Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Interview with Newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Moscow, July 11, 2011

Question: A week ago in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said: "One of the problems that Sergey and I have when we meet is we run out of time." Is she being disingenuous?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Frankly, she is not being disingenuous. I would agree with her. This is above all because our relations with Barack Obama's administration have become much richer. The Presidential Commission is actively working. It has 20 working groups, and we submit reports to the presidents about once half a year, at least before each of their meetings, whether in America, in Russia or in the margins of some multilateral forums.

When my counterpart and I coordinate a report on the work of the Presidential Commission, we, of course, want to go carefully into the activities of each working group and see where something needs a political impulse. We, as ministers of foreign affairs, of course, do not interfere in the professional work of our nuclear specialists, cultural, humanitarian, economic, or transport agencies, those fighting drugs, and so on. But if a working group does not produce practical results in the form of documents or agreements, then, of course, we want to give a political impulse to their work. And because even during official visits the time for talks is limited, of course, it is not enough to get into all and sundry. So in that sense, it would not be a bad thing to have long-hours communication but, unfortunately, this is an impermissible luxury given that both the US Secretary of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation have other responsibilities as well.

In fact, besides the Presidential Commission, we have a great deal of other themes that require attention and careful discussion in order to develop appropriate positions: they're missile defense and multiple conflicts and crisis situations on which we cooperate: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, Iran's nuclear program, the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem. The situation in North Africa has now been added.

We exchange views on all this and agree to look for solutions. But if we had more time, then it would probably be a little easier. Although on a whole array of issues there are differences that require approval from experts. So life is life. We have fairly rigid schedules. But we will try to use the allotted time to the maximum.

Question: The US missile defense system will be a key issue for your visit to Washington?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: To a certain extent, yes. This is because no serious, insurmountable obstacles over most other issues are visible. Work is under way on both an adoption agreement and visa facilitation. Same goes for the realization of the New START Treaty. The work has begun. It has entered the practical phase. Now we just assess progress in the implementation.

We also have ideas that are already being realized through our economic institutions, and at the corporate level to enhance the innovation and modernization component of our cooperation. The presidents give personal attention to these matters too.

Missile defense today, of course, looms as a key theme in terms of strategic stability. Yes, there was the Cold War and there was the Warsaw Pact, to confront NATO. Russia-US relations both in the era of confrontation and in the era of detente always rested on our general understanding that strategic military and political stability depended on our two states. It was at the core of Russian-American relations. Negotiations on the reduction of nuclear arsenals, on conventional arms control and many other things have to do with the so-called hard security. Now it would be unfair to restrict all Russian-US relations to this subject alone because they are much richer. I have already mentioned many spheres that previously were not present in our dialogue. Nevertheless, military-political issues, global strategic stability and strategic parity, of course, still depend on Russia and the United States. We are convinced that it is necessary not only to solve this problem, but also to ensure that it ceases to be the only agenda, that it ceases to be an element dividing us, but conversely turns into a unifying process.

Putting forward the initiative for a European Security Treaty, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had in mind the need to make security indivisible in practice. You can call it a legally binding form, you can call in another way – it's the details. The main thing is that indivisibility should be present in practice. It has been declared many times at the stage of collapse of the Soviet Union and formation of a new Russia and it was reaffirmed at NATO's Lisbon summit in November last year. But in practice we see in general, the picture that does not support this declaration.

NATO military infrastructure on the territory of its new members, despite political assurances to the contrary, is not just being created, but being moved closer to our borders. Missile defense, which we had wanted to make a joint project, with all of its components so agreed upon that no one feels threatened, is so far being developed along the one-way path, defined by the Americans. We are invited only to help with our resources to realize the American "design." And we are by no means convinced that this design is an optimal one.

We will, of course, discuss these proposals. Although let me say at once don't expect any negotiation work on any texts from Hillary and me. There are professionals. This topic requires a deep military and technical expertise. And such negotiations are conducted through the mechanism established for that purpose under the Presidential Commission. But the political significance of the situation around missile defense, the significance of either a positive or a negative outcome, of course, will be discussed during my visit to Washington.

Question: A meeting of the Russia-NATO Council outside its quarters was held in Sochi on July 4 at the level of permanent representatives. I understand that each of the parties remained stuck in their respective positions. Why do you think NATO and its Secretary-General personally do not want to give Russia legally binding security assurances?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: At the meeting in Sochi no one had planned to discuss legal guarantees and whether NATO's missile defense system is aimed against Russia. It was after all an ambassadors' meeting. At this level, no policy decisions are made. It is the level of expert discussions. Our partners in the Russia-NATO Council had expressed an interest to meet in Sochi for their regular, traditional meeting outside its quarters. We are not talking about some kind of precedent, because there had been such meetings in the past too.

Our President agreed to receive the members of the Russia-NATO Council. He addressed them briefly, setting out our basic approaches to cooperation and noting the many positive changes that have occurred over the past two to three years. But clearly the key issue that remains is to find out the truth: Are we strategic partners or still view each other as adversaries? If we want to be strategic partners, as stated in Lisbon, then, perhaps, any military activity that NATO undertakes on the one hand and Russia on the other hand should not be aimed against each other.

We all understand that we live in a real world. Of course, there is inertia. But there are also issues in terms of military planning. If bases appear in Romania, Bulgaria and Poland – it's very close to Russia, these bases contain a military component which in reality potentially creates a risk to our military component – we simply must pay attention to it.

Incidentally, we recalled at the Sochi meeting a WikiLeaks revelation that exactly at the time of preparing and holding the Lisbon summit, NATO had been developing a plan to protect the Baltics and Poland against a possible Russian attack. But only an inflamed brain could have imagined that any such attack was really intended. As a matter of fact, our military doctrine is entirely defensive.

We have many times been accused of reverting to Cold War times because, they say, we have designated NATO as a threat to Russia. We have repeatedly explained: you simply need to read what is written in Russian military doctrine. Namely: Russia considers that there is an inherent danger in NATO aspirations (which do exist) to assume responsibility for military intervention in the most diverse parts of the world in violation of international law and contrary to UN Security Council resolutions. The doctrine also registers a second danger – NATO military structure drawing nearer to our borders. These are two very distinct things.

I am convinced that NATO officials have read this doctrine. They understand what is at stake. But for external consumption the alliance members prefer to treat these absolutely legitimate concerns as Russia's peculiar stand. Supposedly we believe NATO is a threat. NATO is not a threat to us. For us NATO is a partner organization. Furthermore, the Lisbon summit clearly stated that we want to be strategic partners. Therefore, such accretions, of course, require that we meet more often and clarify the situation. This was one of the reasons that we supported holding the Russia-NATO Council in Sochi, and one of the reasons that President Medvedev decided to receive the participants of this meeting. Incidentally, Sochi has been very helpful in acquainting our NATO partners, and indeed ourselves, with the measures being taken to ensure the security of the Sochi Olympics, including transport security. This is one area where we closely cooperate with NATO.

Question: The Russian Foreign Ministry on June 12 reacted sharply to the call of the US missile cruiser Monterey at the Georgian port of Batumi. It was a provocation from the American side?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Yeah I agree. Understandably, the Americans were invited to participate in Sibris naval exercises. Some other exercises also took place off the coast of Georgia. If all is in strict compliance with the Montreux Convention, which limits the stay of foreign navies in the Black Sea, this cannot raise any questions. But when from the large array of options that allow the Americans to ensure participation in these exercises by sending any of their naval ships deployed in the Mediterranean Sea they pick none other than the cruiser Monterey equipped with the Aegis anti-missile equipment, which is already scheduled for inclusion in the naval component of a US missile defense system, this does raise questions, all the more so as Monterey took part in the exercises in the territorial waters of Georgia. And we all know how the unrestrained desire to bring Mikheil Saakashvili into NATO, and the categorical decision made in Bucharest to bless Georgia's NATO membership, had affected the psyche of the man. I am sure that everyone understands what a harmful role all this had played when he took his adventurist decision to attack South Ossetia.

Question: In Washington, you'll also attend a meeting of the Middle East Quartet at the level of ministers of foreign affairs. What can it now possibly discuss at a time when the Arab Spring has literally upset all plans for Middle East peace?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Plans upset. This is actually the case. Those who now pretend that they foresaw it all and the more so know what to do now, obviously put a good face on the matter. We're not trying to claim knowledge of all details. We try to do what we believe is the most important thing now – to calm the situation. To do this it is necessary to first abandon "demonizing" anyone. You can treat Gaddafi in whatever way you like. Everyone knows that there will be no place for Gaddafi in the future new Libya. The G8 clearly said so at Deauville. But to think that Gaddafi represents only himself is inexcusable for a diplomat – and for a politician, too. Libya is a tribal country. Gaddafi has represented the interests of a large powerful tribe, but at the same time was acceptable to the other tribes. He was able to establish at least some sort of system that lasted more than 40 years. It was quite stable, economically sustainable, and socially acceptable to the people. But of course, it was to end some day. Perhaps a leader with such a long-time experience needs to think about succession. This is a signal for many regimes that in some or other lands exist in one way or another. But to expect that with Gaddafi's removal all will surrender to the mercy of the opposition is naive. So negotiations will still be needed.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi is who he is, namely the leader: formal or informal. He said that he holds no office. Nevertheless, for many Libyans Gaddafi remains an authority. Yes, we want the parties to make up their minds about eligible negotiators. But demanding at the same time that Gaddafi should not have any influence on their position is also naive. No party must be "demonized." Although you can speak your mind about specific personalities, taking a diametrically opposed stand in the same breath, ignoring the position of the party that stands behind this personality is a road to nowhere.

Question: For Syria the West has prescribed the same scenario?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Yes, we are now witnessing attempts to implement the same scenario in Syria, where all the blame for what is happening is laid at President Bashar al-Assad's door. Where all his promises of reform, even if belated, and again, the first steps, even if defective, to fulfill those promises by lifting the state of emergency, through declaring an amnesty, are not accepted and are only met with statements like: "Now come on, either you swiftly carry out all the reforms overnight, or you will be illegitimate." This is plain and simple. But in politics there are no simple solutions.

It is significant that a meeting of opposition-leaning public and cultural figures was held in Damascus at the end of June. It's good the meeting wasn't banned. The first event of the national dialogue announced by al-Assad is slated for July 10. Our overall goal is to encourage the opposition to sit down and tell al-Assad: "You promised us a constitutional reform; who will prepare it for us?" Now then, that would be a responsible approach, prompted by concern about the future of the Syrian people.

By the way, something like this is how the EU, UN, Russia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council act with regard to Yemen. Together, we all urge the opposition and the regime to make a compromise on the basis of a roadmap for settlement. And no one tries to blame anyone. Although, after the mortar attack that resulted in almost the entire leadership of Yemen sustaining serious injuries, perhaps, it could have been possible to demand in the United Nations Security Council that those who did it be held to account by the international community. When we see the Yemeni and Syrian processes developing in parallel, it is hard not to notice the double standards. They should be avoided. I expect that those who in the UN Security Council wanted to raise the Syrian issue and follow the Libyan scenario will draw the right conclusions after all.