UN

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks at UN Security Council meeting on situation in Ukraine – September 20, 2023

Posted by

0

From the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the UN Security Council meeting “Upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter through effective multilateralism: maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine,” New York, September 20, 2023

Mr President,

Mr Secretary-General,

Colleagues.

The international order as it exists today emerged from the ruins of World War II and resulted from this tremendous tragedy. The UN Charter served as its foundation, as the key source of present-day international law. It is largely thanks to the United Nations that a new world war leading to a nuclear catastrophe has been averted.

Unfortunately, when the Cold War came to an end, the US-led so-called collective West appropriated the right to rule the destinies of the entire humankind and, driven by its exceptionalism complex, started ignoring the legacy of the UN founding fathers more often and on an increasingly greater scale.

Today, the West makes selective use of the Charter’s norms and principles, on a case-by-case basis, and only when they serve its vested geopolitical needs. This inevitably throws global stability off-balance, exacerbating the existing hotbeds of tension and creating new ones, which in turn raises the spectre of a global conflict in the process. Seeking to offset these risks and ensure that events unfold in a peaceful manner, Russia has been insisting and keeps insisting that all the provisions of the UN Charter be respected and carried out in full and with due regard for their interconnected nature, rather than selectively, including the principles of the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, respect for territorial integrity and the right of people to self-determination. However, we see that the balance of requirements stipulated in the Charter is being trampled upon by the actions undertaken by the United States and its allies.

The United States and its allies have been interfering in Ukraine’s domestic affairs in a blatant and open manner since the dissolution of the USSR, when independent states replaced it. In late 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted publicly and even with some pride that Washington spent $5 billion on nurturing politicians in Kiev that would obey the West.

All the facts on how the Ukraine crisis was engineered have long been exposed, while everything is being done to sweep them under the carpet as if they wanted to cancel everything that happened before 2014. For this reason, the topic of today’s meeting as suggested by the Albanian Presidency is very timely. It offers us an opportunity to restore the sequence of events in the context of the way the key actors have been carrying out the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

In 2004 and 2005, the West sought to bring a pro-American candidate to power and for this purpose gave the green light to the first government coup in Kiev by forcing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to adopt an illegal decision for holding a third round in the presidential election, even though the country’s Constitution does not provide for it. The West acted in an even more heavy-handed manner when it interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs in 2013 and 2014, during the second Maidan movement. At the time, Western visitors travelled there one after another to directly encourage those taking part in anti-government demonstrations to engage in violence. It was the same Victoria Nuland who discussed the future cabinet to be formed by the putsch perpetrators with the US Ambassador in Kiev. At the same time, she showed where the European Union actually belongs, in Washington’s thinking, on the international political stage. We remember the two words she said, and it is quite telling that the European Union swallowed it.

Handpicked by the Americans, the key actors took part in carrying out a bloody coup in February 2014. Let me remind you that it was organised the next day after the legitimately elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, reached an agreement with the opposition leaders, with Germany, Poland and France acting as the guarantors. The principle of non-interference in domestic affairs was trampled upon many times over.

Right after the coup, its perpetrators said that curtailing the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population was their utmost priority. They designated people in Crimea and southeastern regions who refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup as terrorists and unleashed a punitive operation against them. Crimea and Donbass responded by holding referendums in full compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as enshrined in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the UN Charter.

When it comes to Ukraine, Western diplomats and politicians have been turning a blind eye to this fundamental tenet of international law in an attempt to cast what led to these developments and their meaning as being merely an unacceptable violation of territorial integrity. In this connection, I would like to recall the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. It reads that the principle of territorial integrity applies to “states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples <…> and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory.” It goes without saying that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kiev did not represent the people of Crimea or Donbass. As for the unquestionable support the Western capitals offered to the criminal Kiev regime, it was nothing short of violating the self-determination principle on top on interfering in domestic affairs.

Following the government coup, Ukraine adopted racist laws to cancel everything Russian during Petr Poroshenko’s and Vladimir Zelensky’s presidencies, including education, media, culture, destroying books and monuments, banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and seizing its property. All this constituted a blatant violation of Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the UN Charter, which talks about encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Let alone the fact that these actions clearly ran counter to the Constitution of Ukraine under which the state is under obligation to respect the rights of Russians and other ethnic minorities.

Hearing calls to follow the so-called peace formula and return Ukraine within its 1991 borders raises the following question: are those making these calls aware of the statements by the Ukrainian leadership on what they intend to do to the people living in those territories? These people have been targeted by multiple public threats of being exterminated, either in legal or physical terms, and this has been happening at an official level. Not only is the West unwilling to hold back its protégés in Kiev, but enthusiastically encourages them in their racist policies.

Similarly, the EU and NATO have been encouraging Latvia and Estonia for decades in their efforts to deny hundreds of thousands of Russian speakers their rights by designating them as non-citizens. They are now seriously discussing introducing criminal liability for using one’s native tongue. High-ranking officials have been making public statements that spreading information about opportunities for local students to follow the Russian school curriculum remotely must be viewed as nothing short of a national security threat requiring the attention of law enforcement agencies.

But getting back to Ukraine, the UN Security Council adopted a dedicated resolution to approve the February 2015 Minsk Agreements in full compliance with Article 36 of the Charter, which supports “any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.” In this case, the parties included Kiev, the DPR and the LPR. However, last year, all those who signed the Minsk Agreements, apart from Vladimir Putin, i.e., Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko, all recognised in public and with a certain degree of satisfaction that they had no intention of fulfilling this document when they signed it. In fact, all they wanted was to win some time to reinforce Ukraine’s military capabilities and supply it with more weapons for countering Russia. For all these years, the EU and NATO engaged in an outright effort to support Kiev in sabotaging the Minsk Agreements while encouraging the Kiev regime to resolve the so-called Donbass issue by force. All this was being done in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, which says that all UN members must “accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

Let me recall that the Minsk Package included a declaration signed by the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine. In it, Berlin and Paris undertook to do many things, including help restore the banking system in Donbass. However, they did not even move a finger. All they did was stand back and watch Petr Poroshenko impose a trade, economic and transport blockade on Donbass despite all these commitments. In the same declaration, Berlin and Paris undertook to facilitate trilateral cooperation between the EU, Russia and Ukraine for addressing Russia’s concerns in trade, as well as promote the “creation of a joint humanitarian and economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific.” The Security Council adopted this declaration too, making it binding under Article 25 of the UN Charter as I have already mentioned. But this commitment by the leaders of Germany and France turned out to be null and void, becoming yet another violation of the Charter’s principles.

Andrey Gromyko, the legendary Foreign Minister of the USSR, often said, quite rightly, that “ten years of talks are better than one day of war.” In keeping with this maxim, we spent many years in talks and sought agreements on European security. We approved the Russia-NATO Founding Act and adopted OSCE declarations on indivisible security at the highest level in 1999 and 2010. Since 2015, we have been insisting that the Minsk Agreements be executed in full and without any exemptions as agreed during the talks. In all these instances, we acted in full compliance with the UN Charter, which talks about establishing “conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” Our Western colleagues have trampled upon this principle too by signing all these documents knowing in advance that they would not fulfil them.

As for talks, we do not refuse to talk now either. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said this on numerous occasions, including recently. I would like to remind the Secretary of State that President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has signed an executive order prohibiting talks with the government of Vladimir Putin. If the United States is interested in such talks, I think it only needs to give the signal for Zelensky’s order to be cancelled.

Today, the rhetoric of our opponents is full of slogans such as “invasion,” “aggression” and “annexation.” They do not say a word about the inner reasons for the problem, or the fact that for many years they nurtured a downright Nazi regime, which is openly rewriting the results of World War II and the history of their own people. The West does not want to hold a substantial discussion based on facts and respect for all the requirements of the UN Charter, probably because they have no arguments for an honest dialogue.

One gets a strong impression that Western representatives are afraid of professional discussions where their empty rhetoric can be exposed. While chanting their mantras about the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the former colonial powers keep silent about the UN decisions inviting France to return the island of Mayotte to the Comoros and Britain to withdraw from the Chagos Islands and to resume negotiations with Argentina to resolve the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) issue. These “advocates” of Ukraine’s territorial integrity pretend to have forgotten the essence of the Minsk Agreements, under which Donbass was to be reintegrated into Ukraine on the condition of guaranteed respect for all the fundamental human rights, primarily the right to one’s own language. The West, which thwarted their implementation, is directly responsible for the disintegration of Ukraine and for inciting a civil war there.

Regarding other principles of the UN Charter, respect for which could have prevented the security crisis in Europe and could have helped coordinate confidence measures based on a balance of interests, I would like to cite Article 2 of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It calls for developing the practice of a peaceful settlement of local disputes through regional organisations.

In accordance with that principle, Russia and its allies have been consistently encouraging contacts between the CSTO and NATO for promoting the implementation of decisions on the indivisibility of security adopted at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2010. They stipulate, in part, that “no state, group of states or organisation can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.” Everyone knows that this is exactly what NATO has been doing, that is has been trying to create its complete pre-eminence first in Europe and now in the Asia-Pacific region. Numerous appeals from the CSTO to NATO were disregarded. The reason for that arrogance of the United States and its allies, as everyone can see today, is their unwillingness to conduct an equal dialogue with anyone. If NATO had not rejected the CSTO’s offers of cooperation, this could have likely prevented many of the negative processes that have led to the current European crisis because they refused to listen to Russia or deceived it for decades.

Today, when we are discussing “effective multilateralism” at the initiative of the presidency, we should also recall the numerous facts of Western rejection of any form of equal cooperation. One shocking example of the phrase by Josep Borrel, who said that “Europe is a garden [and] most of the rest of the world is a jungle.” It is a clear neocolonial syndrome and evidence of disregard for the sovereign equality of states and the goal of using effective multilateralism to defend the principles of the UN Charter, which we are discussing today.

Trying to hinder efforts to make international relations more democratic, the United States and its allies are taking over the secretariats of international organisations increasingly openly and impudently, violating the established procedure to create mechanisms with non-consensual mandates, which they can control and use to condemn anyone who does not suit Washington for whatever reason.

In this connection, I would like to remind you that not only member states but also the UN Secretariat must strictly comply with the UN Charter. Under Article 100 of the UN Charter, the Secretariat must act without bias and “shall not seek or receive instructions from any government.”

I have already mentioned Article 2 of the UN Charter. I would like to draw your attention to its main principle: “1. The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” In accordance with that principle, the UN General Assembly adopted a declaration on October 24, 1970, which I have mentioned before, to reaffirm that “every state has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another state.” In this connection, we have serious questions for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who said on March 29, 2023, that “autocratic leadership is not a guarantor of stability; it is a catalyst of chaos and conflict,” whereas “strong democratic societies are places that are capable of self-correction — and self-improvement. They can enable change — even radical change – without bloodshed and violence.” This brings to mind the “changes” that resulted from the actions of “strong democratic societies” in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.

Antonio Guterres went on to say that “they [strong democratic societies] are centres for broad-based cooperation, rooted in the principles of equality, participation and solidarity.” It is notable that these statements were made at the “summit for democracy,” which was convened by US President Joe Biden outside the UN framework, whose participants were chosen by the US Administration based on the principle of loyalty not to so much to Washington as to the ruling Democratic Party. The attempts to use such forums as a crony gathering for discussing global matters stand in direct conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which says that the purpose of the United Nations is “to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”

Contrary to that principle, France and Germany announced several years ago the establishment of an Alliance for Multilateralism, to which they invited those who are obedient, which confirmed the initiators’ colonial mentality and attitude to the principle of effective multilateralism we are discussing today. At the same time, they promoted the narrative about the EU as the ideal example of “multilateralism.” Today, Brussels calls for the EU enlargement as soon as possible, in particular, in the Balkans. Moreover, the main focus is not on Serbia or Turkey, which have been holding useless accession talks for decades, but on Ukraine. Josep Borrel, who claims the role of the ideologist of European integration, has recently gone as far as to call for accelerating the admission of the Kiev regime into the EU. According to him, without the war, Ukraine’s candidacy would have taken years, but now it can and should be admitted without any conditions. Serbia, Turkey and other candidates can wait, but a Nazi regime can be admitted out of turn.

By the way, the UN Secretary-General said the following at that “summit for democracy”: “Democracy flows from the United Nations Charter. Its opening invocation of ‘We the Peoples’ reflects the fundamental source of legitimate authority: the consent of the governed.” I suggest comparing that thesis with the “achievements” of the Kiev regime, which launched a war against a large part of its own people, the millions of people who did not grant their consent to be governed by the neo-Nazis and Russophobes who usurped authority in the country and buried the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council, thereby disrupting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Those who divide the world into “democratic societies” and “autocracies,” contrary to the UN Charter, should ask themselves which of the two the Kiev regime is. But I do not expect them to answer.

When we talk about the principles of the UN Charter, we should also address the issue of relations between the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. The Western “team” has been aggressively espousing the idea of the “abuse of veto” for a long time and has ensured – by putting pressure on other UN member states – the adoption of a decision on convening a General Assembly meeting every time the veto is cast, even though it is the West that provokes this increasingly frequently. We do not regard this as a problem. Russia’s positions on all issues on the agenda are open to the public. We have nothing to hide, and it is not difficult for us to put forth our positions again. Besides, veto is an absolutely legitimate instrument that is stipulated in the UN Charter to prevent the adoption of decisions that can split the Organisation. However, since the procedure of discussing every veto at a General Assembly meeting has been approved, why not discuss also the Security Council resolutions that have been adopted, including many years ago, but are not being implemented, contrary to the provisions of Article 25 of the UN Charter? Why cannot the General Assemble discuss reasons for this, for example, with regard to UNSC resolutions on Palestine and the entire range of issues related to the Middle East and North Africa, the JCPOA, or Resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk Agreements on Ukraine?

The issue of sanctions should be given attention as well. It has become standard practice that after the UNSC adopts sanctions against a certain country, after long discussions and in strict compliance with the UN Charter, the United States and its allies adopt “additional” unilateral restrictions against that same state without the approval of the Security Council or the inclusion of these sanctions into a council’s resolution within the framework of a coordinated package. A regrettable illustration is a recent decision by Germany, France and Britain to use their national legislations to “extend” restrictions against Iran, which will expire in October under UNSC Resolution 2231. In other words, European countries and Britain have announced that they do not care that the UNSC decision has expired, because they have their own “rules.”

This is why it is so important to consider a decision according to which nobody will have a right to devalue UNSC resolutions on sanctions by adopting their own illegitimate restrictions against that same country.

Furthermore, all sanctions regimes adopted by the UN Security Council should have an expiry date, because the lack of a deadline is undermining the council’s flexibility when it comes to the ability to influence the policies of sanctioned governments.

It is also necessary to address the issue of the “humanitarian limits of sanctions.” It would make sense for the drafts of sanctions proposals submitted to the Security Council to include the assessment of their possible humanitarian consequences made by the UN human rights bodies, rather than the empty rhetoric of our Western colleagues to the effect that “ordinary people will not suffer.”

Colleagues,

Facts point to a deep crisis in international relations and the absence of the Western countries’ desire and will to overcome this crisis.

I hope a way out of this situation exists and will be found. But first all of us should acknowledge our responsibility for the future of our Organisation and the world in the historical context rather than in terms of the immediate populist electoral considerations in any member state. I would like to repeat that, when global leaders signed the UN Charter nearly 80 years ago, they agreed to respect the sovereign equality of all states be they big or small, rich or poor, monarchies or republics. In other words, back then humanity recognised the importance of an equal and polycentric world order as the guarantee of stable and safe development.

Therefore, the issue today is not about giving our consent to a “rules-based world order” but about fulfilling the obligations all of us assumed by signing and ratifying the UN Charter in their entirety and as a whole.

https://mid.ru/en/press_service/video/view/1905317/

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s statement at the UN – September 23, 2023

Posted by

0

From the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at the General Debate at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly, New York, September 23, 2023

Mr President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Many previous speakers have expressed the idea that our shared planet is experiencing irreversible change. Right in front of our eyes, there is a new world order being born. Our future is being shaped by a struggle, one between the Global Majority in favour of a fairer distribution of global benefits and civilisational diversity, and the few who wield neocolonial methods of subjugation to maintain their elusive dominance.

Rejections of the principle of equality and a total inability to reach agreement has long been the signature of the collective West. Being accustomed to looking down on the rest of the world, Americans and Europeans often make promises, take on commitments, including written and legally binding ones, and then they just do not fulfil them. As President Vladimir Putin pointed out, it is the West that is truly an empire of lies.

Russia, like many other countries, knows this firsthand. In 1945, when we, together with Washington and London, were vanquishing our enemy on the front lines of World War II, our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition were already making plans for  Operation Unthinkable, a military operation against the Soviet Union. Four years later, in 1949, the Americans drafted Operation Dropshot to deliver massive nuclear strikes on the USSR.

These ghastly senseless ideas did remain on paper. The USSR created its own weapon of retaliation. However, it took the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, with the world balancing on the brink of a nuclear war, for the idea of unleashing it and the illusion of winning with it to cease being the underlying basis of US military planning.

At the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union played a decisive role in reuniting Germany and agreeing on the parameters of a new security architecture in Europe. At the same time, the Soviet, and then the Russian leadership, was given specific political assurances regarding the non-expansion of the NATO military bloc to the east. The relevant records of the negotiations are in our and in Western archives and they are openly accessible. But these assurances of Western leaders turned out to be a hoax as they had no intention whatsoever of upholding them. At the same time, they were never bothered by the fact that by bringing NATO closer to Russia’s borders they would be grossly violating their official OSCE commitments made at the highest level not to strengthen their own security to the detriment of the security of others, and not to allow the military or political domination of any country, group of countries, or organisations in Europe.

In 2021, our proposals to conclude agreements on mutual security guarantees in Europe without changing Ukraine’s non-aligned status were rudely rejected. The West continued its ongoing militarisation of the Russophobic Kiev regime, which had been brought to power as a result of a bloody coup, and to use it to wage a hybrid war against our country.

A series of recent joint exercises by the United States and its European NATO allies was something unprecedented following the end of the Cold War, along with the development of scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation. They stated their aim of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia. This obsession has finally blurred the vision of irresponsible politicians who have grown accustomed to impunity and bereft of the basic sense of self-preservation.

Washington-led NATO countries are not only building up and modernising their offensive capabilities, but are also shifting the armed confrontation into outer space and the information sphere.  An attempt to extend the bloc’s area of responsibility to the entire Eastern Hemisphere under the pernicious slogan of “indivisible security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region” has become a new dangerous manifestation of NATO expansionism. To this end, Washington is creating subordinate military-political mini alliances such as AUKUS, the US-Japan-Korea trilateral summit, and the Tokyo-Seoul-Canberra-Wellington Quartet, pushing their members into practical cooperation with NATO, which is bringing its infrastructure into the Pacific theatre. It is obvious that these efforts are targeting Russia and China, as well as the collapse of the inclusive regional architecture of ASEAN, and generate risks for a new hotbed of geopolitical tension on top of the European one, which has already reached its boiling point.

One certainly has the impression that the United States and the “Western collective” fully subordinate to it have decided to give the Monroe Doctrine a global dimension. These ideas are both illusory and extreme, but this does not seem to stop the ideologists of the new edition of Pax Americana.

The global minority is doing its utmost to slow down the natural course of events. In the Vilnius Declaration of the North Atlantic Alliance, the “growing partnership between Russia and China” is described as “a threat to NATO.” Speaking recently to his ambassadors abroad, President Emmanuel Macron said he was sincerely concerned about the expansion of BRICS, seeing it as evidence that the situation was getting “more complex” and that this runs the risk of “weakening the West and our Europe in particular.” That there was a “our international order where the West has occupied and occupies dominant positions is being revised.” He made a few revelations: if someone somewhere is convening without our participation, is becoming closer without us or without our consent, that poses a threat to our dominance. NATO’s pushing into the Asia-Pacific region is seen as something good, but the expansion of BRICS is a threat.

However, the logic of the historical progress is undeniable, the main trend of which being that states constituting the global majority are strengthening their sovereignty and defending their national interests, traditions, culture, and ways of life. They no longer want to live under anybody’s yoke; they want to be friends and trade with each other, but also with the rest of the world – only on an equal footing and for mutual benefit. Associations such as BRICS and the SCO are on the rise, providing the countries of the Global South with opportunities for joint development and defending their rightful role in the multipolar architecture, which is emerging beyond anyone’s control.

Perhaps for the first time since 1945, when the United Nations was established, there is now a chance for genuine democratisation of global affairs. This inspires optimism in all those who believe in the rule of law internationally and want to see a revival of the UN as the central coordinating body for global politics – a body where decisions are made by consensus, based on an honest balance of interests.

For Russia, it is clear that there is no other option. However, the United States and its subordinate “Western collective” continue to spawn conflicts that artificially partition humanity into hostile blocs and hamper the achievement of its common goals. They are doing everything they can to prevent the formation of a truly multipolar and fairer world order. They are trying to force the world to play by their notorious and self-serving “rules.”

I would like to urge Western politicians and diplomats once again to carefully re-read the UN Charter. The cornerstone of the world order established after World War II is the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states, large and small, irrespective of their form of government, or their domestic political or socioeconomic structure.

However, the West still believes that it is superior to everybody else, in the spirit of the notorious statement made by EU diplomacy chief Josep Borrell that Europe is a blooming “garden,” while everything around is a “jungle.” He is not bothered by the fact that in this garden, there is rampant Islamophobia and other forms of intolerance towards the traditional values of most world religions. Burnings of the Quran, desecration of the Torah, persecution of Orthodox clergy and the disdaining of the feelings of believers have all become commonplace in Europe.

In gross violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states, the West is using unilateral coercive measures. Countries that are victims of these illegal sanctions (and there are increasing numbers of them) are well aware that these restrictions harm first and foremost the most vulnerable strata of society. They provoke crises in food and energy markets.

We continue to insist on an immediate and full cessation of the United States’ unprecedented inhumane trade, economic, and financial blockade of Havana and for the lifting of the absurd decision to declare Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism. Washington must, without any preconditions, abandon its policy of the economic suffocation of Venezuela. We call for the lifting of unilateral US and EU sanctions against the Syrian Arab Republic, which openly undermine its right to development. Any coercive measures that circumvent the UN Security Council must be ended, as must be the West’s weaponised practice of manipulating the Security Council’s sanctions policy to exert pressure on those they find objectionable.

The Western minority’s obsessive attempts to “Ukrainise” the agenda of every international discussion while pushing onto the backburner a number of unresolved regional crises, of which many have been in place for years and decades now, have become a blatant manifestation of its self-centered policy.

Full-fledged normalisation in the Middle East cannot be achieved without resolving the main issue, which is the settlement of the protracted Palestine-Israel conflict using as its basis UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia. The Palestinians have been waiting for more than 70 years to have their own state, which was solemnly promised to them, but which the Americans, who monopolised the mediation process, are doing everything in their power not to allow this. We call for a pooling of efforts of all responsible countries to create the conditions for a resumption of direct Palestine-Israel negotiations.

It is gratifying that the Arab League has got its second wind and is stepping up its role in the region. We welcome the return of Syria to the Arab family, and we welcome the start of the normalisation process between Damascus and Ankara, which we are shoring up with our Iranian colleagues. All these positive developments reinforce the efforts in the Astana format to promote a Syrian settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the restoration of Syria’s sovereignty.

We do hope that with the assistance of the UN, the Libyans will be able to properly prepare for general elections in their long-suffering country, which for more than ten years has been struggling to get back on its feet after the NATO aggression that destroyed the Libyan state and opened the floodgates to the spread of terrorism to the Sahara-Sahel region and to waves of millions of illegal migrants to Europe and other areas. Analysts note that as soon as Gaddafi abandoned his military nuclear programme, he was immediately eliminated. Thus, the West has created the most dangerous risks for the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime.

We are concerned by Washington and its Asian allies who are whipping up military hysteria on the Korean Peninsula, where the US is building up its strategic capabilities. Russian-Chinese initiatives to consider humanitarian and political tasks as priorities have been rejected.

The tragic development of the situation in Sudan is nothing less than the result of another failed Western experiment to export its liberal democratic dogma. We support constructive initiatives to expedite the settlement of the Sudan’s domestic conflict, primarily by facilitating direct dialogue between the warring parties.

When we see the nervous reaction in the West to the latest events in Africa, in particular in Niger and Gabon, it is impossible not to recall how Washington and Brussels reacted to the bloody coup in Ukraine in February 2014 – a day after an agreement was reached on a settlement under EU guarantees, which the opposition simply trampled on. The United States and its allies supported the coup, hailing it as a “manifestation of democracy.”

We cannot fail to be concerned by the ongoing deteriorating situation in the Serbian province of Kosovo. NATO’s supply of arms to the Kosovars and assistance to help them establish an army grossly violates the key Resolution of the UN Security Council 1244. The whole world can see how the sad story of the Minsk agreements on Ukraine is being repeated in the Balkans. There was a stipulation that the republics of Donbass were to have a special status; however, Kiev openly sabotaged this with the support of the West. Such is the case now, when the European Union does not want to force its Kosovo protégés to implement the agreements that were reached between Belgrade and Pristina the 2013 to establish the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo, which would have special rules regarding their language and traditions. In both cases, the EU acted as a guarantor for the agreements, and apparently, they share the same fate. When we see the EU as the sponsor, we can expect the same outcome. Now Brussels is imposing its “mediation services” on Azerbaijan and Armenia, along with Washington, thus bringing destabilisation to the South Caucasus. Now that the leaders of Yerevan and Baku have actually settled the issue with the mutual recognition of the countries’ sovereignty, the time has come for establishing peaceful existence and trust-building. The Russian peacekeeping troops will contribute to this in every possible way. 

As for other decisions of the international community that remain on paper, we call for the completion of the decolonisation process in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly and for an end to all colonial and neo-colonial practices.

A vivid illustration of the “rules” by which the West wants us all to live is the fate of its commitments that were made in 2009 to provide developing countries with $100 billion annually to finance climate change mitigation programmes. If you compare what happened to these unkept promises with the amounts that the US, NATO and the EU have spent on supporting the racist regime in Kiev – an estimated $170 billion over the past year and a half – you will come to realise what the “enlightened Western democracies” with their notorious “values” really think.

In general, it is time to reform the existing global governance architecture, which has long been failing to meet the needs of our time. The United States and its allies should abandon their artificial restraints on the redistribution of voting quotas in the IMF and the World Bank and the West must recognise the real economic and financial weight of the countries of the Global South. It is also important to unblock the work of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body without delay.

There is an ever-increasing need to expand the composition the Security Council simply by eliminating the underrepresentation of countries from the World Majority – in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is important that the new members of the Security Council, both permanent and non-permanent, be able to use their authority in their regions, as well as in global organisations such as the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

It is time to look at fairer methods of making up the UN Secretariat. The criteria that have been in place for many years do not reflect the actual influence of states in global affairs and artificially ensure the excessive dominance of citizens of NATO and EU countries. These imbalances are further exacerbated by the system of permanent contracts, which link people to positions in host countries of international organisations’ headquarters, the overwhelming majority of them located in capitals that promote Western policies.

A new type of association is being called upon to reinforce the reform of the UN, where there would be no leaders or followers, teachers or students, and all issues would be resolved based on consensus and balance of interests. One of those is certainly BRICS, which has significantly increased its authority following its summit in Johannesburg and has gained truly global influence.

At the regional level, there has been a clear renaissance of organisations, such as the African Union, CELAC, LAS, GCC, and others. In Eurasia, there is an increasing harmonisation of integration processes as part of the SCO, ASEAN, CSTO, EAEU, CIS, and China’s Belt and Road project. A natural formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership is underway as well, and it is open to all associations and countries on our shared continent without exception.

These positive trends, unfortunately, are being undermined by the increasingly aggressive attempts by the West to maintain their dominance in world politics, economics, and finance. It is in the common interest to avoid fragmentation of the world into isolated trade blocs and macro-regions. But if the United States and its allies do not want to negotiate on making the globalisation processes fair and equitable, those remaining will have to draw their own conclusions and think about steps that will help them make their socioeconomic and technological development not dependent on the neocolonial instincts of their former colonial powers.

The main problem lies with the West because developing countries are prepared to negotiate, including in the G20, as the recent G20 summit in India showed. The main conclusion in its report is that the G20 can and should be free of any political agenda and given the opportunity to do what it was created for: to work out generally acceptable methods for governing the global economy and finance. We have opportunities for dialogue and agreements. We must not miss this opportunity.

All these trends should be fully taken into account by the UN Secretariat as its statutory mission is to seek consent from all member states within the UN and not somewhere on the side.

The UN was established at the end of World War II and any attempts to revise this would undermine the foundations of the UN. As a representative of a country that made a decisive contribution to the defeat of fascism and the Japanese militarism, I would like to draw attention to a glaring trend to rehabilitate Nazis and their collaborators in a number of European countries, primarily in Ukraine and the Baltic States. A particularly alarming fact is that last year, Germany, Italy, and Japan for the first time voted against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. This regrettable fact calls into question the true repentance of these states for the mass crimes they committed against humanity during World War II and runs counter to the conditions under which they were accepted into the UN as fully-fledged members. We strongly urge you to pay special attention to this “metamorphosis” that runs counter to the approaches of the global majority and to the principles of the UN Charter.

Mr President,

Today, humanity is at a crossroads again, as has happened many times in the past. It is entirely up to us what will become of history. It is in our shared interest to prevent a downward spiral towards a large-scale war and avoid the final collapse of the mechanisms for international cooperation that were put in place by generations of our predecessors. The Secretary-General has put forward an initiative to hold a Summit of the Future next year. This can only be successful if a fair and equitable balance of interests of all member states is ensured and with due respect for the intergovernmental character of the organisation. At our meeting on September 21, the members of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter agreed to actively contribute to achieving this.

As Antonio Guterres said at a news conference shortly before this session, “if we want a future of peace and prosperity based on equity and solidarity, leaders have a special responsibility to achieve compromise in designing our common future for our common good.” This is an excellent response to those who divide the world into “democracies” and “autocracies” and dictate their neo-colonial “rules” to others.

https://mid.ru/en/press_service/video/posledniye_dobavlnenniye/1905973/

Russia’s statement at UN Security Council on Nord Stream sabotage

Posted by

0

From Strategic Stability

February 21, 2023

Report # 206. The USA plus Norway are responsible for Nord Stream blast

February 21, 2023

1. Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UNSC briefing on threats to international peace and security (sabotage of Nord Stream gas pipeline). February 21, 2023

“Today we have gathered here for a very remarkable meeting.

It is somewhat assonant with the previous meeting regarding the act of sabotage against the Nord Stream pipe that we called on 30 September last year, yet this meeting is completely different by its tone. As many of you surely remember, back then it was already clear who may be standing behind that act of international terrorism (for this is how we qualify this incident), and Russian investigative bodies started criminal proceedings under a corresponding Article of Russia’s Criminal Code. US leadership made some statements which boil down to one message – if Russia kept doing what the United States does not like, the Nord Stream would be destroyed. Then, rather inopportunely, former Foreign Minister of Poland Sikorski (who clearly knew something) got in the spotlight, having thanked the United States on social media in a paroxysm of Russophobia. Add to this a rather indiscreet text message by former head of the British Government L.Truss, who is also known for her fierce hatred to my country. Yet formally, the United States strongly denied its involvement, realizing prospective consequences of such sabotage of critical international pipeline infrastructure. They still do, by the way.

Since then, the malevolence of Washington’s officials has increased, not in the least thanks to another famous Russophobe, “godmother” of the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine V.Nuland. However, we would not be convening this meeting only because of this. The thing is that on 8 February, thanks to a prominent American investigative journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner S.Hersh, we not only learned the whos, but also the hows. We came to know how the US did this with help from Norway, its ally in NATO. Proceeding from facts and testimonies by eyewitnesses, he convincingly proves that during NATO’s BALTOPS exercise in summer 2022, divers from US Navy planted explosives under the pipes, which were detonated by the Norwegians three months later, on 26 September 2022. So now we know with a high degree of certainty not only who blew up our gas pipe, and also how they did it. Basically, these facts allow us to say that this was a use of force carried out in a way that is incompatible with the goals of the UN Charter.

In this statement, I will not go further into details of S.Hersh’s topline investigation, because our two briefers, J.Sachs and R.McGovern, have covered those extensively. I will only say that the depth of information that he has collected is truly striking. His previous professional expertise and uncompromising integrity leave us no doubt that this American journalist is telling the truth.

What is also striking is the level of cynicism and all-out sense of impunity with which this unprecedented crime was committed. We have got accustomed to the fact that our American colleagues position themselves above the law or rather pretend that they are the law, which they think gives them the right to interfere in internal affairs of states without retribution, carry out anti-constitutional coups, take aggressive action against independent states (I remind that by estimates of the US Congressional Research Service, since the end of the Cold War, the US has used its armed forces abroad on 251 occasions), kill and torture peaceful population in third countries while refusing to commit the perpetrators to international justice. With their allies singing along, they call it “rules-based order”, where the rules are set by themselves.

However before now, they never went as low as to blow up foreign pipelines that are owned by states with which the US was not at war. Well, this day has come. Maybe, it presages a new era, in which cross-border and trans-continental infrastructure will become a legitimate target for operations aimed at weakening of some or other states. As you can imagine, this would be an era of chaos and unspeakable harm to the entire humanity. Odds are huge that this era may truly come, unless those responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream are identified and held duly accountable. And unless those who masterminded this crime reimburse for the damage that occurred with the affected states – the way international law (and basic principles of justice) see it. Then and only then we will have a chance to avoid this chaos. All is in our hands, and the choice is being made i.a today, at this very meeting of the Security Council.

Contrary to what our former Western partners are about to say, we do not spread disinformation in the Security Council, and do not ty to make a guilty verdict based on allegations in the “highly likely” spirit. This is something British representatives did five years ago when they made an unconvincing attempt to accuse us of the poisoning of the Skripals which was based only on allegations and speculations neither of which had anything to do with facts or common sense. With the Nord Stream sabotage, neither the motive of the crime nor the perpetrators or the method raise any doubts. This is even more than the “smoking gun” that detectives always dream to find in Hollywood blockbuster movies. With such evidence, no lawyer would venture to defend our American colleagues in court, and predicting the jury verdict would be a no-brainer.

But we have not gathered here to have a trial. As you know, we put forward a draft UNSC resolution that tasks the Secretary-General to carry out an independent international investigation, and double-check the facts that S.Hersh and other independent journalists cite.

We have to do this, because we have strong reasons to doubt the effectiveness, transparency, and impartiality of investigations that are being carried out under some national jurisdictions. We do not see our partners being eager to cooperate. We have taken note of the letter by Permanent Representatives of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden saying that the authorities of these states had informed Russia on the progress of the investigation. Things are different in reality. Leaders of the states in question ignored the communications that Prime Minister of Russia, M.Mishustin, addressed to them in October 2022 regarding participation of relevant Russian agencies and PJSC Gazprom in the investigations. Relevant requests of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation were declined. Since we talk about a crime that was committed by means of an explosive device, which makes it subject to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 15 December 1997, we expect that all states that have to do with the incident, namely the US, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, will fulfil their obligations under this document. But leadership of these states do not show any political will or rather do not have any.

Unfortunately, there is no other way for us to attain the truth.

Those so-called investigations by Scandinavian states and Germany not only lack transparency, but, and this has become obvious by now, are aimed at covering up the tracks and exculpating the big American brother.

We are not allowed to partake, and all our requests are ignored with arrogance. By the way, it is rather weird that the states who conduct the investigations have not requested to act as briefers today. With other meetings, there is no end to those willing to take the floor. Of course, we do not and cannot have any trust in them. But we still do have trust in the Secretary-General and hope that you do too. That is why we suggest that he should be tasked with this investigation.

We circulated as official documents of the Security Council and General Assembly an address of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation that contains a corresponding request, and also verbal notes on that matter that our respective embassies addressed to Foreign Ministries of Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the US. Everyone who wants to can read those documents.

If our American colleagues indeed have nothing to fear and if they do not doubt that their fellow citizen was all wrong, then the US does not risk anything, of which we will soon be able to make sure. In such case, we will strive to identify and hold accountable whoever it was that encroached on international peace and security by their actions. So, we look forward to having our proposal supported. These days, experts are in the middle of discussing our draft. After the first round, however, we are inclined to think that Western experts are not interested in an objective international investigation, which but substantiates our suspicion.

Colleagues, your approach to our proposed draft resolution, your interest (or the lack of it) in searching for the perpetrators and holding them accountable will define our further steps in the context of the act of sabotage that took place. We very much want to believe that you will not disappoint us or your own people and will help to establish the truth as prescribed by the Charter of this Organization”.

2.The silencing of Hersh’s work has failed

The silencing of Hersh’s work has failed. In America, they are beginning to write about the historical significance of this investigation, and among a number of publications on the subject stands out the opinion of renowned legal scholar Andrew Napolitano, who served as a judge of the New Jersey Supreme Court and published nine books commenting on the U.S. Constitution.

His article, published in The Washington Times [1] under the title “What is Biden’s purpose in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?” states that, legally speaking, Joseph Biden unleashed a direct military conflict to bypass American lawmakers, and accuses the president of committing a war crime.

Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Under the treaties to which the United States is a signatory, there must be moral and legal grounds for declaring war – that is, a clear military threat from the armed forces of another state. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress of all combat deployments.

Disrupting Nord Stream was a violent act of which Congress was not notified in advance, it was not defensive in nature, and its purpose was not to save the lives of those attacked by a foreign country’s army. Furthermore, the act was directed against an American ally.

In other words, since the United States attacked Germany and Russia to weaken their economies, and since they were aware that this attack had no moral justification, it makes the act of war they committed a criminal – that is, a war crime,” Napolitano writes about it.

According to The Washington Times, the Americans are now directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict, and the U.S. has been dragged into the war without notifying the American nation.

3. Germany has lost 100 billion euros

Germany has lost 100 billion euros (over $106.7 billion) amid the Russian military operation in Ukraine and the related increase in electricity costs, Marcel Fratzscher, President of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), said.

“The Ukraine war and the associated explosion in energy costs cost Germany almost 2.5 percent, or 100 billion euros in economic output in 2022,” Fratzscher told the Rheinische Post newspaper, adding that these costs will continue to increase in the coming years.

Fratzscher said that Germany has been more affected by the crisis economically because it was more dependent on Russian energy, has a high proportion of energy-intensive industry and “is extremely dependent on exports and global supply chains.”

[1] https://www.washingtontimes(dot)com/news/2023/feb/15/what-is-bidens-goal-in-russia-ukraine-war/

Russia at the UN Security Council on Venezuela, “Such gross interference by the U.S. in the internal affairs of another nation is nothing new”; “the warden who watches over the Western hemisphere” hasn’t read UN Charter Chapter 2.4 for a long time (VIDEO)

Posted by

0

https://www.c-span.org/video/?457308-3/russia-un-security-council-meeting-venezuela

The Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vassily Nebenzia spoke at the U.N. Security Council meeting on the political situation in Venezuela on January 26, 2019.

Length: 14:42
Excellent

Excerpt from English translation:

…Today we are examining here unfortunately the most typical case of what is called “a threat to international peace and security created by the threat of the use of force against the political independence of a state”.

The authors of the UN Charter — and by the way, among those authors and one of the main authors was the United States – tried to save the world from these kinds of events, included this warning in Chapter 2.4. But obviously Washington hasn’t opened that book for quite a long time

Such gross interference by the United States in the internal affairs of another state is nothing new. Americans have not changed and, judging by everything, do not intend to change their relationship to Latin America as an area of exclusive interest of the United States — a kind of backyard where you can do anything you want without taking into account the interests of the people living there.

We’re talking about the reincarnation of the so-called Monroe Doctrine, about which President Trump openly spoke during his statement at the high-level segment at the 73rd General Assembly.

Back in 1913, President Woodrow Wilson spoke about how the United States intended to teach the republics of South America to elect good people..

Well, today that lesson is being visited on Venezuela who dared, at least in past, to conduct an independent policy that does not comply with the economic and political interests of the warden who watches over the Western hemisphere.

Continue reading →

At UN, Syrian official points out US assistance and support for ISIS, illegal Turkish and American occupation and attacks in Syria, “but no one cares.”

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

February 15, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos
NEW YORK CITY, The United States of America – Syrian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Bashar Jaafari voiced severe criticism of the US and its coalition partners, addressing the United Nations Security Council meeting in New York City on Wednesday.
“The attack on 8th of February in northern-eastern Deir Ezzor, that the alliance illegally undertook against the Syrian national forces that were standing against ISIS terrorists, I emphasize this, the region where the Syrian national forces attacked ISIS was under the US protection, north-east of Deir Elzor. It’s a strip with 30 km in width and 65 km in length. IS, which we fought and destroyed, left this Deir Ez-Zor and Abu Kamal, with the US protection and positioned itself at Iraq-Syrian borders. When IS [ISIS] was attacked by Syrian popular forces, the Syrian forces were attacked by the American Air Force, which proves again and without doubt, the real mission of this coalition and the role that Washington plays in supporting ISIS,” Jaafari said.
“Like it did earlier by targeting Syrian national forces in air force attacks at northern Jabal Al-tharda near Deir Elzor, on the 17/09/2016, allowing IS to occupy these regions. Not to mention the deliberate destruction of 90 percent of the city of Raqqa. This coalition has not felt to uphold its commitment to neutralize tens of thousands of mines left behind by Daesh  [ISIS] after they left the region to continue their terroristic services under two banners: American in east of Euphrates and Turkish in northern Afrin,” he explained.
“These [coalition] countries have abused the principles of the [UN] charter and they have defied its rules when they assisted terrorist groups and facilitated their acquiring of poisonous chemical weapons, to be used against innocent civilians, after which, manipulating the places and dates of the incidents, and setting up false and misleading testimonies to an investigative mechanism whose integrity and objectivity are a subject of doubt, with the aim of framing the Syrian government. Here, this is a large collection, Mr. President, containing 136 messages that had been sent by the Syrian government to you. 136 messages with very important information about the importing and use of chemical weapons by the terrorists, from outside of Syria into Syria. And they [chemical weapons] were used. 136 messages addressing nothing but the chemical [weapons] issue were distributed as official documents. And they are all in your procession. But no one cares,” he stressed.
“I was very sad to hear the statement by the Special Envoy, which I have listened to carefully, has not remotely touched upon the fact that there exists a US occupation in parts of my country, or the fact that there is a Turkish occupation in parts of my country. The Special Envoy said that there is a cross-border conflict in Afrin, not an unlawful Turkish occupation in my country, and the attack on a Syrian city called Afrin,” he concluded.

U.S. burns Raqqa and Mosul with phosphorus, claims “smokescreens” (PHOTO, VIDEO)

Posted by

0

From Rusvesna.su

June 10, 2017

US Air Force and the allied countries have been using prohibited phosphorus munition in Iraq and Syria recently. Supporting evidence have been circulating on the Internet for several weeks already. 

Ground operation on Mosul and Raqqa has led to great number of victims  among American allies: we talk about several thousands.

Being discouraged to win by traditional warfare the Americans gave green light to amunition banned by international conventions.

US-led international coalition finally admited on Friday that they used phosphorus bombs in Syria but it somehow correlates with international regulations. Besides they claim to protect civilians.

«According to its policy the coalition does not discuss dislocation, equipment (of its forces) with certain types of munition and the usage of them. Nevertheless according to the rules of engagement white phosphorus munition are being used to make up smokescreens, disguise and marking,» — says official pres-release of US-led anti-terror coalition.

This cynical claim was spread in response to Syrian state news agency SANA message which had reported about prohibited phosphorus munition being used deuring Thursday air-raids over Raqqa. That was reported to journalists by the local residents. The underlined that there were many victims after the bombardment.

The shots below demonstrate real targets of phosphorus use by US coalition forces. It is safe to say that there isn’t «making up of the smokescreens, disguise and marking». The video shows incendiary munitions use.

Using phosphorus munition as a weapon is prohibited by international conventions.

«The coalition takes all reasonable precautions to minimize the risk of incidental injury to non-combatants and damage to civilian structures. But ISIS shows disrespect to the innocent killing civilians who try to leave combat zone and teh coalition will not saty aside and let people die if we can protect them,» — says international coalition’s report.

To recap the USA have been taking on a mission in Syrian Arab Republic since 2014 without any consent of the legal authorities.

READ ALSO: Western propaganda epic fail: family of the boy appointed to be «Syrian war symbol» supported Assad (PHOTO, VIDEO)

Horrendous footage: US burn Raqqa and Mosul with phosphorus, claim «smokescreens» (PHOTO, VIDEO) | Русская весна

Horrendous footage: US burn Raqqa and Mosul with phosphorus, claim «smokescreens» (PHOTO, VIDEO) | Русская весна

Horrendous footage: US burn Raqqa and Mosul with phosphorus, claim «smokescreens» (PHOTO, VIDEO) | Русская весна

<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/YwJExDWyVPs&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>

Источник: http://rusvesna.su/news/1497140769

http://rusvesna.su/news/1497140769

North Korea in the crosshairs: lively input from James Bradley, Ken O’Keefe, Mohammad Marandi (VIDEO)

Posted by

1

From CrossTalk, RT

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/video/

North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un © KCNA / Reuters

We have heard it all before – all options are on the table – and of course, that means using force. This time, North Korea is in the crosshairs, with the usual bellicose language and threats being meted out. What is completely absent, however, is diplomacy.

CrossTalking with James Bradley, Ken O’Keefe, and Mohammad Marandi.

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/

Russian Foreign Ministry briefing: Venezuela; Syria; Silicon Valley is hacking the Foreign Ministry website

Posted by

0

Briefing by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova
April 12, 2017

Excerpts:

The situation in Venezuela

We’re receiving a lot of requests to explain Moscow’s position on this issue.

We’re watching with concern the situation in Venezuela, a country with which we maintain friendly relations, where opposition activists continue to clash with law-enforcers, even with the Easter holidays approaching. We feel sorry for the people who were killed or injured in street violence that is spiralling out of control. We cannot help mentioning a growing risk that the destructive scenarios which we have spoken about time and again and have warned against and which call to mind the grievous events in Chile in the 1970s might be implemented.

We believe that non-violence offers a way to end political confrontation – this is exactly our vision of how to resolve the political crisis and resume nationwide dialogue for the sake of searching jointly for answers and solutions to the socioeconomic challenges facing the country.

In this context, we’re concerned about the statements by the US Southern Command to the effect that further aggravation of the crisis in Venezuela might require a prompt response at a regional level. It should be understood that statements like these are adding to the instability, escalating the situation in that country. They cannot be treated otherwise than words to encourage Venezuelan radicals to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and instability and incite violent confrontation. We consider the fact that tensions are running high in Venezuela to be a very dangerous trend. Honestly, in our view, this would hardly be in the interests of the United States and the entire international community, including the countries in the region.

We would like to say again that all political processes unfolding in Venezuela should be strictly in line with the constitution, keep to both its letter and spirit in full, and comply with the governing laws. There is no alternative to a peaceful settlement of Venezuela’s internal problems reached at the negotiating table and in compliance with the constitution – and there cannot be any.

The situation in Syria

The military-political situation in Syria sharply deteriorated following the massive US strike on April 7 against the al-Shayrat airfield where Syrian Air Force planes are based. In this room, as well as for many other audiences, we have given an extended evaluation of that, issuing corresponding statements and explanations and making comments. As is known, Russia responded to that outright act of aggression against a sovereign UN member state by suspending the Russian-US memorandum on the prevention of air incidents in the course of operations in Syria. A corresponding explanation was provided via both the Defence Ministry and the Foreign Ministry. Washington’s use of force is a serious challenge not only to regional but also to international security.

Continue reading →

Russia’s position on space cooperation; U.S. opposes space treaty

Posted by

0

Press Briefing by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova
April 12, 2017

As you know, today is Cosmonautics Day, and I would like to wish you a happy one. Traditionally it is observed on a wide scale as an important event. Cosmonautics Day (International Day of Human Space Flight declared by the UN) is a good opportunity for focusing on some of the most important aspects of Russia’s space activity, in particular its international dimension.

Developing the country’s space capabilities is one of Russia’s national priorities, as President Putin has repeatedly stated. Designed through 2025, the Federal Space Programme provides for the development of all fundamental areas, including the study of planets of the solar system and the moon with the help of automated spacecraft and a manned space flight programme. I would like to draw your attention once again, considering that members of international media outlets are present here, and it is very important for us to make our assessments and our vision of this area of international cooperation clear to our foreign partners.

Russia is ensuring guaranteed access to outer space from its territory. Foreign policy priorities have been defined and are being consistently followed. Russia advocates the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in space.

Back in 2008, a Russian-Chinese draft international treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects was submitted for consideration to the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. In 2014 an amended version of that document was submitted.

Essentially the only state that is opposed to the international community’s efforts in this area is the US. Under these circumstances, to enhance mutual confidence and transparency, back in 2004, Russia assumed a unilateral political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in outer space, and urged all responsible countries to follow suit. Many of them, including those that have significant space potential, have already become full participants to this initiative. Even more countries have co-sponsored a corresponding resolution of the UN General Assembly, which has been approved by an overwhelming majority of votes for three years in a row. Today, the international initiative regarding no first placement of weapons in outer space is the most effective, viable, cost-free, and transparent confidence-building measure in this sphere and it is gaining momentum. Of course, the main goal is to prevent an arms race in outer space.

It is noteworthy that back in 2005, at the Russia-EU summit in Moscow, an agreement was reached on combined efforts to prevent an arms race in space. We believe that these agreements still stand. We therefore have quite a few questions about the EU’s collective position, which was formed under pressure from Washington and obligates all EU countries to refrain from endorsing this simple and understandable resolution of the UN General Assembly for the third time in a row, which calls for dialogue in this area without even requiring any new obligations from EU countries, which cannot boast independence in their actions.

Furthermore, at the UN Outer Space Committee in Vienna, Russia put forward a host of important proposals designed to ensure the safety of space operations and the preservation of outer space as a secure, stable and conflict-free environment. Substantive talks are under way.

We are ready to work constructively on all these issues with all states in the interest of preserving the peaceful skies over our planet.

This is the first time we are observing this day and this holiday without our outstanding cosmonaut Georgy Grechko. He will forever remain in our hearts. His shining memory will live on. We regard everything that he has done for the development of the space industry and international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space as an invaluable contribution. His name has been inscribed in gold letters not only in national history but also in the world history of cosmonautics.

http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/-/asset_publisher/D2wHaWMCU6Od/content/id/2725573

CBS news reporter is grilled by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zakharova on gas attacks and moderate rebels

Posted by

0

April 5, 2017

Posted by Inessa S.

Published on Apr 7, 2017

On April 7th, US warships delivered an illegal blow to a Syrian airbase in Homs. Their justification was the recent “chemical weapon” attack on behalf of the Syrian government in Idlib. The Kremlin condemned the strike as an act of aggression against a sovereign state, and a violation of international law. Meanwhile, at the UN, representatives of Western governments attempt to push through a resolution that is based on information taken out of thin air. It includes the removal of Assad, whether or not he was behind the attack.

It is noteworthy, that the only real source of information on what took place, are the videos made by the White Helmets, an infamous propaganda organisation as it pertains to the Syrian civil war. In this clip, Maria Zakharova calls on Western respresenatives/ journalists to hear Russia, and what it has to say. The attack against the Syrian government, much like the Ghouta gas attack in 2013, which precipitated the Syrian civil war, is a giant facade for the military industrial warhawks in the US, to put their money where their mouth is.