Sputnik News – During his interview with Sputnik, Russia’s top diplomat has weighed in on a wide array of subjects that define the state of international affairs on a global scale at the moment – from tense presidential campaign in the US, to security in the turbulent Persian Gulf and the tumultuous relations between Russia and the US and the European powers.
On 17 September, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov joined three Sputnik journalists at MIA Rossiya Segodnya Press Centre via a video call to answer questions about key developments in the international political arena in an exclusive interview.
Sputnik: If you don’t mind, let’s start with the Russian-American relations and the upcoming US presidential elections. Very often, the US political elites, regardless of their party affiliation, are talking about their country’s key role as a hands-down global leader. How much does this internal agenda affect the US’ foreign policies, and its relations with its allies and partners, including its relations with Russia? In your view, how does the US’ principle of exceptionalism affect international processes?
Sergei Lavrov: I think that everyone who is closely and professionally following the US political in-fighting, has deduced that political in-fighting has always been a motive for the positions held both by the Republicans and the Democrats. What we are observing today is no exception. The key thing [for parties] here is to collect as many arguments as possible to outrun your rivals in the information, rhetorical and polemical field. The debates between the main presidential candidates, from the Democratic and Republican parties, – are on the horizon, and the issue of the “Russian meddling” in US internal affairs is at the top of the agenda. However, in recent weeks or months, the most-discussed topic has been China, which today ranks first in the list of the United States’ “enemies” trying to do everything possible to trigger some “disastrous” processes in the US.
We’ve gotten used to that over the past years. It started under the Obama administration. It was he who was saying, including publicly, that the Russian authorities had intentionally taken a line of harming the relations between Moscow and Washington. It was he who was speaking about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential elections, and imposing some unprecedented sanctions, including illegal takeovers of Russian property in the United States, the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats and their families, etc.
By the way, the thesis about American exceptionalism is shared by both the Republicans and the Democrats, as well as all other political movements in the United States. We have repeatedly said that history has seen attempts to portray oneself as an arbiter of humanity’s fate, as someone impeccable and most sapient; these attempts have never come to any good.
We always prove our approach to any internal policy processes in any country, it’s the United States’ internal affairs; and it’s a shame that they involve a lot of rhetoric, which doesn’t really reflect the existing situation on the international stage, in their internal affairs. It’s also a shame that, to gain as many points as possible in this presidential race, they don’t hesitate to impose unlawful sanctions, sometimes for no reason at all, against those who don’t agree on everything with the United States on the international stage. This kind of sanctions instinct that the current US administration has developed – but Obama was also actively engaged in this – is becoming contagious in Europe as well, with the EU opting for sanctions more and more often.
So, my conclusion is quite simple: we will work with any government that takes office in any country, including the United States; but we’ll discuss any question that the United States is interested in only on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and a balance of interests. Using ultimatums to talk to us is useless and pointless. If there are those who have failed to understand it yet, they are worthless politicians.
Sputnik: You’ve mentioned the sanctions pressure, which, in many instances, does not emerge in political circles but is initiated by the mass media. It happens rather frequently in the US, the UK and in Europe. The American press accused Russia of conspiring with the Taliban against the US military in Afghanistan, in the British Foreign Office, they stated that Russia almost certainly meddled in the UK parliamentary elections of 2019, the EU member states this week are discussing another sanctions package against Russia related to some alleged human rights violations. Is there a chance that this approach, this policy of demonising Moscow, might change, or will it intensify?
Sergei Lavrov: So far, we don’t see any signs of this policy changing. Unfortunately, this sanctions itch only grows. As for the recent examples, they want to punish us for what’s going on in Belarus, and for the Navalny incident, even as they firmly refuse to adhere to their obligations under the European convention on legal assistance and to respond to official requests from the Prosecutor General’s Office. The pretexts are purely contrived: Germany says “We can’t tell you anything, contact OPCW”, we’ve contacted that organisation several times and were told to contact Berlin. There’s an idiomatic expression, “Ivan points at Peter, and Peter points at Ivan”, and that’s roughly the manner in which our Western partners, so to speak, react to our legal approaches, loudly proclaiming that “the poisoning has been established, no one but Russia could’ve done it, now confess”. All that had previously happened with the Skripals, and I’m positive that, even if the current situation with Navalny hadn’t arisen, they would’ve invented something else.
At this point, everything is subordinated to undermining relations between Russia and the EU as much as possible. In the European Union, there are countries that realise this, but they still have the consensus principle in play, the so-called solidarity; and said principle is grossly misused by countries that comprise the aggressive, Russophobic minority. As I understand from the European Commission chairman’s report, the EU is currently debating whether to make decisions on some issues via a (majority) vote rather than via consensus. This will be interesting, because then we will see who stands for misusing international law, and who implements a thoughtful, calculated and balanced policy, based on pragmatism and realism.
But of course, those issues that you’ve mentioned, us being accused of establishing relations with the Taliban in order to motivate them to conduct special operations against US servicemen in exchange for financial reward – the Taliban members fight for their interests and their beliefs, and to suspect us of doing such things, strictly criminal stuff – I think that’s even below the dignity of the American officials. By the way, the Pentagon had to refute such speculations, having found no confirmation for them. The Taliban themselves said that it was untrue. But in our age of social media, in the age of disinformation and fake messages, one only has to launch any fiction into the media space, and no one will bother reading a refutation afterwards. The initial furore caused by these sensations, so to speak, is what their authors are counting on. That’s why we’ve told the Americans and the British numerous times, “If you have any grievances with us, please, let us conduct a professional diplomatic dialogue based on facts.”
As most claims about meddling are related to cyberspace, as we’re being accused of practically state hacking and infiltrating all the imaginable life-support systems of our Western colleagues, we offered to resume a dialogue on cybersecurity, on international data security in all of its aspects, and announced our readiness to review mutual concerns: we’ve also registered plenty of cases that allow one to suspect the meddling of Western websites, representatives and hackers in our vital resources. Yet we were met with a flat-out refusal. And the justification for said refusal? “You invite us to a dialogue on cybersecurity, which is the very sphere that you utilise to meddle in our internal affairs.” That’s it. It’s just like the situation with Navalny, the same kind of reasoning is being used: “what, you don’t trust us?”
When Rex Tillerson was the US Secretary of State, he once publicly and officially stated that they have irrefutable proof of Russia meddling in the US election. I told him, “If you’ve got such irrefutable proof, how about sharing it? We, too, would be interested in resolving this matter, because slandering us is not in our interests.” You know what he told me? He said “Sergei, I’m not going to give anything to you. Your secret services that organise all that know everything themselves. Talk to them, they should tell you everything.” That’s the whole discussion on the matter that becomes practically pivotal in the relations between our countries.
That’s why we firmly believe that, someday, particular questions will have to be answered, and facts will have to be presented, both regarding the situation with Navalny and, by the way, regarding the poisoning in Salisbury.
Speaking of Salisbury, two years ago, when that situation was being hyped up and we were being branded as the only manufacturer of Novichok, we presented substantiated and publicly available facts that show that several Western countries developed substances from the Novichok group, with some of these substances being patented in the US – tens of patents for combat application of substances from that group. One of the countries that we’ve mentioned was Sweden, and two years ago we were told “don’t you dare mention us in that context, we’ve never conducted work related to Novichok.” And now, as you know, one of the countries Germany contacted to confirm their findings (other than France) was Sweden. They said that, yes, they confirm the conclusions made by the Bundeswehr lab that it was Novichok. But if two years ago Sweden lacked the expertise to determine whether it was Novichok or not, and now they have such expertise, that means something has happened. And if that something, which made Sweden Novichok-savvy, happened, that something probably should be regarded as a potentially gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
To conclude my answer, allow me to say that we’re willing to talk with everyone, but only if we’re not being forced to make excuses without some facts being presented first. We will always be ready for a professional discussion based on specific, clearly-formulated concerns.
