Lavrov at the Antalya Diplomatic Forum Part One

Big event in Turkey with over 100 nations attending. The first part consists of a Q&A session in the interview format as you see above. The second part is the presser that followed. Both are a little more than an hour in length, thus the need to break them into the two sessions they were. This took place on March first well after the intercepted German conversation became public, Lavrov would have known about it from the day it was caught. Here’s Sergey, all emphasis being mine:

Question: At the moment, the world order and the balance of power are changing. We are witnessing a decline in globalization, a movement towards a multipolar world, and the importance of small groups whose interests were previously neglected is growing. Could you give a broad assessment of the current situation in the international arena?

Sergey Lavrov: Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank the Turkish authorities for inviting me to the Antalya Diplomatic Forum. I was here two years ago. Last year, unfortunately, we were unable to gather because of the disaster that befell Turkey. There was a terrible earthquake. Russia immediately sent its rescuers, the necessary medical equipment, and humanitarian aid. Today, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan recalled that period.

Indeed, multipolarity is a reality today. Not because someone suddenly decided to "challenge" the West, but because the natural course of events, primarily in the sphere of economic development, brought new, large and powerful states to the forefront. Everyone has heard about China and India. They have record economic growth and are mastering modern technologies.

By and large, the United States now calls China the main long-term challenge to American dominance. But let's not forget that China has achieved today's results by playing by the rules invented by the Americans with the support of other Western countries in the context of its concept of globalization: free markets, fair competition, respect for property, the presumption of innocence. When they saw that on the basis of the rules and institutions they had created – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO) – China was still growing faster and beating them in the field of economic development, the Americans immediately began to slow down, for example, the activities of the WTO, where a huge number of fair complaints from the PRC about unfair competition had accumulated. They are blocking the redistribution of votes and quotas in the IMF, although the BRICS countries, especially given the expansion of this structure, should have had more votes and quotas for a long time, if the original rules are applied, and the Americans should have lost their blocking quota. And much more.

The most interesting thing is that all these principles and canons of the free market were instantly crossed out once when the United States decided to punish Russia for the fact that for many years we warned our Western colleagues about the catastrophic consequences of NATO's eastward expansion, the absorption of Ukraine, and the unacceptability of the actions committed by the Kiev regime, which came to power in 2014 as a result of a coup d'état, to destroy everything Russian in Ukraine.

The Russian language, education, the media, and culture are all banned. Even in everyday life. If you contact a saleswoman or seller in Russian in a store, he or she may refuse to serve you. Imagine for a moment if Ireland banned English, or Switzerland banned French, or Switzerland banned German. No one can even imagine it. And in Ukraine, this was done with the direct connivance of the West.

Our numerous appeals to restore order in the country, which the West fully controls, to abolish these absolutely discriminatory criminal laws, which also contradict the Constitution of Ukraine (it is written there that it is necessary to respect the rights of "Russians" and other national minorities, including language rights), have had no effect.

Today, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Hassan Fidan said that the world order is in crisis, that it is not coping, and that the management of processes has been disrupted. Most often, Ukraine and Palestine were cited as examples. Indeed, the current disorder is taking place. Is the UN to blame for this? Not sure.

In the case of Ukraine, the world Organization has done its job. When the parties to the conflict in Donbass signed an agreement in February 2015 under the guarantee of Germany and France after a coup d'état and a bloody war, the Security Council unanimously approved it, adopting a resolution and thereby making it binding. And it is not the fault of the UN Security Council (as it initially functioned) for the fact that no one was going to implement these agreements. Later, all those who signed them admitted this, except for President of Russia Vladimir Putin. They said they didn't need to do it. They just needed to buy time to "pump" Ukraine with weapons against Russia. In fact, it was.

Everything that you are witnessing now confirms the original plan not to compromise, to go to the end of turning Ukraine into an "anti-Russia", even into a springboard for an attack on Russia, creating threats to security on the borders (NATO already had such plans) and, as I have already said, destroying all Russian, Russian culture in the lands that the Russians were developing, where they created cities and built roads. ships, ports.

This is not the fault of the international community, embodied in the UN. The Charter of the Organization is the ideal document for today. There is a basic principle that the West has never respected. It says: The United Nations is based on the sovereign equality of States. Name me a single conflict since the creation of the United Nations in which the West has treated the participants as equals. Never.

As it turns out, in the resolution on Ukraine (the Minsk agreements), the West also did not consider Russia as a country that should be respected. All that was said in these agreements was that a small part of eastern Ukraine would have the right to speak Russian, teach their children in Russian, could have their own local police, and should be consulted when judges and prosecutors were appointed. That's all. This is roughly the same as what French President Emmanuel Macron wants to grant to Corsica. This is far less than the degree of autonomy that exists in many Western countries for national minorities.

As for Palestine, there are also decisions on the creation of a Palestinian state, which were adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, but they were sabotaged. And they continue to do so, primarily by the United States, which has terminated the activities of the Quartet of international mediators. In addition to them, Russia, the UN and the EU also participated. The U.S. has taken over the functions of "underground" negotiation work. No one knows anything about it, but which, apparently, will result in another "fiction". And the Palestinians will not get any state. There will be some kind of beautiful "announcement" that, for example, Palestine will be accepted as a member of the UN, and "on the ground" everything will remain exactly the same. That is, there is a beautiful "picture", but the status quo does not change.

Another example is the policy of the United States and its allies on Taiwan. They say loudly, at every corner, that they recognize one China, but, they say, do not violate the status quo. And what is the status quo? This is the relationship with Taiwan as a de facto independent state. There you have it, double standards. And there are many such examples. The problem is not in the foundation of the UN, but in the fact that, first of all, Western countries do not comply with numerous decisions of this organization.

Question (retranslated from English): You have talked a lot about US policy, NATO's eastward expansion, the situation in the United States, French President Emmanuel Macron's comments and the situation in Gaza. We will discuss all topics.

In your opening remarks, you made many assessments of world events. I would like to ask, how do you see the politics of your country and Russia's place on the map in ten years?

Sergey Lavrov: In the centre of the world, of course.

Yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin delivered his address to the Federal Assembly. There he succinctly but clearly reflected our current philosophy.

For many years after the Soviet Union disappeared, after the new Russia was emerging in a new capacity, we believed what the West had promised us. We were told that now the time of general prosperity has come, there are no ideological opponents, we are all in the same boat, and we will honestly live and work together for the benefit of all of us.

It turned out that all these promises were fiction. We did not feel any equality in economic relations with the West. It took us a long time to join the World Trade Organization. The European Union (as they say in Russian) "pulled all the veins" out of us, bargaining for concessions. Many other things were present in our relations with the European Union as our closest neighbour. Although we were the largest trading partners, any economic actions, steps and agreements were given with great difficulty.

In the end, we were deceived on the main issues for us – equal, indivisible security. This principle is enshrined in a number of decisions of the so-called Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Since the 1999 summit in Istanbul, it has proclaimed this principle, and since then it has repeatedly reaffirmed it, including at the highest level.

In this solemn commitment, it is written that no country or group of countries in the Euro-Atlantic area will claim dominance. And NATO was engaged in signing such an obligation with one hand, and implementing the enlargement agreements with the other, non-stop violating all the principles that seemed to be honestly agreed upon within the framework of the OSCE.

I will not say what happened to Ukraine after that. You all know that. A coup d'état, a regime completely subordinated to the Americans, who even before him had been "sitting" hundreds in the ministries there. Just as they now allegedly have their own mercenaries, but in fact there are regular officers (including the British and French). We are well aware of this. And it all ended with what we have now. When we were implementing the Minsk Agreements, we once again believed that this was a way out of the crisis in which Ukraine, especially its eastern regions, found itself. We thought that it was possible to avoid any negative consequences.

Twice during the period when NATO began to expand, we proposed the conclusion of a European Security Treaty. In 2009 and again in December 2021, the West arrogantly rejected our proposal to "codify" what had already been adopted in the form of a political declaration at the highest level. He just rejected it. He said that their relations with Ukraine are none of our business. NATO will do what it wants. In the best-case scenario, let's talk about some restrictions on those intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles that were banned by the treaty (from which the United States withdrew) and that they will build with us, but, they say, we will limit their deployment near each other's borders.

The OSCE could do nothing, although it was the place where all these solemn and pompous decisions were made. For us, therefore, this structure is no longer a substance that can be relied upon. The principle of consensus has been violated. The Secretary General and the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, which changes annually, are frankly on the same side. For many years, while laws were passed in Ukraine to destroy Russian education, mass media and culture, this organization remained silent. Just as it had been silent decades earlier about the fact that Latvia and Estonia still have the status of "non-citizens," when ethnic Russians living in these countries, who by the way voted in referendums for the independence of Latvia and Estonia, are not granted citizenship. Now these people are being "kicked out" of the countries I have mentioned. And the OSCE is silent.

In his address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin outlined our initiative or awareness (if you will) of the reality that is taking shape now, namely, the importance of developing cooperation on the Eurasian continent with the participation of all countries and organisations located here. The basis for this process is already being created by the relations that have been established between, for example, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Between the EAEU and ASEAN, SCO-ASEAN. We see the prospect of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf joining these efforts. The League of Arab States and a number of its members are also located on the Eurasian continent. This initiative leaves the door open for Europeans. If he understands the complete impasse of his current policy of preserving his essentially colonial domination, arrogance and lack of any responsibility to his voters, whose positions they are sacrificing to the Ukrainian regime and not just sacrificing, but proudly, to the whole world, they are publicly talking about it, then we will see.

Eurasian security is a natural process. Moreover, the center of world development has shifted to the Asia-Pacific region, primarily to South and East Asia. In general, Eurasia is now the "engine" of the world's development. The Euro-Atlantic region has already lost this role. Here's how we roughly see the future.

Question (retranslated from English): At the beginning of your answer, you said that, of course, Russia is at the centre of the world. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that if you look at Google Maps, you will see that Turkey is in the center.

Sergey Lavrov: There are some maps in Turkey that paint over large parts of the Russian Federation in the wrong colour. I hope you don't have these cards in mind?

Question (retranslated from English): You mentioned France. I would like to ask you about the comment made by French President Emmanuel Macron. At the beginning of the week, he said that the possible dispatch of the Western military to the territory of Ukraine could not be ruled out. The U.S. quickly denied this, saying it had not been discussed by either Britain or Germany.

A couple of hours ago, you were asked by a correspondent of a Turkish media outlet what you think about this comment. Your answer seemed short and non-verbal to me. Could you comment on Russia's reaction to these words?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, of course. This was not a slip of the tongue from French President Emmanuel Macron. When he said this, his subordinates immediately "rushed" to correct the impression made on the world community and even on the European Union as such. Many people there began to categorically deny it, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Macron's subordinate new Foreign Minister Séjourné began to say that he did not quite mean this. And on the other hand, as he said, it is possible to send troops there, but they will not fight, but train. And, they say, this will not necessarily lead to a war with Russia. That is, or maybe it will. The very desire to officially send troops has been recorded. Unofficially, they are there. Without these "instructors", Ukraine's long-range weapons could not be used against Russian cities. We are well aware of this. There is a lot of evidence for this, and more are emerging.

President Emmanuel Macron, after all these exchanges of remarks caused by his statement, said that he did not retract his words.

You mentioned that Washington has begun to dissociate itself from this position. This is not entirely true. Indeed, US President Joe Biden said something that they are not going to war. But US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, after leaving the hospital, said that if Ukraine is defeated by Russia, then NATO will have to fight Russia. There is a quote from him. That's the point. This is a serious matter.

At the same time, we are accused of putting nuclear weapons into space. President of Russia Vladimir Putin gave exhaustive explanations to this. The best fact is that for 15 years or more, our draft treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, prohibiting the introduction of any weapons into outer space, has been on the table of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. The Americans are blocking it. Now they have decided to blame us for this. This is the "old scheme".

When they had to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President George W. Bush said that they had to fight North Korea and Iran, saying that they had all sorts of bad weapons that threatened the Americans. That was a mistake.

Then they had to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. They simply wanted to go out and create (as they are doing now) ground-based missiles prohibited by this treaty. But before they came out, they blamed us. They said that we had allegedly already brought in this type of weapons and, according to them, they were deployed in the Kaliningrad region. In response, President Vladimir Putin sent a message to all NATO members, officially inviting their experts to the Kaliningrad Region to inspect the installations there. In response, he asked that our experts be allowed to visit Poland and Romania, where American missile defense systems were deployed, which could be used as strike weapons and, from this point of view, fell under the treaty in question. They didn't even try to discuss the message. They just refused. They said that we were violating the law, and they didn't even have anything to check.

They did the same with the Open Skies Treaty. Before they withdrew from it (and it was a major build-up of trust), they said that Russia was in violation of the treaty. And that's it. Although the violations were primarily on the western side.

Surely, the Americans are now accumulating unnecessary arguments to refuse any agreement on the non-deployment of weapons in outer space. Yesterday, President Vladimir Putin in his address clearly responded to all such fabrications. It's just nonsense, as he put it. And that those who drive such a militaristic "wave" must be aware of their responsibility. We very much hope that the population of these countries understands what their elected representatives are "playing" with.

Question (retranslated from English): Regarding the statement that if Ukraine loses the war, NATO will have to go to war with Russia. A week ago, we marked the second anniversary of what Russia calls a special military operation in Ukraine. From the point of view of the West, whose opinion is completely opposite, Russia illegally invaded a neighboring country, blatantly ignoring its national sovereignty. At the beginning of the conflict, Russia had certain grievances and specific goals. One of them is NATO's eastward expansion, as well as denazification in Ukraine. If you look at some of the results of Moscow's actions, the length of NATO's border with Russia has increased by 1,300 km.

Sergey Lavrov: Let's go back to the statement by US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, with which you began your question. I would like to draw your attention to the meaning of this statement: if Ukraine loses, then NATO will have to go against Russia. According to Sigmund Freud, he got what was on their minds. Before that, everyone said that Ukraine should not be allowed to lose, because Vladimir Putin, in their opinion, would not stop there and would "seize" the Baltic states, Poland and Finland. It turns out, according to L. Austin's open, unambiguous expression, everything is quite the opposite.

We have no such plans and cannot have them. For the Americans, yes. They feel Europe "floating" away from them. Or rather, it is still the main victim, the main victim of their policy of "dragging" Ukraine into NATO. All the main costs were "transferred" to Europe. People there are living worse and worse. Energy prices have soared several times compared to what could have happened if the Americans had not blown up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines.

This whole "idea" with Ukraine was undertaken not only against Russia, but also with the aim of making Europe not too strong a competitor. This goal has been achieved. The EU is no longer any competitor to the United States. All the main business and industry are moving to the United States, where the conditions are completely different. And energy is much cheaper. This cannot be discounted.

As for the reasons for what is happening. Those who carry through all the discussions the idea that Russia allegedly attacked Ukraine, annexed it, are committed to what the West calls "cancel culture." Undoing everything you don't like. In this case, it is the cancellation of the years leading up to this event. In the case of Crimea, the West has always said that Russia annexed Crimea and on March 16, 2014, history changed.

They don't want to remember that there was a coup d'état. It took place the day after the opposition and the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych signed a settlement document that provided for early elections and the creation of a government of national unity for the period of preparation for the elections. This document is signed by Poland, France and Germany as guarantor countries.

The next morning, a coup d'état took place. The opposition occupied government buildings. One of its leaders, A.P. Yatsenyuk, who later became prime minister, went to the square (Maidan) and said into a microphone for the whole of Kiev: "Congratulate us, and we congratulate you – we have created a government of winners." Is there a difference? A government of national unity, preparations for elections, and here is a "government of winners". First of all, it announced that it would abolish the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. In Crimea, in southeastern Ukraine, no one has ever spoken another language.

The second action of this "government" was to send armed militants to Crimea to storm the building of the Supreme Soviet. At that time, the population of the peninsula and eastern Ukraine said that they were not on the same path. And they decided to live without Ukraine. They didn't attack anyone. The putschists who came to power declared them "terrorists" and launched an "anti-terrorist operation" against them. It also included such episodes as: the burning alive of 48 people in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, the bombing of the center of Lugansk and other cities by military aircraft. All this was shown on television and on social media.

The West prefers not to touch on the part of history that eventually led to the referendum in Crimea. In the same way, it does not affect the fate of the Minsk Agreements, which I have already mentioned.

A year after the putschists launched their "anti-terrorist operation," they asked for help in establishing peace. The Minsk Agreements have done this. Later, their signatories admitted that it was only a ploy (just a lie) to arm Ukraine. No one in the West wants to talk about these "preludes" and "overtures," which are crucial in understanding the entire "spectacle."

By the way, when, after the coup d'état in February 2014, we began to appeal to the Germans and the French and reminded them that their ministers had guaranteed the settlement agreements, the opposition crossed it out. They asked us to influence her and force her to do what we had agreed on. Moreover, it was said that in five or six months there would be early elections, which the then president would definitely lose. In response to our admonitions, Germany and France replied that the agreement was "not bad," but that sometimes democracy makes unexpected "bends." Such a "democratic bend" in the form of the destruction of people was eventually adopted. And then it was "put aside" as having no consequences for the further development of events.

In fact, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Meloni said during a discussion of the situation in the Gaza Strip that "if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, Hamas would not have attacked Israel on October 7, 2023." I have heard a lot of interesting statements from the fair half of the workers "on the foreign policy front", but this is the first time I have heard this.

Question: It is interesting to see the correlation between these two events. Since we've already mentioned the United States... I will not ask whom Russia would like to see as president of the United States. But Donald Trump said in one of his comments that if he were president, he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. We are also seeing a growing reluctance among Republicans in the U.S. Congress to continue funding Ukraine. President Joe Biden has asked the U.S. Congress to allocate $75 billion in aid to Ukraine. Do you think Russia has more common ground with the Republicans?

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has already answered the question of who we would prefer to see in the White House. And more than once. But the most important thing about his response was that we are ready to work with any president that the American people elect, as long as that elected official is willing to act on the basis of equality and fairness. Without trying to "win" some concessions on our part, and in return not to change anything in their policy.

On February 29, Vladimir Putin commented on the US proposal to resume a dialogue on strategic stability based on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. But the preamble of the treaty says that it was concluded on the principles of equality, mutual respect, transparency, trust and many other good things. And then everything else. The Americans propose to resume the dialogue on strategic stability in order to resume visits to our strategic facilities, since the agreement provides for inspections.

First, the inspections were agreed in the context of the relationship reflected in the preamble to the treaty. The United States believes that the preamble is irrelevant. Why? Without the preamble, there would be nothing else.

Secondly, how can the Americans seriously "ask" to visit our strategic facilities when several attacks carried out by the Ukrainians using long-range weapons against our strategic airfields could not have taken place without the participation of American specialists? Including in the form of modernizing the missiles themselves to add range to them. President Vladimir Putin described this approach in his Address to the Federal Assembly on February 29, when he said that the United States would try to achieve what it wanted in different ways: through the Russian Foreign Ministry and other agencies. All this is just to get a one-sided benefit.

We are not waiting for the changes that the elections in the United States will bring. As for Donald Trump, he has already been president. During his leadership, some of the heaviest sanctions were adopted, as it seemed at the time. But the Biden administration has outdone everyone.

But it was President Barack Obama who started it. At the end of his term of office, three weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration, the US President expelled our diplomats along with their families and children. In total, there were 120 of them. He did it on New Year's Eve. He ordered them to go home on a day when there were no direct flights between Washington and Moscow. And our employees with children, belongings, suitcases were going to New York by bus in bad weather. This was done with special "finesse" by the Obama administration. And their followers continued the work.

Question: You have already mentioned Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Meloni, who said that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, Hamas would not have attacked Israel. Moscow has openly stated that the escalation in the Middle East is a direct consequence of Washington's attempt to monopolize mediation efforts. What actions will Russia take to ensure a sustainable and viable solution to the conflict in the Middle East, apart from directly condemning the attack carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023?

Sergey Lavrov: This problem has been discussed for many decades. When I was still Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, we tried to encourage them to take constructive steps towards the creation of a Palestinian state during informal conversations with my Israeli colleagues.

At that time (more than 20 years ago) this state could still be imagined on the map. Now there is practically no "living place" left there. Even in the West Bank, everything is littered with illegal Israeli settlements that no one in the world, including the United States, recognizes. But at the time, outlines were still emerging that would include both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

At that time, I told my Israeli friends, criticizing their intransigence, that the unresolved Palestinian problem was the main factor that constantly fueled extremism in Palestine itself and on the Arab street as a whole. The Israelis were offended, saying that the Palestinians were terrorists and that it was necessary to talk to them and act only in the language of force.

I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of experts share the assessment of the impact of the unresolved Palestinian problem on everything that is happening. This is confirmed by our meetings. When Hamas launched a horrific terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, Russia immediately condemned the attack. But when it was followed by a military operation in the form of collective punishment of the Palestinians, we could not accept it.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, condemning the October 7, 2023 attack, said that it did not take place "in a vacuum," meaning exactly what we are talking about. Israel's Permanent Representative to the UN, G. Erdan, reacted to this statement by demanding the resignation of Antonio Guterres and the dissolution of the UN. A sense of one's own infallibility has never done any good in history.

Members of Benjamin Netanyahu's government recently said that the Palestinians are "human animals." The Kiev regime, Vladimir Zelensky, and Ukrainian officials treat Russians in much the same way, calling them "non-humans" and "creatures." Long before the start of the special military operation, when the Minsk Agreements were in effect, and there were already shootings in violation of these agreements, Vladimir Zelensky was asked in an interview what he thought of the people on the other side of the contact line. He said thoughtfully, as befits an artist, that "there are people, and there are creatures." On another occasion, he advised all those who do not like living in Ukraine and who feel that they belong to Russian culture for the sake of the future of their children and grandchildren to go to Russia. This is how he characterized the Russians who lived in Ukraine.

There was also a statement about the Palestinians as "animals." Many world figures called on the Israelis to "adapt" their operation to the fact that there are a huge number of civilians there, some Israeli general said that there are no civilians there and they have all been extremists since the age of three. You can't take the words out of a song. On October 7, 2023, Israel's operation began. Seeing the horror taking place in the Gaza Strip and the killing of civilians, we proposed a resolution on October 15, 2023, calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. The Americans didn't let it through. Last year, the Brazilians tried to do the same, and in February of this year, the Algerians tried to promote the same resolution with our support. The Americans vetoed, the British abstained, and the other 13 members of the UN Security Council voted in favor. I think the most important task is to stop the development of events, because people are dying.

According to various estimates, including estimates by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, between 13,500 and 16,500 civilians have been killed since the 2014 coup d'état. In less than five months, 30,000 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip. Over the past 10 years, between 17,000 and 27,000 people have been wounded in Ukraine. In the Gaza Strip, in less than 5 months, it was 70,000, and this figure is increasing every day.

We worked together in the "quartet" (the United States, Russia, the UN, the European Union). We have always advocated that Arab countries, including those of the League of Arab States, should also be represented as full members of this group. The West (the US and the EU) did not want to let them in on an equal footing. Meetings were held, after which, at best, Arab colleagues were invited and informed of what had been agreed.

Speaking about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the UN. In 2003, the Quartet agreed on a road map for the establishment of a Palestinian state. There were specific, verifiable stages. The whole process was supposed to take a year. The roadmap was approved by the UN Security Council, but remained in the archives. Five years ago, the Americans, citing "busyness," began to slow down the work of this Quartet. After the start of the special military operation, under the same pretext, they stopped its meetings altogether and "monopolized" their mediation services.

I've already mentioned what they're doing now. They are trying to come to an agreement somehow, and in a non-transparent way: they will quietly gather in Paris, or in Doha they will ask their Arab friends to accept them with proposals. Our Qatari friends are mediating between Israel and Hamas. This information is available in the media space. First of all, we are talking about how to exchange hostages for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. First of all, women and children. Women and children have been held in Israeli prisons for many years. The Arabs are also talking about this, quite rightly telling the Americans that it is important to cease fire, exchange hostages for prisoners and not stop there.

Saudi Arabia has bluntly said that it will not invest in the reconstruction of Gaza, of which there is nothing left, unless a stable, capable Palestinian state is created. Looking at the map, this will require a lot of "relocation" of many people living in these territories.

One of the versions that is now "circulating" is that the Americans are trying to persuade the Arabs and Palestinians to come to terms with the situation "on the ground" and that the Palestinians will not have any more land. For this, the UN, the Security Council, and the General Assembly will adopt a resolution declaring that Palestine becomes a full member of the world Organization. A beautiful "picture" and the content is unsatisfactory.

On February 29, a meeting of representatives of all Palestinian factions, including Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others, took place in Moscow. US State Department spokesman Michael Miller was asked what he thinks about this. He said that any Russian efforts in the Middle East have never been effective. Everyone has their own understanding of good manners.

Russia is engaged in the restoration of Palestinian unity. The split between the Palestinians (Fatah and Hamas, the West Bank and Gaza) weakens their positions and distracts them from a principled conversation with the outside world. How many times have our Israeli colleagues responded to our calls with the Americans to resume direct talks with the Palestinians: who should we talk to? Mahmoud Abbas is in charge only in the West Bank, and his administration does not extend its authority to Gaza. Like, they don't have an interlocutor.

For many years, we have been trying, gathering the Palestinians and saying that the only thing that depends on them in this crisis is the restoration of Palestinian unity. But it was not possible to enshrine this idea even in a communiqué. The document, adopted at a meeting of Palestinian factions in Moscow, for the first time recorded their readiness to respect the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organization. If this does not remain a slogan, it will be a good step forward for them to become truly united and speak the same language with the outside world.

Question: The UN Security Council has vetoed many resolutions. Whether it's the U.S. on the ceasefire resolution in the Gaza Strip or Russia on Ukraine. It seems that we are becoming incapacitated. We are not united in the UN. What needs to change in the world?

Sergey Lavrov: Our Western colleagues must abandon their colonial mentality, stop living at the expense of others, and stop professing arrogant and racist approaches to international relations.

You mentioned our veto on anti-Russian resolutions on Ukraine. None of those who drafted these resolutions even mentioned how the Russian language, education, and culture were exterminated in Ukraine by passing laws, rather than convening some "rallies" with slogans. This is a double standard. He gave an example: if the Swedish language, which is spoken by 5% of the population, was abolished in Finland, there would be an uprising. In Ukraine, more than half of the population is either ethnically Russian or Russian-speaking. They are discriminated against, insulted, and physically eliminated. And the West passes resolutions condemning Russia.

We need to put an end to this. For such a noble cause, a veto is needed. And not when the whole world says to stop killing Palestinians, but the United States says, "Let them try again, and then somehow we will "come to an agreement."

Question (retranslated from English): The media have published a conversation between German officers about their plans to blow up the Crimean Bridge. Can you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: I read today what was posted on social media and announced by Margarita Simonyan with reference to relevant sources. On the one hand, it's amazing. On the other hand, no.

I have already mentioned that we know for certain about the participation of military personnel from NATO countries, who are sometimes disguised as mercenaries, sometimes as people who do not belong to the armed forces of the alliance.

There are some interesting things about this conversation. German generals discussed how to "more cunningly" supply Ukraine with long-range weapons (mentioned TAURUS) for an attack on the Crimean bridge and ammunition depots. And to make sure that they are not noticed, because German Chancellor Olaf Scholz allegedly does not like this, and the Americans and the British are already there. There was a conversation about whether it was possible to guide missiles remotely without being in Ukraine. One of the generals said it would still be a direct involvement. They know what they're talking about. In one of the exchanges, it is said that there are "guys from the United States in civilian clothes." That was said bluntly.

I don't know what to call it, but the face of our NATO colleagues is completely down. Let's see how they will communicate with their population.

Question (retranslated from English): Transnistria has asked for help from Moscow. What can we expect from the Russian leadership to make sure that this does not escalate into a request for "annexation" and further conflict?

Sergey Lavrov: The question should be addressed to those who caused such a statement by the Transnistrian parliament. First of all, to the regime that has settled in Chisinau, which is following in the footsteps of Kiev: they abolish everything Russian, discriminate against the Russian language in all spheres and, together with the Ukrainians, exert serious economic pressure on Transnistria. People lived under blockade for many years after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. They were unable to move. More than 200,000 citizens have Russian passports there. This is well known.

What conclusion did we draw? They have already reacted. We called on the Chisinau regime (led by Romanian citizens who do not hide the fact that they want to annex Moldova to Romania) to stop blocking the negotiation process. The leadership of the PMR has been talking about this for a long time. The "5+2" format made it possible to consider the interests of Pridnestrovians in the context of preserving the territorial integrity of Moldova. It is the renewal of this mechanism that Tiraspol is calling for. And the Romanian leadership in Chisinau is trying to destroy this format once and for all.

Busy, busy that Outlaw US Empire. A concise recitation of recent world events regular followers of Lavrov will have known, although a few new twists were added. Lavrov’s need to seem surprised by the press leak when he was likely privy to it soon after it was in hand. That revelation has led many to revisit what Putin said on Leap Day as he also knew that info which he then had publicized the next day. There was also a Russian ICBM and S-500 test made that didn’t get much publicity. Effectively, the leak constitutes a confession of 100% active NATO involvement.

Now, on to part two.

*
*
*
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!