Geopolitical History Lesson by Lavrov

Longish Read

Yes, Lavrov again provides us with the historic background for today’s conflict instigated by the West against Russia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued IMO on odd PR about Lavrov’s talk, odd because it hasn’t done so before despite Lavrov’s numerous talks on this same topic. Before handing the stage to Lavrov, here’s the MFA’s unusual PR note:

On May 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part in a roundtable discussion on “The Ukrainian Crisis: Geopolitical Aspects.” The event, organised by the Diplomatic Academy with the support of the Russian Foreign Ministry, brought together more than 70 ambassadors and representatives of diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow.

In his speech, Sergey Lavrov spoke in detail about the destabilising actions of the United States and the EU, the purpose of which was geopolitical and geo-economic expansion to the east in order to spread and consolidate their dominance. The minister explained that the reason for the unleashing of a hybrid war by the West against Russia was the independent foreign policy of our country, which advocates the formation of a more just world order based on the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnection.

The minister cited examples that testify to the deliberate efforts of our opponents to incite an armed conflict in Ukraine, cultivate anti-Russian and neo-Nazi sentiments there, encourage the Russophobic course of the Kiev regime and turn the latter into an obedient tool for fighting Russia, including "on the battlefield."

Sergey Lavrov also noted that the confrontation has acquired a global projection, since the West is involving the countries of the world majority in it, seeking to limit their interaction with Russia. The minister urged not to succumb to pressure from the United States and its satellites and refuse the invitation to take part in the "peace summit", which is being organized in Switzerland on June 15-16. It was emphasised that the purpose of this event is not to consider the possibility of resolving the conflict around Ukraine, as it is stated, but to develop and present an unacceptable ultimatum to Russia.

At the round table, convincing facts and figures were presented that testify to the groundlessness of the accusations against Russia of destabilizing the situation on the world food market. It was noted that it is the Westerners who create obstacles and problems in this area.

The participants of the round table had an interested exchange of views on the Ukrainian crisis and other topical issues on the international agenda.

The PR encapsulates the entire event, not just Lavrov’s history lesson, which follows:

Ladies and gentlemen,

Your Excellency,

I would like to hope that such meetings, which have already been held traditionally in our country (1, 2, 3, 4), are useful for you, for your understanding of how the geopolitical struggle around another threat invented by the West to suppress the Russian Federation is developing. I am referring to the creation of a Nazi regime in Kiev through a coup d'état in order to develop Ukrainian territory, to create direct threats to the military security of our country, to destroy the culture that the ancestors of the people living there have been creating for centuries in the territories of Donbass and Novorossiya. They want to remain true to their history, language, they want to raise children in the traditions that have been created and passed down from generation to generation in their families for centuries.

The title of today's event included the topic "The Ukrainian crisis. Geopolitical Aspects". Its roots go far back in modern history, in the period preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in subsequent years. Today, many historians, political scientists and experts in the West are saying what their colleagues have been saying for many years, maybe even decades: when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, when the Soviet Union "opened up" to unite with Western Europe, the United States and the West as a whole, on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect, no one dissolved NATO. And, by and large, he was not going to do it. Many consider this a mistake.

Just yesterday, the well-known American economist and political scientist J. Sachs, in an interview with T. Carlson, once again recalled that, in his opinion, historical mistake. History has no subjunctive mood. NATO exists. Moreover, apparently, there are reasons why the alliance did not reciprocate the Warsaw Pact, did not dissolve itself, did not offer the former countries of the socialist camp to leave only the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, not to have any closed military blocs and, from now on, to continue to live in a new way, openly, on the basis of mutual respect, in search of mutual benefit. This was not done.

We can now say with certainty that the reason for this decision was the ineradicable desire of the United States to preserve NATO as an instrument of control over Europe. Including over Germany, where dozens of American military bases are still located, so that the Germans "obey" orders from Washington. So that when the United States blew up the Nord Stream pipelines in order to eliminate a competitor in the European energy market, the Germans were silent, silently swallowed it and were ready to pay one and a half to two times more for American liquefied natural gas than they paid for Russian gas supplies through the pipeline. In order to keep Europe in a subordinate position to the United States, this bloc was needed. That is why, at the moment when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, no one dissolved the Northern Alliance. On the contrary, they began to use it to strengthen American hegemony on this continent, and now also on other continents.

Recently, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was asked: is the alliance a defensive alliance, you defend the territory of your member states and do nothing else? He replied that yes, it is. But the threat to the territories of member countries allegedly comes from different parts of the world, including from the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, the alliance will spread its infrastructure and create alliances in this region (in the Asia-Pacific, which they, for obvious reasons, call the Indo-Pacific). Jens Stoltenberg said that in this sense, the security of the Euro-Atlantic region and the Asia-Pacific region are inseparable. So many countries of our common continent should prepare for the fact that NATO will try to ensure our security.

But let's go back to the period of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition to the fact that agreements were reached in the field of arms control, which many of our experts consider not entirely fair and containing unilateral concessions on the part of the Soviet Union, in addition to subsequent agreements in the field of arms control, which provided for the permanent presence of American observers at the gates of the facilities where our strategic nuclear weapons were produced, in addition to the fact that in the early 1990s a huge number of American and other Western experts worked in most of the government agencies of the new Russian Federation, the Soviet Union was declared (maybe for this reason) the main rival, competitor of the United States and its world order. A country that, at the head of the socialist camp, in cooperation with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, promoted the principles of respect for the UN Charter. And then she disappeared.

Remember how the American economist, political scientist and scientist F. Fukuyama announced the "end of history." He said that from now on and forever, the liberal world order will dominate, they do not expect any opposition from either side. But this only meant that they decided that the new Russia, as well as all the former republics of the Soviet Union, as well as all the former members of the Warsaw Pact, was now "in the pocket" of the United States and the "collective West." This was an obvious opinion that prevailed there and dominated for quite a long time. And even now they are still driven by this idea. All the events that we are now witnessing stem from the desire of the United States, at the head of the "collective West", not to lose its hegemony in the international arena in any case.

This is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, when powerful economic giants are rising, primarily on the Eurasian continent, but also in Africa and Latin America. The struggle to maintain hegemony with the use of sanctions, blackmail, threats, and armed force is a struggle for a passing era. We see in this struggle that the West is "seizing" at all its illegitimate methods. The agony of the world order that the United States still imposes on everyone else begins. Not international law based on the UN Charter in its entirety and the interconnectedness of its principles, but a "rules-based order." This topic has already been discussed. When necessary, a coup d'état is organized and it is declared that democracy has prevailed in some country. And when revolutionary forces come to power somewhere in Africa and want to get rid of the last shackles of neocolonialism, then this is called a violation of the Constitution, sanctions are imposed and much more.

Let's go back to the beginning of the events that have now determined what is happening in Europe, and in the world as a whole. The West decided that Russia was "in its pocket". When, in 2000, after Vladimir Putin was first elected President of the Russian Federation, Russia began to regain its dignity and rightful right to its rightful place in the international arena, the United States did not take it seriously at first. They thought that these were some separate manifestations of the national character. Moreover, at that time, in the noughties, Russia, advocating respect for its own rights, defended these rights in the international arena exclusively through the offer of cooperation and equal agreements. There are many examples of this.

We have created an extensive system of interaction with the European Union. There were dozens of mechanisms, formats and structures that met many times throughout the year, developed roadmaps and agreed to create four common spaces throughout the Eurasian continent. There were many creative, progressive, promising ideas. With the same NATO. Despite the West's violation of its promise and commitment (given to the Soviet leaders, then to the first leaders of the Russian Federation) not to expand the alliance to the east, this expansion took place. Even in the late 1990s, Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov at talks with the North Atlantic Alliance showed his readiness "not to strike a pose" and not to start an aggressive counteraction to the violation that was taking place contrary to the "word of honor" of our Western partners, but began to look for a compromise. As a compromise, it was agreed, and the West assumed these obligations, that no significant combat forces would be deployed on the territory of the new members (we have come to terms with the fact that there are new members). All this was enshrined within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council, which also worked in many areas. Groups were created to combat terrorism, to assist Afghanistan and much more. Now all this has been destroyed, ruined by the West, by its unilateral decision.

But it seems that they compromised. On the territory of the new members, they say, permanent significant combat forces will not be deployed. After that, we began to notice that there is such a placement. The West began to tell us that these are not significant and permanent forces. They say that they have one brigade going there. This is on a rotational basis. Then this brigade leaves and the second team immediately arrives. Therefore, all this rotation has become permanent.

We proposed to agree on what the term "substantial combat forces" means. We have submitted specific proposals with figures on heavy weapons, small arms, and the number of servicemen who will fall under this definition. They categorically refused to even discuss.

As we repeatedly showed "goodwill" and offered to lay a solid foundation for our cooperation with NATO, they did not agree to anything that would in any way limit their freedom of action, including to the detriment of our interests. We began to understand (not only the futility of further relations with these states and their leaders), but the need to send our signal as clearly as possible. This was done by President of Russia Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference in 2007, who frankly and naturally politely drew the attention of the Western leaders present there to the fact that it would not be possible to dictate one's will to everyone and everything, and that the world is much more diverse than Western civilisation. Moreover, it began to deteriorate greatly in the context of those promoted ideas. In Europe, the United States and other countries of the "collective West," this warning made at the Munich Conference was not taken seriously either. They smiled, decided that Russia was expressing its dissatisfaction in this way. Our further contacts with our Western colleagues, during which we clearly and specifically explained the pernicious course that the West has embarked on, believing that our country can now be ignored, also went into the sand.

I note that we did not lose the desire to overcome this confrontation, which was accumulating and becoming more and more threatening. In 2008, we proposed to conclude a European Security Treaty. Its essence was simple. A few years earlier, within the framework of the OSCE, all countries of this organization at the highest level at the summit signed under the principle of indivisibility of security. It said that no country, no organization in the OSCE area will strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others, and no organization will claim to dominate this geopolitical territory. NATO did exactly the opposite. It continued to draw in new members, turning its "greedy gaze" to the countries of the former Soviet Union (in addition to the Baltic States, which was in the alliance even earlier).

We asked NATO that there is a political obligation not to dominate, and they are trying to do so and strengthen their security to the detriment of us. How are they going to fulfill it? But they replied that it was a political declaration signed by presidents and prime ministers, which does not carry any legal consequences, and legal security guarantees can only be obtained from NATO. We said "good". In 2008, a draft treaty on European security was put on the table. It contained everything that was written in the Declaration of the OSCE Summit. This was codified, containing a provision on legal obligations. But it was categorically rejected. They say that legal guarantees can only be provided to members of the alliance.

Then, in 2010, Russia proposed to conclude a treaty not within the framework of the OSCE, but Russia-NATO. They also refused. Our goodwill has repeatedly encountered just such behavior.

In December 2001, US President George W. Bush withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. President of Russia Vladimir Putin warned him that this was a rash step. George W. Bush said that the Americans would not create a missile defence against Russia, but against the DPRK and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Cheated. Now it is clear to everyone that the missile defense configuration of the United States and its allies is aimed exclusively at deterring Russia and China.

But at that time in 2010, we tried to convince the Americans and other NATO members of the need to be more careful in their actions in Europe and in the international arena in general, and proposed the creation of a joint missile defence system (Russia, the United States and Europe). They did not answer us anything intelligible, and then they let us go "on the brakes". They did not want to interact and cooperate with us.

A similar situation occurred with the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. In August 2019, the Americans withdrew from this treaty, accusing Russia of violating it (allegedly deploying the corresponding ground-class missiles in the Kaliningrad Region). The United States avoided any contacts and simply took this step unilaterally. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said at the time that we regretted it because it was a destabilising weapon. He proposed the following. Russia declares a moratorium, although the Treaty ceases to exist due to the withdrawal of the United States from it. Russia will comply with the provisions of the treaty, thereby declaring a unilateral moratorium. It will do so until American-made ground-class missiles appear elsewhere in the world. Now this is happening in the Philippines, in Denmark. Such missiles are already being deployed there. We have made a statement that we warned a few years ago. But at a time when this had not yet happened, in 2019, we tried to somehow save the situation, to prevent the spread of a new destabilising type of weapon around the planet. Vladimir Putin has taken the initiative. He sent letters to NATO countries in which he set out our position, including a unilateral moratorium, and called on NATO to collectively join our moratorium (declaring its unilateral moratorium) in the absence of a treaty. Moreover, he wrote in this message that since they have suspicions that Russia has already deployed the relevant missiles in the Kaliningrad region on its Iskander systems, which are prohibited by the outgoing treaty, we invite you to come and make sure that this is not the case.

We, in turn, would like to come to Poland and Romania, where the MK-41 anti-missile systems are located at the bases of the third missile defence position. These systems, according to an advertisement posted on the website of the manufacturer of these weapons, can be used not only as missile defense systems, but also as launchers for the very same intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles that were previously banned by the treaty. That is, honestly: come to us, and we will come to you. We will be convinced and then we will observe the moratorium without any agreement. They categorically refused. This alone suggests that they "played" unfairly.

Initially, the Americans withdrew from this treaty in order to develop new "expanses", including the Philippines. I am sure that other countries in the Asia-Pacific region will also receive requests to provide "hospitable territory" for similar weapons.

Our goodwill did not dry up. In January 2020, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu invited President of Russia Vladimir Putin to Jerusalem to attend the unveiling of the Candle of Memory monument in honour of the heroic residents and defenders of besieged Leningrad. In his speech, President Vladimir Putin expressed concern over the accumulation of tensions in international relations. I called on the permanent members of the UN Security Council to show responsibility, gather at the summit and discuss all claims against each other. We should honestly consider how we perceive international relations (at that time), what problems each of us sees and how we propose to overcome them. The PRC was supported by the former, and so were the French. The United States was silent, and the British looked at the "senior comrade". As a result, everything "slipped" on the brakes.

The latest attempt was made in the midst of the war that the Kiev regime waged in Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. The Ukrainians stated that they would not comply, although they were approved by the UN Security Council. This example was contagious for Washington. A couple of months ago, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire for the period of the holy month of Ramadan. The US Permanent Representative, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, abstained and did not use the veto, but when the resolution was adopted, she said that it was not binding. There is a direct parallel between the Minsk agreements and the US position on UN Security Council decisions.

Nevertheless, at the initiative of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, in early December 2021, we drew attention to the fact that the situation is becoming very serious and it is necessary to stop the actions taken by the Ukrainian regime in violation of the Minsk Agreements. We proposed to conclude two treaties and circulated them in December 2021 – one with the United States, the other with NATO countries. They are how to ensure European security with full consideration of the legitimate interests of all participants, including Russia, Ukraine, and European countries. The main point was that Ukraine should not become a member of any military bloc. We were told that it was none of our business. They refused to discuss the proposals. Although before that, they had been sounding the alarm for several months, they came to us (the CIA director and other emissaries) and called for a solution that would not involve the use of force.

Throughout all the persuasion, the Ukrainian regime used that same force on an increasing scale. The West rejected our December proposals, and in January-February 2022, Ukraine, still rejecting the Minsk agreements, announced the beginning of Plan B and multiplied the intensity of the bombing of Donbass. We had no choice but to declare a special military operation. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail.

As for how it developed geopolitically. In 2021, we were told that Ukraine and NATO decide for themselves how to build their relations. Like, don't even bother. This is exactly how the European Union responded to us eight years earlier. In 2013, then-President Viktor Yanukovych, during the talks on the Association Agreement with the EU, drew attention to the fact that it could contradict Ukraine's obligations under another agreement, the CIS Free Trade Zone Agreement. There were no tariffs on almost all goods, and we (and other countries of the post-Soviet space) had quite serious tariffs on some types of products in our relations with the European Union. Brussels wanted to zero out all tariffs on the export of its goods to Ukraine. A collision arose that threatened to turn Ukraine into an open, wide "road" of unnecessary exports, contrary to the agreements between Russia and the EU.

In December 2021, we proposed to the North Atlantic Alliance to look at how not to infringe on anyone, and in 2013 we called on the European Union to think about how to harmonize the current free trade agreement for Ukraine and the future Association Agreement. At that time, the head of the European Commission, Josep Manuel Barroso, told us not to meddle in their affairs with Ukraine. They allegedly do not interfere in Russia's trade relations, for example, with Canada. This statement once again confirmed that he is a man of little intelligence.

The refusal played a fatal role. When Viktor Yanukovych realised that he needed more time to figure out what to do with the Association Agreement, the European Union launched a wave of protests. On a permanent basis, they "sat down" on the main square of Ukraine, the "Maidan" started, which ended in a coup d'état. In short, this is the geopolitical background.

The current geopolitical line of the West is no different from those approaches when it was driven by a single desire – to prevent Russia from getting stronger and taking its rightful place in the international arena. They wanted to surround our country with a "belt" of unfriendly states. This happened in 2008, when they "instigated" the then President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili to aggression against South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers. To a certain extent, they are still trying to take over Moldova completely, putting leaders there who proceed from the interests of the West, and not their own people. There are many other examples.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin visited Uzbekistan on May 27-28. We have regular contacts with our Kazakh friends and with all Central Asian countries. We see how the West wants to spread its influence there.

The task of isolating Russia and preventing it from developing, fully realizing its potential, is illusory and utopian. But the "quality" of today's politicians in the West allows us to assume that they can seriously make illusions and utopias their practical program. As they say, let them try. No one doubts that this will end in failure.

They still have a mentality and goals that began after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the realization that Russia turns out to be "disobedient" and "resists" demands to follow their orders. This is manifested in the specific "twists" of the situation around Ukraine. Already "quietly" there is talk that it is possible to hit any part of the Russian Federation. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke in detail on this topic at a news conference following his visit to Uzbekistan. I'm sure you're familiar with what he said. I will not repeat myself.

Lavrov makes it seem like the entire conflict is simple and easily solvable if only the West, mainly the Outlaw US Empire, would awaken to reality and listen to reason. Unfortunately, Lavrov only provides the most recent portion of a much longer history of a conflict that goes back many years depending on the starting point one selects. Nor can Russia submit to the West’s diktat as it’s well aware where that will lead. So, we are faced with one of Crooke’s Mad Elephants. I’m not saying Lavrov’s historical review is incorrect. Rather, IMO he’s too tactful—liars need to be called liars. And the Outlaw US Empire lies to everyone without exception. Plus the methods the Empire employs to keep its hegemony are not just illegal but immoral. Before the SMO began, on 4 February 2022 in Beijing, Presidents Putin and Xi issued a Joint Declaration that ending the Empire’s global hegemony would become their most important shared goal while creating a Multipolar World where humans share a common future, and every year since at their Summits the Joint Declaration is modified and repeated while keeping the initial goals intact.

*
*
*
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!