Lavrov's remarks at the XXXII Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy

Upon his arrival from China, Lavrov today attended the XXXII Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, which is something he’s done annually and seems to enjoy the company of his fellows. While he was away, his Deputy Ryabkov was interviewed by TASS, which then only published snippets. RT published a decent article which we’ll look at after Lavrov’s remarks which now follow:

I am glad to take part in the Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy once again. I would like to ask the head of the respected body not to be surprised that every year I strive for you. This is not a duty, but a pleasure to "compare notes", talk about the direction in which our thinking work is going and listen to the ideas that are constantly born in our expert society, especially within the framework of the SVOP.

Now we are at the start of a new domestic political cycle following the presidential elections. Our people have once again placed high confidence in President Vladimir Putin and his policies, including in foreign affairs. This, of course, obliges our Ministry to a lot. We are working on the steps that are required for the further implementation of the new version of the Foreign Policy Concept of Russia approved in March 2023. But I would like to emphasise right away that the continuity of our country's foreign policy, including the main goals, objectives and priorities, will be ensured. We are working in difficult conditions. This need not be explained in detail.

The West, led by the United States, does not abandon its officially proclaimed goal of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia, including at the doctrinal level. And defeats, including military ones, and not only. The very existence of our country is perceived by many of the most aggressive Russophobes as a threat to the global dominance of the "golden billion" led by Washington. Of course, like everyone present here, we are watching what the think tanks in the West are doing, how they are practicing scenarios for inflicting maximum damage on us, calling for the supply of all new types of weapons to Kiev, and officially allowing strikes on any part of Russian territory at the level of government members. At least, they say that "it is up to Kiev to decide." The latest statements on this matter, including by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, are well known. These hawks, of course, demand that their governments increase investments in the military-industrial complex, put the economy on a war footing, fantasize about the "decolonization" of Russia (in Russian, about the "dismemberment" of our country).

It is difficult to understand who sometimes "turns on" whom: either political scientists of politicians, or vice versa. Quite recently, on May 2 of this year, a conference of the London Chatham House was organised, which was entirely devoted to the confiscation of Russian assets frozen in the West. The tone was set by Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Chrystia Freeland. At one time, she was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We communicated with her more than once in that capacity. At this conference, she promoted the thesis that, allegedly, taking money is a political and morally justified step necessary to save Ukraine and preserve the "rules-based order." It is important, they say, as she said, "to create a precedent when the aggressor pays."

In the same context, I would like to mention the discussion on the topic "The Collapse of Russia" held on April 25 at the Jamestown Foundation, where activists of the Forum of Free Peoples of Post-Russia, which is openly patronized by the United States, spoke. The way in which such discussions are unfolding suggests that the acute phase of the military-political confrontation with the West continues and is, so to speak, in full swing.

As for anti-Russian rhetoric, we see particular zeal among our European neighbours. Everyone has heard the statements of Emmanuel Macron, David Cameron, Josep Borrell and others about the inevitable "war with Russia." I remember Dmitry Trenin, who is present here, wrote in one of his articles that Europe as a partner is not relevant for us for at least one generation. I cannot but agree. [A generation is 20 years] We feel this almost daily in practice. It must be admitted that many facts speak in favor of such a forecast and not only according to our feelings. We believe this forecast is correct.

After the failure of the notorious counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the West began to spin a new, frankly false thesis that "Putin will not stop in Ukraine." Earlier, before the start of the special military operation, they said, let's admit Ukraine to NATO as soon as possible and Vladimir Putin will not dare to implement his plans for this country. That is, they proceeded from the fact that membership in the alliance is "sacred" and Russia will never encroach on this "sacred". Now the rhetoric is diametrically opposite: they say, Vladimir Putin will defeat Ukraine and then attack NATO. Therefore, we all urgently need to arm ourselves "to the teeth".

A policy has been taken to restore the size and combat readiness of the armies of European states, to transfer the military-industrial complexes of NATO countries to wartime mode. Work has begun, so far thinking, on the contours of the formation of a European military alliance with a nuclear component.

First of all, France is zealous. The same Emmanuel Macron admitted in an interview the other day that Paris and Berlin have always seen Russia as the "main threat." Apparently, there are illusions about 1812 and 1941, this threat has always been seen in these capitals.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance has been waging war against our country since 2014. In the same vein, the European Parliament's resolution on Russia adopted in April of this year, which calls on European governments "not to recognise the legitimacy of Vladimir Putin and to curtail all contacts with him, except for humanitarian issues and the establishment of peace in Ukraine." Moreover, 493 deputies voted for this decision, which forms the political and legal reality of our coexistence with the EU (with all the reservations about the role of the European Parliament, about its real role in politics), 493 deputies voted, 18 abstained, and 11 opposed it. These are "telling" numbers. Of course, we take into account all these figures and other nuances in our practical policy in the western direction.

Of course, we remain committed to the tasks set by the President not only with regard to the special military operation, but also with regard to the place in world politics that Russia should rightfully occupy and occupies.

In our case, we will continue to use diplomatic means to create conditions for the West to abandon its hostile policy and help achieve the stated goals of the special military operation. Our diplomacy will have this as its top priority.

As President Vladimir Putin said, we remain open to dialogue with the West, including on issues of security and strategic stability. But not from a position of strength or their own exceptionalism, but only on an equal footing, with respect for each other's interests. Moreover, to dialogue in the entirety of the problems that exist in today's world in the sphere of strategic stability, and in the military-political landscape as a whole.

The West, and the Americans in particular, often like to tear out one aspect of the entire complex of problems of strategic stability and say that Russia refuses, so our country is not constructive. This was the case when for a long time this aspect was their desire to visit our nuclear facilities again. At the same time, they maintained hostility that is completely contrary to the principles on which the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was based, of which mutual inspections were a part.

For all the acuteness and "media" of manifestations of confrontation with the West, Russia does not limit its foreign relations to one direction. Otherwise, we were not a great power. In the current situation, God himself told us to develop cooperation with the Global Majority, which is not ready to sacrifice its mutually beneficial relations with us, based on historical memory, for the sake of the West's geopolitical adventure in Ukraine.

Our relations with the countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America in various formats remain a foreign policy priority. We have many things in common with the Global Majority, including a common image of the future multipolar world, a commitment to the fundamental principles of interstate communication, including the main one – the sovereign equality of states.

Just the day before, President Vladimir Putin visited China. This is his first foreign visit after his re-election. Talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and meetings with other representatives of the Chinese leadership confirmed that our relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation are superior in quality to the traditional interstate alliances of the previous era and continue to play a key role in maintaining international security and balanced global development.

I have read the materials that some members of the SVOP are preparing, including discussions about what a "real alliance" is in our time, which will meet the interests of Russia. This topic can and should be specifically discussed. We are ready to discuss and discuss the ideas that have been expressed in publications and are aimed at building a real alliance with China.

The assessment given by our leaders says that relations are so close and friendly that they surpass the quality of classical alliances of the past. It fully reflects the essence of the ties that exist between Russia and China and are being strengthened in almost all areas.

Our actions in the Chinese and other non-Western directions arouse the undisguised anger of the former hegemon and its satellites. Suffice it to see how the United States and its henchmen are trying by any means to prevent the countries of the Global Majority from dealing with Russia and draw them into anti-Russian initiatives, such as holding a "peace conference on Ukraine" in Switzerland. We will also talk about this in more detail. The goal is as simple as possible: to "catch up" with as many participants as possible and create a crowd against which to proclaim that Vladimir Zelensky's "peace formula" is the only settlement plan acceptable to everyone. And at the next stage, it should be imposed on Russia. This goal is not hidden. Vladimir Zelensky, Andriy Yermak and many representatives of the Group of Seven countries, which are co-initiators of this conference with Ukraine, spoke in exactly this vein.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this yesterday at a news conference in Harbin. We are surprised to see these efforts, how adults are engaged in outright "nonsense". It has no prospects. I do not believe that they do not understand this. This means that the task is not to achieve peace, but exclusively to turn as many countries as possible against Russia and then take further hostile steps against Russia on this. All of our partners in the Global South are well aware of what this is all about. We can talk in more detail a little later about the nuances in the position of certain countries of the Global Majority.

When the West persists in imposing Vladimir Zelensky's formula and at the same time increases the supply of longer-range weapons to the Kiev regime, we clearly interpret this as a signal that the West is not ready for a serious conversation. This means that they have made a choice in favor of a showdown on the battlefield. We are ready for this. And always.

But be that as it may, Russia, there is no doubt, defends its interests in the Ukrainian, Western and European directions. And this, by and large, is understood by almost all foreign colleagues in the world with whom we have to communicate. Of course, I do not know what is in the minds of our Western "colleagues" who surprise us with some new revelations every day. Recently, after the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution on a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, at least for the period of the holy month of Ramadan, US Permanent Representative to the UN L. Thomas-Greenfield said that this resolution is not binding.

We will continue to work methodically and consistently to build new international balances, mechanisms and tools that meet the interests of Russia and its partners and the realities of a multipolar world. I recently read an interview with Sergei Karaganov about the need for such efforts, in which he spoke about it in some detail. We have some thoughts on that. We will be happy to share and listen to your opinion.

As far as I understand, we all recognise the complete bankruptcy of the former Euro-Atlantic security model and the West's policy of "dual containment" of Russia and China. Fyodor Lukyanov called the policy of the United States and its allies in the context of the Indo-Pacific strategy "the incarnation of NATO in Asia." Euro-Atlantic security, its Euro-Atlantic model, was associated with the OSCE, relations with NATO and the EU, including the Russia-NATO Council and the Partnership for Peace.

It is clear that none of the above (there were a huge number of treaties, agreements, including with the European Union on the four common spaces and much more) is no longer maintained as an up-to-date agenda. All this has been crossed out, destroyed, torn apart by the Westernizers themselves. At the same time, the West, represented by NATO, made a claim to its leading role in the Indo-Pacific region, as they call the Asia-Pacific region, and above all Southeast Asia. The alliance announced the indivisibility of security in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions. Blocs are being introduced into it, an incarnation of the same NATO. More and more numerous attempts. "Threes", "fours", bites and much more are created. It turns out that, having failed the Euro-Atlantic security model in the West of our continent, which gave some hope for some politicians thirty years ago, now NATO, led by the United States, has decided to take on the southeast of our continent and also establish its own order there.

In this regard, it is impossible not to think about how we can build our work on the topic of security in these conditions. In his Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin outlined the task of working on the topic of Eurasian security. It is clear that the CIS space is an absolute priority for us. This is the core of the near abroad, where Russia has special interests, as well as our neighbors, allies and partners.

It is clear that in the new geopolitical conditions, additional efforts will be required to unleash the potential of the EAEU, to harmonize it more closely with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, to give a new impetus to the work of the SCO, to develop ties with the Central Asian "five", which is being formed as an independent integration project and to which many leading countries, including all key Western states, Russia, China, Turkey, are turning. India with a proposal to develop a dialogue in the "Central Asia +1" format.

Of course, there is ASEAN as well. It has a rich history, dating back many decades, of the formation of philosophy, ensuring security at the level of a balance of interests. The entire architecture that has developed over these long decades around ASEAN is now under attack from the United States, Britain and the EU. They want to replace it with unions, blocs of "small configuration". But work in these areas is a continuation of efforts to form the Greater Eurasian Partnership in line with the idea formulated by President Vladimir Putin in 2015 at the Russia-ASEAN summit.

The Greater Eurasian Partnership and the relations between the organisations (they have already been formalised and are developing), which I have mentioned, can become the material basis for the concept of Eurasian security, which we are now obliged to think about and have no right not to think about. Both the SCO and ASEAN have programs that in one way or another relate to military-political issues. It plays an increasingly important role in their activities. The CSTO also has formalized relations with the SCO. In the CIS, in its program activities, there is a military-political aspect, aspects of combating new challenges and threats.

As a thought for reflection. Of course, we want to unite these Eurasian "shoots" of a new architecture, a new configuration with some kind of common "umbrella".

In this regard, I would like to mention Kazakhstan's initiative to turn the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) into a permanent organisation. In contacts with our Kazakh friends, we present our assessments and express the idea that the orientation of this process of turning CICA into an organization, its focus on the development of a Eurasian security model could become at least a reason for interesting discussions.

Let us not forget that the PRC, through Xi Jinping, once put forward the concept of ensuring global security, based on the logic of the indivisibility of security, when no country should ensure its security at the expense of the security of others. On the whole, this logic on a global scale reproduces what was recorded back in the OSCE in 1999 in Istanbul and in Astana in 2010, when this indivisibility of security was proclaimed as a political commitment of all of us.

You know how the West has dealt with these obligations. He did everything in such a way as to ignore and undermine his commitment and infringe on the security of the Russian Federation at every step, including trying to turn our allies against us. These are also well-known lines.

Nevertheless, President Xi Jinping's initiative on global security was discussed during our visit to China in meetings and delegations, in restricted meetings, and in one-on-one conversations between leaders. We see great reason for the practical promotion of the idea of ensuring global security to begin with the formation of the foundations of Eurasian security without any Euro-Atlantic "patina". Of course, the "euro" will remain, and the "Atlantic" no longer applies to our continent.

I understand that this is a difficult question. We are aware of the existence of a connection between the United States of America and its European, East Asian and Pacific allies – a "network" of all sorts of alliances and coalitions with which Eurasia is practically "entangled" on all sides with the participation of overseas and "trans-Channel" representatives. But it would be wrong not to think about ensuring the security of your continent on your own.

Therefore, we want to work out such processes, try to start them with a group of like-minded people. First of all, I am referring to the SCO and other structures in the Eurasian space that I have listed. At the same time, we will leave the door open for all countries and organisations located on our continent that are related to Eurasia without exception to join this process.

This is all the more relevant since the regionalization of processes at the global level is also observed in other parts of the world. Individual countries and their organizations are striving to take their fate into their own hands and no longer depend on the whims of those who controlled all the tools, mechanisms, models and systems of globalization created by the United States.

We are witnessing such processes in Africa, where African unions and subregional structures have become significantly more active. In Latin America, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, with the return of Brazil, has found a "second wind" and is very actively working to reduce the risks to its economic, financial, and investment projects from the perturbations observed in the current global system.

Let us not forget that the intensification of regional life will benefit if the processes on different continents are harmonized. I cannot fail to mention the potentially important role of the BRICS, which has already doubled its membership. About 30 states are in the "queue" for formalizing relations with this association. As the BRICS chairmanship this year, Russia is giving priority attention in preparing for the ministerial meeting in June in Nizhny Novgorod and the summit in October in Kazan. We pay considerable attention to the most comfortable adaptation of new members to the common work. The second priority of our leaders was the development of criteria for the category of BRICS partner countries. I hope that it will be discussed at the summit in Kazan this fall. [My Emphasis]

That China’s Global Security Initiative that has attracted the interest of a majority of nations—120 at the last count I saw—is to be further promoted is excellent news as IMO this is one of the paths to creating the Global Majority Bloc. Yes, I know the rhetoric is that this and other initiatives are not being aimed at any one nation or group, but reality tells a different tale that before global Harmony and Balance can be attained a conflict between two Blocs will occur on some level, hopefully just political. Lavrov is correct to highlight the West’s warlike position versus Russia and China as that’s somewhat hidden by the West. Again, the reality is the West cannot defeat the combination of Russia and China and daily the West falls further behind. That inability to catch up, the clearly lost Ukraine gambit, along with the inferiority of NATO has enraged the hawks who believe they’re entitled to victory just because. And that brings us to RT’s article featuring Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov:

Russia-obsessed Western elites acting like delinquents – Moscow:

Testing Russia’s resolve seems to be the life goal of some leaders in the West, Deputy Foreign minister Sergey Ryakbov has said:

Some Western leaders are so obsessed with sticking it to Moscow that they’re behaving like delinquent youths who have no regard for the consequences of their actions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said.

He made the comment in an extensive interview with TASS on Friday, during which he discussed the poor state of US-Russia relations. Washington and its allies are “prepared to balance on the edge of direct armed conflict with us,” even though it undermines their national security, he added.

”There are plenty of people among those in power in the US and other key Western states, who are de facto provocateurs. They’ve made testing Moscow’s resolve the goal of their existence,” Ryabkov said.

Such individuals are political bullies, he added, describing them using a Russian term for delinquents and members of teen gangs who reject any kind of rules. They are preoccupied with crossing any red line drawn by Moscow, regardless of the risk of this brinkmanship, said the minister.

Americans, in particular, seem to be hell-bent on irritating Russia, he claimed.

”As they please their own geopolitical notions, they bring closer the phase, in which holding control of events and preventing a catastrophic collapse would be very difficult,” said Ryabkov. “They live in a bubble and do not perceive outside signals that go against their preconceptions.”

The Russian diplomatic corps is therefore severely limited in how it can interact with Western governments, particularly those of NATO countries, he stated.

”What is happening in the Western direction is currently the job of the military and security officials. Diplomacy’s work there is, I would say, in a crisis-management mode, aimed at preventing an escalation into a really massive conflict,” Ryabkov said. The US-led bloc is “a group to which we feel not an ounce of trust, which triggers political and even emotional rejection” in Moscow.

This entrenched hostility is one of the reasons why claims that Russia could interfere in the US presidential election in November make no sense, according to the minister. He compared such statements to a vinyl record so overused that it can only produce noise when played.

”As a matter of fact, it is irrelevant for us who the next US president will be,” he explained. “No chance for the improvement of the situation can be seen, considering the fundamental anti-Russian consensus of the American elites.” [All bolding my emphasis]

I tried to find the entire interview as it is certainly provocative, but TASS only published what snippets it felt proper. Hopefully, the MFA will get the transcript and publish it at its site since the snippets prove there’s more than the above; it was described as an “extensive interview.” Now Ryabkov’s been consistent in holding the above position, which the MFA also holds but isn’t quite as rough in its descriptions. At some point the Outlaw US Empire will need to concede defeat as there’s no way it can win, not even with nukes. Soon its ability to collect rents globally will be seriously curtailed, which IMO is what will finally bring reality home and pop the bubble.

*
*
*
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!