Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Yemeni Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak, Moscow, February 27, 2024

Ladies and gentlemen,

We had substantive talks with Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Republic of Yemen Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak. In the first half of the day, Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak met with Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk. They focused on the development of trade and economic ties.

Today, we reviewed Russia-Yemen political dialogue and interaction on regional international issues that are unfortunately piling up. We emphasised the ongoing mutual commitment to our traditionally friendly bilateral ties based on the principles of equality and mutual respect.

In November 2023, we celebrated the 95th anniversary of our diplomatic relations. We acknowledged how over these long years we have preserved and expanded the traditions of mutually beneficial cooperation, which laid the foundation for our partnership in all fields in the past. Now we are confidently building on this foundation.

We discussed opportunities for stepping up trade and economic ties at today’s  deliberations in the Government of the Russian Federation. We recognise that the settlement process for the military-political crisis in Yemen is proceeding against the backdrop of the current high geopolitical tensions. Ties between Russia and Yemen have good prospects but they are subjected to a restraining influence for the time being.  In 2023, our trade grew considerably despite these difficult conditions.

We agreed to jointly ensure that specific steps are taken to leverage the considerable potential for further expansion of bilateral economic ties. We will focus on the current situation in the Republic of Yemen and the direction it takes in the future. We expressed our belief that the escalation of tensions in the adjacent waters of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden resulting from the Yemeni Houthis firing at commercial vessels largely stemmed from the unprecedented escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the nine-year crisis in Yemen. We do not condone the shelling of commercial vessels, regardless of the underlying motives. However, we cannot approve the aggressive actions of the United States and Britain against the territory of the Republic of Yemen, either. They have no international mandate in the form of a UN Security Council resolution to do so.

We have made it clear many times that continued violence in Gaza and around it will give rise to more military and political risks in the region. However, instead of joining collective efforts in order to de-escalate the situation, the United States and the United Kingdom have opted for a military response.

We stand in solidarity with our Yemeni friends and believe that ensuring secure international navigation in the waters of the Red Sea should be a priority for all responsible members of the international community. It should be addressed through political and diplomatic means. The US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian has resulted in missile and bomb attacks on Yemeni territory and further expanded the area of hostilities and intensified them with all ensuing ramifications, including for civilian navigation. The methods that were used to achieve the goal pushed it even further into the distance and made it more difficult to achieve.

Our concern is that until the armed confrontation ends and the situation in the Red Sea stabilises, we are unlikely to see any efforts to implement the Yemeni settlement roadmap or to launch an inclusive nationwide dialogue under the auspices of the UN begin. In this sense, this reckless military campaign undertaken by Washington and London essentially thwarts the corresponding diplomatic efforts of our partners in Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, and the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg.

We aligned our agendas on other regional priorities, primarily the Middle East settlement, in light of the ongoing escalation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone. We are united in our understanding of the importance of taking urgent steps to secure a ceasefire and to open humanitarian corridors which would help avoid further casualties and provide necessary assistance to the civilians impacted by the hostilities. Unfortunately, this is already the fourth resolution calling for a ceasefire that has been submitted to the UN Security Council. The first one was submitted by the Russian Federation on October 15, 2023, and the fourth one by Algeria on February 18, 2024. All of them were vetoed by the United States.

We noted the importance of stepping up efforts to create the proper conditions to hasten the resumption of talks between Palestinians and Israelis on all matters pertaining to the final status agreement with an eye towards establishing a fully functional Palestinian state in full compliance with UN resolutions.

We briefly discussed the situation in and around Ukraine as it relates to other developments within our common geopolitical space. I expressed my gratitude to my Yemeni counterparts for their balanced position and understanding of what caused the ongoing developments in Ukraine, as well as their stance when this issue is discussed at the UN.

I reiterated what President Putin has often conveyed about our approaches to resolving this situation, which the West has created over many years as a threat directed at the Russian Federation. Our position is well known: we defend our legitimate security interests and the rights of millions of Russians that are guaranteed by international conventions and were taken away by the putschists following the coup in Ukraine.

I would like to thank Prime Minister Ahmad Awad bin Mubarak for a productive and candid exchange of views.

Question: Tensions are running high in the Red Sea. How are attacks by Ansar Allah affecting global trade? What is your solution to the problem?

Sergey Lavrov (adds after Ahmad Awad bin Mubarak): I can only confirm the main points made by my colleague and friend.  

I will add that the impact of Houthi actions against global trade in the Red Sea is comparable with the influence of the illegal anti-Russia sanctions on the movement of goods between different countries. As for security on trade routes, don’t forget how the West encouraged Ukraine to use supposedly safe corridors that were designated when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres came up with his ill-famed Black Sea grain initiative. As for the impact on global trade, these actions have complicated the logistics of shipping goods, and they have increased insurance rates substantially.  

We saw all these complications in global trade long before the crisis in the Red Sea broke out over Houthi shelling. This is exactly the effect produced by the illegal and aggressive actions by the West in its campaign of unprecedented sanctions over the past two years.

Question: President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky announced Kiev’s intention to give Moscow its settlement plan at the second conference in Switzerland. He added though that he did not consider it talks. Can you comment on this? What is Russia’s attitude towards the upcoming meeting in Switzerland?

Sergey Lavrov: I find it difficult to comment on this. I don’t know in what state of mind Zelensky was when he was speaking. If this is from his big interview, he made many interesting statements that have already attracted attention. He cited statistics of Ukraine’s losses in our special military operation.

I noted his statement to the effect that Russia would not be invited to the upcoming conference in Switzerland. Head of the Presidential Office Andrey Yermak also said that they would meet, work everything out, polish Zelensky’s “peace formula” to perfection, and then would give it to Russia. But as you cited, the President of Ukraine said this would not be considered talks. A normal person understands that he is referring to an ultimatum. Zelensky has never given up on this approach. His whole ten-item formula has always been an obvious ultimatum. They are trying to involve as many countries as possible at different events to discuss this document.

One of my kind colleagues told me what advice the Europeans are giving Zelensky for organising these meetings to discuss this “peace formula.” The main point is as follows: gather as many states as possible at these events, promise them whatever you want, but make sure they come. If they don’t like the formula, they can choose something “innocent” from it, for instance food or energy security. They will attend and then simply support the need to feed people or provide heat. That’s all you need from them – nothing else.

The EU’s second piece of advice for Ukraine is to never hand out any draft documents at these meetings because you won’t get everyone’s support. Meanwhile, it is important for the EU to show unanimous support. Therefore, a “family photo” should be the main event at these meetings. The more people are depicted, the more convincing they will sound (so they believe), when explaining that Moscow “is opposed to a progressive humanity.” This is ridiculous. This obsession with photos has long been present in Western policy aimed at discouraging our partners in the countries of the Global Majority from cooperating with the Russian Federation.

Most of all, I am surprised at how Switzerland got into this story. I spoke with President of the Swiss Confederation and Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Ignazio Cassis when we attended the UN Security Council sessions (1, 2) in New York last January. He requested a meeting, drawing my attention to the fact that the Swiss held a regular session on Zelensky’s “peace formula” at the World Economic Forum in Davos several days earlier. My colleague proudly said that following this session, he told journalists, as the host, that he was convinced it was impossible to reach an agreement without Russia. I asked him why the meeting was convened at all if he knew this. Cassis replied that they would be moving to a situation where Russia would be invited. I advised him not to do this because the foundation on which he (i.e., Switzerland and other Western countries) was working could only lead to an impasse. We have talked about this more than once.

If it is necessary to confirm through diplomatic convulsions that Ukraine has not been forgotten, for lack of anything better to do, it is indeed true that “Any bauble of folly will keep a baby jolly.”

Question: At the meeting in Paris, President of France Emmanuel Macron did not rule out participation of EU military in the conflict in Ukraine. In the past, this rhetoric was not heard in public. Now everything is changing. If some NATO country agrees with Ukraine to send  its troops, will it violate Article 5 of the NATO Charter on collective security? What will this lead to?

Sergey Lavrov: This is from the same category I have just mentioned. In the absence of a noticeable increase in arms and ammunition supplies to Ukraine…

Ukrainian officials regularly – almost daily – create media scandals over this. They are telling their bosses that because of them, they have lost Avdeyevka and are now retreating.  They are used to talking like this with their bosses. Vladimir Zelensky, his officials in the Executive Office and the Government have a serious case of megalomania.

Not so long ago, the European Union allocated another tranche of 50 billion euros for a certain period. It was a major lift. They promised to provide 4.5 billion euros for this year in the near future. Some Europeans wonder why they should give these funds in grants, when the Americans are sending to Ukraine the lion’s share of funds in loans, so as to keep the country on the hook and ask it to pay them back in some form eventually. Finally, the Europeans approved this package somehow.

In the United States, Congress has not yet resumed its work. The situation is difficult there. A big group of politicians (and not only in the Republican Party) insists that it is first necessary to protect themselves, the United States. Illegal migration has become a huge problem. It is a source of serious concern. It leads to rampant crime and drug trafficking. In general, it violates the principles of small-town America that some people want to turn into the America of skyscrapers and force it to give up Christian values.     

Not everyone in Europe likes continuing to pump Ukraine full of arms, either. You see the demonstrations taking place. Farmers are staging protests in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, France and other countries against the flooding of EU markets with cheap Ukrainian grain and other agricultural products. All this is going on against the backdrop of continued accusations by the same European politicians. They do not notice anything around them and do not see the problems of their own countries. They are only thinking of Ukraine and continue blaming Russia for the world’s grievous food crisis.

Meanwhile, food prices are now even lower than they were in 2021. Let me repeat that Europe is flooded with grain. Farmers are even destroying it. They are furious that their products can’t compete with supplies dumped from Ukraine. Recently, Polish Minister of Agriculture Czeslaw Siekierski urged the European Commission that calls the shots there to buy all grain from Ukraine to avoid competition with European farmers and give it to the poorest countries. It would seem a noble and decent gesture. I think it would cost just a small bit of what Europe has already pumped and continues pumping into Ukraine.

Let us return to the main issue. The number of conferences convened in the West is growing. Their goal is to compensate for a sharp decrease of attention for the Zelensky regime and a steep drop in financial capacity to keep it up. The French and President Macron are fond of convening various events without thinking whether they will produce anything or not.

We are now talking about the Middle East. In December 2015, the predecessor of Macron, Francois Hollande, convened the Conference on the Middle East with lots of pomp. Many people arrived there. They talked about the Palestinian state and other steps toward fulfilling the UN Security Council resolution. Then they left the venue. For the most part, the coverage of the conference was limited to the media in France and other Western countries. After a while, it was quickly forgotten. I would not attach too much importance to conferences convened in Paris.

In 2015, Paris also hosted the Climate Conference. It confirmed the solemn commitment of the Western countries to allocate $100 billion every year over a decade to the developing nations in order to fund structural reforms of their economies. They had to prepare for the green transition by reducing consumption of traditional energy sources and switching to renewable energy sources that do not pollute the environment. In the past decade, $2 billion or at best $3 billion was contributed for these purposes. You can easily see how much the Westerners are transferring to Ukraine and decide for yourself how much the West cares about the problem of the developing world. You will also see the worth of Western talk about climate as the main priority of international politics.

Yes, indeed, for the first time during the discussion of ways of supporting Ukraine further, Emmanuel Macron announced the formation of “the ninth missile coalition” that will include supplies of long-range weapons for strikes deep inside the territory of the Russian Federation, which is itself a suicidal decision (if this information is confirmed). Moreover, he also said that they had discussed for a long time the sending of ground troops into Ukraine. There is no consensus yet, but consultations will continue. Some other participants in the French meeting including the leaders of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and some other countries also spoke about this issue but dismissed this idea out of hand as unacceptable. Emmanuel Macron was careful enough and said the conferees discussed merely the possibility of individual countries sending troops.

They do not want to create the conditions that will allow someone to raise the issue of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. This is exactly why some members of the alliance, like President Macron and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, keep saying that they will not involve NATO in this conflict, and that this should be done by individual countries. There was talk of a “Polish legion” that may be formed. All this information is no secret. It is floating in the media space. It seems to me that those who not only voice such ideas but even have such thoughts should make better use of their brains and come up with ideas that will be more rational and safer for Europe.