My counterpart has just said about the concept of “modernization partnership.” We discussed in detail how to translate it into the language of practical actions in all areas of our relations. I’ll also note that this German initiative is already gaining a pan-European dimension and becoming the “guiding star” for Russian-EU relations. We appreciate this proactiveness of our German partners.

Intensive political contacts between our countries are developing. We discussed in detail the schedule of dialogue for this year. Its central moments will be the 12th Interstate Consultation in the summer of 2010 in Russia and the visit to be paid by the German President to the Russian Federation in the autumn. Of course, this is a year of anniversaries: there are a number of memorable historical dates in our relations. I mean not only the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II, but also the 20th anniversary of Germany’s reunification and the 20th anniversary of the conclusion of the grand treaty between our country and the reunited Germany. We have agreed to include these memorable dates in the events that our ministries, publics and business circles plan for the current year.

We have a great interest in dealing, as part of the partnership with Germany and in the context of Russia-EU relations, with those issues that still remain unsettled between Moscow and Brussels. I paid special attention to visa problems. We want finally to take additional steps in this area and move on the basis of a clear timetable towards the goal that was proclaimed in 2003, namely, a visa-free regime, freedom of movement between Russia and the EU.

We discussed a number of international issues, including Afghanistan. We recently participated in the international conference on Afghanistan. We have coinciding approaches and interests here. We agreed to seek additional joint opportunities for action, which will become part of international efforts in order to help more quickly the Afghan government to take responsibility for the situation in the country into their own hands.

On Iran, Russia and Germany participate in the work of the “Three plus Three.” We’re committed to the accords reached within this format, the politico-diplomatic methods of resolving problems with the Iranian nuclear program. We confirmed that in some situations, if we do not see a constructive answer from Iran, we will have to discuss this in the UN Security Council.

Of the other issues I want to particularly emphasize the active role of Germany in bringing the problem of disarmament and arms control back into multilateral negotiations, moreover as a priority task. We have quite a lot of common assessments regarding the need to seek ways to harmonize the architecture in Europe in all its aspects and dimensions. I am sure we will continue the dialogue this year, we will still have more than one meeting with my colleague and, I dare say, friend Guido Westerwelle, to whom I am very grateful for the hospitality and the excellent organization of our work in this delightful corner of Berlin.

QUESTION (addressed to Westerwelle): What hopes do you entertain in connection with the arrival of an Iranian delegation in Munich?

LAVROV (in addition to the response of Westerwelle): I am scheduled to meet in Munich with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, tonight. I will try to make plain once again to him, with all clarity, that we have a united position in the “Three plus Three” that Iran must answer the IAEA’s questions and take certain steps that would assure us of the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program. The questions the IAEA has placed before Iran are not super complicated. The actions we first agreed with Iran on October 1, 2009 in Geneva are not overly complex or excessive. Now there’s really a chance to find agreement on a number of specific and practical matters, such as the supply of fuel for the Tehran research reactor. Agreement on these questions could greatly change the atmosphere of the talks and provide the conditions to return to negotiations between the “Three plus Three” and Iran and to resolve these matters by politico-diplomatic methods. I will convey all this to my Iranian counterpart. I hope that he will hear it, and a concrete, constructive reaction will follow.

QUESTION: Did the talks touch on the theme of the so called Hobert case?

LAVROV: Yes, we discussed the so-called Hobert case. We had also discussed it in November 2009, when Guido Westerwelle was on a visit to Moscow.

We are grateful to the German Foreign Office for the efforts undertaken since then. More specifically, the German ambassador in Moscow met with the relatives of the victims.

Today we stated that the lawyers for the parties remain in touch, exploring the possibility of an out of court settlement. We also recalled that there still exist unresolved issues for the verdict of German Themis. In particular, I recalled that the Russian Prosecutor General's Office had sent an inquiry to the Munster prosecutor's office and court regarding what our experts believe was the incorrect observance of due process during the trial and sentencing. We asked to expedite response to our inquiry. In all circumstances, we want to help the families of the victims achieve justice in this case.

Once again I want to say that, as regards the German Foreign Office, we feel a concerned, informal attitude and a desire to help notwithstanding all the peculiarities and specifics of the interaction between branches of government in Germany.

QUESTION: How could you comment on recent US statements that it is ready to deploy interceptor missiles in Romania and in the Black Sea?

LAVROV: I’ve heard that a US proposal to Romania, to place within its territory some elements of a missile defense system, was announced. I’ve heard nothing about the Black Sea.

We believe that we have an agreement with the Obama administration, which is an agreement between the two Presidents already under implementation, to conduct a joint analysis of threats and risks of missile proliferation as a first step. We also want European experts and states, including Germany, to be involved in this work. After we have realized that we have a common understanding of missile proliferation risks and a common understanding of the likely threats in this area, it will be possible to talk about what specific measures, including diplomatic, economic, and possibly military-technical, need to be taken in this field. We expect that in the context of this dialogue, the US partners will give exhaustive explanations to the questions raised by us, on the understanding that the regime of the Black Sea is governed by the Montreux Convention, which must be observed.

QUESTION: US Secretary of State Clinton ahead of the Munich Conference expressed skepticism about the Russian proposals regarding the security architecture in Europe. Does the Russian side have any new proposals that will help convince Western states of the correctness of the initiative launched?

LAVROV: The approach of the Russian side is very simple. We do not offer anything other than how to impart a legally binding character to the declarations that were already adopted at the highest level by all states of the Euro-Atlantic region. This is about the declaration of the indivisibility of security, in particular, that no state would reinforce its security at others’ expense. On paper, this is proclaimed. We propose to make it a norm of law. Tomorrow I will talk more about this in Munich.

In vain do some pretend they do not understand what is at issue and continue to say they would like to know more; everything is already known. All we need is an answer, yes or no. I heard Hillary Clinton’s statement. She said the US supports the aim, but not the Russian approach with regard to the need to ensure the indivisibility of security. It's a bit strange, because if the same criterion were applied to determine the attitude of any state to its partners’ initiative, we would get nowhere. For example, I could also say that we support the goals NATO has set itself in Afghanistan, but not its approaches. This is the kind of talk which is already a bit outdated. It does not meet the challenges facing the world today. We all have a duty on any issues that affect a state to talk and try to reply on the merits, not formally. I hope that discussions at the Munich Conference will be constructive, and we will be able to hear replies on the merits, after all.