Nuclear conflict risk, Ukraine and Syria escalation: READ Lavrov’s interview with Tucker Carlson (FULL VERSION)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov joined the conservative American journalist to discuss recent international issues and to explain Russia’s position

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson © Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation.

Carlson: 

Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?

EN-- Crucial statement by Foreign Minister Lavrov/ PT -- Declaração categórica do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros Sergey Lavrov

Sergey Lavrov’s article for the Aftenposten daily, Norway, Russia-Norway Relations: A Common Past and a Pragmatic Future, 23 October 2019

Sergey Lavrov’s article forthe Aftenposten daily, Norway, Russia-Norway Relations: A Common Past and aPragmatic Future, 23 October 2019

2164-23-10-2019 

• de-DE1  en-GB1  es-ES1  ru-RU1  fr-FR1 

At the moment, Norway is celebrating the liberation of East-Finnmark from Nazi occupation. We honour the feat of valour committed by the Soviet soldiers, participants in the resistance movement and partisans, who drove the Nazi occupation forces from the Norwegian land 75 years ago. The participation in the celebrations in Kirkenes on October 25 of King Harald V of Norway, Prime Minister Erna Solberg, members of the Storting, and representatives of local governments testifies to the importance that your country attaches to this date. Russia greatly appreciates this.

During World War II, there were over 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war in Norway. About 12,700 of them died, succumbing to inhumane labour conditions, hunger and diseases. Many were executed for attempting to escape. More than 2,000 Red Army soldiers lost their lives during the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation. I would like to convey our sincere gratitude to our Norwegian friends, who take good care of the many monuments and graves of Soviet soldiers, install new monuments and commemorative plaques, and help to carry out archival and field search work to identify the names of the fallen that are as yet unknown.

A common heroic past has always stood in good stead in the matter of promoting bilateral relations, which are in many respects unique. In fact, Russian-Norwegian ties have experienced ups and downs, but they have never been darkened by armed conflicts. In the Cold War era, Moscow and Oslo tried to find points of contact. It is in this way that responsible neighbours should behave, neighbours who share Europe’s oldest border. It is symbolic in this sense that apart from the liberation of East-Finnmark, we are celebrating the 70^th anniversary of the Treaty on the Soviet-Norwegian Border Regime and the Settlement of Border Conflicts and Incidents.

Regrettably, the dynamically developing cooperation has slowed down after the coup d’etat in Ukraine in February 2014. Oslo has joined the anti-Russian sanctions. As a result, entire areas of interaction have been curtailed. I do not believe that this meets the core interests of our nations.

The increasingly active military preparations in areas close to the Russian border are a matter of grave concern. Norway is deviating from its “basic policy” by deploying in its territory training bases for US and UK military personnel, which are allegedly based on the “rotation” principle but are in fact permanent facilities. Norway is also increasing its military budget and upgrading the relevant infrastructure. In October and November 2018, highly aggressive NATO exercise, Trident Juncture, with the participation of personnel from partner countries was held near the Russian border. The building up of military activities in the Arctic and the striving to include the region in the area of NATO responsibility, all this is eroding stability and trust.

At the same time, we manage to maintain dialogue even under the existing circumstances and there are some positive shifts in this regard. In April 2019, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Norway Erna Solberg had a meeting within the framework of the Arctic: Territory of Dialogue International Arctic Forum in St Petersburg, which gave an impetus to ties in various areas. Related agencies are resuming contacts. Trade is returning to the pre-crisis level; border and inter-regional exchanges are expanding. I hope that by joint efforts we will manage to steer our relations back to a progressive trajectory. This will benefit both our states and citizens, and the entire Euro-Arctic region.

Gained during World War II, the invaluable experience of alliance and cooperation in the fight against the criminal ideology of misanthropy is particularly needed today, when the world community is facing numerous dangerous challenges and threats that can be effectively opposed only by working together. Russia has insistently called on everyone for a long time to start joint work so as to form an architecture of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic region and Eurasia, based on the firm foundation of international law, primarily the UN Charter.  

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty published on July 17, 2019

17 July 2019

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty published on July 17, 2019

1486-17-07-2019

Question: Can an improvement in the relations with the United States be expected in the near future?

Sergey Lavrov: An improvement will hardly materialise any time soon, since it is anything but easy to sort out the mess that our relations are in, which is not our fault. After all, bilateral relations require reciprocal efforts. We have to meet each other half way.

Russia is ready to move in this direction, as we have said on a number of occasions. We proceed from the premise that Russia and the United States bear special responsibility. We are the two largest nuclear powers, the founding members of the United Nations and permanent members of its Security Council. Cooperation between our two countries is key to ensuring stability and predictability in international affairs. However, not everything depends on us. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.

The situation is quite complicated on the American side. On the one hand, President Donald Trump talks about seeking to be on good terms with Russia, but this attitude is far from prevalent in Washington. We see this in unfriendly steps, such as various groundless accusations Russia faces, imposing financial and economic sanctions, seizing diplomatic property, kidnapping Russian nationals in third countries, opposing Russia’s foreign policy interests, as well as attempts to meddle in our domestic affairs. We are seeing system-wide efforts to reach out to almost all countries around the world and persuade them to scale back their relations with Russia.

Many US politicians are trying to outshine each other in ramping up anti-Russia phobias and they are using this factor in their domestic political struggles. We understand that they will only escalate in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. Nevertheless, we will not give up in despair. We will continue to look for common ground with the US despite all the challenges that there are.

It is essential that the Russian and US presidents both understand that there is a need to end the deadlock in our relations. During their June meeting which took place in Osaka the two leaders spoke out in favour of stepping up economic cooperation, combining efforts to settle regional crises, resuming dialogue on strategic stability, and also said that they appreciated dialogue on combatting terrorism. Vladimir Putin invited Donald Trump to Moscow to take part in the events to mark the 75^th anniversary of Victory in WWII.

All in all, it has to be recognised that Washington has been inconsistent and quite often unpredictable in its actions. For this reason, trying to predict anything in our relations with the US is a fruitless task. Let me reiterate that as far as Russia is concerned we are ready to patiently work on improving our relations. Of course, this will be possible only if Russia’s interests are respected, and based on equality and mutual respect.

Sobre a visita do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Federação da Rússia Serguei Lavrov a Portugal

25

11.2018

Sobre a visita do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Federação da Rússia Serguei Lavrov a Portugal

No dia 24 de novembro, ao convite da Parte portuguesa, o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Federação da Rússia Serguei Lavrov efetuou uma visita de trabalho a Lisboa. Realizaram-se as conversações com o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros de Portugal Augusto Santos Silva. O Chefe da diplomacia russa foi também recebido pelo Presidente da República Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.

24

11.2018

Presidente da República recebeu Serguei Lavrov

O Presidente Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa recebeu, em audiência no Palácio de Belém, o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Federação da Rússia, Serguei Lavrov.

24

11.2018

Artigo do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Rússia Serguei Lavrov no jornal Público: Rússia e Portugal: uma cooperação em prol do desenvolvimento construtivo

Na véspera da visita a Portugal, queria partilhar com os leitores do PÚBLICO — um dos jornais mais populares do vosso país — as minhas reflexões sobre as relações entre os nossos Estados 

VIDEO in Portugal: Washington using IS like ‘an ally’ against Assad govt. - Lavrov

 

Discurso de Sergey Lavrov na 73ª Sessão Da Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas

Discurso de Sergey Lavrov na 73ª Sessão Da Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas

por Sergey Lavrov

REDE VOLTAIRE | NOVA YORK (EUA) | 28 DE SETEMBRO DE 2018

РУССКИЙ

Senhora Presidente,
Senhoras e Senhores,

Os discursos proferidos durante a discussão geral nesta sessão da Assembleia Geral da ONU, confirmam o facto de que as relações internacionais estão a passar por uma fase histórica muito complexa e contraditória.

Hoje, somos testemunhas de uma colisão de duas tendências opostas. Por um lado, os princípios policêntricos da ordem mundial estão a fortalecer-se e estão a formar-se novos centros de crescimento económico. Podemos ver nações a esforçarem-se para preservar a sua soberania e a escolherem modelos de desenvolvimento que estão de acordo com a sua identidade étnica, cultural e religiosa. Por outro lado, vemos o desejo de uma série de Estados ocidentais de manter o seu autoproclamado estatuto de “líderes mundiais” e a abrandar o movimento irreversível em direcção à multipolaridade, que está a acontecer objectivamente. Para este fim, vale tudo, incluindo a chantagem política, a pressão económica e a força bruta.

Estas acções ilegais desvalorizam o Direito Internacional, que está na base da ordem mundial do pós-guerra. Escutamos declarações estrondosas, não só a questionar a força legal dos tratados internacionais, mas a afirmar a prioridade das abordagens unilaterais egoístas sobre as resoluções adoptadas pela ONU.

Estamos a testemunhar o aparecimento do revisionismo militante em relação ao sistema jurídico internacional actual. Os princípios básicos do processo de solução do Médio Oriente, o Plano Conjunto de Acção Integral sobre o programa nuclear iraniano, os compromissos assumidos no âmbito da Organização Mundial do Comércio, o acordo multilateral sobre o clima e muito mais, estão sob ataque.

Os nossos colegas ocidentais procuram substituir o Estado de Direito nos assuntos internacionais, por uma “ordem baseada em regras”. Essas regras, que são compostas de acordo com a conveniência política, são um caso claro de dois critérios. Fazem-se acusações injustificadas de interferência nos assuntos internos de determinados países enquanto se envolvem, simultaneamente, numa campanha aberta para minar e derrubar governos democraticamente eleitos. Procuram atrair certos países para alianças militares construídas para responder às suas próprias necessidades, contra a vontade do povo desses países, enquanto ameaçam outros Estados com punições, por exercerem a liberdade de escolha, em relação aos seus parceiros e aliados.

Os ataques agressivos às instituições internacionais são acompanhados por tentativas de “privatizar” as suas estruturas de secretariado e conceder-lhes os direitos dos órgãos intergovernamentais, para que possam ser manipulados.

O espaço cada vez menor para uma cooperação internacional construtiva, a escalada do confronto, o aumento da imprevisibilidade geral e o aumento significativo do risco de conflitos espontâneos - todos têm um impacto sobre as actividades desta organização mundial.

A comunidade internacional tem de pagar um preço alto pelas ambições egoístas de um grupo restrito de países. Os mecanismos colectivos de resposta aos desafios de segurança comuns, são indecisos. A diplomacia, a negociação e o compromisso estão a ser substituídos por doutrinas e sanções estrangeiras unilaterais, decretadas sem o consentimento do Conselho de Segurança da ONU. Tais medidas, que já afectam dezenas de países, não são apenas ilegais, como também são ineficazes, como demonstra o embargo por mais de meio século a Cuba, pelos EUA, denunciado por toda a comunidade internacional.

Mas a História não ensina a mesma lição duas vezes. As tentativas de aprovação de veredictos sem julgamento ou investigação continuam inabaláveis. Alguns dos nossos colegas ocidentais que querem atribuir culpas, estão satisfeitos por se basearem em afirmações do mesmo estilo, que alegam ser “altamente prováveis”. Já passámos por essa situação. Lembramo-nos muito bem, quantas vezes eles usaram pretextos falsos, para justificar intervenções e guerras, como na Jugoslávia, em 1999, no Iraque, em 2003 e na Líbia, em 2011.

Remarks by Sergey Lavrov to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly

Remarks by Sergey Lavrov to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly

by Sergey Lavrov

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | NEW YORK (USA) | 28 SEPTEMBER 2018 

РУССКИЙ

 

Distinguished Ms. President, 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The statements at the general debate prove that international relations are going through quite a complicated and controversial historic period.

Today we all are witnessing a collision of two opposite trends. On the one hand, we see the strengthening of polycentric principles of the world order, the steady development of new centers of economic growth, the aspiration of peoples to preserve sovereignty and choose development models that are consistent with their national, cultural, and religious identities. On the other hand, we see the desire of several Western states to retain their self-proclaimed status of "world leaders" and to slow down the irreversible objective process of establishing multipolarity. To that end, these powers do not hesitate to use any methods, including political blackmail, economic pressure, and brute force.

These illicit acts devalue the international law which underpins the post-war world order. We hear loud statements that not only call into question the legal validity of international treaties, but also declare the priority of self-serving unilateral approaches over the decisions taken in the framework of the United Nations.

We observe the offensive of belligerent revisionism against the modem system of intemational law. The attacks have been launched against the basic principles of the Middle East settlement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program, the commitments within the World Trade Organization framework, the multilateral climate agreement ? and many more. Besides, our VI estern colleagues are persistently trying to substitute some type of a "rules based order" for the supremacy of law in the world affairs. These rules themselves are invented depending on political expediency and are an illustration of double standards. Baseless accusations of interference into internal affairs of certain countries are being made simultaneously with overt endeavors to undermine and topple democratically elected governments. Attempts are being made to draw certain countries into self-customized military alliances against the will of the peoples, while other states are threatened with punishment for their free choice of partners and allies.

It is indicative that aggressive attacks on intemational institutions are accompanied by attempts to "privatize" secretariat structures and grant them the rights of intergovemmental bodies in the hope to manipulate them later.

The shrinking space for constructive international cooperation, escalating confrontation, growing overall unpredictability, a substantially increased risk of spontaneous conflicts - all this affects the work of the World Organization.

The international community has to pay a high price for the parochial, selfserving ambitions of a small group of countries. The collective mechanisms of response to common security challenges have stalled. Diplomacy and the culture of negotiations and compromise have been increasingly replaced by dictate and unilateral extraterritorial restrictions put in effect without the consent of the UN Security Council. Such measures, applied already to dozens of countries, are not only illicit, but also ineffective - as exemplified, in particular, by more than half a century long US blockade of Cuba, which is condemned by the entire international community.

Yet, history does not teach any lessons. The number of those wishing to pass verdicts without charge or trial is not getting any smaller. Today assumptions in the spirit of the notorious "highly likely" are sufficient for some of our Western colleagues to press charges against anyone. We have already been through this.

We remember well so many times when spurious pretexts were used to justify interventions and unleash wars - as was the case in Yugoslavia 1999, Iraq 2003, and Libya 2011.

Entrevista concedida por Serguéi Lavrov a la Agencia Rossiya Segodnya

Entrevista concedida por Serguéi Lavrov a la Agencia Rossiya Segodnya

por Agencia de Información Internacional Rossiya Segodnya. En sitio web del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de la Federación de Rusia 

Entrevista concedida por el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Rusia, Serguéi Lavrov, a la Agencia de Información Internacional Rossiya Segodnya, Moscú, 20 de abril de 2018

Pregunta: Señor Ministro, usted dijo que Rusia tenía pruebas irrefutables – no se trata de “higly likely” (altamente probable), como suelen decir hoy los británicos, sino de lo irrefutable – de que un país rusófobo había orquestado el llamado ataque químico en la ciudad de Duma en la periferia de Damasco. El jefe del Departamento de Información y Comunicaciones del Ministerio ruso de Defensa, Igor Konashenkov, dijo posteriormente que se trataba de Gran Bretaña. No podemos actuar igual que los británicos acusando a alguien sin presentar las pruebas. ¿Cuándo podremos presentar las pruebas contra Gran Bretaña y de qué se trata?

Respuesta: Tenemos las pruebas de sobra. En el vídeo que puso inicio a todo eso y que fue posiblemente el pretexto principal para aquel ataque apresurado lanzado por EEUU, Gran Bretaña y Francia que asestaron glopes contra los objetos de infraestructura donde se fabricaban y se almacenaban armas químicas, según ellos. Creo que todos etienden que si uno sabe donde está un almacén con armas químicas su bombardeo puede conllevar una catástrofe humanitaria para los que viven de cerca. Se pudo ver a unas personas sin protección alguna, (varias personas estuvieron en apósitos de gasa) que arrojaban agua a los niños, a unos adultos.

Cuando nuestros militares liberaron esta parte de Guta Oriental encontraron a dos médicos que trabajaban en aquel hospital. Al mostrar a sí mismos en el vídeo, estos médicos contaron que habían irrumpudo unas personas gritando que se había producido un ataque químico y había que echarse agua urgentemente. Los médicos lo contaron abiertamente sin ocultar sus caras y nombres.

Hace poco, vi en la cadena de televisión Euronews a una mujer cuya cara y cuerpo estaban cubiertos, sólo quedó una pequeña ranura para mirar. No se presentó y, agarrando de la mano a dos niños, dijo que eran sus hijos quienes habían sentido un dolor de cabeza y un olor desagradable. No le gustó aquel olor tampoco. Y la mujer finalizó su discurso al decir que posteriormente su marido había llevado a los niños al médico. Surge la pregunta: ¿se puede hablar con este médico, saber como se llama esta mujer, sus niños, etc.? Así las cosas, tenemos que analizar toda la información que vemos para no permitir que nos engañen

EXCLUSIVE: Russian FM Lavrov Speaks Syria, Skripal Case, DPRK-US Peace

EXCLUSIVE:Russian FM Lavrov Speaks Syria, Skripal Case, DPRK-US Peace

© Sputnik / Grigoriy Sisoev

RUSSIA

09:11 20.04.2018(updated 10:08 20.04.2018)Get short URL

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave his thoughts on the recent alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, the US strikes against this Arab country, the Skripal case, the upcoming Trump-Kim Jong-un talks and Russia-US ties in an interview Director General of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency Dmitry Kiselev.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump will never allow tensions between their nations to turn into an armed conflict, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

"Speaking about the risk of a military confrontation, I feel absolutely confident to assume that the militaries will not allow this, and of course neither will President Putin or President Trump. They are leaders, after all, elected by their people and responsible for their peace," he said.

Russian Foreign Minister also noted during the interview that Russia had cautioned the US-led coalition that crossing certain "red lines" on the ground in Syria would prompt retaliation.

Russia’s General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov said ahead of US, UK and French missile strikes on Syria last week that Russian military would target the missiles and their launch sites if its personnel came under attack.

"This was said very clearly and unambiguously," Lavrov said. "Afterwards there were contacts at the level of military leaderships and generals, between our representatives and the US coalition command. They were notified of our ‘red lines,’ including geographical ‘red lines’ on the ground. And, as a result, these ‘red lines’ were not crossed."

Sergey Lavrov also said that Russian military will soon provide evidence that Syrian anti-missile systems intercepted missiles launched by the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

"Our General Staff has a very clear picture, we have been monitoring [the attacks] live, and statistics, which our military provided. We are ready to take responsibility for that. If someone argues that all 105 missiles reached their targets, then show your statistics. Our evidence, our claims, calculations are at least not groundless and will be soon provided by our military," Lavrov said.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's Interview with BBC HardTalk. Full Version

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's Interview with BBC HardTalk. Full Version

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 18.04.2018

Question: The world was deeply alarmed last week by the prospect of a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. How close do you believe we came to that?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, I don't think that was very close. I think it was a situation created by very reckless behavior of our Western colleagues who accused the Syrian Government and us as allies of the Syrian Government in applying chemical weapons against civilians without waiting for OPCW to inspect the place. Actually, at the moment when OPCW was physically ready to move from Lebanon to Syria, they executed these strikes. As the representatives of our military explained, the deconflicting channel has been engaged all the time.

Question:   So, to be clear about that, without using jargon, the US and ally forces gave you indications of how strikes would be carried out and you gave them some indication that you would not retaliate?

Sergey Lavrov: I prefer not to get into the nitty-gritty of these military communitory channels. There is a channel existing between the Russian and the United States military, both between the capitals and on the ground in Syria, and I believe the military discussed and continue to discuss this and other things very professionally. They understand each other and they understand, maybe better than anyone else, the danger of this kind of adventure.

Question: But Mr. Lavrov, this crisis is not over, is it?

Sergey Lavrov: It depends on those who invented the crisis.

Question: Well, it is quite clear from words used by your own diplomats. Your Ambassador to United States said there would be consequences for the strikes that we saw. Vladimir Putin called it an illegal act of aggression. So the world wants to know what Russia is going to do now.

Sergey Lavrov: That is a statement of fact. Certainly there would be consequences. We lose basically the last remnants of trust to our Western friends who prefer to operate on the basis of very weird logic. Proof is in the punishment – they've punished first – like they did in Salisbury – then they wait for Scotland Yard to finalize the investigation. They punished first in Douma in Syria and then they wait for the inspectors of OPCW to visit the place and to inspect. Proof by the punishment is what is being applied by the Troika of Western countries.

LIVE Russian FM Lavrov holds final press conference on 72nd UNGA session sidelines

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with«NBC», Moscow, July 21, 2017

21 July 201720:08

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with«NBC», Moscow, July 21, 2017

1399-21-07-2017

Question: Minister, thank you very much for your time. There is a lot to talk about. There is Syria, there is North Korea, there is China, there is Ukraine, there is ISIS. But inevitably, I’d like to begin by talking to you about Russian-US relations. There are pictures of you with the B.Obama administration, in which you look unhappy. There are pictures of you with President D.Trump in which you look like you are having fun.

S.Lavrov: So what?

Question: Is that the way it is?

S.Lavrov: I haven’t seen any picture of me, which could be described as me being happy or unhappy. If I laugh, then the gentleman who talks to me might have cracked a joke. If I don’t laugh, the partner might be boring or the partner might be asking for some serious issue to be considered, and then I am not laughing.

But with John Kerry for example – we laughed a lot. He had… He has I hope, still, very good humor. And we enjoyed our private relations as much as we concentrated on our business – on Syria and elsewhere. 

Question: If there is a warmer relationship now with the D.Trump administration than there have been with previous American administrations, there are also messages from Moscow that are unhappy with things, particularly the Russian compounds that were seized by the Americans. What is the real feeling towards Washington as you would describe it right now? Are there particular people within the administration that you think are more constructive to Russia than others? Do you for example think that President Trump has a more positive attitude towards Russia than Secretary R.Tillerson for example?

S.Lavrov: Look, we can only rely on what people say and what people do. And it’s obvious that during the B.Obama administration the irritation for whatever reason started building up in Washington against us many years ago – long before the Ukrainian crisis, long before anything else which is now cited as the problem in Russian-American relations. The first time I think it was publicly shown was when Edward Snowden made it to Russia in the expectation that he would be able to take a flight to Latin America, and Russia was just a stopover. As he was flying from China to Russia his passport was declared invalid, and this information was circulated to the airports all over the world, including to the Moscow airport where he landed and could not be let through because of the information received about his passport. And then President B.Obama called V.President Putin, John Kerry called me, John Brennan called his counterpart in Moscow – all many times, saying, “You must extradite him, you must extradite him.” And according to our legislation, we cannot extradite people who are being persecuted for something they did to protect and promote human rights. And then President B.Obama, I would say entirely unpresidentially, was frustrated so much that he cancelled his bilateral visit to Moscow, which was scheduled immediately on the eve of the Saint Petersburg G20 summit. He did attend the summit in Saint Petersburg, but he did cancel the visit which was supposed to consider quite important agenda. I believe it is not for the people who occupy any position of influence and importance in the current world to get offended like small kids on issues which are absolutely incomparable to the issues which had to be discussed, which were to be discussed at the Russian-American summit. And then of course the Magnitsky law, which as we now see was very much orchestrated, but I hope the investigation which is going on, including in the United States, would discover the truth. All this was long before Ukraine. And all this was accumulated by the B.Obama administration, building on I would say some personal agendas.

Maybe President B.Obama was personally offended by something he saw in Russia. And then at the last days of his administration he seized the diplomatic property protected by bilateral agreements between our countries and enjoying diplomatic immunity. I believe it was the act of desperation and a desire to leave something to his successor, which would be unrepairable as far as Russian-American relations are concerned. So it was not this administration’s act, it was an act designed, among other things which were promoted, to make the life of this administration absolutely unbearable. And we always knew of course from the history of the American state, from many wars which were fought on that land that seizure of property, seizure of land was one of the means how America was created actually. But I never suspected that this would be done by a party which now represents a quite different philosophy. By the way, when people say that the property was arrested and diplomats were expelled to punish Russia for meddling with the American election, don’t believe this crap, because the official note verbale which we received from the State Department said nothing about the reasons for which this property had been seized. So it’s just straight forward robbery, and international law is entirely on our side, and we would act on the basis of international law to get it back.

Question: You’re threatening to remove US diplomats from Russia. What message should the US take away? Do you see US President D.Trump as a friend or can your public declarations that you may still expel the US diplomats be considered as your posture towards the US?

Sergey Lavrov’s answers to Russian media questions following President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G20 Summit, Hamburg, July 7, 2017

7 July 201722:24

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to Russian media questions following President VladimirPutin’s meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G20Summit, Hamburg, July 7, 2017

07-07-2017

Question: Mr Lavrov, how did this long meeting go?

Sergey Lavrov: If the presidents see that they have issues to discuss and to solve something rather than just exchange opinions, I don’t think that time is of paramount importance. Indeed, they had a very long conversation. My feeling was confirmed that President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump are driven by the national interests of their countries and pursue them primarily by seeking to achieve mutually beneficial agreements rather than trying to act out confrontational scenarios and invent problems out of the blue. It was in this concrete and business-like vein that Syria, Ukraine, the Korean Peninsula, cyber security and a number of other issues were discussed.

Agreements were reached on some quite concrete things.

First, literally today, Russian, US and Jordanian experts finished work in Jordan’s capital Amman and agreed on a memorandum on de-escalation zones in the south-west of Syria – in Daraa, Quneitra and Souweida. The ceasefire in this zone will come in effect on July 9 at 12 pm Damascus time.

Russia and the United States have undertaken commitments to ensure the ceasefire regime by all the groups present there and also to provide humanitarian access and establish contacts between the opposition in that region and the Monitoring Centre being set up in the capital of Jordan. In the beginning, security around this de-escalation zone will be provided by Russian military police in coordination with Americans and Jordanians. It is crucial that the document clearly confirms the commitment of Russia, Jordan and the United States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and the UN Security Council resolutions which laid the foundation for promoting a political settlement. This is the agreement that both the presidents welcomed today.

Second. While discussing Ukraine, the US side reported that they had appointed a special envoy to assist in settling the Ukrainian crisis. It was agreed to set up a channel between Russian and US officials so as to use US capabilities for promoting a settlement on the basis of the Minsk agreements and relying on the groundwork laid by the Contact Group and in the Normandy format. We expect that the US envoy on the Ukrainian settlement will arrive shortly in Russia for consultations.

The third issue is cyber security which was understandably given considerable attention. The presidents agreed that this area is becoming ever more dangerous. There are numerous threats emerging in cyber space, including a terrorist threat, threats in other areas of organised crime, such threats to the normal functioning of societies as child pornography, pedophilia, the so-called suicide networks. Of course, President Trump also mentioned that certain circles in the United States keep on spinning the issue of Russia’s interference in the US elections even though they are unable to prove that. 

All these issued combined, including fight against terrorism, organised crime, hacking in all its forms, were agreed as subjects of Russian-US interaction. A bilateral working group will be set up for that purpose.

The fourth agreement envisions shorter procedures for appointing new ambassadors, the Russian ambassador to the USA and the US ambassador to Russia.

Question: Was the issue of the Russian diplomatic property on US territory raised?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it was. We will continue seeking justice.

Question: Did the sides fail to agree on anything on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: If I said we will continue doing this, it means there is still work to do.

Question: You are a diplomat and you notice details. There are no minor details in diplomacy. What do you think about the atmosphere at the meeting? What set the tone? Where can things go from here in your opinion?

Sergey Lavrov: The atmosphere was constructive. As I said in the beginning, the tone was set by the desire of both presidents to promote the national interests of Russia and the United States, respectively. It was determined by the understanding that each country will be able to do this better if we cooperate and seek a balance of interests, and also if we work for stabilisation in different parts of the world, where the situation is very turbulent, be it the Middle East or North Africa, the Korean Peninsula or Afghanistan.

Question: Were there any agreements on Ukraine? US President Donald Trump had proposals on a different plan.

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t remember US President Donald Trump offering some other plan. A lengthy conversation with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson today in the morning did not reveal any departures from the Minsk agreements either. Just as during the conversation with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in Paris yesterday, it was stated that the sides are interested in speeding up the implementation of the Minsk agreements and are determined to work toward this.

Question: What was said on Russia’s “interference” in the US election?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already spoken on this subject.

Question: Now you have essentially announced the agreement on the south of Syria. Two days ago the result in Astana was zero although this issue was discussed. Is the Russia-US-Jordan format you mentioned new? Will you put it through Astana later on? Will you discuss it with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan tomorrow?

Sergey Lavrov: Read the May 4 Memorandum approved in Astana. It deals with four de-escalation zones in Syria: northern (in the area of Idlib); a zone a bit to the north of Homs; a zone covering the greater part of Eastern Ghouta and the south-west of Syria. Obviously, it will be very difficult to agree on anything in the south-west without the Jordanians and the Americans who are working with the Jordanians and representing the interests of the coalition in this region. Three other zones were primarily discussed in Astana a couple of days ago. As we said, there is an understanding on how the zones near Homs and Eastern Ghouta should look. The discussion of the northern zone is still going on.

To be continued...