Lavrov on F-16s: "will be considered by us as a threat from the West in the nuclear field."

Note: News unfolds haphazardly throughout the day which often generates more commentary than initially assumed at first. Subscribers will likely get more than one emission from me daily on the average because of that fact. The current one just made its existence known to me and delayed the next item I had planned. More events are occurring at a more rapid pace today than in past years making it harder to stay informed. Of course, you get to regulate what you read; and on my part, I promise not to distribute anything that’s nonsensical. Thanks for your attention.

Lenta.ru has interviewed Lavrov while he's at the Indonesian ASEAN meetings where he again reiterates Russia's position on negotiations regarding Ukraine and its 2021 security proposals. There's no difference in Russia's position on that matter. However, Lavrov made clear that deliveries of F-16s to Ukraine are a very serious matter indeed:

"The very fact of the appearance of such systems in the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be considered by us as a threat from the West in the nuclear field."

How Russia will specifically respond Lavrov didn't say. However, it's quite clear Biden has escalated the issue and Russia will respond at a somewhat higher level which could consist of several differing options.

What follows is the full translated transcript of Lavrov’s interview that as always provides an interesting perspective on events:

Question: In recent months, there have been several peace initiatives on Ukraine – Chinese, Indonesian, Vatican and African. To what extent did you have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the content of each of them, which of them is closer to the vision of Russia? Don't you think such initiatives are premature, given that they all imply a ceasefire?

Lavrov: First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to our partners for their efforts to find a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.

We do not consider their initiatives premature - for the Russian side, peace is always a priority compared to hostilities. Therefore, let me remind you that we already participated in the negotiation process with Kiev in the spring of 2022 and are close to a positive result. However, all efforts were thwarted by the Anglo-Saxons, whose plans for the cessation of hostilities were clearly not included. They were, and still are, obsessed with the maniacal idea of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

Of course, we have carefully studied all the peace initiatives that have been received. We held special consultations with a number of partners and discussed their ideas in detail. In mid-June, President Vladimir Putin received the heads of some African states in St Petersburg. At the end of May, we had a very confidential and warm meeting in Moscow with Li Hui, Special Representative of the Government of the People's Republic of China for Eurasian Affairs, head of the Chinese delegation for resolving the crisis in Ukraine. We had a substantive conversation with Assistant to the President of Brazil for International Affairs Stepan Amorim, who visited Russia in late March.

We share many of the offers of our partners. For example, such as compliance with international law and the UN Charter, rejection of the Cold War mentality, resolution of the humanitarian crisis, ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants, ending unilateral sanctions, refusing to use the world economy for political purposes.

At the same time, we have to state the absolute reluctance of Zelensky's Western curators to agree to any form of de-escalation. The Kyiv regime directly and immediately rejected the possibility of negotiations on the basis of peace initiatives proposed by China, Brazil and African countries. Adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine M. Podolyak said that "negotiations would become meaningless, dangerous and deadly for Ukraine and Europe."

In Kiev, they did not find anything better than to beg for evidence of "reliability" from those who would like to become an intermediary in the negotiation process. In particular, Defense Minister Reznikov demanded that China convince Russia to withdraw its troops from the territory of Ukraine. Otherwise, contacts with Chinese negotiators will be, in the view of this Kiev figure, a waste of time.

Question: Against the backdrop of Prigozhin's failed rebellion, it was reported that the G7 countries, Brazil, India, China, Turkey and South Africa had a "secret meeting" in Copenhagen, where it was allegedly discussed that peace talks on Ukraine could begin as early as July of this year. In the event of the start of negotiations, what provisions from the Istanbul document remain relevant for Moscow? What, on the contrary, has the Russian position changed?

Lavrov: We have not received such signals. There is every reason to believe that this information is unreliable, given the stubborn desire of Kiev and its Western curators to escalate hostilities. As we have repeatedly emphasized, Russia has never abandoned dialogue as a political means of achieving the goals of the NWO.

As for our vision of a settlement, even before the start of the special military operation, we clearly outlined its tasks. This is the protection of the population of Donbass, the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, the elimination of security threats that emanate from the territory of this country.

During the talks with Kiev, which took place on its initiative in February-April 2022, an understanding was reached that Ukraine should return to a neutral non-aligned status, refuse to join NATO, and confirm its nuclear-free status.

In addition, new territorial realities associated with the free expression of the will of the inhabitants of the people's republics of Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions in favor of political unity with Russia should be recognized. The Kiev authorities need to ensure the rights of Russian-speaking citizens and national minorities in Ukraine, including the official status of the Russian language.

As for the meeting in Copenhagen, its main goal was to try to convince representatives of the Global South to at least to some extent support Zelensky's "peace formula", which is absolutely unacceptable and unpromising, which we frankly tell our partners from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Since the conflict, rooted in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014, has a geopolitical dimension, it will be necessary to resolve the issue of Russia's security guarantees on our western borders. Let me remind you that this was the goal of the initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin in December 2021, when the West, represented by the United States and NATO, arrogantly rejected it.

Our position has not changed dramatically. We are open to dialogue, but we will be guided by our legitimate interests and measure our approaches to a possible settlement with the situation on the ground.

Question: What do you think about Ukraine's involvement of the International Criminal Court in the investigation into the circumstances of the dam break at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station? What other international organizations should be involved and why? What do you think about the reaction of international humanitarian organisations to the incident?

Lavrov: We have no doubts about Kiev's responsibility for blowing up the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station. It turns out that the Kiev regime is asking the so-called International Criminal Court to investigate the crime that it itself committed. This, probably, has not yet happened in the history of this "pseudo-court".

We warned the UN Security Council about the plans of Ukrainian neo-Nazis to destroy the dam back in October last year. At that time, we asked Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to do everything possible to prevent this criminal scenario. The lack of response from the UN Secretariat has cemented the confidence of the Ukrainian authorities that they can get away with it.

As for the reaction of international humanitarian organizations to the incident, as in the case of sabotage on the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline and the terrorist attack against Nord Stream, they did not make any principled assessments. UN agencies limit their role to ostentatious attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to those in need across the line of contact. They know that this is unrealistic in the conditions of a military operation, but they still strive to fulfill the political order of the West and the Kyiv regime.

Question: There are different opinions on the issue of Russia's use of nuclear weapons. In general, how do you view the possibility of using or refraining from using nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian conflict?

Lavrov: We have repeatedly spoken out on this issue. I would even say that it has exhausted itself if the West did not take actions that again and again force us to point out the strategic risks that arise from an aggressive anti-Russian policy.

The conditions for Russia's use of nuclear weapons are clearly defined in our Military Doctrine. They are well known, and I will not repeat them again.

At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the United States and its NATO satellites create the risks of a direct armed clash with Russia, and this is fraught with catastrophic consequences.

Just one example of an extremely dangerous development of events is the US plans to transfer F-16 fighters to the Kyiv regime. We have informed the nuclear powers of the United States, Britain and France that Russia cannot ignore the ability of these aircraft to carry nuclear weapons. No assurances will help here. In the course of hostilities, our military will not understand whether each specific aircraft of this type is equipped for the delivery of nuclear weapons or not. The very fact of the appearance of such systems in the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be considered by us as a threat from the West in the nuclear field.

Question: What are the tasks facing the second Russia-Africa Summit, scheduled for the end of July this year? How correct is it to talk about Russia's turn towards Africa? How will this be expressed for the Russian diplomatic service? Will Russia, for example, expand its network of embassies on the continent?

Lavrov: Russia and Africa have always been united by strong ties of friendship. Over the past decades, they have successfully passed the test of strength. We attach great importance to the development of Russian-African cooperation. This is enshrined in our Foreign Policy Concept, approved by the President of Russia at the end of March.

We view building up diverse ties with our African friends as an integral part of our overall efforts to expand cooperation with the Global South.

I am confident that the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg will play an important role in building a strategic partnership with the countries of the continent in the coming years.

Russia is ready to do everything possible to strengthen the sovereignty of African states and their security in all dimensions. This is the core idea of the upcoming meeting. It is expected to adopt a declaration of leaders and an action plan for the period 2023-2026 on priority areas of cooperation in the political, economic and humanitarian spheres. It is planned to approve certain documents in the field of international information security, the fight against terrorism, and the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space.

Following the results of the first Russian-African summit held in Sochi in 2019, the country's leadership decided to expand its diplomatic presence in Africa. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is working to open new embassies in a number of African countries. We will inform you about exactly where we open them when everything is agreed with the authorities of the host states and the necessary legal procedures are completed.

Question: How has Russia's foreign policy guidelines changed over the past year and a half? Can we say that we have passed the point of no return in relations with Western countries? If so, when did it happen? And how do you interpret the wording of the definition of Russia as a "state-civilization" in the Foreign Policy Concept in this vein?

Lavrov: After the start of the special military operation, the United States and other NATO and EU countries sharply intensified the hybrid war against Russia, which they launched back in 2014. There is no doubt about it. We will have to defend our right to free and sovereign development with all available means.

It is also obvious that there will be no return to the previous relations with unfriendly countries. If they suddenly decide to abandon the anti-Russian course, then we will see what exactly we are talking about, and we will decide on the further line based on our interests. This is about the "collective West".

As for the Global East and South, where about 85% of the world's population lives, these countries not only did not join the anti-Russian sanctions, but also demonstrate interest in developing practical cooperation. Among the constructive-minded partners are the states of the EAEU, CSTO, CIS, SCO, BRICS. With all of them, we are developing systematic work in various formats of cooperation in the interests of joint development.

We take into account that the strengthening of a multipolar world is a reality, not someone's whim. The updated Foreign Policy Concept proclaims the civilizational mission of Russia as a world power that plays a balancing role in international affairs. In practice, this means that our country will not be integrated into geopolitical and geo-economic structures, where we do not have the opportunity to protect our interests. Together with friends and like-minded people, we intend to promote the formation of a more just world order based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnection, and above all on the principle of the sovereign equality of states.