Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 12, 2018

NATO summit in Brussels

We will carefully analyse the decisions in terms of what consequences they may have for European security. Yet, even tentatively, the statements published indicate that NATO is still not interested in an objective assessment of the true causes of the deterioration in the security situation in the Euro-Atlantic region and prefer looking at the world from the Cold War stereotypes perspective.

Cynically and groundlessly accusing Russia of fuelling tensions in the Euro-Atlantic area, the military bloc is building up its own military activity under this pretext even in the once quiet regions of the Baltics and Northern Europe. Noting the instability in the MENA region and the threats coming from there, expressing concern over the growing international terrorism, NATO does not seem to understand that this is a direct result of its members’ reckless military moves.

These attempts to distort everything and put the blame on Russia are extremely clumsy, terrible and certainly not smart. The desire to justify one's own actions is visible to the naked eye. For example, NATO positions itself as a defensive alliance, while increasing purchases of offensive weapons. Statements about the importance of preventing the risks of unintentional incidents are being made alongside an expansion of the manoeuvres close to the Russian borders, and its calls for dialogue within the Russia-NATO Council are followed by an expulsion of our diplomats and refusal to conduct dialogue between the militaries. While reporting on an increase in defence spending under the pretext of Russia modernising its Armed Forces, the Allies prefer not to mention that their combined defence spending is many times greater than Russia’s and accounts for more than half of the world's spending on military purposes. Finally, the endless recurrence and invention of new unsubstantiated accusations does not change the reality, in which not Russia, but NATO is moving its military infrastructure closer to our borders.

From all sides we hear reports of NATO's “adaptation” and responsibility to protect the population of its member-countries against all possible threats, but in practice, the alliance is recreating the atmosphere of the bloc confrontation era, in which it seems to feel much more comfortable than in a multipolar world arrangement. An integral part of this policy is the revival of the trend of military-political containment of Russia under far-fetched pretexts. This is also the reason why the bloc is expanding mechanically, which does not strengthen anyone’s security but deepens the dividing lines and augments tensions in Europe. The insistent dragging of Macedonia into NATO only confirms that its open doors policy has turned into an end in itself and an instrument for appropriating geopolitical space.

In fact, the only logical reason here is to achieve military superiority. Any attempts to put up fences in the globalised modern world are doomed to failure, since neither individual states, nor even associations of countries are capable of dealing with cross-border threats single-handedly. We hope that the growing awareness of the futility of isolating Russia and the pressing security needs will ultimately lead the alliance to understand the need to combine efforts with Russia on a solid basis of international law to effectively counter common challenges and that the principle of indivisible of security must be respected not only in relations between allies.

In this context, we note the NATO member countries’ commitment to the UN Charter and their intention to uphold their international obligations, including the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, reiterated in the summit’s statement. We hope that these assurances will finally be supported by practical steps.

New British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s statements to the media

Literally hours after taking over the Foreign Office, new British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt thanked his predecessor, Boris Johnson, for having “orchestrated an incredibly important response to the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury”, thereby essentially supporting the anti-Russian line of British diplomacy.

We believe that such an approach can hardly become a platform for normalising our bilateral relations and developing them in a constructive way. The aggravation of the anti-Russian sentiment in the British leadership will not only adversely affect bilateral ties, but also complicate interaction with London at multilateral platforms dealing with international and regional matters.

London's decision to freeze the key mechanisms for bilateral cooperation, cancel all high-level contacts and terminate a significant part of interdepartmental ties does not help pull our relations out of the crisis. It is London's conscious choice to exacerbate tensions between our two countries. In this situation, we hope that the British side realises the ruinous nature of such approaches. It seems they will have to start searching for ways to restore bilateral relations.

Developments in connection with the chemical incident in Amesbury

Naturally, we have been monitoring reports related to the incident in Amesbury. Tragically, Dawn Sturgess, one of the victims, died in hospital. We convey our sincere condolences to her family and friends. Given the statements by Lorna Wilkinson of the Salisbury District Hospital to the effect that the other victim, Charlie Rowley, has regained consciousness, we hope for further progress in his treatment.

We would like to hope that the causes and circumstances of the Amesbury incident will be thoroughly and conscientiously investigated and reported to the public and that the culprits will be brought to account in accordance with the law. It is quite important that the propaganda campaign launched by the British authorities – I will dwell on it somewhat later – will not be able to deliver a crushing blow to the investigation. Right now we see the opposite. Plants and versions that are not supported by facts or UK police statements are published every day and have inundated the information space, moderating the entire incident-related situation.

We think that comments by a number of British politicians and journalists, who have cynically used the woman’s tragic death to promote their own interests, are unacceptable. For example, British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, notorious for his provocative and uncouth statements, has declared that “Russia has committed an attack on British soil which has seen the death of a British citizen.” We are glad the British defence secretary has made a statement that contains at least some civilised words. It’s a sign of progress! I would like to clarify the following. How can a political figure make statements concerning an incident which is yet to be investigated? Moreover, there are no official comments, nor official versions or even suspects. It is clear why this is being done. This is creating a discourse and a vector for the media to follow with their propaganda in the interests of the official circles in London.

Labour MP Mike Gapes stated that Dawn Sturgess’ death was “a murder of a British citizen as a result of use of a chemical nerve agent produced by the Russian state.” Not a single word based on facts! Has the British police said anything about murder? I haven’t heard it. Has anyone heard about it? The murder is a result of use of a chemical nerve agent produced in Russia. No one has proved this at any stage and the proofs that were presented were later disavowed and withdrawn. We remember all those deleted tweets. Despite a total lack of evidence, Gapes was involved in earlier smear campaigns against UK-based Russian media. So, his statements would not be anything new for us were they not a clear sign of the propaganda offensive launched by London in connection with the “Salisbury case” and the “Amesbury case.”

We are faced with a full-blown propaganda campaign. Let me give you several examples that prove this. The Guardian’s former Moscow correspondent Luke Harding, who has largely made a name for himself by publishing numerous anti-Russia speculations, went as far as tweeting “an utter indifference to collateral damage one of the hallmarks of the #Putin regime and its extra-territorial operations.”  First, this is a fake, and, second, this is a fake written in the context of London-fomented political campaign. Here is a sample of propaganda for you. 

Alec Luhn of The Telegraph has hinted that the death from nerve agent poisoning refutes the Russian President’s denial of Russia’s involvement in the so-called Skripal case. This is nonsense. It is a pity that some formerly respectable British media are touching bottom before our own eyes and are ready to disseminate unconfirmed speculations or participate in propaganda campaigns. The Mirror, for example, is whipping up a panic by saying that new incidents are possible. Moreover, it has published an instruction on how to treat victims of the “Russian toxin.” What are the grounds for publishing all this stuff? You should feel at least some responsibility for what you publish.

On July 5, Prime Minister Theresa May made a statement on Amesbury, but she was speaking about Salisbury. There were no direct accusations against Russia, but one has the impression that the references to Salisbury instead of Amesbury were meant to illustrate who the prime minister thought was to blame. This is also part of propaganda.

It is clear that the investigation will take much time, particularly if we take into account the fact that much in the so-called Salisbury and Amesbury poisoning cases, as we learn from British media and statements by UK politicians, is still wrapped in a mystery. The police continue to provide extremely scarce and controversial information, particularly on the situation in Amesbury. All of this is muddying the waters still further. The samples taken from the new victims were sent to Porton Down only on July 2, but the preliminary results confirming Novichok poisoning (if we go by media reports) appeared the next day [after the alleged poisoning]. Why then the police were so active in reporting on July 4 that the two incidents were unrelated to each other? This prompts questions, one of which is: What are the medications they have treated the victims with during all these days? There are numerous questions and the reason is that they have launched this propaganda campaign meant simply to scatter a lot of fake versions and refrain from providing official versions. There are many instances of this. We will not talk about that.

Let me remind you that Russia has repeatedly invited London to hold a joint investigation into the so-called poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, but received no reply. The UK authorities have turned down all Russian proposals. I would like to say that with regard to the so-called Skripal case we have sent to the Foreign Office about 60 diplomatic notes with demands to let Russia join the investigation and have access to the victims, who are Russian citizens. We have also sent requests for legal assistance and proposals on cooperation, including in holding a joint investigation. The UK authorities have left all this without a response. At the same time, they were interpreting and presenting the situation in such a way as to create the impression that Russia is refusing to hold a joint investigation. This is nonsensical and absurd. I think we are free to publish the documents I have mentioned and will do so shortly. The Russian proposals on joint work and full-scale contacts with the UK law enforcement agencies are still in force. Could it be that London will at last come to its senses and stop letting Russophobia stand in the way of an objective investigation of these tragic events?

One can hear some sensible voices amid the din in this theatre of the absurd. The British people ask questions and send us letters, where they say that the accusations against Russia are untenable and falling apart before their own eyes. The social media vote on Amesbury is by far against the UK authorities. We have been receiving dozens of letters from people in the UK who apologise for the anti-Russia escapades of their government.  

British propaganda galore

For example, it is already common knowledge that the British authorities conduct anti-Russian propaganda via social media. The Foreign Office receives an estimated eight million pounds for the so-called Russian-language programme that aims to provide what is purported to be authentic information to Russian-speaking communities in Eastern Europe suffering from alleged Russian misinformation. The list of classified contractors includes a certain company called Breakthrough Media. In addition, the 77^th Brigade of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, established in 2015, conducts information operations against the enemy. Unfortunately, British military-strategic documents list Russia as the main enemy. Therefore, the activities of this military unit are, doubtless, directed against Russia. The Government Communications Headquarters, a leading British intelligence agency, is responsible for the so-called online covert action, including misinformation via social media networks, to quote Wiki-Leaks.

In these conditions, we have every right to feel concerned over the use of various tools to influence public opinion in Russia. We recall how the US Congress and the European Union voiced their apprehensions, how official Facebook representatives cooperated with them, how they provided the requested data and how they responded to MPs’ extremely sharp-worded questions.

It appears that Facebook Managing Director for the UK and Ireland Steve Hatch, working in London, does not share the intention of the company’s main office to cooperate with the governments of countries targeted by biased propaganda campaigns. For example, the Russian Embassy in London has repeatedly asked him to provide data about politically-motivated materials which were promoted in Russia with funding from British state agencies, their contractors and the BBC itself. All requests were ignored. An attempt to contact Facebook representatives failed, and no contact took place. It is most unfortunate that Facebook’s London office did not receive any Russian representatives.

This is a short sketch, and we hope to continue to entertain you with more on the subject in the future.

The situation around monuments to Red Army soldiers in Poland

The Foreign Ministry has repeatedly commented on the Polish Institute of National Remembrance’s plans to remove local monuments, which thank the Red Army [for its liberation of Poland from the Nazis during World War Two]. Russia’s highly critical assessment of this remains unchanged. We are urging the Polish authorities to unfailingly honour their international obligations to protect and duly maintain all monuments and memorials without exception, under the May 22, 1992 Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on Friendly and Good-Neighbourly Cooperation, the inter-governmental agreements on cultural, scientific and educational cooperation of August 25, 1993, and those dealing with burial sites and memorials of victims of wars and repressions, dated February 22, 1994.

The above-mentioned documents do not imply that monuments located outside burial sites should be put in a separate “symbolic” category. Therefore any attempts to dismantle or relocate memorial facilities without the prior agreement of the Russian side are illegal.

We share the concern of the Russian public’s representatives over the cynical attitude of Polish leaders towards monuments honouring Soviet liberator soldiers. We highly appreciate the manifestations of public opinion on this matter.

It is our opinion that Soviet monuments in Poland have been installed in connection with specific contexts, locations and events. Therefore they must stay where they are.

The expansion of the Office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and its effect on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement

I would like to respond to a request by the Trend news agency to comment on the expansion of the Office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and its effect on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process.

Let me remind you that during the Vienna and St Petersburg summits on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement in 2016, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan discussed steps aimed at stabilising the situation in the conflict zone and creating an atmosphere that would help advance the peace process. For this purpose, they agreed, among other things, to increase the number of international observers in the conflict zone.

The matter was discussed during the follow-up contacts between the sides, including a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Krakow at the beginning of this year. An essential understanding was reached on the number of additional observers, where they will be deployed and other related issues. But no ultimate decision has been made so far. 

Armenia now has a new government. The first consultations at the foreign minister level will be held in the near future. We hope that more meetings will follow, during which the sides will be able to consider a wide range of matters concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, including the observer issue.        

Answers to media questions:

Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg convened an urgent meeting today, following US President Donald Trump’s visit and his criticism of NATO allies. Does the Foreign Ministry see this discord as a sign of deeper problems inside the Alliance?

Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry sees this as the inattentiveness of certain experts to statements made by US officials. Donald Trump had voiced his attitude to the Alliance and his concern, including over the financial aspect of the matter, long before he became the US President and even a candidate for the US presidency. He even wrote this in his books. It is strange that I am commenting on it and that you know nothing about it.

This is said even in his books that he published not just a couple of years ago, but, it seems, decades ago. So, there is nothing new or strange or surprising in the fact that he spelled out this position at the NATO summit. He voiced it before the NATO summit, after the elections, during the elections and long before the elections. We see absolutely nothing new here. This is the attitude of one NATO member state to the Alliance’s problems and financing. This is an internal matter for the Alliance. The only thing that really stuns me is why these statements are seen as surprising now. These are long-standing statements and a fairly consistent position. There are different nuances, they changed, but, from a global perspective, the position of Trump as the president, Trump as a politician and Trump as a businessman on the issue of NATO and the participation of the US in the Alliance is indeed clear-cut and consistent.

Question: I would like to say the following about your claim that nobody knows Washington Post correspondent Amie Ferris-Rotman. I know her and her work in Russia and Afghanistan, and I consider her to be a good professional.

Maria Zakharova: I do not think so. I think it is unprofessional to write about subjects you do not know anything about. When a journalist writes that Russians are “unused to ethnic diversity,” this is evidence that this journalist has no understanding of the subject at hand. I am not talking about rudeness or disrespect for the people of the country where you live and work (let us leave this to blogs and the blogosphere), but I can definitely say at this briefing in this building that it is unprofessional to write that Russians are unused to ethnic diversity.

As for whether she is popular or not, we raised this subject six months ago when Amie Ferris-Rotman published an article on how difficult it was for foreign journalists to work in Russia. I know you – you attend our briefings and send your requests to us. You have a lively reaction to what we say and publish. But her I don’t know. And when she wrote in Foreign Policy about the hard life of foreign journalists in Russia, we asked over a hundred foreign reporters if it is hard working in Russia. We published the results of that poll, and we asked foreign reporters if they know this journalist and if she talked with them about  this matter. It turned out that nobody knows her. You know her, of course, because you come from the same country. I believe that you read what your colleagues write. This is normal competition for reporters from the same country working in Moscow. But nobody else knows her. We heard about her from her fanciful articles. Moreover, I can tell you that, regrettably, hers is not the only example of a strange attitude to one’s job.

I would like to remind you once again that Russia is a multiethnic country. People with different languages, faiths and culture live – not just coexist, but live – in the country in peace, friendship and mutual respect. Only a non-professional, to put it mildly, can offend our people by writing that they are unused to ethnic diversity. My personal attitude to this is much stronger: I believe that any deliberations on such matters, especially when such rhetoric is used, border on nationalism.

I would like to say once again that we have never received any requests or questions from this particular reporter. Only after we raised the issue publicly six months ago did she actually phone us. And this is all. Once again, we will not turn a deaf ear to reports that misinform the American public about life in Russia. Have you read her article? If not, do it and you will be surprised. Moreover, if you think we have only taken note of that item because it is our job, you are wrong. I received a telephone call from Russian journalists who asked me about this presumptuous lady. Is she really a journalist, they asked? I don’t know how she worked in Afghanistan, but I do know how she is working in Russia. Saying that Russians are unused to ethnic diversity? What is this? How can she write that when our people travel around the world? They go on holiday abroad and travel as tourists. And they are unused to ethnic diversity? Even if Ms Ferris-Rotman does not know that Russia is a multiethnic country, doesn’t she know that Russians travel abroad actively and have seen Mexicans and people from the Middle East and North Africa? I have a whole list of questions when it comes to her professional standards. Actually, I have no such questions really, but I will pretend that I do, for reasons of professional ethics. Once again, personally, I have no questions about this person. But considering your remark, I will monitor everything this reporter writes, because if you say that she is a professional, this may mean that she is writing this for a purpose. If she writes untrue things, she is involved in propaganda. And she writes patently untrue things, that Russians are encountering the world. Is this a joke? It is the world that is encountering Russia, contrary to what reporters such as Amie Ferris-Rotman write. You are definitely a gentleman. I would be happy if someone defended me like you are defending her.

Question: I would like to add something. You can also edit things that are incorrect. This is not only the journalist’s work, but also the responsibility of the editorial staff.

Maria Zakharova: I have noticed that the editors have changed over the last six months. Previously, it was Foreign Policy, and now it is the Washington Post. Plus, we should also realise that everything that is being said about Russia in the United States today turns into concrete decisions later. US diplomats cite specific articles in the media. Why then shouldn’t we pay attention to what I spoke about today if these articles are used as a basis for decision-making?

Secondly, obviously, it is the United States that has been waging an outrageous information war against our country. And this is just one example. Finally, it is in the United States that they constantly speak of “Russian propaganda”. And what is this if not propaganda? How can you write things like this? How can you fabricate things that are absolutely untrue and are humiliating and insulting to our people? Can you imagine something like this written about Canada or any other multi-ethnic country? Would you be able to write things like this about China, for example? And why do you think you can write this about Russia? No, you can’t, and we will keep talking about this.

Question: According to some sources, the US has been blackmailing its allies that it will pull out of NATO. Do you think this is possible?

Maria Zakharova: Can you pull out of yourself? I think it’s a rhetorical question, to which I have no answer. We are not hiding the fact that we are extremely concerned with the goals that have been declared by NATO, since they do not correspond to reality just as the articles by Amie Ferris-Rotman in the Washington Post. When NATO leaders say that the alliance will defend member states against Russia's aggression, this is not true for one simple reason that there is no Russian aggression against NATO members.

We understand that there are serious political interests and huge funds at stake for this organisation and that this is a big game. Unfortunately, we also note that this game is seriously damaging the cause of global security that everyone seems to proclaim. We are also well aware that this same rhetoric also represents a blow to democracy, as it is difficult to imagine more interference in states’ internal affairs than we see now, including using NATO mechanisms. These include endless statements with threats aimed at provoking conflicts between countries, direct involvement in electoral processes, and disruption attempts in various parts of the world. If everyone is so committed to democracy, why don’t they speak of the severe blow that NATO has been dealing to democracy?

As for the relations within the alliance, this is a matter for the member states to discuss. It does not concern Russia, as it is not a NATO member. When there was an understanding of the need for dialogue, the Russia-NATO Council was created. We were actively involved in it until it was suspended by the alliance in an attempt to completely freeze relations with Russia.

These issues should be addressed from within NATO. We are certainly concerned about what happens to NATO in the context of what I have said. We are talking about destabilisation not only in the areas under NATO control, but also far beyond them.

Question: During today’s news conference US President Donald Trump, when asked if he might propose stopping NATO’s military exercises in the Baltic Sea during his talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, did not rule this possibility out. The Baltic countries have already reacted nervously. What is your position?

Maria Zakharova: What does “reacted nervously” mean? Do you want military exercises?

Question: Many people in our countries regard NATO and the US in particular as a guarantee of security against an “aggressive Russia.” Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility that these exercises would stop. As we remember, after his meeting with President of North Korea Kim Jong-un, Mr Trump announced that joint exercises with South Korea held in the South China Sea were suspended. Now we hear the same regarding the Baltic region. Would you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: I cannot comment on statements we have not made but everyone refers to. This is the third question on statements that allegedly have been made. I cannot comment on them. I do not know if they have really been made. In addition, I am not Mr Trump’s press secretary. I would like to note this, especially for US journalists who constantly ask me about statements their president makes.

Even if we put aside the issue of whether this statement is real or not, the key matter you have mentioned is Russian aggression. This does not involve exercises or how the US president sees this. The message about Russian aggression is the key matter for the Baltic countries. But there is no aggression. It has been made up to hold exercises among other things and to build up one’s capacities on the Russian borders, and not at the expense of the Baltic countries but completely different ones, with those who lobby for the defence industry to allocate large sums of money to pump into the Brussels bureaucracy and to gain leverage.

If we return to your question about the Russian threat, it does not exist; it is only needed to control people, politicians and political forces. This is the only explanation for what is happening. I mean massing armed forces and military equipment at the Russian borders and involving other countries in these actions thus diverting them from real threats such as terrorism, terrorist attacks and migration. This is a make-believe story.

Question: Yesterday Donald Trump said that Russia keeps Germany captive and controls it; allegedly Germany pays billions of dollars to Russia and the US protects it against Russia… He also said he thought it was very inappropriate that Germany is totally controlled by Russia. Would you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: I believe there are two quite strange aspects to this. First, the world knows Mr Trump as businessman; so it is strange to hear him saying it is inappropriate that someone pays Russia. It provides goods and receives money. This is customary for a business, especially for a “hardened” business. We have been a high-quality supplier of natural resources to Europe, Germany in particular, for many years. The energy cooperation between Russia and European states goes back for several dozen years. Despite the geopolitical changes that took place on the European continent during the last decade, they have not affected the quality of products and Russia as supplier. The quality is impeccable, both of the products and of Russia as supplier. This is not my assessment, but an assessment given by Europeans. So Russia gets paid for providing high-quality products and being a reliable partner, or, as Mr Trump says, closing good deals and seeing them through. This is natural, if not good.

Second, regarding Russia’s control over Germany, I would like to say that, according to information from open sources the number of US soldiers based in Germany is about 35,000 in 2016–2018. Speaking about who really controls Germany. We have business with Germany, while the US has military bases.

Question: Has anything changed this week regarding Moscow’s position on Kosovo considering the statement by Hashim Thaci that he met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in Ankara and, quote: “asked the Prime Minister to establish lines of communication between our countries”?

Maria Zakharova: We have a principled position on Kosovo. It has not changed.

Question: A question about football and politics. The Croatian national football team player who made a name for himself, and not just for his performance, has officially apologised for his earlier comments, on the Rossiya 24 channel. Do you have any official comments on behalf of the Foreign Ministry?

Maria Zakharova: I do not see any reason to comment on this. I think his initial comments were not very smart. They were followed by public apologies not only from the footballer himself but also from a great number of Croatians who expressed disappointment over the incident and stressed the unacceptability of mixing football and politics. There is football and there is politics. These are different things. We have also noted FIFA’s position and their investigation into the matter. We have taken into consideration the statement of the Croatian side and everything that people said. We have also noted this person’s apologies. Again, I think his comments were not smart to put it mildly.

Question: The expulsion of Russian diplomats from Greece a few days ago has caused an uproar. The Foreign Ministry has commented on the matter. Can you also comment on whether this exchange of ‘courtesies’ between the two countries will have an impact on bilateral relations?

Maria Zakharova: We always proceed from the premise that things like the expulsion of diplomats will have tit-for-tat consequences. We also believe that they do not contribute positively to bilateral relations. However, bilateral relations have their own value, as we are not talking about some abstract relations, but about practical cooperation for the benefit of the people in our countries.

Question: A number of statements at the NATO summit, including those by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, lead to the conclusion that considerable progress has been made by Georgia in approaching NATO standards, and the day will come when it will join the Alliance. Meanwhile, Russia is known to have pointed out a number of times that if Georgia were on the verge of joining the Alliance, it would be a red line for Russia. Do you think we are closer to this red line today?

Maria Zakharova: We said the Alliance admitting countries which were not NATO members naturally would affect the whole picture, the security situation on the European continent and would definitely have consequences. This concerns not only Georgia but our broader position of principle.

Recently I gave an interview to a Scandinavian publication representing a country, which is not a NATO member, but is being actively dragged into it. I was asked why Russia believed that this would have consequences. I replied because it would entail changes, and when changes occur on one side, there are consequences on the other side. I think it is a natural process. We have always said that.

Question: Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at the NATO summit that the Crimea issue is the reason Russia is isolated by the West even though Russia is not a threat to the Alliance. Marine Le Pen went as far as to propose admitting Russia to NATO in order to jointly combat terrorism. I am primarily interested in Secretary- General Jens Stoltenberg’s words. Do you see any practical steps by NATO supporting his words about not wanting to isolate Russia and the intention to cooperate?

Maria Zakharova: The Crimea issue is a closed topic for us. This has been articulated a number of times at all levels. As to political isolation, Amie Ferris-Rotman’s article in the Washington Post has a phrase about the years-long political isolation of Russia … Look at the schedule of meetings of the Russian President, Foreign Minister and other ministers, international events hosted and attended by Russia, at international venues and  so on. There was and still is a will to isolate. But it was clear from the outset that isolation could not be achieved by calls alone, this is why a number of countries launched active measures to create artificial political isolation that was presented as real solidarity and so forth. However, we live in the real world in which there is no political isolation. And the Crimea issue, let me repeat, is closed. I am very sorry that people who head the international Alliance and international organisations do not bother to use facts and analyse the situation, in particular, concerning Crimea, the history of the issue, and don’t go beyond the level of political slogans or draw any new conclusions even as years pass (and it has been years already), but rather follow the same well-trodden path of Cold War ideology.

Question: Leader of the Ukrainian Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) party and a likely candidate to the post of the President of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko said the other day that she had identified a way to return Crimea to Ukraine. Her recipe includes a strong army and the Budapest format talks. What can you say about this statement?

Maria Zakharova: I’m not going to comment on the strong army bit. I think any state wants strong armed forces. The only question is how to use these armed forces. We can see how Ukraine is using them now: first, it is using them against its own people (precisely like that: against its own people), and, second, we can also see that regardless of whether they are strong or not so strong, this factor hasn’t brought Ukraine any positive results.

With regard to Ms Tymoshenko mentioning the Budapest Memorandum, we, including our Foreign Minister, have provided regular comments on the situation concerning the Budapest Memorandum. Perhaps, I should do so again today in a somewhat more extended format, since we are at it.

Speaking of the guarantees for Ukraine’s territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum constantly referred to by official Kiev and its many supporters (as you may be aware, its full name is the 1994 Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), Russia sticks to the following position: Russia is not violating the 1994 Memorandum on Security Guarantees in connection with Ukraine's accession to the NPT. This memorandum is not an international treaty (this can be seen even from its title) and does not impose any legal obligations on the states in addition to the ones they already had at the time of signing this memorandum.

This document confirms obligations assumed under the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE (called the CSCE back then), namely: to respect independence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from using force against Ukraine, except for self-defence or in any other way in accordance with the UN Charter.

The 1975 CSCE Final Act consolidates the principles of the territorial integrity of states and the inviolability of the borders. However, this document, like the UNGA Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, enshrines the principle of equality and the right of the nations to self-determination. As is known, when interpreting (this is an important point which everyone tends to forget) and applying the fundamental principles of international law, one must assume that they are interrelated, and each principle should be considered in light of and in connection with other principles.

The subject  of balance between the principle of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination was addressed in the 1970 Declaration, which confirms the inviolability of the “territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States,” and I now emphasise, “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 without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”

For some reason, this part, which is just as important as the one that is referred to, is overlooked. It’s as if it’s not of any interest, as if it's not there.

After toppling lawful President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the coup that followed the Maidan protests, it was hardly possible to say that the Kiev authorities represent the people of Crimea. One cannot even speak about the legitimacy of this government, since it took power as a result of a constitutional coup with the participation of outside forces, which, incidentally, is written in the documents underlying the Budapest Memorandum. Did the government that came to power using such methods represent Crimea? In which way?

With regard to the principle of inviolability of borders, it prohibits encroachment on borders or the seizure and usurpation of a part or entire territory of any participating State. However, the exercise of the right to self-determination in the form of separation is a natural and lawful process which legitimately changes the borders and territories of existing states and, therefore, cannot be qualified as “seizure” or “usurpation.”

In 1991, the European Union adopted guidelines for recognising new states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, in which the right to self-determination is recognised as the basis for recognising these states. Why is no one referring to this, either? This interpretation of this principle was confirmed by practical formation of states in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and other Eastern European counties that were recognised by the EU countries and the United States (the latter also signed the CSCE Final Act.) Again, no one appears to remember this.

The territorial integrity of Ukraine was destroyed as a result of the policy pursued by illegal authorities who seized power in Kiev, primarily, with regard to ethnic minorities.

As is known, a joint statement made by the leaders of Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Ukraine was issued in Budapest simultaneously with the 1994 Memorandum. Among other things, it reaffirmed the importance of the OSCE commitments designed to counter the growth of aggressive nationalism and chauvinism. Clearly, precisely these extremely negative phenomena in the Ukrainian politics led to the separation of Crimea. It was a trigger and the beginning of the countdown of Crimea as part of Ukraine.

The Budapest Memorandum does not impose on Russia an obligation to compel Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. I think this is obvious.

In addition to Russia, the United States and Great Britain are part of the Budapest Memorandum. Ms Tymoshenko’s remarks beg the question: how are the threats to impose sanctions on Ukraine’s leaders repeatedly voiced by the EU and the United States during the riots in Kiev resonate with guarantees of the rights inherent to Ukraine’s sovereignty? There are dozens of such direct quotations. What should we think of the almost constant presence of Western representatives, officials and representatives of special services on the Maidan? How are we supposed to qualify the US and EU statement that they are already not considering the legitimately elected head of state as their legitimate partner, unlike the new leaders appointed in the middle of a city square in violation of all constitutional procedures?

I’m not even talking about the first Orange Revolution which is the forerunner of the 2013−2014 dramatic events. We are only analysing what happened in 2013−2014. These facts add up (this is obvious and has already been proved) into a coup inspired from outside in violation of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

This is what I would like to remind Ms Tymoshenko and other politicians of, as well as numerous politicians in the West, when they encourage everyone to be guided by the Budapest Memorandum. There’s no need to cite certain provisions of international agreements while ignoring others. These things are inter-related and are expressly outlined in the documents I mentioned earlier.

Question: According to Facebook, 65,000 Russian users are interested in treason. At the same time, this data could have been handed over to advertisers and developers of mobile apps. How legal is this, and is it possible to interpret such actions as meddling in Russian politics?

Maria Zakharova: To the best of my knowledge, this is connected with targeted advertising algorithms. The situation is becoming more interesting each day. This is a subject for separate multi-format discussions, and we will be happy to take part in them because the situation already resembles George Orwell’s anti-utopias, including efforts to study people’s behaviour, their categorisation, etc.

As far as I understand it, while creating a post or writing a text promoted for money, it was possible to choose a group of people, labelled as “interested in treason,” as a targeted audience, from an entire list of other qualitative characteristics of the social network’s users, such as film-lovers, bookworms and football fans. This is Facebook’s terminology, not ours. The social network’s administrators said that they had deleted this category after the relevant media requests.

Here is the most interesting aspect of this issue: In his July 11 story, Alex Hern of the Guardian speculates that this would enable the Russian authorities to track potential traitors without any difficulty. The Guardian is the best way to entertain an audience. After such an article, I believe that this is an excellent slogan. It turns out that the Russian authorities have invented the category “interested in treason” to track down dissidents. This amounts to downright paranoia.

Regarding the legality of Facebook’s actions, including the protection of Russian citizens’ personal data, I believe this is within the remit of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media. However, this is unprecedented and disgusting from the ethical standpoint.

Many want to know all about targeting. Those who know the meaning of this word understand that a certain target is implied. It appears that people are seen as targets, are targeted and hunted. It appears that all of us are in someone’s sights. There is nothing pleasant in this. I have commented on the ethical aspect of this. Among other things, I believe that the professional community needs to focus on this issue.

Question: Is there likely to be a Russian-Japanese meeting in the 2+2 format this July?

Maria Zakharova: It is possible there will be a meeting in the 2+2 format in the near future, and preparations are being made for it. But I have no detailed information yet.

Question: This week, Foreign Minister of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ri Yong-ho paid his second visit to Moscow. Did he have any official meetings?

Maria Zakharova: I have no additional information on this issue.

Question: On July 11, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov met with a delegation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine against the backdrop of rumours about the Trump administration’s “deal of the century”. What practical role can the Russian Foreign Ministry play in a Palestinian-Israeli settlement at this stage?

Maria Zakharova: You are mixing up two different subjects, wittingly or unwittingly. I believe there is important meaning in the way you have formulated your question. It is true that the current developments in the region are largely connected with the rumour, as you said, about the “deal of the century”, as it is referred to in Washington. We have said that we will welcome any plan or programme that would show a way out of the deadlock, but we also think that no plans must be allowed to push the process into another deadlock or maintain the existing deadlock for years to come. Regrettably, we see that the situation with this “deal of the century” is based largely on rumour rather than on pragmatic, open and trust-based work that would enhance stability. Unfortunately, the current situation has been created by rumour and speculation. In addition, the US decision to move its embassy [to Jerusalem], as we have said, has created huge obstacles on the way towards a settlement.

The Foreign Ministry’s job is to maintain regular contacts with all parties involved (you can read our comments, including the one on that meeting), discuss various issues with them and urge the parties involved in the discussion of various plans and initiatives to do this on the basis of the existing legal framework on the settlement (it is a solid basis comprising UN Security Council resolutions and other decisions), keeping in mind that everything possible should be done to prevent the situation from deteriorating or from being deadlocked, as it has been for years, regrettably.

Maintaining contacts, holding meetings and talks, using active diplomacy, upholding our views and using best practices, as well as taking emergency measures in a critical situation to ease tensions that flare up in the region – this is how you can describe the ministry’s job.

Question: The Trump-Putin summit will be held in Helsinki in a few days. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier spoke about the possible issues on the agenda of this meeting. Do you know about any other issues the two presidents will discuss? What are your expectations from it, considering the new agreements regarding a meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo following the summit?

Maria Zakharova: We have said everything we can on this issue. There is no additional information. I prefer not to run ahead in such cases, but tomorrow the Russian Foreign Minister may give a long interview on the upcoming summit. If he does, we will notify you of its publication.