Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Paolo Gentiloni, Moscow, March 25, 2016

Good afternoon,

Our talks today with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Paolo Gentiloni and his delegation took place in a friendly and constructive atmosphere. We hold meetings on a regular basis, including meetings on the sidelines of numerous multilateral events. Amid the rapidly developing and difficult international situation, such contacts are especially important.

Today, we started by discussing the prospects of our bilateral relations in all sectors in accordance with the agreements reached at the meetings between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

We note with satisfaction the pragmatic approach of our partners and their desire to help restore the atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding in Europe.

Today, our Italian friends have confirmed Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s plans to visit Russia in June and to attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. This will contribute to further, specific steps as part of our political dialogue, including on the highest level. We are actively developing our parliamentary contacts, and our interregional, inter-departmental and business ties are growing stronger as well.

We have discussed prospects for fully resuming bilateral mechanisms that had been created at one time and were successfully used and proved their efficiency. I am talking about bilateral interstate consultations as well as defence and foreign ministers’ meetings, the “two plus two” format.

We have maintained a stable practice of consultations between our foreign agencies. At today’s meeting, we agreed that the work of the group to tackle new challenges and threats, which was created under our agreements at the highest level two years ago, should get underway sooner. This is particularly important, given the growing terrorism threat – and we do not have to talk about this much as it is obvious to everyone, especially in view of the horrific terror attacks in Brussels, Belgium – and ISIS-voiced plans for similar inhuman acts in the future.  

As regards bilateral trade, it has seen a downward trend for obvious reasons, amid objective and subjective conditions. Still, we are mutually interested in seeking new ways to make efforts in this sphere. A meeting scheduled for mid-April in Rome between Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Paolo Gentiloni and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich as co-chairs of the Russian-Italian Council on Economic, Industrial, Monetary and Financial Cooperation will focus, among other things, on preparations for the council’s plenary session, which will take place this autumn.

Italy remains one of our most important partners in the energy sector. A Memorandum of Understanding on natural gas supplies across the Black Sea from Russia through third countries to Greece, and from Greece to Italy, was signed in Rome last month. This document offers good framework opportunities for large-scale cooperation between Russia’s Gazprom and Italian Edison. ENI oil and gas company and ENEL energy company remain our traditional and important partners.

Our cooperation in the production and commercialisation of the Sukhoi Superjet-100 stands apart among our industrial and high-tech projects. We already have quite a few orders for this aircraft, which shows that it enjoys a good reputation and is in demand on international markets.

With regard to international issues, we focused, as I mentioned earlier, on mobilising our efforts to counter terrorism. We believe it is extremely important to coordinate the actions of all the players who can contribute to this common fight. In this context, we have discussed the unfavourable situation that has developed in the sphere of anti-terrorist activities in the Russia - NATO Council. These activities, as well as many other areas of cooperation between us and the North Atlantic Alliance, have been put on hold, which clearly isn’t helpful. We will be ready to resume this and other areas of cooperation if our NATO colleagues take an appropriate decision and change their negative attitude to these forms of cooperation. The same applies to relations between Russia and the EU, which also had lots of useful tools, including ones that helped to address the issues that contribute to the effectiveness of anti-terrorist activities.

We covered extensively the situation in Syria, including our joint efforts in the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), where Russia and Italy are members. We noted with satisfaction that overall the ceasefire and the cessation of hostilities are holding in Syria. We agreed on the need, taking into account the efforts made by Russia and the United States as ISSG co-chairs, to focus on developing mechanisms to prevent violations of the ceasefire, which sometimes still happen. We talked about positive developments in expanding humanitarian access to civilian populations in need in Syria. We agreed to step up the work so as to intensify the international community's efforts in this sphere. 

We focused in particular on the political process, which was launched in Geneva under the leadership of Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Syria Staffan de Mistura. We pointed out the importance of, and this is our shared opinion, imparting a truly inclusive nature to this political process, so that all strata of Syrian society, including the government and the entire spectrum of the opposition, are represented at these negotiations. Our common policy is that the implementation of the steps on comprehensive settlement of the Syrian crisis approved by the UN Security Council must not and cannot mean we relax our focus on fighting terrorism, including ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other related terrorist organisations. In this regard, we expect that the operation, which is currently carried out by the Syrian army with the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces to liberate Palmyra, will be successfully completed soon.

We also mentioned that Italy initiated relevant UNESCO resolutions, which called for protecting cultural heritage sites during armed conflicts. I think that after Palmyra is liberated, our Italian friends, our other colleagues and we will be able to highlight the role of UNESCO in mobilising the international community to restore these priceless monuments.

We support Italy's efforts to resolve the Libya crisis. This is another hotbed of tension in that region. Russia regularly participates in all functions related to Libyan affairs that are held in Rome. Today, we agreed that forming and approving a legitimate government of national consent, which would enjoy actual support in Libya itself, is particularly important. Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni informed us about the key points of the discussions that the Italians and their European and American partners are conducting with regard to a potential international mission to help the Libyan authorities with an emphasis on stabilising the situation and creating more favourable conditions for fighting terrorism. It was clearly pointed out that the results of this work will be submitted to the UN Security Council.     

We discussed the situation in Ukraine. We see eye to eye on the need to comply consistently and in full with the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015, which, as is known, involves maintaining a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, including enshrining the special status of Donbass, properly amending the constitution of Ukraine, conducting an amnesty and resolving the entire range of issues related to elections in Donbass.

I believe we are both satisfied with the outcome of today's talks, which showed our willingness and commitment to maintaining a meaningful, specific and trust-based dialogue on a wide range of issues. I sincerely thank my colleague, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy Paolo Gentiloni.

Question: Judging from the tone and substance of the recent visits to Moscow by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, the impression is that the “climate has changed”. On Syria, there is an open discussion with Moscow concerning cooperation and many other aspects of the crisis. This leads to the conclusion that in the summer the issue of easing sanctions could be put on the EU agenda. Did you discuss what further steps Russia should take to resolve the Ukraine crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: No, we did not discuss these matters. Russia is not raising the issue of sanctions in any international contacts. They are raised by our partners. Our position is known to everyone: It is up to those who introduced these sanctions – in our opinion, illegitimately and groundlessly – to decide what to do about this process, which continues to create difficulties and cause damage to all parties to the process. As you know, we have determined to address related problems by stimulating our domestic resources. This work is continuing and even bringing positive results, which we were unable to achieve before, perhaps relying too much on the belief that the international situation will always be favourable. Therefore, we did not raise these questions with Mr Steinmeier or Mr Kerry or Mr Gentiloni today.

We are watching the discussion of these issues, including at the EU, but not to see when the sanctions are going to be lifted (to reiterate, we have our programme and we are implementing it) – we are observing it to understand how the position of our European neighbours is evolving, as we keep hearing new calls to hold Russia accountable for much of what is happening in the world. If we were told previously and are still told (today we discussed this in the Ukraine context) that Russia is a key to the resolution of the Ukraine problem, we are only urged to turn this key in the right direction to normalise our relations at one fell swoop. Now we are told that Russia holds a key to the Syrian problem and that only we are in a position to take measures to resolve the crisis. There are indications, some of them from across the ocean (not simply from some political spin doctors but from officials), that progress has emerged on Syria, but that it is necessary to put the squeeze on Russia and even introduce some sanctions against it with regard to Syria to encourage it to do a better job. I’m not even talking about such trifles as the idea to compile a “Savchenko list” that is discussed by certain EU member countries.

The “sanctions reflex” has been a feature of our US colleagues for a long time. I’ve often told John Kerry that there is a certain fatigue from classic diplomacy or that Washington is losing “its taste for diplomacy” as a means of achieving compromises, when sanctions are introduced at the drop of a hat. In Yemen, for example, sanctions were introduced against former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, his family and his inner circle. Now that a real prospect is emerging for a transition from hostilities to dialogue with the participation of all of the parties concerned, it is becoming understandable that this crisis can hardly be resolved without taking into account the interests of a large section of Yemen’s population that Mr Saleh relies on. So something needs to be done about sanctions. The same goes for South Sudan. At one time, some politicians refused to come to terms with the South Sudanese government; differences remained there and our Western colleagues also decided to introduce sanctions against them as a matter of urgency. This has always been characteristic of Washington.

However, the fact that this “sanctions reflex” is now clearly forcing its way to the EU is news to me. In this regard (we also discussed this today), when the EU, through Federica Mogherini, who acted not in her national capacity but as high representative for foreign affairs and security policy for all 28 countries, laid out its five principles of relations with Russia (we saw nothing new there but made a comment on a ministerial level), what was surprising was that Ms Mogherini urged all countries to join anti-Russian sanctions. We take note of this not because we want the EU to tell us as soon as possible what else needs to be done for their sanctions to be lifted – no, we will not even be involved in these discussions. However, this is telling in terms of the direction in which the EU’s collective security policy is evolving. I believe that this direction is non-constructive and, in addition, from our perspective, does not reflect the opinion of the majority of EU member states. If this Russophobic minority still prevails in Brussels, we can only express our regret about it.

Question (addressed to both ministers): Russia Today’s camera crew visited the areas in Syria liberated from ISIS terrorists by the Kurdish militia. We were shooting a documentary recording the facts that money flows and oil are trafficked via Turkey. Also, the fact was recorded that many captured jihadists had a stamp in their passports indicating they crossed the Turkey-Syria border. Much has been said about it, yet Turkey still remains an ally of European nations. How can you comment on this and assess the situation in general?

Sergey Lavrov: We have seen the footage. We take seriously independent investigations of different situations including those conducted by journalists. The topic you have mentioned is dealt with in a number of fairly significant and well-documented reports by some foreign non-government organisations. I have just seen one such material today on the Internet. We see it as a considerable contribution to the implementation of UNSC decisions on the need for all states to adopt radical measures on fighting terror, including curbing the traffic of terrorists to the conflict areas and illegally supplying terrorists with weapons and finance; and the inadmissibility of economic and commercial relations with terrorists that fill up their cash pools. This is covered by three specific resolutions of the UN Security Council that set respective demands on all countries without exception. We send to the UNSC the information that we get through various channels. We did that not long ago following the release of the first report by the UN Secretary-General on the implementation of those resolutions.

I have already noted at one of the news conferences that we felt somewhat disappointed that the report does not cover many facts commonly known and available through many media outlets regarding the use of the Turkish territory for breeding terrorism. We drew the attention of the UN Secretariat to the materials containing relative information that had been sent to them a number of times, and asked them to forward more objective documents with respective data to the UN Secretary-General to sign in the future. I think drawing the world community’s attention to those outrageous violations, engaging journalists and the media for the purpose, is absolutely essential, taking into account not a fake but a real and daily growing threat of terrorism for all of us.

Sergey Lavrov (adds after Paolo Gentilone): No hopes ever came true anywhere to ensure one’s safety by turning a blind eye to terrorists using one’s territory and conniving at them. This is indeed a universal threat, and for that reason double standards are not allowed here. ISIS has no restricted areas and no countries that it would deem allies. My colleague just expressed that. Turkey suffers from these terrorist attacks. This is the reason President Vladimir Putin proposed the creation of a really universal international front to fight terrorism. One way or another, after many months of contacts with our US colleagues in Syria, we managed to switch from a simple agreement not to down each other’s aircraft in Syrian skies to a real and ever more effective coordination of efforts on stamping out ISIS, Jebhat al-Nusra and other extremist groups connected with them.

I have already said that I consider it unforgivable to keep the tools frozen that had been designed way before the Syria crisis, in particular, in the framework of the relations between Russia and the European Union, and in the Russia-NATO Council. These tools were aimed at preventive measures in fighting terrorism and allowed for an advanced information exchange and for working to stop the terrorist ideology from penetrating new communities.

Question (addressed to both ministers): The Tripoli government has declared a state of emergency in the country, as the reconciliation process fails to get off the ground. To Italy, as the minister said, this is “one of the most pressing crises”. The question may not be so relevant for Russia. What does Italy expect from Russia? Considering its experience in Syria, among other things, exactly what can Russia do to facilitate the peace process? Can the Syrian experience be repeated on other fronts?

Sergey Lavrov (answers after Paolo Gentiloni): First of all, I hope that when a question is asked as to what exactly Russia can do in Libya, the implication is not that Russia holds a key to the resolution of all problems in Libya. This is what is already being suggested with regard to Ukraine, Syria and many other things. Second, concerning the Syrian experience, I think Mr Gentiloni is absolutely right – each particular situation cannot be viewed from the same angle. In Syria, Russia received a request from a legitimate government. No such request has come from Libya, while a legitimate government has yet to be formed in Libya.

We believe in the implementation of the Skhirat agreements. Italy’s position is essentially the same. They should be implemented as approved by the UN Security Council. This means that as these agreements develop they should include more participants than the number of parties that have signed them. These agreements should be ratified by the parliament in Tobruk that the UN recognises as Libya’s legitimate representative body in the current stage. The situation is complicated, as the Skhirat agreements were signed by initiative groups from Tobruk and Tripoli. This is not even the majority of the two parliamentary bodies that are based in these cities and these initiative groups do not include the leadership of these parliamentary bodies. Knowing Libyan realities, the extent to which the central government in Libya is fragmented and how influential the groups controlling various parts of the country are, it is important, as I said in my opening remarks, to do everything to make this process inclusive to the maximum degree possible and, in this context, ensure that its ratification proceeds appropriately and that it is fully legitimate in the eyes of all key Libyan forces.

I’d like to note that we understand well that time is paramount, that time factor is critical. Perhaps it would be wrong to wait until ISIS asserts its positions in Libya as it did in Iraq and Syria. I hope that Libya will not see a repetition of what happened during the discussion of the Syria issue, when for four years our partners, including our US partners, kept publicly telling us, and not only us, that it was impossible to mobilise the world community to fight ISIS as long as Bashar al-Assad was in power. I’ve already commented in this regard. This is a complete violation of all requirements of the UN Security Council, which stated in no uncertain terms that there can be no reservations or justification in the fight against ISIS. I very much hope that as we move down the path of political stabilisation in Libya and as the Skhirat process becomes inclusive, this will not impair our fight against terrorism. I am sure that a golden mean can be found here.

Today we have agreed that as our Italian colleagues’ ideas develop, in conjunction with other parties to the array of measures that are implemented regarding Libya, we will be able to find the golden mean. I’d like to note that Mr Gentiloni has reaffirmed unequivocally that these preliminary consultations will proceed to the UN Security Council. I believe this is of fundamental importance in ensuring the legitimacy of everything that we do.

Today, I drew Mr Gentiloni’s attention to the hints that have emerged, to the effect that there is no need to go to the Security Council, as in 2011, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted establishing a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace and that this resolution is sufficient for external force to be used to enforce order in the country. I’m satisfied with the fact that Mr Gentiloni has categorically rejected this approach. We always remember what a sad – I would say, subversive role NATO countries’ position on this resolution has played, thus creating the Libya crisis, which we now have to deal with. I hope that this time our NATO colleagues, who are led by Italy along the Libyan track, will opt for a path that will be flawless in terms of international law.