After making his opening remarks summarizing his activities at the UN, Lavrov’s Q&A session lasted about an hour. The first Q resulted in a long lecture that’s signature Lavrov. IMO, at some point in their training, Russian diplomats take a course that teaches them how to disarm Western presstitutes. Sorry for the delay in getting this out to readers, but travel fatigue dulled my mind. Here’s Lavrov:
Good afternoon
I am glad to meet with you again.
My presence in New York is explained by the fact that within the framework of our presidency, two central events took place yesterday and today – open debates (1 and 2). Not only members of the Security Council, but also all interested delegations could take part in them. You've seen a large number of participants.
The first issue that we brought up for an open debate yesterday was devoted to the discussion of the conceptual foundations of international relations, multilateralism and multipolarity. We drew attention to the fact that the system created after World War II and based on the central role of the UN is gradually being eroded.
I hope that you were able to read my remarks, as well as those of the other participants. We hardly expected that we would be able to agree on most of the issues, given the current tension in the international arena and the development of relations between the "collective West" and the world majority.
Although we had no illusions, I think it was a useful conversation. At least, the overwhelming majority of participants agreed that there are problems. Many expressed assessments that coincide with our vision of an objectively emerging multipolar world order, which is set out in my speech.
The second conclusion. For sure, this discussion will continue. Interest in it is obvious, and it is growing. We will actively support it and organise additional discussions on this topic not only at the UN, but also at other multilateral venues. Including at such platforms as the G20, in such associations as BRICS, the SCO, in our contacts with regional organisations in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The main thing is to restore trust. That was made clear yesterday by the representative of Guyana. So far, no dialogue has even been noted. But the second important point he made is that trust cannot be restored without everyone without exception implementing the agreements reached. We have not yet observed this. Examples were given yesterday in my statement and in the statements of many other participants.
A lot of such evidence was heard during today's meeting on Middle Eastern affairs with an emphasis on the Palestinian problem. The vast majority of UN resolutions on Palestine are not implemented. The second meeting (to which I have just referred) is still ongoing. Many participants advocated decisive steps. Such an assessment coincides with our position. First of all, to stop hostilities, declare an indefinite ceasefire, resolve "screaming" humanitarian issues and, of course, stop Israel's illegal settlement activities. If this is done (when it is done), we hope it will create conditions for the resumption of negotiations on the implementation of UN decisions on the formation of a Palestinian state that would coexist in peace and security with Israel.
Our presidency continues. Another round of the general debate is scheduled for July 19. It will be chaired by my deputy, Sergei Vershinin. This meeting will focus on relations between the United Nations, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
I held a series of bilateral meetings with Arab ministers, with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Peter Szijjártó, and with Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation Igor Cassis.
Question (retranslated from English): On Monday, President Vladimir Zelensky said that Russia should be represented at the second summit on peace in Ukraine in November of this year. What do you expect from this?
Sergey Lavrov: We have expressed our views on this matter many times.
The second summit is an organic continuation of the process that began almost a year ago.
At that time, a small group of states was brought together in Copenhagen (then there were several more meetings), which were called the "Copenhagen format". Each time, our Western colleagues and the Ukrainian regime tried by hook or by crook, various tricks and promises to attract as many states as possible to participate in these events.
The last time the Copenhagen format met in Davos was in January of this year on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum. Immediately afterwards, there was the first ministerial meeting of the Security Council in New York on the Palestinian question, which was attended by many ministers. It was held by France. I have also come to participate in this meeting [“Lavrov at UNSC: Day Two West Asia & Palestine: Using Truth as a Hammer”]. The head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation, I. Cassis, was also there.
We held a meeting with him. He asked for it himself, where he drew my attention to the fact that a regular meeting of the Copenhagen format was held on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, following which he stressed to journalists that it was impossible to reach an agreement without Russia's participation. I immediately asked him: if he is convinced of this, then why was this meeting held? There was no answer. But in fact, it lies in the fact that a course has been taken to push through the "Vladimir Zelensky plan" at any cost, which has a pronounced form of an ultimatum. My Swiss colleague warned me in January of this year that they would be holding a "peace summit" after the Copenhagen format meetings. But, as you know, the summit did not work out.
It turned out to be a "peace conference". It did involve several heads of state, but the vast majority of those who eventually came were represented at a lower level. A month ago, a "meeting" took place in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, after which the overwhelming majority of participants expressed restrained (if not negative) assessments of its results. We can talk about it later.
But now I will return to the second conference that you mentioned. Following Bürgenstock, Vladimir Zelensky and some Western representatives began to talk about this second conference. Not only Switzerland was mentioned, but also other countries that could become a platform for the second round. But speaking about what they will do there, everyone in one way or another formulated an absolutely one-sided approach, unacceptable for us and many others who are sincerely interested in the world.
Following the meeting in Bürgenstock, Vladimir Zelensky said that they had taken the first step – a leap towards a peace summit. Now they must prepare a document that will be put on the table in front of Russia, so that the various "powerful" countries try to end this war fairly. What this means is difficult to understand. Only one thing is clear: the "Vladimir Zelensky formula", which has long been known to everyone, is still at the heart of these efforts.
If we talk about peaceful efforts, for some reason everyone is talking about Bürgenstock. No one talks about the initiatives of the PRC, of which there were several. In February 2023 and later, China put forward its proposals.
Recently, China, together with Brazil, formalized several elements of the initiative. I will not list them. The main difference from the Vladimir Zelensky formula and from what is being done at these meetings within the framework of the Copenhagen format is that, first, China, Brazil and many other countries that have joined them are in favour of convening a conference on the basis and principles that will be acceptable to all parties.
Secondly, and this already applies to the content of the dialogue, China in its first initiative clearly indicated the need to start by considering the root causes of the current crisis in Europe and work out agreements to eliminate these causes. No one within the framework of the "Copenhagen meetings", within the framework of Bürgenstock, mentioned the root causes. There are many of them. We talked about this in detail, including yesterday. A coup d'état, a ban on the Russian language, military and physical actions with the use of the army against the regions of Ukraine that refused to recognise as legitimate the persons who came to power as a result of this coup, and the Minsk Agreements, which no one was going to implement.
If you look at the evolution of the whole process. We are told that Russia is obliged to withdraw to the borders of 1991.
If the agreement signed by President Viktor Yanukovych with the opposition had been fulfilled in February 2014 (it consisted in the creation of a government of national unity and the preparation of early presidential elections), Ukraine would still be within the borders of 1991. After the coup d'état, having occupied administrative buildings, they announced that they were abolishing the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and demanding to liberate Crimea from the Russian population, that is, from Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea. It was not possible to keep Ukraine within the borders of 1991. Crimea held a referendum. None of the objective observers had any doubts about this expression of will. It returned to Russia.
In eastern Ukraine, those who refused to accept the coup d'état were declared terrorists. Armed forces, combat aviation, and artillery were sent to them. They began to resist. This part of Ukraine, in fact, ceased to be such even then.
The Minsk agreements provided that these republics, which first declared independence, would remain part of Ukraine, but they should be given a special status that was not too "complicated." This is the right to use the Russian language, to have their own police (as here, at the state level, there is their own police), to be involved in consultations when appointing prosecutors and judges. Not so much. This is about the same as what French President Emmanuel Macron promised Corsica. I don't know if he will be able to do it or not. If the Minsk Agreements had been implemented, Ukraine would have been within the borders of 1991 minus Crimea. Because no one even stuttered about Crimea then. It didn't work out either.
We spoke in detail about the reasons for the start of the special military operation, about the inevitability, which President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly reported following many years of our warnings demanding to stop NATO's eastward expansion, to curb the Nazi regime in Ukraine, which legally physically exterminated everything Russian, and to ensure the safety of people who lived on the lands developed by their ancestors. If the agreement that was reached between the delegations of Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul in April 2022 had been signed, Ukraine would have been within the borders of 1991 minus Crimea and minus the part of the territory that was controlled by Russian troops at that time. It turned out that we were also lied to when they said that this agreement was the way to peace. Probably, the Ukrainian negotiators were sincere when they signed and initialed this document. But, as Chief Negotiator Dmitry Arakhamia admitted in a televised interview, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came and forbade them to comply with this agreement. Therefore, it was never issued.
When we sincerely try in good faith to extinguish this crisis that began more than ten years ago, when we manage to fix some understandings by mutual consent, each time these understandings are destroyed not by us, but by the Ukrainians and their masters. President Vladimir Putin has said more than once, including quite recently, that we are ready to discuss security problems in Europe. Of course, given the need to eliminate the root causes and the need to ensure Russia's legitimate security interests. Not to the detriment of someone's security interests, but in the context of general agreements.
OSCE "failed". Because all the principles that were laid down in the foundation of the Organisation – equal indivisible security, that none of the OSCE participants will strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others – have been trampled underfoot. The OSCE is also the embodiment of the Euro-Atlantic concept of security, as is NATO. These are Europe and the countries located on the other side of the Atlantic - Canada and the United States. It turned out that both within the framework of NATO and the OSCE, the only goal pursued by Washington is to subordinate all the countries that are members of these structures, and the executive bodies of the OSCE and NATO.
Now the European Union has already signed an agreement with NATO, according to which it recognizes the North Atlantic Alliance as a senior partner and is ready to help the Organization in every possible way, providing its territory, coordinating defense policy, etc.
We are ready for negotiations. But given the sad experience of conversations and consultations with the West and with the Ukrainians, with regard to the European security treaty, which, I hope, will be reached at some stage (and in this context the Ukrainian crisis will be resolved), we, of course, will carefully look at the wording and put in this document "safeguards" against repeated, unscrupulous and non-negotiable interpretations, which are full of the history that I tried to briefly talk about.
Question (retranslated from English): On May 28, US President Joe Biden, having agreed to an interview, said, and I quote, that "the Chinese economy is on the verge of collapse." In your opinion, how effective is the Chinese economy? How can the "on the verge of collapse" economy be described in the NATO communiqué as a "decisive accomplice" of Russia in the conflict in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: How does this statement relate to reality? The Chinese economy is developing powerfully and rapidly. Yes, they are trying to stop her.
Quite recently, when Chinese President Xi Jinping was in France, and in addition to President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen also spoke with him. Representatives of the European Union publicly stated following these negotiations that they demanded that China reduce the production of high-tech goods, because the West had lost competition. How does this relate to the principles of the free market and fair competition?
The West wants to slow down China's economy. In addition to the demands to stop producing a lot of cheap and good products, sanctions are applied to slow down the technological development of the PRC in other sectors of the economy. But there should be no doubts. In such conditions, the more restrictions there are that completely discredit the model of globalization and the unity of the world economy promoted by the West itself, and the more aggressively the "masters" of the Bretton Woods system act, the more actively and efficiently the countries against which these sanctions are applied will work and create their own technologies and products. This includes the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and many others.
I read an interesting statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who commented on the military exercises that took place between China and Belarus on Belarusian territory. He said seriously, with pathos, that this is a dangerous business, because China is getting closer to NATO. The Americans have long approached China and surround China and Russia with bloc structures: AUKUS, the "troika" of the United States, Japan, and South Korea. All this is happening on our borders. The United States and South Korea conclude agreements on a joint nuclear policy and much more. They are trying to split ASEAN and draw some countries into their ranks of closed bloc structures. NATO has decided to promote the bloc's infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. Practical steps are already being taken.
Answering the question that they have always called themselves a defensive alliance to protect the territory of member states, Jens Stoltenberg said that they remain a defensive alliance, but the threats to the alliance are now global, so it is necessary to go to the Indo-Pacific region.
The aggressive, unfair essence of such a position is clear to everyone. Together with China and our other partners within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, we are in favour of developing a security model that will be a Eurasian security model. It will be based on equality, indivisibility of security and full mutual consideration of interests, on their balance. This model will take a long time to take place.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced it a month ago, when he spoke at the Foreign Ministry. He emphasized that this initiative assumes that the Eurasian security system will be open to all states and organizations of the Eurasian continent, including those located in the western part of Eurasia. If and when these countries realize that NATO-centric blocs are leading them in the wrong direction.
You know how Europe suffers economically from the fact that it was forced to take on the main burden of sanctions, to stop buying Russian gas. But such conversations are going on. The Nord Stream gas pipelines, which were supposed to continue to ensure the well-being of the German economy and the whole of Europe, were blown up. After the imposition of sanctions on energy sources, Europe began to pay 200 billion euros more. In the United States, various laws were passed to combat inflation, the result of which was that European businesses began to move to the United States. Europe is facing deindustrialization.
This is "edge or not edge", "brink or not brink". Who has this "brink", it is not quite correct to assess the Chinese economy based on geopolitical interests. We must be guided by facts.
Question: To what extent can the US policy of double standards in the Middle East lead to a full-scale war? On the one hand, the non-implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including Gaza, on the other hand, the demonization of Hamas, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is there a danger that Iran will enter into a full-scale, direct, open war with Israel?
Sergey Lavrov: The statements made by the previous leadership of Iran and the newly elected president reflect a responsible position. Iran is not interested in escalation. If you read analysts, including in the United States and Europe, as practical developments show, Israel is interested in escalation.
Hezbollah has been very restrained. Its leader Khalifa Nasrallah has made several public statements that confirm this position. But there is a feeling that they [Zionists] want to provoke them into full-scale involvement. The purpose of such a provocation, analysts suggest, is to involve the United States directly in the participation of its armed forces in this conflict.
I hope that the West will do everything to ensure that such provocative thoughts (if there are any in the Israeli leadership) remain thoughts, or better yet, be forgotten. We are doing everything to calm down this situation.
Speaking of Iranian interests, of course, we should mention Yemen. As a response to Israel's collective punishment operation in the Gaza Strip, the attack was unacceptable. We always confirm this. But to collectively punish in violation of international humanitarian law... You cannot fight one violation by other violations on the same principles.
Ansar Allah, the Houthis, said that they would be on the side of the Palestinian people, would help overcome the blockade, end the war, using their capabilities to prevent the passage of ships in the Red Sea that carry goods in the interests of Israel.
The reaction of the United States and Great Britain is to send the navy, instead of looking for solutions to de-escalation, to talk to Israel in order to reach an agreement on how to implement the resolutions, which, although adopted after four or five vetoes, also remain "on paper." Instead, they have resorted to military force: they are shelling the territory of Yemen, including facilities that have nothing to do with Ansar Allah.
There are many factors in the region that some politicians want to use to ignite a major war there, including in order to be able to blame Iran and use advanced weapons against it.
This is a short-sighted, hopeless policy. We actively oppose it. Our allies are primarily the Arab countries, the Muslim world, the Arab League (LAS) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This must not be allowed. I hope that we will succeed.
Question (retranslated from English): What will relations between Russia and the United States look like if former President Donald Trump is re-elected, especially given the choice for his Vice President JD Vance, who talked a lot about Ukraine? I asked this question in January, but a lot has changed since then. Now he has already been nominated by the Republican Party.
Sergey Lavrov: Something has changed, but not our position. You know that we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other states, including the United States.
We worked with US President Donald Trump. We had contacts. He met with President Vladimir Putin. He received me at the White House a couple of times. Regardless of his mood, it was during the presidency of Donald Trump that the sanctions war began. To be fair, it was started by then-President Barack Obama. But under D. Trump, there are more sanctions, both economic and diplomatic. But at that time, there was a dialogue between Russia and Washington at the highest and high levels. Now there is no such dialogue.
There was a meeting in June 2021 between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Joe Biden in Geneva. But after the start of our special military operation, after we explained in an exhaustive way that we had no choice but to protect security interests, there were no contacts between the people whom the Kiev regime has declared terrorists and is bombing every day.
There are occasional conversations on the phone. CIA Director William Burns met with Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin in 2023 on neutral territory. There are some phone conversations on different levels. But we do not observe anything significant.
Once again, John Sullivan said that they must resume dialogue with Russia on strategic stability. They allegedly offer, but Russia refuses. This is "from a sore head to a healthy one".
The fact is that the dialogue on strategic stability presupposes the existence of mutually respectful and equal relations. All this is enshrined in our documents, including the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. But when Russia is publicly declared an enemy, the main threat, it is necessary to do everything to ensure that Ukraine wins. Recently, US President Joe Biden said that if Russia wins in Ukraine, Poland will leave, and other countries, including the Balkans, will feel and behave more independently.
If you think about it, then a deep thought is "buried". That is, in Ukraine, it is necessary to defeat the Russians in order for the United States to keep all of Europe completely under its "command".
To reiterate, President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this more than once. We will and are ready to work with any American leader who is elected by the American people and who is ready for an equal and mutually respectful dialogue. Let me remind you that during the Trump administration, despite serious sanctions, there was still a dialogue.
Yesterday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó spoke and devoted most of his speech to the fact that almost the rest of the European Union is launching acts of sabotage and boycott of the Hungarian presidency because Viktor Orban visited Moscow and China. For the fact that he stands for peace. This is amazing. The European Union, which was created to ensure the well-being and stability of all participants, has now completely turned into an appendage of NATO. And no less aggressively, and sometimes even more aggressively, he demands to defeat Russia. What kind of strategic dialogue is this?
I repeat, if and when our colleagues come to their senses and get over this mania for superiority, their own greatness and impunity, we will sit down and talk and listen to what they have to say. But running around and persuading is not in our traditions.
Question (retranslated from English): Do you agree that the war in Gaza shows the main failure of the international community, international law, the International Court of Justice to ensure the implementation of the interim measures, four UN Security Council resolutions, two General Assembly resolutions? Nevertheless, the genocidal war continues. What do you think the war in Gaza, which is supported by NATO members, especially the United States, and the war in Ukraine, which is also supported by NATO, have in common?
Sergey Lavrov: First of all, you are absolutely right. Only the situation in Gaza is not a failure of the international community, but the entire history of the implementation of UN resolutions on the creation of a Palestinian state, which was supposed to appear simultaneously with the state of Israel and within borders other than those pieces of territory that are now occupied by the Palestinians, is a failure. I spoke about this in detail today. Most other delegations have also spoken about this in detail. And the head of Antonio Guterres' cabinet, Mr Rattrey, read out the Secretary-General's message, and said the truth very clearly.
The truth is that we all say that it is necessary to implement the resolutions, we list them: on the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the return of refugees, on the coexistence of this state with Israel in peace and security. Mr Rattray went on to refer to what the situation looks like on the ground – what territories the Palestinians had in 1967 and what the Palestinian National Authority now really controls in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Gaza Strip now has a special "article". Israel is again saying that it is necessary to maintain full control there. They say that they will be "along the perimeter". This will again be a continuation of the blockade.
You are right, there have been many resolutions. Almost none of them has been fulfilled. I also remember when the Quartet of International Mediators adopted the Roadmap in the early 2000s, everyone applauded at the time. It wrote down each step by week, by month. The document envisaged the creation of a Palestinian state in one year. And with compromises compared to the original resolutions. This is sad.
As for how support for Israel and support for Ukraine correlate. There are many similarities. He cited the figure that during the almost ten months of the Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip, about 40 thousand civilians were killed, most of them women and children, and about 80 thousand were wounded. Losses among the civilian population on both sides: both from Donbass and from Ukraine in the 10 years after the coup d'état are half as much. The scale is terrifying.
Since you have touched on this issue. There is such an aspect of this situation as the role of the UN and its Secretariat, the Secretary-General. Recently, when we were attacking Ukraine's military and military-related energy infrastructure, one of the missiles was shot down by a Ukrainian air defense system located in violation of international humanitarian law among residential and social facilities. Its wreckage fell on the children's hospital in Kyiv "Okhmatdyt" (short for "Protection of Motherhood and Childhood)". Two people were killed and about twenty were injured in various ways. Immediately this morning, UN Secretary-General's spokesman Stephen Dujarric (whom you know well) accused Russia on behalf of the Secretary-General and demanded that "all this stop."
At the very beginning of the operation in Gaza, after the terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023, the Al-Ahly hospital was attacked. It was October 17, 2023 There (according to various sources) 80 people died and several hundred were injured. The UN Secretary-General made a lengthy comment, from which it did not follow who actually carried out this strike. He condemned the strikes and called for avoiding such violations of international humanitarian law. By that time, everyone already understood who had done it. When the next day Mr. Dujarric was asked whether they had figured out who was to blame, he replied that he could not add anything to what had been said the day before. Double standards are obvious. I think that you have come across such examples more than once while participating in briefings. This is unfortunate.
There is Article 100 of the UN Charter on the impartiality and neutrality of UN officials. It is unacceptable for the "collective West" to privatise UN structures in its own interests.
Question (retranslated from English): This is a follow-up to what has already been asked about Senator Jon Vance's recent comments. He not only criticizes aid to Ukraine, but also called for a negotiated peace. He criticized the Biden administration's general policy regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. What is your opinion on his recent comments on aid to Ukraine? What will the final borders look like in a negotiated solution agreed by Moscow? For example, will Senator J. Vance's proposals "pass" or not?
Sergey Lavrov: I heard the same thing as you. He stands for peace, for the cessation of aid. We can only welcome this. In fact, it is necessary to stop pumping Ukraine with weapons and the war will stop. And it will be possible to look for solutions, but which must take into account the realities not only "on the ground", but also in public life. They include, in particular, the fact that then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with the support of the United States, disrupted the peace agreements in April 2022. But they held referendums precisely because they realized that the West would disrupt any agreements, and the Kyiv regime was unreliable and incapable of negotiating.
As I said, since then, four regions - the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions - have held a referendum. They became part of Russia. This is enshrined in our Constitution. This is not up for discussion. Not all territories have been liberated there yet, but under all circumstances we cannot leave the people who voted to return to Russia under the oppression of a regime that exterminates everything Russian.
He mentioned an important fact in his speech. It is right that our Chinese friends have drawn attention to the priority of addressing the root causes and eliminating them. All the initiatives that are now "floating" on Ukrainian affairs do not talk about the root causes at all. All of Vladimir Zelensky's Western peace formulas, including those promoted by the West, do not mention human rights and ethnic minority rights. And they love these topics, as you know. We ask the question: why?
I will tell you confidentially. We had unadvertised contacts with the Americans between political scientists who know each other and understand the policies of their governments. Our political scientists asked this question. Like, as you can see, when, eventually, there will be some kind of settlement, in any case, some part of Ukraine (western, for example) will remain under the rule of those who will sign peace treaties. Do you, Americans, support the inclusion in such agreements of the repeal of laws that banned the Russian language in all spheres of life? They said that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine, they say, it is up to the Ukrainians to decide.
Returning to Bürgenstock. Vladimir Zelensky's formula consisted of 10 points. And it is. They did not remove them anywhere. Including the fact that Russia must withdraw to the borders of 1991, the creation of a tribunal to try the Russian leadership, the payment of reparations, restrictions on the weapons that Russia may have in the area near Ukrainian territory. In addition, food, energy, nuclear security, humanitarian issues, prisoner exchanges, and so on were written there. The arrogance and deadlock of this "plan" are obvious to everyone. In order to invite as many countries as possible to these events, first of all Bürgenstock (it was their priority), they began to persuade them to deal with issues from this "plan" that were beyond doubt. Food, energy, and so on. As a result, only three topics were included in the agenda of the Bürgenstock Conference. But even here it is very revealing. Food security, which the West is destroying on its own, forcing the European Union and its producers to sacrifice for the sake of Ukrainian farmers, who, as everyone knows, supply low-quality and expensive grain. This is a separate topic.
We appreciate the efforts of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to implement the Memorandum between the UN and Russia, which contains steps to remove obstacles to Russian food and fertiliser exports.
The next point was physical and nuclear safety. Initially, there was also energy security. I wondered why they left nuclear safety and removed energy safety. If they left energy security, they would have to discuss who blew up the Nord Streams. This is a topic that they want to close as soon as possible. But we will seek the truth. Once again in the Security Council, we remind you that this topic has not disappeared. Because Sweden, which has announced its national investigation, says that they have been investigating for a year and a half, found nothing and the investigation is closed. In my opinion, this is unrespectable and unworthy of any politician. Germany is silent.
Just like we will demand when we are accused of something. I will write another letter to the Secretary-General. In April 2022, Bucha was used to disrupt the peace treaty. I have repeatedly said at the UN Security Council that if they were so embittered by the aggressive attack by the Russian army on civilians, why is it practically not talked about now? In order to somehow explain what was happening in Bucha at that time, we asked for the names of the people whose bodies were shown on the BBC. No one is going to tell us anything.
Just as Germany is not going to show the tests that they made to the late Alexey Navalny, on the basis of which we were accused of "poisoning" him. We asked to see the tests. We were told that they could not. They say, if they show us the tests, then we will find out what knowledge the Germans have in the field of biological weapons. If you don't want to show it, then how can you accuse? Many such questions have accumulated. I have a list.
We will seek the truth from the West, because otherwise there will be no trust.
As for energy. Nord Streams and everything that they are now trying to ban both in the form of pipeline gas and in the form of liquefied natural gas is directly related to the food crisis. Because the production of fertilizers in the European Union has sharply decreased due to soaring gas prices. Blaming Russia for everything is unworthy of any country. Especially those who sit in the UN Security Council. They should, in theory, feel their responsibility for what is said.
Question (retranslated from English): What do you think about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Moscow? What is your reaction to India's energy cooperation with Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: India is a great power. It determines its national interests and chooses its partners. We know that it is being subjected to the strongest, shameless, absolute pressure, which is unacceptable from the point of view of behavior in the international arena.
Recently, Vladimir Zelensky or someone from his team insulted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Russia, calling it a stab in the back for all peacekeeping efforts. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs invited the Ukrainian ambassador and explained to him how to behave.
Before that, there were many examples when Ukrainian ambassadors behaved like hooligans. There was Ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk, who was indignant every time that Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not give enough money and weapons. In an interview, he publicly called him an "offended liverwurst." This is a quote, it can be found on the Internet.
Ukrainian Ambassador to Kazakhstan Pavel Vrublevsky said publicly in an interview that they would do everything to kill as many Russians as possible, so that their children would have less work, and that they would see this matter through to the end.
Therefore, I believe that India is behaving with dignity. My colleague, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, after a Western tour, asked why they started buying more oil from Russia, citing statistics showing that the West has also increased its purchases of gas (despite restrictions in some forms) and oil. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said: you know, India itself determines how to trade, with whom to trade and how to ensure the national interest.
The fact that the West makes claims even to such powers as China and India means, firstly, lack of culture, inability to engage in diplomacy at all, and secondly, it is a failure of political analysts. Because to subjugate the two largest Asian powers... As we say, dreaming is not harmful. An unworthy line has been chosen in relation to all countries. But when these claims are put forward to two giants...
Question (retranslated from English): You said that there should be a new multipolar order and that the process of its formation is already underway. What role, in your opinion, is assigned to the United States in it?
Sergey Lavrov: The United States just needs to come to terms with reality and stop pretending that it will decide everything and everything.
Freelance journalist M. Bohm works in Russia. He is invited to various talk shows. He speaks Russian well. Recently, in an interview, he was asked the same thing: what should the United States do in a multipolar world? He replied that when the United States went into self-isolation, these were the periods of the most serious wars and conflicts, and when the United States entered the world stage as a leader, there were fewer wars. I respect journalism, but not enough to accept this point of view. And not because he has no right to argue what is better and what is worse, but because it is not true.
The United States "entered" the world stage in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. How did it end? What peaceful changes for the better are there? Now the Americans repeat like a mantra that they will "support Ukraine for as long as it takes." How much is that? Twenty years, as it was in Afghanistan, to understand that they lost? Or in Iraq, from which they allegedly also withdrew, but are now trying to "linger" in defiance of the Iraqi parliament's decision that the United States should withdraw its troops? Or will they have the same approach to Ukraine as they do to Libya? How long did it take them in Libya to collapse the state? Now everyone "glues pots" for them.
A multipolar world is a reality. No one came up with it. Look at the share of the United States and the West in world GDP fifty, twenty years ago and now. Two years ago, the five BRICS countries were ahead of the G7 countries in terms of GNP and purchasing power parity. Now that five more states have been added to the BRICS, this ratio will increase. But the United States is doing everything to ensure that this real weight of the world economy and world finance in the new growth centers is not reflected in the activities of the IMF and the World Bank.
The United States "holds" on to its voting package (about 15%), but which, according to IMF rules, allows it to block decisions. But to be honest, it was necessary to redistribute these quotas and votes a long time ago. The BRICS countries insist on this. This will be one of the main economic and financial issues at the BRICS summit in Kazan in October this year.
The WTO was presented to us as the optimal regulator of fair world trade. As soon as China, developing its economy on the principles of globalization invented by the Americans, began to compete with the United States, to "outmaneuver" them economically, the Americans simply closed the WTO dispute settlement body. They used technical tricks. There is no quorum there now. For many years now, all of China's fair complaints about the protectionist policy of the United States have been lying idle. WTO reform is also on the BRICS agenda. We will achieve this.
These topics are already and will certainly be among the main ones during the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro. This is exactly the structure that should honestly consider the real affairs in the world economy and take steps to develop it in such a way that there is mutual benefit in accordance with the contribution of countries to the world economy.
In the Eurasian space, there are the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN. These structures have agreements with the PRC to harmonize integration projects with the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road". There is also the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. All these organizations are establishing contacts with each other, creating a "fabric" of future material interaction on the Eurasian continent, based on the comparative advantages of a single space, the richest in terms of natural resources and the most important from the point of view of world maritime communications. We actively encourage these processes.
After the United States and its allies imposed unprecedented sanctions against Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China and other countries, states in Africa and Latin America began to think about how to protect themselves from such "whims". After all, no one knows who will be next, whom the Americans will be angry with.
At last year's BRICS summit, Brazilian President Lula da Silva actively promoted the idea of creating alternative payment platforms and settlement mechanisms within BRICS. The finance ministers and heads of the central banks of the association are working on this and will prepare recommendations for the summit in Kazan. The President of Brazil proposed to think about moving towards a common currency within the framework of CELAC. Everyone is trying to protect themselves.
There is information that Saudi Arabia, against the backdrop of the desire of the United States and the "collective West" as a whole to steal Russian money, is thinking about reducing dependence on the dollar. The process of de-dollarization is underway and it cannot be stopped. We mentioned Donald Trump today. He said it was suicidal for the United States. But they themselves started this process.
Groups of regional structures such as the African Union, CELAC and the Asian organizations that I mentioned are in contact with each other. At the global level, BRICS is well positioned to serve as a "harmonizer" of processes among the world's majority countries.
There is also the G20, where the countries of the world majority will continue to communicate with the West, if it is ready to do so honestly, and the UN, where everyone is represented and should communicate. Yesterday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó said that he had always been convinced that the UN was created to communicate with everyone. But this is not the case: the West has decided that the world Organization exists to bolster its exorbitant ambitions to play the role of hegemon on the world stage.
I think that at some stage the United States will understand that it is better to be part of a constructive process than to run around with a sanctions or military "stick" and force everyone to dance to their tune. And the "pipes" there change every four years. And everyone is trying to adapt. But given the specifics of domestic political processes in the United States, they understand that this is not easy.
Question: You met with the Lebanese Foreign Minister. Was it about the terms of a truce on the border with Israel or are the parties ready for a full-scale war?
Sergey Lavrov: I have already commented on this topic. Neither Hezbollah, nor the Lebanese government, nor Iran want a full-scale war. There is a suspicion that some circles in Israel are trying to do exactly this – to provoke a major full-scale war in the hope of dragging the United States into it. I am convinced that these are the most dangerous plans that put personal ambitions above the interests of their people and the peoples of the region.
Question (retranslated from English): I find your comments today, especially on economic ties, very valuable. There are moments that did not occur to me myself. There is a feeling of manipulation of facts on the Russian side. Russia is accused of shelling a children's hospital in Ukraine. But there are also enough materials in the public domain about Bucha, as well as about Alexey Navalny.
In fact, I wanted to say something else. Journalists of Russian origin who have ties to our country highly appreciate Russian culture, art, music. Be it E. Hershkowitz or M. Gessen. I am surprised that Russia does not try to appeal to them, but punishes them. Not every story will be good, but they are able to convey the culture of Russia to the world.
Sergey Lavrov: You mentioned that there is allegedly a lot of evidence of what happened in this children's hospital or in Bucha. That's not what I was talking about.
You can "write" a lot of evidence, especially when there are journalists who understand the "task". I said a specific thing: is it possible to get a list of people whose bodies were shown in Bucha by BBC correspondents? Must not. Nobody gives it.
As for Alexey Navalny, any human life is priceless. I am not trying to say any ambiguity. The Russian state was accused of poisoning him. The tests were done in a German military hospital. Before handing him over to his wife (it happened quickly), nothing was found in the Russian civilian hospital. Nothing was found in the German civilian clinic either. But they found it in a Bundeswehr hospital. We asked for only one thing: to look at the analysis. We are accused. Do you think it's fair to blame us and not show analysis? Then it's time for you to go into American politics.
Which journalists did you talk about?
Question (retranslated from English): E. Hershkovich, M. Gessen.
Sergey Lavrov: Maria Zakharova recently published a post in which, quoting Stephen Maugham and other writers and journalists, she showed that the use of journalists for intelligence purposes, at least in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, is absolutely natural.
We have irrefutable evidence that Ernest Hershkovich was engaged in espionage activities. In accordance with the June 2021 agreement between President Vladimir Putin and President Joe Biden, the special services of Russia and the United States are in contact to see if someone can be exchanged for someone. Everyone knows very well that this topic does not like fuss. From time to time, the Americans throw it into the public space, which does not help. But there are such contacts. This has nothing to do with the "attack" on journalism.
We are no less concerned about freedom of journalism and expression than you. When they began to expel our journalists, close entire correspondent offices, we did not respond at first. We discussed it with Maria Zakharova. My position was that you should not act like them. We must preserve our principles, the principles of the OSCE. Then it came to disgusting, thoughtless, aggressive steps. You have to act "an eye for an eye".
Maria Zakharova: Evelyn, your experience is well known, you are a well-known journalist. Could you help me get a list of those "killed" in Bucha? We did not succeed even with the Secretary-General.
Sergey Lavrov: It would be a good idea for journalists, as representatives of the "investigatory" profession, to at least start asking this question. Or is it of no interest to anyone? Dozens of people were killed there.
I wish you success in your difficult business. I hope that there will be as few bans on your profession as possible. [My Emphasis]
Lavrov’s closing sentence was the final needle in the doll. Russia’s UNSC Presidencies always bring forth discussions of topics that are often buried by Western members. Piercing the West’s lies and exposing its illegal actions is what Russia has always done well. As usual, a great number of points were raised that demand further discussion. Perhaps the most critical one-liner was this:
We will seek the truth from the West, because otherwise there will be no trust.
The reciprocal is that until the West finally owns-up and confesses the Truth, there will—cannot—be any trust between Russia and the Global Majority and the West because as is becoming obvious Russia is in the vanguard of Multipolarity followed closely by China and others. And the lies the West has told has poisoned the entire world, including the West, although the West is blind to that latter fact.
I’m certain the presser could’ve lasted longer. That the West doesn’t follow its own legalities regarding criminal accusations—the right of the accused to face its accuser and be presented with the evidence against it—is perhaps the most damning aspect Russia continually invokes that’s been ongoing for decades back to the Soviet Era. Lavrov’s observation that expanding the Palestinian conflict to Lebanon is a personal vendetta:
I am convinced that these are the most dangerous plans that put personal ambitions above the interests of their people and the peoples of the region.
Many have concluded that Netanyahu must keep the war going to avoid being removed from power and along with his wife face imprisonment for the corruption they’ve been found guilty of. IMO, that’s precisely what Lavrov meant.
The temerity of the last questioner to accuse Russia of censorship and waging a war on journalism was indecent given Western behavior. The assumption that media can only be objective if it’s privately owned is false as we’ve seen so often over so many decades since news publication for general consumption began. And the refutation of BigLie Media/Western Government Propaganda is one reason why these performances by Lavrov and his team are so important. Trust cannot be restored until the lies cease, and that’s coming from other members of the Global Majority, not just Russia.
The next round of discussion Lavrov announced will also be critical to observe. Clearly, discovering what the views are from other Global Majority members must be done. A quick search for meeting documents, records, transcripts got lots of past material but nothing for the past two days that I could find. If readers find such links, please post them in the comments. I’ll continue my search, but I do have other chores.
*
*
*
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!
thanks karl! an excellent summation from the brilliant diplomat lavrov... i enjoyed your commentary at the end as well... here is my quick take...
the UN has been used to maintain a unipolar world, just as the imf has - and it is no longer working... and even better - many countries around the world can see this for what it is.. no better example is in the topic of israel-palestine as lavrov rightly highlights... none of the UNs resolutions and mandates have been honoured over the 75 odd years around this most important issue..
for there to be peace, there must be mutual respect and consideration for others... instead of claiming russian guilt on everything- no matter what it is - bucha or navalnys death - in the absence of the essential details and analysis that show this - it is all propaganda... and this brings us to the role of the media in the world today..
until the media is used in a neutral fact based manner, it will be innuendo by omission - propaganda... the fact the usa congress is on record paying for propaganda isn't confidence building but just the opposite... the usa will have to come to terms with the changing landscape on the planet into a multi polar world.. no amount of bullying is going to cut it anymore - not that it ever did.. kudos to lavrov and thank you karl!
Maria Zakharova: Evelyn, your experience is well known, you are a well-known journalist. Could you help me get a list of those "killed" in Bucha? We did not succeed even with the Secretary-General.
Loved that one.
Lavrov must be getting tired of this. Looking forward to the Trump Foreign Policy Team.