Lavrov's Presser Part Two

Q: Recently, China has been talking a lot about peace, about the need for peace for our world, about the policy of non-confrontation and non-alignment. Nevertheless, the West actively talks about the "Russian-Chinese alliance", sometimes even frightening the world with it. A typical tactic of the West is to break everything they don't like. Are attempts by the West to quarrel between Russia and China recorded in Russia today: information attacks, kompromat, etc. – the corporate American style?

Sergey Lavrov: Our relations with the People's Republic of China are going through the best times in the history of cooperation. This is what our leaders, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping, are saying. This is written in joint documents, the last of which was adopted on February 4, 2022, when the President of Russia visited China. It was the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on International Relations Entering a New Era and Global Sustainable Development. A powerful document that reflects all the key ideological issues in the context of solidarity between our two countries. At one time, Chinese friends characterized relations that it is not an alliance, not an alliance, but in many ways stronger than an alliance. They are pragmatic, trusting, mutually respectful and based on a balance of interests. Exactly what is the ideal format for relations with any other country. They are directly based on the principles of the UN Charter.

The volume of trade this year between Russia and China is already a record. In 2022, it was a little short of $200 billion. (I think it's all dollars, it's time for rubles and yuan, and it's probably going to happen soon.)

Moscow and Beijing have close coordination in the international arena, including the UN, in the fight against new challenges and threats through the SCO and BRICS. Cooperation between the EAEU and China in harmonizing Eurasian integration and the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road". Military, military-technical cooperation, joint exercises. All this strengthens our strategic partnership. The West sees this.

You asked if we had any data on whether he was trying to bring discord to our relationship. You don't even have to look for them. They're in the public domain. The strategies developed in the United States (security doctrine, declaration between NATO and the EU) list Russia and China. A small nuance: we are considered an immediate threat that needs to be "dealt with" as soon as possible, and China is considered a long-term, main, serious, systemic challenge. So, according to the Western understanding, they need to be "dealt with" longer.

Many of the independent observers write that the Americans and Europe are making a mistake while trying to contain Russia and China. Apparently, they feel able to do so. The U.S. alone could never have. This is an unequivocal conclusion.

It is no coincidence that they have "enslaved Europe" and put it entirely at the service of their domination strategy. Now the same thing is being done with Japan. For sure, they will try to involve New Zealand and Canada in alliances such as AUKUS, so that the Anglo-Saxon "five" fully fix themselves. They are "rolling up" to South Korea.

To pursue their policy of domination, primarily in the interests of containing Russia and China, the Americans do not have enough of their own forces. That is why they need a full (no longer partial) mobilization of the "western camp". Which they're doing now. This is another confirmation that their strength is running out, as for countering the objective historical trend of the formation of a multipolar world.

We and the Chinese see that with all the twin goals of containing Moscow and Beijing, the West is trying to bring discord to our relations. They want to defeat us in order to convince Russia to become a partner of the West, which will have mercy and forgive the sanctions. Russia will become a partner of the West and at least will not interfere with it, and ideally – help to contain China. I don't know which analyst develops these kinds of theories. They are clearly out of touch with life.

We and the PRC see all these "games". We understand that China has been much more deeply integrated into the current processes of globalization. It has immeasurably larger economy, foreign exchange reserves stored in Western currencies than we do. For the PRC, the way out from under Western dependence is much more difficult than for the Russian Federation. To a certain extent, this was facilitated by the imposed "collapse" sanctions, which made it possible to draw the final conclusion that these people, who "called" us into their economic system, are no longer what to rely on, they cannot be trusted.

Yesterday, at a meeting with members of the Government, President of Russia Vladimir Putin once again confirmed our course. I have no doubt that our Chinese colleagues also see this danger. Western sanctions on China have already begun – they are imposed on everything related to China's ability to produce microprocessors/semiconductors. It has been loudly declared that there should be no more dependence on China. Everything should be their own, and the Americans are resuming this production. Such sanctions against Beijing will continue to be imposed.

Without making moves that could undermine our relations in practical terms and harm economic operators, we are gradually moving with the PRC towards reducing dependence on such Western instruments and unreliable partners. Approximately half of our trade turnover is served in yuan and rubles. This share is growing and will continue to grow even more.

China is well aware that Western doctrinal attitudes (now Russia, then China) are not jokes, that the West, as the song goes, "as long as it can walk", will strive to do so. On Taiwan, positions that are absolutely unacceptable for China and international law have already been outlined. They are looking for new opportunities to "irritate" China in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong.

Beijing is well aware that it is dangerous to remain in the Western system and be completely dependent on the West. This poses serious risks to China's core national development interests.

Question: In December 2022, you said that one of the important results of the year on the foreign policy track was the final clarification of the situation, who is negotiable and who cannot be trusted. If everything is very clear with the "collective West", what can we expect in Asia as a whole? How are the priorities of our diplomacy set on the Asian track?

Sergey Lavrov: I touched upon this issue. The West is trying to impose a "bloc" approach on the whole world, including by giving priority to Asia. His "Indo-Pacific strategies", specifically invented to drive more "wedges" into relations between India and China, to lure India into his schemes, are quite obvious things.

They created AUKUS with the parallel humiliation of France in terms of the supply of submarines to Australia. They announced that now they would do it themselves. A course has been taken to expand the "block" format. A summit with Japan has just taken place. It became apparent that Japan would militarize and dramatically increase military spending. New Zealand and the Republic of Korea are in the "clip" of the Americans as potential participants in the process.

We don't know how this will end. It is up to the governments of these countries to decide. Everything is happening at the expense of undermining the structures that have shaped the security architecture in Asia for decades. They were created primarily through ASEAN, which has always been recognized by all as the core of processes in the economic sphere, in the field of security, political dialogue and humanitarian cooperation. Extensive mechanisms were created: dialogue formats between ASEAN and its individual partners, East Asia Summits (where the ASEAN "dozen" took part together with all dialogue partners (there are nine of them - Russia, China, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, republic of Korea, USA, Japan), ASEAN Regional Forum on Security (all partners of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and many other invitees participated), the format of meetings of ASEAN defense ministers and ministers defense of dialogue partners, as well as a number of other mechanisms that made it possible to consider economic issues, as well as in the field of prevention of natural disasters and overcoming their consequences, humanitarian cooperation. Academia gathered. Everything formally remains on paper. But a course has already been set to ensure that the main ways of the region's development are determined not in these universal formats, where the rule of consensus operates, but that this prerogative is transferred to a narrow bloc structure such as AUKUS, which will be pumped up in every possible way, including by new members.

The Americans do not hesitate to say that there are ten countries in ASEAN, and five of them are quite suitable to follow "their" path, and five are still "immature". A direct attempt to split ASEAN. And it's not without success. Internal friction and irritation accumulate in the Association. Myanmar. For the first time in the history of ASEAN, one country was "suspended" and not allowed to participate in summits.

We work with our friends. Indonesia now leads ASEAN. I was in Cambodia for the East Asia Summit (November 13, 2022) and the G20 Summit in Bali (November 15-16, 2022). Colleagues from the region express concern about how the situation is developing. Their relationship with China was not without problems. They have long been the subject of a dialogue that went on in the interests of finding mutually acceptable solutions. What the West is doing now is also aimed at undermining this dialogue. Similarly, in the OSCE region, the principle of consensus, the search for agreement, and the balance of interests operated. It was destroyed by our Western colleagues almost to the ground. Especially in 2022, the Polish OSCE Chairmanship did its best.

In the Asia-Pacific region, attempts are being made to undermine approximately the same architectural "ensemble" based on consensus, agreement, and the search for compromises, and to make dominant structures created frankly on the "bloc" principle.

Question: On Central Asia. For a month I was on a business trip to Uzbekistan. I walked around Tashkent and watched. I saw the growing interest of Russian business in Uzbekistan. There are many tourists who come not in groups, but privately. How are Russia's relations with the countries of the former Soviet Union and Central Asia developing now, taking into account the sanctions, when, unfortunately or fortunately, European industry has "gone"? How does Europe feel about Russia's cooperation with the EAEU countries?

Sergey Lavrov: Relations with Central and Central Asia are developing intensively. In addition to bilateral relations, which are saturated with a legal framework and instruments, including intergovernmental commissions on economic cooperation and other areas, including military-technical and humanitarian, there are also collective formats. We are also actively working in them with our neighbors from Central Asia. These are primarily the CIS, the SCO, if we talk about Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan , the EAEU and the CSTO, where three Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) are full members.

Over the past couple of years, we have decided to develop an additional format of cooperation "five plus one" (the Central Asian "five" and Russia). Over the past two years, several meetings have been held at the level of foreign ministers. All friends supported this format. In the autumn of 2022, the first ever Russia-Central Asia summit at the presidential level was held in Astana on the sidelines of the events held there. A document aimed at further cooperation in this format in specific areas covering key topics of the region's development was adopted. We will continue this interaction.

As for other partners in Central Asia. There are more and more of them. Long before the current events, all the key players showed interest in the region: the EU, the USA, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Iran and the Republic of Korea. With almost all these states, Central Asia has "five plus one" cooperation formats. From the information reaching us (media reports and contacts with Central Asian partners), it can be concluded that not all colleagues working in Central Asia do this in a non-discriminatory manner towards others. For example, in our work with the CIS, the EAEU, the CSTO, the SCO and at meetings with colleagues from Central Asia, we never say that we forbid them to communicate with any countries, because we "need to oppose together." We never do that. The US, the EU and Japan are doing. Meeting with Central Asians, they directly tell them that they should not rely on Russia, it will lose in the war with the West (they do not hide that it is not Ukraine, but the West), so we need to bet on the winning side. That kind of language. This once again characterizes the mannerisms and mentality of Western (in the broad sense) partners.

In addition to verbal influences, there is serious pressure with threats: if you lose markets, investments that were planned to be made in your countries, do not dare to help Russia circumvent sanctions. In some cases, our partners (not only in Central Asia) are forced to take into account that if there are companies that have their own projects around the world, they are unlikely to agree to strictly comply with the sanctions. There are companies that are ready to go for it.

We do not insist that all economic operators in each of our friendly states necessarily come out to the rostrum in the morning and say that they are against anti-Russian sanctions. It is enough for us that none of them joined the sanctions, and that we are successfully working with each of them (as well as with our partners in other regions) and finding new mechanisms, instruments of cooperation that will not depend on the whims and whims of our Western colleagues.

Question (translated from English): President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Meloni will soon visit Kyiv and that he appreciates italy's position, which supports Ukraine. At the same time, Italian Foreign Minister A. Tajani said that Italy is in favor of a diplomatic solution, as well as mediation by the UN and China. How do you assess Italy's position in the context of relations between Russia and Italy?

Sergey Lavrov: For us, it is roughly comparable to the position of Greece and Cyprus, which I have already mentioned.

In years past, these were some of the most friendly countries to us. We had a huge number of joint events – cultural and educational. The economy was strongly involved in mutual interests. The swiftness with which Italy moved not just to the "camp" of those who signed up to the sanctions, but to the company of leaders of anti-Russian actions and rhetoric (at least under the previous government), was somewhat surprising for us.

I really like the Italian people. Its traditions and attitude to life largely coincide with the way many peoples of the Russian Federation, in the Caucasus, for example, relate to life. In Moscow and St. Petersburg you will find people who get sincere pleasure from how Italians perceive life.

I dare say that the way Italy is reacting to what is happening now reflects the line of aggressive confrontation imposed on Europe rather than the interests of the Italian people. I do not see that the Italian people would be interested in creating new barriers, cutting off communications, cutting off transport links and generally fence themselves off, building a new wall.

You have a coalition there. I have heard that Sergei Berlusconi spoke there several times recently, who also assessed his contribution to building relations between Russia and NATO. It was he who initiated the summit in Pratica di Mare in 2002, convened on the basis of the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997. I don't think I need to explain who violated that obligation.

As for calls for negotiations. Right now, only the lazy don't do it. And then US National Security Adviser John Sullivan will say somewhere at a press conference (as he does from time to time) that now is not the time for negotiations, they should help Ukraine "improve" its position on the "battlefield". The West and Europe do not have a common approach to how to "seek" a peaceful settlement. All this is being said in order to be shown on TV, printed in the newspapers, that someone is in favor of a peaceful settlement, but President Vladimir Putin, allegedly, does not want to. We understand all this.

Question: In the current situation, how do you assess relations between Russia and Latin American countries?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that our relations are on the rise, as with almost all developing regions of the world. We have established a ministerial mechanism to harmonize our approaches between the Russian Federation and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). In the format of Russia and four countries from CELAC, he met a couple of times. Then, due to COVID-19-related restrictions, I had to postpone it all. But in the near future we will resume this cooperation.

Of course, we have countries with which we have been cooperating for a long time, deeper, more intensively than with other countries in the region. First of all, these are Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua. We value the history of our relations and solidarity on most issues of world politics. We always support each other in the voting in the UN General Assembly.

Cuba, as you know, has been the object of illegal, unilateral, United States sanctions since the Cuban Revolution. Only the United States votes to maintain these sanctions. Sometimes they are helped by other island structures. The overwhelming majority of all UN members vote for this illegal blockade to be lifted immediately.

Developing relations with our long-standing partners, whom I mentioned, we are interested in ensuring that other Latin American countries are in our priorities. We don't have any "Monroe Doctrine." When we go to the region, we do not carry with us any risks, threats of subordination of this or that country to its interests or the promotion of certain political forces to power.

Over the past twenty years, we have always had good relations with all the countries of the region, regardless of whether the region was moving to the left at that moment or swinging to the right after the next elections. We will continue to develop our relations.

Just the other day, the inauguration of the new President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, took place. President Vladimir Putin spoke to him on the phone. He also spoke with former President John Bolsonaro, thanking him for his cooperation. I have come into contact with my colleagues from Brazil. Yesterday I was at the Embassy of Brazil in Moscow, where I left an entry in the Book of Condolences of the great football player, a citizen of Brazil Pele. I spoke with Brazilian Ambassador to Russia Rex Baena Soares about existing plans.

Argentina, Mexico, Bolivia. Peru. I don't want to miss anyone. We are interested in mutually beneficial cooperation with all these countries. We also want Latin America to strengthen its Latin American-Caribbean unity.

Brazil has indicated that it is (as I understand it) returning to CELAC. This will make it possible to resume the activities of this regional association in the near future. We hope that CELAC will raise its voice in the process of resolving key issues arising in the course of the formation of the very multipolar world that we are all talking about.

Brazil is a member of BRICS. Argentina has also announced its interest in joining the association. As far as I understand, a number of other Latin American countries also have such intentions.

We are ready to cooperate at this stage through the BRICS Plus format. There is an understanding on this subject in the "five". Together with our Chinese friends, we are actively working to agree on criteria by which other countries can join the BRICS countries to work together. Probably, if we talk about the interests of the entire Latin American region, it would be useful for CELAC to consider the issues that are on the agenda of BRICS. And the Latin American countries participating in the BRICS association also reflected the interests of other countries of their partners in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. Russia has observer status in the Central American Integration System (CAIS). Contacts with the Central American Parliament are also developing. We also have observer status in the Association of Caribbean States. Regular contacts with the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), with the Andean Community, with the ALBA association, which, as I understand, can also find a second wind, which we will be very happy about.

We appreciate that not a single state in Latin America and the Caribbean, with the possible exception of the Bahamas, has joined the anti-Russian sanctions.

As a result, Russian exports to the Latin American region grew by almost 10% over the past year. We are strengthening cultural and humanitarian ties. Most recently, Moscow, St. Petersburg and a number of other cities celebrated the 100th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding scientist Yu.V. Knorozov, who, as you know, deciphered the Mayan script, for which he is revered in Mexico and other countries of the region. Thousands of Latin Americans (most of them Cubans) study at our universities. Tourism is becoming increasingly popular, including to Cuba, as well as to Venezuela and other resort countries. Of the 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, we have a visa-free travel agreement with 27, which encourages people exchanges and contacts at different levels.

Question (translated from English): You are talking about respect for the UN Charter. What respect did you show for international law when you sent your troops to Ukraine on February 24, 2022?

Sergey Lavrov: To talk about respect for the UN Charter, it is not enough to ask such a simple question, which may be easily "sold" to American ordinary people, but which in a serious audience requires a slightly different approach.

He began his speech by quoting a key principle of the UN Charter, which states: "the sovereign equality of states" is the principle on which the United Nations is founded. If you're interested, it won't take long to flip through literature or go online to see how daily, hourly, the U.S. "spits" on this principle of sovereign equality.

After the situation in Ukraine, Russia explained why it was doing so. The U.S. condemned it along with its satellites. If you respect the sovereign equality of states (and you are obliged to respect it), let everyone else decide on a democratic principle, whether they understand Russia, whether they understand whether they are for Russia or for the United States. No one lets them do it. The United States is humiliated every day, by a huge number of its ambassadors and special envoys, running around the world and demanding that everyone condemn Russia. Is it the sovereign equality of states? Blackmailed. Americans say that if these countries do not condemn Russia, then let them not forget, they have money in the Chase Manhattan Bank, and children study at Stanford. That's exactly what they say. This is undignified and humiliating for a great power.

The UN Charter is small. You can also read it if you are interested. It states that the sovereign equality of States and the principle of self-determination of peoples (mentioned first), as well as the principle of the territorial integrity of the State, are paramount. These two principles, mentioned in the Charter at the same level – the self-determination of peoples and the territorial integrity of states – from the very beginning of the formation of the UN, as soon as the Charter was approved, ratified and entered into force, raised questions about what is more important. A special procedure was created, within the framework of which all UN members discussed for several years at length, including this problem, as well as other issues related to the interpretation of the Charter. As a result, in 1970, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations was "born" (and still has full legal force). There was an entire section on the principle of self-determination of States, which stated that the principle was universal, that there was a principle of respect for territorial integrity and that all were obliged to respect the principle of territorial integrity in respect of States whose Governments respected the principle of self-determination and represented the interests of all peoples living in that territory. According to the Charter, we are obliged to respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments represent the entire population of their country.

When a coup d'état took place in Ukraine in 2014 after US Deputy Secretary of State William Nuland "fed" the terrorists with cookies and when the Americans immediately recognized the putschists, and Europe, which they "did not give a damn" about and whose guarantees about the agreement with the President were ignored, remember how W. Nuland advised US Ambassador to Ukraine John Pyatt to deal with the European Union? She said that with the European Union you can "do" (in English a word of four letters).

The putschists who came to power declared that they would expel russians from Crimea and when Crimea and eastern Ukraine declared that they would not obey those who illegally seized power through a bloody coup d'état, war was declared against them. The "coups" began to fight against their own people. 48 people were burned alive in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa. There are video footage on this topic that is available to everyone. There is not even a need to create a tribunal here. Take it and condemn it. There are the names of people firing a gun at citizens jumping out of a burning building to escape. It's all there. The Ukrainian authorities opened a criminal case against those who were burned. The entire progressive world community, guided by American "rules", does not show any interest in this situation at all. There have been many events that are war crimes.

Is it possible to consider those who came to power as a government representing the interests of the entire population of Ukraine within its borders? Is it possible to consider the administration of P.A. Poroshenko as such a government, who, having become president on the slogan that he would conclude peace in Donbass in a week, soon began to say that "we will finish them off", that "our children will go to schools and kindergartens, and their children (and this was said by the president of the country, whose part was Donbass!) will sit in basements." Did he represent the interests of the people he insulted?

Someone had hope that everything would be different for Vladimir Zelensky. He also came to power, was elected as the "president of the world", in every possible way hinted that his series "Servant of the People", where he overthrew the oligarchs and speaks on behalf of ordinary people, this is his "ideal" when he will receive the presidential mace. But in November 2021, in an interview (he already referred to this example), when a journalist asked him what he thought about people living in Donbass, he said that "there are people, and there are individuals." And even earlier in August of the same year, he advised those who live in Ukraine and feel like a Russian, then for the sake of the fate of their children and grandchildren to go to Russia.

If you tell me now that Vladimir Zelensky, with this position, and in fact, represents the interests of the entire population of Ukraine, which he wants to see within the borders of 1991, then, probably, there is not much point in talking here. But this is the only interpretation that is recognized by the international court about the relationship between the right to self-determination and respect for territorial integrity.

I would like to ask about the attitude of American journalists to the aggression against Yugoslavia. Time magazine at the time came out with the cover: "Forcing the Serbs to make peace. A massive bombing attack opens the door to peace." Surely in your archives you can find how the US covered the war against Iraq, the war against Libya, the American invasion of Syria, Afghanistan. If someone just moved somewhere, they fired cluster munitions, destroyed a single wedding? It would be interesting for comparison.

I have justified to you what underlies our actions from the point of view of international law. These republics – Donetsk and Lugansk – could not live under a government that openly declared them "terrorists", "inhumans", "subhumans" and which daily bombed their kindergartens and schools.

Now there has been an incident in Dnepropetrovsk. One Ukrainian "expert" answered a question about how this happened. It became clear to everyone that the Ukrainian air defense, contrary to all the laws of warfare, international humanitarian law, is located in residential areas. This was the reason why this air defense system was the reason for getting into this house. But such personnel for eight years of Kiev's aggression against its own people in the Donbass was a great many. Our journalists, war correspondents, as they are now working in real time, showing the truth from there, did so even before the Minsk agreements. And after the Minsk agreements, they were all the more on the contact line from the Donetsk and Lugansk republics every day and showed how the bombing of Ukrainian neo-Nazis destroys the civilian sector, kills people, destroys kindergartens, canteens, schools. But "from the other side" the journalistic community was not regularly represented. Sometimes the BBC would come there and do some pretty truthful reporting. But they quickly realized that the reports confirm that there is much less damage to civilian infrastructure on the side of the Ukrainians. And the DPR and LPR only respond to shelling. This fact was recorded in the OSCE. And not immediately. For more than a year, we demanded that in their reports they not only say how much civilian infrastructure has been destroyed and how many civilians have died, but that they show from which side of the contact line, how much destruction and casualties there are.

As soon as we made sure that this report was published, it became immediately clear that there was 5 times more destruction on the side of Donetsk and Lugansk than on the side of the Kiev regime, which was only returned fire.

They resent any picture that shows any damage done to the Ukrainian regime. But the same citizens are simply silent when they showed heartbreaking footage of what the Ukrainian Nazis did to civilians, to children, to the elderly, to women.

History, of course, will judge us, but international law should not be forgotten.

Marina Zakharova: Regarding pathos. I think it would be no less for journalists from Crimea and Donbass, if they could ask the same questions for 8 years, as representatives of the Anglo-Saxon media are asking now. But they were not allowed to do so: they were not issued visas and accreditations for similar press conferences in the West. By the way, our accredited journalists were denied not only the opportunity to ask their questions, but also to attend such events.

Question: As you know, you are going to Minsk tomorrow. What do you expect from this visit? How do you assess the level of cooperation between Belarus and Russia at international venues? Why, in your opinion, do our partners in the CIS, the EAEU and the CSTO not always support Belarus and Russia when voting in international structures?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the expectations I am going with. When I go to Minsk, I do not expect, but anticipate. This is always a useful visit from a professional point of view. And always pleasant. I love this city, the traditional hospitality that you meet at every step.

A meeting of the two Boards of foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus is held annually in addition to the annual exchanges of ministerial visits.

Tomorrow we will hold a regular meeting of the Board, which was planned for December 2022, but due to the untimely death of Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei, we postponed it.

The issues we are talking about are on the agenda. Problems of the world order, relations with NATO, with the European Union, with the Council of Europe, with the OSCE. Structures are now increasingly merging into a single organism that fulfills the will of one suzerain - the United States. This is evident in the OSCE as well.

We will also consider in confidence specific areas of our diplomatic activity, including resolutions that are put to a vote in various UN bodies, and issues of foreign policy coordination. We in the CIS and the CSTO have plans for joint foreign policy activity. They are expressed in joint statements that are being prepared in the CSTO, to a lesser extent in the CIS. It's not easy to negotiate. Our CSTO partners have problems that arise in their relations with the West and under its pressure. They are experiencing some difficulties with the economies. Together with our Belarusian friends, we are trying to draw a simple line: everything is for multi-vector. No one wants to artificially restrict ties with partners. With the understanding that these ties are not led and leading, but between two equal states and are based on a balance of interests. When discussing a number of projects, both participants benefit or several participants if there are more than two of them. If we take the volume of trade, investment, humanitarian and educational ties within the CSTO countries, this is incomparably more than what the West is doing in the post-Soviet space.

There are cases when Russia, Belarus and other countries vote in solidarity, and someone abstains. Unlike NATO, we do not have stick discipline. In NATO, a step to the left, a step to the right, that's it. There are those countries that express disagreement with how aggressively NATO is acting in the Ukrainian crisis, how inflexible and creative this Organization behaves. This criticism is not enough, but it is there. But when voting, everyone acts on command. I believe that this stick discipline is harmful.

I would like solidarity within our union structures to be one hundred percent. We're working on that. This requires clarification and an individual approach to each specific case.

Let's not hide the fact that we have difficulties related to the current situation in Armenia. Our Armenian friends promoted the need to send a CSTO mission to the border with Azerbaijan to ensure stability. At the summit in Yerevan, we agreed on such a document on the parameters of this mission. But it was not possible to adopt it, because the Armenian colleagues began to insist that this document contain a harsh condemnation of Azerbaijan. We explained that when it comes to condemnation, rhetoric, presentation of positions, then everyone is free to do whatever they want. But if we want to send a CSTO mission, it is not due to "external signs" and tough statements.

We remain ready to send a CSTO mission to armenia's border with Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we are allies and that this mission is fully ready, the Armenian side prefers to negotiate with the European Union that a civilian observer mission should be deployed there on a long-term basis.

This is the right of Armenia. But we must not forget that we are talking about the border with Azerbaijan. If this mission unfolds without his consent, it will be counterproductive. Instead of building trust at the border, it can create additional irritants. This is an objective situation.

Each of the CSTO regions – Central Asian and Caucasus – needs to be approached creatively and understand the complexity of the problems that arise within the framework of the development of each of our states. They are under pressure. We have already said how many external partners want to develop a special relationship with Central Asia. Some are interested in including the security sector in cooperation plans. But all our partners are well aware that there will be no discrepancies with the obligations under the CSTO. Our Armenian friends give the same assurances.

What is needed here is a frank, honest conversation between the presidents. As it was at the CSTO summit in Yerevan. It was preceded by a similar conversation between foreign ministers and their experts. It is necessary to openly state any concerns and difficulties that one side or another is experiencing. When we speak openly, we can always find a joint solution.

Question: You have repeatedly mentioned Japan in light of its militarization. How does the build-up of military potential affect the interaction between Russia and Japan? Can we now talk about channels of interaction and cooperation?

In November 2022, Mikhail Galuzin left the post of Russian ambassador to Japan. Is a replacement being prepared?

As an Armenian, I cannot pass by the problem around the Lachin corridor. At what stage is the settlement of this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: I think that for Japan, the most important issue is the third question.

We have a relationship. We have an embassy. And Japan also has an embassy here. The replacement for M.Y. Galuzin will soon go to Tokyo. We are not going to delay this process. We consider it important to always have the opportunity to listen to our interlocutors and convey our concerns. I don't recall any contacts other than the embassies in Tokyo and Moscow. Our Japanese colleagues, as well as all other countries that joined the sanctions on their own initiative, have frozen all these contacts. They began to make rather araganty, bellicose statements. We're all listening to that. And just as in the case of the strengthening of NATO in the north of Europe, we will draw conclusions about ensuring our security interests near the Japanese islands.

Question: I also asked about Japan's military build-up. How would you comment on that?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said that Japan's military potential is hardly a positive development. It is explained by the Japanese because it is because of North Korea. But everyone also understands that this also means Russia, and the People's Republic of China. The Americans do not hide this when they encourage just such a development of Japan's military infrastructure and military potential. There is a campaign in favor of revising the constitution so that the Japanese armed forces lose the remnants of the pacifist raid and can carry out military operations abroad.

This hardly reflects Japan's interest in normalising relations with the Russian Federation.

A few years ago, when the process of working on a peace treaty between Russia and Japan was at an active stage, our President and Prime Minister of Japan considered certain formulations and drafts at their regular meetings, and ministers, deputy ministers and experts worked in between. At one point, the Japanese said they didn't need the "big" peace treaty we were offering them. The Russian position was as follows: a peace treaty, as it was supposed to be after the war, yes. It's probably a capitulation. That's where the boundaries lie. Let's live in peace. But several decades have passed since then. Simply signing such a piece of paper would be disrespectful to the level that Russian-Japanese relations had reached at that time. Therefore, we proposed a detailed peace treaty outlining the principles of cooperation based on mutual respect, mutual interests, good-neighborliness, outlining the directions of economic, investment and humanitarian cooperation. And to determine the passage of the border on this basis. The Japanese refused, saying that they did not need a pompous, pathetic document, but a concrete one.

Within Japan, the discussions were very simple. First get two islands, then a peace treaty. Although our President and the Japanese Prime Minister agreed in reverse order. First, the peace treaty, as actually provided for in the Moscow Agreement of 1956.

But that's not what I'm talking about. It's all gone down in history. The Japanese insisted hard: give the two islands, and then we'll see. (I've been studying Japan as a minister for quite some time, but I don't have a specialized education as a Japanologist nonetheless.) I asked a seasoned country expert what he thought about the situation. He told me that now the Prime Minister is interested in developing relations with Russia, and there are regular contacts, and cultural events are taking place, but if someday the Japanese suddenly decide that they will not receive these four islands, they will take a place in the camp of the most ardent opponents of the Russian Federation. I'm just quoting. I won't even comment.

In 2022, the General Assembly once again voted on the Russian resolution "Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to the escalation of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related to them." For the first time, Japan, Germany and Italy voted "against". So far, they have abstained. Now, when in Ukraine we are talking not in theory, but in practice as Nazism is heroized and penetrates into all spheres of life, then this "raising of hands" of the three former Axis countries sounded quite symbolic.

About the Lachin corridor. Yesterday I spoke with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. The Lachin corridor, according to the agreement reached by the leaders of the three countries on November 9, 2020, should be free for the passage of goods, citizens and vehicles in both directions. Of course, it separately stipulates that no military cargo should be sent along this route. The Azerbaijanis provided data (now our military are studying them) that the Armenian side delivered mines along this corridor. Then they were used to mine the territories that are close to the Azerbaijani positions in violation of the trilateral agreements. There's a lot of recriminations.

We offered a simple thing. The Russian peacekeeping contingent has the authority under the tripartite agreement to monitor this movement and check vehicles, for example, for the absence of prohibited, non-humanitarian, non-civilian goods in them.

Recently, meetings were held between representatives of Azerbaijan and representatives of Karabakh with the participation of the commander of the Russian contingent.

I think that the issue will be resolved in the near future.

Question: We did not talk about Africa at all today. Today, in an interview for the RIA Novosti news agency, the South African Foreign Minister called for the withdrawal of the anti-Russian law from the US Congress. It provides for punishment by the United States against African States that continue to cooperate with our country. In this interview, Ms. Minister spoke a lot about the inadmissibility of the colonial policy of the West, about the impossibility of unilateral sanctions against our state. How does Moscow assess this bill of the US Congress to combat Russian activities in Africa? To what extent can this law affect our cooperation with the countries of the region?

Sergey Lavrov: I assess this law in the same way as South African Foreign Minister Nikolai Pandor. As for how it can affect our relations with Africa, I think her comments already contain the answer.

Not every African country, through its official representative, will be able to so clearly state its position. Somewhere subjective factors of a personal nature will affect. Some of our African colleagues will react in such a fundamental way.

But I have no doubt that deep down, even those who do not comment on such American provocations, there is still a deep conviction that this law harms, first of all, Africans.

First, they are not considered equal. It's a purely colonial mentality in a new dimension. Secondly, when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in the Trump administration, he traveled around Africa and at public events, and at press conferences called on everyone to stop trading with Russia and China. Because, they say, Russia and China are doing this "for the sake of self-interest", for themselves and to the detriment of Africans. And America (Mike Pompeo said) trades with Africa solely for the sake of developing them, and they have more democracy. Such a simple "thing". It's anywhere, and in Africa too, perceived as it deserves.

We are planning a second Russia-Africa summit with Africa on July 23-26, 2023 in St Petersburg. We are preparing a whole series of events for it. There will also be a business forum, documents are being prepared to "reconfigure" the mechanisms of interaction in the face of sanctions and threats, which you mentioned in the context of the US bill. New tools for trade and investment cooperation, logistics chains, payments. There is a transition to settlements in national currencies. This process is not fast, but it is underway and gaining momentum.