Lavrov's Presser Following CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers Meeting

Lavrov has a dour look as he awaits the start of the presser.

Little time to recoup after accompanying Putin as Lavrov joins the CSTO meeting in Almaty on its second day. Lavrov’s subordinates carried the torch. The CSTO will figure prominently within Putin’s Eurasian Security framework, a project that now has a higher level of urgency than six months ago. Pashinyan’s Armenia continues to be a headache but that didn’t slow the meeting’s work. Lavrov will now explain:

Dear Colleagues,

Good afternoon

We concluded the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan Mikhail Nurtleu. It was well prepared. Everyone noted the high quality of negotiations and consultations held the day before at the level of our deputies and experts.

The main attention was paid to preparations for the CSTO summit, which will be held in November in Astana. We are satisfied with the projects that will be submitted for consideration by the heads of state. They cover a broad agenda of international relations and specific steps to further develop the CSTO.

In discussions on the state of affairs in the world, special attention was paid to the formation of a Eurasian security architecture to replace those schemes for ensuring stability that had a Euro-Atlantic dimension and discredited themselves. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail in his speech at the Foreign Ministry on June 14. Today, we agreed to develop this issue in the work of our analytical units, including through regular consultations within the CSTO.

In the same context of Eurasian cooperation, we agreed to build up cooperation and joint practical projects with the CIS and the SCO. There is mutual interest, including in using the potential of these structures for more effective anti-terrorist actions.

In the context of the fight against terrorism, with new challenges and threats, we approved a draft program for strengthening the Tajik-Afghan border. Earlier, this document was approved by the Council of Defense Ministers and the Committee of Secretaries of Security Councils of the CSTO. It is submitted for approval by the heads of state.

A document was signed that gives an additional impetus to the Organization's activities in the field of peacekeeping, including ensuring interaction with UN peacekeeping operations. This is a very promising area. We see good potential here.

We agreed to step up work on biological safety under the Committee of Secretaries of Security Councils. A coordinating committee has been created on this topic, on the biological aspects of safety. Now it is headed by the Republic of Kazakhstan. The third meeting of this important new structure is planned to be held in the course of the year.

The Statement dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Belarus from Nazi invaders, the Statement on the problems of the Middle East and North Africa, primarily in the context of the tragedy in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, were approved. Our positions were clearly confirmed. The following documents were signed: the Statement on Expanding Cooperation in the Field of International Information Security and the Statement on Topical Issues of the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes.

On July 19, a meeting of the UN Security Council will be held in New York under the presidency of the Russian Federation, which will be devoted to the topic of cooperation between the UN, on the one hand, and the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO, on the other. Russia, as the chair of this meeting and the President of the UN Security Council in July, proposed this topic and received support. We invited CSTO Secretary General Igor Tasmagambetov to speak at this meeting.

Question: What is the important vector of cooperation between the CSTO countries at the current stage? What are the main threats facing the members of the organization?

Sergey Lavrov: I mentioned the threats that continue to emanate from Afghanistan. There are cells and fairly combat-ready units of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and their affiliated structures. The Taliban government is fighting these terrorist groups. We believe it is fundamentally important to assist in this fight.

We are in favour of establishing a more permanent, sustainable, substantive dialogue with the Taliban government, which actually controls the country, aimed at implementing specific projects. That has been the prevailing view in the discussions that I have told you about today.

The threats of the neighboring region (the Middle East and North Africa) also stem from the unresolved number of conflicts. The situation in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement was far "thrown away" after Israel decided to conduct a special operation in response to the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, which we categorically condemned.

We cannot accept the methods now used by the Israeli armed forces to (as they claim) to destroy Hamas. In fact, civilians are being destroyed. Most importantly, if we abstract from today's humanitarian tragedy, such actions further cast away the prospect of a sustainable, long-term peace in the Middle East through the creation of a Palestinian state in full compliance with UN resolutions.

It is clear that the echoes of these processes in one way or another affect the adjacent territories. Terrorists are moving in the direction of Europe and our neighbors (primarily Central Asian) and the Caucasus. We are closely monitoring this and are trying to contribute to calming the situation and transferring it to the search for political solutions based on the decisions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.

If we talk about the western direction of the CSTO's activities, of course, the conflict unleashed by the West in Ukraine, the use of the Kiev regime as an instrument of aggression against the Russian Federation poses a serious threat. We discussed this in detail today, including in the context of the actions taken by the Russian Federation.

Our colleagues were briefed in detail on the statements made by President Vladimir Putin on the Ukrainian crisis following his visits to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. You know these statements.

Today, we reaffirmed our commitment to achieving a fair settlement that would be based on reality, on the recognition of the legitimate rights of the people whose ancestors lived, developed and developed these territories for centuries. People whom the Kiev junta declared terrorists after the unconstitutional coup d'état in February 2014 and adopted a series of decisions banning the Russian language, culture and the media.

I drew the attention of my colleagues to the way the West commented on the results of this "event" in Bürgenstock under the "lofty" name of the "peace conference on Ukraine." Everyone, including the Americans (US President Joe Biden spoke about this), European presidents and prime ministers, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and citizen Vladimir Zelensky himself said that they were seeking a fair settlement based on the UN Charter as the only criterion that should be followed. From this non-alternative document, they single out only territorial integrity, completely forgetting that there is such a principle of the UN Charter as the right of a nation to self-determination, as well as the fact that the UN General Assembly, when considering the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, by consensus in a special Declaration decided that all had the duty to respect the territorial integrity of States whose Governments respected the principle of self-determination of peoples and therefore represented all peoples living in a given territory. It turns out that it is necessary to respect the territorial integrity of only those states whose governments represent the entire people.

After the coup d'état in February 2014, the ultra-radicals and neo-Nazis who came to power could not represent Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya. I hope this does not need to be explained to anyone. But this principle of the UN Charter is categorically ignored by the West and its puppets.

There is another point related to this. Article 1 of the UN Charter proclaims the obligation of all UN members to respect human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. But both the Russian language and the Orthodox religion represented by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are banned by the Kiev regime. We are ready to comply with the UN Charter, but the other side does not want to talk about its principles in their entirety and interconnection (as it should be for any respectable UN member) and takes out of context what suits them today.

We could not ignore the threats that are accumulating not only in the west, but also in the east of the Eurasian continent. We hear aggressive statements by NATO, including Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, that they are allegedly a defensive alliance, but today, they say, threats against the bloc are also coming from the east. At the same time, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are named as the source of threats. And if this is the case, Jens Stoltenberg said, then they need to ensure security far beyond NATO's area of responsibility. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail yesterday in Hanoi. NATO wants to privatize all security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region, which the alliance calls the Indo-Pacific region. It creates "fours", "troikas" and other small-configuration structures there, which are the embryos of closed military blocs. They aim at confronting those whom NATO views as adversaries or simply competitors. Among them are China, North Korea and Russia. We discussed this in our relations with various organisations on the Eurasian continent, primarily with the ASEAN countries, and we will firmly uphold the need to preserve the principles on which the security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region has been based so far. This is a network of associations that have grouped around ASEAN on the basis of the principles of equality, equal indivisible security, consensus and mutual respect. The West wants to destroy these structures.

Emerging threats to Eurasian security come from different directions. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, their source is NATO's aggressive policy, which wants to privatize, "crush" all issues that are in one way or another related to ensuring stability in our vast space.

That is why we no longer want to rely on mechanisms that were created in the context of Euro-Atlantic security. These are both NATO and the OSCE. We will work with those countries that are aware of their national interests to ensure that the contours of Eurasian security are discussed and agreed with the countries of the Eurasian continent. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this in his speech at the Foreign Ministry on June 14. Vladimir Putin stressed that Russia considers it important to make these discussions open to all Eurasian countries and associations that represent one or another part of it without exception. This means openness, a call for equal dialogue. I see difficulties on this path.

NATO will do everything possible to prevent such fair processes, but this is the only way. In the end, this philosophy is bound to prevail. It fully fits into the fundamental principles that guide the CSTO, the CIS, the SCO and other sub-regional structures in Eurasia.

Question: The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said that the next summit on Ukraine should be the end of the conflict and Russia will be invited to it. Are there any prerequisites for Moscow's participation in such a summit now? Which countries, what peace formulas should be represented there in order for a full-fledged dialogue to begin?

Sergey Lavrov: I have stopped following the statements of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. There were many different threats, promises, demands. They either declare the need, as Vladimir Zelensky said even before the start of the special military operation, "for all Russians to get out of the territory of Ukraine," or they threaten to "destroy the Russians," "imprison them, or even physically eliminate Russians when Ukraine regains Crimea, Donbass and other territories." This can be seen in the quotes of almost all representatives of the Ukrainian leadership. This alone should have raised questions in the "civilised" West about the adequacy of the Kiev regime and its compliance with the European "values" that Vladimir Zelensky allegedly defends in the fight against Russia. This is a shame for those who pretended to be the bearers of the ideals of democracy. I stopped reading statements about how they want to get out of this crisis a long time ago. It is impossible to analyze them.

The whole point of the Swiss "event" was to consolidate the maximum number of countries of the world majority around the "Vladimir Zelensky formula." In the process, they realized that the world majority does not want to sign an ultimatum to Russia demanding withdrawal from Crimea, Donbass, consent to the creation of a tribunal over Russia, the payment of reparations and other absolutely unrealistic, schizophrenic demands. And then, along the way, they quickly changed the agenda: they "threw out" the issues of food, nuclear security and humanitarian issues, believing that this "innocuous" set of issues would enlist the maximum number of signatories. It didn't work out. The document was signed almost only by those countries that are at war with the Russian Federation with the hands of Ukraine, arming this state, and imposing sanctions. And a few more countries in the Global South.

In connection with food and nuclear security, an interesting observation has just occurred to me. Nuclear safety is formulated in the vein that the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant should return to Ukrainian hands. But for some reason, none of the organizers of this "gathering" in Switzerland mentioned energy security in a broad sense.

I am convinced that the answer lies in the fact that if they started talking about energy security, then most of the invited non-Western countries would be interested in what happened to the Nord Streams, which played a great role in ensuring not only European energy, but also global security. They guaranteed a significant share of the security of Europe's energy supply. They do not want to talk about stories that would mean their self-exposure.

Statements that Russia must be invited were made by many participants in the Swiss "gathering". But if you are convinced of this, why are you gathering without Russia, this is the first thing. Secondly, if, as they announce, Russia will be invited when the Western Ukrainian "core" formulates its position and presents it to Russia. That is, this is another ultimatum. You can't talk to us like that. If they do not understand this, I feel sorry for their diplomatic skills, which they have lost, replacing diplomacy with sanctions, ultimatums, blackmail.

The most realistic basis was proposed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The territories that are clearly, unambiguously and finally designated in our Constitution as the territories of the Russian Federation must be completely freed from foreign troops, instructors, mercenaries and weapons.

I will give you a sequence of events that President Vladimir Putin touched upon in one of his recent speeches. In February 2014, an agreement was signed to resolve the situation. This was guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland. Requests from both the Europeans and the then US President B. Obama were addressed to President Vladimir Putin. Obama did not obstruct his conclusion and supported it. Russia did not interfere. The agreement was signed. The next morning, the opposition, with the connivance and active role of the West (at least Washington), violates this agreement, announces sanctions against the Russian language, calls Crimeans violators of certain "rules", almost terrorists. This was the beginning of a stage that lasted a whole year before the conclusion of the Minsk agreements.

If the settlement agreement, to which Russia also agreed, had not been disrupted in February 2014, Ukraine would now be within the 1991 borders, which it now so voluptuously dreams of. This country itself, through the hands of those who came to power through bloody coups d'état, began to introduce Russophobic and neo-Nazi orders and destroyed its territorial integrity.

In February 2015, agreements were reached in Minsk and approved by the UN Security Council. If they had been fulfilled, Ukraine would have restored its territorial integrity. But without Crimea. At that time, this fact was recognized by almost all Western countries. Ukraine did not want to preserve its territorial integrity at the cost of granting basic autonomous rights to Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk), including the right to speak their native language. This ran counter to the aspirations of those who led Ukraine along a Russophobic and neo-Nazi path.

The next stage, when the chance to preserve Ukraine's territorial integrity was once again missed, was the Istanbul Agreements of April 2022, which also guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity. But on the basis of the realities that had already developed by that time "on the ground". As you know, Western curators have again banned Vladimir Zelensky from signing these agreements.

The process is underway. Now we have come up with another, fourth proposal from the Russian Federation in the form of President Vladimir Putin's initiative of June 14. I have no doubt that there are still serious politicians there in some places, who understand the need to use some of their intellectual and diplomatic skills, and start thinking about real politics, and not about illusions sucked out of thin air.

Question: Did you discuss the procedure for Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO today? Are there any specifics on this issue? Are there already candidates to replace Armenia?

Sergey Lavrov: You don't have to continue, because the answer is no. The procedure for Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO was not discussed. There was no corresponding request.

Question: What consequences could there be in the event of Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO and can this affect the organisation's defence capability?

Sergey Lavrov: It is not in the tradition of diplomacy to guess if it were. Today, Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan was not present at the sitting.

There was no document from Armenia, any official step that would make it necessary to discuss the consequences of what did not happen.

Question: You said that today we discussed the issue of creating a new unified system of collective security in Eurasia. Are all the participants in the meeting in solidarity with Moscow that such a system is needed at the moment? Does Moscow expect Armenia to take part in the discussion of the creation of this system in the future?

Sergey Lavrov: We did not talk about creating a security system, but about the need to start a discussion on how to most effectively, on an equal and fair basis ensure the security of all states on the Eurasian continent.

Everyone spoke in favour of a serious, professional dialogue on this topic, taking into account the realities that have already developed in Eurasia. I am referring to the SCO, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN and other organisations, including, for example, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. There are contacts and strengthening between all these structures. Starting a deeper and more focused conversation about ways to keep each other safe will be a positive process. This will be a military-political "addition" to the material component of the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership in the transport, economic, logistical, and financial spheres. A few years ago, it was outlined by President of Russia Vladimir Putin as a desirable goal for the development of our entire continent. Therefore, now to talk about who will enter and who will leave...

I can only confirm, if you have paid attention to the words of President Vladimir Putin and to what I said today, that the idea is that all countries of the Eurasian continent without exception and without outside interference should have the right to participate in these discussions and in eventual agreements. [My Emphasis]

Armenia is clearly welcome to join such discussions or not; it’s Armenia’s choice. If it were up to the Armenian public, they would remain in CSTO and take part in such talks. One thing Lavrov never mentions is who backs the international terrorists that threaten Russia, ISIS-K and such. IMO, most of the Global Majority are aware that they are the creation of the Outlaw US Empire and its deputy the UK and have employed them in their Colonial activities for many decades going back to the 19th Century. So, when anti-terrorist/ism is discussed, it ought to be recognized that means taking steps against Imperial Hegemony for that’s where the Terrorist Foreign Legion fits in the overall scheme of things. This distinction is critical when it comes to admitting nations like Turkey into SCO or BRICS as it still supports terrorists in Idlib that ought to disqualify it from membership in those organizations, although it does appear some allowances on that issue were made for the inclusion of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in BRICS.

The Sumer Solstice was yesterday—Winter Solstice for the many down-under Gym readers—meaning the year’s almost half over with a lot more to do. I didn’t provide Maria Zakharova’s Weekly Briefing as it got pushed aside by Putin’s trip. The English transcript is about half done, only the Q&A portion remains. The Ukraine crisis and NATO/EU/G-7 theft of Russian assets are the main issues presented. Perhaps it will be done by Sunday. An interesting relating of some captured Ukrainian/NATO documents that were obtained by Marat Khairullen can be read here; it’s quite inane!

*
*
*
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!