Lavrov's 3/28 Izvestia Interview

Trying to find time to post some of the important events that have occurred over the past several days, Lavrov’s 90-minute interview with Izvestia being one of them. Sorry this is so tardy. I should note there’s a very long section on the relations between Russia and Armenia that all deserves emphasis but remains in plain text as it’s many paragraphs long. Many will not be aware of the overall context of the situation, so I urge readers to pay attention to that section since it’s at the tail end of this long interview when people will be tired of reading and likely to be not as attentive. All emphasis mine:

Question: We would like to start with a common misfortune that has affected your department as well. Allow me to express my condolences on the death of your employee. A young girl. This shows that this terrorist attack is not local, it has a much more global scale, first of all, for our country.

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, this is true. President of Russia Vladimir Putin gave a succinct and tough assessment of what happened. He stressed that all the necessary instructions have been given to the investigative bodies, the Prosecutor General's Office, and special services. The work is being carried out actively. It is already showing fairly fast results. This is reported daily. As President Vladimir Putin said, all those who planned, organised, sponsored and carried out this terrorist act will be punished as they deserve.

Question: Immediately after the tragedy, most countries expressed their condolences and offered their help, and some Western countries expressed a number of versions of who might be involved in this tragedy. What do you think of the international reaction in the immediate aftermath?

Sergey Lavrov: President Vladimir Putin and other Russian representatives, including the heads of the FSB, the Investigative Committee and Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, have commented on the international reaction.

The West is actively trying to convince everyone that this is the work of the Islamic State and no one should be suspected anymore, especially Ukraine. This country and its non-involvement are spoken about directly and regularly. It becomes obsessive.

We have repeatedly said that we do not draw any final conclusions until the investigation is fully completed. The investigation is still working on the facts, new circumstances are being revealed. But we simply have no right to rule out obvious versions. Moreover, those people who carried out terrorist acts fled to Ukraine when they were detained. The West is suspiciously actively trying to convince us, not only publicly, but also in contacts through our diplomatic missions, that we should not suspect Ukraine. Without explaining why. Although, from the point of view of sound logic, answering the question of who benefits from this (such a question is always asked when crimes are committed that are to be solved), we cannot exclude Ukraine.

Yesterday, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine, Konstantin Budanov, said: "The assertion that the terrorist attack in Crocus was committed by Ukraine is nonsense. Although Russia is an enemy, I do not approve of terrorist attacks against civilians in principle." From whose lips such an assurance could be received, but not from this man. In May 2023, he said that "these are people with a modified psyche (meaning Russians) who should be brought to justice. Fair responsibility, in our understanding, is only physical elimination." This was said on the air of the 1+1 TV channel. There are many other statements by Ukrainian officials, including Mikhail Podolyak, Alexander Yermak and former Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksandr Danilov, including direct calls to destroy the "Russians." They don't want Mykolaiv and Kharkov to remain Russian cities in any way. And everything else. There are threats to destroy Russians in Ukraine legally and physically.

I am sure that the investigation has all these materials. Our Western colleagues, to whom we have repeatedly told about this, are of course aware of these statements, and not only about them. After the coup d'état was carried out, the Kiev regime began a war against its own people. It was stopped by the signing of the Minsk agreements. After that, over the past years, the regimes of Petr Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky have been methodically passing laws that destroyed everything Russian in Ukraine: first higher education, then secondary, then primary, culture, the media and much more. In the cities, regulations were adopted prohibiting any events in the Russian language and any communication, even in shops and catering establishments. Not once, in response to our appeals of thousands of people on each of these occasions to the Western countries in charge of the Kiev regime, which are now shielding Ukraine from all accusations, to organizations such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE, to condemn and stop such a policy, which directly contradicts Ukraine's obligations under numerous conventions in defense of the rights of national minorities, has there been any public condemnation of these absolutely illegal actions.

Ukrainians have adopted laws and are putting them into practice. They contradict the current Constitution of Ukraine, which explicitly states that the state guarantees the rights of Russians (highlighted separately) and other national minorities in the field of education, the media, and culture. This duplicity of the West, which refuses to acknowledge the obvious (that it is a racist, Nazi regime), is a matter of grave concern. The only explanation is that Ukraine is "so", a part, "the tip of the iceberg", and the declared goal of the West – "to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia" – is the main thing. It is confirmed quite regularly. It turns out that those who are ready to try to fulfill this goal for the West with their bodies are allowed to do anything, including direct support for the theory and practice of Nazism. It's sad.

Question: If I may, I would like to return to the tragedy at Crocus City Hall. Immediately after it happened, the Western media recalled that on the eve of March 7 of this year, first the US embassy in Moscow, then a number of other embassies, issued a warning. In the United States, they say that there are contacts through the special services, through which some warnings were also received. At the same time, we see that our diplomatic missions are being attacked, buildings are being closed, taken away and so on.

Are there any areas where we have real contacts in which we are cooperating and cooperating with our Western colleagues?

Sergey Lavrov: Practically not.

As for the fact you mentioned, which the Americans are emphasising in every possible way, namely, that they warned on March 7 of this year, and the British Embassy issued the same warning in English on March 8 of this year. They addressed these warnings to their citizens who are in Moscow, advising them not to attend mass events.

As for contacts through the special services, as a rule, they are not advertised. But in a recent interview, Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Alexander Bortnikov said that there had been such contacts, and that there had been warnings, but they were of a very general nature. I have nothing to add here.

If we talk about contacts in general. In this case, because we are talking about the fight against terrorism, which in recent decades, after the Russian Federation became the state it is now, has been considered something that brings all of us, Russia, the West and the East together. The leaders of the United States, Europe, and Britain advocated that this struggle should be waged regardless of any differences that may persist on other political and economic issues. And so it was.

It was difficult with the European Union. French President Emmanuel Macron said that although Russia is an aggressor and wants to win them over, they may think about cooperating with us in the fight against terrorism. It is necessary to "teach the material part" when people make such statements. Because for many years we have been trying to persuade the European Union to form a mechanism that will deal with the exchange of information. The last meeting took place in 2019.

Their de facto refusal to cooperate with us on specific issues of the fight against terrorism took place long before the start of the special military operation. Now they blame it for all their mistakes and try to disguise their true intentions, which led to the fact that we had no choice but to stop the war that was already unleashed against us by deciding to conduct a special military operation.

Question: You said recently that we are not interested in Interpol's offer of cooperation, but it is clear why.

From which countries have we received real, not unsubstantiated, offers to help in the investigation of the terrorist attack through diplomatic channels? And did they get it? Are they really ready to support us in the investigation of the terrorist attack?

Sergey Lavrov: I heard a recent speech by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. He said that (everyone knows this) the Belarusian, Russian special services and other law enforcement agencies are closely cooperating on an ongoing basis. Alexander Lukashenko stressed that he was ready to continue. According to him, he discussed this situation with President Vladimir Putin. They stay in touch. So, there are such opportunities in the area of Russian-Belarusian cooperation. Moreover, Belarus is closely following the development of the situation in Ukraine. The Ukrainian group stands on the border with Belarus, constantly projecting a threat to the security of this country. The West is also pulling troops closer to the borders of both Russia and Belarus in every possible way. I am not aware of any other proposals for cooperation.

If something was done through the channels of the special services and transmitted to us, it remained unannounced. I sincerely doubt that anyone will offer their cooperation.

You mentioned Interpol. This is a unique situation. I specifically double-checked my words that Interpol has never before offered to investigate high-profile crimes. And so it is. This has never been the case: neither in the case of Nord Stream nor in the terrorist attacks that took place in Russia in the early 2000s, Interpol has never shown such zeal.

And then, suddenly, just a few hours after the Americans and Europeans said that Ukraine had "nothing to do with it," Interpol offered its services. We can handle it ourselves. Unfortunately, international structures that are supposed to be neutral and impartial in all types of human activity (forensics, law enforcement, sports, culture, and much more) are becoming more and more "privatized" by Western employees of their secretariats.

The same problem can be observed at the UN. There is an Advisory Committee of Experts on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. In their last annual report, they specifically stressed the unacceptability of the dominance of Western citizens in the structures of the Secretariat. This is a trend that must not only be reckoned with, but must be fought. And that's what we're doing.

Question: It turns out that we are on the brink of a threat no less global than World War III, in the absence of cooperation between countries, when terrorism acts much more generally than the international community.

Sergey Lavrov: A lot of people are talking about this. The term "World War III" is directly mentioned. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly reacted to these Western statements. Our position has been made very clear. We are ready for talks if they are serious and are based on an understanding of the reality and legitimate security interests of the Russian Federation and other countries involved in this. Our President has stated this very clearly.

Remember how this topic has evolved, in particular, with the North Atlantic Alliance. At first, before the special military operation and immediately after it began, the West unanimously called for the urgent admission of Ukraine to NATO, because Russia would never attack a member of the alliance. At the end of the time, they changed the "record". Now they say that Russia cannot be allowed to win in Ukraine, because as soon as our country wins, it will immediately attack NATO countries. There is no logic at all.

Just yesterday, speaking in the Tver Region, President Vladimir Putin once again called nonsense all the arguments that we are hatching some kind of aggressive plans. These statements have the sole purpose of forcing parliaments and the population to come to terms with the fact that the European Union and the European Commission want to continue pumping weapons into Ukraine. Although Europe is one of the main victims of this conflict.

If we look at the statistics on how the EU and US economies looked like now over the past year, it is immediately clear who lives at whose expense and who is profiting from the policies imposed on Europe from Washington. The United States is generally receding into the background, relegating the European Union to the forefront.

Question: If we go back to the issue of our contacts with the Americans. You said that there is practically no sphere where we communicate.

And what about the exchange of prisoners between Russia and the United States? During the meeting between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, it was stated that this process will continue, and we can hope for an exchange of our prisoners. Recently, K.V. Yaroshenko and V.A. Bout were returned. Do you think this dialogue will continue? Is there still a chance to bring back our Russians?

Sergey Lavrov: We always act in accordance with the agreements reached with our partners, especially at the highest level.

The agreement you mentioned was signed in June 2021 in Geneva. It consisted in the fact that a channel was created between the special services, and it was agreed that it would work confidentially. We did not bring this topic into the public sphere. For our part, it was commented on only when the specific agreements reached were implemented. The Americans constantly make a statement that they have reached an agreement, and Russia is not "cooperating." These are unscrupulous methods that contradict the agreements of the presidents. We are committed to them and ready to continue the dialogue in the way and in the form agreed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Joe Biden.

Question: During his visit to Torzhok, Vladimir Putin spoke with our helicopter pilots. In particular, he said that if the F-16s are delivered to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but airfields outside Ukraine are used for deployment, then they will become legitimate targets. Prior to this, Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that if NATO personnel are sent to Ukraine, they will also be legitimate targets.

And all this on the "wave" started by French President Emmanuel Macron. He was photographed in a fighting pose and said that French troops could be in Ukraine. In this regard, I have a question. Do you think the French or any other NATO countries will dare to send their personnel to Ukraine? Or not?

By analogy with the Doomsday Clock, how long is left before a direct possible clash between the armies of Russia and NATO countries – 5-10 minutes, one hour?

Sergey Lavrov: I will not speculate on this topic. In general, I think that this is not a very correct and useful idea with the "Doomsday Clock". A stir is being whipped up in the public consciousness at the moment when it is necessary to calm down and act reasonably.

As for Macron's ideas. His speech was clearly impromptu. Then he and his retinue "played back". However, a few days later, Emmanuel Macron repeated this idea. And he also said that he would create a coalition with the participation of countries that would be ready for this. In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and a number of leaders of the alliance members cautiously reminded him that decisions in the bloc are made collectively via consensus. They said he didn't consult us. It seems to me that French activity on this "front" is designed exclusively to promote the president in a situation where he has unimportant things to do "at home" and it is necessary to create some kind of diversionary maneuver in the form of calls to "finish off Russia."

In the same context, Emmanuel Macron recently made a series of statements saying that President Vladimir Putin is famous for not respecting agreements and commitments, so he cannot be trusted and should continue to bet on "Russia's strategic defeat on the battlefield." Emmanuel Macron and the Frenchman, the leader of France, in general, accuse Vladimir Putin of not complying with the agreements in a very original way. This is said by the President of the country whose foreign minister, together with his colleagues from Germany and Poland, in February 2014 guaranteed an agreement between President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. In the morning, she was trampled. All administrative buildings were seized and, despite the formation of a government of national unity to prepare for early elections, the formation of a "government of victors" was announced. That's when the "wedge" was driven into Ukrainian society.

We called Paris, Berlin and Warsaw and said that their representatives had guaranteed this agreement. They called on us to influence the opposition so that it respects what they all signed up to. They began to answer us in a very inarticulate way. The implication was that sometimes democratic processes take on a non-standard dimension.

The President of a country that signed the Minsk Agreements in February 2015 only to have the author of this signature, President Francois Hollande, say that they were not going to implement any decisions regarding Minsk-2. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko said the same. French President Emmanuel Macron, who personally convened the Normandy format in December 2019, said the same. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky were there. After much wrangling and wrangling, the document was agreed. It spoke of the urgent need to determine the special status of Donbass (as required by the Minsk Agreements) and to enshrine it in law, as well as the well-known Frank-Walter Steinmeier formula. She had already compromised and believed that this special status would come into force only after the results of the elections in the territories of the DPR and LPR were summed up.

If we talk about other "achievements" of France, we can remember a lot of things. As part of the EU, it promoted many decisions on the settlement of conflicts, which no one was going to implement later. And we are told that we are not able to negotiate. High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Affairs Josep Borrell says that President of Russia Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted. He also said that if they do not "defeat" Russia in Ukraine now, the European Union will lose its credibility.

These examples speak to the diplomatic "successes" and manners of the European Union. We can add 2013, when with the help of the EU, an agreement was reached between Belgrade and Pristina on the creation of the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo. It was loudly and triumphantly presented as the greatest diplomatic victory. Then the Kosovars and Albanians told the European Union that they would not comply with anything. And the European Union has "washed its face".

If we talk about the ability to negotiate or who has what authority, then probably not the French or other members of the European Union, who were engaged in these "affairs" and then simply proved their helplessness.

Question: The latest statement by France, Germany and the majority of EU countries following the election results that they will not recognise the results of the elections in Russia, saying that they are illegitimate, etc. In your opinion, is Europe driving itself into a diplomatic "deadlock" similar to the one that Vladimir Zelensky drove himself into by forbidding himself to negotiate with Russia? If Paris or Berlin do not recognize the legitimacy of the results of the Russian presidential election, then what will happen next? Who are they going to talk to? And you will have to talk.

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to analyse the background of Europe's actions. There is no logic or long-term focus. Now, as in other historical moments in recent times, everyone is not concerned about the prospects for development in the interests of their peoples, peace and the solution of truly common global problems. They are preoccupied with electoral cycles. Before the elections, they need to say something that can then be "sold" to the voter. They are counting on the liberal voter. This is a kind of liberal discourse, narratives that dominate in Europe among Christian Democrats, social democrats in their various guises.

They will probably retain their majority in the European Parliament, the elections to which are to be held in June of this year, but the number of parties advocating national positions will probably also increase. They do not like Brussels' persistent, obsessive policy of usurping all powers in the European Union, not just those that have been legally delegated to the European Commission by member states. We can see such a movement for the preservation of national identity and for the protection of one's sovereignty within the EU. These parties will receive additional votes in the European Parliament.

As for the recognition of our elections. It was the European Parliament that said before they were held that it would not recognize the results. But the European Parliament does not determine the policy of the European Union. Its decisions have no legal force. EU member states have warned that elections in the new territories and in Crimea are elections on "sovereign Ukrainian territory." That was their reasoning.

After the elections, the Germans made their "famous" and notorious statement that from now on, when talking about Russian President Vladimir Putin, they will use his surname without calling him president. No one else has said anything like this except them.

It was about Novorossiya, Donbass, Crimea. But when US National Security Adviser John Sullivan said in Washington that Vladimir Putin's presidency in Russia is a reality, and they will work with this reality, the whole of Europe fell silent.

Question: Was he in Kiev at the time?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, he was in Kiev. "The master" said, and everyone took them "under the hood." Unfortunately, there is no such thing as Europe as an independent player.

Question: Going back to the situation in Ukraine. While Europe is pumping weapons into Kyiv, China is actively promoting peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, China insists that Russia's interests be respected. Do we have any conditions for these peace talks?

Sergey Lavrov: China is saying sensible things. When China published a 12-point plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in February 2023, we reacted positively to this document. In contrast to Vladimir Zelensky's "formula", which is insane from the point of view of diplomatic prospects, this Chinese document was based on an analysis of the causes of what is happening and the need to eliminate them.

This plan is built according to the logic of "from the general to the particular". It states the "disorder" in the field of security in Europe and in the world, as well as the fact that the reason for this disorder is the failure to comply with the UN Charter (this is also our position). And in the entirety of its principles, and not only by "pulling out" one provision of the Charter to the detriment of others.

The Chinese document says that unilateral sanctions, which the West began to actively resort to long before the start of the special military operation, are also an irritant that needs to be eliminated. On this basis, it is necessary to agree to ensure (this was the key expression) equal security for all participants in the process. This is our position. How to put these principles into practice can only be understood by sitting down at the negotiating table. But not on the terms of the "peace formula", which Vladimir Zelensky and his "masters" in Europe, London and the United States have long repeated as an ultimatum, but on the basis of a serious analysis of the existing security problems, recognition of the realities on the ground and guarantees of the legitimate security interests of the Russian Federation. For our part, we are ready to guarantee the legitimate interests and security of other participants in the process.

Everyone knows the realities on the ground. First of all, it is the situation on the battlefield, and secondly, the legitimate interests of the population living in Novorossiya and Donbass from all points of view (including the international one). Their rights related to education, the media, the use of the Russian language, the preservation of their history and the memory of the Great Patriotic War were trampled on by the Kiev regime. It will not be possible not to recognize these realities.

Question: There have been reports on the Ukrainian Internet that Ankara recently proposed to President Vladimir Zelensky to hold Istanbul-2, which would allow not only to resolve the conflict, but also to start talks on strategic security. Is this a fake or did Ankara really offer Vladimir Zelensky a new version of the agreement, but he again refused, this time under pressure from Washington?

Sergey Lavrov: There have been such talks. You've heard of them. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres mentioned this. Russia explained that we are ready to consider these proposals on the basis of reciprocity.

The memorandum of understanding between the Russian Federation and the Secretariat of the United Nations, which is to be in force for another year and a half, has not been implemented in any of its parts. This Memorandum guarantees that the Secretary General will seek from the West the lifting of sanctions on the way of Russian exports of fertilizers and grain. It doesn't run. Our position is well known. There have been reports and public statements from both the Turkish leadership and the UN. Without going into details, I will say that they did not lead to anything.

Question: A clarification about the talks. As you know, Vladimir Zelensky has forbidden himself to negotiate with Moscow. Therefore, even if he really wants to or is allowed to start them, he must first allow it by law. But there is very little time for this.

Speaking at the UN, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Vassily Nebenzya said that the Ukrainian leader's unilateral decision not to run a presidential campaign makes him illegitimate from May 21.

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Vladimir Zelensky's executive order banning talks with Vladimir Putin's government. Our President has repeatedly expressed our readiness to enter into serious negotiations. But in order to make sure that this will be a really serious process (or at least that there is hope that it will be a serious process), he told the Western patrons of the Zelensky regime that he must first cancel this decree. This topic has already appeared.

As for May 21 of this year, let's live to see it. Maybe you don't need to admit anything.

Question: I have a question about talks with the United States on strategic stability. Some time ago, there was a feeling that Washington was sending a fairly clear signal that they wanted to start negotiations at least on this topic. We replied that we could not separate security issues from the conflict in Ukraine. This is a complex of problems. Are we getting new signals? Or has this process slowed down completely, after we have clearly stated our position? Now we are waiting for the end of the U.S. presidential election to figure out what to do next.

Sergey Lavrov: In the autumn of 2023, the United States sent us these signals, as always, and could not resist leaking this information to the media. It was an unofficial document to which we responded in February of this year, explaining that it is impossible to talk about strategic stability in a situation where we have been declared a strategic adversary that needs to be "strategically defeated."

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has repeatedly called us an enemy. It's surreal. Russia explained in detail the circumstances under which we will be ready to resume the dialogue on strategic stability: when mutual respect, equality and movement towards a balance of interests are ensured. Americans think differently.

In conditions when war has been declared on us, they help the Ukrainians to aim modern types of long-range weapons at our civilian and infrastructure facilities, and at the same time they say, let them shoot at each other, and we will sit down to talk. That's ridiculous. This does no credit to the people in the administration in Washington who are engaged in foreign policy. They have lost their diplomatic skills, as far as I can understand. They were corrupted by the obedience they felt, first of all, on the part of the Europeans, as well as other countries that are ready to "bend" to the American diktat, threats of sanctions, ultimatums, and blackmail.

The U.S. now has sanctions everywhere you look. Washington begins to discuss Venezuela, saying that they are ready to allow Venezuela to resume oil exports, but demand that it conduct elections as the United States has told it to do. And if Venezuela refuses, the U.S. will again ban its oil exports. They don't have any other tools.

I noticed an interesting moment when I was talking to my friends in New York at the events of the General Assembly and the UN Security Council. In January of this year, I attended a meeting of the UN Security Council when it considered Palestine. My comrades, with whom I have worked together since the 1980s, explained why they are sometimes forced to vote on Ukrainian and other important issues "out of conscience." The explanation is as follows: an American diplomat approaches the ambassador of the relevant country without any "scruples" and demands that he vote as the United States says. Similar demarches are being made in the capitals. My comrades explained that they would never join the sanctions, but in order to blow off steam a little, they were sometimes forced to vote differently than they thought was right.

I asked whether these demands of the Americans to vote in one way or another are followed by any explanations, what will happen if they do not obey. I was told that there would be sanctions and punishments. I asked, if they do as the United States asks, what will they get in return? In response, as the Americans said, they will not punish these countries.

Question: It's a strange kindergarten at the level of big politics.

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, we have what we have. This irreparable confidence of the United States in its own righteousness, omnipotence and impunity has led to the fact that now US foreign policy is led by people who do not know how to engage in diplomacy.

Question: In your interview, you said that the Americans do not have specialists on Russia, those who know our mentality, people and culture. How can they declare us their enemies if they know nothing about our country?

Sergey Lavrov: They are not interested in this at all. In the United States, diplomacy has been lost as a method of establishing contacts, confidentially discussing problematic issues and finding ways to compromise. Not necessarily Russologists, Europeanists, azeologists, Africanists – I don't see any serious people there.

They are used to demanding of others. They even stooped to such rudeness as publicly dictating to China what it should do. Recently, there was a report of a telephone conversation between Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu and US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Campbell. The American said that Washington is unhappy that Beijing supports Moscow. How's that? To say such a thing to a great power, China. What kind of reputation do Americans have?

There is also a statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. I can't get enough of his quotes. He said that the West (through Ukraine) must win. And if Russia wins, it will mean that no one will be able to rely on U.S. help from now on. Involuntarily, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria (from where they will supposedly leave) come to mind. Allegedly, they will also leave Iraq, they fled Afghanistan.

If we talk about the assistance of the United States, they have a small country nearby, Haiti, which they have been engaged in for more than a century. Even before the creation of the UN, dictators were "patronized", brought up, then replaced them, installed new ones. But the Americans are powerless to prevent banditry, rampant theft and embezzlement in this state, which is probably the poorest on the globe. It would not be difficult for the United States to "break off a pinch" of the Ukrainian "pie" and solve at least this problem. No, they have come to the UN Security Council again and are trying to lure some African countries to ensure law and order in Haiti (in the American fiefdom). Let them sort it out first, in their own "backyard". More precisely, in a small "particle" of it.

It is sad that the psychology of global domination and the need to maintain hegemonism at any cost has never yet manifested itself anywhere as a proof of the ability of the United States to solve some issues "on the ground."

Question: In one question, I would like to ask about two countries that are now being actively targeted by Western aid – Moldova and Armenia. Chisinau wants to hold a referendum on joining the EU in the fall, but not on the territory of Transnistria. What will happen to the PMR in such a situation?

What is happening now in relations between Moscow and Yerevan? We saw that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has arrived in Armenia. He was warmly welcomed, some plans were made.

Sergey Lavrov: In Moldova, President Maia Sandu has openly set a course for breaking off relations with the Russian Federation. No matter what they say to the contrary, they say that they want to be friends, but they say that Moscow oppresses them, this is not true. Maia Sandu has been turned into an instrument for the development of the geopolitical space by the European Union and, in the future, by NATO. Everything is moving towards this, although the Constitution of Moldova stipulates a neutral status.

It is sad that they do not draw any conclusions from what has happened in recent years. The Alliance has already turned Ukraine into an instrument of its aggression. Now they want the same thing with Moldova. If Chisinau holds elections, the Europeans (as the main "guardians" of this country) must ensure the fair and equal participation of all political forces. That won't happen. It is already known that certain parties that are in favor of maintaining normal relations with Russia will be deprived of participation in the elections. The process is already underway.

Apparently, Moldova has decided to "abandon" Transnistria. They rejected numerous proposals by Pridnestrovians and the Russian Federation to resume negotiations in the 5+2 format. Maia Sandu said that they would hold a referendum on joining the European Union without Transnistria. Probably, there is a desire to unite with Romania as soon as possible and thereby gain some additional opportunities. Maybe they are counting on a military solution to the Transnistrian problem. That would be reckless for the Moldovan leadership. I think they should understand that. Or you need to explain it clearly to them.

I have already commented on the current situation in Armenia. It is not encouraging. The Armenian leadership, under far-fetched pretexts, distorting the history of the last three and a half years, is deliberately leading to the collapse of relations with the Russian Federation. To the "defamation" of our servicemen (who serve at the 102nd military base), border guards and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation as a whole.

It is not mentioned that it was the CSTO that repeatedly defended the interests of Armenia in difficult situations. In 2021, it was ready to send a peacekeeping mission to this country in order to reduce the tension in relations between Yerevan and Baku. Moreover, the mandate of the mission was fully agreed upon at a ministerial meeting in the capital of Armenia in the fall of 2021. In the morning, when the presidents and prime ministers met, Nikol Pashinyan said that there was no consensus.

A few days later, he called for a similar European Union peacekeeping mission. He promised Azerbaijan that it would be only for two months. And two months later, ignoring Baku, the European Union doubled the number of staff. Now military personnel from Norway, Canada and the United States are being sent there, turning the EU mission into a mission of the North Atlantic Alliance.

The history of the past few years has been distorted by Nikol Pashinyan, his staff and the leadership of the Armenian parliament. When he was in the opposition and headed the movement he created (everyone knew that he had ties with the George Soros Foundation), he declared his withdrawal from the CSTO and the EAEU. Under this slogan, he gathered crowds in the streets, demanded the election of the prime minister (they had elections in parliament). At the same time, he said that if they end up not electing him, he will "raise" the people. Democracy at its highest.

After Nikol Pashinyan became Prime Minister, President of Russia Vladimir Putin met with him several times. I emphasised in every possible way that we would be guided not by any previous statements, but by how exactly the Armenian leadership would build relations with the Russian Federation. In response, it was said that the CSTO and the EAEU are structures that are fundamentally important for Armenia's security, the development of the country's economy and preventing its isolation in the South Caucasus.

This is the direction in which relations developed all the years before the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia flared up in 2020. At that time, Nikol Pashinyan appealed to President of Russia Vladimir Putin as an ally of Russia and a member of the CSTO. At night, our President worked tirelessly with the leaders of Yerevan and Baku to stop this war. Then there were trilateral agreements (1,2,3,4) on the delimitation of the border, the resumption of economic ties, the unblocking of transport communications, and the normalization of relations in general (including the conclusion of a peace treaty). All this was coordinated with our active proactive role.

At the same time, the European Union was "dragging" Armenians and Azerbaijanis to itself. Nikol Pashinyan was the main supporter of the idea of working on the platform of the EU and the United States. They regularly went there to the detriment of meetings that were planned on the territory of the Russian Federation. In 2022, at the summit of the European Political Community in Prague (an idea of French President Emmanuel Macron), he and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev signed a document in the presence of President of the European Council Charles Michel stating that Karabakh is Azerbaijan. No one informed us. President of Russia Vladimir Putin told the Prime Minister of Armenia at a regular meeting that we were surprised by their decision.

There was no explanation. Nikol Pashinyan has always asked us not to forget that in parallel with all our efforts over the past three years, it is imperative to resolve the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. That's what we've been doing. But when he himself signed that this territory was part of Azerbaijan in accordance with the administrative borders in the USSR, the question of status disappeared.

When the people of Karabakh began to leave Karabakh, Nikol Pashinyan asked President Vladimir Putin why he had left them to their fate. Vladimir Putin replied that it was the Prime Minister of Armenia who decided that they were no longer citizens or claimed any citizenship other than Azerbaijan.

I also spoke with Nikol Pashinyan when I went to various meetings in Yerevan. It seemed to me that he still understands the benefits for Armenia from the continuation of allied relations with the Russian Federation, from cooperation within the framework of the CSTO and the EAEU. But now Armenian officials in the Security Council of Armenia and in the Armenian parliament are openly saying that it is necessary to rely more on the European Union, that the CSTO allegedly does not fulfill its obligations to Armenia. That is, in fact, "the circle is closed". The Armenian leadership is beginning to express ideas similar to those with which Nikol Pashinyan formed his "Exit" movement. I am sure that this does not meet the interests of the Armenian people. This does not meet our interests from the point of view of historical friendly relations with Armenians, with the huge Armenian diaspora living in Russia, and from the point of view of stability in the South Caucasus.

The goal of those who are now luring the Armenian leadership to the side of the West is simple – to prevent stability in the South Caucasus, to try to turn this region into a zone of their domination. Just as the West is trying to do this in Central Asia, and in many other parts of our common continent.

Question: A few days ago, Politico published five US mechanisms. There is only one scenario, but there are five mechanisms. One of them is to isolate Russia within its own borders, to further begin internal destruction through inter-ethnic strife and even terrorism. Obviously, the pressure with centrifugal forces will increase. What can we do to counter this?

As for Armenia, for example. When you leave, go away?

Sergey Lavrov: I will not make such predictions. We have honestly presented all our assessments to the Armenian leadership. They know very well that we remain faithful to our obligations, that we are ready to continue to contribute to the normalization of their relations with Azerbaijan and to bring this process to full completion. They know that against the backdrop of our sincere interest in stabilising the situation and restoring relations between Yerevan and Baku, the European Union and NATO are taking steps to complicate this process.

Recently, the Azerbaijani leadership protested against some actions and statements, including those related to the expansion of the functions and composition of the EU mission in Armenia. It's up to them.

We never renege on our agreements. But they haven't been contacting us lately. The last time I spoke with Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan was in November 2023 at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Skopje, the capital of Macedonia. We proposed a meeting. They did not ask for it, but I once again confirmed to my colleague Ararat Mirzoyan what we are talking about now. They know our position. Our Ambassador Sergey Kopyrkin regularly reminds us of this position.

As for Politico, what was the scenario?

Question: To isolate Russia within its own borders. Cut off the entire post-Soviet space.

Sergey Lavrov: This is considered a "generous" scenario. There are many scenarios for Russia's decolonization.

Question: This is the next stage.

Sergey Lavrov: "There is no harm in dreaming," as our people say.

I drew attention to another Politico article, which concerned the analysis of the foreign policy of the United States and the international operations undertaken by it. Based on what will happen to Ukraine and how events will develop now in conditions when the issue of financing Ukraine is being slowed down in the US Congress in Congress. Europe, then, is left alone at the forefront of this task of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Moscow. Politico wrote that in all past conflicts in which the United States has been involved, its involvement has ended as American businesses have squeezed everything it needs out of the region. This was said in connection with discussions on the future of the Ukrainian economy and the food problem.

Everyone knows that the three largest American companies have bought up the lion's share of Ukraine's fertile land. Now there is a rather sharp skirmish within the EU. When some food-producing countries demand a ban on dumping Ukrainian grain to the European Union, it must be remembered that this is American grain. How do you forbid the owner to sell a product that has been taken for use and that is supposed to bring some profit?

About the future of Russia. I think that after the elections, their results and, most importantly, after the turnout for these elections, which proved that Russians have not become apolitical at all, but on the contrary, they want to defend their identity, culture, history, civilization, and that this determination has been noticed in the world (not just noticed, it is perceived with more and more respect). It seems to me that the fantasies about Russia's isolation were already scattered to the winds when we held the Games of the Future, the World Youth Festival. What isolation there is!

Question: I can't help but ask about the Middle East. The war between the Gaza Strip and Israel has been going on there for almost six months, people are dying, and now there is a threat of an operation in Rafah. Against this background, the United States is radically changing its position, and the UN Security Council has already adopted a resolution on the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. But given that with each new administration in the United States, this foreign rhetoric toward Israel may change dramatically, what is the likelihood that a unified state of Palestine can be established, and what is to be done about those illegal Jewish settlements that stand in the way?

Sergey Lavrov: The creation of the State of Palestine is the only way to resolve this problem in a sustainable manner for many years to come. And it is the creation of the state of Palestine, as it was conceived in the Security Council resolutions within the 1967 borders, with the understanding that there may be some equivalent exchanges, the capital – East Jerusalem, and the return of Palestinian refugees. Everything is written in these resolutions.

If you look at the map, it's clear that we're very far from that configuration. Every day, by the way, we get even farther away. Most recently, the Israeli Cabinet approved the establishment of, I think, another 3,000 settlements in the West Bank. It is already quite difficult to create a state that will be logistically connected. The reason for this is that, after the adoption of the relevant resolutions, the United States sabotaged their implementation for many years. Instead of working within the framework of the "quartet" of mediators (Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the UN), they tried to monopolize the peace process. Then they replaced all the principles on which this process should be built, and instead of the well-known Arab Peace Initiative, supported by everyone in the UN, and involving Arab recognition of Israel after the creation of a Palestinian state, the Americans turned everything "upside down" and began to promote the Abraham Accords. The idea was that the Arabs should negotiate diplomatic relations with Israel and then think about Palestine. Those Arabs who agreed to this agreement (the UAE, Morocco) constantly stressed that they would normalize relations with Israel, but they did so solely on the basis that the creation of a Palestinian state on the basis of the principles stated by the UN Security Council was inevitable and could not be done without it. All these promises turned out to be false.

The United States now understands that Israel's response to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack carried out by Hamas (we categorically condemned it) is absolutely disproportionate (to put it mildly) and constitutes "collective punishment" of the Palestinian people prohibited by international law: absolutely deliberate bombing of civilian targets, indiscriminate use of lethal weapons. Almost 35,000 people have already died. More than half of them are women and children. These are Palestinian civilians. About 80 thousand people have already been wounded. Let me remind you that this is five months since the beginning of this situation, which has developed since October 7, 2023, and this is already more than all the civilian casualties on both sides in Donbass and now in Ukraine from 2014 to the present. Compare: 5 months and 10 years. We share these figures with our Western colleagues in the UN and the OSCE. They look away cowardly. Striking duplicity and double standards.

The main thing now is to stop the bloodshed. It is good that this resolution has been adopted. But the Americans missed it, realizing that if they vetoed this one, which was significantly weakened, but at least called for a ceasefire, then they would "lose face" in their relations with the world majority. But immediately, after skipping this resolution, the U.S. representative to the UN said that this resolution was not binding. That is, the "carte blanche" was extended by this "package". A resolution, yes, but it is not binding. There is an urgent need to stop the bloodshed, address humanitarian issues and immediately launch the process of establishing a Palestinian state.

The Americans want to cheat here as well. We know that they are now seriously discussing the option of submitting a resolution to the Security Council and the UN General Assembly on the admission of Palestine as a full member of the organisation. Now they are observers there. That is, they want to formally proclaim the creation of a Palestinian state, but not change anything on the ground. These "tricks" are known to us, nothing can be ruled out. I hope that the main stakeholders, primarily the Arab countries and other countries of the Global South, understand the cunning of such forms.

It is a pity that we cannot resume the work of the Quartet (Russia, the United States, the UN and the European Union). At some point, it seemed to us that we were capable of bringing Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table and starting a serious conversation that would clarify the final positions, the possibility of reaching an agreement and the balance of interests.

Question: How can we come to an agreement with them after you have told us about these intricacies, secret thoughts and betrayals? You have been the head of Russian diplomacy for twenty years. What has changed since then? Are there any new diplomatic technologies?

Sergey Lavrov: Answering a similar question, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said in an interview with Dmitry Kiselyov that he does not trust anyone. We are ready to talk, but not on the basis of Vladimir Zelensky's formula. How can a serious politician in Washington, Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin claim that there is no alternative? Its essence is that Russia must capitulate, withdraw from Crimea, Donbass, Novorossiya. Russia must pay indemnities. The Russian leadership should come to The Hague and "surrender" to the tribunal. Russia should voluntarily agree to limit its armaments, at least in areas neighboring Europe. Is that serious? People without a smile, "with a blue eye", declare that this is the only "formula".

I have already met twice with the ambassadors of the World Majority in Moscow. Another meeting will be held in early April. We are explaining to them our assessment of how the situation around Ukraine is developing. The last time we talked was about two months ago, and we analysed Vladimir Zelensky's formula. They asked us questions. I tell them, let's take only one aspect of this "formula" – Russia must liberate Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya (the 1991 borders). First, in 1991, the Ukrainian SSR seceded from the Soviet Union on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which stated that Ukraine was a neutral, non-aligned state, lived in good neighborliness with all former republics, and respected human rights and the rights of national minorities. None of this is left.

Secondly, let's hypothetically fantasize that Ukraine has returned to the borders of 1991. Look on the Internet what Ukrainian politicians and parliamentarians say about what will be the fate of those people who now live in Crimea, in the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, in Zaporozhye, in the Kherson region. They say there won't even be a "purge." There is a lady in the Verkhovna Rada who said that twenty-five thousand people should be demonstratively executed in Crimea. If that is the meaning of the "formula," it is an "invitation" to genocide. Our colleagues from Africa, Asia and Latin America should understand where they are invited.

Now the Swiss are starting another "get-together" within the framework of the Copenhagen format, where everyone is invited and forced to agree with Vladimir Zelensky's "formula", support it or at least declare their readiness to discuss one part of it.

In addition to what I said, there is also food security, energy security, and nuclear safety. This is all for the entourage, precisely to lure people under the pretext of the innocence of these particular provisions.

I met with Swiss Foreign Minister Igios Cassis in New York in January this year. He told me that they understand that nothing can be solved without Russia, it is unfair, our country must participate. I said that they would convene another meeting in Switzerland with the invitation of Ukraine, the West and as many countries as possible in the South, to which we would not be invited, but there they would finally finalize Vladimir Zelensky's "formula" and try to make it somehow modified and more acceptable. More – in what sense? Is it that Russia should leave not tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow? When they finally agree on it, when it becomes a "collective product", then, they say, they will gladly invite us to the next meeting and present it. This is said by a serious, grown-up person. He is a minister, a former President of Switzerland. People with this experience need to understand what they are saying and doing.

Question: You said that modern American diplomacy is dead. Given what is happening, does diplomacy as such exist at all?

Sergey Lavrov: As far as our relations with the West are concerned, no. On the other side, there is no desire to resume cooperation on an equal footing. The goal is to punish us, inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia and "isolate us along the perimeter."

Now the whole diplomacy with the West is as follows: we still have embassies there, they have embassies in Russia, these embassies and consulates general need to function. Issues of financing the activities of diplomatic missions, procurement of items, cars, and equipment necessary for their activities are being discussed. These issues are now the main content of our contacts, in particular, with the Americans. Due to the sanctions, our embassies are under financial and economic "siege".

There are no positive agendas with Europe at all. You know about the refusal of European ambassadors to come to meet with me. We invited them on the eve of the elections to set out our vision of our relations, to say that we proceed from the assumption that they will not unilaterally obstruct the election campaign or distort it in their actions. It's their choice. They are here and they don't want to talk to the Foreign Minister. We informed them that from now on, at any level, whether it is the ambassador, the attaché or everyone "who is in between", if they are interested in communicating with the Russian authorities, we will consider each such request separately and decide whether to agree to such contact or not.

But diplomacy is alive. It is now developing rapidly in our relations with the World Majority. We have a huge number of partners and, most importantly, bilateral and multilateral partnerships of significantly higher quality.

For obvious reasons, we pay special attention to our common Eurasian continent. This includes the CSTO, the EAEU, and the SCO. These entities establish partnerships with other organizations in the space. These include ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, and other structures.

At the same time, relations with the African Union and various sub-regional structures on the African continent are developing. We are observers at the African Union and participate in its work. We have relations with the Southern African Development Community at the level of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Russian Federation and this organisation on the foundations of relations and cooperation. A number of other formations operating on the African continent.

It's the same in Latin America. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of the Americas (ALBA) initiated by Venezuela, MERCOSUR, the Central American Integration System (SICA), and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). We have many partners there.

All these regional and sub-regional processes harmoniously fit into the position, concept and philosophy that BRICS (which Russia chairs this year) is promoting at the global level.

Of course, in preparation for the summit in Kazan this autumn, we will invite not only full-fledged BRICS members (of which there are now ten), but also our partners in the BRICS+ format to the meeting. At the same time, a decision on the introduction of a new "partner country" category is being prepared for the summit. There are about thirty countries in the queue. The association has indeed acquired a global dimension not only in terms of its agenda and geography (almost all major regions are represented), but also in terms of the number of countries. Diplomacy is now developing in this paradigm.

Globalization, which the Americans imposed on everyone according to their own rules, proved that it is impossible to hope and rely on it. At any time, they can use the dollar, loans as weapons, refuse to compete fairly, break or force others to break contracts, ignoring the presumption of innocence and the inviolability of property.

Now there is a process of regionalization of world development. Each region and country wants to rely on its neighbors, to see what can be done among themselves, "in their own circle" so that it does not depend on the logistical, financial and other tools that are still controlled by the West.

In parallel with these regional processes, the global process will inevitably return. Here, BRICS can play a harmonizing and unifying role. Of course, to "marry" all this requires diplomatic skill.

I would like to add right away that all these assessments do not preclude the resumption of cooperation with the West. When it comes to its senses and realizes that it is impossible to continue doing business as a colonizer and a neo-colonizer, that the world has changed and new centers of power, economic development and financial power have appeared, which must be respected, then it may well join these processes on the basis of equality, respect for each other, mutual benefit, and the search for a balance of interests. For these purposes, we will always have contacts with the West within the framework of the UN. We will work there with those who are ready for this on an equal footing.

Forward to the Multipolar World! But first, we must live through the bifurcation of the world into two Blocs similar to what was the case during the Cold War. How far into this bifurcation is hard to tell, but it appears it’s getting close to the halfway point. There’re many more elections to happen in 2024 that have the potential to alter future events. The unelected, however, are the ones needing to be dumped into the manure pile and are the most dangerous. The promises of funding for the UkieNazis have nothing to purchase for its remaining military, so such funding makes no sense. The West Asia situation continues to escalate and is very unpredictable. The only real conclusion one can draw is the Zionist Project is dead, although it continues to kill many innocents. Despite the ongoing tragedies the work to establish the new multipolar institutions must continue as they’re one of the tools to eliminate Western hegemony.

*
*
*
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!