Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from Channel One’s Voskresnoye Vremya programme, Moscow, January 30, 2022

Question: February 1 marks 30 years since President of Russia Boris Yeltsin and US President George Bush signed the Camp David Declaration, which contained the unbelievable sounding words to the effect that Russia and the United States no longer regarded each other as potential adversaries.  On the contrary, the parties’ relations would henceforth be based on friendship.  As far as I know, you were a member of the Russian delegation in 1992. You saw the proceedings with your own eyes. What did you feel at that moment? Did it seem that we were friends?

Sergey Lavrov: This question concerns the situation that took shape following the disintegration of the USSR and during the emergence of the new Russian statehood. This happened a mere six weeks after the Belovezh Accords and just over a month after the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was proclaimed in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

At that time our relations seemed absolutely trouble-free. Later they were characterised by an address to the US Congress delivered by President Boris Yeltsin, who thanked America for supporting Russian democracy. There was certainly a touch of euphoria. The Russian foreign policy makers believed that all problems would be solved automatically, since Russia would be part of the “civilised world,” Western culture and Western security architecture, and would get strong support in various areas.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has commented on this repeatedly, including in his latest remarks at the expanded Collegium in the Foreign Ministry, at the Defence Ministry, and at his news conference.  He said everyone [in Russia] believed then that from now on everything would be all right. At the same time, the West determined that Russia would now follow a course reflecting its [the West’s] interests.  This continued for a rather long time in the 1990s. In the early 2000s, Russia restored its historical and national identity. The West became aware of this and started reproaching Russia for drifting away from the “democratic principles.” The watershed was Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech in 2007.

US academic and political science journals (Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, and particularly The National Interest and its contributing editor Ted Galen Carpenter) ran a series of articles focusing on Russia’s 2007 statement about its grievances and its growing disillusionment with the West’s attitude towards its interests. They stated directly that Vladimir Putin was not heard at the time.   

Today, we are having serious problems precisely because the West had behaved in a careless and dishonest manner with regard to Russia’s interests. It could have been different, but there’s no point in talking about “what if” when it comes to history. We have wizened up. It is said that people learn only from their mistakes. Now we know the true value of the West’s words. We will insist on having not only assurances and political commitments on paper, but also legally binding guarantees that would ensure security throughout the European continent with a full and equitable regard for the Russian Federation’s legitimate interests.

Question: If we look back to the events that sparked a degree of euphoria, the subsequent NATO expansion, and think about our current relations, can we say that the world is moving towards a new confrontation? Or is it that in reality Washington’s policy hasn’t change much and there could never have been any friendship, let alone allied relations between us?

Sergey Lavrov: Washington’s actions on the international stage are pragmatic and sometimes even utilitarian. When the United States thinks that something suits its interests, it can betray those with whom it was friendly, with whom it cooperated and who catered to its positions around the world. Take former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Washington didn’t lift a finger when he was arrested, although Mubarak didn’t try to escape but remained in Egypt after stepping down. For a long time he was taken to court in a cage. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. There are many examples when the Americans’ actions were guided exclusively by their pragmatic or even selfish interests.

We have no illusions. We would like to have friendly and stable relations, based on mutual respect and equality, with the United States and all other countries. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this at his meeting with US President Joseph Biden when he reaffirmed this position in Geneva in June 2021. In the United States, politics is made by a number of players. It is a complicated system where vital global security and stability issues often become hostage to intraparty games and the interests of senators from various states. Any law can be overloaded with irrelevant amendments. This is how they live. But this doesn’t make life easier for others. Elections are held in the United States every other year. Even in the autumn of 2021 they said that their main task was to prepare for the autumn 2022 election campaign. Events that have vital significance for the future of the country take place there every other year. And they say on the international stage that this factor should be considered. This is life.

We have our own interests, factors and life. You have only one life. Based on our bitter experience, we don’t want our security to be infringed upon every single day.

The top issue now is whether NATO members and the countries that want to join NATO have the right to take decisions without consulting other Euro-Atlantic countries. Respected American academic journals have published a series of article that touch upon this issue as well. One of them cited Article 10 of the Washington Treaty on the establishment of the North Atlantic organisation. It reads that the parties may (or may not) invite any other European state in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this treaty. This is the point. They cannot just invite anyone they want. They must look at how this would contribute to the alliance’s security. They have granted membership to the countries with which we have good relations – Montenegro and Macedonia. The American authors wonder how this strengthened NATO’s security. How are these countries contributing to the bloc’s security, considering their military and military-technical resources?

The reply we have received from Brussels, from Jens Stoltenberg, says proudly that NATO is a defensive alliance. It can hardly be described as defensive. Don’t forget that it bombed Yugoslavia for nearly three months, invaded Libya in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and what it did in Afghanistan.

Even if we agree that it is a defensive alliance, during the Cold War, when there was the Berlin Wall, it was clear which territory needed to be defended. And then the wall was torn down, and we declared eternal friendship, indivisible security and solidarity within the framework of the OSCE and agreed that no state would try to strengthen its security at the expense of other states. But even in that situation they continued to accept new members – there have been five waves of expansion.

And every time it turns out that the line they must defend has moved more towards the east. It has come close to Ukraine now. They want to draw that country into the bloc, although it is clear to everyone that Ukraine is not ready and cannot contribute to NATO’s security. This will really undermine relations with the Russian Federation because it will be a gross violation of the official political commitment made by the presidents of the United States and other NATO countries. Let them comfort themselves by saying that it is a defensive alliance. It doesn’t make much difference to us. The line of defence has come very close to us.

Today the Foreign Ministry will send an official request to our colleagues in the NATO and OSCE countries asking them to explain how they intend to honour their obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of other countries’ security. If they don’t intend to honour it, we would like them to explain why not. It will be the key factor for determining our future proposals about which we will report to President Vladimir Putin.