Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Terra Scientia Youth Educational Forum on Klyazma River, Vladimir Region, July 22, 2016

Thank you for inviting me. This was my second invitation to the Terra Scientia forum. I see that the majority of people here are experts on ethnic and interethnic relations, an issue that is gaining prominence in global politics. Nearly all crises on the international agenda are concerned with interethnic or religious differences. We must take this into account in our daily politics.

The developments in the Middle East and North Africa are a direct result of an incompetent and unprofessional treatment of the situation, a trend that is becoming widespread. The objective development of a polycentric world order, with more than one centre of power and influence, is coming into conflict with the desires of the Western countries, which set the tone in international relations for centuries, to preserve their domination at all costs and by all means. Of course, no one has succeeded in attaining this goal, as you had to negotiate the terms rather than simply dictate your will even in the colonial period. This has become even more difficult to do now, when the bipolar system of Soviet-US confrontation has been laid to rest along with the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and ideological differences, and when Europe and the United States have new economic rivals – the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil, as well as the African continent with its rich natural resources. We see the rise of new centres of economic growth and financial influence, and economic might and financial influence provide the basis for political influence.

Unfortunately, our Western partners, seeking to preserve their domination, acted like a bull in a china shop. They overthrew the government in Iraq, which was invaded by US and NATO forces under a false pretext. Pretending to search for nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, they overthrew the Iraqi president, which was unwise even though he was a highly authoritarian ruler. There was no terrorism or ISIS [in the region] at the time. ISIS developed only after the United States invaded Iraq. As former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who supported US President Bush in the intervention of Iraq, recently admitted, the 2003 invasion of Iraq played a part in the rise of the Islamic State.

One reason for the US intervention in Iraq was a primitive desire to change everything to its liking. They ousted the Sunni, the Sunni Muslim minority who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and turned authority over to the Shia majority. Sunnis were fired from the army, the security service, police and other law enforcement agencies of importance. They were left without jobs, and the majority of them were weapons-trained people who had no other skills. Now the core of ISIS is comprised of former Iraqi military personnel who have little in common with the ideology of Islamism, radicalism or extremism. They were hired by those who manipulate public opinion and appeal to religious feelings and the slogan of restoring justice. Arab countries have been victimised because Western civilisation does not respect their interests and because Arab societies are plagued by poverty, backwardness and lack of access to education. Young people succumb to these slogans and are recruited to terrorist groups or even to wear suicide bomber belts.

This is a good example of how complete disregard for the ethnic, religious and interfaith composition of the population in Iraq led to a fatal mistake. Although ruled by an authoritarian leader, Iraq was nevertheless a stable and predictable country, whereas the suspicion that it had weapons of mass destruction, something that could have been settled peacefully, has pushed Iraq to the edge of collapse. We’ve been working to help Iraqi society root out the threat of terrorism and restore unity. The path to this goal lies through interethnic dialogue, so that the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, who constitute ethnic diversity in Iraq, feel comfortable.

A similar situation was created in Syria, where the terrorist international comprised of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and many other groups, which our Western partners regard as acceptable opposition and which regularly team up with al-Nusra to conduct joint operations, were played off against the legitimate government. There are many examples like this. We can discuss them in more detail later, if you want.

The war that is being waged in the region has acquired a religious dimension. Bashar al-Assad is not part of Syria’s Sunni majority who traditionally did not wield power in the country. Attempts are being made to use a Sunni-Shia split to overthrow undesirable governments. The rights of minority and majority groups are very important, but it is not through war or the overthrow of a Sunni or Shia regime that the issue should be settled. Shias were brought to power in Iraq in order to overthrow Sunni rule, and they are trying to bring Sunnis to power in Syria in order to overthrow President al-Assad.

Interethnic problems – and I’m sure there are many experts here who know much more about this – can only be settled through dialogue and accord. Syria is not only a Muslim country that consists entirely of Sunnis and Shias. It is also the cradle of Christianity. In fact, the Middle East is the cradle of Christian religion, a place where three global religions – Islam, Judaism and Christianity – coexisted peacefully for thousands of years. The current developments threaten to disrupt the balance that was maintained despite bloody wars and crusades. If our enlightened age becomes witness to the destruction of this balance, it will be a disgrace for all of us.

The number of Christians is rapidly decreasing. They have been decimated in Syria and Iraq. This trend must be reversed. We have been working with our colleagues, including the Vatican, to draw attention to the unacceptability of anti-Christian sentiment. The OSCE has decided to establish special rapporteurs on Christianophobia, Islamophobia and Judeophobia. Many problems in the modern world can only be settled through an unbiased attitude towards religions and ethnic groups.

The migration crisis in Europe is a new version of the same problem. Migrants try to adapt to new societies, but they are not succeeding. When the first groups of labour migrants entered Western Europe before refugees fleeing conflicts in their countries, the Western countries tried to use the US “melting pot” concept where different people can live together, intermarry, have children and become a single nation. But this concept has failed in Europe. By the way, the concept also regularly fails in the United States. The recent police attacks on African Americans and response attacks on police are a serious problem, as US President Barack Obama said publicly. Americans will have to come to grips with this new reality. The melting pot theory has failed in Europe too. Migrants have mostly settled in separate communities and married each other: there have been few mixed marriages. Next, Europeans applied the policy of multiculturalism, under which migrants live in their communities and have the right to speak their ethnic languages and honour their customs. This has failed too, primarily because, as I see it, the European elite pursued a misguided policy of political correctness.

Here is an example. When the EU decided to create a European constitution some 15 years ago, the task was assigned to a commission chaired by former President of France Valery Giscard d’Estaing. Ultimately, they did not adopt a constitution but the Treaty of Lisbon, which has also been put to test. As for the proposed constitution, President d’Estaing wrote in the draft, which they were preparing for consideration by the European countries, that Europe has Christian roots. Doubts were voiced during the subsequent discussion, because the current population of Europe also includes Muslims and people of other faiths. Of course, Europe initially developed as a Christian society, but it has now been opened to other religions, they said. I view this as a big mistake. They started saying that it is wrong to flaunt one’s Christianity or any religion. You may remember that they even prohibited the sign of the cross on public buildings and schools and recommended that Christians do not wear a cross openly.

I believe that when you forget your own moral and spiritual roots you will soon become indifferent to the moral roots and spiritual values of other people too. This is why Islamophobia is growing stronger in Europe. Migrants have been accused of unacceptable behaviour, and you know that these accusations have been supported with facts. At the same time, others have tried to sweep this problem under the rug. The backlash is that migrants started to behave as they wanted, because moral values have been eroded, nobody is eager to revive them, and it has even become embarrassing to talk about them. The European response is Islamophobia.

I won’t talk about this anymore now, because I could talk for hours and provide many examples. I believe it would be wise to hold an interactive discussion. I want to hear you talk and learn about your concerns, and I will try to answer your questions as openly as possible.

Question: Along with the Terra Scientia National Youth Educational Forum on Klyazma River, the Tavrida National Youth Educational Forum is taking place in Crimea. This is not the first time we have had people from abroad taking part, including from the so-called ‘sanction countries’. We see no contradictions here. In fact it’s about talking with one another, finding a common language not just here but at other international platforms too. But after the young people grow up, relations become tenser and sanctions are imposed on us. Why does this happen in your opinion?        

Sergey Lavrov: As Vladimir Vysotsky sang in a well-known song, if you can hold on to your humanity, “you must have read the right books as a child”. If you end up taking a confrontational approach to life, a personal outlook that is confrontational, it suggests that either you did not read the right books or, as we’re living in the electronic age now, did not read anything at all.

There is no one single reason. Each person goes through their own development as an individual and has their own personal perception of events. The main thing is probably that people are not all equally susceptible to propaganda. In the specific case of the sanctions, it has a lot to do with a propaganda environment that demonises Russia and blames it for every problem.

Look at the situation with Crimea and how events developed. Russia was accused of annexing the territory of a sovereign country. The legitimacy of the referendum that took place was completely rejected, though European politicians who have taken a more honest approach to today’s problems and have gone there to see for themselves – and there are quite a few such people – have been unanimous in saying that everything was above reproach. We are told that we should have waited a couple of months, prepared well and invited the OSCE, because they cannot just arrive overnight but need to come 90 days ahead and explain how to organise everything. This is a totally cynical view taken by people who are wilfully ignoring the origins of the problem.

On February 21, 2014, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the main opposition leaders, who are now in power. The foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France witnessed and put their signatures to this agreement. The next day, this agreement was trampled underfoot. We were told that Yanukovych had vanished. In reality, he had gone to his party’s congress in Kharkov. He could have gone somewhere else again. Perhaps it’s easier to say that it was a coup d’etat and the president had vanished somewhere. Look at the reactions just now after the attempted coup in Turkey. Everyone rushed to say that all forces must respect the constitution and stay within the law. Why was the Ukrainian president not accorded the same treatment as presidents of other countries where coup attempts have taken place?

A coup took place in Yemen 18 months ago. The president fled abroad to Saudi Arabia. Ever since, there have been calls to return him to Yemen, but there are no such calls with regard to Yanukovych. But in the case of Yemen and Turkey, no Western countries had signed any kind of agreements, whereas in the case of Ukraine, Germany, Poland and France put their signatures to the agreement reached between the president and the opposition. But the next morning, they could not even find it in themselves to say that it was not a good thing for the opposition to go back on its word and that everyone should return to what had been agreed.

On February 22, 2014, after the coup had already taken place, a congress of Ukrainian deputies from all levels, from the national parliament and from regional legislative assemblies in southeast Ukraine and from Crimea and Sevastopol, took place in Kharkov. They made the unanimous declaration that they do not agree with this unlawful anti-constitutional coup and would take on full responsibility for the situation in southeast Ukraine and Crimea and Sevastopol until constitutional law and order was restored. This was all they did. They did not form any people’s militias to take Kiev and resist the coup. They simply said that they, the elected deputies in their regions, did not accept this coup and would focus on ensuring peace, order and normal day to day life in their regions.

A few days later, the new authorities who came to power in Kiev through the armed coup gave the order to Right Sector and a couple of similar extremist organisations to seize the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Dmitry Yarosh, who was head of Right Sector, said at that time that Russians in Crimea would never become Ukrainian and therefore ought to be eliminated or driven out of Crimea. They then sent militants to Crimea, who made a serious attempt to seize the Supreme Council building. This attempt was stopped. Right Sector then sent their so-called ‘trains of friendship’ to organise a government takeover by force.

Just think, was this the sort of situation in which you could wait for the OSCE to come 90 days ahead and have them explain where best to put the ballot boxes? This would have been impossible. Crimea faced a real threat of occupation by terrorists and extremists, whom the new government in Kiev was using in all sorts of ways to do what it did. The referendum took place and it was clear that Crimea’s people faced a direct threat of invasion and deprivation of their rights. Neither President of Russia Vladimir Putin nor the Russian parliament could respond any differently than they did when, following the referendum, Crimea’s people asked to be reunited with Russia, and this is what happened.

It is important to keep in mind the interethnic angle and the matter of ethnicity. As you know, the Crimean Peninsula ended up part of Ukrainian territory by virtue of an unlawful arbitrary decision taken by Nikita Khrushchev. While Crimea was part of independent Ukraine, nothing was done to improve the lives of people there, including the Crimean Tatars. All Ukrainian presidents used the Crimean Tatar issue to maintain a certain level of tension and, to be frank, as we can see clearly now, to work against preserving Crimea as a land soaked with the blood spilt by the Russian and other peoples.   

When Crimea was reunited with Russia, one of the first actions that Russia took was to issue an executive order from President Vladimir Putin instituting three official languages in Crimea – Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar. The executive order on measures to recognise the Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Crimean Tatar and German peoples and provide state support for their revival and development was also issued. The Ukrainian authorities did not get around to doing this in all the 20 years they were in charge in Crimea. The federal targeted programme Socio-Economic Development of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to 2020 aims to ensure harmonious development of all peoples in Crimea. When our Ukrainian neighbours call for an end to the occupation of Crimea, which they do constantly and at the slightest pretext, it sounds hypocritical.  

Crimea is an open place. Anyone can go there. Those who want to see the truth for themselves and not just be content with slogans can come there and see with their own eyes that this is all worthless propaganda.

I apologise for making this whole detour through recent history. I think the answer to your question lies in the fact that when young people from different countries have the chance to communicate and spend time together, you get on well and feel an affinity, and it probably isn’t always easy to say farewell when the time comes to part, although this is easier now than back when the first World Festival of Youth and Students took place in the Soviet Union in 1957. Back then, the festival participants exchanged addresses and wrote letters to each other. But we can see now that even with such ‘outdated’ means of communication they nonetheless managed to keep their friendships going and meet again. These days, you can keep in daily contact with your friends.   I think you just have to remind them of things and share your views. They go back home and get told that all was fine here before, but now it has all changed for the worse. I am simplifying, but it’s the only way. We cannot think up some kind of decision that would be approved in the UN once and for all and would ensure that countries do not support double standards and do not attempt to speculate on this or that issue. 

Question: In April, I attended the International Youth Forum “The Gold of Turks,” where I learned about the values and traditions of the Turkic people. Could Russia become the centre of the Turkic world?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s very nice that the first question comes from a young woman from Yakutia, where I spent three months in 1971 working on a student construction team. I also spent many vacations on the Belaya River (Agidel) in Bashkortostan.

We have Turkic speaking people and Turkic culture, which is not being eroded but is protected by the state just as the culture of other people in Russia. I could be wrong about the details, but I know about Turksoy, an international organisation of countries with Turkic people. It includes several Russian regions, including Bashkortostan, and the Turkic countries of the former Soviet Union such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. Initiated by Turkey, Turksoy deals with Turkic culture, language and cultural cooperation. There is also the Cooperation Council of Turkic-Speaking States or Turkic Council, where Russia is not a member because member states must have predominantly Turkic populations. However, I see no problem in Russia joining this organisation. Russia holds observer status in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), although Muslims do not constitute the bulk of Russia’s population, but 15 million Muslims is a lot too. According to its charter, observer status can be granted to countries with significant Muslim populations. If the Turkic Council decides to admit countries where Turkic populations are not the predominant, we will be happy to consider this possibility. This could be interesting and useful to show that Turkic people don’t just keep to themselves, but that their rich culture is open to interaction with other cultures and civilisations.

Question: Mr Lavrov, do you think that diplomats must understand people, their problems, interests and values? How can you achieve this?

Sergey Lavrov: Do you mean people in the country where they are stationed?

Question: Yes.

Sergey Lavrov: The least diplomats can do is understand their own people. I am sure of this, as otherwise you will not be successful in your profession. It was wrongly believed in the Soviet era that diplomats were blue blood people, the upper crust who lived comfortably abroad. It was believed that diplomacy was a specific occupation, with diplomats implementing the decisions taken by the Politburo. Thankfully, all members of the party and government and the senior officials were of common origin and so were aware of the people’s interests. But they soon took the interests of the people to mean the same as the interests of the state, and you probably remember that the state thought more about the security of the state rather than the rights, freedoms and interests of the individual.

The situation [in the country] is different now, and so our foreign policy is different. In the past, there was the Soviet bloc and NATO, and everything seemed clear: this is your adversary, and so you must let it have it as much as possible, but without crossing the line, because neither side wanted to start a world war. And nobody crossed the line. But human rights and freedoms were not on the agenda. Nobody said that foreign policy should strengthen the state, but also improve life for people.

Now that all walls are down (although it has turned out that NATO is trying to build new virtual walls and dividing lines), there is no ideological confrontation or head-on collisions. Combined with new communication technologies, which were unthinkable in the past, it’s impossible to shape foreign policy behind closed doors, secretly from the people. As outlined by President Vladimir Putin, the direct objective of our foreign policy is to create as favourable external conditions as possible for the country’s development and the satisfaction of the people’s economic, cultural and travel requirements and interests.

Of course, it is not always easy to work with a foreign partner from a country that has the same objectives, because you may have different interests. Our partners sometimes want to use a people-oriented foreign policy that focuses on an end result, which the people should see as a lever of influence.

There is an ideal solution to the problems of Syria, Iraq and Libya: join forces to liquidate the terrorists, organise free elections and leave these countries be. But our partners have a different opinion. They say that it would be possible to join forces against terrorism, as US Secretary of State John Kerry said during his recent visit to Russia, but only after we agree that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must step down. When we ask why, they reply that he is a dictator and that 80 percent of the Syrians are against him. We suggest dealing with terrorism first and then holding free elections, so that these 80 percent are able to get rid of al-Assad in a democratic way, by voting against him. They say that this would take too long, that preparing the elections would take six or 12 months, while the Syrian President must step down now. Nobody can tell us why. Who would take al-Assad’s place? Could al-Assad’s removal push Syria in the footsteps of Libya, which also had a hated authoritarian leader but no terrorists? It is true that the Libyan leader maintained tight control over the people, but they prospered economically and socially. Fuel was dirt-cheap, and education was free at any school. Libya was very rich, what with a small population and lots of oil. And then the Libyan leader was removed, and Libya soon became a breeding ground for terrorism and the route by which fighters and weapons are delivered to Africa in the south and migrants to Europe in the north. Everyone is in trouble because Libya has been destroyed as an integral state. It has been split into three regions that cannot come to terms with each other.

The same is happening to Iraq. Americans have a saying: If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Iraq, Libya and Syria were not broken, but it was decided that they should be fixed. You can see what happened. Europeans now say that in order to settle the migration crisis and stop the inflow of migrants order must be restored in the countries which they are fleeing: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Interference in these countries was so forceful and crude that we now have what we have. Instead, their authoritarian leaders could have been involved in dialogue and discussions to become more suitable partners, with persuasion and compromise helping settle these societies’ problems based on the expression of people’s will. But our Western colleagues tried to settle these societies’ problems by imposing their way of life on them, because they believe that their way of life is the best for everyone.

I could talk endlessly in reply to your question about respecting the interests of people in the countries with which we maintain diplomatic relations. The short answer is that you must respect the historical and cultural traditions of these people, and their lifestyle and world outlook.

Question: Neo-Nazism and neo-fascism are on the rise. This is particularly sad, because this is taking place in the countries that overcame them both in their own time. Who, do you think, could have a vested interest in these processes?

Sergey Lavrov: This is an important question. After the victory in WWII, it seemed that Europe, the United States and the world in general learned the lesson. There were the Nuremberg trials (by the way, we will mark their 70^th anniversary this autumn, and we plan to hold several events). The Nuremberg tribunal passed the ruling that cannot be challenged or questioned in any way. The UN Charter was adopted, which unequivocally says that everything that was done by the victorious nations is everlasting and inviolable. Unfortunately, this "vaccine" against fascism and racism in this ugly form has gradually worn off. We do our best to make sure that the current and next generations never forget about the terrible war, those who saved the world, and those who tried to subjugate the world to their will.

The neo-Nazis rearing heads in civilised European countries is an established fact. We are constantly discussing this with our European partners, pointing to what is happening in Latvia and Estonia, which annually hold marches of Waffen-SS veterans, sometimes with the participation of members of the government and the parliament. The EU does not find this comforting, it is a fact. Unfortunately, they are prisoners of their so-called solidarity and are trying to please the Baltic republics. They try to rationalise this by quoting their past, recurrent phobias after being part of the Soviet Union, and the fact that they are re-asserting themselves as independent nations. However, since this is taking place amid connivance with regard to the revival of neo-Nazism, we are very worried about it. This is not just an internal matter of the European Union, as they try to portray it.

Every year, Russia, along with dozens of co-sponsors, submits to the UN General Assembly a resolution on the inadmissibility of glorifying Nazism and any old, new, or updated forms of xenophobia, intolerance, anti-humanism or racial discrimination. The UN General Assembly supports these principles by the overwhelming majority of votes. To my great regret, the European Union abstains from voting. Almost unanimously, they have come up with a wording saying that they "stand in solidarity with each other." When asked why, they say that it is not very comfortable for the Baltic member states. This resolution does not mention any country, be it Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania, by name. What it says is that the revival of fascism and the glorification of the Nazis are unacceptable in the modern world. No one has so far provided any clarification as to how anyone cannot vote for such a resolution. However, the majority of our European partners, who abstain from voting, feel ashamed. The United States and a small Pacific island traditionally vote against it. The United States quotes the freedom of speech. It is sad, but true. Unfortunately, this is a geopolitical game, when any issue, including a sacred one, such as the inadmissibility of repeating such a tragedy, becomes the goal of zero sum games. So, if the Russians are advancing a particular initiative and it is adopted, it means that the Russians will have some points going their way. This line of thinking is appalling. Dealing with it is difficult, because the attitude to our country is biased and prejudiced. They don’t want to see our country stronger in any sense simply because we will never be docile disciples of the so-called democrats who democratise everything that comes their way left and right using their own templates with the all-too-known results. I mentioned the outcome of such policies in the Middle East and North Africa. These democracies bombed Yugoslavia and supported the coup in Ukraine. Many of the negative events unfolding in the post-Soviet space are directly related to their policies.

Unfortunately, life is tougher than idealistic constructs. In addition to normal competition, which should always be there both within a country and internationally, there is unfair competition. We are now witnessing it in a variety of areas, including the doping scandals. Life is a fight, and we must continue to fight, all the more so since we stand for our just cause honestly and are not trying to cheat anyone.

Question: Certain global actors are working to undermine Russia and hurt it as much as possible using a variety of tools to achieve that goal. They won’t break us, but it is still unpleasant. What can and cannot be forgiven? Could you please use the example of Turkey and other historical examples to answer this question?

Sergey Lavrov: Christianity and other major religions of the world teach forgiveness. Of course, this is not an absolute given. You can forgive people who have repented and are ready to turn the page. Those who do not repent, you can forgive as well, but without resuming relations. This is a moral issue, but to our great regret, morality in foreign policy is neglected today. We live in a period of frenzied efforts to prevent the democratisation of international relations from ever taking place. Some want to keep international relations in a colonial mode, when the single centre - the West led by the United States - dictates everything to everyone. There are lots of examples, I am not going to list them. This applies to the integration processes (the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific Partnership), military units, categorical refusal to make the principle of indivisible security legally binding. As you are aware, we have long been pushing for its adoption. We have submitted a draft treaty on European security, which would ensure that all countries, NATO or CSTO members, as well as all neutral countries, have the same level of security, and make clear that the no country’s security can come at the expense of the security of any other of these countries. This is what the treaty is all about, figuratively. We proposed making this principle legally binding. We were told that legal guarantees of security will be provided only to NATO members. This creates tensions. Clearly, this is an attempt to expand NATO by including more countries, and having them abandon cooperation with Russia. We have seen what this usually ends with.

In 2008, the Bucharest NATO summit, after much debate, adopted a decision (the debate was about whether to formally invite Georgia and Ukraine to start a programme to join NATO). They failed to adopt a formal legal decision (they do have to take a legally binding decision), but made up for it using a politically loaded phrase in the final document: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO.  We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” It was in April 2008. Already by August 2008, Saakashvili had lost his mind from hearing such promises, and gave a criminal order to shell Tskhinval and Russian and Ossetian peacekeepers who were there under an OSCE mandate. You witnessed what happened. I have no doubt that NATO’s incendiary words about Georgia joining NATO played a role in this. I have no doubt, either, that their promise that Ukraine will also be part of NATO was absorbed by some of the less responsible politicians in Ukraine. It is there for everyone to see now, as they started appealing to NATO.

By the way, do you know what NATO said when the Maidan protests began in December, January and February? Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanded of Viktor Yanukovych not to use the army against the people, the protesters, or anyone else. Yanukovych complied and did not use the army. There were Berkut riot police, but they were attacked more often than they intervened trying to restore order. However, after the coup in Ukraine, the authorities declared an anti-terrorist operation against the parts of Ukraine which opposed the anti-constitutional coup, and which simply asked to be left alone - they wanted to take care of themselves until the situation gets back to normal. They did not send any troops. They were declared terrorists. The army’s anti-terrorist operation was unleashed against them. In addition, there were nationalist battalions, which are still active and engage in extremism. When the new Ukrainian government announced this anti-terrorist operation and the army was sent to quell the unrest, do you think NATO reiterated what it said to Viktor Yanukovych? Do you think they urged him not to use the army against the people? Nothing like that. What they asked of the Ukrainian government was to use force "proportionately" as they tried to restore order. Do you see the difference?

By the way, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who was then NATO Secretary General, is now an adviser to Petro Poroshenko. When he came to Ukraine, he said in one of his first statements that Ukraine must implement much needed reforms, including an enhanced fight against corruption which will help persuade European Union countries to renew sanctions against Russia.  That is how these people’s minds work. There is no way to deal with this. We need to work with those who are amenable to normal human behaviour.

Question: Do you think Eurasian integration may give a fresh impetus to the development of the CIS countries?

Sergey Lavrov: I have a short answer – yes.

Question: You often stress the importance of supporting public diplomacy and meet with non-profit organisations dealing with foreign ties. Not long ago you had a meeting with non-profit youth organisations. Quite often our foreign partners support youth organisations, funding the development of institutions. Sometimes they are acting via supra-national institutions. Do you think youth organisations developing international ties can be funded by supra-national institutions? The latter help them get around a vast number of diplomatic barriers that exist for states.

Sergey Lavrov: Are you talking about the funding of youth organisations via a supra-national institution?

Question: I’m referring to the funding of youth organisations via a supra-national institution and support of supra-national youth organisations in the EAEU and the CIS, for instance the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS. Regrettably, youth organisations are doing a poor job partially for lack of support by national foreign ministries.

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, I’d like to say a few words in response to the previous questions. Naturally, Eurasian economic integration will promote the development of the CIS countries. This issue requires some explanation.

As distinct from some other states, we do not set up closed blocs. All integration mechanisms established in the post-Soviet space with Russia’s participation are open for membership and cooperation with all interested countries. The EAEU has proclaimed this in its charter documents. Many countries showed great interest in this cooperation. Fairly recently, a couple of months ago the EAEU signed the first agreement with Vietnam (free trade area agreement). Other ASEAN countries, ASEAN as a whole and a dozen Asian and Latin American states as well as Israel, are interested in such agreements too. The EAEU has already signed memoranda on the start of consultations with 12 more states apart from Vietnam, and another five memoranda will be signed in the near future. This is about the EAEU and its partners.

There is also the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which now, with India and Pakistan joining, will unite the majority of the world’s population. Its membership is consonant with that of the EAEU – it includes Russia, Central Asian states and other countries located in vast Eurasia. Our aim is to develop integration using in full the benefits of these agencies – the EAEU, the SCO and China’s Silk Road Economic Belt project. These processes have already been connected. We want to harmonise them and derive the biggest benefits for each participant.

Sochi recently hosted the ASEAN-Russia Summit, at which President Vladimir Putin invited ASEAN states to think about how they can get involved in this large Eurasian project. I think it has a great future.

As for youth organisations, the Foreign Ministry does not sponsor them. We are not giving out grants. We have founded several funds on decisions of the President and the Russian Government, which are subsidising NGOs, primarily the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund. They receive certain albeit modest funds every year and have the right to attract sponsors, which they are doing. Many Russian companies support NGOs.

Issues related to youth agencies of these integration mechanisms should be resolved by these multilateral unions and organisations. I will wholeheartedly support this. As for funding, the Russian Foreign Ministry cannot do this. This may be done by sending an application to the Gorchakov Fund. They have certain criteria for giving out grants, the main one of which is to support Russian NGOs operating in the world arena. If you fit this requirement, go ahead and apply.

Question: As a representative of the Chelkans, a small indigenous ethnic group of northern Siberia and the Far East, I would like to ask a question about indigenous peoples’ territory in the Arctic. There is an understanding that Russia is currently competing with the US and Canada for the right to give part of it to China which, however, is not in a hurry to take it. I know some people living in the Arctic, and I can see that Russia is returning there. Who do you think will be Russia’s partner in the Arctic?

Sergey Lavrov: You really think we are competing with the US and Canada for the right to give the Arctic to China? If the US and Canada want to give their part of the Arctic to somebody, it is their business, but our Arctic is our Arctic. We are now reviewing its borders towards expansion. We have completed an additional application for the part of the continental shelf in the Arctic and filed it with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The application will be processed within six months to a year. It is a very serious application based on research data. We were very thorough about it and will fight for it.

Speaking of our partners in the Arctic, there is the Arctic Council that comprises the five Arctic littoral states and three of their neighbours. The Arctic Council is an inter-governmental body currently chaired by the US. Each country serves as chair for two years. Once every two years the council holds ministerial meetings. The next meeting will take place in the US next spring. These countries are not acting possessive like dogs in the manger. This is not true. The Arctic Council has an observer. According to the council rules, an observer can be any country interested in Arctic collaboration. However, the Arctic states set the collaboration criteria and rules. It is also up to the Arctic Council members to agree on admitting observers.

China is currently an observer of the Arctic Council. China is also interested in cooperation and involvement in some of the council’s projects. We have invited Chinese and our French partners to participate in some interesting projects, including development of production facilities – for example, LNG production.

Again, these projects and cooperation within them are governed by Russian laws because it is our part of the Arctic and it will remain so.

Question: There are many representatives of different denominations and religions in general. On the whole, this helps us work together and find some common interests. In general, this problem does not exist in Russia. For instance, I am a Baptist but that does not prevent me from working with Catholics or Russian Orthodox believers. In general, there are conflicts between members of different religious trends or movements. They are fraternal but they are also divided by some differences. In this context some events are not part of this tendency: the Russian Orthodox Church is in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. We all know about the meeting of our Patriarch and the Pope of Rome.

Why do you think this dialogue is taking place now against the backdrop of wars and conflicts breaking out?

Sergey Lavrov: This is taking place now because there is an upsurge in violence with a very strong inter-religious character. In principle, inter-religious relations are relations between churches, denominations and communities. The state should not interfere in these relations but should see to it that the problems do not harm people. Speaking about international affairs, they should not make the situation in the world worse.

It is very regrettable but you are right – inter-religious tensions have grown, especially between the Sunnis and Shia in Islam, sad as it is. Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran are a symbol of this fierce confrontation. We have very good relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. In our contacts with them we try to find an opportunity for the Muslim world to reclaim its unity. We know about the roots of the Sunni-Shia divide. Nonetheless, the Muslim world has its own Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). We have suggested to its leaders that they think about how to unify Muslim states and prevent conflicts within Islam from becoming a reason or excuse for what is now happening in the Middle East and North Africa.

The second issue is Islam versus Christianity, which I’ve already mentioned. This is visible both in the Middle East and Europe. You said the Russian Orthodox Church opened up contact with the Roman Catholic Church. I’d say this effort was mutual and lasted for a long time. All previous popes of Rome and holy patriarchs were interested in establishing contact but it ought to be properly arranged because of traditions, rituals and many other aspects. This time the contact was arranged to the satisfaction of both sides. The situation in the world is increasingly influenced by inter-religious problems, and this prompted them to meet sooner. One of the issues they discussed were practical measures on defending Christianity, which is reflected in their joint statement.

Disagreements are not limited to Islam. In Christianity they exist not only between Catholic and Russian Orthodox believers but also inside the Russian Orthodox Church. The latest Pan-Orthodox Council on Crete was not attended by several churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church because the final documents had not been coordinated, as is usually done. However, the real reason is that there are many elements in the Orthodox world that are willing to sow seeds of discord, using the crisis in Ukraine and anti-Russian rhetoric to damage the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine. Politicians, including Ukraine’s President Petr Poroshenko are interfering in inter-church affairs, which is impermissible. They are demanding the formation of a united Orthodox Church in Ukraine in a bid to oust the Russian Orthodox Church. No self-respecting country with Orthodox Christians would tolerate this. This is a concern for all of us, including the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (Istanbul). States are interested in the greatest degree of reconciliation possible. They want church affairs to be settled peacefully rather than used in geopolitical games.

Question: The Russian President’s press service has announced that Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet in the first 10 days of August. What does Russia expect this meeting to achieve? What should Turkey do to atone for its guilt? How can Turkey regain our trust?

According to media reports, Russia allegedly warned Turkey about the impending coup two hours before it began. Does this mean that Russia has saved the life of President Erdogan?

Sergey Lavrov: Here’s what I’ll say on that.  You know how Russia-Turkey relations were faring before November 24, 2015, when a Russian bomber was downed, and you know what happened after that. We believe, and we have said so publicly, that this incident was an example of unacceptable behaviour by the Turkish side, no matter who stood behind that illegal act because the bomber was returning to base and had no bombs left after striking terrorists, and it was not downed in Turkish airspace but over Syria. We took a very firm stand on this, because it was actually an unjustified attack.

We are satisfied that our Turkish partners have heard us, even though it took them seven months, and that the letter President Erdogan sent to Vladimir Putin included the right words, as you know. This allowed us to arrange a phone conversation between the two presidents, during which they agreed to instruct their governments to start normalising bilateral relations. This work is underway. Regular flights have been resumed today, including those that were suspended because of the attempted coup. The Russian and Turkish ministers responsible for economic matters will hold contacts in the next few days. And the presidents have agreed to hold a personal meeting soon, possibly in August.

As for the restoration of trust, this is an abstract category. Everything will depend on how we feel the cooperation and contacts are going. I’m referring not only to bilateral contacts or bilateral trade, not what we will buy from each other, what we will build or what investment projects we will implement jointly. Much will depend on our cooperation in settling the Syrian crisis.

It so happened that after our bomber was downed and we put a freeze on relations with Turkey, we provided numerous pieces of evidence during discussions on Syria that showed that Turkish territory is actively used to deliver supplies to terrorists and to transport fighters to Syria. This evidence is still on the table. Now that we have resumed our relations, it will be difficult for Turkey to disregard the evidence. We hope that our Turkish partners will answer our questions and also take measures to prevent the use of their territory for keeping up this fratricidal war and for supporting terrorists who are fighting for their own interests and don’t care about the future of Syria.

I recently met with my Turkish colleague, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, during a meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) organisation in Sochi. I think that our Turkish neighbours understand that we should cooperate more openly and with a greater degree of trust now, also considering that the situation in Syria has significantly changed over the past seven months. Conditions are being created there for defeating terrorists and launching a real intra-Syrian dialogue so that the Syrians themselves decide the future of their country.

Question: Do you think inter-ethnic relations influence the politics and economy of countries or is it a way to manipulate the masses? Do relations between countries’ leaders influence the number of foreign students in Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: Everything in our world is interconnected these days. When inter-ethnic relations in one country are balanced, when there is peace and accord between ethnicities and faiths, the economy progresses better because people are not distracted by petty politics, conflicts and their settlement. On the contrary, when there is inter-ethnic tension, it results in using force and violence which destroys infrastructure. It always damages the economy.

Tens of thousands of foreign students study in Russia and we plan to increase this figure. I’m glad that in addition to thousands of state-sponsored scholarships we provide to foreign students, even more study at their own expense. This means that the quality of education here is quite competitive.

Question: In 1957 and 1985, the Soviet Union hosted the World Festival of Youth and Students. The 2017 festival will take place in Russia again. What do you think is the significance of the festival for Russia and the entire world in the current geopolitical situation?

Sergey Lavrov: Your question already contains the answer. I could go on talking about this forever but I would only tell the obvious truth. In times of wars, catastrophes and disasters we need forums that promote the ideals of friendship, cooperation, communication and contacts between people. The Olympic Games are another popular kind of forum. I was shocked by the threat that Olympic values have come under just recently. Speaking of which, the Olympic Charter doesn’t divide athletes by nationality, ethnicity or country of residency. The Olympic Games are about competitions among athletes. The decisions announced in the past few days are intended to divide them by affiliation with a government. It is a big mistake. I believe that many decent people understand that the current situation was artificially created. If certain parties realise the mistake of such steps and their damage to international relations it will help lead to a completely different approach and another attitude to next year’s festival.

Question: Now Russia does not have a Georgian embassy. Georgia’s interests are represented by a section at the Swiss Embassy. Are there prospects for change? Do you expect a Georgian Embassy to appear in Moscow in the near future? Do you consider Georgia to be an alternative to Turkey and Egypt? We would welcome you.

Sergey Lavrov: You are right. We don’t have an embassy – just an interests section. Likewise Georgia doesn’t have its embassy in Moscow, only an interests section at the Swiss Embassy. This is because under Mikheil Saakashvili the Georgian leaders severed diplomatic relations with Russia. When relations are severed, the embassies should be closed and interests sections opened at the embassy of a third country. Switzerland volunteered to render this service to Georgia in Moscow and to us in Tbilisi. Everyone understands that nobody has left the premises but the signs have been changed from the embassy to the interests section on the same buildings in Moscow and Tbilisi. This can be changed only in one way – by restoring diplomatic relations. We didn’t sever them, so the ball is in the court of our Georgian neighbours.

As for Georgia as a vacation spot, I am all for it. I’m fond of Georgia. Regrettably, by virtue of my official status I don’t have an opportunity to visit it as long as there are no diplomatic relations but I have many friends that often visit Georgia and love it. We’ve all probably loved it ever since we lived together in one country. I’m sure we’ll resolve all the problems.

There are already signs of more common sense in our relations. We have a channel at the level of State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin and Georgian Presidential Envoy Zurab Abashidze. They meet on a regular basis, trying to find opportunities for normalising relations. Trade in fruit, vegetables and wine has been restored and Borjomi is no longer a banned beverage. I believe this is the right trend. Flights have been resumed as well – three charter companies perform several flights per day. We are ready to consider resuming regular flights. All these issues are on the agenda and I’m sure they will be resolved. The main point is for nations who live there to come to terms themselves on the basis of mutual respect. I think our Georgian colleagues increasingly understand this.