Lavrov's BBC interview

2022

On 16 June 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave an interview to the British television channel BBC

Lavrov stated that Russia did not invade Ukraine but declared the special military operation, having no other way out. According to the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, “they were attacking Russians in Ukraine”

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this on Thursday in an interview with the BBC.

We did not invade Ukraine. We declared a special military operation when we had no means left to explain to the West that it is engaged in criminal activity, drawing Ukraine into NATO, cherishing, nursing and in every way fostering a neo-Nazi regime whose president, Vladimir Zelensky, declared back in September 2021 (did you not tell your viewers about that?) that if someone feels himself a Russian person in Ukraine, let him go to Russia.

“When a CNN correspondent told him (Zelensky, website note) that the “Azov” regiment had been included in a number of Western countries, in the USA, in Japan, in the list of extremist, terrorist organisations, Zelensky shrugged his shoulders and said that they have many such battalions and regiments, and they are what they are.”

- said Lavrov.

The minister stressed that Russia “had no other way out”, and that Moscow “explained this many times, a thousand times”. “Now with your Western weapons the Ukrainian regime is attacking peaceful citizens and cities in exactly the same way as they did in 2014, when the putschists came to power, when they bombed the centre of Lugansk from aircraft, when they burned 50 people in Odessa. Does anyone remember that now?” he added.

“We did not attack anyone. They were attacking Russians in Ukraine”

- Lavrov concluded.

At the moment the following fragment is available on YouTube

Sergei Lavrov on the BBC Hard Talk programme

Interview on the Foreign Ministry website

The Russian translation is close to the substance, but it loses the atmosphere. The interviewer many times begins his questions with the phrase “You are the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry”, apparently in order to add pathos, but it comes out rather poorly for him. Lavrov holds up well. There should be more ministers like him.

You may be hard talking, but you are not listening.

Question: Last week the whole world was deeply concerned about the possibility of a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. How close do you think we have come to such a development?

S.V. Lavrov: I do not think we have come very close. I believe this situation was created by our Western colleagues, who behaved extremely irresponsibly. They accused the Syrian authorities of using chemical weapons against the civilian population and at the same time accused us as allies of the Syrian Government. Moreover, they did this without waiting for the OPCW inspectors to examine the scene. In fact, the strikes were delivered at the very moment when the OPCW representatives were ready to set off from Lebanon to Syria. As our military explained, the communication channel for preventing unforeseen incidents (the so-called “deconflicting”) is in permanent operation.

Question: I want to clarify something, and let us try to do without professional jargon. Do I understand correctly that the United States and its allies informed you in advance about the impending strikes, and that you for your part assured them that there would be no retaliatory strike from Russia?

S.V. Lavrov: I would prefer not to go into the details of these working contacts between our militaries. The militaries of Russia and the United States have a communication channel both between the two capitals and in Syria itself, and our military discuss all such matters among themselves in a highly professional manner. They understand each other perfectly. Perhaps they, better than anyone else, understand the whole danger of such adventures.

Question: Mr Lavrov, this crisis is not over yet, is it?

S.V. Lavrov: That depends on those who created this whole crisis.

Question: If you look at the statements of your diplomats, the conclusion suggests itself. For example, your ambassador to the United States said that these air strikes will not go without consequences. Vladimir Putin called it an illegal act of aggression. The world wants to know: what is Russia going to do?

S.V. Lavrov: That is a statement of fact. And there will undoubtedly be consequences. We have, I would say, lost the last remnants of trust in our Western friends, who prefer to base their actions on a very strange logic — “there is no punishment without guilt”. For example, they first punish us for Salisbury, and then wait for Scotland Yard to finish its investigation. First they punish us for Douma in Syria, and then wait for the OPCW experts to arrive and examine the scene. That is, this “troika” of Western countries acts on the principle of “if you have been punished, you are guilty”.

Question: About those incidents you have just mentioned — Douma and the Skripal case — we will talk in detail later. But first I wanted to talk to you about the state of our diplomatic relations. The Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN, N. Haley, said that the United States remains “at full combat readiness”. How would you react to a statement of that kind?

S.V. Lavrov: It seems to me that they first need to put things in order at home, in Washington. We believe that statements of that kind can only be made either by the commander-in-chief or by the military leadership. Russian and American military, as I have already said, have a communication channel for preventing unforeseen incidents, but that is confidential information.

Question: You are talking about a deficit of trust, or rather, you are talking about a complete absence of trust.

S.V. Lavrov: I said that we have lost the last remnants of trust. Remnants are not yet a complete absence.

Question: I want to ask another very simple question. When you, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, wake up in the morning and read on “Twitter” that the President and commander-in-chief of the United States is effectively threatening you and saying: “Get ready, Russia! Our good, new, smart missiles are about to come flying at you!”, what do you think about that?

S.V. Lavrov: I think about it that the US President has written something on “Twitter”.

Question: And how do you react to his tweets?

S.V. Lavrov: As they say, everything is learned through practice. We decided to see how these “new”, “smart” and “good” missiles would show themselves during the strike. By our count, two thirds of the missiles did not reach their targets, since they were successfully shot down.

Question: But you have no evidence, right?

S.V. Lavrov: The Russian Ministry of Defence has presented its assessment and is ready for a professional discussion on this matter.

Question: We will come back to the question of how reliable the information provided by all the participants in this conflict is, but for now let us talk a little more about diplomacy. British Prime Minister T. May and French President E. Macron stated very clearly in their statements that the sole purpose of this operation was to prevent any further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities. The operation did not pursue the aim of influencing the course of the Syrian conflict in any way, and certainly was not aimed at a change of regime in Damascus.

S.V. Lavrov: That is what they said.

Question: And you do not agree with that?

S.V. Lavrov: No, we do not agree. Your programme is called “Hard Talk”, and we need “hard facts” — concrete facts. And all these statements about “highly likely” look simply ridiculous.

Question: Excuse me, when you say “highly likely”, what do you mean? The conclusion of the experts that the forces of President B. Assad used chemical weapons in Douma?

S.V. Lavrov: No, when I speak of the expression “highly likely”, I mean that it is a new invention of British diplomacy, which Great Britain hides behind when it punishes people. It declares that these people are “highly likely” guilty. You know, in L. Carroll's book “Alice in Wonderland” there is a trial scene, and there, when the king asks: “Shall we hear the jury first?”, the queen shouts: “No jury! First the sentence, and then the jury's verdict!” That is exactly what “highly likely” is.

Question: All right, that is your opinion. Let us now talk about what happened in Douma. But first allow me to ask you a very simple question. Russia is opposed to the use of chemical weapons and believes that those who use chemical weapons must be punished, right?

S.V. Lavrov: Is that a question? I thought you were much better informed about the Russian position on this matter. You are asking a question whose answer is obvious.

Question: Yes, indeed, everything is obvious — you have signed all the relevant treaties, you share the determination of the international community to achieve a complete ban on chemical weapons.

S.V. Lavrov: Moreover, in 2017 we completed the programme for the destruction of chemical weapons in Russia, and this fact was officially verified by the OPCW. The entire OPCW Executive Council welcomed that step. But the United States, unfortunately, has not yet fulfilled the commitments it has undertaken, and instead prefers to put the matter off indefinitely.

Question: All right, let us suppose that these are all obvious things, and we understand perfectly well what Russia's official position on this matter is. But in that case, surely you want the people guilty of the use of chemical weapons in Douma (and the fact that it really was used there is confirmed by numerous testimonies) to be punished?

S.V. Lavrov: Wait, wait. You are juggling the facts again. There is no evidence that chemical weapons were used in Douma on 7 April.

Question: But E. Macron and other representatives of France said clearly that they have intelligence data on the flights of helicopters of the Syrian government forces over Douma. They have photographs of gas canisters found at the site of the attack. Besides, we know that over the past few years the Syrian authorities have already used chemical weapons more than once.

S.V. Lavrov: I cannot allow myself to speak impolitely about the heads of other states (of course, I cannot be impolite about the head of my own state either). You have quoted here the leaders of France, Great Britain and the United States. But frankly speaking, all the evidence they refer to has been taken from the mass media and social networks. For example, those canisters you are talking about. I have seen that photograph — the gas canister is lying on a bed, and the bed is not broken, the window is not smashed. Listen, let us be a little more serious, shall we? All right, you explain one thing to me: why bomb if the next day the OPCW inspectors were due to arrive at the scene and sort everything out?

Question: The American representative at the OPCW says that there are serious grounds to fear that Russia tried to destroy evidence in Douma. Can you assure us for your part that Russia did nothing of the kind?

S.V. Lavrov: Yes, I can. But I want to say that here the logic is the same as T. May's on Salisbury. When we asked dozens of questions, when we asked for a joint investigation to be organised, when we asked to be given access to the sampling process, she replied that they would not answer any questions until Russia had answered all of theirs. But the only question they asked us was this: “Tell us how you arranged all this. Was it V. V. Putin who ordered the poisoning of these two unfortunate people? Or do you no longer control your chemical weapons stockpiles?” For any reasonable person in this situation everything should be perfectly clear. But let us return to Douma.

Question: Yes, let us return to Douma and to the question of who can be trusted and who cannot. First you said that there had been no incident in Douma at all. Then you changed your position and said that something had indeed happened there, but that it was a staging fabricated by some Russophobic countries.

S.V. Lavrov: There was indeed no incident. There was a staging. And no chemical weapons were used.

Question: Do you believe that Great Britain is involved in this imitation of a chemical weapons attack in Douma?

S.V. Lavrov: On that score history knows certain precedents over the past decades. What we do believe, and our special services can share the necessary information with their British colleagues, is…

Question: But you say that you have irrefutable evidence that it is all a fake, a hoax, a staging. You say that volunteers from the “White Helmets” organisation have something to do with it. So where is your irrefutable evidence?

S.V. Lavrov: For there to be irrefutable evidence, the experts need to examine the scene.

Question: Where is the irrefutable evidence that the “White Helmets” organised all this with the support of the British government? You question the words of others. But can you yourselves be trusted?

S.V. Lavrov: I said that the “White Helmets”, as is well known, work only in territory controlled by the opposition, including the “Jabhat al-Nusra” group. It is known that a year ago the “White Helmets” had already “sounded the alarm” about an incident that allegedly took place in Khan Sheikhoun, which on closer inspection turned out to be a fake from beginning to end. Everyone knows that the “White Helmets” are financed by a number of states, including Great Britain.

Question: But that is not irrefutable evidence, is it?

S.V. Lavrov: Just a second. Irrefutable evidence of what?

Question: You said that you have irrefutable evidence that a certain Russophobic country (meaning Great Britain) worked together with the “White Helmets” in order to stage the incident.

S.V. Lavrov: Wait a second. What makes you think that I meant Great Britain? You should not attribute to me what I did not say. I said “a state that is eager to be in the front ranks of the Russophobic campaign”. So please try to quote me without distortion, otherwise it does not look very professional.

So, if we are talking about irrefutable evidence, the OPCW inspectors agreed to conduct an investigation into what happened in Douma. They arrived in Lebanon. The Syrian authorities informed them that as soon as they reached the border they would be issued visas immediately. Seven hours later Syria was struck. So why was it necessary to do that the day before the inspectors arrived?

Question: If it turns out that the governments of France, Great Britain and the United States are right and you were wrong, and if Syrian President B. Assad continues to use chemical weapons, as he did in 2013 in Ghouta, where about a thousand people died as a result, or as he did a year ago in Khan Sheikhoun, or as he did now in Douma (as the Americans and their allies say), if it turns out that they are all right and you were wrong, will you agree that Syrian President B. Assad must be punished?

S.V. Lavrov: You know, you do not hear me. Or rather, you do not even listen to me. I have just said that the aggressive actions were undertaken less than twenty-four hours before international inspectors, including, as far as I understand, US citizens, were due to arrive at the site of the alleged incident.

Now about what happened a year ago in Khan Sheikhoun. It was on 4 April. The next day US Secretary of State R. Tillerson called me and asked me to reach an agreement with the Syrian authorities so that they would allow international inspectors to examine the airbase from which the aircraft that allegedly carried this chemical bomb took off. The next morning we told the Americans that consent had been obtained. They replied that “it is not necessary, thank you”, and the next day they delivered an air strike. We asked for OPCW inspectors to go to the site, but we were told that it was too dangerous there and that in any case there was no need, since the British and the French already had all the necessary samples. We then turned to the British and the French with a request to explain to us how they had managed to obtain samples from such a dangerous place. Perhaps they have some contacts with the “White Helmets”, who control that territory. They answered us that this was classified information. So we have far more facts that we would like to have clarified, and far more legitimate questions in response to the questions we hear from Western leaders and the Western media: “Why did you do this? Why did you use chemical weapons in Great Britain? Why are you covering for B. Assad?”. And now you, starting from these statements, say: “And if it suddenly turns out that you were wrong, then what?” That is very interesting.

Question: You are the head of Russian diplomacy. If there are further incidents involving the use of chemical weapons, and the United States, Great Britain, France and other countries decide that this is the work of B. Assad, there will be new, even larger strikes. What could that lead to? Will there be retaliatory steps on the part of Russia?

S.V. Lavrov: Before talking about “further incidents”, one must first prove that B. Assad actually used chemical weapons.

Question: I asked a very simple question, and the whole world wants an answer to it. According to N. Haley, the United States is at “full combat readiness”. If Washington again suspects B. Assad of using chemical weapons, regardless of your opinion, he will again use weapons, and the strike will be even larger. How will Russia react?

S.V. Lavrov: I do not deal in guesswork, I deal in facts. Some time ago three Western countries, which are now whipping up this hysteria, warned that in the event of B. Assad using chemical weapons they would use force. I regard this as a signal to the “bad guys”, in particular to the “White Helmets”, to carry out a provocation. Now, after the air strike of 14 April, they again declare that in the event of further incidents they will again use force. In effect, this is a signal to the militants and extremists to resume military action, and they have responded to it. Immediately after the air strike they attempted an offensive on Damascus. But what I want to say now is this. When someone tries to make Russia responsible for B. Assad's fulfilment of his obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), that is simply outrageous. We carried out this work together with the United States.

Question: One last question on diplomacy, and then I would like to move on to other topics. Today the United States will submit to the UN Security Council a new resolution whose purpose is to warn B. Assad on behalf of the international community against the use of chemical weapons. Are you ready to cooperate with the United States at the UN? Will you stop vetoing all the resolutions proposed by the United States and its allies?

S.V. Lavrov: We do not veto all resolutions. If it is a question of restoring the mechanism for conducting investigations, which is not transparent and independent and which passes sentence itself without waiting for the verdict of the UN Security Council, then of course we will be against it…

Question: So you will be against it.

S.V. Lavrov: Steven, please let me finish. What is this resolution for? It seems to me that all this is being done with one single purpose: if Russia and Syria agreed to cooperate, which is essentially impossible, but if we did agree, they would like to present it in such a way that we entered into negotiations out of fear of their bombing. That is why the resolution contains a demand that the Syrian authorities must enter into negotiations. But at the same time they ignore the fact that the main opposition group, which they all support, the so-called “Riyadh group”, in the person of its chairman N. al-Hariri, called on the United States to use military force not only in the event of the use of chemical weapons, but wherever government forces confront the opposition.

Question: A few short questions. Do you think that B. Assad has emerged from this endless Syrian war as the winner?

S.V. Lavrov: Here one should think not about winners and losers, not about B. Assad and his opponents. One must think above all about the Syrian people, who need a respite from the horrors of an eight-year conflict.

Question: What is Russia's ultimate goal in Syria? Lately Moscow has been sending more and more equipment and servicemen there. Does this mean that you intend to help B. Assad until he controls every centimetre of Syrian territory?

S.V. Lavrov: Our goal is to protect the Syrian Arab Republic from the aggression that began on 14 April and which these three countries say they intend to continue.

Question: Are you going to supply Syrian President B. Assad with your newest S-300 anti-aircraft missile system? If so, that will cause serious concern in Israel.

S.V. Lavrov: Russian President V. V. Putin has already answered that question. He recalled that several years ago, at the request of our partners, we decided not to supply the S-300 system to Syria. Now, after this outrageous act of aggression on the part of the United States, France and Great Britain, we will consider options for ensuring the security of the Syrian state.

Question: Do I understand correctly that the events of recent days have forced you to reconsider your position and that you are now inclined to start supplying this ultra-modern anti-aircraft missile system to Syria?

S.V. Lavrov: Now we are ready to consider any ways of helping the Syrian army to prevent aggression.

Question: In seven years of war in Syria at least 500 thousand people have died. At least 12 million people have been forced to leave their homes. At least five million of them have ended up outside Syria. Do you seriously believe that B. Assad is capable of uniting the country, healing the wounds and governing Syria?

S.V. Lavrov: We have never said anything of the kind. Our approach is reflected in UN Security Council resolution 2254 — the fate of Syria must be decided by the Syrians themselves. A new constitution is needed, elections, and let the Syrians decide for themselves. The incessant attempts to split Syria into parts run counter to what is said publicly and at the official level. By the way, Syria is not the only country suffering from the terrible consequences of a civil war. Look at Iraq and Libya. And now those who brought these countries to such a state want the same thing to happen in Syria.

Question: Let us now talk a little about the case of S. Skripal and his daughter Yulia, who were poisoned in the city of Salisbury in the south of England. Today, in this interview, you said that trust is important. So you, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, claim that British special services, who are known for their ability to act with a “licence to kill”, are involved in this incident. Perhaps those last words were a joke on your part. Tell me, do you really think that your version will be taken seriously?

S.V. Lavrov: We were told that the Skripals were “highly likely” poisoned by Russians, because there are no other plausible explanations. That is precisely why we replied that there are other plausible versions as well.

Question: But your version is definitely not plausible!

S.V. Lavrov: Why not?

Question: Do you have even the slightest hint of evidence that British special services were involved in the attempt on S. Skripal's life?

S.V. Lavrov: Even the Romans had a saying, “look for who benefits”. I believe that a provocation both in Syria and on its own territory was very much to Great Britain's advantage. Now Great Britain has again found itself in the foreground of world politics in this extremely negative, aggressive and strange way.

Question: Allow me to note the inconsistency of your position. During the interview you stressed Russia's commitment to all international conventions and agreements banning chemical weapons.

S.V. Lavrov: That is indeed so.

Question: Including that you support the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

S.V. Lavrov: Correct.

Question: You know better than I do that the OPCW sent samples of the nerve agent used in Salisbury to four different laboratories, and they all confirmed that it was “Novichok” (as the British government also stated) of very high purity.

S.V. Lavrov: That is exactly the problem. The very use of the substance A-234 of very high purity and very high concentration is suspicious.

Question: It is a Russian substance. Everyone knows that this nerve gas was invented in the Soviet Union.

S.V. Lavrov: Let us stick to the facts. You may be a master at asking tough questions, but you also have to be able to listen! Indeed, this substance was developed in the Soviet Union, but afterwards one of its inventors fled to the United States and published the formula in the public domain. You can check this information yourself before asking questions. The United States even patented this formula, and the substance was officially adopted either by the American special services or by the military. A-234 is a substance from which a person dies quickly, but afterwards it evaporates quickly. That is why our scientists say that samples taken two weeks later cannot possibly contain a “very high concentration” of this substance.

Question: We are again returning to the question of who is believed and who is not quite believed. In Russia someone may believe it, but in the rest of the world no. More than 100 Russian diplomats have been expelled from 20 Western countries, because everyone considers Russia to be the guilty party.

S.V. Lavrov: If you really want to talk substance, allow me to add the following. On Saturday we presented a document with the findings of the Centre for Radiological and Chemical-Biological Analysis in Spiez, Switzerland (it is one of the four laboratories you mentioned), which did indeed detect a “high concentration” of A-234, but, in addition to that…

Question: So do you trust the OPCW or not? The question is very simple. Apparently you do not trust them.

S.V. Lavrov: Listen, for a Brit you have terrible manners. So, the Swiss laboratory writes that they first detected the substance BZ, invented, if I am not mistaken, in 1955 in the United States and adopted by the armies of the United States and Great Britain. We sent a request to the OPCW, which we trust, asking it to confirm or refute the fact that, in addition to A-234, the Swiss laboratory detected BZ in the samples. We are now waiting for an answer from the OPCW, which we undoubtedly trust. But here, as they say, trust but verify.

Question: We have almost no time left, and I still have to ask you about sanctions. The US Treasury is about to announce another package of sanctions against Russian companies and private individuals who are believed to be connected with the Syrian military. Because of the previous package of sanctions imposed by the US government, the Russian stock market has fallen very sharply. Russia has been driven into a corner.

S.V. Lavrov: Well, thank you for your sympathy. But do not worry, we will manage somehow.

Question: The stock market has crashed by 10%, the rouble has fallen against the dollar.

S.V. Lavrov: And have you never had bad times? Remember, George Soros played against your stock market and brought down the pound? They are not simply threatening to punish those who have some contacts with the Syrian Government. In essence, they want to punish the entire Russian people for making the “wrong” choice in the presidential election. They declare that they will never do harm to ordinary people, only to the oligarchs, politicians and military who allegedly destabilise the world. That is a lie. Their real desire is to create problems for hundreds of thousands of Russians.

Question: That is your vulnerable spot. Russia may have the most powerful nuclear weapons, about which Russian President V. Putin spoke so colourfully, but the Russian economy is weak and vulnerable.

S.V. Lavrov: Yes, that is so, and we are aware of it. But our economy has gone through many trials, starting with the Second World War. I want to assure you that the Government and the President understand the whole necessity of reforms, and that is precisely what became the main theme in the first part of the Russian President's address to the Federal Assembly. And in the second part President V. V. Putin spoke about the newest types of weapons and ended with the following thought, that we are always ready for dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and a balance of interests.

Question: And the last question. UN Secretary-General A. Guterres said the other day that the world is again gripped by a “cold war”, but whereas mechanisms used to exist that prevented the possibility of escalation between the USA and the USSR, today such mechanisms apparently no longer exist. That conclusion is very frightening. You have been in your post for 13 years now. Can the present period be called the most frightening time in your memory?

S.V. Lavrov: As for the mechanisms you are talking about, one of them is the channel of communication. The channels of communication between Moscow and London were closed at the initiative of the British side. Contacts along the counter-terrorism line have ceased. The dialogue between the militaries ended long before that, again at London's initiative. The Russia-NATO Council — a very productive mechanism for increasing trust and transparency in relations — has in effect stopped working. NATO now wants to discuss exclusively Ukraine on that platform. The EU has also closed all platforms and communicates with us only on Syria and on certain other issues.

Question: But do you have the feeling that the “cold war” has begun again?

S.V. Lavrov: In my opinion, things are now even worse than during the “cold war”, because in those days at least there were channels of communication and there was no such hysterical Russophobia. Today we are seeing, so to speak, genocide by means of sanctions.

Question: So you think that today the situation is worse than during the “cold war”?

S.V. Lavrov: Yes, precisely because of the absence of channels of communication. At any rate, almost none of them are left.

Question: So the situation is becoming very dangerous.

S.V. Lavrov: One can only hope that this thought will occur to your other compatriots as well, including those in the leadership of the country.

Question: It is hard to recall another moment in history when Russia looked so isolated. Your country has turned into an outcast. In the summer Russia is hosting the World Football Championship, and British Foreign Secretary B. Johnson has already compared it to the way A. Hitler hosted the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936.

S.V. Lavrov: In 1938, that is after that very Olympics, a football match took place between Great Britain and Germany. You can find a photograph from that match on the Internet, in which, before the start of the game, both the German and the British footballers raise their arms in the Nazi salute.

Question: What are you driving at?

S.V. Lavrov: I am not going to discuss B. Johnson. We have already talked with him during his recent visit to Moscow. Let him amuse himself.

Question: Our time is up. Sergei Lavrov, thank you very much for taking part in the “Hard Talk” programme.

Article author: Andrei Olegovich