Question: What are the main results of 2019 as regards conflict settlement in southeastern Ukraine, and what are the key priorities for 2020? Can it be said now, after the Normandy format summit in Paris, that Vladimir Zelensky takes a constructive stance on this issue? After the bilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, can we talk about, if not a thaw in our relations, then at least an opportunity for a constructive dialogue?
Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, the conflict in eastern Ukraine continues. There is still shooting on the contact line. The blockade of the region has not been lifted.
At the same time, there is hope for making progress in the settlement process. Vladimir Zelensky cited putting an end to the war in the southeast of the country as one of the most important priorities of his presidency. In just five months, he has succeeded in doing what his predecessor had stubbornly refused to do for years. I am referring to fulfilling the obligations on the disengagement of troops and heavy weapons in the three pilot areas along the contact line, and adopting the Steinmeier Formula as a legal document, which sets out the procedure for enacting the special status of Donbass on a permanent basis.
This paved the way to the Normandy format summit, which was held in Paris on December 9. You know the outcome of the meeting. First of all, the Minsk Package of Measures was reaffirmed as the only possible basis for a settlement, and recommendations were made for the Contact Group. Now it is important to ensure their implementation. But this will not be so simple, as evidenced by the Contact Group meeting on December 18. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful.
Achieving progress in the settlement is only possible through a direct dialogue between the parties to the conflict – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. We are ready to contribute in every way possible. The establishment of lasting peace in Ukraine meets our interests and will have a positive impact on relations between our two countries.
Question: During your conversations with the US leaders during your visit to Washington, did you feel a genuine – as opposed to declarative – willingness to move away from the low point in our relations? Is it even possible that 2020, the year of the US presidential election, will bring an improvement in relations, given the Russophobic sentiments? Could the New START extension talks, possibly with the participation of China and European countries, become a springboard for restoring dialogue?
Sergey Lavrov: The contacts that took place in Washington were useful and helped thoroughly explore the pressing issues on the bilateral and international agendas. Both sides reaffirmed their focus on improving the atmosphere in our relations and achieving results in the areas where we have coinciding interests.
As for assessing the prospects for cooperation in the coming year, we use a pragmatic approach and prefer not to have high expectations. We will assess the attitude of the Donald Trump administration by their practical actions. We are certainly aware of the constraints arising from the internal political situation in the United States, and the election campaign that has just started. Russia's ill-wishers in the Washington establishment may again try to use Russophobia in their election campaign.
So we will continue to respond to unfriendly attacks, if they continue on America’s part. Nevertheless, we believe it would be wrong to put off indefinitely the resolution of problems that are important for our countries and for the whole world. Russia’s proposals for developing cooperation in various areas remain on the table. This also applies to the strategic stability issue, as Russia and the United States bear special responsibility for it as the largest nuclear powers.
In particular, we advocate extending the bilateral New START Treaty, which expires in February 2021, without preconditions or artificial delays. After the Americans undermined the INF Treaty, it is the last remaining international legal instrument that mutually limits the nuclear missile potentials of our countries and ensures predictability in the field of arms control. Given the evasive position of the White House, it is still difficult to say whether this issue will become a springboard for the restoration of dialogue.
Again, New START is a bilateral treaty. It was concluded in 2010 between Russia and the United States. Accordingly, the involvement of other states in extending it is impossible.
At the same time, our American colleagues suggest drawing up another agreement limiting nuclear weapons, a new one. Along with Russia and the United States, they want China to join it but have not yet received its consent. They have not secured the agreement of the UK and France either, while those countries absolutely must be included in such talks. Moreover, they have not even presented their vision yet. They have been toying with this idea since last spring, but they haven’t explained what exactly the new treaty is supposed to limit and how.
As soon as we receive the project, we are ready to give it our full attention. It is also obvious that it will require lengthy negotiations – whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Meanwhile, Russia and the United States could extend the New START treaty now to reassure the international community and prevent a vacuum in the field of strategic stability. We would like to hope that Washington will take a sensible and responsible approach.
Question: Do you not get the impression from developments this year that Latin America is again entering a phase of coups and that the situation is getting out of control? Does Russia stand to lose much due to turbulent developments in Latin American countries?
Sergey Lavrov: What happened in Latin America over the past year, indeed, brings to mind the half-forgotten “blazing continent” phrase.
I will not comment on the internal political processes unfolding in various Latin American countries, which have their own reasons and dynamics. But I admit concerns over the United States’ attempts to reshape the continent to suit its geopolitical interests amid the difficult situation, applying the “controlled chaos” theory. This explains the efforts to change unwanted regimes or redirect hesitant ones toward the “right” track, impede regional integration processes, and impose rigid neoliberal patterns. Apparently, the long mothballed Monroe Doctrine has been taken out to use as an ideological basis.
But what happened is something the United States seems to have not expected – their brilliant plans began to stall. The region turned out to be more complex and diverse than Washington’s simplistic calculations presumed it to be. For example, for all the strangling sanctions and “colour revolutions,” a “blitzkrieg” didn’t work in Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua.
The US administration routinely tries to blame flops in Latin America on “hostile external forces,” “Moscow’s intrigues” included. A vigorous political and information campaign is being waged against us, with “secondary sanctions,” mainly financial, generously applied.
At the same time, given the continued turbulence in the region, we sense a tangible demand for Russia to play a greater role in Latin American affairs. And this is not surprising. For us, Latin America and the Caribbean are a valuable foreign policy track. We are not looking at the region from the perspective of geopolitical interests; nor do we want it to become an arena of confrontation.
We consider Latin America and the Caribbean as an important part of the emerging multipolar world order and are interested in the region’s countries – in their unity and diversity – to be strong, politically wholesome and economically sustainable. Russia’s approach to interaction with Latin Americans is utterly logical: we are not setting some countries against others; we are not creating dividing lines or artificial barriers; we are not dividing our partners into friends and foes. Instead, we are willing to strengthen cooperation with all countries on a non-ideological pragmatic basis given mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.
This constructive philosophy allows us to build up fruitful cooperation with Latin American states in various formats and in a wide range of areas.