Уважаемые 

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Foreign Ministry is very pleased with the businesslike and informative talks with Foreign Minister of Portugal, Augusto Santos Silva, which confirmed the fact that our partnership meets the interests of both countries.

Portugal is our longtime partner. Next year, we will mark the 240^th anniversary of diplomatic relations, which we agreed to do with a number of special events in Russia and Portugal.

We noted that, despite the fairly complicated situation in Europe and across the globe, our relations with Portugal continue to develop steadily in accordance with the main provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1994.

We have substantively reviewed the main bilateral matters based, primarily, on the outcome of the talks between our presidents in Moscow in June. We expressed mutual interest in promoting our relations across all areas, including inter-parliamentary relations.

We welcomed the positive dynamics in bilateral trade, which will exceed $1.5 billion by the end of the year. We expect that the meeting of the Mixed Commission on Economic and Technical Cooperation, to be held in Lisbon a couple of weeks from now, will help us find additional avenues for expanding our investment, trade and economic exchanges in general. We operate under an intergovernmental agreement on economic and technical cooperation, which entered into force last year and, of course, creates additional opportunities for bolstering our ties.

We also agreed to hold regular meetings between high-tech companies and annual meetings of the Russian-Portuguese business forum on innovation, which met during the international Web Summit in Lisbon for the first time last month.

We agreed to expedite preparations for a number of new contracts and agreements, including the intergovernmental Social Security Agreement which will cover, among other things, pension issues, as well as the Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Education, Qualifications and Degrees. This is an important matter for the citizens of our countries given the interest of the Portuguese in the Russian language and the interest on the part of Russians in visiting this beautiful country.

According to our Portuguese friends, the number of tourists from Russia reached 145,000 last year. We hope this number will continue to grow.

We also focused on supporting cultural cooperation with various festivals, as well as museum and exhibition exchanges. We noted that the exhibition, Treasures of the Portuguese Empire of the 16^th-17^th Centuries, held earlier this year, was widely popular with visitors at the Kremlin museums. We are pleased that the Days of Russian Culture held in Cascais, Portugal, last month were also of great interest to the Portuguese public.

Our ministries maintain close contacts. Today, we signed a Memorandum on Political Consultations, which Mr Silva mentioned. This document will provide a more systematic approach to our consultations and, in general, the dialogue between our foreign ministries. Today, we agreed to continue cooperation at multilateral platforms, primarily, the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. We exchanged views on a variety of issues on the agendas of these organisations.

We are interested, and see the same interest on the part of Portugal, in improving the situation in the Euro-Atlantic area. Unfortunately, the buildup of NATO military activities near our borders, the threat of violating the NATO-Russia Founding Act with regard to the non-stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members on a permanent basis remains a serious obstacle on the path to achieving this. Of course, when discussing relations with the European Union, we deplored the fact that, at the initiative of Brussels, almost all existing contacts and dialogue channels, including over 20 sector-specific dialogues and the work of the Partnership and Cooperation Council at the level of the Russian Foreign Minister and the High Representative of the European Union, were frozen. In a situation where EU members start reflecting on the need to rethink the architecture of European security (you are aware of the initiatives taken by the leaders of France, Germany and other countries), I believe it would be unforgivable if Russia and the European Union remained estranged in a situation where, on the contrary, they need to talk more in order to be fully aware of what the other partner is contemplating and what to do next in Europe in order not to create threats and risks for the people living on our continent.

We discussed the situation in Ukraine as well and confirmed the lack of alternatives to implementing the Minsk Package of Measures. We exchanged assessments of the situation in the Middle East, including Syria and Libya. We touched on a number of important issues on the African agenda, including resolving the situation in the Central African Republic, where, as you may be aware, our instructors are working, and Portugal is the main supplier of troops to the UN mission. I think this subject will also be discussed as part of our exchange of opinions and consultations.

I’m sincerely grateful to my colleague for the hospitality extended to my delegation and to me. I confirmed our commitment to meet regularly. Now it is Augusto Santos Silva’s turn to visit Russia. We will try to make sure that our hospitality is in no way inferior to the Portuguese.

Question: How will Russia respond to the United States possibly withdrawing from the INF Treaty?

Sergey Lavrov: We have stated our position with regard to the intentions of the United States more than once. We believe this to be a rash move. For many decades, the treaty was recognised as a cornerstone of international, regional and global stability. Russia is interested in maintaining it. When we heard about US plans to withdraw from the INF Treaty and received confirmation from a representative of the administration in Washington that this decision was essentially final, we tried to convince the Americans that it is important “not to slam the door” but to consider the matters that need further discussion so that the treaty can remain valid.

In addition to consultations through bilateral channels, we have prepared a draft resolution in the UN Security Council calling on Russia and the United States to keep the INF in place. Unfortunately, this initiative failed to gain traction, including jointly by all members of the EU or NATO. Although individually, almost every European capital sounded the alarm that the United States could bury this treaty. Unfortunately, our partners were unable to muster enough unity to speak in favour of preserving this critical document at the UN.

Question (addressed to Augusto Santos Silva): Some EU countries decided to expel Russian diplomats in the wake of the Skripal poisoning. Portugal didn’t join them. Can you comment on this? Is the question still open?

Sergey Lavrov: I will nevertheless outline my point of view, since Russia is being accused without a single fact to back up the accusations. All this talk about “highly likely” and that only Russia had motives, etc., exposes the absolute lack of any foundation for the approach that the British leadership is trying to promote in the international and European arenas. The fact that a country that has taken it into its head, and officially announced its decision, to leave the EU but is demanding that everyone do what the UK wants in their relations with Russia does not add credibility to the EU or its members. Those who succumbed to British provocations in connection with the expulsion of Russian diplomats, were unable to explain, in their conversations with us, what facts the UK presented to them, in addition to what was said publicly in the spirit of “highly likely.” The UK offered nothing to its partners. They were simply forced to comply with this Anglo-Saxon colonial demand.

Our questions are very straightforward unlike the explanations provided by the British. Our question of the day is: where is Yulia Skripal? Where is her father? They have not been presented to the public for many months now. The other day I heard someone say there was a television film about the Skripals. The journalist was quite meticulous about gathering the facts, both hard and circumstantial. The film did nothing to clear up the situation. Importantly, the film doesn’t say a word about the whereabouts of these poor people, the Skripals. I cannot rule out the possibility that the journalist who made this film didn’t even try to get access to them. Since access was not provided, as we can see from the fact that not a word was said about them, no access was provided. This means that the British government and special services have something to hide.

Question: Your colleague started by talking about joint efforts to combat international terrorism. However, a little earlier, the Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces, Nick Carter, said that the threat from the so-called Islamic State has diminished significantly after the caliphate was actually destroyed. At the same time, he said that in this situation Russia poses a greater threat to the West than Islamic terrorists, noting that London and the allies need to unite and focus on that threat. Is there a red line for you and Moscow in such statements?

Sergey Lavrov: We cannot tell anyone to be careful about revealing their intellectual and political abilities. I heard about this statement, and I have also heard many statements of this kind from UK Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson. We have no way of influencing the British Government’s decisions regarding whom they trust with leading their armed forces. I hope they review these decisions for sanity.

Speaking about this gentleman’s remark that Russia is now posing a greater threat to Britain than ISIS, the statement is trite. A similar statement was once made by former US President Obama when he addressed a UN General Assembly session. Ebola was next on that list of threats, which was effectively taken care of with our help. However, ISIS remains a problem, but was destroyed on the territory controlled by the Syrian Government. However, hotbeds of resistance are still there, mostly on the territory controlled by the United States on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River at the town of At-Tanf. The United States’ presence there is illegitimate on two counts. First, its presence there is illegal and, second, they have created a control area with a radius of 55 km without running this decision by anyone. The notorious Rukban camp is located in this area. This 55-kilometre area is also home to several thousand gunmen who, for reasons unknown, are viewed by the United States as an untouchable group which allows the Americans to justify their continued presence, including in this particular area of Syria.

The remarks about ISIS that we are hearing from the US Department of State are somewhat different from what Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces Nick Carter said. The State Department said the other day that ISIS had not yet been defeated and that the main prerequisite for doing so is a regime change in Syria and the withdrawal of Iranian and pro-Iranian units from the country. This corroborates my hunch that the Americans use ISIS as an excuse to perpetuate their military presence in Syria and consider it almost an ally in their fight against the Syrian regime. Again, the main goal is to topple the regime, not to defeat ISIS. Excuses like this do not add credibility to our US colleagues and show that, in addition to what they publicly declare as their main goal – the destruction of terrorism in Syria – they have a hidden agenda that is quite different.

Question: Portugal and Russia share more than a love for football, but also long-standing historical relations of which today’s meeting is yet another strong confirmation. What areas in Russian-Portuguese relations are of primary importance?

Sergey Lavrov: I think we have answered these questions. To reiterate, we have a mutual interest in promoting our relations across all areas without exception. With regard to bilateral contacts this is, of course, a political dialogue, including at the high and top levels, trade, economic and investment cooperation and interaction in innovation, culture, education, language support and much more. Of course, foreign policy interaction is part of it. The memorandum that we signed today contains an agreement to hold regular consultations on countering terrorism. This, as my colleague said, is a critical area today that includes overcoming new challenges and threats. In the same document, we agreed to hold regular consultations on specific issues, including cyber security. We strongly welcome this approach by our Portuguese friends, because in order to understand what is happening in cyberspace, we need regular professional contacts and consultations. I believe this can serve as an example for other countries that are concerned about developments in the cyber sphere, but avoid discussing it at a professional level, preferring the “microphone” level instead.