On January 15th, 2018, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an annual press conference discussing various topics. In the interest of pursuing the truth, the following article serves to debunk some of the statements made by Lavrov.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Question: In 1998, Russia ratified the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry made a real effort to have the treaty signed. Since 2014, the treaty has ceased to be realistic. What are you going to do about it, given that it is automatically extended for 10 years unless it is terminated? Will the treaty be automatically extended or will it be terminated? If there is no decision as yet, what would you advise your leadership to do as an expert on international affairs?
How can I advise anyone on this if I do not know what advice I should give? State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin brought up this subject in public just the other day. He noted that one of the treaty’s key articles, the one about the mutual respect of Russia and Ukraine’s territorial integrity, was irrelevant now after the free expression of Crimeans’ will. By virtue of their referendum people in Crimea achieved independence and joined the Russian Federation of their own free will.
You know, this does not sound relevant to me. International legal documents are important but these matters are handled by legal experts. I believe that at a political level we continue to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine within the boundaries that took shape after the referendum in Crimea and its reunification with the Russian Federation (1). We have many times answered legal questions, including those about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was also recently brought up. Under this memorandum, Ukraine refused to have nuclear weapons while Russia, the United States and Britain pledged not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Let me remind you that we neither used nor threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, so there was no violation of the Budapest Memorandum (2). At the same time Ukraine reaffirmed in a separate statement its commitment not to stir up anti-Russian, neo-Nazi and xenophobic sentiments. What happened after Maidan was a flagrant violation of these obligations by our Ukrainian neighbours.
I assure you that, in political terms, we are interested in that, as recently Russian President Vladimir Putin repeated yet again, that the Minsk Agreements are implemented in full, without any exceptions. This fits in with our position based on full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within the existing boundaries that took shape after the referendum in Crimea, which was held in full compliance with international law (3).
(1): In stating that Russia respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine after the referendum in Crimea, Lavrov is tacitly admitting that Russia disregarded and disrespected Ukraine’s borders before the referendum. This is important for its legal implications, discussed below.
Russian special forces (“Little Green Men”) in Crimea
(2): While Lavrov does speak on parts of the Budapest Memorandum (regarding the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Ukraine), he neglects to mention another important provision of said memorandum:
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
Thus, when Russian special forces landed in Crimea before the referendum (as was admitted [1] by Russian president Vladimir Putin on April 17th, 2014), Russia was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum (as well as the Charter of the United Nations).
(3): Again, Lavrov repeats that Russia respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine after he just silently admitted to disregarding that same state’s borders. Furthermore, the referendum has been widely discredited as illegal and heavily rigged by numerous international organizations. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) not only condemned [2] the referendum as illegal, they were physically barred [3] from observing it by threat of force. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People also declared [4] the referendum void, and less than 1% of Tatars took part in the polling. At the United Nations, while the Security Council’s resolution on the Crimean referendum was vetoed [5] by Russia, the General Assembly was able to vote [6] overwhelmingly to condemn the referendum as illegal.
Question: What is your view of the eight rounds of the intra-Syrian peace talks in Astana and the talks in Geneva?
The Astana peace process is being covered by the media quite thoroughly. As I have already said, we began the talks after the Obama administration failed to deliver on its obligation to separate the US-controlled opposition from Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorists. That agreement was reached by President Putin and President Obama after their meeting in China in September 2016. Later, US Secretary of State John Kerry and I formalised it on paper. The Americans could not fulfil it because they were either incapable or did not want to really suppress Jabhat al-Nusra. Our suspicions remain valid and are receiving more and more substantiation. (1)
Right now, however, provocateurs are trying to shatter the situation in Idlib and East Ghouta. The groups in Idlib who signed the agreement on behalf of the opposition and who are being controlled by our Turkish counterparts are subject to some external influence, as I understand it. Just recently, they carried out several raids against the Syrian troops. At the same time, there have been provocations against our base in Khmeimim. We could not but respond as those acts were direct violations of the de-escalation agreement. Our western counterparts’ current attempts to make it look like it was the Syrian army that breached the agreement are dishonest. The situation was absolutely the reverse. We do rely on our Turkish partners to finish establishing the remaining observation points around the de-escalation zone in Idlib as soon as possible. They have so far established only three out of twenty. This was discussed during the contacts between our leaders. We were assured that Turkey would accelerate its efforts. I hope this will help stabilise the situation in Idlib and prevent any further disruptions.
The status of East Ghouta is similar. Western media and politicians are sounding the alarm over the Syrian army continuing the operation in East Ghouta despite the agreement to de-escalate. All actions of the Syrian army are responsive because the militants allegedly close to Jabhat al-Nusra continue to shell residential neighbourhoods in Damascus, including the Russian Embassy area, from East Ghouta. It would be absolutely wrong to pretend nothing is happening and not to try to prevent these unlawful actions.
(1): After failing to intervene in Syria following the Assad regime’s 2013 East Ghouta sarin gas attack, the United States lost most of its leverage over the Syrian opposition. By 2016, much of the Syrian opposition had found themselves, either voluntarily or by force, working with (or working with people who worked with) Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria). This was due to a number of factors. First, the jihadists were some of the most well-equipped, well-funded fighters on the battlefield. They were often well-trained, arriving from far-off battlefields like Afghanistan and Chechnya, as well as neighboring Iraq. With the lack of genuine US support for the opposition, many factions were forced to either work with Nusra or die.
Remains of the UN aid convoy attacked by Syrian aircraft
Second, Russia’s air force, along with the Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF), had been continually bombing opposition-held parts of Syria. Much in the same way that continued American aggression toward North Korea gives the DPRK’s government a bad guy to blame for their own shortcomings, the continued assault by the combined air forces gave the jihadists a real, valid enemy to point at. Considering that the vast majority of Syrians killed in the war have been killed at the hands of the Assad regime, the choice between surrendering to Assad and working with shady characters was pretty easy to some.
To put the bombardment into context, not even United Nations aid convoys were spared from the aerial onslaught. The same month Obama and Putin signed their agreement, the SyAAF bombed a UN aid convoy in Aleppo, which the UN has since declared to be a war crime.
As for the rest (unbolded) part of his statement, it is important to note that at no time has the SyAAF or its Russian counterpart halted their aerial bombardment of civilian areas in Daraa, Damascus, and Idlib (among other areas). Thus, while Lavrov may be able to make a lot of words condemning the opposition, the real blame lies with the Assad regime.
Question: A question about broken promises. You have made multiple references to February 21, 2014 (in ukraine), the date the (eu-Ukraine) Agreement was signed. So why is the medal for the so-called return of Crimea (given to Russian soldiers who participated in the referendum) dated February 20, which was a day before the signing of the Agreement?
Frankly, I never saw that medal. I think it was some technical misunderstanding.
The medal has been widely documented in both media and from Russian dissidents themselves, including the slain opposition political leader Boris Nemtsov’s report Putin.War-Eng
The rest of Lavrov’s conference is a mixture of half-truths and loaded statements, which we will likely address in a future article.
Annex:
[1] Putin’s remarks on kremlin.ru confirming the use of Russian special forces in Ukraine:
Maria Sittel: We have a text message on our programme’s website: “Who were these young men, after all? They looked a lot like Russians.”
Vladimir Putin: What young men?
Maria Sittel: Those polite young men.
Kirill Kleymenov: The “little green men.”
Vladimir Putin: I have already spoken about this publicly on several occasions, perhaps not loud enough. However, in my conversations with my foreign colleagues I did not hide the fact that our goal was to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will. And so we had to take the necessary measures in order to prevent the situation in Crimea unfolding the way it is now unfolding in southeastern Ukraine. We didn’t want any tanks, any nationalist combat units or people with extreme views armed with automatic weapons. Of course, the Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defence forces. They acted in a civil but a decisive and professional manner, as I’ve already said.
[2] OSCE declares Crimea referendum unconstitutional
[3] OSCE threatened with weapons, warning shots
[4] Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People declares referendum void
[5] UN Security Council resolution condemning referendum vetoed
[6] UN General Assembly resolution condemning referendum passes
[7] UN declares aid convoy bombing a war crime
