Question: What are conditions for holding the international conference for Syria? Who should participate in it? How do you assess the decision of the European Union about supplies of armaments for the Syrian opposition?

Sergey Lavrov: The deepening of the crisis in Syria and the rising strain in interreligious relations, in particular in the line of Sunni-Shiites, on the background of it, will cost us serious disturbances at regional scale. We realise that and strive to prevent the danger of explosion of the situation in the Middle East.

The most important prerequisite and even more so success of efforts to hold an international conference on political settlement in Syria, on holding of which we agreed with American partners on May 7 in Moscow, depend on Syrian parties’ refusal from any pre-conditions. The same concerns their participation in the forum and their positions in approaching it. We think that everybody should be guided by the landmarks contained in the Geneva Communiqué of the Action Group on Syria of 30 June 2012. The main task is to sit representatives of authorities and opponents of the regime at the negotiation table to reach special understandings that will allow starting a political process on the basis of wide dialogue between Syrians themselves.

We worked hard with Damascus. This resulted in Syrian government agreeing to participate in the conference and form a negotiation team chaired by President of the Council of Ministers, Foreign Minister Waleed Al-Muallem.

Things are more complicated with the opposition. On the one hand, certain forces strive to present the case in such a way that only representatives of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NC) may sit in front of the government delegation the Syrian opposition groups. Meanwhile, the majority of the “domestic opposition” do not share its approaches, they would like to participate in the conference independently from NC. The National Coordination Committee and the High Council of Kurds turned to us to assist them in such participation.

On the other hand, the National Coalition sets pre-conditions, which are hardly reasonable to start the negotiations aimed at seeking consensus among the Syrians with. At the same time, the National Coalition does not have a clear political program – the slogan of overthrowing the regime can hardly be considered in such matter. While the emphasis on restoration of the military balance “on ground” with the government army, in fact, provides reasoning for further bloodshed. All the non-consenting NC opposition members understand it clearly and do not wish NC to talk on behalf of them.

We think that all those who were present at the meeting in Geneva on 30 June 2012 should participate, including also regional countries that did not take part in the session of the Action Group for some reasons but are able to actually contribute to settlement of the Syrian crisis. In our opinion, UN Security Council permanent members, Syria’s neighbours such as Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, the EU, the League of Arab States, the OIC, Syria’s special envoy, and the “troika” of LAS – today Qatar, Egypt and Iraq – should be present at the International conference. Delegations from Iran and Saudi Arabia should also participate in the conference to fully embrace interested influential parties which must be present at the conference, in our opinion. We are continuing our contacts and consultations for that purpose. High level officials of Russia, US and UN hold the first round of trilateral consultations in Geneva on June 5. The second round is scheduled for June 25.

We think that it is extremely important for foreign players to create the suitable favourable atmosphere to prepare for the international conference at all stages. This is what the additional difficulties slowing the process down are related to. The idea of Geneva-2 was approved by all parties, though individual practical steps, including those of potential participants leave much to be desired. For example, we categorically disagree with substitution of notions and free interpretation of provisions of the Geneva Communiqué, in particular, the statements that the conference should become a public act of capitulation of the government delegation followed by hand over of power in Syria to the opposition. I will emphasize that the Geneva Communiqué clearly states that the creation of a transitional governing body consisting of representatives of the current government and opposition groups, is expected to become a major step towards peace in Syria.

Adoption of different documents announcing the arming of the opposition, calling for a “no-fly zone” and humanitarian corridors“” and blaming the Syrian authorities only for all what is happening in Syria do not contribute to preparations for the international conference.

Those who do it, should realise that such steps are, in fact, concordant with the actions “on ground” of Al-Qaeda terrorists an other extremists, who are also trying to "terrorist acts" of Al-Qaeda and foil the convention of the conference, and the path to peace in Syria, in general, organising bloody terrorist acts, terrifying religious purges, like the massacre in Hatla Shiites village in Deir Ezzor.

We need to put an end to the bloodshed in Syria, give a chance be given for peace in this country. Otherwise, the gaining fire might easily spread to neighbouring houses.

The Russia’s position in respect of the Syrian crisis is principal in nature – we neither interfere in the Syrian internal disagreements nor try to impose ready-made solutions, and we are not willing to settle geopolitical scores against anyone on the Syrian land. We are for the implementation of the international law principles laid down in the UN Charter regarding Syria, especially respecting state sovereignty, non-interference in its internal affairs and solving conflicts via peaceful means. We have to help the Syrians move from armed confrontation to dialogue. This is what the approach of the Russian Federation is about.

Question: What is you assessment to efforts of the US Administration regarding the revival of Israeli-Palestinian talks? What Moscow does at this stage to contribute to the solution of this problem.

Sergey Lavrov: US Secretary of State John Kerry has been indeed actively contacting the Palestinian and the Israeli parties according to the order of Barack Obama to develop propositions for the revival of the negotiation process. Starting from this April, he has visited the region several times, had more than a dozen of phone conversations with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas.

We are positive in respect of the attempts to correct the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Russia and, in my opinion, many of our partners are interested in pushing Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to direct dialogue on known international legal grounds. This should certainly be used coupled with the Arab Peace Initiative.

Contribution to social and economic development of Palestinian territories John Kerry puts a focus on is certainly useful. However, the improvement of the economic situation, even if provided, would not replace a clear political perspective for the Palestinians, without which we will most probably not get any negotiation process. And it is well-known to everybody – it is the establishment of independent state by the Palestinians on the 1967 borders.

We are ready to assist the United States where required both on bilateral channels, and in the multilateral format, primarily within the framework of the Quartet on the Middle East of international mediators. Because the Quartet is the internationally-backed and UNSC authorized mechanism to support settlement in the Middle East.

In our contacts with Palestinian and Israeli parties we consistently speak in favour of faster renewal of a substantive negotiation process between them. This issue was discussed during visits to the Russian Federation of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in March and of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in May, and we continue intensive contacts with both parties.

Question: What are your projections for the development of the situation in Afghanistan after the US withdrawal next year, and what security measures are taken to that end to guarantee stability in the Central Asia?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, I would like to specify that it is not about full withdrawal of US armed forces from Afghanistan in 2014. The USA and its allies plan to keep more than 10,000 troops in IRA. The USA intends to leave nine big military bases in Afghanistan. The final decision on this issue has not been made yet Washington is negotiating with Kabul over that.

2014 is decisive for Afghanistan in many ways. Presidential elections in the country are scheduled on 5 April 2014 and the process of transfer of responsibility to the Afghan security agencies from the International Security Assistance Force is end by the end of the next year. The development of the situation after 2014 will in many ways depend on the success of these steps, as well as progress in national reconciliation.

Unfortunately, the current situation in IRA is far from stability and has aggravation trends. At the same time, we keep having an impression that the Americans and their allies want to leave fast and hand over security responsibility for the Afghan forces without considering the situation in the areas of this process.

Phasing out ISAF forces in IRA should be coupled with strengthening Afghan security forces despite the decline in their numbers to avoid security collapse to achieve that they are eventually able to control security in their state, to effectively counteract extremist groupings and drug criminals. We do not see any noticeable advancement in this line. Events in Kunar Province in April where militants attacked an army post of the elite battalion of Afghan army rated by the Americans as being perfectly military trained. 14 soldiers were killed, and the post was overtaken and completely burned out because of this attack.

From our side we consistently assist Afghanistan in strengthening fighting capability of national security forces, establishment of IRA as a peaceful, stable, independent and neutral state capable of confronting terrorists, drugs and organised crime. In practical terms, we are helping IRA train military, police and drug combating professionals and upgrade their capabilities.

Developments in Central Asia, are directly linked to the Russian national security. You are right that the today’s processes in Afghanistan seriously affect the entire situation in the region. There is a threat of its destabilisation. Even more so that ethnic Uzbek and Tadjik extremist and terrorist groupings in the north of IRA are already working on the plans to penetrate territories of Central Asian countries.

We are assisting our partners in Central Asia in various ways to boost the economic potential of state of this region. In particular, I am talking about contributing to the development, anti-crisis measures, support to the budget, food and humanitarian assistance. Russia’s help to Central Asian countries in 2008 to 2012 made more than 1 billion dollars.

At the same time we contribute to boosting defence capabilities of states of this region. The long-term Russian military presence in these states approved during visits of President Vladimir Putin to Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan in September and October is an additional guarantee of stable development of Central Asian states.

CSTO activities in the Central Asian region is oriented to stability building. The territory of Afghanistan is adjacent to the CSTO area of responsibility in the north. The topic of confrontation terrorism, extremism and drug threats is subject to key attention on behalf of member states and is regularly discussed at different levels and in different formats. We exchange relevant data, hold target meetings, joint operations on combating these challenges and threats.

We draw major attention to strengthening the most extended Tadjik-Afghan border with very complex landscape, primarily its logistics. We are working on this in the bilateral format between member states and in the multilateral format – within CSTO. We assist Kyrgyz party in this issue in all possible ways.

The participation of CSTO countries is not of minor importance, when stabilisation of the situation in Afghanistan is concerned, including securing safe transit of ISAF cargo to Afghanistan and back through territories of member states.

We are attaching importance to boosting capabilities of international organisations such as the UN and the SCO in a drive to expand bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the Central Asian countries in the fight against drug trafficking, terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Question: Are you satisfied with the state of P5+1 talks and Tehran regarding the Nuclear Program of Iran. In your opinion, how will the results of presidential elections in Iran affect these talks?

Sergey Lavrov: We see encouraging signs in the work on settling the situation around the Nuclear Program of Iran for the first time in many years. The reciprocal principles proposed by P5+1 on easing sanctions on Iran in exchange for consistent cooperation in good faith with international community certainly played an important role in it.

If we do not go into details, the Iranians confirm the main thing – their readiness to stop uranium enrichment at 20-percent degree. This could become a really break-through agreement that can address existing problems, including worries over further escalation of production of armed uranium in Iran. Of course this position requires weighty steps from the six countries. At the same time, the international community should reacted to Iran’s constructive steps adequately including gradual halt of sanctions and scrapping them, including the curbs of unilateral basis or those approved by the UNSC. It would be unforgivable, if we do not use this opportunity.

It is extremely important for all the parties to restrain from ill-considered steps capable of disrupting these efforts, when we face potential progress at the talks. We need to abort further tightening of sanctions on Tehran and start thinking of possible ways of releasing it in the lines that are important for Iran.

We think that Iran and the six countries need to show political will and flexibility in order to move forward. This is a ticket to success in the negotiations process regardless of any countries and elections.

We think that it is inadmissible to reduce the dynamics in the negotiation process, which we have reached. We need to set time and venue of next P5+1 + Iran talks.

We presume here that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes including enrichment, after all the unsolved issues are clarified and all the nuclear programme of Iran is under secure and comprehensive supervision of IAEA.

As to the results of presidential elections in Iran, we presume that the new president of Iran will stick to currently applicable rules in relations with the highest authorities of Iran and in sensitive domestic problems.

Question: The Arab States of the Gulf are concerned with the nuclear programme of Iran. Do you think it would be logical to invite representatives of these countries to nuclear talks between the P5+1 group and Iran?

Sergey Lavrov: For us, this framework of negotiations is enough. At the same time we welcome any contribution to the process by interested states, which can seriously contribute to the P5+1 talks with Iran through own bilateral and multilateral diplomatic opportunities.

Question: How to you assess the relations between Russia and Kuwait in particular and countries of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf in general? How these relations were affected by disagreements in opinions regarding the assessment of the Arab spring?

Sergey Lavrov: The relations between Russia and Kuwait are time-proven and, in our opinion, deserve high assessment. They are based on a solid foundation of trust and mutual understanding. Last March we celebrated 50th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We are satisfied with dynamic political dialogue at all levels confirming identical or close views of our countries over many pressing matters of the international agenda. There is great potentials to push economic, trade and investment cooperation, which are below the required level for now. Both parties are interested in its more effective use for the benefit of friendly people of Russia and Kuwait.

Our interaction with GCC countries has been progressing lately. Russia-GCC strategic dialogue was launched in November 2011, there are ministerial meetings held regularly as well. Forthcoming session of the strategic dialogue will be held in Moscow this year. We hope that it will be productive, as usual. We hope that our partners including our Kuwaiti friends offer full support for us.

There are differences of views vis-à-vis some developments in the Arab world, but their meaning should not be overestimated. In essence, we have common views on causes of these events as well as their possible impacts on stability and security of countries of the region. We share the opinion that we need to overcome the crisis situations in the region as soon as possible. Our disagreements are most probably related to the ways of solving the above mentioned task. This is what the main discussions are about.

It is important not to waste time, because every day means new human fatalities. Fortunately, our partners in the Gulf countries understand this well creating a foundation to having a common ground. At the same time everything related to political settlement of conflicts in the region should not, by any means be projected to the bilateral relations between Russia and countries of the Persian Gulf, which have wide prospects for development on a mutually beneficial and long-term ground.