Lavrov's Knowledge Day History Lesson

Q&As at the end.

In Russia, the first day of school is declared a holiday but students and teachers still attend. It’s more of a celebratory day and is called Knowledge Day, a term I really like. On 2 September, Lavrov found himself again at the lectern at his alma mater MGIMO (Московский государственный институт международных отношений or Moscow State Institute of International Relations) along with students and faculty where he always seems to appear this day of the year. The format is usually a 20 minute history lesson followed by a Q&A session that lasts twice as long or longer. Today, the session’s limited to 70-minutes because Lavrov gets to go to Mongolia along with Putin and the rest of the Team.

Dear Colleagues,

Rector A.V. Torkunov has just said that many wonderful students have been admitted this year. But I proceed from the fact that this does not mean that there were not enough wonderful guys in the past and the year before last. They are always wonderful. Statistics speak in favor of this. I would like to congratulate everyone on the Day of Knowledge!

I would like to note that according to the same statistics, in addition to the annual replenishment of two-thirds of the Foreign Ministry's recruits, MGIMO graduates work in other responsible positions in the Government Office, and especially in the Presidential Administration. This largely says what kind of "quality mark" is on the diplomas of those who graduate from this great, without exaggeration for me, higher educational institution. We welcome the fact that MGIMO supplies the bulk of its employees to the Ministry. We will always be happy to accept those who prove their readiness to meet the high requirements of Russian diplomacy. I would like to address the graduates of their final years – we will work together to implement the Foreign Policy Concept, which was approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in March 2023.

I am sure that you follow international news and the developments on the world stage. The main trend is the strengthening of new centers of growth and development outside the historical West. Many countries in the Global South and East, also called the World Majority (this is a new term that very accurately reflects what is happening), are achieving impressive economic results, pursuing an increasingly independent line in foreign policy affairs and relying, first of all, on their national interests, their own values, traditions and development models. These states do not like when everything is imposed on them according to Western patterns. They are now forming their own "values" and development models. This is impolite to other countries, especially since among them there are the greatest civilizations that have been developing for many millennia and forming their own original model of development.

An important role at the current stage of development of this multipolarity is played by regional integration associations, including the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the CIS, the Arab League, the African Union, and CELAC. Strengthening and increasing its authority at the global level, BRICS is increasingly acting as an informal coordinator of these regional integration processes.

Globalization, which the West has been actively promoting for many years, has been adopted as a method of doing business in relations between states in the economic, technological and financial spheres. This model of globalization is now falling apart. The principles on which it was based, according to the convictions of our Western colleagues – fair competition, inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence, market forces – all this was discarded by the West at one point in order to punish the Russian Federation in this case.

The West has been using a similar instrument of sanctions for many decades against Iran, Venezuela, and the DPRK. But I am not talking about these specific examples. Assuring the rest of the world that globalization is a common good, declaring (I remember perfectly well how American officials said) that "the dollar is not the property of the United States, but a successful mechanism for the functioning of the entire world economy." Now you see how they operate with it and how the dollar has been turned into an elementary weapon. Therefore, globalization is now regionalizing, but the trend towards returning the very interdependence that the West tried to distort and return to normal remains and will manifest itself, first of all, between these regional associations.

BRICS, which has already grown to 10 members (and there are more than 30 countries in the "queue"), plays the objective role of such an informal coordinator. And this will be one of the directions for the formation of a new multipolar system. Yes, there is also the G20, which was created in the best periods of relations between East and West, between West and South, at a time when it was simply necessary to get out of another economic crisis together. And the G20 has played a very useful role in this.

And now I see the West's attempts, especially noticeable in the first couple of years at the summit, after the start of the special military operation, to Ukrainize the agenda at the G20 summits. Westerners are trying to put their goals of condemning Russia at the forefront of the work of the G20, which should not deal with geopolitics at all, but with world finance and the economy.

In the same way, we did not allow this platform to be politicised at the last G20 summit in New Delhi. A statement was adopted, which clearly states that there are certain processes in the world that affect the global economy. These processes sometimes take on a crisis outline. They happen in different regions of the world for a variety of reasons. But the G20 includes the G7, the BRICS countries, and their like-minded countries.

By the way, the aggregate GDP in terms of purchasing power parity of the BRICS countries, even before the expansion, exceeded that of the Group of Seven, which, by and large, claimed the role of an "exclusive club" and a regulator of the world economy. However, as a result, the G7 actually turned into a military headquarters of the United States to develop plans to contain the development of Russia, China, Iran and other competitors. The G7 countries understood that they could not cope alone, and therefore they were forced to agree to the creation of the G20.

Nevertheless, they are trying to maintain their advantageous, already undeservedly privileged positions in the IMF and WTO. They hinder the reform of these institutions in order to maintain their dominant influence in them. But the process cannot be stopped. It will continue. Speaking at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed that "it will no longer be the same in global politics, in the economy, or in technological competition." We are now working together with our allies, strategic partners and like-minded people to answer the question: "What will it be?"

It is clear that the attempts of the Western minority to reverse the course of history and continue to live at the expense of others, as they did in the colonial era and in the period of globalization to which I have referred, are doomed to failure. But, nevertheless, Western politicians continue to declare their exceptionalism with enviable persistence. For American presidents, this has become a mandatory phrase when taking office.

The pearl of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell is well-known, who said that "Europe is a blooming garden, and there is a jungle around that must be fought." Apparently uprooting them. And my colleague, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, not so long ago, speaking about the upcoming events in the Western world and the summit for democracy, said that "those who are not ready to sit at the democratic table will end up on the menu." In my opinion, this is a very vivid statement that betrays a person "with a head".

Speaking of secretaries of state. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of the ideologues of American neoliberalism, recently wrote in an article for Foreign Affairs that "the future will be determined either by an alliance of democratic states with market economies or by revisionist powers." The revisionists are us, China, Iran, and all those who respect international law, not the "rules" that the West is now "bringing to the fore" in all its demands on everyone else.

As for these "rules", there is a clear impression of the West's attitude to the principles of the UN Charter. The Charter does contain the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty, but the right of nations to self-determination was mentioned much earlier than this principle. And it is written that everyone is obliged to respect human rights regardless of race, gender, language and religion. As for the right of a nation to self-determination, when the West needed to unilaterally tear away the Serbian province of Kosovo from Serbia, they declared Kosovo independent in 2008, because there is such a principle – the right of a nation to self-determination.

When, 6 years later, in response to the coming to power of outright Nazis in Kiev through an anti-constitutional coup d'état, who stated that their goal was to abolish the status of the Russian language and expel Russians from Crimea, Crimea held a transparent referendum with a large number of observers, then in response to this, the West immediately accused us and the Crimeans of violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The right of a nation to self-determination was set aside.

I have already mentioned that the Charter requires respect for human rights, including linguistic and religious rights. The West did not "pull" its "puppets" for the extermination of the Russian language, culture, and the media throughout all those years that have passed since the coup d'état in Ukraine and which were marked by the consistent abolition of everything Russian. In the same way, now the West does not pull them back for banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, instead of putting them in their "place" and defending the democratic values "dear to the Western heart". Moreover, the West declares that the Kyiv regime defends European values with all its life. It turns out that they signed what these values are.

In February of this year, President of Russia Vladimir Putin noted in his address to the Federal Assembly that "at this stage, the spearhead is directed against Russia, and instead of it they need a dependent, fading and dying space where they can do whatever they want." For this purpose, a coalition of about 50 countries was gathered under arms in order to try to dismember Russia. Both Napoleon and Hitler did this, who also put almost all of Europe under arms. However, it was not only the Germans who committed atrocities and participated in genocide on the territory of the Soviet Union.

The essence of the West's policy towards our country has always been that we are too strong and independent and they need to "do something" about it, preferably "ruin it". History repeats itself. Today, these 50 countries are once again gathered against Russia under Nazi banners, given the essence of the Zelensky regime and even the chevrons and banners of the fighters of the so-called Ukrainian army.

But we are not the only target – Washington is actively seeking to hinder China's normal development, sharply restricting its access to technology by imposing prohibitive duties on electric vehicles and their batteries. At the same time, they say that they are forced to impose duties because these goods are too cheap. Is this a free play of market forces and fair competition?

There are many such examples. In the Asia-Pacific region, Washington is introducing the logic of bloc confrontation. Military-political alliances like NATO are being created, and the infrastructure itself is "crawling" into this part of the globe. In Africa, in the former European metropolis, they are trying with all their might to preserve the remnants of their neocolonial influence.

Today, anyone who shows independence, defends their national interests within the framework of international law, and does not want to play by Western rules, is under attack. But it is clear that these attempts, by and large, are the "agony" of the West.

All these "aspirations" go against the objective course of history and are doomed to failure. Russia, as a world power, plays a balancing role in international politics. We have such a reliable partner as China. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping always emphasise in their signed documents that the duo of the two states plays a stabilising role in the international arena and performs an important function.

We are not going to integrate into various "schemes" that are being created without our participation and without taking into account Russia's interests within the framework of Western "rules" and will continue to defend the universally recognised norms of international law and the principles of the UN Charter – not like the West – "I will choose what I want" – but in their entirety and interconnection.

At the same time, President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed that "we are open to contacts with the countries of the 'collective West', on the understanding that they will abandon their openly hostile course towards our country." We will continue to react harshly to any unfriendly steps. The choice is not ours, but those who have embarked on the path of deliberate destruction of relations with the Russian Federation, on the path of demonizing our country and people. This is new in Western policy. Until recently, they said that there was "wrong leadership" in Russia. Now they are already declaring that there are "the wrong people" in Russia. We are ready for any scenario. We will judge the intentions of the West by its deeds, and not by the "shaking of the air" with its statements. In the meantime, we will work to strengthen the objectively emerging foundations of a multipolar world. One of the priorities is the formation of the architecture of Eurasian security and the construction of the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

Until recently, the security concepts in which we participated in one way or another were exclusively Euro-Atlantic. This is, of course, both NATO and the Russia-NATO Council that existed there. This includes the OSCE. Also the Euro-Atlantic structure. This includes the European Union and all the mechanisms of cooperation that existed between us and the European Union. Although it is called the European Union, the Euro-Atlantic dimension in its politics, economy and international relations has always been great. Now they have simply "merged" by signing an agreement with NATO in January 2023, where Brussels voluntarily "signed" a secondary role in this partnership.

We will promote integration processes within the EAEU, the CIS, the SCO and ASEAN, and, of course, strengthen our strategic partnership with China, India, Brazil and all our other like-minded countries, working in the context of shaping the Eurasian architecture. There are many of them, it is impossible to list them all. That is why we have a clear and understandable image of the future – multipolarity, based on another key principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states.

If we take the history of any conflict that has occurred since the creation of the UN, in no conflict has the United States or its allies applied the principle of sovereign equality of the state. They did not consider anyone to be their equals, and, unfortunately, they do not. There was something about the "hunchback". It is necessary to remedy this situation by ensuring that we reduce and eliminate any dependence on financial, technological and other mechanisms that the West "boasted of", first offering its services to everyone, and now using them against everyone who wants to be independent. And we do not want to be them, we are independent. All that is needed for this is done. There is no doubt that everything will be completed for the benefit of our people.

Question: Russia is actively cooperating with Asian countries. But the United States also has certain political goals in this region. What, in your opinion, can be a key factor in Asia's reorientation towards even closer cooperation with Russia and more active participation in the creation of a new Eurasian security system?

Sergey Lavrov: As you know, we are polite people and do not break into other people's monasteries with our own rules.

When active integration processes began to develop in Southeast Asia, partners from other parts of the continent and other regions began to join them. At the heart of these processes was the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). They have formed a network of cooperative structures around them, starting with the ASEAN Regional Forum on Security, meetings of ASEAN Defence Ministers and Defence Ministers of partner countries, and the East Asia Summits. Within this framework, everyone subscribed to the principles laid down in the Bali Treaty, which created ASEAN. These principles were that the Association and its partners work on the basis of consensus, openness, inclusiveness (as they say), and all issues are resolved exclusively through achieving a balance of interests. It is on these principles that we joined the work of ASEAN structures, as well as the United States, Japan, South Korea, India, China, Australia and a number of other countries.

Everything worked quite effectively, covering more and more areas of human activity in accordance with the innovations that appear in our lives literally every day, ranging from artificial intelligence, high technology, information security, trade and maritime security. Everything that is important for the normal functioning of the state in the world and good neighborliness with each other.

You are right, the United States has indeed stepped up its actions in Asia, primarily in the Southeast, East and North. But they act differently than we do. They do not respect the rules created by ASEAN, which everyone considered to be the "core", the driving force of all processes in this part of the world. The United States does not respect these rules, it wants to split ASEAN. All this is being done with an eye to containing China. They do not hide it. Such a term as the "Indo-Pacific strategy" was invented. [It was actually invented by the German geopolitical analyst Karl Haushofer in 1923.] It means that the United States creates small "interest clubs." AUKUS was created (USA, Britain and Australia). They have created the QUAD, where our Indian friends are actively involved. Our colleagues from India understand all this and try to avoid participating in the events of this Quartet (in addition to India, Japan, the United States and Australia), which are obviously provocative.

But nevertheless, the process is underway. The Indo-Pacific "Quartet" (Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) was created. They are trying to create a semblance of the QUAD, where the Philippines will be instead of India. Previously banned ground-based systems of shorter- and medium-range missiles are already being imported into this country. Just as they have already appeared in Denmark in Europe. Now in the Philippines. All this is done in formats where neither we, nor the Chinese, nor many other countries are invited. Different approaches. They want to dictate. They generally consider the South China Sea to be a place that the Americans should control and "solve issues." And, of course, the Taiwan Strait.

Recently, US National Security Adviser John Sullivan was in Beijing. He held talks with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, where he publicly voiced a "spell" that the United States was in favor of the one-China policy. Like, there is one China, there is no other. But he did not say that the Western position has a second part. The Americans, when in their circle, always add that they are committed to the one-China policy, but do not touch the status quo. And what is the status quo? In fact, independent states.

We have to work. We will promote the concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. There are already "bricks" from which this foundation is being built in the trade, economic, logistics, and transport spheres. This foundation may well serve as a reliable support for the Eurasian security system. The process is not fast, but it is underway. In 2023, the first conference in Minsk was devoted to Eurasian security, which was attended by several ministers (including yours truly), a number of Asian countries, the CIS countries and Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. Our concept of Eurasian security "does not slam the door" in anyone's face. Any countries and organizations located on our common continent will have the opportunity to participate, but on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter (equality, non-interference, etc.). The work ahead is not easy and long.

Question: Today, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the information component of world politics. Recently, we have witnessed the detrimental impact of fakes and deepfakes on its development. Do you think this problem can be solved through international law? Are there any talks with other countries on this matter, despite the complexity of the current geopolitical situation? What does Russia think about this?

Sergey Lavrov: Ideally, we need to look for ways that will suit everyone and allow us to regulate the emerging new areas of human communication. First of all, from the point of view of preventing their abuse for unseemly purposes. Whether it is military-political goals, a criminal component, or simply causing damage to a particular politician, or just any person.

I spoke about how the West has disposed of globalization, which it advertised as the common heritage of mankind, and how it simply uses its position in this old system of globalization as a weapon so that there are no competitors in the economy. This is the goal.

As for the area you mentioned. P.V. Durov turned out to be too free. He was too "slow" or did not "listen" at all to Western advice about the "moderation" of his "brainchild". After all, everything that happens is not only with him. Mark Zuckerberg was summoned to the US Senate and agreed to cooperate, as he himself admitted. The West is not particularly ceremonious with other large platforms.

Even before this type of communication and communication acquired such a global scope, twenty years ago, at the initiative of Russia, work began on the formation of a legal framework for ensuring international information security. Security in cyberspace in terms of not using this space for military purposes or undermining the security of a country. A long process.

A few years ago, we formed an open-ended working group in New York, with all countries represented. We and other members of the process have contributed our thoughts, that we will not just coordinate decisions for obvious reasons, given that there are many plans on how to use cyberspace for someone's unilateral benefit. At the same time, a draft convention on combating cybercrime was submitted. It is also the subject of negotiations through a mechanism established by consensus with the participation of all countries.

But what the West is trying to do with Telegram and other platforms that are now on everyone's lips in connection with what happened in France is analogous to its actions to abuse globalization.

In parallel with the work at the UN that I mentioned, the International Telecommunication Union (there is such a specialised agency) has been discussing the democratisation of Internet governance for many years. Nothing works. We are trying to develop some general voluntary principles. The West does not want to share another sphere of monopoly.

Negotiations on artificial intelligence are now beginning with great squeaks within the framework of the Commission on Autonomous Lethal Systems, that is, the use of artificial intelligence for military purposes. There is a general understanding that this needs to be regulated in some way, but the process has only just begun.

In other areas, including deepfakes designed to defame someone, I saw images that were made of me. Somewhere it's even funny.

I am sure that protocols will be developed that will make it possible not to create threats to anyone.

Question: In connection with the complication of the situation on the Israeli-Palestinian track, how does Russia see its participation in the settlement of the situation around Palestine? What specific steps are being taken to maintain and strengthen general peace in the region?

Sergey Lavrov: From the very beginning, when the countries of the region gained independence, Russia has been actively involved in these processes, trying to contribute to the positive development of the situation.

As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, we were members of the Quartet of international mediators together with the United States, the UN and the European Union. In 2003, we developed a roadmap that outlined the actions leading to the creation of a Palestinian state and the end of this long-standing conflict on a month-by-month basis. The process was supposed to be completed within a year. 20 years have passed.

Every time some positive and hopeful decisions are made, the West looks at how Israel will act. He often acts solely on the basis of how he himself sees a particular situation, and how he interprets his interests. Israel has every right to have them and to ensure its security. We have said more than once that reliable security for Israel is one of the pillars of our position on Middle Eastern affairs.

But the Palestinians also have interests. In 1948, it was decided to create two states – Jewish and Arab. The Jewish was created instantly. Our country was the first to recognize Israel. And there was no Palestinian state. Moreover, the territory that was allotted to the future Palestinian state at that time had already "shrunk" in 1967. But if you look at the map of that time and the map of the current Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there is practically nothing left of these borders. Settlements on Palestinian lands are being consistently established. Everyone opposes this, even the United States.

After the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, which, of course, like all other terrorist attacks, we condemned, Israel's reaction was tantamount to collective punishment of the Palestinian population. When we told them that they were killing civilians in the Gaza Strip, officials who headed various government agencies and the Israeli army made statements that there were no civilians in the Gaza Strip and that they had been terrorists since they were three years old. These words did not cause any reaction in the West. A senior Israeli official said they don't care about Palestinian statehood, they care about the security of the state of Israel.

You see, in some ways all this has something in common with the actions of another character, Vladimir Zelensky. He also believes that everything is allowed to him and that he can commit any crimes, including terrorist acts, with impunity and destroy, contrary to international law, the Russian language, everything Russian.

But I still want to separate the Israelis from the Nazi regime. Israel did not ban the Arabic language. He never forbade the Arabs to practice their religious cults and generally follow their traditions. Vladimir Zelensky went the furthest. In fact, the West "applauds" him.

Recently, in the Middle East, we have been paying special attention to the attempt to restore Palestinian unity. If anything depends solely on the Palestinians, and not on how Israel behaves or how its patrons (primarily in the person of Washington) act, it is the restoration of unity in its ranks. I remember very well how Condoleezza Rice (she was Secretary of State at the time) insisted that elections should be held in the Palestinian territories – in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. By all accounts, Hamas won, because in the conditions of the decades-long occupation and blockade, its position (in favor of somehow showing strength) was popular. Many hesitated to hold elections because it would divide Palestinian society. Condoleezza Rice personally insisted. She said that democracy must win. But democracy in the person of Hamas in the Gaza Strip won. The Americans refused to recognize it. The same double standards.

All Palestinian factions were invited to Moscow several times. They visited us in February of this year and signed a document that they are ready to unite on the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. This is important because the platform recognizes Israel. But so far everything continues to remain on paper.

Question: My question is somehow related to trade between China and Russia. According to Reuters, Russia and China may start using barter trading schemes in agricultural deals, as Moscow and Beijing want to limit the use of U.S.-controlled banking systems.

Given that China has a completely different culture and legal framework, how can this barter be made a full-fledged tool for bilateral trade?

Sergey Lavrov: Almost 95% of our trade with China is serviced in rubles and yuan. I don't see the need for a barter scheme, although there is nothing reprehensible about it. If it is convenient and allows you not to depend on bank transfers, which the United States and its allies are trying to stop in every possible way, then why not?

These are different cultures and civilizations. Everyone understands. Why should this have any impact on trade and investment cooperation? We have relations with China at the highest level in the history of our existence. Both Russia and China are well aware of the threats lurking in the preservation of elements of globalization, which were invented by the West and accepted by everyone else. Western countries have now turned them into weapons.

Alternative payment and settlement platforms will be created within the framework of bilateral relations, BRICS and the SCO. Brazilian President Lula da Silva has already proposed a similar thing not only in BRICS, where work is underway. A special report by central banks and ministries of finance will be presented for the summit in Kazan. Lula da Silva made a proposal to do something similar within the framework of CELAC. This trend has already started. It cannot be stopped.

Question: I have a question about the fact that the United States is preparing infrastructure for border control of trade between Central Asian countries. The Americans handed over modern computer servers to the State Revenue Committee of Kazakhstan. Why does Astana allow such actions by the United States, taking into account the fact that it is a member of the CSTO and, conversely, should oppose the NATO bloc, and not cooperate with it?

Sergey Lavrov: By "action" do you mean the supply of equipment for controlling the trade of the Central Asian countries and border posts?

First of all, you are absolutely right. Kazakhstan is our ally, a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. But the most important thing is that Central Asia is now becoming the subject of increased attention of an increasing number of extra-regional players.

The Russian Federation has the closest relations with these "five". We lived in one state – in the Soviet Union. After the USSR ceased to exist, they retained warm, allied relations. And this is a fact.

The volume of our trade turnover and investment activities is significant. It is constantly growing. At the same time, we cannot forbid anyone to develop relations with those partners who are ready for this, if the country concerned sees an advantage in this. This is not in our rules and principles.

There is competition for Central Asia. There is no need to explain for a long time here. There are the following formats: "Central Asia + USA", "Central Asia + European Union", "Central Asia + Germany", "Central Asia + France", "Central Asia + Japan", "Central Asia + India", "Central Asia + Korea", "Central Asia + Iran" and "Central Asia + Turkey". There is also "Central Asia + Russia", created a few years ago. The first summit and several ministerial meetings have already taken place. We are now preparing for the second Summit. It will take place in the foreseeable future.

When our Central Asian partners and allies develop relations with the West, I have no doubt that they understand that the West is pursuing not only plausible, transparent goals, but also wants to weaken the influence of the Russian Federation.

This is obvious. This is true not only in the Central Asian region, but also in any part of the world where the United States sees a Russian presence.

Suddenly declare in a "blue eye" that the United States is concerned about the development of relations between Russia and Nicaragua. Why? They are "worried" about where Russia is on any occasion.

The countries of Central Asia (the "five") are well aware of the attention that surrounds them. And in the context of the processes – the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership and the architecture of Eurasian security – they are one of the main actors. All the main transport arteries that are now being discussed and are in the process of designing will affect them in one way or another.

We have full understanding. And it is mutual that all the obligations that our allies have assumed within the framework of the CSTO, the CIS and the EAEU are not affected by the projects that other states offer them.

The Central Asian "five" feels that in the face of such increased attention from many, it is necessary to work out their own principles of relations with the outside world. They have created their own mechanism – five-party consultations at the highest level. These are still informal consultations. But they help to understand each other better. We support this process.

Question: Given the events in Syria, Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh, how does Russia plan to balance relations with Turkey in order to avoid confrontation and maintain a strategic partnership?

Sergey Lavrov: We have solid and mutually respectful relations with Turkey, taking into account the fact that our positions on a number of issues of world politics and regional crises do not coincide.

You started with Syria. It was the pragmatic approach that made it possible to create the Astana format, which includes Russia, Turkey and Iran. We have managed to do a lot within the framework of this format (this is the most effective mechanism for Syrian affairs). At least, agreements in principle were reached.

First, the Turkish armed forces are in Syria solely to help suppress the terrorist threat. After solving this problem, the Turkish troops will return to their homes. The territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria are unconditionally confirmed in all documents of the Astana format.

Second, in 2019, we signed an agreement with Turkey that terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra (now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) still have a serious presence in the Idlib de-escalation zone. By that time, they had already sent their contingents there and would either eliminate or push these terrorist groups out of Syria.

There is a commitment to organize joint patrols of the strategic M-4 highway between Damascus and Aleppo. Much of what was agreed upon has not yet been implemented. There is an objective reason for this. The situation is ambiguous. Many other players are trying to influence it, primarily the United States. But I repeat that despite all the differences, we are agreeing on how to proceed with Syria.

As for Ukraine. It was in Istanbul that an agreement was reached in April 2022. But then, as the person who initialed it (head of the Ukrainian delegation Dmitry Arakhamia) admitted, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came and said that "we need to continue fighting." This is a simple information planting, but since then no one has disputed it.

And what about the Turks? The Turks helped in this. We also had close cooperation with Turkey when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres put forward his initiative to supply food from Ukrainian ports. It was agreed with the active participation of Turkey. In a "package" with a UN commitment to remove obstacles to Russian food and fertilizer exports. The Secretariat had failed in its duty. The Russian part did not work at all. Everything we export, we do ourselves and we know how to do it without any damage to our exports and the imports of our partners who buy our grain and fertilizers. But when we were told a lie, promising (on paper they promised) that they would remove obstacles to our exports, we refused to extend that part of the deal.

In the spring of 2024, there was an attempt by Turkey to resume the agreement on the protection of food supplies in a modified format. We were ready. The Ukrainians said at the last moment that it was necessary to add an additional clause to the obligations not to touch commercial ships - about the need to comply with the safety of nuclear power plants. It would seem that this is out of place, but we agreed. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan assured us that this would be a step forward. He "played" quite sincerely and tried to be useful. We agreed. But then the Ukrainians, who themselves proposed it, said that they were not satisfied with it. Apparently, then they already had plans to bomb nuclear power plants.

The Karabakh problem. It was resolved by the Armenian leadership at the end of 2022, which signed an agreement with Azerbaijan with the participation of the European Union to recognize the borders of 1991, within which the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was part of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.

Now there is a conversation about how to formalize this in legal terms, because it was a political agreement. We are cooperating with Turkey here as well. It has a serious influence in Azerbaijan. Some time ago, the Turks, with our help, began the process of normalizing Armenian-Turkish relations. Now it has stalled. But Turkey's interest remains. We are ready for this. It is clear that normalisation should take place in the context of all other problems that need to be "resolved" in the South Caucasus in the context of the settlement of the Karabakh problem.

One of the tasks is to resume transport links between the main part of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. The document of November 9, 2020, signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan says that the movement will be restored. Both rail and road. It will be restored with security provided by the border troops of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. In black and white.

I was surprised to read a recent interview with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, where he said that accusing Armenia of slowing down the process is a lie and that everything is being turned upside down. Strangely. Because at first, Armenia abandoned the road. She insisted that there should be only a railway one. Azerbaijan saw no reason and agreed with our mediation. Then Armenia said that there would be no participation of Russian border guards, although it was written "in black and white". We did not understand. They said they would do it themselves.

Azerbaijanis say that the level of mistrust and hostility is (to a certain extent) too high for them to be sure of their safety when they head to Nakhichevan through Armenian territory. Negotiability, or lack thereof, often plays a decisive role.

He gave the example of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Half of the deal concerning Russia was left aside, despite outward signs of activity on the part of the UN. Nothing worked. In the same way, we are now worried that the trilateral agreements concluded at several Russia-Armenia-Azerbaijan summits in 2020-2022 (1, 2, 3, 4) have also "sagged". [A la Minsk, IMO.]

He [Pashinyan] mentioned the resumption of transport links and the tripartite commission that dealt with this. It is practically not going now. Yerevan believes that this should be done directly with Azerbaijan. If they succeed, it will be for God's sake. He also mentioned the issue of border delimitation, where it was written that Russia would consult on this process. They don't want to. At the same time, they are constantly trying to involve the West, the United States, the European Union, and France in providing their "aegis" to any processes. This is their choice. But it is necessary to negotiate first of all with Azerbaijani neighbors. There is no other way.

But in all cases, despite all the differences and divergences, we have an understanding with our Turkish colleagues of "who stands for what." There is a desire and there is already a result in bringing our approaches closer together and developing coordinated, parallel processes that are ultimately positive.

Question: Given the good cooperation between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the late President of Iran Yibra Raisi and Foreign Minister of Iran Khalifa Abdollahian, as well as in light of the recent events in Iran and other regions, can you say that relations between Russia and Iran will remain as strong as before?

Sergey Lavrov: We have no doubt that the statements by the new President of Iran M. Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic A. Araghchi about continuity in relations with the Russian Federation reflect the sincere intention and attitude of the new Iranian leadership.

In the near future, we must complete the preparation of a new interstate agreement on comprehensive partnership between Russia and Iran. This will be a symbolic step in our relations with the new Iranian leadership. They are developing rapidly.

There are many projects, including those that are part of one of the most promising North-South logistics routes – this is a corridor that allows you to immediately "go" from St Petersburg to the Persian Gulf and further to the Indian Ocean. This significantly reduces both travel time and transportation costs.

We are also Caspian countries. This is an important area of our cooperation. There are a lot of bilateral projects: a nuclear power plant and other joint investment projects. The figures characterizing the growth of trade and the volume of investment speak for themselves and are constantly increasing. We have a bright future.

Question: Many applicants want to devote their lives to diplomacy. What qualities should a modern diplomat have? What qualities could we get during our studies? What is your typical working day like? How do you relax, if you have time to rest at all?

Sergey Lavrov: What qualities do you need to be a diplomat? You can list endlessly. In the past, you had to know how to negotiate with someone against someone else in order to start a war. Or, when a war has begun, to negotiate with someone on how to establish peace. Or how to seal the knot between monarchies. It was an important part of diplomacy, including in the history of the Russian Empire.

Since then, if you look at the list of decisions made not only by the UN General Assembly, but also by the specialised agencies of the UN system, you will understand that absolutely everything must be learned.

There is also the WHO, where diplomacy is now in great demand. MGIMO, which keeps up with the times, has opened a corresponding direction. This is a serious thing. Pandemics are deadly viruses. As we can see, the fight against them is associated with a huge number of frauds. In particular, we are talking about the investigation that is underway in the European Commission as to why and why (and probably for what) AstraZeneca and other Western vaccines were registered so quickly, although they did not follow all the necessary procedures before this registration was formalized. In principle, medical health diplomacy is an important area. Rospotrebnadzor and FMBA are creating biological laboratories in African countries. This helps these states to strengthen their health systems. Politically, this is our investment, and not in some industry where we need to dig up useful minerals and send them for processing to the former metropolis, but in the creation of infrastructure in the countries themselves.

We are also engaged in supporting our companies that are setting up fertilizer production in Africa.

There is also the International Telecommunication Union, which is working on how to overcome the consequences of the monopolization of the Internet. This is also a diplomatic battle. Our diplomats and representatives of the relevant Russian agencies will definitely participate there.

Space is a separate topic for diplomatic battles. Especially now, when the United States "suddenly" decided to adopt a resolution in the UN Security Council prohibiting the introduction of nuclear weapons into space. For 25 years, they were silent and "stepped aside" when we, together with China, proposed to ban the launch of any weapons into space, not just nuclear weapons. The fact that they insist on a resolution banning nuclear weapons in outer space means that it will be permission for them to deploy other weapons there. There are a million such spheres. There are about 20 specialized agencies of the UN system. There is also the IAEA, which is not a specialized agency. But nuclear diplomacy is very much in demand.

Diplomats work everywhere. As for the qualities that you need to acquire in order to be effective after graduating from the institute, the teachers will tell you about it. I have no doubt. The professorial staff of MGIMO is one of the strongest. It's a combination of experience with young talent. Do not be afraid – listen to them. And take it creatively. I am sure that they are ready to argue if you have your own views.

As for the working day. If I can do it in ten hours, that's good. Sometimes there are twelve or more. On Saturday and Sunday, I come to work for half a day, after doing sports. I am resting in the vastness of our homeland. I love Siberia, the Altai Mountains, where my friends and I rafted on the Katun River for more than 25 years.

Colleagues, unfortunately, I have to thank you. I am flying to Mongolia to take part in the visit of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. I will say hello from you. [My Emphasis]

How to summarize what was itself a summation? I think it easiest to provide Lavrov’s to latest encounters with newsman Pavel Zarubin on the third and fourth:

Q: You've already said that the atmosphere is excellent. The European Union and the United States are concerned about Mongolia's hosting of President Vladimir Putin.

Sergey Lavrov: I feel sorry for them if they are worried about such a good matter. Two neighbors, two countries that fought for each other during World War II. We are at Khalkhin Gol, they are with us in the Great Patriotic War.

If anyone has questions about why such closeness, it is probably people who have begun to have Nazi notes again. Not only in thoughts, but also in actions, which is expressed in support for the Kyiv regime. [My Emphasis]

Lavrov’s snark was well done but clearly fell on deaf ears, although some of us appreciate his efforts at humor in these very tense times.

Question: So far, these are only Reuters reports, but often such planted stories are eventually confirmed. Allegedly, the United States is going to supply missiles for F-16 fighters. These are missiles with a range of 300 to 900 km.

Sergey Lavrov: I am tired of commenting. I won't be surprised at anything. The Americans have already crossed the "threshold" that they designated for themselves. They are "egged on". Vladimir Zelensky sees this and takes advantage of it.

But they should understand that they should not joke about our "red lines". They know perfectly well where they pass.

Obsession with the struggle for power, so that the Democrats show themselves "cooler" than the Republicans or vice versa – so far all this leads to more escalation. I am convinced that there are reasonable people there who have a certain influence. I hope that the interests of the United States will be taken into account.

I would like to quote once again the statement of the Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the White House National Security Council, David Kirby, who said that it is necessary to be very careful in building up support for Ukraine so as not to provoke a third world war, because it will be pitiful for Europe. That is, they have a genetic conviction that no one will touch them. This destroys all the principles on which the Soviet-American agreements on strategic stability are based, which were then reaffirmed and developed with the Russian Federation. For some reason, this feeling of mutual deterrence begins to disappear in them. It's not safe.

Question: What are you counting on then? They will constantly supply weapons. It is clear that they cannot but understand that it is impossible to defeat Russia.

Sergey Lavrov: Ask them.

I don't know what they are counting on. For them, this "toughness" in relation to Russia now seems to be an additional argument in the struggle for votes in line with the very logic of American exceptionalism, they say, they do what they want, no one will dare to offend them. This is what we are seeing now. But I am not able to get my head into them, as, probably, no one else has.

Go to New York or instruct your colleagues to ask such questions. [My Emphasis]

What Lavrov says is vital—the idea that MAD is no longer accepted as valid by the Deep State. Again, that mindset implies that those actors are counting on something other than the Outlaw US Empire’s nuclear triad as a deterrent, which was my point in my article about the atrophy of the Empire’s nukes. The overall context and content of what Lavrov delivered at MGIMO and to Zarubin needs to be recalled when watching an extremely important episode of Dialog Works with Nima, and Drs. Hudson and Wolff, “Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: Russia Unveils New Crypto Exchanges? - Economic War,” where the meat of the discussion really gets going at the 30-minute mark after Hudson rips “The Unit” proposal.

*
*
*
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!