Lavrov: "[T]hey are all Nazis."

Sorry to announce the situation is worsening globally.

The above quote was made by Lavrov today as he addressed the 11th Terra Scientia National Youth Educational Forum, Solnechnogorsk, and then took media questions for a total time of 80-minutes. Other strong language was uttered today by Alastair Crooke during his chat with Judge Napolitano, and also by the trio of Pepe Escobar, Larry Johnson and Nima during the latter’s program. And I’m certain more were uttered during the programs I didn’t choose to watch since I need to write at some point. Somewhat of a primer to what’s happening globally and for the Pepe-Larry chat is Pepe’s article, “Why Thailand and Cambodia Are at War in the Heart of ASEAN.”

IMO, we must heed what Mr. Lavrov says as he backs up his assessment with current and historical evidence. And note the pronoun—“they”—for it’s not just the Germans. In this regard I disagree with Mr. Crooke about the intentions of Mr. Trump—his intentions toward Russia are the same as Biden’s but are camouflaged by the smiling face and the handshake that both hide the snake. One point I’ve not noted is the fallout from the Epstein business. The latter portion of the Crooke chat covered that and is rather unnerving, not that other actions aren’t. I must also highly suggest watching the chat between Dmitri Orlov and Nima when they discuss Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Yes, that’s almost three hours of video with more featuring others. But not captured in those linked above are Lavrov’s very specific and alarming words because they were being said while those chats were ongoing or already completed. I should also direct readers to this free portion of Crooke’s recent substack offering, “'The Last Phase before Genocide … The Jewish state is erecting a ghetto. What a horrifying sentence.'" The peoples of West Asia need to finally awaken to the fact that they’re being targeted for elimination—genocide—cease being passive and fight back to the last breath. And that includes Iran and Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, and the Gulf States beyond them—their enemies are shared, and their words of friendship are utterly worthless. The Global Fracture that Hudson predicted and wrote about back in 1973 as a sequel to Super Imperialism appears to be finally occurring as the Collective West plus its Zionist and Terrorist proxies attempt to retain their hegemony while being opposed by the Global Majority. Yes, this is extremely serious as Lavrov explains:

Dear Colleagues,

I am glad to be at the "Territory of Meanings" once again. I like to communicate with young people, the future of our Motherland, and the one that is already being created in the present, including on the fields of a special military operation. I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with the guys working there. Most recently, I presented diplomas to graduates of the program of additional professional education organized by MGIMO, "Management of Urban Infrastructure and Territorial Development". 19 participants in the special military operation are graduates of this program. I talked to them.

I took part in the Time of Heroes programme initiated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. I see how much our young people understand the importance of the international, external contour of our country's development at the present time.

The foreign policy of the new Russia after the Soviet Union went into oblivion has always been based exclusively on national interest. There is no mentoring, no ideological imposition of certain approaches on our neighbours and our partners in general. As it is written in our conceptual documents – in the Constitution, in the Foreign Policy Concept – this is how we work. The main task of our foreign policy is to ensure safe conditions for the country's development and improve the well-being of our citizens.

Now many political scientists, scientists and experts are seriously beginning to say that the Third World War is not only inevitable, but is already underway in new forms, starting with the Western aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, then the aggression against Iraq, then the destruction of Libya, and the attack on Syria. All these countries in the Middle East are now in an alarming state. The territorial integrity of Iraq, Syria and Libya, which the West cares so much about only in the case of Ukraine, was seriously undermined in 2011 during the Arab Spring. These countries still remain in a "semi-disassembled state".

Now the West has spread to the neighboring region. This is the Gaza Strip and, in general, the Palestinian territories. There was aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In Europe, the Ukrainian issue is a manifestation of the West's policy of inflicting a "strategic defeat on Russia." They do not hesitate to confirm that they have been preparing for this for a long time. They also speak without a twinge of conscience about the Minsk agreements, which were designed to put an end to all problems. President of Russia Vladimir Putin, together with his interlocutors – then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President of France François Hollande and President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko – spent 17 hours without rest or sleep. And then these "guys" who were sitting with him said that they were not going to do anything. They say that they needed to "mold" something on paper in order to buy time for Ukraine in preparation for a further war with Russia, in order to pump it up with weapons. And these people are now demanding that we immediately cease fire and leave everything as it is, so that they again win a "respite" for their "clients" in Kiev and continue to "pump them up". The fact that the Europeans seriously want to "defeat us" is confirmed every day. The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said (I don't know if he understands what he said) that they must once again make Germany the largest military force in Europe. It was the largest military force on the eve of the First World War, when it unleashed it, on the eve of the Second World War, when it also unleashed it. And now he wants to make Germany "the first military power in Europe" again. And German Defence Minister Benjamin Pistorius said that if necessary, the Germans would kill Russian soldiers without any doubt. In the European elites, this is almost taken for granted. This reflects, first of all, the fact that the West cannot become just one of the large, strong regions of a multipolar world. He cannot give up the hegemony he has enjoyed for half a millennium. And this is especially observed now in Europe, when they want to subordinate everything and everyone to their will and do not want to take into account pragmatic considerations.

The other day, US President Donald Trump met with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. She then proudly announced with pleasure that they had reached an agreement under which European goods would enter the United States and would be subject to a 15 percent duty, and the United States would supply its goods to Europe with zero duties. Europe will spend $750 billion on the purchase of American energy, primarily liquefied natural gas and nuclear fuel, at the expense of a complete refusal to purchase Russian energy. And about $600 billion more, as President Donald Trump announced, investments will be made in America. It is clear that American energy resources will be significantly more expensive than Russian ones. It is clear that such an approach will lead to further deindustrialization of Europe, to the "flow" of investment from Europe to the United States. Of course, this will be a strong blow. First of all, energy prices, the outflow of investments for European industry and agriculture in Europe. But figures like Ursula von der Leyen literally boast that they are following this path. They agree that they will be forced to spend more money, that they will probably have fewer opportunities to solve the social problems of the population, but, they say, they must "defeat Russia."

If we recall the previous US administration, as President of Brazil Lula da Silva recently said, Joe Biden once said in a conversation with him that it is necessary to "destroy Russia." Not even to inflict a "strategic defeat", but to "destroy". A war of annihilation. US President Donald Trump takes a different position. He proceeds exclusively, as he has repeatedly said, from common sense, meaning, first of all, business considerations, which is beneficial for the United States. Surely follow the actions that he takes first of all in the trade sphere. Agreements have been reached with Europe, which are detrimental to the old continent. You don't even have to analyze it. President Donald Trump is a pragmatist. He does not want any wars. And unlike his predecessor, Joe Biden, and the current European elites (all sorts of fonderleyens, Starmers, Macrons), he is open to dialogue.

Always, even during the Cold War, dialogue has developed and allowed the opposing camps to better understand each other's intentions. First of all, in order to prevent a big war. This instinct has been lost in Europe. Just like the vaccine against Nazism. It already ceases to work. In Europe, the same forces are reviving that wanted to destroy Russia and in this case chose Ukraine as their "strike mechanism" against us. Everything she does is welcome.

European Commissioner for Enlargement of the European Union M. Kos said a month ago that Ukraine had fulfilled all the conditions in order to start negotiations on joining the European Union. Has anyone heard a word of criticism from Europe regarding Ukraine's approach to human rights obligations? Language, education, mass media, culture. By law, the Russian language is prohibited in all these areas. Moreover, they began to adopt laws long before the special military operation. Europe says Ukraine is fighting for "European values." French President Emmanuel Macron recently said that, unlike Russia, Ukraine is fighting for "our" interests, for "our European values." This is a confession that they are all Nazis. Nazism in Ukrainian society is being revived, including by law. Obstacles to glorifying Sergey Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are being removed. They are on a par with Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and other war criminals, and now they are a "symbol of freedom."

We have always advocated dialogue, even in the most difficult times. During the Cold War, dialogue between the Soviet Union and the United States was never interrupted.

It is also important to note that during the Cold War, there was mutual respect. Now it is gone. Europe is simply furious (I can't find another word). It is clear that to a large extent this is a struggle to retain power. They understand that they poured hundreds of billions of euros into Ukraine so that it would "beat" Russia, kill our soldiers, organize terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure, and send assassins to destroy our politicians and journalists. Europe is doing all this for the sole purpose of using Ukrainians as "cannon fodder" in order to remove Russia as a competitor. And even better – to provoke centrifugal tendencies in our society. This is also being actively pursued, despite the measures taken by the leadership to suppress the activities of all sorts of foreign non-governmental organisations and dubious media outlets that promoted not the values of communication between the youth of our countries, between civil society, but a clearly Western agenda.

The dialogue that we are conducting with the Trump administration shows that reasonable people in the West remain. They have quite serious support, as demonstrated by the development of events within the United States.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we are open to dialogue with any other country, including European ones. French President Emmanuel Macron called our President, who immediately picked up the phone. True, I don't want to reveal the secrets of communication, but this conversation was of little use. At least because President Emmanuel Macron later made a public statement that "Russia must be pressured to agree to an immediate ceasefire without any conditions." He had been saying that for a long time. When he first threw this thesis, he was asked if they would then stop supplying weapons to Ukraine. He replied that no, allegedly the ceasefire should be unconditional. That's the goal. Just as the Minsk Agreements were needed to "shake up" the Nazi regime of Petr Poroshenko. And now they want to get a break.

I have already said that the West cannot accept the loss of its hegemony and continues to pursue a purely neocolonial policy. For example, the policy of sanctions is a counteraction to competitors, a fear of allowing them to develop in normal conditions, because the new centers of power have already overtaken, and if the obstacles to their development are removed, they will be very far away from the West. Yes, it still retains a strong position in the military, technology, biotechnology, including cyberspace. However, it cannot be one of the main players. It should be "at the top". At least, this is the mentality of the current elites.

Meanwhile, a multipolar world is emerging. This process is objective. No one can do anything about it, no sanctions, no tariff wars, no provoking "hot" wars, as the West is already planning after what has been done in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in Iran. Operations are already being planned in the Far East, in the South China Sea, in the Taiwan Strait, in the East China Sea and in general in Southeast and North Asia, including the Korean Peninsula. All this fits into the line of retaining power, its position as a hegemon.

A multipolar world will still overcome this attempt to slow down the natural course of history. We have a huge number of partners, like-minded people, allies. Our closest allies in the West are, of course, the Republic of Belarus, and in the East, the DPRK, with which we have decades of fraternal and military ties. We helped our Korean neighbors gain independence. They helped us liberate the Kursk region from Ukrainian neo-Nazis. India is another great country.

India, China, Russia, Turkey, Iran – all these countries are great civilizations that are many centuries old. They have been preserved as a civilizational community. In other parts of the world, this phenomenon is not observed. But on the Eurasian continent – yes, this is true. These great civilizations now constitute the main group of actors in the formation of a multipolar world. In practice, these trends are being formalized by the SCO, BRICS, our partners in the African Union and CELAC.

Of course, the interest in cooperation with BRICS and the SCO, which is shown by dozens of countries, will grow and continue to contribute to the formation of sustainable mechanisms for the development of the World Majority.

The West is using the mechanisms created after World War II, such as the IMF and the World Bank, to abuse its position, including the positions of reserve currencies (primarily the dollar), as well as a gross violation of the principle of fair competition and the presumption of innocence. The world majority (this process has been going on for more than one year) is creating alternative platforms for banking settlements through BRICS, SCO and other mechanisms. Logistics routes are being formed that do not depend on Western rules that were in effect after World War II, when the West did not try to abuse them so much. This suits everyone.

Now our Western colleagues themselves are creating a situation where an increasing number of countries will move away from the mechanisms under their control.

I cannot help but mention our immediate environment. Our allies, like-minded people, strategic partners from the CSTO, the CIS, the EAEU – all these are large structures whose activities fit into the process of forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership. There are structures in the post-Soviet space, and the SCO, and ASEAN, and many other promising players. By the way, the Eurasian continent is the only one where there is no continent-wide organization. There are many subregional structures in Africa, but there is a continent-wide African Union. There are many subregional integration associations in Latin America, but there is also the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. And there is no such thing in Eurasia.

When President Vladimir Putin proposed at the Russia-ASEAN Summit several years ago in 2015 that all these subregional integration processes should be brought closer together so that they complement each other, so that their programmes help eliminate duplication and thus form this Greater Eurasian Partnership, this idea came from life. This is not some kind of artificial initiative that is imposed – no. This is an objective thing that will meet the requirements of mutual benefit, maximum saving of resources and maximization of the advantages that these integration processes create.

In a broader sense, this will become a solid material foundation for the formation of the Eurasian security architecture. The current security structures are primarily what was created in Europe after World War II. We are talking about the OSCE and NATO. But both of these organisations are structures based on the concept of Euro-Atlantic security. That is, there must be "colleagues" from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. But those who want to cooperate with the United States, with Canada, are not forbidden. But why can't we have a continent-wide structure open to all countries of the continent? Moreover, now President Donald Trump is not very eager to maintain a special role in Europe. He believes that it should deal with its own problems, whether security or economic development, on the terms that the United States dictated to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Therefore, the architecture of Eurasian security is "knocking on the door". And for the third year in a row, the International Conference on Eurasian Security (2023, 2024) is being held in Minsk in October, where the Draft Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century is being considered. It was prepared by our Belarusian friends together with us. In the first two conferences, participation was quite interested. Some countries of the European Union also took part. I think that their number will grow. Therefore, we have a lot to do. The main one is to defeat the enemy. For the first time in history, Russia is fighting alone against the entire West. Both in the First and Second World Wars, we had allies. Now we have no allies on the battlefield. Therefore, you need to rely on yourself. Neither weakness nor lack of effort should be allowed.

President Vladimir Putin outlined the tasks that we are addressing in the international arena, primarily on the line of contact. They will be fulfilled. We insist on what is our legitimate demand: ensuring our safety. Firstly, no drawing of Ukraine into NATO and no expansion of the alliance at all (it has already expanded close to our borders, contrary to all the promises and documents that were adopted). Secondly, everyone says: "Russia must return to the borders of 1991." In 1991, when Ukraine was recognized as an independent state, it had its Declaration of Independence as its main principle, which said: "Non-aligned, nuclear-free, neutral state." It was in this capacity that the territorial integrity of Ukraine was recognized. When they began to destroy, exterminate everything Russian, we could not stand aside, we tried to persuade, negotiate - it did not work. Therefore, there was no alternative to the start of a special military operation.

Territories are not important to us. Sometimes they say: "They have seized the territory, we need to liberate them." These territories are not important to us - we have the largest country in the world. It is important for us that people who have lived there for centuries and who are carriers of Russian culture, language, education, who want to raise their children in the same culture, so that they are not exterminated and their rights are protected. This is an absolutely legal requirement. Recognition of the realities enshrined in our Constitution is an absolutely non-alternative requirement. We have a lot to do.

I hope that the meetings that we hold here and that you hold here with my colleagues will help you better understand what the foreign policy structures of the Russian Federation are doing. And I hope that the ranks of diplomats will be replenished, including at the expense of graduates of this Forum.

Question: I would like to go back to your speech here at the Territory of Meanings in 2018, when you said that "the multipolar world is a positive trend that brings more democracy and justice." Of course, over these seven years, the world has changed very seriously. In this regard, the following question: do you agree with yourself seven years ago, or would you like to add something, correct yourself then, taking into account the emergence of some real signs of a multipolar world?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, I agree with myself. And not because I'm so, you know, an egoist.

Since 2018, the multipolar world has indeed begun to take shape even more actively. And it does bring democracy into international relations as opposed to dictatorship, hegemony, which the West wants to preserve. The resistance to the process of forming a multipolar world is enormous. But, as you know (who has studied physics), the greater the resistance, the more the motion acquires a stable character. And that's what happens.

US President Donald Trump recently commented on the activities of BRICS in his classic manner. And he said that the association is some kind of "incomprehensible shop" that wants to use alternative currencies, and he will not allow "someone to ignore the dollar." But when he was still campaigning, he spoke differently about the dollar. At that time, Donald Trump said that Biden and his administration were people who had caused enormous damage to the interests of the United States because they had discredited the dollar as a currency that everyone relied on, and that the dollar would inevitably weaken. He admitted this. Now he wants to stop this process by threats, blackmail and based on common sense, because this is important for the financial situation of the United States, which relies heavily on the role of the dollar.

I remember when the issues of international monetary and financial cooperation were discussed a long time ago, the US administration declared, addressing the entire world community, that the dollar was not American property, but the property of all mankind. This is the kind of "lubricant" that is required for the entire global economy, and it will work flawlessly in all weather conditions. Everything has changed. Of course, multipolarity is also stimulated by the fact that the old system has ceased to meet the interests of the World Majority. By the way, it all started when the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group and the World Trade Organisation were established after World War II, the rules they set for the global economy were all right: some realised that there were no others, and that it was necessary to move forward in the general row. China has also adopted these rules. And then, according to these rules, which were invented by the Americans and in their own "glade", the Chinese "outplayed" the Americans. Why are they so worried? Because the PRC has nevertheless reached the position of the undisputed leader within the framework of the current monetary and financial trading system, and the pace of development of its economy and all other areas will only increase.

That is why the IMF reform is now being slowed down. If we take the real economic weight of the BRICS countries, they would have increased their share of votes long ago, and the Americans would have lost the right of veto. They artificially constrain this reform in order to maintain a "controlling stake" that allows them to single-handedly block decisions to democratize these institutions. The same is true in the WTO. The Americans blocked the work of the dispute resolution body. There are thousands of Chinese complaints there. The Americans simply do not allow you to get a quorum in this body, it does not work. Therefore, it is probably possible to artificially restrain development, but it will not be possible to restrain it. Yes, it will take a long time. Probably, the formation of a multipolar world is a whole era. But the trend is objective and inevitable.

Question: Tell me, what crises of the global security system do you see on the horizon of 10 years?

Sergey Lavrov: I partially touched on this issue in my speech. It is no longer threats, but real security problems that exist around Ukraine. We are fighting for our security, for our legitimate security interests, and we will achieve results, and in neighbouring regions such as the Middle East, Palestine and Iran, not everything is over in Syria, as well as in Libya and Iraq.

There are security problems in the West as well. First of all, the Americans do not hide the fact that they are interested in extending their power influence to the Asia-Pacific region, which they specifically call the "Indo-Pacific region," in order to draw our Indian friends into this cooperation and make them "pleasant." In fact, all these "Indo-Pacific strategies" are aimed at containing China, isolating Russia, destroying the open universal cooperation structures that have developed around ASEAN in Southeast Asia, and transferring NATO's military infrastructure to the Far East: to the South China Sea, to the Taiwan Strait, to the Korean Peninsula. "Quartets" and "troikas" were created. The "troika" (the United States-Japan-South Korea) is already planning increasingly powerful military exercises around the Korean Peninsula, around the DPRK. Moreover, in these exercises, when the United States and South Korean forces work together, elements of nuclear weapons already appear there. This is alarming. Especially against the backdrop of the fact that this AUKUS (US-UK-AUSTRALIA) trio, created to build nuclear submarines for Australia, is also a transfer of nuclear technology, and there are serious doubts that these actions comply with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

There are many problems that are already visible. Including the fact that NATO is actively penetrating here (Japan seems to be going to open some kind of special representative office of the alliance). It is indicative that then-NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was asked at one of the news conferences that the North Atlantic Alliance, which was always presented as a defensive organisation when it was created and existed in subsequent years, and that its main goal was the physical protection of the territory of its member states, how did it happen that it now wants to expand to the east and significantly go beyond the borders of its association? Jens Stoltenberg replied without even blinking that they still have the sole purpose of protecting the territories of member states. But in the current conditions, threats to these territories come from the "Indo-Pacific region" (the South China Sea, etc.). This is an indicative statement that reflects the evolution of mentality. This mentality is evolving towards a search for the meaning of preserving the alliance. We have found meaning in this territory, and they are all trying to find an excuse for why the North Atlantic Alliance should exist. There are many threats. The decade will not be easy.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, can I shake hands with you and take a photo with you? This is my dream. Moreover, this is the dream of my grandmother, who told me not to return home without a photo with Sergey Lavrov.

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, your grandmother and I did not meet in our youth. If your colleagues let you in (not now, but when we're done), then of course.

Question: In your opinion, what programmes are the most effective for promoting Russian values and traditions abroad?

Sergey Lavrov: Our preference has always been to participate in universal sports and cultural events. Unfortunately, completely unacceptable discrimination (I can't even find a decent word) against all our athletes and our culture has begun.

Recently, Vladimir Gergiev's tour with soloists of the Mariinsky Theatre was cancelled in Italy. Outrageously. Italy, which has always been the "cradle of culture", also came under the influence of Ukrainian neo-Nazis, by and large. In the leadership of Italy and in the UN, for example, there are also people who, like Germany, refuse and vote against the resolution "Combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Germany, Italy and Japan vote against.

We are right to defend the need to return to the origins of the international Olympic movement, to the principles of developing cultural, educational and scientific ties, which are enshrined in UNESCO's statutory documents and which are grossly violated. The fact that now in Georgia our fencers receive gold and other medals is already a sign of the recovery of those who lead international sports.

But at the same time, we are developing alternative platforms. In 2024, the BRICS Sports Games were held. Of course, our invention is the "Games of the Future", the "phygital" movement – a mixture of "physical" and "digital". That is, the same team plays basketball, and then the same guys play basketball on the computer. It will be an annual event.

We were not very offended that we were not allowed to participate in Eurovision, which had already turned into an advertisement for non-traditional, alien values. This year, in September, we are holding the first Intervision International Song Contest near Moscow at the Live Arena. Almost all BRICS countries and their partners, about 20 countries, have already confirmed their participation.

We never close ourselves off from universal forms of cooperation. But when they try to "close the way out" to us on fair, generally acceptable terms, of course, we will not just sit idly by. But this, too, as well as sanctions, primarily manifests the desire of the West and those who are engaged in such things to suppress competitors. Competitors in trade, in investment, in energy markets, in sports, in art. This obsession to preserve and maintain hegemony is evident in all of these things. But, I repeat, we are creating a framework that ensures the development of our sport and art in all forms.

Question: What is the line between the trend towards globalisation and the preservation of national sovereignty? How not to go from one extreme to the other? How to maintain balance?

Sergey Lavrov: I think that a truly multipolar world is possible only in the composition of states, each of which respects, firstly, its sovereignty and, secondly, makes sure that the others respect this sovereignty. I do not see a contradiction here.

For example, BRICS. There, none of the participating countries gave up its sovereignty. All decisions are made exclusively by consensus. Yes, it is much more difficult to form a consensus than just put to a vote, as the European Union is now trying to do. Instead of taking into account the interests of Hungary, Slovakia and a number of other countries that do not agree with many of the actions of European bureaucrats, who, by the way, no one elected, unlike national governments. To overcome this resistance, the European Commission came up with a transition to a "qualified majority". In other words, there will be a vote, and decisions will be imposed on those who want to defend their national interests, their sovereignty.

Neither in BRICS, nor in the SCO, nor in the EAEU, nor in the CIS, nor in the CSTO, will this ever happen. Not in any other association where we work. I see here that preserving, strengthening and ensuring respect for your sovereignty by yourself and your partners is the most important cementing factor for a multipolar world.

Question: At the autumn marathon "Knowledge. First”, Minister of Sport Mikhail Dyagterev said that there is a lot of pressure on our sport now. He shared the story that there is a whole department of sports diplomacy in Hungary, which is just aimed at establishing relations with countries through sports. History knows many examples of how relations with countries are established through sports ("ping-pong diplomacy" and many others). Do we have any plans to create the same department?

Sergey Lavrov: Under the Ministry of Sport?

Question: At the Foreign Ministry.

Sergey Lavrov: The Ministry has a department headed by the Ambassador-at-Large, the Special Representative of the Minister for International Sports Cooperation. The Foreign Ministry has been dealing with this issue for more than a dozen years.

But M.V. Dyagterev and I spoke. The Ministry of Sports has extensive international relations. The current minister has a taste for international contacts. They have people who do this. We are in close coordination. We are ready to help them and coordinate our steps.

Question: What was the motivating factor in your difficult path at the Foreign Ministry and before that? What should today's young people do if they want to develop in international relations?

Sergey Lavrov: You need to apply to MGIMO.

In fact, we have people not only from MGIMO. Every year, boys and girls are also hired from Lomonosov Moscow State University, St Petersburg State University, the Far Eastern Federal University, and the Higher School of Economics.

But, of course, the lion's share are MGIMO graduates. After all, the programmes there are already set up to train personnel for the Ministry. When hiring, it is necessary to pass tests.

What influenced the choice of my profession? I have already said it once. There is no big secret here. When I graduated from school, I had a silver medal. However, in order to get it, I was forced to retake biology. I had a "C" in biology. The teachers, the school principal wanted me to have a medal. I retook it, but with a "four". But it was still enough to get a silver medal.

We had an excellent class teacher, S.I. Kuznetsov, who taught physics and mathematics. He went hiking with us, went on long journeys during the holidays. We loved him very much. Probably, due to the sympathy that he aroused, he influenced me.

I wanted to enter MEPhI. My late mother worked at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and told me, yes, at MEPhI, like in all other universities, entrance exams begin on August 1, and at MGIMO on July 1. What should you try? I knew English, I studied. With a medal, I passed two exams - July 1 and 3 - history and English. I received two "fives". I really wanted to pass the exam at MEPhI later. But when I came to my school to collect some documents, I looked at my classmates who were running, everyone was kind of nervous, I thought, okay. In general, almost by accident. But I don't regret it.

Question: What opportunities do you consider the most promising for young people in the field of international relations?

Sergey Lavrov: Young people have a good way to go everywhere. There are many opportunities. I mean how a person who wants to realize himself or herself in the international space should act, right?

Question: What path would you advise them to overcome, what is better not to try at all?

Sergey Lavrov: We need to try. It is difficult to advise. Each person is an individual. Those forms of self-education and self-improvement that will be ideal for someone may not be suitable for another person.

There are international faculties. At MGIMO – by itself, but also at most other universities. If you are interested in foreign policy, international cooperation (this is not necessarily foreign policy, it can be international cooperation in the economy, in trade processes), you need to enter the faculties, get acquainted with the program that each faculty offers. I can't advise you anything more specifically.

Question: Our President once said (and it has become a catchphrase) that after the death of M. Gandhi, unfortunately, there are no people left with whom it would be possible to talk on the world stage. Tell me, please, is there a person in the world with whom you could talk, conduct a dialogue?

Sergey Lavrov: Do you mean, despite the fact that we have been isolated or...

Question: Yes, a rational dialogue.

Sergey Lavrov: I mean, are there any reasonable people left?

The President really uttered this phrase at a time when it had already become clear what global strategic goals the West is pursuing in relations with the Russian Federation.

But, of course, the President has many interlocutors. Almost every day he conducts some international contacts. I have already spoken about Belarus, North Korea and China. We have unprecedentedly deep, broad, trust-based and strategic relations with the People's Republic of China.

President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping visited us at the events in honour of the 80th anniversary of the Victory. In early September, President Vladimir Putin will visit China at the invitation of President Xi Jinping to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Japanese militarism. These are important measures, including in terms of preserving historical memory and preventing the success of the attempts that the West and the Japanese are making to "eradicate" the memory of those years.

I can endlessly list the leaders who regularly work together with President Vladimir Putin within the framework of BRICS, the SCO and the post-Soviet space.

I never refuse contacts, but I do not impose myself either. I regularly meet with the foreign ministers of Hungary and Slovakia. The Swiss Foreign Minister is also sometimes asked for contact. I never refuse. In December 2024, former Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg asked for a meeting at the OSCE Ministerial Council in Malta, but he was embarrassed to do so in front of the cameras and invited me to "go out for a smoke." Let's go and talk.

Just as President Vladimir Putin never refuses offers and requests to meet and talk, I see no point in avoiding anyone. If they avoid you, declare a boycott of you, leave the hall when you speak, go ahead. As we say, someday they will go berserk. But when they do this and want to communicate with us again, it will no longer be as it was.

We now know the value of their words. There is a phrase that "a spoken thought is a lie", and for them "a spoken word, something promised to us – this is also a lie". As was the case with the Minsk Agreements, as was the case on the eve of the coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014, when Viktor Yanukovych, the then president, and the opposition signed an agreement that they should calmly prepare together for early elections. France, Germany and Poland guaranteed this treaty with their signatures. In the morning, these signatures were spat upon, and the opposition occupied all government buildings.

April 2022, shortly after the start of the special military operation. In Istanbul, our negotiators agreed with the settlement principles proposed by the Ukrainian delegation. And then they were told, they say, no, guys, "you have not yet laid enough heads, so go on fighting, weaken Russia."

So, when they (I'm sure it's not if, but when) come to their senses and offer us to resume relations, we will strictly approach the principles on which these relations can be built in the future.

Question: After the global events of the past, we are witnessing a crisis in global international infrastructures: security, communications, and law and order. They ceased to inspire confidence. Many countries stop participating in them. It seems as if we can take a step back. What do you think about this? Do we need new infrastructures? If so, which ones?

Sergey Lavrov: I touched on this topic in my speech. Of course, the UN is being tested, first of all, because of the actions of the West, which, in fact, has already privatized the leadership of the Secretariat. The Secretary General, the Deputy for Political Affairs, the Deputy for Peace Operations, the Deputy for Humanitarian Affairs and the Deputy for Security of the entire UN system around the world are all members of NATO.

Now UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has started a reform. He published the UN80 report. I will not cite examples from this document, but its meaning is to significantly reduce the opportunity for UN member states to influence the activities of the Organization and the Secretariat and expand the powers of the Secretariat in matters that have always been the subject of intergovernmental coordination.

The pretext is simple – it takes a long time, but, they say, you need to act quickly. This is also an example of the West's policy, which, through its "protégés" in the leadership of the secretariats of international organisations, promotes decisions that are beneficial to it.

The Council of Europe, from which we came, is in the deepest crisis. Instead of developing a universal international legal framework for cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, it threw all its efforts into the illegal activities of creating "tribunals against Russia" and "commissions to calculate the damage caused to Ukraine." This is sad. There was good organization.

The OSCE is now also in a deep crisis. Now the Secretary General is a Turkish citizen and a former diplomat. He tries to act within the powers of the Secretary General, following the principles of neutrality and impartiality. Before him, there were representatives in this post who grossly abused their powers. They did not comply with the requirements of the OSCE statutory documents. The presiding countries behaved in the same way.

The current chair is Finland. The Helsinki Final Act turns 50 years old. It was adopted in 1975 and gave birth first to the Conference and then to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This is also not easy.

I have listed the organizations in which the principle of equality applies. These are BRICS, SCO, CIS, CSTO, EAEU. In our relations with colleagues from Africa. By the way, this autumn there will be the second ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum and the first ever Russia-Arab World summit. These are formats in which we and our partners feel comfortable.

There is another place, in addition to the UN, where we sit down with the West at the same table – the G20. The G7 and the expanded BRICS and its like-minded countries are represented there. If you look at the balance of power: the G7 plus its like-minded people and the BRICS and like-minded countries, then the G20 is divided exactly in half – 10 to 10. The G20 has the principle of consensus, and it cannot be bypassed. Therefore, this is the platform where you can reason with the West. And that's what we do.

Three years ago, the West's attempt to Ukrainize the G20 agenda failed. Everyone followed us in saying that the G20 was not created to consider a political issue. On political issues, the UN Security Council.

We continue to consider the UN to be an important structure. If you read the UN Charter, you don't need to change anything there. And nothing needs to be changed to the concept of multipolarity. It lays down the principle of the sovereign equality of states, the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples. There is also territorial integrity.

But later the UN General Assembly clarified that it is necessary to respect the territorial integrity of each state whose government respects the right of peoples to self-determination and therefore represents the entire population living on its territory. But did those who came to power after the putsch in Kiev represent the Crimeans, the residents of Donbass, Novorossiya? Of course not.

Everything is written down in the fundamental documents. Now the West has recognized the independence of Kosovo without any referendum and said that this is just the right of a nation to self-determination, and six years later a referendum was held in Crimea, when residents were fleeing from the Nazis who sent armed militants to storm the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea in Simferopol, the West said that this is not the right to self-determination, but territorial integrity must be respected. We have a proverb "the law is what it takes: where you turn, there it goes." So it is with international law.

It is also necessary to demand respect for the Charter in the UN. And not when you want one principle, when you want another. All principles in their entirety and interrelatedness must be respected. The work will continue. The resistance is very strong.

Question: How do you assess Russia's role in the formation of a new global security architecture? How can we make sure that the interests of our Motherland are taken into account?

Sergey Lavrov: I thought I had already tried to answer this question.

First, in organizations that we do not consider to have completely lost their raison d'être, we need to uphold the principles on which they were based.

I have just spoken about the UN and the strong attack on the rules of procedure and the principles of the Charter. There are many allies here, and this number is growing. In 2021, at the initiative of Venezuela, the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter was formed. It regularly accepts applications. Now it has about 20 countries. There are those who want to join this process. It regularly receives applications (several applications a year on issues of principle).

Recently, a statement was adopted, and then we passed a General Assembly resolution on its basis. This is already a UN document on the suppression of modern practices of colonialism. This is the most important question, because, it would seem, when did all this happen. Africa gained political independence, but inherited borders that the colonial powers cut "according to the ruler", dissecting areas inhabited by the same ethnic group, which periodically led to clashes. As was the case 30 years ago between Burundi and Rwanda, so it is now happening between Mali and Algeria. The same group, the Tuaregs, live on both sides of the border. Some contradictions and disagreements arise. But the most important thing is that, having gained political independence along with these territorial problems, the African Union does not want to change borders. It is doing the right thing. It is necessary to reach a consensus.

But Africa did not gain economic independence. I have been on business trips. For example, in South Africa. When the special military operation began, difficulties began to arise in order to refuel the plane. Because the companies that are doing this were either British or American. With difficulty, they agreed at the air base. Our South African friends would have done whatever was necessary in any case. This is an indicator. Sovereign states, holding international events, cannot guarantee the invited members of the association that all technical and logistical issues will be resolved.

Now the "second wave of awakening" in Africa is already economic. Our relations with the African Union have advanced significantly in recent years. In 2019 was the first Russia-Africa summit, in 2023. –second. Now we are preparing the third summit. It will take place on African territory. Meanwhile, the first ministerial conference of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum was held in 2024, and this year there will be a second one.

We need to keep universal structures like the UN in good shape and demand that everyone respect the principles on which it was founded, while developing our centers of the future multipolar world. These are the SCO, the EAEU, the CIS, the CSTO, all associations in Eurasia, and at the global level – BRICS. This is a strong movement.

If the West cannot become one of the large, strong centers, but seeks to maintain complete hegemony, it will not succeed.

Question: You are a diplomat with a human face. You are no strangers to weakness, sometimes you can quarrel with a "strong word", for which we love you, for this "realness". In this regard, a question. How do you manage to carry a person in yourself, given the closed conservative conditions in which you find yourself?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not know that a "strong word" is a sign of weakness. If this is perceived as such, then this is not a weakness, but a character trait.

No profession without humor can really excite. And diplomacy is more than many other professions. When there is an opportunity to joke somewhere in a conversation, somewhere to start "goading" partners (if you know him well and know how he reacts), this often plays a positive role.

President Vladimir Putin, when communicating with his colleagues, has a deeply developed sense of interlocutor. This is one of the key things in diplomacy. Knowledge can be obtained, but the art of communication must be practiced under all circumstances, but to a large extent it’s innate.

For example, it happened that in childhood he was a hooligan in the yard with boys, and suddenly some overgrown boy 3-4 years older comes out and begins to chase little boys. This is about what the West is doing now in relation to everyone else. People are walking in the yard - do not touch them. No, you need to come there to "cut down" all 15 kopecks or something else. Therefore, I am in favor of humor being present everywhere.

Question: Tell us a secret about what you said at the BRICS summit in Kazan when you were stepped on?

Sergey Lavrov: There are a lot of fabrications. A beautiful girl walked by and stepped on my foot. I decided that she was flirting and said that I would soon go out for a smoke. [My Emphasis]

Very important that Lavrov has changed his tune on Gaza; it’s now Western Aggression. Note the big problem of pursuing a policy leading to deindustrialization while attempting to build the largest military in Europe—even bigger than Russia’s. IMO, Trump is duping Russians. Yes, most Americans don’t want war and voted for Trump because he promised to end wars. However, the record proves him a liar. There’s no improvement in basic Russia-American relations as the stolen properties and monies remain stolen, and support for Trump is evaporating as he shows himself to be a liar and not just about Russia. Furthermore, Lavrov must look at the Congressional attitude, which remains very much Anti-Russian as proven by the veto-proof majority in favor of Graham’s insane 500% tariff legislation. And as explained by many, Trump’s main goal is to get EU/NATO to take the blame for Obama’s War on Ukraine’s failure, not on the Outlaw US Empire where it rightfully belongs—morally and legally.

IMO, Turkey doesn’t qualify as a “great civilization,” nor even a civilization. Anatolia has been home to several great civilizations over its time as a host for humanity. But the Ottoman civilization died during WW1 and was replaced by a secular nationalist government that has great problems with Islamists and has yet to determine what its personality will be, and Erdogan’s actions don’t help. Orlov’s description was excellent. In place of Turkey are several contenders—the four Southeast Asian nations excluding Myanmar and the Central Asians as a whole. Indonesia and Malaysia can be seen as civilizations in their infancy, although humans have lived there for many thousands of years—longer than in Russia and Europe. As Lavrov noted several times during the Q&A, honesty and trust are of vast importance and the Turks fail on both accounts as do their cousins the Azeris.

Will the Collective West and its Zionist proxy ever learn how to cooperate and cease their quest for Exceptionalism and Primacy, for that’s at the root of today’s strife and chaos? Unfortunately, the Collective West has chosen war to preserve its Primacy and reinforce its Exceptionalism. That means for the Global Majority to attain the peace and development it seeks it must defeat the West both militarily and ideologically—the basis for its exceptionalism must be destroyed. And unlike the last world war where Nazism was allowed to survive and nurtured for future use, that cannot be allowed for the West’s ideology.

*
*
*
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!