Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference with German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Krasnodar, June 28, 2017

First of all, I would like once again to thank Krasnodar Governor Veniamin Kondratyev and Krasnodar Mayor Yevgeny Pervyshov for the hospitality and warm welcome they have accorded us. We know that the region makes a significant contribution to consolidating interregional ties with our foreign partners, and regularly hosts major international forums. The Foreign Ministry appreciates these efforts.

I would like once again to welcome German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. This is his third visit to our country this year, which graphically illustrates how intensive and substantive our bilateral dialogue is. I am sincerely grateful to Mr Gabriel for the constructive attitude that helps our ministries deal with their tasks.

We have just taken part in the opening ceremony of the Conference of Russian-German Partner Cities, an important event in expanding interregional and people-to-people ties between our states. Our shared opinion is that considering the difficult situation in Europe these days, public diplomacy and direct contacts between people are highly conducive to deepening trust and mutual understanding between our countries and nations.

We are pleased that, despite existing disagreements on a number of serious international issues, the Russian-German dialogue is generally constructive. Regular political contacts are maintained, including at the top level, and bilateral cooperation formats, which were frozen not on Russia’s initiative, are being restored.

It is encouraging that after a prolonged decline, positive trade and economic trends have emerged. German business was broadly represented at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Promising joint innovation, high-tech and energy projects are underway.

Interparliamentary and interagency dialogue channels are working effectively. Cultural, humanitarian, scientific and educational cooperation, as well as cooperation in historical and memorial activities, is expanding. The bilateral Year of Youth Exchanges was a great success. Mr Gabriel and I plan to attend its closing ceremony in Berlin on July 13.

Today, we announced the start of a new joint initiative – the bilateral Year of Regional and Municipal Partnerships. Its extensive programme includes numerous meetings between business people, education professionals, scientists and artists, as well as youth and sport exchanges and contacts between civil societies.

After our news conference, Mr Gabriel and I will have another opportunity to address a broad array of pressing issues on the bilateral and international agenda. We will talk about ways of resolving the crisis in Ukraine by implementing the Minsk agreements and working together to overcome the serious crises in the Middle East and North Africa, including in Syria and Libya. We will also consider ways of combining our efforts in fighting terrorism for our mutual benefit, as well as for the benefit of the entire international community. Our agenda always features issues such as cooperation in the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the G20 and the UN. We will be ready to listen to our German colleagues’ assessment of the situation that is emerging in relations between the EU and Russia and between NATO and Russia.

I would like once again to thank Mr Gabriel for accepting our invitation. Over to Mr Gabriel.

Question (addressed to both ministers): The G20 Summit will be held next week, including a meeting between the Russian and US presidents. What do you expect from it in terms of headway on Syria? Do you see any opportunity for progress in principle? What sort of cooperation is Russia prepared for to settle the Syrian conflict?

Sergey Lavrov: The preparations for the summit are in progress. There is an agenda proposed by the German chair. It is quite packed. Of course, such contacts are held on the sidelines of these forums.

The media have discussed a likely meeting between the Russian and US presidents in sufficient detail during the last few days, if not weeks. There is nothing to add to this. We proceed from the assumption that this contact will take place because the two presidents will be in the same city, the same building and also in the same room at the same time. Probably it would be wrong for them not to discuss a whole range of matters.

You mentioned Syria and Ukraine. I think that Russia and the United States should primarily normalise their dialogue so that it is based on their fundamental interests. Currently we are observing an extremely distorted picture taking shape in Washington under the influence of Russia hate moods that have engulfed many politicians. I believe this is hurting the United States itself and some farsighted US analysts are beginning to say as much. What is certain is that this is not helping to address international issues, the settlement of which Russia and the United States could contribute. Thereby, this is complicating finding a solution of the problems facing the entire international community.

Question: Is the Normandy Four planning to meet on the sidelines of the summit? Do you see a potential for progress concerning this?

Sergey Lavrov: I myself haven’t heard anything about such plans. There are remarks in favour of holding a contact session, at least by telephone, given the results of the latest presidential elections in France and the election of a new president. I think the organisational issues are being addressed by the relevant protocol services.    

Question: Is there a way to limit or stop the arms build-up by NATO and Russia? What steps should be taken in this respect?

Sergey Lavrov: There are statistics that no one has contested thus far, and we have referred to them on numerous occasions. According to the data, NATO has increased its presence manifold in the parts of Europe where there was an agreement to refrain from permanent arms build-up. NATO says that these troops are deployed on a rotation basis, but they are constantly rotating, so we do not see any difference between permanent deployment and deployment by rotation. The number of military exercises has also increased, and they are mostly aimed at containing Russia.

We do understand that this is not the only point NATO is making. In order to clarify things, Russia has proposed that Russia’s and NATO’s military experts sit down at the negotiating table, take a look at the maps and compile an inventory of all the forces NATO has on the border with Russia, and what Russia has on the border with NATO countries. The fact that our North-Atlantic colleagues avoid such a conversation and are ignoring this simple proposal suggests that they have a perfect understanding of the current balance of forces in Europe.

Nevertheless, Russia is ready for talks, and is also ready to engage in dialogue regarding the initiative by the President of Finland Sauli Niinisto on air safety in the Baltic region. A recommendation to this effect was made one year ago. So far, our NATO colleagues were not eager to examine this proposal.

Just as in Russia’s ties with the US, in the relations with NATO the perception of the ongoing developments is distorted, which is due to the fact that NATO avoids normal talks. It may be that some NATO members use the consensus rule to prevent this dialogue from resuming, and are constantly repeating as a mantra that NATO’s relations with Russia will never be the same until Russia mends its ways. This approach is clearly driven by a political and ideological agenda, and it will not take us very far. Russia has shown good will on all issues you have mentioned.

Regarding Syria, Russia’s joint initiative with Turkey and Iran, supported by the US, the UN and Jordan, to hold a series of important meetings between the Syrian government and opposition in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, has won all-round support. The next round will take place as soon as next week. We want this initiative to be implemented in good faith by all the parties to the conflict, including external actors. This is the concrete contribution Russia wants to make. I expect our US, European and regional partners to demonstrate the same kind of an open and intelligible approach aimed at achieving de-escalation by creating dedicated zones (as you know, this is the gist of Russia’s proposal), normalising the humanitarian situation, and stopping attempts to win back parts of Syrian territory, since it poses a threat to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria.

The same applies when it comes to the crisis in Ukraine which you have mentioned in a question on plans to convene the Normandy Format. The Minsk Agreements are in place. As we say in Russia, all the new ideas that emerged recently can hardly do any good. The Minsk Agreements were approved by the UN Security Council. They are straightforward and extremely specific. They should be fulfilled. When the Normandy Format reconvenes at the top level, we will draw the attention of our partners, including Germany and France, to this matter. After all, they have committed themselves to facilitating the implementation of these agreements and have great influence over Kiev. In this case, Russia stands ready to do its bit.

Question: The White House has issued a statement accusing Bashar al-Assad of preparing another chemical weapons attack, and threatened harsh retaliatory measures. The US refused to provide evidence, but the threat has been made. You have recently discussed with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that provocations against the Syrian Army were unacceptable. What can be done in a situation where Russia cannot make its voice heard? How will Russia respond to the possible actions by the US and its allies?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia will adopt an adequate and appropriate response depending on the situation.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called me by phone. It was not the first time that the specific content of our conversation was leaked by the US side. I can now confirm, in order to avoid any misinterpretation or false rumours, that he called to warn me that the US had information about potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic against the opposition. I reminded him that allegations that Syrian air forces used chemical munitions during the April 4 bombing of Khan Shaykhun were totally groundless and had to be investigated. I also reminded Mr Tillerson that as soon as April 5 he asked me during a telephone conversation to facilitate access for inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to the air field from where the airplanes took off for the mission. If these airplanes were carrying chemical weapons, it would have been impossible to hide it, and experts would have probably been able to tell whether there were chemical weapons on the site or not. I promised to convey this message to the Syrian Government, and pointed out that Russia was also interested in investigating this incident, especially since there were witness accounts from Khan Shaykhun. The Syrian Government confirmed that it was ready to receive the inspectors. But as soon as the consent had been granted, the US immediately changed its position. The US said that it was ready to support the inspection if the OPCW was interested in conducting it. Can you imagine an organisation created for the sole purpose of fighting chemical weapons not being interested in visiting a specific location from where the planes took off carrying toxic weapons? However, this organisation suddenly announced that it had no reason to visit the airfield. In this situation, the US also said that this inspection would not be necessary, if the OPCW was not willing to engage. We are still trying to persuade them to at least visit Khan Shaykhun where the Syrian air force allegedly used munitions containing toxic agents. I hope that this far-fetched situation will be resolved one day.

Seymour Hersh published an article in the German media on a journalistic investigation he had carried out, showing that the US military and intelligence agencies were well aware that the Syrian air forces did not use chemical weapons. I am not necessarily saying that he was right in what he wrote (we do not know what his sources were), but I do not have any doubt that the situation is not clear and requires further clarification. I am not at all impressed when I hear time and again that there is some kind of irrefutable evidence, but it cannot be shared because it is secret intelligence data. The same arguments were put forward when the Russian government was accused of staging hacking attacks. The same goes for many other issues, be they related to Syria, Libya or anything else.

I do hope that this time the US will opt for protecting the chemical weapons non-proliferation regime instead of speculating about some kind of intelligence reports that are secret and cannot be shown to anyone, with a view to provoking or creating a pretext for new strikes against the Syrian Army, while it combats terrorists.

I am following what experts are saying in the US regarding new reports on potential chemical weapons attacks. Experts said that extremists could benefit from warnings of this kind coming from Washington by staging provocations and shifting the responsibility on the Syrian Army.

Let me remind you that reports on the alleged April 4 chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun came from witness accounts. But no one actually saw these witnesses who are members of the White Helmets. These are professional agitators who operate on territories controlled by terrorists. No one saw them on government territory, but the information that comes from them is used by those seeking to stage anti-government coups.

Let me also remind you that the April 4 incident, as our US and European partners have been telling us, was investigated by the OPCW using some kind of samples collected by France and Great Britain and analysed in unspecified laboratories. We do not know how these samples were collected or in which laboratories they were analysed. It seems that this information is also classified.

We are tired of pointing to the example when in 2003 Colin Powell brought a tube with white powder to the UN Security Council, and insisted that it contained anthrax spores, which served as a pretext for invading Iraq. This happened only recently. People who did not learn a lesson back then or forgot about it assume great responsibility.

Question (addressed to both ministers): Recently Matias Placek (Prime Minister of the Federal State of Brandenburg) spoke about a new Eastern policy and quoted Willy Brandt. Maybe it is worth mapping out a new road and finding a way to be reasonable? Do you see an opportunity of reaching agreement and overcoming EU-Russia disagreements? Is it possible to create a common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok?

Sergey Lavrov (answers after Sigmar Gabriel): I agree with what Mr Gabriel said. More and more people on both sides, so to speak, want normal relations but the policy is determined not by them but by decision-makers in the capitals.

I would like to draw your attention to one simple circumstance once again. There is always an opportunity for reaching agreement in any situation. For all the deep disagreements between Russia and the West in general, despite our differences on many aspects of reaching a settlement in Ukraine, Syria and probably some other regions, we have always had respectful relations with Germany and we have never discontinued our dialogue.

Not so long ago there were periods when our German colleagues froze certain formats of this dialogue but now they are resuming their work. We advocate exactly this approach in relations with all countries – Western or not – notably, that disagreements should not be an obstacle to dialogue. They should not prevent us from listening to each other and hearing what the other has to say. I am convinced that if there is goodwill to understand the legitimate interests of a partner, compromises are possible in any situation.

Let me repeat what I have already said. We are being accused of everything that is taking place in Europe, the United States and the Middle East. Accusations regarding hackers, chemical weapons and Ukraine are not supported by a single fact for the same reason of secrecy. Incidentally, the position on Ukraine is fairly   categorical – they are telling us that Russia should resolve everything, forgetting that the main principle of settling any conflict is the involvement of all sides. Working with the Contact Group, which nobody has disbanded and which is reinforced rather than replaced by the Normandy format, the Ukrainian Government should start an honest and direct dialogue with those people in the country’s east who refused to accept the armed coup d’etat.

We are being told that they cannot shut their eyes to what Russia is doing. After the Ukrainian crisis and the coup d’etat in Ukraine, the EU banged on the door, cancelled the summit and froze practically all formats of dialogue that are now only beginning to be restored. They also shut down the Russia-NATO Council because they took offense. But we could have taken offense as well. They implored us to support the February 21, 2014 agreement (between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, which was signed by the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland). However, a day after it was signed and we met the request to support this decision the agreement was broken by the opposition. Instead of establishing a government of national unity in line with the agreement, the opposition proclaimed the formation of a “government of victors.” The Russian language was instantly quashed by the adoption of a law that substantially impinged on it. When people protested against this, our Western colleagues said that nothing could be done – democracy had won. We could have also taken offense because we were asked to support what was coordinated with the EU’s direct participation. However, we know well that “pride goes before a fall” and we believe that channels of dialogue should be kept open in any situation to prevent even greater misunderstanding. As a result, differences began to be overcome by seeking sensible solutions. In the case of Ukraine, these sensible solutions produced the Contact Group and the Normandy format that, if nothing else, at least led to the universal recognition of the Minsk Agreements.

I do not want to express grievances against anyone. This is simply an example that taking offense is a huge mistake in foreign policy, just as in life, in any specific situation. Politicians don’t have this luxury – they must be pragmatic. Our German colleagues and our Western partners in general have always been pragmatic.

I hope that eventually a sound understanding of one’s vital national interests, the realisation that in today’s world not a single country can pursue its national interests without cooperating with other major players in the world arena, will win out and we will return to normal.

As for a new eastern policy, you can call what is needed today by any number of names. What is needed is equitable and mutually respectful dialogue based on an effort to find a balance of interests. We are all for such dialogue.