Lavrov Talks with TASS Over Major Issues

In yet another interview, Lavrov met with TASS and fielded questions on key issues facing or involving Russia. That there’s reiteration on Ukraine must be expected given the Trump camp’s inability to hear or read what’s been said by both Lavrov and Putin during the month of December. As for the rest of Europe, those that are Russophobic are being bypassed to the point of being ignored. That EU/NATO has become a Liberal Totalitarian structure is openly acknowledged by Russian leaders, an assessment that’s backed by new evidence that surfaces almost daily. As you’ll see, the interview is rather short by Lavrov standards:

Question: Are there any signals that talks on a diplomatic settlement of the conflict around Ukraine may be restarted early next year after Donald Trump's inauguration? Does the Russian side have the intention or the need to work to restore bilateral relations with the United States under the new administration?

Lavrov: We have not received any official signals on the Ukrainian settlement. Until January 20, the date of the inauguration, Donald Trump has the status of "president-elect", and all policy in all areas is determined by the current President Joe Biden and his administration. And so far, only the latter is authorized to enter into relations with Russia on behalf of the United States. From time to time, as we regularly inform, this happens, but there is no talk of negotiations on Ukraine in such contacts.

Judging by numerous leaks and Donald Trump's interview with Time magazine on December 12, he is talking about "freezing" hostilities along the line of contact and transferring further responsibility for the confrontation with Russia to the Europeans. Of course, we are not satisfied with the proposals made on behalf of representatives of the president-elect's team to postpone Ukraine's membership in NATO for 20 years, as well as to send a peacekeeping contingent of "British and European forces" to Ukraine.

Russia's principled position on the settlement is well known. It was repeatedly voiced by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, including during the year-end news conference on December 19. We have always been and remain ready for negotiations.

But it is important to understand with whom and what to conduct them. These are by no means idle questions. The President also "covered" them in sufficient detail at the meeting with journalists I mentioned. For my part, I would like to emphasize that we can only talk about reliable, legally binding agreements that should eliminate the root causes of the conflict and which should enshrine the mechanism for the impossibility of violating them.

As for the prospects for Russian-American relations, if the United States is ready, we are open to restoring the political dialogue interrupted by Washington after the start of the special military operation. Since it was interrupted by the Americans, and not by us, they should take the first step.

Perhaps someone still has some illusions, I haven't had them for a long time. Judge for yourself. Even if Donald Trump tries to restore bilateral ties, he will have to swim against the tide, taking into account the bipartisan consensus that has developed in the United States on containing Russia, including through support for the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. And this is not so easy. Moreover, in American doctrinal documents, Russia is designated as an "adversary". So we'll see. If the Americans take into account our interests, the dialogue will be gradually restored. If they don't take it into account, then everything will remain as it is.

Question: Vladimir Zelensky admitted that the Ukrainian army is not capable of regaining the lost territories. What does this tell the Russian Federation? Do you think NATO has heeded Russia's warnings about the inadmissibility of Ukraine's membership in the organization in any form?

Lavrov: We do not believe statements, but facts, especially when it comes to the Kiev regime.

So far, Kiev has not canceled the task of restoring the "territorial integrity of Ukraine" within the borders of 1991 and the withdrawal of Russian troops beyond these borders. This task appears in the Zelensky formula. In October, meetings were held as part of the preparation for the second "peace summit". They want to invite Russia to it, as we understand it, in order to present us with a kind of ultimatum. I have explained many times that we are not going to take part in the "peace summit", even if we receive an invitation.

It is impossible to guess what V. Zelensky's public admission of his inability to return the lost territories by force means. This figure is constantly declaring something. To be honest, we stopped following.

As for our warnings about the inadmissibility of Ukraine's membership in NATO in any territorial configuration, as far as we can judge, there is no unity among the members of the alliance on this issue. Since the long-term expansion of NATO has been one of the main root causes of the Ukrainian crisis, ensuring the non-aligned status of Ukraine remains among the goals of the special military operation that must be achieved.

Question: When will the West stop trying to carry out "color revolutions" near Russia's borders? Do you think Georgia will be able to cope with the current situation?

Lavrov: This question should be asked to Western politicians. Interference in the internal affairs of states, including our closest neighbors, has long been part of their foreign policy arsenal. For many years, Washington and its satellites have been using this tool to contain geopolitical rivals and eliminate undesirables. The examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine are proof of this.

What is happening in Georgia is a consequence of the use of double standards, when, under the pretext of imaginary concern for democracy and human rights, everything is being done to "replay" the results of elections certified as free even by such a structure with a tarnished reputation as the OSCE ODIHR. Why is it necessary to "replay"? Only because the puppeteers in Washington and Brussels did not like the choice of the people.

The United States and the European Union are trying to put Tbilisi in front of a false dilemma "with us or against us." Meanwhile, the Georgian authorities seem to want to build a sovereign policy that meets national interests, and not to be a pawn in the hands of Westerners, who are pushing Georgia towards destabilization, economic problems, and aggravation of relations with Russia.

I have no doubt that the Georgian people understand everything and will move forward. For our part, we are not going to interfere in the internal affairs of Georgia. We are committed to normalising Russian-Georgian relations to the extent that Tbilisi is ready for it.

Question: How do you see the development of events in Syria after the change of power? Why, in your opinion, did the situation in this country develop so rapidly? Is it fair to say that a global redistribution of spheres of influence is taking place in the Middle East as a whole?

Lavrov: We are following the developments in Syria with close attention. It is too early to draw far-reaching conclusions about the events taking place there.

However, it can already be said that one of the reasons for the degradation of the situation was the inability of the previous leadership to meet the basic needs of the population in the conditions of a protracted civil conflict. After convincing successes in the fight against international terrorism with the participation of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the Syrians' hopes that their lives would change for the better did not materialize.

This is a great fault of Washington, which has actually occupied the most resource-rich northeastern region of Syria, and is also exerting serious sanctions pressure on Damascus at the head of a coalition of its satellites. This policy of "strangling" the Syrian economy constantly provoked social discontent.

In this situation, the authorities were forced to take unpopular measures, in particular, the reduction or abolition of subsidies for socially significant goods and services. Protest sentiments were growing in society, and the level of support for the government by citizens was steadily declining.

We provided the friendly Syrian people with a variety of assistance, including through the supply of humanitarian aid, the restoration of social infrastructure destroyed during the conflict, and the creation of a material base for the return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons.

However, it can be stated that the previous authorities, despite our urgent recommendations and active assistance, failed to establish a constructive dialogue with opponents and influential regional neighbors in order to launch a full-fledged political process, as well as to resolve serious problems of a socio-economic nature.

As for the second part of the question, I would give a different description of what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa. The dramatic and tragic events that we have witnessed are, in our opinion, largely the result of irresponsible and destructive actions of the United States. In an effort to maintain its influence in this part of the world, Washington actively interfered in the internal affairs of the Arab states, aggressively drawing artificial dividing lines. The peoples of Iraq and Libya are still struggling with the consequences of the adventures of the United States and its satellites. The source of chronic tension is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which flares up every now and then, in which Washington wants to play a sole mediating role.

The combination of these factors led to the destabilization of the military-political situation in the Middle East in October last year. Since then, the "arc of violence" from the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has stretched to Lebanon and the Red Sea. The Iranian-Israeli confrontation has come to a dangerous point. I have already spoken about what is happening in Syria.

Russia has always sought to promote the development of methods for resolving the conflicts in this region that would suit primarily the parties directly involved in them. The leading role in the process of normalizing the situation should belong to the Middle East states themselves. We are ready to support them in this.

Question: The West is constantly declaring the alleged involvement of the DPRK military in hostilities in the NWO and calling it a new escalation on the part of Russia. At the same time, they talk about this categorically and in an accusatory manner against Moscow. How would you comment on this?

Lavrov: We have repeatedly commented on the hype on this issue, which is constantly being fueled in the West. Recently, information stuffing has become even more aggressive. They can be answered briefly with the words of a well-known Russian proverb: "On a thief, even a hat burns."

Those who accuse Russia of something need to look at themselves in the mirror. NATO military and mercenaries openly participate in the planning and conduct of combat operations on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. NATO is involved in the invasion of the Kursk region and long-range missile strikes on Russian territory. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin spoke clearly about this during his recent public speeches. What kind of escalation on our part can we talk about at all?

In the context of the information war, one cannot expect objectivity from representatives of the West. We will calmly and reasonably refute their anti-Russia insinuations.

As for cooperation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, we will build it in accordance with the bilateral Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which recently entered into force. Among other things, it provides for a joint response to threats arising against any of the contracting parties.

Question: Taiwan is another point of tension in the world. China is working to resolve this problem. At the same time, the United States has repeatedly been noted for provocative actions on this track. Do you think the arrival of the Trump administration will affect this process? How real is the threat of a major war in the region?

Lavrov: We are not guessing about the plans of the future US administration, this is a matter for political scientists. If we assess the overall situation in the region, it continues to deteriorate. The United States and its satellites declare their commitment to the "one China" principle, but insist on maintaining the status quo, which implies the preservation of the current situation indefinitely. At the same time, the Americans are taking provocative actions in the Taiwan Strait, supplying weapons to Taipei, and developing a quasi-political dialogue with the local authorities. All this, of course, contributes to the growth of separatist sentiments, and the methods are very similar to those that were once used by the Americans to create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine.

It is obvious to us that such a policy of Washington, carried out in violation of its obligations to Beijing on Taiwan, is due to the desire to increase military and political pressure on the PRC and leads to the undermining of regional security at the eastern end of the Eurasian continent.

Our principled position on the Taiwan question has not changed. Once again, it was set out in a joint statement by the leaders of Russia and China following President Vladimir Putin's visit to China in May. Since every word counts here, I will quote an excerpt from this statement: "The Russian side reaffirms its commitment to the one-China principle, recognizes that Taiwan is an integral part of China, opposes Taiwan's independence in any form, and firmly supports the actions of the Chinese side to protect its own sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as to reunify the country." We will continue to be guided by these provisions. [My Emphasis]

From the Q&A, we can discern the ongoing nature of the very longstanding policy of the UK/US for containing Russia and now China and SCO/CSTO in Eurasia that was initiated at the beginning of the 20th Century based on Mahan’s theory of maritime power that was married to Mackinder’s Heartland/Rimland Geopolitical theory. The aim was to create wars and other forms of chaos to keep Russia and China from developing their potential and to protect the UK Empire, which then became the Outlaw US Empire after WW2, wherein it adopted the UK policy along with the basic manifestations of the Nazism it saved. NATO obviously remains the major tool while Ukrainians are sacrificed as were the Germans and their allies before them. The Shah in Iran was the main buffer in West Asia and was replaced by the Zionists in 1979 when he was ousted. The Partition of India was done so chaos would be somewhat continuous as we’ve seen with the recent coup in Bangladesh and the ongoing civil war in Myanmar. The Korean situation ought to be self-explanatory along with the ongoing attempt to remilitarize Japan. And the man who authorized the use of terrorists in Afghanistan just passed away, and that region remains unstable and chaotic in connection with the India Partition. Taiwan as Lavrov illustrated in China’s analog of Ukraine, although the Outlaw US Empire’s leverage there is weak in comparison. Within ASEAN, the Empire is again using the Philippines as its disruptive agent. In Africa, the use of its Terrorist Foreign Legion in the Empire’s major tool where it’s set several nations on fire. And South of its border, the Empire’s longstanding use of Death Squads and comprador traitors continues.

The strategy and results outlined above is no secret to Russia, China, Iran, India, and other members of SCO, CSTO, ASEAN, BRICS, and other multilateral organizations that network with them. Since the Friendship Treaty signed in 2002 between Russia and China, they’ve been working on a strategy to counter that of the Outlaw US Empire. The tangible results of that work are present within the four major global initiatives announced by China, the most important being the Global Security Initiative and the new Eurasian Security Structure announced by Putin earlier this year and reiterated on several occasions. The overall project is global and thus massive. In many respects it aims to create parallel structures to current institutions and thus bypass hegemonic influence. The arising Multipolar World will likely become Bipolar in the sense that nations and institutions will be divided into two main Blocs—the Global Majority and the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals, the former adhering to the UN Charter and established International Law with the latter saddled with the Imperial diktat and its rules.

Of Lavrov’s many words emphacized above, IMO these are the most important:

I would like to emphasize that we can only talk about reliable, legally binding agreements that should eliminate the root causes of the conflict and which should enshrine the mechanism for the impossibility of violating them.

And I’d say the Chinese and other Global Majority nations would agree that “root causes” must be examined for justice to be attained.

*
*
*
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!