Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions at Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) talk show on Channel One, Moscow, April 25, 2020

Marina Kim: You are watching the talk show "Great Game: Diplomacy During the Pandemic." Is there a place for international contacts in the world amid the global wave of self-isolation? How is foreign policy changing amidst the pandemic? Today we have a guest in our studio, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Good afternoon!

Sergey Lavrov: Good afternoon.

Vyacheslav Nikonov: Mr Lavrov, today we are talking not just about the coronavirus but also remembering events that took place 75 years ago. History seemed to 'compress' on April 25, 1945, the day that saw many historical events. On that day, 75 years ago the first constituent meeting of the United Nations was held after its prior coordination in Yalta. On the same day, the historic meeting took place between the  1st Ukrainian Front troops led by Ivan Konev and the 12^th US Army Group  led by Omar Bradley on the Elbe River near Torgau in Germany. That was the time when the creation of the United Nations was underway.

Today, on the one hand, nations are celebrating this event, with preparations underway for the summit of the organisation's founding members. At the same time, a growing number of people are saying that the coronavirus pandemic is increasingly dividing humanity, with each state standing on its own and a current lack of efforts by the international community to tackle the pandemic. How do you assess the situation as regards the activities of the international community?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a core issue for all the discussions unfolding in Russia and abroad, at the UN, and at centres for political science. I believe that we so far lack the facts that would allow us to reach a general and comprehensive conclusion about what has taken place and what lessons should be learnt. The only obvious thing is that the trends that have accumulated during the last couple of decades are becoming increasingly urgent and critical amidst the coronavirus pandemic. Contradictions have become more apparent between leading nations. Just look at what is occurring with the relations between the US and China. The UK, Australia and a number of European countries have joined the USA in its active efforts to claim compensation, threatening to seize property and accounts to make Beijing pay for imputed 'mistakes' during the first months of the spread of the infection.

And look what is happening in the EU, where fierce debates are going on about who will bear responsibility and assume the decisive role. These disagreements lead to the conclusion that we are observing a rapid strengthening of the role of nation states. Wherever integration associations are present or lacking in the world, nation states assume the main role in ensuring their citizens' security. This trend is not rock-solid as there is an urge towards collective efforts in the EU. I should also note the attention paid to our common tasks of battling this threat within the EAEU. Yet, the aspiration of nation states to fend for themselves still prevails. This probably reflects not only the current problem of fighting the pandemic but also a certain weariness - which is totally obvious in the EU – arising from the tenacious and obtrusive behaviour by supra-national bureaucrats at all levels. It is noteworthy that within the EAEU we have always tried to prevent this by seeking consensual and compromise approaches, yet we do not always succeed in this regard. This is the first trend I would like to emphasise.

The second one is the impact on the global economy and the erosion of numerous economic links (just sheer physical disruption in many areas), a fall in GDP, and the shock for many national economies (if not for most of them) and for the global economy in general. Of course we cannot but see that this is all occurring alongside increasing conflict and a credibility gap. We are seeing more attempts to resort to unscrupulous competition, settle scores, and use a zero-sum game policy as well as a dog-eat-dog approach. Yet, I believe that the harmfulness of such attempts is already becoming clear and apparent to all international players. I would like to hope that everyone will ultimately become aware that such trans-border and trans-national threats can be tackled only through collective efforts. The pandemic is spreading regardless of continents, climate, region’s temperature, a country's currency reserves or possession of its nuclear arms. That is why Russia's policy, which we have long pursued and which implies the protection of the equality of all nations as well as the principles and goals of the UN Charter that documents regulations for respecting the sovereign rights of all nations and settling disputes through peaceful means, should be highly relevant in the present situation where overcoming current and future crises is simply impossible without mutual assistance and respect for what we call the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world, without respect for the right of nations to independently choose their future and join forces on this foundation, and not on a master and slave basis, not based on anyone dominating. This may sound idealistic and romantic to some - yet I am confident this should become the basis of serious politics.

Vyacheslav Nikonov: Dimitri Simes, with his finger on the pulse of the crucial events in international and US politics, is joining us from Washington in strict self-isolation amidst the global pandemic. Go ahead, please.

Dimitri Simes: Of course, I’m isolated from your studio in Moscow, but I hope we can still maintain a constructive conversation. There’s not much isolation in Washington, D.C. This morning, I was anticipating the news about whether the US House of Representatives allocated $480 billion to help small- and medium-sized businesses, but this information remains unavailable. The House of Representatives was focused on a completely different kind of business as it tried to outline the parameters of investigation into new charges against President Trump, including misdemeanor and abuse of power. It turns out this time he’s fighting the pandemic the wrong way.

There’s good news as well. At the last minute, the House voted to allocate funds to support the US economy. As you may be aware, from the point of view of medicine and the economy, the situation in the United States is fairly grave. To date, 50,000 Americans have died, which is an important milestone. Every sixth American is unemployed with over 26 million people filing unemployment claims. Earlier this morning, the mayor of Washington said she completely disagrees with President Trump saying that he can see “light at the end of the tunnel.” She said that things would only get worse, and that the bulk of the impact would come to Washington only in mid-May.

I heard your definitions of what is happening around the world. I'd like to disagree, but it's hard to do so. We are living in a polarised world. If we want to confront the pandemic, we must come up with our own national measures, which is probably the only possible response. Russia is taking restrictive measures not only against Western countries (and the West against Russia), but Russia and China are forced to take corresponding restrictions as well. This is sad, but makes sense.

We witnessed the first reaction to the pandemic. It was like the first week of war. When the pandemic attacked, none of us was really prepared for it. So, people are confused, and the worst instincts often come to the fore. In your conversations (albeit informal ones) with the leaders of the United States and the EU, do you see any signs of interest in changing the rules and trying to identify common solutions? Or does everything still look fairly gloomy?

Sergey Lavrov: If we take the pandemic as such and as the main subject of ongoing talks, there’s a serious and strong desire to establish international cooperation. The examples abound. Shortly after the pandemic broke out, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution expressing solidarity in fighting the coronavirus, and shortly after it adopted another one with specific goals to make sure that the achievements in developing antidotes for this scourge are made available to all countries. I consider this an important principle. Let’s not forget that the G20 (given the debate started by some of its members willing to find out who was to blame and whether it was necessary to point a finger at one or more countries, or the WHO) has made corresponding decisions. We believe these decisions nonetheless show the interest of the leading states and, I think, all other countries of the world, in joining efforts.

You are absolutely correct. The quarantine to prevent people from traveling far and wide is quite justified and should be taken, first of all, at the national level. Moreover, the borders between residential buildings and flats, streets and squares in each country are under control as are the borders between the countries. I would not consider this a trend that would last long. To reiterate, it has now become clear that the multilateral organisations’ capabilitiesas compared with the efficiency and decisiveness of national states are, of course, losing in this "competition."

However, I don’t want this willingness to see our efforts combined to become a hot-button issue. I can see signs of this politicisation in the attacks directed against the WHO, which, I believe, harbour the attempts to justify particular steps which were belated or inadequate. I believe the WHO, which, under its Charter, must act as the leading and coordinating body in healthcare matters, is fully coping with its role. Of course, nobody’s perfect, as a Some Like It Hot character famously said.

Let's keep in mind the fact that the WHO is an organisation the activities of which are defined and carried out by the states. Until recently, they didn’t have any complaints with regard to it. If the issue is about the WHO Secretariat, I’ll spend a moment discussing criticism of the United States, which is the key contributor to the WHO budget, as well as the budgets of the vast majority of other UN agencies. In this capacity, Washington is entitled to be represented at the secretariats, including that of the WHO, at a much higher level than the countries that make smaller contributions. So, if we look at the relative numbers, the decision makers at the WHO Secretariat are mostly US citizens, including in top positions. I doubt that the Americans have been working in complete isolation from their government all these years. Just like the citizens of any other country, they should act independently. However, not a single Secretariat employee, no matter what country he or she is a citizen of, has ever declined to contact the member countries’ delegations if they had any questions.

Instead of yelling “stop him” and looking for the guilty, I would rather concentrate on, first of all, the necessary measures to develop vaccines in parallel with taking precautions and enforcing self-isolation and quarantine. Only then would I start thinking about ways to improve global contacts and interaction in healthcare.

Speaking through my friend, French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian, our French colleagues are already talking about creating some high-level council on human and animal health, which will be assisting the WHO. The WHO already has a fairly deeply rooted practice of interacting with researchers. If this tip can be of any help, let's take a look at this proposal. I wouldn’t want the initiatives now being advanced to reassure those who are coming up with ungrounded accusations against a highly respected international organisation.

Vyacheslav Nikonov: Mr Lavrov, Dimitri Simes has just said that you are having informal contacts with foreign partners, which sounds somewhat confusing to me. Are any informal contacts possible at the moment on an international level when contacts during this period of time are maintained solely online and everyone is perfectly aware that they cannot be confidential? How can they be informal?

It is true that diplomacy is, to some extent, an exchange of confidential information. But this is becoming simply impossible now. This is similar to holding talks and speaking through a loudspeaker in a square. Even if there are some secure communication channels, you never know what is happening on the other side. On the one hand, it is understood that the process is becoming easier, with more international contacts happening simultaneously. We observe them increasing, including in the multilateral online format. Obviously, you have more time to sleep enough at home now rather than on an aircraft. This is an advantage for the Russian diplomacy as well. On the other hand, it is impossible to talk eye to eye, which certainly has its effects. What does online diplomacy mean for you?

Sergey Lavrov: Mr Nikonov, you have just mentioned virtually everything that characterises diplomatic contacts during their current period. This certainly allows for a better understanding of opportunities provided by modern technologies as well as their convenience for instant communication in case you have to urgently transfer something to your partners or receive information from them. You are absolutely right about it - and this is probably the reason they are called informal as they hardly can end up in some specific agreement, which would require more trust-based forms of communication, particularly, direct contacts between diplomats, including face-to-face meetings. It is unlikely that we will discuss some important secrets even in real life, neither will we make any conspiracy plots. But information that should be specified by partners is often not a subject to be made public. To develop a proper policy on a wide scope if issues that would meet international legal norms, we sometimes have to discuss certain matters that should not be handled online.

Dimitri Simes: Mr Minister, I would like to ask you a non-diplomatic question. What you described today, your impressions and your analysis of the international situation are probably what you have long felt and thought. You and Russian President Vladimir Putin have repeatedly said that the role of sovereign states is underestimated. I don’t think it was a surprise for you that there is a shortage of “goodwill” resources and opportunities for international cooperation in the world, including in critical situations.

I have never heard you praise the idea of ​​a liberal international order, which implies that democracies are somehow more perfect, more humane and have some special rights in the international arena. You have said as much repeatedly, and we have seen much of this in recent weeks. But has anything actually come as a surprise for you? Has anything maybe struck you and, perhaps, reconfirmed that things are not just bad, but even worse than you thought? Or maybe some new opportunities?

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you very much, Dimitri. You are absolutely right. I do not want to look entirely devoid of self-criticism, but now, by and large, we can see that those ideals and ideas that we had promoted before the outbreak of the coronavirus infection are becoming more relevant.

It is not that we ever criticised the principle of democracy. You were right that the traditional system of liberal democracy, liberal ideology, and the neoliberal approaches that imply the absolutisation of everything that is individual interest or property, has indeed exhausted and outlived itself in a context where the interdependence and interconnectedness of the modern world have broken down borders, including for threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, and now also contagious diseases (infectious and non-communicable diseases have long been a concern of the WHO and for all of us). We have pointed out that, if there is a need to combine efforts to address common threats, it is wrong to underestimate or downplay the role of sovereign states. However, supranational bureaucratic platforms were making attempts to overrule sovereign states. Those attempts (I mentioned this earlier) led to controversy within the EU a long time ago, long before the pandemic, and are now the subject of broad discussions, including a discussion initiated by French President Emmanuel Macron about the future, and what Europe is, and how will it further develop. You must be familiar with the concept of concentric circles.

I agree with what you said. Despite all the differences in democratic countries, even our American colleagues once tried to categorise states in terms of democracy: liberal democracies, less liberal democracies, authoritarian democracies and undemocratic authoritarian regimes, or something like that. Still, democracy is a broad enough term that covers many state systems, including those that some political scientists prefer to term ‘authoritarian’ or having ‘signs’ of authoritarianism.

There was a time when Madeleine Albright, who I had a chance to work with at the UN and then as US Secretary of State, put forward an initiative to make an alliance of democratic states. It still continues to be implemented in some form. The United States then proposed its own criteria and in fact single-handedly recruited members to join this alliance picking those they saw as eligible candidates for membership. That was actually an attempt to undermine the authority of multilateral universal organisations, primarily the UN-based system. The UN is a body with unique legitimacy and almost universal membership. Its Charter and principles fully retain their relevance. This is something very relevant to mention on the day when specific negotiations began on its Charter and later signed in San Francisco. In October 2020, we will mark the 75^th anniversary of the fully functioning UN.

Now we are seeing another interesting trend that is linked with multilateral organisations. Last year, France and Britain suggested creating an alliance of multilateralists in which they invited some participants to ensure a “rules-based world order.” We have long known about this term and have tried to find out how it differs from international law which was protected by everyone until recently. We have not received a distinct answer.

However, judging by what we see, it is possible to reach some conclusions as regards those that are promoting a “rules-based multilateralism.”

When France and Britain made this initiative, they announced that the key role in implementing it would be played by European institutions and that the European Union (EU) was the cornerstone of this multilateral system. Some sectoral systems and alliances are already being based on this philosophy. The Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace was adopted. Over 60 states are taking part in it. This is being done against the backdrop of our persistent efforts to promote cyber security in a universal format rather than a narrow circle of supporters. All UN members are taking part in developing measures for responsible conduct in cyberspace. France and Germany have every right to take part in this work. Yet, a separate mechanism is being created on issues of trust and security in cyberspace. A Call for Action to bolster the respect for international humanitarian law in which a little over 40 countries are taking part has also been launched. But doesn’t international law rely on universal conventions in which all UN members take part? What’s the point of creating a parallel structure? A third example is the International Partnership on Information and Democracy powered by Reporters without Borders. Now 30 states have been included in it at France’s initiative. Does this imply that other states do not want to support freedom of information?

Let me recall that in the early 1990s, the last year of the USSR, the OSCE began to adopt a number of documents demanding that each participating country ensure full access to information for its journalists and the entire population. But at this point, Russia Today and Sputnik are not admitted into the Elysee Palace, are being fined in Britain and harassed in other countries. In Estonia, Sputnik was just shut down under the threat of criminal prosecution. Of source, we all want to have access to information and freedom of information but for some reason our Western colleagues want to do this in their narrow circle and do not want us to discuss the same principles in a universal format.

This is a serious problem. There is a difference between a “rules-based order” and universal international legal instruments, and also an attempt to create quasi-structures beyond universal organisations such as the UN. Our partners do not want to compromise. They want their approach to dominate and be perceived as multilateral and universal. But this is just substitution of notions.

Vyacheslav Nikonov: But you must admit that previously these goals were achieved through conventional Euro-Atlantic organisations, such as NATO or the EU, but now they have gone beyond this format and, I believe, this is indicative of a crisis in what they call the liberal world order, which, in my opinion, was never liberal, since it was unipolar, or global, as it was geared to one camp or country, and was not an order per se, because it was a world of global chaos.

Now, pay attention to the following: the numbers show that the countries that were affected the most by the coronavirus, both in terms of the area covered and the number of fatalities, include the United States, Spain, Italy, France, Great Britain and Turkey, all NATO countries. Many are now saying that this is a certain manifestation (that’s a trend right there) of a crisis, including of the liberal order. However, there’s China and the East Asian countries that are waging a very successful war on the coronavirus. They are now saying there’s an even greater shift in the centre of gravity and power from the Euro-Atlantic to the Pacific and East Asia and the US-China confrontation. These global shifts are clearly taking place because the pandemic is like an earthquake that is sweeping away so many rickety structures, including the ones associated with the liberal world order. This global trend could lead to a major turnaround in the balance of power in the modern world, given that the economic fallout of the pandemic is most painfully felt in the West.

Sergey Lavrov: I completely agree. Of course, I don’t want to gloat over the fact that the “teachers of democracy” are going through hard times. On the contrary, we are on the side of those who are bearing the brunt of the coronavirus outburst. We are helping as much as we can, and on a reciprocal basis, too. But in general, if we analyse the ability of the states to withstand this threat - yes, of course, the statistics are fairly convincing. Also notable is the fact that among the countries whose democratic basis is not questioned by any of our Western friends, the most effective are the regimes and governments that are not among the pioneers or ideals of liberalism. I am referring to Asian countries like South Korea, Japan and Singapore that are countries with a fairly strong state power vertical, although no one is talking about stripping them of the title of democracy.

With regard to the liberal order and it being consistent with the purported ideal of “everything for the people and for the sake of human rights,” long before current developments, we had the opportunity to see that liberal states and countries that profess liberal world order can act very illiberally when it comes to their vital mercenary interests. Remember how these “liberals” bombed the former Yugoslavia, or later Iraq under an absolutely false pretext, for which Tony Blair had to apologise when he acknowledged that there was no such thing as weapons of mass destruction. Of course, what happened to Libya, and what the United States is trying to do with Venezuela, are by no means liberal approaches aimed at promoting human well-being as a central criterion.

It is also sad that some neoliberal countries are now trying to take advantage of the pandemic and, when all that matters is saving lives, to provide patients with needed medicines and food, and to do other things that are called for by the sanitary requirements, they are still focused on geopolitics.

We are also well aware of the situation with Russia’s assistance to Italy, provided at its Prime Minister’s direct request. Some Italian media are bending over backwards as they try to portray this almost as a “military invasion of the Alliance.” We know from a variety of sources about another telling case. A number of European countries, EU and NATO members among them, wouldn’t mind following in Italy’s steps and asking us for certain types of help in areas, where we really enjoy strong comparative advantages. Their “senior comrades” just won’t let them do so.

Here is another example. I didn’t believe this when I heard about it, but I saw the original copies of the documents in question. A major European football club, one of the major European and world football clubs, contacted its friends in Russia, a non-governmental charity foundation which during the pandemic made arrangements for procuring and distributing equipment and medications necessary to fight the coronavirus. This internationally renowned football club just sent a letter to this foundation asking to look into the possibility of providing some basic items. I think it even offered to buy them, but that’s beside the point. When the club received a positive response from this Russian NGO, the club then suddenly sent another letter that explicitly stated, “We are sorry, but for some reasons beyond our understanding this deal will not go through, as we were not allowed to do so.”

When liberalism manifests itself in these kinds of things, it discredits itself even worse than any of its critics could ever hope to. To reiterate, I hope that when we are over and done with this situation, these countries will learn their lessons and voters will come to these conclusions as well. We need to think about it now. We will need to come to a place where multipolarity is no longer a slogan, but is instead implemented and embodied in concrete deeds before our eyes. It is important to fill it with proper content.

It is already impossible to turn a blind eye to the fact that there are more major powers and major centres of global growth and influence than one, two or three. We need to operate based on this understanding and be ready to face the fact that we will still need to strive to reach consensus and to work under those principles that are laid down in the UN Charter and that remain relevant. This is what President Putin’s proposal which he advanced in January aims to achieve. The point is to convene a summit of the UN Security Council permanent members so that the leaders of the Big Five become more aware of and realise the special responsibility assigned to them by the UN Charter for maintaining international peace and security. Of course, the summit participants (we are already discussing this with our colleagues) should focus on a broad-based approach to ensuring strategic stability and global security in all dimensions without exception. I hope this summit will be held this year and benefit the entire international community.

Marina Kim: Will it be a face-to-face meeting of the leaders?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, we are talking about a face-to-face meeting. Now, in addition to this initiative, which was advanced without the coronavirus in mind, the possibility of a videoconference is being discussed so that the five leaders can state their approaches to the coronavirus in addition to what has already been said by the G20 and the UN General Assembly. The President of France came up with this proposal, and we agreed with it, as did the other G5 members. The date and the communiqué that we would like to release following this conversation are now being agreed upon. However, this is separate from President Putin’s proposal, which does not concern a specific, albeit rather acute, problem such as the coronavirus, but is about the need to conduct a face-to-face discussion about how we will go about building relations in the modern world in the interests of all states without exception based on international law. The role that the UN Charter entrusts to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, of course, requires them to show initiative and responsibility. This is what President Putin’s initiative is all about.

Dimitri Simes: Minister, you mentioned the search for international consensus. To some extent, the entire concept of the UN was based on the idea that such a consensus is actually possible. But is it? I recently attended a meeting in Washington. Under the terms of that meeting, I can’t say who hosted it, but it was an official at your level. The meeting was serious enough. I had the opportunity to ask that person when he mentioned that China and Russia are behaving sort of inappropriately in this situation, creating problems for the United States – I asked him what exactly Beijing is doing and what Moscow is doing that Washington is unhappy with.

Regarding China, he gave what I would describe as a rather coherent answer. I am not saying that he would have convinced you, but it was clear what he meant. As for Russia, very little was said – basically, concerns that it might again intervene in the US election, because “what else can you expect from Russia.” After that I spoke with several other participants who were there, and asked for their opinion. What is the United States’ main problem with Russia? I think I got a fairly honest answer. The problem is not Ukraine, nor is it disagreements over Syria, not even any specific oil disputes or Venezuela. I am not saying these problems are not serious or non-existent, but still, they are mostly irritants. The main problem, and you have repeatedly talked about this in a slightly different context, is that Russia in recent years, after Vladimir Putin became President, decided to play an independent role in the international arena. The Russian definition of an independent role meant that the country would not follow the lead of the US or EU in foreign policy, but would seek a new international order. You actually mentioned something very similar today.

When you look at the situation before the First World War, there were as many specific disagreements as now. But basically, it was competition for a place in the world and about who was going to set the terms of that world. It was primarily a dispute between Germany and Great Britain. So don’t you think that today we have similar fundamental disagreements that manifest themselves in different ways and in different places? Russia’s choice to be a major global player that would not have the rules dictated to it explains what is happening now. I am not saying this should lead to a new world war. We are in a completely different situation, a different world with different threats. But doesn’t it seem to you that we need to forget for some time about global consensus and focus on asserting our sovereign interests and managing disagreements that we have no hope of eliminating altogether?

Sergey Lavrov: When you talk about Russia not wanting others to formulate the rules alone, well, indeed, it does not want the rules of the game to be made by just one or two players. If this is a problem anyone has with Russia, then, in my opinion, it is high praise of our foreign policy. If, as you said, the French, the Americans and British are dissatisfied because we want the rules to be based on consensus, then yes, this is exactly what we want. Perhaps this is hardly achievable now, as you also acknowledge. But by no means should this goal be taken off the agenda. Otherwise, those who are now defining and formulating the rules will be reassured in their belief that they don’t have to listen to anyone else. But this will not happen because it is no longer possible: they face strong opposition from those who have every opportunity to assert their rights to participate in shaping the global agenda.

You mentioned the main thing that irritates our Western partners. This is not some specific crisis or a conflict in the world markets but an aspiration to pursue an independent policy that our Western colleagues discovered after Vladimir Putin became President of the Russian Federation. Mr Putin said this himself many times. He also recalled that the Soviet Union’s disappearance was perceived as the end of history. It was decided that the new Russia and the geopolitical space around it, that is, new independent countries were in the pocket of the Western liberals that we have just mentioned. Many Western political scientists including you, Dimitri, also said that Russia’s aspiration to be an equal – let me emphasise, an equal – part of the Western world was underestimated. We appreciate your analysis very much. But when all attempts to talk and deal amicably were interpreted as weakness, demand built up in our society for someone like Vladimir Putin. He fully justified and continues to justify these expectations.

You mentioned that they are irritated by Russia's reluctance to follow in the wake of the US or the EU. To carry on the metaphor, let me say that there are many more wakes, many more solid and powerful ships in the world oceans, which leave a very powerful trail. Different countries want to follow in their wake. But I would like to emphasise that we do not consider ideal a model consisting of many options because these ships may collide while sailing in different directions. Those that follow in their wake may also collide. Meanwhile, we want to harmonise interests. Yes, today these interests are expressed rather aggressively. It is very difficult to find a common denominator. This will be a very long process. But that is precisely why we have said that the formation of a multipolar world is objectively occurring but will take time. This will be an entire era in the history of the human race. We will hardly be able to complete this process that basically has not yet begun. It is necessary not just to think but also to insist and make specific proposals on how to make the world run better and how to be ready to elaborate new rules relying on the sovereign rights of states, respect for each other and non-interference in each other’s s affairs – the principles of the UN Charter. I would like to be mistaken about this, but if our Western partners put their signatures under these principles of the UN Charter in the hopes of preserving the more than half a millennium of domination of Western norms and rules for organising society, they were not sincere. I hope this is not the case and that the founding fathers believed in what they wrote and signed.

Now a few words about accusations. I won’t even go through the arguments on Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela and oil. We have spoken about this many times. If anyone has a specific question, I am willing to answer it. I will just mention that there are no grounds for our partners to speak about Russian interference in their election. From the very start, during the 2016 election campaign, the Obama administration began to accuse Russia of this, we proposed using three trusted Moscow-Washington closed channels to clear up problems that may lead to unintended incidents. We sent our proposals to the Americans via these channels, told them about our apprehensions and asked them about their concerns. There was no response at all. When in 2017 and later we continued to be accused of interfering in the election (and we are still being accused of this now), we suggested faithfully releasing what we sent via closed channels, offering in vain to give a professional, serious response to any apprehensions. We were told the US did not want to see it released. Literally the other day I spoke again with US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo following fairly intensive telephone conversations between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on the coronavirus, oil and the importance of launching a new, serious dialogue on all strategic stability issues. Among other things, I reminded Mr Pompeo that we expect our American colleagues to put forward specific initiatives on when exactly we could resume. I also recalled that we put on the negotiating table one more proposal to resume the work of the bilateral group on cybersecurity, in the context of which we are ready to raise any questions and answer any concerns on a reciprocal basis. I said straightaway that we expect a new wave of accusations of interference in the current election campaign and suggested creating a mechanism that will be authorised by the presidents to review any issues that cause alarm on either side. These proposals are still on the table. I hope that this proposal will be analysed by professionals rather than the political operators behind the growing pandemic of Russophobia.

Vyacheslav Nikonov: I think the American founding fathers were very sincere but most of them were slave owners.

The issue of Ukraine. Yes, this issue is an irritant, but it will always be raised in Russia-US relations. The ministerial meeting in the Normandy format next week has been announced. How are the decisions of the Paris summit going? What will be emphasised first? I believe there are some very serious changes in Ukraine: Mr Saakashvili received a proposal to be appointed vice prime minister on reform. The tragedy of Ukraine is that against the backdrop of the current Ukrainian team he really seems to be a great thinker despite all his failures and being a professional loser. How has Ukraine’s position and diplomacy changed with the new government? Vladimir Zelensky has been president for a year now. How has the style and content of Ukrainian diplomacy changed? Is it possible to come to terms with Kiev on anything?

Sergey Lavrov: We really planned a video conference of the Normandy format foreign ministers next week. When the leaders of the four countries met in Paris last December they agreed that their foreign advisers and foreign ministers would monitor compliance with the agreements reached in Paris. Of all the agreements only one was carried out on a modest scale: the exchange of detainees. Fewer than 30 people were exchange by Kiev on the one side and Donetsk and Lugansk on the other side. To our huge regret, none of the other agreements reached in Paris have been carried out and not through the fault or lack of goodwill of Donetsk and Lugansk.

What am I referring to? The main issue, of course, is the security of the people, the cessation of shelling and violence. President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has said more than once that for him the main goal is to save Ukrainian lives. Now our colleagues from Germany, France, the US and the OSCE regualrly ask us to influence the home guards to achieve a reduction or cessation of ceasefire violations. To do this reliably we simply need to ensure the disengagement of forces and weapons. We see the statistics on ceasefire violations presented by the OSCE.

These figures in no way confirm that these violations are made only by Donetsk and Lugansk while the Ukrainian military is just an innocent victim. It is, in reality, the other way around. But let me emphasise once again that to remove these threats, it is primarily necessary to disengage forces and weapons. The consensus on doing this along the entire contact line was the first item in the draft document agreed upon by the foreign policy advisors and foreign ministers from the Normandy format countries at the Paris summit. When this document was put on the negotiating table in Paris, President Zelensky said that as a responsible man, he could not sign a document on the disengagement of forces and weapons along the entire contact line. Germany and France were perplexed by this statement but Zelensky was adamant. The only thing he could agree on was to come to terms in the Contact Group framework on three additional sections on which forces and weapons would be disengaged. An agreement on this was reached for want of anything better. This was supposed to be done at least by the end of March but has still not been done because at each meeting of the Contact Group Ukraine plays tricks and makes new arguments to avoid coming to terms on the disengagement sections.

The same thing happens during the discussion of another item in the Paris agreements, in the Contact Group. It compels the sides to seriously deal with mine lifting and economic recovery. However, we are seeing overt subversion of the political part of the Paris agreements where President Zelensky finally committed himself to include the Steinmeier formula in Ukrainian legislation and to start discussing all aspects of ensuring the political status of Donbass in it on a permanent basis. Ukraine does not want to discuss any of these issues. Moreover, the sides agreed that by the next summit it was necessary to fulfil everything that was agreed to in Paris and at the same time to come to terms on the future Berlin summit at which our German colleagues are eager to pay primary attention to discussing an election in Donbass.

We recently heard a statement by Vladimir Zelensky who said that there will be no election until some mythical “mercenaries” are pulled out of eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian authorities establish control over the entire border with the Russian Federation. Only after this is done will it be possible to talk about an election. A similar idea was expressed by Petr Poroshenko at one point. So, little has changed in this respect. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has reacted several times to these attempts to turn everything that was written in the Minsk agreements upside down. We have commented more than once on the desire to introduce UN occupational troops there. I have to say with regret that for all of our conviction that President Vladimir Zelensky wants peace, as he said during his election campaign, we have not seen that he is being allowed to move towards the honest implementation of the February 2015 Minsk Package of Measures so far. This is disappointing. We will certainly talk about this at the virtual foreign minister meeting.   

We are particularly concerned that people who are not competent enough begin to start implementing the Minsk agreements. There is a deputy prime minister who is also the minister on the issues of “the temporarily occupied territories” who is beginning to make statements on Kiev’s approaches to a settlement in Donbass. He bluntly rejects the idea supported by the head of Zelensky’s Presidential Office, Andrey Yermak, at the talks with Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak. I am referring to the idea of creating a consultative council from representatives of the civil societies in Kiev and Donbass. Their task would be to create the appropriate atmosphere for implementing the Minsk agreements with public representation from Russia, Germany and France. Let me repeat that Mr Yermak added his signature to this but later the forces I mentioned, which do not want to allow the Ukrainian authorities to fulfil the Minsk agreements, balked and now all this is called into doubt. So, the Ukrainian initiators are once again “backing away” from the Minsk agreements.

But Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Reznikov who is in charge of the so-called “occupied territories” said that the Minsk agreements are not an international legal document, that they are at best political agreements and must be treated accordingly. In other words, they are not a “sacred cow” and are far from being the ultimate truth. It would be good if those that are well versed in foreign policy explain that the Minsk agreements have been approved by the UN Security Council and have thus become international law. Hence, they must be fulfilled as such.

I can anticipate what will probably be an important conversation at the ministerial level because we have spoken about this with our German and French colleagues many times. We asked them to persuade the Ukrainian authorities to conduct honest and constructive work but, to be honest I don’t expect any result from the video conference. I think our Ukrainian colleagues will again insist on meeting in Berlin as soon as possible. It is important for them to demonstrate that they are meeting in the Normandy format and at the same time to pay less and less attention to the Contract Group where they can directly resolve issues with Donetsk and Lugansk. They want to avoid this as much as possible and make the Normandy format the only channel of talks on the Minsk agreements. They believe that in this Normandy format Russia is an aggressor while France and Germany are helping Ukraine compel Russia to fulfil everything that Ukraine is supposed to fulfil via, let me emphasise this, a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk.  This is a grave situation.

I will complete my replies with a single phrase. We will never agree to a new summit unless the decisions made in Paris are conscientiously carried out in full. There is no other way to fulfil them than to act appropriately in the Contact Group and come to terms with Donetsk and Lugansk. We will facilitate this in cooperation with the OSCE.

Marina Kim: Mr Lavrov, thank you very much for taking part in our programme, for your honest and open conversation, and for the detailed explanations on the current situation in global diplomacy, which is also affected by the pandemic.