Dear Colleagues,<\/p>\n
Good afternoon,<\/p>\n
We have concluded the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, M. A. Nurtleu. It was well prepared. Everyone noted the high quality of the negotiations and consultations held the previous day at the level of our deputies and experts.<\/p>\n
The main focus was on preparations for the CSTO summit to be held in Astana in November. We are satisfied with the projects that will be submitted for consideration by the heads of State. They cover a broad agenda of international relations and concrete steps for the further development of the CSTO.<\/p>\n
Particular attention in the discussions on the state of affairs in the world was paid to the subject of the formation of a Eurasian security architecture to replace those schemes for ensuring stability that had a Euro-Atlantic dimension and had discredited themselves. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail in his speech at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 14 June this year. Today we have agreed to develop this topic in the work of our analytical units, including through regular consultations within the CSTO.<\/p>\n
In the same context of Eurasian interaction, we agreed to increase co-operation and joint practical projects with the CIS and the SCO. There is mutual interest, including in using the potential of these structures for more effective counter-terrorist action.<\/p>\n
In the context of the fight against terrorism and new challenges and threats, the sides approved a draft programme to strengthen the Tajik-Afghan border. Earlier, this document was approved by the Council of Defence Ministers and the Committee of Secretaries of the CSTO Security Councils. It is submitted for approval by the heads of state.<\/p>\n
The document was signed, which gives additional impetus to the Organisation’s activities in the field of peacekeeping, including interaction with UN peacekeeping operations. This is a very promising area. We see good potential here.<\/p>\n
We have agreed to intensify work on biological security under the Committee of Secretaries of Security Councils. A co-ordinating committee on this topic, on biological aspects of security, has been established. It is now chaired by the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is planned to hold the third meeting of this important new structure within a year.<\/p>\n
We have approved a statement on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Belarus from fascist invaders and a statement on the problems of the Middle East and North Africa, primarily in the context of the tragedy in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. Our positions were clearly reaffirmed. The following were signed: a statement on expanding co-operation in the field of international information security and a statement on topical issues of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.<\/p>\n
On 19 July in New York, under the presidency of the Russian Federation, a meeting of the UN Security Council will be held on the subject of cooperation between the UN on the one hand and the CSTO, CIS and SCO on the other. Russia, as Chair of this meeting and President of the UN Security Council in July, proposed this topic and received support. We have invited the Secretary General of the CSTO, Mr I.N. Tasmagambetov, to speak at this meeting.<\/p>\n
Question: What is the important vector of co-operation between the CSTO countries at the present stage? What are the main threats facing the members of the organisation?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: I mentioned the threats that continue to emanate from the territory of Afghanistan. There are still cells and quite capable detachments of ISIS, Al-Qaida and affiliated structures there. The Taliban Government is fighting these terrorist groups. We believe it is fundamentally important to assist in that fight.<\/p>\n
We advocate a more permanent, sustainable, substantive and project-oriented dialogue with the Taliban Government, which is in de facto control of the country. That was the prevailing view in the discussions I have shared with you today.<\/p>\n
The threats to the neighbouring region (Middle East and North Africa) also stem from the unresolved nature of a number of conflicts. The situation in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement was far \u2018set back\u2019 after Israel decided to carry out a special operation in response to the terrorist attack of 7 October 2023, which we categorically condemned.<\/p>\n
We cannot accept the methods now used by the Israeli armed forces to (as they claim) destroy Hamas. What is actually taking place is the destruction of civilians. Most importantly, if we abstract from today’s humanitarian tragedy, such actions push back even further the prospect of sustainable, long-term peace in the Middle East through the establishment of a Palestinian state in full compliance with UN decisions.<\/p>\n
It is clear that the echoes of these processes are also affecting the neighbouring territories in one way or another. Terrorists are moving towards Europe and our neighbours (primarily those in Central Asia) and into the Caucasus. We are closely following this and are trying to contribute to calming the situation and bringing it towards finding political solutions on the basis of the decisions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.<\/p>\n
If we are talking about the western direction of the CSTO’s activities, the conflict in Ukraine unleashed by the West and the use of the Kiev regime as an instrument of aggression against the Russian Federation is undoubtedly a serious threat. We have spoken about this in detail today, including in the context of the actions being taken by the Russian Federation.<\/p>\n
Our colleagues have been familiarised in detail with the statements that President Vladimir Putin made on the Ukrainian crisis following his visits to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. You know these statements.<\/p>\n
Today we have reaffirmed our focus on achieving a just settlement based on realities and on the recognition of the legitimate rights of people whose ancestors have lived, settled and developed these territories for centuries. People whom the junta in Kyiv, after the anti-constitutional coup d’\u00e9tat in February 2014, declared terrorists and adopted a series of decisions banning the Russian language, culture and the media.<\/p>\n
I drew the attention of my colleagues to how the West commented on the outcome of this \u2018event\u2019 in B\u00fcrgenstock under the \u2018lofty\u2019 name of \u2018peace conference on Ukraine\u2019. Everyone, including the Americans (US President Biden spoke about it), European presidents and prime ministers, NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg, and even citizen V. A. Zelensky himself, declared that they were seeking a just settlement on the basis of the UN Charter as a non-alternative criterion to be guided by. From this non-alternative document they single out only territorial integrity, forgetting that there is such a principle of the UN Charter as the right of a nation to self-determination, as well as the fact that the UN General Assembly, when considering the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, decided by consensus in a special Declaration that all are obliged to respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and therefore represent all peoples living in the region. It turns out that one should respect the territorial integrity of only those states whose governments represent all the people.<\/p>\n
After the coup d’\u00e9tat in February 2014, the ultra-radicals and neo-Nazis who came to power could not represent Crimea, Donbass or Novorossiya. I hope this does not need to be explained to anyone. But this principle of the UN Charter is categorically ignored by the West and its puppets.<\/p>\n
Another point is related to this. Article 1 of the UN Charter proclaims the obligation of all UN members to respect human rights without distinction of race, sex, language or religion. But both the Russian language and the Orthodox religion represented by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are under the ban of the Kiev regime. We are ready to fulfil the UN Charter, but the other side does not want to talk about its principles in their entirety and interrelation (as it should be for any good UN member), but takes out of context what suits them today.<\/p>\n
We could not ignore the threats that are accumulating not only in the west but also in the east of the Eurasian continent. We hear aggressive statements by NATO, including Secretary General J. Stoltenberg, that they are supposedly a defensive alliance, but today, threats to the bloc come from the east as well. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are named as the source of threats. And if this is the case, says Stoltenberg, then they need to ensure security far beyond NATO’s area of responsibility. Among other things, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail yesterday in Hanoi. NATO wants to privatise all security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region, which the alliance calls the Indo-Pacific region. It is creating there \u2018quadruples\u2019, \u2018troikas\u2019 and other structures of small configuration, which are the embryos of military blocs of a closed nature. They are aimed at confronting those whom NATO considers as adversaries or mere competitors. These include the PRC, the DPRK, and Russia. We have discussed this in our relations with various structures on the Eurasian continent, first of all with the ASEAN countries, and we will firmly defend the need to preserve the principles on which the security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region has been based so far. This is a network of associations that have grouped themselves around ASEAN on the basis of the principles of equal rights, equal indivisible security, consensus and mutual respect. The West wants to destroy these structures.<\/p>\n
Emerging threats to Eurasian security come from different directions. But in the vast majority of cases, their source is the aggressive line of NATO, which wants to privatise and \u2018take over\u2019 all issues that are in one way or another related to ensuring stability in our vast space.<\/p>\n
That is why we no longer want to rely on the mechanisms that were created in the context of Euro-Atlantic security. These include NATO and the OSCE. We will work with those countries that recognise their national interests to ensure that the contours of Eurasian security are discussed and agreed upon with the countries of the Eurasian continent. This was the point made by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry on 14 June this year. Mr Putin emphasised that Russia considers it important to make these discussions open to all countries of Eurasia and the associations that represent one or another part of it. This means openness and a call for an equal dialogue. I see difficulties on this path.<\/p>\n
NATO will hinder such fair processes in every possible way, but this is an alternative path. In the end, this philosophy is bound to prevail. It fully fits in with the fundamental principles that guide the CSTO, CIS, SCO and other sub-regional structures in Eurasia.<\/p>\n
Q: The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has said that the next summit on Ukraine should be the end of the conflict and that Russia will be invited to it. Are there now preconditions for Moscow’s participation in such a summit? Which countries and which peace formulas should be represented there so that a full-fledged dialogue can begin?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: I have stopped following the statements of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. There have been many different threats, promises and demands. They claim that, as Zelensky said even before the special military operation began, \u2018all Russians must get off the territory of Ukraine\u2019, then they threaten to \u2018destroy the Russians\u2019, \u2018imprison or even physically liquidate Russians when Ukraine regains Crimea, Donbass and other territories\u2019. This can be seen in the quotes of almost all representatives of the Ukrainian leadership. This alone should have raised questions in the \u2018civilised\u2019 West about the adequacy of the Kiev regime and its compliance with European \u2018values\u2019, which Zelensky allegedly defends in the fight against Russia. This is a disgrace for those who pretended to be the bearers 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.<\/p>\n
The whole point of the Swiss \u2018event\u2019 was to consolidate the maximum number of the World Majority countries around the \u2018Zelensky formula\u2019. In the process they realised that the World Majority did not want to sign an ultimatum to Russia with demands to leave Crimea, Donbass, agree to establish a tribunal over Russia, to pay reparations and other absolutely unrealistic, schizophrenic demands. And then they quickly changed the agenda as they went along: they \u2018threw out\u2019 food, nuclear security and humanitarian issues to the forefront, believing that this \u2018harmless\u2019 set of issues would allow them to get the maximum number of signatories. It did not work. The document was signed practically only by those countries that by the hands of Ukraine are at war with the Russian Federation, arming this state and imposing sanctions. And a few more countries of the Global South.<\/p>\n
In connection with food and nuclear security, an interesting observation has just occurred to me. Nuclear security is formulated in the sense that the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant should return to Ukrainian hands. But for some reason none of the organisers of this \u2018meeting\u2019 in Switzerland mentioned energy security in broad terms.<\/p>\n
I am convinced that the answer lies in the fact that if they had talked about energy security, most of the non-Western countries invited would have been interested in what happened to the Nord Streams, which played a major role in ensuring not only European energy security but also global security. They guaranteed a large part of the security of Europe’s energy supply. They don’t want to talk about plots that would mean their self-disclosure.<\/p>\n
Statements that Russia should definitely be invited were made by many participants in the Swiss \u2018gathering\u2019. But if you are convinced of this, then why are you gathering without Russia, that’s the first thing. Secondly, if, as they announce, Russia will be invited when the Western Ukrainian \u2018core\u2019 formulates its position and presents it to Russia. That is another ultimatum. You can’t talk to us like that. If they do not understand this, I pity their diplomatic skills, which they have lost by replacing diplomacy with sanctions, ultimatums and blackmail.<\/p>\n
The most realistic framework was proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The territories, clearly, unambiguously and definitively designated in our Constitution as the territories of the Russian Federation, should be completely free of foreign troops, instructors, mercenaries and weapons.<\/p>\n
I shall cite the sequence of developments to which President Vladimir Putin referred in one of his recent speeches. In February 2014, an agreement was signed to resolve the situation. It was guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland. President Vladimir V. Putin was asked by both the Europeans and then US President B. Obama not to obstruct its conclusion and to support it. Russia did not obstruct it. The agreement was signed. The morning the opposition, with the indulgence and active role of the West (at least Washington), disrupted this agreement, announced sanctions against the Russian language, called the Crimeans violators of some \u2018rules\u2019, almost terrorists. Thus began the stage that lasted a whole year before the Minsk agreements were concluded.<\/p>\n
If in February 2014 the settlement agreement, to which Russia, among others, agreed, had not been thwarted, Ukraine would now be in the 1991 borders, which it now so voluptuously dreams of. This country itself, by the hands of those who came to power through bloody coups d’\u00e9tat, began to introduce Russophobic and neo-Nazi orders and destroyed its territorial integrity.<\/p>\n
In February 2015, agreements approved by the UN Security Council were reached in Minsk. If they had been implemented, Ukraine would have restored its territorial integrity. But already without Crimea. At that time, this fact was recognised by almost all Western countries. Ukraine did not want to preserve its territorial integrity at the cost of granting elementary autonomous rights to Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk), including the right to speak its native language. This contradicted the aspirations of those who were leading Ukraine down a Russophobic and neo-Nazi path.<\/p>\n
The next stage, when once again the chance to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity was lost, was the Istanbul Accords of April 2022. But on the basis of the realities \u2018on the ground\u2019 that had already emerged by that time. As you know, the Western curators have again forbidden Zelensky to sign these agreements.<\/p>\n
The process is ongoing. Now we have come to the next, already fourth proposal from the side of the Russian Federation in the form of the initiative of the President V.V.Putin dated 14 June this year. I have no doubt that there are still some serious politicians out there who understand the need to switch on some of their intellectual and diplomatic abilities and to start thinking about real policy rather than about illusions that have been sucked out of their fingers.<\/p>\n
Question: Was the procedure of Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO discussed today? Are there any specifics on this issue? Are there any candidates for Armenia’s replacement?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: You don’t have to continue, because the answer is no. The procedure of Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO has not been discussed. No corresponding request has been received.<\/p>\n
Question: What could be the consequences of Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO and could it affect the defence capability of the organisation?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: It is not in the tradition of diplomacy to speculate about what ifs and what ifs. Today the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Mr A. Mirzoyan, was not present at the meeting.<\/p>\n
There was no document from Armenia, no official step that would make it necessary to discuss the consequences of what did not happen.<\/p>\n
Question: You said that today the issue of creating a new unified system of collective security in Eurasia was discussed. Do all the participants in the meeting agree with Moscow that such a system is necessary at this point in time? Does Moscow expect that in the future Armenia will take part in the discussions on the creation of this system?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: We were not talking about the creation of a security system, but about the need to start a discussion on how to provide security to all states of the Eurasian continent in the most effective, equitable and fair manner.<\/p>\n
Everyone spoke in favour of a serious, professional dialogue on this topic, taking into account the realities that have already emerged in Eurasia. I am referring to the SCO, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN and other organisations, including, for example, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. There are contacts and strengthening between all these structures. Starting a deeper and more focused conversation about ways to ensure each other’s security will be a positive process. It will be a military-political \u2018addition\u2019 to the material component of the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership in the transport, economic, logistical and financial spheres. A few years ago, it was outlined by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a desirable goal for the development of our entire continent. That is why now we are talking about who will enter and who will leave….<\/p>\n
I can only confirm, if you have paid attention to the words of President Vladimir Putin and to what I said today, that the idea is that all countries of the Eurasian continent should have the right to participate in these discussions and in eventual agreements without interference from outside.<\/p>\n