Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya news agency, Moscow, 9 December 2014

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya news agency, Moscow, 9 December 2014

POSTED ON 10 DECEMBER, 2014 BY EMBASSY IN NEWS

Question: One of the year’s main outcomes is the sharp deterioration of Russian-US relations. Some experts believe that they are close to the Cold War level. Is that an accurate assessment? What should be done to improve them and is Russia prepared to make the first move? How feasible are better relations considering that the US is entering a presidential election cycle? Can we expect contacts to resume at the highest level and in all formats? Is US Secretary of State John Kerry planning a visit to Moscow, and are you planning to visit Washington?

Sergey Lavrov: As President Putin emphasised in his address to the Federal Assembly, the containment policy against Russia is not a recent phenomenon. Whenever they think that Russia has become too strong and independent, the necessary tools are immediately put to work.

Problems in our relationship with the United States were building up even before the crisis in Ukraine, and not because of anything we did. We can recall the notorious Magnitsky Act, passed in 2012. However, what has been happening since the beginning of this year is even more depressing. The White House has embarked on a path of confrontation, accusing Russia of all manner of sins in connection with the Ukraine crisis, which to a large extent was provoked by Washington.

In practical terms, as early as last spring Washington ended bilateral dialogue in most areas and even suspended the activities of the Presidential Commission, which was created in 2009. Among other issues, the Commission and its working groups dealt with counterterrorism and illegal drug trafficking.

In addition, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of international law and WTO norms. As of today, they have affected 50 Russian citizens and 47 companies and banks.

All of this has been accompanied by aggressive statements from Washington, such as naming Russia a major global threat alongside the Islamic State and the Ebola virus.

Such rhetoric can indeed create certain associations. However, the time when international relations could be determined by two or a single superpower is over. In today’s world, with several independent power centres, the attempts to isolate a major player or impose unilateral prescriptions based on this idea of US exceptionalism are destined to fail.

What’s important is that even now, despite all the differences on Ukraine, the United States has been telling us that it is willing to cooperate on complex international issues and to work on a positive bilateral agenda in general. However, these positive words and appeals coexist with Washington’s actions, which have been unfriendly. This is partly due to the fact that the attitudes of our American partners are to a certain extent shaped by the internal politics of the United States, including the demands of election campaigns.

As President Vladimir Putin pointed out, speaking to Russia in the language of force is pointless. We know that this is not the first time relations between our countries have taken a hit. In the past, outbursts of Russophobia in Washington have repeatedly yielded to the sober realisation that there is much more to gain from cooperating with Russia, especially considering the consequences that discord between the nuclear superpowers can have for international security and strategic stability.

For our part, we are always open to constructive and honest dialogue with the United States both in bilateral affairs and on the world stage, where our two countries bear a special responsibility for international security and stability. The question is, when will Washington be prepared to cooperate on the basis of genuine equality and respect for Russia’s interests, which we are not going to compromise under any circumstances.

As for the contacts at the highest level, they have not been interrupted. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama met three times this year, including recently at the APEC summit in Beijing and the G20 in Brisbane. In addition, they spoke by phone ten times, and these were quite lengthy conversations, initiated mainly by the White House.

There is also no lack of communication between me and US Secretary of State John Kerry. Since January, we held 16 extensive meetings, including on 4 December on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Basel, not to mention the dozens of phone conversations.

Question: Russia and the US are spearheading the international disarmament process, primarily, as concerns nuclear armaments. The two countries signed a number of very important treaties, including INF (the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) and START (the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). Is the drastic cooling down of bilateral relations threatening to disrupt the implementation of these treaties?

Sergey Lavrov: We should understand that there is no direct link between the implementation of bilateral treaties on arms control and the cooling down of Russian-American relations.

Definitely, START is important because it is in our interest and it contributes to strengthening strategic stability in general. Currently, there are no serious problems with implementing the treaty and all technical issues are being addressed by the ad hoc bilateral commission.

At the same time we keep reminding our American colleagues – and we’ll continue doing this – of the provision regarding the inseparable link between strategic offensive and defensive arms, which is written into the Treaty’s Preamble. In his [state-of-the-nation] address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin said that the relentless efforts of the US to create a global missile defence system, including in Europe, are threatening not only Russia’s security but also global security, as they are likely to upset the strategic balance of forces. We would like to warn that at a certain stage of the deployment of the US missile defence system we’ll have to take adequate measures in order to ensure our own security. We have no intention of rushing into a costly arms race but we guarantee that we’ll make sure that our country has reliable defence capabilities.

As for the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate Range and Shorter Range Missiles, last July the US started accusing Russia of violating it. So far, no evidence has been provided of this. At the same time they do not give clear answers to our concrete questions regarding the US commitment to stand by this treaty. For example, next year, in conflict with the treaty, the Americans plan to start deploying missile defence launchers in Romania and Poland, which can also be used to launch intermediate range cruise missiles designed to attack various targets, such as the Tomahawk. Regretfully, Washington is pretending not to notice Russia’s concerns.

We believe that the problems related to treaties should be discussed using diplomatic channels, rather than through megaphone diplomacy.

Question:  Tensions between Russia and NATO have grown over the past year, tumbling down to the zero point if not below. Is it advisable to maintain the “ceremonial presence” at the alliance – Russia’s permanent mission – or NATO Information Office in Moscow? Does Russia plan to keep both offices running?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia-NATO relations are indeed experiencing what can be described as the most serious crisis since the Cold War. The alliance is pursuing its “containment” policy toward Russia and making steps to augment its military potential and consistent increase of its military presence along the Russian border. The bloc has made a decision to suspend both civilian and military cooperation with Russia. These moves have certainly aggravated the tensions and undermined European stability.

Yet, despite all that, we think it would be wise to keep the channels for political dialogue open. Russia’s permanent mission to NATO is currently working on this.

As for the NATO Information Office in Moscow, it operates in compliance with the Russia-NATO Founding Act, which Russia faithfully observes. We do not see any reason for revising our stance on the issue at this point.

Question: : Washington’s aggressive rhetoric aimed at Tehran has grown milder of late, as The Times recently reported some alleged secret talks between the two countries’ representatives on the possibility of opening a US mission in Iran, which, iN fact, would mean the restoration of relations disrupted nearly a quarter of a century ago. Do you have any information about these talks and how would you assess the possibility of dialogue between Washington and Tehran? Will this change influence Russian-Iranian relations, and how would it affect the Iranian nuclear programme talks?

Sergey Lavrov:I think it would be better to ask the United States about the chances a diplomatic mission could open in Iran – or to ask Iran of course. We, in turn, have always advocated the normalisation of US-Iranian relations because the prolonged crisis is harming both countries’ interests.

In our view, the United States and Iran have been ready for a full-scale dialogue, including a discussion of regional security issues, for some time now. We are confident that healthier relations between the two countries would improve stability in the Middle East and beyond that region, prod on the Iranian nuclear problem resolution, and help fight international terrorism and drugs.

At the ongoing talks on the Iranian nuclear programme, the negotiators from both Washington and Tehran maintain active contacts attempting to harmonise their approaches to a range of controversial issues that hamper the final settlement. We absolutely support any steps that would bring a comprehensive agreement closer.

Question:  Russia is suffering from western sanctions, primarily from European sanctions, while our EU partners are suffering from Russia’s response measures. How productive is it to keep those measures in place? Isn’t Moscow risking the wellbeing of the country’s citizens to save face and maintain credibility?

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, we have reached a point in our relations with the European Union where goodwill gestures don’t lead to the necessary result.

Let’s not forget that the current situation is a consequence of the policy Brussels had been pursuing towards Ukraine, in particular, supporting the coup d’état and armed power grab by ultra-nationalists. As a result, the country was on the verge of breaking apart and was plunged into the abyss of a fratricidal war. After that, the EU tried to shift responsibility for the tragedy onto us, imposed unilateral sanctions on Russia – the use of which is illegitimate, has been condemned by the UN General Assembly and contravenes WTO norms. Meanwhile, the logic of ending the downward spiral of EU sanctions has little to do with the unfolding crisis in Ukraine.

We have stated repeatedly that attempts to speak to Russia in the language of ultimatums are absolutely unacceptable and futile. Our response to those actions was balanced, it took into consideration Russia’s rights and commitments under international agreements, including as part of the WTO.

Russia resorted to response measures of an economic nature only after western countries introduced financial restrictions on large state-owned banks which are the main creditors of the industrial and agricultural sectors. By limiting the access of Russian financial institutions to European credit, Brussels has in fact created more favourable conditions for European goods on our internal market.

Consequently, measures restricting food imports from the EU are not sanctions. They represent our right to protect our national economic interests and fight unfair competition. Russia’s actions are reasonable and legal.

At the same time, the resulting situation strengthens our resolve to concentrate recourses, modernise industry, and increase the supply of our own agricultural products.

We are not going to discuss any criteria for lifting the sanctions. They should be lifted by those who imposed them. Of course, if the EU demonstrates common sense, we will be ready for constructive cooperation on this issue.

As President Vladimir Putin emphasised, even as some governments are trying to build almost an iron curtain around Russia, we will continue to actively expand cooperation, promote business and cultural contacts, as well as scientific, educational and cultural ties.

Question: Eurasian integration has gained momentum rapidly in the past year. The sanctions pressure from the West and Russia’s response surely make this integration, as well as the united position of the EAEU, all the more important. Do you have information on whether Belarus and Kazakhstan are meeting their obligations to prevent deliveries of banned products from EU countries? Does Russia monitor this? How will it respond to violations?

Sergey Lavrov:In the past few years, Eurasian economic integration has become part of our life. The Eurasian Economic Union, based on the principles of equality, pragmatism and mutual respect, will start operating on 1 January 2015. The EAEU is committed to preserving the sovereignty and identity of member-states, while taking integration cooperation to a qualitatively new stage of development, and is intended to become a significant factor in making the national economies of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan more competitive and in supporting regional stability.

As for the sanctions pressure from the West, we and our partners are united in our belief that the restrictions imposed on Russia violate norms of international law and do not contribute to the settlement of the internal crisis in Ukraine.

In response to western economic sanctions on Russia, we took unilateral measures against the nations that adopted that decision or joined it later. The Customs Union’s legal and regulatory framework allows its participants to take joint trade measures in response to economic pressure applied by third countries on one of the member-states of the Customs Union. Nevertheless, the issue of taking such measures in response to western sanctions against Russia is not on the Customs Union’s current agenda. However, we can’t rule out that the need may arise in the future.

As for Belarus and Kazakhstan preventing deliveries of banned products from the EU, it is difficult to say whether any improper actions might be taken by some western economic actors seeking to make some extra cash by smuggling contraband to Russia. Yet both the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan assure us that they will curb such activity. We don’t have grounds to question that. We are satisfied with our cooperation with our partners and appreciate the support they provide.

The increase in sanctions pressure on Russia and our response open up new prospects for trade within the Customs Union. We are ready to help Kazakhstan and Belarus fill in the niches that became vacant in the Russian market as a result of the short-sighted policy of the West. Obviously, both Minsk and Astana will make use of opportunities that open up.

Question:  Considering the complicated relations with the West, many experts are still talking about a pivot in Russia’s foreign policy and foreign trade towards the East. Obviously, China is the main partner in that direction. Isn’t there a danger that dependence on the PRC could become too great and that Beijing would take advantage of it in its own interests?

Sergey Lavrov: country is pursuing a multi-vector foreign policy sealed in the new edition of the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation endorsed by the President in February 2013. We intend to develop mutually beneficial and equal relations with all those who show reciprocity.

Vladimir Putin repeatedly said that interaction with the Asia-Pacific Region is our strategic priority for the 21^st century and that Russia as a Pacific power will seek to use the entire potential of the burgeoning growth of the APR, including as motivation for developing the Russian Far East and Eastern Siberia. This accounts for our interest in becoming involved in the integration processes in the region. However, we would not like this to be an alternative to our relations with the EU, which we also seek to intensify.

Our relations with the PRC are not prompted by expedience and are not directed against anyone. We are two major states which history ordained to be close neighbours. Last October marked the 65^th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. During this period, Sino-Russian relations have traversed a long path and in the past 20-odd years they have seen a steady uptrend. The key milestones were the normalisation in the late 1980s, the establishment of strategic partnership and interaction in the 1990s, and the signing of the 2001 Treaty for Goodneighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, and its successful implementation.

In the second decade of the 21^st century, our cooperation has reached a new level of comprehensive, equal and trusting partnership and strategic interaction. Behind this formula is the rapid intensification of political contacts, practical cooperation, and cooperation in the world arena. As the leaders of our countries have noted more than once, relations between Russia and China are better than at any other time in their history.

The reason for this successful development is that it rests on a solid basis of regard for mutual interests, mutual respect, equality and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. These are in every sense mutually beneficial relations, in which there are no seniors or juniors, no leaders and no one being lead. The course of Sino-Russian relations has been plotted with consideration for the root interests of the peoples of the two countries and we do not intend to change this.

Further progress in all areas is aided by the highest level of trust. In May of this year, President Putin paid an official visit to the People’s Republic of China. The talks were crowned with the signing of a joint statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on a new phase in the relations of an all-embracing partnership and strategic interaction. About fifty agreements were signed in the framework of the meeting. A hefty package of documents emerged from the meeting of President Putin with PRC Chairman Xi Jinping in Beijing on the eve of the APEC forum in November.

Among other achievements of the outgoing year are the finalising of the agreement to supply China with 38 billion cubic metres of gas a year over 30 years via the eastern section of the Sino-Russian border and of a framework agreement on the supply of another 30 billion cubic metres a year via the western section. New horizons for the energy dialogue are opened by the prospect of supplying China with Russian liquefied natural gas. Our Chinese partners have joined the ambitious Yamal LNG project and are members of the Vankor project. This is the result of many years of intense work by both sides.

Clearly, if relations between other countries were anything like those between Russia and China, this would only contribute to international stability and security.

We look at the future of Sino-Russian relations with optimism. We are convinced that diverse bilateral cooperation will continue to steadily grow deeper, regardless of the political fluctuations, for the good of our peoples.

Question:  After the Ukrainian elections you said you would certainly meet your Ukrainian counterpart. When is this meeting scheduled? Do you see the current leadership in Kiev as a negotiation partner committed to the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: We are open to a constructive dialogue. I always try to maintain normal working contacts with my Ukrainian colleagues, during which we discuss current issues, including the implementation of the agreements reached, among other things, at the top level.

Today our main partner in the search for a solution to the conflict in the southeast of the country is President Petro Poroshenko. His peace plan and the corresponding initiatives of President Putin have provided the foundation for the Minsk accords whose strict observance is the key to a viable solution of the current crisis. Poroshenko himself said publicly more than once that a resumption of hostilities in Donbas was unacceptable. We hope that his words will be backed up by practical steps to de-escalate tensions and establish durable peace in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and will mark the start of an inclusive internal Ukrainian political dialogue.

The Contact Group which is due to meet in the coming days will consider a plan of practical measures aimed at compliance with the provisions of the Minsk Memorandum of 19 September on the disengagement of forces, the pullback of heavy weapons from the line of contact in order to finally stop the use of weapons and to achieve a stable truce. We hope this plan that was prepared by military experts will be consistently implemented.

We also expect the new Ukrainian Cabinet formed as a result of the early elections to the Verkhovna Rada on 26 October to contribute to the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.

Russia has already made and continues to make a huge contribution to supporting Ukraine with as much as $32.5-33.5 billion. We will continue to do everything to create a favourable climate for the solution of the big problems facing the Ukrainian people.

Question:  Is Moscow still committed to the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine? Armed clashes continue in the east and the humanitarian situation there leaves a lot to be desired. Is the recognition of the DPR and the LPR considered to be an option? Where is the red line, beyond which such recognition will become possible?

Sergey Lavrov: In his Address to the Federal Assembly President Putin stressed that every people had an inalienable sovereign right to choose its path of development, and Russia had always respected this right. This fully applies to the fraternal Ukrainian people.

Obviously, the internal Ukrainian crisis cannot be settled unless Ukrainians themselves achieve mutually acceptable agreements. The need for an inclusive national dialogue involving all the regions and political forces in Ukraine is proclaimed by the Agreement of 21 February, the Geneva Statement of Russia, Ukraine, the US and the European Union of 17 April, and the Minsk accords of 5 September. This dialogue is called upon to discuss in substance the constitutional structure, and in general the future of a country in which all the citizens feel comfortable and safe, all human rights are respected in all their diversity, and where radicalism and nationalism are kept at bay.

In our opinion, it is the lack of a balanced constitutional arrangement in Ukraine, which would properly take into account the interests of various regions, all the national and linguistic groups in the country, that has become the cause of political cataclysms that have rocked the foundations of the Ukrainian state for years, undermining its mainstays.

We are convinced that the goal and the outcome of the drafting of a bill on introducing amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine should not be just cosmetic changes to the existing texts, but the framing of a well-thought-out and renewed social contract that would be perceived by an entire polyethnic Ukrainian society as a solid long-term document, the foundation of a rule-of-law state that guarantees the equal rights of regions and nationalities. We will seek to secure compliance with this commitment.

The heads and legislative assemblies of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics were elected on 2 November. Based on the results of the ballot, local bodies of power have been formed, which have been addressing the immediate problems facing the region. Judging by the public statements of the newly-elected leaders in the southeast, Donbas is ready for economic interaction with the Ukrainian side, and for the restoration of a common economic, humanitarian and political space. Kiev responded by basically blockading the region and cutting it off from the country’s financial system. Earlier, President Poroshenko tabled a motion to repeal the law of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, On the Special Procedure of Local Government in Some Areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. Such steps merely increase mutual mistrust and complicate the already difficult dialogue.

In this connection, I would like to remind you that in Minsk the representatives of Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk agreed not only on a ceasefire, but also on the “post-war,” so to speak, stage in the development of Donbas. The Minsk accords, which I’ve mentioned, reaffirm the need for measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Donbas, to work out a programme of economic rehabilitation, to restore the viability of the region, and to start a nationwide dialogue in Ukraine. Russia as an active co-mediator in the Minsk negotiation process intends to take an active part in implementing these provisions.

Question: How do you assess the work of the OSCE observation mission in the conflict zone in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions? How effective and impartial is this mission?

Sergey Lavrov: The role of the OSCE in the settlement of the situation in Ukraine came in for a detailed discussion during the meeting of its Foreign Ministers’ Council in Basel on 4-5 December.

I have to remind you that the decision to deploy a special OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine was taken by the member-states in March of this year because of the urgent need to de-escalate the growing tensions within the country. So far, obviously, we are a long way away from that goal.

Among the observers’ tasks is monitoring the security situation and promptly reporting to the member-states possible incidents and violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, including the rights of the ethnic minorities. In this connection, we have urged the monitoring mission to focus on helping the Ukrainians eradicate ultra-radicalism, achieve national harmony, and respect the social, political, language, educational, cultural and religious rights of the citizens in all Ukrainian regions. If these urgent measures are taken, they could improve the situation in Ukraine.

Surely, the presence on Ukrainian soil of a considerable number of international observers, in our estimation, has played a certain stabilising role. At the same time, frankly speaking, we had expected more.

The effects from the work of the observers and their contribution to the settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis depend directly on the impartiality and validity of their assessments of what is happening in Ukraine. We have to admit that in some cases the observers have not been firm and principled enough.

The observers tend to “overlook” the use by the Ukrainian military of heavy weapons and banned types of ammunition against civilians and the deliberate destruction of life-support facilities in the southeastern cities. Information on the humanitarian situation in Donbas is heavily glossed over. There has been muted coverage or no coverage at all of the tragedies in Odessa and Mariupol, the air raids on Lugansk, the relentless destruction of Slavyansk, unjust detentions, and the beatings and murder of Russian journalists. At the same time, excessive attention is paid to the movement of the self-defense forces and their military equipment.

We all understand in what conditions the observers have to operate. They are under heavy political pressure from Kiev and its Western principals. The lives of OSCE observers are under immediate threat because, as it turns out, Kiev has only nominally guaranteed their safety. We have once again to remind the Ukrainian leadership that it has undertaken, within the OSCE framework, the obligation to ensure the safety of all the members of the monitoring mission.

Question: In a recent interview with the US media Prime Minister Medvedev said there were signs that the US no longer sought to topple Bashar Assad, but was trying to find ways to hold separate talks with Damascus, partly in order to fight the ISIS terrorists. Can Russia facilitate such contacts and have the Americans approached Moscow with such a request? Washington has already called on Moscow to join the actions to fight the Islamic State, but the UN Security Council has not yet been brought into it. Is Moscow prepared to consider a draft UN Security Council resolution on counteracting the IS, if such a document is submitted for discussion? On what conditions would Russia support it?

Sergey Lavrov:First of all I would like to note that Washington did not see us as a direct participant in the anti-ISIS coalition which it was cobbling together according to its own rules and parameters with only its own interests in mind and without any regard for international law. Moreover, President Obama has repeatedly mentioned Russia as a global threat along with ISIS and the Ebola virus. Against this background, occasional calls by other American representatives to “pool efforts” to fight the ISIS terrorists look unconvincing.

The Americans have not asked us to facilitate contacts with Damascus. By contrast, we have constantly called on them not to ignore the Syrian authorities in the struggle against the ISIS. However, Washington persistently declares that even indirect “legitimisation” of the Assad regime is impossible for the US “as a matter of principle.” The US continues to demonise Assad and simultaneously reserves the right to use force in any place and at any time unilaterally. That is why the Obama Administration chose not to invoke the UN Security Council in forming an anti-ISIS coalition.

I don’t think there is a need for us to mediate between Damascus and the Americans. When the situation around Syria took a sharp turn for the worse in August 2013, US Secretary of State Kerry called the Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Muallem, directly. And there are other possibilities for direct contact.

Russia is known to be an active supporter of consolidated international efforts in countering terrorism and extremism, including in the Middle East. This is witnessed, for example, by our role in the adoption of UN SC resolutions 2170 and 2178. At the same time, we insist that such efforts have a universal and comprehensive character based on existing international legal framework and legitimate mechanisms. It is impossible to successfully fight terrorism on the territory of a country without coordination with its legitimate authorities.

Failing that, the results may be counter-productive and its consequences may be felt by the countries and peoples of the Middle East. We’ve already seen it in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Question: International tensions have, in the opinion of experts, spurred the “race to the Arctic.” Russia is a recognised leader there. What is the current status of the Russian application filed with the UN to extend the boundaries of the Russian continental shelf? When could a decision be made and what are Russia’s chances of success?

Sergey Lavrov: There is no “race to the Arctic” and cannot be in principle. The international legal regime of the marine Arctic spaces clearly sets down the rights of the littoral Arctic states and other states. That applies also to access to the development of mineral resources, oil and gas, and the management of marine biological resources. International law regulates the possible extension of external boundaries on the continental shelf of the littoral countries. The current complicated international situation does not bring any cardinal changes to the established order.

I have to remind you that under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Russia first filed an application concerning the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2001. Now a huge body of additional scientific data has been amassed to justify the Russian application and they are being finalised. The application will be filed within months. It sometimes takes the commission up to 5 years to study the application and prepare recommendations on it. Considering the high quality of the body of evidence in support of the Russian application, there is every reason to believe that it has a good chance of success.