22 October 2018
Moscow: 15:27
London: 13:27

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  




One mistake after another. It is still possible to prevent the foreign aggression in Syria. (Igor Ivanov, President of the Russian International Affairs Council, Russian Foreign Minister (1998-2004), Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Federal issue) No.6170 of 2 September 2013)

Top Western politics lately have been talking more and more sincerely and insistently about their determination to carry out a military operation in respect of Syria. At the same time, they are forced to acknowledge that the Syrian problem has no military solution, that such solution is possible only within the framework of a political dialogue among all participants of the conflict.

An evident logical discrepancy, to put it mildly, is obvious. By trying to justify such inconsistent position, the West frequently appeals to different precedents of the recent past, in particular to the NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 and to the United States’ and their allies’ military operation in Iraq in 2003. They say that both interventions, although they were not approved by the UN Security Council, have demonstrated their effectiveness and have led to desirable results.

It seems that those, who appeal to the precedents of 1999 and 2003 cannot find more convincing arguments in favour of a military intervention into Syria. On the other hand, they seem to assume that the world has already forgotten the conditions of those tragic events. However, the experience of Yugoslavia and Iraq is a true evidence that the use of military force in such situations not only is not able to resolve the existing problems, but rather will cost even more severe consequences.

If we take Yugoslavia, a formal cause for NATO’s operation were the affirmations about a “humanitarian disaster” in Kosovo. As NATO’s formidable military machine was put into action in response to the situation in Kosovo. 10 million country in the centre of Europe was subjected to mass air attacks. And these events took place at the end of the 20th century, when the “cold war” has been a history for a long time!

NATO forces earnestly bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days. By the way, not only military objects, but also industrial companies, bridges over the Danube were subjected to air strikes. The traces of those bombings are still visible on façades of buildings in Belgrade. And what can you say about an American missile, which “accidentally bounced” into the window of the PRC’s Embassy in Belgrade?

Even if we leave moral and ethical aspects of NATO’s aggression outside the parentheses, any objective observer must admit: the NATO’s operation has not attained its goals. The solution of the question was returned to the UN Security Council, where it had to be resolved. And the Western aggressors were left nothing other than agreeing with the President of Serbia Slobodan Milošević, against whom the entire military operation was organised. The long-term result of this military operation was the breakup of Yugoslavia, an artificial creation of incapable Kosovo, which has become a hotbed of international crime and chronic instability. Of course, that time government of Yugoslavia also made many mistakes, did not use all political opportunities to prevent the war. However, it is another issue.

As to the Iraqi precedent, there is even no need to go deeper into details of 10 years old events. It is sufficient to read messages of news agencies from Baghdad coming almost every day to make an evident conclusion: the military intervention has left the country, which is being puled apart by regional, ethnic and religious conflicts, the country, where authorities cannot ensure security to its citizens. Who will now answer for the tragedy the Iraqi population is experiencing today? May be those “experts”, political leaders and military persons, who justified the need of intervention and carried out this military operation in the country ten years ago?

Also, let us not forget that the intervention into Iraq split the Western world, having opposed the United States to several leading European allies. The war in Iraq also created a wide opposition made of various political forces inside the United States. By the way, the current President of the United States Barack Obama was initially against the military operation in Iraq, thinking that this was is a strategic mistake of United States’ foreign policy and made the promise to end this unpopular war as soon as possible one of main slogans of his presidential electoral campaign.

If we return to the situation in Syria, we may note that there are no grounds to expect that a military operation against the regime of Bashar al-Assad will be more effective and less destructive than the known operation in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Two and a half years long civil war have already thrown Syria decades back, bringing uncountable losses and sufferings to the Syrian people, and mass air strikes of the United States will, in fact, complete the process of destruction of the country. May the military operation in Syria will be called a “tragic mistake” in the United States after some time. And, as before, no persons guilty in this crime will be found.

What can we do to prevent the tragedy in Syria? Unfortunately, there is no use to expect that the use of veto power by Russia and China in the UNSC will stop the war. This is another negative result of the operations in Yugoslavia and Iraq – dangerous precedents of actions bypassing the United Nations, violating fundamental principles of international law were created. So, why the growing uncontrollability of international relations surprises us?!

Many things depend on the Syrian government, which should understand, that the military operation, which is being prepared, may lead to disastrous consequences not only for the political regime in Damascus, but, the worst of it, for the Syrian independent state as such, for the suffering Syrian people. One of fatal mistakes of Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein was that both of them did not believe to the end that the intervention is possible. Both leaders hoped to overplay their opponents in diplomatic bargaining, and both lost.

In the current conditions, the Syrian government should show its state wisdom and to appeal to the common sense of the international community. We need not only to create maximally favourable conditions for the work of UN observers, but also to open the country for international humanitarian, human rights, peace making organisations, mass media and independent experts. We need the public opinion to form on the basis of real facts and objective information about the events in the country, rather than on unverified rumours, idle speculations and random interpretations, which are distributed by not always fair opponents of the Syrian government. Such position of Damascus would certainly receive active support from Moscow and other parties advocating for a political settlement of the Syrian crisis.

It is still possible to prevent the foreign aggression in Syria, but we have little time for that.

Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Federal issue) No.6170 of 2 September 2013


27.09.2018 - Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN Security Council meeting, September 26, 2018

Mr President, Colleagues, In the modern world, an efficient fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is becoming increasingly important for global and regional stability and the reliable security of all states without exception. Constructive cooperation in this area is an important component of the efforts to shape a positive international agenda. I think everybody agrees that the UN Security Council resolutions that outline specific measures against violations of non-proliferation must be strictly observed. Resolution 1540 remains the basis for this and contains obligations for the member states to take specific measures to prevent non-government agents from accessing weapons of mass destruction and their components. The UNSC decisions taken in pursuance of this resolution are particularly important as they include sanctions for handing over any types of weapons to terrorists. There have been incidents of such handovers and they must be thoroughly investigated.

07.09.2018 - Remarks by Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, following the UNSC meeting on the incident in Salisbury

Q: Do you expect British sanctions on Russia soon? A: We are not expecting or afraid of anything. Taking to the account how things have been developing during the recent years we do not exclude anything. This discussion and yesterday’s speech by the British Prime-Minister in the British Parliament are not coincidental. I think that’s looks like a prelude to a new political season. Q: So, Ambassador it’s really coming from the highest level in the UK. A: It always comes from the highest level. Last time when the incident took place it also came from the highest level. Q: But it seems that you are not taking it seriously. A: We are taking it very seriously. We were saying it all the time. Why we’ve been asking for cooperation with the UK from day one. Only few minutes ago Ambassador Pierce was referring to an ultimatum that Boris Johnson made in his letter to the Russian Ambassador in London when the incident took place presented as a request by the British site to cooperate while in fact it was a demand to to accept the gilt. At the same time our requests which we sent to British authorities constantly through OPCW and bilaterally were ignored.

06.09.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) talk show on Channel One, Moscow, September 4, 2018

Question: Today we have a special guest in our studio, one of the main participants in the “great game”, someone the future of the world really depends on in many ways: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. We are happy to welcome you in the Great Game studio. Sergey Lavrov: Thanks for inviting me.

22.08.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comment on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's anti-Russian claims

At a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's urges to European partners to slap their own sanctions on Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident.

16.08.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's interview for "Salisbury Journal"

The Russian Ambassador said he stands together with the people of Salisbury in a meeting with the Journal last week, as the United States announced new sanctions against the country. Speaking at his official residence in Kensington Palace Gardens on Thursday, Alexander Yakovenko said: “We are together with the people of Salisbury.”

24.06.2018 - Greeting by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko for the Znaniye school Family Day (Ealing, 24 June 2018)

Dear friends and guests, I am delighted to welcome you at a Family Day celebrating Russia and the World Cup. Today, Russia is the place to be for the whole world. It is a great pleasure to hear fans from all continents appreciating Russia’s hospitality, friendliness and openness to everyone. Right now, people from virtually every country see the 11 host cities, from the Baltic Sea to the Urals on the border of Europe and Asia, and realize how diverse and beautiful our country is. We’d like to bring a bit of Russia and the excitement of the World Cup to Ealing, for those who couldn’t make it to the tournament. By the way, so far both our teams are doing very well, and let us hope they keep up this good work. We cheer for both Russia and England but I’m afraid this can change if both teams meet at the semi-finals.

20.06.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Primakov Readings international forum, Moscow, May 30, 2018

Mr Dynkin, Colleagues and friends, Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for a new opportunity to speak at the international forum named after Academician Evgeny Primakov, an outstanding Russian statesman, academic and public figure. It is indeed a great honour for me. I consider Mr Primakov, with whom I worked at the Foreign Ministry in the latter half of the 1990s, my senior comrade and teacher, as probably do the majority of those who crossed paths with him at one point. Holding this representative conference under the aegis of one of Russia’s leading academic institutes – National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) that also bears Primakov’s name – has become a good tradition. The Primakov Readings have earned a reputation as a venue for serious dialogue of authoritative specialists on the most pressing issues of international politics and the global economy. Today, there is no lack of buzzwords used by politicians, experts and scientists to capture the current moment in international relations. They talk about the crisis of the “liberal world order” and the advent of the post-Western era, “hot peace” and the “new cold war”. The abundance of terms itself shows that there is probably no common understanding of what is happening. It also points to the fairly dynamic and contradictory state of the system of international relations that is hard to characterise, at least at the present stage, with one resounding phrase. The authors of the overarching theme of the current Primakov Readings probably handled the challenge better than others. In its title “Risks of an unstable world order’ they provocatively, and unacademically, combine the words “unstable” and “order”.

21.04.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's talking points at the Press Conference, 20 April 2018

Since we met last time a lot of events took place: - Military strikes of the United States, UK and France against Syria in violation of the international law - Mission by OPCW inspectors to Douma - Speech of Prime Minister May in Parliament in support of the British aggression against Syria - Special meeting of the OPCW Executive Council (18 April 2018) - New developments in the classified case of Salisbury poisoning of Skripal family - No meaningful developments on the Glushkov case - and Cyber security threats I plan to comment all these issues. And I will be happy to answer all our questions, if you have any.

17.03.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's interview for "Mail on Sunday" (full text)

Q: Bearing in mind that the US, France and Germany have said they agree with Britain that all the evidence suggests the attacks in Salisbury were the responsibility of the Russian state, what credibility can be placed on the denials issued by the Russian Government? A:We don't know if UK presented any evidence to US, France and Germany - highly likely none - but if they did, why not present it through the channels outlined in the Chemical Weapons Convention? Universal legal principle is presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof lies with the British Government. Its record includes the Iraq WMD dossier - you will remember that at some point doubting US and UK claims was considered a wild conspiracy theory. It is not any more.

26.01.2018 - Main foreign policy outcomes of 2017

In 2017, Russian diplomacy addressed multidimensional tasks to ensure national security and create a favourable external environment for our country's progressive development. Russia maintained an independent foreign policy, promoted a unifying agenda, and proposed constructive solutions to international problems and conflicts. It developed mutually beneficial relations with all interested states, and played an active role in the work of the UN, multilateral organisations and forums, including the G20, BRICS, the SCO, the OSCE, and the CSTO. Among other things, Russian policy has sought to prevent the destabilisation of international relations, and this responsible policy has met with broad understanding in the international community.

all messages