Lavrov's Krasnaya Zvezda Interview on March 2, 2025

MFA's selected excerpts

Red Star Media Holding interviewed Sergey Lavrov on 2 March 2025, a very small portion of which was published by Ria Novosti, while many more selected excerpts were published by the MFA. The video at the last link is only 23 minutes long, which IMO conforms to the length of the excerpts. Why excerpts and not the entire interview is unknown. RT only chose to highlight Lavrov’s citing President Putin’s words that Zelensky is “a traitor to the Jewish people” and not much else. TASS on the other hand, posted a much better report:

Moscow and Washington have admitted at talks in Riyadh that they cannot think the same on all issues on the global agenda, but both sides are obliged to prevent war, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Krasnaya Zvezda.

"We will never think the same on every issue of world politics. We acknowledged this in Riyadh and the Americans acknowledged it. In fact, they themselves said this," he said.

Lavrov noted that Russia and the US, "on the one hand, can find common interests and many mutually beneficial things, and on the other hand, they are obliged not to go to war in case their interests diverge."

"Where we see a coincidence of interests, common sense suggests that it would be foolish not to take advantage of it to translate it into some practical actions and obtain mutually beneficial results," the minister explained. According to him, where interests do not coincide, "the duty of responsible powers is to prevent this disagreement from degenerating into confrontation".

IMO, RT was irresponsible in omitting the info TASS provided. SputnikGlobal, which essentially is Ria Novosti in English, was silent so far. I’m not a fan of the following excerpts, the first in particular since it omits the Q. Perhaps the entire transcript will be provided, or not. Here’s what’s available:

Sergey Lavrov: We were not blind. Back in 2007 in Munich, President of Russia Vladimir Putin warned that although we are working with NATO, the European Union and the G7 (as a member of the G8), we should not be made naïve and mistaken for those who do not understand or see anything. If we are equal, then let's work on an equal footing.

We continued. At numerous meetings, Vladimir Putin patiently explained to each country and partner from the Western camp what he meant when he spoke in Munich if someone there did not understand something.

Until the very last moment, we gave them a chance not to escalate into a hot conflict. In December 2021, we told them that you were "talking" about the Minsk Agreements and creating threats to our security, and that we should sign a European Security Treaty that would ensure it without any involvement of anyone in NATO. We were ignored.

Back in January 2022, I met with then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He said that NATO is none of our business. They can only promise that the number of medium-range missiles they will deploy in Ukraine will be limited in a certain way. That's all. This is also hypocrisy, impunity, exceptionalism and superhumanity. And what did all this lead to?

It is not for nothing that President Vladimir Putin said at one of his major events last year that it would never be the way it was before February 2022. In other words, he hoped until February, already realizing the futility of these hopes. But he gave them a chance until the very last moment. Sit down at the table and agree on security, including Ukraine's security, but in such a way that measures to ensure it do not undermine ours. All this was resolved.

Now many politicians, former members of the government, social activists with "hindsight" (that is, they have something in common with a Russian peasant who is "in hindsight") say that they should have done it differently. But it turned out as it happened.

Our goals are clear, the tasks are defined, as they used to say back in the Soviet Union.

Question: Speaking of 2022, everyone remembers that you had long talks with Antony Blinken. When did you realise for yourself, at what stage did you realise that it would not be possible to reach an agreement? How was the decision made that it was time to start a special military operation? Another month passed between your talks with Antony Blinken.

Sergey Lavrov: I hoped that reason and common sense would prevail. But pride triumphed.

Not only plans to materially draw Ukraine into NATO, to create bases in Crimea, on the Sea of Azov—all these plans were there. But in addition to this geopolitical plan, pride also played a big role. How so? They say—don't do it, but we will agree? I am not exaggerating. This is what they were guided by in the "naked" form. This is sad. This is not common sense.

It is not for nothing that Donald Trump is constantly saying about any conflict, considering America's position, that there must be common sense. And Washington's common sense dictates that it should "step aside."

Question: We remember that President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the ball was in their court. For many, the talks in Riyadh came as a surprise. What preliminary work did you carry out and when did you start it to make these talks happen?

Sergey Lavrov: There was no preliminary work. The presidents had a phone call at Donald Trump's initiative. President Vladimir Putin threw this ball to him in 2018 in Helsinki at a news conference after the World Cup (this ball was the official FIFA ball). Donald Trump caught it, twisted it and threw it to the members of his delegation who were sitting in front of him.

We all proceeded from the assumption that it was not Donald Trump who cut off relations, but Joe Biden, but this is one country. Donald Trump was well aware of this and called himself. Just the day before, he sent his close adviser to Russia for a detailed conversation. Then, during a telephone conversation, at his suggestion, we agreed to meet in Riyadh. We flew there 3 days after the telephone conversation. Therefore, there was no preparation. I mean bilateral. Of course, each "team" was preparing: at our Foreign Ministry, and theirs at the State Department.

It was a completely normal conversation between the two delegations. It is striking that this normality was perceived as a sensation. This means that during Joe Biden's term, our Western partners have managed to bring world public opinion to the point where it perceives a normal conversation as something out of the ordinary.

We will never think alike on every issue of world politics. We recognised this in Riyadh. And the Americans recognised it. In fact, they said it themselves. Where we see a convergence of interests, common sense suggests that it would be foolish not to use it to translate it into some practical activities and obtain mutually beneficial results. Where interests do not coincide (US Secretary of State Mark Rubio also said this), it is the duty of responsible powers not to allow this discrepancy to degenerate into confrontation. This is absolutely our position.

By the way, this is the format in which relations between the United States and China are built. They have a huge number of disagreements. The Americans are announcing many sanctions against China in order to suppress a competitor. Not so much as against us. The Americans and Europeans are imposing 100% duties on electric vehicles. This is just unscrupulous competition. But I return to the model of relations. Despite all these disagreements, the fact that from time to time the top leaders of the United States and China, ministers accuse the other side of some illegal actions, primarily in the economic sphere, but politics and security are also heard.

Read how Chinese ministers talk about the West's plans in the Taiwan Strait or in the South China Sea. This is a very sharp opposition. I understand the Chinese comrades when the West says that they adhere to the "one China" policy, which means that China is united and Taiwan is part of it. But having said that they are in favor of the "one China" policy, they are all saying that the status quo cannot be touched. And what is the "status quo"? This is an independent Taiwan. Therefore, there is a lot of cunning here.

It is not for nothing that a representative of the Chinese Ministry of Defence recently said that they are firmly in favour of a peaceful settlement, but do not rule out the use of military force if we are "led by the nose." Something like this. At the same time, the dialogue between Beijing and Washington has never been interrupted. I believe that exactly this model should be in relations between any two states. Especially between Russia and the United States, which, on the one hand, can find coinciding interests and do a lot of mutually beneficial things, and on the other hand, they are obliged not to lead to war in the event of a divergence of interests.

Even when Donald Trump was first elected, many politicians fell into euphoria. Now they are also falling into it.

The United States still has the same goal–-to be the first country in the world. Under Joe Biden, under Barack Obama and the Democrats in general, they tried to do this, subjugating everything and everything, paying for this support, as they pay for NATO, as they paid Japan and South Korea by creating outposts with the participation of NATO with nuclear components.

Donald Trump is a pragmatist. His slogan is common sense. It means (everyone can see this) a transition to a different way of doing business. But the goal is still "MAGA" (Make America Great Again). Now he has a new cap: "Everything that Donald Trump promised, he has done." This gives a lively, human character to politics. Therefore, it is interesting to work with him.

His team, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser MIke Waltz, are absolutely sane people in every sense of the word. They are talking on the basis that they do not command us, and we do not command them. Two serious countries sat down to talk about where they were going wrong and what their predecessor had messed up in four years, destroying all channels of contact without exception, imposing a number of sanctions, followed by the expulsion of US companies, and suffering losses of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Question: Apparently, this has been going on for quite a long time, if not for the entire post-war history. During your work at the UN, you were in a constructive dialogue and signed joint documents with the American side. And they violated these agreements, what was announced, literally in a matter of months. This was the case with Kosovo and Iraq. A month before former Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech, you had a joint document with the US representative on the need to settle the dialogue, etc. How did you react to such things?

Sergey Lavrov: This has already become habitual. You are absolutely right. Attempts to cheat everyone and present their position as the only correct one continues.

This was the case even under US Secretary of State Colin Powell. We also worked closely with him. I am sure that he did not know what was in the test tube (what kind of white powder it was) that he shook at the UN Security Council and said that the then President of Iraq Saddam Hussein "did not live." He was simply framed by CIA officers.

I don't want to be anti-European. However, the current situation confirms the idea that many historians expound. Over the past 500 years (when the West was more or less formed in the form in which it has survived to this day, of course, with some changes), all the tragedies of the world originated in Europe or happened thanks to European politics. Colonization, wars, crusaders, the Crimean War, Napoleon, the First World War, Adolf Hitler. If we look at history retrospectively, the Americans did not play any incendiary, let alone "incendiary" role.

And now, after Joe Biden's "term," people have come who want to be guided by common sense. They openly say that they want to end all wars and want peace. Who demands the "continuation of the banquet" in the form of war? Europe.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that "peace is worse than war for Ukraine now." British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, who followed French President Emmanuel Macron to persuade US President Donald Trump not to end "this story" so quickly, and at the same time boasted that this year Britain would make its largest contribution in the form of weapons to Ukraine, that is, directly contradicting Donald Trump and stating that they would "pump up" the Kiev regime. President Emmanuel Macron is fussing around with some ideas, just like Kier Starmer. They say that so many thousands of peacekeepers are being trained and will provide air cover. This is also impudence.

First of all, no one asks us. President Donald Trump understands everything. He said that it is too early to say when there will be a settlement: "You can discuss this issue, but we will need the consent of the parties." He is behaving correctly.

This plan to send "peacekeepers" to Ukraine is a continuation of "instigating" the Kiev regime to go to war against us. These "guys" "trampled" on the Minsk Agreements. They admitted this quite recently. Their co-authors (our Western neighbours) were not going to comply with them, and by handing over their weapons, they brought to power "on their bayonets" first Petr Poroshenko and then Vladimir Zelensky. It was they who "instigated" him to make a 180-degree turn, although perhaps German Foreign Minister Anna Baerbock would have regarded it as 360 degrees.

Vladimir Zelensky turned 180 degrees from a man who came to power on the slogans of peace, on the slogans "Leave the Russian language, this is our common language, our common culture" (this is all on the Internet) and in six months turned into a pure Nazi and, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin rightly said, into a traitor to the Jewish people.

Just as they brought him to power "on bayonets" and pushed him forward, they now also want to prop him up with their "bayonets" in the form of peacekeeping units. But this will mean that the root causes will not disappear.

When we ask these "thinkers" what will hypothetically happen to the part that they will take under control, they answer that nothing–-Ukraine will remain there. I asked one "comrade": will the Russian language be banned there? He said nothing. They cannot utter words of condemnation of what happened. No other language has been subjected to such aggression. But imagine if French or German were banned in Switzerland, or English was banned in Ireland. Now the Irish there want to "slightly" self-determine. If they tried to ban English now, the entire UN would be "shaken" for all its "columns", demanding the condemnation of Ireland.

And here it is "possible." You tell them in the face, but they do not answer. This is exactly the same as I (it will be three years ago) saypublicly at UN meetings, and when I meet with the press, I ask them to help us get at least some information about Bucha (a tragedy that was used to impose sanctions on us). These scenes were shown by the BBC two days after not a single one of our military personnel was there. We are now asking for only one thing (I have already given up hoping for anything more): can I see the list of people whose corpses were shown on the BBC channel? I even publicly asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres about this at a meeting of the Security Council, and more than once.

The last time it was in September 2024, I was in New York for a session of the General Assembly. I had a final press conference, the entire world press was there (there were about seventy of them), and I said to them: "Guys, you are journalists, aren't you interested in professionally knowing what happened there?"

We have officially requested information from the UN Human Rights Office (they have a "mission on Ukraine" within this Office, which was not created by consensus, they did not consult with anyone) about the names of those people who were shown there already dead. There is no reaction at all.

And I also shamed the journalists. Then it was already 2.5 years after this tragedy, when this Bucha was shown by the BBC on the screen and on social networks. It was a "news explosion". "Three days and everything is over?"—I said, "Did they tell you that you need to be quieter?"

I know half of the journalists there well. They have been working there for a long time. Can't they send a journalistic request to the Ukrainians? No one does anything. The "team" has passed and that's it.

***

In 1970, they came to the conclusion and adopted a detailed Declaration on all the principles of the UN Charter as they are interrelated. In the part concerning territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, it was unanimously written by consensus at the highest level that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of states that observe the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. By virtue of this, they have a government representing the entire population living in a given territory.

Just as the colonialists did not represent the population of their colonies in 1960 (which is why this principle prevailed), so in Ukraine, after the coup d'état, they immediately said that they would revoke the status of the Russian language, and those who did not accept the results of the coup were declared terrorists. Since 2019, a series of laws have been passed to exterminate the Russian language in all spheres. How can we say that this "group of putschists" represents the interests of the population of Donbass, Novorossiya, and even more so Ukraine?

Therefore, the UN Charter should not be touched. It is modern. It only needs to be respected and implemented. And not to say that when Kosovo declared independence without any referendum, it was the right to self-determination, and when Crimea held a transparent referendum with the participation of hundreds of European observers, parliamentarians and public figures, this is already a violation of the principle of Ukraine's territorial integrity. Duplicity, cynicism and hypocrisy are what we have to face. [My Emphasis]

This curious mixture of past and recent events makes me yearn to see the entire transcript. Lavrov should have added at the end of his “anti-Europe” paragraph that US behavior was that way until 1945, when it to did a 180. Since this was Russian language media, Lavrov was talking to Russians; so, what was his message? Most of the history didn’t need to be reviewed, although the questions obligated him to provide some of it. The Team Biden behavior versus the Team Trump behavior and their differences and similarities IMO are the most important. The Outlaw US Empire still seeks to keep its dominance with this sentence revealing much: “Attempts to cheat everyone and present their position as the only correct one continues.” So, Russia and all other nations must still be on their guard. Nevertheless, Lavrov said the Team Trump model of relations is satisfactory, which IMO was a very important admission, and it was 100% correct for TASS to make that the primary focus of its report. RT was completely mute on that pivotal point. The evidence presented that the UN is 100% biased merely adds to the pile of similar evidence that the UN requires a total delousing of those fouling its works. And then there’s the media. As I’ve been showing, even RT is suspect.

In 18 days, Lavrov turns 75. It would be easy to slide into wishful thinking after all the decades of lies and deceit now that a return to normalcy seems apparent. IMO, we can trust Lavrov to be the hard-nosed realist he’s always been based on several of his observations I highlighted in the text and here in my comments. His second, Ryabkov, IMO is just as hard-nosed and somewhat hawkish. It should be mentioned that Shoigu was in Beijing talking with Xi Jinping and other officials over the weekend. Speculation is rampant that a Yalta 2.0 will take place soon. IMO, soon is too soon. Perhaps 2026 or more likely 2027. Many are saying that Trump’s in a hurry to see the end of the Ukraine conflict, but he has no agency legally. The Rada last week tried to unconstitutionally extend Zelensky’s term. For the Europeans that pushed that, to their sorrow the Ukrainian constitution is very clear that the president’s term cannot be extended for any reason. Elections are the only solution to the legitimacy problem. The supposed favorite is General Zaluzhnyi who is now under the Brits thumb in London, and the Brits want the war extended. So, what sort of candidate will he be, and will he be honest about what he plans to do? And then there’re the Nazis and their allies lurking. Russia’s goals are clear, and their tasks defined, and IMO they need to stay the course as this conflict is many months away from ending.

*
*
*
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!