Lavrov's CBS Interview

Although it was conducted in English and published in numerous outlets, I’ve taken the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs “Unofficial translation from English” and reproduced it below. It’s adversarial as the opening lines announce:

Question: Good afternoon, Mr Minister. I would like to ask you about what happened in Kiev. On the night of April 24, a massive Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital took place. US President Donald Trump has publicly stated that there was no need for Russian strikes and that the timing was very unfortunate for them. "Vladimir, stop" is his quote. Why kill civilians if Ukraine says it is ready for a ceasefire?

Sergey Lavrov: We strike only at military targets or civilian facilities used by the military. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said this many times, and now the situation is no different. Unlike the Zelensky regime, we never deliberately target civilian targets.

Question: So this attack was carried out intentionally, not by mistake?

Sergey Lavrov: If this was a target used by the Ukrainian military, then the Defence Ministry and commanders on the ground have the right to attack such targets.

Question: To be clear: when US President Donald Trump says, "Vladimir, stop," does this mean a refusal, or do you think that the civilian casualties are worth it because of the considerations you mentioned?

Sergey Lavrov: I can assure you that the purpose of the attack was not something absolutely civilian, as in the case of the NATO strikes on Belgrade in 1999.

In our case, we attack only those facilities that are used by the military. As for the ceasefire and the call to stop, President of Russia Vladimir Putin immediately supported US President Donald Trump's proposal, made a few weeks ago, to establish a 30-day ceasefire on the condition that we do not repeat the mistakes of the last ten years, when the agreements were signed, and Ukraine violated them with the support and encouragement of the Biden administration and European countries.

This was the fate of the agreement concluded in February 2014, then the Minsk agreements, and then the agreement reached on the basis of the Ukrainian proposals in Istanbul in April 2022.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that we are aiming for a ceasefire, but we want guarantees that it will not be used again to strengthen the Armed Forces of Ukraine and that the supply of weapons must be stopped.

Question: On March 11, Ukraine accepted the idea of a US-brokered ceasefire without preconditions. Are you saying that negotiations to stop something else are a precondition?

Sergey Lavrov: No, this is not a precondition. These are the lessons we have learned at least three times, when agreements like the ones we are discussing now were violated by the Kiev regime with the strong support of European capitals and the Biden administration.

If you want a ceasefire only to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine, then what is your goal? Do you know what EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and NATO Secretary General Martin Rutte said about a ceasefire and a settlement? They openly stated that they would only support the agreement that would ultimately make Ukraine stronger and make it a "winner." So if this is the goal of the ceasefire, I don't think this is what US President Donald Trump wants. This is what the Europeans, together with Vladimir Zelensky, want to make of President Trump's initiative.

Question: Will Russia continue to attack Kiev, despite US President Donald Trump's words: "Vladimir, stop"?

Sergey Lavrov: You are not listening to me. We will continue to strike targets used by the Ukrainian military, mercenaries from foreign countries, and instructors officially sent by the Europeans to help strike Russian civilian targets.

If you look, for example, at the situation in the Kursk region, over the past six months, there has not been a single military attack among the targets at which the Ukrainians have opened fire.

In addition, there was a proposal by US President Donald Trump, which was immediately supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin, to introduce a 30-day moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. We have never violated this commitment made by President Vladimir Putin, and the Ukrainians have violated several hundred times what Vladimir Zelensky allegedly supported. I personally sent a list of these attacks to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and to the UN. This list is really indicative and speaks for itself.

Question: Ukraine disputes this. But putting that aside, I would like to ask you what US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday (April 23). The US President said that he believes that the United States and Russia have reached an agreement, so let's act. Does President Vladimir Putin agree with this?

Sergey Lavrov: US President Donald Trump believes–-and I think quite rightly–-that we are moving in the right direction. The statement of the President of the United States talks about an agreement, and we are ready to conclude an agreement. But there are some specific points, elements of this agreement, which need to be finalized. This is exactly the process that we are engaged in. The President of the United States did not specify these details of the agreement, so it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

Question: But he did say that there is an agreement and that he sent his envoy Stephen Whitkoff to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin on Friday (April 25).

Sergey Lavrov: Do you not trust the words of the US President?

Question: I wanted to know what your President says. What will he say to the American representative?

Sergey Lavrov: We continue our contacts with the American side on the situation in Ukraine. There are a number of signs that we are moving in the right direction. First of all, because President Donald Trump is probably the only leader on earth who has realised the need to address the root causes of this situation. He said that it was a mistake to drag Ukraine into NATO, that the Biden administration was to blame for this, and that he wanted to fix it.

On April 22, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also expressed the opinion that the US team now has a better understanding of Russia's position and the underlying causes of this situation. One of these root causes is NATO and the creation of direct military threats to Russia near our borders, and the other is the rights of ethnic minorities in Ukraine. Everything Russian: the media, education, culture – everything was banned in Ukraine at the legislative level. In order to get out of this crisis, we cannot simply forget about human rights.

When Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, everything is discussed, American negotiators put human rights in the first place. In this regard, they have claims against China, against us, against anyone. But when Europeans and other Western countries talk about Ukraine, no one can say a word about human rights. No one. On the contrary, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and other people in Brussels and in Europe say that Ukraine defends "European values." It turns out that one of these "values" is the abolition of the Russian language. Imagine if Israel abolished the Arabic language in Palestine. Just imagine.

Question: You mentioned that the United States and Russia still need to work on some of the nuances of the agreement.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes. Do you want me to tell you about them?

Question: Yes, of course, I would like this, but it does not work that way. European sources report that the US proposal is actually just a list of certain theses. Does Russia have an understanding of what you need at the moment?

Sergey Lavrov: We are polite people. And unlike some others, we never publicly discuss what is said at talks. Otherwise, such negotiations are not serious.

If you want to know someone's opinion on the essence of this issue, please contact Vladimir Zelensky. He is happy to communicate with anyone through the media. He even complains about US President Donald Trump.

We are serious people. We consider and make serious proposals. This is a process that should not be public until it is over.

Question: Good. In other words, there is no agreement?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not say that. Now I understand why you wanted to get brief answers to your questions. Do you want some slogans on the air?

Question: No. US President Donald Trump said that there was an agreement with Russia. Therefore, I would like to ask Russia whether there is an agreement with the United States.

Sergey Lavrov: We have already commented on this statement. The talks are ongoing. Until the end of the talks, we cannot disclose what they are talking about.

Question: Okay. Last month, US National Security Adviser Waltz said that President Donald Trump had asked for the release of thousands of Ukrainian children taken to Russia as part of what he called "confidence-building measures." What steps has Russia taken to comply with Donald Trump's request?

Sergey Lavrov: Listen, long before the request came from Washington, we were dealing with the fate of children who had to leave their homes during the conflict, they were left without their families. Most of these children were sent to orphanages. We share any details we have about these children, and as soon as the parents or other relatives make themselves known, they get the children back. This process has been going on for the past almost three years between the ombudsmen of Russia and Ukraine.

Question: In other words, there will be no new release of thousands of Ukrainian children at the request of US President Donald Trump?

Sergey Lavrov: No one knows why some "experts" advised President Donald Trump to talk about thousands of Ukrainian children.

From time to time, once every two or three months, we organize exchanges with the Ukrainians through the mediation of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, which, you know, do not make a fuss about what they are doing. They are just doing something in which we are actively participating: returning children to their parents or relatives.

Question: What "confidence-building measures" can Russia offer now? Especially after the attack on Kiev, when US President Donald Trump said: "Vladimir, stop." How do you convince the United States that Russia is really serious about peace?

Sergey Lavrov: Over the past ten years, there have been many "confidence-building measures." I mentioned the agreement in February...

Question: It was a night attack on Kiev...

Sergey Lavrov: Do you want a brief answer? That's what I understood from your first words. Or do you want an answer that explains the situation?

US President Donald Trump's proposal for a 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure was supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin and was strictly observed. These were "confidence-building measures"; let's compare this with the policies and actions taken by the Zelensky regime. As I have already said, the Ukrainians attacked civilian energy infrastructure several hundred times.

Another "confidence-building measure" was the proposal by President Donald Trump and his team to resume the Black Sea deal. Our delegations met in Riyadh. They exchanged views on how this can be implemented in practice. The proposals made by Russia are being considered by the United States. There are many other examples of "confidence-building measures."

But if you believe that only Ukraine is interested in "confidence-building", then I think that the short answer is an illusion.

Question: Do you take US President Donald Trump at his word when he says that if Russia fails to conclude a deal to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine, he will introduce secondary duties? I think he is referring to sanctions on oil coming from Russia. Or do you think that relations between Russia and America have been restored at the moment and this will not happen?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot comment on what, in your opinion, US President Donald Trump meant when he spoke about something.

Question: What do you think he meant when he spoke about secondary duties on oil supplied from Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: We hear a lot from US President Donald Trump. He said that he was terribly tired of this situation in the settlement, especially yesterday, when he commented on Vladimir Zelensky's statements. US President Donald Trump has his own proposals and his own style of presenting these proposals during public speeches.

As I have already said, we are committed to real talks. US President Donald Trump supports them, and he instructed his people to continue to participate in them. I apologize, the answer was a bit long. But it is difficult to explain it in any other way.

Question: I asked about the threat of sanctions or secondary duties because you said in your recent interview that if you had to choose personally, you would keep the existing sanctions against Russia. You said that Russia has restructured the economy, made it self-sufficient. There are growing fears that, quote, "the cunning Americans will suddenly lift sanctions to flood our market with services and technology." If this is the case, why should the United States consider lifting sanctions at all?

Sergey Lavrov: Why are you asking me? You have just quoted my statement. It is clear to me and to everyone who has read it. If you have questions for the US side about their attitude to the situation, then I am not the right person to ask them.

Question: In other words, you want to maintain the sanctions? Do I understand correctly that this is Russia's position?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not want to explain once again what was said, I think it is quite clear. You quoted me quite close to what I said. Yes, I know that this answer was a little longer than you would have liked.

Question: However, in February of this year, one of your colleagues, Kirill Dmitriev, who heads the RDIF and is actively involved in the negotiation process with the United States, spoke differently. In this regard, I ask a question. He said that American companies are expected to return to the Russian market in the second half of 2025.

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has already commented on this situation. He said that we have nothing against American companies. But those companies that then decided to leave Russia, upon returning, may find that their place has already been taken by Russian or other foreign investors. In this case, we will not take any action that would discriminate against those who invested in Russia instead of the Americans. If American companies want to fill a niche that is not yet occupied, if they want to propose a new project, in addition to past business relationships, we will of course consider this offer. If we find a balance of our interests, I think it will be quite natural to do business together.

Question: In which areas did the United States propose lifting sanctions? After all, in the context of the current sanctions, many American companies cannot enter the Russian market.

Sergey Lavrov: It depends on them.

Question: In other words, there were no proposals?

Sergey Lavrov: No. What can we offer in a situation when... The United States has made it clear to us that it is interested in doing business together. We never reject business proposals if they are based on equal opportunities and respect for each other and lead to a balance of interests. I cannot comment on the proposals that are mentioned in the media. This is not serious. We behave differently from the people in Kiev who communicate with the world through the media, including with the presidents of great countries.

Question: If I understand you correctly, are you not afraid of sanctions and do not want them to be lifted?

Sergey Lavrov: You quoted my statement correctly. This is my position.

Question: When US President Donald Trump threatens new sanctions, does this cause you any concern?

Sergey Lavrov: This is the third time you have asked about this. By the way, I have answered you briefly.

Question: You expressed yourself briefly and directly. I asked about the sanctions to bring clarity and understanding. In general, as for what is happening now in the war zone in Ukraine, according to experts, about 18% of the territory of Ukraine is under the control of Russian troops. US intelligence believes that the situation is developing in favor of Russia. If that's the case, why should the U.S. believe that Russia is serious about ending the war if things are stacked in your favor?

Sergey Lavrov: We judge by the reaction of our American colleagues to what we tell them. We do this during negotiations—they are confidential, like any serious negotiations. They know our position. I quoted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who publicly stated that they now have a better understanding of Russia's position and the reasons for what is happening. He said that during the Biden administration, no one in Washington lifted a finger to do the same and try to understand Russia.

This implies that the dialogue continues, supported by the United States and, I stress again, the Russian Federation.

Question: US President Donald Trump said that he hopes to meet with President of Russia Vladimir Putin in the near future. When and where could they meet? And why?

Sergey Lavrov: Presidents are the masters of their own fate and their schedule. I heard US President Donald Trump say that he has a trip planned for mid-May and he will propose dates after that. I have nothing more to add.

Question: Yes. He was asked whether there was a possibility that he would meet with President of Russia Vladimir Putin in Saudi Arabia, but he replied that most likely not. It's in mid-May, but it could happen soon after.

Sergey Lavrov: You said the same thing as I did.

Question: Yes.

Sergey Lavrov: We read the same newspapers and watch the same channels on TV.

Question: Yes, but I cannot pick up the phone and call US Secretary of State Marco Rubio like you. So when do you think this meeting can take place?

Sergey Lavrov: I hope your viewers are well aware that it is unethical for the Foreign Minister to assume what presidents can and cannot discuss.

Question: Do you think it would be great if the leaders of the two countries met in the near future? In your opinion, Special Envoy Stephen Whitkoff came to negotiate this?

Sergey Lavrov: We are always in favour of meeting with people who are ready for dialogue. President Putin has repeated this many times. When President Vladimir Putin's Assistant for Foreign Policy Yury Ushakov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz met in Riyadh, our American colleagues made it clear that US policy is based on US national interests. They also understand that Russian policy pursued by President Vladimir Putin is also based on Russia's national interests and that the great powers are responsible for ensuring that if these national interests do not coincide (this happens in most cases), they do not allow this discrepancy to escalate into confrontation. This is what dialogue is for. They also added that when the national interests of two or more countries coincide, it would be foolish to miss the opportunity to translate this coincidence into some mutually beneficial projects. This is our position as well.

Question: It will soon be 100 days since President Donald Trump took office. He has made it clear that his patience is running out with regard to diplomacy. Do you expect the United States and Russia to continue dialogue after these potential peace talks fail? I mean, is the restoration of relations now so significant that it can withstand the breakdown of peace talks on Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, Russia is always ready for dialogue. Therefore, you should ask this question to the American side. Secondly, you anticipate the outcome of the ongoing process by saying that the talks will fail. We are focused on getting things done, not talking about failures, victories, etc. If we do not focus on the facts, as we do, we will not be able to take a serious approach to the matter.

Question: President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the window of opportunity is closing and time is running out. This is not my opinion, but what they said.

Sergey Lavrov: Wait a second. I have just quoted Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said yesterday about a better understanding of Russia's position. You may have missed this statement.

Question: He also said that a decision should be made within a few days and that the United States has other things to focus on.

Sergey Lavrov: We understand the impatience, because in American culture you create “expectations” and tension around these expectations. This does not help to engage in real politics.

But in our case (as I have already said) we are always ready for dialogue, for negotiations, and we would not bet on failure from the very beginning. This would be typical of bad, inexperienced negotiators.

Question: Some representatives of the Russian leadership said that the United States and Russia could work together in the Arctic. Are there any specific areas for discussing cooperation now?

Sergey Lavrov: You always want me to constantly disclose things that can be discussed by the relevant officials of Russia and the United States, those who are responsible for trade, economic cooperation and investment.

What are you counting on? For a negotiator who has not yet reached a certain understanding to disclose details publicly? This is not serious.

I have read President Donald Trump's book, The Art of Making Deals. He advises not to disclose information until the right time comes.

Question: With all due respect, US President Donald Trump talks quite a lot about what he would like to achieve with Russia and about the possibilities of working together. I understand that you do not want this.

As for the specific things that President Trump has said publicly, one of the things he raised is that the United States could work with Ukraine on the joint operation of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is located in Zaporizhzhia. Russian troops now control the area. Do you agree with President Trump's public statements that it would be in the interests of greater security for the United States and Ukraine to jointly manage this facility?

Sergey Lavrov: No, we have not received such an offer, and if we do, we will explain that the management of the Zaporizhzhia NPP is under the jurisdiction of the Russian state corporation Rosatom, under the supervision of IAEA personnel, who are constantly present at the site and carry out monitoring. That apart from Ukraine's constant attempts to attack the plant and create a nuclear catastrophe in Europe and Ukraine, the safety requirements are fully met. Nuclear power plants are in good hands.

Question: Does this mean "no"? [LOL!!!]

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think that any changes are possible.

Question: Okay, because it was in the White House's public statement to the media.

Sergey Lavrov: As I have already said, we have not received any specific proposals. I understand that journalists have to make guesses. We cannot guess what is not mentioned in the negotiations.

Question: Is the situation with the Zaporizhzhia NPP being discussed now?

Sergey Lavrov: Should I say this for the third time? You wanted me to be brief.

Question: I heard you, but I just want to be absolutely clear, because it has been repeatedly reported that this is also part of the US proposal, which is now being discussed.

Sergey Lavrov: Why don't you ask me about US President Donald Trump's position on Crimea?

Question: Did you like what President Donald Trump said yesterday (April 23) about Crimea that it has been officially under Russian control since 2014?

Sergey Lavrov: It's not a matter of whether you like it or not. The bottom line is that he told the truth, and then Vladimir Zelensky said that this was absolutely out of the question, because Crimea is part of Ukraine, according to the country's Constitution. For some reason, no one in Europe or in the United States reminded him that, in addition to territorial issues, the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees "the free development, use and protection of the Russian language and the languages of other national minorities in Ukraine," as well as guarantees the development of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all peoples and national minorities in Ukraine. This is also written in the Constitution, as I have already said, but you have decided not to delve into this topic. No one in the West even mentions human rights when they demand that "Ukraine defeat Russia on the battlefield."

Question: President Donald Trump said that Crimea is not even being discussed now.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, because this matter has been decided.

Question: Do you mean that since Russia occupies and controls it, it will not negotiate on the future of Crimea? Are you talking about this?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia is not negotiating on the integrity of its territory. President Donald Trump understands this.

Question: This is what you want to bring to the public space. Are there any other US proposals that you like?

Sergey Lavrov: No. I have only commented on what was said publicly. I would also like to emphasise once again that normal negotiators do not negotiate "through a microphone". They meet and discuss, listen to each other, and try to understand how to achieve a balance of interests. This is how our contacts with American representatives go.

Question: With all due respect, you have been in high positions in Russian diplomacy for 30 years...

Sergey Lavrov: How much?

Question: At least 30 years. I mean, you have been in key diplomatic positions in the Russian diplomatic system for a long time.

I do not think that any of this is typical or normal, to use your words. Stephen Whitkoff is a representative of the White House. Kirill Dmitriev represents Vladimir Putin. Do you think it is sad that the system of international diplomacy is no longer being used, but instead the format of meetings of personal envoys is being used?

Sergey Lavrov: You did not express your disappointment that the international system of diplomacy was not used during the entire period of the Biden administration.

You didn't mention that Europeans are really nervous about being "marginalized." But I can quote a lot of what the Europeans have said. I have already mentioned EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who said that any deal should guarantee that Ukraine will be stronger and defeat Russia.

Do you need negotiators who believe in this logic and do not want to seek a fair balance of interests? The Trump administration is interested in finding such a balance. They sincerely want to better understand Russia's position. And they find this understanding. And we better understand America's position through the negotiations, meetings and discussions that we have.

Question: In January of this year, Russia signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement with Iran. Is Moscow ready to break off these relations at the request of the United States, if it means improving relations with America?

Sergey Lavrov: We have never received such requests. We welcome the negotiation process that has begun between the United States and Iran. We are ready to help if the parties believe that it will be beneficial. They know this.

Question: You were Russia's negotiator in 2015 on a significant international agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In particular, Russia has made a useful contribution to the destruction of Iran's enriched nuclear materials. Would you be ready to make such an offer again?

Sergey Lavrov: We did not participate in the destruction of Iranian nuclear materials.

Question: In recycling.

Sergey Lavrov: Part of the deal was the transfer of some of these materials to Russia for storage.

Question: Good. Not destruction, but storage. Are you ready to offer the United States to accept Iran's enriched nuclear materials produced in recent years for storage in Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I said that we do not stick our noses into negotiations between two countries if Russia is not one of them. I think I said this unequivocally. You wanted a brief answer, but I will probably have to be more verbose if the essence of my words is not clear to you.

We welcome dialogue between the United States and Iran. We are certainly ready to help if both sides believe that it will be useful. And they know that we are ready.

Question: Going back to that period. At that time, there were sanctions and pressure at the UN. Now it is completely different. I would like to ask you briefly about nuclear weapons, because Russia is a powerful nuclear power. According to US intelligence, Russia is developing a new satellite that should be capable of carrying nuclear weapons and, if used, disable other satellites with devastating consequences for the United States. This is according to openly published materials. Does this mean that Russia is going to violate existing treaties and deploy nuclear weapons in space?

Sergey Lavrov: Before asking this question, you should check whether what the US military and intelligence are saying is true or not.

I listened attentively to what President Donald Trump said about his views on the "list of achievements" of the US intelligence services. I have my own information, which I rely on.

For many years, we have been promoting a resolution at the UN prohibiting the deployment of any nuclear weapons in space. And the country that is categorically opposed to this is the United States. At the same time, Washington is promoting the idea of banning the deployment of conventional weapons in space. They cannot answer the question of whether this means that they plan to place nuclear weapons in orbit.

My answer is very clear. We defend the UN for a legal ban on the deployment of any nuclear weapons in outer space. And the United States (at least this was the case during the Biden administration) was categorically against this.

Question: It was during the Trump administration that the intelligence agencies published these conclusions a few weeks ago. Do you claim that the conclusions of the Trump administration's intelligence services regarding Russia's development of a new satellite that should be capable of carrying nuclear weapons are incorrect?

Sergey Lavrov: We have denied these accusations. I will have to repeat once again: for years we have been promoting a treaty (not a declaration) at the UN banning the deployment of weapons in outer space. The United States is against this. I have already told you that I cannot discuss the reliability of the intelligence services' reports. We have never received any facts that would confirm these accusations.

Question: Are you interested in arms control talks with the United States and the Trump administration?

Sergey Lavrov: It was the United States that withdrew from the process of strengthening strategic stability. If they want to return to this path, we will see under what conditions this will be possible. Since US doctrinal documents refer to us as "adversaries" and some time ago US officials called us "enemies", we want to understand what Washington thinks about our relations and whether it is ready (I would like to emphasise it again) for an equal and mutually respectful dialogue aimed at finding a balance of interests. If this is the approach, then everything is possible.

Question: From everything you said today, I have not heard anything about Russia's readiness to make any concessions today.

Sergey Lavrov: This is not true. I will answer briefly: you are wrong.

I have repeatedly stressed both with regard to Ukraine and with regard to strategic relations with the United States our readiness to seek a balance of interests. If that's not what your broadcaster thinks is a willingness to negotiate, then I don't know how I can be even less eloquent in trying to answer briefly.

Question: There were very clear and specific statements by the Trump administration. For example, US Vice President J.D. Vance said that everything would be "frozen" along the current line of contact in Ukraine and this is quite close to the current positions of the troops. Do you really think that this can be a concession?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not discussing the details of what is being negotiated publicly. I understand that you love rumors, because they attract attention...

Question: The US Vice President said this on camera.

Sergey Lavrov: Was that a question? What did you say?

Question: We are talking about rumors. You said that this is a rumor. These are the words of the vice president.

Sergey Lavrov: No, I spoke about our position. We are not discussing what is being negotiated. [My Emphasis]

The interview took place this morning and was aired on CBS’s Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan asking the questions. The CBS transcript is here. Ms. Brennan was clearly undiplomatic and doesn’t seem to know much about its conduct. Lavrov’s comeback about CBS never asking Team Biden about the diplomatic track was one of Lavrov’s many successful scoring thrusts if we look at this as a fencing duel. There were many howlers, one major one I indicated, most of which are due to this Lavrov observation:

We understand the impatience, because in American culture you create “expectations” and tension around these expectations. This does not help to engage in real politics.

But in our case (as I have already said) we are always ready for dialogue, for negotiations, and we would not bet on failure from the very beginning. This would be typical of bad, inexperienced negotiators.

He could have added media. It’s hard to tell just how deeply hooked Brennan is on the Establishment Narrative that’s been ongoing since the Russian Revolution and those modifications of a more recent vintage. Lavrov understands that she is given a list that must be pounded to death, but in this case his tact and wit buried the ploy. Experienced Lavrov watchers at the Gym could likely have anticipated his answers before reading them. The 43-minute interview’s video at the link up top is in English but overdubbed in Russian. It’s here in English. IMO, it ought to be compared with the Tucker Carlson or Judge Napolitano interviews. I’m old enough to recall how Walter Cronkite interviewed statesmen for that same network, and he would never have made himself as big a fool as Brennan did. But then, there were actual diplomats within the US State Department, and leaks related to diplomatic talks just didn’t happen, nor did media try to pry so brazenly.

*
*
*
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!