Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Kyrgyz Republic Ruslan Kazakbayev, Moscow, March 5, 2022

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have finished talks with my Kyrgyz colleague and friend Ruslan Kazakbayev. They were friendly, trust-based and substantive, which is natural for allies and strategic partners such as our states and nations.

This year we will mark the 30th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. The celebration will be held on March 20, which is very soon. We have coordinated the events to be held on this occasion in our countries. I am sure that they will be interesting for our citizens and all people in our countries.

We pointed out that our bilateral cooperation is based on the arrangements made by our presidents following on from interstate agreements and treaties, which set out the main spheres of our cooperation for years to come.

Our interstate commissions are actively working on the issues related to the further development of our trade, economic and investment cooperation. At the same time, these activities are being coordinated with the work of the Eurasian Economic Union, which Kyrgyzstan is chairing in 2022. Today we expressed our support for the priorities put forth in the recent address by President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sadyr Japarov, which he delivered on assuming the EAEU Chairmanship. We believe that this year we will be able to boost integration within the EAEU to a new level.

We welcome ties between our parliaments, which have become more active. The speaker of the Kyrgyz Parliament visited Russia last month, and there are plans for other contacts between our ministries and agencies.

We also spoke about cooperation in other spheres, including military-technical ties and interaction between our emergency ministries. We mentioned our citizens’ active interest in cultural and educational cooperation, including within the framework of the events that have been held as part of the Russia-Kyrgyzstan cross-year despite the coronavirus restrictions. The cross-year will end soon, and we plan to hold the closing ceremony in Bishkek.

Regarding the cultural agenda, I would like to say that we are looking forward to the programme that will be implemented in Kyrgyzstan to mark the choice of the ancient city of Karakol as the CIS Cultural Capital in 2022.

We discussed from identical or close positions current regional issues, our cooperation in international organisations, including the UN, CIS, CSTO and the SCO, and mapped out practical steps to enhance our coordination in these structures, which is reflected in the cooperation plan that our ministries have just signed.

We paid much attention to the need to promote security and stability in Central Asia, especially in the context of the consequences that are still felt in this region after the hasty withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Afghanistan. This is particularly important in view of the recent experience that our countries and the CSTO gained during the events in January of this year. At that time, responding to a request from President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, all CSTO members promptly coordinated the deployment of a peacekeeping contingent to stabilise the situation and eliminate the threats caused by the attempted terrorist attack against that country. This is yet another reason for us to continue strengthening our cooperation in the CSTO and also making the SCO more effective in countering new challenges and threats.

We signed a joint statement following the talks and agreed that the implementation of the cooperation programme between our foreign ministries will further enhance our foreign policy coordination.

Russia welcomed the stabilisation of the domestic political situation in the Kyrgyz Republic, including the successful implementation of the Constitutional reform, the approval of the presidential form of government, the holding of the recent parliamentary elections and the formation of executive government bodies.

I am convinced that stable Kyrgyzstan will continue promoting a positive agenda with us and other allies in the region, which will allow all nations in this region to feel changes for the better.

Question: Russia and Ukraine agreed on a format for maintaining humanitarian corridors for civilians. How is Russia supporting the evacuation of foreign nationals from Ukrainian cities?

Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, this is an acute humanitarian issue. From the very first days of the special military operation, it was emphasised that our armed forces were delivering precision strikes exclusively on Ukrainian military infrastructure targets that posed a threat to the Russian Federation in connection with the anti-Russian, aggressive, bellicose policy that the Kiev authorities had been pursuing all the way.

From day one, we said we were ready to provide humanitarian corridors for civilians from the corresponding urban areas and foreign citizens who happened to reside in Ukraine at that time. Foreign citizens include Chinese nationals, mostly students, people from India and a number of other countries, including those in Africa and Asia. These issues were discussed in recent telephone conversations between the leaders of China, India and the Russian Federation, and it was once again emphasised that the Ukrainian authorities are well aware of the proposals that are being made on the ground by our military authorities. They discussed, in particular, the situation in Kharkov with many foreign students stranded there. Our military and the Emergencies Ministry’s services were ready with 150 comfortable buses and meals, beverages and warm clothes. They were ready to take foreign students as well. However, the Ukrainian authorities holding Kharkov refused to open this corridor. Judging by this and other similar occurrences, one can’t help but get the impression that the Ukrainian regime has nothing against holding foreigners and civilians hostage.

This work is being done with a little more responsibility now. It was announced the day before yesterday during the talks between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Belovezhskaya Pushcha that, to everyone's satisfaction, an agreement had been reached to create humanitarian corridors. We hope (we count on it, at least) that this agreement would be acted upon. Our military did their part. Most importantly, people should be allowed to leave cities and towns through these humanitarian corridors which are being kept safe and secure by our military.

According to social media reports, the DPR said that the Mariupol authorities refuse to let residents use the humanitarian corridor created by the Russian military and leave the city. There is information coming from Kherson as well. When the humanitarian corridor opened, our people from the Emergencies Ministry (who went there to help civilians evacuate) wanted to deliver humanitarian aid there. Allegedly (we are rechecking the information), the Kherson authorities refused to take it. Again, this information needs to be verified. This is similar to what the Kiev regime did, which, unfortunately, focuses solely on ramping up confrontation with a heavy Russophobic slant and is thinking about civilians, including foreign students, last of all.

Question: The Russian and Ukrainian sides have held two rounds of talks in Belarus. What are the main disagreements at the moment? What does Moscow expect from these negotiations? Is a third round possible? If so, when?

Sergey Lavrov: I won't even repeat what the main disagreements are. There is no point in discussing this at length. This has been stated publicly several times. The President has spoken about this, and our delegation at these negotiations has spelled out the conditions we consider absolutely indispensable for resolving this crisis, for removing the threat that the North Atlantic Alliance members have created for years on the Ukrainian territory against the Russian Federation. These conditions include Ukraine’s demilitarisation, neutral status and denazification, because the rampant neo-Nazism, with the direct connivance of enlightened Europe, has reached an unacceptable and threatening level in Ukraine.

The fact that Crimea has long been Russian is a fact that must be recognised. The independence proclaimed by the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics within the boundaries of the respective regions must be recognised.

As for the prospects for the negotiations, so far, our participants are waiting for at least some information from the Ukrainian side, just as they did with regard to the first two rounds of negotiations. The situation looks rather strange. Everyone seems interested in reaching an agreement as soon as possible that would fully resolve everything at once. On the other hand, Ukraine – which would seem to be the most interested party – constantly comes up with more pretexts to postpone the start of the next meeting. They keep delaying and postponing the previously agreed dates. So far, they have given us no new dates. We were ready to set off for the third round even last night, as our Ukrainian colleagues are perfectly aware of.

It is difficult to comment on the prospects or further rounds of the negotiations. But Zelensky's constant embittered statements hardly inspire any optimism. He let out a stream of invective about the NATO meeting. He was a little rude to his handlers, accusing them of inaction. My question is, if he's so upset that NATO didn't stand up for him as he hoped, does that mean he's still relying on resolving the conflict by dragging NATO in rather than negotiating? He does not seem to hear the continued statements from Washington, Paris, Berlin and other capitals that NATO is not going to intervene in this conflict. And he is trying to provoke a conflict between NATO and Russia. Or maybe he woke up in this mood yesterday. So maybe it has changed today, I don’t know. His militaristic frenzy suggests he does not need any negotiations.

Let's hope his mood will change today. He is a person of moods.

Question: What are the prospects of the talks on Iran’s nuclear programme? Are there grounds to hope that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will be revived in the near future?

Sergey Lavrov: It depends on how you define the near future. This is a relative term. The talks have covered a lion’s share of the road. The parties have agreed on the overwhelming majority of “arithmetic” issues. There are some questions on which our Iranian colleagues are seeking more specific answers. We consider this a fair demand. I won’t go into details. We believe if Iran agrees, it is possible to start adopting these documents.

Some problems regarding the interests of the Russian Federation have arisen recently. Agreements on resuming the JCPOA provide for a package of reciprocal commitments. Tehran must specify the scale and parameters of its peaceful nuclear programme, while the other participants should agree that Tehran will carry out projects on developing its civilian nuclear industry with the support of Russia, China and other countries in full conformity with the NPT and under IAEA safeguards.

In addition, other participants in the JCPOA, primarily from the West, pledge to return to the regime introduced in 2015. It provided for the absence of any obstacles to trade, economic and investment relations with Iran and to the implementation of military-technical cooperation projects with it. This could seem all right, but the avalanche of aggressive Western sanctions that is still rolling down gives one food for thought. These sanctions should be primarily reviewed by the lawyers.

We would like to receive a clear answer. We need guarantees that sanctions will not affect in any way the regime of trade, economic and investment ties set out in the JCPOA on Iran’s nuclear programme. We asked our American colleagues (because they are running the whole show here) to give us guarantees in writing, at least at the level of the Secretary of State, that the current process launched by the US will not impinge in any way on our free full-scale trade, economic, investment and military-technical cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran.