russia, was murdered in Ankara.
In the run-up to this date, on November 20, at 4.30
pm, a presentation of the Andrey Karlov Children’s Charity Foundation will take
place at the Turkish Ambassador’s residence in Moscow (43a Bolshaya Nikitskaya
Street, Building 1). The foundation has been established at the initiative of a
group of Russian and Turkish diplomats, entrepreneurs, public figures and
friends of the late diplomat.
Maria Karlova, the widow of the killed Ambassador,
serves as the president of the foundation. She noted that “the foundation will
by all means continue Andrey’s mission: to promote good relations between
people from different countries. We provide help for seriously ill children, as
well as for children in difficult situations. Without a doubt, it is a good way
to honour the memory of Andrey Karlov, who spent a lot of time and effort on
charity, without ever being public about that, but following his heart. Many
worthy people announced that they would support us: diplomats, doctors, public
figures and just good people who share the goals of our foundation and who are
ready to help us achieve them.”
The foundation’s supervisory board includes Deputy
Foreign Minister Yevgeny Ivanov, Director of the State History Museum Alexey
Levykin, Director of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts Marina Loshak,
Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Director of the Dmitry Rogachev
National Research Centre of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology
Alexander Rumyantsev, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Director of
Neurology Research Centre Mikhail Piradov, President of the Institute of Asian
and African Countries Professor Mikhail Meyer, French entrepreneur Pyotr Seznec
(Uvarov) and Merited Artist of Russia and MGIMO University graduate Alexander
Sklyar.
The board is headed by Anatoly Torkunov, Member of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
and Rector of the MGIMO University.
We invite Russian and foreign media to take part in
this ceremony. Accreditation for journalists is available by phone:
+7-929-646-11- 51. Contact person: Vladimir Solotsinsky.
On November 9, Slovenia’s first ever monument to
Alexander Pushkin was unveiled in Ljubljana. The bronze bust of the poet on a
marble stele was given as a gift to Ljubljana’s City Hall as part of the Great
Teachers of Mankind project, which is being carried out by an international
public charity fund, Dialogue of Cultures – United World. The ceremony was
attended by Russian and Slovenian officials, the leaders of the Forum of Slavic
Cultures, members of public and educational organisations, and business and
cultural figures.
Work to carry out this initiative is important
proof of Russia’s and Slovenia’s determination to promote their humanitarian
ties and their firm commitment to preserving the shared historical heritage of
the Slavic people, in which classic Russian literature occupies a special
place. We are grateful to our Slovenian partners for their respectful attitude
towards the very rich spiritual and artistic legacy of Alexander Pushkin.
For the fourth time now young Russians were invited
to take part in the Theatrical Petersburg annual educational programme
(November 14-21). The event is held by the St Petersburg Government as part of
the Russian Government’s policy towards Russian compatriots living abroad.
This year, over 80 Russian children aged 12-17 came
to St Petersburg from 18 counties: the United Kingdom, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,
Norway, Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland, France, Sweden and Estonia. During their
stay in Russia, our young guests will enjoy the theatrical atmosphere of St
Petersburg and feel part of the great world of Russian art.
Young participants take part in workshops on acting
techniques and art. They can also attend interactive performances, exhibitions,
museum tours, meetings with actors from St Petersburg theatres and workshops on
various topics.
Taking into account the age of the participants,
they are accompanied by teachers of theatre, Russian culture, Russian language
and literature who came from schools in their countries.
Roundtable discussions on cultural education of
youth and visits to St Petersburg theatre schools and studios are planned for
the children’s chaperones.
I believe it is not just a useful initiative, but
an initiative that shows good results.
As you know, yesterday the State Duma of the
Federal Assembly adopted amendments to the Russian legislation regarding the
operations of the foreign media. This has been done to create a legal framework
stipulating the possibility of a response to restrictive measures taken by
foreign states, primarily the United States, against Russian media outlets, in
particular RT television network.
I would like to repeat now what we have said more
than once and what our MPs together with public figures said yesterday. Russia
has always tried to expand as much as possible the area of comfortable
operations unhindered by any far-fetched political boundaries for absolutely
all news sources, both Russian and foreign. We have been forced to give a reply
to the openly repressive actions taken against Russian media outlets, primarily
RT, which was ordered to register as a foreign agent on pain of a series of
sanctions, up to and including the arrest.
You know from what State Duma representatives have
said that amendments to legislation have been adopted and will be forwarded to
the Federation Council for approval in the near future. If the upper house
approves these amendments, they will be sent to the President of Russia to be
signed. Explanations on the application of these amendments will be provided
subsequently.
We were surprised and even shocked by numerous
questions about these latest developments and the working conditions for
foreign journalists in Russia, which we received yesterday from diplomats
accredited in Moscow. This is strange, because the Russian Foreign Ministry has
posted numerous comments and, for several months before that, spoke about
response measures we would have to take in case of aggressive actions against
Russian media outlets. Numerous hearings and public debates were held on this
subject, and all branches of power and civil society representatives clearly
formulated Russia’s position.
Colleagues, where have you been? You have taken a
very strange position. I want to tell you once again that the official Foreign
Ministry website operates in several languages, and any information is
available there. We posted interviews on this topic as often as twice a day.
Why are you surprised? We have said that we will provide a response in case of
continued attacks on and threats of closure against Russian television
networks. We have provided it now. So, it is very strange that official
representatives from some countries appear to be unnerved and worried. They
could have expressed their concern before we adopted the amendments; we were
open for consultations. Moreover, this subject was regularly covered by the
Foreign Minister during talks with his foreign colleagues. I believe that more
than enough has been made public on this subject .
It is surprising that all the US requirements to RT
America, which has been accused of distributing unreliable information,
interfering in internal affairs plus engaging in propaganda, are never applied
in the United States to American media outlets.
Yesterday’s example – the Buzzfeed story alleging
that Russia sponsored the US election via its Foreign Ministry – is “flawless.”
I believe we should discuss this with our colleagues. In my opinion, after
yesterday’s publication, it would be quite appropriate for us to have this
particular article examined by experts. We will do so, sending it to relevant
agencies that deal with propaganda and its dissemination via the media. Why
not? This article was prepared without taking Russia’s opinion into account,
without requesting our official position. We received no request to comment on
the material at the disposal of that portal or media outlet (this is an open
question). We have repeatedly asked the US Embassy in Moscow as to whether
Buzzfeed is a media outlet and we have requested official notification. We have
been waiting since 2014 for official confirmation from the US Embassy in Moscow
that Buzzfeed is a media outlet. The fact that no confirmation has been
provided also raises questions. Maybe in their opinion, Buzzfeed is not a media
outlet, so they use it to spread whatever they like.
I would be interested to know whether experts (not
relying on my modest professional experience) believe that Buzzfeed’s story is
a piece of propaganda, “anodyne fake” or real disinformation or whether we are
exaggerating. Frankly, I would like to find an agency that could provide an
expert assessment. From all indications, this is classic disinformation – but
of a hardcore nature. We were not asked to comment on this matter. We would
have commented because that comment would have been not so much politically
charged as factual. We would have provided hard facts with regard to the wire
transfers made by the Foreign Ministry to its missions abroad.
I would like to reveal a “terrible secret”:
Diplomatic missions in all countries receive money (wages, maintenance costs,
utilities, official events). This money, which was wired from the centre to its
missions abroad, was indeed meant “for elections.” On September 18, 2016,
elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly took place. Some 350
polling stations were opened abroad, as we officially announced before the
elections. Several months before the elections, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said
at a Government Hour session that this was our priority. Collegiums and
conferences were held at the Foreign Ministry with the participation of the
Central Electoral Commission regarding the methods and forms of organising
polling stations abroad. There were numerous meetings and consultations as well
as decisions were made within the bounds of Russian law. Indeed, money was
needed to hold elections abroad, where, as our members of parliament said
yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens live, work or stay
[temporarily]. Money is needed to open over 350 polling stations in more than
140 countries. Does this happen differently in other countries? When elections
are held in other countries, isn’t money wired to the accounts of foreign
missions, for instance, in Moscow?
Our Embassy in Washington promptly commented on
this matter. We would like to continue this topic.
I should say it’s outrageous that US intelligence
services have leaked to the press information about money transfers to Russian
diplomatic missions – not only in the United States but all over the world too.
This was done with the aim of providing a fresh impetus to the dying myths
about Russian interference in last year’s presidential election in the US, to
which end they are now using wire transfers from Moscow for the 2016 election
campaign via Citibank. To reiterate, this is not some “anodyne fake” – this is
disinformation.
Buzfeed knew very well what it was doing.
Otherwise, queries would have been sent to the Russian Embassy in Washington.
What’s more, during a conversation between our press secretary in Washington
and a representative of this Internet platform or media outlet, the latter said
they had some information suggesting that money was wired to the Russian
Embassy in the United States bearing a note that said that the money was to be
used “to finance elections." In response to this, our press secretary
stated in no uncertain terms that this referred to the elections to the State
Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly and that if this information was published
without Russian commentary as an allegation of Russia’s involvement in the US
election, then that would be absolute disinformation. That is to say, a warning
was issued and we were willing to comment on this. If such articles are so
slanted, then we regard them as disinformation. After this, there were no
requests to provide a detailed commentary. At the same time, the article was
published in the unacceptable form that you have seen.
To reiterate, the money transfers were designated
to provide conditions to ensure that Russian citizens abroad could vote in the
State Duma elections on September 18, 2016. This is a very important point both
for the outlet that published this story plus for you journalists. We informed
as well as officially notified the US State Department with a diplomatic note
in advance about the forms of holding elections to the State Duma of the
Federal Assembly on US territory. When US intelligence services “leak” this
information to Buzzfeed (and this is not the first time this has happened), why
did they not “leak” the note to the US State Department? Why did they not
“leak” the 2016 official letter from the Russian Embassy notifying the US side
as to where we would hold elections, how and when? This is also disinformation.
Classic of the genre.
We have set up polling stations for decades and
intend to do so in the future, in particular next March, when our missions
abroad provide Russians in other countries an opportunity to vote in the
Russian presidential election.
To reiterate, we are 100 per cent sure that in
preparing this story, the people who wrote it were not misguided. They had to
be aware of what they were writing and how they were using the material at
their disposal.
The story says that similar wire transfers, which
were denominated in dollars and were therefore automatically processed through
the US banking system, were sent to our embassies in various countries,
including those where no elections were being held at the time. Although the
introduction of the article and the way it was written unequivocally interpret
the information paranoiacally to the effect that Russia meddled in the [US]
election. This is fake news, disinformation as well as propaganda, pure and simple.
Does Russia Today have analogous material? No. Buzzfeed has it. It is quite
obvious that the initiators of this publication and this uproar deliberately
sought to impose a distorted perception on the audience to sustain the myth and
the lie about Russia’s influence on the election campaign in the United States.
Never mind Russia Today’s advertising on Twitter, which it did legally in
response to Twitter’s proposal! Here is classic propaganda for you. Is anybody
in the United States going to do anything about this Buzzfeed story? Nobody
will ever say anything about it. On the contrary, I believe it will get a round
of silent applause from certain agencies.
What is even more serious and disturbing is the
flagrant violation in this case of the standards of treatment with regard to
our official representative offices, as prescribed by the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The publication of information about wire
transfers shows that not only the secrecy of banking information has been
violated (I am really wondering if it exists in the United States), but also
the inviolability of Russian Embassy accounts. On top of that, this shows
beyond all doubt that US banks operate under total control of US secret
services that in fact organised this “leak.” This is a colossal image blow to
Citibank.
We regard such actions, including reports that the
FBI “is scrutinising” the wire transfers to our Embassy, as yet another attempt
to exert pressure on Russian missions in the United States. We are once again urging
the US authorities to stop playing such games and return to normal and
responsible diplomatic contacts.
Ukrainian website Mirotvorets opens in the
United States
We were shocked by reports that the odious and
terrible Ukrainian website Mirotvorets, which runs counter to all norms
regarding the protection of media outlets and journalists is now posted on US
servers, and we have rechecked these reports several times. Washington is
turning a blind eye to this matter.
I would like to remind you what this website is all
about. Those who understand Russian know what its name means (Editor’s Note:
Mirotvorets means Peacekeeper), but this website publishes the personal data of
those whom the current Kiev regime considers to be its adversaries, including the
personal data of journalists who have visited Donetsk and Lugansk. The website
has also published data on Russian service personnel involved in the
counter-terrorist operation in Syria.
All this was done with the official or unofficial
connivance of the authorities in Kiev. In principle, this puts paid to efforts
to uphold and protect generally accepted human rights standards, including the
right to protection against arbitrary and illegal interference in private life,
not to mention that this jeopardises the safety of people. The well-known
Ukrainian public figures Oleg Kalashnikov and Oles Buzina were murdered by
nationalists after this website published their addresses, and the guilty were
never punished.
Although this notorious website openly advocates
direct action and spreads an extremist ideology, it is allowed to function
unhindered on US territory. In 2016, The Washington Post and The New York Times
voiced concern for the safety of media employees. At that time, the United
States and its allies persuaded Kiev to delete information about Western
journalists alone. It appears that official Washington does not care about the
dangers threatening citizens of other states.
This faulty policy is on the verge of pandering to
extremist trends. It is impossible to flirt with them. They are negative and
they are outlawed, regardless of their form, even under this wonderful name. We
are expecting to hear an official response from Washington on this issue soon.
Results of Russia-US events on the Hawaiian Islands
On November 11-14, the Hawaiian Islands
successfully hosted a series of events timed to coincide with the 200th anniversary
of Russia’s presence in the archipelago, including an annual forum of the
Coordinating Council of Organisations of Russian Compatriots and a
science-practical conference of both countries’ socio-political and academic
circles. The events were sponsored by the Foreign Ministry’s Inter-Departmental
Working Group for Preserving Russia’s Historical and Cultural Heritage in the
United States.
Let me remind you that Russian sailors
arrived in the Hawaiian Islands 200 years ago and founded several communities,
including forts Elizabeth, Alexander and Barclay. This event ushered in
long-term ties between Russia and the region. Today, Fort Elizabeth is the
central element of the Russian Fort Elizabeth State Historical Park on Kauai
Island.
We would like to use this opportunity to thank the
forum organisers and delegates, including the heads and activists of the
Coordinating Council, the Congress of Russian Americans, other organisations
and associations of compatriots, Historic Hawaii Foundation, scientists and
experts of both countries, employees of museums and archives, public and
religious figures, and prominent representatives of Hawaii State’s civil
society, including the descendants of the Hawaiian royal dynasty. We would like
to specially thank the organising committee’s chair, Ms Sabelnik, Mayor of
Kauai Bernard P Carvalho Jr and the Hawaii State authorities.
Discussion participants touched on a wide range of
issues regarding the current state of and prospects for improving relations
between Russia and the United States. They discussed new cooperation formats
that could help intensify bilateral cultural-humanitarian and scientific ties,
non-governmental and inter-regional contacts.
Many speakers prioritised efforts to preserve both
countries’ joint historical and cultural heritage. In this context, they voiced
many interesting ideas, including that of holding an annual conference similar
to the Fort Ross Dialogue forum in the Hawaiian Islands, on including Fort
Elizabeth in UNESCO’s World Cultural Heritage lists, on rebuilding
infrastructure elements of local forts, building a museum of the Hawaiian
Islands’ Russian history and on establishing twin-city relations between Kauai
and one of Russian cities.
I can assure you that we will thoroughly study and
analyse all proposals made by conference participants. We will conduct a joint
brainstorming session involving the Russian Embassy in Washington and the
Russian Consulate General in Seattle. The latter currently oversees matters in
the Hawaiian Islands after the US shut down the Russian consulate general in
San Francisco.
From
answers to media questions:
Question: If
the Russian side believes that Buzzfeed is engaging in deliberate
disinformation, maybe they should be sued? If so, in which court?
Maria
Zakharova: This is not a simple matter because there are a lot of such
publications, and we are taking note of the most offensive ones. This
publication, however, stands apart from the rest, because it was based on
material that could only have been provided to its authors by intelligence
agencies.
It
is important to understand who is calling the shots there. Actually, this is a
platform created by intelligence agencies, a “clearing mechanism” that casts
itself as a media outlet but disseminates material fed to it solely by
intelligence agencies. We are keeping tabs only on the Russian track. And what
is going on there with regard to domestic politics? Who is leaking this
material? This is a question for the Americans. We are talking only about
ourselves.
This
is probably Buzzfeed’s third publication on Russia based on material provided
by US intelligence agencies. This is unacceptable. There can be mistakes and
clearly biased information that is deliberately disseminated. This is bad, but
we know how to handle this, how to refute this. However, this is only part of
the series of Buzzfeed publications that US intelligence agencies stand behind.
What’s more, they hand over material that, in keeping with international law,
should never be published. They distort the material, not just changing their
political thrust, but saying that white is black.
You
understand very well that a person who is working on a story and who sees that
money is wired to many countries at one and the same time should ask those
“Messrs. Smiths” who hand over this material whether it is not a little strange
that this money is going to a certain country where there is neither Donald
Trump nor Hillary Clinton. Why? Of course, these questions were asked. However,
I am 100 percent sure that they were told how to write the article, what the
headline should be, what should be ignored plus that there must be a line
saying that there were also elections in Russia at the time in order to preempt
the perception that this is not true (we mentioned the Russian election, didn’t
we?). This is a classic. You can read on the internet about how such material
is prepared.
Why
do I say that this is not a fake story? Fake stories are a recent discovery.
They involve, among other things, information and communications technology
that was used before, including unfair competition, advertising and so on. The
publication in question, however, was prepared with the participation of
intelligence agencies. It puts together seamlessly everything that is required
for classic disinformation. This is reminiscent of Nazi leaflets that were
disseminated during the Great Patriotic War on Soviet territory. However,
standing behind them now are US intelligence agencies and this is why the
series of Buzzfeed publications stand apart from the rest. Nobody has removed
or corrected them or apologized for them.
We
remember the case of journalist Christiane Amanpour who brought the photo of a
boy to an interview with the foreign minister. It was classic manipulation of
public consciousness. Here, however, we have disinformation, pure and simple.
Why manipulation? Because presumably, at the time Ms Amanpour brought that
photo she knew nothing about the fate of the boy. She could have said, at the
very least, that she knew nothing about the boy’s fate and that she had not
gone into that. However, nobody really knew what had happened to the boy. When
the story came to light, everything became clear. We sent more than one letter
to CNN suggesting that they publish new information with regard to the boy.
They did not do so. In our view, that was of course manipulation of public
opinion ahead of the election in order to put a required spin on the Syria
issue with regard to Russia.
As
for Buzzfeed’s publication, it has nothing to do with fake stories, mistakes or
misunderstanding. It is classic disinformation with intelligence agencies
standing behind it.
Question: In
the context of Russia’s alleged interference in internal affairs [of other
countries], you mentioned Spain and Germany. The number of countries that are
leveling charges against Russia is visibly increasing, including Germany,
France, the Netherlands and of course the United States. How detrimental is
this to Russia’s foreign policy as well as its international relations?
Maria
Zakharova: You said the number of countries alleging Russia’s
interference is increasing but I would like to say that the amount of evidence
to that effect remains the same. This is detrimental to everyone. As for
evidence, there is none. Give us at least something, give us some facts. There
is nothing except allegations. What’s more, such allegations are made when the
domestic political situation [in a certain country] is escalating for one
reason or another.
As
for Spain, this is also absurd. Russia’s stance was clear-cut. We reiterated it
in the course of talks with the Spanish at all levels, and we stated that in
public. What can they do when they have no physical or intellectual resources
to resolve a domestic political crisis in their country? They have to resort to
such well-proven mechanisms.
Whether
this is or is not detrimental to our foreign policy, we don’t think this way.
This simply hinders the resolution of problems on the international agenda and
hinders countering real threats. I talked about this today. The question is not
whether this is or is not detrimental to Russian foreign policy. It is
detrimental to all and impedes fostering comprehensive cooperation. I am not
even talking about cultural, economic or business cooperation. This makes it
impossible to address global problems. It’s as if nobody sees drug trafficking
in Afghanistan, the exponential growth in opiate production. It’s as if there
is no connection between a teenager dying from drugs somewhere in Europe, the
United States or Russia and what is going on Afghanistan, as though these are
two different planets. This is wrong – it is one and the same thing. If the
problem is not resolved there, problems will continue here. This applies to
everything. It’s as if nobody sees a connection between ISIS members being set
free there and terrorist attacks here. There is a connection and this
connection is direct. Meanwhile, myths about Russian threats are being invented
and developed so that the entire world would consolidate and focus on these
matters.
Question:
Apparently, the work of the OSCE Minsk Group for Nagorno-Karabakh settlement
has intensified. On Tuesday, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian met
with the co-chairs of the Minsk Group in Moscow. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov is having similar talks today. Not long ago, Sergey Lavrov
said the Minsk Group was working extensively on settling the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. The same issue will be a priority during the Russian Foreign
Minister’s visits to Baku and Yerevan. In light of these developments, former
US co-chair Matthew Bryza said the US State Department intends to either recall
their co-chair or change his status. Bryza explained it by the fact that the
State Department has supposedly decreased its funding but everybody knows that
it is not the State Department but the OSCE who is paying for the mission.
Bryza suggested that the Minsk Group format may change. What would be your
comment on this?
Maria
Zakharova: In theory, there is nothing illogical here. In
practice, I will not comment because this is a question for our US
counterparts. If the Minsk Group is one co-chair short, the format will indeed
change. There will be one co-chair less. Whether this will happen and why is a
question for the United States, not us, along with the question on whether they
have enough money for the mission (which is, of course, something new for the
US economy).
You
were correct that this issue is one of our priorities on the international
agenda because these countries are more than just our neighbours. We are not
merely connected with these nations by formal international legal documents and
obligations but by our lives and fates. We have had a common history for
centuries. The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is a priority for us. The priorities
of US diplomacy are for the US Department of State to comment on.
Question:
Today is the 84th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union
and the United States. How would you describe the current state of bilateral
cooperation? What can be done to improve it? What can Russia do? Does past
cooperation experience have an impact on the current situation and can it be
helpful in any way?
Maria
Zakharova: It seems to me that the number of questions raised
today clearly indicates the state of affairs in Russia-US interaction and
relations in general. Overall, these relations have great potential. We have
repeatedly stressed that. There is a host of issues that simply require
Moscow’s and Washington’s involvement in order to be resolved.
We
talk about this at every level. President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, the
heads of other executive bodies, our lawmakers, and public representatives have
noted that, unfortunately, on the Russia-US track we are all becoming hostages
of a strange situation in current US domestic policy, and before that, of US
leaders’ conscious desire to destroy our relations (I am talking about the
Obama Administration).
Again,
we have commented on bilateral relations many times. There are a great number
of issues both on the international and bilateral agendas that require direct
contact to normalise and improve. We always express this, even during times of
rabid Russophobia.
Question:
When can we expect an improvement?
Maria
Zakharova: Once again, we have been doing everything to show our
counterparts that we are ready to work towards achieving this goal with maximum
effort.
Question:
It was reported recently that Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry’s State
Protocol Department Sergey Barashkov was found dead. Are there any details
about this? Can the Foreign Ministry confirm this?
Maria
Zakharova: On November 9, an obituary was posted on the ministry’s
website, saying that the Foreign Ministry announced with deep regret that Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 2nd Class Sergey
Barashkov, deputy director of the State Protocol Department, died on November 5
at age 64.
Question: There
was information that he died under rather strange circumstances.
Maria
Zakharova: The relevant agencies and departments are looking into
this. As for the Foreign Ministry’s response, everything was posted on the
official website on November 9.
Question:
Despite all the explanations provided by the Russian side, it is still not
quite clear why – if Russia Today is being harassed in the United States,
European media outlets, among others, are being exposed to pressure in Russia.
Regarding the Buzzfeed story, their publication says they did ask for comments.
Maria
Zakharova: This is not true. Do you think they have a quota
for lies? They do not. A lot of what is written there is not true. I explained
in detail that they did not ask for [comment]. A separate question was emailed
that did not provide all the information that they subsequently published.
Tell
me, have we (as a foreign policy agency) ever withheld information? I’m not
saying that our work is ideal 100 percent. However, we have long come to
realise that if there is anyone, we are the ones interested in providing
information. Would we really not have provided information about the number of
polling stations that were opened or the countries where they were opened or
the ways and methods of working with the Russian Central Election Commission,
as it was just said? This is absurd. Of course, we would have provided such
information. What’s more, we wouldn’t have had to provide anything. We would
simply have sent hyperlinks to the relevant material on our website, because
all of that has already been published. This would not have required any search
for material in some foreign policy archives. Everything is available on the
website – Sergey Lavrov’s remarks, briefing material, a report on the Collegium
meeting that took place at the Foreign Ministry and a statement by the Central
Election Commission. This would have taken between an hour to an hour and a
half.
However,
that was precisely the logic of those who were preparing this idiocy – to
ensure that the Russian stance, which refuted the idea of [Russian] meddling in
the US [presidential] election, would not be presented. Because otherwise the
story would have been one about the way the elections to the State Duma were
held in 2016 and how the Russian presidential election will be held in 2018. In
short, this article would have been about preparations for the electoral
process in the Russian Federation and Russian missions abroad. The story would
have failed to achieve its purpose. Hence the entire machination.
You
regularly attend briefings; you and we sit in chat rooms, communicators and
social media. Are there any examples when we have not responded to your
questions? We can reply late, say that we are unable to meet your deadline and
ask for an extension. In any event, we can always say, “no comment.” Isn’t this
so? So, this is a lie.
As
for your first question about the media law, what else could have been done?
I
believe that members of parliament should comment on this because we were not
involved in the lawmaking process. We offered our assessment of the situation,
our vision of what we have today in the media sphere with regard to Russian
media outlets abroad. However, you understand that legal experts, who were
invited by members of parliament, have worked on the text.
How
else could this have been done? Just state in parenthesis “only with regard to
US media”? And then add other countries after a comma if they have similar
practices? Firstly, it doesn’t work that way. Amendments are made, stipulating
the elaboration of a general mechanism of action in this case. Secondly, in my
opinion, this will have, among other things, a preemptive effect so that if
next time, other countries harass Russian media outlets to the point of
closure, everyone will see that the corresponding mechanism is really working.
There
is yet another point. This is happening not only in the United States (although
nowhere to such an extent as in the US). In France, our media outlets are
denied accreditation to official events (Sputnik and Russia Today
representatives are sitting here; we constantly receive letters from them, send
in queries, and so on). Top- and high-level officials in France constantly say
that these are not media but propaganda outlets. When officials make such
assertions without providing any evidence to substantiate them, this is a huge
blow to the media. What is so strange about the fact that this law can also be
applied to this situation? After all, when we deal with propaganda elements in
the media or elsewhere, we provide hard facts. Today we analysed the Buzzfeed
story and talked about Christiane Amanpour. We do not just name Amanpour by
name and mention CNN news network when we say that this is manipulation but
provide specific examples.
Interestingly,
there are CNN representatives here. They can tell you how many letters were
sent to the television channel’s bureau in Moscow asking them to rectify this
situation in one way or another. We are working to resolve it. Our task is not
to push CNN out of Russia or block its activity but to ensure that Russia’s
official position is presented objectively, at least so that we have an
opportunity to get our position across, given that CNN devotes so much time to
Russia. However, we do not say that they skip our briefings or that they are a
propaganda outlet, nor do we deny them accreditation. Nothing could be further
from our mind (I’m telling you this as a person who is directly in charge of
this matter).
Of
course, this is a question for [Russian] MPs (they should comment on how the
work on the document is proceeding: there are various nuances), but this is the
logic I see here. We will also expect a detailed explanation regarding law
enforcement practice after the amendments are adopted and the updated law goes
into effect. Just as foreign media outlets, we as the executive branch of
government need it, too. We are not commenting in so much detail because we are
waiting for “instructions for use.”
Question:
Former Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev said recently that Russia had used
Bulgaria as a practice target for its first cyber attacks and later turned to
other countries…
Maria
Zakharova: Can I ask a global question? Look, you have a
“magic wand” (we proceed from the assumption that the “Russian hackers” are
omnipotent, right?). Tell me, will you, having this wand, do what is worse to
others, or what is better for yourself?
If
the omnipresent “Russian hackers” can elect a US president and hold referendums
in Europe on the secession of sovereign states (what else can they do?), will,
do you think, these tools be used for our own good? Why then are they used all
the time to our detriment? Has no one asked this question? So, I’m sorry, I
don’t even want to listen to it all. It’s a case of paranoia on a global, a
world scale. I’d like to say right away: If you have facts, we’ll discuss them;
if no facts are available, we’ll comment the way we always do.
Question:
Can you give us a list of Bulgarian politicians, who visited Russia during the
last 10 years and received awards here? For our part, we will provide a list of
those who look after graves and monuments to war heroes in Bulgaria.
Maria
Zakharova: We will try to provide this information.
Question:
The Foreign Ministry occasionally holds away briefings. The FIFA World Cup is
around the corner. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to hold a briefing at a Moscow
stadium? This would be interesting both for Russian and foreign journalists.
Maria
Zakharova: We have considered holding away briefings in
World Cup host cities. We wanted to invite foreign journalists more than
Russian. In Moscow, there are many people who can take foreign journalists
around the sports facilities. As for other host cities, the idea to hold
briefings there is being studied. You may have heard this.
Question:
It has been rumoured that the leaders of eastern Ukrainian republics intend to
rename them. There was even talk of integration. Can you give your comment?
What’s
new in the negotiating process on the Kuril Islands?
Maria
Zakharova: We report on talks and contacts related to the
Kuril Islands on the regular basis.
As
for renaming Donetsk and Lugansk, I don’t think this is the Foreign Ministry’s
purview.
I
can only reiterate that we are fully committed to the implementation of the
Minsk Agreements. We proceed from the assumption that all developments in
Ukraine related to crisis settlement should be based on these agreements. The
rest should be commented on by the people who are directly involved in the
process of settlement.
Question: Do
you have information on what new rules or restrictions will be applied to media
recognised as foreign agents?
Maria
Zakharova: I just commented on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment