- We have consistently advocated for strengthening the existing and developing, through consensus, new treaty regimes in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation . The UN and its multilateral disarmament mechanism should play a central role in this process. We are working to increase the efficiency and consistency of the work of its key elements – the First Committee of the UNGA, the UN Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament.
Russia's position at the seventy-eighth session of the UN General Assembly
https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/un/1900137/?lang=en#sel=75:1:zZq,75:71:GxF
-
The primary objective of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly is to reaffirm the central and coordinating role of the universal Organization in global affairs and to strengthen the multipolar system of international relations. The UN rightly remains a unique platform for an open and equal dialogue aimed at finding collective solutions to global problems while taking into account diverse opinions, as well as at creating a genuinely just world order.
-
We have consistently advocated strengthening the multilateral framework of international relations and world economy based on the universal norms of international law, first and foremost the provisions of the UN Charter, focusing on the unconditional respect for the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs. It is pivotal to prevent a small group of Western countries from taking control of the UN by striving to substitute generally recognized principles of cooperation between the states with non-consensual constructs. We oppose the legitimization of the concept of the "rules-based world order" implying the imposition of rules, standards and norms developed without the equal involvement of all the interested states. This concept is promoted in contrast to collective approaches based on the UN Charter and poses a serious threat to the stability of international relations.
-
The unending eight-year-long war waged by the Kiev regime against the people of Donbass and the intentional sabotage of the Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk agreements by Ukraine forced Russia to take measures to protect the region's civilians. The Special Military Operation that began in 2022 is conducted in strict compliance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and will continue till the threats to Russia's security are eliminated.
Ukraine's Western allies contribute to the escalation and perpetuation of the conflict by providing Kiev with heavy weapons, financial and technical assistance, and recruiting and supplying mercenaries. NATO countries' weapons are used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to mount strikes against civilian infrastructure and peaceful citizens of Donbass. Thus, the West has virtually become a party in the hostilities responsible for the crimes of the Kiev regime.
Violations of international humanitarian law and terrorist attacks carried out by Ukraine are carefully recorded, and all the perpetrators will face their punishment. Kiev's actions and rhetoric show that it clearly lacks interest in settling the conflict by peaceful means. Russia has never refused the option of diplomatic settlement and stands ready for negotiations taking into consideration the situation on the ground and its own legitimate interests.
- The Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, as well as the Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts became part of Russia after their population freely expressed its will in September 2022 in accordance with the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among states. This document guarantees the territorial integrity of states, with "government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour". The Kiev authorities obviously fail to meet this criterion, holding a record of having persecuted a considerable part of the country's population precisely on the grounds of ethnic origin, creed, language and culture for years.
The recognition of the referendums held in the Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts, the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, and the accession of Crimea to Russia after the expression of the free will by its citizens in 2014, is a key precondition for reaching an agreement on a comprehensive settlement of the situation in Ukraine.
We are gravely concerned over the UN General Assembly's growing inclination to reach outside its competence, which resulted in a series of confrontational anti-Russian resolutions adopted since 24 February 2022 in connection with the situation in Ukraine in violation of Article 12(1) of the UN Charter. The UN General Assembly, seeking in its resolutions to qualify the Special Military Operation as an "aggression", calling for its cessation, reparation of damage, etc., goes far beyond its mandate and appropriates the functions of the UN Security Council.
-
Primary responsibility for preventing conflicts and addressing their consequences rests with the states involved. International assistance, including that rendered by the UN, is only possible with their consent and in line with the UN Charter. Mediation and good offices – not to mention preventive diplomacy – should be based on the principles of impartiality and unconditional respect for the sovereignty of states.
-
The UN Security Council reform should aim to strengthen the representation of developing states from Africa, Asia and Latin America in the Security Council without prejudice to the UNSC's effectiveness and operational efficiency. We believe that Brazil and India are legitimate candidates for the permanent membership in the Council, should a decision be made to expand both categories of its members. Low twenties seems the optimum number of members of the reformed Council. The search for the best reform model that would secure the broadest possible support should continue in the current format of intergovernmental negotiations. Embarking on text-based discussions before agreeing on the basic reform parameters is counterproductive. The prerogatives of the current permanent members, including their veto power, are not subject to revision.
-
We support realistic initiatives to revitalize the work of the UN General Assembly within the relevant Ad Hoc Working Group. In our view, it is of paramount importance to fine-tune UNGA working methods, streamline its overloaded agenda and strengthen multilingualism. Any innovation should be reasonable and meet the current needs. Any redistribution of other statutory bodies' powers, especially those of the Security Council, in favour of the General Assembly is unacceptable.
-
We support developing and fostering the UN's cooperation with regional and sub-regional organizations in conformity with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It is essential to enhance meaningful collaboration between the UN and organizations such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), BRICS and Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The relevance of this topic was confirmed by the adoption of the biennial resolutions on the UN–CSTO and UN–CIS cooperation by the 77th UNGA session, which reflect steady progress and positive dynamics in strengthening these relations.
-
We categorically oppose the distortion of history and the revision of the outcomes of the Second World War. We attach special importance to the annual draft Resolution of the UN General Assembly "Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance". We stress the relevance of this document in view of the tragic consequences of the Kiev authorities' efforts to encourage the neo‑Nazi ideology in Ukraine with the connivance of their Western patrons.
-
We believe that there can be no alternative to the political and diplomatic settlement of crises in the Middle East and North Africa. We have consistently advocated peaceful resolution of current conflicts without external interference, while taking into account the interests of all parties involved and based on the provisions and norms of international law.
-
The Syrian settlement remains at the top of the Middle East agenda. Achieving durable and long-term stabilization and security in the country is only possible through the full restoration of the country's territorial integrity and Damascus's sovereignty over the national territory. The continued combat against international terrorist groups recognized as such by the UN Security Council remains another critical task on the ground.
The degradation of the humanitarian and socio-economic situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, amidst the tightening of unilateral sanctions and chronic underfunding of the international humanitarian programmes, remains the main challenge, particularly in the wake of the earthquake of 6 February 2023. We call on the responsible members of the international community to renounce the politicization of purely humanitarian issues and provide assistance to all Syrians in need without discrimination and preconditions in coordination with authorities in Damascus, as envisaged by the norms and guidelines of international humanitarian law.
On the political track, we support the progress of a Syrian-led and Syrian‑owned settlement facilitated by the UN, as provided for in UNSC resolution 2254. We support the relevant efforts by the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen, which should not, however, go beyond the mandate defined by the Security Council.
- We believe that reviving the Middle East settlement process, while placing the efforts to address the Palestinian problem at its core, is a prerequisite for bringing peace and security to the Middle East.
We attach key importance to preventing the escalation of violence between Palestinians and Israelis and to providing extensive humanitarian assistance to those affected and in need in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We call on the sides to show restraint, refrain from unilateral steps and provocative actions, and respect the special status and integrity of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. We support the resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on all issues concerning the final status based on a universally acknowledged international legal framework, including the two-state formula.
-
We note with concern the impasse of the political process in Libya and the persisting division among the country's leading political actors. We are convinced that there can be no alternative to an inclusive dialogue taking into account the concerns of all sides in Libya. We support an early restoration of a single government institution system and the conduct of presidential and parliamentary elections.
-
We note positive developments in Yemen against the backdrop of regional normalization. We firmly believe that resuming the comprehensive truce will contribute to a lasting political settlement in the country. We insist on the need to engage in UN-brokered negotiation with all parties to the conflict. We support the work of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg. Assisting the Yemeni people in overcoming a major humanitarian catastrophe is one of the key tasks.
We oppose the excessively broad interpretations of the UNSC resolutions on sanctions against Yemen. Restrictive measures should be used to promote peaceful settlement rather than fuel political turbulence in the region. We note with concern that certain foreign naval presences manipulate the UNSC decisions when conducting inspections of vessels in waters off the Yemeni coast.
-
We have consistently supported the efforts of the Iraqi leadership to achieve a lasting normalization of the social and economic situation in the country and counter the terrorist threat. We stress the need for consistent and focused work to reconcile the differences between various ethnic and religious groups of Iraqi society through a national dialogue. We emphasize that turning Iraq into an arena of regional confrontation is unacceptable.
-
We have consistently pursued the policy of facilitating national reconciliation and settlement in Afghanistan, as well as maintaining stability and making it a state free from terrorism and drugs. We are seriously concerned about the growing influence of ISIL and the threat of its terrorist activities spilling over into Central Asia.
We stand for sustained and pragmatic interaction of the international community with the Taliban de facto authorities. We are convinced that expanding dialogue with Kabul is in the interests of the security and economic development of the entire region.
We will continue work within credible multilateral platforms, such as the Moscow Format of Consultations, the Neighbouring Countries of Afghanistan mechanism, the regional Quartet (Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan), as well as within regional organizations, primarily the CSTO and the SCO. We have taken steps to establish a new regional Five format involving Russia, China, India, Iran and Pakistan.
We believe that the US and its allies, who are responsible for the critical situation in Afghanistan following their 20-year presence, should bear the major costs of the post-conflict reconstruction of the country.
We attach great significance to the activities of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, first and foremost in the context of increasing humanitarian support to the local population, creating conditions for an early unfreezing of Afghan assets and mobilizing donor funds to revive the national economy.
-
Primary focus in the efforts aimed at a comprehensive normalization of the Azerbaijani-Armenian relations should be placed on the implementation of trilateral top-level statements of 9 November 2020, 11 January and 26 November 2021, including the unblocking of trade, economic and transport ties in the region, the delimitation/demarcation of the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and assistance to the parties in negotiating a peace treaty.
-
We are seriously concerned about the destructive consequences of attempts by the US and its allies to increase pressure on the DPRK, including by conducting large-scale military exercises. We oppose all efforts to further tighten the UN SC sanctions regime. We consider this idea both wrong and inhumane in terms of negative humanitarian consequences for ordinary North Koreans. While condemning the provocative military activity in the region, to which Pyongyang is forced to respond, we call for breaking the vicious circle of escalating tensions. The only effective means of breaking the deadlock is to resume political and diplomatic dialogue to reduce the level of confrontation and achieve a lasting settlement on the Korean Peninsula, as well as establish a resilient security system in Northeast Asia, taking into account the legitimate interests of all states in the region, including the DPRK. Jointly with China, we have consistently promoted relevant initiatives.
-
We believe that there is no alternative to preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We are determined to continue cooperation within the Vienna negotiation process aimed at eliminating the negative consequences of the US's unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal in violation of its obligations under Security Council resolution 2231. We consider the continuing attempts by Washington and its allies to increase pressure on Tehran and further exacerbate the situation instead of facilitating the early restoration of the JCPOA's full functioning to be counterproductive.
-
We stand for finding a solution to the Cyprus issue based on the relevant UN SC resolutions, which provide for establishing a bicommunal and bizonal federation on the island with a single international legal personality, sovereignty and citizenship. At the same time, the final resolution model should be approved by both Greek and Turkish Cypriots without external pressure. Imposing arbitrary timeframes is unacceptable. We believe it necessary to engage the permanent members of the Council in the discussion on the external aspects of the Cyprus problem, as well as to replace the existing system of guarantees on the part of the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey with guarantees by the Security Council. An early appointment of a Special Envoy or Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General, who should be approved by and accountable to the Council, would contribute to relaunching a full-fledged negotiation process.
-
The key to ensuring sustainable functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina's institutions is respect for the principles of equality of the two entities and the three constituent peoples, in full compliance with the 1995 Dayton Accords. Bosnians deserve the right to independently decide on the destiny of their country. In that regard, we believe that the Office of the High Representative should be abolished as soon as possible. The post of the High Representative remains vacant, as Christian Schmidt has not been approved by the UN Security Council.
-
The situation in Kosovo should be resolved on the basis of Security Council resolution 1244. The arrangement between Belgrade and Pristina will only be viable if the parties come to an agreement independently, without ready-made solutions imposed on them from outside. We oppose the idea of altering the mandate of the UN Mission in the region and cutting its budget, and advocate for maintaining the open and regular nature of UN SC meetings on the Kosovo issue.
-
There is no alternative to the consistent implementation of the provisions of the Final Peace Agreement with an emphasis on the thorough implementation of its sections on the rural reform and ethnic issues, which serves as a framework for the settlement in Colombia. Even greater efforts are required to ensure the physical security of social activists, former rebels and the most vulnerable groups of population.
We welcome the Six-Month Ceasefire Agreement with the National Liberation Army (ELN) signed on 9 June 2023 between the Government of Colombia and the ELN following the third round of peace talks in Cuba. We believe that the arrangements reached are an important step towards achieving comprehensive peace in Colombia.
-
We stand for a balanced and depoliticized approach when considering the situation in Myanmar and seeking ways to improve the humanitarian situation in the Rakhine State. Despite the UNSC resolution 2669 on Myanmar adopted on 21 December 2022, we still believe that the situation in this state can only be discussed by the Council with regards to the Rohingya refugee issue. It would be more appropriate to deal with the human rights issues prevailing in the document within relevant forums, including the Third Committee of the General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council.
-
We believe that efforts to prevent crises and solve conflicts in Africa should be African-led and supported by the international community. We stand for strengthening the UN's partnership with the African Union and the continent's sub-regional organizations. We intend to further actively contribute to the political resolution of the crises in the CAR, the DR Congo, South Sudan, Somalia, Mali and the Sahara-Sahel region as a whole, as well as in other hotspots across Africa. We oppose attempts to defame our cooperation with African countries. We welcome the efforts by Africans to address the root causes of conflicts, rebuild state institutions and reform the security sector. We support African states' efforts to break off with their colonial past. We consider inadmissible attempts by a number of countries to promote neo-colonial approaches on the African continent.
The UNSC sanctions regimes against several African countries need to be revised, particularly with regard to arms embargoes. These measures are inadequate in the current situation and, instead of facilitating peace processes, only place constraints on Governments' actions to fight illegal armed groups.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a bilateral partner of Bangui, we continue to facilitate the stabilization and national reconciliation process in the CAR based on the Political Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation of 6 February 2019 to ensure a lasting solution to the protracted conflict in the heart of Africa. In line with international law, we assist the country's authorities in building national security capabilities. We are open to collaboration with all stakeholders on the ground, Bangui's international and bilateral partners. Maintainging the Security Council sanctions regime against the CAR, which hinders the strengthening of the Republic's security, is getting increasingly obsolete every day. It is time to consider its complete removal.
We are closely following the security situation in Mali against the backdrop of the UNSC decision to withdraw the UN Stabilization Mission in the country (30 June 2023). We appreciate the Council's unanimous response to the appeal of the Malians willing to assume full responsibility for their national security. We advocate an orderly and organized withdrawal of the Blue Helmets in close cooperation with the host country. Russia will continue to provide support to Bamako on a bilateral basis, including in building the combat capability of the armed forces, training military and law enforcement personnel, and providing humanitarian assistance.
We support regional efforts to resolve the ongoing armed conflict between the regular army and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, which broke out on 15 April 2023. We strongly oppose attempts to impose politicized solutions on the parties to the conflict and exert pressure on them from outside, including through illegitimate unilateral sanctions measures. We are convinced that a sustainable solution can only be achieved by political and diplomatic means with the participation of all Sudanese parties concerned. Despite the current complicated situation in Sudan, we believe that it is necessary to keep moving towards ending the existing UNSC sanctions regime against Darfur. Experience has shown that these outdated restrictions have hardly contributed to the normalization of the situation.
-
The UNGA Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) will remain relevant until the issues of decolonization of the 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories are completely resolved and may become even more so in future as the global agenda will be shifting away from the unipolar system led by the former Western metropolises.
-
UN peacekeeping should strictly comply with its basic principles and the UN Charter. Efforts should be focused on promoting political settlement and national reconciliation. The use of new technologies should not overshadow the key tasks of peacekeeping. Intelligence in peacekeeping should solely be used to ensure the safety of peacekeepers and the protection of civilians. Expanding the peacekeepers' mandate, including by granting them the authority to use force, is only possible by decision of the Security Council with strict consideration of the specific circumstances in a particular country.
We are convinced that the UNGA Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34) should maintain its leading role in developing common parameters for peacekeeping. We consider counterproductive attempts to bypass this forum, including through the UNSC.
We believe that there are good prospects for engaging the CSTO in UN peacekeeping activities. The CSTO has come a long way in improving its peacekeeping capacities. The Organization's Member States express willingness to enhance their participation in UN peacekeeping efforts not only in their national capacity but also under the CSTO banner.
International support for peacebuilding and peacekeeping should only be provided at the request of the host Government and with a view to building the states' own capacities. The replenishment of the peacebuilding fund through assessed contributions is possible provided that the transparency and accountability of its expenditures are increased and UN intergovernmental bodies issue relevant mandates.
-
Sanctions are an important auxiliary tool for the UNSC to suppress activities threatening international peace and security. They must not be used as a means of punishment. They should be carefully measured, targeted and time-limited and take into account political, socio-economic, human rights and humanitarian consequences. Sanctions regimes should be subject to a regular review. If the situation is rectified, there should be no delay in relaxing the outdated restrictions to the point of their complete removal. Attempts to use international sanctions for the purposes of unfair competition, economic strangulation and destabilization of "undesirable regimes" are inadmissible. Nor is it acceptable to introduce, in addition to UNSC sanctions, further unilateral coercive measures, especially those with extraterritorial effect. We advocate for including this requirement in relevant SC resolutions. We suggest extending the mandate of the Ombudsperson for the Security Council's 1267/1989/2253 ISIL (Da'esh) and Al‑Qaida Sanctions Committee to all the entities on the Security Council's Sanctions List.
-
We call for the consolidation of international efforts in the fight against terrorism, with the UN's central coordinating role, without politicization, double standards, or hidden agendas and based on the UN Charter, relevant universal conventions and protocols, UNSC thematic resolutions, as well as the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We believe it is important to make extensive use of the tools of the UNSC subsidiary counter-terrorism bodies, particularly its Counter-Terrorism Committee, ISIL (Da'esh) and Al‑Qaida, and the Taliban Movement sanctions committees.
We support the activities of the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), including using Russia's voluntary contributions. We advocate for increasing the share of the UN regular budget allocated to the UNOCT. We believe that initiatives focused on building the national counter-terrorism capacity of the recipient countries should remain at the core of the UNOCT programme and project activities.
- We stand for intensifying the work to cut off ideological, material, financial and human resources support for terrorists, as well as for strengthening cooperation among countries in countering foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and bringing them to justice on the basis of the "extradite or prosecute" principle.
We oppose the course pursued by the West towards eroding the international legal counter-terrorism framework – whether through over-emphasizing human rights and gender issues that are secondary in the context of counter-terrorism or by promoting the controversial concepts of "countering violent extremism" and countering "racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism/terrorism".
We draw the attention of the international community to the dangerous rise in right-wing extremist threats, especially manifestations of aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism. We emphasize the deceitfulness and double standards of the collective West, which, while groundlessly accusing Russia of "aggression", chooses to turn a blind eye to the fact that the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev that it created provides open state support to terrorism, having turned Ukraine into yet another international terrorist cell. The US and its allies are actively exploiting the terrorist Kiev authorities as a bridgehead and an tool of armed struggle against Russia. We call on Western countries and their allies to refrain from lending political support and supplying arms to Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups, which actively resort to terrorist methods and build ties with transnational organized crime and terrorist groups, including in the matters of movement of FTFs and arms trade. We would like to emphasize that this process leads to an escalation of counter-terrorism security risks in Europe and the rest of the world.
- The world drug problem has exacerbated during the COVID‑19 pandemic and remains a serious threat to the security and well-being of populations. We call for equal attention to its three interrelated components: reducing drug demand, reducing drug supply, and strengthening the international anti-drug cooperation based on the principle of common and shared responsibility.
Strict compliance with the three relevant UN conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 by all states is essential for the effective functioning of the global drug control system. We consider all attempts to destabilize it, including the legalization of drugs for recreational use, to be a threat to the national security of our country. The principle of limiting the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes only, as enshrined in the conventions, represents the best way to implement the human rights to life and health. We advocate for building a society free of drug abuse by promoting healthy lifestyles and keeping children and youth away from illicit drugs.
Countering the illicit drug use should not limit the availability and accessibility of narcotic drugs in medicine when they are proven effective for the treatment of specific diseases.
- We support the consolidation of international efforts to combat criminal challenges and threats with the UN's central coordinating role, without politicization and double standards, and based on good-faith, mutually respectful and equal cooperation among states.
We believe that attempts to politicize the work of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) are destructive.
We attach great importance to proper observance of the guiding principles and characteristics of the UNTOC Review Mechanism, which is meant to be of a technical and impartial nature and promote constructive collaboration among states in the effective implementation of the Convention.
-
We support international anti-corruption cooperation with the United Nations playing the central and coordinating role and on the basis of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). We are firmly committed to the intergovernmental, technical and impartial nature of the Convention mechanisms. We strongly condemn all attempts to politicize the work of the Conference of the States Parties to the UNCAC. We attach great importance to the implementation of the political declaration of the UNGA Special Session against Corruption, particularly as regards the need to bridge the gaps in the international legal framework for asset recovery.
-
We advocate for maintaining the central role of the UN, in particular the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), in the global negotiation process on international information security (IIS). It is important to prevent the Western countries from replacing the OEWG with non-transparent mechanisms under their control and defend the strictly interstate character of the adoption procedure for universal decisions on IIS.
The Group should focus its work on giving binding legal effect to the rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour in the information space. We call for the development and adoption of a universal international legal instrument aimed primarily at strengthening cooperation in preventing conflicts in the use of ICTs. Together with a group of supporters, we have drafted and presented an outline of a UN convention on IIS to provide a model for such document.
We intend to submit to the First Committee of the 78th UNGA session an anniversary (25 years) Russian draft of the annual resolution "Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security". It will reflect the outcomes of the OEWG's work in 2023, including the creation of a global intergovernmental registry of points of contact for the exchange of information on computer attacks/incidents. We urge all countries to support our draft.
Similarly, we view the formation of an international legal regime for the fight against information crime as a priority within the Third Committee of the UNGA. We believe it is necessary to conclude a universal treaty aimed at countering the use of ICTs for extremist, terrorist and other criminal purposes and building mutually beneficial international cooperation among law enforcement agencies in this area. A comprehensive convention on countering information crime that is being developed under the auspices of the United Nations (to be adopted at the 78th UNGA session) could serve as a basis for such an instrument.
-
We have consistently advocated for strengthening the existing and developing, through consensus, new treaty regimes in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation . The UN and its multilateral disarmament mechanism should play a central role in this process. We are working to increase the efficiency and consistency of the work of its key elements – the First Committee of the UNGA, the UN Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament.
-
We strictly abide by our obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). We support its early entry into force. We call on the eight countries whose signature and/or ratification is required for its entry into force to do so without delay. We consider the position of the USA, which is the only state to have officially refused to ratify the Treaty, to be a major destructive factor for the CTBT. Washington has taken consistent steps towards resuming nuclear tests, including by increasing the readiness of the Nevada Test Site and allocating significant funds for its maintenance. We encourage Washington to reconsider its stance on the CTBT.
We firmly reject any insinuations that our country might resume nuclear tests. As President Vladimir Putin clearly stated in his address on 21 February 2023, Russia would not be the first to conduct a nuclear test. We will only take this step in response to a similar action by the US. We intend to further maintain our voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests introduced in 1991.
- Russia has consistently advocated strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Lately, the Treaty has been subjected to serious tests. There is a growing number of disagreements among Parties to the Treaty on issues related to the implementation of its provisions. This is taking place as the established system of arms control agreements is being dismantled. Under these circumstances, ensuring the sustainability of the Treaty is a priority for maintaining global stability.
Unfortunately, the Tenth NPT Review Conference (2022) failed to adopt a final document. Radicalization of positions as well as the intentions of a number of States Parties (primarily Western countries) to promote their own political agendas and add to the draft document wordings that have nothing to do with strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime, have led to the situation where its consensus approval was impossible.
At the same time, we are not inclined to speak of an "NPT crisis". The Treaty is still fully functional and remains one of the cornerstones in the global architecture of international security and the non-proliferation regime.
A new NPT review cycle will soon begin. Russia is ready to engage in comprehensive cooperation on this platform to realize the goals and objectives set out in the Treaty. At the same time, we are convinced that reaching consensus for the sake of consensus and making efforts to agree on a final document at all costs is a path that will only weaken the work to strengthen the NPT. If the situation similar to that at the Tenth NPT Review Conference happens again, we are ready to continue to block any attempts to politicize the review process.
We continue to support the right of states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a crucial role in the realization of this right. We strongly reject attempts to politicize the work of the Agency or to extend the scope of its activities beyond the Statute, thereby destroying the credibility of this important international body.
We believe that the work of the Agency should maintain a balance between all the statutory areas of the organization's activities. We support the IAEA's efforts aimed at global recognition of an atom as a climate-neutral source of energy.
We advocate for preserving the objective, depoliticized, and technically sound nature of the Agency's verification mechanism — the safeguards system, which should be based on agreements concluded between States and the IAEA.
Following the referendums in the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye oblasts and their subsequent accession to the Russian Federation as its new entities, the Zaporozhye NPP (ZNPP) came under the Russian jurisdiction.
Putting an end to Ukrainian attacks on the ZNPP, which threaten its safety and pose the risk of a technological accident with radiation emissions, remains an urgent issue.
Ukraine has blocked all the initiatives of the IAEA Director General aimed at strengthening the safety of the ZNPP. Kiev also did not support the five principles for ensuring the safety of the plant outlined by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi during the UN Security Council meeting on 30 May 2023. On the whole, Mr. Grossi's recommendations have laid the basis for the IAEA Secretariat to finally make public the information it has on the Ukrainian attacks against the ZNPP and to openly condemn such reckless actions on the part of Kiev.
For our part, we have always supported the IAEA Director General's proposals aimed at strengthening the nuclear safety of the plant. We have never deployed and do not plan to deploy military forces and equipment intended for offensive actions on the territory of the ZNPP. There are only those forces at the ZNPP that are necessary for its protection, as well as for the elimination of possible consequences of Ukrainian attacks. We intend to further protect the ZNPP in order to prevent Kiev and the collective West from creating threats to its safe operation.
-
We consistently support regional efforts to ensure non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We participate in the UN Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction as an observer. We believe that elaborating a legally binding agreement on creating such a zone would serve the interests of all states in the region. We note that the United States remains the only "nuclear five" member that still ignores this important forum.
-
Committed to the noble goal of building a world free of nuclear weapons, Russia has for decades made a significant practical contribution to the achievement of this task. However, against the background of the all-out hybrid war unleashed against us, our country has reached the limits of its nuclear arms reduction capabilities. Further progress on this track will only be possible if Western countries abandon their anti-Russian policy and should involve all countries that possess military nuclear capabilities. At the same time, we believe that there should be no artificially imposed unrealistic schedules and uncalculated measures. Progress in this area should be seen as part of the comprehensive process of general and complete disarmament, as enshrined in Article VI of the NPT in its entirety.
We understand the motivations of the advocates of a "shortcut" to a nuclear-weapon-free world, but we are convinced that progress is possible only on the basis of a realistic, balanced and step-by-step approach which contributes to strengthening international peace, stability and security for all states. In our view, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) neither meets those criteria, nor can serve as the main framework for practical measures to reduce nuclear arsenals.
In this context, we see no opportunity to support such radical initiatives as the TPNW. The drafting and continued promotion of such an instrument appears to be premature and counterproductive, since at this stage it only exacerbates the differences between nuclear and non-nuclear powers and can cause irreparable damage to the NPT fundamental regime. In our view, the TPNW neither establishes any universal standards, nor contributes to the development of customary international law.
For Russia, the possession of nuclear weapons at this historical juncture is the only possible response to concrete external threats, which are only increasing. The security situation is degrading due to destructive attempts by the United States and NATO to achieve military superiority. This is demonstrated, inter alia, by their policy towards securing their military-political and military-technical dominance in the post-Soviet space and transforming Ukraine into an anti-Russian staging area. Further steps by Western countries to engage in the military confrontation with Russia in an attempt to inflict strategic defeat on our country aggravate the situation even more.
In such circumstances, an immediate renunciation of nuclear weapons would drastically weaken the reliability of strategic deterrence which we pursue and, accordingly, our national security. Furthermore, such a step could provoke further escalation of the current crisis up to the direct military clash involving major world powers. Against this background, the nuclear deterrence factor inevitably continues to play an important role in our doctrinal concepts. At the same time, they very clearly outline the circumstances in which Russia reserves the right for nuclear response, i.e. in the case of an attack against us and our allies using nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction when the very existence of the state is threatened.
At the same time, we are strongly committed to the inviolability of the principle reaffirmed by the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states in their relevant joint statement in January 2022 that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. It is of paramount importance for each of those states to demonstrate in practice their commitment to that statement in its entirety. Any armed conflict between nuclear-weapon states should be prevented and any controversies between them should be settled in a timely manner through constructive and mutually respectful dialogue with a view to avoiding an arms race and reducing strategic risks.
- Our country's decision to suspend the START Treaty is related, first and foremost, to the US consistent policy aimed at political and economic strangulation of Russia and targeted weakening of its security. Thus, we are witnessing a radical change in the circumstances and Washington's attempts to undermine the fundamental principles and understandings underlying the START Treaty. At the same time, the United States continues to flagrantly disregard the interrelationship between strategic offensive and defensive arms enshrined in the Treaty, as well as violate Treaty-established quantitative limits on strategic offensive arms, which has a critical impact on the realization of the object and purpose of the Treaty. The US assistance in the attacks carried out by the Kiev regime against Russian strategic facilities declared under the START Treaty has also dealt a most serious blow to the Treaty.
To maintain a sufficient level of predictability and stability in the nuclear missile sphere, Russia will continue to observe the Treaty-established quantitative limits on strategic offensive arms within the lifetime of the Treaty. Furthermore, we will continue to exchange notifications on ICBM and SLBM launches with the United States based on the relevant bilateral agreement of 1988.
The decision to suspend the START Treaty can be reversed only if the United States demonstrates political will and undertakes the necessary efforts to promote general de-escalation, address violations and create conditions for the resumption of the full functioning of that Treaty. When deciding on its future, the combined nuclear arsenal of the United States, Great Britain and France will have to be taken into account as they, together with other NATO allies, are increasingly putting up a united anti-Russian front in the nuclear area.
Since the INF Treaty terminated in August 2019, in order to ensure predictability and restraint with regard to nuclear missiles, Russia has undertaken not to deploy land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles unless similar US-manufactured missiles are deployed in the relevant regions. Although Russia continues with these measures, our moratorium is facing growing pressure from destabilizing US military programmes, including plans to deploy missile systems previously prohibited by the INF Treaty.
The progress in disarmament depends directly on the situation in the area of international security and strategic stability, which in the current context continues to be negatively affected by such factors as an unrestricted deployment of the global missile defence system combined with a build-up of high-precision non-nuclear weapons for global and disarming strikes, the potential placement of strike weapons in outer space, greater imbalances with regard to conventional weapons, the expansion of military alliances and attempts to create new blocs, the destruction and erosion of the arms control architecture, as well as the illegitimate imposition of sanctions as part of the hostile hybrid activities.
More broadly, attempts to use every possible means to hamper the shaping of a more just polycentric world order lead to heightened inter-state tensions and conflict potential. Against this background, it appears advisable to aim for creating a new, more solid and viable architecture of international security and global strategic stability based on mutually acceptable rules of coexistence guaranteeing the required basic level of security for all and preventing any of the parties from securing decisive military-strategic superiority. Comprehensive settlement of the unacceptable military-political situation in the Euro-Atlantic brought about by the destabilizing actions of the United States and its allies appears to be its integral part.
In principle, Russia remains open to interaction with all stakeholders in the relevant international formats aiming for general de-escalation, comprehensive strengthening of security and stability, minimization of strategic risks, including with the use of arms control instruments. However, this can only be achieved on the basis of equality and genuine accommodation of Russia's interests.
(Continued)
