Lavrov's Remarks and Answers to Questions at the Conference Marking the 10th Anniversary of the Coup d'état in Ukraine

There are times when it’s hard to tell if Sergey Lavrov is angry or not. Most of what he said, including in his answers, he’s said many times before. I know he must keep up decorum, but when you read the text it’s easy to see him fed up with having to say whatever it is once again. Maybe his blood was already boiling since he addressed the conference on Neocolonialism before this forum. In print, when he discusses anything related to the West, there’s nothing good to be expected from it. Yes, we must understand that this pot’s been coming to a boil for many years now, since before Maidan, and not everything that could be cited is anymore. I recall the tense seriousness of his discussions with Putin, the government and the Security Council that began in September 2021 and culminated in his verdict in January that the Outlaw US Empire would refuse the December security proposals and thus the military technical operation would need to commence. In November, it was decided at a tense meeting of the government that what was happening Donbass was Genocide and something needed to be done and very soon. Putin agreed Genocide was indeed happening, and we know the subsequent formulations. I covered all that while writing at my VK platform that remains operational. My opinion is Team Putin never anticipated that their European counterparts could be as evil as they’ve become—IMO, it’s very important that the word evil is almost never mentioned by Team Putin and other descriptions are invoked instead, while the accusations coming from the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals are usually 100% projection. However, in the following, Lavrov uses the term Nazi as an adjective twice, which is synonymous with evil and diabolical and close to universally agreed upon by Humanity.

This much longer than usual preamble perhaps serves to provide more context for Lavrov’s words, or maybe it’s because I need to provide some justification for essentially repeating a story I’ve heard too many times, and every time it merely raises my angst against the Outlaws who stole my nation and have caused so much grief in the world over my lifetime. Enough from me; here’s Lavrov. All emphasis mine:

Dear Colleagues,

I am sure that those present here are well aware of the current situation in Ukraine, who was in charge of the process, and what methods were used.

On February 9, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, once again gave a detailed account of the story. If we talk about the geopolitical aspects and consequences of the coup in Kiev, first of all, I would like to say that what is happening is yet another result of the policy of "divide and rule", pitting different countries and peoples against each other, and provoking interstate conflicts. This policy has long been pursued in various regions of the world by the "collective West" led by the United States, or rather, with the Anglo-Saxons. The role that England is playing in current events is more aggressive and sophisticated in its provocative assertiveness than any other participant, including the United States.

When the Americans and their satellites proclaimed themselves the winners of the Cold War, they set a course for NATO expansion, ignoring all their obligations not to expand the North Atlantic Alliance and not to deploy significant combat forces on the territory of new members, given (orally and in writing) to the Soviet and then Russian leadership. That was the next stage. The block began to expand. But even then we agreed to sign an agreement on the establishment of the Russia-NATO Council. Once again, we made a concession. The fact of expansion was acknowledged. In response, the alliance pledged not to deploy significant combat forces on the territory of new members.

This Act has not been repealed. Look at what's happening now. On the territory of the new members, more and more large groups equipped with modern weapons began to train right on our borders.

If we talk about the position of the West towards Russia, then since gaining independence, Ukraine has always been considered by it as an anti-Russian bridgehead. In 2004, in fact, the first coup d'état took place. It was bloodless, but unconstitutional. When Viktor Yanukovych won in the second round, the West forced the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to issue a verdict on the need to hold a third round, which is not provided for by the Constitution. That's how they "wrung their hands." How did it all end? They were playing democracy. But the games of democracy, even according to their rules, did not help in 2010, when the people (primarily the votes of the south and southeast of Ukraine) elected Viktor Yanukovych.

Then the West began to prepare a coup in such a way that there would be no more "misfires". To destroy the opposition once and for all, which has been happening for many years since the February 2014 coup.

In the same year, a coup d'état took place in a country called Yemen, which now also often flashes on the pages of newspapers and TV screens. President Abdel Abdullah al-Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia. For many years after that, the West unanimously demanded the return of the legitimate president of Yemen to its country and only then begin negotiations on a settlement with the opposition.

In the case of Viktor Yanukovych, we drew the attention of the French, Germans and Poles (who guaranteed the peace agreement that was broken the next morning) to the need to "reason with the opposition." What did they sign up for? That there will be early elections, and a government of national unity will be formed for the period until the elections. And the morning after the coup d'état, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (there was such a leader among them) went to the Maidan and said that he congratulated everyone, that they had won and created a "government of winners." Does no one see the difference between national unity and winners? So there are losers. You all know how the situation developed later. Those who did not accept the result of this putsch were declared terrorists and an "operation" was launched against them. There were such brutal episodes in this tragedy as the burning of 48 civilians in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, the bombing of Lugansk and other cities of Donbass by military aircraft. The DPR and LPR declared independence. But even then there was still room for agreement.

Some time later, in the second half of 2014 (after Kiev announced an "anti-terrorist operation"), a meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia (represented by yours truly), the United States, Ukraine and the European Union took place in Geneva.

At that time, Oleksandr Deshchytsia was acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and had powers from the authorities that illegally reigned in Kiev. We have agreed on the statement. Unfortunately, it was not published by agreement, as it was agreed that Oleksandr Deshchytsia would "check" in her capital. The statement, in addition to a clear call for de-escalation and an end to violence, called for the start of a broad national dialogue in Ukraine with the participation of all regions of the country, with an eye to its federalization. Despite our reminders, the participants of this meeting then "walked away" from the publication of this statement. Instead, Kiev began to solve the "Donbass problem" (as they called it) by force. In fact, it set the same goal as Adolf Hitler when he announced the need for the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."

Once again, we began to look for ways to cooperate to overcome the crisis. We persuaded Donbass not to abandon negotiations. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail.

As a result, a year after the coup in February 2015, the agreements of the same name were signed in Minsk. Subsequently, you all know how then President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President of France Francois Hollande, who signed these agreements with Vladimir Putin, cynically and even proudly stated that they had no intention of fulfilling them. It took time to pump Ukraine with weapons against Russia. This is a "stunning" confession – a "confession", in fact. As a consequence of the fact that the West is using Ukraine in every sense to contain Russia and, as they now say, inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia, to prevent it from playing the role on the world stage that it rightfully deserves.

As a result, Ukraine, which received the richest industrial potential from the USSR and the Russian Empire, turned into the poorest state in Europe, into a territory, without exaggeration, dying. The Kiev authorities are already a universally recognized international beggar. Ukraine's independence is gone. Even before the coup of February 2014, starting with the Maidan, or even earlier, American and British advisers were sitting in most departments (including the Security Service of Ukraine). Now this is a standard, unsurprising practice. They sit and make sure that money is not stolen, although no one will ever stop stealing. How will the West demand that Ukraine not steal the money it provides it with, if it is stealing our money? They are already openly discussing how to do it better so as not to violate their "moral" principles and not to create a precedent.

This is a vivid example of what "flirting" with the West and the thoughtless desire to integrate into its system of political and economic coordinates in any way leads to. There is no doubt that the West has declared war against us. They don't hide it. Although they say that they are only arming Ukraine, and it is the Ukraine itself that is fighting. Everyone understands that this is a lie. Western instructors monitor how the planning of the General Staff of Ukraine is carried out, help to guide to targets (we are 100% sure of this) and do much more. According to our information, the European External Action Service has made recommendations for Ukraine, which proceed from the fact that it will not be possible to win with the methods that Ukraine is currently fighting, and it will lose. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on the transfer of even more long-range weapons to this country so that they reach the "heart" of Russia (as the European Union describes it). In this way, they will once again sow confusion and panic and undermine the trust of the people. Isn't that direct participation in the war? Of course. In war, the main thing is strategy, and it is not in Kyiv, but far away.

Europe, eager to do something as soon as possible to end this drama with the defeat of Russia, in fact, serves the interests of the United States, does not care about its own interests at all. Look at the economic indicators, the negative growth, the recession in the leading European economies. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail. Everything will probably become clear. All this is humiliated and accepted without complaint. There are no objections. Recall how after US President Joe Biden's Nord Stream bombings announced in advance, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Washington to bow down, where, apparently, he was told not to make any noise, and he returned without any news conference.

I would like to say that they are now trying to "gloom" (there is no other word for it) all the countries of the global majority, including those represented here (we are very glad to see you here), and to "drag" them into supporting Vladimir Zelensky's completely dead-end "peace formula". Its essence is that Russia must capitulate, go beyond the borders of 1991, and the Russian leadership must go to the tribunal and pay reparations. Everyone understands that this is a "dummy" and, at the very least, an unwise initiative.

But in order to lure normal countries that understand what is happening, in addition to the points I mentioned, they threw in supposedly neutral provisions: food security, energy security, nuclear security, prisoner exchange, and humanitarian issues. In total, there are 10 points in the formula, half of them are supposedly neutral.

Clearly, this is seen as a whole. When the countries of the Global South and the Global East are lured to "gatherings" that are organized to promote this "peace formula," they are told that they understand that they do not like it, they understand their position that it is pointless to discuss anything without Russia. But they then say, they must support food security and sign up to "one" paragraph. As we say, these are "thimble makers", as we say. I don't know how it translates into English, but it's an absolute "cheat" (there's no other way to put it).

In Davos, there was another "gathering" on this "formula" of Vladimir Zelensky. The main thing they were interested in was a "group photo". This is actually true. This is the EU's recommendation to Ukraine: they say, do not go too far, do not force neutral participants, whom we are dragging into this process, to condemn Russia, the main thing is that "there is a photo." I'm not kidding.

When I was in New York on January 23 of this year for the UN Security Council meetings on Palestine, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignores Cassis asked for a meeting and suggested that Switzerland become the venue for the peace conference. In his conversation with me, he emphasised in every possible way that in Davos, after the meeting on the peace formula, he said at a news conference that it was necessary to solve problems involving Russia. I replied that if he said so, it means that he is sure of it, and then why did they gather without Russia?

This is not serious from the point of view of diplomacy of any country, and for the West to say that this is the only way forward, I think it is a shame. President of Russia Vladimir Putin, commenting on the results of his contacts with Tucker Carlson and during his conversation with him, said that the West must admit that it has taken a wrong course that has failed. Let the West look for a way out of the situation without losing face. Vladimir Putin stressed that the West must return to the art of diplomacy, and the art of diplomacy, like the art of politics, is the art of compromise.

It is clear that all this unequivocally presupposes the recognition of the legitimacy of our demands, non-bloc status, the rejection of any NATO advance, the rejection of the militarization of Ukraine as a threat to the Russian Federation, and the cessation of the Nazi policy of extermination, both legally and physically, of Russians and Russian-speaking citizens on the territory of Ukraine.

Remember, back in November 2021, before the decision to launch a special military operation, before the West rejected our initiative on European security, a journalist asked Vladimir Zelensky how he felt about the people living in Donbass, on the other side of the contact line. Vladimir Zelensky thoughtfully and artistically said that there are people and there are "specimens". And he also said earlier that if someone lives in Ukraine, but feels involved in Russian culture, Russian civilization, then for the sake of their children and grandchildren, let them "fail" to go to Russia.

This was said by the president, who was elected under the slogans, firstly, of a peaceful settlement, and secondly, of the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine. He called for "falling behind" the Russians, allowing them to continue speaking their native language in Ukraine, as they had done for centuries. That's how he changed his views back in 2021.

And the final touch. He stated that he would never implement the Minsk agreements. It was clear that they were stalling. From February 2015 to 2019, there were no positive developments, only the bombing of Donbass in violation of all the requirements of this document. In December 2019, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of France Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky met in Paris at the initiative of the French and Germans, where they spoke in favour of "reconfirming" the Minsk Agreements, first of all, regarding the need for a direct dialogue between Minsk and Donetsk and Lugansk, and, secondly (no less important), in terms of enshrine their special status on a permanent basis in the Constitution of Ukraine. Vladimir Zelensky signed it. Some time later, when the events of February 2022 began, Oleksandr Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said that Vladimir Zelensky had signed "just like that" so that they would fall behind. He wasn't going to do anything. Like, they deceived us and "squeezed" us out of more time. This is the whole characteristic of the "characters" who now rule Ukraine and the West is betting on them in order to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia. If you want to go to the battlefield, it's up to you.

Question: As you know, there are many mercenaries from Latin America on Kiev's side. Do you think they pose a threat to democracy in these regions? Is there a security dialogue with the Latin American countries where they come from?

Sergey Lavrov: This topic is relevant not only for the situation in Ukraine.

It is known that mercenaries, including those from the Middle East, are actively used in the African region. In Ukraine, they are also fighting, including members of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State.

The Islamic State and its representatives are under the tutelage of the United States at the illegally occupied al-Tanf base in eastern Syria. Everyone knows this very well. The Islamic State itself came into being as a result of an attack on Iraq under false pretenses by the United States. Then the United States took over the administration of Iraq. They had the Gauleiter, the Governor-General (whatever you want to call him), Paul Bremer, who dissolved all the structures of the Baath Party. I just let it go. They were based on the Sunni branch of Islam. The backbone of the Islamic State was made up of officers of Saddam Hussein's army, who had nothing to live on. And the U.S. had a direct hand in this. It is interesting to see what the Americans have achieved in Iraq. The goals set are a complete failure. Now, for the umpteenth time, the Iraqi government is asking them to withdraw their troops, but the U.S. is unwilling. That's how big the Democrats are.

Al-Qaeda emerged after the Afghan saga, which also ended badly and shamefully. And after the invasion of Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra appeared, which later became known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Whatever you call them, they are "mercenaries." The same members of the Islamic State are sent for money to various hot spots. They're paid thousands of dollars to do their jobs.

Clearly, this is a dangerous practice. Eventually, when their mission in a country is over, they will have to go somewhere else (they don't know how to do anything else but organize terrorist attacks, shoot, kill people).

If people go there from Colombia or other Latin American countries, one day they will have an epiphany. Many American and British mercenaries have already said publicly on camera that they are completely disappointed in what is happening there, in these lofty "democratic" goals proclaimed by the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors. Some are returning to their home countries.

But if the people who remain in this war waged against us by the West go through a military phase in their lives, it is likely that they will return to it, especially since in Colombia there is someone to argue with and there has always been someone to compete with.

We hope that the Colombian leadership is well aware of this, as are the leaders of other countries. After all, what is the problem? In many respects, this process is connected with the gross violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by Ukrainian embassies. It is outrageous that there are offers to be recruited for war on their websites. Several times we have drawn the attention of the Western masters of this regime so that they would "reason" with them. Nothing happens. Somewhere it quieted down, and then the recruitment activity continues again.

Everyone should be aware that a neutral position and a call for a settlement are good. We appreciate that. This is the position of the World Majority (with the rarest of exceptions). No one has joined the anti-Russian sanctions. But when the countries of the global majority try to "frown" by convening meetings under the slogan of Vladimir Zelensky's "peace formula" as the only approach to a settlement, it is necessary (at least) to show that everyone understands everything and does not want to play this game.

Mercenary activities are part of the problem. This must be fought. There were thousands of mercenaries in Ukraine. According to our military, now there are less than half of them. The rest either left or met their inglorious end. [Lavrov could have gone much deeper and mentioned the Outlaw US Empire’s longstanding use of its Terrorist Foreign Legion to attain its goals in South America where it has a very long history going back to the 1850s.]

Question: Against the backdrop of President Vladimir Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson, the rating of Republicans in the United States is generally rising. The opinion of the people in the West about Russia is changing dramatically. Previously, they did not know about what was happening in our country because it was not covered. How do you see the prospects for restoring relations with the West in the event of a change of government, especially in the United States (if Donald Trump becomes president)? Will they recognize the new territories? Will there be a resumption of cooperation?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the position of the Republicans and the "epiphany" that suddenly appeared in American society after President Vladimir Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. For me, the main thing is that, as it turned out, US citizens live in a complete information blockade. They are "fed" with the internal narrative, primarily of the Democratic Party. Fox News is the only exponent of Republican sentiments, but after the departure of T. Carlson, the tone has also changed.

It turns out that there is no question of any freedom of speech. Although the American Constitution requires that there be access to any information. But in addition to this, there are also commitments made within the framework of the OSCE in 1991 in Moscow. At the initiative of the West, it was written in black and white (and the Soviet Union signed the demands): to ensure free, unrestricted access to information in each member state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Special mention is made of information that originates both inside and outside the country concerned. This is a direct requirement.

Our friends from the diplomatic corps and all Russian citizens see in the news that "a good half" is a story about the position of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union on Ukraine or any other international event. Our public is familiar with the point of view of the West. Yes, in most cases this is criticized, but everyone is free to draw their own conclusions. We do not censor what is said in the West. All this is shown, and then political scientists discuss it.

As for the restoration of relations, President of Russia Vladimir Putin also spoke about this in an interview. He explained that the West must admit its mistake and find a convenient way out. But with the full understanding that the problem of Ukraine, as we have identified it, must be resolved. He added that someday relations will be restored. When this happens is not up to us. That's their problem. President Vladimir Putin recalled that we had made so many concessions and gestures of goodwill. The limit has already been reached. On their part, in response to our good deeds, we saw other gestures on one hand.

Question: What are the main consequences of the Euromaidan protest for the ordinary population of Ukraine? How to restore relations in the future?

Sergey Lavrov: There are living witnesses of those events here. I think they can describe it in brighter colors. But it is written in Ukrainian laws that a course has been taken to destroy everything Russian.

"Euromaidan" affected everyday life, access to information, education in the Russian language, which was used by more than half of the citizens. According to some estimates, 80% of the population of Ukraine feels that the Russian language is more comfortable in communication. All this is forbidden by law. Up to everyday situations: the saleswoman may refuse to serve if you address her in Russian. A few months ago, Kiev Mayor Viktor Klitschko issued a city regulation banning all cultural events in the capital: exhibitions, performances, film screenings, etc.

When this word was mentioned in the context of the special military operation and the policy pursued by the Kiev Nazi regime towards Donbass and Russians in general, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia in the International Court of Justice. By demanding that the court recognise the groundlessness of the accusations of the Zelensky regime of carrying out a policy of genocide.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has concluded a decades-long debate. It made a verdict that we did not violate any conventions. Moreover, it rejected the Ukrainian claim that they were fighting terrorist regimes in Donetsk and Luhansk. The entire ideological basis of the "anti-terrorist operation" that Kiev launched after the coup d'état and then continued contrary to the Minsk agreements has been debunked. Now there are "local assaults on people" – they can pull them out from anywhere (from a cinema or a bathhouse) and send them to the "slaughter". Bad consequences.

Millions of Ukrainians have found their shelter in our country. Here they are perceived as absolutely equal to us. Brothers, sisters, people with whom we have shared joy and sorrow. We have families on both sides. Rosbrothers. Both in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation. They are at home here. And the main thing is that those who come to us feel at home themselves. We will do everything we can to make them feel this way.

Question: The other day, the US government asked Congress for $100 billion: $65 billion for Ukraine, $15 billion for Israel and $20 billion for Taiwan. They will enact this sooner or later. Several European countries have begun to say that Ukraine should be part of NATO. Where are we going? Are there any possibilities for a peace conference?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a question for us. We have answered it many times. President of Russia Vladimir Putin touched upon this issue. In April 2022, there was an agreement that has already become the talk of the town. The Anglo-Saxons forbade Vladimir Zelensky to sign the agreed agreement, which was acceptable to both the Ukrainian and Russian delegations. And so it happened.

To reiterate, there is a decree issued by Vladimir Zelensky prohibiting talks with Vladimir Putin's government. When the West raised such questions, our President repeatedly said that it was necessary to force him to cancel this decree and say so publicly. The ball is not in our court. Everyone understands this very well.

At the same time, it is said that the Swiss are announcing a peace conference. But at the same time, the West unanimously declares that it is only on the basis of Vladimir Zelensky's formula. Therefore, friends from Asia, Africa, and Latin America should choose the most "innocuous" points from these ten points (food or energy security), and the Westerners will write them down to participate in a "collective photo" in support of this "formula." What kind of diplomacy is this? They have not been engaged in diplomacy for a long time. Instead, there is blackmail and sanctions. Any issue that seems important to the West is never the subject of an honest discussion.

The UN Charter states that the United Nations is based on the sovereign equality of States. The most important point. Imagine retrospectively the various conflicts that have taken place since the creation of the World Organization in 1945. There is not a single conflict in history in which the West has been involved, either before or after the creation of the Organization, in which the United States and its allies have observed the principle of sovereign equality, and this obligation is enshrined in the Charter – to respect the sovereign equality of states. Therefore, the conference is apparently understood as a "collective photograph", the participants of which will later say that there is a "formula" of Vladimir Zelensky, and that on this basis they invite Russia. I think it will be humiliating for them. Most people are well aware that this is neither diplomacy nor politics. So we don't have the ball.

Question: In view of the fact that after the end of the special military operation (even if not now), there is a transformation of the world order and international relations in general. Are there any plans to reform the UN, in particular the Security Council, under the auspices and within the framework of the initiatives and efforts of the Russian Federation, which is its permanent member? In view of the fact that we have repeatedly sent inquiries and requested various sessions to consider the terrorist attacks that took place on the territory of our country, in particular in Belgorod. Just yesterday. Will we somehow advance these efforts so that the UN Security Council acquires a new character and international law is respected?

Sergey Lavrov: Reform of the UN has been discussed for a long time. It's overdue. For me, there are two main aspects of this reform. One is conceptual, the other is practical.

We are convinced that the UN Charter contains all the necessary principles, respect for which will ensure peace and security. I gave an example that when the Americans need something, they look at what principle of the Charter to take as a justification for their actions. When it was necessary to declare Kosovo's independence unilaterally, they said that it was based on the principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the UN Charter. When an open, transparent referendum in Crimea with the participation of many international observers decided to reunite with Russia, they did not accept it, condemned it and said that it violated the principle of territorial integrity.

Since the inception of the United Nations, there have been debates about whether the self-determination of peoples or territorial integrity is more important. Self-determination of peoples is mentioned earlier in the UN Charter. But a multi-year negotiation process was initiated, culminating in the adoption of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This is a multi-page Declaration adopted in 1970. The section with which we are now concerned states that "nothing shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would lead to dismemberment or to partial or total dismemberment violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States which observe in their actions the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as set forth above, and, consequently, have governments which represent, without distinction as to race, creed or colour, all the people inhabiting the territory." After the coup d'état, did the Kiev regime represent the population, a huge part of Ukraine? Of course not. So it's conceptual.

A fundamental part of our position is that the UN Charter should remain at the heart of all the activities of the legal community, but with the understanding that its principles should be applied in their entirety and in all their interrelatedness.

The practical judgment is (there are many aspects of reform now) that everyone is primarily interested in the reform of the UN Security Council. This topic is in the public eye all the time. The prestige of the countries that want to get into this body on a permanent basis is directly related to this. The reform should unequivocally eliminate historical injustices and ensure fair representation of the countries of the global majority – Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The current composition of the UN Security Council was formed at a time when the consequences of decolonization had not yet been realized, when the newly liberated free and independent countries were just arranging their own internal lives and getting used to the new quality. It is clear that the situation on the world stage is radically different now. Economic giants such as China, India, and Brazil are on the rise. In Africa, there is a movement towards the realization of its own identity and in favor of rejecting the rudiments of colonial policy, when resources are pumped out of Africa, and all the added value is produced in the former metropolises and the main profits are generated there. It is necessary to ensure the admission of representatives of the developing world to the UN Security Council. We have publicly said that we support India and Brazil as candidates for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, with the understanding that at the same time a similar additional presence in Africa will be ensured.

We have warned our Indian and Brazilian friends (and we explain this at every turn) that it is unacceptable for us to replenish the UN Security Council with any new representative of the West. Currently, six of the fifteen members of the UN Security Council represent Western countries. Sometimes Japan is added, pursuing a purely Western policy. Granting more seats to the western group would only mean deepening the injustice. Germany and Japan aspire to "infiltrate" the Security Council together with India and Brazil, but they will not succeed. From a purely arithmetical point of view, the West is already disproportionately represented.

Now to the point. Name at least one issue of international politics in recent years on which Germany or Japan would have taken a stand. Any. All of them are "built" by the West. There's nothing you can do about it. There were sensible ideas about leaving one seat in the UN Security Council for the "collective West," for NATO.

You mentioned the UN Security Council's consideration of various crisis situations, including terrorist acts carried out by the Ukrainian regime on a regular basis and to which the West is pushing it to continue. I quoted the EU's instruction to Kiev in which direction it should "work".

A few days ago, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron unleashed a neo-colonial "mantra" urging people not to abandon Ukraine under any circumstances. Vice versa. It is necessary, they say, to "pump" it with the most modern weapons as much as possible. Condemnation of such terrorist acts is possible only with the consent of all members of the UN Security Council. In most cases, the Americans "shield" the Kiev regime and do not "pass" these resolutions.

There is a lot of talk about proposals to abolish the veto. This is what many developing countries have been saying in discussions on Security Council reform. The right of veto is not a privilege, but a tool for ensuring well-considered decisions and preventing unilateral resolutions that can bring imbalance to world politics.

The West has practically lost the culture of work in the UN Security Council, which has always relied on the ability of the five permanent members, each of whom has the right of veto, to come to an agreement, to seek compromises on any complex issue and never to provoke a veto by putting to a vote resolutions that are unacceptable to any of the five members.

We have always been ready for this kind of work. The Americans, along with the British and French, have chosen a different style that is detrimental to the UN. It is unrealistic to abandon the veto. Then the United Nations, like the League of Nations, will turn into a useless structure that will only further escalate confrontation.

Reform is a long process. It should reflect a common understanding at this stage of the tectonic changes taking place in the world in the context of multipolarity processes.

I know Lavrov wants to remain optimistic, but the realities against that are formidable. Yes, Russia and the Global Majority will continue to grow stronger, but the planet will remain chaotic as long as the Outlaws exist. And remember, they are Nazi-like and thus extremely diabolical—they will continue to attain their objective no matter the cost as all means justify their goal which is to keep their hegemony. All sorts of reality can, and has been, thrown in their faces, but they are blind to it and can only see their goal. Those hiding behind the Front Men and Women must be exposed and made visible in the public’s eyes—the Bidens, Trumps Kennedys, and their ilk are screens to shield. That’s why policy is contiguous—it matters not which flavor is in charge anymore, although there’s currently a theatre ongoing to make it seem otherwise.

I made one parenthetical comment and could have provided more. Lavrov provided a warning to fence-sitting nations that even what appears to be a safe position actually isn’t, that joint, in resolute solidarity, resistance to the West is the only real path forward. In his talk yesterday, Lavrov expressed the idea that regional solidarity will meld into global solidarity and regional organizations will then become global. That’s the only real way to control the Global Fracture that’s now occurring. There’s more to be said about the historic Global Big Picture that shows a distinct continuity over the last 4,000+ years where the great mass of people have tried again and again to establish a fair social contract with rulers/governments. Today’s conflict is all about ending the one last Great Tyranny, which as mentioned is the same Tyranny that’s been existing and plaguing Humanity for centuries.

*
*
*
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!