Lavrov at Sochi: An Education for Everyone

MFA’s description of the event: “Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's answers to questions at a special session of the MGIMO discussion programme in conjunction with the 7th Global Forum of Young Diplomats: Russia and Its Role in Shaping a Multipolar World, Sochi, March 4, 2024.” But that isn’t all he’s charged with doing. Being the main Team Putin footballer, he drew this task: “Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's greetings to the organisers and participants of the Under the Flag of Kindness International Children's Football Tournament,” and delivered these words:

I am glad to welcome the organisers and participants of the International Children's Football Tournament held as part of the World Youth Festival.

It is difficult to overestimate the role of football in promoting an active, healthy lifestyle, including among the younger generation, promoting the enduring values of "fair play", and strengthening interpersonal contacts.

I am sure that today's sports festival, organized by the Under the Flag of Kindness Charitable Foundation, will be held in a warm, friendly atmosphere and will contribute to improving the skills and abilities of young football players.

I am convinced that your stay in hospitable Sochi will leave you, friends, with only the best impressions, will allow you to get to know our country better, to find new, loyal friends, including among your Russian peers.

I wish the young participants of the tournament good spirits, conquering new sports heights and all the best.

It’s hard to know when the following question was put forth by the Rossiya 24 TV channel and Lavrov’s answer given, but it’s certainly relevant to the talk and the Q&As it contains that will follow:

Question: This is a youth festival. How important is it to convey to the younger generation the importance of a multipolar world and the fact that our country stands for this principle?

Sergey Lavrov: I think this is one of the most important things that need to be conveyed to young people.

We all remember our youth. It is in the young years that the character is formed, the vision of issues that then become political, the understanding of one's own interests and the conditions in which one's life interests will be most clearly and fully secured.

Multipolarity implies openness to the whole world, the use of experience without any artificial obstacles, which are now being created by people who want unilateralism rather than polycentricity.

Multipolarity means the absence of any barriers. This is the most important thing for the development of a young person – to see the world, to have a global outlook, to work and live, using all these advantages in his country. [My Emphasis]

Lots of adults working the Festival and many events IMO adults would also find interesting and educational. I’ll bet every reader will learn something from the answer Lavrov provides to the opening question of his 90-minute discussion:

Question: You said that in Russia a diplomat is like a poet. If we extend this logical chain, do I understand correctly that a Russian diplomat is more than a diplomat?

Sergey Lavrov: It says that a diplomat sometimes has to look for the right word, just as a poet has to look for the right word in rhyme. In diplomacy, it's broader. You don't have to rhyme here. You need to look for the key to the interlocutor. To do this, you need to win him over or interest him in you (depending on the situation). The word is not a sparrow, you can't catch it. [The link here deserves to be translated for readers.]

Many things are associated with accidentally popped words or deliberately uttered provocative "demarches". Now Europe, represented by French President Emmanuel Macron, is "exercising" in this: "Everything is possible if it is useful for achieving our goal, including sending ground troops from NATO countries to Ukraine, but there is no consensus on the official dispatch of ground troops." It has long been known that the British, French and Americans are operating on the territory of Ukraine in the form of instructors, helping them to maintain, load, guide long-range and other systems transferred to this country in large numbers. The aid provided to Kiev over the past two years has already amounted to $250 billion. Over the same period, all African countries received $60 billion from the West and Western institutions.

The West's priorities are clear. But the words coming out of the mouths of Western figures are interesting, including the reaction of German politicians when the truth about the recording of the conversation between the German generals was revealed. Some of them are concerned that there has been a leak in the networks that ensure the security of the negotiations. The very fact that German weapons and their specialists are being trained for an attack on the Russian Federation, including the Crimean bridge and ammunition depots, is not surprising. They are worried about how it could happen that the secure negotiation network turned out to be not so reliable. That says a lot. They also found the right word to legalize in the public sphere the very idea of sending ground forces of "individual NATO countries."

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, who recently came out of hospital treatment, clarified what he was talking about. He said that if Ukraine is defeated, then the alliance will be obliged to act against Russia. In doing so, he fully clarified the "murky hints" that were "floating" in the European discourse that if Russia is allowed to defeat Ukraine, after victory it will attack Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly responded to this delusional rhetoric. This is a "horror story" that has been sucked out of thin air for the sole purpose of forcing the US Congress to allocate the money demanded by the current administration of President Joe Biden. It's the price of words. No one is surprised that such plans are being discussed. This is the price of a word, either dropped accidentally or consciously expressing dangerous thoughts.

Question: In the current discussions about the multipolarity of the world, it is obvious that international organisations should play an increasingly important role. In particular, the United Nations. You have worked in New York for many years, you visit it regularly, and you recently took part in a meeting of the Security Council. But on the one hand, there is more and more criticism of the UN as an institution that is not coping with the mission entrusted to it to maintain world order and comply with the norms of international law. On the other hand, there is a lot of talk about UN reform. Does the world organization have a future as a unique tool? How do you see this reform and what is the role of the organization in shaping a multipolar world?

Sergey Lavrov: The UN was born in the flames of World War II. Before that, there were also experiments with multipolarity. The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 was based on European equilibrium and the sovereignty of states. In the 19th century, the "concert of the great powers" was practiced, proceeding from the need to balance the various forces on the European continent. Two attempts were then made to establish a unipolar world and a world of hegemony. At the beginning of the 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte gathered almost all of Europe under his banner. In the 20th century, A. Hitler seized most of the European countries, put them "under arms" and, like Napoleon, sent them against Russia. Napoleon pursued the goal of European hegemony, A. Hitler - world hegemony. But both ended badly.

Our people are justifiably proud of the role played by the RSFSR and the peoples of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Hitler's Germany. As a result of Hitler's "failure" to create the hegemony of one race during World War II, the UN was created.

The concept of multipolarity was laid down in it from the very beginning in the form of the Security Council and its five permanent members. The victorious powers agreed that if one of them has any difficulties on a particular issue, this topic will not be submitted for decision by the international community, the UN.

I believe that this concept is still viable, if we honestly implement what we have agreed on. But the West's honesty became clear after British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's Fulton speech in the second half of 1946, which spoke of the Iron Curtain, enemies, and the division of the world into two poles. But even before this speech, when the war was not yet over, the British and Americans were discussing terrible plans to bomb the territory of the Soviet Union. It was planned to attack dozens and hundreds of cities. Therefore, the sincerity that seemed to be present at all the meetings of the great powers during the war, when the future world order was discussed, turned out to be false. At the very least, it quickly "flew away" and the hostile course of the Western world was exposed. Then NATO was created.

I believe that the UN Charter and all its principles are absolutely relevant in today's world. I would like to emphasize that the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of States. If you flip through the pages of post-war history, there has not been a single situation or conflict in which the West has respected the principle of the sovereign equality of states. In all situations, it promoted its unilateral selfish interests in violation of the Charter of the world Organization.

The UN enshrines the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, which the United States and many of its allies have repeatedly violated. Starting with the "adventures" in the Latin American region. In Panama and Grenada, they "threatened to rape an American journalist," and this was the reason for sending in troops. It was done under the slogan "We do not abandon American citizens." But when Russia began to save Russians, who in Ukraine were forbidden to speak their own language, to respect their heroes and history, and were only forced to honor Hitler's accomplices, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. Let me remind you that education and media in the Russian language and culture have been banned in Ukraine. Officials of the Ukrainian regime that came to power after the coup d'état in February 2014 loudly and publicly declared that in Kharkiv and Mykolaiv they should forget what the Russian language is. That after the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation, it is necessary to arrest everyone there and "check for loyalty." Why, they say, did they stay in Crimea when "Russia came" there? No one talked about the referendum. The putschists declared that the Russians should be exterminated both legally, by adopting their own laws, and physically.

The UN Charter contains many principles. The problem is how to execute them: honestly or fraudulently. Crimeans held a referendum with a large number of international observers and voted overwhelmingly in favor of returning to the Russian Federation. This was widely shown on television and on social networks. It is impossible to play or imitate the joy experienced by the Crimeans. Everyone understood that. Even US Secretary of State John Kerry, when we discussed further possible joint steps with regard to Donbass, said that "everything is clear" about Crimea. That was in April 2014, when they wanted to resolve the issue of the self-proclaimed people's republics in Donetsk and Lugansk.

The West then said that the referendum was illegitimate because it violated the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter. But before that, without holding a referendum in 2008, Western countries unilaterally declared Kosovo's independence. Nine years after they bombed the former Yugoslavia without a UN Security Council mandate and took away the Serbian province from it without any referendum. When asked why they decided to do this, violating their territorial integrity, the countries of the "collective West" replied that this was different, and that the right of nations to self-determination was important here.

It is necessary to comply with the principles of the UN Charter not "like a menu", but in all their interconnection and completeness. Proof that this is possible and will be fair are the long conversations that have taken place at the UN about what is more important: the principle of self-determination of peoples, which is indicated on the first page of the Charter, or the principle of territorial integrity, which appears there two pages later. The Charter itself does not establish any link between them. A special process to interpret these and other principles of the Charter was initiated shortly after the founding of the Organization. It ended after decolonization, which took place in the 1960s and liberated most of the former colonial countries and peoples. But another dozen and a half remain on the conscience of the colonial powers – France, Britain, and a number of others. The UNGA continues to demand the implementation of its decisions on these issues. In the course of this process, the text of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law was adopted in terms of the relationship between territorial integrity and self-determination of peoples, which was unanimously approved by all by consensus at the highest level.

It says that every country is obliged to respect the territorial integrity of any state whose government respects the principle of self-determination of peoples. As such, it represents the entire population living in a particular territory. No one would argue that after the bloody coup in February 2014, the ultra-reactionaries and neo-Nazis who came to power did not represent either the Crimeans or the southeast of Ukraine. Multipolarity can be built on the current just principles of the UN Charter if everyone is ready to respect what operates as international law. Violations of international law did not begin today or yesterday. The Americans have long imposed their "rules" on which the "world order" is based. They lie in the fact that where it is necessary to condemn, sovereignty has been violated. Where it is necessary to justify, the right to self-determination has been exercised.

It is necessary to return to the roots, to the Charter. We need to work in the same way as the new components that are emerging now, the pillars of the multipolar world, and the regional structures. On the Eurasian continent, these are the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN, China's One Belt, One Road project, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. Most of the countries are members of the Arab League. Hence the interest in harmonizing the development plans and programmes of these integration associations. Many of them have already established working relations with each other and are coordinating their agendas. They strive to ensure that complementarity helps to avoid unnecessary actions and duplication.

This is the process of interaction that President of Russia Vladimir Putin had in mind when he formulated his vision of the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. This is the entire Eurasian continent. Partnership is formed objectively, from life. It has been said more than once that it is open to all countries of Eurasia without exception.

In his Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed our interest in developing such trade and economic cooperation and proposed formulating a new concept of Eurasian security. After the creation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), there was a concept of Euro-Atlantic security. At that time, the organization showed some hope, given the tools of transparency in the field of military spending, confidence-building measures, and arms limitation. There was an understanding that the Euro-Atlantic security architecture would help work together and ensure stability. This "idea" completely failed.

A few years before the start of the special military operation, the West's desire to grossly violate the principle of consensus in the OSCE began to manifest itself. The presiding countries trampled on the principle of neutrality. So did the general secretaries and heads of structural units dealing with human rights, the press, national minorities and other issues.

The OSCE has completely discredited itself, as it did in the economic sphere – the concept of joint development of the two parts of Europe (Western and Eastern). At that time, a common economic and humanitarian space was proclaimed, first from the Atlantic to the Urals, and then to the Pacific Ocean. Everything that was useful was thrown away by the West.

They reiterated that they would live only by their "rules." As new centers of power and influence rise in the world economically, technologically, and militarily, it is clear that the West will never dominate again. It is necessary to look for forms that will fairly reflect the weight of each state in world affairs. The West may understand this, but it wants either to prevent the formation of a multipolar world or to make it as difficult as possible. Hence, the manifestation of agony is the realization that domination and hegemony are leaving. Hence the abrupt and aggressive actions of the modern West. Even in the "best" of times, they acted by means of diktat, blackmail, and violation of international law. Up to the beginning of wars, as was the case with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, or as a result of their 20-year presence in Afghanistan.

As a result of these "exercises", terrorist organizations have emerged. After Afghanistan, al-Qaeda. After the invasion of Iraq (which was later said to have been mistaken, there was no reason to invade, "it doesn't happen to anyone"), when Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated army was dispersed, most of the officers of this army, finding themselves out of work, formed the backbone of the Islamic State. Syria – Jabhad al-Nusra terrorist structure was formed, now it is called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. These are the "fruits of enlightenment" that the civilized West "brought" to other peoples. Life has not become better anywhere in these countries. There is no Libya as a state, Iraq is on the brink. In Syria, the Americans are creating a quasi-state of the Kurds, stealing oil and food produced in the territories they occupy.

Multipolarity should be based on integration structures. I mentioned Eurasia. We have contacts with regional organisations in other regions, primarily the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. These large structures, mostly representing one geographical region, are increasingly taking on the problems of their territories. This is a healthy trend.

In addition to regional integration processes, there is also a global one – BRICS. For many years, it was formed solely on the basis of consensus, which is the result of a balance of interests. This is exactly what the association is doing. Among the other five countries, it exceeded the G7 gross domestic product in terms of purchasing power parity. With the accession of new states, this gap becomes even wider. About 30 more countries are interested in joining this global association in one form or another. We are quite capable of proposing to various regional organizations to establish cooperation at the intercontinental level. Maybe it's a philosophical "vision" now, but it's real.

None of the countries of the World Majority has ever tried to work against anyone. In this case, against the world's minority, the West. Not at all. We are not against the peoples of these countries. We know that they have an absolutely legitimate interest in Europe and North America, their own history, which they love. But elites must learn to advance the agenda on the basis of mutual respect, not on the superiority of their nation over others, and not to make ultimatums based on this arrogance.

What happens? The West talks about democracy. But as soon as you start talking to them about democracy on the international stage, and not "at home," they end the conversation. It's kind of out of the question. In the international arena, there are "rules" that ensure "peace and order." But if you are a "big democrat," you have to accept a wide range of different opinions in international affairs.

For example, Ukraine. For ten years, we have been explaining what everything will lead to if the West continues to expand NATO, to "develop" this country as a springboard against Russia. They created security threats on our borders, eradicated everything Russian (including history and historical memory) from the country, which the West took into "external control" by organizing a coup d'état there and installing officials to manage almost all spheres of activity of this state. We explained in detail what we are fighting for and what are the reasons and goals of the special military operation. The West condemned. Verbose, using expressions of extreme condemnation. Let developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America decide for themselves what they think of the arguments of one side and the shouts of condemnation on the other. We need to respect other countries, treat them as "adults" and equals.

After that, our ambassadors around the world actively explained the reasons that led to this. We asked our colleagues to take our assessments into account when considering the Ukrainian issue at the UN. The West did not explain its position. It used all its representatives for ultimatums. They went everywhere and said that countries "should" condemn Russia and join the sanctions. I asked an acquaintance who represented a state where the West made such demarches, what did the Westerners promise in return? No problem. They said that if they did not listen to them, they would punish them with sanctions and take away some loans from the IMF, which the countries were counting on. And if they do what the West asks, then they will not punish them. Equivalent exchange. This is "pure blackmail".

We can talk about democracy for a long time. The formation of a new world order, I am deeply convinced, does not require changing the UN Charter in its fundamental provisions. The composition of the Security Council must be brought into line with the historical reality that has emerged since the completion of the decolonization process. Countries that have emerged as centers of growth in Asia, Africa, and Latin America deserve to have their representation on the Security Council increased and historical injustices addressed. There is no reason to transfer additional seats on the Council to Western countries. Now, out of 15 members of this body, 6 represent the West. This is not in terms of the size of the population, not in terms of the area of the territory, not in terms of fairness – this is wrong.

The final conclusion is that I would not only not touch the UN Charter, but would think about how to make it beneficial for everyone to implement it.

Question: When will our esteemed adversaries finally have the courage to interact with us directly, and not through intermediaries?

Sergey Lavrov: Opponents are respected when they go into battle with an open visor. We are constantly assured that the West is not at war with Russia. It "only" supplies weapons. Then it turns out that there are citizens of their countries there. They are said to be mercenaries who have retired from military service. In the vast majority of cases, this is questionable. Then they began to say that there should be some instructors there, because it was necessary to quickly master too serious technologies, etc. Up to the leak about the direct confessions of the German generals that they needed to somehow make them shoot with their help, but at the same time no one found out about them. All the same, as they say, there are French, English and Americans there.

This is not an "open visor", but a scam. They constantly say that they are defending Ukraine. Then they say (I have already quoted) that if Ukraine loses, then Russia, they say, will go to war on the whole of Europe. This mentality (at a time when Napoleon Bonaparte and A. Hitler were gathering their troops) is that it is necessary to conquer the whole of Europe.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that if Ukraine is allowed to lose, then NATO will have to act against Russia. For them, this is an existential defeat (as they believe), but in fact it will reflect the final completion of the attempt to establish a unipolar world dominated by the United States with complete obedience to the rest of the West.

As for when they will start talking to us directly. We are philosophical about it. I feel sorry for these people. Diplomats who, in fact, are cowards. Our diplomats are being expelled from Europe and a number of other countries, such as Japan. They cut off all contacts altogether. As Alexei Torkunov said, even academic ties are shrinking. It is a desire to punish in anger, but at the same time it is a manifestation of cowardice in terms of unpreparedness for fair competition. The West has no arguments. They lied to us about the Minsk agreements, which they were not going to implement. They deliberately prepared a coup d'état, forbade the opposition to implement the settlement document, and nevertheless carried out a coup d'état. We all know that.

I will now say something that we have not yet made public. We have accumulated a lot of materials about how the EU embassies in Moscow are preparing for our presidential elections. Mechanisms of interference, the creation of some "support projects" for our non-systemic oppositionists – in general, things that embassies have no right to deal with. Having collected this information, a week and a half ago we invited all the ambassadors of the European Union. As Foreign Minister, I would like to tell the heads of diplomatic missions that we advise them not to do this with the best of intentions. What do you think? Two days before the scheduled event, we were sent a note saying that they had decided not to come. Can you imagine relations with states at the diplomatic level, whose ambassadors are afraid to come to a meeting with the minister of the country to which they are accredited? Where has it been seen? This is what the mannerisms of these sworn "partners" go to.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we never refuse serious proposals. For example, the Americans say that we are launching nuclear weapons into space, and offer to meet so that we can explain to them about strategic stability. This is not "adult" talk, but in favor of the poor. Exhaustive answers were given to this.

The situation is the same with the rest of the "cases". Prior to that, they proposed resuming inspections of our strategic facilities under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. We explained to them that the Treaty was built on the following principles: trust, mutual and indivisible security and transparency. The Americans trampled on them when they declared us an enemy that needed to be "strategically defeated" on the battlefield. Having done this, they are still asking us to let them see what our nuclear strategic facility looks like. Is that fair?

None of the Western countries has yet made honest offers. There are various ideas dictated by the best intentions on security issues in Europe on the part of African countries, Brazil, the Arab League, and China. All of them call for a peaceful settlement of the issue. The main aspect of their position (this is especially clearly stated in the Chinese initiatives) is, firstly, to deal with the causes of the current situation in Europe, and secondly, to look for a solution by eliminating these causes and respecting the legitimate security interests of all participants. We are ready to cooperate on these foundations. But the West, as you know, is putting forward a 10-point "formula," a "peace formula."

Now Switzerland has been "frowned". It is trying to convene some kind of meetings, a "peace conference". They even announce some kind of "summit". But they say that everything will take place without Russia. Our country will be summoned when they come to an agreement among themselves, and they will hand over to us a paper that will be just an ultimatum. Is it serious? Everyone understands that this will never happen.

They constantly add – "to win on the field". So, let them try.

Question: I am the president of the Archery Federation in Gelendzhik. One of my "directions" is the popularization of this sport. I believe that sport unites both nationalities and all ages. In your opinion, what are the common values that unite people around the world?

Sergey Lavrov: Did you mean to say that sport unites nationalities and both existing genders? That's the truth.

Never have I ever shot a bow. In Altai, he shot from a crossbow in a rest house. It's similar.

Sport, of course, should unite. It is the greatest heritage of mankind.

At the end of the 19th century, P. de Coubertin revived traditions that were thousands of years old. In ancient Greece, there were Olympics. The ceremony of lighting the fire, the principles of honesty, equal conditions. In the mature era of mankind, these principles have been reaffirmed. Olympic Charter. It was wonderful and worked for many decades.

There have been cases of boycotts. The West boycotted the games in Moscow (the 1980 Moscow Olympics). We boycotted the games in Los Angeles in 1984.

I consider what is happening to the sports movement now, what the leaders of the International Olympic Committee and Thomas Bach personally are doing to be a betrayal of all the ideals of Olympism. In one of his speeches, reacting to numerous initiatives to admit transgender people to all kinds of competitions, he said that sports should not be politicized. It is necessary to create the necessary equal rights for them. There are so many anecdotal cases when a man participates in women's swimming, defeats everyone, and women are outraged. Such "rules" are imposed.

When asked whether he would allow Russian and Belarusian athletes if he was against politicisation, Bach replied that it was "different", it was not politicisation, they allegedly violated the UN Charter. For all the long years, when Iraq, Libya and Syria were bombed in an illegal and inexplicable way, all the countries involved in this aggression calmly sent their athletes under flags and anthems.

Terrible things are happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Indeed, on October 7, 2023, an outrageous terrorist attack took place, which we immediately condemned. In response, such methods of collective punishment as carpet bombing were used against Hamas. The Israeli generals said that all the people there were terrorists, "animals," and that there were no civilians there. In this wave, a number of Islamic countries have proposed suspending Israel's participation in this year's Olympics in Paris. The International Olympic Committee categorically refused.

This means that you can take different positions. If we look at the statistics, during the ten years of conflict from 2014 after the coup d'état in Ukraine, during the Minsk agreements, which served only as a cover for pumping weapons into Kiev, and to the present day on both sides in Ukraine, as a result of the Kiev regime's attempts to suppress Donbass by bombing, whose population refused to accept the coup and created a militia, significantly fewer civilians have been killed and wounded. than in less than five months of Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip.

Compare the tone, even hysterical, in which the West describes what it attributes to Russia. And in response to the situation in the Gaza Strip, he only calls for an end to the war. The suffering of tens of thousands of civilians (30,000 people killed, 70,000 wounded) does not evoke much emotion.

Sport should be out of politics. In recent years, sport has begun to become politicized. This includes the World Anti-Doping Agency, where 70-75% of its senior staff are from NATO countries and their allies.

«The Games of the Future", which started in Kazan and are being held with great success, are a response to discrimination and distortion of the principles of Olympism. Other competitions, including the BRICS Games, which will be held in Kazan this summer, are "built" on the same principle in order to eliminate any manifestations that distort Olympism, which now "overflow" the decisions made by the International Olympic Committee.

Question: How can we use factors such as the legacy of the USSR to establish and improve relations between the West and Russia? I am following the development of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. When I was studying, I saw that during the pandemic, the Russian economy was in decline. Now, despite the sanctions, the Russian economy is on the rise. What is Russia's role? How is India helping Russia in this difficult period? I am grateful to you for organising such events. I would also suggest using sign language interpreters, since we have people who would need such interpretation.

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the traditions, heritage and history of the USSR influence modern relations. Firstly, in the sense that the independent states formed on the site of the former Soviet Union were connected by a common economy, transport and logistics network. There were many enterprises that depended on each other for the supply of components and raw materials. These economic ties crossed all administrative borders in the USSR. Therefore, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Commonwealth of Independent States was formed, they tried to preserve as much as possible these natural ties and advantages that had been created over decades.

Other structures were formed along the way: the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Ties with our neighbors on the continent were also developing, primarily in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That was in our fundamental interest.

The principle of "divide and rule" corresponded to the fundamental interests of the West. From the very beginning of the post-Soviet era, it began to "wedge" itself into relations between Russia and its neighbors. To this day, the Westerners are pursuing the same policy. This can also be seen in Central Asia, in the South Caucasus (especially in the example of our Armenian friends), in the European part of the former USSR – Ukraine, Moldova, which is openly being prepared to become the "successor" of Ukraine in terms of "taking over" its entire leadership, Belarus, against which a number of serious provocations were planned. In this sense, the legacy of the USSR as a territory with new states, but with a huge aggregate economic potential, was completely unnecessary for the West, primarily the United States.

It became unacceptable for them when they saw that the new Russia, together with its neighbors, was developing a privileged economic partnership with Germany. Our American colleagues have begun to do everything they can to prevent the European-Russian link through German leadership. Everyone knows perfectly well that they blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which supplied affordable gas that ensured the profitability, efficiency, and rapid growth of the German economy.

Now that they have been "transferred" to expensive liquefied natural gas from the United States (special regasification plants were built for it), when, according to the French Minister of Economy, they pay four times more for energy than in the United States, when the Americans have passed a law to combat inflation, as a result of which a huge number of German and other European businesses are moving to the United States. Europe is deindustrializing.

Europe is one of the main victims of this war of the West against Russia. At the same time, Europe was forced to "pump out" all its weapons to Ukraine and immediately began to sell American weapons to replace those that were transferred to Kiev. This is a large, purely commercial project. As always, the Americans tried to make a profit on the aggression that they themselves started in different parts of the world.

India has always been our friend. Over the years, relations with India have been characterized differently in the documents we sign. It began with the fact that the relationship was characterized by a "strategic partnership." Then there was another summit. The Indian prime minister suggested calling them a "privileged strategic partnership." After a while, they became a "special privileged strategic partnership." That is what they are now.

My friend, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, once spoke at the UN. They began to ask him why, they say, you began to buy so much oil from Russia and so on. He advised them to mind their own business. At the same time, he recalled how much oil the West began to buy and continued to buy it from the Russian Federation.

This is a national dignity when a country does not want to give up profitable projects with partners who have proven their reliability and have never let it down. In those years, when the West did not even think of transferring some modern weapons to India, the Soviet Union (and later Russia) not only did this, but also created joint productions of, say, the same high-tech BrahMos missiles.

We remember friendship. We never forget our own. We see that the Indian people have the same qualities.

Question (retranslated from English): We are young people. We want to be friends, work together and create a new world where we are not hegemons, but all are equal.

My question will be related to the upcoming elections in the United States. What are your hopes and aspirations for the resumption (I hope) of dialogue between our parties?

We will work this issue. What is your point of view?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, the United States is a great power. It has a great nation and an important history of struggle for its independence.

The story is ambiguous. There's a lot of talk about how it evolved. But in any egalitarian world order (calling it multipolar, polycentric), where there are several centers of power and influence (and they are already emerging), of course, the United States will be one of the leading states.

In the western group, for sure, but not only. And in some other parts of the world, if the United States is guided by the principles you mentioned, it will continue to play an important role in other parts of the world.

As for the prospects for the US elections. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that of course we will work with any president chosen by the American people. But everything will depend on what kind of "set of ideas" the new leadership will come up with regarding the policy in the Russian direction.

We remember that when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, former US President Barack Obama expelled Russian diplomats and their families at the end of December 2016 (I have no doubt, in order to vent his anger). A total of 120 people. At the end of December, three weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration. Moreover, the date when the diplomats were supposed to leave Washington for Russia was deliberately set when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow, but only a flight from New York. They traveled 500 kilometers in cars with children and belongings. In general, the story was not very humane.

At that time, future employees of the Republican administration called us and said that this was an even greater blow to Donald Trump than to us. They say that President Barack Obama made such a move on purpose in order to "lay a mine" under Russian-American relations from the very first days. In other words, Donald Trump would only come to the White House, and relations with Russia would already be spoiled.

We understood that Barack Obama did this on purpose to get exactly this effect. We began to engage in dialogue with the Trump administration in order to somehow return to the normal state of our diplomatic presences (ours in the United States and the American presence in Russia), but nothing came of it. In addition, five objects of diplomatic property were confiscated, which have not yet been returned.

Then the spiral began. We continue to drive on an inclined plane. There are contacts at the expert level. First of all, they are dedicated to ensuring that diplomats can somehow work and receive funding. There, the banks refused to serve our diplomats. Now we have found opportunities to at least provide normal life support.

From time to time, the Americans turn to us. Like, let's not put weapons in space. Let's meet. As if nothing had happened. Like, in Ukraine, we are obliged to defeat you "on the battlefield", so let's discuss strategic issues. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that this was not serious and unnatural.

We have no negative feelings towards the American people. I have many good friends in the United States.

Let the people decide. At the moment, many things on the agenda of the US Congress and the US Presidential Administration concern key things that need to be thought about and dealt with by those who come to power in America after the elections: migration problems, poverty problems, and other issues of the country's development.

We saw the state of the city of San Francisco when the 30th meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit was held there, one of the most beautiful cities. Correspondents showed how life is on the streets. So it's interesting either to solve these issues for American voters or to pump insane money into the Ukrainian regime. Until now, there were suspicions, and now inspectors from the Pentagon have gone to see where this money is being spent. No one provides any reports.

In Europe, it's pretty much the same. When German Foreign Minister Angela Baerbock was asked at a conference whether she was worried about the decline in the standard of living of Germans, she confirmed that electricity and food were becoming more expensive, but said that they had to sacrifice everything for the sake of Ukraine's victory. If American politicians have the same position towards their own people, then it will be difficult to negotiate.

However, we are always open to dialogue if it is offered seriously and on equal terms.

Cowardly diplomats. Given the circumstances, Russia might as well tell them to go home until they grow up as they’re clearly immature. On the UN, Russia’s position is no different from China’s, which has redefined it via Xi’s initiatives, in particular the Global Security Initiative. Note Lavrov’s attempts to change the narrative he’s been repeating for months and most recently just days ago in Antalya. IMO, Lavrov would much rather discuss relations with African and other non-Western nations and how Russia intends to interact with them. Duly noted was the lack of any dedollarization talk, although the issue of monies was raised in several broad contexts. I’m afraid Lavrov is correct about Olympism currently being dead. China sees that too as do a great many nations and is perhaps the most obvious sign of the West’s refusal to be human. I felt bad for the American kid who asked the question about the election and future relations and was thankful that Lavrov gave a vague answer.

When reading these events, I always try to formulate my own question. Pakistan’s been on my mind although it’s being weighed on, suppressed, by the main conflicts. And the South and Central American situation does too, and I suppose a question about Argentina would be appropriate. And there’s always the Big Picture assessment to be questioned. Lavrov’s 73, so asking him how much longer does he plan to be Russian Foreign Minister is certainly valid.

*
*
*
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!