This interview with Sergey Lavrov, Russian’s foreign minister, was conducted by Sophie Shevardnadze of Russia Today on April 23, 2014:
SS: So, just the other day Joe
Biden on his visit to Kiev said that time is short for Russia to make progress
on its commitments made in Geneva. What is expected of Russia?
SL: Well, it’s difficult to say
because I discuss this almost daily with John Kerry. And frankly the American
colleagues chose to put all the blame on Russia, including the origin of the
conflict and including the steps which must be taken. They accuse us of having
Russian troops, Russian agents in the east and South of Ukraine. They say that
it is for the Russians only to give orders and the buildings illegally occupied
would be liberated and that it is for the Russians to make sure that the East
and South of Ukraine stops putting forward the demands for the federalization
and the referendum and so on and so forth. This is absolute…you know…switching
the goal post if you wish. In Geneva we all agreed that there must be
reciprocal approach to any illegitimate action in Ukraine, be it in Kiev, be it
in the West, be it in the East, be it in the South. And the people who started
the process of illegitimate actions must step back first. It is absolutely
abnormal due to any norms in a European city that Maidan is still occupied,
that the buildings in Kiev are still occupied and in some other cities, that
those who put on fire the buildings belonging to Communist party headquarters
in Kiev, the buildings belonging to the Trade Union headquarters are not even
under investigation. I don’t even want to mention the sniper cases because
everyone forgot about those snipers. And we only hear that “Let’s concentrate
on eliminating terrorist threats in the East and in the South”.
So in Geneva we all agreed that
there must be end of any violence. Next morning or next afternoon Turchinov
declared almost a state of emergency and ordered the army to shoot at the
people if the people are engaged in peaceful protests. In Geneva we agreed that
there must be total rejection of extremists and the Right Sector is still very
active, and after Geneva the Right Sector staged provocations killing several
people in the vicinity of Slavyansk during Easter Sunday. So nothing which was
agreed in Geneva and which certainly is for the authorities in Kiev to start
implementing was done by them. Yes, they introduced a draft law on amnesty. But
our reading of this law indicates that this is not for political prisoners.
Yes, they announced a pause in what they call “counter terrorist operation”. But
now that Joe Biden visited Kiev this counter terrorist operation was declared
in the active phase again. Well, it’s quite telling that they chose a moment of
vice-president of the United States visit to announce the resumption of this
operation because the launching of this operation happened immediately after
the John Brennan’s visit to Kiev. So I don’t have any reasons not to believe
that the Americans are running the show in a very close way.
SS: Well, you have hold on John
Kerry to actually put pressure on the government in Kiev and on its behavior.
But does it really mean that you can see America has decisive influence on the
country?
SL: I think this is absolutely the
case. Not on the country. On the regime which took power in Kiev. They have I
think overwhelming influence. They act in much more open way without any
scruples compared to the Europeans. Europeans try to be a bit more subtle. And
the fact that…you know, there are so many reports about the role of the CIA in
analyzing the situation and in being present in Ukraine, including the building
of the Security Council of the Ukrainian State, occupyinga floor. Then there
are numerous reports which were revived recently on what was the role of the
American embassy during the events in Maidan - direct interaction and
communication with the activists who were armed and who were planning the
actions like storming the buildings and other illegal acts.
All this has not been denied in the
way which would be persuasive. And, yes, when you get daily phone calls from
John Kerry telling you: “You must, you must, you must” and when you understand
how many thousand kilometers the United States is away from Ukraine and then
you see how agitated they are about seeing their sponsored people not really
delivering on the things which are obvious then you cannot avoid the impression
that they are running the show very much.
SS: But what about Russia? Well, I
know Russia has reiterated many times that it doesn’t recognize the legitimacy
of the government in Kiev, but nevertheless diplomatic meetings are held on
high levels in Geneva, I remember in the Hague, the meeting of the Foreign
Ministers as well, does Moscow have any leverage over Kiev?
SL: Not over Kiev. No, not at all.
SS: What about the Eastern Ukraine?
SL: In the East the people revolted
after several months of total neglect of their interests. And when they saw
what happened in Kiev through Maidan, through the Right Sector, other
extremists, the sniper fire killing dozens of people, then immediately all
those who were againstthe Yanukovich government were granted amnesty, which is
not happening now to the people who just engage in political activities in the
east and in the south. So, yes, we see what were the reasons for the revolt in
the east and in the south. They just don’t want a repetition what happened in
Kiev and what was attempted in Crimea, by the way, and these people, of course
they want to be friendly with Russia, they have many Russian relatives, they
listen very carefully to what Russia says. But these people are not puppets. We
cannot just guarantee that they will be ready to take for granted whatever
promises they hear from Kiev. They are fed up with words, they need real deeds.
The regime must withdraw the order to use the army against the people, the
regime must liberate political prisoners, they must start doing what they
committed themselves to on 21st February signing the agreement, which said
“surrender illegal arms”, they must start disarming the Right Sector and they
must stop just saying “we will invite the regions to a constitutional reform
process”.
They must sit down with them and
instead of going abroad - you know, I heard that Yatsenyuk is going to the
Vatican, I think the better place to go for him would be south. When he went
there a week ago he only met with the people whom he himself appointed, he
never got to the people who were protesting . And that’s where the current
authorities in Kiev need to be now, If they really pretend to represent the
entire country.
SS: But here’s the thing – people
in the West, and I’m not even talking about the American political
establishment, just people who watch TV – for them what’s going on in the south
and in the east of the country right now, is very similar to what was going on
in Maidan, because they see self-defense forces, like they were seeing the
Right Sector in Maidan, chaos, people occupying government buildings, not
willing to put down arms…now, they are saying that these people are
pro-Russian, so why Russia is not so outraged of what’s going on there, I mean
the chaos, like in Maidan, why doesn’t their influence calm them down?
SL: I don’t think we can say that
we are negligent of their problems, we are in solidarity with them, we insist
politically that their interests must be taken into account. That’s why we went
to Geneva, that’s why we negotiated the paper which demands an equal treatment
of whoever is engaged in illegal activities on the understanding that the
government, the interim government whatever they call themselves, must set the
example and they must stop the illegal things which continue to happen in Kiev
and in other parts of the country, not other than east and south. And yes, in
the east and the south, the leaders, elected by the people said that they would
be ready to surrender arms, to vacate the buildings, provided the government
stops illegal orders to use the army and does what it is committed itself to do
with the Right Sector, other extremists and with the buildings which have been
taken over and still are occupied in Kiev. You know what, the Americans said,
Victoria Nuland, I think, when we insisted on the Geneva agreement to be
implemented in full, beginning with the liberation of the buildings in Kiev -
she said those building were occupied legally because the Kiev authorities
issued a license to the people who occupied the buildings and they now are
legal owners or legally present in these buildings. It is absolutely
unbelievable that they can seriously put forward such arguments.
SS: So, you’re saying the agreement
that was reached on the 21st February by the Western powers was kind of ignored
by those who signed it. Now you’re saying that Geneva agreement is also being
ignored…
SL: Absolutely!
SS: So what’s the point of all
these agreement if you can’t come to a practical solution to this problem?
SL: The point of the February 21st
agreement was to have Yanokovich sign up to commit himself not to use the
police – which he did; to commit himself not to declare a state of emergency –
which he did and that was basically an act of capitulation. Everything he
committed himself to do – has been done. People say that he did not sign the
law, bringing back the previous constitution, but this law was promulgated
anyway, so what ever was needed by the opposition was done. Whatever the
opposition committed itself to do – they never did. And the Geneva agreement,
the Geneva meeting was actually designed to try and bring the process back on
track, including the need to start the constitutional process, with full involvement
of all regions. Yes the deal has been struck, but it is not being honored by
those who have to make the first step.
SS: So they have to make the first
step?
SL: Absolutely.
SS: Russia cannot pressure these
self-defense forces to put down arms unless…
SL: Yes, and we do not have any
moral authority to pressure the East or the South to do something unilaterally
in front of the army, being ordered to go against them, in front of the Right
Sector who should have been, must have been disarmed long ago and in the face
of the political prisoners who continue to be taken.
SS: You’ve also said many times
that Russia has no intention of moving its troops inside Ukraine, and just
recently, Dmitry Peskov, the Russian president’s press-secretary confirmed that
there is a military contingent that is reinforced on the Russian-Ukrainian
border; There must be a worst-case scenario in which this contingent will be
used?
SL: If we are attacked, we would
certainly respond. If our interests, our legitimate interests, the interests of
Russians have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia for
example, I do not see any other way but to respond in full accordance with
international law. Russian citizens being attacked is an attack against the
Russian Federation. The only thing I would like to highlight at this stage is
that the Russian troops are on the Russian territory. The request for
inspections under the so called Vienna Document of 2011 and under the treaty of
the Open Sky, they have all been granted. The inspectors visited the areas of
deployment of the troops who are participating in training exercises. Planes
flew over the areas where the exercises and no one who participated in the
inspections, including the Americans, Ukrainians and Europeans ever brought up
any fact that would indicate that Russia was engaged in some dangerous military
activity. So we are on our territory and we are doing nothing which is
prohibited by any obligation of us. The Ukrainian troops are also on their
territory, but the difference is the fact that they have the order from
Turchinov to use weapons against civilians and this is a criminal order.
SS: You’ve mentioned John Kerry
many times during this interview, and it does seem like the two of you,
regardless of diplomatic differences, communicate and see each other more than
you see your families. Do you feel like on a personal level this is someone
that you can come to an agreement with?
SL: We came to an agreement on
Syria, we came to an agreement on Iran, we came to an agreement on Ukraine in
Geneva on the 17th April; personally we have very good chemistry but we also
understand there are superiors and advisors which sometimes does not help. But,
I told Kerry several times that we do not believe it is a real partnership - if
they speak about a partnership – when in fact whatever issue we discuss, they
try to put the onus on us completely. And by the way, had it not been Ukraine,
then it would have been something else, like it was Iran, originally, when the
Americans were saying “you must.. you must.. you must…’ If only the Russians
tells the Iranian’s, if only Russia doesn’t sell weapons to the Iranians – they
would cry ‘uncle’ and everything would be fine, this nuclear issue would be
resolved.”Then Syria happened and they were telling us – they still do – “if
only Russia tells Assad to go then everything would fall into place, democracy
would prevail and so on and so forth.” So the Iranian issue depends on Russia
alone, Syria depends on Russia alone – they also say Russia and Iran. Now
Ukraine depends entirely on Russia. I would say, it is an absolute ‘egoistic’
and ‘unrealistic’ approach and an attempt to hide your own responsibility.
By the way, speaking about Syria,
they said recently and unfortunately the United Nations spokesman picked up the
tune, the Americans said recently that the elections which have been announced
for the 3rd June by President Assad, would be illegitimate, because first there
must be a transitional governing organ on the basis of a new constitution and
so on and so forth. Ok, the Geneva communiqué on Syria did say there must be a
transitional governing organ, which would develop constitutional reform and on
the basis of this reform there would be general elections. Fine, but the same
sequence was mentioned on the Ukrainian crisis, signed on the 21st February.
First the government of consent, then the constitutional reform and only after
the new constitution is promulgated – elections.The people who staged the coup
and toppled the legitimate president, and took power, declared themselves a
government, they didn’t speak originally about constitutional reform at all.
They said there would be presidential elections on May 25 and the
constitutional reform - when we reminded them that this was the obligation and
unless they do this the east and the south would not recognize the legitimacy
of what is going on - they recalled this obligation but said “this would be
done later”. And the West believes that this is entirely legitimate. The same
people who say the Syrian presidential elections without constitutional reform
would be illegitimate are accepting even today the legitimacy of the May 25
presidential elections in Ukraine without any constitutional reform.
SS: So, you meet a lot of American
politicians, besides John Kerry, and the rhetoric from their side is pretty
harsh. Do you feel the Americans are ready for a real confrontation with Russia
over Ukraine?
SL: Well, I already said that it is
not about Ukraine. Ukraine is just one manifestation of the American
unwillingness to yield in the geopolitical fight. Americans are not ready to
admit that they cannot run the show in each and every part of the globe from
Washington alone. They cannot impose ready-made solutions on everyone and they
cannot understand, I mean they begin to understand I think, but they still have
the instincts that they shouldn’t really take on board what others believe
should be done. They are moving, slowly, that’s why we managed to make some
compromises on Syrian chemical weapon, on the Iranian nuclear program, the
compromise on Ukraine in Geneva, but after a deal they tried to pocket whatever
they got and they try not to deliver what they promised to do. Maybe this is a
natural manifestation of those who want to get the result that would be in
their interests but on Iranian nuclear issue, for example, the deal was very
blunt but as the deal started to be implemented, the Americans began to load it
with new demands. The missile program of Iranians was never part of the
discussions, never. And it was not part of the deal signed in Geneva last
November. But as the deal of November started to be implemented, the Americans
threw in the missile proliferation problem which could have derailed the
process.
On Syria, we signed the deal of
chemical disarmament of Syria and the process has been going and still goes
very well, there’s a satisfactory assessment by UN personnel participating in
the process by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The
Americans almost from the first very day started to ring alarm bell, saying
that the government is dragging on this, it’s not delivering on its commitments
and they were fully ignoring the facts which were the need for the government
to get more armed vehicles, which we and the Chinese were helping them with,
the need for the people who influenced the armed extremists and jihadists to
absolutely control them and not to allow them to stage provocations as the
chemical weapons are being moved from storages to the port, and so on and so
forth. So every time we sign a deal the Americans start to put the blame for
any delay on others or, even worse, they start to throw in new demands which
absolutely contradict the reached consensus. So that is what they are doing now
on the Geneva agreement on Ukraine, but I do hope very much that they act
responsibly and they do not think of their geopolitical initiatives, geopolitical
interests, unilateral interests, but they would think about the future of
Ukraine which is our biggest neighbor, closest neighbor and the people of which
are brothers and sisters to the Russian Federation population. So if we all
think about Ukraine and not about who takes it, but about how the Ukrainians
themselves want to live, then it shouldn’t be very difficult to help the
Ukrainians find the national compromise and national reconciliation.
* * *
“Lavrov
to RT: Americans are ‘running the show’ in Ukraine,” April 23, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment