In Armenia, Lavrov Meets Teachers and Students of Branches of Russian Universities, the Expert Community and Activists of the Youth Wing of the Eurasia Autonomous Non-Profit Organization

It must be said that most of the transcript consists of Lavrov’s remarks/lecture to those present as only two Q&A are provided. As you see in the above photo, there are three people on the stage that suggests a discussion-based Q&A, but that’s not how it goes. Lavrov’s lecture ought to provide the basis for a good understanding of the current state of Russian-Armenian relations and the recent history and status of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There remain other events to report on. Time will be the controlling factor. Here’s Lavrov:

It is nice that we began our meeting with the performance of the anthems of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia. It is really important to always feel involved in our roots and in what unites us. The Motherland, embodied in the anthem, in the coat of arms, is not just a symbol. In fact, it is an important part of education, especially for the younger generation. But today we are not on an interstate visit. I want to talk more with students and teachers.

Thank you for the video that showed how the university is developing. At the end, there was a small problem. There are many such situations in Europe now. They immediately say that Russia "did it all." So see how to explain it.

Seriously, it's great to be here again. It is nice that this university is developing, setting goals and tasks that meet the training of national personnel for foreign policy and other services of the Republic of Armenia, and at the same time personnel who have a good command of the Russian language, knowledge of Russian history and modern relations between our countries. Such a reserve, an asset, is important for us to build up mutually beneficial efforts to strengthen the very positive trends that have been observed in our trade, economic and investment ties in recent years (at least the last couple of years).

Russia remains the main investor and trade partner of the Republic of Armenia. Trade turnover has reached a record high, approaching $11.6 billion. If we take the other members of the Eurasian Economic Union, this is all $13 billion. The fact that Armenia's economy is growing at a very solid pace is largely the result of cooperation within the EAEU. We discussed this today with President of the Republic of Armenia Vahe Khachaturyan and Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan. We will certainly discuss this trend and the tasks to strengthen it with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan immediately after our meeting here.

In recent years, we have had nuances in our positions on how we see the further development of our relations, alliance and strategic partnership, including alliance within the CSTO, the CIS and the EAEU.

Today, as a follow-up to the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan in the autumn of 2024, when our leaders agreed to resume contacts in all areas in full, because they "sank a little" at some point before their meeting, and following the agreement of the leaders, I received Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan on a visit in January of this year in Moscow. We are here on a return visit.

I would like to say right away that, as instructed by our leaders, we are very frankly discussing not only what is positively perceived by both capitals and serves to build up mutually beneficial projects, but also those things on which we do not have the same view of what is happening, in particular, the processes developing in the South Caucasus, where two trends are clashing.

One trend is to respect the sovereign choice of the countries located here–-the countries of the South Caucasus, the South Caucasus (as we used to say), Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia-–and to respect the legitimate interests of their immediate neighbours–-Russia, Iran and Turkey. The 3+3 platform was created, which unites the six (two troikas), which has already held a couple of ministerial meetings in Istanbul and Tehran and is now planning another third meeting. There is an agreement in principle to build up sectoral dialogues in the field of energy, transport and cultural ties within the framework of the six countries. There is good potential for this. We are now deciding on the venue for the third ministerial meeting, but I am sure that we will resolve this issue in the very near future.

This process–-the 3+3–-is absolutely not conditioned by the participants' obligations that by participating in this platform, they undertake not to develop relations with countries that are located outside the South Caucasus region. There are no such obligations. This is one trend.

Another trend is that it is difficult to speak definitely about the United States now, because the Trump administration has not yet formulated its clear, doctrinal guidelines regarding the South Caucasus, but their predecessors in the Biden administration, together with the EU, openly tried to extend their dominant position to this region and "crush" the processes taking place here. to prevent the consolidation of the three South Caucasian states with their large, large neighbors – Russia, Iran and Turkey. All this remains.

This trend and the manner of our Western "colleagues" are typical not only for the South Caucasus, but also for Central Asia and other parts of our huge, common continent. The same principle is here: "either with us or against us." Everyone knows the facts. When EU members propose cooperation projects to the Central Asian and Eastern European states located here, including especially Moldova, countries such as Mongolia and other countries on the Eurasian continent, all proposals concern the financing of projects that in one way or another give "donors" access to very sensitive information, including that related to the development of allied integration processes within the framework of the CSTO, the EAEU, customs statistics, border cooperation, border arrangements, and border crossing control. This trend is obvious. Politically, conditions are being put forward for the countries that receive such generous assistance to stop and reduce their interaction with the Russian Federation on these issues. "Either with us or against us." "Divide and rule." This principle has not disappeared from the foreign policy of the West, which still, recalling or not forgetting almost 500 years of domination in world politics through colonial wars, conquest, slavery, wants to continue to live at the expense of others.

We oppose this line with an approach based on equality, mutual respect and, above all, on the principles that are laid down and approved by everyone without exception within the framework of the UN Charter. It says bluntly: the United Nations is based on respect for the sovereign equality of states.

I do not remember a single conflict, not a single crisis situation after 1945, when the Organization was created, in which the West would respect the principle of sovereign equality. Not a single conflict. On the contrary. The West put forward its own concept of settlement, which met, first of all, its interests, etc. To be more precise, the alliance of the Soviet Union, including the Russian people, the Armenian people with Western countries, was due to the fact that both London and Washington realized that (they thought for a long time on whom to stake, and in the end understood) a "turning point" had come, and it was necessary to be in time for the "capture" of European territories, in order to then decide how post-war Europe would be organized.

This does not detract from the exploits of the Americans, the British, the French resistance and the resistance in other European countries, whose leadership submitted to the Hitlerites. It does not detract from the feat of our Serbian and Montenegrin friends who fought against the fascist hordes.

But nevertheless, this pragmatic, if not to say cynical, calculation was present before the beginning of World War II. At that time, London and Paris were choosing who to "bet" on and seriously analyzed the option of betting on Hitler in order to suppress the Soviet Union.

This option was present in the very last days of World War II. When, even before the Victory, before the hoisting of the Victory Banner over the Reichstag, before the capitulation of Nazi Germany, our then Western allies were already thinking about what was embodied, as we will now learn from archival documents, in the project of Operation Unthinkable. It is good that they understood that this was "Unthinkable." This name speaks for itself. The essence of this project was to carry out massive bombing strikes on the cities of the Soviet Union, including the use of nuclear weapons. Common sense made it possible to avoid this. It made it possible to move to the stage of peaceful coexistence, which was instantly turned into the Cold War, through Winston Churchill's Fulton speech, the creation of NATO, and the reciprocal creation of the Warsaw Pact.

We can trace this chain of events up to the present day. When the West grossly violated its promises made after the collapse of the Soviet Union not to expand NATO to the east, about non-proliferation to East Germany after unification with West Germany, about some rules for the deployment of armed forces there. All this was violated. NATO is expanding, and the infrastructure of the alliance already exists in East Germany. This process continues.

What is the point of these reflections? A huge number of them, some call them missed opportunities, some call them Western lies and deception. The promise not to expand NATO has simply been broken and thrown into the trash. The promise to ensure respect for the principle of indivisible security, when no one will strengthen their security to the detriment of others, and no one, not a single country, not a single organisation will try to dominate the European space, has been broken.

Since 2008, we have made numerous attempts to implement this principle of indivisible security, so that nothing that poses a threat to our national interests happens. We were told that, yes, they were accepted at the OSCE at the highest level, but this was a "political declaration." We replied that your word, the word of your presidents and prime ministers, was worth anything or not? We were told that politically yes, but legally they could not guarantee it.

We have proposed, and since 2008 we have repeatedly proposed, to codify a political commitment into legally binding documents. No. And why? We are proposing this commitment not to violate each other's security, which has already been adopted, but simply to make it legal. Because legal security guarantees can only be provided by NATO. This did not start yesterday, it began at least twenty years ago. Starting with President Vladimir Putin's Munich speech in 2007, when he said how come we agreed on this, and then it turns out that all this is not worth a damn from your point of view. You want to dominate, to suppress the national interests of everyone else, to subordinate them to yourself, to your selfish plans and the desire to make a profit, in fact, neo-colonial.

So our conscience is clear. For the past twenty years, we have been warning, almost every day, urging that this could end badly. After the coup d'état in 2014, they began to turn Ukraine into an "anti-Russia." They encouraged the junta that came to power, contrary to the plan of regulation under the guarantee of the European Union, under the slogans of the extermination of the Russian language in all spheres of life, which sent armed militants to seize Crimea, and then the Crimeans said that they did not want to have anything to do with them. Donbass said the same. They just put all their funds to support this openly Nazi regime. And now we have what we have.

They were deceived in February 2014, when a putsch was carried out the morning after the conclusion of the settlement agreement. A year later, having signed the Minsk agreements, they violated them and then admitted that they were not going to fulfill anything, but just wanted to buy time to pump Ukraine with weapons.

Just as now they demand a truce without preconditions with the same goal—to allow Ukraine to "catch its breath" and "load" it with new weapons. President Vladimir Putin recently recalled the situation with the talks in Istanbul in April 2022, when the settlement principles proposed by the Ukrainian delegation were initialed. We agreed with them. They were initialed by both us and the Ukrainians. And then the West forbade them to sign a treaty based on these very principles.

Therefore, now, when we are told: let's have a truce, and then we'll see. No, guys, we have already been in these "stories". We don't want it anymore. And the Macrons, and the Starmers, and the Ursula von der Leyens, and other European figures, who are now hysterically demanding that the United States join the anti-Russian actions and increase the number of sanctions–-this simply "gives them away".

Quite recently, they approved the 17th "package" of sanctions against the Russian Federation in the European Union. Moreover, they seemed to have it ready last week, but they announced that they would wait until President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin spoke and, depending on the results, decide whether to introduce this package or not. "But we demand a truce without preconditions." The conversation ended with both leaders speaking in favour of defining the parameters of long-term peace that would solve the problem of eliminating the root causes of this crisis. And they consisted in the expansion of NATO to the east and in the strategic course of the junta that came to power as a result of a coup d'état, to exterminate Russian education, the media and culture. Recently, they adopted a decision that is essentially aimed at eliminating the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Today, we handed over to our colleagues at the Foreign Ministry a list of laws that were adopted long before the special military operation, on the legislative extermination of the Russian language in all spheres of life.

It doesn't happen that way. If you are for human rights, if you are members of the UN and you have ratified the UN Charter, which directly states in the very first article that everyone is obliged to respect the rights of any person, regardless of gender, race, language and religion. And language and religion are what is prohibited by law in relation to Russians in Ukraine. There is no such thing anywhere else. Today we recalled that the Azerbaijani language is not banned in Armenia. In Azerbaijan, including Karabakh, according to the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the Armenian language is allowed and education in the Armenian language is allowed. Another thing is that there are few people left there, but it doesn't matter. The legislative framework is important. In Israel, Arab is legitimate. In Arab countries, Hebrew is the same. But in Ukraine, Russian is banned everywhere.

At the same time, it is not only paradoxical, but ridiculous (to a certain extent) that they, in most cases, speak Russian among themselves. It's so convenient for them. They simply want to eliminate any external signs of our common culture, history, common purpose in this world of the Slavic Orthodox peoples. And they want to "kill" Orthodoxy for the same purpose.

I would like to go back to what the European Union expected from the meeting, from the telephone conversation between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They said they would take a look. Following the conversation, both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump gave a positive assessment. They agreed that it is necessary to work on preparing concrete steps for a long-term sustainable settlement. Yes, including the use of the possibilities of truces, but above all aiming to eliminate the root causes. What did the European Union do? It announced that the 17th package had been approved. This means that they wanted to escalate the crisis. In other words, they said that they listened, but did not see any support for a truce without preconditions, which would allow them, the Europeans, to rearm Ukraine. This is what they need. These trends speak in favor of the fact that the Euro-Atlantic security structure in which we find ourselves, in particular within the framework of the OSCE, is becoming obsolete. Moreover, the Western participants in this "construction" are clearly abusing their position. There is such a specificity of differences in the positions of the United States and Europe. But the most important thing is that security is ensured, first of all, by taking into account geopolitical factors. And geopolitics and geography dictate the need to "build bridges" between all countries of the Eurasian continent. And first of all, the establishment of ties between the existing structures: the SCO, THE EAEU, THE CSTO, the CIS, the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road", the GCC, ASEAN. There are integration structures in South Asia. Many of them have already established ties.

It is rather strange not to take advantage of geography and history. We on the largest continent do not fully use the God-given opportunities for economic, logistical, and infrastructural development. The analysis shows that the use of the opportunities of the Eurasian continent in world trade, including the Northern Sea Route, will be much more effective than the routes through the Suez Canal and others that exist now.

But someone really wants to prevent such a mutually beneficial unity of all the countries of Eurasia, including the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. But we are working on it.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership based on life, on the basis of contacts between these integration structures, which would become the material basis for the Eurasian security architecture.

I repeat, this is a long way. This is not some kind of "scheme" drawn by someone. As NATO wrote, the alliance should dominate not only on the territory of its members, but also in the Far East, in the South China Sea, in the Taiwan Strait, in Southeast Asia. Because they wanted to, because they need to contain the People's Republic of China and isolate Russia.

No, our concept is not to write any speculative schemes, especially ideologically and geopolitically charged, but to get together and exchange opinions. As it has been happening for two years in a row at the International Conference on Eurasian Security, which is convened by Belarus, which is attended by ministers, political scientists, including ministers of some EU countries and other European countries.

We hope that Armenia will join these processes. We fully respect the desire of our Armenian friends to develop relations with other countries, European or non-European, with organizations that have been established in various regions of the world. But we proceed from the premise that such cooperation should not contradict the principles on which we interact within the framework of the CIS, the EAEU and the CSTO.

Question: How do you assess the current level and prospects for the development of Russian-Armenian relations? Is there really some understatement that we need to overcome?

Sergey Lavrov: I partially touched on this topic when I made my lengthy opening remarks.

There was such an understatement, as you say, in our relations, there were some complaints. There was a situation when in 2022, after the incident in Jermuk, our Armenian colleagues decided that the CSTO had not fulfilled its duties when it did not intervene in these clashes, which lasted three days and were then stopped.

After that, the CSTO summit was held here in Yerevan in October 2022. Following the Jermuk incidents, the CSTO mission led by the Secretary General visited the region, looked at how possible it is to strengthen security in this part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, and presented a plan for the deployment of a CSTO armed observer mission there, which we agreed on a long time before the CSTO summit in Yerevan within the framework of the meeting of foreign and defense ministers. Everything was agreed.

But in the morning, when the heads of state and government met, it was not possible to approve it. The Armenian side considered the assessments contained there insufficient. As they say, you can't force love.

But soon the Armenian leadership, with the consent of Azerbaijan, agreed to deploy an EU observer mission here. This was the choice of the Armenian side. We had no complaints about this. But a couple of weeks later, there was a meeting of the European political community, which was invented by French President Emmanuel Macron. He bluntly announced that these are by and large the European members of the OSCE minus Russia and Belarus. This is a frank position that indicates why this European political community was created.

We discussed this today. Recently, a regular meeting of this European political community was held in Albania. It seems that Armenia claims to host it next year. But we have given our assessment of this "venture". I hope it is understandable and will be received with respect, just as we respect the actions of our partners and allies within the CIS and the CSTO.

When the first meeting of this European political community gathered in Prague in November 2022, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, under the leadership of President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, approved a document stating that Karabakh is a territory, the status of which was defined in 1991 in the Alma-Ata Declaration on the "divorce" of the Union Republics of the USSR. In accordance with this declaration, Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan.

We took this as a sovereign decision of the Armenian leadership. Although, when the war was stopped, on November 9, 2020, President Vladimir Putin, President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan negotiated all night and agreed on a document on the cessation of hostilities, in which the status of Karabakh was postponed. It was not defined there.

This was a special task. Given the urgency of this issue for the peoples of both countries, the topic of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was left for later, for subsequent negotiations. A couple of years later, in 2022, the Armenian leadership decided that this was determined by the 1991 Almaty Declaration. There were no problems on our part here. This, by the way, called into question the presence of our peacekeepers, because the November 2020 agreement stated that the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was under the control of the Russian military peacekeeping contingent. And that's it. That is, neutral. But since in 2022 it was already decided that this was the territory of Azerbaijan, we gradually withdrew our peacekeepers from there. And now we have what we have.

Yes, there were, as you said, misunderstandings and suspicions. We are ready to discuss all aspects related to the situation, to our actions or to someone's inaction. We have not violated any obligations. It was a sovereign decision of the Armenian leadership. When such a decision was made, we did not know at all that such an agreement was being planned in Prague. We learned about this from the media. When someone from the opposition and other political circles tries to say that Russia gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan, it is not fair. Because this contradicts the facts. To reiterate, we learned about this from the media. For more than 20 years before the current situation, Russia helped Azerbaijan and Armenia to establish negotiations and discuss numerous options for a peace treaty, in each of which the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was postponed until later. We have nothing to reproach ourselves for.

We understand that there are different situations that develop in Armenia, given the domestic political circumstances, in Azerbaijan, given the same internal political circumstances. We have gone through a period of suspicions, misunderstandings and more misunderstandings. First of all, we managed to do this thanks to the meetings, especially the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan in the autumn of 2024. They had a frank and honest conversation about everything. Many misunderstandings were removed. We agreed to resume our contacts in all areas, including through our foreign ministries. As a follow-up to this agreement, Ararat Mirzoyan was in Moscow in January 2025. I have just come here. I am very grateful for the reception at the highest level. Our talks today at the Armenian Foreign Ministry and our meeting with President of Armenia Viktor Khachaturyan confirmed that we are overcoming the stage of mutual mistrust or resentment. And we understand that this is completely pointless, because there are real facts. Now we will proceed from them. Now the Armenian leadership is saying (I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the quote) that there is no need to constantly "retreat" to historical Armenia. It is necessary to strengthen modern Armenia and live in today's realities. I agree. We say: "Whoever remembers the old is out of sight." In the past, you will never find a result that would be important today. But we must not forget the past either: our history, the past of our ancestors, the feats that they performed in the name of their country, people, religion and faith. This story should remain in your soul, in your heart, in your memory, in the upbringing of your children and grandchildren. But practical decisions must be made based on the realities of today. Just as we are doing in a number of situations that are on the agenda of the international community today, including the situation in Ukraine. The realities of today. But they do not forget about the history of how these lands were created, who created them and who is now trying to physically exterminate these lands, cities, ports, plants and factories in memory of the founders of these lands, cities, ports, plants and factories, just as they are destroying the monuments to Catherine II and Georgy Potemkin. This is just by the way.

Returning to your question, the main conclusion from today's visit is that we have crossed the line where we lacked revelations and mutual trust.

Question: What diplomatic crisis in your career has been the most difficult for you? In this regard, what advice would you give to future diplomats?

Sergey Lavrov: I have not used this scale to assess my diplomatic experience. A diplomat in any crisis should think not about what is difficult for him, but about the fact that he needs to resolve the issue.

There were a number of episodes when I worked in New York at the UN Security Council. At that time, very acute crises arose, including in relations between the United States and Cuba. Madeleine Albright was the US Permanent Representative to the UN, a colleague of mine.

A couple of times there was a very critical situation when the Cubans shot down a plane flying from Florida for provocative purposes. It was late at night in Moscow, but we agreed on two paragraphs during two hours of protracted negotiations. The Americans needed a reaction, and the Cubans needed, of course, an objective reaction from the UN Security Council. We managed to draft a text that suited the United States and Cuba.

I didn't even think about it, but when I arrive in Havana, our Cuban friends keep reminding me that they remember this. It's always nice.

From other questions. The situation in Syria after 2015, when, following the terrorist invasion as part of the Arab Spring unleashed by the West, we finally realised that it was necessary to send our troops there at the request of the legitimate president. Throughout 2016, we met with then-Secretary of State John Kerry on numerous occasions and discussed possible joint actions to prevent a major Western military invasion of Syria under the pretext of the presence of chemical weapons there. As a result, we managed to agree on a document that was submitted for consideration by the Presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama, which made it possible to de-escalate the situation, and for the United States to present to its parliament and Congress data that made it unnecessary even to consider the issue of intervention in Syria. Syria has acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention. The remaining drugs and ingredients were destroyed.

By the way, the OPCW received the Nobel Prize for this. There were several other such fateful stories, because topics were discussed that were well-known and acutely perceived in one or another part of the world community.

But my advice is to learn from historical examples. They are never superfluous. Not always, even in most cases, it is not possible to simply "take a tracing paper" of some scheme and apply it today. But you need to know how to use experience and precedents. And the most important thing is to be creative. When you do not present an ultimatum but promote your goals in such a way that the partner remains in the negotiation process.

Partners always need to be heard. Hearing a partner, you need to promote your tasks, which are absolutely integral to the security of your country and its legitimate interests, in any conditions. There is a demand for diplomatic moves that allow a partner to have something that meets his interests.

When asked about the Ukrainian crisis (he recently confirmed this again), President of Russia Vladimir Putin says that we have a position and we are promoting it based on the premise that the final settlement should be universally acceptable to all parties. Therefore, we are always ready to discuss a compromise. [My Emphasis]

Excellent lecture about the recent aspects of Nagorno-Karabakh, the misunderstandings that arose, and how they were solved. IMO, it ought to be quite clear that Russia’s very confident that its ideas and ideals are superior to those proffered by the West. IMO, Lavrov needs to add that Western agreement to the UN Charter differ in no way from how they viewed the OSCE Treaties—political, but not legally binding. I don’t see how even normal business can be conducted with such duplicitous people, Trump likely being the current epitome, although many other candidates exist. Lavrov’s point appears to be not to put any trust in the West; It’s Nazi and has proven untrustworthy. IMO, he lets the Outlaw US Empire off too easy, although all the current evidence damns the EU making it much easier to tar.

Earlier this year I didn’t have much confidence in Pashinyan. That’s improved somewhat, but I need to see more deeds from him that he sees the EU’s attempts at seduction are Siren-like and not worth heeding. One thing is clear to me: The Collective West will continue to foment chaos all along the Eurasian periphery, which is why Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Iran are all targets.

*
*
*
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!