News
21 october 2014
We have noted the latest in a series of anti-Russian statements made by Deputy Secretary General of NATO Alexander Vershbow.
It appears that the continued manipulation of public opinion has been caused by the apprehensions of NATO ideologists that Russia’s active contribution to international efforts aimed to resolve the crisis in Ukraine, as well as Russia’s promotion of a positive agenda in international relations in general, can undermine a myth about the alleged Russian threat to the security of NATO member countries. Essentially, this postulate is used to justify the need for uniting the alliance on the basis of rigid discipline in the spirit of the Cold War, as well as the current policy to advance the NATO infrastructure eastward and build up NATO’s military presence near the Russian border. At the same time, European security risks contained in these plans are being disregarded yet again.
It appears that the continued manipulation of public opinion has been caused by the apprehensions of NATO ideologists that Russia’s active contribution to international efforts aimed to resolve the crisis in Ukraine, as well as Russia’s promotion of a positive agenda in international relations in general, can undermine a myth about the alleged Russian threat to the security of NATO member countries. Essentially, this postulate is used to justify the need for uniting the alliance on the basis of rigid discipline in the spirit of the Cold War, as well as the current policy to advance the NATO infrastructure eastward and build up NATO’s military presence near the Russian border. At the same time, European security risks contained in these plans are being disregarded yet again.
20 october 2014
Mr Nikonov, friends,
First of all, I’d like to thank you for the invitation, which I was very pleased to accept. It’s in our interest to discuss in as much detail as possible the issues that directly affect the Russian people and the national development plans, as well as issues that concern the international situation and the future world order with representatives of various political forces, primarily, the leading party, United Russia.
In many ways, the current international situation is defined by the fact that the world is going through a transition period. We are dealing not just with the beginning of another historical stage, but, it would seem, with a change of eras. Such pivotal moments are usually characterised by a substantial increase in instability and unpredictability in international affairs, which is what we see today in individual regions and globally.
The realignment, or, I would even say, the deconcentration of the global balance of forces, is a hallmark of our time. Most clearly, this can be seen in the greater economic power and increasing political clout of the Asia-Pacific Region.
First of all, I’d like to thank you for the invitation, which I was very pleased to accept. It’s in our interest to discuss in as much detail as possible the issues that directly affect the Russian people and the national development plans, as well as issues that concern the international situation and the future world order with representatives of various political forces, primarily, the leading party, United Russia.
In many ways, the current international situation is defined by the fact that the world is going through a transition period. We are dealing not just with the beginning of another historical stage, but, it would seem, with a change of eras. Such pivotal moments are usually characterised by a substantial increase in instability and unpredictability in international affairs, which is what we see today in individual regions and globally.
The realignment, or, I would even say, the deconcentration of the global balance of forces, is a hallmark of our time. Most clearly, this can be seen in the greater economic power and increasing political clout of the Asia-Pacific Region.
19 october 2014
Question: How would you assess your talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Paris? Were there any tense moments?
Sergey Lavrov: Our relations have been tense because of the basic issues, which we seriously differ on, but which we have been discussing and trying to settle, and also because of the current situation that has developed for obvious reasons. However, I again sensed that Mr Kerry was willing to search for positive issues that would boost our relations, and also solutions to the issues on which we differ. It’s another mater that the proposals our US partners make are mostly designed to suit their unilateral interests, whereas the proposals we make to our colleagues usually take into account their approaches to the issue at hand and are aimed at finding a balance of interests. This is challenging work that includes, of course, the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa. We are cooperating on the complicated issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, participating in the organisation that was created to resolve the “frozen” issue of the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, and are negotiating all issues that are on the UN Security Council agenda. It’s logical that Ukraine invariably comes up in discussions with all our partners. In short, the issues on the international agenda are very contradictory and call for compromise solutions. We’re ready for this.
Sergey Lavrov: Our relations have been tense because of the basic issues, which we seriously differ on, but which we have been discussing and trying to settle, and also because of the current situation that has developed for obvious reasons. However, I again sensed that Mr Kerry was willing to search for positive issues that would boost our relations, and also solutions to the issues on which we differ. It’s another mater that the proposals our US partners make are mostly designed to suit their unilateral interests, whereas the proposals we make to our colleagues usually take into account their approaches to the issue at hand and are aimed at finding a balance of interests. This is challenging work that includes, of course, the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa. We are cooperating on the complicated issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, participating in the organisation that was created to resolve the “frozen” issue of the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, and are negotiating all issues that are on the UN Security Council agenda. It’s logical that Ukraine invariably comes up in discussions with all our partners. In short, the issues on the international agenda are very contradictory and call for compromise solutions. We’re ready for this.
09 october 2014
Mr. Chair,
Let me congratulate you upon your election to this important position and wish you success in the upcoming work. Most certainly, you can count on the support of the Russian delegation.
From the broad agenda of the First Committee we decided to touch upon some topics which seem to be the most relevant. We will begin with the issues of nuclear disarmament which are in the spotlight of our forum.
Elimination of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, remains one of the key priorities of the international community. Russia is actively working to that end taking concrete steps for limitation and reduction of its nuclear arsenals. Over the last 25 years they have been reduced many times over. Under the New START Treaty we have set a goal of reaching the agreed aggregate limits of warheads, means of delivery and launchers by the start of early 2018. We think that this goal can be achieved.
Let me congratulate you upon your election to this important position and wish you success in the upcoming work. Most certainly, you can count on the support of the Russian delegation.
From the broad agenda of the First Committee we decided to touch upon some topics which seem to be the most relevant. We will begin with the issues of nuclear disarmament which are in the spotlight of our forum.
Elimination of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, remains one of the key priorities of the international community. Russia is actively working to that end taking concrete steps for limitation and reduction of its nuclear arsenals. Over the last 25 years they have been reduced many times over. Under the New START Treaty we have set a goal of reaching the agreed aggregate limits of warheads, means of delivery and launchers by the start of early 2018. We think that this goal can be achieved.
28 september 2014
Question: Mr Lavrov, thank you for having us here at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You have been the Russian Foreign Minister for 10 years now. Over these 10 years, has there been a more difficult year than 2014?
Sergey Lavrov: The year is not over yet, so it is hard to draw conclusions. One thing I can say for sure is that the remaining three months are not going to be any easier. In general, the previous years were not very simple, either, although compared to this year, those problems seem almost insignificant, and one might say that the previous years were almost cloudless, but in fact by no means were all of them so.
We had major problems with the United States when they unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. We had to argue that we saw the true reason for that move and that it was aimed at strengthening the US capacity to dominate in the military strategic sphere, and we had to explain why we could not afford to see strategic stability in the world shaken in this way. There was a rather complicated period when, without any apparent reason, we were told that our refusal to follow European, Western values in their new light neo-liberal version was unacceptable. You will remember how much drama went into this matter.
In our relations with the European Union, there was a time when they refused, under various pretexts, or were unwilling to continue the work on a new framework agreement unless we made further unilateral concessions. Then they threw a spanner in the works over the visa-free travel issue. In general, lots of things happened.
Sergey Lavrov: The year is not over yet, so it is hard to draw conclusions. One thing I can say for sure is that the remaining three months are not going to be any easier. In general, the previous years were not very simple, either, although compared to this year, those problems seem almost insignificant, and one might say that the previous years were almost cloudless, but in fact by no means were all of them so.
We had major problems with the United States when they unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. We had to argue that we saw the true reason for that move and that it was aimed at strengthening the US capacity to dominate in the military strategic sphere, and we had to explain why we could not afford to see strategic stability in the world shaken in this way. There was a rather complicated period when, without any apparent reason, we were told that our refusal to follow European, Western values in their new light neo-liberal version was unacceptable. You will remember how much drama went into this matter.
In our relations with the European Union, there was a time when they refused, under various pretexts, or were unwilling to continue the work on a new framework agreement unless we made further unilateral concessions. Then they threw a spanner in the works over the visa-free travel issue. In general, lots of things happened.
27 september 2014
Question: We are meeting right after your speech at the UN General Assembly. Perhaps, we heard criticism with regard to the United Nations for the first time in 10-15 years. Presidents of Brazil and Venezuela spoke about this. Many people protested near the UN building in the last months asking for the UN to be changed and reformed. Do you agree to this point of view? Do you think that the UN is an efficient body in today’s community?
Sergey Lavrov: The United Nations cannot be more effective than member states, because the UN is not an abstract concept, it is an interstate organisation, which includes governments and these governments determine its agenda today. The Secretariat is engaged in the fulfilment of orders of governments. There is no doubt that the UN was changing, it is changing and will be changing. Reforms are an ongoing process. Not because we need to make the people in charge of it busy, but because today everything changes in the world and new problems appear. Who would have thought that the Ebola virus would appear, and the most important thing now is to stop people from dying and to find a cure.
Sergey Lavrov: The United Nations cannot be more effective than member states, because the UN is not an abstract concept, it is an interstate organisation, which includes governments and these governments determine its agenda today. The Secretariat is engaged in the fulfilment of orders of governments. There is no doubt that the UN was changing, it is changing and will be changing. Reforms are an ongoing process. Not because we need to make the people in charge of it busy, but because today everything changes in the world and new problems appear. Who would have thought that the Ebola virus would appear, and the most important thing now is to stop people from dying and to find a cure.
27 september 2014
Distinguished Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There is growing evidence of the contradiction between the need for collective, cooperative efforts to provide adequate responses to challenges common to all, and the aspirations of a number of countries for domination and the revival of archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline and the erroneous logic of “friend or foe.”
The US-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, rule of law and human rights within individual countries，acts from a completely opposite position in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN Charter and tires to decide for everyone what is good or bad.
Washington has openly declared its right to the unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its own interests. Military interference has become common, even despite the dismal outcome of the use of power that the US has carried out in recent years.
The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, the attack against Libya and the failure of the operation in Afghanistan. Thanks only to intensive diplomatic efforts, an aggression against Syria was averted in 2013. There is the involuntary impression that the goal of various “colour revolutions” and other goals to change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There is growing evidence of the contradiction between the need for collective, cooperative efforts to provide adequate responses to challenges common to all, and the aspirations of a number of countries for domination and the revival of archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline and the erroneous logic of “friend or foe.”
The US-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, rule of law and human rights within individual countries，acts from a completely opposite position in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN Charter and tires to decide for everyone what is good or bad.
Washington has openly declared its right to the unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its own interests. Military interference has become common, even despite the dismal outcome of the use of power that the US has carried out in recent years.
The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, the attack against Libya and the failure of the operation in Afghanistan. Thanks only to intensive diplomatic efforts, an aggression against Syria was averted in 2013. There is the involuntary impression that the goal of various “colour revolutions” and other goals to change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.
26 september 2014
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
We have received many requests for interviews from various media outlets asking to clarify Russia’s position during my presence at the 69th session of the General Assembly. However, given that I will be staying only a limited time this year, I hope that this format of interaction with the media is ok with you.
This session of the UN General Assembly convenes against the backdrop of a very challenging situation. We are witnessing systemic issues, so it is crucial for us that those systemic challenges, both natural and artificial, take centre stage. This is about combatting terrorism. There is no doubt that it is important to combat the symptoms of this scourge, but at the same time we should not neglect its root causes, as well as well-intentioned actions that in reality aggravate the terrorist threat.
We have received many requests for interviews from various media outlets asking to clarify Russia’s position during my presence at the 69th session of the General Assembly. However, given that I will be staying only a limited time this year, I hope that this format of interaction with the media is ok with you.
This session of the UN General Assembly convenes against the backdrop of a very challenging situation. We are witnessing systemic issues, so it is crucial for us that those systemic challenges, both natural and artificial, take centre stage. This is about combatting terrorism. There is no doubt that it is important to combat the symptoms of this scourge, but at the same time we should not neglect its root causes, as well as well-intentioned actions that in reality aggravate the terrorist threat.
26 september 2014
The Russian Foreign Ministry rejects media reports citing allegations by the Reuters news agency about a meeting of Russian and Ukrainian military officials in the Donetsk region with the aim of determining a “buffer zone” between the positions of the DPR and LPR and those of the Ukrainian side.
In this connection, we would like to emphasise that all issues pertaining to the implementation of the ceasefire regime are being discussed between representatives of the Ukrainian side and representatives from individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Russia's role as a member of the Contact Group consists of providing the necessary assistance to this process in cooperation with the OSCE mission.
In this connection, we would like to emphasise that all issues pertaining to the implementation of the ceasefire regime are being discussed between representatives of the Ukrainian side and representatives from individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Russia's role as a member of the Contact Group consists of providing the necessary assistance to this process in cooperation with the OSCE mission.
24 september 2014
Question: Could you give some follow-up comments on the statement U.S. President Barack Obama made in his address to the UN General Assembly, in which, in actual fact, he equalised international terrorism in the Middle East, the situation with the Ebola virus and Russia’s actions regarding Ukraine?
Also, it was reported that the U.S. is considering lifting unilateral sanctions against Russia if Russia fulfils certain conditions. Specifically, they were talking about a so-called “buffer zone.” What is Russia’s stance on this issue? Will you discuss it at a bilateral meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry?
Sergey Lavrov: Speaking of President Obama’s speech, I think we came second as a threat to international security. The Ebola virus was first. “Russian aggression in Europe” was second and ISIL was third, as were al-Qaeda and other terrorists who are now bossing the show in the Middle East and mainly in the countries in which the United States intervened – unlawfully and in violation of international laws.
What was also strange to me was that the U.S. President said that now there is more freedom and safety in the world. I could not understand if he was being serious. I was thinking there was something Orwell-ian in his words. Back in his time, George Orwell invented “a ministry of truth.” It appears to me this concept persists even today.
Also, it was reported that the U.S. is considering lifting unilateral sanctions against Russia if Russia fulfils certain conditions. Specifically, they were talking about a so-called “buffer zone.” What is Russia’s stance on this issue? Will you discuss it at a bilateral meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry?
Sergey Lavrov: Speaking of President Obama’s speech, I think we came second as a threat to international security. The Ebola virus was first. “Russian aggression in Europe” was second and ISIL was third, as were al-Qaeda and other terrorists who are now bossing the show in the Middle East and mainly in the countries in which the United States intervened – unlawfully and in violation of international laws.
What was also strange to me was that the U.S. President said that now there is more freedom and safety in the world. I could not understand if he was being serious. I was thinking there was something Orwell-ian in his words. Back in his time, George Orwell invented “a ministry of truth.” It appears to me this concept persists even today.