Lavrov's Annual Year-end International Presser

We'll see who watched Lavrov's 60 Minutes Interview

I find it curious that MFA has taken to using a stock-photo versus how Lavrov’s pictured by the video. The scene is the same as yesterday’s.

This event happens annually and is broadcast live by Russian media, which speaks of the importance placed on this event. You’ll notice very few nations do this. As I mused in the subtitle, how many questions will repeat what was asked just over 24 hours before, and how tactful will Lavrov be towards the clearly ignorant? We’ll now see:

Question: Of course, the most important issue now is about talks. There are many voices from diplomatic circles, experts, etc. But with whom to negotiate now in Kyiv? US President-elect Donald Trump's future Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg has come up with an initiative. How do you see the situation on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: Much has already been said on this topic. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly addressed this issue, including during the Direct Line, and before that during a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club and other events.

We cannot be satisfied with empty conversation. So far, all we hear is talk about the need to come up with some kind of truce. At the same time, it is not particularly hidden that it is needed in order to buy time to continue pumping Ukraine with weapons, so that they "put themselves in order", carry out additional mobilization, etc.

A truce is a road to nowhere. We need final legal agreements that will fix all the conditions for ensuring the security of the Russian Federation and the legitimate security interests of our neighbors. But in a context that will enshrine the impossibility of violating these agreements in an international legal way. And they should address the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. The two main ones are, first, the violation of all obligations not to move NATO to the east and the aggressive "absorption" by NATO of the entire geopolitical space up to our borders. Ukraine was destined for this fate. And even now they continue to talk about it. The second root cause is the absolutely racist actions of the Kiev regime after the coup d'état. At that time, the extermination of everything Russian was officially allowed and then legislatively enshrined: the language, the media, culture, even the use of the Russian language in everyday life. And, of course, the ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

We are told that Russia is putting forward preconditions. These are not preconditions, but requirements to fulfill what was previously agreed. As it turns out, we were lied to when we were assured that NATO would not move eastward. And when they stressed their commitment to a settlement based on the UN Charter. Categorically forgetting that this Charter does not only reaffirm the principle of territorial integrity. There is also the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples. Moreover, the General Assembly has long considered the relationship between these principles and has decided by consensus in its wisdom that the territorial integrity of all States whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living in the territory concerned must be respected.

How can the Kiev Nazi regime represent the interests of Crimeans, residents of Donbass, Novorossiya, whom it declared terrorists immediately after the coup d'état, and launched a military "anti-terrorist operation" against them?

The initiatives of China and Brazil on the Ukrainian crisis all underscore the need to respect the UN Charter. The principle of territorial integrity is mentioned from time to time. We are talking with our Chinese, Brazilian friends and other countries that are cooperating in promoting this well-intentioned initiative that the UN Charter is much more multifaceted than just the principle of territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination of peoples is no less important. If it were not for him, there would probably be problems with the decolonization of African and other peoples. It was this principle that became the international legal basis for decolonization. And it reflected the unwillingness, unreadiness, and inability of the African peoples to live under the rule of the colonizers.

In the same way, the population of Crimea, Donbass, Novorossiya does not want, cannot and will never live under the rule of the Nazis who seized power in Kiev. Hence, the principle of self-determination of peoples comes into force. They have self-determined. Crimeans in 2014, Donbass and Novorossiya in 2022 These are already realities reflected in our Constitution.

If we want to talk seriously, we need to treat the principles of the UN Charter not selectively, but in their entirety and interrelatedness. Of course, without forgetting the principle of respect for human rights, so beloved by the West. They did not invent it, it is written in the UN Charter. The very first article of the Charter states that everyone has the duty to respect human rights regardless of sex, race, language or religion. The Russian language has been legally exterminated in Ukraine. Religion. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is banned. Therefore, I believe that everyone who sincerely wants to help look for the basis for resolving the crisis cannot ignore its root causes.

Let me remind you that President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping, in his initiative on global security in February 2023, dedicated to any conflicts and the principles for their settlement, emphasized in the text of this document the need to see and eliminate the root causes of any conflict in order to resolve it.

You mentioned Mr Kellogg, who has been "announced" as President Donald Trump's future Special Representative for Ukraine. He recently said that they saw an attempt by Russia and Ukraine to agree within the framework of the Minsk process, which failed. Therefore, they say, let's not repeat it, he said. Of course, Mr Kellogg has yet to delve deeper into the Ukrainian dossier, but the Minsk Agreements were not an attempt. These were signed documents guaranteed by an additional declaration by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany. It said that Euro-Atlantic security would take into account the interests of all countries, and that efforts to create a single space from the Atlantic to the Pacific would be restored. A lot of things were said there. Nothing that was written in this declaration, as well as in the Minsk document itself regarding the responsibilities of the Ukrainian regime, was implemented. But this document was agreed, signed at the highest level and unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.

Probably, Mr Kellogg needs to look into this more deeply. The Minsk agreements were not an attempt. It was a decision of the UN Security Council, which was trampled on with the encouragement of the United States. Petr Poroshenko (who signed the document as President of Ukraine at the time) and former leaders of Germany and France Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. All three admitted two years ago that they were not going to fulfill them. It took time to pump Ukraine with weapons. And now all these same ideas are in the air, which are much less binding than the Minsk agreements. They pursue the same goal–-to buy time for the Nazi regime.

As President Vladimir Putin said, we are ready to consider any serious and concrete proposals. It is probably premature to speculate, to guess on coffee grounds now. I hope that the Trump administration, including Mr Kellogg, will delve into the root causes of the conflict.

We are always ready for consultations. If someone does not understand our position, which has been stated repeatedly and very clearly, we are always ready to confirm this position. We are open to any talks, if they are in essence about the root causes and the principles that President Vladimir Putin spoke about in June of this year, speaking at the Foreign Ministry. I would like to emphasize that they are not preconditions. It is a demand to fulfil what everyone subscribed to when they adopted the Charter of the United Nations.

Question: In a recent interview, you said that the environment becomes toxic when someone sees an American or a European talking to you. Europeans generally run away when they see you. Given this attitude of Western politicians, is it possible to solve any serious international problems at all? At the moment, diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy is still active in international life?

Sergey Lavrov: We can complain a lot about the methods that our Western colleagues are now using in international communication, but it is useless. They have made a political decision—in every sense—to achieve the isolation of Russia. Insane demands are being made to other countries: not to meet with Russian representatives, not to receive them, not to travel to them, to stop trading, to buy more expensive energy resources at a loss. This is what the methods of "Western diplomacy" are now, which boils down to threats, sanctions, punishments and blackmail.

Josep Borrell, who recently stepped down as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, recently said (no longer burdened by official duties) that the West had failed to isolate Russia. The European Union promised to help Kyiv as long as necessary, but nothing is unlimited. Speaking about sanctions, he said bluntly that China has replaced Europe and the Group of Seven in trade and economic relations with Russia. I am sure that Josep Borrell has not seen the light over the past week. Everyone has always understood that Western sanctions harm the population of those countries that apply them.

There was a recent hurricane in America, which President Joe Biden did not "notice" at first, but then went there. There were some "ridiculous" payments of $700. per person. There were mass protests regarding the fact that with such an attitude towards their own citizens, more than $ 150 billion. have been sent to Ukraine over the past couple of years. In France, too, there was a crop failure, an agricultural crisis, and farmers protested. German industry simply "fell", collapsed.

They know better how to behave. The Americans have such a policy: to remove competitors. Now they are "removing" Russia, they are already starting to do the same with the PRC. China’s supply of various chips is being restricted, as well as microelectronics elements in an attempt to restrain its technological development. The Chinese people, like the Russian people, will still do what is necessary for their development. But these methods are absolutely clear.

In addition to us and China, Europe has also largely fallen victim to the United States' policy of eliminating any competitors. We see all this. We are ready (we have repeatedly stated this) to talk with all Western representatives who are committed to an equal dialogue, a search for a balance of interests, and mutually beneficial agreements. There are such representatives. These are Hungary, Slovakia. Other members of the European Union are also slowly beginning to ask for confidential conversations. But few people dare to "openly".

In the European Union, there is a "stick discipline". The new head of European diplomacy, K. Kalas, dictates to everyone how to behave. Let's see how much the Brussels bureaucracy, which is already being compared to a harsher version of the Soviet authoritarian system, will be able to convince the member states that it knows better than they do the mood of their populations and the needs of these peoples.

Q: China and Russia are working to consolidate the global majority and unite the forces of the Global South. During the BRICS summit in Kazan, our media corporation, together with the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, held a round table of the media of the BRICS countries, at which the participants unanimously spoke in favor of creating a mechanism for access to objective and fair information. In 2025, China will host the SCO summit. Together we will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Victory over fascism. What steps do you think the countries of the Global South, together with China and Russia, should take (including in the field of media) to protect the post-World War II international order and world peace?

Sergey Lavrov: We are well aware that Russia and China (this is widely recognised) are indeed a stabilising factor in international relations.

As an example of the positive impact of Beijing and Moscow on the international shutdown, I will cite cooperation through BRICS. Within the framework of this association, countries representing different continents, civilizations, religions, and cultures cooperate. And all this fits harmoniously into the agreements that are regularly coordinated within the framework of the association, which, without exaggeration, cover all spheres of activity: politics, military-political issues, security, economy, culture, education, in general, all spheres of human activity.

The popularity of the BRICS is enormous. The summit in Kazan was attended by delegations from 35 states and heads of six multilateral organizations, including the United Nations. Such representation speaks of the authority of this structure, of the growing interest in rapprochement with the association of other organizations of the Global South and East, which adhere to an independent line in international affairs.

I am convinced that the sustainable development of a multipolar world is impossible without establishing interaction between these associations of a new type, where there are no "leaders" and "followers", "bosses", no orders that must be executed, as we see in the European Union and NATO.

I hope that a multipolar world involves the participation of our Western colleagues in these processes. They will not disappear from our planet. But how they will position themselves, how they will survive such a severe psychological loss of dominance, which they have enjoyed for half a millennium, depends on their political culture, understanding of their real place in modern life and their ability to act in accordance with this real place while respecting the legitimate interests and achievements of other countries, including the BRICS countries.

As for the information aspect of the association's work. We believe that it is necessary to explain in a good sense the principles on which BRICS operates, on which its information work is ensured. Too many rumors and deliberate fakes about the activities of our association are being spread in the West in order to discourage the countries of the Global South, located on all continents of Africa, Asia and Latin America, from BRICS.

Promoting information exchange is important in order to strengthen the position of the association and the Global South as a whole in universal structures. These are the UN, APEC, the SCO, the G20 and other formats. In all of them, the Russian-Chinese link plays an important, consolidating role for the states of the Global South.

You mentioned the upcoming anniversary of Victory in World War II. Our countries, China and Russia, bore the brunt of German fascism and Japanese militarism and suffered the greatest losses in World War II. Our leaders agreed to celebrate the upcoming anniversaries–-the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and World War II in Europe on May 9, 2025, and September 3, 2025–- the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in the Far East. [83rd in Far East]

I am convinced that the information structures of BRICS and other organisations where we cooperate with China will adequately and widely cover these events.

We are interested in further strengthening media cooperation within BRICS. In September of this year, a media summit was held in Moscow, when Russia was chairman, which was organised by TASS with the support of the Chinese side. There were representatives of 60 media outlets from 45 countries. In October of this year, the BRICS Media Dialogue, which you mentioned, was held at Kazan University. I am sure that such events should be regular and held more often.

This creates alternative platforms for access to information for the population of the Global South and East and interested citizens of Western countries (and there are more and more of them) who would like to know the truth about what is happening outside the contour of the European Union and NATO.

Question: Moscow constantly claims that it is ready for negotiations. A few minutes ago, you reaffirmed this. At a news conference, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that Moscow is ready to negotiate with the legitimate authorities, which Vladimir Zelensky is not. With whom to negotiate then? How does Moscow see the outcome of the special military operation?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the legitimacy of the current "Ukrainian authorities," President Vladimir Putin clearly said at the Direct Line that the Ukrainians must sort this out on their own in order to bring the situation in Kiev in line with the Ukrainian constitution. If they want to have a legitimate president, they need to hold elections.

According to the Constitution of Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin explained, only the Verkhovna Rada and its chairman have legitimacy. But it is premature to talk about this. The most important thing is not to "select" the negotiating team of the Kiev regime, but to deal with the root causes of this crisis, which we want to eliminate. And without their elimination, there can be no agreement.

I have dwelt in detail on these root causes, and I hope that everyone who is interested in advancing the talks understands what I am talking about. To reiterate, these are not preconditions. This is something that all participants in this process and the conflict should have fulfilled long ago in accordance with the obligations they have already assumed, including under the UN Charter, the principles of which must be applied in their entirety and interrelatedness.

With this understanding, we are open to any serious proposals. I hope that everyone understands that a temporary suspension of fire in order to resume the conflict again after some time is unacceptable.

We insist on the need for a final end to the conflict on a stable, legally irreproachable basis by eliminating its root causes. I hope that the understanding that there is no alternative to this approach will be strengthened.

Question: Moscow also claims that it is negotiating with the new forces that control the government in Syria. How can you characterize these negotiations? How do you see future relations between Moscow and Damascus?

Sergey Lavrov: As for Syria, we have not withdrawn our diplomats from Damascus. Our Embassy continues to work there, as do many others.

We maintain contacts with the new Syrian authorities through our diplomatic mission. We are discussing practical issues related to ensuring the safety of Russian citizens and the safe functioning of our embassy. We are interested in and ready for dialogue on other issues of our bilateral relations and the regional agenda.

As President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed, we are open to contacts with all existing socio-political forces in Syria. We have been maintaining these contacts for quite a long time. Prior to recent events, most of them had such contacts.

I would like to note that the head of the new Syrian authorities, Abdullah al-Shara', spoke recently. He gave an interview to the BBC, in which he called the relations between our countries long-standing and strategic. We share this approach. We have a lot in common with our Syrian friends.

We have made a great contribution to the liberation of Syria from colonial dependence and to the training of personnel. Tens of thousands of Syrians have been educated in our country. Now 5 thousand Syrian citizens are studying. We will be ready to develop such cooperation.

I hope that on issues of economic and investment cooperation, where we already have certain achievements of previous years, we will be able to resume work with new leaders when the new structure of power is finally "established".

This is not an easy process. This is a transitional period, which has been announced as a preparation for the elections. It is necessary to agree on the basis of the election campaign. All leading countries emphasise the need to do this in such a way that the process is inclusive and that all political and ethnic and religious groups of the Syrian people can participate in it.

To reiterate, this is not an easy process, but we are ready to facilitate it, including within the framework of the UN Security Council, the activities of the Astana format, where Russia, together with Turkey and Iran and with the participation of a number of Arab countries, is ready to play a role in supporting the consolidation of all processes in Syria and the organisation of elections in such a way that they are recognised by everyone and do not raise any questions.

We have contacts on this topic with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Lebanon. All of them are interested in ensuring that Syria does not repeat the path that the Libyan state took after NATO destroyed it, the country still has to be "reassembled" piece by piece. This is not very successful yet.

It is important what role Syria's neighbors will play. We have heard a statement by President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. We understand the legitimate concerns of the Turkish leadership and people regarding security on the border with Syria, where there have been repeated incidents related to terrorist organisations that have staged riots there.

These legitimate security interests must be safeguarded in such a way that Syria preserves its sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity. Erdogan speaks in favour of this. We support this.

It is important to deal with eastern Syria. There, the Americans illegally occupied a significant part of the territory where the main oil fields and the most fertile lands are located. All this is mined and exported. The money is used to support the separatist structures that the Americans have created in the east of the Syrian state. This must be taken into account. Syria must not be allowed to fall apart. Some would like this.

It is important that Israel understand its responsibility for the common effort and not try to ensure its own security at the expense of the security of others. This principle was proclaimed quite a long time ago – the principle of indivisibility of security. It cannot be expected that, having destroyed all the military facilities of a neighbor, it will be possible to live in peace and goodness until the end of time. This is called "sowing a storm" that is sure to return to those who do it.

Question: Latin America and Russia have long been united by ties of great historical, cultural and human sympathy. What specific steps will Russia take in the coming year and in the future in general to strengthen our ties? What are the priorities of Russia's policy in the Latin American region?

Sergey Lavrov: You are absolutely right. Relations between Russia and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are traditionally friendly. Russians and Latin Americans have long-standing mutual sympathies. Mutual respect is also manifested in the sphere of attitude to world culture and culture of each other. This firmly binds our peoples.

We are receiving a signal from the overwhelming majority of Latin American countries about their interest in strengthening and expanding our partnership with the Russian Federation. Dialogue and cooperation on political issues, through diplomatic channels on the economy, cultural and humanitarian cooperation are actively developing. Interaction between the regions of our countries and even municipalities is improving.

This is such a branched structure of interaction. We are ready to deepen it as much as possible and develop it to the extent that the Latin American countries themselves are interested in.

Our relations are based on equality, mutual benefit and respect. There is no ideology, no doctrines, whether it is the Monroe Doctrine or any other.

We would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the last four years of its administration, the Biden administration has stated several times through official representatives that it is concerned that Russia has sent a delegation to Nicaragua or Venezuela and that this allegedly poses risks to US security.

But you need to have a conscience. Because everyone is well aware of the risks to the security of other countries that the United States creates, having several hundred military bases in more than 100 countries, and at the same time prohibits someone from having relations with the Russian Federation. This is a hopeless approach. I hope that the new administration in Washington realises this.

We have good plans for the next year. We are planning a number of reciprocal visits, and we are developing our relations not only bilaterally, but also with regional organisations such as CELAC, ALBA, SICA, MERCOSUR, CARICOM and many others.

We proceed from the fact that the year will be fruitful in terms of events. Especially given the fact that in the coming months we will have a "parade" of anniversaries of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Latin American states: in March 2025, with Venezuela and the Dominican Republic; in April 2025, with Guatemala; in June 2025, with Ecuador and Colombia; in September 2025, with Cuba and Honduras'; in October 2025, with Argentina; and in December 2025, with Mexico. Each of these anniversaries will be celebrated in a worthy way. We are planning exhibitions, conferences, meetings of public figures, young people and cultural events. This will allow us to outline new prospects for our relations.

In 2025, we will open a full-fledged Embassy in the Dominican Republic. In June 2025, we will be glad to see Latin American guests at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. There is traditionally a Latin American section there.

In June 2024, President of Bolivia Luigi Arce was the main guest at the annual International Economic Forum in St Petersburg. For the first time, a representative of the Latin American region participated in such a capacity.

I would like to draw your attention to other forums that are taking place in Russia and will be of interest to our Latin American friends. These are the Eastern Economic Forum, Russian Energy Week, the St. Petersburg International Cultural Forum and many others.

Despite the coronavirus pandemic and the sanctions war unleashed by the West, our trade with Latin America is stable and has remained stable in recent years. Our main trading partners are Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina, Colombia, and Chile. We are interested in expanding our trade and investment ties with Nicaragua and Venezuela, which are most seriously affected by the illegal sanctions imposed by the United States.

We are implementing bilateral projects with a number of countries in various fields, including high technology. We are interested in the countries of the continent strengthening their contacts with the EAEU. Now the only extra-regional observer in the Eurasian Economic Union is Cuba. It mentioned cooperation in the educational, humanitarian, cultural and sports spheres. We are interested in developing this as quickly as possible.

Today, we have almost 5,000 Latin American students studying at the expense of Russian state scholarships. We know that in some Latin American countries, competitions are held in order to receive such a scholarship. There are up to 10 applicants for one scholarship. We are pleased with this. We will increase annual quotas.

Among the unique features of our cooperation, 27 out of 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have agreements with Russia on visa-free travel for our citizens. This is a record in percentage terms compared to other parts of the world. Russian tourists visit Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, attractions in Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, the Brazilian carnival, football in Latin America without visas. All this attracts tourists and provides an increase in tourist traffic.

Next year there will be a new opportunity to make joint efforts to develop multilateral cooperation. We are holding the Intervision International Song Contest in September 2025, more than 25 countries have already expressed their interest in participating in it, including a number of Latin American countries.

We are ready to welcome tourists from Latin American countries in every possible way, to show Moscow, St. Petersburg, Baikal, Kamchatka, Sochi, Suzdal, Altai. We have many picturesque places and historical monuments. There is such a type of tourism as a ride along the Trans-Siberian Railway through the whole of Russia to the Pacific Ocean and take a look at it.

Question: With the Trump administration coming to power in the United States, Russia hopes to build more pragmatic relations with it. At the same time, there are known threats from many representatives of the new American administration against many of Russia's friends and allies among the countries of the Global South. How can this affect relations between Russia and the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the actions of the US administration, which is formalizing its "personal composition", which will take office on January 20, 2025, we have no illusions or hopes. Let's not talk about the fact that, they say, such and such a president will come, it will be better in this matter, and if another comes, then we will try to do something else. Let's not guess. We will wait for the policy of the new administration to be finally formulated.

We have a full understanding that there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States regarding Russia. This consensus is not friendly, but, frankly, Russophobic. Regardless of party affiliation, the ruling elite will promote its policy of weakening Russia as a competitor in every possible way. I have already touched on this issue at the beginning of our news conference. The United States seeks to weaken any competitor in every possible way, be it Russia, China or Europe. They have long proclaimed the principle that no country in the world should be stronger than the United States. It is clear that life is tougher than any statements and declarations, but in order to realize the inevitability of behaving differently, the United States still has a long way to go, to see how the situation is really developing, and to feel for itself what the realities of a multipolar world are.

So far, Russia is recorded as an "adversary" in the doctrinal documents of the United States. In speeches, representatives of the current administration also called it an "enemy". It is also designated as an "immediate existential threat," and China is the next "challenge." In the actions of the United States, consistency remains. Nevertheless, we hear signals from Donald Trump's team about their interest in resuming dialogue. This is absolutely reasonable and normal.

Always, even when there are hostile relations between countries, to maintain a dialogue, to see who wants to convey what to the interlocutor – this is the meaning of diplomacy. Diplomats communicate even during wars. If the signals coming from the new team in Washington to restore the dialogue interrupted by Washington after the start of the special military operation are serious, we will respond to them. But the dialogue was interrupted by the Americans, so they should take the first step.

We are waiting for the official formulation of the Trump administration's policy towards Russia. If Washington takes into account our legitimate interests, then the dialogue will not be useless, but productive. If they are not taken into account, everything will remain as it is.

As for the threats you mentioned by representatives of the new administration against the Global South and East (to raise tariffs, punish those who will use not the dollar, but some other currencies and payment platforms), this does not surprise us. As I have already said, the suppression of any competitors and the extraction of unilateral benefits have always distinguished the policy of the United States. This is nothing new. The policy of interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states has long reflected Washington's methods. This will continue. You need to be ready for this.

But life should force the United States to understand the trends and real processes of the modern world, as well as the fact that diktat can no longer be the main tool for the functioning of international relations.

Question (retranslated from French): Yesterday, December 25, about a dozen missiles were fired towards Ukraine. Why did this happen on a holy holiday for hundreds of millions of Christians–-Christmas? Aren't you shocked by how it was perceived all over the world?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the ongoing hostilities as part of our special military operation, or rather, as part of the war that the West, including France, has declared on the Russian Federation and is waging it by the Ukrainian regime. I hope that you, as a representative of the journalistic profession, have not only paid attention to what is happening in connection with the actions of our Armed Forces on December 25 of this year, but also follow the history of the issue, accompany all these processes, analyze and understand the epistemology of the problem and the direction of its development.

I don't want to talk much about this topic. We have repeatedly expressed our rejection of the supply of long-range Western-made missiles to the Kyiv regime, including the French SCALP, the American ATACMS, and the British Storm Shadow. We warned that the transfer of lethal weapons would only lead to escalation, that the Kiev regime is unable to comply with the rules of war and international humanitarian law. If you follow the information that may be "muted" in Europe, then it is available on television, social networks and the Internet. There are daily strikes by drones or your Western missiles on openly civilian targets. Civilians are dying. Strikes are carried out on ambulances, schools, hospitals, markets and other civilian objects.

None of the Western states supplying weapons to the Nazi regime in Kiev has ever warned it against engaging in such a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and the rules of war. As long as such behavior of the Kiev regime continues (and it is not just encouraged, but directed by the West, including France), we will respond. But not to respond in the way that the Kyiv regime does at your instigation. We "aim" exclusively at military facilities, facilities of the military-industrial complex and other facilities that are related to the supply of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

On December 20 of this year, when ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles hit civilian targets in the Russian Federation, we responded with high-precision weapons at the SBU command post, at the Luch design bureau in Kyiv, which designed and manufactured Neptune missile systems, cruise missiles and multiple launch rocket systems, as well as at the positions of the American Patriot air defense system. All targets were hit. We are hitting the "points" from which our territories and civilian facilities are being shelled and civilians are dying.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that we select targets for destruction on the territory of Ukraine solely based on the threats of the Russian Federation. These can be military facilities, defense industry enterprises. Decision-making centers in Kyiv may well be such targets. Responding to civilian goals is not in our rules. These are the rules of the Nazis who have settled in Kyiv with the support of the West, and those who supply them with weapons to destroy purely civilian infrastructure and civilians.

Question (retranslated from French): In December of this year, French President Emmanuel Macron organised a meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky in Paris. Don't you think that the American president can support Kiev more than he said during his campaign? What do you think of this meeting, which was organised at the initiative of France?

Sergey Lavrov: We are already accustomed to a large number of initiatives that France announces and holds various meetings and conferences. I remember how in December 2015, French President Francois Hollande unexpectedly announced that it was necessary to urgently convene a conference on Libya. We came to this conference, talked for a day and a half, and then everyone "forgot" about everything. But the conference itself was beautifully shown on French television.

Our colleagues in France have a desire to play a proactive role on a variety of issues. We welcome this, but I do not know what the result of such "initiatives" is and to what extent the desire to play a positive role is sincere.

I will not go into details so as not to let anyone down. Several times we have received appeals from our French colleagues through closed channels with a proposal to help establish a dialogue on the Ukrainian issue without Ukraine. By the way, in violation of the principle that the West constantly repeats: "not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine." We do not refuse contacts; we are ready to listen. But at the same time, France is the main initiator of sending "peacekeeping troops" to Ukraine, preparing combat units of the armed forces of Ukraine on its territory, directly declaring that it is necessary to continue to "hammer" Russia and ensure that Ukraine prepares for negotiations from a stronger position. Such ambiguous behaviour does not make us want to take seriously what is happening at the initiative of our French colleagues.

As for the meeting that took place in connection with the opening ceremony of Notre-Dame de Paris, I did not see any encouraging signals in the picture. I still have the feeling that the main thing in this meeting was precisely the "picture" when two politicians and one racist of the Nazi persuasion were photographed against the background of this cathedral.

Maria Zakharova: To conclude the topic raised by the French journalist, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that exactly two weeks ago, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on his social media page that Vladimir Zelensky had abandoned the Christmas truce.

Question: NATO spokesman Peter Turner, speaking about plans for 2025, said that the alliance will strengthen its presence in Ukraine. He said that in 2024, the alliance's presence here has tripled and they plan to strengthen it even more next year. How would you comment on the bloc's plans to expand its presence in Ukraine? Should we expect an official reaction from Moscow to this expansion?

Sergey Lavrov: NATO is, first of all, the United States. American intelligence services—the CIA and others—were present in Ukraine long before the coup d'état [since 1945]. And after [WW2], they settled there. In the SBU, they had a whole floor, or maybe two. The lack of independence of the Kiev regime as a result of the putsch is well known. No one doubts this. Ukraine is led by the Anglo-Saxons and some other countries of the North Atlantic Alliance and the EU.

As for the reports you mentioned, the office of the senior NATO representative in Ukraine was created there. This position was introduced by decision of the Washington summit in July of this year, and according to our information, about 50 people are currently working in this "mission". Another 20 should appear next year. Perhaps this is what the information you mentioned was about. This is not such a significant event. But, nevertheless, this is an additional fact confirming that Washington and its allies are "taking over" Ukraine, "tightening" the already established control over all spheres of life of this state, including the security and defense sector. Of course, the West strongly advises Vladimir Zelensky to act in a way that is beneficial to them.

Look at how they openly and unceremoniously demanded that the conscription age be lowered to 18, making no secret of the fact that this is primarily in the interests of the United States. US Senator L. Graham, who, after visiting Ukraine and taking pictures with Vladimir Zelensky, openly stated that Ukraine allegedly has a large amount of wealth, primarily rare earth minerals. According to him, "it is impossible to give Russia this granary of the world, the richest in Europe in rare earth metals." US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is known for still publicly defending the need for a war in Ukraine (as he put it) with financial and economic benefits for the United States. And the fact that many fertile lands and deposits of mineral resources of Ukraine were acquired by American corporations quite a long time ago is no secret.

Everything that we say about the Ukrainian crisis, everything that President of Russia Vladimir Putin has outlined as the principles for resolving it on the basis of eliminating the root causes, based exclusively on international law and the existing obligations of the West and Ukraine, fully remains our uncontested position.

Question: What is the future of the Astana format talks, given that it has demonstrated high efficiency in coordination with all Syrian parties?

Sergey Lavrov: As for Syria and the role of the Astana format, I have already touched on this topic. It was created following a special national conference of Syrian political and ethno-religious forces. We have met more than 20 times within the framework of the Astana format. The last meeting was in Doha on December 7 of this year on the eve of the Syrian events. We had the opportunity to discuss the situation with my colleagues from Turkey and Iran with the involvement of UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Geir Pedersen. We are still exchanging assessments and opinions.

The positions of Turkey, Iran and Russia are that this format can play a useful role at the current stage. Moreover, the Arab states – Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan – have traditionally participated in its work as observers. The monarchies of the Persian Gulf are also showing interest. We have indicated our readiness to help. The Turks and the Iranians did the same. The Arab countries that are now in contact with the new authorities in Damascus are aware of our capabilities. Given what Mr Sharaa said about our relations, calling them long-standing and strategic, I think that the new Syrian authorities will be able to decide in what specific form and in what forms the Astana format can assist the processes that have now begun in the Syrian Arab Republic.

We have had close ties with the Syrian people since the days of the USSR. At that time, our country actively supported the desire of the Syrians to get rid of French colonialism. In all subsequent years, we contributed to the creation of the foundations of the economy, industry and social sphere of the Syrian Arab Republic. It is clear to us that the interest of the Syrian people is to establish good relations with all "external players" without exception. We think this is the right thing to do. This is one of the main factors that will guarantee the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Syrian state. We are ready to contribute to this in every possible way.

It is clear that A. Sharaa and his associates are now under great pressure from the West. The Americans and Europeans have stepped up. They want to work not to preserve the unity of all ethno-political forces in Syria, but to "tear off" more influence and territory for themselves.

As for Western selfishness, the new head of European diplomacy, Kallas, spoke indicatively, demanding that Syria stop cooperating with Russia. And such a "crucial" power as Estonia, through the mouth of its foreign minister, said that this country will not support the new authorities in Damascus if they do not "expel Russia" military bases from Syria. Can you imagine how "scary" it is? Such diplomatic rudeness is becoming habitual. This is how the Ukrainian authorities act, insulting everyone who does not "sing" along with them, and our European neighbors. I hope that life will teach them to respect the interests of all states without exception and abandon neocolonial habits.

We will continue to work. [My Emphasis]

And of course, the first Q echoes what was asked yesterday, although Lavrov gave a much fuller response. We must recall that Trump in his first administration had four years to dig into the roots of the conflict with Russia of which Ukraine is merely a tool. I don’t expect Trump to gain further enlightenment over the next four years. Lavrov’s ending implication is that the Outlaw US Empire is in violation of the UN Charter, which is why it’s an Outlaw.

Sanctions operate with the implementation of Liberal Totalitarianism as its very clear that the Outlaw US Empire has colonized the EU/NATO structure—that was actually seen prior to the SMO’s onset as the Outlaw Empire’s policy of getting European nations to cease importing Russian hydrocarbons goes back to Soviet days. IMO, Europe had much more sovereignty then and a public more in charge of itself, neither of which is the case today.

Information exchange and proper countering of the Outlaw Narrative is a must, which is part of the Gym’s mission. Enabling another, independent internet free from control by the West is much needed. That will enable new media to arise and provide their information and POVs on events. That two Blocs are forming is very clear—What can be called the NATO Bloc run by the Outlaw US Empire and the Global Majority Bloc consisting of the associations Lavrov mentioned and many more who seek to captain their own ship within the global regatta. Eventually, the NATO Bloc will collapse due to its very many internal contradictions and its totalitarian nature, and those outlines are already visible.

And for a third time, there are no preconditions insisted on by Moscow. Rather, we it’s the December 2021 security proposals everyone should be reviewing as I’ve stated many times. Note that Lavrov didn’t mention Zelensky’s edict about not negotiating, which only applied to Ukraine. As was obvious in December 2021, the one main party that must be at the negotiating table is the Outlaw US Empire. The problem there is its utter lack of credibility as Russia has said many previous times. How many more times will we see Putin, Lavrov, or some other top Russian official say:

We insist on the need for a final end to the conflict on a stable, legally irreproachable basis by eliminating its root causes.

On Syria, many will be surprised by Lavrov’s update. Note who wasn’t included on the list of nations wanting to see proper elections and reconstitution of the Syrian nation. That Lavrov singled out the Zionists for retribution based on their actions IMO is a new leaf in their relations. Lavrov stated this will be an ordeal of a process because of the problems caused by those entities in Syria illegally plundering its resources—resources that will be vital to any new Syrian government. The Outlaw Imperialists have recently doubled their garrison in Eastern Syria. They are now the terrorists that must be eliminated from West Asia followed by their terrorist Zionist allies.

Curious, isn’t “[o]ur relations are based on equality, mutual benefit and respect” a form of ideology? Isn’t that fundamental Humanism, the famous dicta “Treat others as you want others to treat you”? Which is the opposite of Colonial or Totalitarian diktat? Isn’t that sort of behavior stipulated in the Bible and the collective West says it’s Christian? Russia’s soft power with its educational scholarships is something the West doesn’t bother competing against. And the jump from Spanish and Portuguese to Russian isn’t that far as they share many grammatical similarities. And Latin family values are far closer to Russian than Yankee/Gringo, although there’re many confused Brazilians.

Lavrov’s words about the longstanding behavior of the Outlaw US Empire mustn’t go unheeded. It will take numerous events of a negative nature for the Empire to get it to alter its POV. Unilateralism was the path chosen long ago, first to rebel and then to expand—All “Founding Fathers” were imperialists as one of the mani reasons for the 1776 revolt was expansion into the Ohio Territory, which was supposed to have been the preserve for the natives. When “Follow the Money” is invoked, there’s very good reason as that’s been the main motivating force behind US Imperialism. And today’s Money Power differs little from its earlier iteration as the Slave Power when it comes to increasing their fortunes. Most citizens of the Empire are ignorant of all that because they aren’t taught any of it—their education is very well tailored. Furthermore, the adage of mind what I do not what I say is clearly applicable to the West most certainly, but to all nations when it comes to diplomacy. Russia has “no illusions.” It will continue on the path it set for itself until it reaches its terminus. Then another path will be launched.

Lavrov’s short lecture to the French media representative wasn’t just for him/her but for all such people and all of us too. I recall back in 1999 when IndyMedia was launched in support of the Battle in Seattle—that year’s WTO Conference and protests—that everyone was urged to become the media as with the internet anyone could report the news, and outlets sprang-up globally is very rapid order. Most of those thousands of websites are now dead, but the ability for all people to become the media has vastly increased, despite strong attempts to suppress such action. The Geopolitical Gymnasium is but one such effort that’s had a modicum of success. Podcasts are now the in-thing, but all too often leave no paper or electron trail people can read and easily parse, cite and share. And as with any media source, people ought to visit as many as they can to form a well-constructed picture of what’s actually happening. The aim here is to destroy the Establishment Narrative pushed by BigLie Media and their government allies. The somewhat primitive mimeographed newsletters known as samizdat during the Cold War that were passed from person-to-person were very effective. What we have today is a high-tech form of samizdat.

*
*
*
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!