Lavrov's Annual International News Conference Part One

At the outset of the new year, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov holds an International Press Conference where he reviews the performance of Russian diplomacy over the prior year. The event is lengthy with this year being normal in that respect at just under three hours, which will mean its translated transcript must be delivered in two parts. Given the current state of global affairs, if you haven’t been following Russian affairs and have only heard the Western side of everything, you’re bound to be surprised and perhaps aggravated even. I’ll foreshadow Lavrov’s long preamble prior to taking questions by saying it sets the table for relations with the new Outlaw US Empire administration led by Donald Trump in ways similar to the many end-of-year news conferences given by Lavrov and the Direct Line held by President Putin—Russia’s position couldn’t be more transparent to the whole world, a factor the Trump team will need to consider. Enough of me; here’s Lavrov:

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to congratulate all those present on the New Year, to those who celebrate Christmas, and to wish you a Merry Christmas. I congratulate all those who treat life with good humor these days, as always, on the onset of the Old New Year, which came to us yesterday and probably also brought many joyful events along with the "prose of life", which cannot be avoided and which we will mainly talk about today.

President Vladimir Putin set out in detail his fundamental assessments of the international situation that has developed in recent years, our actions, course and goals in the international arena during his big news conference on December 19, 2024. I will not dwell in detail on the events that filled international life and formed the essence of our work and initiatives.

Let me remind you, as we have been saying for a long time, that the current historical stage is a period (or perhaps an era) of confrontation between those who uphold the fundamental principles of international law (and the order that developed after the Victory over Nazism and Japanese militarism in World War II), which were laid down, enshrined and covered in the most important international legal document (I mean the UN Charter), and those who are no longer satisfied with this Charter, who, after the end of the Cold War, decided that "the job is done" and that the main competitor – the Soviet Union – and the accompanying socialist camp have been "suppressed" forever. They have decided that from now on they can continue to be guided not by the UN Charter, but by the wishes that are maturing within the "political West," which includes the United States' allies from Asia (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea). We call them the "political" and "collective West." Feeling that they had "won" the Cold War, they decided that from now on no coordination with a strong competitor, which was the USSR, was no longer required, and they would solve all issues on their own, and the rest would be "given orders from above", as the party system worked in the Soviet Union (Politburo, Central Committee, regional committee, district committee, etc.).

At that time, the PRC had not yet achieved such colossal successes in economic development and in its political influence as we see today, so the West did not encounter serious resistance. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said in detail, convincingly, including explaining the true root causes of the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, that we were forced to repel an attack, a war launched against us by the same "collective West" with the main goal of suppressing another competitor, which Russia has once again found itself in the international arena. I will not list these reasons in detail. Their main goal is to weaken our country in geopolitical terms, creating direct military threats not somewhere across the ocean, but right on our borders, on the primordial Russian territories that were founded and developed and settled by the Russian tsars and their associates, in an attempt to "cut" our strategic potential and devalue it as much as possible. The second reason is also related to the history of these lands. Only we are not talking about the lands, but about the people who have lived on these lands for centuries, raised them "from scratch", built cities, factories, ports. The Ukrainian regime, which came to power through an illegal anti-constitutional coup d'état, simply declared these people "terrorists". And when they refused to accept it, it launched an all-out "offensive" against everything Russian, which for many centuries was the essence of the territories where people refused to obey the new Nazis.

We are now witnessing the height of this "battle." I am sure that there will be questions on this topic, so I will not go into details. I would like to once again (as we used to say in Soviet times in educational institutions) to outline the main contradictions of the current historical period – between those who are in favour of multipolarity, the UN Charter, the principle of sovereign equality of states, which requires all those who have ratified it not to impose their will, but to prove their rightness and seek a balance of interests, to come to an agreement, and for all the other principles contained in it. Many people, including our political scientists, are now talking about it as a bygone era. I do not quite agree with this assessment. The international legal meaning of the Yalta-Potsdam system does not require any "repair" – it is the UN Charter. Everyone must comply with it. And not selectively, as the menu is used (I will choose a fish today, and tomorrow something stronger), but in its entirety. Moreover, all the interrelations between the principles of the UN Charter have long been unanimously defined in a special Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. And no one objected to this.

To reiterate, the other camp, which today opposes multipolarity and the movement for multipolarity, proceeds from the fact that after the end of the Cold War, the Charter was not "written" to it, that it has its own charter. And they, with their "Western charter", which is called the "rules-based world order" (although no one has seen it), "climb" into every monastery, mosque, Buddhist temple and synagogue. This is where we see the main contradictions.

The desire to proclaim oneself the arbiters of fate after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union now retains colossal inertia. This surprises me and is a little alarming. Because any sensible politician should understand that over the past 30-35 years, times have changed dramatically. Opposition to Western dictates has been restored, but not in the face of the USSR, but in the face of rising new economies, financial centers in China, India, ASEAN, the Arab world, and CELAC. This is the new Russia together with its allies in the EAEU, the CIS and the CSTO. These are the SCO, BRICS, and many other rapidly developing and economically successful associations in all regions, countries of the Global South or, more correctly, the World Majority. There is already a new reality, strong competitors who want to compete fairly in the economy, finance, and sports. But the West (at least its current elites) can no longer overcome this inertia of its "total superiority" and the "end of history." They are "gliding" down the slope, trying to "block the way" for competitors everywhere, including in the economy. Just today, the United States announced a new package of sanctions in the field of artificial intelligence microchips, including by banning their import to NATO and EU member states. I am firmly convinced that the United States does not need any competitor in any area, starting with energy, where it does not hesitate to give the go-ahead for terrorist measures to destroy the basis of the EU's energy well-being, where it is "instigating" its Ukrainian clients to disable the Turkish Stream following Nord Stream. The rejection of fair competition in the economic sphere and the use of unfair and aggressive methods of suppressing competitors is manifested in the sanctions policy, which the United States and its allies have made the basis of their actions in the international arena, including with regard to Russia, but not only. And many sanctions are being imposed against China. As I have already said, sanctions are imposed even against their own allies without blinking, as soon as there is the slightest fear that they will produce something somewhere cheaper and will promote it to international markets more effectively than American manufacturers do.

The sphere of sports is a continuous epic of turning fair competitions into serving the interests of the country that has declared itself the winner in everything.

If Mr Trump, having taken office as president, makes America even greater, we will have to look very carefully at the methods by which this goal, proclaimed by President Donald Trump, will be achieved.

I have outlined what we call the main contradiction of the current moment. I am ready to listen to you and respond.

Question: My question concerns what you said in your speech about the Yalta-Potsdam system, that it exists and that it is necessary to comply with its main provisions. And what about the fact that the world players who have declared a "rules-based world order" have actually admitted that they no longer consider this system relevant for themselves. How does Russia plan to keep them in this system?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the Yalta-Potsdam system, I repeat once again, it has not disappeared. Now they say that it has exhausted itself. Political analysts advise looking for something else. Again, three or four or five people should sit down and put something on paper, taking into account the new balance of power.

The Yalta-Potsdam system was initially discussed, conceived and created by writing the UN Charter by the powers that fought against Nazism – the USSR, the United States and the United Kingdom. When the basic fundamental principles of the post-war world order were agreed, the French joined in. Then, after the revolution in China, the People's Republic of China also became a permanent member of the UN Security Council after some time. I am deeply convinced that the UN Charter does not need any improvement in terms of principles. The principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the sovereign equality of states, ensuring the territorial integrity of those states whose governments behave decently, respect the rights of all nations inhabiting a given country, and therefore represent the entire population living on their territory. The same cannot be said about the Nazi regime in Kiev, which came to power as a result of a coup d'état 11 years ago. It did not represent the Crimeans, the residents of Donbass, or the people of Novorossiya from the first second.

All these principles are fair. We are also in favour of UN reform. But there are those who say that the main injustice is the permanent membership of some countries in the Security Council with the right of veto. We have repeatedly explained that this is a special mechanism. Previously, it was absent in the previous structures that the international community tried to create. Nowhere were there any structures where anyone had special rights. The formation of the mechanism of permanent members of the Security Council was the result of a lesson learned from the experience of the League of Nations, where the principle of "one country, one vote" was in force. This did not allow not only to give some additional privileges to the great powers, but did not allow larger, more influential countries to exercise their special responsibility for objective reasons. They did not feel their responsibility for the fate of the systems that were being created, including the League of Nations.

Everything else in the Charter is absolutely fair principles that require not selective, but comprehensive application.

As for the reform of the UN Security Council. Yes, it is needed. Of course, not all of the countries that bear special responsibility in the global economy, finance, politics and military arrangements are represented in the UN Security Council. It has been said more than once that such powers as India and Brazil have long deserved a permanent residence permit in the UN Security Council in all respects, along with the corresponding decision on African permanent membership in the Security Council.

On the other hand, the West is again trying to spoil this process, by hook or by crook to secure an advantageous position for itself anyway. It already has 6 seats out of 15 permanent members. The Americans name Germany and Japan, which do not have any independent voice in world politics, among their main contenders for membership in the Security Council on a permanent basis. They blindly and obediently follow in the wake of the United States. And when Washington infringes on them directly, they do not dare to "squeak". Just as Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not dare to "squeak" after the Nord Streams were blown up. He simply shyly and silently "took his eyes aside."

The same applies to Japan, which is completely dependent on the United States. It's not fair. 6 out of 15 places are already held by the West. Stop it. It is necessary to increase the representation of developing countries.

When we all (after the reform, during, in the context of, in parallel with the reform of the Security Council) make the West understand that it is no longer able, as in colonial times, to impose its own rules on the whole world for centuries, to siphon wealth from the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, to live at the expense of others, and that now we need to look for a balance of interests, we have an excellent basis for this – the international legal basis of the Yalta-Potsdam world order – the UN Charter. We just need to comply with it. And to do this, we need to understand that it will no longer be possible to rule the world.

Question: Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has recently made statements that a number of experts interpret as de facto solidarity with the United States. How do such statements fit in with the special nature of relations between Russia and Serbia?

Sergey Lavrov: We are interested in our relations with Serbia being based exclusively on the interests of the Serbian and Russian people, on the interests of our states. They coincide on the overwhelming majority of issues. These relations are rich in specific agreements and projects, including in the energy sector, approved by the heads of state, at the level of governments and companies. There is a joint venture, including the Naftna Industrija Srbije Corporation. The agreement on the establishment of this corporation states that it is not subject to nationalisation under any circumstances. In US politics, the Democrats have such manners – to "" the next administration, as Barack Obama did three weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration during his first term in office, when he expelled 120 Russian employees (including their families) and stole two diplomatic property by arresting (we are still not allowed there). This forced us to respond, and, of course, did not make the Russian-American "topic" in the new Trump administration any simpler.

In the same way, they want to simultaneously "lay a pig," in Russian, both to the Serbs and to the Trump administration. For example, a deputy energy assistant came to attend a joint news conference with President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic, lectured and demanded that there should be no Russian capital left in the Naftna Industrija Srbije and in the Serbian energy sector in general. Otherwise, they say, they will block all opportunities for access to Serbian goods markets. This was a rather boorish speech. But this is a "trademark" (trademark) of the outgoing US administration.

When you are no longer elected, and your team, which sees America as it was not supported by the majority of Americans, purely ethically, not only out of political, but out of human decency, "sit out" these three months between the elections and the inauguration from somewhere and understand that the people want a different policy. No, they will definitely "slam the door" and make sure that no one thinks it is enough.

To reiterate, we have a very rich history of fighting Nazism and respecting the right of peoples to self-determination with Serbia. We support each other in political areas and in international organisations. Of course, we see that Serbia is wringing its hands. When President Aleksandar Vučić has been saying for many years that they will not turn away from the course of joining the European Union, and all these years he hears in response that they are expected there, but for this to happen, they must first recognise Kosovo's independence (that is, the Serbian people and its president are invited to humiliate themselves), and, secondly, the Serbs, of course, must join all EU sanctions against the Russian Federation. At the same time as inviting them to humiliate, they are demanding that they betray their ally. President Aleksandar Vucic has said many times that this is an unacceptable policy that the Europeans are trying to push, and the United States is clearly encouraging it.

The situation, even from a legal point of view, requires courageous decisions. They say that you have a contract with someone that does not concern us, but it concerns our desire to punish your partner. They add that, they say, sorry, you will get tangential, and it hurts a lot.

It is up to the Serbian leadership to make the decision. Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, who represented Serbia at the BRICS summit in Kazan, spoke clearly on this topic. So we will see.

We are in contact with our Serbian friends. We have requested urgent consultations. We hope that we will receive a response as soon as possible.

Question: Venezuela hosted the inauguration of Nicolas Maduro, the legitimately elected president, a few days ago. Nevertheless, his rival in the elections, Emmanuel Gonzalez, still calls himself the winner. Washington and a number of Latin American countries where he was elected president, in particular, in Argentina and Uruguay, consider him to be the winner. What do you think about the situation? Does this remind you of the situation with Juan Guaido after the previous elections? What does Washington want to achieve?

Sergey Lavrov: The West is stupefied by its "greatness" (as it believes), impunity and its self-arrogated right to decide the fate of all the peoples of the world. This is manifested not only in Latin America, not only in Venezuela, not only Juan Guaido, not only Ella Gonzalez. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya has also been proclaimed by some countries as the "legitimate representative" of Belarus. At least, under this "heading" she is received in the Council of Europe and other Western-centric organisations.

This is conceit, an attitude of contempt for the rest of the world. This is yet another shameless statement that when we say "democracy," it means only one thing – "I do what I want." US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (he has already quoted him) said that those who do not listen to them will not sit at the democratic table, but will be on the menu. This is a direct manifestation of this policy. At the same time, this is what they are doing – they believe they have the right to pass verdicts on the results of the elections. Yes, the country has the right, not the obligation. Those who are members of the OSCE have the right to invite international observers. This is not necessarily the ODIHR. They can also be parliamentary associations of any country and organisations.

I will not even describe how they reacted to the elections in Moldova, how everything was organised there to prevent half a million Moldovans in Russia from voting, how everything was done so that a little fewer Moldovans working in the West would have the opportunity to "imposingly" "cast" their votes without waiting in line, for whom they were told – for "President" Maia Sandu.

Look at how the Georgian people are being mocked. They accused us of "rigging" something. OSCE observers did not find any major violations. This formula means that everything was done correctly and legitimately. But they do not like it.

Romania. This is a disgrace. Perhaps "President" Emmanuel Gonzalez, like "President" Juan Guaido, will follow the example of former Georgian President S. Zurabishvili? Two days before the inauguration of the new president, she spoke harshly that she would not go anywhere and that she would sit in this palace as the only legitimate source of power in Georgia and "give" commands. But in the morning she left and got a job in a political science "think tank".

It is difficult to comment on this topic. This is sheer hypocrisy, diktat, disrespect for people and a colossal overestimation of one's own intellectual and other capabilities. This will pass with time. But these people need to be taught.

Q: Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that, adhering to the strategic leadership of the two heads of state, China-Russia relations are becoming more mature, stable, independent and strong day by day, and set a model for friendly contacts between major powers and neighboring countries. How would you comment on this? What do you think is the secret of the stable development of our bilateral relations? What do you expect from bilateral cooperation this year?

Sergey Lavrov: I fully share these assessments of relations between Russia and China, which were expressed by my good, long-time friend Wang Yi. They are very useful and help us reach specific agreements to fulfil the tasks that President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping agree on foreign policy and our coordination in the international arena.

There is no doubt that the Russian-Chinese "link" is one of the main stabilising factors of modern international life and the processes that are unfolding, among other things, to escalate confrontation and hostility in international affairs, which is being done by our neighbours from the North Atlantic Alliance under the leadership of the United States, who always want to "drive wedges" and sow confusion, whether in Europe, in the Taiwan Strait, in the South China Sea or (as they say) in the Indo-Pacific region, be it the Middle East or Africa.

It is not difficult for the United States (it has hundreds of military bases everywhere) to make some kind of "mess". But these simple "schemes" are visible – to create confrontational destabilizing "schemes" everywhere and then watch how the countries that claimed influence in this or that region, because of these crises and conflicts, spend money, attention and time not on development, but on the settlement of these crises, and Washington receives more and more benefits. They did this during the First World War, World War II. Now they have successfully "shifted" the heavy burden of the war against Russia with the hands of Ukraine to the European Union. And the majority of the EU, including the leaders of France, Germany and Italy, is "silent" in Russian. Some are "grumbling", but mainly from the opposition – the Alternative for Germany, the Sarah Wagenknecht Union, and there is a National Front in France.

Oppositionists ask why they spend so much money when poverty is growing, deindustrialization is taking place, industry is "fleeing" to the United States, because America has made it so that energy costs four times less there and taxes are lower.

They "burned" almost all of California. The damage is estimated at $250 billion. This is even more than they "pumped" into Ukraine, but the figures are comparable. We see and have seen during various international events (APEC was held in San Francisco) that the United States has many problems – poverty is everywhere if you step off the central highways. Therefore, when China and Russia advocate an equal and honest dialogue with Washington, it means, first of all, that we uphold the principles of international communication enshrined in the UN Charter.

After World War II ended with the defeat of German fascism in Europe and Japanese militarism in the Far East, our leaders agreed to jointly celebrate these two great events – the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in Europe and the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in the Far East.

I am sure that these will be bright events. They are of tremendous importance in reminding all of us, children and especially the youngest generation, at what price peace was established, and continuing to categorically "repulse" attempts to rewrite history, to lay the same blame on the Nazis and those who liberated Europe and the Far East from Japanese militarism.

This is an important component that strengthens the Russian-Chinese comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. I believe that the secret of success is that we have a common history. We are not renouncing this history. Unlike the West, we (neither Russia nor China) have never renounced the obligations that we undertook, including those enshrined in the UN Charter. We will not declare that we no longer consider them obligations, but in practice the West is doing everything not to follow them, but to follow its own selfish plans.

Therefore, the structures that were created on the basis of the Russian-Chinese partnership and joint initiatives belong to associations of a new type, where there are no "leaders" and "followers", where there are no "masters" and "subordinates".

This is the SCO, which is developing ties with the EAEU. The Eurasian Economic Union is closely harmonizing its integration plans with China's One Belt, One Road project. This is BRICS, which has become even stronger after the Kazan summit. Indonesia, which we actively supported during Russia's presidency, became a full member. Eight more countries have become partner states, and close cooperation between the SCO, ASEAN and many other associations is developing. All this is happening on the basis of consensus. But the Russian-Chinese tandem is able to move all these processes forward quite effectively with the support of all other participants. The international significance of our cooperation, partnership and plans for the future is enormous. I am convinced that these plans will be implemented. We do not want anyone to oppose anyone. We want only one thing – for all countries on our planet, including the entire "collective West" led by the United States, to conduct business on the basis of respect for the interests of all their partners. This is the common position of Moscow and Beijing.

Question: We all see that Armenia is being led along a false and destructive path, which, I am not afraid to say, is becoming an obstacle to its very existence. All this is being done to the detriment of the centuries-old Russian-Armenian relations and to please the West.

We all know that Armenia has blocked its participation in the CSTO. We know that the Armenian authorities ignore a number of events that are held on the Russian platform. At the same time, Yerevan (the authorities) has recently begun to "drag" Armenia into the European Union. We learned that a referendum on joining the EU will be held. Today we learned that Armenia is going to sign a document on strategic partnership with the United States. All this is happening against the backdrop of very real threats from our neighbors and the growing chances of a new war. What is Moscow's attitude to the situation in Armenia? How do you see the development of events?

The second question is about the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, which you have already mentioned. This is a common Victory. We know the contribution of the Soviet people, including the Armenian people, to this Victory. It was broad and large-scale. Do you agree that the memory of this Victory is one of the foundations on which the strategic alliance between Armenia and Russia should be built?

ANO Eurasia, of which I am a member of the board, has been actively working in the Eurasian space over the past seven months. We are actively advocating for the preservation of historical memory, fighting for traditional values. I can say for sure that this is receiving a wide response from our youth. So, in October 2024, we held a wide mass event in Yerevan, which was attended by more than a thousand Armenian students, where we not only congratulated Yerevan on the holiday, but also paid tribute to the memory of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, laying flowers at the Eternal Flame.

Sergey Lavrov: Answering the second question. This is a sacred topic for all peoples, primarily the Soviet Union, who were subjected to genocide attempts by the Nazi invaders, and for all those who, either as part of the army units of their countries or in partisan detachments, in the resistance movement, fought for justice and truth against the Nazis and a huge number of European countries that the German Nazis put under arms. The Spaniards and the French participated in the siege of Leningrad and in many other criminal actions of the Nazi regime.

We have not forgotten this. This is a parallel. They are constantly asking for it. Napoleon seized Europe and put everyone "under arms" in order to defeat the Russian Empire. Not only the French were there. The same thing happened with Hitler's Germany. Dozens of countries occupied by the Germans sent their military personnel to occupy and destroy the USSR.

US President Joe Biden, speaking yesterday with a report on foreign policy, said that they had managed to strengthen NATO and its supporters, saying that 50 countries were put under arms to "help" Ukraine, but in fact, to fight against Russia with the hands of Ukraine.

History repeats itself. Everywhere there are elements of a sense of superiority and a desire to implement what is now called "Bonapartism." For Adolf Hitler, it was Nazism directly. And Nazism is now providing "banners" for those who want to try to destroy our country once again. Therefore, these anniversaries are holy.

I believe that what the public, including your organisation, is doing in addition to the actions of states and governments, deserves the highest praise.

I know about your work in Armenia, and not only in Yerevan, but also in cities and villages. Our embassy is actively cooperating on issues where we can unite our efforts, including the organisation of the Immortal Regiment march and such events as the Garden of Memory and the Dictation of Victory. This is important for young people to join these eternal values, without exaggeration.

Our diplomats meet with Armenian veterans, take care of graves, and maintain memorials in decent condition. There is no doubt that the peoples of Russia and Armenia are friendly and fraternal peoples, and that mutual relations will ultimately be based on a sense of friendship.

As for today's relations at the official level, they are not easy. You mentioned some facts that we have already commented on.

For example, when it was announced that the government had decided to start the process of joining the European Union. Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Overchuk, an experienced person who deals with the EAEU, its expansion and development, frankly said that these are incompatible things. These are two different free trade zones, two different systems for reducing (or refusing) duties and tariffs. They do not coincide.

Let me remind you that in 2013, after our repeated reminders, the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych drew attention to the fact that the negotiations with the European Union on Ukraine's association with the EU, which had been going on for many years, were reaching parameters that, if approved, would directly contradict the obligations within the CIS free trade zone. Ukraine participated in it and actively used its benefits. Because there were practically no internal tariffs in the CIS free trade zone. Ukraine wanted to get the same "zero" tariffs with the European Union, with which Russia and other CIS members, for obvious reasons, had quite serious protective barriers.

When we joined the World Trade Organization, at the cost of 17 years of negotiations, we bargained for serious protection for a number of our sectors of the economy and services. If Ukraine, having zero tariffs with Russia, had received the same treatment with the European Union, then European goods, which, according to our agreements with Brussels, are subject to serious duties, would have gone to our territory free of charge, without any tariffs. We explained this to the Ukrainians.

Viktor Yanukovych's government realised this. They realised that if they did nothing, we would simply put a barrier in the way of Ukrainian imports to Russia. And they would suffer, given that the lion's share of trade was with the CIS, not with Europe. Ukraine asked to postpone the signing of the Association Agreement for several months in order to make a decision.

In addition to this, we proposed that Russia, Ukraine and the European Commission sit down and see how to make sure that Ukraine receives additional benefits from the Association Agreement with the EU, but does not lose the benefits of the free trade zone in the CIS.

The then head of the European Commission, Jean-Marc Barroso, an arrogant person as arrogant as he looks, said that this was none of our business. They said that they did not meddle in Russian relations with Canada. Therefore, the decision of the legitimate Armenian leadership to start the process of joining any international structure where it is expected is a sovereign decision. But weighing all the pros and cons is also the responsibility of the Armenian government and those involved in the economic bloc.

You mentioned that Armenia has "blocked" participation in the CSTO. They simply do not participate in events. But to be fair, they officially said that this does not mean that they block the adoption of decisions where consensus is required.

The organisation is working and functioning. Back in the autumn of 2022, we agreed to send a CSTO observer mission equipped to play a deterrent role on the border. But then our Armenian friends said (everything had already been agreed, a decision was ready, but they refused at the last moment) that it was difficult for them to agree, given that in September 2022, when there were three-day clashes on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the CSTO did not intervene and "did not defend the territory of the ally."

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has returned to this topic many times. There was no delimited border, let alone any demarcation. Never. Two or three kilometers in one direction, in the other. Yes, there were such skirmishes then. But to abandon the CSTO mission, which would have been very effective, was also a sovereign decision. At the same time, an EU mission was invited there for two months. Then the Armenians unilaterally, without consulting with the Azerbaijanis, made the initial agreement indefinite. Then Canada joined the mission. This is already an element of the NATO presence. According to our information, these people are engaged in many issues that are of interest not so much to Armenia as to various Western alliances.

Yesterday I heard that Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan signed a strategic partnership agreement with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. This is a sovereign decision of the two states. The main thing is not what he signed and what it is called, but what follows from it.

We also used the terminology "strategic partnership" in a number of treaties with Western countries. But these treaties, when declaring strategic partnership, never required a participant to oppose a third country.

We have never written anywhere against anyone in peacetime (World War II, the Great Patriotic War is a different matter) in the modern era that we are strategic partners who should, they say, join some sanctions, as they demand from Serbia. And they will also demand from Armenia.

But our dialogue continues. Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan has been invited to the Russian Federation. He has accepted the invitation. We are waiting for him. I hope the visit will take place soon.

Question (retranslated from English): Donald Trump's return has revived talks about a "deal" on Ukraine. Will he really be able to conclude this "deal" and make an amicable deal? What concessions is Russia ready to make in order to reach an agreement?

What is your reaction to Donald Trump's recent refusal to rule out the possibility of using military force to get Greenland? What will you do if Mr Trump does this?

Sergey Lavrov: As far as I understand, there are already some specific initiatives that will be launched immediately after Donald Trump's inauguration. At least, what I have seen are initiatives to start negotiations with Denmark on the purchase of Greenland.

At the same time, we hear statements by Prime Minister of Greenland Mark Egede that Greenlanders have a special relationship with Copenhagen, that they do not want to be Danish or American, but want to be Greenlanders. I think that first we need to listen to the Greenlanders.

Just as we, being neighbors with other islands, peninsulas and lands, listened to the residents of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya to find out their attitude to the regime that came to power through an illegal coup d'état, which was not perceived by the residents of Crimea, Novorossiya and Donbass.

This is in full accordance with what I said at the beginning – the right of nations to self-determination. In cases where a nation, being part of a larger state, believes that it is uncomfortable in this state and that it wants to self-determine in accordance with the UN Charter, a large state is obliged not to oppose or hinder this. Not as the Spaniards did to Catalonia, not as the British do to Scotland. If a nation as part of another state shows such a desire, it can exercise its right.

International law is enshrined in the UN Charter and in the Declaration of the General Assembly. It says that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of a state whose government represents the entire population living in the relevant territory. If Greenland believes that Copenhagen does not represent its interests and the interests of its people, then perhaps the right to self-determination comes into play.

Just as the right to self-determination was the international legal basis for the decolonisation process in the 1960s and 1970s, when the indigenous African peoples realised that the colonialists who ruled them did not represent their interests or the interests of the population. Then, for the first time, the right of nations to self-determination was implemented on a large scale in full compliance with the UN Charter, but not completely. Today, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories in the world. There is the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, which meets annually and confirms the need to complete the decolonisation process. Numerous resolutions have been adopted on the issue of the island of Mayotte, which the French, contrary to UN resolutions, do not want to give to the state of the Comoros. There are issues of the decolonisation of Mauritius and many others.

Nevertheless, the right of nations to self-determination exists. It has been implemented within the framework of decolonisation and is the international legal basis for completing this process (I am referring to the 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories).

The right of nations to self-determination is at the heart of the decisions made by the residents of Crimea in 2014 and the residents of Novorossiya and Donbass in 2022. After all, these Nazis, having seized power, immediately announced that they were eliminating the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. And they did it. Moreover, they passed a law banning the Russian language long before the start of the special military operation. In the West, where everyone is obsessed with human rights for any reason, no one even lifted a finger or said a word.

By the way, human rights are also the UN Charter. Article 1 states that everyone is obliged to respect human rights regardless of race, gender, language or religion. The Russian language is completely banned, and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is banned. No one pays attention to these gross violations of the UN Charter. Although the West, as we say, treats human rights like a "written bag" on any occasion that has nothing to do with the well-being of the population. And here, when people have been disfigured in their daily lives and are trying to exterminate their entire history and traditions, everyone is silent.

When Donald Trump, after becoming president, finally formulates his position on Ukrainian affairs, we will study it. Everything that is being said now is being done in preparation for the inauguration and serious business. As Donald Trump himself said, in preparation for entering the office. He understands that first he needs to "settle in" in the Oval Office.

Everything that has been discussed over the past year has several aspects. The very fact that people have begun to mention more about the realities on the ground probably deserves welcome. Mr Waltz, who, as far as I understand, will be the National Security Adviser, and President Donald Trump himself, in their lengthy interview, mentioned the root causes of the conflict in so far as it concerns dragging the Kiev regime into NATO despite the agreements reached under the Soviet- and then Russian-US agreements and relations, and within the OSCE. There was a consensus at the highest level, including by presidents, including President Barack Obama in 2010, that no country or organisation in the OSCE area claims dominance, and no country will strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. NATO was doing exactly what it promised not to do. Donald Trump said so.

For the first time, not only an American, but also any Western leader made honest admissions that NATO lied when they signed numerous documents with our country and within the framework of the OSCE. This was only used as a cover, a "piece of paper", but in fact NATO was moving close to our borders, violating the agreements on the conditions under which East Germany became part of the Federal Republic, moving military infrastructure close to our borders, planning to create military bases, including naval bases in Crimea and the Sea of Azov. All this is well known.

The fact that this root cause, after many months or even two years of reminders, is finally being enshrined in the American "narrative" is good. But so far, neither the "narrative" nor anyone else's discourse has heard the rights of Russians, whose language, culture, education, media and whose canonical religion in Ukraine have been banned by law. There will be no serious conversations if the West pretends that this is normal.

When the outgoing administration, represented by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser John Sullivan, says that they are confident that the "new White House" will continue its policy of supporting Ukraine – what is this? Is it still a testament to exterminate everything Russian? This is not such a "simple" thing. This is a very dangerous thing. This speaks of Nazism as a form of foreign policy implementation. Or of educating Nazis as a form of foreign policy against a country that the United States wants to contain and prevent it from gaining competitive advantages.

We will wait for specific initiatives. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that he is ready to meet. But so far there have been no proposals. Then President Trump said that Vladimir Putin wants to meet. I believe that we need to meet, but first we need to "stop by the office."

Question: A paradoxical situation is developing in Europe. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the European population in some countries, such as mine (that is, Greece), in Cyprus, and elsewhere, do not agree with the policy pursued by our governments. In other words, the population is categorically against any military escalation that someone is preparing. Unfortunately, the situation is paradoxical and the democracy is paradoxical that our governments do not consider it their obligation to coordinate foreign policy with their own people. Some governments even tell us that foreign policy is decided by other obligations. Russia is still part of this common European continent. What is your forecast: will we ever return to normalising relations on our common continent?

You are probably the most experienced diplomat in the world. You have decided, or tried to decide, "joined" the Cyprus issue. A new round of this complex negotiation process in Cyprus is being discussed in the coming days. Do you have any expectations or possible advice for those who will be involved in this?

Sergey Lavrov: I will start with the second question. I was indeed involved in the Cyprus settlement when I worked in New York. The President of Cyprus visited the UN General Assembly every year. In this regard, he invited the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the Security Council and talked about how to implement the principles enshrined in the Security Council decisions. Of course, we also talked about the failures towards resolving the Cyprus problem.

The last concrete attempt was the plan of Kofi Annan in 2004, when my good friend (may peace be upon him) Kofi Annan, the great secretary general, on the advice of his assistants, ventured to propose a plan that would at least slightly change the decision of the Security Council in favor of weakening the future central power of the eventual unified state. That is, the Greek Cypriots would have had fewer powers.

There was a referendum. He rejected this plan. Since then, there has been nothing more concrete. I know that our Turkish neighbours openly say that these are two equal states, that there is no other way, and that we need to come to an agreement. We do not and cannot have any "magic" scheme that we would propose, let alone impose. The interests of one and the other people must be taken into account. Previously, the countries that are members of the Security Council were considered guarantors of this process. As far as I understand, including with the consent of Nicosia, these five have not been meeting recently. As I suspect, the Cypriot leadership is "working" with the United States.

We want only one thing – for the Cypriots to live as they want both in the north and in the south. We have many Russian citizens living there. More in the south, of course, but more than ten thousand live in the north. We provide consular services for them. We do not have a permanent consular office there, like some like Britain, but we have organised services there. We want the Cypriots to decide how to live in the future.

I understand that the current leaders of Cyprus have partners who would not just like the Cypriots to make up their minds as soon as possible but are saying how they need to make up their minds, including, for example, joining NATO and changing their domestic legislation in order to "annoy" the Russians who have transferred money to the banks of this country. In other words, just as Serbia is told what "price" it should pay for membership in the European Union, Cyprus is told, let's join NATO, there will be no problems there, because everyone will be allies, and "everything will be fine" with the north. But they say, we need to make sure that there are fewer Russians, so that you remember your common history there. We do not interfere in internal affairs.

I understand that this is an important issue for Cyprus, which we are discussing now, but in geopolitical terms, the first part of your question about whether it is possible to normalise relations on our common continent is much more important. This is an important key expression – a common continent. It is called Eurasia. It is the largest, most populous, and probably the richest continent. Perhaps it competes with Africa and Greenland in terms of natural resources.

But this is a continent on which there is no single continent-wide structure. In Latin America, there is CELAC – the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries. In Africa, there is the African Union. Along with many sub-regional associations, there are continent-wide associations in both Africa and Latin America. In Eurasia, there are only sub-regional structures, and there is no single "roof" that would bring everyone together. Perhaps it would be a good idea to try to do this.

You asked: is it possible to return to normal relations? It is clear that there are several organisations in the western part of our common continent – the OSCE, NATO, the Council of Europe and the European Union. The first two (the OSCE and the North Atlantic Alliance) are based on the concept of Euro-Atlantic security with the participation of North America. The European Union was created for the Europeans. But not so long ago, it signed an agreement with NATO, according to which the EU will do what the alliance tells it to do militarily if there is a war (God forbid). Not only the European Union. They have already told Switzerland, let's join the "military Schengen". If NATO needs to pass through their territory towards the Russian Federation, then remove any permitting procedures. There is the Council of Europe. The Americans are not members there for obvious reasons (they are not Europeans, they are observers there). But what the Council of Europe is doing now, including the creation of illegal tribunals, some registers, some kind of compensation mechanism to punish Russia – all this is being done by the decision of the United States.

The OSCE, NATO, and now the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the Nordic Council of Ministers, which are now all NATO members, are all Euro-Atlantic structures, not Eurasian ones. Probably, those who want to keep Europe in check are interested in this Euro-Atlantic structure being preserved and continue to dominate.

Recently, they realised that the central and eastern parts of Eurasia are a much more promising area in terms of economy and infrastructure. Logistics infrastructure projects are being implemented there with a global dimension. What do NATO and Washington want now? First of all, the entire Eurasian continent should be part of the Euro-Atlantic structure. Shortly before retiring, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the security of the Euro-Atlantic region and in the Indo-Pacific region is indivisible. In other words, the indivisibility of security, which was proclaimed back in 1999 as an OSCE principle that implies that one should not strengthen oneself by weakening others to the detriment of others, has been reversed. Now they want the whole of Eurasia to develop from a military-political point of view within Euro-Atlantic parameters.

The Indo-Pacific region is already there AUKUS, the Pacific Four (Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand), and Quad (with the participation of India). The Americans want to give it a military-political dimension. Our Indian friends are well aware of this. There is already an increase in Taiwan's weapons. Not even attempts, but actions to involve the Philippines not in the work of ASEAN, but in the work of these American narrow-block structures.

If we talk about the Taiwan Strait. The Americans, Europeans, British, all say that they respect the position that there is only one China – the People's Republic of China. But they immediately add that they adhere to the position of one China, but no one should change the "status quo". And what is the "status quo"? "Independent Taiwan". This is obvious. The PRC has repeatedly pointed out to all "visitors" from the United States who regularly visit Taiwan that this is unacceptable, as well as to receive Taiwanese delegations when they travel around the world (they are received as statesmen).

Speaking in this hall on June 14, President Vladimir Putin spoke about our position on the Ukrainian settlement, which is the need to permanently close the issue with NATO and restore the linguistic, religious and other rights of Russians, that were legally exterminated by the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky. In the same hall, he spoke about the need to form a Eurasian architecture. It is the Eurasian architecture, which, like the African Union and CELAC, will be open to all countries of the continent. These ideas have been discussed for about ten years, when at the first Russia-ASEAN summit, Vladimir Putin put forward the initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership. There are already relevant agreements between the SCO, the EAEU and ASEAN. We are now working with the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.

When we say that this economic, transport and logistical partnership should be open to all countries of the continent (because in this case we will make the most of the comparative advantages given by God and geography), of course, we mean the western part of the continent as well. Such interest is manifested in some countries of the western part of Europe. To promote the idea of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, we are using the establishment of ties and the harmonization of the programmes of existing integration associations. This process is underway.

In the same context, relations are developing within the framework of China's One Belt, One Road project, the North-South international transport corridor, the Northern Sea Route, the Persian Gulf – the port of Chittagong, Bangladesh – Mumbai – the Far East – this is a very promising project. We call this the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

When such a partnership gains sufficient momentum (everything speaks in favor of this), it will simultaneously create competitive, more effective ways of economic exchanges and the material foundation for the Eurasian security architecture. A dialogue on this has already begun.

In October 2024, the second International Conference on Eurasian Security was convened in Minsk, which was attended by members of the governments of Serbia and Hungary (Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjártó participated for the second time in a row), showing interest in this concept. Belarusians, as the hosts and initiators of this conference, are now working to make it regular. This decision has already been made. We supported their initiative to develop a draft "Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century" by the next meeting of this conference on Eurasian security.

I believe that it makes sense to think about the development of the Eurasian continent based on the interests of its countries not in the Atlantic or Pacific context, or in any other, but on the basis of what history and nature have given. We will work on this. I would like to emphasise once again that the process is open to all countries located on our Eurasian continent without exception. Cyprus is an island, but you are also invited. [My Emphasis]

End of Part One. My commentary will follow Part Two.