Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview to Zvezda TV channel, December 30, 2015

Question: Mr Lavrov, what year was more difficult for you, 2014 or 2015? In late 2014, we thought 2014 was as tough as it gets, but it seems 2015 was even tougher. Or is it the other way round?

Sergey Lavrov: I could tell you the joke about black and white stripes that President Putin told at a news conference. Frankly, I’m not sure. I find it hard to compare. 2014 was a year of disappointment in our partners; we have become even more confident in our abilities because we realised that we can rely only on ourselves. There’s a well-known adage by a Russian emperor about the army and the navy being Russia’s only allies. Beginning this year, we also have the aerospace forces. In 2014, we were profoundly disappointed by the West’s conduct in connection with the rupture of the Kiev agreement on resolving the crisis between ex-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition (the agreement on resolving the political crisis in Ukraine of February 21, 2014) attested by France, Germany, and Poland. They placed in power in Kiev their associates, ruptured this agreement, made a helpless gesture in response to our perplexity, “how come? You issued guarantees that there will be a peaceful transition, early elections, etc,” reasoning that they were the new powers that be and can use force against those who refuse to accept the results of the anti-constitutional armed coup. When they moved towards Crimea, we were still told that they, the West, want the new authorities to use force proportionally. We now know what this means. President Putin made a decision at the time that I consider to be historic. It was dictated by the final realisation that when you deal with political partners who are incapable of reaching an agreement, your only choice is to rely on yourself.

Question: You didn’t think they could behave like that? Have there been any explanations of their behavior?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s hard to say. We didn’t have time to make any assumptions as it happened so quickly. They called it off overnight. The Right Sector and other militants assaulted the presidential administration building, his residence, the government building, etc. Less than 24 hours have passed since this agreement was signed, which the entire West strongly welcomed and supported. They asked us to help implement it. When the opposition crudely violated it, they threw up their hands and said, “now let's start working in new circumstances.”

Question: Do you remember who your first contact was with immediately after Crimea? Was it US Secretary of State John Kerry or German Chancellor Angela Merkel? What did they say?

Sergey Lavrov: President Putin worked with Chancellor Merkel, while I had phone conversations with Secretary Kerry. They took place amid the unfolding crisis, when we were called upon to influence the Ukrainian authorities so that they didn’t take the army to the streets. We provided assurances that former Ukrainian President Yanukovych had no plans to do so. NATO repeatedly came up with statements not to take the army to the streets. When everything came to pass, in late February, the new authorities, through Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh and others like him, began saying that Russians have no place in Crimea and that Russians will never celebrate the birthday of Stepan Bandera or Roman Shukhevych. They began staging provocations with “friendship trains” to Crimea, and attempted to capture the Supreme Council of Crimea. We responded to this. As you may recall, back then they seized regional administrations, as the officials elected and appointed under the previous government refused to obey the coup participants. An anti-terrorist operation was announced. Then, the West, in one voice, just as they demanded that Yanukovych refrain from taking troops to the streets, urged the new authorities to use armed forces proportionately. Now, we know everything about that “proportionality.” This, indeed, was the main event of 2014.

The outgoing year is memorable for different reasons. If you take the economy, which was covered extensively by President Putin during news conferences and on other occasions, it leaves much to be desired as it continues to shrink compared with 2014. If we measure 2015 by a foreign policy yardstick, the hardest and most important chemical demilitarisation process in Syria was completed in 2015. I’m pointing this out, as we summed up its results in 2015, and it happened at a time when we continue to actively push for a political solution to the Syria crisis. Some of our counterparts keep saying that they are willing to go ahead with it only if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is removed from the political process and future government entities because he is illegitimate. President al-Assad was perfectly legitimate when there was a need to remove and destroy chemical weapons in Syria. UN Security Council and OPCW resolutions were adopted, which welcomed the Syrian government's decision to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. Everything was fine, and no one said he was an illegitimate partner.

I have said this on many occasions, and I will now say it again: I’m convinced that the terrorist threat is no less grave than the threat of chemical weapons, all the more so as it becomes international, and does not concern only Syria. We cannot afford the luxury to be led by someone's whims and say that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was legitimate, but stopped being so this year.

In addition to resolving the Syrian chemical weapons issue, we have resolved the Iranian nuclear programme issue, which was a major problem over the past decade and was the source of increasing tensions in international relations. It was thoroughly discussed and a sound balance of interests was struck, which ensures Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment (this was the critical interest of our partners in Tehran), and at the same time provides for the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

I believe the Minsk agreements on Ukraine, which were achieved as a result of many hours of talks with the participation of heads of state, is a major achievement. President Putin, Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande, and President Poroshenko personally wrote its various provisions. Therefore, it is now important to prevent attempts to revise them. And there are such attempts. They are now telling us that President Poroshenko has domestic political issues, and he cannot implement everything, and suggest that we don’t take the Minsk language too literally. How can we not take it literally when it says that the constitution must include decentralisation on a permanent basis. This means the right to use the Russian language in Donbass, special economic relations with Russia, the right to participate in the appointment of prosecutors, judges, and have law enforcement agencies of their own, including people's militia, and a number of other provisions personally written by Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande. Instead, the constitution says that these territories may have certain self-government rules.

Question: Is there any hope that Kiev will sit at the negotiating table with Donetsk and Lugansk or do you think this won’t happen in the next few months?

Sergey Lavrov: Formally, this dialogue is on, but only formally. Ukraine is represented in the Contact Group by Leonid Kuchma, a retired politician and official. He is a respectable man, former Ukrainian President and personal envoy of current Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko. Donetsk and Lugansk are represented by the people elected by the population of these territories.  Martin Sajdik is the special representative of the OSCE, while Russia is represented by the presidential envoy as well. The Ukrainian authorities believe that this is the most they can agree to. There is no direct dialogue except for this format of the Contact Group and its working sub-groups. As for methods, it is possible to be flexible and understanding. If the Minsk agreements could be implemented in this format, this could be considered a direct dialogue but everything is the other way round.

The domestic political situation in Ukraine is serious: squabbles, strife among allies and Maidan participants; contradictions in one and the same party. We are all witnessing the political process in the Verkhovna Rada, government sessions and meetings of other national agencies. They are beset with difficulties. I’m convinced that after the signing of the Minsk agreements and the elections, Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko declared himself the “president of peace” rather than war. The Minsk agreements were approved by France, Germany, the entire EU and UN Security Council, including the United States. After February, when all these events took place, the Ukrainian president had every opportunity to push through decisions that would implement this major document, using the influence of Europe and the United States despite the resistance of radicals and extremists who accused him of high treason.

Question: Why didn’t he do this?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t know. For some reason he decided to counter extremists with their own methods and began to argue with them on their venue, trying to outdo them in anti-Russian rhetoric. He kept accusing us of aggression and occupation, stating that the Minsk agreements were the first step towards its discontinuation. Even the terms he used showed that he was spoiling for a fight to score political points at home. I don’t know if he succeeded – his ratings point to the contrary. People are tired of this war in Donbass. Thank God, there is at least some armistice there now but it is violated. In our estimate, which considers OSCE data, it is violated by various battalions that have not been completely incorporated by anyone and that are largely used by their owners to escalate tensions at one point and de-escalate them at another.

It is rumoured that violations of the truce and ceasefire became regular after our Aerospace Force started operations in Syria. There is a theory that some people overseas or closer in the West want to make Russia fight on two fronts, assuming that we are already fighting in Donbass. As before, nobody has managed to prove anything and they are not even trying as they know that such attempts will lead nowhere.

I’ve quoted an example of what Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko was supposed to do for implementing the constitutional reform. Instead, it was written in the Constitution – into its Transitional Provisions into the bargain – that Donbass may have “a special status.” I read in the news the other day that my Ukrainian colleague Pavel Klimkin said somewhere that the Law on the Special Status will enter into force only after the elections in Donbass, which Kiev wants to hold as it sees fit, although under the Minsk agreements it has to coordinate modalities of holding the elections with Donbass – something it is not doing.

The Minsk agreements do not link the Law on the Special Status to the elections. These are two different subjects. As for the logic of this law, it would not be logical to wait for elections and then expect the legitimate power, as Mr Klimkin said, to return Donbass into Ukraine’s legal field. It would be logical for this territory to have this law, which should not be reduced to the rules that exist for all other regions. Kiev promised to grant special status to this territory. Therefore, it would be better and more logical to adopt this law before the elections because if you vote for the deputies of local councils, you want to know what rights they will possess. The law explains what rights they will have. If the law is not adopted, a voter will have to wonder what rights will be exercised by a deputy who will be elected to run a specific area. This is contrary to any logic. I have the impression that our Western partners want to conceal their utter inability to discipline those who they mentor in Kiev by their bashful procedures linked with the prolongation of anti-Russian sanctions.

Question: Why are they unable to do this?

Sergey Lavrov: In the film, “The World Order,” President Vladimir Putin spoke about Europe’s highly increased dependence on the United States. This fact is not limited to the Ukraine situation. It is reflected in many other events of global politics. Speaking about this probability, during meetings of US President Barack Obama with President Putin, and US State Secretary John Kerry with me, our American colleagues said many times that they don’t have any special interest in preserving this crisis and support the Minsk agreements, that they worked with the Verkhovna Rada, trying to persuade it to write something about Donbass’s special status.

I find it difficult to call into doubt the sincerity of the words of President Obama when he expresses his readiness to help, looking into President Putin’s face. However, neither they, nor the Europeans have managed to achieve results so far. What was done with the rules of the International Monetary Fund is beyond the realm of reason. Greece, Ireland and many other countries were punished by the old rules (I’m referring only to EU states without even mentioning Argentina and other large debtors in the third world). But when it came to Ukraine, one of the cornerstones was suddenly removed from the IMF’s foundation.

Question: It seems like the last two years have been a period of throwing off the masks because the aura around the propaganda created over many decades, certain spin doctoring around western leaders, democracy, honesty in the media and so on are crumbling right in front of everybody. I think even in the West many people are starting to understand that. People who are currently in charge of Western politics – everybody who you just mentioned plus maybe five or ten people (called “the elite”) – are really unaware of what they are doing. Or are they aware of that and intentionally going where we don’t want them to go? Is this their general knowledge, education, or do they just not know how to foresee a situation?

Sergey Lavrov: They all give the impression of experienced, wise and forward-looking politicians. I’m wrestling with the question myself and can’t figure out the reason. Sometimes their public statements contradict what they tell me one on one, when nobody else can hear them. In person, the majority of EU members say things that I see as reasonable: it is a mistake to argue with Russia about Ukraine, which fell victim to EU politics and was faced with a choice. We were not involved in this. The next morning, Ukraine broke off the agreement pushed by France, Poland and Germany. Instead of a government of national unity, it got an unconstitutional armed coup. They all say that the crisis is going to calm down and that the Minsk agreements should be implemented, following which we can go back to normal cooperation and strategic partnership. However, when they come together to speak in public they can’t say that. Italy insisted on a recent event, the purpose of which was not just to extend the sanctions by six more months with sheepish looks, but to talk openly and look into each other’s eyes. This is a small example of an exception to the rule. I don’t know, it looks like some mutual cover-up, the principle of solidarity.

Question: There is a conspiracy theory, according to which our American partners, as we like to call them, raised these people for years to put them on the political Olympus in order to control them as they are doing now, and these people are basically incapable of making their own policies without instructions from across the ocean.

Sergey Lavrov: It’s a fact that Americans want to have a strong influence on Europe, just as it is true that they have a powerful instrument for this – NATO. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, NATO became euphoric, but later it looked for a new reason for its continued existence. At that time, clever politicians argued that since the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the Soviet Union were no more, democracy had won and they joined the Council of Europe and opened up to the world, this called for the dramatic strengthening of the OSCE, which included all European countries, and for creating a powerful and universal military-political alliance to protect the security of Euro-Atlantic countries against external threats. The threats of terrorism and drug trafficking did not yet become global at the time. Only Russia was feeling the first effects of extremism in Chechnya. But it was decided that the OSCE should remain a loose organisation without a charter or clear-cut rules, that it should not build up its muscles for this would make it too competitive. And so they have created such institutions as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which, just like the OSCE, has no statutory documents. They have created the office of High Commissioner on National Minorities, who has been doing its best, although the situation with citizenship in the Baltic states has not improved, yet no one has criticised them for this. They have created the office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, which is currently held by a lady who turns aside when something openly unacceptable happens to journalists in the West or Ukraine, but at the same time indulges in hair-splitting as regards the Russian media when allegedly somewhere someone asked someone else to do something and got some favour from the authorities in return. And from this far-fetched conclusions are reached.

NATO has not been simply preserved but has expanded eastward. You probably read about this, these debates about the non-expansion promises that were allegedly made to the Soviet Union before the reunification of Germany, and later to Russia when it became a sovereign state.

Question: Did they make these promises?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they did. We have documents to this effect in our archives, about which they know. By the way, the closure period for many documents is expiring in the West, and they are soon to be made public. We plan to organise a seminar (it can be possibly organised by the ministry’s Department of History and Records) for scientists who would be able to read the records of those negotiations without politics, rhetoric or emotions. Nowhere has it been put in writing that the bloc would have no legal right to expand or deploy its military infrastructure [on new territories], even after they started doing this. The Russian foreign minister at the time was the late Yevgeny Primakov.  Politics is the art of the possible, especially in the situation in which Russia was placed at the time. Eventually, when we saw that they were expanding quite consistently, despite their oral promises and assurances, we signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and NATO in 1997, in which the NATO states pledged to refrain from additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces in the new member states. The Baltic countries, Poland and some other NATO members want to terminate this Founding Act, to withdraw from it in order to be able to permanently station substantial combat forces on their territories.

Question: Mr Lavrov, I have a personal question. Are they really afraid at this top level that our tanks will enter Europe? What are they afraid of? Is this some kind of a longtime phobia?

Sergey Lavrov: I’m sure everyone understands that no tanks of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces will enter NATO territory, and that no one is even thinking about this. They understand this perfectly well. This is a good pretext to take advantage of new NATO members who, for some unknown reason, are seething with anti-Russian sentiment. When they were joining NATO, the United States persuaded us not to raise a fuss as allegedly they were extremely afraid of Russia since the time when they joined the Soviet Union in a not exactly voluntary manner, and that they had their own phobias. We were told that they would calm down after joining the North Atlantic alliance. They have not. After becoming NATO members, they are behaving absolutely differently. On the contrary, they are using this membership to “pounce" at us and attack us with their non-stop rhetoric. I believe that their hysterical stance with regard to Russia is being used, and attempts are being made, to interpret the choice of the people of Crimea as our aggressive efforts, so that NATO will deploy its forces along these boundaries.   

Question: What does German Chancellor Angela Merkel need this for?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s hard to say. You and I are speaking soon after the film, “The World Order," was released. The President of Germany has discussed Germany’s role in great detail after both world wars. Quite possibly, it’s hard to demand that the modern German nation maintain a low profile, now that several generations have changed hands. In effect, Germany remains an occupied country, with dozens of US bases, and no one in Germany is openly talking about this, although politicians are thinking about it. Such a considerable level of distrust with regard to modern Germany is probably raising questions. Germany is now also reassessing many EU concepts. There is a system stipulating the mandatory appointment of EU commissioners from every country and providing them with jobs. In the past, there were 15 EU commissioners, and now there are 28. Although the amount of work remains the same, the number of EU commissioners has doubled. They are increasing their number and inventing new functions for them. This bureaucracy is assuming substantial responsibilities. Many powers in excess of the Treaty of Lisbon have been delegated to them. However, just like any other bureaucratic entity, they are striving to strengthen their positions. The Germans don’t like this. Germany is the largest EU country. Currently, unlike the UK, the people of Germany don’t yet doubt if they have done the right thing by delegating so many powers to Brussels.  The Danish authorities have held a referendum implying that the people of Denmark don’t want to follow subsequent plans to further toughen regulations in the security sphere and in the area of immigration. The German political minority is also thinking about this. Germany, the largest European economy, is virtually lending money to everyone else. But it has no decisive vote in addressing various issues in Brussels. This is a complicated process.

Going back to your previous question – what is this for, and who influences the EU. Quite possibly, the United States doesn’t want its rivals to reassert themselves (this is just an objective fact, rather than a critical remark). China is America’s economic rival, Russia is rivaling the United States in military terms (anyone who had any doubts on this score no longer doubts this). And, of course, the EU is offering some foreign policy competition. It’s hardly surprising that, when some EU members (Germany, France and probably Italy) voiced timid ideas about establishing their own armed forces in the EU, this discussion was stopped quickly, and they were told that there was no need for this because there is NATO. And the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is always a US general. One can probably understand the United States, which doesn’t want Europe to “run astray.”

Question: Perhaps I’m digressing from the topic, but there is the concept of the “golden billion,” which relates to the Western world. They are in the habit of doing whatever they please in the world, sending bombers to a place not because they have been invited by the local authorities but just because they want to. They flew to Libya, bombed out the presidential palace and flew away. They can do it because this is what they are – they are the “golden billion.” Is it your impression that all problems of today’s world stem from the fact that these six billion are up against the one billion and that these six billion do not want to live as prescribed by the one billion – to assemble cars on a conveyor belt with a screwdriver for $100 a month and work for this “golden billion” so that it enjoys a house, garden, wife, dog and so on?

Sergey Lavrov: To a large extent, of course, there are contradictions. Historically, the West has run the world for 400-500 years. They realise that the era of colonial acquisitions and gains in Latin America, Africa, India and virtually all of Asia, except for two or three countries, is coming to an end. Of course, it is difficult for them to part with all this. New economic and financial giants are emerging today. The share of the West and the US as a leading Western power in the global GDP is falling. This is a long-term trend.

Today, at last, the five-year process of reforming IMF quotas and votes has been completed. All BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are among the top 10 shareholders. Together, BRIC members account for about 14.7 percent of the vote, while 15 percent ensures the veto power at the IMF. In other words, the next review of quotas and the voting system (it may not come soon, but still) will enable the BRIC countries to block decisions they do not like. Today, only one country – the US – has a quota of over 15 percent. This enables it to block any decision on its own. The situation is changing. Before long, it will be unable to act in this way. Even with 14.7 percent of the vote, several percentage points can be obtained from like-minded members.

Of the six-billion-population block, 90 percent are not concerned about politics. These are poor people, many of them just barely able to survive. They need food for their families, a roof over their heads and a job. They need their children to go to school and stay healthy.

Question: Is this not the cause of the Syria crisis and ISIS? I know there are a lot of causes and the situation there is difficult and tense. These poor six billion people can see on the internet how the West lives (it is available almost everywhere today). They are responsive to ideas regarding why they live in this way, why they are being bombed and why they cannot live differently. Take up arms, take control of this territory and build the kind of state you want. Isn’t this the root cause of terrorism?

Sergey Lavrov: Very much so. Importantly, they are not told to take up arms – they are actually provided with weapons. There have been a lot of reports about children, seven- or eight-year-old boys being trained to clear field obstacles at military camps and zombified, to the effect that there is no justice in the world and that they will never see any real change from this “golden billion” except for the handouts that make no difference one way or the other. So they should take care of their own future and fight for their happiness. In the past, there were crusaders. Today, there are anti-crusaders. This is forthright, of course, but that’s the way it is.

This is why, as he addressed the UN General Assembly, President Vladimir Putin said it is necessary to fight terrorism and its brutal manifestations comprehensively – be it the plane over Sinai, terrorist attacks in Paris or what has been going on in the majority of countries in the region, and continues to date – namely, the bombing of mosques and churches. However, it is also crucial to fight the economic causes of terrorism, which means dealing in earnest with the agenda for sustained development so that these regions develop steadily.

A long time ago, when the concept of official aid to poor countries was only being developed, one wise politician said: “If you give a man a fish, he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish, you do him a good turn.” It’s wrong just to supply food, which is simply consumed, or some medications from abroad to make them dependent on the former mother country. It’s necessary to create production facilities there, teach them and build schools. This is becoming a priority today. Of course, this requires a lot of effort, resources and time. Changes will not come about any time soon, but this is the right track. It is important, of course, to stop financing, wean them off drug trafficking and illegal trade in oil or whatever. All of this is part of the fight against manifestations of terrorism.

The third priority is ideology. It is essential to address education so that children in poor countries do not run around the streets to be picked up by recruiters from ISIS, Jabhat al Nusra and other terrorist groups. It is important to pay attention to the kind of Islam that is preached at mosques. Unlike Christianity (Orthodoxy and Catholicism), there is no pope or patriarch in Islam. There is no vertical chain of command to set the guidelines, fundamental postulates and course to be followed. Often, utterly different sermons are preached at different mosques in the same country. There are plenty of examples of extremist imams taking the lead. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian Islamic theologian, regularly broadcasts via Al Jazeera his absolutely disgusting extremist calls to Muslims in his country, the region and the entire world. So this knot should be untangled very carefully, without putting a bet on bombing someone, finding another Osama bin Laden and thus getting everything right.

Question: Somebody else will replace him?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course.

Question: On the face of it, you are on good terms with US State Secretary John Kerry. Have you discussed this with him over a cup of tea? Is he aware of it? Do they, in general, have an understanding of what’s going on in the world, or are they focused on their own interests and have no such understanding? Are they aware that there’s a wave rising, which they won’t be able to cope with, and which may hit everyone?

Sergey Lavrov: Secretary Kerry is a most-experienced politician. He served in the US Senate for a long time, and was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, which is when I met him. No doubt, he is one of the most seasoned politicians internationally. He does understand what’s going on. Sometimes, we discuss such things. Occasionally, we go for a walk, just the two of us, to discuss things as part of our international meetings. Of course, there are people in the United States who are thinking about this. However, Washington's actions are rooted in a number of factors, one of which is its geographical location. They believe they are fenced off from the outer world: they have Canada, their ally, in the north, and Mexico and the ocean to the south of their border.

Question: Haven’t they learned anything from 9/11?

Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, September 11 was a big shock for America, as was the most recent attack in San Bernardino, California, which took place several days after President Obama said they were able to curb terrorism and keep it outside America. Of course, all of that will be used in the political game unfolding in the United States.

The second factor, which doesn’t help either, concerns the Americans identifying themselves as an exceptional nation. Accordingly, they believe they can convince everyone else of the correctness of their decisions regarding ways to combat terrorism (as it applies to the depth, width and personalities involved in such a fight). Actually, this is precisely what’s happening. When they formed the Syrian coalition (it is 100 percent their idea), many of its members, including the European NATO members, wanted to go to the UN Security Council last year and do everything by the rules. They said, “No, Syrian President al-Assad is illegitimate, so there may be no agreements with Syria, whereas Iraq asked us to come — we love that country, but still try to talk sense into them. Syria is run by a dictator, his days are numbered, so we will be bombing Syria without asking anyone’s permission.” That’s about the same as what the Turks are saying now. They aren’t doing things for nothing. If the US-led coalition wasn’t so arrogant (they allegedly know where the terrorists are in Syria and they know who to bomb, so they need no permission from the legitimate Syrian government), I don’t think Turkey would be acting so arrogantly and without hiding its intentions with regard to Iraq, including their allegations that “they have their instructors there, and they had to bring in the tanks to protect them; they respect the sovereignty of Iraq and are using tanks to promote it,” even though the Iraqi government wants them out.

Saudi Arabia has also established a coalition. Presenting it to the public, the Saudi representatives said its primary goal is to fight terrorism. They said they will fight it hand-in-hand with the legitimate governments, but will not include illegitimate governments in their coalition. This is also a contagious bacillus, and the Americans need to understand that.

There’s another component that affects their actions, no matter how profound or correct their analysis of the situation may be. It’s their electoral cycles. Every two years, the United States holds elections: once every four years presidential elections and intermediate elections where two-thirds of Congress — the Senate and House of Representatives — are rotated. For them, such elections are critical milestones in their political life. When the issue concerns a country that boasts the most powerful military and economy, and is the most influential country in the world, which holds political elections every two years, it very often occurs that the most important international issues become hostages to electoral motives of the incumbent US authorities, which want to ensure that their every move in the international arena scores big for their party candidates.

Question: Does this mean that after the presidential election in the United States, we’ll have a chance to bring the Syria crisis to an end? Is there a way out of the Syria crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: There is a way out. It’s recorded in a recent UN Security Council resolution. I watch our talk shows where many people take this close to heart. They say it will not work, as the resolution does not provide for specific agreements with regard to terrorists, or who will represent the opposition. Nevertheless, the resolution sends a clear twofold signal. First, we want the political process to begin in January. Second, the UN should select a delegation, relying not on just one opposition group but on the results and participants of all meetings that have taken place in the past 18-24 months. These include the meetings in Moscow and Cairo and the recent meetings in Riyadh. It is also stated in no uncertain terms that there must be no place for terrorists at the negotiating table, while we have questions about certain participants in the latest round of meetings, as they represent two groups that we regard as terrorist. Jaish al Islam regularly shells residential neighbourhoods in Damascus. Their mortar attacks came close to our embassy. The other is Ahrar al Sham, which follows in al-Qaeda’s footsteps and is banned by the UN Security Council, so it should be banned anyway. Nevertheless, this resolution, which needs clarifying, of course, does give the Syria crisis a chance.

It is difficult to say what the US foreign policy in Syria and the region as a whole will be after the election. There are a lot of examples of election pledges being forgotten afterwards or when the president is unable to fulfill them. For example, the Guantanamo prison that President Barack Obama vowed to close. His resounding pledge was: We’ll close this notorious prison in Guantanamo, which is in conflict with all US values, the Constitution and so on. He vowed to deal with CIA “flying prisons” in Eastern Europe but nothing happened there either. Everything is swept under the carpet. However, today, there is a growing realisation in the administration that terrorism in Syria and the Middle East is far more terrible than Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi.

Today, more than a year ahead, they are beginning to make preparations for the presidential election and everything that is done on the foreign policy front the US administration assesses as to the impact it will have on presidential ratings. They have a system whereby people responsible for making practical foreign policy and international decisions are political appointees – 1,500 in all. All of these 1,500 are confirmed by the Committee and then the full Senate. This can take as long as a year. In other words, you’ve been elected, you’ve selected your team and it is up for confirmation in the Senate, and while this goes on, few can focus on their work, as all future chiefs have yet to be approved. This process can last up to a year and then it is time to start preparing for congressional elections.

Question: Mr Lavrov, we’re meeting ahead of the New Year. I know that you are a football fan and that you also play football. Do you think we have a chance in 2016 or 2018?

Sergey Lavrov: A fan always lives by hope. If I – in my capacity as foreign minister – am asked if there is hope that some crisis will be settled, I say immediately that hope is not part of our profession. Our profession is to work and achieve the goals set by the country’s leadership.

As for football, especially our national team, I always have hope. I hope that our team understands its responsibility. The country is looking forward to this championship – even those people who are not particularly interested in football, although there are not many of them. Everyone without exception has a feeling of pride after the Sochi Olympics, which were recognised (not by us, but by everyone who knows something in life) as the best Olympic Games of all time. Of course, we want to keep up the good work and make the football championship equally exciting. And our team’s performance should come as a high point in it.

Question: Let’s hope. What has been the most unusual New Year’s Eve in your life?

Sergey Lavrov: The most unusual New Year’s Eve was at the university – out in the forest with a bonfire and tent.

We often went hiking. In summer, when I was a student at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, we went out to work with student construction teams every year and during winter vacations we went hiking in the Arkhangelsk Region, the Kola Peninsula, Karelia. One of our hikes came during New Year’s Eve. We had a tent with some sort of heater. It was cold but fun.

A happy New Year to all your staff members and TV viewers!