Lavrov's Post 3+3 Presser

Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions following a meeting of the 3+3 Consultative Regional Platform, Istanbul, October 18, 2024

Lots happening over the past 48 hours. I’ll start with the two most important events, the first being Lavrov’s presser. I’m pressed for time, so commentary will be short:

Good afternoon

We have completed the third meeting in the format of the 3+3 Consultative Regional Platform at the level of foreign ministers. We are grateful to our Turkish colleagues for organising it, all the more so since the idea of creating the 3+3 format belongs to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Let me remind you that the first meeting in this format was held in Moscow in December 2021 (then at the level of deputy foreign ministers), and the second was organised in Tehran in October 2023.

We discussed areas for further cooperation in key areas. Among them, the sphere of security policy, combating the threats of terrorism, drug trafficking was determined. The second topic is the economy from the point of view of establishing cooperation in the field of energy and solving transport and logistics problems. Energy and transport are two additional important areas. All of them are in favour of developing cultural and humanitarian ties, exchanges between creative teams, theatres and film festivals. All these are plans for the future. But the desires of all our partners are absolutely the same.

In practical terms, we talked a lot today about the situation in the Middle East. We spoke in favour of de-escalation and an end to indiscriminate military strikes against civilians, United Nations staff, including within the framework of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and peacekeepers in Lebanon.

Once again (we always do this when we meet in this format), we reaffirmed that the doors of this platform always remain open for Georgia. We hope that over time, Georgian neighbors will be able to join its work.

We agreed that we will prepare relevant meetings in all the areas I mentioned between the foreign ministries, energy ministries, transport ministries and culture ministries. We hope that such meetings on all these topics will take place over the next year.

We have established mechanisms for day-to-day contact in each country that participated in the 3+3 event today. There are contact points, specific people who are responsible for promoting the agreements reached by ministers on various issues.

Question: What threats exist today to regional security in the South Caucasus?

Sergey Lavrov: We can list the threats for a long time. The most important thing is that extra-regional players are trying to dictate their terms here, to introduce their own schemes aimed not at resolving the region's problems in the interests of all countries located in it, but at promoting NATO-centric formats here, developing bloc processes, "driving wedges" (as we say in our country) between neighbouring countries and again using their capabilities as a lever of pressure.

Look at what happened when Georgia passed laws requiring transparency regarding foreign funding of nongovernmental organizations and laws regarding the prevention of LGBT propaganda. The European Union immediately stated that this country is no longer considered as a priority partner for discussing issues of membership in the European Union, because it violated "European values." If these "values" are to fund subversion and advance the LGBT agenda, then that speaks for itself. This is a confession, an admission of what these "European values" represent.

In addition, there are still problems in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We have also talked a lot about this today. Both we, the Turks and the Iranians proposed to our colleagues (Yerevan and Baku) to use the "3 + 3" platform in order to complete work on a peace treaty. We recalled the preparations and groundwork that were created as part of the trilateral work of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, both at the level of presidents and at the level of foreign ministers, deputy and prime ministers, and on unblocking communications, preparing for border delimitation, and on a number of other topics.

There are issues related to the Armenian-Turkish normalization. Russia actively contributed to the start of this process. Our Iranian neighbors have joined us. Now no meetings are planned - the Armenian colleagues have taken a "break". They believe that first they need to communicate directly with the Turks and understand what needs to be done. It seems to me that this is in any case connected with the Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization. We proposed to consider these issues as a whole and encourage the countries involved to reach an agreement as soon as possible. We, in turn, (in this case, Russia and Iran) are ready to provide assistance if this is in the interest of the direct participants.

Returning to Georgia. One of the serious problems is the well-known attempts of the West to open a "second" front against Russia. I am referring to "light a fire" again, destabilise the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and make relations between Georgia and these two sovereign states "hot". Most of the risks that we see here are related to the West's attempts to assert its influence in the region as much as possible in order to undermine the capabilities of the Russian Federation for equal mutually beneficial cooperation between the countries of the South Caucasus and our state.

Question: Do you regret that Tbilisi refused to participate in today's meeting? After all, the "3 + 3" format could be a good reason for almost direct Russian-Georgian contacts. Do you think the time will come when Georgia will participate in the "3+3" format? Are there any prerequisites for this?

Sergey Lavrov: As soon as Tbilisi decides, they can come and sit in their chairs at any time. The chair and the door are always open for them.

As for contacts. We have contacts with Tbilisi, and the Interests Section of the Russian Federation at the Embassy of the Swiss Confederation in Georgia is functioning. Our diplomats are working there. As necessary, they have the opportunity to discuss current issues, primarily in the field of trade, tourism and people-to-people contacts, directly with the relevant Georgian authorities.

Question: Of the existing platforms where the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is being discussed, which one, in your opinion, is the most viable?

Sergey Lavrov: The one where we can come to an agreement. If they can agree directly, we will only be happy.

Today, we proposed, if they are ready for this, to use the "3 + 3" platform. This would be natural, given that it is in this format that the neighbors of Armenia and Azerbaijan meet. But this is up to Baku and Yerevan to decide.

Question: Following the publication of Vladimir Zelensky's so-called "victory plan," it has become known that Joe Biden will not meet with him in Germany. Are these events interrelated? Can we expect a change in Western policy towards Ukraine before the American elections?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult to speculate about what US President Joe Biden, and even more so Vladimir Zelensky, is guided by.

We proceed from the fact that Russia's position is well known to everyone. It was set out by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in June of this year, when he spoke at the Russian Foreign Ministry.

I would like to remind you once again that every time Russia shows goodwill and supports specific negotiating solutions, it is Ukraine that has been destroying all these agreements, starting in February 2014, when the agreement between the president and the opposition was broken literally in the morning, and a coup d'état took place. Then there were the Minsk Agreements, which, as you know, according to the Ukrainian and Western participants, they were not going to implement. This was another "broken" opportunity.

Then, here in Istanbul in April 2022, there was an agreement to stop the hostilities and resolve the situation between Russia and Ukraine on the basis of fair security guarantees and from the point of view of the interests of Russia and Ukraine. This agreement, which we supported, was destroyed by the Kiev regime.

Each time, as the agreements reached over the past ten years were "exploded", "undermined" and violated by the Ukrainian side, Ukraine lost territories. Each time it becomes less and less. Therefore, what President of Russia Vladimir Putin said in June of this year must be considered from the point of view of the realities on the ground.

Our position is clear: no accession to NATO, neutral status, and a solution to the problems of the Russian-speaking and Russian populations, which, in gross violation of the UN Charter and numerous conventions, were deprived of the right to do anything in their native language. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being destroyed, also in violation of the UN Charter and numerous conventions.

Of course, we will not accept any option in which Ukraine retains the ability to be used by the West to create direct threats to the Russian Federation. The realities on the ground will be taken into account as the West promotes its concepts and is tormented between supporting Vladimir Zelensky and realising that this line is deadlocked.

The "victory plan" contains the essence of what Vladimir Zelensky wants. He wants to win and play on the fact that the West is still threatening to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia on the battlefield. This is the difference in approaches – purely psychological and political.

When an agreement was signed in February 2014 between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, it was to hold early elections within 6 months. For this period, as it was recorded and sealed by the signatures of the parties, a government of national unity was created. And the morning after the coup d'état, the putschists went to the Maidan and announced that they had formed a "government of winners."

That is, they have been striving for victory for a long time, but the result will be the same.

Question: Does the Russian Foreign Ministry have any information on what exactly is contained in the secret annexes to Vladimir Zelensky's plan? What is the reaction of the West to these initiatives of Kiev?

Sergey Lavrov: We are not interested in secret applications. We do not ask our Western colleagues for a reaction either, even if we were to talk to them. It is on all screens and pages, in all social networks and channels.

I can only say one thing: there are leaks. According to one of them, the main thing for Vladimir Zelensky is to get weapons. The West has long understood that this is an unacceptable scenario that threatens with great losses and difficulties for itself.

In his paragraphs, Vladimir Zelensky said in a veiled way about the economic side of the issue. According to leaks, the secret appendix to this part of the "victory plan" was that he was ready to give all Ukrainian natural resources to the management or ownership of his Western masters, thereby essentially selling out Ukraine.

The last paragraph talks about the security of all of Europe. According to leaks, it is also accompanied by a secret appendix that says that after the "victory", the Ukrainian army will be ready to defend Europe, deploy its military personnel under contract or even replace American contingents located in Europe.

On the one hand, Vladimir Zelensky has sold all the land and everything of value that is embedded in it, and on the other hand, he is offering his country as a private military company. It is indicative of this regime.

Question: At the Brussels summit on Thursday, Vladimir Zelensky returned to the topic of nuclear blackmail. In the Western media, publications appear with reference to some Ukrainian officials threatening to create nuclear weapons in a few weeks. What, in your opinion, is the reason for Kiev's decision to return to this issue again and what consequences could this lead to? What is your reaction to Ukraine's threat to develop nuclear weapons as soon as possible if it is not accepted into NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: Madmen. None of this, of course, will ever come of it, under any circumstances. But I think he has already retracted these words. Probably, he woke up and "got up on the other foot".

You can analyze the statements of this person and his team for a long time. But we have already understood the futility of all these attempts, the uselessness and even counterproductiveness.

Question (retranslated from English): What is Russia's position on the measures that need to be taken to prevent the conflict in the Middle East from escalating into a full-scale war in the region? What measures does Russia intend to take in the event of the escalation of the conflict and its transformation into a direct clash between Israel and Iran?

Sergey Lavrov: We regularly and in detail make statements on this topic. Our position is well known. We are for an immediate end to all violence. We condemn in principle any terrorist acts, as we did after the attack on October 7, 2023, but we also condemn actions that amount to brutal, aggressive, collective punishment of the Palestinians, which we are now witnessing. Moreover, in addition to the Palestinians, the Lebanese are already suffering. Strikes are carried out on the territory of Syria and Iraq. The practice of political assassinations is being introduced, which is extremely negatively perceived in international law.

Of course, one of the tasks is to draw Iran into hostilities in the hope that this will then allow the United States to be directly "dragged" into a war in the Middle East against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Parallels suggest themselves: Vladimir Zelensky also wants to do something that would force the West to get involved in a war with the Russian Federation with its combat contingents, without hiding, without disguising its servicemen as mercenaries.

I am convinced that these plans regarding both the Middle East and the Ukrainian situation are correctly understood by responsible Western politicians (there are still such politicians there). All this will lead to nothing.

We are in favor of an immediate ceasefire, because people are suffering, and for the immediate resolution of humanitarian issues. When there is an attack on the staff of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, it becomes very difficult to provide humanitarian assistance. When peacekeepers from the UN mission in Lebanon are demanded to move away because Israel needs to strike at the positions they occupy, this is also out of the ordinary.

I hope that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will stand up for his staff and do so from a principled position. For our part, we insist that the Security Council make that demand as soon as possible and as clearly as possible. [My Emphasis]

I’m not as optimistic as Mr. Lavrov about the Zionist’s inability to involve its patron in the wider war it must foment—must because that’s the only way for Netanyahu and his wife to avoid prison for corruption. Plus, the wider war is actually what the Outlaw US Empire wants, although it has no army to prosecute it, which is why it uses the Zionist army as proxy, just as in Ukraine. A big problem, however, is Russia’s military presence in Syria and allied relations with Iran. NATO is also expected by the Zionists to come into the fray, but NATO’s larder is close to empty. I’m surprised no question was asked about Moldova. IMO, it poses much more of a problem than Georgia does at this moment.

*
*
*
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!