Lavrov Interviewed on Great Game Program Again

December 2021 Treaty Proposal Appended

On this episode of Channel One’s Great Game program, Lavrov is one-on-one with the senior Dimitri Simes as opposed to his previous encounter on 28 December 2022 when he faced a duo of questioners, the translation of that event is available at my VK here. The questions revolve around two intertwined topics: Ukraine and relations with the West. Now that Putin has expressed Russia’s naivete regarding the West’s attitude toward it, Lavrov is now free to add his view to that story, which is really the only really new revelation for those closely following Lavrov, although there’re a few additional items revealed as you’ll see:

Dimitri Simes: Given that we are close to the New Year, we can start summing up the preliminary results.

I would like to ask you about what I think is one of the most important – the change in the narrative in the "collective West" and in Kiev regarding the situation in Ukraine. A year ago, there was talk of a victorious Ukrainian army and predicted its successful offensive. It is now almost universally accepted that this plan has failed. There is even talk of a possible Ukrainian defeat. The only thing that is not clear to me is what conclusions are drawn from this. Can we say that the failure of the Ukrainian offensive led to a "round of diplomacy" and interest in negotiations with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: Recent weeks have been very eventful in terms of foreign policy issues and what is happening in the West. The most important event in the Russian Federation is the nomination of Vladimir Putin for the post of head of state for another term and all the events that took place around this event.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has set out in detail and clearly our vision of the current stage of confrontation with the West. We are well aware (as they said many years ago) that all this is not about Ukraine, but about containing Russia. Kiev was needed only in order to create an instrument of constant military threats to the Russian Federation, an instrument for the destruction of our influence, to the point that Russian traditions, language, culture, and Russians themselves were physically destroyed. Officials of Vladimir Zelensky's regime proudly admitted this.

Why has there been a change in Western narratives? First of all, we run out of money. Everyone talks about it openly, there is no secret. There is a difference of tens of times between what the West promises, for example, African countries and the entire developing world to finance the costs of overcoming the consequences of climate change. In 2015, 100 billion euros were pledged annually over ten years. If we compare what was promised and actually delivered (and this is a small fraction) with what was physically provided to Ukraine, then all the "incantations" of the West about the intention to be part of the international community, so that the Global South and the East actively develop, "fit" into all the schemes that will help save all of humanity, are chatter and pure lies.

About 200 billion dollars or euros (depending on how you count) have been "pumped" into Ukraine. This is dozens of times more than was promised (not even paid) to African countries. At this stage, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are working with the absolute priority of Ukraine to the detriment of others. Kiev is given preferences and quotas in the form of credits and loans that no other members of the Bretton Woods institutions could have dreamed of.

Nevertheless (as it turns out), money is an exhaustible commodity. Even in the United States, it is difficult to print another tens of billions of dollars, as planned by the Biden administration, linking this with the help of Israel and in order to buy off critics about the "hole" (or holes) on the southern border with Mexico, through which 10-12 thousand illegal migrants enter America every day. The Republicans are actively "playing" on this.

The main reason is that the American people and the populations of European countries are beginning to realize that they have nothing positive to gain from this. Moreover, they began to experience the negative impact of the "Ukrainization" of the entire agenda promoted by the West in the international arena: deindustrialization in Germany, the transfer of production to the United States, the loss of Russian markets.

Yesterday, British experts published an estimate that Western companies that have left Russia have lost at least $103 billion in revenue over the past year and a half. With this, jobs are lost, food prices are rising, and environmental problems are not being solved. I was horrified to see a report on what megacities like Los Angeles and San Francisco (where I have visited) have become in terms of ecology and basic sanitation. It was unimaginable.

Populations in Europe and the U.S. for the most part understand which is which. What was the money spent on so that they, as citizens of the respective countries that brought the current elites to power, could demand that they think about their voters as well?

As for the change of mood in favour of negotiations. In the spring of this year, I went to New York for a meeting of the UN Security Council, which Russia chaired. I met with a group of political scientists, including R. Hass and C. Kupchan. For some reason, everyone later decided that the meeting was secret and that this contact was used as a "channel". Nothing of the kind. He regularly met with political scientists when he was in New York. This time I also asked for it. They agreed, but their only wish was not to make public comments on the matter, which we did not do. It "leaked" a few months later on the American side. I don't know why.

At that time, suspicions began to be expressed that this meeting was on behalf of the Biden administration. Allegedly, they discussed some "serious things". Commenting on this leak, we made the assumption that by doing so they want to change public opinion and the situation around Ukraine. And the main thing is to change the aggressive mood of the Ukrainian leadership, which rejected everything and everything: no negotiations, only, they say, when Crimea is taken, Vladimir Zelensky's "formula" is the only non-alternative basis for negotiations, defeat "on the battlefield" and much more.

Since this had already become public, R. Hass, C. Kupchan and their colleagues (there were about six of them) expressed the idea that since no country can win, then it is necessary to "reconcile" for a certain period, coordinate it, leave everything as it is, and then resume hostilities. They did not hesitate to say that Ukraine needs time to improve the situation with its stockpiles, military equipment, missiles and other attributes of warfare. But that was in April of this year.

Now Western leaders are talking about this openly. That's exactly what they offer. Moreover, they clearly stipulate that this will not be the end of the conflict, but a pause. In much the same way that the West needed the Minsk Agreements as a pause in order to pump Kiev with modern weapons against Russia (as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French and Ukrainian presidents Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko later admitted).

The same tactics are now slipping into the conversations of our Western colleagues. Moreover, they do not conduct them with us, but publicly discuss this topic. In a serious vein, there were several appeals. For example, the meeting of the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin and the Director of the CIA William Burns in Turkey. Nothing new was said there.

Dimitri Simes: The change in the narrative about what is happening on the sidelines of the battle in Ukraine has not yet led to the intensification of constructive diplomacy with Russia. Is that so?

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely. Changing the narrative does not change the essence of Western politics. They still see Russia as an adversary, a threat and, as US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin put it, even an enemy. They are already "breaking out" what they really think about us.

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said in detail that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they wanted to destroy Russia. He referred to the naivety and gullibility of our political "class" when the West stretched out its hand and spoke about eternal common human values, about a single space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where everyone would be happy, equal and safe. The West still has this task.

From time to time, European and American politicians have a Freudian intention not to lay down their arms, not to give up and "finish off" Russia. "A million arguments" in favor of such a course are cited, including the relative non-competitiveness of our economy and the West's advantage in the ability to build up military capabilities. It's all "from the evil one." The events that took place in Moscow – the 21st Congress of the United Russia All-Russia Political Party and the meeting between President Vladimir Putin and the heads of the State Duma factions – dotted all the i's.

For many years, we believed, trusted, and were trusting. A lot of words can be made out of this "root of trust". More than once we were convinced that the West was "dishonest", but each time, according to the tradition of our people, we hoped for the best, forgave it, forgave it, forgot it, and decided not to make a scandal out of it. But now all the "i" and "yo" have been dotted.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin commented on all this nonsense and nonsense uttered by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Even President Joe Biden has been told that they "must" fight for Ukraine to the last Ukrainian, otherwise they know for sure that immediately after the victory in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will take on the Baltic States, Finland and other NATO countries. The very fact that serious people (the head of the Pentagon, the president of the United States) say this out loud speaks to their very desperate situation. They resort to "incantations" that are known to be false for any more or less knowledgeable person. This means that there are no arguments left to somehow keep the allies in line.

Dimitri Simes: You mentioned the West's containment policy. Maybe it's a bit more serious than deterrence now? Deterrence is, after all, a defensive policy. Now, as you noted, General Lloyd Austin (no less than US Secretary of Defense) calls Russia an enemy. At the same time, the United States (Joe Biden's administration) says that it is not a party to the conflict in Ukraine. You know English very well. There are many terms there, including "adversary," which means "adversary." They know the difference between "adversary" and "enemy."

Sergey Lavrov: "Adversary" is a strong enough term.

Dimitri Simes: But the "enemy" is even stronger. Usually they talk about those with whom you are openly at war. In such a situation, there are no diplomatic relations at all. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has just said that Russia's priority is to defend Russia's sovereignty. Can you explain what you mean? Who threatens Russian sovereignty? How do they do it?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, regarding the allegations. Every day we hear that the Americans (and other Western countries repeat this) do not participate in hostilities, but only "support" Ukraine, which is waging a "just" war for its sovereignty, territorial integrity and European values. There are many facts, including in the video space, about mercenaries from Poland and other European countries. Even from some Middle Eastern countries, where the Americans, in particular in Syria, still maintain the Al-Tanf military base, where ISIS militants feel at ease. Some of them have already "lit up" in Ukraine.

In addition to mercenaries (I cannot say one hundred percent and under oath), there is every reason to believe that the regular military of NATO member countries are fighting in Ukraine. Also, experts of the special forces of the Anglo-Saxons and other countries have actively participated and continue to participate in terrorist acts. Most recently, one of the Western publications leaked information that Nord Stream was blown up with the participation of a special forces group of one of the Western special services using a device (it was mentioned there), which allows you to dive to 250 meters. I don't know how much this will be the final conclusion if the trial is ever completed. This sounds much more plausible than on some pleasure yacht "Andromeda" where six people with five bottles of wine "drove out", "jumped off" and committed this terrorist act.

Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine Konstantin Budanov frankly admitted that he was working with the leadership of the US special operations forces. There was information that special units number "five" and "six" were created under the armed forces of Ukraine for close coordination with the CIA and MI6 (British foreign intelligence). There are plenty of such facts. Everyone knows that even at the beginning of the Maidan, the American special services had an entire "floor" in the building of the Security Service of Ukraine. All this shows that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, that it is being manipulated and used. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this.

As for our sovereignty. Vladimir Putin said that we do not trade our sovereignty for sausages. The image is clear. At the end of the 1980s, many people (and I remember myself) had the feeling that it was not that "we are ours, we will build a new world," but that now everyone would finally be guided by the interests of development and prosperity, find forms of trade and investment relations that would be mutually beneficial, and much more. At that time, all this was on the agenda of Russian society, which was heading towards the "end of history" announced by Fukuyama. At that time, the people accepted the thesis of the "end of history" with hope: we will no longer fight, we will have a welfare society, we will be friends with everyone, travel around the world and there will be no bans. It all turned out to be an illusion.

The West has never canceled the idea of containing Russia and has never even given up on making Russia "a little smaller." This goal was achieved with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West has played a role in this. However, those who say that Russian politicians themselves have made (perhaps even greater) contribution, if not to the collapse itself, then to the preparation of the conditions that made it inevitable, are absolutely right (I agree with them).

For more than twenty years, we have been living in a country that has decided to rely on itself, but nevertheless retained the hope that although we will not have warm and friendly relations, Western pragmatism (especially German pragmatism, and European pragmatism in general) should play its role. This "worked" in the field of our cooperation in the supply of gas, equipment and high technologies from Germany and other European countries to the Russian Federation. All this strengthened interdependence, which in the 2000s-2010s was recognized as a positive factor that strengthens the economic foundation on which security is built. Many believed that the stronger, wider, higher and more diverse this economic foundation, the less likely it was that Russia's relations with the West, with countries with which interdependence was strengthening, would ever break into a military conflict.

The West did this for the sake of the main goal (which is now absolutely clear) – to destroy Russia as an independent entity on the world stage. It is clear that now they are aware of the illusory nature of this goal, but they cannot say this and turn 180 degrees in front of their voters on the eve of election cycles without risking losing face and their reputation. But this is deeply rooted in them.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has listed the areas in which we need sovereignty. In all spheres on which the independent development of the Russian state and people and the growth of their well-being depend, in such a way that no one will ever put forward conditions for us on how to continue to live in this world. This means that there must be complete sovereignty and self-sufficiency in the field of security, weapons, ammunition and missile defence systems. Everything that is necessary to defend one's independence, honor and dignity "on the battlefield". This also applies to many branches of civil industry, on which everyday life, comfort, and convenience depend (modern household appliances, vehicles, trains, airplanes). Everything on which the ability to function normally and move around your country depends.

Food security is equally important. This is one of the first achievements in our movement towards sovereignty after the "Crimean sanctions" were imposed. Our agriculture has been dramatically restructured. There were additional benefits to support farmers and large farms. Now we can see the result. There are always exceptions. There was a detailed discussion about eggs with the participation of the President of Russia. The government has also commented on this topic. Once again, we will have a huge grain harvest and "feed" many foreign countries, and not only with commercial supplies, but also with the free provision of hundreds of thousands of tons of our wheat and other grains to the poorest countries in Africa, but also in Asia. Issues are being resolved with the unblocking of our illegally arrested fertilizers in EU ports. In fact, our agricultural production is on the rise. Yes, with caveats that are well known. I am confident that the measures will be taken quickly.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also mentioned cultural sovereignty. They greeted and applauded the masterpieces of foreign cinema. During the Soviet Union, French, Italian and Swedish cinema were loved. After the beginning of perestroika and the further process of revealing the Soviet Union to the rest of the world, Hollywood movies were watched. We've always had Indian films. There was nothing wrong with that, except that, being carried away by these imports, we almost lost our own cinema. Here, too, sovereignty must be restored, not because cinema is a sign of sovereignty, but because it is part of our culture and history.

Modern works of art, performances, films, new poetry of the special military operation and everything that has begun to support patriotic sentiments in this regard are all our heritage. I was glad to learn that we plan to shoot several hundred Russian films in a year. I watch them with pleasure. There are interesting movies and TV shows. This is also part of our culture.

In Europe, they wanted to remove Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy and all Russian writers from school and university curricula. Why is this done? In order to undermine our sovereignty in the eyes of the young people whom they want to educate without familiarization with the great Russian culture.

In our new version of the Foreign Policy Concept, for the first time, the term that Russia is a state-civilization is used is used. This is a lot of commitment. It is a statement of an objective fact that confirms that we are one. It consists of all these components: security, technological sovereignty, food security and cultural security. Here are our traditions of a multi-confessional and multi-ethnic state, which are carefully protected, including by the state. This could be seen by visiting the exhibition-forum of Russia at VDNKh.

Dimitri Simes: Russia's adversaries are not just talking about Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, but are actively trying to create the impression that Russia is a "special villain" on the world stage. They are doing this not only with regard to President Vladimir Putin, but also more broadly about the Russian army and the state. It started with what happened in Bucha. What do you think about these accusations? It is these accusations that are still used in the West to talk about Russia as a country of brutal aggression.

Sergey Lavrov: I have had the opportunity to speak on the topic of Bucha more than once. For example, in September 2022.

At that time, six months had passed since the day when they showed the central street of the village of Bucha, on which the bodies were decomposed. All this was shown two days after the Russian servicemen left there. British TV crews, as they know how, showed it "with tears". After that, another package of sanctions was introduced. Russia was declared a "complete pariah," a "violator of all the laws of war." We were waiting for an investigation. Such a crime could not do without him. Accordingly, we requested it from those who helped the Ukrainians find these bodies. No one told us anything.

In September 2022, at a meeting of the UN Security Council in the presence of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and other representatives of the UN Security Council, when we discussed Ukraine, he gave several examples that characterize the West's habit of announcing a crime, "removing the propaganda foam," and a few days later "forgetting about it."

This was the case back in 2007, when Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned in a British hospital. The trial was made public, which the British mean closed, with classified materials. This was the case with the Skripals. No one has responded to all our notes and appeals regarding the fate of Russian citizens. This was the case with the "poisoning" of Alexei Navalny, when the Germans simply refused to provide us with an analysis confirming the accusation that someone had poisoned him with Novichok. So it was with the Malaysian Boeing. Accusations have been made – packages of sanctions have been introduced. And then no one wants to go back to providing the facts. The same thing happened on May 2, 2014 in Odessa, when almost 50 people were burned alive.

At a meeting of the Security Council in September 2022, I drew attention to this numerous evidence that the West is "not clean on the tongue" when it accuses us of everything without providing evidence. I called on Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to use his authority to at least get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. Nothing followed. I met with Antonio Guterres later at the G20 summit in India in May of this year. He said it was not his competence. I reminded him that this episode was one of the central ones in the war unleashed against us and in a series of unprecedented sanctions that anyone has ever imposed on anyone. I asked him, if he thinks that Ukraine is a backyard of the world discussions, does he, as Secretary General, want to contribute to clarifying at least one episode? Moreover, there are a lot of suspicions here, since they do not want to give names. He replied that he wanted to help and would "think about it."

At a press conference in Macedonia on December 1 following the OSCE Ministerial Council, I called on journalists (both Russian and Western) to ask themselves if they have any journalistic spark (aren't they interested in it themselves)?

Our journalists, who are accredited there, recently appealed to the OSCE. Since I said this at the OSCE event, the organization's secretariat avoided answering, saying that they did not know anything, and as soon as they did, they would definitely tell us. That's ridiculous.

I am sure that none of the Western journalists will dare to ask the relevant bodies of Western governments to hand over the list. Maybe T. Carlson, but he is already a "freelance artist".

Dimitri Simes: More and more Western journalists are starting to ask questions. Not about Bucha, but about what is happening in Ukraine and what Ukraine represents.

I noticed that some of my former colleagues in Washington, people whom I considered realists in foreign policy (they were top officials for several years, but mostly in their own narrow circle), have now begun to appear on television, they have begun to be published in serious, influential newspapers. Something's going on.

But I would like to ask you about something else. You have had successful trips to what I call the "countries of the new world," the countries that support the new world order. President Vladimir Putin has had interesting and successful trips. Representatives and leaders of these countries visited Moscow. There were interesting votes in both the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, which effectively left the United States isolated on the issue of the Gaza Strip. Do you have a feeling that this "new world" (sometimes called the World Majority, sometimes the South, it seems to me that the supporters of the "new world" are the most accurate), an amorphous entity, these states that for the time being preferred to go, if not "in the wake" of American policy, then at least not to quarrel with the United States, that something happened because of Gaza? what makes them more active, and they are not ready to challenge the United States and on the contrary are ready to vote with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: In principle, many people are now comparing what is happening in the Gaza Strip with the position of the United States, primarily on the one hand, and what is happening in Ukraine on the other hand.

In your previous question, you mentioned that it all started with Bucha. To a certain extent, this is true. These were the first weeks of the special military operation. Even then, the West presented the situation as if nothing had happened before February 24, 2022. Just as after the coup d'état in 2014, he presented everything as if nothing had happened before the proclamation of Crimea's independence and its return to Russia. All they talked about was that we had "annexed" Crimea and that was how "it all started." No one mentioned that this was preceded by a coup d'état in violation of the opposition's obligations to France, Germany, and Poland, as well as the statement of the putschists who seized power that they were abolishing the status of the Russian language. It was the putschists who sent militant detachments on "friendship trains" to storm the Supreme Soviet of Crimea. It's all canceled. This is where cancel culture kicked in.

The same applies to all the events that preceded the special military operation. Long months of negotiations aimed at forcing the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Our proposal for security guarantees without the expansion of military blocs. The tenfold intensification of the shelling of Donbass in late January and early February 2022.

We are now witnessing a similar discussion about what to do next with Gaza and how it all happened. Is this horrific terrorist attack on October 7 enough for Israel to be allowed to do anything, as Benjamin Netanyahu has said several times? His commanders, the defense minister, and the national security adviser made a statement that there were no civilians in Gaza at all. Like, all of them have been extremists since they were three years old. When I heard all this, I remembered Yasson Lapid's statement (when he was Prime Minister) that there was no justification for Russia's actions to violate Ukraine's sovereignty and harm the civilian population. They say that everyone understands perfectly well that shelling Ukraine, there will be casualties among civilians. If we compare this with the way Israel explains its actions now, then it should probably make a rather vivid impression.

We reaffirmed, as Vladimir Putin noted again in his conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu, that we categorically reject any manifestations of terrorism. Especially such cruel ones as it happened on October 7 of this year. We know firsthand what the risks to the civilian population are.

I have already spoken about it in my speech at the Government Hour in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. When hostages were taken at the school in Beslan, at the Dubrovka Theater during the Nord-Ost play, our special services and special operations forces were preparing actions to free the hostages, I remember how every day, loudly, in all the Western media, with reference to some human rights activists in our country, there were demands "not to dare" to carry out a military operation, because the hostages would suffer. I remember it very well. Then there were loud lamentations and condemnations, when, indeed, as a result of the operation to free the hostages, some of them, unfortunately, died.

But I don't see anything of the kind in the West's position now. Interestingly, John Kirby and John Sullivan, in response to criticism that they stand idly by while civilians are killed, said that they are closely monitoring how their weapons are used. And in general, they look at how the foreign countries to which the Americans supply these weapons are used.

Even US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the other day that they want assurances that Israel will use the weapons supplied to it only in a targeted manner and in compliance with international humanitarian rights. That's how they laid out the principles on which America trades in arms. But let's look at completely different quotes (they are several months old), when John Kirby and John Sullivan, in response to a question about how you control the use of your weapons by Ukraine, claimed that "Ukraine determines its own goals."

Even after the strike on the Crimean bridge, exactly this was said: the right of Ukraine to determine targets on its sovereign territory. There is a slight difference. The Americans say that they want to make sure that Israel uses weapons pointwise and in accordance with legal norms, and Ukraine decides for itself. This is a double standard.

Let's get back to your more global question. I hope that the mood that is now growing in the world will be heard both in Washington and in Israel. I have a lot of Israeli friends. I still keep in touch with them, exchange information and assessments. Yes, Israel was created on the blood of the victims of the Holocaust and on our common oath that this should never happen again. I am referring to the horrors of World War II and the attempts of another "superman" to create a supernation by subjugating everyone else. We absolutely recognize Israel's right to security. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this more than once in public and in his numerous personal contacts with Benjamin Netanyahu (and with A. Sharon before him), as well as with many Israeli interlocutors. Our country suffered colossal sacrifices, some of which were victims of the Holocaust (the Jews of the Soviet Union also perished). We proceed from the premise that we also have the right to ensure our own security. I don't see anyone objecting here.

Dimitri Simes: Iwould like to ask you a question. As I understand it, the issue of security is central to Russian foreign policy. An interesting situation is emerging. Russia has great military successes in Ukraine. This is becoming something universally recognized: from Moscow to Kiev, from Washington to Brussels to London. On the other hand, there is a feeling in Washington, London, and Brussels that Russia is "punishing" Ukraine and is waging successful battles there. In Washington, they are not "dying" from caring about how Ukrainians are dying. This is not what the American voter really cares about in an election year, if it suits President Vladimir Zelensky and his entourage. The only thing that worries us is what can be done against the United States and the "collective West." And here, according to them, since they are "not participating" in the war, and since Russia has so far completely limited its power methods to the Ukrainian theater, then they have the feeling that it is possible to tolerate and even support Ukrainian terrorism, destroy Nord Stream and do many other things against Russia on the world stage, economically seizing Russian assets, diplomatically trying to isolate Russia. And there are calls from some Baltic countries to close the Baltic Sea to Russia.

Do you think Russia could try to convince the "collective West" that such tactics against Russia could be costly not only for Kiev, but also for its patrons?

Sergey Lavrov: President Vladimir Putin spoke about this, including in a recent interview for the Moscow. Kremlin. Putin, when commenting on Joe Biden's statement, said that Vladimir Putin will now conquer Ukraine, then go to the Baltic States, Finland and beyond, they should be on their guard. The President of Russia said that this was nonsense. Everyone, including President Joe Biden, is well aware that Russia has no such plans.

We do not have any territorial disputes with NATO countries. In general, we no longer have territorial disputes with anyone. In particular, all territorial disputes with Japan have been closed. They are well aware of this.

Returning to the zone of the Ukrainian operation, he said that we have no such intentions. It was the Westerners who broke off relations with us, turned us into either an enemy or an enemy. We have never sought to break this relationship. This is how Vladimir Putin's own views evolved from, as he put it, trust, to what we have now come to. It was not on our initiative that it was destroyed.

If they want, like the British, to sit out their waters again, then they must understand that somewhere there are boundaries that cannot be crossed.

The qualitative build-up of lethal weapons that are being transferred to Ukraine, it does not go unnoticed. "ATACMS" and German "TAURUS" are currently being discussed. Mr Olaf Scholz is still holding on. Apparently, because he was called one of the responsible leaders of the European Union, and not a "liver sausage". This is already progress in the assessment of the qualities of the German leader by the Ukrainian regime.

But there is serious talk of F-16 aircraft. In the course of these conversations, it turns out that there are no airfields in Ukraine adapted to service these aircraft, both in terms of the quality of runways, their arrangement, and in terms of the equipment necessary to service them after flights. Dozens, if not hundreds, of specialists are needed there.

There is talk that this can probably be done on the territory of Ukraine's neighboring NATO countries. I can say with all responsibility that this is a dangerous reflection. Again, for comparison, Europe and the United States are now "running around" in the Middle East, calling on the Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians to do everything to prevent the war in Gaza from spreading to the surrounding territories. Probably, they need to apply the same fervor to ensure that this does not happen in Ukraine.

Dimitri Simes: Thank you for the interview. I understand what a difficult and demanding job you have. There is a wonderful book (not in terms of ideas, but in terms of significance) – the memoirs of former US Secretary of State David Acheson, "Present at Creation", about how he took part in the creation of the old world order.

It seems to me that you are not only present, but also take an active and important part in the creation of a new world order. This is your role in history, for which we are very grateful.

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to thank all my colleagues from the media, you personally. This communication allows us to compare our thoughts with how our line is perceived in the professional journalistic community and helps us to make, I hope, more effective decisions.

I bought Present at the Creation 30+ years ago, and for many years mused at what Acheson meant by that expression. I now have a much better grasp of US and World History than then and believe he was referring to the creation of the modern American Empire. I’ve been meaning to reread it, but there’s so much happening, and my inbox is overflowing with material to read. I’m sure Lavrov has also read it and that was also many years ago, although I’d still ask him what his impression was.

Toward the end, Russia’s December 2021 treaty proposals to the Outlaw US Empire and NATO are mentioned and linked to. Given that the SMO in Ukraine is a direct outgrowth of the refusal to even talk about those proposals, the refusal anticipated by Russia promising a “military technical operation” would ensue, any negotiation over the SMO’s end will naturally include dealing with those proposals, although IMO it’s very clear the Outlaw US Empire will continue to refuse. Thus, I’m appending the proposal as follows:

The Russian Federation and the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

Guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 1970, the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe of 1975, as well as the provisions of the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1982, the Charter for European Security 1999, the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;

Recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations in their mutual relations, as well as in international relations in general;

Supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

Recognizing the need to join efforts to effectively respond to contemporary challenges and threats to security in a globalized and interdependent world;

Proceeding from the strict observance of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, including the rejection of support for organizations, groups and individuals advocating an unconstitutional change of power, as well as any action aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties;

With a view to improving the existing or creating additional effective and promptly launched mechanisms of interaction to resolve emerging problematic issues and disagreements through constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and recognition of each other's security interests and concerns, as well as to develop an adequate response to challenges and threats in the field of security;

Desiring to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and aware that a direct military clash between them could lead to the use of nuclear weapons, which would have far-reaching consequences;

Reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to avert the risk of such a war between the nuclear-weapon States;

Reaffirming its obligations under the Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America of 30 September 1971 and the Agreement between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of the United States of America for the Prevention of Incidents on the High Seas and in the Airspace Over the Seas of 25 May 1972, Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centres of 15 September 1987 and the Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989;

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of the principles of indivisible and equal security, without prejudice to each other's security, and for this purpose:

do not take actions and do not carry out activities affecting the security of the other Party, do not participate in them and do not support them;

shall not implement security measures taken by each Party individually or within the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that would undermine the fundamental security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall ensure that any international organizations, military alliances or coalitions in which at least one of the Parties participates comply with the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territory of other States for the purpose of preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party, or other actions affecting the fundamental security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America undertakes to exclude further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to refuse to admit to the alliance the states that were formerly members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America will not establish military bases on the territory of States that were formerly members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, will not use their infrastructure for any military activity, nor will it develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and weapons, including within the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in areas where such deployment would be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear weapons and from deploying surface warships of all classes, including within the framework of alliances, coalitions and organizations, in areas outside national airspace and outside national territorial waters, respectively, from where they can hit targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate on improving the mechanisms for preventing dangerous military activities on the high seas and in the airspace above it, including agreeing on the maximum distance of approach of warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties undertake not to deploy ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside the national territory, as well as in those areas of their national territory from which such weapons are capable of hitting targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall preclude the deployment of nuclear weapons outside the national territory and shall return such weapons already deployed outside the national territory at the time of the entry into force of this Treaty to the national territory. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for the deployment of nuclear weapons outside the national territory.

The Parties shall not train military personnel and civilians from non-nuclear-weapon countries in the use of such weapons. The parties do not conduct exercises and training of general-purpose forces, including the development of scenarios with the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification of the completion by the Parties of the necessary domestic procedures.

Done in two copies, each in Russian and English, both texts having the same forceProject.

Note the similarity Xi’s Global Security Initiative shares with the above. IMO, a question begged globally: When will the USA cease being an outlaw nation?

*
*
*
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!