Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have conducted negotiations with my colleague, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet. We discussed the key issues of our bilateral relations together with topical international problems and more "European" ones.

We are interested in the development of dialogue with our Estonian neighbour which is based on principles of mutually beneficial co-operation and being good neighbours. We think that our colleagues share the opinion that there is much potential in the relations between Russia and Estonia, including as far as the trade and economic sectors are concerned. We have achieved a sustainable growth in the turnover of goods and achieved an increased level of interest among the two countries' economic players to engage in investments. There are good prospects with transfrontier and regional ties. We believe that our interaction might develop even more productively.

Today we have made an important step in the development of international relations: we signed agreements concerning the Russian-Estonian State border as well as those devoted to suspending restrictions of maritime areas in the Narva Bay and in the Gulf of Finland. Border agreements require ratification. We agreed to do everything necessary to make this process continue operatively and effectively. When these agreements enter into force, this should help reinforce a positive atmosphere in our relations.

Another thing we have done today is signed an agreement concerning diplomatic immovable property as well as the plan of mutual consultations of foreign ministries for 2014-2015; things which will contribute to the promotion of interaction between our foreign services.

We reviewed some draft documents which are in their development stage. We believe that many of them may be ready to be signed in the near future. We agreed to contribute to the acceleration of this work within the scope of foreign ministries.

We have never avoided difficult issues acknowledged in our relations. We confirmed our position to be in favour of the fulfilment of recommendations within the scope of various international organisations (including the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights); recommendations which are committed to an accelerated resolution of the problem of statelessness which still exists in Estonia and Latvia.

We discussed the situation concerning the teaching of Russian in Estonia. We would not want to know of any artificial barriers for those who want to study Russian.

We talked about a recurring trend of the glorification of Nazism in Europe. It is, unfortunately, a phenomenon which is observable in many countries of the European Union. Russia's position in this issue is well-known, and it has been confirmed as existent today. The lessons of the past (the Second World War, the Nuremberg Trials, the creation of the UN) must be invoked in order to prevent such tragic mistakes from being committed once again, and to ensure full implementation of the decisions adopted in the UN, at OSCE summits, and in the NATO-Russia Council devoted to the creation and maintenance of a common area of progress, security and stability in Atlantic Europe.

We reviewed the current situation and the prospects of relations between Russia and the European Union – this included such priorities as the acceleration of the work on basic agreement, visa problems and energy cooperation. We exchanged opinions about the state of the Eastern Partnership programme, primarily from the point of view of its influence on the relations between Russia and the European Union. We provided to our Estonian colleagues details of our discussion on this topic between the President of the Russian Federation (Vladimir Putin), the President of the European Union Herman (Van Rompuy) and the President of the European Commission (José Manuel Barroso) during the EU-Russia summit in Brussels.

We discussed our relations within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council, where we do a lot of valuable things on a practical scale. We appreciate Estonia's interest in participating in several joint projects of the NATO-Russia Council. At the same time, we have taken note of Russia's well-known position regarding the plans of the United States to pass agreements concerning the creation of a global missile defence system through NATO and the lack of progress in the dialogue between Washington and Moscow. We explained our concerns aroused by the fact that, in the context of the search for a new meaning ever since the Afghan campaign, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has conducted training programmes under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty on Collective Defence; they are, in fact, preparing for a non-existent threat. It seems to us that such thinking should be left in the past.

We value the trustworthy nature of our dialogue with our Estonian colleagues. I am convinced that sincere, non-politicised discussion of any issues which are potentially embarrassing to either party, are an optimal way to remove such concerns and to consider each other's legal interests. Russia is ready for that. I hope that today's negotiations will contribute to the formation of a constructive and substantial agenda in our relations.

Question: How does Russia perceive Estonia today – as a member of the EU and NATO, as a former fraternal republic, as a neighbour or as an enemy (which we heard of several years ago)?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot remember anybody calling Estonia our enemy. We view this country, like any other country, in all the roles you have mentioned: as a neighbour, a people, with whom we have lived in a single State (we have a lot in common in history, it's not just Soviet fare), and as a member of the European Union, NATO, the NATO-Russia Council, OSCE, and the UN, which was created as a result of the ever-bloody Second World War. Being neighbours, we have so many mutual interests in economic, cultural and humanitarian domains; we are interested in the consistent development of these relations and the resolution of any questions the parties have, in the spirit of good-neighbourliness and on legal and fair grounds.

Question: Today's Komemrsant publishes an article by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton in response to your article in that newspaper. In particular, it states that the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union is not detrimental to the interests of Russia; and it contains a statement about the inadmissibility of any external pressure on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia; she also expresses an opinion that the President of Ukraine's (Viktor Yanukovych) unexpected refusal of the EU Association Agreement has caused almost the biggest crisis in the years that this country has independent. Do you agree with this? How would you comment on this article in general?

Sergey Lavrov: I am glad that they noticed my articles in Brussels and how Catherine Ashton viewed it personally. I think that the general mood of this material is positive and that it is heading in the same direction as our aspirations for relations between Russia and the EU. We are strategic partners, we share the goal of creating a common economic and humanitarian area stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean. I repeat that, generally, the article reflects the strategic nature of our relations.

Since Catherine Ashton attempted to react to some of the statements in my article related to Russian assessments of the events in Ukraine and around it, I for one paid attention to individual details which were reflected in the article. For instance, Catherine Ashton writes that she welcomes my statement that the process of Eurasian integration is aimed at harmonisation with the integration processes of the European Union. I have not mentioned that. I said that Russia, members of the Customs Union and the EU should be interested in the mutual harmonisation of integration processes. According to Catherine Ashton, things are different: Eurasian integration should harmonise with the integration processes of the European Union first and foremost. There is a difference. I hope that you understand what I mean by that. We are in favour of an equal approach, but the EU still proceeds from European Union logic.

Catherine states that Russia should not be afraid of the Eastern Partnership. We are not afraid of it: the President of Russia Vladimir Putin confirmed this in his contacts with his conversation partners many times. We support the development of trade, economic and other ties between countries of the post-Soviet area and the European Union, because we are interested in close relations with the EU up to the creation of a free trade zone. President Vladimir Putin stated this to the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso at the EU-Russia summit in Brussels in January. Our attitude to the Eastern Partnership is not based on fear. We just want to have transparency in terms of the development of ties between the EU and our neighbours, which are the largest partners of Russia.

Catherine Ashton writes that the association agreement they planned to sign with Kiev will have no negative influence on trade between Ukraine and Russia. If this is so, then we have a question to ask which we have been asking for a long time but which still remains unanswered: why was this agreement between the EU and Ukraine prepared in secret, and why was it not publicised before its signing? One may question why, during Catherine Ashton's visit to Kiev at the end of January and her communication with journalists, representatives of Russian mass media who applied for accreditation were not allowed to attend her press conference. Such secrecy in the preparation of this agreement and in the briefing for journalists summarising the results of Catherine Ashton's negotiations during her January visit, can only leave people bewildered.

We share many of those things which have been declared in Brussels. Catherine Ashton proposed not to generate any competition for spheres of influence (Russia never supported such competition for the creation of such spheres) and move step-by-step, while implementing obligations that had been undertaken earlier. We can only support this! Our position regarding the further liberalisation of trade with the EU is conditioned by the same aspiration to move step-by-step. We only wish to raise the competitiveness of our economic, agricultural, industrial, and service sectors with CU partners – Belarus and Kazakhstan – first and then start talking about further liberalisation of trade with the European Union from more equal positions. This is a gradual, step-by-step movement. Regarding association and free trade agreements with focus countries of the Eastern Partnership, there is no gradual movement; the offer is to remove the majority of protection tariff rates at once.

In our energy dialogue with the EU, we propose to move step-by-step, fulfilling and respecting earlier undertaken obligations. While the attempts to apply the Third Energy Package retrospectively in respect of investments already made based on other rules, is disrespectful regarding undertaken obligations on non-aggravation of business conditions, the same may be said about the earlier undertaken obligation (when the OSCE was created) about the freedom of movement. This obligation was approved within the framework of that Organisation; our Western partners insisted on this. In those times, the Soviet Union was against it. Now this obligation has been defaulted due to the position of EU members, or at least some of them (many of them are in favour of faster cancellation of visas).

I wish to end my answer from what I have started. Russia is for sincere and honest talk about the Eastern Partnership, and energy dialogue, which is a cornerstone of strategic partnership with the EU. But everything must take place as Catherine Ashton declares in her article – with respect for earlier undertaken obligations in the OSCE, and within the framework of the partnership of Russia and the European Union, so as not to aggravate business conditions, and with no need to take into consideration the CIS free trade zone. They should certainly be respected during the conclusion of agreements which touch upon these obligations with other participants of international exchanges.

Such sincere dialogue, including in the mass media, confirms a mutual interest in the strengthening of our strategic partnership. We have granted our consent regarding a major task: the creation of a common economic and humanitarian area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. At the summit in Brussels, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed to create a free trade zone between the EU and CU by 2020 as an important stage of advancement to the set goal. At the time, our partners in the European Union stated that they need to think. In Catherine Ashton's article, I read that they share this goal, but 2020 was not mentioned. She just wrote that the European Union would be ready to create a free trade zone over time, and that this is already in progress and moving forward. I welcome this.

Question: How will the border agreement which was signed today affect the future of Russian-Estonian relations? Is this purely a formality or a sign of improvement in your relations?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think that this is a formality. In our introductory speeches, Mr. Urmas Paet and I attempted to provide positive assessments of these two documents. The legal arrangement of borders is important for any State. This is an attribute of any country and evidence that the issue which existed between the two countries has since been closed. This was not a problem; we never experienced any problems because of the lack of such agreement in practice. Border interaction was quite effective and constructive, but the final legal arrangement of the situation and the demarcation of the border line of the land following the ratification of this agreement, is an important step (not just a formality), which (I am convinced) will promote further development of our relations and reinforce an atmosphere of trust and co-operation which will benefit both countries and their people.

Question: When are you going to visit Estonia? Where would you like to go, and whom would you like to meet?

Sergey Lavrov: We have no final agreement on dates yet, but we agreed that we will co-ordinate the dates of the visit in addition to when we get updates on our schedules. I visited Tallinn long ago, as a high-school student. I liked the old town a lot. I will be glad to go there again, and we will combine business with pleasure. Our employees should do all they can to make this event as substantial as it was today in Moscow.

Question: Today we can say that Russia has positive experience in the resolution of territorial issues with Estonia, Norway and China. The territorial dispute with Japan has been lasting for almost 70 years. What can Russia and Japan gain or learn from the existing positive experience?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia does not view this situation as a territorial dispute. We would like to say to our Japanese friends quite sincerely, at all stages of consultations on this issue, that we proceed from the existing reality and documents concluded between Russia and Japan. International legal reality means the existence of generally accepted principles, which are formalised in the UN Charter, in light of the results of the Second World War. When we discuss ways of resolving the above mentioned problem, we need to proceed from this fact. There are documents concluded between Moscow and Tokyo at various stages; there are agreements to continue our work to find solutions which would be acceptable to both parties and the people of both countries. There are no other criteria. We have not recognised such questions in our relations with other neighbours with whom border agreements were concluded – these were practical actions related to post war reality. And this helped to resolve such problems operatively.

Question: Are the documents which were signed today a step towards the potential conclusion of a 72 hours visa-free regime for Russian and Estonian nationals in two or three years? Representatives of Russian and Estonian travel business are interested in it. What do you think about it?

Sergey Lavrov: When we go about resolving such issues we must take many factors into account. We understand that Russian and Estonian travel companies, as well as travel companies of other partners of Russia, are interested in this, because this will allow them to earn more. We also understand that this will create more comfortable conditions for transit through the territory of Russia for nationals of those countries who will use such benefits. We have conditions related to diplomatic practices and traditions, and they should not be disregarded – the reciprocity principle, for example.

There are general considerations as well: when we resolve the tasks that exist now, we need to remember strategic goals, which involve the implementation of undertaken obligations to ensure freedom of movement. To be sincere, our negotiations with the EU regarding the transfer to the visa-free regime are currently artificially hindered (and we mentioned about this during our negotiations): everything is ready technically and technologically, but it depends on political will. We need to keep in mind that we should not allow the steps we will make for unilateral easement of the visa regime for our neighbours and other countries, to be perceived as a chance for delaying radical resolution of the problem of cancellation of visas for short travels according to political obligations declared long ago within the framework of the OSCE. I hope that you have understood us correctly.