Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov remarked yesterday that “the conversation seemed to me constructive,” referring to his 1-hour-and-45-minute discussion with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Reykjavik , Iceland. Scheduled for an hour, TASS reported Lavrov commenting: “There is an understanding of the need to overcome the unhealthy situation that developed between Moscow and Washington in previous years.”
Lavrov elaborated the areas of agreement: “Today we confirmed our proposal to start a dialogue, considering all aspects, all factors affecting strategic stability: nuclear, non-nuclear, offensive, defensive. I have not seen a rejection of such a concept, but experts still have to work on it. We agreed to continue our joint actions, which are developing quite successfully, on regional conflicts where the interests of the United States and Russia coincide. This is the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, and the situation with efforts to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program. This is Afghanistan, where the expanded troika consisting of Russia, China, the United States, Pakistan is actively working. We discussed how at this stage we can make all our joint actions more effective.” Otherwise, Lavrov said that he told Blinken: “Our task is to make the best of the diplomatic opportunities that we have, and we are glad to see that you are demonstrating such an approach.” It will work if our dialogue is “honest, factual and with mutual respect.”
In contrast to Lavrov’s the-glass-is-half-full account of the meeting, the State Department provided a readout that was decidedly unenthusiastic: “The Secretary also reiterated President Biden’s resolve to protect U.S. citizens and act firmly in defense of U.S. interests in response to actions by Russia that harm us or our allies.” Then came the litany of complaints: release Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed; concern for the health of Aleksey Navalny and for the repression of opposition organizations; and stop the “continued military deployments in and near Ukraine.” While “near Ukraine"— meaning “inside Russia” — is at least comprehensible, the reference to “in Ukraine” has provoked some head-scratching. Is this a reference to “in Crimea", which was once part of Ukraine but is now part of Russia?