Lavrov's Remarks and Q&A at 21st Doha Forum via Video.

Lavrov’s war of words with Western Presstitutes continued at the Doha Forum although he wasn’t physically present. In the process, Lavrov does an excellent job of portraying and defining the Outlaw US Empire’s Cancel Culture and how it’s employed. The last question provides this observation: Lavrov will continue to plague Presstitutes at least until 2030 as he’s at the top of his game. Hopefully by then the major problems will be solved and lesser issues remanded to those who follow him. Lavrov at Doha via video feed:

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the invitation.

Today I planned to be with you in person, but life is full of circumstances. Thank you for your understanding.

I didn't have a chance to listen to the previous discussions. I assume you were talking about a multipolar world that began to take shape after 500 years of domination by what we call the "collective West." Its dominance was based on a multifaceted history that included the ruthless exploitation of the peoples and territories of other countries. In any case, over the past 500 years, the United States and its allies have built a model of globalization that they believe should help them continue to be "number one" economically, militarily, culturally, politically, etc.

However, other countries, using these very principles and tools of Western globalization, have managed to defeat the West on its own territory, building an economy based on national sovereignty and a balance of interests of other countries. In the course of this process, new centers of economic growth, financial and political influence began to emerge. We see that the process is in full swing. It is clearly changing the balance of power in the world, and not in favor of the West.

In order to stop such a development of events, to suppress any dissent, our Western "colleagues" decided to give up all the principles of globalization, which they have been "selling" to everyone for decades (including the free market, fair competition, inviolability of property, and the presumption of innocence). All of this has been sacrificed to the "rules-based world order." These "rules" have never been published, no one has told anyone about them. They are applied depending on what exactly the West needs at a particular moment in modern history.

This is particularly evident in the various conflicts fomented by the West around the world. Everything is being done to preserve its influence and hegemony: interference in internal affairs, sanctions against all principles of fair competition, regime change and direct military interventions, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries. Analyzing all these events, the question arises: Is there a single place where the United States has invaded with military force, where life has become better? I think you know the answer. There is an obvious destruction of statehood, human casualties, and doubtful prospects for the future of countries in whose fate the Americans and NATO have interfered.

Ukraine is a striking example of this. The U.S. does not even spare its allies when it wants to do something to maintain its hegemonic position. They "made sure" that the European Union bore the brunt of the adventure against Ukraine economically, especially in terms of cheap energy. Cheap Russian energy is being replaced by expensive American liquefied natural gas. There are many examples of deindustrialization in Germany and other European countries. I will not dwell on this.

I believe that we must recognize the objective course of history, which is the evolution of a multipolar world. It is necessary to accept the existence of new organizations, formats and structures, such as BRICS, SCO, ASEAN, African Union, CELAC and many other sub-regional organizations in Africa and Latin America. They will become the "bricks" of a new polycentric world. This must be recognized as an objective course of history that must be respected. In analyzing modern Western diplomacy, we miss these facts. The West must draw conclusions from this.

Question: I would like to start with a question about the war in the Gaza Strip. More than 17,000 people died there in two months. Efforts to achieve a cease-fire have gone nowhere because the U.S. has used its veto power in the UN Security Council. Is there any hope that diplomacy will be able to help end the conflict in the near future?

Sergey Lavrov: There is always hope for diplomacy. That is what we have been trying to promote since the beginning of the current wave of violence.

We strongly condemned the terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, as we condemn any terrorist act. At the same time, we do not consider it acceptable to use this occasion to collectively punish millions of Palestinians by indiscriminately shelling civilian neighbourhoods. You mentioned the number of victims. It is growing day by day. Children and women suffer the most. We can see the consequences of what is happening on your and other TV channels every hour.

Shortly after the tragedy began, we submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire. It was blocked by the United States. Brazil introduced another resolution. It was also blocked by the Americans. Then the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that was weaker than the one we proposed in the Security Council. It did not provide for a humanitarian truce, but only a pause. But even this was unacceptable to the Americans and other Western countries. They did not support the resolution.

In the end, they convened the Security Council to adopt a resolution that called for (but did not demand) a humanitarian pause. This resolution is better than nothing. But even with this weak appeal, we do not see how this is being implemented. To do this, we need some kind of monitoring on the ground. Perhaps the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) could play that role. We have appealed to the UN Secretary-General, inviting him to use his authority to consider the issue of possible monitoring. So far, to no avail.

But that doesn't mean everyone should stop trying. We must do everything in our power to continue political pressure to achieve a humanitarian truce.

Question: How do you think the veto power used by the Americans in the Security Council will affect the perception of the United States in the region?

Let me read you a tweet from Oman Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, which he wrote after the veto: "I deeply regret that the United States should sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians for the cause of Zionism. For many years after we are gone, the world will look back on us in shame."

Sergey Lavrov: The countries of the region and other countries of the world should make their own judgments on how the United States uses its veto power.

As for us, we did it a long time ago. The selfish nature of the decisions made by American foreign policy is well known to us. You mentioned the veto. Using it for the resolution, the U.S. representative in the U.N. Security Council chamber said they could not support the demand for an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip because it would sow the seeds for a future war.

Americans are "remarkable" in what we call "cancel culture." Whenever they don't like a part of a story or an event, they "undo" what preceded it. As for this phrase "by declaring a ceasefire, we will sow the seeds for the next war." We must all remember the origins of the situation in the Palestinian territories and what is happening with the 75-year-old resolution promising the Palestinians a state. It has been sabotaged for about 50 years. The blockade of the Gaza Strip continues.

One Israeli government official said that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are not actually civilians. When they turn three, they say, they are already extremists. We must understand the reason why children and young people in Palestine have been taught that they have been victims for generations and decades.

Many years ago, when we had close contacts with our Israeli colleagues and Foreign Minister Ernest Cohen's predecessors, I personally said and drew attention to the fact that the single most dangerous factor fueling extremism in the Middle East is the unresolved nature of the creation of a Palestinian state.

Question: There are people among those who are present in the hall today and among those who are watching us on television who will say that he is absolutely right when he says that there is a high level of civilian casualties. But they will also remember what Russia has done in the past. Later I will move on to the war in Ukraine, but if you go back to Chechnya and the high level of civilian casualties there, as well as Syria, the bombing of hospitals. Isn't there hypocrisy here?

Sergey Lavrov: That's for you to judge. I don't think Russia or I are hypocritical. We have never concealed the operations that we carried out in the Chechen Republic or what we are doing in Syria at the request of the legitimate government and a member of the UN. We are fighting ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other organizations that emerged after the US intervention in Iraq, when al-Qaeda was created, and then Jabhat al-Nusra emerged in Libya. You know the story. We will continue to fight terrorism according to the same rules...

Question: In 2015, at a news conference at the UN, I asked you about these organisations. You said that if they look, act and fight like terrorists, then they are terrorists.

And what is Russia's attitude towards Hamas? After all, Israel, Western countries and the EU say that it is a terrorist organization. I know that a Hamas delegation visited Moscow in October of this year. Do you think Hamas should be part of the post-conflict settlement?

Sergey Lavrov: You are much better at interrupting people than I am.

Indeed, on October 7 of this year, Hamas carried out a terrorist attack, which we immediately condemned. Hamas has a political branch in Doha. We had contacts with them. We immediately contacted these people in Doha to agree on the fate of the hostages, not only Russian, but also Israeli citizens, as well as Russia's neighboring countries and some others.

We have been able to reach an agreement that, as far as I can tell, the Israelis understand and even appreciate as far as their citizens are concerned.

Question: I have a question about the UN Secretary-General. The Israelis called on him to resign after he said that October 7 did not happen in a vacuum. He was right, wasn't he?

The U.S. tried to try on a leading role in diplomacy. In fact, they've been playing it for decades. But in fact, they ignore the Palestinians.

Sergey Lavrov: I think everyone understands and agrees that this did not happen in a vacuum. I spoke of decades of blockade, of unfulfilled promises that the Palestinians would have a state, that they would live side by side with Israel in security and good neighborliness.

Again, it's all about "cancel culture." Everything that you don't like about the events that led to this or that situation, you cancel.

For example, as you mentioned Ukraine. As if everything that happened before February 2022, including the bloody coup, the unconstitutional seizure of power, the war against Donbass, which did not accept a coup d'état, the illegal change of power and putschists. All of this was "canceled."

The only thing that remained was that "Russia invaded Ukraine." But the Minsk agreements, which were openly sabotaged by the Germans, the French and the Ukrainian president, were all "canceled." The hybrid war unleashed by the US and NATO against Russia is based on this "cancel culture".

Question: Speaking about the war in Ukraine. Recently, the head of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said that there was a stalemate there. Because of these words, he even had problems with President Vladimir Zelensky. Do you agree with the assessment that there is now a stalemate on the battlefield?

Sergey Lavrov: The Ukrainians will have to realise how deep they are stuck in the hole into which the Americans have driven them.

Question: If this is a stalemate, aren't you also in this "hole"?

Sergey Lavrov: It is up to the military to assess the situation in which they find themselves.

Question: If you look at this war (I don't know how many people died on both sides), there are many different estimates. We are talking about tens of thousands on both sides. This war was Russia's choice.

I know you call it a special military operation, but President Vladimir Putin decided to invade. What has Russia achieved in the last twenty-two months?

Sergey Lavrov: I know that no matter what I said in my previous answer to the question, you will still read out your own book, which was drawn up before the start of this event.

I mentioned the phenomenon of "cancel culture." This is not a war of choice. This is an operation that we could not avoid, given that Ukraine has been used for years by the United States and NATO as a tool to undermine Russia's security.

If you are interested, I can send you a list of laws that were passed by the Ukrainian government after the bloody coup of 2014 to abolish everything Russian – language, media, culture, education. All. And this is being done against people who have been living in eastern and southern Ukraine for generations. It's all "canceled." The Western media prefer to say that "Russia invaded Ukraine" and "Russia started the war by choice."

What other choice was there if your nation and people are being physically exterminated and this is enshrined in the legislation of the country where the Nazi regime is in power?

Question: I recently spoke with President of Brazil Lula da Silva, and he said that an immediate ceasefire and the start of negotiations are necessary. What do you think are the chances of that?

Sergey Lavrov: You need to call Mr Zelensky. A year and a half ago, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Vladimir Putin's government. This is a well-known fact. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has repeatedly quoted it in response to such questions.

They had a chance in March and April 2022, and shortly after the start of the special military operation in Istanbul, negotiators reached an agreement based on Ukraine's neutrality. No NATO. At the same time, security guarantees would be provided to Ukraine by the West and Russia together. This was rejected. It was cancelled because the Americans and the British decided that if President Vladimir Putin was ready to sign it, then let's wear him down even more. What are they doing now? Whether it is a dead end or not is a dead end, these are the facts.

Question: If we recall the beginning of the war. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that Russia must withdraw its troops from Ukraine. 141 states voted for it. Do you think that the current state of affairs has changed the global position and perception of Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I know very well how this resolution was adopted. I have a lot of friends in New York. Privately, they told me about the very specific methods that the Americans used to get so many votes. Junior diplomats from the U.S. or British mission would come up to the ambassadors in New York and say, "Mr. Ambassador, please don't forget that tomorrow is the vote, and your bank account is at Merrill Lynch, and your children are at Stanford." I'm not aggravating it. These are exactly the tools that have been applied.

If the Americans, as they say, are the champions of democracy, let's look at what happened in February 2022. In December 2021, we proposed that the United States and NATO sign a treaty guaranteeing security for all in Europe. This was rejected.

The Minsk agreements have been trampled underfoot. We were cynically told that they had never intended to fulfill them. They needed to buy more time in order to "pump" Ukraine with weapons against Russia.

We have launched this special military operation. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin made a detailed address. He explained everything behind our actions. The Americans and its satellites strongly condemned this.

The rest of the countries, the Global South, the Global Majority, should be treated as adults. They had to make a decision on their own, having listened to both us and the West. That would be a democratic way of dealing with the countries of the world. We have never, ever put anyone in any position. We were only explaining the reasons why we did it.

The Americans and Europeans, NATO and the EU, were "running" around the world not to assess what was happening in Ukraine, but to issue ultimatums, use blackmail, threats and sanctions. "If you don't condemn Russia, there will be consequences." You know how they behave. This is their usual style.

Question: You mentioned NATO enlargement. But as a result of your war, there are now many more alliance troops on Russia's borders. Sweden wants to join NATO. Finland has already joined. The length of the border between NATO and Russia has doubled. So it all went awry, didn't it?

Sergey Lavrov: At the beginning of the 19th century, Napoleon gathered almost all of Europe to attack Russia. We defeated him. After this aggression, we have become stronger.

In the middle of the last century, Adolf Hitler did the same. He has put most of the European countries under his command in order to launch aggression against us. He, too, was defeated. And after that war, we became stronger.

And the result of the war unleashed by the United States with the use of Ukraine against Russia is already visible.

You mentioned NATO enlargement. But the main result for us and for others (who will feel it later) is that Russia is already much stronger than it was before. And so it will be after the end of the war.

Question: Yevgeny Prigozhin died in a plane crash in August of this year. No one knows exactly what happened, there are only rumors. He headed the Wagner PMC, which was present in Africa, Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic. What is happening there now? Have they been included in the Russian command? All sorts of accusations of human rights violations (torture, execution) were brought against the members of the organization.

Sergey Lavrov: The Investigative Committee of Russia has investigated Yevgeny Prigozhin's death. The results were announced publicly. I have nothing to add here.

As for the members of the Wagner Group, the Russian leadership and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko have repeatedly spoken about their future fate. Some went to Belarus and began their military service there. Others have joined Russia's regular army and continue to serve.

Question: Important elections will be held in Russia and the United States next year. I think we know who will win in Russia. In America, Donald Trump may become the Republican candidate. If he returns to the White House, will relations between Moscow and Washington improve?

Sergey Lavrov: We respect the American people. We would not make any remarks that would make it seem that this is not the case.

I remember the reaction of the Democratic Party when Donald Trump won in 2016, and I also remember that three weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration, President Barack Obama expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and their families, making sure that the departure was as inconvenient as possible. Then he imposed sanctions against Russia for "interference" in the internal affairs of the United States. Since then, they have not been able to provide a single piece of evidence as to what this lie is based on. I leave the American electoral system and "habits" up to them. I don't want to get into it.

Question: You are the second longest-serving foreign minister in the world. In Russia, it is the first since tsarist times. In addition, you were Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN for 10 years. In March 2024, it will be 20 years since you have been in this position. How long will you stay?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't understand why you asked this question. I serve my country for as long as it needs me.

Not having observed what came prior to his appearance put Lavrov at a bit of a disadvantage but his short appraisal of the basic situation was good enough to arouse the opposition. IMO, the only way Russia might be deemed hypocritical is calling Hamas’s attempt to free Palestinians from their bondage a terrorist act instead of an attempt at liberation. IMO, the initial labeling by Russia was massively influenced by Zionist propaganda that has now been refuted. Another way would be to say by providing support to the Zionists Russia’s aiding terrorism and that it’s hypocritical for doing so. No matter what, Russia’s going to get knocked for being in the middle and trying hard to remain neutral. Always the optimist, Lavrov continues to have faith in diplomacy, but currently there’s no reasonable, trustworthy person to talk to on the other side. And that’s a big problem.

*
*
*
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!