Interview given by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the programme “Vesti v subbotu s Sergeem Brilyovim”, Moscow, 28 June 2014

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, you are a rational person. I would like to ask you about your mood following events this week: how do you feel – do we have more or less chances to have peace in Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov:Everything depended on Russia and the majority of our European partners, my answer is we have a greater chance. However, there are other players, like Ukraine, who are far from being homogeneous.

The President, Petro Poroshenko, wanted to scale down the degree of tension and to continue the cease fire, but there are other forces among the Ukrainian authorities – radical, who are still in control or in close interaction with armed ultranationalists; there is the Right Sector, battalions of Ihor Kolomoyskyi and other serious groups, which are not subordinate to the central command and the Supreme Commander in Chief of Ukraine. There are overseas partners – our US colleagues – who, according tothe evidence, still prefer to push the Ukrainian leaders to confrontation.

Question: At the summer session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Petro Poroshenko said that Russia does nothing to pacify the situation. Then it was said that the Donetsk and Lugansk popular republic show a readiness to the negotiations, where the Russian Ambassador in Ukraine, Mikhail Zurabov, is present. Speaking objectively, does the Donetsk and Lugansk popular republic listen to the voice of Russia or they are independent players?

Sergey Lavrov: They do. As far as I understand, the liberation of members of the OSCE mission, who were detained in the South-East, is a confirmation of that. This has been done in response to the appeals by the Patriarch Kirill and Russian leaders following their recent meetings with the Swiss President, Current OSCE President, Didier Burkhalter. We have reason to believe that they listen to us also with regard to other aspects of the Russian position with regard to the Ukrainian crisis. However, it does not mean that all our appeals are immediately fulfilled. People there have their own vision, this is their land and they want to be its hosts, they want to agree with the central authorities on the conditions, which they can rely on to prevent any conflicts. The consultations, which you have mentioned, are envisaged to create conditions for comprehensive negotiations. It is at least misleading to say that Russia is doing nothing to promote the peace process. I hope that they do this not to gain the affection of those in the West, who want a force scenario.

Question: When the first pictures from these consultations appeared, many people were surprised to see the former Ukrainian President, Leonid Kuchma, and the Russian Ambassador, Mikhail Zurabov, participated in them. There was Viktor Medvedchuk. All those who followed the development of the events last autumn, remember how Viktor Medvedchuk came to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, both are fond of judo. Generally, he is not a foreigner for Moscow. Whose initiative was it to make him a participant of these negotiations?

Sergey Lavrov: He was invited by the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, and was given the status of mediator following the consent of other participants of the negotiations. After a meeting with the Ukrainian President, we went to the South-East of the country and started to coordinate the parameters and conditions of such a contact for consultations.

Question: So, Ukrainians proposed him? Kiev proposed him?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course. We could hardly talk about anything without Kiev's consent or initiatives. Viktor Medvedchuk maintains good contacts with us. The Russian Ambassador was invited to participate in the process together with the representative of the Current OSCE President. He is well-known in Russia, he has good ties with almost all political forces in Ukraine. I think that Viktor Medvedchuk should receive support in this effort.

Question: The Press Service of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs delicately described the situation around your Polish colleague Radoslaw Sikorski, having noted the cypher messages about his talks in a restaurant indicating that he is a realist.

Sergey Lavrov: Political.

Question: Political. Do you agree with his conclusions about the nature of Poland's relationship with the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not go deep into the nature of the relation between Poland and the United States. I cannot guess how it happens specifically. Being serious, I can only say that we are interested that the European Union has good relations with Russia, the United States, all other partners, of course, but makes decisions independently based on its basic interests –as is happening now in range of areas, including the negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

Question: There is a Polish version that all this "wiretapping" was done by Russian intelligence agencies.

Sergey Lavrov: You understand, they need to shift the blame to somebody. This uneasiness should be shifted to somebody to distract attention.

Question: I feel that we are witness of the radical agony against the background of the events in Iraq, where strikes of the Syrian opposition against rebels paradoxically are a friendly act for the United States, which have lost control of the situation. What is your assessment of the events in Iraq?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the emerging crops, which were seeded back in 2003, when the United States and the United Kingdom started another adventure – another, because there were many of them, and none of the adventures started by these counties came to any good.

I recall that in May 2003 that time US President, George Bush announced the victory of democracy in Iraq on the deck of an aircraft carrier. After that Iraq actually turned into a protectorate. If we speak using our categories, there was a Governor-General, who drove out all the Army, security forces, police. The law enforcement agencies and military structures mostly consisted of Sunnis.

Question: Supporters of Saddam Hussein.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, of course, the Ba'ath Party was the backbone of the regime. When they were driven out in one day, the Governor General at the request of the United States turned military personnel (former policemen, employees of other law enforcement agencies) into the opposition, who can fight professionally and confront the enemy. Sunnis have never quelled since then. During all these years, including in the period of activity of the government of Nouri al-Maliki until the current elections, Russia has appealed for a national settlement process in Iraq. It is important that Shiites, who became the leading political force, Sunnis and Kurds live in a single state. If Iraq breaks up (Libya is almost broken, some people want to break Syria), then the region will simply blow up – destabilisation will become a domineering feature for many years and will touch not only the Middle East and North Africa, but also adjacent countries.

Yesterday, on the 26 June, during my phone conversation with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, we talked more about Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant rather than Ukraine.

Question: As far as I understand, you do not enjoy a small triumph over the UK-US alliance, but, on the contrary, appeal that the responsible powers start jointly resolving this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: As to enjoying a small triumph. Sometimes, when we remind our partners about that, they say: "Why do you rake up the past, today we need to resolve specifics, today's tasks". If we do not "rake up the past" by drawing lessons from it, then we will "mess things up" again, support some ideas dictated by the aspiration, as it usually is, to save human lives. Under the slogan of "saving human lives" there will be another intervention, which will not lead to anygood, but will only make the situation worse. We are appealing to draw conclusions from the events in Iraq, Libya and Yemen, where not all the problems have been dealt with. The country unity problem is still challenged. It is not for Washington or London to decide, as it was in 2003 in Iraq, we need to do this jointly with countries of the region, all neighbours of Iraq.

I am convinced that Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council jointly with our Chinese colleagues will be ready to participate in these deliberations. I will highlight again that all neighbours of Iraq, neighbours of Syria must be present at the negotiation table, when the Syrian problem is discussed. The same approach should be used for the settlement process in Afghanistan. If our western partners agree to this and stop considering themselves the only ones who can choose a strategy for the entire world community, I think that the situation will develop in a more positive way.

Question: In your opinion, how quickly will Moldova, Georgia and especially Ukraine start consultations with Russia with regard to the adaptation of their new economic policy in the context of their association with the EU and the forthcoming de facto exit from the CIS Free trade zone?

Sergey Lavrov: We have been ready for these consultations for almost a year. As soon as initialled texts of draft association agreements were signed, we certainly organised professional work on them, especially with regard to the countries, which are part to the CIS Free trade zone – Ukraine and Moldova.

Question: Is Georgia also among them?

Sergey Lavrov: Georgia is not a full member of the Free trade zone (CIS), but it is part to several agreements, in which not only Commonwealth states, but also other countries can participate and enjoy some of the privileges.

Of course, we need to study everything. Our goal is not to see the benefits, which our partners receive and introduce some restrictions to revenge them. Nothing of the kind. We will consider the situation from the point of view of the only criterion – to what extent will trade conditions for Russia and other countries remaining in the CIS Free trade zone worsen. Of course, we are primarily concerned about Russia's interests, as well as interests of the countries members to the Customs Union – Belarus and Kazakhstan (we will have everything equal with them). They have tried to convince us that nothing bad will happen, both Russia and Ukraine will benefit.

I am not a supporter of radical predictions such as the Association with the EU will mean an economic suicide for Ukraine. However, I have seen specific numbers. They illustrate how "correct" the affirmations that things are "different" and "much better" in Europe.

We are primarily concerned how our market will be influenced by the duty-free import of European goods to Ukraine or Moldova, pushing out of Moldavian and Ukrainian goods from their markets because of more competitive European goods, and what will happen with markets in the countries of the Customs Union – Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Returning to your question about consultations, I can say that we proposed to the Ukrainians that they conduct them last November. We talked about this with Moldova a long time ago in July 2013, during the visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, Natalia Gherman, to Moscow. However, the first contacts on this issue were held just recently.

We are ready for such consultations at any time, including with our Georgian colleagues – there are trade relations between our countries, which we want to develop. We will see.

Question: What is your attitude to the constitutional changes proposed by the Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko?

Sergey Lavrov: There is a range of factors, which I would like to comment on. For this we need to study the proposition thoroughly. However, I would like to mention the external part of it and how the constitution change process was built in Ukraine.

We know that some parliamentary commission for the preparation of changes to the Ukrainian constitution was created in the Verkhovna Rada immediately after the armed coup. Russia always appealed that they work openly rather than in private. Moreover, when there was the Geneva meeting on the 17 April in the format of Russia – US – European Union – Ukraine, the Statement adopted by it stated directly that the constitutional process will be inclusive (everybody must participate in it), accountable and transparent. However, we have not seen any inclusiveness, accountability or transparency.

The Verkhovna Rada created this commission, but received no "products" from it. Then a draft constitution of Ukraine appeared in Strasbourg, with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe being asked to comment on it. I was able to clarify that the Venice Commission replied that it comments only on ready-to-use projects and asked to clarify the status of the document. Then Ukrainians took it back and promised to send a "new" one, and did not explain where was this one was from. After the election of Petro Poroshenko the President of Ukraine, he stated that changes will be made to the constitution, he announced a wide discussion on this issue several times. There was no discussion. As I have already said, the Geneva statement was ignored, despite the fact that it has always been corner stone for Ukraine, and it appealed for its implementation (at least such appeals were made towards Russia).

The Statement says that the constitutional process should start immediately with participation of all the regions. Please pay attention, it is about the 17 April. This has not been done. Therefore, it would not be correct to say against the backdrop of such an example that the current Ukrainian authorities do everything what depends on them to normalise the situation, but Russia does nothing.

We should see what will happen with the draft constitution. Having made an announcement about this in Strasbourg, Petro Poroshenko stated that the project is submitted to the Verkhovna Rada, but a discussion will follow later. In other words, a draft is being submitted to the Verkhovna Rada along with its presentation to the Council of Europe in the form, which does not reflect a consensus even in the Ukrainian parliament, without saying about the political forces and regions in it.

We very much hope that such steps, which are related to the fate of the Ukrainian state, will be made, being fully aware of the responsibility for the events, not just to make a gesture for some specific political events, such as the summit of the European Union, which will let the West say: "You are doingwell , therefore Russia must do this and that". It should not be allowed to constantly distort the situation and present it in such a way that everything is peaceful in Ukraine, and Russia is the only one, who attempts to " a spanner in the works " there. It is not fair and is destructive in respect of the fate of the Ukrainian people.