Lavrov at the Ambassadorial Conference: Historical Russian Lands: National Identity and Self-Determination of Peoples

A long production.

The title for this Conference is Historical Russian Lands: National Identity and Self-Determination of Peoples. A few days ago during one of his media encounters, Lavrov noted the resumption of the series of Ambassadorial Conferences that are aimed at educating and acclimating diplomatic personnel to Russia so they can better perform their duties by having a better—realistic—idea of who Russians are and what Russia is. A very pragmatic effort by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The hiatus has lasted several years as it was discontinued during the Covid event and further delayed by the SMO. Lavrov doesn’t always conduct these conferences, but he chose to be the one to reinaugurate them. It would be nice to have a photo of the audience within the auditorium to see what sort of attendance was generated. The video does show close to a full house, and I would think Lavrov would appreciate a slightly wider chair to better accomodate his frame when he appears again. And now the dialog:

Question: Today, all key world players are talking about peace in Ukraine. Friendly countries, China, India, Brazil and, of course, our opponents have voiced their initiatives. In your opinion, what is the essential difference between Russia's approaches and the entire variety of proposals? Why is a truce and a ceasefire not enough today?

Sergey Lavrov: I will say a few words. I understand that I can repeat what was said here before me. I know that many of our experts and political scientists took part in the preparations for this event and have already spoken today.

But the falsification of history did not appear today. For many years, our ill-wishers have been doing this in order to quarrel with the Russian peoples, achieve their selfish interests, and hinder cooperation in the post-Soviet space. These attempts to "drive wedges" became especially active after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

It is this period that is associated with a new rapid surge of nationalist sentiments in Ukraine, which existed there for a long time, but latently remained inactive. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, after a short period of time, then President Leonid Kuchma wrote a book "Ukraine is not Russia". It was published in 2003 and is openly pseudo-scientific. The author himself said that the purpose of this work was "to create Ukrainians".

In fact, it is this concept laid down in this work ("Ukraine is not Russia") that has become a kind of intellectual foundation for the modern nationalist Ukrainian elites.

In 2014, when an unconstitutional coup d'état took place with the open support of the United States and with the connivance of the European Union, Ukraine finally turned into a military and political bridgehead of the West near our borders. They cherished this dream for a long time and began to be called "anti-Russia."

Monuments were demolished in Odessa. This phenomenon of demolition of monuments, of course, is very indicative not only for modern Ukrainian leaders, but also for the Poles and the Baltic states. But when the monument to the founder of Odessa, Empress Catherine the Great, was demolished, and a week later UNESCO decided that the historical centre of Odessa is a world cultural heritage, it would have been impossible to disgrace this once respected organisation, which is now headed by an openly biased Director-General, Ms Audrey Azoulay, even if we really wanted to. I have already mentioned other monuments, such as those to Alexander Suvorov, Alexander Pushkin, Ivan Babel, and figures of literature, culture and art, whose name is associated with the Russian language. All these monuments are being liquidated, as well as monuments to those who liberated Ukraine from the Nazi invaders, and to those who were collaborators, on the contrary, such monuments are erected.

It is difficult to replace the historical truth, so the ideologists of this very "Ukraine is not Russia" hit such research, publish supposedly scientific works, that the last hairs "stand on end". I am not telling some jokes now. "In fact" the Black Sea was dug by Ukrainians. Buddha is from Zaporozhye. Mona Lisa is of Ukrainian origin, her great-grandparents were from Odessa and Kyiv. Can you imagine what nonsense this is? It is spread not just through word of mouth, it is from textbooks about the history of Ukraine.

Russophobia is deeply rooted in Ukraine and is actively supported by Westerners, also in a historical context. From the middle of the 19th century, the authorities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire cultivated anti-Russian sentiments in Galicia (in western Ukraine), and quite actively began persecution of the inhabitants of this territory–-Rusyns. But despite these persecutions, a significant part of the Galician-Russian intelligentsia and the overwhelming majority of the people remained committed to spiritual kinship with our country. Despite all attempts to break these ties.

During the First World War, the Austro-Hungarian authorities unleashed large-scale repressions against Rusyns–-tens of thousands were killed in the Talerhof and Terezín death camps–-the first mass death camps. This is an Austro-Hungarian invention. Now the airport of the Austrian city of Graz is located on the site of Talerhof. We have not forgotten these crimes. Work is underway to recognise the extermination of the Russian population of Galician Rus and other Russian regions of Austria-Hungary as the first genocide in the modern history of Europe. This work will certainly continue.

In 1929, the very sad Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was created in Vienna, which became the matrix for most Ukrainian nationalist parties and organizations of the 1990s-2000s.

Through this organization and those who glorified it as an ideal association of Ukrainians, the theory of ethnic "purity" was promoted, copying the experience of both Western colonialists and German Nazis. Peoples were divided into "friendly" (neutral)—and they had to be evicted from the territory of Ukraine. And "unfriendly" on the other hand. The latter (there were Russians, Poles, Jews, Hungarians) should have been destroyed in the understanding of these Ukrainian nationalists. This is exactly what they did during the Second World War.

Those who were ideologists and who put these misanthropic principles into practice are now being put on a pedestal and idolised by their new nationalist movements (or revived nationalist movements). Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych have been declared almost the founders of the modern Ukrainian nation. The Kiev authorities consider themselves the heirs of these criminals. It is not surprising that over the past 10-11 years, long before the start of the special military operation, the Kiev junta has begun to exterminate everything that is in one way or another connected with Russia, to exterminate everything Russian.

Education (at first, primary classes in Russian were banned, then secondary education, and then they reached higher education), culture, and the media. The media outlets owned by Russian publishers were simply closed, they were expelled from Ukraine. Ukrainian media outlets that broadcast in Russian were also closed.

In Ukraine, a filtering body has now been secretly introduced, through which it is necessary to coordinate any information for publication or for broadcasting through any mass media.

President Vladimir Putin has long drawn attention to these trends. In December 2019, he spoke at a meeting of the Russian organizing committee "Victory" on preparations for the next date of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. He touched on these things and uttered the following phrase: "Our answer to lies is the truth." The truth must be defended. It lies in the fact that the southern Russian lands and the entire territory of modern Ukraine have always been among the most developed, prosperous regions of the Russian Empire and the USSR. Natives of these lands—both in pre-Soviet and Soviet times—invariably held high government posts. Including the leader of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev, who is from what is now the Dnipropetrovsk region. He worked for a long time in senior positions in Ukraine itself, and then in Moscow.

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR had a powerful industrial potential and developed agriculture. You can judge for yourself what the "elites" who came to power after the collapse of the USSR brought it to and unleashed a fratricidal war in Donbass in 2014. The statistics are known, and so is the economy and social sphere of modern Ukraine. What kind of order exists there, including the forcible "catching" of young guys on the streets in order to first forcibly stuff them into a car, and then send them to the front. Russia has nothing to do with it.

When the coup d'état took place, the new authorities that came to power in Kiev as a result of this coup d'état divided their portfolios and announced their programme. The US State Department welcomed these events, and the notorious former US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland even proudly admitted that it was not for nothing that the United States invested $5 billion in the past few years before the coup. In the creation, development and strengthening of Ukrainian democracy.

Today, there is a lot of talk about national identity and self-determination. The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter. I have spoken publicly at the Security Council and the UN General Assembly several times. In my conversations with Antonio Guterres, I urge him not to forget that the UN Charter is not limited to a single line about territorial integrity. Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephen Dujarric has repeatedly avoided answering the question of what the UN's position on the Ukrainian settlement is. He repeats by heart that "we are in favour of resolving the crisis on the basis of international law, the principle of Ukraine's territorial integrity and General Assembly resolutions."

As for General Assembly resolutions, he simply does not know that there are many of them. One of the most important resolutions in this case, which we are talking about, was adopted in 1970 – the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the UN Charter. This is a large document. It was a consensus resolution, unlike the resolutions that the current Kiev regime, with the support of the West, is pushing through with a vote, and which Antonio Guterres refers to, justifying his position, which fully supports the Ukrainian regime. The declaration, which was adopted by consensus, says that everyone must "respect the territorial integrity of those states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and therefore represent the entire population living in the relevant territory."

But neither Vladimir Zelensky nor those who came to power in 2014 represent the population of Crimea, Donbass or Novorossiya. The first intense signal that the putschists sent when they came to power in 2014 through a coup d'état was the announcement that they would abolish the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. After that, everything became crystal clear.

Those who blindly and stubbornly repeat the slogan of territorial integrity forget a simple thing. It was the principle of self-determination of peoples that underpinned the decolonisation process when, in accordance with the 1970 Declaration, the African peoples did not want to live under colonial oppression. And the colonizers in Lisbon, Paris, London and in all the capitals of the metropolitan countries these governments did not represent the African peoples. If this is so, then the decolonisation process was carried out in full compliance with the UN Charter and the principles that the General Assembly has developed in terms of the relationship between the principles of the Charter.

Just as I said, the current Ukrainian authorities do not represent the peoples of Crimea, Novorossiya and Donbass in any way. Moreover, we have distributed documents that quote the statements of the Ukrainian authorities regarding Russians and Russian-speaking citizens of their country, at least for the period long before the start of the special military operation. Vladimir Zelensky said that if you feel involved in Russian culture and live in Ukraine, his advice is to go to Russia for the sake of the peace of mind of your children and grandchildren.

All the other figures in his cabinet spoke even more frankly, including calls to "kill Russians." The notorious Ukrainian ambassador to Kazakhstan, Pavel Vrublevsky (who has now been recalled from there), gave an interview in 2022. Answering a question about the tasks facing the Ukrainian authorities, he said on the air that they should kill as many Russians as possible, because we want them to not exist at all, so we need to kill as many as possible so that our children have less work to do. This is the ambassador. There were no complaints from any Western power that supports this regime.

You can cite many examples from the modern history of Ukraine, which remain, they are "swept under the carpet". And no one is going to investigate crimes.

Odessa, May 2, 2014 – Fifty living people were burned to death in the House of Trade Unions only because they spoke out against what the putschists were doing and illegally seized Europe. Now the Council of Europe has actively taken up the preparation of claims against the Russian Federation in connection with the ongoing events, which they call aggression, occupation and annexation. At that time, it timidly offered its "services" to assist in the investigation of a savage crime, as a result of which fifty people were burned alive, and even adopted a resolution that it was ready to "assist." No one remembers this anymore, because the Kiev authorities ignored the Council of Europe and pointed out its place in their understanding. Since then, the Council of Europe has been subordinated to the task of "whitewashing" the Kiev criminals and "denigrating" the activities of the Russian Federation. Although there is nothing to investigate there: the people who set fire to and then shot at those who tried to escape by jumping out of the windows, everything is on the video footage. There is absolutely no need to do any work, just publish this data and that's it.

Another episode of lies and cover-ups is Bucha, April 2022, when the Russian Armed Forces, at the request of the West, in anticipation of the signing of a peace agreement on a settlement based on the principles proposed by the Ukrainians themselves, as a gesture of goodwill, withdrew their troops from Kyiv. And this was done. Including leaving the suburbs of Kyiv called Bucha. And two days after the mayor returned there, not somewhere in the basement, but on the main street of this settlement, BBC correspondents, who were lucky to be "at hand", showed dozens of bodies of people, neatly laid out along the main street on both sides of it.

There was an outburst of anger. The West again used the BBC report to impose a new portion of sanctions against Russia. Since then, we have been wondering if anyone has investigated this crime. We have written a letter to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Friedrich Türk. He has been silent for many months, maybe years.

According to our information, they know everything very well, but they are afraid to tell the truth, which they partially know. The most obvious example of hypocrisy and cover-up of criminals is the refusal to provide the names of people whose bodies were shown and caused a surge of indignation.

There is no information. If someone says after this that Ukrainians are suffering, and Russia must be forced to do so somehow. We cannot leave people under the rule of the regime that is now there. If the "government", by and large, Vladimir Zelensky's junta, hopes that an agreement on the cessation of hostilities will somehow be reached, and what remains of Ukraine will live according to the laws that they adopted, this is an illusion. This must not be allowed under any circumstances.

On the territory of Ukraine, which is outside the constitutional borders of the Russian Federation, millions of people speak Russian. It is their native language. And to leave them under the rule of a junta that has banned them from speaking it (only they have not yet forbidden them to think) will be a great crime.

I hope and I am sure that we will definitely not allow this, the international community will not allow this to mock the UN Charter, where the first article says that "everyone is obliged to respect human rights, regardless of race, gender, language and religion." The Russian language and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are banned in Ukraine.

Therefore, at this stage of the settlement efforts, the simplest and most infallible thing for our Western colleagues, who are fussing, is to demand the repeal of laws that directly violate the UN Charter, not to mention the numerous conventions on the rights of national minorities. This would be a test of what the position of the Europeans, not all, but the majority of Europeans under the "leadership" of London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Warsaw, really is, who have never uttered the word "human rights" in relation to what is happening in Ukraine.

But when they discuss China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and almost any country and build relations with it, there will definitely be lectures about the need to respect human rights. There is no other country. Madam Ambassador of Israel and I recalled that the Arabic language is not banned in Israel, nor Hebrew is banned in Arab countries. This is not the case anywhere else.

But everything is possible for Ukraine. Moreover, they do not just close their eyes, but speak with pride. And Ursula von der Leyen, and before his resignation, Mr Charles Michel, and all the functionaries in Brussels, defending their position on Ukraine, convincing their voters that they need to tighten their belts and wait for better times, because now we need to help Ukraine, not to medicine, not to heating. They say that we have to wait, because Ukraine defends European values. Draw conclusions about what Europe sees its "values" in.

Real Nazism is being revived. There are many examples, including the speech of the new German Chancellor Frank Merz that the time has come for Germany to lead Europe again. To pronounce such words is to be a great cynic. The militarization of Europe has been proclaimed as one of the main tasks for the second half of the decade. This is a dangerous trend.

I will not go further, I can talk about this topic for a long time. It worries me, but let's move on to the questions.

Question: Every day we read about the mass of proposals that come in. All these proposals from our opponents and friends, including India, China and Brazil, are arguments on how to reach a solution to the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.

I would like to ask you what is the fundamental difference between these proposals and our proposals? You have partially answered this question and described the Kiev regime and its current state. It is difficult to negotiate with it, if it is possible to negotiate at all. But nevertheless, negotiations have begun.

Sergey Lavrov: How difficult? We talked at the end of February 2022, when the Ukrainians asked for negotiations, we immediately agreed. There were several rounds in Belarus and then moved to Istanbul. It was already late March and early April 2022, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this and shown the papers. It was the Ukrainians who proposed to resolve the situation on the basis of the principles they themselves wrote: refusal to join NATO and other military blocs, refusal to deploy military bases on their territory. And the British hatched plans to create bases both in Ochakov and on the Sea of Azov. This is all documented. They have been looking at Crimea for a long time, even before 2014.

No military bases, no military exercises on the territory of Ukraine and security guarantees that they themselves asked to be provided by the five permanent members of the Security Council, as well as Germany and Turkey. The list of those wishing to join was open. The guarantees were formulated in almost the same vein as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and it was emphasized that these guarantees would not apply to Crimea and the territory of Donbass. These principles were written by them, and that the dialogue would continue in other areas of settlement. We agreed. This was important in order to ensure the main goal at that time--the inadmissibility of NATO penetration into the territory of Ukraine.

Other guarantees were provided, including for national minorities. It was all brought down. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has returned to this topic more than once. But in the years that have followed and until today, we have always stressed at the highest and other levels that we are ready for peace talks that will focus on understanding and addressing the root causes of this crisis.

We did not shirk contacts. They said that Vladimir Zelensky said that he would never sit next to him. He signed an executive order prohibiting negotiations with Vladimir Putin and his government. Now they are trying to "outplay" him, that in fact this is not the case, that it is impossible to meet with Vladimir Putin personally. If it is impossible to meet with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, why did you shout that I went to Istanbul and Vladimir Putin did not want to come?

If you compare all the arguments that are heard from Ukraine, it is obvious that this is an inadequate leader. It is difficult to understand when and what he will do when he flies to South Africa, when he goes with someone to "hug" in Europe. But the President of Russia clearly set out our assessment of the legitimacy of Vladimir Zelensky and his regime.

He stressed that we do not refuse to contact him and his administration in order to agree on the principles of settlement that suit everyone. Another thing is that when it comes to signing, the issue of legitimacy will be crucial. Because if those whose legitimacy no longer convinces anyone signs, then the replacements may question the agreement reached.

Look at how the position of the Ukrainians themselves, the Ukrainian leadership and the West has changed. Until recently, they said that there were no negotiations, no truce, that only a "strategic defeat" of Russia would save the situation on the battlefield. When they began to understand that the change in the situation on the line of contact was far from being in favor of the Kiev regime, new notes began to sound: against the cessation of hostilities and against the start of negotiations, because they all said that in order to start negotiations, Ukraine must ensure a position of strength and talk to Russia from a position of strength.

We are talking about history. Which of these people does it teach? Let them remember how their ancestors and ancestors tried to talk to Russia from a position of strength. Uselessly.

Now they are the ones who are asking for a respite just to pump it up with weapons. They have said so publicly. My former colleague, now President of Finland Alexander Stubb, says that Vladimir Putin must immediately agree to a truce, but the truce will not impose any restrictions on relations between the West and the Ukrainian regime.

What does this mean? That they want to continue to militarize this state.

Here are the members of the delegation who recently went to Istanbul for the first round of talks. The Ukrainians sat with them, talked, discussed the agreements, which eventually began to take shape, on the exchange of prisoners of war and that both sides would prepare a memorandum outlining the issues that should make up the content of the settlement. They need to be given priority. That's settled. And nothing special happened. They agreed because they hoped that the support of the West, including the United States, would be eternal, and they would forever be allowed everything.

But US President Donald Trump has shown a different understanding of the situation. He repeatedly emphasises that this is not his war, but Joe Biden's. It is. His position that the United States is guided by national interests also applies to the Ukrainian situation. What national interest does the United States have in Ukraine, other than the very task promoted by Democratic administrations, namely to "contain," "encircle," and "constantly keep Russia in suspense"? No. Economic, for God's sake, please. No one forbids this to anyone.

We are in favour of talks. There will be a second round of talks. They have confirmed this. This is already a positive development.

Question: Is the memorandum being drafted today?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it is. I don't know about the other side, but our work is already at an advanced stage. In any case, we will hand over the memorandum to the Ukrainians, as agreed. We will hope that they will do the same.

Question: Is anything clear about the dates of the next meetings? There is a lot of talk about this now.

Sergey Lavrov: No, the timing has not yet been determined. Many people are fantasizing about when and where it will take place. We have no ideas now.

Do we have a papal nuncio here? I would like to say that they should not waste their own abilities on working out options that are not very realistic. Imagine the Vatican as a venue for negotiations. I would say that it is a bit inelegant when Orthodox countries discuss issues related to the establishment of the root causes on the Catholic platform. One of them is the policy of destroying the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Instead, Petr Poroshenko, when he was president, asked the Patriarch of Constantinople in Istanbul for a tomos to create an alternative church, which is famous primarily for the fact that its "thugs" forcibly seize churches of the canonical church and kill or beat priests. There is still a Greek Uniate Church in Ukraine, which is also very actively working to support the regime established in Ukraine after the coup d'état.

I think it will not be very comfortable for the Vatican itself to receive delegations from the two Orthodox countries in these conditions.

Question: If we still think about the future. This year we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. It is clear that important decisions were made in Helsinki that ensured peace and stability in Europe for quite a long time. But then events took place that seriously undermined these agreements. I am referring to the events in the Balkans, Transnistria, the South Caucasus, and so on.

At various stages, President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about the need to create a new European security architecture that would meet the realities of today and ensure peace and stability in Europe for a fairly long period (at least one generation, but preferably several generations). Do you think we can talk about efforts in this area today? Is Europe ready to deal with these issues? Or does the current situation make it possible to postpone this prospect for a fairly distant period?

Sergey Lavrov: There is a deep security crisis in Europe. It thinks, as I said, about militarization. I would like to emphasise once again that it is very worrying that Germany, specifically Chancellor Friedrich Merz, is leading these discussions. He recently spoke in the Bundestag: "Strengthening the Bundeswehr is in the first place for us. In the future, the German government will provide all the financial resources necessary for the Bundeswehr to become the strongest conventional army in Europe." Does it remind you of anything? The strongest conventional army in Europe in his time was possessed by A. Hitler.

There is another interesting point from Friedrich Merz's statements. Recently, justifying his policy of militarisation and the creation of the strongest army, he said that Russia would not stop in Ukraine and would go to seize Europe. According to Freud, he would have done so, because he did not need to protect his compatriots and fellow tribesmen, but to seize land and start exploiting it. These Nazi instincts turned out to be very tenacious.

As for our position, it is based on the obvious that Euro-Atlantic security models have not justified themselves. This is primarily the OSCE. We are also witnessing a deep crisis in NATO as the main North Atlantic structure of the West. The European Union, having signed an agreement with the alliance two years ago, has practically become an appendage in the military-political sense. The agreement gives NATO the right to use the territories of all member states of the bloc when it is necessary to transfer weapons and forces to the east.

Eurasia is the largest, richest and most numerous continent, the birthplace of many great civilizations. It is a continent with many integration structures, but there is no continental, "umbrella" structure, and there never has been. There are also many integration associations in Africa, as well as in Latin America. But there is the African Union, there is CELAC. And in Eurasia, there is no such all-encompassing organization or even association, movement (it is not necessary to create an organization). Which is unnatural. Proceeding from reality, we see prospects (including from the point of view of increasing the competitiveness of the countries of the Eurasian continent) in establishing working ties between existing integration associations.

The EAEU has relations with the SCO and ASEAN. There is an initiative of Kazakhstan, which we support, the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. There are now discussions about transforming it into an organization. The GCC is also a promising association. Given the process of normalization of relations between the Arab monarchies and Iran, this seriously increases the economic, transit and logistics potential. There is the Central Asian "five", with which many countries of the continent and not only are establishing ties.

Each of these associations has its own plans for the development of transport routes, routes for the delivery of energy resources. It is much more profitable and effective to harmonize these plans, and not to do the same things in their own area.

At the first Russia-ASEAN summit in 2005, President Vladimir Putin formulated his vision of establishing ties between all these existing structures and suggested that the result of this process would be the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. And the process is underway. For example, the North-South International Transport Corridor, which makes it possible to provide a direct link between, say, the Baltic and the Indian Ocean. And there are other ideas.

I have been to Armenia. The Armenian side is working on the Crossroads of the World initiative, seeking to integrate its territory and its logistics capabilities into continent-wide processes. Speaking of this, we are in favour of developing all infrastructure projects so that, as our Chinese friends say, "thousands and millions of flowers bloom." But in order to put the Crossroads of the World into practice, it is necessary to sign a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We sincerely wish success in this. Just yesterday we discussed this with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and President of Armenia Viktor Khachaturyan. It is clear that the agreement was made possible thanks to the trilateral summits of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia (1, 2, 3, 4). We are ready to continue to provide assistance if both sides are interested in this.

Of course, normalization between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey is needed. Overcoming conflicts and unblocking the bans on transport and economic ties imposed as a result of these conflicts will significantly increase the competitiveness of this region and our entire continent.

The Greater Eurasian Partnership, as we see it, would become a serious material foundation for efforts, for work on the formation of a Eurasian security architecture.

I proceed from the premise that this should be done by the countries of the continent and that there should be a structure in the logic of Eurasian security, not Euro-Atlantic security. Not because we want to fence ourselves off. There is NATO. Countries that are interested in being institutionally intertwined with North America have such opportunities, please. But there is no need to create obstacles to the creation of a structure that all Eurasian countries, including the western part of our continent, can and will have the right to join.

I see no reason here to see some kind of conspiracy in this. But there are attempts to engage in unilateral initiatives on the other side, precisely on the part of NATO. There was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Many have already forgotten him. He headed the Secretariat of the North Atlantic Alliance for a long time. In the last year of his tenure, when NATO was already actively promoting "Indo-Pacific strategies," journalists asked Jens Stoltenberg if you were moving to the Indo-Pacific region, as if NATO had always said that it was a defensive alliance and its task was to protect the territories of its member states from external threats. He did not even blink, did not blush and said that yes, this is true, but now threats to the territories of NATO member states come from Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. He said so directly.

NATO is now moving its infrastructure to the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, actively trying to weaken (to put it mildly) the unity of ASEAN, trying to invite individual ASEAN members into closed bloc structures (sometimes "threes", then "fours") and declaring that this is a region of vital importance for NATO.

Why is the Euro-Atlantic structure hatching plans to subjugate and extend its influence to almost the entire Eurasian continent up to the Far East? If the Eurasian countries themselves do not deal with the issues of security architecture, then we can only watch how they will do this from across the ocean.

Another aspect of this problem is that US President Donald Trump, as I have already said, insists that his foreign policy is based on national interests. He believes that European problems should be dealt with more by the Europeans themselves, and not by the United States. This is also a tendency for the discussion on how to ensure security to be "Eurasian" in some way in the future. This is contradicted by the absolutely aggressive and revanchist rhetoric of Brussels and Berlin on the militarisation of Europe and the cultivation of their own population to prepare for war with Russia. This must be countered by peaceful efforts.

From the very beginning, we actively supported the initiative of Belarus, which a couple of years ago held the International Conference on Eurasian Security for the first time in Minsk. The second conference was held last year. A third one is planned for this autumn. After the second conference (I participated in both of them, and I will definitely participate in the upcoming one), my colleague, Foreign Minister of Belarus Mikhail Ryzhenkov, and I circulated our vision of the project, the documents that we conditionally call the Eurasian Charter for Multipolarity and Diversity in the 21st Century. Some ministers from the European Union, other European countries, and Serbia in particular took part in the conference. Because we emphasise that Eurasian discussions on Eurasian security should be open to all countries of the Eurasian continent. So far, all this is in progress. We are not trying to artificially draw and say anything schematically. This distinguishes us from the authors and promoters of the "Indo-Pacific strategies" conceived in NATO offices.

We are trying to catch practical trends in real life. They lie in the fact that numerous structures created on the Eurasian continent are interested in building bridges. Many have already been built and used to implement mutually beneficial practical projects.

Question: It is clear that the Eurasian contour is a priority, including in terms of security issues. I must say that experts have begun to actively study these issues. At the upcoming Primakov Readings in June, a separate session will be devoted to this Eurasian contour, Eurasian security.

You have just mentioned the United States and Donald Trump. If we talk about the Russian-US track of relations, abstracting a little from the Ukrainian issue (since it is not the only one on the agenda of Russian-US relations), what is the situation, apart from considering issues related to the Ukrainian crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: A return to normality. When, at the suggestion of the Americans, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and I met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz in Riyadh, we recorded a clear common understanding on both sides that national interests should be the basis of foreign policy in normal countries. This is the position of US President Donald Trump and the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin. These are not some ideological considerations about spreading their influence as widely as possible. If we take national interests as a basis, I hope US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not be offended, he said that the United States respects the fact that each country has its own national interests, especially when it comes to great powers.

Two conclusions follow from this. First. The national interests of any two states, much less two major great powers, will never fully coincide. Moreover, in most cases, they will not match. But when they coincide, it would be a colossal mistake not to use this circumstance (the coincidence of national interests) in order to transfer the situation into the channel of joint, mutually beneficial material projects in the field of economy, technology, etc.

The second conclusion. When these interests do not coincide, but clash, it is the duty and responsibility of the respective powers to prevent this clash from escalating into a confrontation, let alone a heated one. This was the conceptual "song" of our conversations in Riyadh.

When I observe what is happening in real life, I feel that at this stage the Trump administration is acting in this way. We have always acted like this, we have never taught life to anyone, we have never lectured anyone. This is a significant change in Washington's policy compared to Democratic administrations.

Although we see that this line of the White House is causing serious ferment among the elites, including the Republicans. Many people are not used to living in such a way that they do not deal with everyone and everything, do not determine everything and all. But we, of course, are sober people in the political sense. It is important not to indulge in illusions, it is important to be realistic, to understand that there have been many situations when the United States vertically changed its position. This is life. You can't get away from it. But this, of course, must be taken into account. We take this into account when planning our steps.

But all other things being equal, we are ready to implement mutually beneficial projects. Mutually beneficial. This includes space, high technology, and energy. American companies worked for us. All this is possible if our American partners are ready to agree (and I think they are) principles that will ensure equality and mutual benefit.

Question: Returning to the Ukrainian crisis, do you think it has influenced and continues to influence the formation of a new world order? What irreversible changes have occurred? How favorable or unfavorable are they for our Fatherland, for Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that the trend towards the formation of a multipolar world is healthy. Many see this as a pipe dream, since even major powers, especially among the world's majority, do not want to quarrel with the United States.

We don't want to quarrel with anyone at all. But we want to work honestly. I would like to emphasise once again what I said in this audience when we were meeting on Ukraine. We do not consider it necessary to break the international legal basis of the world order in the form of the UN Charter. But it must be respected in its entirety, totality and interconnection of the principles contained therein.

Already a textbook example, when it was necessary to destroy the remnants of Yugoslavia, the West unilaterally declared the independence of Kosovo and said that this was the right of nations to self-determination. Although by that time no one had even used force for a long time. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was in force, which fixed Kosovo's belonging to Serbia. At that time, there was still the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. It was 2008. Six years later, not in a calm, peaceful atmosphere, but after the bloody coup d'état in Ukraine, the junta that came to power began hostilities against its own people in connection with the fact that in Crimea and Donbass they refused to recognize the results of the coup. Combat aircraft were raised against them, Lugansk and the city center were bombed from the air. No one remembers it now, people were burned alive. When the Crimeans, in the face of armed bandits sent by the "friendship trains" to seize the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea, rebelled against this and held a referendum, the West said that this was impossible, because it was a violation of territorial integrity. And what about Serbia then? Well, this, they say, is different. After all, the Serbs then appealed to the International Court of Justice. He ruled that the declaration of independence of a part of a state does not require the consent of the central authorities. Everything seems to be clear. The point has been made. But until now, no one wants to admit it. Despite everything that has been known for a long time, despite the fact that the United States under the Trump administration has a realistic view of the Ukrainian situation.

Donald Trump was the first leader, if not the only one, to publicly say that it was a gross mistake to drag Ukraine into NATO. This will never happen. The Biden administration is to blame for this. Already American representatives of the current administration are publicly saying that the territorial issue will inevitably have to be resolved, proceed from realities and so on.

Europe stubbornly and rather unwisely repeats that "the Russians must withdraw to the borders of 1991." I have already said that when this conflict ends (I hope it will), what will remain behind the constitutional borders of the Russian Federation, what will be the order there? Will the Zelensky regime remain there and will rot everything Russian in violation of all norms of international law? When Europe calls for a return to the 1991 borders, does it want to hand over the Crimeans, Novorussians and Donbass people to this regime? They are not demanding that Ukrainian laws be changed there. They say that these laws protect "European values." I do not think this is easy work.

The memorandum that we agreed to prepare and hand over to the Ukrainians is drawn up practically based on the most fundamental things, on what are the root causes of this conflict and how they should be removed like a cancerous tumor.

Question: First of all, I would like to thank you for your position that we will not deviate from resolving the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. I have written a collection where all this is discussed in detail. I would like to propose to the Russian Foreign Ministry such an important document as the epistle of Holy Patriarch Tikhon, according to which "the Russian Church cannot recognise a peace according to which Kiev is the mother of Russian cities, and other Russian lands are forever torn away from Russia." I would like to give it to you so that you can use it in the work of the Ministry.

I have no questions. I have words of full support for your position.

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you.

Question: I would like to ask a personal question. As a minister, what lessons have you learned from the Ukrainian crisis, its course and its current state? I know that the Russian Foreign Ministry is seriously thinking about these issues. I think this will be of interest to the audience.

Sergey Lavrov: What are the conclusions?

Question: Yes, for myself, for the Foreign Ministry.

Sergey Lavrov: With every day of work, especially in the Ukrainian area in recent years, I am convinced again and again that our cause is just.

Question: Good answer and short.

Sergey Lavrov: Colleagues, thank you very much for your attention. I would like to thank both Alexander Torkunov and the leadership of the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy for the traditional events for the diplomatic corps in Moscow. We will actively support and continue this tradition. I hope that you will find this interesting and useful. [My Emphasis]

The attempts at wedges have been ongoing for many years, going back to the Tsars, not just during the Cold War and its aftermath. Lavrov’s use of Human Rights in his verbal assault on the West is because of the vast use the Collective West used it to destroy Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iran, and a host of other nations. It wasn’t thought of earlier during the War on Korea or during the genocide visited on Southeast Asia. I shouldn’t forget east Timor or Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. The attempt to smear China many times with that weapon. Hell, let’s not forget Cuba and Gitmo. But there’s a historical point Lavrov made prior to his use of Human Rights and that was the origin of the modern anti-Slav animus by Western Europeans. It wasn’t just the Austor-Hungarians who had a deep hatred of Slavs, that animus was shared by the German leadership to the point where Kaiser Wilhem wrote of “the coming war between the Teutons and Slavs for European dominance.” (Fischer, Germany’s First World War Aims) And as we know, Plan Ost was the epitome of that war plan that was executed but not accomplished 100% some 28 years later. IMO, Lavrov is quite correct to be worried. He knows history very well and knows intimately what the Nazis did and were attempting to do to Russia and Russians. The Ukranian Nazis are just that and they will continue to send their drones and whatever else they can find into Russia in the hopes of killing as many Russians as possible. As the Ukie Kazah ambassador said, that’s the Nazi job.

Lavrov has a hole in his history about Trump’s involvement in the War against Ukraine and its Russian speakers—for that’s what it ought to be called. And it’s not the national interests of the Unted States that are the issue; rather, it’s the interests and policy goals of the Outlaw US Empire which is governed by an unelected oligarchy through an apparat called the Deep State that controls what a US president can and can’t do. That distinction and the multiple issues it raises is rarely discussed, but it clearly exists. Lavrov knows quite well the primary doctrinal goal of the Empire is Full Spectrum Dominance, yet he’s never asked about it, not even by supposedly in the know journalists like Tucker Carlson. You bet I’d like to have been present at that Conference to ask just that question. Russia puts on a theatre act of its own along with China that feign naivete about the entity they face, that it doesn’t have what would be considered normal national interests, but Imperial Interests aimed at sustaining the Empire’s hegemonic position. Some of Russia’s intellectuals write about this issue, and it might be discussed behind the closed doors of Russia’s Security Council; but, I’ve never read any discussion by top Russian officials about the genuine reality of the global situation.

Lavrov’s excursion into the rant aimed at the Vatican also has a deep historical basis for the Vatican for centuries has tried to eliminate all other branches of Christianity. Moving along, Russia currently has the strongest army in Europe. IMO, it’s impossible for Germany to come anywhere close to matching it as the attempt will bankrupt Germany. Those who took my suggestion and watched the Nima/Orlov chat will have noted his very strong view on what will happen politically in Germany. We shall see how far Herr Merz gets without Russian energy and resources. I’d tell Lavrov that Team Trump still lectures other nations just as Team Biden before as we see in the Trade War and ongoing sanctions regimes against so many nations. And there remains a very deep Cold War animus within Congress and the overall governing establishment against both Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and now Venezuela.

Trump is often described as “being all over the place,” being the preacher of an ever changing narrative; that well beyond the use of narrative by Team Biden, Trump vacillates multiple times daily, far worse than Carrol’s Humpty Dumpty. Embedded within those constantly changing narratives are many lies which continue to provide justification for Putin’s attaching Empire of Lies to the Outlaw US Empire. The realist Russian position must be to never trust America until it renounces its doctrinal goal of Full Spectrum Dominance and proves it by scrapping its ancient nukes and aircraft carriers at minimum. And signs the Biowarfare treaty while dismantling its global em[ire of labs.

*
*
*
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!