Sputnik - In 2018, Russia's relations with Western countries severely deteriorated against the backdrop of numerous scandals and sanctions.




In an interview with�Sputnik on�the eve of�2019, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, spoke about�whether we should wait for�further alienation, about�Moscow's possible response to�Washington scrapping the INF Treaty,�the price of�a potential conflict between�Russia and the USA, about�presidential elections in�Ukraine, as�well as�the situation around�the Democratic People's Republic of�Korea (DPRK) and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Sputnik: Next year will again be almost a pre-election year in�the United States. Should we expect a new cooling in�relations? Can we hope to�maintain at�least a modest dynamic of�contacts at�the highest level? Taking into�account the failed meetings in�Argentina, where and when approximately could they occur? Is it true that they might be held in�January?
Sergei Lavrov:�We have become accustomed to�the fact that opportunistic factors associated with�American domestic politics influence our bilateral relations and create additional difficulties in�building a dialogue.Of late, the degree of�their impact does not even depend on�what stage of�the electoral cycle the United States is at. Of course, one can expect that as�the next presidential election in�November 2020 approaches, attempts to�play the "Russian card" will be undertaken by�individual politicians in�Washington more actively and more persistently. We hope that this will not lead to�a further loosening in�the foundation of�bilateral ties, which are not in�the best condition anyway.

We consistently advocate developing a normal, predictable dialogue with�the United States based on�the principles of�mutual understanding and respect for�interests. So far, it has not been possible to�move in�this direction because of�Washington's unfriendly actions, incessant attempts to�exert pressure on�us with�the help of�economic, political, military, and other tools.

As a result, work in�important areas on�the bilateral and international agenda, including those related to�maintaining stability and security in�the world, has stalled.

If we speak in�a broader, if you like, in�a philosophical sense, the main problem in�our relations is that the United States has never considered them as�valuable. Russia for�the American political establishment is an object.

We are demonised in�order to�keep Europe in�check and to�strengthen the trans-Atlantic bond. Or, for�example, they are now seriously discussing how to�use Russia against�China in�their favour. Yes, and attempts to�inspire a change of�power in�our country or a change in�Russian policy�� and many in�Washington suffer from�such an illusion�� are dictated by�the desire to�make us a tool to�serve US interests.

We know countries that the Americans have managed to�force into�such a role, but, of�course, this will not work with�us. And until�the "objectification" of�Russia, which apparently is a legacy of�the Cold War, disappears from�the consciousness of�the American elite and this practice stops, the relationship will not change. "Selective interaction" is flawed. It does not ensure the consolidation of�positive trends and a predictable future.

For our part, we build inherently valued relations with�any state. We are ready to�act in�the same spirit with�America. I repeat: the potential for�constructive bilateral interaction is enormous. However, it has remained unfulfilled for�many decades. I think our people deserve much better than�what we have now.

With regard to�contacts at�the highest level, President Vladimir Putin, at�a press conference following�the G20 summit in�Buenos Aires,�said that he was open to�meeting with�the US president when the American side was ready. Now it is difficult to�say when and where such contacts may take place.

Sputnik: The point, apparently, comes down�to the scrapping of�the INF Treaty. Are we negotiating with�the US and the EU about�any guarantees that such missiles will not appear in�Europe? Are our partners ready to�give such legally binding guarantees? If not, what will be our answer? Rockets in�Cuba again?

Sergei Lavrov:�We are convinced that the collapse of�the INF Treaty can seriously harm international security and strategic stability. We have to�say in�warning: we cannot and will not ignore the deployment of�new American missiles that threaten us and our allies. There should be no doubt that we have the necessary set of�means to�ensure our own security, and we can also further strengthen our defence capabilities. However, Russia, like�any other sensible country, is not interested in�an arms race and new "missile crises".


If there are still forces in�the United States that assume to�use the pause taken by�Washington to�search for�ways to�save the INF Treaty, then we are open to�this. We urge them to�abandon attempts at�blackmail and the replication of�baseless accusations in�favour of�truly substantive and constructive joint work on�existing mutual concerns.We have officially offered to�start this in�a recent letter from�Sergei Shoygu to�the chief of�the Pentagon; we have also repeatedly proposed beginning a professional dialogue on�the INF Treaty on�a contact level between�the Ministry of�Foreign Affairs with�the State Department. No answers have been received yet.

During the Helsinki summit on�July 16, the Americans were handed concrete comprehensive proposals regarding the agenda for�a long overdue in-depth discussion about�strategic stability and arms control. Unfortunately, there has so far been no desire to�negotiate with�us from�the US side. They shy away from�dialogue, they do not offer any guarantees, apparently preferring to�have completely "free hands".

In general, we are ready to�work in�various formats with�the participation of�all countries that are aware of�their responsibility for�peace and security.

Sputnik: How likely is the possibility of�a direct armed conflict between�Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO? Is our country preparing for�such a development of�events?

Sergei Lavrov:�I believe that everyone in�the world understands this well: an armed conflict involving the two leading nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, will have disastrous consequences for�humanity. There is no doubt that there can be no winners in�a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed.

At the same time, we are compelled to�state that, being obsessed with�their own geopolitical ambitions,�Washington and its allies are not ready to�adapt to�global realities�that are not changing in�their favour. Hence the desire to�restrain these processes in�every way and having a more aggressive approach in�foreign affairs than�before.

Confrontational pressure is being exacerbated, dialogue channels are being frozen. Of particular concern are steps to�break up�major international agreements on�strategic stability.

Such a conflict, based on�instruments of�power inevitably leads to�a further imbalance of�the global security architecture�and contributes to�an arms race. A situation may well arise when the price of�an error or misunderstanding becomes fatal.

Of course, we are taking the necessary steps to�protect our national interests and strengthen the country's defence capability. President Putin has spoken about�this more than�once. At the same time, we hope that common sense will still prevail. After all, with�all the diverging positions, both Russia and the states of�the West jointly bear a huge part of�the responsibility for�the future of�all mankind, for�the search for�effective answers to�the many challenges and threats of�our time.

We urge Western leaders to�act in�a predictable way, to�scrupulously abide by�the principles and rules of�international law, to�rely on�the United Nations Charter. Then such issues will disappear of�their own accord.

Sputnik: Elections for�the President of�Ukraine will be held in�spring. The main contenders are well-known. Is there anyone among�them that inspires hope for�improving relations between�Moscow and Kiev? Or should we not wait for�this in�any case? Is Russia then ready for�such tough measures as�the introduction of�a visa regime, a break in�diplomatic relations?

Sergei Lavrov:�As for�the main candidates for�the presidency, I will refrain from�any comments. Elections are an internal Ukrainian issue. But we, of�course, cannot but�express concern about�the situation in�which preparations for�these elections are being made. In Ukraine, the level of�Russophobia imposed from�above is simply outrageous.

In fact, it has become a part of�government policy. And the current authorities in�Kiev are guided not so much by�the interests of�their country but�by their own ambitions, as�well as "recommendations", and sometimes direct instructions from�other capital cities. It is ordinary Ukrainians who are suffering because of�this. The unresolved internal conflict in�the east of�Ukraine confirms this.

I would like�to hope that in�Kiev sooner or later adequate people will come to�power, capable of�constructive dialogue and with�a responsible perception of�reality. We have not taken any unilateral actions to�curtail relations with�Ukraine, and we don't intend to�take any. On the contrary, we are in�favour of�preserving and creating conditions for�the revival of�multi-faceted ties and contacts.

Sputnik: In the outgoing year, significant progress on�the situation around�North Korea has been achieved. When will there be a subsequent weakening of�sanctions against�North Korea? Will we seek to�lift the ban on�North Korean workers as�one of�the first measures? And is it not the time�for�the resumptionof�the Six-Party Talks format? Is a Six-Party Talks Summit possible? When, and under�what conditions?

Sergei Lavrov:�Indeed, this year there have been positive trends on�the Korean Peninsula. The situation there as�a whole developed in�line with�the "road map" of�the settlement worked out�by Russia a year earlier together with�China. Military activity has noticeably decreased due to�the moratorium on�nuclear tests and missile launches imposed by�the DPRK, and due to�the decision by�the United States and the Republic of�Korea to�postpone large-scale military manoeuvres.

Inter-Korean relations have improved, the first-ever summit between�the leaders of�the United States and the DPRK has been held.�Russia as�an integral participant in�the overall process�of�resolving the situation around�the Korean Peninsula has contributed to�the achievement of�these results and will continue to�do so�� there is still a lot of�work ahead.

I mean, above�all, the need to�implement the agreements reached between�the USA and the DPRK, and the two Korean states. We expect that Pyongyang and Washington will succeed in�speeding up�the establishment of "new" relations in�all areas in�accordance with�the Joint Statement of�their leaders, strengthening mutual trust and promoting durable peace on�the peninsula and its denuclearisation within�the framework of�our common efforts.

We also support the desire of�Seoul and Pyongyang to�build up�relations, to�transfer inter-Korean cooperation into�a practical plane. In particular, we are very interested in�resuming work on�a trilateral project on�connecting the Trans-Korean Main Line, which the Korean parties are now studying for�restoration and modernisation, with�the Trans-Siberian Railway.

We believe that a gradual revision of�the sanctions against�the DPRK should be an important part of�these processes. This is not about�abolishing international restrictions at�once�� it will be possible to�do simultaneously with�the achievement of�the complete denuclearisation of�the Korean Peninsula.

But it is also impossible to�delay the launch of�the revision of�the existing sanctions regime. We cannot pretend that Pyongyang has not taken any constructive steps in�the pursuit of�achieving a nuclear-free status of�the sub-region. We are convinced that the UN Security Council should respond to�them promptly and in�a positive manner.

We are currently discussing with�the parties involved what specific measures need to�be taken. It may, indeed, be about�extending the possible length of�stay of�North Korean labour migrants in�third countries or, for�example, about�applying for�new exemptions from�the sanctions regime for�implementing inter-Korean projects. Or any other steps aimed at�convincing the DPRK of�the correctness of�its choice in�favour of�abandoning nuclear weapons.

In this context, we urge other partners to�abandon their own unilateral sanctions as�soon as�possible and in�full in�terms of�cooperation with�North Korea and illegitimate attempts to�impose their implementation on�other countries. This is clearly not conducive to�the establishment of�trustworthy relations between�the parties to�the settlement.

We are constantly discussing with�all the countries involved the need to�establish contacts in�a multilateral format, analogous to�the previous six-party process to�resolve the nuclear problem of�the Korean Peninsula. Of course, we do not insist that its work should be restored in�the same way. But in�principle, we are sure that the whole complex of�problems of�the sub-region can only be solved jointly on�a multilateral basis.

We are arranging this work in�various configurations. There are certain results. For example, on�9 October 2018, the first trilateral meeting of�the deputy minister of�Russia, China, and the DPRK was successfully held in�Moscow, which resulted in�a joint communiqu� that outlined common approaches to�a Korean settlement. We are open to�the accession of�other states to�this format, as�well as�to Russian participation in�other possible multilateral events.

I hope that the result of�work with�all partners will be the creation of�a single multilateral mechanism for�maintaining peace and security in�Northeast Asia. We see great potential in�it: perhaps, the leaders of�the states of�the region will begin to�meet on�a regular basis, to�hold regional summits, as�is the case within�other regional and international structures.

Sputnik: In 2018, Syria was able to�make significant progress, primarily in�cooperation with�Turkey and Iran. But there are still quite a few territories beyond�the control of�the Syrian government. Will we negotiate on�those regions with�the United States, for�example, in�the south of�the country and East of�the Euphrates, as�we did so in�Idlib with�Turkey?

Sergei Lavrov:�Relations with�each of�these parties have their own specifics. We cooperate with�Turkey and Iran within�the framework of�the Astana format. This is an established, successful and internationally validated mechanism of�interaction, based on�the decisions of�the UN Security Council on�the Syrian settlement, particularly Resolution 2254.


At the core of�its effectiveness are agreements that are agreed upon�by the delegations of�the SAR Government and the armed opposition. Along with�our Iranian and Turkish partners, we, first of�all, contribute to�their achievement, and secondly, we act as�guarantors of�their implementation�� hence the expression "guarantor countries".Therewith the thesis is being realised that the future of�Syria should be determined by�the Syrians themselves within�the framework of�the political process conducted and carried out�by them with�international assistance.

An illustration of�this approach is the Syrian National Dialogue Congress (SNDC) held in�January 2018, which was the first truly inclusive inter-Syrian forum that gave dynamics to�the political settlement process in�the SAR, brought back out�of stagnation the Geneva format and provided an impetus to�work on�a constitutional "dossier".

Let me remind you that Astana "guarantors" acted as�co-organisers of�the SNDC. Recently, we handed over�to UN representatives a list of�candidates to�the constitutional committee agreed upon�through the mediation of�Russia, Turkey, and Iran, between�the government of�the SAR and the opposition.

The achievement of�the�Russia-Turkey agreement on�Idlib,�enshrined in�the Memorandum that was signed in�Sochi on�September 17, was made possible due to�previous decisions taken in�the framework of�the Astana process on�the creation of�a de-escalation zone in�this part of�Syria with�Turkish observation posts along�its internal perimeter�� and Russian and Iranian over�the outer perimeter.

Thus, the presence of�the Turkish military in�this part of�Syria is coordinated with�the SAR government, which welcomed the aforementioned Sochi Memorandum. It was supported by�the third guarantor of�the Astana format, Iran.


In contrast, there are no international legal grounds for�the�US military presence beyond�the Euphrates�and the 55-kilometre "security zone" around�their illegal base in�al-Tanf in�southern Syria. Washington's references to�Article 51 of�the UN Charter, which gives members of�the Organisation the right to�self-defence, are utterly untenable in�legal terms. Daesh* in�Syria has been crushed but�the US does not withdraw its forces.In fact, we are talking about�the American occupation of�almost 30% of�the country's territory. With the assistance of�the United States in�these areas, self-governing bodies are being created that do not subordinate to�the central authorities. This leads to�a destabilisation of�the military and political situation in�the country, hampering the settlement process.

The legal status of�Russian Aerospace Forces in�Syria is completely different. Our military is there at�the invitation of�the legal authorities in�full compliance with�international law. By the way, let me remind you that three out�of four de-escalation zones (Eastern Ghouta, Homs, and the South) were abolished primarily due to�the work of�the Russian military negotiators "on the ground" working directly with�field commanders.

It will not be easy to�solve the problem of�the�illegal, armed presence�of�the United States on�Syrian territory. Washington is constantly putting forward new conditions that violate the sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of�the SAR, despite�the fact that these principles are enshrined in�the main resolutions of�the UN Security Council. Let's see how this "withdrawal" from�Syria, announced by�President Donald Trump, will play out.

* Daesh (ISIL/ISIS/IS/Islamic State) is a terrorist organisation banned in�Russia