 There are five times more damage in Donbass and in Donetsk and Luhansk than on the Kiev regime side. Right now, when there is a major outcry about any kind of picture which shows damage to the Ukrainian regime, the same people who kept silent for the long eight years. And they showed terrible, heartbreaking pictures of what was happening to civilians, to women and children, what was done to them by neo-Nazis. Well, the history will judge it, but we should not forget about the international law. As for Bethos, I think it would be quite fine if a Crimean journalist could ask such questions to the US authorities, but they were not given visas at the West to take part in such conferences. And by the way, our journalists who had accreditation to join such press conference, they were not given the floor. Now, to the colleagues from Belarus, please. Good afternoon, Belta Eduard Pivovar. Minister, I know that you are to travel to Minsk tomorrow. What kind of expectations do you have from this visit? How do you evaluate the level of interaction between Belarus and Russia at international platforms? And why do you think CIS partners Eurasian Economic Union and CSTO are far from always supporting Russia and Belarus when voting at international platforms? As for my expectations for my travel, when I go to Minsk, I don't expect anything, but I rather anticipate it's always a useful meeting in terms of professional activity. It's always pleasant as well. I really like the city and the traditional hospitality shown to me everywhere there. We annually hold joint sessions of two foreign ministries colleges of Russia and Belarus in addition to exchange of ministerial visits. So we are going to hold the joint college meetings. It was planned for December, but due to untimely death of Foreign Minister Macke, naturally we postponed it. So it is to be held tomorrow. On our agenda, we're going to have all of the issues that we're touching upon now, the matters of world order relations with NATO, with European Union, with COE, OSCE. So these are the structures that are currently merging into one single organism as it were following the will of one sovereign, namely the United States of America. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening to the OSCE, which I have already mentioned in an atmosphere of trust. We are going to have a look at concrete avenues of our diplomatic activities. We will have a look at the resolution submitted for endorsement at the UN. We're also going to talk how to coordinate better our foreign policy at the CIS and at the CSTO in particular, because the STO is more advanced in terms of integration. We have joint plans for foreign political activities. They take the form of draft joint statements prepared at the CSTO and to a lesser extent at the CIS, and sometimes it's quite difficult to achieve agreement, because the CSTO countries, our partners in the CSTO have some problems that pop up in their relations with the West due to the pressure coming from the West. Our partners are experiencing difficulties in economic terms if the West all of a sudden decides to do damage to them. We're trying to stick to a very simple approach in these relations. We are in favor of a multi-vector policy. No one wants to slap any artificial restrictions on ties with other partners with the understanding that these relations should not be a relationship between someone who leads and someone who is being led. These relations, these ties have to be based upon a balance of interest. They have to be mutually beneficial, so both sides or several sides, if there are more than two, should stand to benefit. If you look at the trade, at investment, as well as other kinds of ties, cultural educational ties within the CSTO, you can see that they are far more pronounced, far more developed than what the West is doing in the post-Soviet space. Yes, sometimes there are cases when Russia and Belarus, maybe some other country, one country or two countries from the CSTO vote in solidarity, whereas others decide to abstain. This happens, but we do not have a strict discipline, whereas in NATO, if you deviate by the little from the common cause, what happens, if you see countries who speak against how violently, how aggressively NATO is acting and the Ukrainian crisis, how uninventive it is, how unoriginal, you know, sometimes criticism does come through. But when the vote happens, almost everyone follows the orders. And I think this kind of strict discipline is harmful. Yes, we would very much like to have a 100% level of solidarity in our alliances and in our organizations, but this is an ideal and each and every case has to be treated separately. And let's not hide it. There are some difficulties stemming from the current stage of affairs in Armenia. Our Armenian friends promoted the need to send a CSTO mission to the border with Azerbaijan to ensure stability over there. And we agreed on the relevant documents and the parameters of this mission in Yerevan during the summit. But unfortunately, this agreement was not adopted because the Armenian colleagues insisted that strict condemnation against Azerbaijan had to be included in the document. But we explained if, you know, you want to condemn it's up to each and every country to do that. But if you want to send a CSTO mission, this should not be contingent on some external statements, especially harsh ones. And we still feel the need to send a CSTO mission to the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Be that as it may, even though there are allies, even though this mission is completely ready, Armenia prefers to seek agreement with the EU to send on the long-term basis a mission of several observers from the EU. But the thing is, what's in question is the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia. So if such a mission is deployed without Azerbaijan's consent, this would be counterproductive instead of reinforcing trust at the border, this mission can create additional irritation. And this is how things stand objectively. And the same goes for the Central Asian region and the Caucasian region of the CSTO. We have to be creative, but at the same time, we have to have a full understanding of the complexity of difficulties and problems that might arise and the cause of development of each and every member of the CSTO package. Each and every country comes under pressure. We know that our partners want to develop special relations with the Central Asian countries. And we talk frankly and honestly to all of our partners on these subjects. And they underscore that there are no deviations from the obligations under the CSTO. And the same assurances are given to us by our Armenian friends. So my deep conviction is as follows. There have been just recently posted a summit in and it was a frank conversation between the presidents and it was preceded by frank discussion of foreign ministers. And I think this is the way to go. You've got to be frank and open about any concerns you might have, any difficulties. And if it's all out in the open, then we will be able to come up with a common solution. And I think the last two questions, let's give them to the unfriendly countries. If they're here, well, please identify yourselves as unfriendly countries, unfriendly ones. Well, Japanese media, please. Good afternoon, colleagues. Japanese Information Agency, DG Press. My name is Mary Gevorgan, Minister Lavrov. On many occasions, you have mentioned Japan and its potential militarization. What's the impact of military development of Japan on the cooperation between Japan and Russia? If there are any channels left, more over Mikhail Galuzin left his post as ambassador of Russia to Japan, when will there be a replacement? And you know, if you allow me, I am an Armenian, so I cannot but mention the issue of the Lachinsky Corridor. What's the current state of affairs there? Well, I think the third question of yours is most relevant to Japan. As far as the relations between Russia and Japan are concerned, well, they exist. We've got embassies and Mikhail Galuzin's replacement will soon fly to Tokyo. We're not going to try to stall this process. I think it's always important to have a chance to listen to our counterparts and also to communicate our concerns apart from our contacts via embassies in Tokyo and in Moscow, respectively. Well, I do not remember any other contacts apart from that. Tokyo of its own volition has joined sanctions and on their other initiative, they have frozen contacts and has been coming up with arrogant statements, sometimes belligerent statements. Yes, we listened to that. And just as is the case with NATO's expansion in the north of Europe, we will draw the necessary conclusions in terms of the need to ensure our security and the proximity of the Japanese islands. I think I'm missing some aspect of your first question. Yes, you asked about the relations and I said yes, the relations are not that impressive. Yeah, I asked about the augmentation of Japan's military potential. Yes, I said that this is probably not the best and the positive course of development. Yes, the explanation provided is the threat of North Korea, but everyone understands that the same applies to Russia and to China. The Americans are not trying to hide the fact they are encouraging Japan's development of its military potential and military infrastructure. A campaign has been unleashed to review the Constitution to remove any traces of pacifist doctrine that used to apply to the enforcers of Japan. This probably does not represent Japan's interest in normalizing its relations with Russia. You know, there's one thing I am going to tell and tell you. I didn't say that before. Several years ago, five or six years probably. When the peace treaty between Russia and Japan was in the works, it was at an active stage. Our president and the Prime Minister of Japan met and they looked at potential formulas, potential wording in the breaks between these meetings. Our experts and professionals and diplomats were working on a treaty at a certain point in time. The Japanese said, we do not need a big peace treaty as you propose. Well, you know, our position was as follows. After the war, a peace treaty would have involved the capitulation and the border and then peace. But, you know, it's been several decades since that. So signing such a peace treaty, well, it would simply show disrespect for the level of cooperation that by then had been bridged by the two countries. So we wanted to write a treaty which enshrines the principles of good neighborliness, mutual respect, mutual confidence with aspects of economic and humanitarian cooperation and so on and so forth. And also it would have said the border straight and they refused. They say, why do we need such a solemn lofty document? We need a concrete pragmatic document. And the discussion was very simple. First, get the two islands and then a peace treaty, even though the president and the Prime Minister had agreed on the adverse order. But this is now all part of history. The Japanese were very adamant. First, give us two islands and then we'll see. You know, as minister, I've been dealing with this issue for quite some time, even though I do not have specialized education, I did not do Japanese studies. But I asked one of the experts in the field about what he thought and his reply was as follows. Yes, both the Prime Minister is interested in developing relations with Russia. There are regular contacts, cultural events, but if all of a sudden at a certain point in time, the Japanese decide that they're not going to get these four islands, then they will take up a spot in the camp of most ardent opponents of the Russian Federation. I'm simply quoting. I'm not going to comment on that. Incidentally, it's curious that last year, a Russian proposed draft resolution on the inadmissibility and acceptability of glorification of Nazism was being voted on. And for the first time in history, Japan, Germany and Italy voted against this draft resolution. Before that, they had abstained during the vote and the past. But right now, it's not in theory, but in practice that we see the glorification of Nazism in Ukraine. Nazism is permeating all spheres of life. So it was quite symbolic when these three countries, former Axis countries, voted against the Lachinsky Corridor. I spoke to Foreign Minister Vasile Bajan yesterday as per the agreement reached by the three leaders on November 9, 2020. Should be free and open for transfer of cargo and citizens both ways and also for vehicles both ways. Of course, there is a special provision that there should be no military cargo that should follow this rule. It should not be allowed. Arthur Bajan has provided data. Our military are currently studying these data. And this data alleged that the Armenian side had been using the Corridor to transport mines. And these mines were later used in violation of the trilateral agreement to mine territories so close to the Azerbaijani positions. There were many mutual recommendations. So we suggested a very simple solution. The contingent, the peacekeeping contingent, Russia has sent over there, has certain powers under the trilateral agreement. And the contingent can control the movement along the Corridor. The contingent has every means to take any vehicle for any unauthorized and sanctioned goods, non-humanitarian goods, non-civil goods, civilian goods. So a couple of days ago, there was a meeting between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. It was attended by the commander of the Russian peacekeeping contingent. So I think this issue is going to be sorted out very soon. Yes, and if you allow, the last question, Russia 24, our friendly media. Yes, this is a must. The last row. What time is it? It's almost 2 p.m., so it'll be 3. Varvara Nevskaya, Russia 24. Minister, we have not spoken a word about Africa today. And I would like to rectify that. The South African Foreign Minister spoke in an interview to Russia 24, and she said that a bill should be taken away from the Congress, US Congress. And this bill sets forth punishment against countries that still cooperate with Russia. In this interview, South Africa has been speaking about the inadmissibility of sanctions and mutual cooperation. So what do you think about this bill in the US Congress and what it is possible impact on Russia's cooperation with South Africa and African countries? Well, my assessment is precisely that given by Madam Ministers for its potential influence on our relations with Africa, I think you can infer the answer from her interview. I do not think that every country can communicate as clearly its position through its official dignitaries, sometimes, of course, personal characteristics, common to play, sometimes our African partners of African counterparts are not as categorical in what they say. But I'm confident that at the back of their mind, even those who do not comment similar American provocations still are deeply convinced that this bill is deleterious. First and foremost, to Africans because they're not perceived as equal partners. This is colonial... Second, you probably remember Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State of the US, touring Africa and during public events, including meetings and press conferences, he would urge everyone to stop trading with Russia and China because Russia and China were doing this to serve their own interests, damaging African interests. And America, Pompeo said, trades with Africa exclusively to help Africans. This trickery can only be perceived as such anywhere in the world, including in Africa. You probably know that this year we are going to hold another Russia-Africa summit in late July in St. Petersburg. For that summit, we are preparing a number of events, including a business forum. We are bringing interaction mechanisms to the new conditions that involve sanctions and various other affairs that you have mentioned. New investment and trade cooperation tools, logistics chains, payments. We are shifting to settlements and national currencies. It is not a quick process, but it is ongoing. Your 18 questions have been answered while we are not breaking any records. Thank you.