Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia Edward Nalbandian, Moscow, April 8, 2015

I’ve held talks with Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian.

Armenia is our reliable partner and ally. We value our relations that go back centuries and are steeped in the historical, cultural and spiritual affinity of our two nations. These relations have been evolving steadily and have now reached a new level with Armenia joining the Eurasian Economic Union.

We have reviewed compliance with the agreements signed during the contacts between our respective presidents, starting with the state visit by President Putin to Armenia in December 2013, which was followed by a series of summits held in 2014. More summits will be held this year. We agreed to continue to improve the legal framework. New important agreements are in the works.

We noted the efforts to promote our economic and defence cooperation. Relevant intergovernmental commissions are fully operational. Today, we reaffirmed the importance of stepping up their activities.

We have fairly good trade, which exceeded $1.4 billion in 2014. The cumulative amount of Russian investments in the Armenian economy stands at about $4 billion and growing.

Our cooperation in the fuel and energy, telecommunications and banking sectors is expanding. Plans are in place to provide financial assistance to our Armenian friends in the project to extend the life of the existing Armenian Nuclear Power Station power unit.

We maintain a good inter-parliamentary dialogue. Today, we discussed a number of issues that will be more effectively addressed as part of our inter-parliamentary relations. The leaders of our parliaments regularly exchange visits. There’s a commission on cooperation between the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, which will meet again in Yakutsk in June.

Cultural cooperation, including cultural and educational exchanges, is a hallmark of our relations. We have supported a new initiative in this area. Yerevan hosted the first Russian-Armenian Youth Forum in February. We hope that it will become a tradition, as have interregional forums, of which three have been already held, and the fourth one is coming. The legal groundwork to open a Yerevan branch of Moscow State University has been put in place.

In the sphere of foreign contacts, we have signed a plan of consultations which serves as a solid foundation for cooperation between our two foreign ministries. In addition to bilateral contacts, candid exchanges of views and coordination of our positions, we work together with other partners within the CIS and the CSTO. We agreed to consolidate our joint foreign policy actions in the United Nations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and, of course, the Commonwealth of Independent States.

We maintain high levels of cooperation in implementing practical projects in Armenia that are part of international organisations, such as UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organisation) and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Russia provides financial assistance to Armenia to implement specific projects in the textile industry and rural development.

We exchanged views on the situation in the Trans-Caucasian region, including issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Acting bilaterally in its relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, respectively, and as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia will continue to facilitate the resolution of this problem on a mutually acceptable basis.

In general, our talks have confirmed that Russia and Armenia enjoy good relations based on alliance and strategic partnership. I’m confident that our talks were an important building block on our way to implementing the policies outlined by the presidents of our respective nations.

Question: As is known, Azerbaijan has been lately making strong claims to Armenia’s territory, above and beyond Nagorno-Karabakh, which have been expressed in official statements and armed provocations. Is Russia ready to fulfil its military obligations to Armenia should the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict escalate? What will Moscow do if tensions increase?

Sergey Lavrov: There’s no need for any explanations. All obligations that have been assumed by the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation on a reciprocal basis, are enshrined in this treaty. All instances where such obligations become actionable are listed there. Therefore, there’s no need for me to comment on anything, except just one thing.

We do not even consider the possibility of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ever entering a “hot” phase. I’m convinced that despite the rhetoric, none of the parties involved want this to happen, either. All Russia’s actions in the process to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh, which my colleague and friend Edward Nalbandian has kindly mentioned, are designed to find mutually acceptable solutions within the shortest possible time.

We maintain regular contacts. The representatives of the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict often travel to that region, visit the capitals of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the contact lines. The presidents of the co-chair nations personally monitor efforts to find a solution.

In 2014, President Putin made some special efforts, following which we have continued consultations on possible practical steps that would allow us to start overcoming this, in my opinion, wholly unnecessary conflict and to make the Trans-Caucasus region an area of cooperation that is free from any blockades, sanctions or restrictions. Everyone stands to benefit, including our Armenian friends.

Question: Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is in Moscow on an official visit. As is known, he is critical of the EU sanctions on Russia. Does Russia believe that Greece’s position on this issue may change the way the EU approaches these sanctions?

Sergey Lavrov: First off, we are entirely convinced that in our relations with Europe we must collectively (meaning other EAEU members as well) seek to overcome the same old systemic problem, which is the “with us or against us” approach. This mentality in the Brussels bureaucracy shows no sign of changing. This is unfortunate, because even German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande and others have repeatedly spoken in support of responding to the long-standing initiative by President Putin to start a dialogue on ways to form a single economic and cultural space from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I’m confident that once the dialogue begins the needed solutions will be found and regional powers will be not be forced to make a false choice. Creating such a space is in the interests of Russia and the EU. In today's highly competitive world, only joint efforts in Europe and Eurasia, especially in the economy, can best secure the interests of our countries. As you may be aware, back in January 2014 President Putin proposed opening a specific dialogue on establishing a free trade area between the EU and the then Customs Union, which is now the EAEU. This proposal is still on the table.

During the meeting of the leaders of the Normandy four in Minsk on February 12, the declaration adopted in support of the document signed by the Contact Group members, which contained the package of measures to resolve the Ukraine crisis, confirmed that the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine supported the idea of promoting integration processes in Europe and Eurasia, including contacts between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. Unfortunately, Brussels hasn’t responded constructively to our proposal to start working on the practical implementation of the purported goals so far. Hence, the questions like the one posed by our colleague from Bloomberg. The question is formulated as either/or: the Greek prime minister, who opposes the sanctions, is coming to visit − will that help change the EU approach?

I watched Euronews today which aired the announcement of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’ visit to Moscow. The Euronews correspondent had the following to say about this visit: “Everyone expects that the visit will help to answer questions such as how can Alexis Tsipras and Vladimir Putin help each other and whether Vladimir Putin will succeed in causing a rift in the European Union.” Clearly, the presentation is already a problem. It’s not about an individual reporter or a TV channel. It’s all about the way of thinking that is promoted in Europe. If anyone in Europe starts acting based of their national interests, it is taken as a violation of the principle of solidarity. As if the principle of solidarity was developed solely for supporting the Russophobic minority in the European Union.

When it comes to choosing economic and political priorities and partners in the regional and international arena, we want every EU country to be guided by their own fundamental national interests, rather than far-fetched principles that can hardly even be referred to as “principles.” They look more like a pretext to keep everyone together in some kind of an anti-Russian harness.

Regarding the sanctions, an increasing number of EU countries consider the restrictions to be a counterproductive decision and move by the EU. This means only one thing: they are beginning to act according to their national interests, rather than the premises that someone is trying to impose on them and that run counter to those interests. I hope that all of the EU countries without exception will act like that. Someone's national interests may call for tougher sanctions, I have no way of knowing that. Each country must have its own understanding in this regard. However, if you think that taking coercive actions serves your best interests, and someone else thinks it doesn’t, then everyone should be able to stick to their respective beliefs and not force everyone to follow some scheme that was imposed on them.

Question: Over the past few weeks, the media started reporting statements by your Western colleagues, such as US Secretary of State John Kerry and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in which they do not rule out the possibility of talking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Might this signify a change of tone in the West regarding this issue? Will that speed up the convening of the Geneva-3 talks, as called for by the Syrian opposition members who met in Moscow? Are you going to meet with them today?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, this signifies a change of tone, because we are hearing things that haven’t been said before. Better late than never. The bloodshed in Syria and human suffering − by the way, Christians are suffering in Syria − has lasted for over four years. We talked about this as well today, building on the initiative that Russia, Armenia, Lebanon and the Vatican have put forward in the UN Council on Human Rights by adopting a statement in early March. Sadly, early on during the crisis, our Western partners have again chosen the wrong path of settling accounts with this leader, whom they had “appointed” a dictator. Once they started down that path, they began to indiscriminately choose their allies from among extremists and terrorists, with whom they, in fact, interacted. Our Western partners refused to condemn the terrorists in the UN Security Council, even though the former tried to undermine the foundations of Bashar al-Assad’s government. They refused to do so despite our numerous proposals and the long-held UN Security Council principle that terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstance. We were told that these terrorists are bad guys, but they resort to such actions because they are dissatisfied with the dictatorship. In fact, Washington was justifying terrorism, which is unacceptable and outrageous. They hoped that everything would end quickly, and the regime would fall. They tried to convince everyone that the regime was “rotten” and had no support in Syrian society. All of that was not true. The Syrian government still enjoys the support of a significant number of Syrians: from 50 to 60 percent, according to various estimates. That’s a lot. Syrians believe that this regime is a guarantee that their country will not become a second Libya and will not fall to pieces, which will then be put together by those who broke it. No one knows how it will end, though. We welcome the fact that common sense is prevailing and that more and more opposition groups agree on the need to find a political platform to overcome the crisis. As you mentioned, the second meeting of the Syrian opposition is being held in Moscow these days, and it will be joined later by the Syrian government’s delegation. After the first meeting held in January, its moderator − Academician Vitaly Naumkin, head of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences − formulated principles that the parties did not reject, but rather supported in general. We hope that further understanding can be achieved if we stick to these principles. Our goal is not to replace the effort to start official negotiations, but to prepare the conditions for making such talks productive and representative. The Geneva communiqué of June 30, 2012, which everyone agrees serves as the basis for the settlement, requires that the dialogue involves the entire Syrian society. Previous attempts to start such a dialogue have failed, because our Western partners and certain countries in that region tried to appoint just one opposition group of Syrian emigrants as the one and only group to represent almost all of the Syrian people.

They have now de facto recognised the prejudicial nature of such an approach. Along with our Egyptian colleagues, we are making efforts to consolidate the Syrian opposition around a platform of dialogue in accordance with the Geneva communiqué. This dialogue must produce results on the basis of the mutual consent of all the opposition groups and government representatives. Let's see how the current round of Moscow consultations ends.