Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UNSC meeting "Briefing of OSCE Chairperson-in-Office"
Mr.President,
We were not surprised at the statement of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. We knew what he was going to talk about even before he started. What we were surprised at is that the briefing by USG DiCarlo overstepped the boundaries of impartiality that is required of an international civil servant. By the way, it was not the first time we saw this. Same thing happened during the UNSC briefing on Friday, 11 March. Under-Secretary-General’s assessments and repeating of fakes about indiscriminate shelling of civil facilities by Russian forces who use cluster munition, with a reference to some “reliable sources” make us wonder who is sitting in front of us – a high-ranking UN official or a representative of a member state?
Lately, the United Nations has repeatedly turned to the topic of mediation in conflict. But what mediation can we talk about if you appear to have taken side in this conflict? The USG however found no words to inform about today’s strike on Donetsk city center by Ukrainian Armed Forces with a “Tochka-U” missile that was laden with cluster munition. The strike killed 20 and wounded 35 civilians. Nor did representatives of Western states find any words to talk about it. For 8 years, they have been blind to anything happening in Donbas and to conditions that people had to live in while under constant shelling.
Unfortunately, the OSCE has to do with it, because it “soft-pedalled” truth about the crimes of Ukrainian Armed Forces and nationalists in Donbas.
Now let me ask my American colleague, who mentioned 13,000 people killed in Donbas. Was it Russia who killed them? Don’t you know who most of those people were? Most of them were the victims on the part of DPR and LPR.
My American colleague also mentioned the death of journalist Brent Reno in Irpen – allegedly at the hands of Russian forces. We regret all human losses, but let me make two clarifications. Firstly, he was not a New York Times journalist. The NYT refuted this information right away. There is word on the Internet that journalism and filmmaking were far from being his priorities. As I said, this is open-sourced info. Secondly, the situation in Irpen is controlled by Ukrainian Armed Forces and territorial defense units. According to Brent Reno’s colleague who survived that incident, it were them who fired at their vehicle.
Mr.President,
We had no illusions and realized that this meeting would not be dedicated to interaction between the UN and OSCE. In recent years, interaction has been in low demand due to attempts of a certain “club of states” to substitute the UN Charter with “rules-based order”. OSCE platform is a telling example of this.
This has become especially obvious lately, when the work of the Organization (that even before that paid exaggerated attention to countries to the East of Vienna) narrowed down to one particular episode, which is being discussed not only in an unprofessional, but a hysterical and unacceptable manner.
When Mr.Rau was on a visit in Moscow on 15 February, we hosted substantive negotiations. Back then, he was talking about the importance of a proactive, positive approach, search for solutions, rejection of reciprocal accusations. We supported such stance, and said we were convinced that OSCE Chair-in-Office should promote a unifying agenda, encourage compromise. To achieve this, it is crucial that OSCE Chair should remain in the framework of their mandate, stick to status-neutral approaches, avoid what is called non-consensus language, in a word – do what it takes to be a “fair broker”.
Today we can say that OSCE Chairmanship failed its mission almost completely, though it is only mid-March. On 5 March, following up on negotiations with US Secretary of State A.Blinken, Mr.Rau spoke out in the spirit that OSCE Chairmanship would “coordinate action” against one of Organization’s member-states. This is a blatant violation by Poland of the mandate of OSCE Chair-in-Office that was endorsed at OSCE Ministerial Council in Porto in 2002, and of OSCE Permanent Council Decision no. 485 on public statements. Chair-in-Office is supposed to settle disputed between member-states and bring closer their positions. By no means should they fuel up confrontation by taking biased steps, and much less spearhead an anti-Russian campaign at the Organization.
Today we heard Mr.Rau and also some our colleagues say that allegedly Russia had been offered to discuss security-related concerns at the OSCE, but declined. This is not true. We did not reject dialogue started by the Polish Chairmanship of OSCE, but we underscored that in order to have this dialogue, we needed responses of the United States and some specific OSCE member-states as to how they see practical implementation of the principle of indivisible security. Since what we got were just formal replies, and not from states, but from the EU and NATO, to whom we did not address this question, it would be ignorant to say that OSCE has started a meaningful dialogue.
It is because of our Western colleagues that the OSCE so far has been unable to solve a pivotal, even crucial task – develop common understanding of the principle of indivisible security, which is fundamental to entire European security architecture. Under this principle, states should avoid taking steps to enhance their security at the expense of security of any other state. This was anchored in many OSCE documents, starting from 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. Then in Istanbul in 1999, the Charter for European Security was adopted at the highest level. The 2010 OSCE Summit in Astana unambiguously and explicitly reconfirmed this principle. Despite all this, the West prioritizes the freedom of any country to choose its alliances. As for the fact that it must not affect security of others, our colleagues would rather disregard this condition.
The trends I mentioned caused a deeply rooted crisis of European security, and the situation in Ukraine served as a “detonator” to it. I believe there is some direct fault of the OSCE that turned a blind eye to what was happening in Donbas and broader Ukraine over those years. And there is also some fault of the Polish Chairmanship in particular. Who prevented the Chair-in-Office from making the Ukrainian side (i.a. through the Special Representative in the Contact Group) implement the Minsk Package fully and consistently? The plan of action was absolutely clear. First, ensure direct Kiev-Donetsk-Lugansk dialogue, and impartial monitoring by the OSCE SMM. Leadership of the Mission should have engaged constructively (as stipulated by the SMM mandate, endorsed by the OSCE Permanent Council) with the authorities of Donetsk and Lugansk. The Mission should not have left unattended violations of human rights and freedom of media throughout Ukraine, it should not have ignored firm facts that indicated a surge of aggressive nationalism, neo-Nazism, and numerous cases of discrimination of Russian-speaking population.
Apart from that, human rights violations in Ukraine assumed a mass and systemic character. Discriminatory laws on state language, education, and indigenous peoples were enacted that were aimed against the Russian language and multimillion Russian-speaking population of Ukraine in the first place.
Instead of this, we saw the OSCE, including its Polish Chairmanship, outspokenly play into the hands of Ukrainian authorities, while the latter refused point blanc to implement the key Minsk provision – have direct dialogue with Donbas. They would rather talk to Ukrainians living there in the language of guns and bombardments. While blatantly sabotaging its obligations, Kiev did its best to erode the Minsk Agreements.
Russia consistently called on Ukraine to heed the aspirations of the people of Donbas, and their legitimate wish to speak their native language, have children educated in it, honor the memory of those who had liberated their land, rather than those who had sided with Hitler and killed civilians during the Great Patriotic War. But Kiev would not listen.
At the same time, US-led Western states played along with Ukraine and ignored the sabotage of Minsk Agreements – instead of making Ukraine uphold its obligations thereunder. Besides, NATO states pumped Ukraine up with weapons and military trainers, encouraged militarization of the region. Kiev interpreted such actions of its sponsors as a carte blanche to carry out armed provocations in Donbas.
At the end of January – beginning of February almost all highest-ranking Ukrainian officials announced refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UN confirmed this at a UNSC meeting on 17 February. After that, the situation along the contact line deteriorated dramatically. There were numerous ceasefire violations, projectiles devastated civilians’ homes, schools, and other civil facilities. Unfortunately, there were casualties. There were huge risks that full-fledged armed action (as that of 2014-2015) may reoccur. Population of the DPR and LPR faced a real threat of direct elimination by the Kiev authorities. A flow of refugees rushed to our country. As we learned later from documents discovered during our special military operation, Ukrainian military had received an order to embark on armed action against the republics already in March. A copy of those documents has been posted on the website of Russian Ministry of Defense. Our special operation disrupted those plans.
There is a large-scale information war against Russia. Western media do not hesitate to present facilities, destroyed in Donbas by Ukrainian Armed Forces and nationalist formations, as consequences of our special military operation in Ukraine, thus replicating fake news about allegedly indiscriminate bombardments of Ukrainian cities. Total censorship of information space is introduced without any attempts to justify it. In such circumstances it is far not easy for people living in Western states to get objective information about the military operation, and recognize pure fakes – like Russia’s alleged bombardment of the Mariupol maternity hospital. That is why we perceive attempts to replicate untruthful information from the SC platform as an intended provocation by our Western colleagues.
At this point, the main threat to civilians in Ukraine comes from armed formations of Ukrainian nationalists who terrorize their fellow citizens. There are mass violations of human rights. Nationalists deploy tanks, artillery and multiple rocket launchers right next to schools and kindergartens, set up gun posts on rooftops, use women and children as a cover-up.
Russian soldiers who are taken prisoners become subjected to sadist torture. Ukrainian bandits film those tortures, and the Kiev regime brags of its show-off cruelty.
Lots of criminals were released from prisons. The Kiev regime made a maleficent decision to hand out thousands of firearms (over 10,000 items in Kiev alone) to God knows who. Gangs of plunderers and robbers are rampaging through Ukrainian cities. Bandits shoot up civilians. We also note cases of mass usage of phosphorus-laden projectiles by the Kiev regime, which is banned by the Third Protocol to 1980 UN Inhumane Weapons Convention. I already talked about cluster munition that Ukrainian Armed Forces used, i.e. today in Donetsk. But for some reason, my colleagues do not seem interested in that.
In these circumstances, the OSCE Chair-in-Office should show prompt political support for safe evacuation of civilians from combat areas – as part of one of his priorities, namely assistance to conflict-affected peaceful population. Ukrainians should be free to exit in whatever direction they choose. Russian forces in a unilateral order open daily corridors for civilians, but not everyone can use them. Kiev does not shy away from threatening its own people who attempt leaving cities.
Mr.President,
As recently as on 11 March we raised at the Security Council the issue of American biolabs in Ukraine. I will not repeat myself. Let me just warn how dangerous biological materials containing dangerous strains can be should they end up in the hands of Ukrainian radicals, who as we have seen recently are capable of most inhumane provocations against peaceful population of Ukrainian cities. We also receive reports about possible acts of sabotage at Ukraine’s gas transportation facilities. Besides, Russian Defense Ministry has received information that Ukrainian armed formations are preparing a provocation with the use of poisoning agents to accuse Russia of using CW. In the night of 9 March, Ukrainian nationalists delivered approximately 80 tons of ammonia to the town of Zolochev (located to the north-west from Kharkov). On 10 March, Ukrainian media started spreading information about ways to protect oneself during a chemical attack. There is no doubt as to what it may lead up to. Besides, our American colleagues (as we heard from US representatives speaking at the Security Council), already hint whom they are going to blame for any dangerous developments. Should it (God forbid) come to this provocation, do not say we did not warn you.
Mr.President,
In conclusion, let me call the OSCE Chair-in-Office to not let the OSCE be ruined. It must be remembered that the Organization also addresses other crucial issues that require close attention of OSCE members. In particular, it is peaceful and comprehensive resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the Minsk Group of OSCE plays the main role. In current circumstances, OSCE remains nearly the only platform for Europe-wide dialogue. It is necessary to think of historical consequences of actions, aimed at undermining the basis and any prospects of cooperation in the interests of all states of the European continent.
Thank you.
