Lavrov Paints Fuller Picture in Interview with Kommersant

Sergi looks fatigued in the picture taken for this interview—note the eyes.

Perhaps because he’s tired of telling the same story over and over again or because he feels he needs to be more explicit for the Russian public, IMO Lavrov’s gets more detailed in this long Q&A interview with Kommersant:

Question: Since the new administration came to the United States, several rounds of talks with the Americans have already taken place. How would you assess the results of these contacts? Have you managed to formulate the key parameters of a future comprehensive agreement on Ukraine? On what aspects of it are there already agreement in Washington and Moscow?

Sergey Lavrov: The answer to the last question is no. The key components of the settlement are easy to agree on. They are being discussed.

There are no secrets on our part. On June 14, 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, speaking at the Russian Foreign Ministry, clearly outlined the principles on the basis of which he identified a long-term, reliable and fair settlement that takes into account, first of all, the interests of people and fully ensures human rights (especially the rights of ethnic minorities) in accordance with the UN Charter. All this was set out.

This is not some kind of requesting position. [I’d underline this too if I could.] I would like to emphasise once again that it is firmly based on the wording of the UN Charter, numerous conventions and the results of referendums and the will of the people in the territories, primarily Donbass and Novorossiya. These are four regions that, after a nationwide expression of will under international supervision, transparently decided to return to their great homeland–-in this case, the Russian Federation.

As for the American side. We have already noted that, unlike the Europeans (I can't even find any other word than frenzy), who are literally overwhelmed with frenzy (I am talking, first of all, about the leaders of France, Britain, the Baltic countries, and some other EU and NATO countries), the Trump administration is trying to delve into the problem and understand the root cause of the situation that has arisen as a result of the actions of Washington and Brussels, which brought the current regime to power by organising and paying for the unconstitutional coup d'état in February 2014.

Victoria Nuland, who was then responsible for Ukraine at the US State Department of the Obama administration, defended the effectiveness of the administration's policy at some hearings in the Senate, saying that they had spent $5 billion, and this had yielded results, and a friendly government had been established in Ukraine. The fact that this was the rule of the Nazis quickly became clear. In February 2014, the first instinct of that government was to violate the agreement concluded just the night before, guaranteed by the Germans and the French (we will have to talk about them more than once today if we consider ways to betray the agreements approved by the Security Council). They refused to create a government of national unity, which was supposed to prepare early elections, and announced to the entire square, to the entire Maidan, that they said, "Congratulations, we have created a "government of winners."

All these processes have already become irreversible (I mean that in the end, only military forces can expel these "evil spirits" from power). The first instinct of those "puchists" who seized the presidential palace and administrative buildings in February 2014 was to announce that they would abolish the status of the Russian language. Therefore, the generic signs are known in their entirety.

US President Donald Trump has said more than once that the Biden administration's decision to drag this country into NATO was a colossal mistake, including one that became a "trigger" or one of them, for what is happening in Ukraine now. Before that, there were some promises. At the time when Joe Biden came to power, they began to do this in earnest. US President Donald Trump has publicly recognised one of the main root causes more than once.

When we (Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov was also in our delegation) met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, we also talked about the second main primary reason that the Nazi authorities, represented by Vladimir Zelensky and his associates, have embarked on a course of exterminating everything Russian.

They physically killed many famous people, including journalists, public figures, who defended the need to preserve Russian culture in a country that was decisively created by the Russians and which for centuries the Russians not only helped, but equipped, built cities such as Odessa and many others, ports, roads, plants, factories. These people were physically exterminated.

Legislatively (if we take the current state of Ukrainian legislation) everything Russian has been exterminated. A series of laws that were adopted, and a dozen of them were adopted, long before we decided that there was no alternative to the start of a special military operation. The Trump administration also understands this.

In particular, US Special Envoy Stephen Whitkoff said in one of his interviews (to Tucker Carlson, I think) that these territories are inhabited by people who held referendums and spoke in favour of being part of the Russian Federation.

It is impossible not to take this into account: NATO, the destruction of people's rights. We are not talking about "land", but about the rights of people who live on these lands. That is why these lands are dear to us. We cannot give them away by expelling people from there. Now they are proposing to expel Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

Do those led by Vladimir Zelensky continue to talk about the 1991 borders also want to expel people from there or want to return them to their Nazi rule, to a situation where everyone has forgotten the language, culture and history–-everything that Russia has done for these territories? They need land to bargain at a higher price. They have already sold something to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at "speculative" prices. Now they have nothing left to offer the Americans. These are hucksters who have nothing sacred.

Recently, I was in Antalya at a diplomatic forum and quoted Vladimir Zelensky. The other day, in an interview, he said that he was motivated by hatred of Russians. When asked that he hates Russian President Vladimir Putin so much, he replied that he hates all Russians. Yesterday, Vladimir Zelensky confirmed this again in an interview with another media outlet.

We do not just feel that the Americans understand this. The Americans say that they understand that something needs to be done about these root causes. I do not even want to suspect that there is not a single normal person in Europe. Surely there are those who understand this. But they are also being silenced. With the rarest of exceptions, only Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Slovak Prime Minister Roman Fico and some political scientists and scientists who are not in power dare to tell the truth there.

The Americans and the Trump administration have this ability, which distinguishes them favorably from those who do not even want to think but only climb out on the screen (sorry for the not very elegant word) and begin to demand that Russia immediately cease hostilities for a month. And they, they say, will have time to quickly "patch up the holes", send some peacekeepers. Vladimir Zelensky has already explained everything to them with glowing eyes (he sometimes has glowing and sometimes "dimmed") when there was a discussion about peacekeepers (French President Emmanuel Macron did his best). He said that they did not need peacekeepers, but combat detachments. They say, let's quickly defend weapons, militants from your countries. I was forced to set out in detail our vision of who, what and how understands in relation to Ukraine.

Returning to other aspects of the Russian-US dialogue, it is certainly not easy to pull relations out of this hole after a three-year "failure". Moreover, the sincere desire (we see that it is sincere) of US President Donald Trump and his team to return to normalcy after the "stupefaction" that has gripped the Washington elites (not only the Democrats, but also partly the Republicans) is now beginning to cause resistance. They are secretly preparing some "moves" through lobbyists and the media. We are reading about it. Although no secret is being made of this. They want to prevent US President Donald Trump from establishing relations with Russia in an adult way, as befits two great powers and as it should be between any country.

The UN Charter (I never tire of quoting it) states that the United Nations is based on the sovereign equality of states. When the world Organization did not yet exist, Western colonialists never approached relations with others as their equals. Name me at least one conflict situation after the creation of the UN in 1945 where the West would have accepted as equals the parties to conflicts in which it actively intervened. Never. Therefore, it is not so easy to restore normality.

The PRC and the United States have no fewer [less] contradictions. Perhaps they are not so harshly "played" in the media space, but these are the two main, and perhaps the only rivals for primacy in the world economy and finance. As for the economy, look at the current life-and-death tariff struggle. They also have huge contradictions on geopolitical issues, including the territorial integrity of China: Taiwan, the South China and East China Seas, and territorial disputes. And in them, the United States unequivocally stands on the side of those who oppose Chinese rights presented in this or that situation. The position of the Westerners on Taiwan is the height of hypocrisy. In words, representatives of the US presidential administration and all European governments declare that they respect and are committed to the one-China principle, but immediately add that no one dares to change the "status quo". And what is the status quo? De facto, it is an independent Taiwan, which is being armed, independent treaties on economic issues are being concluded, without asking China anything. This is a "game" here. Not so long ago, Chinese representatives once again said that they are most firmly in favor of a political and diplomatic settlement of the issue of restoring China's unity, but if the West continues its provocations and incites Taiwan to abandon peaceful reunification, then the PRC does not rule out any methods.

I have cited examples that show that relations there are seriously burdened by a deep contradiction in principle. But neither under the Biden administration nor before it has the dialogue ever been interrupted. With all the high-profile and public invectives that are exchanged from time to time, it never occurred to anyone that the Americans could turn away and say that they were boycotting China, that it should be isolated. No one can ever imagine this. And with Russia, Joe Biden imagined himself to be a "teacher", a "mentor", someone who makes "court decisions", announces them and forces others to follow this "path".

The restoration of normal dialogue with US President Donald Trump is a natural thing. The fact that this has become a sensation for many is the "legacy" of Biden's mentality, which wanted to normalize the complete "isolation" of Russia. This is absurd. Of course, it has not materialized. Dialogue is difficult, but it is being restored. The main thing is that there is a desire on both sides, despite the problems and the mismatch of national interests on a number of issues on the international agenda (maybe even on the majority). It is necessary to meet as well-mannered and polite people and listen to each other. This is what is happening.

There is an understanding of how to move forward with the resumption of the normal work of our embassies, how to resolve problems with the timely issuance of visas to diplomats, including our diplomats working at the UN (this is a slightly different status).

The previous administration of Joe Biden, Barack Obama before him, and the first administration of Donald Trump abused the fact that the UN headquarters is located in the United States, although according to all the rules and according to the agreement signed by Washington with the UN, the Americans have no right to prevent the hiring of citizens of any country that is a member of the world organisation. There are still cases when employees approved by the UN Secretariat cannot go to their place of work because the Americans do not give visas. People wait for several years.

When, under Joe Biden, they began to create difficulties with the financing of our embassy, we responded in kind. Now reasonable people in the administration, who finally appeared there after Biden's protégés left or were sidelined, are working with us on basic issues of the life of diplomatic missions in our countries that have not severed diplomatic relations with each other. It is nonsense that this has to be done, but nevertheless.

The third area is the economy and trade. The Americans spoke about this at the first stage, when US President Donald Trump had his first telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, when US Special Presidential Envoy Stephen Witkoff was visiting, and when RDIF CEO Kirill Dmitriev was in the United States. They are business people. Material dividends are important to them. Donald Trump is making no secret of this. This is his philosophy and policy. The American people voted for this. It is clear that they are looking for profit.

If we take Europe, then the Americans there want to reduce the cost of maintaining NATO, primarily on the maintenance of American troops and their contribution to the defense of other members of the North Atlantic Alliance. See who has a surplus, who has a trade deficit, who taxes what investment projects. All this is happening, but it is happening chaotically. It happened. This is the policy pursued by the US president-elect.

The material issue has always been important to them. This was also evident during Donald Trump's first "cadence." Everything will depend on how they plan to resume economic cooperation. Compared to the record $34 billion a few years ago, it is 90% covered by illegal sanctions.

If you follow the discussion in our society, you know that we are not chasing anyone, we are not asking for the sanctions to be lifted. We have a powerful group of public opinion leaders who believe that the lifting of sanctions will be disastrous. Because liberal officials will immediately try to curtail all these achievements in import substitution, the sovereignisation of our economy, production, and security in those areas on which the development of the state depends: military, food, technological security. There is a fear that now these "cunning" Americans will suddenly lift the sanctions, and immediately flood our market with services and technologies on which we have been burned.

The story with civilian aircraft has not yet been normalized. Double registration, spare parts, engines, they say that they will not give us anything, they say, let our aviation industry die. Probably, none of the normal people wants this.

To reiterate, I am absolutely sure that President Vladimir Putin is right when he repeatedly drew attention to this, that we should no longer become dependent in areas that are critical for the survival of the state. As he said recently at the congress of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, if any of those who ran away from business in Russia after the "shouting" of their governments want to return, we will see if there is any vacant niche for this particular company. The niches that they created by fleeing from Russia do not belong to them. Many of them are already occupied by our businesses and businessmen from those countries who continued to work, to fulfil their obligations in terms of employing our citizens and in terms of fulfilling their plans to supply the markets with certain goods. The markets had already planned their work based on the fact that they exist. Then all this was trampled underfoot.

I believe that in this dispute between those who say that under no circumstances should sanctions be lifted and it will be worse, and those who say that we will then again fall into autarky from the global economy, I am still on the side of the former. It is difficult to talk about autarky.

There is no longer any globalisation of the global economy. It has been destroyed. And not by Donald Trump, but by Joe Biden, when he imposed sanctions and made them the only tool of his foreign policy. We were not alone. We have a record number of sanctions. More than half of the countries in the world are under sanctions, various kinds of restrictions – China, Iran and Venezuela. These are the largest recipients of this "benefit". But more than a hundred countries are under unilateral sanctions from the United States in one way or another.

The fragmentation of the world economy began long before today. Of course, the acceleration was betrayed by Joe Biden's use of the dollar as a weapon to punish the innocent. No negotiations were conducted with a country that was considered to be a violator of democratic norms. Service in dollars was stopped, barriers were built, they were bypassed, they tried to close workarounds. When there were trends towards the creation of alternative payment platforms and settlements in national currencies began to gain momentum, it was not for nothing that Donald Trump said before and after the elections that one of Joe Biden's crimes (worse than a crime) and mistakes was his use of the dollar as a weapon. Thus, he undermined confidence in this means of payment and laid a "time bomb" that will definitely "explode" someday.

Donald Trump also voiced his fear that the BRICS would create their own currency. If so, then he will impose absolutely cosmic tariffs on this association. This also shows that he understands the role of the dollar and the paper part of the world economy in general in the position of the United States in the world, in ensuring their leading role. After these tariffs, someone lost $50 billion just because the ledgers and computers where all this happens reacted to the change in reality in everyday life, where it was said that they would take money from us. And virtual globalization has proven to be unsustainable. Exchanges pump these futures, and then it all collapses and a tragedy is made out of it. This period passes.

Question: You say that the new US administration wants to discuss not only bilateral issues, but also a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.

At a recent UN meeting on Ukraine, convened in connection with the strike on Kryvyi Rih, the US representative warned that further Russian strikes on Ukrainian territories could lead to the disruption of peace talks.

After that, a few days later, there was a strike on Sumy, where, according to the statements of the Ukrainian side, the civilian population and children were again killed. Does this mean that Russia does not take the US warnings seriously?

Sergey Lavrov: Which representative said after Kryvyi Rih?

Question: Acting US Spokesperson to the UN.

Sergey Lavrov: The Americans have many official representatives. In particular, some representative recently said something in Greenland. She was asked to return to her homeland and look for another job.

I don't want to say that this woman (I don't remember the statement you mentioned) deserves the same fate, but we know very well that the position of the West, Europe and the Biden-era United States was dominated by outright lies.

Over the past couple of years, I have repeatedly drawn the attention of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to the fact that he, as the main administrative person of the Organisation (as written in the Charter), should comply with the requirements of Article 100 of the Charter, not take sides, but pursue a balanced position and not receive instructions from any government.

I have known him for a long time, we are on a first-name basis, we have been working for decades in various overlapping positions. I told him that he may not be in this post, but he is following the instructions of Western countries in connection with the situation in Ukraine.

Now, again, after shouting that "dozens of children and civilians have died" in Sumy, he made a statement that he firmly advocates an end to such violations of international humanitarian law, a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine on the basis of relevant General Assembly resolutions.

First, international humanitarian law categorically prohibits the deployment of military facilities and weapons on the territory of civilian facilities. From the first days of the crisis, and even earlier, during the Minsk Agreements, during the "rosy" but dashed hopes that they would allow the problem to be resolved peacefully, leaving Ukraine in its territorial integrity minus Crimea (they did not want to do this), there were "million" facts of the deployment of artillery, air defence systems in urban areas near kindergartens. How many videos have been posted on the Internet when Ukrainian women shout for the military to get out of shops and playgrounds. But this practice continues.

We have facts about who was at the facility that was hit in Sumy. There was another "gathering" of Ukrainian military leaders with their Western colleagues, who are either under the guise of mercenaries, or I don't know under the guise of whom. There are military personnel of NATO countries there and directly lead. Everyone knows this. The New York Times recently explained how the Americans played a decisive role in attacks on Russia from the very beginning. Without this role of theirs, most long-range missiles would not have broken away from their bases at all.

The second point that I regularly remind Antonio Guterres of is when he says that it is necessary to comply with the UN Charter and ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Why is it necessary to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine when there is a government that does not represent Crimea, Donbass, Novorossiya, or a number of other territories that remain under the control of the Kiev Nazi regime?

In the UN Charter, much earlier than territorial integrity is mentioned, it is written "to respect the equality and the right of nations to self-determination." It was this principle that became the basis for the process of decolonization, primarily in Africa. Yes, they waited a long time–-15 years after 1945—but then, at the initiative of our country, the "process began" (as one of our leaders said) and was completed, but not completely. 17 territories still remain in a subordinate position in gross violation of UN decisions. This is done primarily by the French and the British.

French President Emmanuel Macron is foaming at the mouth that the Russians are obliged to comply with the UN Charter and international law. But he never mentions the fact that, contrary to the UN General Assembly resolutions and the will of the residents of a number of African territories, they keep "pieces" of these territories. Probably, they like to go there on vacation. After all, it is beautiful there, palm trees grow. You will not find such a picture in Paris–-there is dirt and crime.

We remind our UN friends that if they say that it is necessary to decide in accordance with the UN Charter, then they should be kind and (as the main administrative person) approach it in the entirety and interconnection of its principles.

The principle of self-determination is linked to the principle of territorial integrity in a simple way. Back in 1970, the UN General Assembly resolution in the form of the Declaration on Principles of Relations among States proclaimed respect for the territorial integrity of all states whose governments do not violate the principle of self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory.

Do Vladimir Zelensky and his "clique" represent the population of southeastern Ukraine? Never and for no reason. When the UN Secretary-General says today that it is necessary to resolve the Ukrainian crisis on the basis of relevant resolutions, he is referring to Russophobic, absolutely frenzied resolutions that over the past three years have been adopted by the vote and votes of those who were blackmailed by the West, whom it threatened and whom it forced.

The resolution I mentioned on the need for self-respecting states to represent all the people on their territory is a consensus that no one has canceled.

We talked about the legislative extermination of the Russian language, about the recent law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a sister of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Article 1 of the UN Charter: everyone is obliged to ensure the observance of the rights of every person, regardless of race, gender, language or religion. Language and religion are directly mentioned in the UN Charter, which our Western colleagues do not care about. It turns out that the West, since it is represented in the UN leadership, also does not care.

We will prove. The truth is on our side.

Question: Don't you think that these two points (on the right of nations to self-determination and on territorial integrity) are in irreconcilable contradiction?

I see your efforts to unite them and explain your actions by the fact that Russia is guided by one of these points. The opposite side will not agree with us anyway, and you will not come to an agreement in this way.

At one of the plenary sessions with the participation of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev spoke about the same and warned that if we are guided only by the idea and the clause on the right of nations to self-determination, then about 650 absolutely irreconcilable conflicts will immediately flare up in the world. Should something be done about this?

Sergey Lavrov: Everything must be done honestly.

I remember this speech by President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. I do not agree with him. Later, we explained our position to our Kazakh friends. For them, there is only the right to territorial integrity. I repeated to him that if Kazakhstan is a member of the UN, they must respect the UN Charter in its entirety. I gave the example of decolonisation. Exactly what was written in the Declaration on the Principles of Relations between States is exactly what happened there. Namely, territorial integrity is respected by those states whose governments represent the entire people living in this territory. Neither Paris, nor Lisbon, nor Madrid, nor London–-not a single colonial power represented the entire people living in the territory that these colonialists seized. This does not require proof. Therefore, the decolonisation process was carried out in full compliance with the UN Charter.

The fascists and Nazis in Kiev do not represent the relatives of those whom they burned in Odessa, those whose children they tortured and killed in Donbass (which is what the Alley of Angels in Donetsk is now dedicated to), the relatives of those who died in early June 2014 in the centre of Lugansk as a result of military bombing. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of one's armed forces against one's own people in internal conflicts. I can go on and on.

Look at how those who were under the Nazi "yoke" for more than ten long years (I can't call it otherwise), those who were robbed, whose houses were destroyed, whose herds were stolen, raped women, react to the liberation of more and more new villages.

Do you know why there will be chaos? Because, first of all, in Africa, the colonizers, when they left, drew maps on a ruler, cutting the places of residence of ethnic groups in half, into three or four parts. As we are now observing the situation with the Tuaregs who live on both sides of the border of Algeria and Mali. There are a huge number of such examples: Tutsis, Hutu, etc. Yes, they left such a legacy.

The African Union in its wisdom decided that now we just need to live within these borders, somehow negotiate, arrange good-neighborly schemes so that relatives go across the border. As we had with our neighbors.

Question: All these African tribes will claim their right to self-determination. And soon there will be endless wars.

Sergey Lavrov: I am telling you that the African Union, in its wisdom, decided not to touch this shameful legacy of the colonisers, knowing full well that in this case even more blood will be shed. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, no one disputes these borders.

Question: That is, they are guided by a different point?

Sergey Lavrov: I understand that you are close to the logic that you are advocating. They are guided by the fact that they exercised the right of nations to self-determination in the conditions that existed at that time.

And in their wisdom they do not want to question these boundaries. Although the natural course of things (tribes live there) is associated with the fact that sometimes there are various "skirmishes". If we talk about the fact that now the right of nations to self-determination means a call to chaos, then this is not the opinion of the powers that be, to whom everything is allowed and about whom, apparently, you are talking about.

Kosovo. They don't give a damn about the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. At the same time, there was no military activity in the territory around this part of Serbia by the time of the unilateral declaration of independence of the province. There was no threat to the population of Kosovo, from which they allegedly need to be saved. And much more. Even before Kosovo declared independence, a resolution was signed. The UN Security Council decided that there should be Serbian policemen there, that Serbian border guards should be stationed on Kosovo's external borders. They did not care about this. They simply set a course for secession. Moreover, there was no referendum in Kosovo. A UN representative, former President of Finland Miguel Ahtisaari, stood up and said that Kosovo was now independent – no referendum, nothing. The Americans told him "I had to"–-he did.

How was the right to self-determination exercised in Crimea? They gave us the opportunity to hold a referendum freely. It was attended by several hundred observers. Yes, they did not represent Western governments, but they represented Western parliaments and the parliaments of countries on other continents. Then the West said, what is the right to self-determination? Like, no, we can't, we are Slavs, and they have Albanians.

Now they show many documentaries from the history of the Great Patriotic War. This racist essence is reminiscent of how the "superior race" treated the same Slavs. Now I am looking at the development of events. It has not gone anywhere, it has not disappeared anywhere. Listen to the same F. Merz.

Eight or ten years ago, when I talked with my German colleagues on various general geopolitical topics, they sent a "signal." Do you know what the meaning of their statements was? They said that they had settled accounts with us and everyone else a long time ago, as if they did not owe anything to anyone else and would behave as they wanted.

And a specific question from the same "opera". Survivors of the siege of Leningrad, Jews who survived the siege, received one-time payments from the German government several times. To our numerous questions (this story has been dragging on for fifteen years): what about those who, together with the Jews, froze in terrible conditions, carried their children on sleds on the ice, ate each other? They also survived, as did the Jews. Did they not deserve equal treatment?

At that time, the current President of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier (he was Foreign Minister at the time), told me that the Germans had a separate law about the Jews (the Holocaust), and that the blockade survivors were ordinary participants in the war. There were no one-time payments for them. They said that the Germans had already paid the indemnity. I said, "Excuse me, but still, if this is part of the Holocaust, it means that it applies to all blockade survivors. They are part of the Holocaust not because they are just Jews, but because they were mocked in this way." Categorically – "no". Let's build some kind of "hospital" in St Petersburg and create a centre for meeting war veterans–-"make peace". We said: "Good. This is probably not bad, but this is not the main thing. The main thing is not to show a racist attitude towards the blockade survivors." Categorically "no".

We have already explained to them that if they want to build something there in St Petersburg, they are welcome. But the survivors of the siege live all over the world, not only in Russia, but also in many other cities. Categorically no. This is now manifested in Franz Merz's statements and in many other ways. This is sad.

For us, of course, the fate of people is of decisive importance, and to say that the territorial integrity of Ukraine must not be violated means to return Russians, Russian-speaking people who fled from the Nazi regime, to the clutches of these "monsters".

We started by saying that the Americans understand the root causes. One of them is an absolutely Russophobic approach, which is enshrined in law and at the same time, in the context of the fact that the Americans are beginning to "delve into" these root causes, there are already discussions about territories. Stephen Whitkoff said that there were referendums in four states. This must be admitted.

Keith Kellogg (also Donald Trump's special envoy) said that there is a lot of talk about peacekeepers. They should be brought into the part that is beyond the Dnieper, that is, implying that it is necessary to "put up with it" before the Dnieper and there will be no territorial integrity there. There will be, or rather, already was, the self-determination of the people. He proposes to create "zones of responsibility" on the right bank of the Dnieper, something like Berlin, as was the case after World War II. There was noise and shouting.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are running around with this idea of peacekeepers and assembling a "coalition of those who wish." The Balts have already sworn to this idea. Of course, there is no way without them.

But most EU and NATO countries are "sour" to this "sour". They say that it is good that there will be some kind of line of contact. The main thing is to stop the conflict. But they still postpone a political settlement for later.

Our President's questions are coming into force: what will you do until this truce suddenly hypothetically "appears" without a lasting settlement? Are you going to arm, help forcibly mobilize poor Ukrainians, who are rushed after and "torn out" of toilet stalls in front of their mothers, stuffed into TCC cars?

Vladimir Zelensky said that they do not need peacekeepers but combat units. An "outspoken" person. But French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Christopher Starmer are playing with words. Now they have come up with "resilience forces". That is, in order to preserve the "resistance" of Ukraine, they will no longer put behind the barrier detachments to which the Ukrainian army is accustomed, but "civilized" military from Western countries. But what will they protect? Is it still the same regimen? No one even "stutters" about the elections.

Now, however, the Americans have said: it is necessary to hold elections. But Europe will do everything to ensure that the regime does not change in its essence. Maybe they will find some "new half-Führer" who will be less dependent on various "substances", but the essence of the regime will remain.

At various events I ask (I asked a few days ago in Antalya): When do you recognize the inevitability of preserving Ukraine within the already "truncated" borders, how do you see the regime of this "truncated" Ukraine? Will you force them to repeal the laws banning the Russian language everywhere? There is no such thing anywhere. Israel, even during the most brutal times of the occupation of the Palestinian territories, never banned the Arabic language, and this is still the case. But they have it, they can do it.

Instead of pointing at "this one" and this "creature" (remember how he calls the Russians), Ursula von der Leyen declares with pathos that it is necessary to give up "the last thread", "the last gun", "the last cartridge" (the last cartridge would not hurt Vladimir Zelensky), "everything to the end" – so that only he defeats the Russians, because Vladimir Zelensky and his army are defending "European values." This does not cause rejection from anyone in Europe.

Therefore, all these peacekeeping "schemes" drawn by the "Macrons" and "Starmers" proceed from the premise that this is required in order to preserve at least a piece of land on which the openly Nazi, Russophobic regime will remain, sharpened to prepare for another war against Russia (as was done with the Minsk Agreements). This is a big problem for the reputation of the West.

Question: In recent years, you and Vladimir Putin have emphasised in your public speeches the unreliability of our Western partners in negotiations of this kind. Moreover, they themselves emphasized, after all, their unreliability.

Sergey Lavrov: We emphasised and they proved.

Question: And they did, too, frankly speaking. How do the current negotiations differ from the previous ones? Why can they be trusted now? Do you think this can be explained in any way from the point of view of common sense?

Sergey Lavrov: There is only one common sense. And this, by the way, is Donald Trump's slogan. He always says that he is guided by common sense. This can be seen only in one thing: people came and told us: we have a lot of problems and contradictions, but this is idiocy inherited from the previous administration, that we do not talk to you. I believe (I have already said this) that this is normality, human normality, from which we will not "push away". On the contrary, we think it is important.

I can tell you that when we met with Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov in Riyadh with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz (because they invited us there), they began to "sing" and their "singing" was such that common sense is important for President Donald Trump.

Donald Trump's foreign policy is a policy of American national interests. At the same time, he acknowledges that other countries (especially major powers) also have their own national interests, which do not always, and honestly, in most cases do not coincide with the national interests of the United States, but (and then most importantly), Russia, the United States and any other significant country as responsible international players in those situations (and they are the majority) when the national interests of each of them do not coincide. We must do everything to prevent this discrepancy from degenerating into confrontation. In those cases (even if there are fewer of them), when these interests coincide, we must do everything not to miss the moment, to translate this coincidence into mutually beneficial material, economic, technological, transport, and logistics projects.

I believe that this is pragmatic and deserves a conversation. I do not know what will happen in four years, when a different administration comes. Now they are saying: let's buy Boeings again. So what? And who knows how the situation will develop in four years. Will they stand again, will we disassemble them for spare parts? Four years may even be too long.

In Europe and in our country, political scientists write that there is a year and a half left before the midterm elections to the US Congress, where the Democratic Party will "break into a cake" so that only there is no majority. But this is all fortune-telling on coffee grounds.

Now, when we are offered normal (as Donald Trump says) deals, we perceive it in a good sense. We are well aware of what a mutually beneficial deal looks like, which we have never rejected, and what a deal looks like that could drive us into another "trap."

The dominant opinion in our political class is that under no circumstances should we allow any restoration of relations in the economy and in other areas to lead to the fact that we will again become dependent on conditional "spare parts" in all areas, on the condition of which the well-being and general condition of our state depends. These are military, food and technological security. I am 100 percent convinced that this lesson will not be forgotten. It is not for nothing that President Vladimir Putin, speaking at the height of the special military operation, said that we have learned lessons and will never be the same as it was before February 2022.

This means that until the last moment we still tried to look for some compromises according to those rules. Despite the fact that our proposals to consolidate agreements on the security foundations that suit us (after the Munich speech, in 2008 we proposed a specific treaty), NATO and the United States "pushed back".

In December 2021, two more treaties were proposed to ensure the security of Russia, Europe and Ukraine without NATO expansion. We were ignored. In January 2022, then US Foreign Minister Antony Blinken told me not to "get involved" in the topic of NATO. They said that this was none of your business, and that they could think about agreeing to limit the number of medium-range missiles deployed on the territory of Ukraine (prohibited by the treaty), from which the United States withdrew. All. Here is a "concession" for you. But after the two draft treaties were submitted in December 2021 on the President's instructions (after another speech in November 2021 at the Russian Foreign Ministry), he hoped to the last moment that we would still convince them of the absolute catastrophic scenario that implied stupidly dragging Ukraine into NATO. We know that even before 2014, it was planned to create bases in Crimea. Then the issue of Crimea was already closed. But the British were going to build naval bases on the Sea of Azov and much more. President Putin's words that it will no longer be the way it was before February 2022 mean that he hoped for common sense until the last moment.

Now common sense has appeared in the White House. We will see.

Question: What will happen after the expiration of the New START Treaty in February 2026? Do you think you will probably not have time to work out anything to replace it? Will there be an arms race?

Sergey Lavrov: Why? President Vladimir Putin said that we will never get involved in an arms race again.

Question: Will there be some kind of unilateral "restraint"?

Sergey Lavrov: Why? We have our own policy, and we know how to ensure the defence capability of our state in case the strategic situation in the world does not change.

Despite the normalisation of relations with the Americans, no one stops declaring us an adversary in US and NATO doctrinal documents, and public officials also declare us an enemy. This does not stop.

You cannot tear it out of the START-3 Treaty (just like the UN Charter): we want to inspect your nuclear facility, this will be territorial integrity. It says otherwise. At the very beginning of the document, it says that we were able to conclude it because we respect each other, we are for equal security and recognise the relationship between strategic offensive and defensive systems. This relationship has long been "broken" by the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. And before that, they withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Since then, the Americans have begun to create missile defence systems, intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, which are deployed all over the world: in Europe, in Southeast Asia, and along the perimeter of the borders of Russia and China.

The Trump administration has proposed that the three of us sit down with China on this issue. They are not offering us anything. We will not offer anything to anyone either. Because we were not the ones who destroyed the arms control instruments and the New START Treaty. The Biden administration has rejected the basic principles without which it could not have taken place. The Trump administration has not yet returned to these principles, although dialogue on many issues is ongoing.

We are self-sufficient. We have everything. We know how to ensure our defence capability. If they feel that their nuclear arsenals are very outdated and continue to become obsolete against the backdrop of our modernised weapons, then they are probably interested in somehow correcting this "discrepancy". We have not received any such proposals.

The last time then-President Joe Biden "asked" to check the nuclear facilities at which American-made Ukrainian drones were launched at that time. The Trump administration said that they were interested in discussing strategic relations between the United States, Russia and China. China is not interested in this. We have not received any bilateral proposals. If it does, of course, we will explain, as we see truly equal conversations, talks on how to ensure strategic stability. But this is a long way off. We are not rushing around with requests: let's sit here, talk, let's talk there. We have not interrupted the process in any of its components (economic, defence, missile defense, intermediate-range missiles, etc.).

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we do not want to ask for it. If you do not like talking to us, we will behave accordingly and draw conclusions. If you want to come back, explain what you want to come to us with, and we will see if it suits us or not.

For example, the Americans have proposed a dialogue on the Ukrainian crisis–-we are talking, explaining our position. In the same way, they have proposed a dialogue on normalising the work of embassies–-we are in favour.

Question: When will the US Embassy in Moscow be open? When will it be possible to apply for an American visa in Moscow?

Sergey Lavrov: When will Kommersant's circulation increase? Do you want a five-year plan in three years again? There is no harm in wanting (I know this proverb).

The fact is that any process cannot be tied to any date.

Now they say there should be peace on Easter. Why? Because President of Finland Alexander Stubb thinks that this would be the right thing to do. He said all this after playing golf in Mar-a-Lago. And then he said, yes, this is our neighbour, the border is more than a thousand kilometres, so they will have to "recover." And three days before that, with a "brutal" expression on his face, he demanded that "Russia get out" and that they would not forget that it had taken away thousands of square kilometres of their territory. This is what worries Mr Stubb, and not the fact that they lived with us, gained independence from us, that they were explained why we needed to move the border away from Leningrad. As it turns out, they have "forgotten" all this. Including how at one time their leaders took a steam bath in the sauna with their Soviet, Russian colleagues, how someone even played hockey. And then once they said that "Russia violated everything in the world" by bringing in troops as part of a special military operation, and "the gloss flew off". Immediately—"give" us our territories.

Therefore, when people like French President Emmanuel Macron, who vilified us with his last words, suddenly said that one day we will have to talk and he will probably be the main "negotiator" from Europe, or President of Finland Alexander Stubb, who shouted that they were offended by taking away their territories and that Russia was the aggressor, said that we would "normalise" them someday. If these people think that they will behave this way now and then suddenly want to or realise that they are already impatient and need to "normalise" relations somehow, then we will think about whether the time has come or not, and under what conditions these relations will be "normalised". Truly, no one is forgotten. Nothing has been forgotten in every sense.

Question: From the previous words, it follows that Moscow believes in the ability of the American side to negotiate and in the role of the Americans as mediators in the Ukrainian conflict. There are already two agreements that have been signed with the mediation of the Americans: on safe navigation in the Black Sea and a moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure facilities. As we can see, neither the first nor the second is fully operational. How would you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: There are no such agreements.

On March 18, during a telephone conversation, US President Donald Trump proposed to President Vladimir Putin for thirty days... Donald Trump said that he understood why it was not clear how to organise a truce.

Do you remember that at the news conference with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, President of Russia Vladimir Putin outlined our reaction to the idea of a 30-day general truce? What will it look like? Will it be used to pump up new weapons, to forcibly mobilise tens of thousands more people (I don't know how many they would scrape together there), and how to ensure that violators are immediately identified? Knowing how much Ukraine loves to lie. Therefore, Donald Trump proposed establishing a thirty-day moratorium on strikes on energy facilities.

President Vladimir Putin immediately agreed. During the conversation, he gave instructions to introduce such a ban for thirty days. It turned out that seven of our drones were already flying to attack Ukrainian energy facilities. We shot them down ourselves.

And the second thing that Donald Trump said. They say that let people gather on the Black Sea Initiative, and it is necessary to resume its activities. People met and agreed on five points that the Americans circulated. We circulated an addendum to these five points, in particular, to the paragraph that the Americans would help resume normal Russian grain and fertiliser exports in terms of insurance rates, port calls and refueling ships. In general, practical things.

These are exactly the ones that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was supposed to do three years ago, when he signed the first Black Sea deal consisting of two parts: half of the "package"–-Ukrainian grain, half of the "package" – and grain and fertilisers of the Russian Federation. Antonio Guterres pledged to remove obstacles to the export of our agricultural products, fertilisers and grain. He did not do this. Therefore, knowing that he did nothing, we have been selling for three years, we have opportunities, we just use other routes. But there is still little grain and fertiliser on the market, which poor countries need in order for them to somehow establish their food production and receive humanitarian aid from us.

Therefore, we honestly said that it is great that the United States, just like Antonio Guterres three years ago, has volunteered to facilitate Russian exports by removing obstacles. The Americans have now formulated the same readiness. But, knowing that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' "hopes" had been dashed, we honestly said that if the United States is ready to assist, then this is what needs to be done so that the situation when that deal was welcomed with such "fanfare blows" again, and then it turned out to be "zilch" in terms of Russian exports.

In principle, checking the integrity of our Ukrainian neighbours is what we insist on when discussing with the West any schemes that they are promoting, wishing to "facilitate a settlement". Two of the most "screaming" examples. He spoke about how on May 2, 2014, almost 50 people were burned in the House of Trade Unions. Ukraine said (Petr Poroshenko was president at the time) that they would investigate this. No one is investigating anything. And the Council of Europe, which a year after the tragedy, when we were still members there, volunteered to help the investigation, and made some modest decision. They say that they are ready to provide services to the Ukrainian government in the investigation of this terrible tragedy. And slowly (as we say in our people) he "faded". Everyone has forgotten about it and no one remembers. Although there is a lot of video footage with those who set fires, who shot people who jumped out of the windows. No one is interested in this.

But for me, the most striking example is Bucha. In which, two days after our units were withdrawn as a gesture of "goodwill" at the end of March 2022 before the Istanbul Agreements, which Boris Johnson eventually forbade the Ukrainians to sign.

For two days, there was no one in Bucha except for the local authorities. The mayor of the city ran in front of the BBC cameras and said that they had regained control over their small homeland. Two days later, the BBC suddenly sensationalized dozens of corpses laid out along the roadside, not in basements or nooks and crannies. It is immediately stated that this is a "Russian atrocity" and that we have taken revenge on the Ukrainian people in this way. The European Union, the Americans and employees of the Bailen administration are imposing sanctions. All this lasted for three or four days: "Russia is a beast"...

Since then, we and I personally have been trying to get the names of the people whose corpses were shown with such fanfare on the BBC, and then through all other channels. When I was twice in New York at the UN General Assembly and took part in meetings of the UN Security Council, I asked Antonio Guterres, who was sitting opposite at the round table, whether it was possible to help. Because no one is presenting them. We have been accused. All right, there is an investigation. Tell me the names. We no longer hope, just to see how "biased" you are. Antonio Guterres turned away and shouted. Then, one-on-one, he said that this was not his competence. I replied, "Wait, but there is a UN Human Rights Council, which has created an "independent" Human Rights Mission in Ukraine in violation of its procedures. For us, it is illegitimate, but it exists. We wrote an official paper to the Human Rights Council: can we understand what happened there? Three years have passed since Bucha, at least give us names. They do not answer us. This is already an official paper.

When I am in New York, I do not avoid giving news conferences there, I tell everyone who is accredited to the UN (BBC, CNN and others) that they are journalists, they have such a genre as "journalistic investigation". UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is evading the answer, and the UN Human Rights Council is avoiding answering. Can journalists write a specific request to the UN? Nobody does anything.

Therefore, the situation is clear to me. I also understand how dangerous the self-determination of peoples is. Not at all dangerous.

The Nazis seize lands that have never belonged to anyone except the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and do absolutely disgusting things there, try to make some kind of "representation" to us.

"Suddenly" they recall some kind of Budapest Memorandum. It does not say anything about the need to "bow our heads" before the anti-constitutional coup d'état that brought racists, real Russophobes, to power. When they talk about the borders of 1991, they arose due to the Belovezhskaya Pushcha and then Almaty "divorce" between the republics of the former Soviet Union, based on the conditions that existed at that time. One of the key conditions for us, for the RSFSR, at that time was the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, adopted a year earlier. It clearly stated that this state would be neutral forever, that they would not join any military blocs. Then this "migrated" to the Constitution of Ukraine. This was correct. Their Constitution stated that the state of Ukraine guarantees the observance of the rights of Russians (separately highlighted) and all other national minorities. Despite all these "wolf laws" that I have mentioned, this provision has been retained in the Constitution of Ukraine. It was only later that they began to insert "accession to NATO" into the Constitution. But we recognized the independence of Ukraine as a neutral, friendly, non-aligned state in which "the rights of Russians and other national minorities" are respected. [My Emphasis]

Initially, no video was provided with the transcript so we could see and hear Lavrov’s body language and the tone of his voice. One is now available for his 80-minute testimony. His tone in the transcript IMO is one of tired cynicism where his emotions aren’t as guarded as usual, thus the matter-of-factness seen. While Lavrov praised Trump for opening dialog, there were also several messages to Team Trump related to the reality of what Zelensky fronts and those that brought it into being. That those in charge of major European nations want to assist and prolong the Nazis in Kiev tells us much about those leaders and those behind them. The levels of animosity shown towards Biden and Guterres were greater than anything said in the past. Biden must be looked beyond to Obama/Clinton and their deep association with Neocons. Trump 1.0 also cannot be excused for its role, and Trump’s spin must be spit back into his face as we see the legacy of Pompeo living in Trump’s demands on Iran. Just because Team Trump say they recognize one of the root causes doesn’t mean they will do anything about it/them. The unwillingness to pull the support plug is a key indicator here. Lavrov also finally gave away what he sees as the only solution to the Nazis—they must be eradicated militarily as in WW2. Indeed, as many Russians and others have noted, there are many similarities with the two as Europe rallies around the prime tenet of Nazism—Intense hatred of all things Russian.

Sanctions have long been a tool of US policy since its inception. When it can’t attack with its military, it uses economic warfare. If Trump really wants to reestablish normal relations with Russia, there are many steps he might to rebuild the trust that was so severely severed by three successive Outlaw US Empire administrations, including Trump 1.0. Trump just reauthorized the Empire’s sanctions for another year and has made no steps towards returning Russia’s stolen monetary assets. At Antalya, Lavrov observed the fact the UNSG Guterres accepted the legitimacy of the illegal sanctions relative to the Black Sea Grain Deal that IMO finally convinced Lavrov of him being merely another Western tool and incapable of performing his duties as the UN Charter details. IMO, Lavrov has also hammered the lawful nature of the Russian-Ukrainian’s choices to rejoin their Motherland, and has set the stage for future referendums, which is one reason why the Nazis don’t want elections. Lavrov’s continual reiterations of what the UN Charter—The Law—says is aimed directly at the Americans whose Outlaw nature has them violating the Charter and their Constitution daily. China has come closest to saying outright that there will be no harmony in the world until the Outlaws start obeying the agreed upon universal law governing relations between nations and the treatment of humanity. IMO, it’s clear that the entire Team Putin agrees on the need for basic laws to be followed—the UN Charter and National Constitutions. The Nazis and their supporters clearly don’t obey such laws and must be replaced by people who do. And as we’re seeing, that problem has grown well beyond Ukraine and has infected most of NATO, including the Outlaw US Empire as the latter restricts free speech and the right of assembly. Trump 2.0 may want better relations with Russia, but otherwise there’s little difference between it and its predecessors in domestic or foreign policy. Lavrov’s correct that there currently is a small opening to be exploited, and he’s also correct that small opening can close anytime.

*
*
*
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!