Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with UK Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Moscow, February 10, 2022

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

We have held the first stage of our talks, the main stage. Russia-UK relations leave much to be desired, to put it mildly. They are probably at their lowest in many years now. This is not our fault. I will not talk about this at length now, I just want to say that we would like our relations to normalise, to improve, to get back to constructive progress. Of course, this is only possible if it is based on equality, respect for each other’s interests, and taking those interests into account. Selectivity, preconditions, ultimatums, and threats will lead us nowhere. Relationships should be a two-way street.

When both parties act on their national interests and the need, for both of them, to gain added value from their contacts, we have a good example with our stable trade levels: in January-November, 2021, mutual trade was at the January-December 2020 level and exceeded $24 billion. Moreover, Russian and UK businesses continue cooperating, looking for opportunities for additional mutually beneficial investment of resources. An early relaunch of the Intergovernmental Steering Committee on Trade and Investment and the High-Level Energy Dialogue would help consolidate this trend and support our businesses. Russia is ready to resume these.

Another good example is the growing cultural and humanitarian exchanges that rely on longstanding and strong positive traditions. In 2019-2020, many events took place as part of the UK-Russia Year of Music. The next UK-Russia cross year project, in 2022-2023, will be dedicated to knowledge. We maintain regular contact between representatives of civil societies in our countries.

However, we did not get to these matters today. I hope we will be able to discuss our bilateral agenda over a working breakfast. One of the reasons we haven’t discussed it yet is because we asked Madam Secretary to list the priority topics she wanted to discuss. She listed Ukraine, Belarus, China and Iran. So we spoke at length about the lack of progress on the Minsk agreements, which are not just being sabotaged by Kiev, but are now openly rejected by representatives of the Ukrainian regime. We reported on our steps towards persuading those who have influence on the Kiev regime to convince Vladimir Zelensky and his government to fulfill their obligations under the Minsk agreements as approved by the UN Security Council resolution. We seem to have different interpretations of the Minsk agreements, although I do not see how they can be interpreted differently from what is written there in black and white. We also spoke about our relations with the Republic of Belarus, including the preparation and holding of the exercises that are starting now and causing concern in London and the West.

Russian troop deployment on our own territory seems to be causing incomprehensible anxiety and very strong reactions from our British colleagues and other Western representatives. Asked by Madam Secretary, I also talked about our relations with the People’s Republic of China, including the latest talks between President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping in Beijing. I explained that we are building our relations with China both through bilateral channels, as well as within regional and multilateral associations, solely on the basis of mutual respect, a balance of interests and equality – nothing like the leader and follower approach we often see in the North Atlantic Alliance.

We are of the same opinion regarding Iran. We believe it is possible to resume the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in full on short notice. But, we have a long way to go.

In discussing Ukraine, the Foreign Secretary touched on the subject of Russia’s initiatives that were introduced in mid-December concerning security guarantees in Europe. We talked about our approaches to further work on this, primarily with the United States. We expressed our interest in getting more than excuses but rather a specific response to our request for an explanation from our Western colleagues of the interpretation of the commitments they undertook and that were approved at the top OSCE level, which imply, among other things, the unacceptability of strengthening any country’s security at the expense of weakening the security of others. President Putin talked about our approach in detail, including at the news conference following his talks with President Emmanuel Macron. He expressed our conviction that further NATO expansion would grossly violate the commitments undertaken by the OSCE leaders at the summits in Istanbul and Astana. He suggested working together to find generally acceptable approaches to ensuring security for Ukraine, the European countries and the Russian Federation. I cannot say that we see any points of contact here, but hopefully today’s talks will help our UK colleagues better understand how important these issues are for the Russian Federation.

I hope that during our working breakfast we will also be able to talk about our interaction at the UN Security Council. Russia and Great Britain are permanent members of this main UN body. Both of us bear special responsibility for measures that provide for international security and stability. I hope we will give greater attention to these tasks when we have talks on international matters that allow us to unite our constructive efforts rather than look for one problem or another that is artificially fanned and that dominates our dialogue to the detriment of the issues that have to be resolved for the sake of peace and stability in the world.

Question (addressed to Elizabeth Truss): A few days ago, you posted on social media a message about Ukraine: Russia’s actions indicate that their claims that they have no plans to invade Ukraine are false. After today’s talks, do you still believe that Russia has plans to invade Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov (adds after Ms Truss): We talked about this in detail today. I am disappointed that it was like a conversation between a mute and a deaf. We seem to be listening but we don’t hear each other. In any case, our most detailed explanations fell on unprepared ground. It is like when they say Russia is waiting for the ground to freeze like a stone so its tanks can easily cross into Ukrainian territory. The ground was like that today with our British colleagues. The many facts we cited fell on it and then just bounced off. We reminded them of President Vladimir Putin’s detailed explanations and those of other Russian representatives. I felt that our colleagues either have not heard them or are completely ignoring them.

You cited the Foreign Secretary as saying that Russia’s claims that there are no plans to attack Ukraine are false. Meanwhile, these statements are being made not only by Russia’s leaders but also by the Pentagon. I read about this just recently. These are serious people; they watch everything that is happening from satellites. Let me emphasise that this is happening on Russian territory. Defence Minister of Ukraine Alexey Reznikov makes similar statements. President Vladimir Zelensky urges people not to panic. Apparently, our Western colleagues want to use Mr Zelensky as a tool to keep Russia off balance. Nobody is interested in what he thinks and what negative consequences this hysteria triggers for the Ukrainian economy and budget. Investment is fleeing Ukraine because of the crying and wailing. Embassy employees are being evacuated and Anglo-Saxons are urged to leave Ukraine as soon as possible. Some food for thought: what if the Anglo-Saxons are preparing something of their own and this is why they are evacuating their staff? We see their actions. We will also probably advise non-essential staff at our diplomatic missions to go home for a time. I don’t know what our Anglo-Saxon colleagues have on their minds. This is sad.

We explained in the tiniest detail today that Russia’s armed forces (when Ms Foreign Secretary mentioned this as a source of concern in London) are on their own territory as distinct from the hundreds and thousands of British military troops deployed in the Baltics. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said they should also be sent to Romania and Bulgaria. The response was that if Russia is on its own territory then NATO is also on its own territory because all of them are NATO members.

Today’s conversation was permeated with NATO-centrism. It was useful for me to understand how indoctrinated our colleagues are when looking at security challenges in Europe, how egoistically they view from their NATO-centric position Russia’s lawful concerns about its own security, and how selective they are in interpreting their commitments on the indivisibility of security, which were adopted in the OSCE framework. There is an entire package in one powerful paragraph. The right of each state to choose allies and alliances is recognised. But it is also stated that each country is obliged not to enhance its own security at the expense of the security of others. Respect for a policy of neutrality is emphasised. It is likewise emphasised that a situation where one country, a group of countries or an organisation dominates the OSCE space is unacceptable. The idea of spheres of influence in Europe is also considered unacceptable. But we have cited numerous examples of NATO and the EU establishing such spheres of influence at will. The EU says Russia “has nothing to do” in the Balkans (or in Africa, for that matter), while the US even appoints an ambassador at large to deal with election law reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Isn’t this a sphere of influence? Isn’t that a US claim to govern all processes in the Balkans? I think this is all obvious.

We replied to Ms Truss’s questions about our plans with Belarus. All this looks like a unilateral approach based on the unwavering confidence of the West in its right to demand guarantees from us in a situation where nobody promises us any guarantees. Unfortunately, this highly indicative discussion will be repeated in the replies to our questions about the West’s interpretation of the principle of indivisibility of security. We are waiting for replies from the OSCE countries. As I understand it, instead of honest answers from every country, the EU wants to compile a collective paper where the nuances of national positions will be blurred. I am convinced that in this case our conversation will not lead us anywhere. We will think about how we can overcome this situation.

Question (retranslated from English): We often hear about “coercive diplomacy.” Does this kind of diplomacy work for you? Can we expect it to be used? How will Russia proceed from here?

Sergey Lavrov: If I understood correctly, you are asking about Russia's plans to use “coercive diplomacy,” which combines political demands and physical threats. We have no desire to coerce anyone to do anything. The West keeps accusing us of this, claiming that by insisting that OSCE summit decisions be followed, we are supposedly forcing someone to do something. We are entirely for diplomacy.

Our Western colleagues seem to have all learned the term “de-escalation” at the same time. Whatever they say about Russia, they also demand “de-escalation.” Another point is they “hope” Moscow will choose diplomacy. But we have been choosing diplomacy all these years. And we want to continue to rely on it. The 1999 Istanbul Charter for European Security and the 2010 Astana Declaration are products of diplomacy – at the highest level.

Now we are being told that they have agreed on the wording that no one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. But this, they say, only implies that they can defend any country’s right to choose alliances now. We have been deceived more than once (after the reunification of Germany, as Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier explained at length). Now they are trying to deceive us with OSCE commitments that we all agreed on and most sincerely welcomed – on the indivisibility of security.

Here is an example. They take an agreed package and extract only one component, the right to choose alliances, while discarding the obligation not to infringe on the security of others. In a similar way, a selective approach characterises the West's policy on the Minsk agreements. Not to mention Kiev’s approach. The Minsk agreements involve resolving security problems, a ceasefire, an amnesty, special status for Donbass, constitutional reform towards decentralisation and holding elections under the auspices of the OSCE and in agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk. After fulfilling all this, the Ukrainian authorities regain control of the entire length of the border. But they extract only the last component from this package.

When I touched on this topic today, the Foreign Secretary said we needed to look at the sequence of steps. This means only the last clause will be fulfilled, the one where Kiev regains control over the borders, the one that suits the Kiev regime. But this part of the Minsk commitments, approved by the UN Security Council, is conditional on everything else. Only Kiev does not want to do it, and has publicly said so. The same strategy as with the indivisibility of security – agree on something, reassure everyone, then extract a certain part and discard the rest as if it was all artificially invented. This approach won't work here.

We do not want to threaten anyone. Look at our public statements. We have not made a single threat. We are the ones being threatened. The Foreign Secretary, among others, has recently spoken in the House of Commons. During the talks here, we heard all the same things uttered by the UK government’s official representatives before: if we do not stop the alleged “aggression,” we will face the direst consequences, which we will regret. What kind of aggression? When did it start? Against whom? Have you ever heard us say anything like this? I am sure you cannot provide a single example.

Allow me to emphasise that we want the same atmosphere of compromise, a balance of interests, cooperation, mutual respect and equality – that once helped forge key OSCE documents at the highest level – to help us again to translate the agreements already signed on paper into practice. The time has come when words cannot remain just words. We are ready for such cooperation.

Question: Were there any concessions or assurances that you received from Foreign Secretary Truss regarding Russia’s central concern over NATO enlargement?

Sergey Lavrov: There has been no change in the demand to withdraw Russian troops from Russian territory in response to our arguments. We have not heard any other tone. This is regrettable, to say the least. When you quoted President Emmanuel Macron as saying that President Vladimir Putin told him we had no plans to attack anyone, Elizabeth Truss said they need to see these words followed by actions. This is an interesting conversation. It’s a long time since I took part in diplomatic talks that could have been conducted live because we didn’t hear anything secret or confidential, just what is regularly said from high rostrums in London.

Speaking about words and deeds, we have always been for deeds matching words. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to numerous detailed materials used in interviews by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and by the senior officials of our ministry, which were disseminated all over the world. They confirm that we were actively and convincingly promised that NATO would not expand eastward but these words were followed by five waves of expansion. A defensive alliance, as the Foreign Secretary confirmed, NATO still came close to our borders. A defensive alliance was understandable when the Warsaw Treaty existed and there was a physical Berlin Wall and a virtual, even bigger wall. This was the line of defence and everyone understood this. Now there is no Warsaw Treaty and no Berlin Wall but NATO decides in each case where to draw the line on performing its “defensive” functions.

I mentioned today that Jens Stoltenberg said many times that NATO should bear special responsibility for ensuring security in the Indo-Pacific Region, particularly in the South China Sea. If NATO defines this as still another line of defence, will you also insist that all countries have the right to move where NATO wants to see them? This is a dangerous game. We are hearing all these mantras about the defensive character of the North Atlantic Alliance although we have reminded our NATO colleagues many times that they bombed Yugoslavia and Iraq, where they used a pretext that Tony Blair called a mistake and fake later on. There are many examples of the defensive alliance at work. London and other Western capitals criticise us for interfering everywhere. Some cyber war was again mentioned today. Even some seemingly respectable media outlets write about an “operation” that we are supposedly preparing with the aim of seizing Kiev and other Ukrainian cities or that some “coup” is being prepared with a view to putting a puppet regime in power in the Ukrainian capital. All these statements are in the “highly likely” vein.  I drew the attention of Ms Truss today to the fact that “highly likely” is still “highly likely.” No facts have been presented on the alleged poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko by Russia in 2007. No facts have been presented as regards the Skripals. We don’t even know where they are. His daughter is a Russian citizen. We are not even told anything about it, much less given access to them. Likewise, no facts have been cited on Alexey Navalny. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in the campaign to smear Russia.

Much was said today about the need to buttress our work with facts. Otherwise, it is pure propaganda. Unfortunately, we have heard no facts. Moreover, we also haven’t heard any response to our statement about the need to substantiate accusations with at least something. The Foreign Secretary mentioned the Budapest Memorandum. I am sorry that she has already done this twice in this hall despite our detailed explanations that we presented at the talks on this issue. The Budapest Memorandum between Russia, Great Britain and the United States provided security guarantees to Ukraine as a non-nuclear state. These were standard security guarantees for any non-nuclear state. This Memorandum did not oblige Russia, Britain or the US to recognise the anti-constitutional coup d’etat that neo-Nazis and ultra-radicals staged in February 2014. The Budapest Memorandum was accompanied by a Declaration that was signed by Ukraine and France in addition to this trio: Russia, the US and the UK. The Declaration required that all participants, including Ukraine, not allow any violations of the OSCE’s fundamental principles, including (this was specially outlined) the principle of respect for the rights of ethnic minorities. Ukraine trampled on all this.

Nobody will ever impose on us the demand to recognise unconstitutional regimes in violation of all Russia’s international commitments. Nor will we ever be compelled to justify the actions of such regimes that discriminate against Russian-speaking people and other ethnic minorities. Meanwhile, this takes place every day, and applies, in particular, to the law-making activities of the Kiev regime with the active support by President Vladimir Zelensky.

Since we are talking about Ukraine today, I reminded Ms Truss that Vladimir Zelensky, his ministers, his head of the Defence and Security Council state publicly that they will not implement the Minsk agreements. Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba bluntly said there will be no direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk since such a dialogue is not envisaged by the Minsk agreements. He clearly comes out of the Goebbels school. In fact, he even outdid the chief propagandist of the Third Reich. Without batting an eye he tells outright lies, rejecting what was approved by the UN Security Council and recorded in black and white, and is not even remotely concerned that London, Paris, Berlin or Washington may put him in his place. He is sitting pretty as one of the demagogues that are now trying to prove they were right  by rewriting the Minsk agreements. Unfortunately, this was not heard by our current partners although we discussed this issue in detail today.

Question: This is clearly an exceptionally tense situation between nations and de-escalation would help take the heat out of this situation. It is pretty normal to return troops to their bases after, for example, the exercises in Belarus. But are you prepared to make any meaningful gestures to de-escalate and take some of the heat out of this situation?

Sergey Lavrov: After the military exercises, the troops return to the barracks. This is what usually happens. As for the duration of the exercises, it is the sovereign right of each government. Unlike Russia’s exercises on its territory, after which the troops return to the barracks, the troops that are far beyond the territory of the UK, the US and Canada are sent to the Baltic countries, or to the Black Sea littoral states and, as a rule, these troops and armaments, never return home. This was also discussed today, but Ms Truss made it clear that this should not be our concern. Yet our troops within our territory are the main concern of London and the slogan of de-escalation, which you have now aptly repeated. It is a unifying factor for the entire Western community. You are applying the same logic that the Western political elites have been trying to get across to you for a couple of months now. You asked a question: is Russia prepared to make a meaningful gesture to defuse the situation. You must first prove to me that we are the ones who have charged this situation, that we are escalating it, and that we are doing something that does not concern our sovereignty and our sovereign right to act within our own territory. I leave the assertions regarding the presence of Russian troops and heavy weapons in Ukraine to the conscience of our Western partners. This is all part of the “highly likely” approach. I gave a few examples. Litvinenko, the Skripals and Navalny are part of the same accusations. We have never been given any facts. Whenever we remind you that these facts don't exist, our remarks go unnoticed. They do not want to hear us, because, apparently, we have different rights that are not as important in the international arena as the UK’s rights, as they think. You said that exercises are also taking place in Belarus, and the Foreign Secretary said that the main thing for her is to avoid a war in Ukraine. That's why she is here.

I can foresee the outcome of the drama that the West is playing out, even trying to make a tragedy out of it, although it looks more and more like a comedy. After some time, the Western countries will find out that the Russian-Belarusian exercises have ended and our troops have returned to Russia. There will be a great fuss to prove that the West has got Russia to de-escalate when in fact it will be “dealing in hot air.” Everyone knows perfectly well, it was stated in advance, that after the completion of the exercises, Russian troops always return home. I read in a Canadian media source that the topic of Ukraine is a crutch for the Western politicians’ falling ratings. It’s an interesting metaphor.

I hope that in serious matters related to European security and security of all NATO member countries without exception, as well as Ukraine and Russia, we will act like adults and not engage in blatant propaganda ahead of electoral adventures.