Friday, March 29

Speech and answers to questions by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov at a meeting of the Security Council

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

S.V. Lavrov: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear colleagues!

As I reported to the President a week ago, we have prepared an assessment of the proposals on security guarantees that Russia put forward relevant initiatives to the United States and NATO in December last year.

At the end of January we received a reaction. Her assessment shows that our Western colleagues are not ready to accept our central proposals, primarily with regard to the non-expansion of NATO to the east. This demand was rejected with reference to the so-called open door policy of the alliance and the freedom of the state to choose ways to ensure its security. There is no alternative to this key provision proposed either in the response of the United States or in the response of the North Atlantic Alliance.

The United States is doing its best to circumvent the principle of indivisibility of security, which we have actively referred to. Extracting from it the only element that suits them – the freedom to choose unions – they completely ignore everything else, including the key condition that states that no one – both when choosing unions, and regardless of unions – should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others.

In this regard, at the end of January, I sent detailed letters to all our Western European colleagues – members of NATO, members of the European Union, as well as Switzerland, showing our legal analysis of the commitments that were adopted at the OSCE summit in 1999, in 2010, as well as within the framework of relations between Russia and NATO, including the Founding Act of 1997 and the Rome Declaration, which was adopted in 2002. approved at the highest level at the Russia–NATO meeting in Pratica di Mare.

Our second priority concerns the very period when relations with NATO were established, 1997. Considering that in the documents of 1997 It was declared that Russia and NATO are no longer adversaries, and the task of building a strategic partnership was expressed, including, we proposed to return to the configuration of the alliance forces on the eastern flank of NATO as of 1997. This argument of ours was rejected, as well as the first one, and we were immediately called upon in the responses of NATO members to “stop the occupation of Crimea”, “withdraw troops from the territory of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine”.

In general, in Ukraine, these documents express support for the Minsk “Package of Measures”, but in an absolutely “sterile” way without any willingness to force or get Kiev to comply with the provisions of this important document.

In response to our other demands, including the need to exclude the deployment of weapons systems that pose a threat to us near the Russian borders, the Americans indicated a mood to start discussing the problem of medium- and shorter-range ground-based missiles. This problem occurred after The United States unilaterally withdrew from the relevant agreement with the Russian Federation and ignored your initiatives two years ago, Vladimir Vladimirovich, when you proposed to at least declare a mutual moratorium on the deployment of such systems with appropriate verification measures instead of this agreement.

Among other ideas that the US and NATO has been handed over to us, this is work on some aspects of reducing military risks, increasing transparency and predictability. They are actually close to our proposals, which we have repeatedly put forward in recent years both to the Americans and to NATO members. But these topics have been torn out, taken out of the context of the package agreement on security guarantees.

In terms of bilateral steps with the United States, they are also talking about regulating flights of strategic bombers, finalizing measures to prevent incidents at sea and in the airspace above it, but also pay special attention to the transparency of sudden inspections, the resumption of contacts between the military, the creation of a civilian telephone hotline and discussion of mechanisms to prevent dangerous military incidents.

In general, our general impression is that our colleagues are trying to “unpack” Russian proposals, to single out from them separate, secondary, although important for us points that would contribute to maintaining dialogue and reducing risks, but would not affect the fundamental interests of the United States and its allies in the issues of reckless expansion of NATO, would not affect their freedom in determining the configuration of forces in the NATO space and in the near-NATO space.

At the same time, which is especially important in the context of the topic that the President outlined today, the beginning of a dialogue on any issues is conditioned by our preliminary steps to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine.

Summing up the assessment of these answers, we can state that there is progress. They are insignificant, but they are there. The consistency and integrity that we show in promoting our initiatives from last December, of course, shook up the United States and its allies, forced them to take into consideration many of the previously rejected Russian proposals on easing military tensions and arms control.

In this context, we proceed from the fact that the work needs to be continued. We are in detail (in the spirit I have outlined) We have reacted to the documents received from Washington and Brussels, but we have reacted only so far to the United States – including, first of all, because we consider the NATO direction as auxiliary, proceeding from the fact that the NATO members, of course, will determine their steps first of all, and maybe even exclusively depending on what position Washington takes.

At the recently concluded Munich Security Conference, every Westerner proclaimed an absolute commitment to a single position. The United States is developing a unified position, so Munich simply confirmed that it is necessary to talk with Washington. This is exactly what we are doing now, having sent the response you approved to the American document.

In this document, we emphasized the main thing that our proposals are not something like a “menu” from which you can choose, they are not an ultimatum, they just rely on the absolutely obvious thing that the situation in the world can only be solved comprehensively at this stage. You, Vladimir Vladimirovich, stressed that the Ukrainian crisis also largely depends on how relations develop between the Russian Federation and the West led by the United States, so in our response we emphasized the integrity of the original Russian initiative.

We are ready to discuss the issues that the Americans have recalled, including taking into account our previous ideas. But we will do this solely by seeking answers to the main questions that concern us: stopping NATO’s expansion to the east and considering the configuration of NATO’s presence on the European continent, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe, taking into account what was agreed within the framework of Russia–NATO.

Of course, our call (not a call, but, in general, a demand by and large) to explain why the assurances signed at the highest level that no one will strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others are now not just ignored, but our colleagues from the relevant countries even refuse to explain what they meant when their leaders signed the relevant documents, and why now, regardless of what they meant, they are not going to fulfill their obligations.

On your instructions, Mr President, we have sent these documents to Washington. Then, a couple of days later, US Secretary of State E. Blinken called me and said that he had read our document and was ready to meet to discuss it, outline the American reaction and ask some additional questions, perhaps. With your consent, such a meeting is scheduled for this week in Geneva on February 24. We will be guided by the positions you have approved, which you defend in contacts with your colleagues and which we will actively promote at the Foreign Ministry level.

V.V. Putin: I am just talking to my colleagues about this, and the American colleague assured me that Ukraine is not going to be accepted tomorrow, moreover, some kind of moratorium is possible. But they believe that Ukraine is not ready today, so my answer was simple: “We believe this is not a concession to us, it’s just the implementation of your plans. You think that it is necessary to wait and prepare Ukraine for joining NATO. A moratorium, but not a moratorium for us, you are doing this moratorium for yourself. What is the movement in our direction, in our direction? We don’t see that yet.”

Yesterday we talked twice with The President of France – already at night, today, we can say, we talked until two o’clock in the morning. He assures that there are some changes in the American position. But unfortunately, he could not answer the question of what they are.

I think that first you need to understand what these changes are, if any, because your colleague, on the contrary, publicly stated almost yesterday that they have no progress on fundamental issues related to expansion, with the possible admission of other countries to NATO, including Ukraine. Is that how I understand it?

S.V. Lavrov: Yes, Vladimir Vladimirovich, despite the multiplying publications in the media, and in the Western media, of the texts of secret documents, which in the early 1990s, in 1990-1991, were discussed between Western colleagues – both with us and among themselves; despite the fact that from there it clearly follows that even the West has no intentions, when they confirmed it in a conversation in a narrow circle, to expand NATO to the east; Despite this, the same Mr. Y.Stoltenberg, who now holds the post of Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, simply rejects the obvious facts declassified from the British archive and published in the magazine “Spiegel”.

Despite all this, they stand to the death on the inadmissibility of any weakening of the open door policy, although you have repeatedly publicly explained that such a policy does not exist, but there is a possibility provided for in According to the Washington Treaty, with the consent of all NATO members, to invite a country to join the alliance under two conditions: if it meets the criteria for membership and, secondly, most importantly, if it adds security to the North Atlantic Alliance. We know that the second, most important criterion has long been ignored by NATO.

As for what new ideas the Americans and their allies can convey to us– we proceed from the fact that, as you told President E. Macron, first we need to understand what the Americans mean. Since our French colleagues give us such information that they have an understanding of what Washington can talk to us about, today I have scheduled, as you agreed with President E. Macron had a telephone conversation with French Foreign Minister J.I. Le Drian yesterday. Coordinating the time of the conversation, I asked the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure that in this conversation he at least slightly clarified what exactly the Americans, as they hinted to the French, are ready to discuss with us.

V.V. Putin: I see, thank you.

Please sit down. thank you.

***

Sergey Lavrov: All the arguments in favor of making this decision have already been voiced here. Wherever you look, it’s all being carried out by the West, and the Ukrainian leadership is enjoying it, despite all the agreements and all the existing cases of settlement of internal conflicts. The only conflict where one side refuses to talk to the other, and this is fully supported by the West, is the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Take Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. There is a negotiation process going on, the UN is mediating. Take Mali, where the French are having problems now. The government is talking to the rebels. It’s the same in Ethiopia. Belgrade – Pristina – there is a dialogue under the auspices of the European Union. Everyone is trying to help.

I see in this such an aspect as the term “genocide” mentioned by you at the press conference with Olaf Scholz. Because the genocide is connected with the history of the creation of Kosovo, an almost independent association without any referendum. The fact that they are now trying to support the openly neo-Nazi Bandera regime in Kiev is also a manifestation of genocide in both cases. There is an attack on the Slavs, on the Orthodox, and in the case of Ukraine specifically on everything Russian. And this contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine, but does not prevent the Kiev regimes from adopting laws one after another that tighten the requirements for banning the Russian language not only in schools, institutes, but also in everyday life.

I hope that we will send a strong signal to the Russian world. We cannot look indifferently for 8 years at how our compatriots, our citizens, are being bullied, so I don’t see any other way.

As for the proposal to give the West two or three days to come to its senses, this is a matter of taste, but of course it will not change its position, this is clear to everyone. Thanks.

Source: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1799823/

Share.

Leave A Reply