25 September 2020
Moscow: 13:08
London: 11:08

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

936 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     928 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities



Article co-authored by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and First Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia Ivica Dacic published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Serbian Kurir on June 18, 2020

The Kosovo knot: is a fair solution possible?


Public discussions about possible outcomes of the Kosovo knot have become noticeably livelier recently. The United States and the EU are striving to make themselves an indispensable part of the settlement and are competing for the leading role in this process. In addition, as it happened before, they often disregard the opinions of other stakeholders, which fact calls into question the very possibility of finding a fair solution. Looking back into the recent past and analysing the regrettable consequences of external interference in the region’s affairs is something that must be done if we want to avoid making more mistakes. We also believe it is important to provide a general assessment of the current state of affairs and to outline our fundamental approaches to the Kosovo settlement. 

The unresolved Kosovo problem has for over 20 years been an obstacle to a full-fledged stabilisation in the Western Balkan region and given rise to more outbursts of tension. The time bomb was laid at a time when the Western allies that bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 set the goal of ensuring the region’s independence in circumvention of international law. It was done under a cynical front of "multivariance," meaning it would be done either with or without Belgrade’s consent. In other words, Serbia’s opinion was ignored from day one. Such a flawed approach in flagrant violation of UNSCR 1244 is aimed solely at satisfying the Kosovars’ separatist aspirations.

In 2008, when “independence” was announced in Pristina by way of accomplished fact, persistent attempts were made to talk Moscow and Belgrade into believing that the negotiating potential had been exhausted. Russia’s and Serbia’s calls, including at the highest level, to continue the talks and stick to the international law and UNSCR 1244 were ignored. A couple of years later, the developments had the parties resume the dialogue. Brussels acted as a mediator, and the UN General Assembly approved it by Resolution 64/298 in 2010.

Since then, the international community could see on many occasions that the only way to find a viable settlement was to do so while observing UNSCR 1244 with a balanced and genuine consideration of the stakeholders’ interests.

The concept of Kosovo’s self-proclaimed “sovereignty” fell through. It is not supported either in the Balkans, or in Europe, or other parts of the world for that matter. About half of the UN member states do not recognise Kosovo’s "statehood" and the number of such countries is growing. More and more capitals are realising the danger (including for themselves) of the precedent created by Kosovo involving external military interference in the affairs of an independent state under far-fetched pretexts.

The failure of Kosovo’s independence can be clearly seen from the situation in that region.

Kosovo is in the grips of political chaos. Local parties are mired in a bitter fight for power, scheming, mutual accusations and clan feuds amid economic downfall and rampant crime. Under these circumstances, the "state building" which the local leaders and their external sponsors love to talk about turned into a sham.

The wide presence in Kosovo of criminal elements associated with terrorist groups in the Middle East, primarily Syria, as well as with criminal gangs in the Balkans and other parts of Europe, means that the region with its rich historical and cultural heritage is becoming a den of thieves and criminals of all stripes.

Should this be any surprise with former Kosovo Liberation Army ringleaders holed up as Pristina’s ruling elite? To investigate the atrocities, including murders and abductions for the purpose of illicit trafficking of human organs committed by some of them, a special court was created at the EU initiative following a report by PACE member Dick Marty. We are still waiting for this judicial body to go live and bring charges against the criminals.

International presence should be beneficial for normalising the situation. Unfortunately, this is not happening. For years, the Kosovo Force has been passive in ensuring Serbs’ security, which is their main mission. One of the consequences of this inactivity is the aggravation of the situation with preserving the relics of the Serbian Orthodox Church located in this region. Energetic and targeted efforts of UNESCO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe are needed to guarantee their safety.

The effectiveness of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), whose mandate is defined by UNSCR 1244, also leaves much to be desired. It is difficult to expect anything different when Pristina shamelessly disregards this Security Council resolution. The West, however, has turned a blind eye to the Kosovars’ brazen behaviour and downplays the incidents of intimidation of UN personnel.

The fact that Camp Bondsteel was usurped is causing our concern. It was created as a peacekeeping base but turned into an off-limits training site for the Kosovo “armed forces”, which causes our deep concern. In fact, it’s an attempt to whitewash the Kosovo Liberation Army, which started the war in the late 1990s that led to the region breaking away from Serbia.

The question about the NATO countries’ liability for using munitions with depleted uranium during the 1999 bombing in Serbia, especially Kosovo, remains open. The local population continues to suffer en masse from the radioactive contamination, and international peacekeepers have also felt its debilitating effect. A recent court ruling in France has confirmed that the NATO aggression left a deadly and lasting mark on Serbia.

Irresponsible politicians with their Great Albania rhetoric regularly add fuel to the flames of this smouldering conflict. Their Western colleagues are in no hurry to censure the activists who are broadcasting the ideas of Great Albania from Pristina and Tirana. Meanwhile, the destructive potential of this ideology is capable of burying the system of regional stability that took decades to build.

Over the past few months, the EU and the United States have been vigorously campaigning for resuming a dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Of course, we are supportive of the political methods of settlement, but we believe that the talks should be based on the principle of bona fide implementation of previous agreements. The key principle is creating a full-fledged Community of Kosovo Serbian Municipalities (CKSM) endowed with the appropriate authority. The EU’s direct responsibility as an intermediary in the negotiating process is to have the Kosovo authorities fulfil their obligations. So far, no progress has been made in creating the CKSM.

Prior to the new phase in the dialogue, it was necessary to revoke the anti-Serb discriminatory measures introduced by the Pristina authorities in recent years. As a mediator, the EU must ensure that the Kosovars will not resume this vicious practice.

Let's hope that the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and the EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue Miroslav Lajcak will act as honest brokers.

At the same time, we note that Serbia’s admission to the EU is still used by some as a lever to exert pressure on Belgrade in matters of recognising Kosovo’s “independence.” It turns out that to become an EU member, the applicant state must give away a chunk of its territory. Those behind this absurd demand see a certain threat in the possible adjustment of the Kosovo administrative line. Such a concern seems all the more hypocritical if you think about who and how dismembered Yugoslavia.

Regardless, Russia and Serbia continue to believe that it is necessary to comply with UNSCR 1244. The search for a compromise during the negotiating process is the exclusive prerogative of Belgrade and Pristina. They must articulate and adopt the final decision to be approved by the UN Security Council. Moscow will agree only with a settlement that Belgrade will accept.

With regard to external assistance to the talks, it should be impartial in monitoring compliance with the international legal framework for dialogue without imposing ready-made solutions.

Moscow and Belgrade are strategic partners. Our aim is to deepen mutually beneficial cooperation in a wide range of areas. This approach will not be affected by Serbia’s plan to negotiate accession to the EU. Serbia will continue to promote its ties with Russia and the EAEU.

We will continue to work closely to achieve settlement in Kosovo based on respect for UN Security Council Resolution 1244.


Sergey Lavrov                                         Ivica Dacic



23.09.2020 - Vladimir Putin's video address to the 75th anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 22, 2020

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

22.09.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Al-Arabiya channel, Moscow, September 21, 2020

Question: I would like to start by asking you Sir about a few topics and Libya is on the top of them, the threat of a possible regional war starting from Sirte still looms large. We now hear about understandings reached between Russia and Turkey on a comprehensive ceasefire in Libya. If this is the case, can you explain to our viewers in a more detailed way Russia’s efforts to implement such a ceasefire and will there be any kind of guarantees that the ceasefire will hold, while Russia and other international actors seek a United Nations-sponsored political solution for the crisis?

18.09.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RTVI television, Moscow, September 17, 2020

Question: I’ll start with the hottest topic, Belarus. President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko visited Bocharov Ruchei. Both sides have officially recognised that change within the Union State is underway. This begs the question: What is this about? A common currency, common army and common market? What will it be like? Sergey Lavrov: It will be the way our countries decide. Work is underway. It relies on the 1999 Union Treaty. We understand that over 20 years have passed since then. That is why, a couple of years ago, upon the decision of the two presidents, the governments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus began to work on identifying the agreed-upon steps that would make our integration fit current circumstances. Recently, at a meeting with Russian journalists, President Lukashenko said that the situation had, of course, changed and we must agree on ways to deepen integration from today’s perspective.

15.09.2020 - Excerpt from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RTVI TV channel, Moscow, September 14, 2020

Question: You have been the Foreign Minister of Russia for 16 years now and had to deal with the most serious challenges of this century. Sanctions were imposed. We began to adapt to them and survived them. Germany announced that it has received the results of Alexey Navalny’s tests. France and Sweden confirmed the presence of the Novichok agent in them. Do you think Navalny’s case may become the driver of new anti-Russia sanctions?

14.09.2020 - Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from the Moscow, Kremlin, Putin programme Moscow, September 13, 2020

Question: Given the serious tensions in the world today, differences sometimes can also arise between the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Can the SCO format help smooth over these differences?

12.09.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Moscow, September 11, 2020

Ladies and gentlemen, Today’s talks with my colleague and friend, member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, were held in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust and were very substantial.

11.09.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the press conference following the SCO Foreign Ministers Council Meeting, Moscow, September 10, 2020

We have completed the Meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Member States. It was very fruitful. We approved a press release expressing our views on general political matters, so I will not elaborate too much on these subjects.

10.09.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi, Moscow, September 9, 2020

Ladies and gentlemen, We have had very constructive talks as part of the regular communications between our countries’ foreign ministers. Back in June, we held several in-depth meetings via videoconference, but today we had an in-person meeting in order to prepare for the large-scale bilateral events scheduled for this year. These are to be held during the Russia-Kazakhstan Interregional Cooperation Forum and the 65th anniversary celebrations of the Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is our shared pride, as well as during the preparations of the upcoming meeting of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation and subsequently during the plenary meeting of this important structure.

10.09.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the official reception for the SCO Foreign Ministers Council, Moscow, September 9, 2020

We have gathered here and will start our work now. Our main task is to prepare for the meeting of the Heads of State Council, as President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin just said. The summit is bound to become the key event of Russia’s chairmanship. In our work, we are primarily guided by the Russian chairmanship’s action plan, which was endorsed by the President of Russia and approved by the other heads of state.

09.09.2020 - Foreign Ministry statement on the situation around Alexei Navalny

In connection with the demarche undertaken by the Group of Seven on the ‘Alexei Navalny case’, the Foreign Ministry has issued the following statement. Russia insists that Germany provide data on Alexei Navalny’s medical examination, including the results of the biochemical tests, as per the official request for legal assistance submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation on August 27, 2020. Berlin has not been willing to respond to our repeated requests in a prompt and constructive manner.

all messages