Ladies and gentlemen,

We are pleased to receive the delegation headed by Foreign Minister of Venezuela Felix Plasencia. We know well this professional diplomat and good friend of our country.  

Today’s talks confirmed our mutual interest in further enhancing our strategic partnership for the benefit of our nations, following the agreements reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro. We have ambitious plans that we discussed today in all areas of our bilateral relations. This discussion was prompted by the 25^th anniversary of the 1996 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation that laid a firm foundation for equitable, truly amicable, mutually beneficial relations between our states. We have done much during these 25 years. We proved that relations based on mutual trust and mutual advantage are sustainable. They allow us to resolve any problems despite numerous challenges and threats created by the coronavirus pandemic and unfriendly steps by the United States that is trying to impede Venezuela’s socio-economic development. None of these factors undermine the steady advance of our strategic partnership.

We noted the successful holding of a regular meeting of the Russian-Venezuelan High-Level Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Issues and emphasised that the Russian Federation continued rendering large-scale aid to Venezuela in supplying it with COVID-19 vaccines and organising their licensed production on its territory. We will continue implementing all our plans scheduled by the high-level commission in trade, the economy and investment.  We have ambitious ideas in this respect and some of them are close to the implementation phase, including cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space, transport, logistics, oil-and-gas sector and tourism. The addition of flights to the Moscow-Caracas direct route, opened in May, will promote tourism. Starting November 9, our airlines will make regular flights from Moscow, St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg to Margarita Island.

Mr Plasencia and his delegation informed us about domestic political developments. We are enthusiastic supporters of the measures taken by the Venezuelan leaders and personally by President Nicolas Maduro to stabilise the situation, primarily in the socio-economic sphere. We were told about the preparations for the November 21 regional and municipal elections in Venezuela. We are ready to provide all the necessary election assistance to our friends and will send our observers to Venezuela. Importantly, invitations to send experts were also sent to the European Union and the United Nations. We hope these invitations will be accepted as well.

I would like to emphasise once again our common rejection of illegal unilateral restrictions, so-called sanctions, within the framework of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter that was established on Venezuela’s initiative with Russia’s active support. It has about 20 members already and is bound to grow. We have no doubts about this. As part of this project, we have supported Venezuela’s proposals to establish a “like-minded front” that rejects unlawful unilateral sanctions and stands ready to counter them by mobilising the international community. We have already received a helping hand in this work. The UN has created the position of Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures owing to our efforts. This mechanism is up and running. The UN Special Rapporteur has recently visited Venezuela and presented a fairly objective picture of the negative impact of these illegal restrictions on civilians.

We will continue rendering constructive assistance to Venezuela in its efforts to overcome its domestic differences by peaceful means with due respect for its sovereignty. We would like to note the active and open position of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his government in the framework of the consultations launched in Mexico City some time ago with Norway’s assistance and participation of a number of states, including Russia, as facilitators. We are interested in the success of these talks. Our friends told us today about their views on the prospects of this process.

We will continue our cooperation at the UN on protecting its Charter and international law and rejecting any attempts to replace universal conventions with a “rules-based order” that our Western colleagues, headed by the United States, are pushing forward, trying to present it as a foundation for resolving any problems for the exclusive benefit of the West.

We will coordinate our actions in all other areas of international life, including the Non-Aligned Movement, which celebrated its 60th anniversary and granted Russia an observer status this year. We maintain close contacts in all areas of bilateral relations, including culture, humanitarian sphere and education. We will continue helping Venezuela train professionals. We have increased the number of scholarships from 77 to 100 for every academic year. Today, we agreed to grant Venezuelan diplomats an opportunity to complete a regular internship at the Diplomatic Academy of our Ministry.

We also reviewed our intensive and constructive cooperation in the military and military-technical areas. 

Mr Minister invited me to visit Venezuela and I accepted this invitation with pleasure. We will coordinate specific dates as soon as possible.

Question (addressed to both ministers, retranslated from Spanish): What could you say about yesterday’s elections in Nicaragua?

Sergey Lavrov: We sent observers from the State Duma, the Federal Assembly Federation Council and the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation to the universal elections that were held in Nicaragua yesterday. They reported that the elections were well organised and fully conformed to the legislation of Nicaragua. All public health rules dictated by the pandemic were observed. The voter turnout was substantial. 

These elections and preparations for them took place under unprecedented US pressure on the Nicaraguan authorities. A campaign to refuse to recognise the results of the elections was launched long in advance. The White House refused to recognise the results of the elections last night when the elections were over and urged all other countries to follow suit. We consider this unacceptable and resolutely denounce this line.

In accordance with the Constitution of Nicaragua, as well as other Latin American and other countries, including the United States, sovereignty belongs to the people. Only the people (in this case, the people of Nicaragua) have the right to decide whether an election in their country was legitimate. I would like to recall the wise words of Simon Bolivar, who said that every country should choose its own form of government and all others should respect its choice.

Pressure on Nicaragua began to be exerted in 2018 when it became a target of undisguised interference in its internal affairs. Unfortunately, the attempts to overthrow the current Nicaraguan leaders continue and are not being particularly concealed. I would like to say that another reckless colour revolution and regime change, this time in Nicaragua, is unlikely to make the region more stable and prosperous. 

Let’s recall the results of the Western democratisers’ good intentions in Iraq, Libya and Syria, to name a few. If we take another country where elections were held in the past 20 years (I’m referring to Afghanistan), the Americans and other NATO members organised what they proclaimed to be “democratic elections” throughout the entire period of its occupation. There was not a single case when an election campaign was not accompanied by high-profile scandals and shameful procedures – let’s call things what they are.

When the last “democratic elections” were held in Afghanistan five years ago, following the patterns that the West was actively pushing and even tried to involve the OSCE in covering their results, Abdullah Abdullah won the first round. The ballot papers of the first round took several months to count because they had to be carried by donkeys from refugee camps in Pakistan. After counting, Abdullah Abdullah was announced the winner. Then the Election Commission of Afghanistan said with US prompting that it was necessary to recount the votes. It took three months to recount them. Later, without quoting any figures, it was announced that the vote recount showed that it was Ashraf Ghani rather than Abdullah Abdullah who had won the elections. Ghani became President of Afghanistan. If such standards are acceptable for the Americans when it comes to their “clients,” they should use such standards in dealing with their “clients.” In all other cases, it is necessary to follow general democratic procedures and respect the choice of every nation.

Question: What steps will the Foreign Ministry make following the NATO military exercises in the Black Sea?  Have these exercises been prompted by the mounting tensions in the Donetsk People’s Republic? Recently, an OSCE observer in the area has been shot at.

Sergey Lavrov: The NATO military exercises have to do with the striving of the United States and its allies to press on with the policy of containing the Russian Federation, despite all pledges [to the contrary] they made in the 1990s, which were written into the Russia-NATO Council Founding Act [on Mutual Relation, Cooperation and Security]. As for the key part of this document, which lays down NATO’s commitment not to move its military infrastructure further eastwards to the territory of the new members of the block, it was completely violated. Now it is taken for granted that the United States is talking about its interest in deploying naval bases in Romania and Bulgaria. Not only does this directly violate the words of honour pledged many times by American and some European leaders during the talks with the Soviet authorities but this also contravenes the signed document. Everyone praised this document as a model for securing peaceful co-existence and forging a partnership between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Foreign Ministry has given its opinion on more than one occasion. Now I have reaffirmed it and added to it. I want to bring your attention to the words pronounced during the recent meetings on military issues, which took place in Sochi. Russian President Vladimir Putin commented on the visits of our Black Sea “guests.” Answering questions from the media, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu talked in detail about how we would respond to this. He confirmed that we were fully prepared for any course the events might take. In our relations with NATO member countries, we have for many years been accustomed to preparing ourselves for any provocation. I can assure you that our readiness is guaranteed.

I do not know if this has to do with the ongoing violation by the Ukrainian Armed Forces of the ceasefire in Donbass. I only know that the recent reshuffle in the Ukrainian government has only exacerbated its hawkish nature. The new Ukrainian defence minister said, without a moment’s hesitation, that, first, Ukraine had a right to use strike drones and would continue to do this. Second, he said, the Minsk agreements had to be replaced with something else, where the United States would play a central role. 

In this connection, I want to remind you that at the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden in Geneva last June, as well as during the recent visits to Russia by US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Director of the CIA William Burns and their meetings with Russian top officials – at all those meetings the US President and his subordinates directly reaffirmed that the Minsk agreements, including granting Donbass a special status, had to be carried out. If the United States explains to the new Ukrainian defence minister and all other members of the Kiev regime with President Vladimir Zelensky at the head that this is the approach taken by Washington and it has to be honoured – the more so as this is also the position of the UN Security Council – the Ukrainian crisis could be resolved much more quickly.

Question: There is much talk about holding negotiations in the Normandy format. How much of this is true? What issues will be on the agenda?

Sergey Lavrov: On October 11, 2021, President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone with President of France Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel about revitalising the Normandy Four, starting with a discussion of possible arrangements at the level of foreign ministers. Following on from what President Putin said regarding the importance of meaningful contacts based on the implementation of all previous agreements, rather than a meeting for the sake of appearances, on October 29 we sent a draft final document of the potential ministerial meeting in the Normandy format to our colleagues in Berlin, Paris and Kiev. It was an honest and comprehensive document that covered all the main problems which are hindering the settlement of the internal Ukrainian conflict, primarily the Ukrainian authorities’ refusal to lift a finger to fulfil their obligations and the UN Security Council resolution.

On October 30, 2021, I had a meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Rome. He recalled that the leaders of Russia, France and Germany discussed on the phone the need to hold a ministerial meeting and proposed doing this in Paris on November 11, 2021. I replied that we would like to see our colleagues’ reaction to the substantial proposals we had made, because substance is more important than any formal agreement to hold a meeting and pose for photographs and television cameras as a sign that the Normandy format is effective. We don’t need such window dressing. I asked if Jean-Yves Le Drian had seen the proposals we sent to Paris. He replied that he hadn’t had a chance to see them yet and again insisted that we should meet on November 11. I said again that, first, we are waiting for a reaction to our essential proposals. Besides, even if the agreements matured and the essential part [of the agreements] was ready, I had a full agenda in Moscow on November 11, including a visit by the foreign minister of a friendly country. Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also said publicly that it is physically impossible for us to attend the November 11 meeting. Nevertheless, the other day we received a joint letter from the foreign ministers of Germany and France where November 11 was indicated as almost the only option. This is simply ill manners, let alone contrary to diplomatic ethics.

We sent them our additional arguments in favour of addressing the essence of the matter rather than just ticking the box. We enumerated the concrete steps which the Kiev regime is taking to torpedo the Minsk agreements. Moreover, Kiev is discussing a draft law that will prohibit Ukrainian officials from implementing these agreements. President Putin mentioned this in a telephone conversation with the leaders of Germany and France. They assured him that they would do their best to prevent the adoption of that law, but ultimately even the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission endorsed it. This does no credit to this organisation, which still wants to be respected. This is the situation. 

There will be no meeting on November 11. We did not discuss any other date. First of all, we need to understand the potential outcome we can expect from such a meeting and whether it will be based on the implementation by Ukraine and its leadership of all the previous Normandy format decisions, primarily the decisions adopted by the Normandy Four at the Paris summit in December 2019.