Maria Zakharova, "the United States needs to justify spending on the military budget and increasing its military presence in Europe"

Today Vestnik Kavkaza visited the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. In an exclusive interview, Maria Zakharova spoke about the wide range of issues on the agenda of the foreign policy of Russia, including  the Syrian settlement, the migration crisis in Europe and cooperation with Egypt to investigate the Kogalymavia plane crash in the Sinai Peninsula.

- Islamic State almost immediately claimed responsibility for this crash of the Russian plane. How do you assess this statement? Is it even possible to link this tragedy with ISIS?

- I think that all the conclusions about the causes and the official version can only be made after specialists and experts, who have gained experience over the years, reach their conclusions on the basis of what they saw at the crash site, on the basis of the data that they receive from the Egyptian side, and on the basis of their own analyses. Only then can we talk about causation. All of the first discussions and stuffing (though I respect journalists who are trying to get to the truth, and people who are not indifferent to the subject) are not serious in nature for the most part. And you cannot rely on them. The most important thing is the work of experts at the crash site.

In the first hours after the disaster we received assurances from all levels of the Egyptian side that we would be provided with all help and assistance in the investigation, which would be held by the Russian side, it was unobstructed, we are provided the maximum opportunities for Russia to clarify the causes of the tragedy. The Egyptian side has kept its word. We are working in tight coordination, and all the assistance that we need is being provided. This is very important.

- How do you assess the meeting in Vienna on Syria? Were Russia's expectations met? To what extent are the US and its allies ready to engage in constructive dialogue with Moscow?

- The meeting on the Syrian settlement held in Vienna on October 30th is a qualitatively new level of the Syrian settlement. The meeting took place with a very wide range of players, foreign players who somehow influence the situation in Syria. We have been saying for many years that the multilateral dialogue on the Syrian settlement should, to use the language of diplomacy, be inclusive. What does this mean? This means that it should be representative. We should sit at the negotiating table, the representatives of all the countries that to some extent affect the course of the settlement of this problem. Often, when negotiations were taking place, the representatives of one or another of the countries would refer to, in their opinion, a main culprit in exacerbating the situation, which was some country that was not represented at the table. Therefore, it was a vicious circle. The talk was always about someone who was not present in the meeting room, in the negotiating process, and so on. So we talked about the fact that all the key players who have had an impact on the situation for many years should be present.

We were heard finally, because the situation has reached deadlock. All the international efforts made to circumvent the main points proposed by Russia have not justified themselves. Finally, although a lot of time has been wasted, all are gathered around the table. There were the representatives of Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Iraq, and Egypt, and many other countries. This is the first very important point. We can say that a kind of contact group on Syria has been formed, you can call it many ways, it does not matter. The main thing is that this format is effective, this format brings together people from countries that do have an impact on this situation.

The next thing. The application has been accepted. To me this is an indication that the meeting was a real success, because the table brought together people with diametrically opposed views on certain aspects of the Syrian settlement. Of course, the views on a number of issues are the same – the need for a response to terrorism, the fight against ISIS and so on. But there are questions, in particular the question of Bashar Assad, on which a number of countries have diametrically opposed positions that cannot be brought together, as we see now. Although it was a joint statement.

The next point is that the joint statement confirmed the basic principles of the Geneva communiqué of June 30th 2012,  its relevance has been confirmed. This adopted statement includes a call to the United Nations (the UN representative, special envoy de Mistura was present) to work towards the rapprochement and ‘retraction’ of Damascus and the opposition to the negotiating table.

Now the main point in this respect is to understand what the opposition is, to form its terms. We did our part, we gave our colleagues a list of 38 organizations, groups, representatives of the Syrian opposition itself, which, we believe, is necessary and important work. For many years we have been talking about the fact that dialogue between Damascus and the opposition should be just as representative. You cannot choose only one group of persons or organization alone and call it the only Syrian opposition. The Syrian opposition is multifaceted, there are many faces, it is scattered around the world, both inside Syria and abroad, in Europe and in other countries and regions. It is important to combine it now. We have just addressed the UN with this appeal.

The basic things related to the reform of the constitution and further elections in Syria have been set out. At the same time, the fundamental things have been underlined, laid down in the Geneva communiqueé, that the fate of Syria, the fate of all the institutions of power is in the hands only of the Syrians, that the government of Syria must be maintained as a sovereign, secular, coherent state.

The next issue is related to the fight against terrorism. It is crucial that everyone confirm the need to combat ISIS and other terrorist organizations, which are established by UN classification.

Another important element has been incorporated into this statement – the countries of the contact group should  define which terrorist and extremist organizations to fight through consultations of their experts.

You see, there is a paradox? For over a year, the coalition headed by the United States has been fighting ISIS and other extremist groups. And as we have learned over several meetings, which were held twice in Vienna and elsewhere, this same coalition, these same participants, do not have a common understanding of who are terrorists and who are not. Now it has been agreed that the experts who are engaged in the professional fight against terrorism shall hold a series of consultations, meetings and negotiations in order to develop a clear criteria, and say: "look, this is a terrorist organization, and this is the   moderate Syrian opposition.

An application is made of all these components and each of them must be worked out. The statement clearly states, and in the course of the meeting the sides talked about it, who is responsible for each part of the work, so it has been agreed that within two weeks from the date of the Vienna meeting  another meeting will be held in the same format, which has to be carried out on the basis of the developments that need to be made. So this is a new level of the  Syrian settlement.

- Just two weeks is a short time. We can assume that the work will boil from all sides, all participants will actively work?

- Of course. And this is pointed out in the statement. Nobody says that we have reached any breakthrough agreements on the issues that previously were the most difficult. This task, in fact, was not on the agenda, because everyone had a realistic approach to this meeting. I believe that, of those assumptions and expectations that existed before the meeting, it was possible to do the maximum. When they say that the meeting failed because the fate of Assad was decided, I want to say that no one agreed to do so before the meeting. No one put this topic on the agenda, this topic was not discussed, in principle, for one simple reason – the fate of Assad should be decided not in the collective format of the international players, but  the Syrians themselves must decide, and this was written in the statement.

- Let's touch on such topics as Western propaganda and the Syrian conflict. Is there a tendency to follow the principle of ‘the perception is more important than the reality’ of which you spoke, quoting one of the western politicians?

- Unfortunately, even those achievements that we see on the rapprochement of the positions of various players, particularly in Vienna, do not change the information pressure, that propaganda enthusiasm with which our Western colleagues, in particular the US, attack, lead a war, an aggression. In parallel to the Vienna meeting, the day before, and during, and immediately after, we heard the statements of the US embassy, ​​the US ambassador to Moscow, the US Secretary of Defense, which are not only contrary and in direct contradiction to what we were talking behind closed doors in Vienna. This is the way they behave. This, unfortunately, is normal practice, the normal behavior of our partners when convergence behind closed doors and a normal dialogue, in their view, must be balanced with such an extreme rhetoric regarding the rejection of everything that Russia does.

Apparently, the logic is this – God forbid that someone thinks that the United States is backing down, are inferior in something to Russia, accepting the Russian rules of the game. We do not insist that that someone is more important, someone is less important, someone is more visible, someone is less visible. We are talking about the need to address specific global problems, as soon as they start growing out of the purely local or even regional to the global. So the question is limited only by one thing – unfortunately, for many the formation of perception is more important than the reality with which it is necessary to work. The reality is the Vienna talks, in this case – a normal tone, the search for compromise, finding common ground. The perception is rostrums, briefings, press conferences, statements which run parallel. Strictly speaking, that is a reality and there is a perception that creates a new virtual reality.

- There is also a lot of information that the Russian Military Space Forces bombed a mosque, a hospital was bombed, although in principle there is no special evidence of that. There is evidence of how the US Air Force bombed a hospital, it was ...

- There is not only no evidence, but there is evidence to the contrary. In recent months information was published that Russia does not work for the goals that it states, that there is information that Russia says that its main goal is combating ISIS, but actually strikes only civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and has killed a large number of civilians. Firstly, all this is unproven. That means the media do not lead any more or less serious or credible sources, facts, data. The photos are fake, made blatantly. The links go to some non-core, non-professional, but to some fictional, whipped-up organizations, which cannot even be brought to justice, so they are not serious.

The next thing, through the formal structures, again there is nothing except for allegations and some permanent leaks we did not get. The Ministry of Defence invited the Military Attachés, that is, the military representatives of the military departments of all countries, accredited in Moscow. These are countries that constantly referred to the media. These people were invited to the Ministry of Defence with a single request – please provide us with the data that indicate the charges of which you speak. We have received nothing.

All this, of course, is in pursuit of one goal – to create an image of the enemy, forming it in people's minds. What is it for? Very simple. This is a justification of their actions. If there is an enemy, any of the most crazy idea, the idea or action can be justified, because it is a fight against the enemy.

The US needs to justify spending on the military budget, increasing the strength of its presence in Europe. How can we explain to the Europeans that it is necessary to increase the military presence of NATO in Europe? We know that there is a major role played by the United States. For what? Again, to create the image of an enemy.

Do not ignore the economic factors. We have great opportunities for investment. There is a great potential for the development of foreign business. But as soon as the campaigns to create an image of Russia as an aggressor state, Russia becomes an unpredictable country, nobody knows what Russia will do next. This is a signal to investors, a signal to businesses that they cannot  invest in Russia. This multi-component game is understandable, the rules and goals and the objectives are also clear, in general, they can be calculated without difficulty.

- The first unofficial reaction to the collapse of the Russian aircraft in Egypt has been published on the social networks. The neo-Ukrainian users started, shall we say, dancing on the bones. The Ukrainian officials conveyed condolences, but did so only after they learned that four Ukrainians died on the flight. Was there any sympathy from the official channels in Ukraine?

- It is not necessary that those accounts,  where this this obscurantism was published, belong to real people. Too many accounts are fake, created specifically for these kinds of information operations and ballot box stuffing. An employee of the press service of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, I personally know that we have diametrically opposing views on the situation around the Ukrainian crisis, and with whom we parted ways after there was the coup in Ukraine, expressed condolences on his page on Facebook. She wrote very personal, very moving words. They were not devoted to the dead citizens of Ukraine. She just expressed what she felt about our tragedy.

Much has been published on the fake web accounts to separate our peoples even further, to add fuel to the fire, to further inflate a certain antagonism, which is being maintained afloat.

There was sympathy, both from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and on the social accounts of the Ukrainian leadership. He expressed his condolences to the entire world. Here I can say for sure. And heads of state, foreign ministers, representatives of parliaments, political parties, movements, called, sent telegrams. We have received many letters, messages from ordinary people, foreigners, foreign journalists accredited here and overseas, the official accounts, too, were full of condolences. We did a whole selection of photos of how people come to our embassies, diplomatic missions abroad, left flowers, candles, letters, stuffed toys, some small gifts, which seem to have embodied all their pain and experience.

- And Kiev is not an exception.

- Kiev, Odessa and many other cities and countries, the most distant, on all continents. Today there will be open books of condolences at our embassies. For me it was an indication that, after all, humanity remains in people, despite political differences.

But I am really worried and I am very hurt we can be united by the tragedy. This is a paradox. Why can't we find the strength to be that united and cohesive in a peaceful, quiet life? Why can't the smaller problems unite us as well? Why don't they give us as much strength and determination?

Plus, the fact that indeed people are people. It overshadows everything, everything fades in front of this. On the other hand, we want to see this potential, our ability to work not only in those moments when nothing can be returned, the tape cannot be rewound. I would like for these latent possibilities of ours to wake up suddenly in each person and work well in other situations too.

- And another paradox is the humanitarian situation with refugees in Europe and the situation with Ukrainian refugees in Russia. Russia has received up to 2.5 million refugees from Ukraine. This number of people exceeds the number of refugees being received by Europe now. So why do we see these videos in which people suffer, but there is no information in Europe about how Russia receives refugees? Everything was organized in the shortest period of time, amendments to the Russian legislation so that these people could feel more comfortable in our country. Why has Europe chosen another route?

- The paradox is that Europe is changing its legislation in order to toughen the situation with the reception of refugees. In order not to let them in. They try to make some changes: from the construction of walls, fences, ditches, some holes, any barriers to prevent people from crossing borders. We did’t change our legislation in this way. Everything that happens with refugees is regulated by existing immigration law. But our domestic laws that regulate the provision of appropriate assistance to refugees were changed in order to improve their support. This is the basic thing that distinguishes these two situations.

Each of the countries of the European Union is trying to reject a large number of refugees. They create quotas in respect of them, some new protective and innovations in the legislation. At the same time, we suddenly received a huge number of people all at once and against our will, but we did it. We didn't change the basic legislation in the area of ​​migration, but we made some amendments in order to make them easier. Although Europe is now quite safe today from the viewpoint of the economic situation. We are under sanctions now and enormous pressure has been put on us by the West, but despite this fact we provided all obligations to migrants.

I would like to see what would happen if the European countries were under sanctions. It is reported every day that the European economy is ‘in tatters’, and everything is directed towards a decline in economic indicators and currency rates... In these conditions we are managing to fulfil our obligations in relation to those people who immigrated from Ukraine.

In addition, it is impossible to hide the reasons why refugees decided to emigrate to Europe. This is not a migration crisis, as it is trying to represent it. It is not a matter associated with migration. People didn’t decide to migrate due to higher wages and more comfortable living conditions. People tried to migrate there, as they don’t see any possibility of existence anywhere else. And when we are told that rich people paid a lot of money to become citizens of the European Union. It is not true. We see so-called rich people, who risk their lives and the lives of their families, the most important things that they have, in order to get there. Why don’t they stay in the countries neighboring on Syria and Libya? There is one simple reason: they understand that the situation there is totally unpredictable and their destinies depend on the mood of some Western capitals. They do not know which of the countries of the region will be become the next site for such laboratory experiments. Realizing that there were no safe places, they took such a decision to emigrate from the region. They understand that the West won’t shoot by itself and that Western countries are responsible for the situation that is unfolding in the region. When we are informed that they are running from Assad’s regime, this is also not true. The ideas of ‘the bloody tyrant’ and ‘refugees run from the Assad’s regime’ are forming the perception of the Syrian crisis in Europe. They have already became its ‘visiting card’.

Nobody has any ideas about how many acting and potential terrorists, Jihadists, and representatives of organized crime are among them. They arrive without documents, saying nothing of any databases in order to check them.

How are our people who are going get a visa checked? They must visit consular offices of EU countries with documents, residence permits and their backgrounds. Many there are academics, intellectuals. They are absolutely honest people, who want to travel to Europe as tourists, as well as study and work. But they must pass a number of checks: finger-prints, declarations, change of names, imprisonment. Some countries demand to carry out a complete check, a 40-page-questionnaire must be filled in.

- Up to scanning of an eye retina.

- Certainly! When we raised the issue to simplify the visa regime, we spoke about security issues. And here we can see that in the past six months half a million people migrated to the European Union without passports or documents. But the European Union refuses us, who follow all the rules, to simplify the visa regime. Such paradoxes have emerged from this crisis.

The refugee crisis raised a lot of problems of the European Union. Another problem is certainly a matter of humanity. Prosperous, sufficient countries live many years without major social upheavals and thank God without wars, except for the bombing of Belgrade. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal are wealthy countries. What’s the attitude of the local population to these people? I understand that nobody invited them to work there, build their prosperous careers in order to feed the people who immigrated from other countries. But the governments of the European countries supported the experiments in the Middle East. So they need to understand their responsibility for this.

At the beginning, no one even thought about it. Everyone believed that the Middle East is very far away, but then the Middle East ‘came’ to specific burghers and particular bourgeois. And we saw acts of cruelty and xenophobia.

Europe was a standard, and will be a standard for us because its achievements in the field of protection of human rights are unique. But it turns out that it works either in terms of absolute wellbeing, or on paper, but not in a critical situation. It is not war, a man-made disaster, but just a simple migration of people, like you and me, causing doubt about all the human rights. Where are the human rights activists who saw non-compliance with the human rights standards in relation to some people abroad, in other countries. They wrote reports about this and devoted TV programs to this? Where are all these people when hundreds of thousands of rights are violated?

It turns out that the rights of one, two, or five people, who could be violated in any particular country are more important than the non-observance of the human rights of hundreds of thousands people. This mechanism doesn't work there.

Now they are trying to say that the rights of Syrian citizens who travelled to Russia as refugees don’t comply with the reality there. This happens against the background that Russia received hundreds of thousands from Ukraine and it continues to receive thousands of people from Syria. There are statistics on the site of the FMS: about 8000 people migrated from Syria to Russia in September. However, trying to find individual cases, giving examples of these individual cases, they tried to show that we don’t comply with the obligations to Syrian refugees. When I ask for examples, they tell me about the situation at Sheremetyevo Airport with a Syrian family…

- I think they are not even Syrians ...

- Not Syrians, but that does not diminish the misery of their situation. They should not be represented as Syrians. They are people who arrives in the Russian Federation with the help of falsified documents posing themselves as citizens of Syria. It turned out that all the documents were fake. Naturally, a criminal case was initiated. Now the court is dealing with it. It turned out that they were citizens of another state. It also took us some time. Nobody says that it is the norm that people live at the airport. But these people violated the law. And it is connected with the humiliation of the people who have emigrated from Syria as refugees. In this case, facts were mixed with misinformation.