Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the meeting of the CSTO Foreign Ministers Council, Almaty, June 21, 2024

Colleagues,

Good afternoon,

We are through with the meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan Murat Nurtleu. The meeting was well-prepared. Everyone noted the high quality of yesterday’s talks and consultations held by our deputies and experts. 

We focused on preparations for the CSTO Summit scheduled for November of this year in Astana. We are pleased with the projects to be submitted for consideration by the heads of state. These projects embrace a broad international agenda and concrete steps towards further development of the CSTO. 

During the discussions on the state of affairs in the world, we paid special attention to the agenda related to shaping a Eurasian security architecture that will replace the discredited Euro-Atlantic security arrangements. President of Russia Vladimir Putin focused on this in his remarks at the Foreign Ministry on June 14. Today, we have agreed that this topic will be developed by our analytical agencies, including at their regular consultations to be held within the CSTO’s framework.

In the same Eurasian interaction context, we have agreed to build up cooperation and joint practical projects with the CIS and the SCO. Among other things, there is a shared interest in using these organisations’ potential for more effective anti-terrorist actions.  

In the context of the fight against terrorism and new challenges and threats, we have approved a draft programme to strengthen the Tajik-Afghan border.  Earlier, this document was approved by the CSTO Defence Ministers Council and the CSTO Committee of Secretaries of the Security Councils. It will be submitted for approval to the heads of state.

A document has been signed, which provides an additional impetus to the CSTO’s peacekeeping activities, including in cooperation with the UN peacekeeping operations. This is a very promising line. We see much potential there.

We have agreed to step up biosecurity efforts at the Committee of Secretaries of Security Councils and have created a coordination committee on the biological aspects of security. It is currently chaired by the Republic of Kazakhstan. There are plans to hold the third meeting of this vital body this year.

We have approved a statement on the 80th anniversary of liberation of Belarus from Nazi occupation, a statement on the Middle East and North Africa, in particular in the context of tragic developments in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. We have clearly reaffirmed our position. The other documents signed include a statement on expanding cooperation in the field of international information security, and a statement on the current aspects of space exploration and peaceful use of space.

On July 19, Russia will chair a UN Security Council meeting in New York on the council’s cooperation with the CSTO, CIS and the SCO. Russia, which will chair the meeting and will hold the Security Council Presidency in July, proposed that subject, and its proposal has been supported. We have invited CSTO Secretary General Imangali Tasmagambetov to speak at that meeting.

Question: What is the focus of cooperation between CSTO countries at the current stage? What are the biggest threats facing the member countries?

Sergey Lavrov: I mentioned the threats that continue to come from Afghanistan. There are cells and combat-ready groups of ISIS, Al Qaeda and affiliated organisations there. The Taliban government is working to eliminate these terrorist groups. We consider it a matter of principle to help it in that struggle.

We stand for developing a more regular, sustainable and substantive dialogue with the Taliban, who effectively control the country, for implementing concrete projects. It was the predominant view expressed during the discussions I have told you about today.

The threats coming from the neighbouring region – the Middle East and North Africa – are rooted in a range of unsettled conflicts. The possibility of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement was reversed when Israel launched a special operation in response to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack, which we emphatically condemned.

We do not accept the methods which the Israeli armed forces are using supposedly to destroy Hamas. In fact, they are exterminating civilians. Regardless of the humanitarian aspect of that tragedy, such actions are further complicating the possibility of reaching a lasting peace in the Middle East through the creation of a Palestinian state in full compliance with UN resolutions.

It is obvious that these processes are affecting adjacent territories. Terrorists are shifting to Europe and our neighbouring countries, primarily in Central Asia, as well as to the Caucasus. We are closely monitoring this, trying to promote a settlement and encourage the search for political solutions based on UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

Speaking about the Western sphere of CSTO activities, it is clear that the conflict the West has initiated in Ukraine and the use of the Kiev regime as a tool of aggression against the Russian Federation are a serious challenge. We spoke in great detail about this today, including in the context of Russia’s actions.

We briefed our colleagues on the statements President Putin has made on the Ukrainian crisis following his visits to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. You know about these statements.

Today, we have reaffirmed our commitment to a fair settlement based on realities and on the recognition of the legitimate rights of the people whose forefathers have lived in, developed and improved these territories for centuries. After the anti-constitutional state coup in February 2014, the Kiev junta denounced them as terrorists and adopted a series of decisions prohibiting the Russian language, culture, and Russian-language media outlets.

I drew my colleagues’ attention to Western comments on the get-together in Burgenstock promoted as a “summit on peace in Ukraine.”  Everyone, including the Americans, as President Biden said, European presidents and prime ministers, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Mr Zelensky himself, spoke about a fair settlement based on the UN Charter as the only touchstone and guidance. However, territorial integrity is the only principle they take into account, forgetting about the right of nations to self-determination or that the UN General Assembly noted in a special consensus Declaration, when considering interrelationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory. In other words, they believe that only the territorial integrity of states possessed of a government representing the whole people deserves respect.

Following the February 2014 coup d’etat, ultra-radicals and neo-Nazis who had gained power could not represent Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya. I hope that we do not have to explain this to anyone. However, the West and its puppets flatly ignore this principle of the UN Charter.

There is another aspect related to this. Article 1 of the UN Charter obliges all UN members to respect human rights, regardless of racial, gender-based, linguistic or religious factors. However, the Kiev regime bans the Russian language and the Orthodox religion represented by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. We are ready to honour the UN Charter, but the other party does not want to talk about its principles in their entirety and interdependence (as any decent UN member should). On the contrary, it take only certain subjects out of the context that suit them.

We could not overlook threats accumulating in the western and eastern sections of the Eurasian continent. We are hearing NATO’s aggressive statements, including those by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, that the bloc is also facing threats from the east today. They are listing Russia, China, the DPRK and Iran as the source of these threats. According to Jens Stoltenberg, if this is so, they need to facilitate security far beyond NATO’s zone of responsibility. President of Russia Vladimir Putin also discussed this in great detail in Hanoi yesterday. NATO wants to privatise all security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region they call the Indo-Pacific region. It is creating quadrilateral and trilateral organisations, as well as other small entities, there which act as prototype closed-end military blocs. They aim to confront those whom NATO sees as adversaries or simply rivals, including the People’s Republic of China, the DPRK and Russia. We discussed this in our relations with various organisations on the Eurasian continent, primarily with ASEAN countries. We will staunchly defend the need to retain principles that had formed the mainstay of the Asia-Pacific region’s security system until now. This includes a network of associations that have formed around ASEAN on the basis of principles of equality, equal and indivisible security, consensus and mutual respect. The West wants to destroy these structures.

Threats for Eurasian security are emerging from different directions. However, the overwhelming majority of threats are caused by the aggressive line of NATO that wants to privatise and to oversee all issues linked with facilitating stability, one way or another, in our vast region.

This is why we no longer want to rely on mechanisms, established in the context of Euro-Atlantic security, including NATO and the OSCE. We will work with counties that comprehend their national interests in order to discuss and coordinate the contours of Eurasian security with all Eurasian countries. Speaking at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed this. He said that Russia deemed it important to involve all Eurasian countries and associations, that represent certain parts of Eurasia, in these discussions. This implies openness and a call for equitable dialogue. I can see difficulties along this road.

NATO will hamper these just processes in every way, but this option has no alternative. This philosophy will eventually prevail. It completely fits into fundamental principles by which the CSTO, the CIS, the SCO and other sub-regional Eurasian organisations are guided.

Question: Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said that the next summit on Ukraine shall mark the end of the conflict and Russia would be invited there. Are there any prerequisites for Moscow’s participation in such a summit? Which countries and which peace formulas shall be represented there to have a full-fledged dialogue started?

Sergey Lavrov: I have stopped to follow statements by Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. There were many various threats, promises and demands. Now they state the need, as Vladimir Zelensky said even before the special military operation, for “all Russians to leave Ukrainian territory,” now they threaten to “destroy Russkies,” “send them to jail or even liquidate physically when Ukraine returns Crimea, Donbas and other areas.” This can be seen in the quotations practically by all representatives of the Ukrainian leadership. This alone should have raised questions in the "civilised" West about the adequacy of the Kiev regime and its conformity with the European "values" that Zelensky allegedly defends in the fight against Russia. This is a disgrace for those who pretended to be champions of the ideals of democracy. I long ago stopped reading statements about how they want to get out of this crisis. It is impossible to analyse them.

The whole point of the Swiss event was to consolidate the maximum number of the Global Majority countries around the Zelensky formula. They realised in the process that the Global Majority did not want to sign an ultimatum to Russia with demands to withdraw from Crimea and from Donbas, to agree to establish a tribunal over Russia, to pay reparations and to other absolutely unrealistic and schizophrenic claims. And then they quickly changed the agenda: food, nuclear security and humanitarian issues were "pushed" to the forefront, as they believed that this inoffensive set of issues would allow to secure the maximum number of signatories. It did not work.  The document was signed practically only by those countries that are fighting the Russian Federation with Ukraine’s hands, arming that state, and imposing sanctions. And by several countries of the Global South.

An interesting observation have occurred to me in connection with the food and nuclear security. The nuclear security formula implies that the Zaporozhye Nuclear Plant shall be returned to Ukraine. However, none of the organisers of this get-together in Switzerland mentioned energy security in broader terms for some reason.

I am sure that the answer is that if they talked about energy security, most of the non-Western countries invited would be wondering what happened to the Nord Streams that played a prominent role in providing for not only European energy but also for global security. They guaranteed safety to a considerable portion of the European energy supply. They do not want to talk about the stories that would mean their self-disclosure.

Many participants in the Swiss meetup have said in their statements that Russia must be invited. But, if this is what you believe, why are you meeting without Russia in the first place? Secondly, as they have announced, Russia will be invited when the select representatives of Ukraine and the West draft their plan and present it to Russia. So, this is going to be another ultimatum. But we are not to be talked to like that. If they do not understand this, I feel sorry for their diplomatic skills, which they have lost, replacing diplomacy with sanctions, ultimatums, and blackmail.

The most realistic framework has been proposed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The territories that are clearly, unambiguously and finally designated in our Constitution as parts of the Russian Federation must be completely freed from foreign troops, instructors, mercenaries and weapons.

I will cite the sequence of events that President Vladimir Putin mentioned in one of his recent remarks. An agreement to resolve the crisis in Ukraine was signed in February 2014, and was formally guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland. European leaders and the then US President Barack Obama asked President Vladimir Putin not to interfere with the process and to support it. Russia did not interfere. The agreement was signed. But the very next morning, the Ukrainian opposition disrupted the agreement, with the West (or at least Washington) playing an active role in it. The next thing we knew, they announced sanctions against the Russian language, and accused the Crimeans of breaking some “rules,” almost calling them terrorists. This was the start of a year-long phase that preceded the conclusion of the Minsk agreements.

If the crisis settlement agreement, which Russia also supported, had not been derailed in February 2014, Ukraine would now be within its 1991 borders, something the country desperately wants now. That country itself destroyed its territorial integrity – those new Russophobic and neo-Nazi practices were its own doing, introduced by those who came to power after a brutal coup.

In February 2015, new agreements were reached in Minsk and approved by the UN Security Council. If they had been implemented, Ukraine would have restored its territorial integrity – only without Crimea. At that point, this was recognised as a fact by almost all Western countries. Ukraine refused to preserve its territorial integrity by granting basic autonomy to Donbass (Lugansk and Donetsk), including the right to speak their native language. Apparently, this ran counter to the ambitions of those who were leading Ukraine along a Russophobic and neo-Nazi path.

The next point where Ukraine missed another chance to keep its territorial integrity was the Istanbul agreements reached in April 2022. Those agreements also guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but with due account of the realities that had developed on the ground by that time. As you know, Vladimir Zelensky’s Western handlers prohibited him to sign those agreements, too.

The process is ongoing. We are now on the fourth proposal put forth by the Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin’s June 14 initiative. I have no doubt that there are still a few serious politicians over there who know they will have to put their intellectual and diplomatic skills to use and start thinking about real politics, rather than harbour illusions conjured up out of thin air.

Question: Did the procedure of Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO come under discussion today? Is there any specific information concerning this issue? Are there candidates to replace Armenia?

Sergey Lavrov: You can stop here, because the answer is no. The procedure of Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO was not discussed. No request to that end was filed.

Question: What are the consequences of Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO and could that affect the CSTO’s defence capability?

Sergey Lavrov: Speculating in terms of what-if scenarios is not what diplomacy is all about. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan was not present at today’s meeting.

There was no document from Armenia, no official step that would make it necessary to discuss the consequences of something that did not happen.

Question: You said creating a new single collective security system in Eurasia was discussed today. Do all participants in the meeting are at one with Moscow’s approach whereby such a system is necessary at this point in time? Does Moscow expect that Armenia will take part in discussions concerning the creation of this system in the future?

Sergey Lavrov: We were talking not about creating a security system, but about the need to start a discussion on how to provide security to all Eurasian countries in the most effective, equitable and fair manner.

Everyone spoke in favour of a serious and professional dialogue on this topic based on existing realities in Eurasia. I’m talking about the SCO, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN and other organisations, including, for example, the GCC. All these entities maintain contacts. Starting a deeper and more focused discussion about ways to ensure each other’s security will be a positive process. It will be a military-political angle added to the material component of forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership in the transport, economic, logistical and financial spheres. It was outlined by President Vladimir Putin several years ago as a desirable goal for the development of our continent. So, discussing now who will enter and who will leave....

I can only confirm - if you paid attention to what President Putin had to say and what I said today - that the idea is that all Eurasian countries should have the right to participate in these discussions and eventual agreements without interference from outside.