Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his answers to questions from the mass media during the press conference summarising the results of the activities of Russian diplomacy, Moscow, 21 January 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you for your response to our invitation toattend a traditional meeting devoted to foreign policy results for the last year, about which I will speak briefly. Then we will pass on to answering questions.

We are observing the process of formation of a new polycentric international system. It continued and was accompanied by intensification of global competition and rivalry, including in value landmarks and development models.

In these conditions, Russia aspired to contribute to the reinforcement of international and regional stability, ensuring the sustainability of global management. In our action, we were guided by the new version of the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, which was approved last February, which updated the vision of our priorities in the changing world, and the Decree of the President of Russia of 7 May 2012 On Measures to Implement the Foreign Policy Course of the Russian Federation. These documents help us to focus on the creation of favourable external conditions for the social and economic development of our country, to contribute to the transfer of economics to innovative areas in order to increase the living standards of our nationals.

For these purposes, Russia consistently promoted a positive, uniting agenda of international relations to bring the solution of fundamental problems of the modern world closer. We were guided by similar approaches in position of the G20 President and we will continue to stick to them in this year, when the functions of the G8 President (its summit will be held on the 4-5 June in Sochi) will be transferred to Russia. Our priorities in the G8 include tasks to increase efficiency in directions like the fight against the drug threat, confrontation of terrorism and extremism, health care, formation of a global system for management of the risks related to natural and man-made disasters, contribution to the resolution of regional conflicts.

Last year, we managed to advance in the creation of conditions for a peaceful resolution of some of the most dangerous crisis situations. Russia jointly with its US, European, Chinese and other partners contributed to the mobilisation of efforts by the international community on the Syrian and Iranian issues most actively.First of all, we are satisfied that common sense approaches, which are based on the logic of peace and basic principles of international law, have prevailed. We consistently appeal to others to build on the joint work on this basis in opposition to unilateral actions, including attempts to use force and bypass the UN Charter.

Along with its participation in the implementation of the Syrian chemical weapons elimination programme Russia is doing everything that depends on it in the interests of advancement towards a political settlement of the Syrian crisis. In accordance with the Russian-American initiative, the international conference opens in Montreux, Switzerland, tomorrow, and it is envisaged it will give a start to inter-Syrian nationwide dialogue on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012.

Only Syrians themselves can shape the outlines of the future of their country. The attempts by external forces to engage in "social engineering" and dictate other peoples' recipes for political order are counter-productive and will not lead to stable peace and national consent. The rather serious and dangerous development of the situation in South Sudan is an example of this. The creation of this country largely is the result of the activity of several large international players.

The most important problem, which has become much worse during the Syrian crisis, is the rise of the wave of extremism and terrorism. Today the majority of serious politicians admit that the actions of al-Qaeda-related terrorist groups are the main threat in Syria. The development of measures for their neutralisation must become one of the priorities of the Geneva-2 conference. I would like to remind you all that the G8 leaders appealed to the Syrian government and the opposition to unite in the fight against terrorism at the summit in Northern Ireland last June.

The countdown to the implementation of the action plan to settle the situation around Iran's Nuclear Programme (INP) on the basis of superposition and the reciprocity principle, as proposed by the Russian Federation, started yesterday. Together with our P5+1 partners and Iranian colleagues, we will continue to search for a final, comprehensive solution, which would ensure Iran its undeniable rights to develop a peaceful nuclear programme under IAEA control and the security of the countries of the region, including Israel.

We understand well that success in the above mentioned and other world political areas, is not guaranteed. There are many dangerous junctions ahead of us, where we must make choices again between the long-term strategic interests of the world community and present time benefits or momentary considerations. As to Russia, we will consistently strive for the consolidation of trends to agree on generally accepted approaches, which ensure the equal and undivided security of all countries.

This is our key priority in respect of the situation in Atlantic Europe. We cannot leave on paper the decisions of the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council, which appealed for the creation of a common space of peace, security and stability in Atlantic Europe on the basis of principles of mutual trust, transparency, predictability and indivisibility of security, where no country guarantees its own security at the expense of the security of others.

The landmark dates which we will celebrate this year (100 years since the beginning of the First World War and 75 years since the beginning of the Second World War) remind us about the disastrous consequences,which exclusiveness and geopolitical games with zero result lead to.

Russia has consistently worked in the interests of strengthening its strategic partnership with the European Union. We are convinced that the formation of a common economic and humanitarian space stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean corresponds with our long-term interests. As you know, this initiative was proposed by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.

Any discussion about systemic problems in the partnership between Russia and the European Union seem to be invented (if we guide ourselves by principles of equality and mutual respect, of course).We are convinced that these principles must be used in respect of all the states, including, of course, the countries, which participate in the Eastern Partnership programme. Respect for the right to determine our own fate, ourselves, has fundamental meaning in the modern world and nobody should have that choice imposed on them from outside, especially using the "or-or" principle.

The erasing rather than the reinforcement of dividing lines, harmonisation rather than individualization of integration processes correspond to the reality of the XXI century. This is the way we aspire to develop our integration project aimed at the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union by 2015 jointly with Belarus. As you know, and we have spoken about this many times, our integration structures are open for other partners, including, primarily, all the members of the CIS Free trade zone.

On this occasion, I wish success to Ukraine in its position as the CIS President this year. We support the programme formulated by the Ukrainian government for its presidency of the Commonwealth.

Meanwhile, Russia has been the CSTO President since last September. Our presidency programme is aimed at improving theefficiency of this structure, including in the area of responding to common challenges and threats, including any coming from the territory of Afghanistan, having regard to the "2014 factor".

Productive results of the joint work by Russia and the United States in several key directions of world politics confirmed the significant potential of bilateral interaction. Unfortunately, the ever present irritants, including the deployment of the global ABM system and the attempts to use US law extraterritorially against Russian nationals and companies, do not contribute to the extension of our cooperation. For our part, we are open to building-up our partnership, with the degree of intensity that Washington will be ready for, on the basis of consideration of each other's interests, equality and non-interference in domestic affairs.

Russian-Chinese relations in our comprehensive strategic partnership underwent a dynamic development in all directions. The cooperation between Moscow and Beijing on key problems of the modern world, including within the framework of the UN, BRICS, SCO, has become an important factor to ensure the balanced nature of international relations.

The efforts to deepen integration of our country in the Asia-Pacific region (APR), the use of its potential for the rise of Siberia and the Far East is an integral element of Russia's foreign policy, our national priority for the entire XXI century. The Russian initiative, supported by China, to develop the principles of formation of a new regional architecture, which was approved by the East Asia Summit in Brunei in October 2013, is aimed at security and stability-building in the APR.

Our strategic partnership with India and Vietnam strengthened. A new impulse was given to our relations with the ASEAN countries, our multifaceted cooperation with Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries of the region, including our participation in the activity of different multilateral mechanisms in the APR.

We continued to extend mutually beneficial relations with the Latin American and African countries and their integration associations and regional structures.

Our unconditional priorities include protection of the rights of Russian nationals and compatriots abroad, contribution to the promotion of our business, extension of international humanitarian and cultural cooperation, deepening of the intercivilisational and intersectarian dialogue, and information supplements to international activities.

We have developed a close cooperation with the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, social community bodies, including the work of the Business and Scientific Councils at the Foreign Ministry, mechanisms of regular contact and feedback with the Public Chamber, and non-governmental organisations.

When implementing the tasks faced by the Russian diplomatic service in 2013, we will continue to base our actions on all types of diplomacy: classic, parliamentary, community, economic. Taking into consideration the role of the mass media in the modern world, it is quite appropriate to talk about information diplomacy, which is undoubtedly better than information war.

On the 16 January during his meeting with accredited ambassadors of foreign countries in Russia, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin emphasised that Russia will continue to act in a thought-out way, responsibly, predictably, and make a constructive contribution to the search for joint answers to modern challenges to security, ensuring stable global development. It is envisaged that the Winter Olympics and Paralympics, which open in Sochi in a few days' time,will give a fresh impulse to international sports cooperation and, like any other Olympics, contribute to the recovery of the atmosphere in the world, in general.

Question: The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn Iran's invitation to the international conference on Syria. How does Russia assess this step? How can it affect the effectiveness of the meeting in general, keeping in mind how long and how uneasily the world community moved toward it?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, this is a mistake, and we have spoken about this before. However, it's not a disaster. We are talking about a one-day event on the 22 January, to which about 40 foreign ministers of different countries, including from remote regions – Latin America, East Asia, were invited. Despite the largely ceremonial nature of this event, the fact that Iran is not on the list of these 40 countries cannot but raise questions. All the more so that at all stages of our joint activities with the United States the US Secretary of State, like Russia and many other countries, admitted in public that Iran should play an important role in the search for generally acceptable ways of settling the Syrian crisis. Russia has always supported (it is the basis of the Russian-American initiative) that all the external players having actual influence on the situation in the SAR must be represented at the initial stage of the conference. Sound reasoning requires that Iran is represented at the conference along with other invited countries of the region. However, its invitation has been withdrawn.

You are aware of the reaction of the opposition to the announcement by the UN Secretary-General that he had invited Iran. The National Coalition for the Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NC) made an ultimatum-like request that this invitation should be withdrawn, having threatened that if it werenot done, in six hours they would announce that they would"return their tickets". This was not a good situation. Allow me to remind you that the national coalition is a structure created by external sponsors consisting of several dozenemigrants. Every one of them (I met them) is a personality interested in peace (I hope) in their country, and a comprehensive settlement is required for that. When it was newly created, the NC proclaimed the principle of replacement of the regime. External sponsors supported it in all possible ways. The principle of replacement of the regime is not envisaged by the Russian-American initiative which appeals for this conference to be held for the purposes of starting a direct dialogue between Syrian parties in the interests of full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. This document in no way anticipates the results of its implementation; it merely states that all the issues should be solved by the Syrians on the basis of mutual consent between the Government and the opposition.

As I have already noted, many countries indulged the national coalition in putting forward preconditions one after another, including, primarily, the replacement of the regime. Multiple statements (including the one adopted in December 2013) of the Friends of Syria Group which patronise this coalition, state directly that the replacement of the regime is the main task of all the efforts which are being undertaken.

When the UN Secretary-General said that he is forced to withdraw the IRI's application, because this country does not share the principles of the settlement laid down in the Geneva Communiqué, this phrase seemed quite quizzical, because the Communiqué talks about mutual consent between the government and the opposition. Those who insist that the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué should be finalised by the replacement of the regime, requested the withdrawal ofIran's invitation. This is an unfair interpretation of what we agreed in Geneva on 30 June 2012.

It turns out that those who interpret the Geneva Communiqué in this way, setting preconditions in the form of the replacement of the regime, are largely represented at the Geneva-2, whilst Iran, which states honestly that it does not want a replacement of the regime (Iran's position is known and no comments are required, because we are talking about the situation around the invitation of foreign guests to an international conference), is required to agree to the preconditions set by the opposition and supported by several influential sponsors.

Whichever way we interpret this, it is not correct to offer the Iranian delegation an agreement to go to Geneva to start talks about the replacement of the regime.If we take the settlement principles laid down in the Geneva Communiqué as a criterion, than it turns out that we should not invite several dozencountries to Geneva-2, because all of them support the replacement of the regime. Everything has been turned upside down: the Russians also insist that the Geneva Communiqué should not be surrounded by any interpretations, including the replacement of the regime. This then means that we also do not satisfy the requirements of those who insisted on the withdrawal of Iran's invitation, so there is no place for us at the conference either?! This is absolutely absurd.

It is important to take the general context into consideration. A symbolic, largely ceremonial meeting will be held on the 22 January. Ministers will go there, make appeals to the Syrians to agree as soon as possible (probably with some nuances) and then leave. The Syrians will remain and start a specific direct dialogue, a hard conversation, which will certainly need some time, there will be several rounds. However, symbolism is nevertheless important.

There is no secret that the Syrian crisis has denuded the contradictions in the region, including within the Islamic world, which accumulated for quite a long time. We are constantly warning that it is inadmissible to allow a split within the Islamic world. This will have disastrous consequences. However, there are those who want such a split to exist, and even more so to deepen. Against this background, the fact that Iran will not be present will not contribute to the efforts to ensure unity of the Muslim world, including in their fight against terrorism, which is a threat for everybody, including Muslims.

If we speak about acceptable conditions and dialogue partners, I can provide a good example: the Taliban Movement. Do they admit the principles of Afghan settlement laid down in UNSC resolutions? No, they don't. However, the UN and the United States maintain a dialogue with them, conduct negotiations, and search for some outcomes. We need a pragmatic approach, because ideologised approaches, unilateral judgements, attempts to misrepresent previous agreements will do no good.

Nevertheless, I repeat that this is nota disaster. Russia will go to the conference in Montreux (although its name is Geneva-2), and will advance its ideas to start a direct dialogue between the Syrian parties without any preconditions. I am convinced that all of us are interested in making the inter-Syrian dialogue inclusive, because the NC is only a part of the Syrian opposition. The Syrian National Council has left the coalition recently, and did this protesting at the decision of the leaders of the coalition to go to the Geneva conference. Apart from this coalition, there are other opposition forces working in the country. These are the National Coordination Committee, the Popular Front for Change, the Syrian National Democratic Assembly, Kurdish organisations. We should think about how to make this dialogue comply with the criteria approved by the UNSC, which appealed that representatives of the entire spectrum of Syrian society should be present. This should be our goal.

I speak about principles, it should be noted that NC sponsors have recognised the NC as the "only representative of the Syrian people" since its very creation. How does this fit within the Geneva Communiqué, which says that the government and the opposition should reach mutual consent to determine the future of the SAR? However, if the coalition was recognised as the "only representative of the Syrian people", then those who made such a confession have already decided for themselves who should lead the country? There are many discrepancies here. It is a pity that the UN has not summed up some reputations from this story.

Question: How long will the negotiations on the visa regime with the European Union last, especially taking into account the statements of the Russian Minister of Justice, Alexander Konovalov, that the Agreement on the easing of the visa regime will not be signed at the EU-Russia summit in Brussels in January?When can we expect some easements of the visa regime and the complete cancellation of visas?

Sergey Lavrov: I am sick and tired of this topic – I have commented on it many times, and I do not want to waste time.

In brief, the Agreement for the further simplification of the visa regime, which extends the simplified procedure to several new categories, including journalists, participants of youth exchanges, NGOS, is ready. We are missing only the political will on behalf of the European Union. I say the European Union, but I mean Brussels: if I understand the situation correctly, a sufficient number of EU member states, which is required for such a decision, are ready to take such a step. We all know the causes of the hindering of this process well: it is the aspiration to take furtherrelated steps along the way to easement of the visa regime with some problems, which have nothing to do with this question, of trading something with Russia. There is also a wish to use political appropriateness as a guide however, unfortunately, as some members of the European Union understand it, meaning they should not let Russia pass over to this easement and final removal of the visa regime, before representatives of the Eastern Partnership programme do so. Well, this is a well-known situation, an open secret. We perceive it calmly, we need this no more than the European Union does. Out nationals need this, we should think about them rather than some political dividends.

A similar consideration still does not allow us to conclude an agreement about the cancellation of the visa regime. You know, that a List of reciprocal steps broken down into four blocks, including the security of borders, border control, protection of travel documents, was agreed for these purposes a couple of years ago. The parties prepared steps and implemented them, exchanged inspection visits, looked at how things were going, prepared reports about it in respect to each block.

According to our estimates, all these steps have been performed. All the criteria for inspection have been reached. Now we face only political considerations and wishes that the human rights situation improves. When we ask "how", we do not get any specific answers. This may be an eternal topic. Therefore, we support the full implementation of the obligations undertaken by all the European countries, when the OSCE was created (it was the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe at that time). The Helsinki Final Act, 40 years of which we are approaching, proclaimed the task of ensuring freedom of movement. Then, western partners insisted on this; for obvious reasons, the USSR and the Socialist camp were hesitant – but finally signed under this obligation. Now everything has changed. We hope that ideology will be put on the side-lines, and dividing lines, which some people wish to keep in Atlantic Europe, will be washed out. All nationals of the European continent are interested in this.

Question: It is well known that the behaviour and statements of the Japanese Prime Minister have been bothering its neighbouring countries lately. I mean the demonstrative visit of the leader of Japan to the Shinto Yasukuni shrine and his New Year speech about plans to change the constitution, which currently limits the military possibilities of this country.How would you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have already reacted to the visit to the Shinto Yasukuni shrine by the Japanese Prime Minister. We think that this step does not contribute to the normalisation of relations between countries of the region. We have highlighted many times the fact that we need to base our actions on the firm ground of the UN Charter in all international affairs, including everything related to the APR and Northeast Asia. The UN Charter has formalised the results of the Second World War. If you doubt these results, it means that we engage in controversy with the UN Charter, which was ratified by all UN members and therefore its provisions are binding on them.

We are interested in a decline in tensions in Northeast Asia, and we attempt to contribute to this. As I have already noted, Russia supported by China and Brunei proposed an initiative to develop framework principles, which would guarantee the parameters of the new regional architecture in the security sector, within the framework of East Asia Summits (EAS). This initiative was approved by all EAS member states (ASEAN countries, United States, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, India). We hope that the decision to start developing such principles will benefit us.

We understand that Japan is an economically strong nation, our neighbour and partner in multifaceted interactions. We wish to cooperate closely with it, our trade and mutual investments are growing. This is the way both states and peoples need. We are interested that relations between all the countries of the region are constructive and not clouded by crises. There are problems, including territorial disputes in the region, and everybody is well aware of this. We speak in favour of resolving such territorial disputes in a peaceful way, without internalisations, between directly involved parties. We will welcome any additional steps in this direction.

Question: The first phase of settlement of INP-related issues entered into force yesterday. What now? Many experts say that the second phase and further rounds will be more difficult, it will be hard to reach a final comprehensive agreement. What hidden pitfalls can we meet here? What are Russia's expectations from INP settlement process?

Sergey Lavrov: The agreement, which started to be implemented yesterday, envisages that during the first stage Iran will undertake the steps agreed in the document to freeze specific and shrink individual sectors of the nuclear programme. In response to this, the United States and the European Union will ease their unilateral sanctions, which they introduced in addition to UNSC decisions. You know our attitude to unilateral sanctions – we think that they harm collective work.

We welcome the Geneva agreement, in the achievement of which we actively participated. Russia offered the concept on the basis of the superposition and reciprocity principle, which has become the basis for the agreementreached. This concept also envisages recognition of Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment for these purposes under tight IAEA control and within the framework of the rights vested in non-nuclear members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This is the first six-month stage. The second stage will start, not when the first stage will complete, but right now. Consultations within the framework of the second round envisaged for the final settlement of all INP-related problems should start in a few weeks.

The document approved by the P5+1 jointly with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva on the 24 December 2013 states that the package of final settlement agreements should include the agreed level of INP, including the scope of uranium enrichment for the purposes of peaceful nuclear activities.

This is quite an ambitious task, but it has been formulated and set as a goal. We need to make sure that these negotiations do not move us to the side-lines, but rather focus on the coordination of generally accepted agreements. When Iran satisfies IAEA requirements (we are already seeing progress in this direction) and all the questions are removed, the P5+1 should also cancel the reciprocal obligations and sanctions, including those, which were introduced through the UNSC. This is a very complicated task. I will not attempt to predict how soon it will end and how much time it will take. We will strive for this to take place as soon as possible to avoid any artificial obstacles or delays in negotiations. As far as I can judge, other P5+1 members and Iran are sticking to the same position, which gives us reason for cautious optimism.

Question: How do you assess the military campaign of the Free Syrian Army against Islamist groups? Earlier you said that the opposition should help Bashar al-Assad's regime fight terrorism.

Please comment on the recent information in the mass media that Russia is increasing its volumes of military supplies to Syria.

Sergey Lavrov: As to supplies of armaments, I will not repeat myself – we have commented on this topic many times. I can say that we do not supply anything prohibitedto Syria, which could destabilise the situation.

As to the situation amongst the armed opposition, in my opinion, it is more complicated than the picture you present.

As far as I know, part of the Free Syrian Army and some other groups have formed the Islamic Front, which includes about one and a half or two dozensmaller groups, which hardly differ from Jabhat al-Nusra and other extremist and terrorist structures.

According to expert estimates, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is the most serious and ruthless force, a terrorist structure, which is active not only in the SAR, but also in other countries, in particular and especially in Iraq, and the Islamic Front confronts it. There is also Jabhat al-Nusra, which is on the list of terrorist organisations, and which, as far as we can judge from messages, sometimes observes, but sometimes supports, the Islamic Front against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or otherwise. By the way, militants change these structures depending on conditions of "service" in them.

The Free Syrian Army has weakened sufficiently seriously. We are worried about this situation, because the Islamic Front, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which share the same ideology, fight terrorism to a known extent, but not as a phenomenon, but with each other, to occupy positions in the territory of Syria. In other words, they fight for power.

You have said that the Free Syrian Army had to help the government. However, the formulation somewhat differs. At the G8 summit in Lough Erne, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron (at that time President of the G8) proposed including the appeal to the government and the opposition to combine their efforts to eradicate terrorism in the territory of the SAR in the Communique, and all the leaders supported this appeal. We are convinced that its topicality is high today as never before.

Question: The Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 anticipates the creation of a "transitional governing body" in Syria. How do you see this body, what is its validity, to whom should it be subordinate, will there be an international monitoring of its activity?

Sergey Lavrov: It is not up to me to decide, but the Syrians. The Geneva Communiqué states clearly that the proposition of the countries, who gathered in Geneva, is their shared position. Such a transitional body would be valuable for the achievement of agreements on all issues of the future social and state order in Syria, in the adoption of new laws, which will be agreed; the reform of the constitution, the holding of elections, if required.

The phrase that the agreements, including the formation of the "transitional governing body", must be reached on the basis of mutual consent between the government and the opposition is the key to the understanding of the approach of the member states of the first conference. We cannot predetermine all the details and essence of these agreements. We wish to have peace in Syria, and the country to be sovereign, territorially integral and free of terrorism, to ensure equality of all ethnic and religious groups. These are the principles, which the international community promotes universally in connection with any crisis situation. But only the Syrians themselves can agree how these principles will be brought to life, how long the transition periodwill be, what personalities will be involved in this process. This is the goal of the Russian-American initiative. Let us hope that such negotiations will start after tomorrow's ceremony.

Question: Russia and Bulgaria are fraternal people. What does Russia do to make our countries closer?

Five years ago Serbian colleagues told us an anecdote, the main idea of which was: "Serbia is like Nokia. It becomes smaller and smaller every year". What do you think about the situation in the Balkans? I will also quote a well-known Hungarian joke that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are "lower than the bottom of a frog". How would you comment on this?

What do you think about the results of the referendum for the construction of a nuclear plant in Bulgaria?

Sergey Lavrov: If we talk about the situation in the Balkans, it cannot satisfy us – there are many problems (the situation in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and their resolution continues in a tough way.

I agree that the breakdown of Yugoslavia, which was largely conditioned by internal mistakes, and also significantly affected by external factors, which has affected the situation, was quite an ambiguous event. In any case, this contradicted the letter and intent of the Helsinki Final Act and OSCE principles – some OSCE countries bombed a member state from the same association. This contradicts all imaginable and well-known principles of this Organisation, which are laid down in the documents, which were adopted at summit level.

Noone can rewrite history. We must do everything to make the Balkans stable. We actively contribute to this in various formats, including the Steering Committee for Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are ready to support the processes, which were started with the support and mediation of the EU between Belgrade and Pristina. Of course, the decision should satisfy both parties. We cannot impose anything on anybody or prohibit them anything. Serbians and other people in the Balkans must determine their interests themselves and use them as a guide, when adopting decisions on the further redefinition of life in this region. We will respect the choices of all people. Of course, we need to stay within the previously agreed international legal framework.

We have long, good and friendly relations with Bulgaria. A history of our joint fight for fairness and independence unites us. We are thankful to the Bulgarian people for the memory they preserve. Monuments to Soviet and Russian soldiers are evidence of it.

We are open to the farthest reaching partnership. We had many plans not only in the area of nuclear energy, but also in oil pipelines, and other energy projects. The South Stream is one of our priorities today.

We cannot impose anything. We assume that the Bulgarian government will resolve all issues based on the interests of their country.

As to the frog, zoology was not my strong point, therefore I cannot comment.

Question: I would like an update about the state of the Russian-Estonian border agreement. Our countries have certainly been in agreement about this long-suffering document for a long time now, and still cannot sign it. Are there any advances here? Can it be signed and ratified this year?

Another question concerns the recently published Report by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the situation around human rights protection in the European Union. It reports about the area of use of Russian in Estonia and other Baltic countries. Can you not agree, with Estonia, in particular, that Russia contributes to the preservation of Russian by supporting several Russian lyceums, high-quality elite secondary education institutions? In your opinion, can we solve this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: As to border agreements about the delimitation of land and water, their texts are fully agreed, now we are agreeing the date and place of their signature.

As to the rights of national and language minorities, not only in the Baltic States, but also in any other country of Europe and other continents, our position is consistent and very clear. We speak in favour of these countries fulfilling their international obligations, which they have undertaken. In the case of Estonia and Latvia, it means that they need to respond to the recommendations from international structures, in particular the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Several specific and very simple recommendations were formulated for Estonia and Latvia, the purpose of which is to resolve the problem of liquidation of the shameful statelessness phenomenon gradually, without abrupt moves.

We ask our neighbours to fulfil international recommendations, nothing else. Unfortunately, this process is proving very hard for them. We are not happy that the EU attempts to justify their position, in fact ignoring international structures, in which Estonia, Latvia and other EU members participate. The European Union covers such an approach up by stating that the problem of defence of human rights within the EU is being solved and seems to be satisfactory, therefore, they ask us not to interfere. This is an unacceptable position. It cannot be that EU members or some other structure have one set of rights in the humanitarian area, but other European countries – some other rights, a second kind of rights.

We are all members of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, where a set of universal measures are adopted. Everybody has signed under them, and they are political obligations. There are conventions in the Council of Europe, which should be implemented, and all EU members are parties to these conventions.

As to Russian, I agree with you. In parallel with the work, which we conduct directly with the heads of these countries to convince our neighbours not to adopt any decisions depriving the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia and Latvia, we have approved a project of the "Russian school abroad"programme, which will soon start to be implemented at government level. We will agree not only with the Baltic countries, but also with our other neighbours, as well as other states, where our nationals live, to create Russian schools there, for which we will pay and where teaching will be organised on the basis of Russian standards. These are our plans, and we would like this to happen as soon as possible. However, you understand yourself that not everything depends on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Question: It is clear that the six-party talks to settle the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula seem to be frozen now. In your opinion, are there any positive signals about the possibility of renewing the dialogue? How will bilateral interaction between Russia and the DPRK develop? Have you scheduled any high-level contacts this year?

Sergey Lavrov: As to the six-party talks, we are convinced that there is no alternative to this process. Its goal has always been the same – denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. The foundations for these talks are also the same – the Statement by the six countries, including the DPRK, which was adopted in September 2005. This document sets out the steps, which are expected from Pyongyang, and reciprocal measures, which will be adopted in response to its cooperation in the issue of dismantling its military nuclear programme and which envisage the development of peaceful nuclear energy in the DPRK and other material benefits.

Currently, the DPRK leaders are sending signals about their readiness to renew the talks without any preconditions. Several other participants of the six-party talks think that Pyongyang should first take certain steps to convince others that they are serious, i.e. some unilateral actions are expected from the DPRK before the talks are renewed.

We think that it is important to find a way out of this situation, and (I repeat) it lies within the foundation, which was laid down in September 2005. Jointly with our Chinese partners, who play an important role in this process, we are attempting to find a consensus, which would allow us to renew such talks. All of us should care about security in this very important region rather than the loss or preservation of our face.

Several work groups were created within the framework of the six-party talks at their fairly active stage. Russia presides over the working group on the development of principles of peace and security in North East Asia (NEA). It was intended that, when we attain some progress in the denuclearisation issue on a practical scale, this group will be in demand and will coordinate the long-term parameters of NEA. I cannot exclude that we could use this group to convene a conference in its format to start discussions on trust-building measures. These are our thoughts, which we share with our partners in the six-party talks hoping to renew them.

I repeat it is unacceptable that new military nuclear states are appearing. This position is shared by Russia, China and other parties to the six-party talks in our approaches to the DPRK. We have explainedto our North Korean friends and their neighbours all the benefits of resolving the questions, which we all agreed to settle 8.5 years ago. This includes the creation of a strong system with DPRK security guarantees. How do we get to this? I can say again that we are searching for such ways with our partners.

I can add that we condemned the DPRK's nuclear and missile tests conducted in violation of the UNSC resolution. We appeal to our neighbours to be restrained in their routine contacts. At the same time we condemn the attempts to use this situation to build up a proportionless military potential in this region under the pretext of the North Korean threat. The steps undertaken by the United States in particular referring to the threat coming from North Korea are not adequate to the real military potential of Pyongyang. We do not want to have other pretexts for "military buff-up", including the deployment of strategic bombers, aircraft-capable groups near our borders and the forced creation of components of global US ABM in this region.

Our relations with the DPRK are developing sufficiently eventfully and intensively. We are ready – and this topic is still topical – to implement trilateral plans with the participation of North and South Korea and the Russian Federation, including railway, energy, electric and energy projects. We have set up good contacts within the ambit of our diplomatic representations. We expect to see DPRK representatives among the guests at the Winter Olympics.

Question: Last year, leaders of Russia and Japan met 4 times. A new process in 2+2 format has been launched. Energy cooperation is progressing quite successfully. In general, it can be said that the relations between our two countries have reached an unprecedented high level. What does Russia plan to do this year to advance this bilateral interaction? Can the new dynamics and the created atmosphere lead to the resolution of political problems, which have remained unresolved for a long time? What is most important for their settlement today?

Sergey Lavrov: We are interested in further building-up our relations with Japan. We see a big potential in the cooperation, which has already proved its efficiency – almost all the leading Japanese car companies have opened their manufacturing facilities in the territory of Russia. We actively interact in the area of the fuel and energy complex in Sakhalin, and in other projects. We are developing humanitarian ties – the Festival of Russian culture, which always arouses much interest, is held every year in Japan. Our political contacts within the ambit of parliaments and agencies, including foreign services, are intensive.

We have noted that the dialogue at summit level has been activated lately. Last year we had four meetings, including the official visit of the Prime Minister Shinzō Abe to the Russian Federation, whilst the President of Russia Vladimir Putin accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister to visit Japan. I am convinced that we will agree on times and themes for the visit, which will be convenient for both parties. I am convinced that contact between our leaders will continue in the extended future as well. We value this a lot, because they allow us to define strategic landmarks for our further steps and set the pace for the work of all the layers of executive power.

Of course, deepening of our cooperation, advancement of our multifaceted partnership in each and all areas – economics, culture, contacts between people, especially in the foreign policy area – will create the necessary prerequisites for dealing with the issues of a peace treaty. We have said many times that we inherited this problem. It is not easy, it touches upon sensitive "strings" on both sides. As our leaders agreed long ago, we need to resolve it in a way corresponding to Russia's and Japan's interests, so that our people accept the decision. This is not an easy task, but we should make the first step.

Taking into account the improvement in the general atmosphere of development of our relations over the last couple of years, we have renewed our dialogue about a peace treaty. Preliminary consultations were held in Moscow in August 2013, the first round of them should be held in Tokyo in a few days, where the historical aspects of this problem will be reviewed based on the consent of both parties. This is the most important starting point for any discussion.

Today, I have already touched upon the results of the Second World War. Their acknowledgement formalised in the UN Charter is the first incontestable step to the settlement, which (I emphasize this) must be acceptable to both parties – not only for the governments, but also for the people of Russia and Japan. We will be ready to move on along this path in a diligent and patient way.

Question: To what extent has the Ukrainian problem become an irritant in your relations with European colleagues?

Currently there is a lot of talk that the events in Ukraine may result in a breakdown of the country. In your opinion, is this a figure of speech or a real prospect?

Sergey Lavrov: I would not like to support provocative talks about the breakdown of Ukraine. Russia is doing everything to prevent this from happening and stabilise the situation. We will continue to act in such a way. Ukraine is our neighbour, partner, friend and brother – there cannot be two opinions. We are convinced that internal problems of any states, including Ukraine, must be resolved through dialogue, within the constitutional and legal framework and without external interference.

I do not know who offends us and for what reason they do this in the European Union in connection with the events in Ukraine. We would still prefer that some of our European colleagues did not behave so offhandedly in connection with the Ukrainian crisis, when members of several European governments made a beeline to the Maidan[Independence Square] without being invited, and participated in anti-government demonstrations in the country, with which they have diplomatic relations. It is simply indecent. This is what is heating this situation up.

You certainly watch TV and see what is happening there. The beginning of this was: the occupation of the town-hall, government buildings. Militants have stayed in these buildings for several weeks. Imagine if this happened in any country of the European Union. Is this possible? Noone would allow this. Bashing, attacks on the police, arson, Molotov cocktails, explosives – this is terrible, it violates all the European code of conduct! I think that appeals to be reasonable proclaimed by Vitaly Klichko on behalf of opposition leaders, show that the situation has got out of control.

We know that this situation is quite actively promoted from foreign countries. It seems that these "promoters" do not evenconsider the interests of the opposition and try to provoke violence. When something like this happens in EU countries, nobody doubts the need for strict measures to stop the violence and disorder. But here foreign countries request us to make a choice. Our US colleagues at the OSCE FMC session in Kiev at the beginning of December (last year) requested the Ukrainian government to "listen to the voice of the people", "but if you don't listen, there will be chaos". I do not know whether it was a prophecy or an insight. I believe that somebody must be interested in this chaos. We are not. We wish Ukraine to be stable. We have too many connections, including economic, cultural, spiritual, to add fuel to the flames they are attempting to fire. The main thing – what is the cause of these conflicts? The cause is that the government, acting fully within the framework of their authority and competence, made the decision not to sign or initiate the documents with the EU right now. And what a lot of noise this has caused!

You know that different demonstrations also periodically take place in the European Union. There are actions in Greece about leaving the EU. European sceptics are starting to form political parties in other countries of the European Union. What is their attitude to them? Can they say that they are against the EU? Where is their freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Just now our Estonian colleagues have asked a question. Their neighbour Latvia has recently introduced the Euro and did not organise areferendum. According to public survey results, 8% of the population were in favour of this, but almost 50% were against it in Latvia. So what now? Should they go out on the streets and request the Euro to be removed? Should they burn cars and occupy government buildings?

We are ready to discuss with the European Union the measures, which will allow us to stop the policy of deepening the dividing lines, the policy of the attitude to Ukraine and other countries, which were included in the Eastern Partnership, according to the principle "either with us, or against us". This is not our mentality. Some Europeans promote such an approach. When in December 2013 Ukrainians represented by the Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said that they were interested in economic interaction, close integration with Russia and the EU and offered to hold trilateral consultations Russia - Ukraine – European Union, the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin,replied that we are ready for this, but the EU would not even consider such a possibility and this offer is still unacceptable to it. Why? Nobody explains this.

The EU-Russia summit will be held at the end of January, and we are curious to listen to their motives. We are concerned with the events in Ukraine and appeal to all the parties to resolve the problems they have exclusively through a dialogue and only within the constitutional and legal framework of Ukraine.

Question: Yesterday, some mass media published photos allegedly proving military crimes by Bashar al-Assad. An investigation report was also published. What do you think about it? Do you think that this evidence is sufficient to prove that Bashar al-Assad's supporters are guilty of war crimes?

Sergey Lavrov: I have not seen these photos, but I know of previous messages. In my introductory speech, I already said that information diplomacy is better than information war. The facts you have mentioned are a part of information war. Here we should of course bear in mind that both parties to the Syrian conflict commit war crimes. It should be noted that according to reports and briefings provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the leaders of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Geneva in the last week, jihadists commit the cruellest crimes. The main thing is that nobody cancelled the principles of responsibility for war crimes. They are fixed in the Geneva Communiqué (of 30 June 2012), UN decisions.

The main thing is to see the difference between real facts, which we still have to clarify and investigate, and lies, which are widely distributed, including by respectable TV channels. There are many examples of this. I will not name these channels (I do not want to accuse anybody), but when western and regional channels of good reputation aired alleged atrocities by the regime near Damascus, these later turned out to be 10 year old events in Iraq. We have many such examples. Everything depends on the source and the motives it is guided by.

Until now 90% of the references to atrocities by the regime came from the London-based source named the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights. We specifically looked deeper into this situation and learned that this is a small apartment with two occupants. This is that "observatory", which has become a source of data about events in Syria for the entire world!

I emphasise once again. I do not say that there are not crimes. They take place and should be documented. The main thing now is not to isolate this aspect as the most acute and topical, not to request its end through justice, or we will not talk to the regime, but the opposition did set such preconditions at some stage. Today task No 1 is to stop the violence, and we need a political dialogue for that. We can do this later within the framework of stabilisation and national reconciliation (there is world experience available on the resolution of these issues, there are truth-finding missions, etc.). I repeat, facts should be rechecked. Too many lies are "flowing" around this topic.

Question: A year ago a law prohibiting Americans to adopt Russian children was adopted. Before its adoption, you expressed your concern that this may negatively affect the agreements with the United States, which should helpRussia to monitor the fate of already adopted children. Do you think that the adoption of this law was justified? How has this affected the agreements with the United States to monitor the situation with already adopted children?

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, we have not heard any positive advances from this law. We touch upon this topic with the U.S. Department of State every day on specific examples, we ask for access to the children, who, according to the US mass media, are in a complicated situation or are in trouble, we ask the Department of State, irrespective of this agreement, to guarantee us such access, because we have a Consular convention and other legal cooperation framework. Neither in the period of validity of this agreement, nor before it, nor now, can we gain access to several points, where we would like to. For example, there is a children's ranch in Montana – its territory is still closed to us. Something unimaginable is happening there even from the point of view of the US Themis. The State Courts made decisions, which requested the masters of the ranch to re-register it, because now they are registered as a religious organisation, which is not true. For this reason they banned our representatives from access to it. But the courts asked them to re-register as a social structure, where access will be provided. We have not been there yet.

Therefore, this topic will still be there. I draw your attention to the fact that we are not the only ones to dislike the existing adoption system and further guardianship in the United States. Several countries terminated the same agreements with the United States for the same reason – these agreements were breached.

We discussed this with our US colleagues and continue to discuss within the framework of our regular dialogue about human rights. The problem of adoption of Russian children, children from other countries and even American children by American families in the United States raises many questions. There are special reports of US non-governmental organisations about this. You can study them; I will not take up your time.

I repeat, unfortunately, our agreement has not removed the problem, which our Washington partners referred to – the law of states prevails in this area, but central powers can do little here. We will continue to discuss this issue to obtain real access to the children and understand exactly what the situation of each adopted child is.

Question: You said that you appeal to the stabilisation of the situation in Ukraine. Dozens of people from different sides, including journalists, have suffered under different sides. In what circumstances is the Russian Federation ready to become a mediator in the settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine, and are you ready to view this situation in this way?

Sergey Lavrov: There can only be one circumstance – if we are asked to do this. As far as I understand, such help is not required. Now direct contacts are held between the President, the Government and the opposition. A structure for such contacts has been formed (as far as I know, the first meeting has already been held).

Of course, we condemn any violence. I hope that everybody understands the unacceptability of the provocations, which we observe on TV screens. Last December an excavator was aimed at the police, they were hit with a bucket during riots. How can this match our aspirations to become part of Europe? What is happening now can be called direct backhand hits with a baseball bat! There is no doubt that they wanted a reaction from the law enforcement agencies, this is the goal of any provocation.

It is even better, when journalists get hit on the spur of the moment. I think everybody understands what this is about, and we cannot speak about the promotion of European values here. Thank God, leaders of the opposition are starting to understand this and tend to distance themselves from the instigators. I emphasise, we appeal for the resolution of all issues in a lawful manner on the basis of a dialogue.

Question: Yesterday, a terrorist group from Dagestan threatened to disrupt the Winter Olympics in Sochi again. Do you think that somebody stimulates this "gang" in Dagestan from foreign countries?

Sergey Lavrov: You know terrorism has no nationality. It is a well-known fact that it has an international dimension. All intelligence agencies in close contact know this.

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin emphasized many times that we will ensure security during the Olympics. There are special headquarters involving representatives of almost all the countries of the world, whose sportsmen will participate in the Games. I am convinced that sufficient measures are being taken.

Question: This year we celebrate 20 years since the signature of the Bishkek protocol on the end of the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. For 20 years, the Azerbaijani have had no access to the cradle of Azerbaijani culture – Karabakh. Will there be any specific propositions to resolve this conflict this year?

A representation of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is functioning in the territory of the Embassy of Armenia in the Russian Federation. How legitimate is this? Isn't this contrary to Russia's position in this conflict?

Sergey Lavrov: I have not heard of such information. I hear from time to time that suites are created for somebody, or a restaurant is opened in the territory of some embassy, contrary to the Vienna Convention. I assume that the Vienna Convention should be observed by everybody.

As to the first part of your question, we assume that two parties must agree. The meeting between presidents Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan last November in Vienna is somewhat encouraging. Especially considering the fact that there have been no such contacts for two years. As far as we can understand from our talks with Armenian and Azerbaijani friends, the heads of state were, in general, satisfied with their talk and agreed to continue it at foreign minister level and through a personal dialogue.

Russia jointly with the United States and France, as the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group,is attempting to help in the setting-up of such a dialogue. There are developments by the co-chairs, which were deposited with the OSCE and were not rejected by the parties. They require additional efforts to reach principled agreements on how to resolve this regional problem.

We will contribute to this process. I emphasise once again: the main things is that the parties agree to the principles, on which the agreement will be based. We cannot do this work for them. Jointly with the Americans and the French we are stimulating both parties, we are ready to propose some ideas for consideration by Baku and Yerevan. But the final word rests with them.

Question: What are prospects of the renewal of diplomatic relations between Russia and Georgia? Can we expect that Russia will soon cancel visas for nationals of this country?

Sergey Lavrov: Prospects do not depend on us. Georgia was the initiator of the break in our diplomatic relations. Therefore, it is better to address this question to Tbilisi.

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin has supported the visa-free regime many times, I have commented upon this many times as well. We wish to make contacts between people as easy as possible. However, we cannot view this in the general context of our relations, including the aspect which you have mentioned.

The lack of diplomatic relations places reserves on several other areas of cooperation. The problem is not with some formality, a lack of diplomatic relations or that everything is blocked, absolutely not. The main problem is that we cannot change the situation, which we have had since Mikhail Saakashvili started a war. The attempts to condition the advancement of our political contacts by the refusal of Russia to acknowledge the existing reality, have no prospects, no results, are counterproductive and give us nothing.

Unfortunately, despite some signs and specific steps to improve our relations in trade, transport, communication and human contacts (the number of visas issued to Georgian nationals last year grew compared with 2012, we value the aspiration of our Georgian neighbours to contribute to security building during the Olympics in Sochi), on a practical scale quite frequently we face the problem that Georgia does not recognise the reality in the region. This will break us from time to time and make our relations more reserved. We are open to the closest contacts in various areas, however, bearing in mind everything that I have spoken about. This reality does exist and it cannot be changed.

Question: Many journalists wrote about a broad amnesty and liberation of Mikhail Khodorkovsky as signs improving the image of Russia on the eve of the Olympics in Sochi. Have you felt this during your multiple contacts with your foreign colleagues? In your opinion, was there such an improvement?? Was it necessary to improve the image of Russia?

Another security conference will be held in Munich in February. Can you share your expectations for this conference? What important and interesting things will be discussed there?

What have you done with the potatoes, which were given to you by John Kerry?

Sergey Lavrov: Every normal person wants to feel and look good, it is natural. As to Russia, it is not up to me to answer the question, whether its image has improved. You have to answer that question.

You have asked what my impressions are from my contacts with my colleagues. During all those years, when I was a Minister, I have not felt any vibrations in my contacts with my colleagues from Europe, Asia, United States, Latin America and CIS. In the last two years, when it has become fashionable to say that the image of Russia is being distorted in some way, I feel changes neither in the tone nor in the nature of my communications with my European colleagues.

Yes, as a rule, in the end many of them say: I should say (we agreed about it in Brussels) that we appeal to Russia to develop civil society. We answer: well, we have heard your appeal. At the press conference summarising the results of the negotiations they will certainly say: we have discussed the situation with non-governmental organisations and civil society. By all means, please do, we are also interested that civil society in Europe and other countries of the world played an important role and it was heard. We are undertaking steps in this direction and hope that our European friends will also correct the problems they have. We already talked about one of them – stateless persons. There are many others, including connivance with the attempts to glorify Nazism. This is also a well-known fact. And if we take a hands-off approach, then everything can end in shambles. It is up to you to judge our image.

I will provide one example. Almost three years ago, when the Syrian crisis had started, we were told using brazen tones of voice that Russia should change its position, it was at the wrong side of history, had lost the Arab world and the entire Middle East. Nobody says this right now. Probably this is the evidence that our image is changing. Maybe the understanding of the situation by those, who made such accusations against us, has changed. It is up to you to judge.

As to the Munich Conference, I expect discussions, a talk with political analyses from all over the world. This is a good forum with a strong reputation, where interesting conversation partners and participants come. I expect it to be held this time in the same way.

As to the potatoes, frankly speaking, I agreed to the request of one of our farms and sent these potatoes to Kuban, where they will experiment with them.

Question: A SELAC summit will be held soon in Havana. How does Russia assess prospects of the work of this large Latin American partnership? How would you comment on the creation of a permanent dialogue mechanism within the framework of this regional association?

Sergey Lavrov: As I have already said at the beginning of our meeting, Russia closely cooperates with Latin American countries, and not only bilaterally, but using formats of integration and political associations of Latin America and the Caribbean. The SELAC is the first organisation combining all these countries. Unlike the MERCOSUR and UNASUR, the SELAC is a universal structure, which (I repeat) includes all the countries of the region. We think that it is a very perspective process, which will allow us to harmonise integration development in various fields. Such a universal forum is quite in demand among countries of the region. Foreign partners from these countries will also probably be interested in working more effectively in parallel and using bilateral channels with sub-regional groups and the SELAC as a structure. At least, we are interested in this.

Last May a meeting of the extended SELAC "troika", with the participation of the Foreign Minister of Cuba, was held in Russia. We have conducted valuable consultations and agreed to agree on parameters of permanent dialogue mechanisms between Russia and this association. As far as I understand, this decision will be made at the forthcoming summit, and then we will launch this mechanism. Besides that, a memorandum on interaction with the Central American Integration System is being prepared, we have good prospects of development of relations with MERCOSUR, including within the ambit of the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

In general, a lot of valuable things have been done over the last few years on a practical scale. Just recently we have completed the procedure for the entry into force of visa-free travel with Paraguay. This is the eleventh country of the Latin American region and the Caribbean, with which we have introduced a visa-free regime. I am convinced that all the territory of the SELAC member states may become a zone which is free for travel for Russians, in the near future.

Question: 2014 was announced as the bilateral year of Russia and the United Kingdom. Sergey Viktorovich thank you for the new term: information war. I am convinced that all journalists will support it.

In Serpukhov near Moscow my colleagues-journalists have made such a step in information diplomacy: We have found out in historical books, sources and publications, that this year the organisation of Children's street football of the Moscow region celebrates 100 years. Englishmen were the first coaches of children's teams, who worked in textile factories in those times.

I have a request for you. The Journalists' Union of Podmoskovye and Altair Sports and Patriotic Club have an idea of holding an international football match of children's street teams. Several countries have already pre-agreed to this. But we cannot get through to the consular department of the Embassy of the United Kingdom. We have sent a letter to them, but have not received an answer yet. It would be good if you could assist in inviting a similar team from England and the descendants of E. Charneck who organised such tours at the beginning.

Sergey Lavrov: I have already seen this story and also thought about this. It is good that before we have done anything at an official level, social diplomacy has already worked. Of course, we will help. We also cannot get through to the consular department of the Embassy of the United Kingdom, but we will try.

Question: Please comment on the smashing story with deportation of the US journalist David Satter. His version of the events differs from the official version of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He said that he was initially approved for the issue of a visa, but then told that his presence in the Russian territory is undesirable.

The Ambassador Michael McFaul said that he is working to cancel this decision. We would like to hear whether this is possible.

Sergey Lavrov: Do you want to hear that the version of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is wrong, but that the explanations of David Satter are right.In fact, he had illegally stayed in our territory for several days. As far as I understand, he had been working in Russia for many years and had to know about the existing order and the need to change his visa to a multi-entry visa. In general, he had to extend and renew his status. He had several months to do that, but he waited until his visa term had expired.

For some reason there was a lot of fuss about this, as if there was some political intrigue. Crimes related to violations of migration law, along with tax evasion crimes in the United States, are the most serious. An overstayed visa ends with a detention and deportation. Let just see the statistics and learn how they do this in the United States. There is nothing extraordinary here. However, if something like this happens in Russia (you know what I mean), everything starts to be distorted and blown up out of all proportion. However, these practices in other countries are perceived as something sovereign.

Let us simply respect ourselves. If we have laws, everybody should comply with them. Especially taking into account that this law is universal to all states. No one can stay in a country without a visa.

Question: You have said that the construction of the South Stream gas line is one of our priorities. On the contrary, Brussels applies pressure on some countries, which it crosses. In your opinion, when can this pressure end?

The second question concerns your relations with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia Vuk Jeremić. It seems to me that they were more intensive than with the current Minister. You met more frequently. Have you scheduled a visit to Serbia this year or does your Serbian colleague intend to visit Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: About my relations with the Minister Ivan Mrkić, I would not say that our relations are less intensive or less trustworthy than with his predecessor. We cooperated closely with Vuk Jeremić in the period of preparation of the decision about the Serbian presidency of the OSCE jointly with Switzerland in 2014-2015. These were really big preparations. Then there was a period, when Vuk Jeremić stood for the position of president of the UN General Assembly, which also involved contacts about that.

I have an invitation to visit Belgrade. I will use it. We are interested in developing our dialogue, it becomes richer, including within the ambit of our parliaments, within the framework of international organisations.

As to the South Stream, we had a round of consultations with the participation of the European Commissioner Günther Oettinger in Moscow a few days ago. We discussed this topic. For our part, we understand that we should search for a solution, which will not contradict intergovernmental agreements, which were signed between the Russian Government and the governments of Serbia and other EU countries, who wish to participate in this project.

Question: Please comment on the situation with the detention of the Russian fishing ship in Senegal. Why is it taking so long to settle it? What is the role of Greenpeace here?

Sergey Lavrov: We regularly comment on this in detail. In my opinion, the situation is normal now. At least, more normal that it has been just recently. The ship owner, supported by Russia and our foreign partners, who have specific relations with the Senegalese authorities, is attempting to close this topic finally. At least we are not receiving any complaints from the crew now. The restrictions, which were artificially created, have been removed. I hope that this situation will be resolved in the near future.

As to Greenpeace, everybody is talking about this. Its representatives do not hide that they were dealing with this. This is their role. Here, like in many other cases, environmental protection, a sacred thing, is turned into the instrument for the achievement of political goals or business. This is sad. I still expect that NGOs will attempt to match the ideals, which form the basis of civil society and public associations.

Question: You have said that 75 years since the Second World War will be celebrated next year. Next year Russia and Mongolia celebrate 75 years of victory in Khalkhin Gol. Will Russia celebrate this anniversary at state level?

Is Mongolia on the list of the countries where Russia plans to develop the Russian School Abroad programme?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, we will celebrate the anniversary of this battle. We are interested in coordinating the respective events with our Mongolian friends.

The Russian School Abroad project envisages the opening of additional schools. I think that we will be interested to open such an educational institution in Mongolia.

Question: What are your expectations for the EU-Russia Summit this January?

Sergey Lavrov: We view the EU as a strategic partner, and it is our strategic partner. In total, it is our No 1largest trade and investment partner. The European Union is also quite interested in work in Russian markets, investments in Russia. There are many examples of this. Their number is growing. Therefore, for us there is no question of whether to develop or not to develop our partnership with the EU.

Only recently the European Parliament's President Martin Schulz said that Russia must decide how it sees the European Union – as a partner or as a competitor. I would answer him positively on both questions, because partnership does not exclude competition. There is competition within the European Union, there is competition between Europe and America. It will always exist in conditions of market economy. We have just to admit it.

I absolutely agree with the European Parliament's President Martin Schulz, when he spoke in favour of a "deep" dialogue with the Russian Federation and in favour of the EU developing a common code of conduct in respect to Russia. Of course, it is easier to talk to the European Union, if it speaks in one voice. However, we would not like this joint position to be determined by using the lowest-common-denominator approach. Frequently, the solidarity principle, which is in use in the EU, turns into a situation where several countries hold all others as hostages, when they resolve a sole question with Russia. We observe something like this in our visa discussions with the European Union. I spoke about it today.

The EU proposed to have a deep talk at the forthcoming summit. For these purposes, our partners from Brussels spoke in favour of changing the format of the summit and focussing it on an informal closed discussion, which later transforms into a working breakfast. We have agreed, if this is comfortable for our partners. The difference is that the traditional format has lost its part, where sectorial ministers and European Commissioners, in the presence of EU leaders and the President of Russia, report on what has been done in different areas. However, if our partners think that this part of the summit is not necessary at this stage, then we are ready to accept another format.

We will be ready for this conversation. We are interested in better understanding some things about the Eastern Partnership and why the EU thinks that it is impossible to hold consultations about harmonisation processes in the West and East of Europe.

Finally, the initiative of the President Vladimir Putin to work at the creation of a Common Economic and Humanitarian Space stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok in the future correlates word-for-word with the ideas of José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, appealing for a common market and free trade zone in this space. We also want to better understand, why the European Commission has categorically refused a trilateral conversation at the height of the Ukrainian events.

We do not make any highlights that these integration processes are not compatible. They are compatible. However, we should first increase competitiveness in our integration structures and then open up our negotiations with the EU, when we will act from firmer positions, which we will reinforce while we are a WTO member, on the basis of its rules and regulations and we will discuss extension and liberalisation with the EU on more beneficial and equal conditions. We do not need this more than the EU. We want to understand the plans of the European Union regarding the prospects of easing and, finally, the removal of the visa regime.

There are many other areas. Energy is the backbone of our partnership. Many things have been done here. The roughness, which was mentioned today in connection with the South Stream, is connected with the Third Energy Package. We wish that it were not used retrospectively as a form of implementation of the European Union's sovereign right to establish rules in its territory. And that is all. We do not doubt the right of the European Union to introduce such procedures. However, when they are retrospectively spread to multibillion investments made on the basis of other rules of the game, this is a violation of the obligations between us, the EU and its member states within the framework of investment security agreements – not to worsen business conditions. This is a working nuance.

If we do not politicise this issue, everything will be resolved simply and pragmatically. However, there are attempts to politicise different areas, including energy, in our relations with the EU. We do not lament this. Things happen. The European Union is a big formation. It is not an easy task to harmonise the interests of so big a number of players. We will continue our work in all these issues.

Of course, an honest and trustworthy conversation, which not only states some claims, but primarily the motives, as to why the European Union promotes one or another position, is very important to us. We wish to understand this better. I repeat the EU is our strategic and the leading partner.

Finally, I would like to say that we will meet many more times in different formats. I wish everybody Happy New Year once again! I also congratulate all those who celebrate this holiday according to the Eastern calendar. I wish you all the best.