Interview with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for Bridges to the East documentary, Moscow, August 31, 2024

Question: This year marks the 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations with several Arab countries, including Syria. However, the historical ties between Moscow and Damascus run much deeper. How would you describe our relations with that country historically and today?

Sergey Lavrov: Official diplomatic relations were established in July 1944, when the Great Patriotic War and World War II were nearing their inevitable end.

Trade, cultural, and religious ties were established much earlier, right, but they were formalised only in July 1944. Since then, we have continued to provide ample assistance to the Syrian Arab Republic helping it in its efforts to become an independent state, as we did for other Arab and African countries, and countries on other continents.

The manufacturing industry in Syria was built practically from the ground up. The Soviet Union has built around 80 enterprises, laid about 2,000 kilometres of railroads, and 4,000 kilometres of power transmission lines.

Without a doubt, training national personnel was a no less major contribution of ours to Syria’s development as a state. Tens of thousands of Syrians received their education in the Soviet Union and continue to do so in the Russian Federation. They form the backbone of the national elite in the industry, education, and science.

We remain active in this field as we continue to support the Syrian people and their efforts to overcome the ongoing situation. In 2011, the United States decided to send the Syrian people along the same path as Iraq and Libya which countries they had devastated by their aggressive policies. We were strongly against seeing this scenario replay. In 2015, by President Putin’s decision, we sent a contingent of our armed forces to defend the Syrian Arab Republic against direct aggression.

The US invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave rise to the Islamic State aka ISIS, which posed a real threat to Syria’s existence.

When the Russian armed forces moved into Syria, ISIS was on the outskirts of Damascus, and Western countries, led by the United States, were attempting to assert their dominance in eastern Syria. We stabilised the situation and since then most of Syria’s territory has been controlled by the legitimate government. We continue to maintain close contacts with the Syrian leadership on issues that remain unresolved.

President Bashar al-Assad’s most recent visit to Moscow took place in July. President Vladimir Putin and he discussed in detail the specifics of continued development of bilateral cooperation and our joint actions in the region. I remain in communication with my colleague, Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad, whom I last saw in Moscow in May. Issues abound, but we share a mutual commitment to resolving them in the interest of the Syrian people and the Syrian state.

Question: Currently, not all of the country’s territory, including its main oil-rich regions, is controlled by the Syrian government. What viable solutions are available, and what role does the US contingent in Syria is playing in it?

Sergey Lavrov: The US contingent has a direct impact on this situation. Moreover, it is the main underlying reason for the current situation in the Euphrates River region, on the eastern bank of the river, and in the southeastern regions where the Americans have set up a 55 kilometre-radius zone outside the town of Al-Tanf. They have declared their presence as a way to “control” that area and to prevent the spread of the Islamic State’s influence.

Sergey Lavrov: It’s all a work of the devil. The Americans are not addressing any counterterrorism tasks in Syria, but are, instead, busy creating a quasi-state there. Unlike the rest of Syria, which is controlled by the legitimate government that operates under harsh sanctions, including the Caesar Act that is choking the country off, these sanctions do not apply to the US-controlled parts of the country. Moreover, money is flowing in there. These areas are home to Syria’s best oil and gas fields and the most fertile agricultural lands, which are being ruthlessly exploited. The Americans and their proxies are taking oil, gas, and grain out of the country to sell elsewhere. The proceeds do not go to the Syrian budget, but are instead used to continue emboldening separatism and creating a quasi-state.

It is unfortunate to see the Americans draw the Kurds into their game in an attempt to use them as pawns. Multiple skirmishes have taken place between Kurdish units and Arab tribal formations who have called these lands home for many centuries now. The Americans plan to use some of these lands to promote their quasi-state project. The Kurds must be clear about the fact that their future still lies within a single Syrian state. They should not rely on Americans lending them a helping hand, but instead come to terms with the Syrian government and negotiate the rights they are entitled to as an ethnic minority. Such a dialogue was underway at some point, and we facilitated it.

The Americans proceeded to convince the Kurds that they would benefit from escalating confrontation with the government rather than cooperating with it. In our contacts with our Kurdish colleagues, we keep reminding them of the fate that befell the Afghan leadership, which chose to rely on promises made by the United States rather than its own people or a national dialogue. They were abandoned overnight and left holding the bag. I hope that this historical experience of a country that is close to Syria will be absorbed by our Kurdish partners, and they will return to the path of national dialogue and talks to discuss with Damascus the terms of their existence within a single Syrian state.

Question: Some time ago, it was reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan might meet to discuss ways to restore bilateral relations. What role is Russia playing in this process? What are the prospects for achieving such a settlement today following President Assad’s recent remark about this process largely stalling?

Sergey Lavrov: The Turkish factor is also part of Syria’s territorial integrity, since the Idlib de-escalation zone is controlled by the Turkish forces.

It was done in 2019 to suppress the terrorist alliance - Jabhat al-Nusra now known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham - which was committing violence in that area. The Turks were there to “pacify” this territory. In 2019-2021, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Vladimir Putin reached agreements (with the presence of our military contingent in Syria in mind) that made it possible to push the terrorists out of this enclave and to replace them, in respective communities, with the authorities that were willing to engage in a dialogue with the government.

The sides agreed to unblock the M4 motorway which connected Damascus with central Syria. All of this was put in writing, but unfortunately, progress has been woefully slow. The threat from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham turned out to be more serious, but we are urging our Turkish colleagues to keep their end of the deal.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ministers never stop to emphasise that they respect Syria’s territorial integrity and that they will stay on its territory only for as long as it takes to settle the problem of terrorism.

Commitments of that kind feature prominently in the documents adopted within the Astana format, in which Russia, Türkiye, and the Islamic Republic of Iran participate. This format remains the most promising platform for addressing Syria’s outstanding issues. However, since Türkiye remains operational in the Idlib de-escalation zone and occasionally makes incursions against Kurdish extremists who cause trouble on the Syrian border, Damascus remains cautious about restoring relations with Ankara.

Last year, our respective foreign ministries and defence ministries deployed significant efforts in order to set up meetings involving defence ministries, foreign ministries, and intelligence services to discuss the conditions that could lead to normalising relations between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Türkiye. Representatives from Syria, Türkiye, Russia, and Iran participated in these meetings, thus creating an Astana format plus Syria arrangement. It was a productive meeting, but we could not decide on how to proceed. The Syrian government believes that for this process to continue, the procedure for the eventual withdrawal of the Turkish forces from Syria needs to be clearly established. The Turks are ready for that, but the specific variables have yet to be agreed upon. The issue is about the return of the refugees and measures to eliminate the terrorist threat, which would make the presence of the Turkish forces unnecessary. All of that is a work in progress.

We believe now is the time to make preparations for another meeting which I’m certain will take place soon. We have a stake in seeing our partners in Damascus and Ankara normalise relations, especially since the current leaders of Türkiye and Syria had warm personal relations prior to 2010-2011, before the Arab Spring. I believe this also has a positive role to play.

Question: The year 2024 marks 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Lebanon as well. Where do Russia-Lebanon relations stand now?

Sergey Lavrov: Everything followed a very similar scenario, because this “period of recognition” of the Arab states was marked by the Soviet Union providing the broadest possible assistance helping them develop their respective national economies, industries, the social infrastructure, and educational systems.

Diplomatic relations with Lebanon were established in August 1944, right after the Soviet Union established diplomatic relations with Syria. In addition to helping Lebanon develop its statehood, we strongly supported international efforts to put an end to the civil war in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We were against the Israeli aggression during the 2006 war when it attempted to forcefully resolve the threat that the Israeli state believed Lebanon posed to it. This has never stopped since then. Decades of similar developments have clearly shown that these issues cannot be resolved by force, but must instead be addressed by recognising the legitimate rights of the peoples living in that region, including the Palestinians, to their own state. The fact that the “consequences” regularly showed themselves in Israel’s policies towards Lebanon and Syria, such as the illegitimate use of airstrikes against the territories of sovereign states under the guise of fighting terrorism, has remained a serious irritant to this day.

Now that Israel is seeking to achieve the “final solution” to the Palestinian problem by force rather than talks (as some political figures said in the past), Western Jerusalem is ramping up military actions against the entities that they believe support the Palestinians and do so with an extremist slant, namely, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Israel wants to destroy the latter which is an exercise in futility. The sides must come to terms instead. Hamas is part of the Palestinian people, just as Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese people. There are resistance movements in Syria and Iraq which Israel considers terrorists as well.

To reiterate, the problems that Israel is seeing as obstacles to its peaceful existence cannot be solved by force. The sides need to sit down and talk and act upon the UN resolution regarding the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. This is the only path forward to achieving lasting and sustainable peace and ensuring Israel’s security. We are very much interested in seeing this happen. These issues cannot be resolved by force.

Lebanon remains in a situation where it is facing new challenges largely due to the crisis in the Gaza Strip and, more broadly, the Palestinian territories. Standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, Hezbollah has been launching harassing strikes on Israel. However, all of this is relatively small in scale. Israel believes Hezbollah should “stay quiet” and not align with the Palestinians, which Israel mostly sees as Hamas members and which, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public statement, Israel has committed to destroy.

We remain in contact with our Israeli colleagues through the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, and the respective security councils from both countries. We are trying to drive home the futility of the attempts to address issues by force without considering alternative paths.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stated that he is concerned not about creating a Palestinian state, but about the security of Israel as a country. This statement means he refuses to comply with the UN resolution, which is sad and is made even sadder by the fact that Washington stands behind every decision made by Israel. The US blocks all agreements at the UN Security Council that would lead to a full and permanent ceasefire. The Americans continue to supply weapons to Western Jerusalem, which are then used to commit even more violence against the Palestinian people. Over 40,000 civilians have died in the ten months of hostilities since October 7, 2023 which is a horrifying number. The collective punishment of the Palestinians for the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas (which we condemned) are no less criminal which is expressly stated in international humanitarian law.

To follow up on Lebanon, that country’s governmental structure, which ensures equal and balanced representation of ethnic and religious groups, sets it apart from other countries. Over the past two years or so, following the most recent elections, they have been unable to form governing structures, and drawing Lebanon into the conflict by “punishing” Hezbollah and the entire Lebanese people is throwing a wrench into our Lebanese colleagues and partners’ efforts to effectively address this governmental formula.

Question: So far, the situation in the Middle East has remained more or less balanced. What is the likelihood of the ongoing developments and escalation snowballing into a full-on war between Iran and Israel that would involve neighbouring countries?

Sergey Lavrov: One can’t help getting an impression that Israel is the only party willing the developments to take this turn. It appears that the Israeli government which is pursuing quite tough policies is not really hiding the fact that it wants to leverage this situation in order to solve once and for all every problem it has with Hamas, Hezbollah, pro-Iranian groups in Syria and Iraq, and Iran itself as you pointed out.

Iran is outright unwilling to fall for a provocation or to get embroiled into any kind of large-scale hostilities. Iran is facing provocations. The assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran during the inauguration ceremony of the new president is, without a doubt, a provocation. Iran chose not to respond, but made it clear that it reserves the right to do so because its territorial integrity and sovereignty had been violated. It was a premeditated assassination of an Iranian government guest. When Tehran stated it reserved the right to respond, the Americans tried to tell Iran that is probably shouldn’t. Even President Macron and other EU figures started saying they were urging Iran... They’ve turned everything upside down. It’s no longer Israel that needs to be calmed down and to stop committing political assassinations; instead, Iran is expected to swallow this and to gear up for more provocations that might push it to make rash decisions, while it is supposed to keep quiet about everything and just acquiesce to it.

An interesting parallel can be drawn in this regard. President Zelensky (who is likewise fully controlled by the United States) is drawn toward something along the same lines. The only difference is that he is striving to use Ukraine to spark a big war so that he can step aside and have the Americans and other NATO members fight for him. It’s fairly reminiscent of the attempts to start a major war in the Middle East and the territories that lie next to us. Currently, a portion of the Kursk Region is controlled by Zelensky’s Nazi regime armed with the weapons supplied by NATO.

To follow up on the Middle East, considering the historical track record where the same mistakes have been made over and over again for decades on end, the situation remains complex, some even say hopeless. There have been numerous agreements to settle the Palestinian issue. I was personally involved in creating a road map that was put together by Russia, the United States, the UN, and the EU, and approved by the UN Security Council in 2003. According to it, a full-fledged Palestinian state was to be created within one year. The plan was laid out step by step, and the schedule was broken down into months. Much time has passed since then, yet no state has been created.

This historical track record makes many people think about any political or diplomatic efforts as futile. However, war is the only alternative to this state of affairs. Considering this, under no circumstances should we give up, but instead we should keep our efforts going and insist on implementing the UN Security Council’s resolutions.

This is yet another instance where the West, despite its mantras about the importance of following the UN Charter and respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of different countries, shows signs of hypocrisy and double standards. If you respect sovereignty, the Palestinian state, according to the UN Security Council’s resolutions, should be created based on its territorial integrity and within the borders outlined in the resolution, and should possess sovereignty. Currently, though, there are attempts to slip in some kind of a fake solution in the form of isolated enclaves controlled by Israel along the outside perimeter. I’m sure this is a non-starter.

Question: You mentioned the Kursk region earlier. I’d be remiss not to ask you a question about ongoing developments. You pointed out not long ago that President Zelensky would have never dared invade the Kursk Region without orders from the United States. What is the West trying to accomplish by doing what it is doing and by flooding Ukraine nonstop with more weapons and mercenaries?

There are media reports where Vladimir Zelensky may be possibly replaced by someone else. If that happens, will talks with Kiev remain on the table?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the goals of those who staged the provocation in the Kursk Region in the form of an incursion by Nazi units with a large number of mercenaries, or perhaps not even mercenaries but active military personnel, since foreign speech among them has been documented.

I find it hard to tell what their exact plan was, because our Western colleagues have a devious mind and they often do things their own way, but nothing ever comes of it.

The goal of invading Afghanistan was to eliminate terrorists. However, it ended in failure and a disgraceful retrograde operation.

What was the objective of invading Iraq? It was to destroy weapons of mass destruction. It turned out later there were none. The Iraqi leaders and parliament have been requesting the Americans to pull out the remaining troops for several years now. However, as a country that “respects the sovereignty of independent UN member states,” the United States is unwilling to leave. Eventually, they will be asked to vacate the place.

Libya. They destroyed a country which, in socioeconomic terms, was the region’s most prosperous country where petrol was almost free, a country that provided good education for its students, including abroad. What has become of Libya now?

It’s hard to figure what their goals and plans were. Political analysts are discussing this. Even Zelensky (we hear him make a Freudian slip occasionally) said they needed this for future prisoner swaps, so he will thus capture some prisoners and grab some square kilometres in the process. This is so naive and guileless.

We do not discuss our territory with anyone. We do not hold talks over our territory. We are ready to discuss cutting short the crimes that the Kiev regime committed after the coup. It started bombing its own cities because people in these cities refused to recognise the outcomes of the coup. These people rose up against the decision of the militants who came to power and banned the Russian language in all spheres of life. These people were declared terrorists. We were ready to negotiate in order to stop this. We held talks, which resulted in signing the Minsk agreements, which, as has recently been made public, no one ever planned to act upon. All they wanted was buy time to arm the Nazi regime, which continued to choke off everything Russian, with weapons for waging war against Russia.

To protect the rights of these people, their history, the legacy of their ancestors, their language, religion, and their culture, we were compelled to recognise the DPR and the LPR and to stand up for them as they requested us to do, and in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. But we were willing to negotiate prior to that.

We supported the talks that led to the signing of the agreements between then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition in February 2014. The opposition tore them up the next morning and staged a bloody coup. Have those agreements been implemented, Ukraine would now be within its 1991 borders, which Vladimir Zelensky dreams of. Crimea would have also been within those borders had there been no coup.

If a year later, in February 2015, the Ukrainian leadership and its backers, France and Germany, had implemented the Minsk agreements, Ukraine would have still been within its 1991 borders, though without Crimea for obvious reasons. Had Ukraine fulfilled what we agreed upon in Istanbul in April 2022 and not listened to then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who told it not to do so, it would still be within its 1991 borders, less Crimea and a significant portion of Donbass.

Each time, Ukrainians were hopeless in their inability to reach and honour agreements. The West made it clear that it needed Ukraine only to hurt Russia, to annoy us, and to wage war against our country. The Western countries never had any use for these agreements. Each time the agreed-upon documents were sabotaged, Ukraine had more to lose.

President Putin raised the issue of possible talks 18 months ago making it clear we were not opposed to that idea. That was a long time ago. Six months after the special military operation had begun, the President said we were not opposed to the idea of holding talks. Those who are against talks should realise that the longer they put it off, the harder it will be to reach an agreement. In Istanbul, less than a month into the special military operation, reaching an agreement was easy. Ukraine didn’t want this, because it had not yet fully achieved its goal of “exhausting” Russia.

There’s nothing I can really share with regard to the Kursk Region. Speaking at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, President Putin said we were ready to settle the situation based on the realities on the ground. The Constitution of the Russian Federation clearly states that, in addition to Crimea, we have four new constituent entities, namely, the DPR, the LPR, and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Ukraine joining NATO is out of question. This transcends the red line concept. It’s just impossible. Those who are trying to present us with the “solutions” suggesting that, to make things right, we should leave Ukraine with what’s left of it and let it take the remaining part to NATO are speaking the language of fantasies and provocations. Our position is clear.

Question: So, the subject of talks can make it back to the table provided these conditions are met?

Sergey Lavrov: Right now, talks are off the table. We are tired of saying that the President has made this point many times. Those who are implying that Russia is “turning negotiations down” while Ukraine is ready for them should take President Putin’s advice and tell Vladimir Zelensky (when he is of sound mind and lucid memory) to cancel the executive order that bans talks.

An EU ministerial meeting was held the other day. Most recently, Josep Borrell said there was no alternative to talks other than the Zelensky formula.

I thought they had done at least some training and have an idea of how to pursue reality-based politics. This is an impasse. Clearly, Josep Borrell now wants to go down in history as Europe’s most notable Russophobe. He is stepping down from his positions. This is either an instance of amateurish behaviour, or a state of madness that has come to replace the intelligence of diplomats and politicians in the West.

Question: To follow up on the Middle East, there is another country with which we have maintained diplomatic relations for eight decades now. It’s Iraq. How our relations with Baghdad are doing? What are the most promising areas of cooperation considering the situation on the ground and ongoing talks about withdrawing the international coalition’s contingent from Iraq?

Sergey Lavrov: We established diplomatic relations with Baghdad a month after Lebanon in September 1944. The Soviet Union did a lot to help the Iraqis build their country, the economy, and the defence capabilities. We supplied a lot of weapons to Iraq’s armed forces and its special services and law enforcement agencies.

Today, we are revivifying those traditions after a tragic period for the Iraqi people. In 2003, led by the United States, NATO invaded that country under a false pretext, a false flag. Later, the Westerners admitted there was no reason for an invasion. No need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction whatsoever. They broadcasted to the whole world the hanging of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, allegedly for possessing weapons of mass destruction. This is a disgusting turn of events, just like the murder of the leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi, which was broadcast around the world with the enthusiastic cheers of then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Iraq suffered for long years. Following that invasion, the Iraqi statehood was subjected to severe trials as well. Ultimately, the Iraqis have largely coped with this fragmentation, as they proceeded to strengthen their relations with the autonomous Kurdish region in Erbil. We are helping them move these processes forward. We are working with both Baghdad and Erbil. I visited both places several years ago.

Our diplomats visit these regions, cities, and various events that help promote political stability in Iraq. The new Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who paid an official visit to us in the autumn of 2023, has successfully galvanised law enforcement and security services to stabilise the situation and to work effectively against remaining terrorist offshoots of ISIS and other groups.

ISIS came to the fore when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Back then, Paul Bremer, considered a most seasoned diplomat in the US, was appointed Coalition Provisional Authority leader in Iraq. One of his first decisions was to ban the Ba’ath Party and all associated entities. It was the ruling party, and all armed forces, intelligence services, their senior officials, and officers were members of that party. They were asked to step down. Aiming to create a terrorist organisation, Islamist groups gladly welcomed these officers into their ranks, and they made the Islamic State a military powerhouse. ISIS is a direct product of American aggressive policies.

The oil and gas sector is central to our economy. Companies like Lukoil, Gazprom Neft, and Rosneft have collectively invested nearly $20 billion in Iraq. The business is beneficial for both sides, and we see much promise in the hydrocarbon sector.

We have more plans in the manufacturing industry, technology, information, and communications. We hope that the intergovernmental commission established by Russia and Iraq will review these matters.

Question: Does the presence of the international coalition affect the situation in the country?

Sergey Lavrov: To reiterate, the Iraqi parliament and government have adopted several resolutions for the international anti-ISIS coalition to leave the Republic of Iraq. In response to Washington saying they would give it a thought, the Iraqis politely but firmly said that this is their land, and they are “thankful” to the Americans for everything they have done, including the creation of ISIS, and their willingness to stay longer in order to take it on. I believe withdrawal should take place soon.