Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to RTVi TV-channel, Moscow, 9 April 2013

Question: As we know, the USA refused to test their intercontinental ballistic missile. Their motivation – not to irritate North Korea. So the West perceives the threat from Pyongyang more than seriously in your opinion, does the third Kim bluff or everything is serious? Is there a real threat of war?

Sergey Lavrov: To the question that a wish "not to irritate" North Korea is the reason of this or that step, I would say that there are more than enough irritants from all parts.

It is certainly unacceptable when a state – in this case DPRK, UN member – openly and provocatively breaches a UN resolution. We expressed our opinion about this topic together with other members of the Security Council many times. The last of these cases was our response to the nuclear test performed by Pyongyang in violation of its obligations. At the same time we are convinced that the situations are already very serious, because nuclear explosions, launches of missiles are not jokes. However, declamations play not less "harmful role", because at one time or another mutual accusations, threats and warnings can be drawn to a head, when people will paint themselves into a corner, and they will need to act, to present something to the vox populi.

Therefore we are consequently trying to appease the situation. To that end a cancellation of any measures related to demonstration of one's military might is a positive step. This is how we estimate the decision made in the USA by Pentagon with the approval of the President Barack Obama, as far I understand. This must motivate all of us not to pile up confrontation, not to discharge emotions, but rather try to bring the situation out of the "margin", where it has fallen, using methods of diplomacy, "calm" and non-public diplomacy, leading to the renewal of six-party talks. We are working on it. We work together with all participants to six-party talks – DPRK, the USA, Japan, Republic of Korea, we closely coordinate our actions with our Chinese neighbours. It is still hard to tell, how it will end. But I would not like, on the one hand, that the price of self-esteem manifests itself in a discharge of declamations or even worse – wrongful actions, and the other hand, I would not like to paint the situation into a corner because of the aspirations to prove that we can call everybody to order. There is no need to act by force or threats here, but rather by appeasing the situation.

I will repeat once again – measures are being taken. I cannot tell now what they will result in. We hope for the best.

Question: One of our viewers asks a question. "Don't you think that to prevent war in the Korean Peninsula Russia may make a stronger stand at the side of DPRK?" Many representatives of our viewers write that they would like to see more resolute actions from Moscow. Do you feel that they have reached the edge: one more step – and something vital may happen?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think that we need to make a choice here and to decide on whose side we come down. We wish to come down to the side of common sense and peaceful settlement. All the rest is based on emotions, if your viewers use reasoning: "Poor North Korea, it is surrounded; mass military trainings take place, including military and naval, land and air". These trainings really help. And we say Americans, South Koreans and Japanese about it. But to announce that we will conduct our trainings with North Korea is a senseless path. I think that the wish to "show ourselves", to elicit applause from some part of the audience using such a sufficiently exotic position needs to give place to the search for appeasement of the situation in all fronts.

Question: In your opinion, does the re-elected Administration of Barack Obama move in the correct direction? Aren't you personally and the Government of the Russian Federation dissatisfied with the current head of the White House?

Sergey Lavrov: You always wish more in any situation, in relations with any country and person with whom you see prospects of the implementation of mutually beneficial projects. Therefore, here as well we are trying to base on facts and not to give way to emotions.

A lot of valuable things have been reached during the first four years of the President Barack Obama. This is the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms, enactment of the Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Agreement that is beneficial for Moscow and Washington both from the point of view of non-proliferation of dangerous technologies and economic interests of Russia and the USA. We signed a breakthrough Visa facilitation agreement, and now businessmen and tourists may receive multi-entry visas for three years and the time for consideration is only two weeks (there was nothing of a kind before).

Our countries have a whole range of important cultural and humanitarian projects. Last year we celebrated 200 years of the capital city of Russian California – Fort Ross and an anniversary of the flight of Valery Chkalov, we had interesting events. Currently we are preparing "Beringia" project that will ensure close cooperation between national nature reserves on Chucotka and Alaska. These are only a few examples.

We certainly would like more. Thus, for instance, only two years ago Vladimir Putin advocated that we do not restrict ourselves to easement in the visa regime, but would rather move towards cancellation of visas. We see no reasons why it would not be possible.

Irritants are still in place. AMD is one of evident cases. We certainly noticed (as we notice everything related to AMD) the decision of the USA to postpone the implementation of phase four. I have not heard or seen immutability in this connection in American statements. They cannot do this, because the U.S. Congress prohibited to make any changes without consulting legislators during its last convocation.

In any case, even if we take into account the fact that phase four has been postponed for a long period of time (some analytics mention the period of 10 years), the new configuration remains within the global US AMD system. Nobody should be misled by the existence of European AMD under NATO's umbrella – this is the same American AMD. NATO has not and will not make intellectual or other contributions into the change of the American idea. The same concerns the Far East, where Americans together with Japanese and South Koreans promote the geographical segment of its national AMD. The same concerns the Middle East. Thus, this is not only the European part of the Earth, and the three large regions, each of which by coincidence or by chance is located sufficiently close to the Russian border.

We do not suspect anybody in anything, but, as one great soldier said, not intent, but rather the potential is important in military arts. "Chekhov's gun" is based on the same logics. I am beginning to think that our partners do not want to respond to the offers made by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin back in 2007: to sit together, to analyse and understand where a threat is coming from for states of the Euro-Atlantic region and then to jointly think about the creation of a system able to solve this task interpreted by Americans as suppression of threats coming from outside of the Euro-Atlantic region, i.e. outside regions of NATO plus Russia and Europe plus Russia plus the USA. Since our partners have told that they thought it out themselves and do not need our intellectual contribution, therefore, when we see threats and, as a minimum, risks for our strategic forces in the implemented scheme of threat, we insist on putting a paper on what we are told orally, namely, that the system is not directed against us. We need legal guarantees. I will explain why. They gave us a lot of political assurances, starting from the time of disappearance of the Warsaw Pact. When the USSR pulled out its forces from Europe, we were sworn an oath at the summit level that NATO will not expand East. Then, when despite the assurance at the summit level the Alliance still started to expand in that direction, they started to assure us again that no permanent significant combat forces will be located in territories of new member states of NATO. This idea was also recorded at the time of creation of NATO-Russia Council. But as soon as we try to formulate what the term "significant combat forces" specifically means, they say – later. Meanwhile up to 2.5 – 3 thousands of militaries with armaments are being deployed in the territory of new member states, military bases are being created in the Eastern Europe, etc.

Therefore we do not need political assurances, but rather guarantees. It is especially topical that in 2008 Russia launched the initiative to sign a European Security Treaty the sense of which would be to make the principle of indivisibility of security legally binding. It is already embodied in documents of OSCE and NATO-Russia Council (NRC) stating that no member of NRC will ensure its security at the account of derogation of security of others. A reaction to those propositions was weird: "why do you need legal guarantees, when you have political ones? Name us a situation (even hypothetical), when a legal corroboration might be required?"

AMD is that case. We clearly see that the attempt to tighten security of Europe and the USA through the creation of the AMD system causes risks to the security of Russia, thus the political obligation undertaken within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council is breached. But we need not only legal guarantees, but also a coordinated list of criteria, allowing to verify at each particular step that these guarantees are complied with and that the development of the US AMD on a global scale is taking place in such a way to meet the initially announced goal, namely, to stop missile threats from outside of the Euro-Atlantic region.

Question: What Europeans and Americans request from Russia? Why the relations do not shape?

Sergey Lavrov: And why they promised us not to expand NATO, but started to expand it?

Question: But they still have not acceded Georgia to NATO.

Sergey Lavrov: I would not consider the decision to delay the application of Georgia to accede NATO as a gesture towards Russia. Georgia (and objective documents of NATO, European organizations, OSCE, Council of Europe recognize it) is not ready to comply with the standards set by NATO for its members. This primarily concerns the situation in the sphere of the supremacy of law and many other things making the essence of democracy as it is understood and interpreted by NATO. This understanding is quite universal.

As to the promises that were given to us by NATO, I would guide myself by facts only here. They promised – they did not do it, they wrote on paper – they did not do it. Next time we will insist on legally binding guarantees.

Question: If we talk about Russia-USA relations, we cannot forget about "Magnitsky Act" and the response of Russia to it. There are data that you initially were against the "Dima Yakovlev Law". In your opinion, to what extent now, when some time has passed, the Russian response is symmetrical and adequate to the decision made by Americans?

Sergey Lavrov: "Magnitsky Act" is an explicit anti-Russian act designed, as far as I may judge, by politically sophisticated people and adopted not without the influence of Bill Browder who illegally bagged fabulous fortune in the Russian Federation. It happened that poor Sergey Magnitsky worked for him. The criminal proceedings initiated against Bill Browder applied to his lawyer Sergey Magnitsky as well. The tragedy that has happened with him is terrible. It is bad when people die in prisons. All the more so that the man could not get the opportunity to confirm that he was right or otherwise. It is always bad, and not only when people die in our prisons.

The Magnitsky case is our problem. Currently, at the order of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, the Human Rights Commissioner of Russia Vladimir Lukin is preparing propositions for the improvement of the penitentiary system, especially conditions of detention of people in detention facilities.

A tragedy of no minor importance is a suicide (this most probably is a suicide) of Alexander Dolmatov in Holland's prison. By the way, we are waiting from Netherlands authorities (and we reminded our Netherlands partners about it during the visit of the President Vladimir Putin) the results of their investigation as soon as possible. We wish to ascertain the truth a lot, as well as we wish to ascertain the same in respect of deaths of other Russian citizens – one of them is Alexander Litvinenko. What raises our hackles is the fact that the government of the United Kingdom in the line of agencies concerned, including the Foreign Office, turned to court requesting to classify significant part of information related to the investigation of this case.

Returning to the "Magnitsky Act", I would like to say the following: when Americans have understood that they need to abolish the Jackson-Vanik amendment, otherwise they will stay aside of the benefits WTO member state will have, when Russia joins the World Trade Organization, a wish worked out for them to replace the anti-Soviet act with an anti-Russia act. Needless to say that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was an anachronism. It was adopted to punish the USSR for the prevention of emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union. It was renewed each time under new presences one of which was, for instance, the requirement to make us buy more chicken legs. Natan Sharansky who was a known dissident in the USSR, was imprisoned in labour camps, then was a member of Israels government, repeatedly visited the Russian Federation after that. Our attitude to him is very good and we know him well. When the USA attempted under another "chicken" pretence to extend the Jackson-Vanik amendment, it was not in vain that he said that he spent seven years in labour camps not for the sake of "Bush Legs". It is funny, it really is.

These are the approaches American legislators have. All the attempts to bring them to their senses and to tell that it is absurd had no effect. Frankly speaking, the Administration of the United States (both of George Bush and Barack Obama) at the first stage did not work with the Congress to show it the dishonesty of the position, when Jackson-Vanik continued to preserve.

But have already closed the main issues of entry to the WTO, and here I must acknowledge the positive role played by the US Administration and by Barack Obama personally in the advancement to compromises on a path of our entry to the Organization. After that, as it became already evident, members of the Congress decided to somehow compensate the anti-Soviet (and now already anti-Russia) "stick" and invented the "Magnitsky Act". This act was lobbied most actively by Bill Browder on the Capitol Hill, and then he fussed over all countries of Europe and offered them to adopt "anti-Magnitsky acts" in European parliaments.

Nevertheless, the act proposed by the Senator Ben Cardin had appeared. We know that this was not the choice of the American Administration. When Barack Obama met Vladimir Putin last June in Los Cabos at the summit of the Group of Twenty, Barack Obama said: "I cannot do this. My obligations will press on me, primarily, the need to remove the Jackson-Vanik amendment. I am committed to it".

We perceive it as a replacement of the anti-Soviet act with an anti-Russia act. The fact that the Congress has literally "forced in" a more rough version than the one proposed by Ben Cardin, seems to me, to a known extent, to be a manifestation of Russo phobia traditionally present at the Capitol Hill, but also the wish to "queer pitch" to the President Barack Obama who was consistently trying to make the Russian line in their foreign policy one of its priorities and achieved a big result. Probably, before the elections of 2012 the Congress led by Republicans wished to show that Barack Obama is going amiss or almost going amiss. So there is a "plaque" of an intraamerican political life. When back in Los Cabos Barack Obama said to Vladimir Putin about this, the Russian President replied that we will not be able to leave it without reply.

As to the content of the "Dima Yakovlev Law", there was a very acute discussion in the Russia community, when it was considered, written, supplemented, precisions and amendments were entered into it. The discussion was mostly based on two logics. One of them was that we should not close any possibilities for children, if there is a chance for them to improve their position. The second – we cannot give children to be adopted by the country, in which they die. The second school of thought developed in several lines: it was admitted that during all the time of adoption 60 thousands of our children were brought to the USA, but there were not more than tenths of those who have suffered (were killed, raped, crippled or send back as a parcel). We know for sure about 21 cases. But we do not know how many other children there are, because we have no possibility to trace "adoption routes". This is especially related to what has happened in the 90s of the 20th century. Moreover, when a child is adopted from Russia or any other country, he is given an American name in the USA and all his or her documents show the name given by his or her American parents.

But the general analysis of the adoption situation in the USA, not only Russian, but also any other children, including American, points out that there might be much more of such incidents. After these stories started to appear in press with a scandal and to arouse our vox populi, American citizens and NGOs turned to the Russian Embassy in Washington telling that there is family in their state, village, city that is tormenting its child, and everybody sees it. They were interested whether this child might be Russian, and therefore turned to the Russian Embassy. We are actively studying each of such facts.

If we return to the issue of proportionality. It is a feature of a healthy society when there is a discussion before the adoption of a law. The law has been finally adopted, it must be observed. We presume from that. As to the content of the law and the fact of prohibiting adoption in the USA, a Russian proverb "a fly in the ointment" would be appropriate here. The fly contaminated all the ointment. This is what has happened with this law in our society. And finally this law gained the appearance it is looking now.

Question: You are a head of a foreign policy agency, and you have to answer at serious world arenas for what is happening inside Russia. We hear critical statements, including those that are heard from Washington, in respect of penalties, searches in NPOs, violations of human rights, restricting free speech in Russia. Many examples are provided. Including the story of the blogger Alexey Navalny against whom criminal proceedings were initiated, judicial proceedings are about to start. How do you respond to the critics of your colleagues, do you consider it to be rightful?

Sergey Lavrov: If it is dictated by a sincere interest to look into the situation and to help to establish democratic society in Russia (these are only 20 years that we are dealing with it, do not forget about it. Since Novgorod veche and a short period of the provisional government there were no practices of democracy in our country. The path we have made in 20 years, took many centuries for others who are trying to reproach us that we have no love for democracy and do not respect the supremacy of law), if there is a wish to help in this movement, we assured many times though the voice of the President of Russia that we are ready for such a dialog, either with the EU or with the USA, with whom we have mechanisms for such a dialog, and all of this complies with our vision of how to develop cooperation, including in the sphere of human rights. But if it only for the purposes of scoring more intrapolitical points, to show their adherence to principles in relations with Russia, to campaign electors of democratic countries to vote for one party, not the one at the helm of state now an trying to "flirt" with Russia because of gas or any other economic interests, then, there is probably no sense and it is a waste of time to talk to such people. Though, depending on where they are in the government or in the opposition, their views may change. There are many such examples, including in Europe. We are ready for this dialog, all the more so that we have something to say and to learn how our partners solve problems with human rights.

For example, in the USA. We are trying to clarify the fate of one Russian citizen who has been in detention in Guantanamo Bay detention camp without trial and record for about ten years. Only now they are trying to organize our visit to him in some way. But the fact itself of the existence of a prison in Guantanamo Bay is a shame. They explain the fact that they do not close it openly and without hesitation by one motive only: "If we bring them to the USA, we will have no legal grounds to keep them in prison. Therefore we keep them without trial and record. We have our way with it: torture – not torture". Nobody checks or controls this detention camp. Abu Ghraib is a prison in Iraq, infamous for the outrages that were happening there. CIA rendition flights is an issue that is still being investigated by the European Parliament to clarify who and why violated all imaginable national laws, EU legislation, international conventions when accepted these CIA renditions, topped them up, helped to question.

There are a lot of claims to the judicial system of the USA. Those sentences in respect of killers and rapists of Russian children. Many of them are released in the courtroom; get suspended sentences for real facts when irreparable injuries were done to children. At the same time our citizens are kidnapped, like it was with Konstantin Yaroshenko in Liberia, or wrongful removal from a country, like Viktor Bout was removed from Thailand in violation of Thai laws. A case is now being investigated there, why Thai laws were violated when extraditing Viktor Bout. Both were provoked by American agents, who, in fact, lured them into a conversation to provide transportation services to some person (they say that it is for Cocaine mafia in Columbia or for Columbian rebels). They were charged with 20 and 25 years of sentence for an intent that even was not recorded and was "dragged away" from them in a deceitful way. And they release in a courtroom for the death of a Russian child.

We can talk a lot about the American system of justice. I will not remind about the "shop-worn" topic of the archaic system of elections in the USA. I remember, when Condoleezza Rice was a US Secretary of State, she started to tell me something about the incompleteness of our system of elections. I replied that we are searching for an optimum way. However, in the USA in 2000, due to the two-tiered electoral system, cutting of electoral districts, Al Gore, who received, as we all know, the absolute majority, if these were direct elections, in the end lost to George Bush who, in absolute terms, received fewer voices. There was another dark story, when the US Supreme Court stopped the procedure of recalculation of voices in the State of Florida. But Condoleezza Rice answered me: "Yes, we have such a problem. We know about it. But it is our problem, we live with it and if we need to change something, we will deal with it ourselves". And this is all.

Question: Is this your reply to Americans?

Sergey Lavrov: No, it is just an example I provide.

You mentioned about a "known blogger, opposition member Alexey Navalny". If we say that bloggers are "more equal than non-bloggers" as George Orwell said, we will have a "cattle yard" not democracy. All must be equal before the law. But if there is an accusation in economic violations, they must be investigated despite the fact whether the person is a blogger or not. I have nothing against Alexey Navalny, and if people wish to combat corruptions – for god's sake.

Alexey Navalny is not the only suspect in the case of "Kirovles", representatives of ex heads of the Ministry of Defence are pretty often on remand. Therefore, we should not view bloggers or civil officers in isolation from facts. We should presume whether there are accusations that may be proved in court.

Question: Our viewer is asking: "what will you tell to leaders of other countries, if Alexey Navalny will be put in prison for a trumped-up case?" I will add: have you talked about it with any of your foreign colleagues?

Sergey Lavrov: This last name never percolated neither at meetings with my colleagues, nor at meetings of the President Vladimir Putin with his partners where I was present. However, it appears that this viewer has decided everything stating that "Alexey Navalny will be put into prison for a trumped-up case".

I cannot assume functions of judge. I provided you examples of imperfection of the US judicial system, there is known critics about Russia's system as well. But if we act based on emotions, we can destroy everything. By the way, when our partners tell us about the supremacy of law, we answer: "certainly, but let's advocate as steadily for the supremacy of law not only inside countries, but also at the international arena". They start losing their enthusiasm.

As to human rights, there are no perfect people. As one character in a well-known film says, "nobody is perfect". On 8 April, when the President of Russia visited Netherlands, they touched upon the topic of human rights in Russia. Vladimir Putin was asked about it at the press conference as well, he answered that we wish to have more human rights, legal order, less corruption, and we are working on it. He provided several examples of how these things are sometimes presented in a biased way, when one "sees the speck in his brother's eye but fails to notice the beam in his own eye". One of discussions in Netherlands society now is devoted to the fact that some time ago the Holland court banned the "Marthijn" party. These guys are paedophiles whose main goal is to prove legal and social acceptability of paedophilia. An appeal was submitted to raise the ban for this party. Their discussion are serious, there is no general resentment.

The second example is much more established both legally and factually. Netherlands have a state reformist party one of the main goals of which is to introduce an official ban for women occupying public posts and a ban for women to be elected into parliament. This is not an artificially created party, its members sit in the Holland's parliament, and, as a minimum, the last government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte based, among others, on the support of this party in a whole range of issues. We cannot imagine it in Russia.

If the Holland's society wishes to live in such context, and such principles are considered to be acceptable (in respect of paedophiles, employment ban for women), it is their right, if their society wishes it. But we also have our own traditions, therefore let's discuss these questions and be ready to answer counter-questions.

Question: What is your opinion, does Russia have democracy?

Sergey Lavrov: I think that there is democracy. Read our newspapers, watch our TV, say nothing of the Internet.

Question: We received many questions about Syria. This war seems to have no end. Many readers are interested what Russian does to end this mass murder. I will read the question: "when will we see real diplomatic, political and military steps from Russia in preventing Syria from the worst version of resolution of the civil war?"

Sergey Lavrov: Look, and you will see. The chronology is as follows. The very first reaction of the UNSC to the events in Syria was in August 2011 at the initiative of Russia. This was the unanimously adopted statement of the Chairman of the Security Council supporting the request to both parties to stop shooting each other, sit and agree about the future of their country. This approach, in our opinion, is the only right approach. Subsequent attempts of our western colleagues to "drag through" an unilateral UNSC decision blaming only SAR government in all sins, were vetoed by Russia and China. We absolutely do not remove responsibility from the Syrian regime, because any government is primarily responsible for the security of its citizens, including in such situations. To pretend that the government just pulled out its forces and shot peaceful protesters like on 9 January 1905 in the Russian Federation is incorrect and unfair. Armed opposition members were already fighting against the military forces of the regime back then, and now they are even more armed. Nevertheless, the first reaction of UNSC in August 2011 was initiated by Russia.

In November 2011 LAS adopted a plan, according to which it wished to send observers to Syria and to look what is really happening there, who is right, who is wrong. The place of Damascus in LAS became vacant – they did not let it to the session. The government of Syria naturally was offended. We made serious efforts and convinced the authorities of SAR to accept LAS observers. When after a month the observers started to prepare their first report, that contained facts that not only the government is breaching cease-fire, but armed opposition do the same in violation of the international humanitarian law, LAS scrapped its mission, withdrew it and the observers left.

The next stage was spring 2012. Kofi Annan was appointed a special envoy of UN/LAS, he developed his own plan that was also not readily accepted in Damascus. We made efforts, Damascus agreed to accept UN observers based on this plan. The observers were nominated, deployed, and the statistics showed that violence was slowly but surely reducing, there were less and less incidents. As soon as they started to record it, I do not know that for sure, but I am convinced that it was on suggestion from abroad, the opposition started to activate, unbearable conditions around the UN mission have formed and they had to scrap it.

The next stage. At out initiative that was supported by Kofi Annan, we gather a meeting in Geneva in June 2012, make a consensus about the Geneva Communiqué. Please make a note that all the five permanent members of UNSC, LAS, EU, Turkey, Qatar, Iraq, UN Secretary-General became authors of this document. This seems to be a sufficiently impressive company. Though we were convinced that we had to invite Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well, but the participation of Iran was blocked by the USA – I think it was a mistake. Nevertheless, in the end, Iran supported this document in absentia. The Communiqué stated that everybody must stop shooting, all external players presented in Geneva must send an equally strong signal to all the fighting parties and to tell them: "we request you to do this". I am convinced that if everybody acted in the same manner, shooting would have stopped long ago.

Question: Does this mean that such development of the situation is favourable for some players at the global arena? Who is interested in this?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not know, but I am answering the question of the viewer about when he will see actions of Russia.

The Geneva meeting was convened at Russia's initiative. In a few days after the platform for settlement has appeared, we convinced the President Bashar al-Assad to accept it as a basis for further actions. The opposition has still not said it. Moreover, three days after the meeting in Geneva the opposition rejected the Communiqué, because it did not envisage the change of the regime and resignation of Bashar al-Assad before the negotiations. We brought the Communiqué the UNSC, offered to approve it. Our Western partners answered that they have supported the consensus in Geneva and are involved in the document, but it does not contain the topic of the overthrow of the regime. Therefore, they offered to write that the Communiqué may be fulfilled as soon as Bashar al-Assad refuses from his power. It turns out that we agreed about something, and then people try to switch up.

The last example. Russia is the only country meeting everybody who represents these or those trends in the Syrian society both in and outside it: with the government, the internal opposition, each and everyone oppositionist. I met the head of the so called National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces Moaz al-Khatib. He was invited to come to Moscow. It is indicative that just recently we advocated for the beginning of a dialog with the government without preconditions. But he was immediately "rapped knuckles" and other member of the coalition disavowed his statements. Our colleagues from LAS immediately convened an extraordinary meeting and made the decision that from now on the National Coalition is the only legal representative of the Syrian people. They put the National Coalition on the place of Syria in LAS, as if there are no people who still sees the regime as a protector from problems between ethnicities and religions, as if Syria had no internal opposition. I think that LAS crosses its mediator's efforts in this way. All the more so that the same decision "generously" permits supplying weapons to the opposition, even though this is in violation of all imaginable and unimaginable international norms and laws.

It has been a long time that that we are trying to calm the situation. But as soon as there a small flash of hope, as soon as we start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, somebody (as you said – it is advantageous for somebody) does everything to frustrate hopes and to derail the situation again in the direction of a war till final victory. There will be no winner there. I do not know whom it might be advantageous. It might be advantageous to many. For instance, those who would like to see less large and influential countries in the region. Those who would like these countries, if their preserve their integrity, to longer take care of "shovelling" consequences of a terrible war. The city of Aleppo that is under the protection of UNESCO was destructed in Syria. Look what is happening in Egypt. Most probably this is also for somebody's advantage, because Egypt always was the leading regional state having a compelling stand and a solid voice about the problem of Palestinian peace process. Though Cairo is striving to confirm this role, currently main efforts are spent to calm down the internal situation. I met the President Mohamed Morsi, when the President Vladimir Putin was at the summit in the South Africa. We will continue to work with him, to support their efforts for stabilization.

Egypt was kicked out of the active game in which it usually actively participated in Middle East Affairs, and other people "call the tune" in LAS now. For example, the decision about the exclusion of Syria was taken in violation of the Charter of LAS: according to the Charter such decisions are made only with a consensus, while there were two or three states that were against it. So the only way (we can invent nothing here) is to stop encouraging violence, militarize the conflict and the need to put the parties at the negotiation table.

The government of Syria – to a large extend under our pressure – formed a negotiation team. We talked about it with the US Secretary of State John Kerry during our meeting in Berlin. He said that he will also assist so that Syria forms its negotiation team. There are Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and three ministers. I called back the US Secretary of State and said that Damascus has confirmed its negotiation team. Unfortunately, neither Americans, nor others managed to stimulate the opposition to form the same team on their side. I hope your viewer...

Question: Will be glad.

Sergey Lavrov: ...I do not know. I do not hear his wish to be glad with Russia in his question. I presented the main facts, there are much more of them.

Question: Many people, including political analysts, politicians (including Georgian) have interest in the situation in Georgia, when authorities have changed. Now only positive signals are coming from the official Tbilisi. Bidzina Ivanishvili announces the readiness to be friends in all lines. What do you see in the new Georgian government? Do you wish to have a constructive cooperation with them?

Sergey Lavrov: We always wanted to be friends, to cooperate with our Georgian neighbours, to help them to solve their problems. If there was no that shady undertaking in August 2008, we could have seriously advanced in that direction. Our relations were constantly "tensioned" by Mikheil Saakashvili. I think that he made a destructive contribution into souls and minds of many young Georgians. He consistently pursued the line of "blacking out" the Russian language, Russian culture and memories about the historical links uniting out countries from people's everyday life.

One example will suffice. I will not tell a long story about the epistemology of conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but it is a fact that the Ossetians sent their first embassy to St Petersbourg and the Abkhazians allotted to the Russian Empire before the Treaty of Georgievsk. We all know how they were slighted in Soviet times, when Abkhazia together with Georgia became equal (with one status) republics of the union, and then Iosif Stalin transferred Abkhazia to Georgia. However, the Treaty of Georgievsk was the result of the Georgians' request for protection from the Russian throne. Mikheil Saakashvili in one of his emotional speeches called this event in the history of our relations the first occupation of Georgia by Russia. To knock such things into heads of youths who do not remember the period of good relations is his crime to his own people. Therefore, Mikheil Saakashvili is a "footloose man" for us. When he hears that Bidzina Ivanishvili or his ministers say something positive about relations with Russia, he immediately makes it a rule to make a comment in another direction. I do not think that somebody in this world is still listening to him.

As to the new government, there were not us who brought it to power. We tried not to comment in any way what is happening on the interpolitical Georgian stage. The Georgina people made this choice. We respect this choice. We are satisfied that the government wishes to pragmatically solve the issues that are present in our relations: renewal of trade with agricultural products, beverages. By the way, our cooperation in the field of energy has never stopped. I mean gas, electricity, Russian capital, Russian companies.

The main thing is that we are still driven to each other. I have many Georgian friends, including those who live in Moscow. Of course, they perceive events in different ways. I do not think that Georgia will have a politician in the foreseeable future, who will say: "let's forget about Abkhazia and South Ossetia". But we also need to understand that Russia will have politician, who will say: "we were not right".

How can it be that we were not right? Everything started from aggravation of the situation. On 7 August 2008 we had contacts with Mikheil Saakashvili, and he gave an order not to make any offensive actions. There was a mixed battalion created based on the agreement between Georgia, Russian and the party to the conflict – that time South Ossetia in Tskhinvali (initially it was called Tskhinval, but later during Iosif Stalin's times they "georgized" all Abkhazian and Ossetian surnames and names of cities). Russians, Georgians and Ossetians were serving in the battalion. Several hours after Mikheil Saakashvili said on public that there will be no military actions, Georgian peace-makers left this battalion and several hours later they fought their comrades together with units of the Georgian army. This was attack to the civil population and peace-makers in violation of the agreement signed by the Georgian government before Mikheil Saakashvili. We said many times that our goal was to stop bloodshed, to suppress firing points outside the territory of South Ossetia from where they were shouting. When this was done, our military forced returned, but stayed in the territory of South Ossetia, Mikheil Saakashvili immediately made a threat of a revenge. There was no goal to recognize an independent state. Nobody thought about it. I was a witness of these events, how they were discussed in Moscow. There was only one goal – to stop bloodshed. But then we started to hear revenge signals from Tbilisi. Mikheil Saakashvili refused from the proposition made by the presidents of Russia and France to observe cessation of hostilities and, the main thing, to start international discussions about determination of the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (we were ready to discuss their status in the international context). Mikheil Saakashvili said: "no discussions". His subsequent revenge statements brought us to the conclusion that there was no other way to ensure security and survival of the people other than recognition of their independence. No matter how others would perceive it. I do not see that there will be a Georgian politician in the foreseeable future, who will say: "this is all, we forgot about it we were wrong". Also there will be no Russian politician, who will say: "let's resume the natural course". This cannot happen. When Americans offer in the context of restriction or control over simple weapons in Europe to record the need to respect the borders that existed before August 2008, we answer, that they may disagree, but this is the decision of the Russian President and the Russian Government.

Question: So, no matter what the decision is, it cannot be changed?

Sergey Lavrov: We can change a lot. But these were not us who broke off diplomatic relations, Mikheil Saakashvili did that.

Question: But there are hundred thousands of refugees, and they will not return to Abkhazia. The Georgian society is worried about it.

Sergey Lavrov: If they are worried, then they need to explain it to those conducting negotiations. Geneva discussions were organized at the proposition of Dmitry Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy – about twenty meetings were held. Another round was held just recently. It was coordinated that two sets of issues are discussed: issues of security in the region to prevent the renewal of similar shady undertakings and humanitarian issues, including the condition of refugees and destitute in accordance with the international humanitarian law and the practice of post-conflict settlement.

When the practice of post-conflict settlement was mentioned, we certainly did not want that decades of the solution of the problem of Palestinian refugees or the problems of refugees on the Balkans that exist for more than ten years to be taken as a stone. The biggest group of refugees in Europe are Serbs. They will hardly return to Croatia, those who left Southern parts of Kosovo will hardly return. Nevertheless, a work group was created during Geneva discussions, that is also dealing with the problem of refugees. It was offered that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees conducts an inventory of the whole situation. This is certainly not a simple dialog, because it touches a tender wound. The Abkhazians and South Ossetians had no enthusiasm to deal with it, but in the end they involved into this process that it was important to initiate. An UNGA opened after some time, and Georgia entered there the resolution concerning the problem of refugees and destitutes. Abkhazians and South Ossetians asked to provide the possibility to make a speech in the UN and to present "their portion of the truth", if Georgians deem it necessary to discuss it not within the framework of Geneva Discussions, but at the global "world arena". They turned for a visa to the USA, but no visa was issued to them. As far as Georgia introduces such a resolution for the third time, and it is accepted after voting, Abkhazians and South Ossetians (and we clearly understand them) have taken such position: as long as Georgia wishes to make this problem the subject of propaganda in the UN, we will not discuss it during Genève discussions. Therefore, they do not discuss it in places, where all participants to the process are resent and these issues may be solved in a pragmatic way. This is not our fault or somebody else's fault, but rather the fault of our colleagues from Tbilisi.

But I will repeat we are appealed by pragmatism, with which the Government of Bidzina Ivanishvili perceives these relations. Beside extension of trade (all the more so that we have an agreement about the entry of Russian to WTO, here we have additional prerequisites for more active trade relations from a legal point of view) like it was during all these years, we are ready to cultural, humanitarian, sports contacts. Our political analysts, scientists, including those from MGIMO and Diplomatic Academy go to different conferences in Georgia. Georgian performers regularly come to our theatre festivals as private theatrical enterprises. I can only welcome this, because our peoples need to remembers how they lived together, were friends. I think that this friendship has not disappeared, though it is currently undergoing a very serious test.