Unofficial translation from Russian

Question: I will start with a basic thing. How to describe what is happening in relations between Russia and the US today? Is this a case of roughnesses? A deep crisis or a friendly exchange of views that will lead to consensus?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Surely not roughnesses. Surely it's problems which arise because of the divergent interests where the approaches to tackling a number of basic international problems are concerned. That the interests diverge is natural; they may not coincide. Anyway, the history of Russia and America shows that the countries evolved differently and accordingly their national interests took different shapes, although in history there were cases when the interests of Russia and the US coincided. So it was, by the way, during the United States' war for independence and during, of course, the Second World War. Such is also the case now in the areas of the fight against international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking.

Question: The positions of Russia and the US are close in this regard?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We are 100 percent close where the aims are concerned. We have many coinciding points of view in regard to the methods of struggle, although differences exist.

Question: Missile defense has turned out to be an obstacle which the two countries have been unable to surmount at present. All the main hopes are set upon the meeting of Putin and Bush at the ranch in the US, or can a signal be expected even before it?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Contacts are continuing. This is just one example of how, while having the common objective of fighting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, we obviously differ on methods. Further, we would like that the methods would be determined after an open, comprehensive analysis of the threat itself has been carried out. And in this case that's the reason for the noncoincidence of the methods which are proposed by the United States and which are proposed by Russia. The US is convinced that a threat from Iran does exist. We are ready to prove, particularly with the use of Gabala Radar Station, that these fears are groundless. Of course, the presidents will discuss how things are going to proceed. But the dialogue is continuing both under the auspices of the foreign ministries and under the auspices of the defense agencies. In principle, the Russian President did not merely offer: "We have Gabala Radar Station. Receive information from it in real-time mode." This is the part that will already make it possible to remove suspicions now. But the key to his initiative was let us start discussing things, let us begin analysis within the framework of a pool of concerned states, above all European. This is the very problem which we can in no way solve – to start joint work, not just by adapting ourselves to somebody's plans, but with a joint analysis of the situation so as to later, also jointly, to devise ways for overcoming the problems that arise.

Question: You every week participate in regular meetings of the military-political leadership of the country. Although I can't aspire for you to disclose their content, please hint at least. So let us imagine that Bush and Putin fail to agree as they meet in the State of Maine. Does this mean that the threat of retaliatory action that was voiced by the Russian leadership will be materialized at once, or is there still the hope that, if agreement fails to be reached with Bush, an attempt will be made to talk about what you have just mentioned with the European partners? How are events going to develop?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Firstly, I won't engage in guesswork. We always try to work pragmatically. This presupposes concentration on immediate present-day tasks, also having, of course, a broader context. But so long as the agreement between the Russian and US presidents to jointly discuss this theme is "in force," as is the agreement to establish a joint working group, we will make every effort for this group and all these contacts to lead to results.

Secondly, you asked whether the threat of our retaliatory measures would remain if there was no agreement? We did not threaten anybody with retaliatory measures. The Russian president clearly said that this wasn't a threat, it wasn't politics, it was pure mathematics. There are military planners who, upon seeing changes in the military strategic architecture of other countries, are duty-bound to take appropriate decisions. That's all. I am not a General Staff member and do not take decisions of a military-strategic nature, although we participate in discussions of the overall situation. But I am convinced that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense will do everything for us to be assured regarding security of the Russian Federation.

Question: After what turn the Kosovo story has taken in the Security Council, the position of Russia is clear, the gratitude of Serbia explainable, but as predictable is the likely desire of the Kosovarans to unilaterally declare independence now. If this happens, what will the position of Moscow be in this case?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We do not want to talk about this theme now, because, again, as in answer to the question what next to do with missile defense, we prefer to concentrate on the inadmissibility of a scenario which is fraught with the most unpredictable consequences and a chain reaction in the most diverse regions of the world. We have the feeling that the arguments that the President of Russia has repeatedly stated openly, honestly and publicly, as well as the arguments that he adduced in the course of his numerous meetings with the Western partners, American and European alike, are not ignored after all. And the latest ideas that are thrown into discussion by the Europeans and the Americans suggest as a minimum that they understand the necessity to avoid some altogether unjustified haste. The thesis of a necessity to continue talks has already been adopted. An additional timeframe is being named – 120 days. Perhaps the question will be discussed for even a longer period. So that there is a shift in the right direction. What we can't and won't agree with is the suggestion that at the expiration of a specified time, in the case of the absence of a result in the talks which would be acceptable to both sides, the Ahtisaari plan would automatically come into effect without any new resolution of the Security Council, meaning that Kosovo would de jure become independent. This scheme has received the name of "deferred automatic independence." It is unacceptable to us, although I repeat I do not want to look like a man who does not notice the positive shifts on the part of our partners. The fact that the necessity to continue talks is acknowledged is welcomed. The arguments adduced that Kosovo's independence is inevitable do not convince us. One of the arguments is that the Kosovo Albanians can no longer live in Serbia. I will name to you many territories where absolutely the same principle can be adduced as an argument.

Question: But they are said not to be specifically living in Serbia?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: That's what we are also talking about and wondering why all this haste right now? Belgrade in no way really influences how the situation is developing in Kosovo.

Question: Just symbolically?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: You know how important the symbols are in politics. And if you designate these symbols in an absolutely wrong period of time, this may lead to very serious consequences, which will be far from symbolic then. The second argument that is being adduced: if independence is not given – violence will break out. Now this is an irresponsible argument altogether, because there is the mandate of the force for Kosovo. Its backbone consists of NATO members, and the NATO members themselves wrote this mandate and only later was it refined together with us, and approved in the Security Council. It contains the broadest powers that must be used if some day someone tries to blackmail the world community with violence and demand independence in circumvention of the Security Council's decisions and violating the Charter of the United Nations.

Question: The last question concerns your upcoming trip to the Middle East. Still, the position of Moscow on Hamas appears mysterious to many. The things Hamas is doing in the Gaza Strip – obviously to help moderate forces in the West Bank is generally a natural desire. But the Russian Foreign Ministry nevertheless calls for continued talks with Hamas. Why?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Firstly, it was not Hamas that committed excesses in the Gaza Strip, but the radical wing of Hamas. The political Hamas leadership in the person of Khaled Mashaal from Damascus, where he now is, has repeatedly declared the striving for talks with Mahmoud Abbas to restore Palestinian unity. We consider this an absolutely indispensable condition for the entire further settlement process. Although there are probably more urgent things to do at this stage, particularly to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe within the Gaza Strip. We took notice of the fact that not only we, but also the other Quartet members concurred in the recognition of a very important fact. Yes, Abbas used his constitutional powers in dissolving the government. There is a constitutional procedure which has to be complied with, so that the development of life in the Palestinian territories remains within the legal framework. But he did not dissolve the parliament. And the documents of the Quartet, as those of the LAS, contain the expression of support both to Abbas and to other legitimate Palestinian institutions.

Question: And the parliament consists of Hamas?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: For the most part. And many members of parliament are in Israeli prisons. So that when we're talking about what has happened in Gaza, which we can't accept and which we condemn, then we probably should not forget about the reasons which either induced certain radicals to take such action or were used by those radicals as a pretext for not allowing Palestinian unity to develop. My thesis is that there is the legitimate president and there is the legitimate, though temporary, emergency government now and there is the legitimate parliament, in which, as you have correctly said, Hamas members constitute a majority.

Question: That is if you isolate, then only the radicals, and the part of Hamas, which is in the parliament and which is ready for constructive work, is seen by you…

Foreign Minister Lavrov: There is simply no alternative. They are the legitimate power entities of Palestine. And anyway in order to overcome the present crisis, the president under the Palestinian constitution has to go to parliament and come to an agreement on a new composition of the government. Therefore I watch very intently what leaders in the Palestinian territories are saying now, accusing each other of even preparing terrorist acts. The other side refers to all this as a provocation. I do not rule out that somebody wants to prevent the restoration of Palestinian unity, and that somebody may try to unleash in Palestine a real civil war on the expectation of possibly finishing off Hamas entirely, not only the radicals, but all of Hamas as a movement. But this is a very simplistic scheme, and it reminds me of the recent events in other countries when the aim was also set to do away with the "bad guys" and bring the "good guys" to power. Everything indicates that this is a very sad experience. We are all still unable to sort it out, because some do it and then everyone feels the consequences. But in general the aim for the "good guys" to smash the "bad ones" is attractive since childhood. Only as we grow up do we become more experienced. Life ought to have "rubbed" us with its sharp corners. But evidently not everyone so far proves to be able to draw conclusions.

June 25, 2007