S. Lavrov- You know, Novorossia is a rather vague term.
M. Simonyan- DNR and LC.
S. Lavrov- This is probably more specific. We assume that Ukraine is our closest neighbor. The people are fraternal to us, and we very much want that on our immediate frontiers, people whom we treat very well live well. And for this to happen, Ukraine must remain united. Now I do not even take the topic of Crimea, it is completely separate история. The president has repeatedly explained the reasons why all this happened. And the main reason, by the way, is to make a small digression - the inability of the western partners, who acted as guarantors of the 21 agreements of February last year, the inability to force the opposition of that time to keep its word, to fulfill its obligations. Create a government of national unity. The signatories from France, Germany, Poland, the foreign ministers did not say a word when the unconstitutional coup d'etat occurred the next morning after the conclusion of this document. President Obama, who specifically called Putin the day before and asked to support this agreement and persuade Yanukovych not to use the army, didn’t even call back and didn’t say sorry, didn’t work. Because Putin, in response, asked to convince the opposition not to resort to violence and not to disrupt this agreement. This is the root of what happened primarily with the Crimea. When the same fate was prepared for the Crimeans as for the people who opposed the Maidan, against the attempt of the anti-constitutional seizure of power. But, to speak of Novorossia, the LPR, the DPR, Ukraine can exist only as a state that recognizes the diversity of its constituent regions and its constituent cultures. We know the history of education in Ukraine. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin has already been mentioned many times, decisions that were made in the Soviet Union on the transfer of certain native Russian lands. We want peace and tranquility in Ukraine. To do this, you need to keep Ukraine united, do not allow it to be dragged apart piece by piece. And such sentiments are already expressed in some places in Europe. In countries that at one time gave up a part of their territories to the Ukrainian present state following the results of World War II.
M. Simonyan- Poland?
S. Lavrov: Crimeans were prepared for the same fate as the people who opposed the Maidan
S. Lavrov- Not only. And minorities live there, there not only Russians in large numbers form part of the Ukrainian people. There are Hungarians, Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks. And in order to keep this country stable, in order to keep it friendly both in relation to us and in relation to Europe, in no case should it be torn apart. And for this, we must abandon obstinacy with regard to necessarily preserve Ukraine unitary. What the President Poroshenko and the Ministers of the Government of Ukraine say again. Abandon what they call Ukrainization. They threaten to Ukrainize everyone. Having in mind, including the DNI, and the LC. In order for this not to happen, for Ukraine to remain united and for not trying to drive everyone into one Procrustean bed of such a nationalist ideology, we sought the conclusion of the Minsk agreements. As a result, achieved. It says that it is necessary to do decentralization, it is necessary to carry out constitutional reform with the participation and in agreement with the DNR and the LC. It is in our interests not to take away Ukraine, in our interests to keep it neutral, above all, neutral in a military-political sense. Because its split means only one thing - that there will be Western countries on the European side, on the NATO side there will be attempts to make Ukraine anti-Russian. We all understand perfectly. Therefore, I would like to stress once more that we want to see it united, but in order for it to be united, they must fulfill their commitments on decentralization and constitutional reform.
S. Dorenko- In difficult times, the worst ambassador of all times and peoples heads our embassy in Kiev. And this embassy is your area of responsibility. When you change Zurabov. Is he yours or not?
S. Lavrov- Zurabov appointed president of the Russian Federation. Like any other ambassador working abroad, he carries out the assignments he receives from the center; his term of office is determined by the president. Probably no one is eternal. There will be a change of this ambassador.
S. Dorenko- No personal responsibility for the omission, you see, the American ambassador in Kiev plays a significant role, as we know. The Russian ambassador plays a zero role in Kiev. No one will ever bear responsibility for it. I understand correctly?
S. Lavrov- No, I am responsible for what the ambassadors appointed by the president are doing on the recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Instructions that Mikhail Zurabov receives, I am responsible for them. These are my instructions, instructions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And we also evaluate his work according to the results of each year.
A. Venediktov- Sergey Lavrov on the air of three radio stations. I will then try to connect Ukraine and the United States. I think it will be more than once ...
S. Lavrov- This is done before you. Long. Ukrainians themselves.
A. Venediktov- They did it poorly, but I will do it successfully, Sergey Viktorovich. One of the candidates for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton, compared what Russia did and President Putin in the Crimea to what Hitler did to the Sudetenland. In this regard, I have a question: how will you work with such a future, perhaps the US president, who compares our president with Hitler.
S. Lavrov- This is not the only statement that does not color Western leaders. Western politicians. We can cite a lot of other examples. But if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, well, we will perceive her as the leader of this state.
A. Venediktov- In pursuit. Do we have any interests in the presidential elections in the United States, who are more interesting to us now in terms of the possibility of a partner: a republican or a democratic party?
S. Lavrov: It is necessary to keep Ukraine united, not to allow it to be pulled apart piece by piece
S. Lavrov- You know, there is such a theory that it is easier to negotiate with Republicans. Because they are tougher or something. And in the end, it is easier for them to make decisions that, if they were made by the democrats, would be regarded as a manifestation of weakness. I am not a supporter of such theories. And we have good examples of cooperation with democratic presidents and republican presidents. The main thing is that people pragmatically build relationships with the outside world. And they didn’t try to return to the past which had long since passed away and dictate their decisions to everyone.
A. Venediktov- So who is more pragmatic of them now. Democrats or Republicans?
S. Lavrov- Only life will show.
A. Venediktov- That is the whole process.
S. Lavrov- All process.
M. Simonyan- In pursuit of the United States. A listener Monsieur from France asks: "The situation around the Ukrainian crisis and all the subsequent steps of the Western partners have not led Russia to the conviction that the United States cannot be trusted?" And my personal question is literally the same: are you disappointed with Obama?
S. Lavrov- First, we have already been quite burned by various illusions, and Reagan once said, "trust, but verify." Now, in my opinion, this is the time when you just need to check. And, having checked, already understand, you can trust or not. Check and trust - I would say that. Secondly, about President Obama, I would not like to get personal, but there was a lot of hope, there was a Nobel Peace Prize, of course. Well, many wars followed. Moreover, wars are absolutely illogical, wars that did not meet the interests of stability in the respective regions. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, now everyone is fighting with the "Islamic State". We proposed, by the way, to write “Islamic State” in the list of terrorist organizations. Which is led by the UN Security Council. The Americans flatly refused, and an interesting argument. They said: you know, this is not some kind of independent structure, it is the same “al-Qaeda.” And behind this is a very simple explanation. They do not want to admit that this very ISIS was the result of their actions in Iraq and especially in Libya and Syria. That is why they are trying to pretend that nothing happened, that's how bad Al-Qaida was, although Al-Qaida comes from the 80s, from the financing of the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union. Now they are trying to pretend that ISIS is not a creation of American politics. I find it difficult to go into more specific personal characteristics. Several times I attended the talks of our president, our presidents, even with Barack Obama. He accepted me at the White House in his time. It seemed to me that this is a person who understands the importance of Russian-American relations. A presidential commission was set up with him, unprecedented with the 21 th working group on all conceivable areas of interaction. And with him, this commission was safely buried.
S. Lavrov: I believe that ISIS is our main enemy at the moment
S. Dorenko- Tell me, Russians are accustomed to the fact that almost every war is their war. And can we watch the wars from the window without interfering. For example, can we watch the US war, which goes along the arc, from Tel Aviv to Bombay, flashing in different places every now and then. So, as if it was not our war, let them do the dirty work for us, let the ISIL weaken and the US weaken. And we, in accordance with the Chinese stratagems, letting them weaken, then finish off the winner.
S. Lavrov- Well, firstly, we probably do not ...
S. Dorenko- This is someone else's war.
S. Lavrov- We have no desire to finish, honestly. We wish that there was stability, that we could cooperate with people normally and mutually beneficially trade and invest. War, you know against terrorism is not a war for us. The main thing is that this war be consistent and based on the agreed strategy of the entire so-called international community. Because when the same Barack Obama says, accepting the Prime Minister of Iraq not so long ago, Mr. Abadi in Washington, that everyone who wants to help Iraq in the fight against terrorism, should do it only in coordination with the Iraqi government. Gold words. But why the same principle does not apply to Americans in relation to Syria. Where the United States declared war on the very “Islamic State” with which they fight in Iraq. But in the case of Syria, they are not going to ask the consent of the government.
S. Dorenko- The powers of any power are not infinite. If America’s hands are busy in an arc from Tel Aviv to Bombay, they will be left behind Ukraine, maybe. It is beneficial to us. And the stronger their hands are occupied, the weaker they will be in Ukraine.
S. Lavrov- Well, probably, you can look at the situation from this angle. But I will say once again that we are interested in the Americans being part of a coalition in the fight against terrorism. And we participate in this coalition informally. We have not joined any members. The structures that the Americans declared to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But we are helping Iraq and Syria, perhaps more effectively than anyone else, by arming their army and security forces. But the fight against terrorism must be repeated, without double standards. Here in Iraq, I have already mentioned the example of the struggle against the “Islamic State”, and in Yemen, the United States supported the so-called Arabian coalition, which began to bomb the territory of this country without applying to the UN Security Council. And the US provides it logistically, informationally. Intelligence data. But the result, by the way, literally today it was announced that this operation was completed, and they decided to throw their forces on the advancement of the political process. Thank God, but as a result of these bombings, those ISIS and al-Qaeda in Yemen received the greatest benefit. Which took the position, earlier belonged to the Hussites, from where they were pressed from the air by these military strikes. This inconsistency, this is the same thing in Libya. In order to eliminate one person who is already tired of everything, they staged a war and supported the thugs who are now being caught all over North Africa. Yes, and far beyond its borders.
A. Venediktov- Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov on the air of the radio stations "Talking Moscow", "Sputnik" and "Echo of Moscow". Sergey Viktorovich, if we talk about the sum of external threats for the Russian Federation, which is in your competence including three directions, this is China as an economic power, which is growing powerfully on our borders. This is the southern direction, let's call it southern terrorism. Let's not speak Islamic. South. From South. And this is the United States and NATO. Here you could somehow arrange these threats in terms of the need to quickly repel them. Maybe there are some, well, of course, ecology and so on. But if we talk about geographical threats.
S. Lavrov- I see no threats from China. Generally, I don’t see any threats from the East, except for one - missile defense, which is the global US system. And that is being created in the United States, in the European theater, and in the theater of Northeast Asia. Miraculously enveloping the perimeter of the borders of the Russian Federation. I do not see any threats from China. On the contrary, the Russian-Chinese partnership is strategic and, without exaggeration, makes a very important contribution to maintaining at least some stability in international relations or opposing their further destabilization. The southern flag is terrorism, I already mentioned it and here we are for that, we suggested, by the way, to conduct a serious analysis in the UN Security Council with the involvement of experts, an analysis of terrorist and extremist threats. In the whole region of the Middle East and North Africa. This is exactly the southernmost arc. We are convinced that here we need to work out a single, absolutely strategy and follow it in a sacred and firm way in practice. So that we fight precisely with the same enemies. And al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State. And they didn’t determine their position depending on which side these bandits are fighting. On the side of our favorite modes or on the side of the modes that we want to get rid of. That's the problem. And finally, the United States and NATO, the western direction - yes, there is little joy here. We had very good interaction mechanisms with NATO. I do not want to say that there were excellent relations, but interaction mechanisms existed. And through the military, and on political issues to combat terrorism. To combat drug trafficking. On the training of law enforcement personnel for the security services of many states. Including Afghanistan, by the way. And all this was chopped off in one sitting, all communication formats, summits, ministerial meetings between foreign ministries, defense ministries, numerous expert meetings — everything was simply chopped off. Now only the NATO-Russia Council is left at ambassadorial level. And he gathered only once for the period, for the last year. In the summer they once met. That's it. And, of course, if you look at the statistics, the number of NATO exercises, the number of activities they conduct on our borders, the transfer of heavy American equipment to the Baltic countries and some Eastern European countries. The forced creation of anti-missile, global anti-missile defense systems, despite the fact that President Obama several years ago, when he announced the so-called phased adaptive approach, said bluntly that if we move in the direction of resolving Iran’s nuclear program, down the level of these plans here. Progressing brilliantly, President Obama praised the political agreements that were reached, which should now be translated into a legal agreement in a couple of months. He praised him for saying that this was progress, that he had done everything to remove the threat. Rocket threat and nuclear threat from Iran. And, nevertheless, the plans, if they adapt, then only in the direction of increasing the activity of creating a missile defense.
S. Lavrov: There was a lot of hope about Obama - the Nobel Peace Prize ... And many wars followed after that
A. Venediktov- What is worse, Sergey. Southern threat or the USA and NATO? From your point of view. What is more dangerous. Dangerous.
S. Dorenko- China too.
A. Venediktov- And China has already forgotten.
S. Lavrov- No, I'm sure that we are doing the right thing with China.
M. Simonyan- And why, Sergey Viktorovich? LAVROV - Because I feel partners.
M. Simonyan- In 10 years, in 20 years.
S. Lavrov- But if we neglect today the possibilities of deepening our strategic partnership, then we can create risks in 10, 20, 30 years.
S. Dorenko- Give a pen for a second. Here I will write to you. There is a hundred here, a hundred people, or even a thousand. And here is one. When complete fill the void. Sooner or later it will do it. Hence, China can not enter, the full fills the void. I tell you this Chinese stratagem. If there is a complete and empty, then the full will fill the void.
S. Lavrov- Once again I will tell my point of view. We are developing a strategic partnership with China and we are doing this consistently, in all areas of interaction. Economic, humanitarian, military-political, military-technical. And I am convinced that the most important guarantee that Russian-Chinese relations will be strong and friendly. We have to fill the emptiness ourselves. And I am very pleased that lately the attention has been further increased to the need for the development of Eastern Siberia and the Far East. These regions are the richest, we have very few people living there. And we must do everything so that people go there, so that people start there families, give birth to children.
S. Dorenko- I asked: we are younger in relation to China. Just after.
S. Lavrov- And what are you on ...
S. Dorenko- Technologically - once, we use things made in China. Instead of Europe, we will now have to take from China. Technologies, microcircuits.
A. Venediktov- Sergey Viktorovich, the trade turnover of the USA and China is 650 billion, in 2104, and ours is 90.
S. Lavrov- Economies are disparate, of course.
S. Dorenko- Are we younger? Question.
S. Lavrov: To eliminate one person, the United States staged a war and supported the thugs
S. Lavrov- You know, looking, in what you want to see this ratio between junior and senior. Well, what technology. If technologies are computer, I am convinced that we have ...
S. Dorenko- It is made in China.
S. Lavrov- Needless to say. But we have brains that produce ideas that need to translate into metal, ceramics, plastic. That's what we need. In our development of fundamental science, I cannot say that we are younger in relation to someone. If you are talking technology, then let's take space technology, nuclear technology, military technology. Production of modern weapons. We are not the youngest here. Just the opposite.
A. Venediktov- Then my question is, after all ISIS and the USA. Threat.
S. Lavrov: I do not see threats from China
S. Lavrov- I believe that ISIS is our main enemy at the moment. For at least one simple reason, hundreds of Russian citizens, hundreds of Europeans, hundreds of Americans are fighting on the side of ISIL. And citizens are also CIS countries besides Russia. They used to say, so let them fight there all their lives and only to not return home. They are already returning. And they will fight there, fight, then, as it were, on rest and for their own entertainment, they can arrange nasty things at home. And here one or two or three people is enough. Nonetheless, with regard to the United States, these are already state problems, these are problems of the world order, they need to be solved through negotiations. It’s not for nothing that Americans are now officially sending unofficially signals through various channels that they are concerned that planes fly around each other, dangerous military activities, we need to do something, let's establish some mechanisms of interaction, notifications . We didn’t break up these mechanisms. If they are interested in such mechanisms, let them officially suggest. We will certainly agree.
A.Venediktov- Sergey Lavrov, Margo Simonyan.
M.Simonyan- I want to remind our colleagues that our conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is broadcast not only on our radio stations, but also on the air, so our gestures may look a little funny. Let's be a little bit ...
S.Dorenko- We show decent gestures.
M.Simonyan- Until. Only half an hour had passed. Sergey Viktorovich, you said that the emptiness must be filled by ourselves. In this regard, the question. He and the listeners asked. He torments me for many years. What is the reason why Russia is embarrassed to invite fellow tribesmen, that is, Russian people from all over the world and, according to a very simple scheme, to give them citizenship, as many other countries do: Greece, Germany? About Israel, we are generally silent. We have a certain simplified, which, in its essence, does not work - providing the opportunity for compatriots, that is, people who lived in the Soviet Union, to live in Russia. And why Russia does not call just Russian people who still remain, still in large numbers, speaking in Russian, considering themselves Russians, belonging to Russian culture? This is a huge number of our students abroad, it is clear that first of all in the near abroad, well, I care too, I wonder, why, what kind of embarrassment?
S.Lavrov- I think it was wrong at the very beginning of the two thousandth, zero years - the practice that existed after the collapse of the Soviet Union was terminated, according to which any citizen of the Soviet Union could automatically become a citizen of the Russian Federation. It was also imperfect, because this collapse, it happened spontaneously, and many databases were lost. Some people still say: "No, I did everything right." But there are no counts. Even took. He just expired passport. He needs to change to a new one, and the accounts are lost when all this chaos of 90's was lost. But then it was, if I remember correctly, it was instituted that if you are a citizen of the Soviet Union, you live on the territory of the Russian Federation, the RSFS is still there, so you automatically just change your passport and that’s it. And if you are a citizen of the USSR, but lived in another union republic, then we had to take some bureaucratic actions: write a statement, not just to prove that you were your own, but it was already more difficult. But this procedure at the beginning of the two thousandth was suspended. I think it was wrong done. And the president - I don’t remember now, in my opinion, in one of his speeches immediately after being elected for this term - he said that the procedure for obtaining citizenship should be eased as much as possible to everyone who was a citizen of the Soviet Union or is a descendant of the Russian Empire.
M.Simonyan- Why is this not happening?
S.Lavrov- I do not want to now be introduced to interdepartmental problems.
A.Venediktov- Is the work going?
S.Lavrov- But the work is on.
M.Simonyan- Even people who come now from the Donbass ... so I sheltered such a family, for example - the family of my nanny and a lot of their people. Unable to get anything. That is, to legalize in the territory of the Russian Federation is virtually impossible even for these people. Russian people who fled the war from Donetsk.
S.Lavrov- I also know such families.
S. Lavrov: Nadezhda Savchenko is not a hostage, she was arrested on suspicion of crimes
M.Simonyan- Here you go.
S.Lavrov- I could now, of course, suggest that you give me the names I personally would like, but this is not the solution.
M.Simonyan- I personally take the trouble myself specifically for these 5-6 people, but the rest?
S.Lavrov- There are decisions, as you know, which make it imperative, in my opinion, a two-month maximum consideration of such statements of those who come from Ukraine. And if they are not implemented in practice, this is bad.
S.Dorenko- People in the mass believe that our elites do not have a common historical future with us, that we have one country, and our children and grandchildren will live here, and the elites, including our leadership, have another country, and children and grandchildren live where they go to 11-15 on Aeroflot to London. You know, there was such a minister who met in 7 in the morning because he was in 11-15 flying to London for his family. Well, in this regard, the question: How do we nationalize the elites and where is your daughter?
S.Lavrov- My daughter in Russia.
S.Dorenko- Just believe, there are fifty such questions ...
S.Lavrov- She works in Russia, she is married in Russia, she is the mother of my grandson and my granddaughter.
S.Dorenko- Your children and grandchildren. We cannot predict, but you arrange in such a way that you would like your children and grandchildren to live in Russia - right?
S.Lavrov- My daughter and her husband recently bought an apartment with the expectation that they will have more children.
S.Dorenko- Can we go on with treacherous elites or not?
S.Lavrov- If you take the question conceptually, not one people can not move forward with the treacherous elite, this is understandable.
S.Dorenko- Not really. In 812, our dragoons spoke French - and chopped the French. But at the same time, this problem is acute now.
S.Lavrov- You see, if a language that they can speak in addition to their native language
M.Simonyan- ... speaks excellent english. What are we blaming him now?
S.Lavrov- But I do not like the British and do not hack others ...
S.Dorenko- The nationalization of elites. You have not answered. Elites live in London.
S.Lavrov- I want to understand who you are talking about. If there are any businessmen who live in London ...
S.Dorenko- I'm talking about 50% of Russia's largest enterprises, which are offshore; I am talking about officials from whom children study in the UK and most likely will not return. We feel lonely without elites, we do not have national elites.
S.Lavrov- You know, in general, the concept of "elite" ...
S.Dorenko- People who make life-changing decisions.
S.Lavrov- People who make fateful decisions are not the elite, but the leaders. This is not the elite.
S.Dorenko- Large corporations ...
S.Lavrov- The elite is the pride of the nation, including writers, artists, musicians and composers. We need to talk specifically. We have a Constitution, by the way, that defines the rights and obligations of citizens, including the right to choose a place of residence. So I’ll probably limit myself to this. And any other question - let's make it concrete: who do you mean and who do not want to be guided by ...
S.Dorenko- Do you think that there is no problem?
S.Lavrov- For me, the problem does not exist, because I am responsible for my part of the work, and I'm not going anywhere, I live in Russia and will continue to do so.
A.Venediktov- Sergey Lavrov. I, too, finally go to the questions of the audience. You know, our listeners are different. John Tefft from Moscow sent a question. Here you worked, as a minister, with four state secretaries: with two republican administrations, with two democratic administrations, and also Madeleine Albright in New York. “When and with which secretary of state it was more comfortable for you to work,” listener John Tefft is interested.
S.Lavrov- And I feel and feel good with everyone. I do not see, frankly, the point to find out. It all depends on personal qualities. If you are personally comfortable with the person, then the problems that you discuss with him do not matter much. All the same you either decide them, or do not solve them. I cannot say that I am comfortable with those who agree with me, and we agree on something, I can’t, because I also understand that the US Secretary of State has a line that does not always and almost never coincide with the Russian line, but I'm very comfortable with John Kerry, as I was comfortable with both Hilary and Condoleeza, and Madeleine Albright. True, I spoke with her when we were still representatives in New York. Little secret: she allowed me to smoke in her residence. The floor of the hotel Waldorf Astoria, and here we broke with her even the then quite liberal legislation.
A.Venediktov- In this regard, I have this question. Yesterday the same listener, who was on the air, said that President Obama is ready to take part in the “Norman” format if invited. Is there any official reaction?
S.Lavrov- And he was invited?
A.Venediktov- I do not know, I have a question for you: Have you invited?
S.Lavrov- I just missed this interview. Alexey, how did this replica come about?
A.Venediktov- I asked the question: Why is there a “Norman format”, but there are no Americans, and why are there Americans who, as it were, are behind Ukraine, but do not participate in a concrete settlement? He said that President Obama would be willing to participate if he were invited. The end of the quote. I clarified - he said - yes.
S.Lavrov- You know, the “Norman format” was initiated by French President Francois Hollande. Probably, this question needs to be addressed to him.
A.Venediktov- But Russia has an opinion whether it is necessary to include Americans directly in the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. They are not there.
S.Lavrov- Now everyone, including the United States, has been supported by the Minsk agreements of February 12, which Kiev has not been fulfilling since day one. They began to declare that they did not undertake any obligations to listen to Lugansk and Donetsk on constitutional reform, which is a lie. These obligations are, they are recorded in the Minsk agreements. And then they passed a law on special status, which turned everything upside down, and they distorted the sequence of steps that Kiev signed. Therefore, my answer is: If the United States, like the rest of the world, fully supports the implementation of the Minsk agreements, then they have a tremendous colossal influence on the other side of the agreements that do not fulfill them, namely the Ukrainian government.
S.Dorenko- But did you find this desirable? Here I do not understand the answer, honestly.
S.Lavrov- You know, I don't know. But the fact that the document from February 12 is the best compromise to date is recognized by all. It would have been such a document if Barack Obama participated in this night negotiation process, I do not know. Therefore, I can not guess. But the document was good, and four people made it. This is the "Norman format." And it is necessary to perform it. And here the United States can play an invaluable role, because their level of influence on Kiev is off scale.
M.Simonyan- We are from the USA today, we will not leave this topic soon. You mentioned that we occupy the minds of many people, exclusively interested in international political affairs, that the US in recent years has been not only illegal from the point of view of international law, wars, not just destructive, but harmful for themselves. I have been tormented by the question for a long time: Why is this happening? In Russia, there are a circle of people who see this as a far-reaching plan, a far-reaching conspiracy, which is connected with oil prices, or there are many, many arguments, why, for example, America needed to bomb Libya, why America needed it was arrange it all in iraq and everything you mentioned.
Americans themselves, when talking to them off the Record, they tend to think, at least those I talked to - from political scientists to current State Department employees - they tend to think behind a glass that this is just ignorance. I'll give you an example, a story, two stories that shook me. Since we have time, colleagues will allow ... Once I spoke with my teacher, who taught me when I was studying in the USA. And she asked me when the attitude of Russians towards America changed for the worse. I said that I had changed a lot in 99, when you bombed Yugoslavia. We somehow opened our eyes, we began to look differently, at least, my generation. She says to me: “We did not bomb Yugoslavia. What are you talking about? ”I say:“ Well, what about 99 year, Belgrade. ” She says: “This is the first time I've heard about it. It can not be.
S.Lavrov- She is at what age?
M.Simonyan- At a normal age. She was fifty years old at the time.
S.Lavrov- And she taught you, could she teach you something?
M.Simonyan- I am talking about this, Sergey Viktorovich. And this is not an isolated case. I said to her: “There’s“ Google ”in another room — a computer — look.” She returned - there was no face on it. She says: "I can not believe that I did not know about it." And this is a typical situation. It does not seem so here, you only, when you plunge into the American environment, you understand how typical it is.
S.Lavrov- What city was it?
M.Simonyan- This is New Hampshire, This is New England. It is not somewhere far away. I will tell you the situation even worse, which is just me ... Even I, knowing how it is there, inside, plunging into the American backwoods, this story just shook me. I had lunch off the Record with one of the State Department employees. I will not, of course, call who, but the person has lived here and in the post-Soviet space, has been on business trips many times. And we are discussing some things, and including, we are discussing the war in Georgia. And his wife says: “What kind of war is there in Georgia?” We say: “Well, how? The war in 2008. She says: "I do not know." She did not know about it.
S. Lavrov: The United States can play an invaluable role, because their level of influence on Kiev goes off scale
S.Lavrov- Happy woman.
M.Simonyan- This does not surprise me.
A.Venediktov- Putin also believes that there was no war. Putin does not believe that there was a war, sorry, so this woman is for sure ...
M.Simonyan- What now to distort? The man never heard that there was a conflict, some kind of military conflict. And you remember very well the resolution of the Congress on Ukraine recently, in which they said that Obama extended a helping hand, a hand of friendship to Putin, and Putin then attacked Georgia. Obama then were not the president, well, it does not matter. In general, your opinion: is this a cunning plan or is it just ordinary ignorance with many illustrations?
S.Lavrov- In August, 8, Putin was Prime Minister then, and he was in Beijing when it all started, and he told how he approached Bush, who was also in Beijing for the opening of the Olympiad and said: "George, I just that he received the news that Saakashvili attacked Tskhinval and peacekeepers. ” And according to him, Vladimir Vladimirovich, Bush was somehow embarrassed a little, says: "Oh, how bad." Here, if we talk about those things. Of course, it was not Obama, it was George W. Bush.
And a few months before, in April, 2008, together with Angela Merkel, together with Nicolas Sarkozy and other NATO leaders met in Bucharest at the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance, they adopted a document that reads: NATO". And in my estimation, this played an important role in the fact that Saakashvili’s head just went, he decided that everything was permissible for him. Moreover, a couple of weeks before what happened, Condoleezza Rice was there in Tbilisi. I then asked her what you said there. She says: "I called for him to promote a political settlement." Probably.
As for what is behind these events - the lack of professionalism or the desire to create controlled chaos, in which fishing is easier in muddy water - to be honest, I'm still a supporter of the fact that Americans are not stupid people, and what they do, they do consciously. Although they lost professionals. Their “Middle Easterners” were very, very skilled and strong. Now - units. But strategically, they do not want to create a situation in which these important regions of the world will live, live and make their own without them, without Americans. Therefore, it is important to them that all the time someone depended on them. Israel depended on the Arabs.
M.Simonyan- That is controlled chaos.
S.Lavrov- In the end, you can say so, but this controllability ... Yes, as for the Ukrainian crisis, we will not allow, do not allow us the European Union to deepen our partnership, and it is best to throw the prospects of such partnership back, especially between Russia and Germany. I have no doubt that this is a strategic goal, and I’m talking about this not just because I guess, but I have sources that I trust. And plus the meaning of the continued existence of NATO. They had Afghanistan as a unifying factor: “We can’t relax in any case, let’s be a coalition, all NATO countries are participating there,” and so on. Then it was necessary to withdraw the troops, and everyone was already tired of this Afghanistan, knowing full well that it would not be too soon, and especially not in the presence of the occupying troops, a political settlement could be advanced. And we need some kind of new excuse for this NATO to maintain its cohesion, if you will.
And about the preparation of the army - they are now saying a lot: the Americans began to train the Ukrainian army. First, they said that 20 has been doing this for years. But then the price was worthless to them as the trainers of the armed forces, as trainers. The Ukrainian army was ruined. Then take it, they were preparing the army in Afghanistan, they were preparing the army in Iraq. Is there any success for these armies in the fight against terror? I think not.
S.Dorenko- Tell me, please, when you said about the union of Russia and Germany, I remembered that this concept does not exist for the first century, and this concept, in particular, of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, and so on. So, divide Poland again? Prospects? We, Germany - together. Limitrop countries go to rest. We divide them, quickly push and we have from Cologne to Vladivostok ...
S.Lavrov- You still have this ...
S.Dorenko- From Alexandra Feodorovna, yes. What do you think?
S.Lavrov- I believe that a union, such an open partnership between Russia and Germany is not at all necessary in order to divide lands and territories again, but in order to shake up the European Union, and so that in this European Union the line to defend their interests - the interests of states that this union is included. In order not to give at the mercy of the policy of the European Union to the marginalized, who, in general, follow instructions from overseas, that's all.
S.Dorenko- In this regard, do you see the processes in such a way that the Americans prohibit the Germans from this alliance, which looks so organic to you?
S.Lavrov- It is probably difficult to ban Germany. This would probably be a national shame for the Germans. I do not think they will go to accept the prohibitions. But the Americans can and do a lot to prevent the rapprochement between Russia and Germany.
S.Dorenko- There are no facts - we just know about it and that's it.
S.Lavrov- There are facts, but I can not disclose them. We know what kind of work the Americans do in the capital cities, what message they convey to Germany and to others. It got to the point that in one of the Eastern European countries, which the Red Army liberated, American emissaries demand from the government to speed up the demolition of monuments to the heroes of the Second World War.
A.Venediktov- The country will not name?
A.Venediktov- Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov on the air of three radio stations. Sergey Viktorovich, who shot down the "Boeing"? What do you know about this?
S.Lavrov- I would appreciate information that could shed light on this tragedy. We are very seriously concerned about how this entire investigation is being conducted. Soon there will be a year. More recently, there was information that Malaysian specialists were finally allowed in, who, in my opinion, brought two more tons of debris, remains, and remains there. Representatives of the security service of the Donetsk People's Republic helped them. Why immediately this could not be done? Why did all this happen with some incomprehensible delays, under some cover of secrecy, contrary to the rules that an international civil organization aviation exist, contrary to a Security Council resolution that decided to report monthly on the progress of the investigation. In general, no reports are received by the Security Council. We only, in my opinion, alone scurry around. Recently, the Dutch published some intermediate information and asked everyone who could confirm the presence of a “Buk” in the territory near the crash site. And why other videos do not show and do not ask to confirm any knowledge about this or that episode, including the person who worked at the airport, who saw the fighter fly away with two missiles - returned with one missile. He called the name of the pilot. Why no one answers our many times asked questions, where are the promised data from the negotiations of dispatchers.
A.Venediktov- They were published in the Dutch press in full.
S.Lavrov- In the Dutch press? Ukrainian dispatchers?
A.Venediktov- Investigation team.
S.Lavrov- No, no, the data of the Ukrainian dispatchers - I do not know that they ...
A.Venediktov- You ask the Dutch.
S.Lavrov- Well, if they were published in the Dutch press, why our media are silent about this.
A.Venediktov- But they did.
S.Lavrov- No, I have not heard of it.
A.Venediktov- I will send.
S.Lavrov- Please send it to be interesting. And certainly nowhere has been published what the Americans promised. They promised data from satellites, and data from AWACS that worked that day.
A.Venediktov- In this regard, I want to ask millet. Please tell me, I sometimes have the impression that the Russian side is acting under the password of Donetsk, Lugansk militias, separatists, whatever you like, and the Americans are acting under the passwords of Kiev. In this regard, perhaps directly ... Yes, you are with Kerry, but as postmen. And the presidents do not call each other. Do not meet. The level of confidence is probably zero. Sergey Viktorovich, is this some kind of sur happening - no?
S.Lavrov- You see, the trouble in this plan is as follows. I have already mentioned that on the eve of the coup d'etat there were telephone contacts between Obama and Putin. Obama asked to convince Yanukovych not to enter the army - he was not going to do that, by the way. Putin said: "Well, we will do everything to calm the situation, we support this agreement." Although this agreement, in essence, is an act of capitulation of the legitimately elected president. Well, for the sake of stability in Ukraine, we are going to support him. “But I ask you, Barak,” Putin said, “you influence the opposition so that it also does not misbehave and disrupt this process and does not resort to violent actions”, because then there were already a lot of cases when snipers shot and set fire to the Party of Regions. And Barak promised, and in the morning there was a coup. And no one from the United States just called and said: “You know, yes, I remember, we agreed that neither of them would be disgraceful, but it did not work out” - at least, so to speak.
A.Venediktov- That is meaningless?
S. Lavrov: Saakashvili simply "went head", he decided that everything was permissible for him
S.Lavrov- It makes no sense. The same thing happened when we gathered in the Geneva format: Kerry, Ashton, Deschitsa and Lavrov. And we adopted a statement there, which contained a clause on the immediate commencement of constitutional reform through a dialogue involving all regions and all political forces. Kerry subscribed to this. When I reminded him about this a month later, he said: “Yes, yes, this is very important, we continue to influence them.” When I remind him of this now, he says: "Well, what are you ...". And I remind you about the coup, about the conversation with Obama and about the Geneva statement of 17 on April of last year, he says: “Listen, it has already been a long time. We must resolve the situation now. ”
A.Venediktov- So they do not say - Putin and Obama, do not say!
S.Lavrov- I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about what they say: "Well, what are you! Whoever remembers the old, that eye out. ” But today's, it is a derivative of the old, from the fact that Ukrainians were not forced to fulfill their obligations from February 21 to create a government of national unity. They were given the opportunity to seize power and create a government of winners and begin to declare that Yarosh said that Russian would never go to our church Greek Catholic, Russian would never think and speak Ukrainian and would not praise Bandera, therefore Russians in the Crimea should not be. This was also said at the end of February. Before it all began in the Crimea.
S.Dorenko- Yes, it was said with all certainty.
S.Lavrov- I will tell you to not forget this topic. I will tell you frankly and, I hope, the president will not swear strongly at me, he told his partners: “If you forced the former opposition, who tried to commit a coup, return everything to the terms of the agreement from February 21 and prevent this Russophobia so militant and violent, with threats and attempts to seize buildings in the Crimea and other places, Yanukovych would remain president until the end of the year. It is clear that he would not have won the election, of course, and there would not be thousands and thousands killed, there would be tens of thousands wounded, we would still sell gas for 168 dollars and provide the remaining tranches of 15 billions as pretty. Everything would be as agreed. And why all this was arranged, I have already said.
M.Simonyan- To return Crimea to Russia, apparently. We have two minutes left News, so I will slightly reduce the intensity of the discussion, ask questions from our listeners. Leyla Samandarova asks, and not just asks a question, but leaves her own mobile phone. She asks you: “Sergey Viktorovich, you always have such a good, even tan. How do you manage to get it with your busy schedule? ” Phone number is recorded.
S.Lavrov- I am dark with dad and mom. Leila Samandarova, Sergey Viktorovich swarthy from her father and mother.
S.Dorenko- When to quit smoking? If we have already passed to easy questions, but a minute remains ...
S.Lavrov- We have a healthy lifestyle, so ...
S. Lavrov: There is a big problem with the US plans to withdraw weapon to space
S.Dorenko- Seriously. This is a weakness.
S.Lavrov- And I smoke very little.
S.Dorenko- Well, how much? You are seen constantly photographed by smokers.
S.Lavrov- This is one photograph of a decade ago.
A.Venediktov- I have 30 seconds left. I still finish my question. Sergey Viktorovich, is a meeting or a telephone conversation between the President of the United States and the President of Russia planned?
S.Lavrov- So far I do not know about such plans, but if President Obama is interested in such contact, I am sure that President Putin will respond.
M.Simonyan- I will continue with light questions in this case. Will Mr. Lavrov run for president of Russia in 2018 year.
S.Dorenko- By the way, you are wildly popular.
S.Dorenko- You and Shoigu, probably ...
S.Lavrov- I really like my work, and I will try to do everything in my power at this place.
M.Simonyan- And in the presidential work a lot of your work.
S.Lavrov- It is very easy for me to work with President Putin and I hope that he too.
S.Dorenko- In Asia, we are accustomed to ambush, and now I think that the listener answers: “He said, no, it means that the faithful is coming.” Vernyak goes: 18 th or 24 th? - that's the only thing ...
M.Simonyan- On this dubious note, we remind our listeners that this is an interview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, to the chief editors of three radio stations: Echo of Moscow, Sputnik radio station and Russai Today channel, and RUPTLY; Sergey Dorenko, the radio station "Moscow speaks". We will definitely return to this interview and ask more difficult and easy questions, funny and sad in five minutes, immediately after the news.
M. Simonyan- We continue the interview with Sergey Lavrov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. He gives an interview today, for which he thanks a lot. Three chief editors of three Russian radio stations and clockwise. These are Ekho Moskvy, Sputnik radio station, Rush Tudey TV channel, RUPTLY agency. And the radio station "Moscow says." Alexey Venediktov, Margarita Simonyan, Sergey Dorenko. We ask questions to the minister. Sergey Viktorovich, continuing what we talked about in the previous hour, and we talked mainly about the USA and maybe we’ll finish this question a little if colleagues don’t mind. Mind, Seryozh, then we will not finish.
S. Dorenko- Where do without them, my God.
S. Lavrov: We are very concerned about how the investigation of the "Boeing"
M. Simonyan- When we speak with American diplomats, they speak with the greatest resentment about the situation that has developed with Snowden. It was before Ukraine, and for them it is obvious that for them such a shame, a shame. And they perceive it as a shame, as a slap in the face and as a terrible insult to Russia. And personally on Putin. What Russia sheltered Snowden. In your opinion, the fact that Russia did shelter Snowden was a mistake, it was a plan, a story was planned, or it was an accident, as a result of which Russia could not do otherwise.
S. Lavrov- It was an absolute coincidence, and we could not do otherwise. The president spoke out on this topic in great detail. But honestly, I’m surprised that American diplomats still bother you with this issue. Because for the last year I have probably never heard from Kerry, nor from his employees, and no one bothered our embassy either.
M. Simonyan- We were together, Lesha, with you at a private event of a very high-ranking American diplomat, and as soon as we started talking about why you are like that, and we are like that, they say: Snowden. This is the first thing he said. With a very big resentment.
S. Dorenko- She communicates with tsrushnikami, that's the thing. You do not communicate with tsrushnikami.
S. Lavrov- They are grabbing our citizens around the world, stealing, stealing, contrary to the existing agreement between us, according to which at least we need to be informed that such and such a citizen has committed a crime, let's deal with them. They steal, drag still. And such cases continue. Just recently another occurred. Now we deal with it. And Snowden, that Snowden, he boarded a plane, flew in transit ...
M. Simonyan- Not there.
S. Lavrov- He flew in my opinion in Latin America. In Bolivia or something.
M. Simonyan- In my opinion, in Ecuador.
S. Lavrov- And he had to transfer from a plane to a plane in Moscow. While he was flying to Moscow, they canceled his passport, they officially announced this. That is, we didn’t even have legal grounds for him to somehow be landed, transplanted. He went out, asked for asylum. It was given to him. Because they were chasing him for ... This is an ambiguous situation. And in the administration there are people who understand that something is wrong here. And that there is no such absolute rightness on the side of those who demand its immediate issuance.
M. Simonyan- Of course, in our edition ...
S. Lavrov- He is considered a hero in the USA. There, even such improvised monuments were set up. And it was an accident, and when we were alone with this accident, we had no option but to give him the opportunity to be safely where he wanted to stay.
M. Simonyan- There is no issue from the Don.
S. Lavrov- Well, there is no extradition from the Don, and the President has repeatedly said that we presume that he will not be engaged in political activities here. This is a purely humanitarian gesture, and if he wants to go somewhere, it is his complete right.
S. Dorenko- Anyway, pride can be felt about this. You know, I usually hear complaints in the speeches of all our official representatives. That is, we have become a country of complaints. Ukraine - complaints. Even if I may, not wanting to offend you, I will list the complaints that you have just expressed. Libya, Yemen, you said double standards in Yemen. Ukraine - do not follow the protocol, even now, speaking in front of us, in an hour you have already complained about Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Ukraine. We are a country of complaints, we are all the time in retreat and we are constantly offended.
S. Lavrov- Why?
S. Dorenko- Because I hear. Well, we have out of success. Let's Snowden and Crimea. What else?
S. Lavrov- Why do you call this complaint. You asked me how we relate to the situation. I answer you that our partners are fighting the wrong way with terrorism. And give examples. What are these complaints.
S. Dorenko- The initiative in the world is an important aspect. We have no initiative. In Yemen, no, in Syria, no. Not today. It was, but it is no more. It was not in Libya, not in Ukraine. We keep saying: they broke, they did it. You know, we talk like a raped fool all the time. Yes, raped village fool.
S. Lavrov- Why be sure to fool.
S. Dorenko- Well, because we complain all the time.
A. Venediktov- Be sure to village.
S. Dorenko- We complain.
S. Lavrov- I disagree with you. Firstly, in Syria, I believe, we have made a huge contribution to the fact that there is not there yet, and God forbid there will be a repetition of the Libyan scenario. We were not allowed to obtain consent for outside intervention by force. Therefore, the scale of intervention is now incommensurable with those that could be if such a resolution had been passed by Russia and China. China and I used the veto together. We initiated inter-Syrian negotiations on Syria, the second round of which just ended in Moscow. On which the so-called Moscow platform from ten points was adopted for the first time. For the first time, the opposition was about something, and the broad opposition, and not a separate detachment of some kind, agreed with the Prime Minister. This creates opportunities now for the UN, which has been in such a semi-drowsy state in Syria for the past two years, is now moving again. And contacts will begin already under the roof of the UN, which are largely prepared by our efforts. In Yemen, we have done a lot to ensure that the current situation has turned into a political mainstream. And in this we are not alone far away. We have partners, including fully sharing our approaches in this region. Therefore, I don’t want to extol our actions; in Ukraine, the Minsk agreements are a direct result of both the September and February agreements, which have now become the main ones, this is the result of Putin’s initiatives following his conversations with Poroshenko. Therefore, we are really complaining at all ...
S. Dorenko- If we consider a victory ...
S. Lavrov- Yes, we are not talking about victories.
S. Dorenko- Because Minsk is a process that, unfortunately, is stalling, and we understand that it is being forced to stall the Americans. And you know how much they will make him slip. How many will want. Here they want two years - it will be two years. Want ten - will be ten.
S. Lavrov- I am afraid that they will fail ten or even two fail.
S. Dorenko- Why?
S. Lavrov- But because the Ukrainian state is in a very fragile state, and to keep it in this state means to risk that it breaks.
S. Dorenko- And the Americans will not do it.
S. Lavrov- I think they understand that.
A. Venediktov- Sergey Lavrov. Sergey Viktorovich, explain to me such a riddle. Here C-300, which we decided to resume deliveries to Iran, is beyond sanctions, because it did not fall under sanctions and missile defense. Global missile defense. And there and there it is defensive systems. Both here and there, in one case, the president says that this is the C-300 defense system, it does not worsen the situation in the region, the missile defense system is also a defense system, but it globally worsens the situation. These are different logics. Explain, please, both there and there protective. Or there and there protective or not there and not there.
S. Lavrov- We have no different logic. We have the same logic. In relation ...
A. Venediktov- And to missile defense and ...
S. Lavrov- You see, first of all, C-300 is not a weapon that can be used to protect against nuclear weapons. And missile defense is being built precisely for protection against strategic armaments. Nuclear offensive weapons. C-300 is suitable in order to defend against missile systems, not strategic, from air strikes. And so on. But missile defense is a completely different thing. It directly affects the capabilities of the strategic forces of nuclear deterrence. And that is why we are paying such attention to what the Americans are doing and, in general, politically, we fundamentally explain our position, and in practical terms we do the necessary things so that this missile defense does not become an obstacle to maintaining strategic balance, strategic balance .
S. Lavrov: Obama promised to influence the opposition, and in the morning in Kiev there was a coup
A. Venediktov- Then all the same about C-300 explain. Deliveries are possible, the schedule is still there, as I understand it. But possible supplies worsen the situation in the region. They change the balance of power.
S. Lavrov- Worse the situation in what sense? The fact is that those who want to hit Iran still will probably think twice, at least, before doing so.
A. Venediktov- And therefore will deliver drones to Ukraine. Those who want to hit Iran. Speech about Israel of course.
S. Lavrov- I have not heard that Israel is going to deliver drones to Ukraine.
S. Dorenko- The specs are coming.
S. Lavrov- Speculations have been going on for a long time. They do not receive confirmations. About the C-300. The first reaction of Barack Obama was quite original. He said that I wondered at all why they still somehow keep the moratorium from 2009. Russians. And they say it is their right, yes, we asked them in due time, but they promised, but for five years, I did not think that they would last for five years. Yesterday, all of a sudden, he says quite different things, that this is wrong, negotiations are underway, so this is about the question of what to trust and how to talk with our American partners. Constantly some zigzags and changes in assessment. This is our right, we did not violate anything, we did it in order to encourage Iran to take a more constructive approach to negotiations. This stimulation worked. A very important stage has been reached in the negotiation process. The political framework of the settlement is now being translated into the language of practical agreements. Therefore, no, yes, about what is happening, including in Yemen and the region as a whole, indicates that there are serious risks. And we do not want Iran to become the object of the use of force illegitimate.
M. Simonyan- On this occasion, Sergey Viktorovich, Carlos Mendez-Mendoza from Mexico asks: “Why Russia does not deploy nuclear weapons in any of the Latin American countries. To contain the provoked US approach of NATO to its borders. ” And an insane amount of questions from Latin America like this. “Will Venezuela get a Russian military base,” Rodrigo from Brazil. Juan Guilero, Malima Clara, also from Brazil: “Is it planned to create a joint BRICS army,” in general, Latin America loves us, wants and waits. Where are we.
S. Lavrov- About nuclear weapons. I think everyone understands that it is necessary to stop any actions that are aimed at the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
M. Simonyan- Well, not nuclear.
S. Lavrov- As the distribution in the sense of its possession of new and new states, and geographical distribution. The Americans are violating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, because they have tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe on the territory of five countries. Moreover, within the framework of NATO, there is a program in accordance with which citizens of these five countries are involved in the service and the ability to handle these tactical nuclear weapons systems. And citizens of other NATO countries. In addition to the United States. This is a very serious risk for a nonproliferation treaty. We pay attention to this. And we do not believe that the security of our country should be ensured by transferring our nuclear arsenals somewhere else. As for the non-nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, including naval and air forces, strategic aviation ...
M. Simonyan- Military bases.
S. Lavrov- I'm talking about non-nuclear forces. What we are interested in is that our armed forces can perform, be able to perform tasks anywhere in the world. This also applies to long-distance campaigns of our warships. And long-range flights of our strategic aviation. We use airfields, ports, and are ready to negotiate the creation of logistics points by foreign countries. Visits were visited by our ships and airplanes, including to Venezuela. To other countries in the region. And we are interested in this being done on a regular basis. The base for this, as such, in the understanding of the American military base as a base, is a fortress, fortified protected, stuffed with modern weapons, we do not see this need. But the opportunities to stop, refuel, give a rest to the crew, replenish stocks - there are such opportunities, and we will increase them.
S. Dorenko- A little earlier, you said that the NATO members are coming to you because of the flights of our long-range aviation, in connection with the hikes of our ships, lamenting that there are no coordination mechanisms and trying to establish new coordination mechanisms. Tell me who it was, at what level, when it was done and what are the prospects for it.
S. Lavrov- I said if they officially come to us ...
S. Dorenko- There is no official yet.
S. Lavrov- Official appeals were not. In conversations hinted.
S. Dorenko- How do you feel about the military ...
S. Lavrov- Sorry, the conversation concerned, first of all, aviation flights, conducting exercises, at the junction of the borders of Russia and NATO countries. There was no conversation about ships here at all.
S. Dorenko- Please analyze the possibility of a full-scale military union of Russia and Iran. We seem to have common enemies.
S. Lavrov- You know, we have a military alliance, a military-political alliance in the form of an organization of a collective security treaty, Iran is an observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This is not a military organization, it deals with the fight against common threats, including terrorism. There is a so-called regional antiterrorist structure of the SCO. In which both members and observers participate. This is the mechanism that has been created for our common enemy of terrorism and within the framework of which we interact with Iran.
S. Dorenko- Imagine that there is a military alliance of Russia and Iran.
M. Simonyan- This question, sorry, interrupt, the most popular question from our listeners from Iran. A huge number of people ask exactly this question, although we did not agree with Seryozha.
S. Dorenko- We did not agree.
M. Simonyan- They say that Russia used to think that Russia is cool towards Iran, and now ask anyone on the streets of Iranian cities: what do you think about Russia, they will answer: and Russia defends the interests of Iran, helps our country.
S. Dorenko- Very obvious things.
M. Simonyan- And waiting for a military alliance.
S. Lavrov- No, the military alliance is absolutely not needed, neither we nor the Iranians. I am convinced of this and we have not received any proposals from Iran on this score. And I think it is completely unrealistic and unnecessary.
A. Venediktov- Sorry, Sergey Viktorovich, interrupt. Iran’s defense minister in Moscow three days ago made a proposal to create a military-political union. India, China, Iran and Russia. It was a public statement.
S. Lavrov- This is slightly different. India, China, Iran and Russia are united within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where both members and observers actively interact within the framework of this anti-terrorist structure and regular exercises can interact within the framework. The military, which are primarily anti-terrorism, or the nature of preparation for overcoming the consequences of natural disasters and other emergencies. And I am sure that this is quite enough to promote these ideas. The Iranian defense minister was at the international security conference, which was attended by dozens of other ministers of defense. But about the attitude in Iran to Russia, I think that people rightly celebrate our ...
S. Dorenko- It is embarrassing, but I wanted to add, saying that you, it seems, can be colleagues who share this feeling, speak with much greater sympathy about an alliance with Germany than with Iran. Hence the consequence, perhaps, if the orientation towards Europe is not outdated all the time.
S. Lavrov- I did not speak about the alliance with Germany, about the military-political alliance.
S. Dorenko- Ideally maybe.
S. Lavrov- No, I did not say that. I talked about cooperation with Germany in order to ensure the initiative of the EU. That's what I was talking about.
S. Dorenko- I apologize.
S. Lavrov- As for our role in Iranian affairs, everyone recognizes this, the agreement, which is now exposed in a political framework and which was fixed in this city of Lausanne, this agreement is based on the concept that we put forward a few years ago. Reciprocity and phased. In concrete terms, it contains decouples that should still be put on paper, but they have already been approved in principle, technical ones on the issues, on the scale of the nuclear program that is being maintained in Iran. Interchanges, which were proposed in many ways by Russian experts. And in many ways, this agreement is based on the consideration of our cooperation with Iran in the development of its nuclear energy. Which has never been limited, despite all the sanctions, and which will now be confirmed as an absolutely legitimate area of application of our joint efforts with Iran. And of course, we will develop military-technical cooperation with Iran. And this is C-300 and a restriction on the supply of arms to Iran through the Security Council, which will be lifted. And we have very good prospects opening up. Therefore, yes, we in the military-technical sphere can do a lot together.
A. Venediktov- Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Sergey Viktorovich, you are talking about the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. How likely is it that with current technologies, mass destruction and nuclear, including the fall into the hands of either terrorist groups or states that support terrorist groups? How much has this threat increased? Or it is being stopped by the great powers now.
S. Lavrov- This threat exists, and many years ago I still worked in New York as Russia's representative to the UN, we initiated, Russia initiated a Security Council resolution, which was supported by the United States and other permanent members of the Security Council. France, UK, China. The resolution on the development of specific measures, practices at the national level in the international monitoring. Which would reduce the risks of nuclear materials, and especially of components of nuclear weapons, falling into the hands of non-state actors. This is a term that includes terrorist structures, but there may be some criminal groups. This resolution laid the foundation for creating a sufficiently effective information exchange network. Transfer of experience, introduction of some self-justified mechanisms in some countries into the practice of other states. And as a follow-up to this resolution, a Russian-American initiative, a global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism, was developed. This is also the advancement of progressive, effective methods, technologies, equipment that allow you to prevent, reveal, thank God, for the time being ...
A. Venediktov- Risks do not grow?
S. Lavrov: The CIA is grabbing our citizens around the world, stealing, stealing, contrary to the existing agreement
S. Lavrov- At least, no cases of revealing the facts of hitting nuclear weapons components in non-state hands have been identified.
A. Venediktov- And in connection with this question. We know that several times already Obama, the Americans proposed a further reduction of the nuclear potentials of Russia and the United States. What is our position. Or we are at the stage right now.
S. Lavrov- You know this in many ways from the evil one, this nuclear zero. Because we did not just set the task to never have nuclear weapons on earth. We set the goal for the world to be safe. And this means that we must take into account the new technologies that are emerging in the military-technical sphere. Since the invention of nuclear weapons. And which influence strategic stability and which possess can be no less, and more even effective action from the point of view of achieving a military result. For example, the Americans are working on the creation of a hypersonic weapon that is not nuclear, but which will be strategic, the program for its creation is called "Lightning global strike." The goal is to be able to strike at any point on the globe within an hour of the decision. This weapon will, of course, be more humane, if you like in terms of non-repetition of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, radiation. But in terms of the military effect, it will be more powerful than nuclear weapons. Secondly, there is a big problem with the US plans to bring weapons into space. And from there to solve the same problem.
A. Venediktov- Not nuclear.
S. Lavrov- Well, I hope that there will not be a non-nuclear one, much less a nuclear one. Several years ago, we and the People’s Republic of China came out with a draft treaty on the non-deployment of weapons in space. Which is supported by almost everyone, including Europe. Except the USA. They do not want such a contract, which also suggests. In addition, of course, the missile defense system understands this, if we imagine for a minute, no one has nuclear weapons, the Americans have this supersonic hyperpower non-nuclear strategic armament and there is missile defense, which is protected from everyone. This is a dangerous combination. Because temptation, when you have a shield and a sword, it will increase for sure. There is such a topic as a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. And it can enter into force only if a certain list of countries named in this document ratifies it. Among them, of course, there is the United States. Obama, when elected for the first time, among other promises, along with the closure of the base in Guantanamo (which did not fulfill and did not fulfill) threatened to ratify it. Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Now they refer, in response to our question, that the Congress does not. So, the Congress does not allow either to close the base in Guantanamo, nor to sign this Treaty. And therefore it is necessary, therefore, to forget about all other aspects of strategic stability, except for nuclear weapons. And let's not forget that in conventional weapons we have a huge imbalance in favor of NATO. If we take the size of military budgets, there is nothing to argue about. Therefore, further reductions of strategic offensive arms can only be approached comprehensively, taking into account all these factors. And nuclear strategic weapons and air defense, and no weapons in space, and a number of other aspects.
M.Simonyan- Another topic that, quoting you, supported almost the whole world, including Europe, and did not support the United States. The day after tomorrow, most of the world will celebrate the terrible anniversary - the centenary of the Armenian Genocide. In Armenia, this is a great event. Many people and state leaders arrived there. And the stars, including Hollywood. Putin will go there, you will go there. A lot of questions come to us on this issue both from Armenia and from Turkey and Azerbaijan. Here I ask you, if I may, two. So, the question from Azerbaijan from Nijat Hajiyev: do you think that the decision of Vladimir Putin to go to Yerevan for the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide would not lead to a deterioration of Russia's relations with Turkey and, maybe, with Azerbaijan. And a question from Armenia: do you think such a huge surge of public opinion in connection with the anniversary of the genocide came to Kim Kardashian, who is known in the United States almost more than Obama, will this not result in pressure from the United States still recognize the Armenian genocide with all the consequences?
S. Lavrov- Well, about what the United States does or won’t do, I won’t guess. It is up to them to decide. Each country makes its own decision. We made that decision a long time ago. And as far as I know, many other countries have done the same. You see, paying tribute to the victims of mass crimes cannot be interpreted as a reason to ruin a relationship with someone else. As with those countries, with those governments that are now operating in the territory where these crimes were committed, and with other governments. Please give you an example: reconciliation in Europe after World War II. Reconciliation between Russia and Germany, France and Germany. Yes, the mass of such examples. And in Europe, of course, first of all. We are for Armenian-Turkish relations to normalize, for the Karabakh conflict to be resolved and thus Armenian-Azerbaijani relations to normalize. We do a lot for this. A few years ago, we supported a process that was initiated by Ankara and Yerevan to develop documents on the opening of borders with mutual recognition, development of cooperation, etc. Unfortunately, the documents were signed, but they did not enter into force, because it did not work out at this stage in Turkey with ratification. But we will actively contribute to this.
As for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, I think we did and continue to do more than anyone to find solutions to this very difficult, but in fact, manageable crisis. We work together with the Americans, the French, in the framework of the so-called group of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. We regularly communicate with the ministers of foreign affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Our president also discusses this topic during his contacts with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are opportunities to find a generally acceptable basis for moving forward. And I expect that the upcoming contacts, including in Yerevan, and then there will be a visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan in May, will nevertheless accelerate in this matter. He is already overripe, in my opinion.
S.Dorenko- I would like to ask about Lukashenko and May 9. A year ago, we read in the Russian press reports that the Victory Parade would be joint. That is, the Belarusian troops will take part in Red Square, will be held together with the Russian due to the fact that we have a very close alliance. It seems that over the past year, since these publications took place, Belarus has decided not to compromise itself by such a close friendship with Russia, and Lukashenko may go to 9 in May. I know he has a parade there. But a year ago we planned a joint parade, if we are properly informed.
S.Lavrov- Belarusian troops and units of the Belarusian military will take part in the Parade 9 of May, so you can not worry.
S.Dorenko- Why not here?
S.Lavrov- The presidential administration has already spoken on this subject. Alexander G. will be here on May 8. Will participate in a series of events, which is scheduled for this day. Then, as he himself announced, he will go to host the parade. But the Belarusian military will participate, along with the military of a number of other countries, and not only the CIS countries, in the May 9 Parade.
S.Dorenko- Is this a symbolic absence?
M.Simonyan- I paraphrase, if you allow: do you have a feeling that Mr. Lukashenko has exchanged us for the forgiveness of Europe and is not going to.
S.Lavrov- No, I have no such feeling.
V.Venediktov- I would like to talk to you about the casus of Nadezhda Savchenko. She is under investigation here, she is in a SIZO. Firstly, there are the Minsk agreements on the exchange of prisoners, hostages - whatever you want to call it, I do not remember how it is formulated there, “everything for everyone”. Secondly, she is a deputy of the Rada with a certain immunity. Thirdly, she is a PACE deputy, where we are members too, there is also immunity there. And we are constantly being called upon by international organizations and reminded of immunity. Therefore, I’m talking more about Savchenko’s legal incident, not referring to the accusations that have been brought against her, but have not yet been proven in accordance with Russian laws.
S. Lavrov: As for C-300, Barack Obama’s first reaction was quite original
S.Lavrov- She is accused of committing a serious crime, of complicity in the actions that led to the death of Russian journalists. I think that, of course, the investigation of these crimes should not be indifferent to us. As for the legal side of the case, she was arrested before she became a member of the Verkhovna Rada and a member of the PACE delegation. This is one fact that must be considered. The second fact, which also needs to be taken into account, is that immunity is granted functional. That is, it acts when a person performs the function of either a deputy to the Verkhovna Rada or a member of the PACE delegation. No more. And about the exchange of all for all: she is not a hostage, she was arrested on suspicion of crimes. Here we can talk about the involvement of the other part of the Minsk agreements, which refers to the amnesty of all those involved in the events in the south-east. But in order to amnesty a person, you must first bring to court, and the court must decide. If the court decides that she is innocent, then in general no questions arise. If the court decides that she is guilty, then, probably, she will fall under the amnesty, if I can interpret the Minsk agreements in this way. And the last thing: the consular access of Ukrainian diplomats is provided for her, her sister visited her, several times German doctors visited her, Ukrainian doctors visited her. I expect that the humanitarian aspect of the situation is taken into account by all. It will not be our partners from abroad speculate.
A.Venediktov- This is due to the fact that generally international jurisdiction. There is a feeling that the Security Council has become an absolutely impotent organization. There are a lot of conflicts of interest between permanent members, Russia, in particular, and the United States. The most necessary questions are blocked. Just complete impotence. In this regard, is there a position of Russia on changing the functional actions of the Security Council? There is a question of the veto.
S.Lavrov- Are you talking about Viagra, probably political?
A.Venediktov- Yes Yes Yes. Do you have in your pocket a political viagra for Security Council?
S.Lavrov- I do not agree with the fact that he is absolutely helpless. This is said by people who do not like it when, say, a veto is applied. When, for example, the Americans do not give a resolution on a Palestinian settlement, but China and I did not allow to adopt a resolution that would unleash a war already on a legitimate basis through the good of the Security Council in Syria. A little bit all the same different positions. We opposed the sanctioning of the war, having, by the way, a sad example of the same Libya and Iraq of the same before our eyes. And the Americans are blocking resolutions that are designed to promote a political settlement of Palestinian-Israeli relations.
However, over the past couple of years, the Security Council has adopted quite a few resolutions, much more than not. Including very important resolutions on peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Mali, In Somalia, in the CAR, in Chad. These are all crises that few have heard, simply because Ukraine is clear to everyone, and what is happening in Africa. And these are enormous problems, this is a huge continent, people who cannot begin to live normally in their countries and use the enormous natural resources of this continent, because they are constantly in some kind of conflict with each other. Yes, this is a historical curse, probably, to a certain extent, because the colonizers put borders along the line and cut ethnic groups and their places of residence on the 2-3 parts. This all affects so far. When there were Hutus, Tutsis and other nationalities in different countries.
S.Dorenko- But they are white too continuously ...
S.Lavrov- Well, each other. And here they were directly cut in half and distributed to different states, that is, it became even more complicated. But the wisdom of the African leaders, after colonialism was stopped by the national-liberation struggle, they agreed, creating then the Organization of African Unity, not to touch the borders. And, of course, it is very difficult. What is happening there now is very difficult to resolve. We must help this. And the Security Council is actively engaged in this.
I will mention another Security Council decision that is not at all like the work of an impotent one: this is a resolution on chemical disarmament of Syria. The most effective mechanism was created, which for the year brought the result that was planned. I would not indiscriminately defile the Security Council. It was created for the great powers to negotiate among themselves. And if they do not agree and one of them applies a veto, then an idea that has not passed is not suitable for ensuring the interaction of great powers. This is part of the UN charter. Therefore, do not complain. The ability to use the veto is part of the process of resolving various crises.
M.Simonyan- Many questions are very sanctioned. I do not know, like colleagues. Surely, too much. Our listeners have a huge number of questions asked about sanctions. And for the most part, it may be interesting for you to know, Sergey Viktorovich, they accuse Russia that Russia has responded too softly to these sanctions. People write: when is it already banned in Russia Coke, McDonalds. This is written by Western people, not Russian. In general, the access of US companies to the Russian market will be banned. This I just tell you for information. And the next question ...
S.Dorenko- And leave the french press?
M.Simonyan- The question is: do you expect sanctions to be lifted from Russia in September or not?
S.Lavrov- I, frankly, can not say that I am very concerned about this issue. I am concerned about the general nature of the relationship. First of all - from the EU and, of course, from the USA. We are not at all interested in constantly being in a state of crisis. Why am I not concerned specifically about sanctions? The main reason: we still need to develop our production of the vast majority of goods. Especially high-tech. Especially concerning the tasks of ensuring defense capability. And, of course, I think that food: we can fully feed ourselves. But this does not mean at all that it is necessary to abandon the diversity that imports from partner countries offer. Especially when trade is balanced, when it is conducted mutually beneficial, on the basis of understandable norms, when ...
M.Simonyan- Parmesan is notorious.
S.Lavrov- Well maybe. I was in the same restaurant not so long ago. And there they have written in the menu where the cheeses go: cheeses according to the French recipe, cheeses according to the Dutch recipe. I asked: where is it produced? They say: in France and Holland; it's just that we write so that no one will catch us by the hand.
S.Dorenko- The European Commission minutes 40 ago filed antitrust charges against Gazprom. The European Commission officially filed charges against Gazprom in connection with the violation of competition rules. Went a big round-up. Does the MFA participate in protecting the interests of Gazprom in these countries?
S.Lavrov- Of course, we are participating, and actively promoting our, in my opinion, very understandable arguments. The argument is simple. The contracts that are currently in force, which were signed by Gazprom with its partners, were concluded in full compliance with the legal regime in force at that time in the European Union. When they adopted the third energy package in the European Union, the so-called, requiring crushing production, transit and distribution to consumers, there were attempts — they continue — backdating retrospectively these requirements to extend to old contracts. This is absolutely unacceptable if only because we have an agreement on partnership and cooperation with the European Union 99 year, which has not been canceled, where it is written that the parties undertake not to take actions that will lead to a deterioration in business conditions. And with a number of EU member states, we have bilateral investment protection treaties, where it is also forbidden to worsen business conditions. Therefore, we have arguments. Monopoly investigations are a thing that the European Commission planned and warned for a long time, and there were searches in the company ...
S.Dorenko- Legal tools. I am interested, you are a very sober-minded person and understand that the rules of today's international politics are one thing: the rules are all canceled, in essence. Rule number one: all rules are canceled. Do you believe, nevertheless, in legal tools?
S.Lavrov- I said that it exists, and they certainly need to use it, of course.
S.Dorenko- Five years later, Gazprom and Era. What? Here give me ... in five years, Gazprom and Europe.
S. Lavrov: We do not have cane discipline, we respect the nuances in the policies of our partners
S.Lavrov- I think the agreement will be reached. I am sure that the new projects being discussed, first of all, the so-called “Turkish stream”, no matter what the final name will be called - they are in the interests of Europe, and we feel it. Contacts between representatives of the European Commission on Energy, the Russian Federation are held. The Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr. Shefchovic, who is engaged in energy, he in January at a meeting with our Energy Minister Alexander Novak proposed to resume the energy dialogue. We are for it. Let's sit down, negotiate. Of course, the rules are not written in order to never change them. The rules are written in order to fix the achieved level of development of some industry. And I am convinced that the third energy package is good enough to develop new projects, but it cannot retrospectively affect what was created in the absence of these new rules.
A.Venediktov- Sergey Viktorovich, many representatives, including the Russian government, like to recall Alexander III, saying that in Russia there are only two allies: the army and the navy. Ha ha ha — and everyone laughs and applauds. In fact, forgetting that exactly one year after this phrase the Entente was concluded and the Russian tsar stood and saluted the French Marseillaise when the French president arrived here on a visit. It is clear that, like England, Russia has interests and no permanent allies. But at this stage, when we have frozen relations with NATO, with the West, with America, which is our interest and constant ally, except for the army and fleet?
S.Lavrov- You know, this is a question that has been asked many times. We have, so to speak, formally legal allies. This is a collective security agreement. And a lot of talk, why not all, so to speak, blow in one tune, sorry for the jargon. We have no cane discipline, we respect the nuances in the policies of our partners. But in the main, we have an absolutely unified position, absolutely unified actions: ensuring the security of the countries belonging to this Collective Security Treaty and the corresponding military and military-technical measures of interaction, creating collective forces both for repelling threats and for peacekeeping operations. These are our allies, of course.
Next we have truly strategic partners. These are the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS countries. And I see no need to directly declare all allies. As you know, in NATO: you will be an ally only when you join us as members. After all, why has our attempt through the OSCE to create equal indivisible security collapsed? Because it was not legally guaranteed. And the NATO countries, first of all the Americans, directly said: "Only NATO members can have legal guarantees of their own security." This is a provocation. This means that they actually invite everyone to break away from other partners and join NATO. This is the promotion to the east of the very dividing lines that after the Cold War, all pledged to erase. Therefore, “ally” - this word is already becoming part of the dilemma: either you are with us or you are against us. It is not right. We are in favor of developing relations with everyone who is ready for this, on the basis of respect for each other and on the basis of a balance of interests.
M.Simonyan- After, Sergey Viktorovich. There is an opinion that after the events in Ukraine - and after the Crimea and after what started and still happens in the southeast - our perennial and certainly close-close allies somehow, let's say, got nervous, I mean post-Soviet space. And we, of course, do not take the Baltics, because we are not discussing schizophrenia now, all these endless notes and statements that Russia is going to attack and so on. We are talking about the fact that there is an opinion that they somehow became nervous in Kazakhstan, remembering that they have a lot of Russians there: but what if something doesn’t start? Is there such a thing or not? Or they understand us ... You communicate with them.
S.Lavrov- They understand us. You know, even if you are talking about the Crimea, as an excuse for someone to worry. The film that made Andrei Kondrashov “Crimea. The way home ”- there the president once again spoke in great detail about how all this happened. And only when he realized what people came to power, in what way, how all these promises were trampled, all these guarantees of Western countries according to documents from February 21; when these calls began, that Russians should be cleaned out of the Crimea in general - he then only made this decision. I recalled, by the way, I recall once again: at the end of last year, Obama gave an interview to CNN, and in every way he praised his foresight, and somehow got personal and compared himself to Putin - he was so slipped, it was clear that hurt. And he said with insult that you all said that Putin is so far-sighted that he is so wise ...
M.Simonyan- What he bypassed all.
S.Lavrov- ... that he has bypassed everybody. And we took it ... the economy was screwed up, and you see where this economy is located. And he was proud that he ruined the Russian economy, as he put it, turned it into trash, he said. And then he said, again promoting his line, and rejecting, as it were, our foresight and our ability to look ahead, he said: “We Americans, throughout the entire period preceding the Ukrainian crisis, worked as brokers to transfer power, and Putin and the Crimea improvised. " This is according to Freud. He acknowledged that Putin was right, and speaks the truth when he told when and what pushed him to this decision.
M.Simonyan- God bless him, with Obama. These arguments, we know them, Sergey Viktorovich ...
A.Venediktov- Kazakhstan, Belarus.
M.Simonyan- Nazarbayev understands this - is that what Putin is saying? Does he understand it that way too?
S.Lavrov- Our neighbors are well aware, I dare to assure you. Tell about this woman who taught you in New Hampshire.
M.Simonyan- Thank God, she taught me not history and not politics, but nonetheless.
S.Dorenko- I think that apart from the army and the navy there is also an economy. I think there are attractive countries to which everyone is drawn. So I read a long time ago: Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and writes about it that there are countries to which everyone is drawn, and there are countries that everyone shuns. Is it difficult for you to be a foreign minister for a weakening, weak Russia?
S. Lavrov: I didn’t pay attention to the fact that someone shuns me or someone shuns our country
S.Lavrov- I did not pay attention to the fact that someone shuns me or someone shuns our country. I fully agree with you that the economy is the basis of the fundamentals, first of all, because everything that the state does should be done for a better life of people, and without economics this is impossible. And this is in the development of our conversation that it is necessary to fill the void. This and the resources that we have in Siberia and the Far East, which need to be raised. But the most important thing is that the president has said many times that we need to diversify, with our oil and gas dependency you will not go far.
S.Dorenko- Such veiled flattery, really you. I'm trying to say that the price of a mistake for weak countries or for countries in a precarious situation is too damn high. Americans can pick up what you want and then stand up like a teddy bear, as if nothing had happened, and still everyone will listen to them. They may be late to the processes in North Korea, come and explain everything to everyone. But you can not make mistakes. Difficult?
S.Lavrov- I can not evaluate my work. No one, probably, is immune from mistakes and those who are engaged in some business, so I will probably listen to what our citizens say about us, first of all.
A.Venediktov- Sergey Viktorovich, does the world need a gendarme or a group of gendarmes? We see how conflicts grow within individual countries, between countries. You yourself talked about Africa. Rwanda: 800 thousand people killed by hoes, slaughtered. Not that the rocket flew there. No one intervened. Security Council did not intervene. The Security Council is slowing down - I return to my question - for a long time it coordinates interests. Do I need to restore order or let them cut each other. Here we have our own zone of interests, they - slaughter to the end - not our question.
S.Lavrov- I have already given you examples of the resolution or decision of the Security Council over the past few years - a huge number of peacekeeping operations in Africa, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There, such a novel is included in the mandate. There is a special unit for the violent suppression of extremists. It has its own rules for using force, but this is such a qualitative step. In many ways, increased attention to Africa is due to the lessons learned from the tragedy in Rwanda. It was a long time ago, I was also in New York then. As for the gendarme, in the UN Charter there is such a thing as “UN armed forces”. The founding fathers assumed that it would be necessary to have some kind of power component. And they assumed that it should be the UN forces, and not some kind of coalition that someone creates in circumvention of the UN. UN forces - as a term. There are UN armed forces in Lebanon, there are forces in the Golan Heights, but these are forces that are peacekeeping, they are peacekeeping forces. That is, there were some agreements, and now in order for these agreements not to be violated, these forces were introduced. They have no gendarme's mandate and no mandate to suppress violators who will resort to the use of force.
A.Venediktov- Need to find out. Peacekeeping in Ukraine is what Serezha asked.
S.Dorenko- Do you want the UN to send troops to Ukraine?
S.Lavrov- And because everything that Kiev is now proposing and is being done by Kiev seems to be specifically aimed at splitting the country and the LC and the DPR either strangling or being thrown out of the Ukrainian state altogether. The economic blockade, the termination of social payments, the announcement that they will not talk to the very people who signed the Minsk agreements from Donetsk and Lugansk are aimed at this. Now we will talk to them for the shift. Therefore, the UN peacekeeping force - it is necessary to create some dugouts, some digging trenches. This is the physical cutting off of part of the country from itself. Why this is necessary, I do not know. Either this is a distraction, so now this attention is not paid to the quirks that occur in Kiev with a twisting, a remapping of the Minsk agreements. And in order to monitor the implementation of the agreements. There is the OSCE, which is called upon, and whose role was described in detail in the document that was born after the 17 hours of negotiations. And in Minsk, no one stuttered about UN or EU peacekeepers.
M.Simonyan- Fifteen minutes before the end of the broadcast. I will ask a personal question that torments many people who love you in Russia - and in Russia you are loved by many people for your kind of internal rage in a good sense of the word.
S.Dorenko- I first began to flatter ...
S. Lavrov: Everything that Kiev is doing now, as if it was specifically aimed at splitting the country
M.Simonyan- This is my favorite story that you allegedly once told Foreign Minister Miliband a famous phrase with a naughty little word: “Who are you to give me lectures?” Is it true or not.
S.Lavrov- Do not give me lectures - I told him. But I didn’t use the vigorous mot of myself in his address, but quoting one of our colleagues who flew from Tbilisi the day before - and that was 12 August 2007, and who said hello to me, says: “I’ve just come from Tbilisi. Saakashvili is such-and-a lunatic. ” This is where the word was ... And Milliband tried to convince me that I had to negotiate with Saakashvili.
S.Dorenko- Thanks for the interview!
M.Simonyan- Thank you very much! It was Sergey Lavrov on the air of our three radio stations.