Lavrov's Multimedia Radio Interview 4/19

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was interviewed by Sputnik, Govorit Moskva and Komsomolskaya Pravda radio stations on Friday the 19th. The questions are familiar as are the answers, although both are different due to the escalation in rhetoric by NATO/West and the explicitness of some of their verbiage. All the hot spots except the South China Sea and Taiwan are covered in a depth that makes this transcript worth reading. The interview lasted 90-minutes, so the read is long but should move quickly, so lets begin:

Question: Every day we hear from the West that they will not calm down until Russia is "strategically defeated." These threats are becoming more and more "terrifying". The other day, the commander of the Estonian Armed Forces, Mark Herem, announced that they were going to destroy two Russian cities, "if something happens." The British edition of The Economist rejoices that Ukraine has allegedly created a drone capable of bombing the Siberian region. Johnson and others say that if they don't win "on the battlefield" (at almost any cost), it will end Western hegemony. All this "smells" of a big war. What do you think about this? Is there such a prospect?

Sergey Lavrov: The escalation of the topic of defeating Russia and emphasising the existential significance of this defeat for the future of the West reflects not so much a bellicose mood as agony and hysteria. They don't hide it anymore. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that if the West allowed Russia to win, it would be the end of their hegemony. This is a "confession" to the International Court of Justice for violating the main principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states. The International Court of Justice should pay attention to this.

Other statements go in the same direction: "we will lose our influence", "Russia will remake the world together with China, Iran, North Korea, Syria." This does not reflect a lack of self-confidence, but quite the opposite: their understanding that there is what they call a "battle" to maintain their hegemony, but in fact the formation of a new multipolar world order. This term has already become a well-worn one. We can put it another way: an equal, just and democratic world order, where everyone will rely on the principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states.

In addition to fearing the loss of hegemony, they openly (perhaps unknowingly) make it clear that the United States is in charge. And everyone "lay down" under them. NATO Deputy Secretary General (Romanian) Michel Geoană recently said that the world is entering an era of fierce competition between the West on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. They say that Moscow, Beijing and all the others are making attempts (to varying degrees, but increasingly) to undermine American power. The North Atlantic Alliance is not talking about Western or NATO, but about American power. Therefore, according to the Romanian deputy secretary general of the bloc, Washington needs its European allies. This is NATO's raison d'être, as outlined by one of its main spokesmen and spokesmen. There are a huge number of such statements.

Another from a series of candid confessions. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who sometimes makes revelations in the form of a "blooming garden" surrounded by "jungles," recently said (perhaps he was upset or nervous about something) that the West is not fighting for Ukraine, but against Russia. There are a lot of such statements. Estonia threatens to "destroy" Lake Baikal and cover it with rocks (we have already commented on it). This cannot be seriously discussed.

Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians moved to the front line, "wagging their fingers at us" and saying that they would send soldiers and fight. To a certain extent, this shows a significant evolution of NATO away from the time when the Americans had the final word, but also the Eurograndees. Now Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, and Bulgaria (lately under the current leadership) are "setting the tone." Eurograndees have to conform. French President Emmanuel Macron nervously declares that French soldiers must be sent. Then someone explains that he was "misunderstood", and he himself says that everything is correct. There is information that not only French mercenaries are working in Ukraine, but also instructors (perhaps under some kind of "roof"), along with other representatives of the military and special services of European countries.

Our line in this regard is simple and clear: the West did not want to negotiate honestly. We proposed a treaty on European security in 2008 and 2009. The Istanbul Charter of 1999 stated at the highest level that security is indivisible. Countries choose their alliances voluntarily, but they do not have the right to do so if, by strengthening their own security, they undermine the security of others. It was stated bluntly that all OSCE participants (presidents and prime ministers signed) undertake that no country, no group of states and no alliance in the organisational space will claim dominance.

Since then, almost immediately, NATO has continued to pursue a line of dominance. We told them that the Istanbul Charter is a political declaration with political commitments not by any "third secretaries" from embassies, but by presidents. They proposed to codify it, since they failed to fulfil the commitments made at the highest level, and to adopt a treaty on European security (legal obligations) with the same expressions.

We were told that legally binding security guarantees could only be obtained from NATO. We clarified that the OSCE has signed that no one will claim a dominant position. We were told that these were just "political statements". Later, it was claimed that the assurances about the non-expansion of NATO were "verbal." And when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed, they said it was written, but "not quite" legal.

Our patience was unparalleled. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that for a very long time he forced himself to maintain the remnants of trust, hoping that something would "sprout" from the remaining "seed" if the West came to its senses and behaved decently and civilly. Nothing happened. In 2008-2009, the European Security Treaty was thrown out and they refused to discuss it with us. There were two of them: with NATO and within the framework of the OSCE (but already a legal agreement).

At the end of 2021, President of Russia Vladimir Putin (after a speech at our Ministry) instructed us to prepare proposals (1 and 2) reflecting the modern era. The West categorically refused to discuss. I was one of those who participated in this process. First, interdepartmental delegations at the level of deputy ministers met.

In January 2022, I held talks with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Geneva. He said there could be no commitment to non-expansion of NATO. They say that they withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) because Russia had already "violated" it. I reminded him that when Washington withdrew from the Treaty, Moscow agreed (since they considered it the only way out of the situation) to declare a unilateral moratorium. We suggested that the Americans do the same.

At the same time, President Vladimir Putin's initiative explicitly stated that if they still suspect that our Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad Region are equipped with intermediate-range missiles prohibited by the Treaty, let them come and see. But in return, we want to go to Poland and Romania, where they have missile defense bases equipped with installations whose manufacturer (Lockheed Martin) says in advertising that they are dual-use, including for launching banned ground-based intermediate-range missiles (the Americans deployed these bases and installations even before the treaty expired). They refused. We honestly offered to come to see what we were suspected of, and we would see from them how advertising looks in practice. Refused.

I told Antony Blinken about our comprehensive proposals. They are also concerned about what is happening around Ukraine, although they themselves are creating a critical, crisis situation. He says NATO is not on the table. But as for our proposal on intermediate-range missiles, we need to agree that they (after all, they are no longer banned) can be deployed, including in Ukraine. They say that the United States will be ready to limit their number there.

I don't know what else needs to be explained why a special military operation became inevitable when Ukraine (under an openly Nazi regime that banned everything Russian) was pumped with weapons, and we saw this as a direct threat to our security, traditions and legitimate interests.

Question: We have smoothly moved on to Ukraine. No matter how you look at it, this is the number one topic. They don't hesitate to say all the time that they want to "destroy" us. That is, they are not satisfied with us in the form in which we exist. They don't hide it, we need to give them their due. All the steps you mentioned are in this direction. And Russia always talks about its readiness for negotiations. Who are we going to talk to? Even if we do, they will deceive us again "tomorrow". Why negotiate with people who don't keep their word?

What do we want to get in the end? We are talking about negotiations and that the stated goals (demilitarization, denazification) will be achieved. But under the current authorities or others, but of the same "suit", it will not be possible to achieve these goals.

Sergey Lavrov: Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Alexander Yermak is among the 100 most prominent politicians in the world. But Vladimir Zelensky did not enter.

Question: It is said that Oleksiy Yermak is in charge of all the processes. This is a "side view". With these people, we will not achieve our goals. Who do we want to see there? How should it be?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, let's talk about the goals, why and under what conditions we are ready to negotiate. President of Russia Vladimir Putin constantly reminds us that we always prefer negotiations to fights and wars.

We've already had experience. The Ukrainians, realizing that they had "played" with the bombing of Donbass and with the promotion of direct methods of genocide against Russians on their own territory (as they believed), 2-3 weeks after the start of the special military operation, offered negotiations. We agreed right away. There were several tours (in Belarus, online). Then we came to Istanbul, where the Ukrainians put their proposals on the table for the first time. After some discussion, they were adopted. It contained a commitment to repeal laws discriminating against national minorities (primarily Russians), support for movements that glorified and relied on the ideology of Nazism and were condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

As for the territorial side of the case, the other day Foreign Affairs published "memoirs" clearly aimed at justifying itself. Let me explain why. The magazine wrote that the United States and Britain had indeed told Vladimir Zelensky not to sign the document. But allegedly not because they wanted to continue the war at the hands of Ukrainians, exhaust the Russian Federation and destroy Russian civilians, but because they were wary when they saw that the proposal contained the formation of a group of guarantors of Ukraine's security (with the participation of Russia, China and the West). There's a terrific reason for that. Like, they will sign it, and what if this agreement is not fulfilled again, and someone attacks Ukraine. Maybe Russia itself will do it. And then they, as guarantors of security, will have to fight us. And they don't want that. A winding logical path.

At that time, it was proposed that Russia, all the members of the "five", plus Germany and Turkey, should be the guarantors of this agreement. But they reason in the vein that if you are a guarantor (or you are invited), and another guarantor suddenly violates it, then you will have to fight with him. They measure everyone by themselves. For them, breaking is like "spitting once." Therefore, it is assumed that someone will violate any agreement. Everything was signed, guaranteed by France, Germany, Poland, and the next morning it was torn up. The same is true of the Minsk Agreements, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French and Ukrainian presidents Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko proudly admitted. This is an interesting observation.

The West, calculating and developing its plans against us, must think about how we will react. They put themselves in our shoes, but with their own mentality. And their mentality... Recently, the well-known American political scientist Mark Episkopos seriously criticized the West, including from a purely utilitarian and pragmatic standpoint. For example, sanctions. Usually, they are introduced in order to change the behavior of an object. If you want to achieve a result, you need to understand how this object will react when calibrating them. The Westerners are thoughtlessly increasing sanctions without even thinking about the result. And it was obvious from the first days, even before the special military operation, when the Crimean sanctions and many others were in effect. The result was clear. We have "gathered" and, I hope, we will "gather" even more. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin has noted more than once, there is room for improvement. We "got together" and decided not to depend on them in all areas in which they could limit our development. Desirable in all other areas as well.

Now they proudly say that they have "gotten rid of" Russian gas. First, in many countries, including France, shipments were growing. Italy happily announced that the share of Russian gas in Italian imports will drop from 90% to zero in three years. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says the same thing, presenting to his electorate as a "great victory" that they have drastically reduced their dependence and will soon not depend on Russian energy at all. Many Europeans (the Dutch, almost all Westerners, and some Easterners) have commented on this topic. But none of them says how much it costs, what kind of expenses, how much the cost of providing for the population grows. But the population sees how all this "backfires".

Mr Episkopos said it was a big mistake not to calculate Russia's reaction to what was happening. If the Westerners do not understand that sanctions are effective only if, first, the target is ready to change its behavior in order for the sanctions to be lifted. Secondly, when this target has already said that it will not change its behaviour and continue these sanctions, Episkopos considers it pointless and thoughtless to continue these sanctions. This is the policy of our "colleagues".

Let's get back to the negotiations. I would like to emphasize an interesting point. Western countries cannot understand that if we are put in a situation where we need to be defeated, "strategically destroyed" as a global player, then we will not be afraid. They would really be frightened if someone turned on them with the same fury, frenzy and number of opportunities that still exist in the global economy. It strengthened us. Let them draw conclusions from this historical lesson, if 250 years is not enough for them.

As for the negotiations. We haven't talked about it yet, but I hope I won't be criticized for it. What guarantees were there in this Istanbul document? We were ready to make these guarantees extremely serious, as the Ukrainian delegation wanted. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty on the creation of the North Atlantic Alliance was considered the limit of seriousness. They did not reproduce it verbatim. Slightly different formulas were agreed upon there. But in fact, these are very serious security guarantees. It was specifically stated that these guarantees did not apply to Crimea and Donbass. This meant that they could not be touched, otherwise no guarantees would work.

On the Question of Demilitarization. It was written there that there would be no military bases in Ukraine. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated during the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg in the summer of 2023, the document outlined the parameters of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc. It was said that there would be no manoeuvres or exercises of the armed forces in Ukraine with the participation of third countries, except in cases where all guarantor countries (that is, including Russia and China) agree. We were ready to sign the contract.

It also said that the negotiation process on other issues would continue, but it was necessary to stop hostilities in Ukraine, provide security guarantees, and repeal laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, discriminatory nature. When all this was agreed, Ukrainian negotiators came and said that they did not agree with the details. For example, a ban on conducting exercises with the participation of the armed forces of third countries with the consent of all guarantors. They say that they should be replaced by the wording "unless the majority of guarantors agree to this." All. It was a "wake-up call" that either they had already been forbidden to sign the document "overnight", or they had decided to fool "these Russians" even more. This is a small illustration of what was happening then.

At this stage, we always repeat the following (President Vladimir Putin, myself, and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov) when they ask whether we are ready for talks. First, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has forbidden himself to hold talks. As Vladimir Putin said when he was asked about this, let him take at least the first step and repeal this decree. Secondly, there is no faith in them. For a long time we tried to make ourselves believe them.

Nevertheless, we are ready to negotiate. But unlike the Istanbul story, we will not pause in hostilities for the period of negotiations. The process must go on. In addition, the realities on the ground have changed, and significantly. These realities must be taken into account. By realities on the ground, I mean not only the location and the line of contact, but also the existence of amendments to the Constitution with regard to these four new/old, our ancestral regions. Everyone should understand this.

Not only do they not understand this, but they are not even ready to look for any hypothetical compromises. That much is clear. Vladimir Zelensky's formula, ultimatums, no alternatives.

Question: How can we assess the following statement by the Swiss Foreign Ministry: "Sergey Lavrov was the first person with whom Swiss Foreign Minister Islam Cassis discussed the practical details of the planned peace conference on Ukraine. A genuine international process can only take place with the participation of both sides." Under what conditions can we discuss something with them?

Sergey Lavrov: There is only one word of truth here – that we met with Foreign Minister Ismois Cassis. We took part in the UN Security Council meeting on Palestine in New York. I've known him for a long time. He is part of this Swiss "seven", which "spins" portfolios among themselves. Cassis was even the President of Switzerland (they annually elect a president from among the G7 ministers). Mr Cassis came to the meeting and asked for a one-on-one meeting. This meeting was not hidden, we were photographed, then the delegations left us. This was immediately after Davos, where the Swiss held another meeting in the Copenhagen format on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum. The Ukrainians asked them to do so. I. Cassis asked if I had seen him speak to the press after the meeting. To be honest, I didn't. He said that following the results of this regular meeting on the Ukrainian "peace formula", they allegedly came to the conclusion that it is pointless to negotiate without Russia.

He replied that in order to come to this conclusion, it was not necessary to gather again, if he was an experienced person. And if he understands this, then why did he hold this "gathering" in Davos? In saying this, I'm not giving away any secrets. I have already talked about this with many colleagues.

Question: If you give away a secret, we won't be upset.

Sergey Lavrov: As Swiss Foreign Minister Ignores Cassis told me, he simply wanted to smoothly enter the process in order to correct it from within. And they want to prepare a two-part conference. They say that it will not be possible to invite Russia to the first part. But it is allegedly possible to go to the second one. I wondered what they were going to do on the first part. He replied that they would finalise Vladimir Zelensky's "formula" there. Like, there are many things that developing countries are interested in.

I honestly told him that there are three things that Vladimir Zelensky and the West need. This is the capitulation of Russia and the retreat to the borders of 1991; to bring the Russian leadership to trial (tribunal); and reparations. Between the lines, it reads "to impose obligations on Russia to limit weapons that may be in the frontline zone 200 km wide." Everything else – food, energy and nuclear security, humanitarian cooperation, the exchange of prisoners, the search for missing persons – are all "vignettes" framing this ultimatum in order to "invite" the countries of the world majority.

How are they "invited"? They say that we understand that you do not want to quarrel with Russia, reparations, and put Russia on trial. But so, they say, take food or energy security and oversee it. They are thimble-makers of the highest category (the highest category only on the basis of the positions they occupy in the governments in their countries). They're crooks. It is impossible not to realize that they are offering fraudulent schemes. So they're doing it deliberately.

Our partners, including the BRICS countries who have attended previous events, we know very well, and at each of them they stressed the need to talk to Russia. We are grateful to them for sending that message. But if, as the West wants now, we are talking about slightly "polishing" this "formula" of Vladimir Zelensky (and the West knows how to do this) by including meaningless but beautiful expressions that security interests should be taken into account on an equal footing, and the essence will remain the same, then this is not the path that should be followed.

China's position was formulated in February 2023 and consists of 12 points. We respect it. Recently, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Xi Jinping. After that, he said not very decently that the PRC supported the "peace conference" in Switzerland.

China's position is that it is first necessary to understand the root cause of the crisis, to abandon the Cold War mentality, when everyone viewed each other as adversaries and enemies. It is necessary to clearly subscribe to the need to look for solutions that will take into account the balance of interests in the field of security and ensure the indivisibility of security. This is a completely different approach.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and other Chinese counterparts have repeatedly stated that they are in favor of convening a conference acceptable to Russia and Ukraine. This means that we should not start with Vladimir Zelensky's formula. It needs to be pushed aside. If they want, then, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, let's discuss the foundations on which we are ready to agree.

As for the Swiss initiative. They do not cover our contacts with them very accurately. There was only one contact (with I. Cassis) at the end of January of this year. It is not a neutral country. Switzerland has gone from neutral to outright hostile. This country has signed up and joined all Western sanctions without exception. Some states that are not members of NATO and the European Union tried to somehow "nuance" their actions in this regard, and Switzerland joined all the sanctions. Moreover, a few months ago, they approved the country's Foreign Policy Strategy, which says that they should build a security partnership not with Russia, but against Russia. So it's very strange that they open their doors so hospitably in the hope that they still enjoy a reputation as an intermediary (to a certain extent). Until recently, everyone was comfortable gathering in Geneva or Vienna.

Question: Vladimir Zelensky's plans – everything is clear here. Not negotiable. Istanbul doesn't work either, because they are trying to "deceive" us. What other option is there? Is there any alternative? Or some third option? If we are talking about the situation on the ground, then we still have part of the territory of the Kharkiv region under control. It is completely unclear what will happen tomorrow in this area. The situation on the ground is changing. How then? "To victory"? Or can we formulate something as some kind of agreement and submit it to them for discussion?

Sergey Lavrov: The President of Russia has already formulated it.

Istanbul was "passed", the West began not only to provide long-range weapons to the Ukrainians, but also to help, with the help of Western military specialists, to modernize many types of missiles, increasing their range. They also began to hit civilian targets with these missiles. There was an episode when the Ukrainians tried to send drones with a large load of explosives to one of our strategic airfields. We analyzed: the carrier has been upgraded to significantly increase its range. The blowing up of the Crimean bridge is another example. This continued with regard to Sevastopol, navigation in the Black Sea, merchant and warships of the Black Sea Fleet. Not to mention Belgorod, Kursk and other terrorist attacks.

President Vladimir Putin spoke about this clearly when answering the question of how to make our lands safer. He said that we need to move the line from which they can hit us. As far as I understand, Kharkiv plays an important role here.

Question: Where are we going to push it next? If we move them away from Kharkiv, we will secure them there. These territories will be under fire. Do we have to go further?

Sergey Lavrov: We are fully convinced that we need to continue the special military operation.

We do not indicate our readiness for negotiations for the sake of a fine word. This is true. But talks with Vladimir Zelensky are pointless for many reasons. Its masters are worried that they will lose their hegemony, that it will be a geopolitical defeat for the West. Josep Borrell said that it would be difficult for them to accept such a defeat, and their reputation would be affected. It doesn't cost them anything. Here is an example of the Americans: after Vietnam, their reputation was "famous", after Afghanistan, from which they fled, too. Iraq, from where they are now being expelled. Syria, where they are subjected to military pressure from various groups. Where have Americans ever stayed?

Unless, of course, the goal was to wreak havoc and have everything we have now. If the goal was what they claimed, the Americans failed everywhere. Let me give you the example of the small country of Haiti, for which the United States has been "responsible" for more than 100 years (since 1915). But they can't do anything. Rampant banditry, the coming of some "criminal" to power. They are trying to establish something with him, to build something. They have a state at their doorstep, to which they pay great attention, including in the UN Security Council. Figure it out at least here. We are dealing with Ukraine evenly, because we are being threatened. And for them, the threat is at least drug trafficking, which comes to the United States from Haiti.

Question: You are absolutely right when you say that it would be great to continue our movement towards not being dependent on the West. We all stand in solidarity. It would be even better to continue our movement in the direction of not being dependent on anyone. From your point of view, what are our relations with China now? Is there a danger? Is it dangerous for us that, having got rid of our dependence on the West, we will become dependent on China? Or even if we do, it's okay because we're such great friends "forever"?

Sergey Lavrov: After all, China is a different civilisation. It is based on other principles. This does not negate the desire to benefit and think primarily about the development of one's own economy or the social and security sphere. It's absolutely present.

As such, China is a relatively young state. A civilization dating back many millennia has experienced colonial "oppression" from different sides. And this is well remembered, both on the European and Japanese sides. In their nature, in the Chinese character, there is a belief "not to hurry." Lao Tzu used to say that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a small step.

In fact, the dominant place in the world economy, which we now see in China, was taken by them somehow unnoticed. 20 years ago, a global factory appeared in China, where Western brands made toys and clothes. And so on and so forth. This is the great quality of the Chinese people – patience.

There is no doubt that China is in a global swing right now. Xi Jinping has put forward several initiatives, such as the Common Destiny for Mankind initiative, when everyone needs to develop common principles and approaches. "One Belt, One Road" is an economic project. In a good sense, the expansion of Chinese capital, its industry, and Chinese supply chains. There is a global security initiative that in many ways resonates with what we are thinking.

When we were in Beijing, we discussed with the leadership of the People's Republic of China the promotion of these initiatives. It is clear that Eurasian security is now of key importance in the global context. The Euro-Atlantic model, on which security has been built since the creation of the OSCE under the Soviet Union and on which we relied after the disappearance of the USSR (I will not return to the list of all the documents that we agreed on and which were really designed to ensure equal security), Euro-Atlantic security represented by NATO (we created such mechanisms as the NATO-Russia Council), and the OSCE, in its current forms, has exhausted itself.

We want to talk about Eurasian security, which is much more natural. This is one continent and no one from overseas is involved in this scheme. Security will be based on the integration of all existing projects. These are the EAEU, the CSTO, the SCO, and the CIS. China's Belt and Road Initiative provides a material basis for future security arrangements. We will keep the door open for the western part of the continent. For everyone.

Of course, this is our common "monastery" and here we must behave decently: do not bring the wishes of the Americans into these future constructions, who will certainly "poke their noses" into all these processes. Just as they are now "poking their noses" into the Asia-Pacific region and the Indian Ocean and much more.

But China is a powerful power. When he proposes his projects, he does not dictate. He says that he can propose some kind of economic project, for example, the construction of a railway either in Central Asia, or in Africa, or somewhere else. Decisions are made on the basis of a balance of interests. Just like in our relations with the People's Republic of China, we recorded a record increase in trade of $240 billion last year. Of course, it will grow.

A significant part of our investment cooperation is high technology, including nuclear energy, the creation of new modern aircraft, and much more. We are now seeing a large number of Chinese goods. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Chinese cars are competitive. This should help boost our automotive industry. How to do without competitors? We lived in the Soviet Union for a long time without competitors. To put it bluntly, everyone liked it. I had Zhiguli. But the quality could be better if there was market competition. Now I am looking at the Zhiguli plant in Togliatti, and both GAZ and Moskvich are trying to match. They say what kind of Moskvich is it if it has half of the Chinese spare parts? So what? The Chinese auto industry also began with assembly.

Question: What do you think can explain this outrageous "hysteria" among the heads of European countries that Russia is about to attack? Is there such a threat? What do you think?

Sergey Lavrov: One could say that this is paranoia and forget about it. But this is, in my opinion, a more ingenious plan. They desperately need to "knock out" money from their parliaments to continue this war.

The United States has already cooled down. I don't know how the drama will end this weekend over the consideration of three different bills, including one on Ukraine. Now the most zealous people who are in favor of continuing to "pump" Ukraine with money and weapons are the Europeans: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who considers himself a leader in providing assistance to Ukraine, and the bellicose President of France Emmanuel Macron. Small countries – the Baltic States, the Czech Republic. Limitrophes.

There are a few considerations. First, the European Union, represented by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, unequivocally rudely and cutting off all avenues, declared that Russia is an enemy and must be destroyed, prevented from winning, thereby saving Ukraine. As politicians, they will end if they change anything in this rhetoric. They will be immediately caught by the opposition.

Secondly, they need it in order to "get" money, explaining why they have already deprived their population of cheap gas and pipeline oil, why prices have jumped, why deindustrialization is taking place as a result of sanctions. German concerns are already going to transfer their production to the United States or China. This is what happened when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was accompanied by businessmen not to sign any mutually beneficial projects, but to agree on the transfer of production to China.

If we just calm down now and even "freeze" the conflict from their point of view (they all have elections to European parliaments in a month, two, three, four, and a huge number of EU countries have national elections), I think that in any case, the opposition will not miss a chance to show what their policy has led to in terms of socio-economic consequences. Their stories about our "plans" to attack NATO are an attempt to scare voters and continue on this course.

It is striking that at the stage when the special military operation began, some in the United States and Europe said that if they had accepted Ukraine into NATO, President Vladimir Putin would not have dared to attack a member of the alliance. And what are they saying now? Ukraine cannot lose, because if it loses, Vladimir Putin will immediately attack NATO. Do you see the logic? Just to frighten and frighten. I don't know how to comment on all this.

Commander of the Norwegian Armed Forces Ernest Kristoffersen is already saying that it is necessary to prepare for Russia's military confrontations in the Arctic. This is expected of us as well. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that there is no point in attacking them. They themselves wanted to bring NATO's border closer to our borders. Of course, we will not allow this to happen in Ukraine. I don't know what will happen to Western Ukraine. Many politicians also express their opinions on this matter. But primordially Russian Ukraine, which wants to be part of the Russian world, speak the Russian language, raise its children in this language, wants to bring flowers to the monuments of those who shed blood for this land in the Russian Empire, during the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War, its fate is not discussed.

Question: You have just said that the opposition will not miss a chance to hit the guys who have set a course for the destruction of Russia. Are there any specific people there (not hawks, but if not doves, at least more or less sane) with whom we could deal and, perhaps, even already have? How much chance do they have of getting into the seats of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and others?

Sergey Lavrov: It's hard to guess, it's all going on behind the scenes. These figures are not elected. When the parliament is elected, European commissioners are appointed in a narrow circle, behind closed doors. Candidates for the post of head of the European Council, the European Commission and the representative for foreign policy and security are also being agreed.

We have never renounced contacts with all political forces. Especially by such systemic political forces as Marine Le Pen's National Rally party, or even the Alternative for Germany, or a number of other movements, which are probably not so noticeable. Or Nick Farage (British), who is now actively involved in the promotion of conservative forces. By the way, it is indicative that they recently held their legitimate, open and regular congress in Brussels. Two hours after the start of this conservative conference, which was also attended by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Nikolae Faraj and many other official politicians, the head of the Belgian capital's neighborhood came with the police and said that they were not allowed to do anything.

Question: The guard is tired.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, the guards are tired, and that they are sowing some extremist sentiments.

The duplicity of the West and its irreparable confidence in its own impunity, in its own greatness, and its superiority complex are indicative. As soon as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) began to gain some additional percentages in matters of public opinion, there was a "wave" that it was Russia, agents of the Russians. Now two Germans have been caught somewhere who spied and prepared terrorist acts against American military bases in Germany and against some other enterprises from where weapons go to Ukraine. In parentheses, I would like to note that our Ambassador in Berlin was immediately summoned.

Two of them were preparing terrorist attacks. That is, it turned out to be no problem to find these two "needles in a haystack" at all. And the terrorist attack on Nord Stream, an infrastructure project that is extremely beneficial for Germany, which has been prepared for months, in the preparation of which the armed forces, naval and air forces of many NATO countries were involved (this is now in the public domain), no one notices this. And two citizens, who were just preparing, as they said, terrorist attacks, were found instantly.

The accusation that all these opposition parties are now stepping up their activity because they are "supported" by Russia by all means, including illegal means, is indicative. We used to tell the French, the Americans, the British and other members of the European Union and NATO that their embassies here were not just involved in some rumoured actions, but showed them how they were holding meetings in violation of the established rules. There was such a category – Russian employees hired locally. They are hired for a certain type of work, administrative and technical. When they are sent to the regions, taking advantage of their belonging to society, they work to support the anti-government movement of all sorts of foreign agents, this causes indignation. They can do anything. And we were not even advised to meet with the Alternative for Germany.

Question: The Alternative for Germany (AfD) was searched yesterday. That's how freedom and democracy work for them.

Sergey Lavrov: A parliamentary party.

Question: We need to learn.

Unexpectedly, we were invited to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy. Shall we go? Is Emmanuel Macron a split personality or what's going on?

Sergey Lavrov: We were not invited. That's the way they are. When they're about to do something, they can't stay within the bounds of decency. Decent people send a letter and then announce it. And here they say, "We will invite, but not Vladimir Putin, but someone."

No one invited anyone. We didn't get anything. If we do, we will definitely tell you.

I can only say that five years ago, on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, we were represented by the Russian Ambassador to France, and ten years ago, in 2014, there was a meeting that marked the beginning of the Normandy format on Ukraine. This was the beginning of a process that culminated in the signing of agreements, which neither Germany, nor France, nor Ukraine were going to fulfill. That's why we have such allusions.

Question: Maybe it's a good thing they didn't invite me.

Sergey Lavrov: But from the point of view of historical truth, historical justice, there would have been no second front without the heroism and sacrifice of tens of millions of Soviet citizens. It wouldn't be.

Here's a side-by-side example. April 11 is the International Day for the Liberation of Prisoners of Nazi Concentration Camps. The Germans proudly announced that no Russians would be invited this year.

Question: Let's go back to the Middle East. There was a strike on Iran tonight. Do you think that everything that is happening there now can lead to the fact that Iran will be forced to think about nuclear weapons? Even if he hadn't thought about it before.

Sergey Lavrov: I have heard such arguments. They are disseminated in the Israeli media, in the West. It seems to me that their desire and goal is to shift the international community from what is happening in the Gaza Strip, where there is a humanitarian catastrophe (the special rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council are already talking about genocide) to Iran as a threat. They want to attribute to Iran, among other things, an attack using nuclear weapons, which it does not have. This is confirmed by the IAEA. Iran is the most verifiable country among the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In Iran, there is a law and even a fatwa (an order, a judgment, a binding decision, a postulate of the supreme leader) that this is forbidden. Iran does not need to do this now.

After Iran's response to the unacceptable attack on the Iranian consular office in Damascus, where people were killed, telephone contacts took place between the leaders of Russia and Iran, our representatives and the Israelis. We have made it clear in these conversations and conveyed to the Israelis that Iran does not want an escalation. Iran cannot but respond to gross violations of international law and the status of diplomatic missions, but it does not want an escalation. Almost all experts have seen Iran's real response in this way. Apparently, this was the same (I hope I am not mistaken) response to the response that Israel carried out on the facilities in Isfahan.

Question: The Iran-Israel conflict and, more broadly, the conflict in the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, everything that is behind it is so much involved that only an expert can figure it out. Hypothetically, is there any hope that this can ever be resolved by some diplomatic means, by the efforts of third countries, ours or not ours? Or has it already gone so far, so much blood, and so much feeling hurt, that it is an eternal jihad, an eternal fatwa, a smoldering possibility of nuclear war for centuries to come?

Sergey Lavrov: Almost all of the troubles in the Middle East in terms of rampant extremism and terrorism are fuelled primarily by the fact that the Palestinian problem has not been resolved for 75 years. In 1948, it was decided to create two states. One state has been created, and the other has not yet been created.

Question: Yesterday it was said that the United States would veto the draft resolution on Palestine's membership in the UN.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it has already been imposed. The territories that were defined by one and the other in 1948 now look very different. Many of these territories, which are due to the Palestinians, are classified as occupied territories by the UN. They were not "sliced" on Israel by the two-state resolution.

Of course, the situation is different now. In 1967, there was the Six-Day War. And we are no longer talking about the borders of 1948 (as they were ideally defined at the time), but about the borders of 1967 on the basis of a UN Security Council resolution, with the capital of Palestine in East Jerusalem. In addition, the resolution concerned the resolution of the issues of the return of refugees to Palestine and the equitable use of water. These are the basics.

If this had been done in due time, I think that the Middle East would have been much calmer. Not 100%. Such a thing is hardly possible. But there were also mistakes on the part of the Palestinian leadership – the agreements were signed under Yasser Arafat. There were problems on both sides. However, the key is to gather the will and implement what was agreed.

In 2003, when the Quartet of international mediators (Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the UN) was still operating, the UN Security Council, at the suggestion of the Quartet, adopted a resolution that confirmed the Road Map for the creation of a Palestinian state within a year. Everything was scheduled for months and weeks. It suited everyone. It took into account both the territories and what had happened "on the ground" by that time.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that it is necessary to build a buffer zone in the Gaza Strip. I don't know how the "story" of Rafah, the southernmost settlement, where one and a half million people live in incredible conditions, will end. But they would have preferred these people to go to Egypt. A Palestinian state must be united, including geographically and logistically. The West Bank is dotted with illegal settlements that even the United States condemns. There are tens of thousands of settlers who periodically engage in conflicts and skirmishes with Arabs. If we do not start creating a Palestinian state, nothing good will come of it.

Under Donald Trump, the Americans tried to declare that Palestine is what it is now. Although it was impossible to "walk" there, it was impossible to drive between these inclusions. When everyone started talking about the need to keep in mind the negotiations on the creation of a Palestinian state after the end of the hot phase of the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he was not going to deal with a Palestinian state at all, because he was engaged in the security of the State of Israel.

When the ceasefire resolution was adopted, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, L.T. Greenfield, said that the U.S. abstained from the vote and did not veto the resolution, but that it was not binding. If it is optional, then everything related to a Palestinian state is also optional. The Americans will think so. The situation is bad. We want an end to the violence, a solution to the humanitarian problems and, above all, for the Arabs, with the support of all sensible forces, to take the initiative and take the issue of the establishment of a Palestinian State into their own hands.

Question: How are we doing with Armenia? Because different information comes.

Sergey Lavrov: For example?

Question: In Yerevan, they say that we are not behaving very well in the CSTO, that the EAEU is not very beneficial to them.

Sergey Lavrov: Facts are stubborn things. We are allies with Armenia legally and not only. We still think so. I think there are those who understand the importance of Russia for Armenia's security and economic development. In his speech in parliament, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that relations with Russia are not going through the best of times, but their importance for Armenia's statehood, sovereignty, security and economic development can hardly be overestimated. He also said that he appreciates the great positive things that have been and are in our relations. It seems to me that these are important words, because to a certain extent this is a reaction to the brazen and shameless actions of the West (primarily the United States and the European Union) to separate Armenia from the Russian Federation at an accelerated pace.

In proportional terms, Armenia receives the most benefits in the EAEU. 35% of Armenia's economy is realized through participation in the organization. Last year, Armenia's trade turnover was just over $20 billion. Of these, 37% accounted for the EAEU, 13% for the European Union and 3% for the United States. Even from an arithmetic point of view, it cannot be said that the EAEU has weakened Armenia.

As a small country, Armenia contributes much less to the EAEU than other members (including financial contributions), but when decisions are made and voting takes place, it has equal rights with everyone, including the Russian Federation.

Gazprom Armenia supplies natural gas for $177 per barrel. USD per thousand cubic meters. In the West, they pay 2-3 times more. And if they want to heat Armenia with their gas, then I don't know how it will be. If they, as the Americans want, shut down the nuclear power plant and replace it with their small modular reactors... I hope the Armenians understand the importance of the energy generated at the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant.

All these years, the South Caucasus Railway has had preferential tariffs for passenger transportation, infrastructure investments, and much more. The Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine is the main payer to the budget of the Republic. Therefore, those who are trying to create a "picture" of the exploitation of "little Armenia" by the Russian Federation, the EAEU, need to think about this.

The same goes for the CSTO. Unfortunately, after four trilateral documents (1,2,3,4) were signed and ensured a normal and balanced process of normalising relations, resuming all communications and opening them, the European Union and the United States immediately began to "interfere" in this process in order to privatise the results and prevent Russia from implementing the agreements it had reached.

One to one, like in 2003. At that time, the "Kozak Memorandum" on the territorial integrity of Moldova with special rights of Transnistria was signed. It was initialed and the leaders were already going to go to Chisinau to sign it.

Question: The President of Moldova turned around before reaching the airport.

Sergey Lavrov: Vyacheslav Voronin received a phone call from EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Juan Solana and said that we want to leave all the Russian army's depots there for 15 years. They say they want us to withdraw earlier. And that's it. And so they forbid signing. That's what it's all about.

In 2022, at the summit in Yerevan, the CSTO fully agreed on the document (on the transfer of additional weapons for border protection, on the conduct of special exercises and on the deployment of the CSTO mission on the border). All ministers, including the Armenian one, signed this document. In the morning, when the Prime Minister of Armenia opened the summit, he said that there was no consensus. And the consensus in the Armenian society on the mission of the European Union "turned out". It was promised for two months, but now it is indefinite. The Canadians and other NATO members want to go there as well. This is no longer the EU's mission. This will be a NATO mission.

It is said that the CSTO cannot determine where in Armenia its zone of responsibility is, Armenia itself has not yet determined. They stated that, together with Azerbaijan, they are ready to respect the borders of the 1991 Almaty Declaration, which means that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. At the same time, they created a delimitation commission at the same time. At the same time, Nikol Pashinyan has recently announced four border villages in the Tavush region, which he is ready to hand over. Now he is convincing the population that otherwise it would be wrong. And the 1991 borders, which Nikol Pashinyan wanted the CSTO to confirm and protect in the course of these talks on delimitation, are not taken into account. They become mobile.

Therefore, before saying that the CSTO is obliged to designate its area of responsibility, it is necessary to determine the borders of Armenia and complete the delimitation. The Armenian leadership is now actively engaged in this. We signed a document stating that now Karabakh is Azerbaijan, and the Almaty Declaration is in force. In this statement, which was signed with the participation of the European Union, nothing was said about the need to ensure the special rights of the Armenian national minority in Azerbaijan.

Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Armenians left Karabakh because of the inaction of our peacekeepers.

Question: Only Pashinyan's say so. No one else.

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to conclude this answer with what I said at the beginning. Nikol Pashinyan said that they appreciate what they had with Russia, and it is difficult to overestimate what our country has done for their security, economy and sovereignty. What has been and is in our relations should be appreciated. I hope that he will have contacts with the President of Russia, where it will be possible to discuss this frankly without the arguments that are being "planted" by our Western ill-wishers.

Question: We all hope so, Sergei Viktorovich.

Since we remembered about our "exes". We all want to live like in that cartoon that is well known to all our "exes". Remember: "Guys, let's live amicably." But it doesn't work out for everyone. One gets the impression that there is less and less with anyone.

Our wonderful "neighbor". We all love the "dark-skinned Moldovan". They announced that they would have a referendum on joining the European Union in the fall. At the same time, you are well aware that the population of Transnistria and Gagauzia is not enthusiastic about this idea. What do you think about this? More broadly, what should we do to prevent this from happening every time, as you have just said about Armenia? That the EU mission remained, but they succeeded, and they didn't. They are moving farther and farther away from us. It's a shame to watch.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it's a shame. It is a shame that in 2003 the then President of Moldova Vladimir Voronin did not have enough... There was no need for any courage. We would have signed a document that had already been initialed. By now, probably, the issue of the presence of ammunition depots there would have already been resolved. It's all ifs. There are no such inclinations in history.

The West is working aggressively, zealously, without recognizing any decency. They are turning Ms Sandu into a person who is openly "dragging" Moldova into NATO, either directly or through a connection with Romania.

This role was assigned to Vladimir Zelensky. First, Petr Poroshenko pulled the country into NATO and amended the Constitution, then Vladimir Zelensky. Maia Sandu's actions are reminiscent of the dictatorial tricks that the West allows its protégés to commit when it realizes that now it is necessary to act harshly in order to break any opposition. He allows them to do so and even encourages them to do so.

Just as the demonstrations in Georgia turned President Zurabishvili into a fighter for freedom of speech. Although their law is the mildest. In the United States, France, Poland, and many other EU countries, there are similar laws with fines and criminal liability if you receive money and do not talk about it and give this money for something wrong. For Georgians, it's simple – if you receive more than 20% of funding from abroad for your organization, just declare.

If Moldova holds a referendum on joining the European Union, you know that Gagauzia has already declared that they will not obey it. Moreover, they are deprived of their rights just because they simply say in speeches that let's not join the European Union, but somehow look for some ways of relations with the Russian Federation, so that we can be friends with all our neighbours. They are deprived of subsidies from the budget, which are required by law.

The same is being done with Transnistria. They want to make a hotbed of tension out of it. There are rumours (I'm sure you hear about it) that it is necessary to suppress this "formation" by military means. Let Russia suffer another "strategic defeat." But they still have no prospects. Those who, with foreign passports, rule the countries of their alleged origin... I don't think that these people will enjoy the support (I won't even mention the authority) for a long time of those forces that, like the "temporaries", are trying to "gnaw out" something for themselves from the situation that the Americans want to bring to a victorious end.

Question: Yes, no one likes "temporary workers" anywhere.

This year, Russia is hosting the BRICS summit. What challenges, tasks and prospects do we face now?

Sergey Lavrov: We have an ambitious plan for 250 events.

As for the challenges. First of all, to ensure the smooth entry of "recruits" into the team. The number of members has doubled. Over the long years of its existence, BRICS has developed traditions, procedures and understandings, including a culture of consensus and mutual support. There are a lot of working structures. These "recruits" will fit not only into ministerial meetings and summits, but also into industry events related to information technology, agriculture, and banking. This is the short answer to this question.

One of the tasks of last year's summit was to instruct finance ministers (I have already mentioned this) and central banks to prepare recommendations on alternative payment platforms. This will be important in order to protect economic ties and prospects (and they are solid, with many plans) from the arbitrariness of the West, which with its own hands destroys confidence in the system of global economy and finance that it once created for the benefit of all mankind.

Question: Thank you very much, Sergei Viktorovich. All important issues seem to have been discussed. If you think we didn't ask, what would you like to say?

Sergey Lavrov: I wish you to continue to develop the Russian media space in the way you are doing.

Question: Thank you very much. We wish you to remain the same as you are, as you are adored by our entire country, by our entire audience, with your always clear and vivid formulations about those who behave wrongly, and courage on this thorny path.

Sergey Lavrov: I remembered the last one. All Mrs. Sandu, all those who want to "take away" Armenia somewhere, should be reminded of Josep Borrell's statements, quoted today, that when he forced the people of Europe to continue this war, he said that we were not fighting for Ukraine, we were fighting against Russia, which threatens us. Following this, Vladimir Zelensky said that they were not fighting for Ukraine, but for their own interests. Epiphany. Let it come early for those who are now also being "encircled" by the West.

Question: I think they are well aware of this and are doing it anyway. What do you think about the phrase "If you don't want to talk to Lavrov, you will talk to Shoigu"?

Sergey Lavrov: It's already on the T-shirts.

I do wonder how T-shirt concessions are in Russia, the variety and so forth. The only area I fault Lavrov and Russia’s policy is in Palestine as it’s very clear they don’t want to see or understand the eschatological zealotry of the Zionists regarding their project to kill all the Palestinians and steal their land, all of which is stated publicly. If a Palestinian state is to be formed, then it will need to be done via direct, massive force by Russia and China as they are the only two powers capable of completing that task. I do so wish someone would ask that direct question to Lavrov. And it’s quite clear that the current Zionists Cabal is no friend of Russia and openly sides with the Ukronazis. I was hoping Lavrov would explain what Russia will do in the face of Outlaw US Empire actions in Moldova and Armenia that are criminal is their essence?

In Ukraine, Russia will continue to march forward; and instead of Kharkov, I desire Russia to move to liberate Odesa and apply appropriate pressure to Moldova. But what I want and Russia’s General Staff has planned are likely rather different, but I’d like to be surprised. On BRICS+, again the financial system is the #1 project. There’s more movement on the digital currency front which is fundamental. Russia needed to go to Paris to solve the first problem and went to Berlin to partially solve the second problem. I occasionally see no other solution but going to Brussels and Belgium via Germany to solve the current problem as NATO will continue its Anti-Russian Crusade until its defeated as it won’t cease its belligerence after Ukraine succumbs. So, there’s that thorny issue along with Palestine solution that will occupy the coming months and perhaps years.

*
*
*
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!