Argumenty i Fakty Interviews Lavrov

On the 20th, Foreign Minister Lavrov submitted to two interviews, one of which was to the Russian media outlet Argumenty i Fakty, while the other was for a documentary about MGIMO, the Foreign Ministry’s university. Readers at the Gym have read more Lavrov interviews than any other article subject; they’re that common. Lavrov is thus often subjected to the same Qs and tries not to provide the same exact reply, often adding some other little fact or nuance. It’s learning what those new tidbits are that make publishing these interviews important, plus there are always new readers joining the Gym who have yet to encounter a Lavrov interview. As usual, Lavrov gives very detailed answers to the complex questions asked which makes for a long read. Always at the link is a video of the interview in Russian for those able to understand. As usual, most Qs relate to the SMO and Western relations. Thankfully, the interviewer provides some information about Russian public opinion regarding the UN which doesn’t find expression in Russia’s official statements; so, readers will want to note that when it arrives in the transcript. The interview now follows:

Question: I will start with BRICS. Quite a lot of countries have expressed a desire to join this organization - about 30 (maybe more). On the one hand, Turkey, a member of NATO, which surprised me very much. On the other hand, we read that in Kazakhstan (although through the mouth of the President's press secretary Kassym-Jomart Tokayev) they say that they are not going to join this organisation in the foreseeable future. Why is there such activity and such interest in this association? Why is everyone invited to it? What will BRICS do in the future? Is it a competitor of other international organizations?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS reflects the processes that began in the global economy a long time ago. New centers of economic growth are emerging, with them comes financial influence, and with financial and economic influence comes political influence.

For more than one year and more than one decade, the center of world development has been shifting from the Euro-Atlantic to Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region. This trend was once noted by economists at one of the private Western banks, who identified the fastest growing economies in the world. The abbreviation BRICS, in fact, originates from this study (purely on the basis of objective statistical data).

It was then that BRICS was formed, completing the process begun by Yevgeny Primakov in the 1990s. This "troika" [RIC] still exists. We haven't met for a long time, there was a pandemic, then other circumstances prevented this, but it exists as an independent mechanism. Subsequently, Brazil joined RIC, making RIC BRIC. Then South Africa was added, and the BRICS (in the context of the analysis I mentioned) was formed as the representative of the fastest and most steadily growing economies in the countries of the World Majority.

Since then, BRICS has focused on the needs of its member countries. Interest in it is growing. This is an association without "leaders" and "followers", without any bureaucratic apparatus like the one we see in Brussels, where EU officials, contrary to the will and interests of a number of member states, dictate their decisions that do not meet the aspirations of voters in many countries. Instead of solving the problems of the members of the European Union, the Brussels bureaucracy is engaged in pumping Ukraine with weapons, raising funds for these purposes and other actions that damage the economy, social sphere and industry of the EU member states.

BRICS does not force anyone to sacrifice anything. Recently, German Foreign Minister Anna Baerbock said (and then repeated it again) that she knows that German voters are experiencing difficulties due to the fact that Germany is helping Ukraine, there is not enough money for everyone, but we must endure. This logic of dictating to its voters and EU member states by the European bureaucracy in Brussels is completely absent in the BRICS.

Unification does not come from artificial schemes. NATO decided that it was necessary to "contain" Russia, so they would expand indefinitely, declare sanctions, if only our country (the same line is being pursued in relation to China) does not become a strong competitor. That is, the bureaucracy has set a task. In the European Union, the NATO bureaucracy sets the goal, the Americans dictate. In fact, this is the same thing, because the Brussels bureaucracy is completely dependent on what Washington says.

In BRICS, no one is imposing such artificial tasks on anyone, no one is going to restrain anyone. This association is not against anyone, it does not organize any operations, does not launch any projects. BRICS is about combining the potentials of the participating countries and developing joint ways to use these potentials in such a way that everyone wins. Therefore, instead of artificial schemes within the framework of BRICS, plans and projects are developed "from life". Experts in the fields of economics, trade, logistics, transport, communications, modern information and communication technologies gather. Recently, experts from the tax services gathered. They exchange experience and present their capabilities in this area. Then it becomes clear how to combine these potentials for the benefit of all participants. This is the attraction of the BRICS for the countries of the World Majority.

In 2023, at the summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, the number of BRICS members doubled, but it was decided to keep the name as a world-famous brand. You are right, now about 30-odd countries want to establish relations with the association. Some of them have asked to join as a full member, and others, whom we are ready to invite and have invited before to various events as guests of the chairmanship, in the BRICS plus/BRICS outreach format.

Following the decision of last year's summit, we are preparing a proposal for our leaders at the level of experts and ministers for the Kazan summit event to create a new category of "partner countries" that will have broad rights and powers, but practically coincide, with the exception of some formats, with the rights of the permanent members of BRICS.

Among those who announced (and did it publicly) their desire to become a member of our association was Turkey. It is indeed a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. Recently, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, my good friend H. Fidan, said a very interesting thing on this topic. For many decades, Turkey has not been allowed into the European Union, and negotiations have been delayed in every possible way. It is unlikely that the EU will ever change its negative stance. This is another argument in favor of Turkey moving closer to the BRICS. But the Republic of Turkey participates in many other movements and associations.

You mentioned the statement by the press secretary of the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who said that in the foreseeable future, the Republic will most likely not apply to join the BRICS, because there is the UN, which is a universal and non-alternative organisation, where everything needs to be decided. This position needs to be clarified. Kazakhstan is a member of many other organizations - the OSCE, the CIS, the CSTO, the SCO and an active member of the Organization of Turkic States, which, at the initiative of Turkey, are now strengthening ties and are on the rise. The organization pays great attention to representatives of our Central Asian allies and strategic partners. None of this prevents either Kazakhstan or other Central Asian countries from actively participating in the United Nations, which is a universal structure, but which is now experiencing a crisis through no fault of our own. It seems to me that in the end, our southern neighbours, our allies in the CSTO, in the EAEU, above all, will see direct benefits for themselves from rapprochement with BRICS. It is not necessary to join, but there is no doubt about cooperating in the implementation of specific projects. This is in the interests of all of us.

The main difference between BRICS, as well as other structures that are created without the participation of Western countries by the states of the World Majority, the Global East, is that they are created not in order to fight with anyone, but in order to use objective, competitive advantages from geographical location, common history, proximity, commonality, and the coherence of economic structures, as is the case with the countries of the former Soviet Union. This movement is objective.

Time and again, the West has proved its readiness, its determination, without hesitation, to use illegal sanctions against any countries in which it sees a threat to its economic domination, violating the principles of the world market economy that it has propagated. Of course, everyone notices this. In such conditions, no one wants to find themselves in a situation where suddenly some Western leader "gets up on the wrong foot", and you do not understand against whom he will turn his unrighteous anger next time.

Of course, the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the African Union, CARICOM, the GCC and many other structures are now paying more and more attention to protecting the mechanisms of their economic interaction from arbitrariness, which, as the West has proven, can at any time overtake virtually any state that follows an independent course in the international arena.

Question: The "American block" of issues. Less than a month is left before the US presidential election. In your opinion, can their results affect the policy of the Americans towards Ukraine? Or is it already so defined and "reinforced concrete" that it does not matter who sits in the White House?

Sergey Lavrov: Our political talk shows are constantly holding discussions on this topic. They delve into the details, monitor the percentage gap between the candidates, the differences in certain opinion polls.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, we will remain an adversary for the United States, if not an enemy. In any case, a competitor. The Americans consider any international problem, any of their international interlocutors, first of all, from the point of view of the inadmissibility (as they say in their doctrinal documents) of anyone on this planet becoming stronger than the United States.

It is clear that this is a utopia [a fantasy]. If we look at the evolution of the contribution of the gross domestic product of various countries to world GDP, the share of the United States is steadily decreasing, while China, India, and the BRICS as a whole are steadily growing. It is already about 5 percentage points higher than the combined GDP of the G7 countries.

The United States does not want to give up the reins of power that it had after World War II through the Bretton Woods institutions, through the role assigned to the dollar in the international monetary system, even after the system of free exchange of the dollar for gold was abolished. The leading position of this currency is largely artificially maintained.

Judging by statistics, GDP, and other indicators that determine the share of votes of IMF member countries, the United States (if these statistics were reflected in real decisions) would have long lost the right to veto decisions that are used by the Fund's board of directors. They are slowing down this reform, which the BRICS are advocating, just as they are slowing down the reform of the WTO, where the Americans have blocked the work of the dispute settlement body for many years. All the numerous fair complaints and lawsuits (whatever you want to call them) coming to this body, including from China, whose goods are increasingly being discriminated against not only in the American but also in the European market, are stacked and nothing happens to them.

All of this reflects the main goal of the American ruling class – to prevent anyone from undermining their dominance. This goal is illusory. The historical process objectively goes in a different direction, and this will have to be reckoned with. Returning to the question of which of the US candidates or parties is more preferable to us, I can only say that we must prepare for the fact that the attack on our interests and actions to contain our development will continue under any administration.

On the other hand, we are ready to work with any administration that the American people ultimately choose, but only if such a conversation is mutually respectful and equal and based on listening and hearing each other. So far, we are following the election campaign in the United States and at the moment we do not see any signs that we will return to such a conversation.

Donald Trump and his vice president say that it is necessary to resume dialogue in order to resolve "one problem in 24 hours, another in 72 hours." We will understand what will be discussed only when the new administration officially takes office and formulates its position. I repeat that we have never avoided the dialogue and we did not interrupt it. It is important that the Russian Embassy in the United States continues to operate. The Americans are creating difficulties for the functioning of our diplomatic mission in Washington, and we are forced to reciprocate. Dialogue is the essence of diplomacy. We are ready for it on terms that correspond to the purpose of diplomacy.

Question: Is it impossible to say who is worse for us – Donald Trump or Kennel Harris?

Sergey Lavrov: We will wait for the will of the American people to be expressed.

Question: Against the backdrop of NATO nuclear exercises in Europe, US President Joe Biden said that he was proposing that Russia, China and North Korea talk about reducing nuclear weapons without any conditions. Is this really an invitation to dialogue?

Sergey Lavrov: No, this is a desire to earn election points for the Democratic candidate. This is all from the devil. The call to talk about strategic stability and nuclear arms control without preconditions is a deception. What does "without preconditions" mean? This means that the Americans reserve the right to declare us an enemy in their doctrinal documents, to officially declare that their goal is to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia on the battlefield. Judging by what US President Joe Biden has said, we should accept this, not demand the abandonment of this policy, but sit down with them and agree on arms reductions.

Now the Americans are offering the same to the DPRK. Arms control negotiations are conducted on the basis of mutual respect, recognition by both sides that there should be no war. When they tell you, let's start negotiations without any conditions, but my goal is to destroy you on the battlefield – is that smart? I don't think so. Long before the events in Ukraine, which had been prepared for many years by the Americans and the British and led to the coup d'état and everything that followed, we suggested that the United States conduct such a conversation.

When the nuclear "five" was engaged in a strategic dialogue, the Americans wanted to involve the PRC so that it could also enter into negotiations on the limitation of its weapons. But China, for obvious reasons, refused to do this, since its potential is not yet comparable to either the American or ours. Moreover, we are not in any military alliance with China and are not bound by the obligations that NATO members are bound by.

The alliance is an alliance of three nuclear powers (the United States, France, and Britain). Therefore, then we proposed to conduct a conversation, taking into account the combined potential of these three states, which is ultimately aimed geopolitically and practically at the territory of the Russian Federation. The United States said no. They say that England and France make their own decisions, and the Americans do not want to interfere in their affairs. It sounds funny. Their goal is to promote the idea of arms limitation between Russia and the United States for self-promotion, to manipulate public opinion, without touching the stocks of Paris and London and the issues of non-nuclear weapons inextricably linked with strategic stability, on which NATO is significantly superior to us. All these are components of strategic stability, which we would all like to see. But we need to talk about this taking into account all the factors, including those I have mentioned, and not slyly "throw in" a beautiful slogan that hides a desire to obtain unilateral advantages.

A couple of months ago, the Americans began to accuse us of planning to put nuclear weapons into outer space and pushed through a resolution in the UN Security Council prohibiting this. We told them that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which all nuclear countries are parties, states that no weapons of mass destruction are to be placed in outer space. This is a legal obligation. When the Americans decided to repeat it for some reason, we asked about non-nuclear weapons and why not supplement the Outer Space Treaty with the initiative promoted by Russia and China, and conclude another treaty on the prevention of any arms race in outer space. The only one blocking this is the United States. When they proposed in the resolution that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction could not be withdrawn into outer space, it meant that they wanted to be allowed to deploy conventional weapons there. They refuse to impose a ban on any militarization in space. Such are our partners. We have known them for a long time. We are already used to it.

Question: Until 2022, Russia had good relations with Finland. To the point that residents of the border regions of Finland and Russia went to visit each other for shopping. Everything changed abruptly after the start of a special military operation in 2022, Finland and Sweden became members of NATO. But changes have occurred not only in this, but also in everyday things: Russians have been banned from owning property, houses. The Finnish authorities promised to confiscate the cars. In principle, the rhetoric has become as if it was introduced by our Baltic neighbors - to blame the Russians for everything. More broadly, the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) are active suppliers of weapons to Ukraine. The countries are small, but they make a significant "contribution" to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It seems that we did nothing to these countries. Why such a hostile policy?

Sergey Lavrov: At first, many people were surprised. After they rushed to join NATO, the leaders of these countries, including President of Finland Alexander Stubb (I know him well, he was Foreign Minister for a long time, and we worked with him frankly and professionally), began to make statements that were the most aggressive towards Russia. It is better for scientists to look for the reasons, but from the point of view of diplomats, it is impossible to get rid of historical excursions.

Hitler, like Napoleon, put under arms against our country most of the European countries whose battalions, divisions and regiments fought on the fronts of World War II and the Great Patriotic War. And they did it not quite "under the stick". Based on the documents declassified by Russian archival services, it becomes obvious that our allies were thinking about which side to take when World War II began, and the USSR was not yet drawn into it. In 1940, France and England were ready to arm Finland in order to try to attack Leningrad. In 1945, judging by declassified documents, the Anglo-Saxons were plotting Operation Unthinkable, which concerned the infliction of mass bombing strikes, including nuclear strikes, on the Soviet Union and the dismemberment of the USSR.

I do not want to belittle the role played by the Allies in World War II to achieve our common victory. But the duality of their positions is proved by numerous historical facts. This cannot be ignored. One gets the impression that just as Hitler put most of Europe, including the French, Spaniards and Scandinavians, under the Nazi banner, so the United States is now rallying Europe so that it takes the brunt of the war with Russia – so far with elements of a hybrid war, but increasingly turning into a real, "direct" war against us. And also under the Nazi banner. Only this time, the "standard-bearer" is not Hitler, but Vladimir Zelensky.

I was surprised at how easily these instincts "returned" to the Finns and Swedes, or rather, to their ruling class. This is a signal that Nazism has not disappeared, that the threat of Nazism is alive and glimmering in many European countries.

The zeal with which the Finns and Swedes are advocating NATO for victory over Russia is explained not only by their historical instincts, but also by the desire to show their "senior comrades" in the North Atlantic Alliance that they have brought "added value" and "raise" the importance of their governments. We see this. I am convinced that the sensible forces in Europe, who have learned the lessons of history, see this too, including in Finland and Sweden.

Question: In recent days, the Western media have been actively discussing Boris Johnson's memoirs, and most of them quote one fragment where he complains that you allegedly forcibly sat him down in front of a heavily heated fireplace so that he would sweat profusely. How did you manage to do it? Do you plan to read the memoirs of the former British Prime Minister?

Sergey Lavrov: He is an eccentric. The part you quoted fits into his eccentric image. He was the guest of honor in our living room, where we treat our colleagues when they arrive for negotiations. The chair on which he was invited to sit is the same for all the guests. It was winter. In our Mansion on Spiridonovka there is a working fireplace. Everyone loves it. This creates not only additional warmth (the room is large, it is cool there in winter), but also comfort, a trusting atmosphere for conversation. I was sitting two meters away from him across the table. I remember perfectly well that he did not sweat. He didn't have the drops of sweat on his face that he writes about. To reiterate, Boris Johnson is famous for his extravagant actions, and he can easily lie. As we say, "if he lies, he will not take much."

In the same memoirs (I even wrote it out so as not to quote him incorrectly), where he no longer talks about politics rather than about the fireplace and his physiological feelings, he "slipped through", in particular, that he denies the fact that he disrupted the negotiations in Istanbul in April 2022. Although this fact was confirmed by D.G.Arahamiya, the head of the Ukrainian delegation, who initialed the relevant document. He still heads the faction of V.A. Zelensky's party in the Verkhovna Rada.

B. Johnson, proving that he had nothing to do with it, wrote down (I quote): "Ukrainians were never going to agree to V.V. Putin's terms," referring to the Istanbul story. “The conditions of the Russian President were not voiced in Istanbul. The Ukrainian delegation brought its own document, which we agreed to take as a basis.” I leave the outright lie that V.V. Putin imposed something and the Ukrainians did not agree to something on B. Johnson's conscience.

Question: Judging by the results of this year's elections, there is a certain turn to the right in a number of EU countries. What do you think about the chances that authorities and forces loyal to Russia will come to these countries and, for example, will they allow Mr Kickl to take any significant post in Austria?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think that these forces are characterized by the fact that they are loyal to Russia. They put the national interests of their people at the forefront of their political activities. The interests of a large part of the population of many European countries lie in the fact that a new war is not needed. And they are quite frankly trying to "push" them there. Vladimir Zelensky is doing everything to provoke new outbursts of indignation in world public opinion and to justify the involvement of Europeans in the war, being convinced that if the world community is presented with some new terrible pictures, Washington will force Europe to take military action. Such "large" members of the European Union and NATO as Estonia, Lithuania and a number of others are already seriously talking about this.

If we return to the topic of elections. In Europe, conservative ideas are becoming more and more popular. I don't know if the winning party in Austria will eventually be able to form a government. For example, France shows that even in cases where it is arithmetically more realistic, they find ways to prevent the elected representatives of the people from playing the first roles in governments within the framework of the same people's democracy.

I would like to emphasise once again that the so-called right-wing conservatives are loyal to their countries and peoples. We will talk with everyone who will turn to us with a proposal, look for common ground, think about how we can jointly make life better for our citizens. We will be ready to talk with everyone without exception. And we will not alienate anyone.

In his speech at the Foreign Ministry in June of this year, President Vladimir Putin, along with the principles on which we are ready to resolve the situation in Ukraine, put forward an initiative to form a Eurasian security system. Euro-Atlantic security models – NATO, OSCE, European Union. When the EU signed an agreement with NATO to provide its services to the North Atlantic Alliance, it also became part of Euro-Atlantic security models. The Europeans have completely discredited themselves.

We propose discussing the formation of a Eurasian pan-continental architecture, emphasising that the doors will be open to everyone, including the countries of the western part of the Eurasian continent. Let's see how realistic it is that Western countries will still be able to maintain their dominant positions, which they are counting on.

Global trends are so strong that they will only accelerate and intensify. The West must think about its place in the multipolar world order, which is now symbolized by a number of regional integration processes in Eurasia, Africa and Latin America.

Now these processes are supported by the global role of BRICS as an association interested in raising the voice of the World Majority in the mechanisms of global governance – financial, economic, trade and political, of course.

We respect politicians who seek to reflect national interests. If parliamentarians turn to us (they already exist) about a serious dialogue, we will also react based on our national interests.

Question: After World War II, the West was sympathetic when countries that suffered from Nazi Germany began to try and fight Nazi collaborators. Is there a chance that the crimes of today's Ukrainian "heirs" of Adolf Hitler will eventually be condemned in the West?

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to hope so. These crimes have no statute of limitations. The German (and not only) Nazis committed atrocities and horrors. I have already said that units from other European countries also participated.

Question: I am talking about today's "heirs" of Adolf Hitler from Ukraine. About what Stepan Bandera's fans are doing today.

Sergey Lavrov: They are his direct heirs. Stepan Bandera and Hitler are a single whole. It is not for nothing that a number of European countries, in particular, Poland, want to achieve historical justice. I understand that the Poles have their own serious "nuance". Nevertheless, objectively, they stand for the historical truth, so that, firstly, it is not trampled underfoot, and secondly, so that the Nazi movement, which is now raising its head, does not resume. This must be frankly admitted. Such crimes have no statute of limitations.

As you know, one of the goals of our special military operation is the denazification of Ukraine. There is no getting away from it. Along with laws banning everything Russian on the basis of racism – language, education, culture, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (which is also a manifestation of racism as a form of Nazism) – laws are being adopted that legitimize the theory and practice of Nazism in the Ukrainian legislative field. Thugs with chevrons of Nazi Germany march in torchlight processions. This is impossible to tolerate in modern Europe.

The biggest shame is for the leaders of the European Union, who have repeatedly stated from Brussels (President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and NATO, then-Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and President of the European Council Charles Michel) that they must support Ukraine to the end, because it is fighting for their European values. It turns out that European leaders are still ready to defend the so-called values of Nazism. Therefore, the task of denazification is by no means a slogan, it is an urgent task.

Question: You spoke about historical instincts. Developing this topic, I would like to continue the question about Poland and Warsaw. Warsaw insists on the exhumation of the victims of the Volyn massacre. If this happens, do you think Europe will talk about the connection between the current Nazi criminals in Ukraine and those who committed atrocities in 1943?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said that this connection is obvious to me. The current Nazi movement in Ukraine is based precisely on those events and "heroes" (or rather, criminals) of those events from which the current government in Kiev makes heroes.

The birthdays of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych become national holidays, the day of the formation of the UPA also becomes a holiday, May 9 is canceled, monuments to all those who defeated fascism and liberated Ukraine are demolished. There is a direct connection between them.

Question: Is there a chance that Europe will understand the existence of this connection?

Sergey Lavrov: Europe not only understands. At least, the liberal leaders who "rule" the European Union not only understand the existence of this connection, but also defend it in every possible way. Let me remind you of historical parallels, reviving instincts – any ideology is good, the most misanthropic one (just as they tried to "tame" the Soviet Union), as long as it works against Russia.

As for the exhumation and the topic of the Volyn massacre, which is still not closed in relations between Kiev and Warsaw. I think this is already a shameful dispute that the "figures" working for Vladimir Zelensky are trying to impose. I heard what they say: exhumation can only be carried out at the request of relatives. Let them come, they say. Their appeals will be considered and exhumed. The Poles insist that this problem was the most difficult in relations between states, so a solution is needed at the interstate level. Ukrainians say without hesitation that first in Poland it is necessary to restore the dismantled monument to the Banderites. That is the level at which the Kiev clique is conducting the dialogue. There can be no other interpretations than the fact that these are the direct heirs of the Bandera followers and the Nazis.

Question: In the comments, our readers leave rather harsh judgments about the need to "slam the door" to the UN and leave it. Experts often say that one way or another it is necessary to reform the world Organization. Is it possible to revise the results of World War II in fragments? Or will this lead to the collapse of the entire architecture that was created as a result of it?

Sergey Lavrov: This topic has been discussed for many years. You need to understand one simple thing. The UN is not something "sitting"... The Organization is now being accused of failing to stop the tragedy in the Gaza Strip.

In the Palestinian territories, after the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, the operation launched by Israel to "collectively punish" Palestinians has already claimed the lives of 45 thousand civilians. This is more than twice as many civilians have died on both sides of the Ukrainian conflict in ten years. A year or ten years.

The UN has been criticized for failing to stop the tragedy in Palestine. It means that the world Organization must intervene. It does not have its own army. There are only peacekeeping forces. They cannot fight against the regular armies of member countries. In order to even send them somewhere, you need a decision of the Security Council, where the United States, like other permanent members, has the right of veto.

In other words, the United Nations is not some kind of "noble hero" who, seeing injustice, should immediately "rush and extinguish the fire". The UN belongs to the member countries. They have their own rules, including the Security Council, which has the right of veto. Over the past year, the Americans have "safely" used it five times in response to the proposal of a number of countries, including Russia, to adopt a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire. They just used the veto and that's it. Now the United States is doing everything not to irritate Israel.

There are many examples when other crises in other parts of the world also became the subject of geopolitical struggle, a tug-of-war. When the Security Council, primarily its five permanent members, proceeds from the Organisation's mission to be the centre for reaching agreement on key issues, then everything works. I remember when I was Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, those were not the worst of times. From 1994 to 2004, many resolutions were adopted that helped to reduce the severity of conflicts, including on the African continent. But when the five permanent members do not want to find a common approach to something, but, on the contrary, to present one or two of their colleagues as the "main evil" and "bombard" the Security Council with draft resolutions condemning either Russia for Ukrainian affairs or someone else. This is their choice. They are going against the agreements that underpinned the creation of the world Organization. Those who say that the UN Charter is outdated in terms of the composition of the permanent members, yes. Countries such as India, Brazil and Africa's representatives should have long been on a permanent basis in the Security Council. This is necessary in order to ensure the representativeness and representation of the world majority. Now this has been done unfairly.

The main thing in the UN is its Charter. If you are listening to what the West is saying about the Ukrainian crisis, all of their documents call for compliance with international law, the UN Charter and respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity.

The Charter is not only about territorial integrity. This document speaks of the right of nations to self-determination much earlier than territorial integrity is mentioned. That principle had been the legal basis for the decolonization process. In 1970, the General Assembly specifically dealt with the relationship between the principle of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the right of a nation to self-determination. The Declaration on the Principles of Relations among States on the Basis of the Charter of the United Nations was adopted. It states that everyone is obliged to respect and observe the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory.

Who can argue that after the putsch in February 2014, the ultra-radicals who came to power, who first proclaimed their intention to deprive the Russian language of its official status in Ukraine, represented someone in Crimea or Donbass? Nobody. Therefore, the arguments that the UN Charter is "about territorial integrity" are not true.

Even earlier, in the very first article, it is written that everyone is obliged to respect human rights regardless of race, gender, language and religion. What about the language and religion in Ukraine? You understand everything perfectly.

I spoke about this at a meeting of the UN General Assembly and in my speeches to the Western media. I don't want to use jargon, but we have such an expression as "like peas against the wall". No one reacts in any way. As well as to an elementary request, which I have been repeating since the very beginning of the special military operation. After the provocation in Bucha, a terrible noise was raised, new sanctions were imposed against Russia, which was immediately accused of killing innocent people. This was also one of the reasons why the West "dissuaded" Ukraine from signing the Istanbul agreements. This "noise" lasted for several days. We began to ask if it was possible to get a list of victims, the names of the people whose bodies they showed when BBC journalists unexpectedly arrived there. Silence. Both last year and this year, at a meeting of the UN Security Council, I publicly asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to help ensure transparency in this tragedy used to prolong the war. This is not just idle curiosity. Looking into his eyes - and without reaction. Later, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and I held separate meetings. I asked him directly: what was the problem, why he could not ask the Ukrainian side to hand over the list of the dead to the Russian army, which was so noisy about this "crime" of the Russian army. Embarrassed, he said that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had allegedly requested such a list (after our urgent reminders), and no one had replied to them.

Also, no one will ever know what diagnosis the Germans gave to Alexey Navalny when he went there for treatment. We were not given the results of the examination. Therefore, no one knows with what state of health he returned. Also, no one provides us with any facts about Sergey Skripal and Yulia Skripal.

The information "explosion", the propaganda "foam" was removed, some new sanctions were introduced, and that's it. Immediately "into the bushes". No one wants to do anything else.

We understand who we have to interact with, what manners they have. We will proceed from this. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said more than once that over the past couple of decades we have had no lack of goodwill to establish equal and honest cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance. Following verbal promises, they signed "papers" that NATO would not expand. Documents were adopted in the OSCE that no one will strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others, that no organization in Europe will claim dominance. The North Atlantic Alliance was doing exactly this, despite all these "beautiful words". Then there were several more cases. In 2008, we proposed a European Security Treaty. In December 2021, we proposed an agreement that could eliminate the reasons that made our steps inevitable and had no alternative to protecting people in Donbass and Novorossiya. They lived on these lands, developed and created by their ancestors for centuries, built cities, roads, factories, ports, founded Odessa...

Now they say that Ukraine must be returned to the borders of 1991, and Russia must "leave". We are not talking about territories, but they are talking about them. They came up with something, found out somewhere, investigated that there are 10-12 trillion dollars worth of natural resources in Ukraine, so, they say, all this should be taken away. We are not talking about territories, but about people.

"These" don't care about people. How can you talk, even think about the 1991 borders, if Vladimir Zelensky declared all the people living in Crimea, Novorossiya and Donbass to be "individuals." Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was Prime Minister of Ukraine under Petr Poroshenko, called them "non-humans." Vladimir Zelensky said that if someone living in Ukraine feels involved in Russian culture, let them go to Russia. This was all said before the special military operation, when circumstances were already developing for solving the problems of Donbass by military means. Ukraine was "pumped" with weapons and set on Donbass. Therefore, they are talking about the territory, about the deposits of something that they need in America. Because in Africa, everything will soon be pumped out. And we are talking about people.

This should not be forgotten. That is why the special military operation cannot end otherwise than with victory. This is in the interests of people. We are doing all this in the interests of our brothers and sisters.

Question: The new NATO Secretary General Martin Rutte, who has been in office for a short time, has already supported proposals to grant Ukraine permission to use high-precision weapons for strikes on Russian territory. How do you assess the new NATO Secretary General in comparison with Jens Stoltenberg?

Sergey Lavrov: It is useless to assess. This is the "technical secretary" who voices the position agreed in NATO. And there the position presented by Washington is agreed.

They all try to be much more aggressive than they could. I know Jens Stoltenberg well. At one time, he regularly asked for meetings when we participated together in the sessions of the UN General Assembly in New York. He gave the impression of a constructive person. But the "varnish" flies off instantly, as soon as the command "face" follows.

Question: The work is...

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, there is such a job as talking with NATO Secretaries General.

Question: Let me end our interview not on such a serious note as the previous questions. There are a lot of anecdotes about MGIMO and its graduates. Do you have a favorite? What?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't remember right away.

Let's not joke about MGIMO. The university is not a joke, it is an alma mater, which now graduates much-needed specialists not only in the field of diplomacy, but also in various areas of public service, business, journalism. If I remember, I will send it.

Question: We discussed it in the editorial office and could not understand what kind of "meeting" was in Turkmenistan. At first, it was not announced as a major foreign policy event, and then a large number of countries playing a big role gathered there before the BRICS.

Sergey Lavrov: I was not there, but it was covered in detail in the media. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke there. Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov commented on this. I can't add anything. [My Emphasis]

IMO, BRICS purpose and aims are easy to see and understand, just as it ought to be easy to see why Kazakhstan has no current interest as all those organizations overlap in most ways. Just as clear are the aims of the Outlaw US Empire all of which are available in their public doctrinal documents—past and present. Policy-wise, very little is secret as it must be discussed before Congress. There’s a substantial portion of the Global Majority that sees BRICS as a potential replacement for the UN, yet almost everyone agrees on the centrality of the UN Charter. The basic issue is the Outlaw US Empire has violated the Charter since its inception which is why it’s an Outlaw Nation. That its vassals also engage in similar illegalities is a given with the why understood. That the Empire is considered a Mafia-like organization with very similar behavior is rather self-evident. IMO, the founders of RIC and then BRICS didn’t conceive it as a replacement for the UN; world events are making it seem as if it can become that. As Lavrov points out, the UN has no army with which to enforce the UNSC’s decisions, which along with the Veto contribute to its being seen as a failure. Historically, the Outlaw US Empire has always acted unilaterally despite what its Declaration of Independence says about needing to respect international opinion. Thus, the main question for the Global Majority is: Is it better to have an organization that even includes nations that constantly break its laws or is it better to have an organization that excludes such misfits and criminals; and if the latter, how should the new organization treat such miscreants? Again, how will it enforce what it deems to be International Law?

It seems clear enough that Russia and its allies share the humanistic principle that life is paramount and merits protection and promotion, whereas the Neoliberal world only looks at the monetary value of things and completely discounts the fact that every human life is priceless—even their own. I have a very good friend who says our Civilizational Conflict is between Humanity and those worshiping the God of Mammon—a conflict that’s been ongoing for over 4,000 years. I very much share his perspective as the conflict can thus be distilled to its basics and its evolution studied. I don’t know Lavrov’s position on that thesis as he’s never commented or been asked about it. I do know that current Russian governing philosophy is to put the interests of people first and to mold policies to advance those interests. That’s another reason why many nations are attracted to BRICS since its two major members assert that same philosophy, which happens to mesh with the UN Charter.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!