In an interview with Russian business daily Kommersant, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed the Syria crisis and the Russia-U.S. brokered deal to place the Assad regime’s chemical weapons under international control.

Lavrov said that while Russia’s partners had “shied away”, Moscow had stood firm and was on the “right side of history”.

Q:
U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry called on Syria’s agreement an “historic format”, and the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that “the UN Security Council finally lived up to its purpose.” Do you agree with these assessments?

LAVROV:
We try not to interpret resolutions, because they speak for themselves. A regular person, who becomes acquainted with [the resolutions], will understand them. There is a tradition in diplomacy that after reaching a consensus, each emphasizes in a commentary whatever he thinks fit.

We also did this, stressing in his speech that the resolution won’t be adopted under Chapter 7 [of the UN Charter, allowing the use of force]. This was the main plot, and there are can’t be any ambiguities about it.

We also emphasized that the Syrian leadership has voluntarily acceded to the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And it does not matter what the reasons were. People say that it was done under the threat of strikes, but I do not care — it is the result that is important. It has been requested that this convention is applied earlier than usual — not in a month, as in ordinary cases, but at once. And promptly, before the prescribed term, without formally becoming a member of the Convention, [the Assad regime] submitted a declaration of its chemical weapons stockpiles.

This crucial task, to do everything to get those remaining chemical stockpiles decontaminated, brought under international control and subsequently destroyed, was expressed by the President [Putin] after a conversation with Barack Obama in St. Petersburg.

It was also fundamentally important to us that the UN Security Council in its resolution procedures identified who would be responsible for the destruction of chemical weapons, including the security personnel who will work there. This is primarily the responsibility of the Syrian government, as it is primarily responsible for security in the State. However, responsibility lies with the Opposition: it is required to cooperate in all processes occurring in the territories it controls.

Another important point in the resolution states that chemical weapons must not fall into the hands of non-state actors, that is, the same opposition and its groups. Special attention was drawn to Syria’s neighbors, regarding the inadmissibility of any attempts to use their territory to supply the opposition with chemical weapons.

[…]

Q:
And how did it happen that after three days of marathon talks in Geneva, where you and Mr. Kerry agreed on everything, you then over the past two weeks have had to re-negotiate the same issues?

LAVROV:
There are two aspects to this. First, we what negotiated in Geneva was not a legal document with well thought-out the terms used in official decisions of international organizations […] it needed details.

Secondly, it became evident that our American partners – if I am to be honest – still desired to replay the situation and go back to Chapter 7. I had to spend a little more time to negotiate […]

Q:
But people are still discussing the consequences of any violations…

LAVROV:
Yes, we have written that any violations committed by any party, whether the Government or opposition groups, should result in a thorough investigation that will be reported to the Security Council. This applies to, God forbid, the use of chemical weapons by any party. If we clearly believe that any party has committed a violation or has used chemical weapons, then we will be ready to make a decision under Chapter 7. It is recorded in our commitments. But we will not buy a pig in a poke when we are told, as we are now [about the August 21 attacks], “it’s obvious that this is the work of the government.”

Q:
But the U.S. says it has “thousands of pieces of evidence.”

LAVROV:
They have not provided us with any of them. We, on the contrary, have presented what we have (from our sources, including from the Syrians and independent sources) in terms of evidence that leads to the conclusion that it was the work of the opposition. And we have a strong suspicion that such attempts will continue.

Q:
Provocation?

LAVROV:
Yes. We stressed at the meeting of the UN Secretary General with the five permanent members of the Security Council, and during a Security Council meeting that those states that are major political, financial and military (i.e. arms) sponsors of the opposition must bear responsibility for trying to get hold of some stocks of chemical weapons, to get these from elsewhere and to arrange provocations inside Syria to put the blame on the government, provoke universal anger, and thereby try to provoke a strike from outside Syria. I think we are on the right track.

[The next questions are about how the chemical weapons inspections will work inside Syria].

Q:
Is Russia prepared to allocate money [to destroy Assad’s chemical stocks]?

LAVROV:
The Executive Council of the OPCW makes a decision to instruct the Director General of the organization to work out the financial side of the operation. This is a new burden on the OPCW, and, of course, money is needed […]. The decision also calls on states to initially make voluntary contributions. I think, in any case, Russia will financially participate. But most importantly, we will be sure to engage our staff in the inspection activities and other forms of international presence, which we can offer to the UN Secretary General.

Q:
How will the agreement on Syria affect US-Russian relations? [..]

LAVROV:
I would not draw any conclusion about long-term trends in our relations with the United States. Yes, misunderstandings arise from time to time, but almost always they are amenable to a solution and do not have an irreversible impact on the general trend of the development of our cooperation. […] See how quickly we came together in the task of solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, to prevent them falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals, which would have had unpredictable consequences.

Q:
[The Americans said that relations with Russia were the most important bilateral relations in the world] Also in Geneva after talks on Syria.

LAVROV:
Yes. So we have a feeling that the Americans seem to understand the importance of our cooperation. We are ready for that, as much as they are ready for it in Washington. It is a pity that the a visit did not come off, and that it was postponed.

Q:
What happens with them [the US] now?

LAVROV:
They are not going anywhere. […]

We are realists, and proceed from the assumption that emotion is temporary. Snowden or no Snowden, insults real and imagined – all these things pass. What remains is the understanding of the strategic importance of the relationship between Russia and the United States to international stability. We have a feeling that the current U.S. administration understands that. Our relationship is much bigger, deeper and wider than any grievances, which are natural for anyone.

Q:
Not so long ago, it was said of Russia (including by the United States) said that, with regard to Syria, the Russian Federation “is on the wrong side of history.” Now many believe that Russia “saved Obama’s face”, and the Middle East, from a great war. Do experience moral satisfaction from that?

LAVROV:
Many politicians, especially in the West, like shiny slogans. But it is not necessary to rush from one extreme to another. I would avoid these emotional and inspirational slogans. If those who objectively monitored the situation tried to assess what just happened with the Syrian crisis, they’ll probably come to the conclusion that we were on the “right” side of history. Although our partners tried to shy away from things, and accused us of not being on the right side.

As a result, you see, the Americans seem to have understood to where they could steer things, trying to stand for what they thought was the correct side of history. However, it is a natural human trait, for politicians, diplomats — those involved in the settlement of conflict situations — to act by trial and error. The main thing is that in this situation we steered to absolutely the right side of history, and made ​​things so that in the world there is a consensus around a scheme we developed, approved by the OPCW and the UN Security Council […]

It is very important that, in the Hague, when there was a vote on the decision on the role of the OPCW in implementing the program to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, it was recorded in a special item that all countries that have not done so are encouraged to join the convention. I’m going to reveal a little secret: this item was introduced by Iran and supported by the United States. Iran in the past century has twice suffered from chemical weapons.

Q:
Why is this item not included in the end?

LAVROV:
Our American partners took a back seat and walked away from it. But the problem will not go away. […] We will work to ensure that this conference is held. In the current situation, it is especially important that there is a universal mode of non-possession of weapons of mass destruction in this volatile region.

Q:
What will be the biggest challenge in the implementation of the plan for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons?

LAVROV:
Not to allow for disruption. We have reason to believe that the Syrian government will try to avoid such failures. In any case, we will constantly hold it to that. But as for disruption, which may be the result of provocation, the main role belongs to our Western partners and their closest allies in the Persian Gulf, and the region as a whole, who are sympathetic to the opposition. They have influenced them. Not all of them, though: there are terrorist groups that do not obey anyone except Al Qaeda, and for them, here is probably no contact through the normal channels. But the opposition, who are influenced by external actors, should be educable. They should be sent a signal that they should not dare undermine the process.

Q:
John Kerry said that the threat of force has not been completely removed.

LAVROV:
Everyone is trying to explain that a decision they need is missing, so that they can justify the fact that they can still go back to where they started from. Americans traditionally never say that they won’t do something. Their favorite expression is, “all options remain on the table.” May God grant that they stay on the table, that nobody takes hold of them and makes them float. We will do everything to ensure that this is how things stay.