First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for another invitation to address the participants of the international conference "Mediterranean: Roman Dialogue". This means that we have something to discuss. It's inspiring.

I am sure that meetings in this format are in great demand. The Mediterranean - the cradle of world civilizations and religions - remains a major hotbed of international tension, a source of such dangerous challenges as terrorism, illegal migration, drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime. We are very concerned about the rapid decline in the Christian presence, which we are seeing in countries where representatives of various faiths have lived in peace and harmony for centuries. This is a direct consequence of attempts to impose on the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa alien values ​​and recipes for how they should live in their own countries. Not only these states, but the entire world community is paying a very high price for such a reckless policy. Including those who, grossly violating international law, the fundamental principles of international life enshrined in the UN Charter, provoked chaos and anarchy in vast geopolitical spaces.

One gets the impression, however, that the lessons learned from the tragedies in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have not been assimilated by those who are trying to pursue such an unceremonious policy in this region. We know how today the foundations of the world order are being undermined and international law fundamental international agreements - such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program, the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces - are now under threat. The principles of world trade agreed within the framework of the WTO are being aggressively attacked.

My Italian colleague and I were just talking about the trend today towards replacing international law, as we all know it, with some kind of “rule-based order”. This is what a number of our resourceful Western friends call him. I do not quite understand why international law, which has existed for such a long time, has ceased to be a popular principle for us, having a "guiding" significance in international relations. In the logic of a "rules-based order", attempts are being made to privatize the multilateral institutions of global governance.

You don't have to look far for examples. In the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Western colleagues, in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, are trying to push through the endowment of the OPCW Technical Secretariat with unusual “attributive functions” to identify the perpetrators. The Convention requires the OPCW to establish the very fact of the use of banned chemicals. If you want to endow the OPCW with additional functions, then there is a method prescribed in the CPCW - to propose, discuss, accept, ratify amendments. Yes, it takes a little more time, but it's also easier, isn't it?

International life cannot depend on the ideas and policies of those who look at life through the prism of internal electoral cycles. Similar encroachments are being made with respect to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction ( BTWC). The UN Secretariat wants to create a mechanism that will determine who has violated the Convention and who has not. I would like to recall that shortly after the entry into force of the Convention, we were among those who actively promoted the idea of ​​creating a verification mechanism that would be embedded in itself. The US categorically rejected this idea. I don't even remember under what administration it happened.

Unfortunately, now the situation is such that instead of developing a verification mechanism based on international law through negotiations, which is laid down in the Convention itself, they want to give attributive powers to a certain group of experts appointed by no one knows who, and for the UN Secretariat to do this work.

Among the examples of replacing international law with "rules based on order" is the situation in the Council of Europe, where a small but aggressive group of parliamentarians directly undermines the Charter of this unique pan-European organization, first of all, the principle that guarantees the equal rights of all member states in all its organs.

I'm not sure if you've heard this, but four years ago, in March 2014, A. Fogh Rasmussen, then NATO Secretary General, stated that the united will of the members of the Alliance is "an extremely powerful source of international political legitimacy." It seems to me that this statement can be considered one of the “first signs” of how people decided to forget about international law as we have known it for centuries and introduce some rules based on the exclusive political legitimacy of blocs like NATO. I think comments are unnecessary here. By the way, today Mr. Rasmussen is working as an adviser to the President of Ukraine. It is unlikely that his advice contributes to overcoming the intra-Ukrainian crisis on the basis of the Minsk agreements and the UN Security Council resolution that fixed these agreements.

In this regard, another “European Intervention Initiative” recently put forward by our French colleagues, which is positioned as a project outside the framework of the EU and NATO, is noteworthy, since, in the understanding of the French, their mechanisms are too cumbersome in decision-making. The question arises: what did they essentially mean, how would this initiative relate to international law? Will we witness how a new instrument of "power surgery" will be invented on the African continent? After all, it was precisely during crises that peacekeeping operations to resolve them in African states were identified as requiring a proactive approach. And the term proposed by France - "intervention" - speaks for itself. I wonder what if some other country outside the EU or NATO promoted an initiative containing the term "intervention"? How would NATO and the EU react to this?

International information security has been discussed at the UN for about ten years. Attempts are being made to develop international legal norms for responsible behavior in cyberspace. Yes, it is a long process, and not an easy one. However, instead of focusing on this work within the UN, controversial initiatives are being promoted that allow violations of state sovereignty and generally dilute the role of the state in ensuring cybersecurity.

There are various destructive ideas in the field of journalism and media management that cause concern. In some European countries, relevant laws have already been adopted. We observe attempts to draw up some kind of "white" lists, when media not included in them are not allowed to carry their point of view. Thus, the democratic principle of ensuring freedom of speech and unimpeded access of citizens and the media to information, proclaimed in the early 90s by the OSCE, is being violated. This principle is a norm of international law. Whereas the idea of ​​dividing the media into “white” and “black” is a rule on the basis of which someone is trying to form a new world order.

We have come to the point where it is necessary to say a firm "no" to attempts to replace, revise and fragment international law. The realities of the 21st century require us to return to our roots, to true collegiality - on the basis of the UN Charter; to the reaffirmation of the role of the United Nations as the only universal body of international administration, in which the Security Council is the only body responsible for international security and peace. We must do away with the inertia and initiatives generated by the imperialist and colonial philosophy of the 19th century. Because otherwise it will be impossible to resolve the crises in the Mediterranean region.

Only by joining forces on the basis of international law, we will be able to resolve the conflict in Syria. For this, UNSCR 2254 provides a solid foundation. To briefly convey its content, it requires that everything be decided by the Syrians themselves on the basis of mutual agreements between the government and the opposition. In full accordance with the principle of the need for agreement by all parties Syrian conflict Russia, Turkey and Iran initiated the Astana process. Within its framework, it was agreed to hold the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, at which a decision was made to establish a Constitutional Committee. Its formation is currently at the final stage.

Only with the support of international law can we find solutions to the crisis in Libya. This country was destroyed by NATO bombings, carried out in flagrant violation of the resolution of the UN Security Council. As you remember, the resolution only referred to the creation of a "no-fly zone". Its meaning was to ban M. Gaddafi's aircraft from flying. And the Libyan planes did not take to the skies. But instead of providing a "no-fly zone", the air forces of the NATO countries began to bomb government troops, thus providing support to the other side of the conflict - with a very bad reputation. Some European countries and regional players, in violation of the UN Security Council embargo, supplied it with weapons in order to help overthrow the government of M. Gaddafi. After that, the same forces continued to spread their destructive influence throughout Africa. They went south to Bamako, creating a real threat to the government of Mali.

The fate of Libya, as in Syria, must be determined by the Libyans themselves. We proceed from the fact that there is no alternative to an inclusive intra-Libyan dialogue based on the principles of the Skhirat Agreement. It was these principles that guided the Russian delegation headed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at the recent international conference in Palermo, convened by the Italian government in a very timely fashion.

Of course, it is unlikely that it will be possible to ensure sustainable stability in the Mediterranean, including Syria, Libya, Iraq and other countries that have an impact on this region, to truly reconcile the difficult Middle East without a fair solution to the long-standing Palestinian problem on the basis of UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. But here, too, attempts are being made to revise the international legal basis for the settlement, to replace it again with certain "rules" that do not have universal recognition. This only exacerbates an already difficult situation. Russia will continue to promote both inter-Palestinian reconciliation, including support for Egyptian initiatives, and the resumption of dialogue between the parties. Our proposal to hold a meeting of the leaders of Israel and Palestine in Moscow without any preconditions stands.

We cannot ignore the worrying development of the situation on the other side of the Mediterranean - in the Balkans. The states of the region, without taking into account the will of their peoples, are persistently drawn into NATO. The referendum as an instrument of direct expression of the will of the people is not very popular. At the same time on public opinion there is aggressive pressure in these countries. The participation in this of a huge number of Western leaders, heads of state, ministers, the NATO Secretary General, the High Representative of the EU, who campaigned in Macedonia during the referendum in this country, is impressive. And not a word was said about direct interference in the internal affairs of this state.

Coming to the end of my introductory remarks I would like to note that the effective solution of the numerous problems of the Mediterranean requires collegial action. In this sense, we should not forget about the useful contribution that the OSCE can make to this work. I state with satisfaction that the current Italian presidency pays increased attention to the entire range of issues related to the region. At the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Milan, Rome put forward a Declaration on the Mediterranean Dimension. We generally support it.

I am convinced that it is within our power to return to the Mediterranean the historical role of an inter-civilizational “bridge”, to ensure its peaceful development and prosperity. If we act together, do not pursue hidden goals and do not apply double standards, then we will manage.

Question: You spoke about Libya. At a recent conference in Palermo, some progress was noted in efforts to stabilize the situation in the country. What can and is Russia ready to do to achieve this? What role do you want to play in Libya's future? Are you considering a military presence like in Syria?

S.V. Lavrov: On the last question - you need to understand the difference. We are in Syria at the request of the legitimate government of this UN member state, unlike some other participants in the events.

As for our contribution to the Libyan peace settlement, we do not claim that we would like or could play a key role in this process. The Libyans themselves must agree on how they want to end the current chaos.

From the very beginning of the crisis, we have been in dialogue with all the actors in Tripoli, Tobruk and other cities. Some external players then acted quite differently, providing support to one or another side of the conflict. We have always considered such behavior to be wrong. By the way, in Syria we talk to everyone except ISIS, of course. The same is true in Yemen.

I can note with satisfaction that the approach that we consider correct is now shared by an increasing number of external players. People are beginning to understand the need for an inclusive dialogue on the Libyan issue among the Libyans themselves. The first step in this direction was an international conference in May this year in France. The second is the conference in Palermo, which brought together all the key participants in the Libyan settlement. I think this is the only possible way.

Again, I do not believe in the effectiveness of artificially set time frames for a peaceful settlement, whether in Libya or in Syria. After all, no one proposes to install them to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But in Libya - they offer. On Syria, our good friend S. de Mistura is under pressure to set a deadline. Why is this happening? The content of the negotiations is much more important than artificially set time frames.

We do not pretend to know everything about Libya, we are not trying to play heroes, we support the efforts of the states bordering this country - Egypt, Algeria - and we believe that their actions should be encouraged. As well as the UN. UN Special Representative for Libya G. Salame is promoting ideas that, in my opinion, will direct the settlement process in the right direction. Of course, their "fine refinement" is necessary, taking into account the peculiarities of the perception of the situation by all participants in the Libyan settlement.

Of course, the League of Arab States (LAS) can play a big role in resolving this crisis. The same applies to Syria. It seems to me that the Arab League made a mistake by excluding Damascus from its ranks. And today I see that its members have come to realize that Syria needs to be returned to the family of Arab states.

Question: I understand your arguments against imposing artificial deadlines for the settlement, but, on the other hand, the absence of such a framework will lead to the fact that the crisis will continue indefinitely, as in Syria. If I remember correctly, the last "deadline" that S. de Mistura insisted on was the formation of the Constitutional Committee. If the Constitutional Committee is not formed, how will the country get out of the crisis? I want to say that some pressure should still be exerted on the participants in the settlement, primarily on the Syrian government.

S.V. Lavrov: Pressure must be applied carefully. The role of S. de Mistura is to ensure the implementation of the peace process. UN Security Council Resolution 2254 clearly states that the peace process is an internal affair of Syria, and Syria itself should lead this process. Prior to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress (SNDC) in Sochi in January this year, there was no talk of any "deadlines". Before Russia, Turkey and Iran launched the Astana format in December 2016, the Geneva process had been inactive for ten months. It was within the framework of the negotiations in Astana that for the first time conditions were created for the Government of Syria and the armed opposition to sit down at the negotiating table. When I discussed this issue with my colleague from Saudi Arabia, he confirmed the correctness of this approach, since it is especially important and productive to negotiate directly with the people you are fighting. This does not mean that we do not recognize the need to work also with "emigrants" - those who left Syria and live in other states. But they cannot be the only group that negotiates with the Government. This is exactly how they tried to present themselves.

The merit of the Astana format lies in the fact that the first step was taken to "awaken" the peace process under the auspices of the UN, which had previously been in a lethargic sleep. A process of direct dialogue was initiated between the Syrian government and the widely represented opposition. Then we managed to hold a meeting of the CCND in Sochi, at which a decision was made to form a Constitutional Committee. Before that, no one lifted a finger in this direction, including those who are shouting today: “Where is the Constitutional Committee? The results of his work should be already tomorrow!” This takes time. It is much more important to have a really functioning Constitutional Committee acceptable to all parties in the negotiation process than to artificially set some kind of "deadline" in order to fail the process of a peaceful settlement launched in Astana. Those who insist today that S. de Mistura should operate with specific dates with a list of demands without regard to the opinions of the parties, want only one thing - to nullify the Astana process and return to the logic of regime change in Syria.

By the way, when ISIS terrorists approached the outskirts of Damascus in August 2015, no one called on the opposition to start negotiations with the Government. But as soon as the situation "on the ground" changed, everyone rushed to the Syrian authorities, urging them to sit down at the negotiating table with the opposition.

Prejudice in such matters is absolutely counterproductive. Such approaches testify not only to double standards, but also demonstrate that the forces acting in this manner care only about their geopolitical interests, and not about the fate of those who live in the country and who need help in overcoming the crisis.

Question: Every time I hear Russian politicians speak, they always emphasize the need to support the countries of the region, that the preservation of statehood is a priority. Why support states that kill, torture, imprison thousands of their citizens? How can one explain the desire to preserve such states?

S.V. Lavrov: What country do you mean?

Question: I am talking about the countries of the region as a whole, about Syria. We are talking about a policy aimed at preserving statehood, and not at supporting the civilian population of countries. States would do well to show less cruelty towards their citizens.

I also want to ask you, as Minister of one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East, could Russia ask its friends in this region to treat their citizens with less cruelty?

S.V. Lavrov: States should not be cruel to their citizens. This is required by a great variety of international legal instruments. And I really hope that these legal instruments will not be forgotten by those who today do not want to comply with the norms of international law and are trying in every possible way to impose a “rule-based order”, not realizing that others do not support these rules. Such attempts have already been made in the past, and more than once. Once upon a time, the term " new order". We know from history how such attempts ended.

As for authoritarian regimes - the governments of UN member states - and their relations with their citizens, I have already mentioned the principles that guide us here. There are international obligations in the field of human rights and it is impossible to hide behind sovereignty in order to evade their implementation. On the other hand, you need to be realistic and consider the situation as a whole. If you are obsessed with human rights and don’t care about maintaining stability in this or that country, if you don’t care about ensuring the right to life (and this, by the way, is one of the human rights), not to mention economic and social rights, then, I'm afraid, your position is one-sided.

Yes, Iraq and Libya (Iraq more than Libya) were considered - and rightly so - authoritarian states. However, the right to life in them was violated or threatened a thousand times less than after "people's revolutions" accompanied by foreign intervention in these countries. Ask the Libyans about how they lived before. Ask them how the right to education was ensured, what was the economic situation like. They will tell you. You can't just say, "Give people freedom, nothing else matters." In the same way as it is impossible to say: "Forget about human rights, respect any government sitting in the capital."

Question: Saudi Arabia, and in particular Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has been in the news for a very bad reason lately. Will Russia support the idea of ​​holding an international investigation into the circumstances of the murder of J. Khashoggi, in order to find out not so much how it happened, but who gave the corresponding instructions? Indeed, according to the most common version, confirmed by the preliminary results of the investigation, this murder was sanctioned by the KSA authorities, and Mohammed bin Salman was directly involved in this. If it is established that the crown prince personally gave such an order or was somehow connected with it, will this affect relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia?

S.V. Lavrov: Such questions are based on hypothetical assumptions: "If or when it will be established" ... I already answered this question at today's press conference following the results of negotiations with E. Moavero Milanesi. We note that the investigation in Saudi Arabia is ongoing and that it is being conducted in cooperation with the Turkish authorities. We want the results of this investigation to be made public. But to speculate about what will happen next - frankly, it's not my business. If you have any thoughts on this matter, that is your right. We prefer to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity, which is applicable to any legal situation.

S.V. Lavrov: I don't think that you can find two countries in the world that have completely identical positions on this or that issue. This applies to Russia, and Turkey, and Iran. All three of our states are present in Syria. We have created a platform known as the Astana process, despite the fact that we do not have a 100% concurrence of views. We have joined forces for the sake of the Syrian people, and not to play any geopolitical games. We want to see Syria peaceful and stable, so that the borders of this country will be protected, so that none of its neighbors will experience anxiety.

As for Bashar al-Assad, we have repeatedly stated that we do not support any political figure in Syria. We adhere to the provisions of the relevant UN Security Council resolution and the Geneva Communiqué adopted in June 2012, which unequivocally stated that the Syrians should play a decisive role in the settlement process, and only the people of Syria have the right to determine the future of their country. The way to implement such a decision is also laid down in the Resolution: first, the adoption of a new constitution, and then elections. It is up to the Syrian people to decide whether someone should stay in power or leave so that someone else can take this place.

As for the connection between Bashar al-Assad's continued stay in power and foreign assistance, I would like to quote a statement that practically coincides with what you just said. It was recently presented by the US State Department. As you know, the Americans have repeatedly claimed that they are present in Syria for one single purpose: to eliminate the remnants of ISIS in this country. And so, a couple of days ago, Washington said that in order to defeat ISIS, it is necessary to put an end to Iranian influence in Syria and implement radical changes in the Syrian leadership. In other words, the United States justifies its presence in Syria with the need to fight ISIS. At the same time, they argue that it is impossible to defeat ISIS as long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power, and the presence of Iran in this country remains. In my opinion, this is a very strange logic, and I hope that you do not adhere to it. I hope everyone shares the principle that the future of Syria should be decided by the Syrian people through UN-monitored elections.

Question: I have a Russian wife. Sometimes, when arguing with me, she says to me: "You don't respect me." It seems to me that this expression is applicable to the self-perception of your country as a whole in the international arena. Does Russia think that it is not respected enough in the world?

S.V. Lavrov: I wouldn't say so. There is another Russian proverb: "Afraid - it means respect." But this does not mean that we gain respect by intimidating everyone and everyone. Nothing like this. We want a dialogue based on mutual respect. Only in this way we agree to talk with anyone.

And our Western friends - the Americans, the British, who are directing Russophobic sentiments and imposing them on a number of countries that would not want this, but are forced to agree out of solidarity, continue to feed us with statements. Like what was recently done by British Prime Minister T. May, and what was presented to us as a grandiose “shift” of position. They say that the UK wants to normalize relations with Russia, seeks to maintain cooperation on a wide range of issues, and together we are capable of many useful achievements ... But only after Russia admits that it was wrong. We hear the same thing from the United States that they will cooperate with us only after we admit our guilt and promise that we will not act so badly again.

I hope that those who are interested in Russian domestic and foreign policy follow the development of our dialogue with Washington and London on Salisbury and Amesbury, as well as on election interference and everything else. We are told that there is factual evidence of our guilt. Well, well, if there are facts, then present them to us, let's discuss. Maybe for one reason or another, we really did something wrong. But they refuse to show us any evidence, claiming that “the information is classified”, and we ourselves, they say, know that we did it. I am not kidding. That is what I heard from US Secretary of State R. Tillerson in response to my request to clarify his statement that they have irrefutable evidence of our interference in American elections. He laughed and offered to ask our special services about what he had in mind.

By the way, recently my good friend, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland T. Soini, said that they have irrefutable evidence of how Russia tried to interfere with the work of GPS during the NATO military exercises Trident Junkcha. I have a question: why is the media the first to be informed about this? When there is cause for concern, a normal, polite person will say directly that he does not like what he has learned and ask for an explanation. When you have problems with your wife or you suspect her of something, you will deal directly with her, and will not complain to the media?

Speech and answers to media questions by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov during a joint press conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy E. Moavero Milanesi, Rome, November 23, 2018

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank our Italian hosts for their hospitality and very fruitful collaboration.

This is already our second meeting with my colleague, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy E. Moavero Milanesi in less than two months. This reflects our mutual disposition to develop a dialogue on bilateral topics and issues on the international agenda in accordance with the agreements reached at highest level. In particular, in accordance with what was said on October 24 during the visit to the Russian Federation of Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Conte and his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

We exchanged views on the upcoming schedule of contacts. E. Moavero Milanesi has already mentioned that on December 17 a meeting of the Russian-Italian Council for Economic, Industrial and Monetary and Financial Cooperation (Economic Council) will take place, on the sidelines of which the Forum of Small and Medium Enterprises of Russia and Italy will be held. This will be a good continuation of the meeting with Italian business that took place during the visit of Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte to Russia, when he and Russian President Vladimir Putin met with the leadership of leading Italian companies operating in the Russian market.

We certainly spoke about our tasks on the front of the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and other contemporary challenges and threats. We stressed the need for further active cooperation between our respective departments in these areas.

We have good regular contacts between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. We agreed to continue consultations on topics of mutual interest.

One of the most important components of our relations are cultural and humanitarian contacts. Until the end of the year, the Russian Seasons continue in the Apennines, which included exhibitions of works from the collections of our largest museums, tours of the best theater and concert groups. In turn, they expressed gratitude to the Italian side for the interesting program of events held by Italy during the 7th St. Petersburg International Cultural Forum held on November 15-17.

In general, we have a mutual interest in continuing cooperation through civil societies. In this regard, we pin our hopes on the activities of the Russian-Italian Forum Dialogue, which is a useful mechanism that helps develop contacts between people.

We discussed the course of preparations for the OSCE Ministerial Council in Milan, where Italy is currently chairing. The meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council will be held in early December in Milan. We count on the adoption of significant decisions, including anti-terrorist and anti-drug decisions. Russia will also promote agreements that relate to the protection of the linguistic and educational rights of national minorities, as well as the need to ensure, in accordance with existing obligations, free access to information by the media and the public.

On regional issues, much time was devoted to the tasks of overcoming the intra-Libyan crisis. We are convinced of the need to find generally acceptable approaches that would allow the Libyans themselves to determine the future of their country through a national dialogue. In this regard, we reaffirmed the positive assessment of the international "Conference for Libya", which took place on November 12-13 in Palermo, where the Russian Federation was represented by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. We are ready to further assist efforts to create conditions as soon as possible for the resolution of this crisis, as well as other crises in the region.

In this context, we talked about Syria. We informed our Italian colleagues about the work that Russia, together with Turkey and Iran, is carrying out within the framework of the Astana process in order to create conditions for stopping the manifestation of violence, solving humanitarian problems, returning refugees and, of course, for the speedy start of the political process based on the resolution 2254 UNSC. In this regard, we spoke about the efforts to complete the formation of the constitutional commission in accordance with the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi in January this year. The next milestone in these efforts will be the next meeting in Astana on November 28-29 of the three guarantor countries of the Astana process Russia, Turkey and Iran with the participation of observers from the UN.

We also touched upon one of the issues, which is now becoming systemic and is a serious challenge to international law. I am referring to the desire of some countries to create so-called international organizations within the framework of international organizations. "attribution mechanisms" that, contrary to existing conventions, would give the secretariats of these organizations the right to determine the perpetrators in a particular case. This clearly goes beyond the mandate of multilateral structures operating on the basis of statutes and their existing mandates. They should be strictly guided by these mandates, not trying to take on some functions that are unusual for them.

We talked, of course, about Ukraine. We are unanimous in our opinion that there is no alternative to the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures. Although, of course, we see the differences that appear in the positions of the EU, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, as regards specific ways of moving towards this goal. I think that through dialogue, like that that we had today with our Italian colleagues, we will be able to work out a line that will lead to the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk agreements approved by the UN Security Council.

Question (translated from Italian): NATO Secretary General John Stoltenberg congratulated Italy on holding the international "Conference for Libya" in Palermo with the support of Russia. Italy is now playing a critical role in stabilizing Libya. It was said that the Prime Minister was present at the Conference Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev, who proposed a multilateral format similar to Syria. Will there be military support in Libya from the Russian Federation, for example, together with Egypt? Could you also say something about J. Khashoggi and US President D. Trump?

S.V. Lavrov: I didn’t really understand, where does J. Stoltenberg have to do with Libya? Although, of course, all the troubles of modern Libya are associated with NATO aggression in flagrant violation of the UN Security Council resolution.

We said today that in search of a solution to the crises in Libya and other countries of this long-suffering region, we must build on what we have today. But in no case should we forget about the reasons that plunged the region into the abyss of civil strife, gave impetus to the rapid growth of terrorism, illegal arms trafficking and an unprecedented wave of migrants, including to Europe.

As for the meeting in Palermo, we supported the initiative to hold it. This was discussed during the visit of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, J. Conte, to Russia. He had a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

From the very beginning of the Libyan crisis, we have promoted the need to talk and work with all sides of the intra-Libyan conflict - both with Tripoli and Tobruk. Both have traveled to the Russian Federation many times as part of an effort to create conditions for national dialogue and reconciliation. Some countries at an early stage of the Libyan crisis tried to side with one or another Libyan political force. But I am convinced that everyone understood that this approach has no prospects. And now the efforts of all external players who want to help reach a settlement in Libya are aimed at communicating with all the key parties to the conflict. This was once again confirmed at the Conference in Palermo, which Italy held very successfully and at which an additional brick was laid in the foundation of our common work. The Conference did the right thing with regard to the counterproductiveness of setting artificial deadlines for this or that stage in the political process, be it elections or something else. First of all, the Libyan players themselves must determine how they will live together in their country. Only upon reaching such an understanding can one speak of democratic procedures for the formation of new power structures.

As for your request to talk about J. Khashoggi and US President D. Trump, I did not understand what exactly you are talking about. We have already spoken about J. Khashoggi. They talked about the need to complete the investigation as soon as possible. We note that the Saudis are conducting this investigation, cooperating with the Turkish authorities. We look forward to a final verdict as soon as possible.

Question: In recent weeks, Kiev and Brussels have been actively aggravating the situation around the Sea of ​​Azov, accusing Russia of illegal inspections of ships and building up military power in the Sea of ​​Azov. Why is this topic brought up now? Don't you think that the tension around Russia in connection with the situation in the Sea of ​​Azov is artificially escalated?

S.V. Lavrov: Our position was recently detailed in a statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry. We cited concrete facts there, urged not to be guided by some politicized, artificially invented assessments. The legal content of this situation is determined by the Treaty between Russia and Ukraine of 2003, according to which the Sea of ​​Azov is the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine. Both parties have the right to conduct inspections. The procedure for such inspections is described.

I can assure you, this is the absolute truth. Since April of this year, there has not been a single complaint from any captain, or from any vessel that has been subjected to inspections by the Russian Federation. It is important that we did not hear any concerns in the speeches of our European colleagues, who are now worried about this rather fictitious issue, at a time when the Ukrainian side is absolutely unlawful, in violation of everything and everything, seized Russian ships, held their crews, announced a desire to sell the ships themselves under the hammer. At that time, I repeat, no one among those who are now concerned about the purity of events in the Sea of ​​Azov expressed any concerns. I see no other explanation, except for the desire to once again invent a pretext in order to put pressure on the Russian Federation.

Let me also remind you that the Kerch Strait is not a strait subject to regulation by international law - it is Russian. It is no coincidence that we were forced to increase the presence of our border guards and military there after Ukrainian officials repeatedly promised to start some preparations to blow up Crimean bridge through the Kerch Strait. To these statements by Ukrainian officials, we also did not hear any clear reaction from our Western partners, who are now expressing concern about the absolutely legitimate actions of the Russian authorities in the Sea of ​​Azov. These steps did not give rise to a single complaint from the captains of the ships being inspected. All inspections were carried out in full compliance with established standards.

Question (to both ministers, translated from Italian): Did you talk about sanctions? What is Italy doing to ease the sanctions regime? After all, it was said that it is necessary to overcome it? During his visit to Moscow, Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Conte said that the consequences of the imposition of sanctions cause great damage to Italian companies. Mr. Lavrov, what do you expect from Italy in this regard? What is Negative influence sanctions on Russia?

Sergey Lavrov (answers after E. Maovero Milanesi): I will start from the same place where E. Maovero Milanesi ended his commentary on international law. I think there was an attempted coup in the Gambia a couple of years ago. The US State Department issued a powerful official statement (you can probably find the quote on the Internet) saying that the US categorically rejects any unconstitutional power grab.

When in February 2014 the coup d'etat in Ukraine was successfully carried out - it was not just an attempted coup, but its successful implementation against the legally acting President of Ukraine - the United States said nothing, just as the European Union did not say anything. Although France, Germany and Poland signed as guarantors of the agreement that was reached between President Viktor Yanukovych and representatives of the opposition just a day before this coup d'état. These representatives of the opposition, led by radicals and nationalists, carried out a coup d'état and declared that the agreement was no longer valid.

Everyone was silent. We did not remain silent, because, as you know, this new government immediately passed a law aimed at banning the Russian language. The radicals who waged the main attack on the legitimate authorities and institutions of power, publicly, officially announced that the Russians should be expelled from Crimea, because they will never think like Ukrainians and honor Ukrainian heroes. At the same time, they named Bandera and Shukhevych, who were Hitler's accomplices and, like their kind, were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal. This is the beginning of the story.

Of course, we want international law to be respected. Only for some reason, the US State Department took one position on the Gambia. In Yemen, the president was also overthrown, and for three or four years the entire international community has been demanding that he be returned to the capital and given the opportunity to return to his duties. But in Ukraine there was a coup d'état, and everyone believes that this is how it should be. Therefore, it was not in vain that we said (and I have already had the opportunity to speak on this topic) that some of our Western colleagues are trying to get away from the classical interpretation of the term "international law". Now they are increasingly introducing the term “rules-based order” into circulation. This is a very interesting thing. Observe in what situations people try to avoid mentioning international law and talk about a rule-based order.

In the case of Ukraine, they were clearly guided not by international law, but by rules that they themselves came up with. If they do not like those who tried to make a coup in the Gambia, then, then, in this case, international law must be respected. And if they liked what the national-radical opposition did in Ukraine, then this will be a rule that they themselves came up with and want the further order to be based on these rules. Therefore, we regard sanctions as an absolutely politicized decision, which, in the case of the inhabitants of Crimea, punishes them for their free expression of will. This is a flagrant violation of the Convention and Covenants on Human Rights. I think lawyers can easily prove it with texts in hand.

However, we understand that sanctions are a reality. We did not stir up this mess, and we will not beg our colleagues in Europe or anywhere else to lift these sanctions. Yes, of course, they cause damage to both. According to experts of the Eastern Committee of the German Economy, for example, the total damage from sanctions today is about 100 billion US dollars. Italian producers of agricultural products considered that they alone lost 3 billion euros on the problem that arose with the export of agricultural products from Italy to Russia. There are such figures, but, probably, no one can say for sure.

We made one conclusion for ourselves. In a situation where politicized decisions are made with the aim of punishing Russia or, as in the case of American sanctions, weakening competitors - after all, American sanctions apply to Russia, China, and Europe - the main thing is to deprive competitors of the opportunity to receive economic benefits in those cases where the United States considers it unfair. The conclusion for us is very simple: we must learn - and in many ways have already learned - to live in this situation. To live in such a way as not to depend on those people who have proven their unreliability as trade and economic partners. Of course, we understand that in Europe there is far from an unambiguous attitude towards this situation. We see enough a large number of countries, including Italy, who consider this abnormal and are in favor of correcting this situation. We welcome this, but we cannot take the first steps towards meeting our colleagues in this area. They must decide for themselves.

In the meantime, in addition to building our economy in such a way as not to depend on partners who have proven their unreliability, we, along with colleagues who are ready for cooperation, are developing projects that are possible in modern conditions. Italy, with which we have very good cooperation in the energy sector and in a number of other areas, certainly belongs to such partners. We talked about this today. But the main conversation will take place in a couple of weeks, when a meeting of the Council for Economic, Industrial, Monetary and Financial Cooperation will be held here in Rome.

And there are such opportunities between Russia and Italy. We will certainly use them to the maximum. With other countries, we also carry out a number of important, interesting projects despite the sanctions.

I probably won't make a speech. It seems to me that it will be more productive if we talk interactively.

I would like to thank the organizers of the conference - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies. We see this format as promising and will, for our part, contribute to the best of our ability to ensure that it becomes a permanent platform for discussing the critical issue of the future of the Mediterranean and adjacent regions.

Of course, the Mediterranean is at the crossroads of international economic, logistical and transport routes. And now this region is in a very deplorable state. Those present here would certainly be interested in learning more about the foreign policy of various players, including Russia.

Of course, you are aware of the main provisions of our assessment of what is happening in the Mediterranean and the reasons behind it. We believe that under the "flag" of democratization, the so-called "Arab Spring" was given a different, very dangerous turn. Moreover, we are talking about democratization not in the sense that it is understood by the peoples living in the region. We are talking about recipes imposed from outside. As a result, everything came down to attempts by external forces to get rid of regimes that they disliked.

We believe that after what happened in Libya, the international community has no right to act lightly towards terrorists. Let's not forget that it is those people who overthrew M. Gaddafi in their time, who are now destabilizing the situation in a number of African countries.

I remember our conversation with L. Fabius, when the extremists came to and applied to the UN Security Council for permission to send their military contingent to this country to fight the extremists who came from Libya. I then said that, of course, we always support such efforts, we are always ready to issue a mandate to those who are fighting the terrorist threat. But I reminded him not to forget that these are the same people whom they once armed, supported in the hope that they will help them achieve their geopolitical goal and overthrow M. Gaddafi. He then replied that it was "ce la vie." But "ce la vie" is not politics. I think it just shows the need to be consistent. You can’t take steps that will then boomerang at you.

I hope, and now we all have learned this lesson, that it is unacceptable to seek regime change at any cost, including by collaborating with terrorists. We have already seen similar games with the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when the Mujahideen were supported only because they were fighting the Soviet troops. And then Al-Qaeda grew out of these Mujahideen, and on September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda attacked the United States.

The same can be said about ISIS. The most combat-ready part of ISIS is the former regular military armies of S. Hussein. In 2003, P. Bremer, by his decree, disbanded the Iraqi army, like all other structures dominated by the Sunnis. The military, intelligence officers, police - they all lost their jobs, earnings. And then they went to ISIS not because of some ideological preferences, but simply in search of work.

In addition, of course, it should be noted that it was the Americans who released Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from prison in Baghdad in 2006. Now he leads this "creation" of theirs. For our part, we will do everything possible to fight this evil, and I hope that they will support us. I hope that, as Russian President Vladimir Putin once suggested, we will be able to create a real antiterrorist coalition. After everything that happened, after our partners contributed to the emergence and strengthening of Al-Qaeda, and then ISIS, by their actions, we do not want Jabhat al-Nusra to gain strength due to the Syrian events.

I will probably stop there. I won't draw any conclusions now. I just wanted to say a few words "for starters", and now I'll listen to your thoughts, questions, comments. Thank you for your attention.

Question: Let's just talk about Syria, because now it is a very pressing topic. Russia is, one might say, the most devoted ally of Bashar al-Assad. But friends sometimes have to tell each other the hard truth. Don't you feel like you should tell your friend that it's time for him to compromise? I'm not saying give up, I'm saying compromise. Don't you think it's time for him to compromise?

S.V. Lavrov: It was high time to do this. Literally, I just had a short meeting with the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General, S. de Mistura, and I once again urged him not to delay the negotiations and not to wait for those who refuse to comply with the resolutions of the UN Security Council, resolutions that clearly state that in on the basis of mutual consent, a representative non-denominational transitional governing body should be established. This governing body must draft a new constitution, and six months after the adoption of the constitution, elections are to be held in the country.

Thus, those who say that before discussing the implementation of this plan, it is necessary to achieve the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power, violate the resolution of the Security Council. Therefore, there is nothing to wait for them, you just need to send out invitations to all groups in Syria, and whoever responds to the invitation should conduct a dialogue with the authorities. The Syrian authorities have long been ready for such a dialogue.

S. de Mistura has not been able to resume this process since May. And, most importantly, until these people gather at the same table, no one can know for sure whether they will come to an agreement or not. Therefore, when someone says that it makes sense to arrange a meeting only if we can guarantee a positive result in advance, we believe that this is the wrong approach, we cannot agree with this. The fate of Syria must be decided by the Syrians themselves, and that is exactly what the UN Security Council resolution says.

In this game - I don't mean to sound cynical, but there are indeed a lot of games going on around the Syrian tragedy - there are a lot of "friends" or "groups of friends". There is a group "Friends of Syria", created by the anti-Assad coalition. It included countries that decided to support the coalition and not promote dialogue. Then we managed, I think, to achieve very great success and together with our American colleagues, together with US Secretary of State John Kerry, we created the International Syria Support Group. It contains a variety of positions. There are those who are considered to be supporters of the regime, there are those who are considered to be supporters of the opposition, there are those who are in favor of finding a compromise. Italy, of course, is also included in this group. It seemed to us that now this group would become the very place where we could achieve what you just talked about - dialogue and political compromise regarding the future of Syria. However, the "Friends of Syria" group, which actually acts from anti-Assad positions, continues its work. It doesn't seem very logical to me.

So, the Syrian leadership has, as you put it, "friends." In our case, this is not friendship, not some kind of personal relationship. We don't have any favorites in Syria. We simply don’t want what happened in Libya to repeat in Syria, we don’t want Syria to cease to exist as a state and then we have to years spend millions and even billions on the restoration of Syrian statehood. After all, Syria plays a very important role in its region for a number of reasons that I do not need to talk about in this audience.

Opposition groups outside of Syria also have their "friends". Some of them enjoy the support of European countries, some groups receive support from other countries in the region. So, if we want to find a compromise and a mutually acceptable solution, all these "groups of friends" should send the same signal to their friends in Syria. No one should tell their friends not to implement the resolution and sit down at the negotiating table as long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power. Here's what I think about it.

Question: But can't you ask the Syrian authorities, for example, not to touch the eastern regions of Aleppo? You see, sometimes we get the impression that they, knowing that you are on their side, begin to act even more harshly.

S.V. Lavrov: We are not on anyone's side, we are on the side of the Syrian state. We have been contacted by the legitimate government of a country that is a member of the United Nations. This happened somewhere in August last year, when the situation in Syria was such that literally in a month or two the ISIS could enter Damascus. We responded to the request of the Syrian authorities to support them in .

By the way, in those days when it seemed that Damascus was about to fall, for some reason no one made emotional appeals and did not advocate for negotiations. Most observers simply waited for the regime to fall and what would happen next. By the way, it seems to me that they did not even think about what to do next, because after the fall of the regime, terrorists were supposed to come to power. Events again unfolded according to the Libyan scenario: overthrow M. Gaddafi at any cost, and then look and somehow rein in these terrorists. But nothing good came of this in Libya, and nothing good will come of it anywhere, including in Syria.

What is happening now in East Aleppo is a direct consequence of the fact that the "friends" of some Syrian groups failed to convince their Syrian friends to dissociate themselves from Jabhat al-Nusra. But the United States promised to do this back in January. We were told that such a disengagement would be carried out literally within a couple of weeks, and everything that should have followed after that depended on this, including a ceasefire throughout the country, the participation of the armed opposition in the negotiations and, of course, the solution of humanitarian issues .

This continued throughout the entire period of Russian-American co-chairmanship of the International Syria Support Group. Our bilateral negotiations ended in September. On September 5, the Russian and American presidents met in China and reached a final agreement on joint action in Syria. After three days, .

For some reason, the Americans refused to publish this document. We proposed that the document itself and all its appendices be made public, but they refused. Then there was a leak, and now you can familiarize yourself with the contents of this document. The essence was as follows: the Americans had to ensure the disengagement, after which a ceasefire was declared. The Syrian Air Force stopped all flights altogether, and the Russian Aerospace Forces and coalition aviation continued to work only on agreed targets. Refusal of this agreement, in my opinion, was the most serious mistake. The problem could have been solved a long time ago.

And now our American colleagues and some regional players are trying to impose on us what we have already gone through many times: a unilateral ceasefire by the Syrian army. In the past, when such a truce was declared for two or three days, we saw that, along with humanitarian aid, reinforcements were sent to Aleppo - hundreds of militants arriving from abroad.

Now we are being told to give them a 100% guarantee that there will be no violations, and they will think within ten days how to separate the moderate opposition from Nusra. But it seems to me that we should not lose sight of the most important thing: under no circumstances should terrorists be legitimized in Syria.

At the same time, we are still ready for a compromise. S. de Mistura, with whom I just met, proposed some time ago the option that the Nusra fighters should be allowed to leave Aleppo with weapons. We then supported him, although for us the number one priority is the fight against terrorism. However, we supported him because we wanted to save civilians. In other words, the Nusra fighters were supposed to leave Aleppo and the fight against Nusra would continue somewhere else, because it would be better for the civilian population. But a number of countries opposed this proposal. I suspect that the reason for the refusal is their desire to keep part of Aleppo under the control of Nusra, which is completely unacceptable.

Meanwhile, since the Syrian military liberated 40% of Eastern Aleppo with our help, the threat to the Castello road has been eliminated. On the same day, we informed the UN representatives in New York and Geneva that there was an opportunity to send humanitarian convoys. It is only necessary to provide the relevant information to the Syrian authorities and go through the necessary and fairly simple procedures that UN representatives have already gone through many times, and the convoy can set off. But the UN, for some reason I do not understand, continues to be inactive. Therefore, we decided that we would not sit idly by and send humanitarian aid to East Aleppo ourselves. We sent two mobile hospitals, doctors, medicines, medical equipment there, and these hospitals are already providing assistance to the civilian population of East Aleppo.

Since the international community is hesitant about humanitarian aid and a political settlement, maybe it makes sense for us to appeal to those forces inside Syria that are ready to act and convince them not to wait until certain groups stop being capricious and give up their ultimatum. Let them begin to act now - to deliver humanitarian aid and gather the parties to the negotiating table. And if someone refuses to participate in the negotiations, you can do without them.

Question: Mr. Minister, as you know, a new president has been elected in the United States, and soon his administration will begin work. Do you think it is possible to expect that the first agreement to be reached between you and the Donald Trump administration will be an agreement on Syria?

S.V. Lavrov: You know, I can't speculate, but I can only be guided by facts. And the facts show that during his election campaign D. Trump has repeatedly said that one of his main priorities is other terrorist groups in Syria. When he forms his foreign policy team, when he formally assumes the presidency and assumes his duties, when the first official steps follow, we will undoubtedly follow them closely. If the United States wants to focus on the fight against terrorism and cooperate with the Russian Federation in this matter, we will, of course, be ready for such cooperation.

By the way, when I spoke with colleagues from the current administration three years ago, some of them told me that it was a mistake on their part to insist on Bashar al-Assad's resignation. To put an end to the terrorists, they said, is much more important for the US than to remove Bashar al-Assad. In fact, D. Trump is now saying the same thing. However, the current Administration has not followed this principle in practice. Let's see how the new administration will act in this matter.

Question: In a broader sense, what are the prospects for cooperation with the new US administration?

S.V. Lavrov: As I said, we are open to anyone who wants to cooperate with Russia to solve world problems. And to answer your question more specifically, you need to wait until the new administration starts work.

Question: Mr. Minister, sometimes it is difficult for a foreign audience to understand in which direction you are moving, what are your plans and prospects on a global scale. Could you help us sort this out?

S.V. Lavrov: Certainly. If someone is concerned about the questions that you have just voiced, I advise you to read the history of Russia. Then a lot becomes clear.

Question: But this is great stuff!

S.V. Lavrov: Well, we are studying the history of Italy to understand how Italians see their place in the world.

Question: Mr. Minister, one of the main reasons for disagreements between your country and other European countries, in particular Eastern European ones, is also in Crimea.

S.V. Lavrov: Wait, did I listen badly to the teacher in geography lessons?

Question: What needs to be done so that these two issues - Crimea and - cease to be a problem and become a subject for cooperation?

S.V. Lavrov: As for the Crimea, there is no problem here. Crimea is the territory of the Russian Federation, which returned to Russia following a referendum. Anyone can come to Crimea and see with their own eyes what is happening there now. A number of your parliamentarians, as well as members of the French parliament, have already visited Crimea and were able to impartially assess the real state of affairs on the peninsula, in particular, the situation with the Crimean Tatars, which I discussed. Immediately after the return of Crimea to Russia, President Vladimir Putin signed a Decree on the political rehabilitation of the Crimean Tatars. For all the time that Crimea was under the control of Ukraine, this was not done. In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a Decree on granting the Tatar language the status of a third state language along with Russian and Ukrainian. It didn't exist before either. The Russian government approved a special program for the social and economic development of the peoples of Crimea, including the Crimean Tatars. I repeat, if someone wants to see all this with their own eyes, and not just put forward ultimatums, then they really should go to the Crimea.

As for Ukraine, I think that everyone here has read the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015. This is the only way. Unfortunately, our Ukrainian colleagues are not yet ready to fulfill the promises given by President P.A. Poroshenko, in particular, to develop laws on the special status of Eastern Ukraine, on local elections, on amnesty and amend the constitution, which will allow to approve the special status of this region on an ongoing basis. Since February 2015, members of the Normandy Four and the Contact Group with its subgroups have been trying to convince their Ukrainian colleagues to keep their promises.

You know, this is beyond my understanding. They still believe that they are conducting a so-called "anti-terrorist operation", calling their opponents "terrorists" and "separatists". At the insistence of President P.A. Poroshenko, the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics personally put their signatures under the Minsk agreements. P.A. Poroshenko demanded that they personally sign these papers, and they did it. And now they are being told that they have done their job, now let them leave, because they are illegitimate and cannot participate in the elections. Every day more and more new conditions are invented.

Understand one simple thing: the Ukrainian authorities organized this “anti-terrorist operation” against those regions of Ukraine that refused to recognize the illegal, anti-constitutional armed coup. When the crisis escalated in Kiev, when demonstrators clashed with the police in the central square of Kiev, our Western colleagues, in particular the Secretary General, repeatedly called on the Ukrainian president not to use the army against the people.

Then, when President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the opposition in the presence of the French foreign ministers, and the next morning, the opposition announced a coup and that they had formed a "government of victors." We asked our colleagues from Germany, France and Poland whether they were going to take any steps due to the fact that the agreement signed in their presence was violated. They withdrew themselves.

Incidentally, President Barack Obama called Russian President Vladimir Putin and asked him to support the agreement between President VF Yanukovych and the opposition, which we did. And then they said that since the President of Ukraine had fled, the agreement no longer had any force. In fact, the president did not run away - he was in Kharkov at the congress of his party. One way or another, the essence of the agreement was not whether he would stay in Kiev or leave, but that he agreed to hold early elections and undertook to use the police and other security forces only to protect government buildings. The first line of the agreement referred to the creation of a government of national unity. However, the very next morning they announced that he had escaped, and they formed a "government of the victors." You yourself understand what a signal this was for those who could not agree with what happened, and how it happened.

The very first law passed by the new parliament after the coup deprived the Russian-speaking population of many of the rights that are spelled out in the European Charter for Regional Languages. As I said, some regions did not recognize this coup, but they did not take any military action against the new leader. By the way, we turned to NATO and said that at one time they insisted that VF Yanukovych not use the army against his people. Could they now repeat the same to the people who led this coup? Do you know what they said in NATO? That they are calling on the new Ukrainian leadership to use military force proportionately to the situation. Feel the difference. Then there were many more disputes, but I do not want to retell all this so as not to waste your time.

I just want to remember one moment. This is the situation with, which is more directly related to the Mediterranean theme than Ukraine. So, two years ago, President A. Hadi was overthrown, and he fled to, where he still lives. For more than two years now, the international community has been insisting that he should return and resume his presidential duties. In this regard, I want to ask: why do you have such different approaches to Ukraine and Yemen?

Question: In conclusion, let me ask you one more very short question. We've been talking about the US here. So, over the past few months, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has repeatedly accused Russia of the fact that it was Russian hackers who hacked into their mailboxes and tried to influence the outcome of the elections. This morning, as far as I understand, representatives of the FSB said that in the near future Russian banks may be subjected to a hacker attack. What is really happening? What do you think of all this?

S.V. Lavrov: Well, about the US, at least we can say that this country really has something to do with the Mediterranean, because the Americans have a lot of military and naval bases here.

Now for the hackers. We have repeatedly stated that the Russian authorities have nothing to do with this. The only fact that the American side could present was that the owner of some server located in California lives somewhere in Siberia. This young man confirmed that he was the owner of the server, but he said that he was renting it out and advised to talk to those who use this server. We immediately, the very next morning, passed this information on to the Americans, but they did not even try to contact this person and clarify this situation.

By the way, a year ago, through the Russian Prosecutor General's Office, we officially proposed to the US Department of Justice to hold consultations on the development of joint measures to combat cybercrime. In particular, we did this because the Americans regularly detain Russian citizens in other countries without informing us, although, according to , they are obliged to do so. Then they are accused of cybercrimes and demand their extradition to the United States.

We told the Americans that we don't want our citizens to engage in any kind of criminal activity in cyberspace either. Therefore, a year ago, in November 2015, we proposed holding such consultations. This was before we were accused of any hacker attacks. Then in February, May and July, I reminded John Kerry several times that we would very much like to receive a response to our proposal. He said that the proposal is very good and he will discuss this topic with the Ministry of Justice. Then he talked to them and told us that they were not interested in this offer. It was only very recently that they invited us to discuss this issue again. Well, we are ready for such a conversation.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday used his participation in the international conference "Mediterranean: Roman Dialogue" in order to present a long list of claims to the West - from imposing his vision of democracy on Arab countries to unwillingness to liberate the eastern part of Syrian Aleppo from terrorists. For the most part, the claims were addressed to the administration of US President Barack Obama, with whose representative, Secretary of State John Kerry, Sergei Lavrov held a separate meeting. Russia considers Italy to be its friend, both economically and politically. And this, as correspondents of "Kommersant" PAVEL TARASENKO and ELENA PUSHKARSKAYA were convinced in Rome, is mutual.

"One of the most important guests"

On the eve of the Rome conference, Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni told Kommersant that although Russia does not belong to the Mediterranean countries, Sergey Lavrov is "one of the most anticipated and important guests of the forum" for the second year in a row. This despite the fact that more than 500 guests from 55 countries came to Rome, including about 40 heads of state, ministers and heads of international organizations, as well as leading economists and business representatives. A special reception was also noted in the Russian delegation. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova posted a photo of the reception for the conference guests with a playful caption: "I kept wondering where the foreign minister of an isolated state would be put. Remember, from now on, the place of outcasts is in the center."

This time the agenda of the forum was more optimistic than last year. In any case, in addition to the discussion of topics that have already become traditional (the fight against the Islamic State, the political settlement in Syria, Libya and Iraq, the migration crisis), there was also a life-affirming thesis about the prospect of turning the Mediterranean "from a synonym for crisis and instability into an arena of new opportunities."

In general, little has changed over the year. At a press conference after meeting with Paolo Gentiloni, Sergei Lavrov once again attacked those who put forward the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad as a condition for starting a political dialogue in Syria. On supporters of "eastern Aleppo remaining under the control of terrorists." On NATO, after "the aggression of which serious problems arose against Libya."

Speaking later at the conference, Mr. Lavrov continued the list of complaints against the West - in particular, he mentioned the imposition of his own understanding of democracy, which led to tragedies. "Fortunately, Tunisia successfully survived the worst. Egypt was less fortunate. Libya was in ruins ... Those who overthrew (the Libyan leader.— "b") Muammar Gaddafi are now creating problems for ten countries in Africa," Sergei Lavrov said.

The minister then recalled that during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States supported the Mujahideen, who later turned into al-Qaeda. Returning to modern problems, he mentioned that the United States has not separated terrorists and moderate opposition, and that the Pentagon has "too many" military bases in the Mediterranean countries, and that Washington has ignored Moscow's initiative to hold consultations since November last year. on the fight against cybercrime. "Now they (USA.— "b") sent us a proposal to return to this idea, we are ready for this," Lavrov added.

Yesterday he could personally express all claims to US Secretary of State John Kerry. The meeting of two diplomats well acquainted with each other was one of the last before the change of the US presidential administration, so that they could already sum up their joint work. John Kerry, at least during the protocol shooting, remained optimistic. One of the journalists asked the ministers a question: "Is diplomacy on the Syrian settlement alive?" "All diplomacy is alive," replied Mr. Kerry. Sergei Lavrov said nothing.

One way or another, the two diplomats did not manage to do everything in dozens of meetings at different venues. "As for Syria, Kerry really wanted to solve the problem, but his hands were tied. Washington hoped that we would get bogged down in Syria - as it was in Afghanistan at one time," one of the Russian diplomatic interlocutors admitted to Kommersant. According to Kommersant's information, Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers and representatives of the Pentagon took a particularly tough position, sometimes contradicting the opinion of the head of the State Department. On January 20, the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump, unresolved issues will be inherited by the new Secretary of State. But who they will be is still unclear. Sergey Lavrov assured yesterday: "We will respond positively to everyone who claims that they want to cooperate with Russia to solve world problems."

Laws of Gravity

"In recent days, a lot has been said that the new American administration will help reduce tensions in relations with Russia. I must say that Italy would be very happy about this," Paolo Gentiloni told Kommersant. "Our country has always shown European and transatlantic solidarity , but at the same time it pushed (West.— "b") towards greater dialogue with Russia".

Italy has shown its special position more than once. A year ago, just before the first Mediterranean conference, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi opposed the automatic extension of EU sanctions on Russia, then reiterated the demand in March 2016. And in October, the Italian prime minister, in fact, blocked the discussion in the EU on the adoption of new sanctions due to the military operation of the Russian Federation in Syria - Paolo Gentiloni paid special attention to this at a press conference yesterday.

Answering Kommersant's question why Rome plays the role of a good policeman in the issue of EU relations with Moscow, Paolo Magri (Italy), director of the Institute for International Policy, replied: "Not only because of the sanctions as such, but also because the Italian The authorities are sure that Europe cannot exist without a stable, strong and trusting dialogue with a country like Russia." At the same time, Kommersant's interlocutor noted: "I think Russia is being disingenuous, looking towards Asia lately. This is just a tactic. When you see such an attitude towards yourself in Europe, naturally, you go in a different direction."

"Economically, the sanctions are affecting us," Paolo Gentiloni admitted yesterday. "But our entrepreneurs are still betting on the Russian market." “We see that the political, business, and public circles of Italy are increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with the sanctions policy, in favor of returning bilateral relations to a growth trajectory,” Sergey Lavrov confirmed in an interview with the Corriere della Sera newspaper. “Moods in favor of unblocking trade and economic ties with Russia are also strong in the Italian regions - in a number of regions of the country, resolutions have been adopted calling for the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.

Restrictive measures (more precisely, the response to them by the Russian Federation) really hit economic ties. In 2015, the trade turnover fell by 36.2%, to $30.6 billion, and in the first nine months of this year - by 41.2%, to $14.2 billion. three years, the volume of Italian exports to Russia decreased by 70%. "Italy has dropped to sixth place in the list of our trading partners, although it was fourth and even third," Sergei Lavrov said yesterday.

Given that the prospects for lifting sanctions are still vague, businessmen and politicians of the two countries are trying to look for possible workarounds. One of them, as Ernesto Ferlengi told Kommersant, is the creation of joint ventures with a common capital. He assured that the transition from the model of pure Italian exports to Russia to the creation of a joint venture has several advantages at once: it opens up opportunities for tax optimization and allows you to produce products and then export them to third countries - "since there are no customs between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan." "It is also important that not a single bank, even a foreign one, is afraid of providing financing to a joint venture if this enterprise is potentially successful," Mr. Ferlengi added.

To confirm that Italian companies are interested in the Russian market, diplomats cite the fact that none of them went to last years despite known difficulties. "Crises come and go, but national interests remain," Russian Ambassador to Italy Sergei Razov said earlier in this connection.

Pavel Tarasenko, Elena Pushkarskaya, Rome

MOSCOW, December 10 - RIA Novosti. On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will leave for a working visit to Rome, where he will hold talks with Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, and on Friday he will take part in a conference on the problems of the Mediterranean region.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the main purpose of Lavrov's visit is to continue a substantive discussion with the Italian side of topical issues of international politics and security.

It is planned that on Friday, December 11, the head of the Russian department will speak at the conference "Mediterranean: Roman Dialogue". The main themes of the annual conference held in Italy will be the migration crisis, collective security and the strengthening of cultural dialogue between the two shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

Negotiations on Syria, Libya and Ukraine

As the Russian Foreign Ministry reported on the eve of Lavrov's visit to Italy, the main topics at the talks with the Italian side will be the fight against the terrorist group "Islamic State" (in the Arabic version of DAISH, banned in the Russian Federation), as well as the situation in Syria, Libya and Ukraine.

"The Russian side will focus on the need to combine the efforts of the international community to suppress the global terrorist threat in accordance with the proposal of Russian President Vladimir Putin to create a broad anti-terrorist coalition, interaction in this area based on the principles and norms of international law, the provisions of the UN Charter, without politicization and double standards," the Foreign Ministry said.

Both Russia and Italy are members of the international support group for Syria, whose meetings are held on the Vienna site. Speaking about the situation in Syria, the Russian Foreign Ministry noted that the prospects for work in this format will be discussed by the foreign ministers at the talks. The problems of the Libyan settlement will also not be left aside, which will be considered taking into account the task of countering the spread of ISIS and political stabilization in the country. The Libyan problem will be touched upon during the talks also because Italy is convening an international meeting on Libya on December 13 in Rome. Avrov confirmed that the Russian side would take part in this conference. Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Gennady Gatilov told RIA Novosti that he, together with the director of the Middle East Department, Sergei Vershinin, will take part in the meeting.

It is expected that during the talks between the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Italian authorities, the topic of settling the Ukrainian crisis will also be touched upon. V Russian ministry emphasized that in discussing the situation in Ukraine, special emphasis will be placed on the need to ensure consistent and full implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015.

Roman dialogue

The work of the annual conference "Mediterranean: Roman Dialogue" this year will focus on the most pressing problems for the region - resolving the migration crisis and issues of collective security on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the organizers of the event, the discussions will focus on developing proposals for safe and legal routes for refugees, finding effective ways for their social adaptation in the EU countries, as well as ensuring protection based on a combination of an anti-terrorist strategy with respect for human rights. In addition to migration issues, the participants in the discussions will also discuss the topics of collective security and the establishment of a cultural dialogue between the countries of the region.

Along with representatives of major European companies, the conference will be attended by King Abdullah II of Jordan, Secretary General of the Arab League Nabil El Arabi, Foreign Ministers of Egypt Sameh Shukri and Morocco Salaheddin Mezouar, Tunisian Prime Minister Habib Essid and head of European diplomacy Federica Mogherini .

About 1.2 million migrants arrived in the EU in the first ten months of the year, according to the latest data from the EU border agency Frontex. The European Commission has declared that the current migration crisis in the world is the largest since the Second World War.

Relationship Potential

On the eve of the minister's visit to Italy, the Russian Foreign Ministry admitted that the dynamics of relations between the two countries has recently decreased due to the West's course of pressure on Russia in connection with the Ukrainian crisis.

“The Italian leadership, following in line with the common line of the EU and NATO, supported anti-Russian sanctions, suspended or slowed down bilateral cooperation in a number of areas. potential of Russian-Italian relations," the Russian Foreign Ministry noted.

On the eve of his visit to Italy, Lavrov held a meeting with representatives of Italian business circles, among those invited were representatives of Pirelli, Candy, General Invest, Intesa SanPaolo, Danieli, Gruppo Cremonini.

“I haven’t heard anyone want to leave our market. Of course, there is a devaluation of the ruble and much more, but there are always additional opportunities in such situations. measurement), the implementation of priority economic projects continues successfully: this is the joint production and promotion of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 airliner to world markets, the production of Augusta Westland helicopters in Russia, the modernization of tire production along the Pirelli line, and a number of other very promising areas. , - Lavrov said in an interview with Italian media.

According to him, it is the joint work of businessmen of the two countries that can be very promising: “It can be conditionally called the transition from the supply of products with the brand “Made in Italy” to our market to the joint production of products “Made with Italy”.

“There are many successful examples, including in the Russian regions. The quality of our Italian partners requires reciprocity and an adequate level… In principle, of course, we need to quickly return to the functioning of the key mechanism for economic cooperation, the Russian-Italian Council for Economic, Industrial, Monetary and Financial Cooperation, which has not been assembled since December 2012," the minister stressed.