Lavrov's Two Interviews--TASS & Channel 24/Ria Novosti

Apparently, the TASS interview was done on Wednesday but its transcript wasn’t published until Thursday morning with the much longer, detailed filled interview with Ria Novosti/Channel 24 TV occurring Thursday. There are other events that are all happening as we approach the New Year’s weekend holiday, with many wanting to get work done by Saturday, meaning there’s lots to report over the next several days beginning today. First is the relatively short interview with TASS:

Question: In your opinion, how can the Palestinian-Israeli conflict be resolved? Is there a future for the two-state formula? Or maybe other options for solving this long-standing problem are being discussed behind the scenes?

Sergey Lavrov: Personally, we do not discuss anything behind the scenes, we always work openly. It's time for everyone to learn a lesson from the results of U.S. attempts to play behind-the-scenes diplomacy in the Middle East. It was Washington's policy of monopolizing mediation efforts and undermining the international legal framework for a settlement that led to the current escalation in the conflict zone.

Russia's position is based on the decisions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly and the Arab Peace Initiative. The formula for lasting peace is well known. It envisages the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting in peace and security with Israel. The task of international mediators is to help the parties to establish a dialogue in which they can resolve all disputed issues. Of course, this is not easy. But the alternative to negotiations is continued bloodshed. Without a "political horizon," Israelis and Palestinians will continue to live from escalation to escalation, as they have for 75 years.

It is unacceptable both to justify and even more so to encourage terrorist acts and to respond to them by means of collective punishment in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.

The vicious circle of violence must be broken, the injustices that have afflicted generations of Palestinians must be addressed. This is the only way to achieve stabilization in the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation zone and in the Middle East region as a whole.

The post-crisis reconstruction of Gaza should be subject to the same logic. I would not like to go into a detailed discussion of this topic. Moreover, all the talk about the future of the Palestinian enclave is based on all sorts of "leaks" and rumors. It is alarming that, judging by the incoming information, the United States again wants to impose its own approaches that have nothing to do with international law, as was the case in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and many other countries and regions destroyed as a result of Washington's adventures.

First of all, we will be guided by the opinion of the Palestinians themselves, as well as by our regional partners. Ultimately, any development option should contribute to the realization of the legitimate right of the Palestinians to establish their state in all national territories, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

Question: Does Russia have any data on how much the volume of Western military aid to Ukraine has changed? Can we say that against the backdrop of the aggravation of the situation in the Middle East, this topic has faded into the background for the West? If so, how likely is it that Kiev will decide to negotiate with Moscow under such conditions?

Sergey Lavrov: Despite the failure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine's counteroffensive, the West continues to pump Kiev with weapons, raising the stakes by using increasingly lethal and long-range systems in the Ukrainian conflict. NATO weapons are being supplied, including cluster munitions and depleted uranium shells.

The so-called Ramstein format continues to function, in which representatives of more than 50 countries monthly discuss Kiev's requests for the provision of military equipment and ammunition.

The tragic events in the Middle East pushed the Ukrainian crisis off the front pages of the Western media for some time. However, for most unfriendly governments, "inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield" is still among the priorities. Neither Washington nor Brussels refuses to provide assistance to the Kiev regime, understanding that without it it is doomed. They still have a vested interest in deterring Russia with the hands and bodies of Ukrainians.

We are compelled to state the lack of will for peace on the part of the Zelensky regime. Its representatives think in terms of war and resort to very aggressive rhetoric. There is no question of a cessation of hostilities. The ban imposed by Vladimir Zelensky on September 30, 2022 on negotiations with the Russian leadership remains in force. Draw your own conclusions.

Question: More and more threatening events are taking place in the field of arms control, from the US preparations for a nuclear test in Nevada to the deployment of US systems capable of launching intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Is there a threat that in 2024 Washington will break all the pillars of nuclear stability and it will be possible to completely forget about any control mechanisms? Is there still an opportunity for dialogue on agreements in this area, for example, on the New START Treaty?

Sergey Lavrov: The situation in arms control is deteriorating as a result of the destabilising policy and specific destructive actions of the United States. At the same time, the Americans are purposefully increasing tensions in the field of international security. These processes are inextricably linked to each other, one feeds the other and vice versa.

From the point of view of methodology, the Americans either directly destroy treaty regimes by withdrawing from them, as was the case with the ABM Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. Or they create unacceptable conditions for the other side to implement them, as happened with the CFE Treaty and the New START Treaty.

Washington's logic is simple. The pillars that ensured U.S. dominance are slipping from under our feet. This is largely due to the mistakes of the Americans themselves, who believed in their "exceptionalism", infallibility and impunity. In an attempt to slow down the loss of the hegemon's position, they relied on strength. Hence the pursuit of military superiority and the desire to ensure a free hand in the use of force. This explains the rejection of arms control restrictions and other instruments designed to ensure a strategic balance of interests of participants in international processes.

Just one example: the United States put forward a far-fetched pretext and scrapped the INF Treaty. In fact, the missiles banned under the Treaty have simply become necessary for the United States, including against China. Restrictions on them began to get in the way, and they got rid of them without any hesitation. The negative consequences of this step for regional and global security are obvious. With the implementation of plans to deploy US land-based intermediate-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the question of the expediency of further application of the moratorium imposed by Russia on the deployment of similar weapons, linked to the appearance of the same American-made weapons in the relevant regions, is becoming acute.

As for the prospects for dialogue with the United States on the New START Treaty and an agreement on something to replace it, we have made it clear that dialogue is impossible without Washington's abandonment of its anti-Russia course. It is obvious to us that the American ideas on launching negotiations on nuclear arms control with their separation from the negative military-political context and the depressing state of affairs in Russia-West relations are inadequate. Washington's interest is clear: to reduce its nuclear risks by providing an advantage over other military capabilities. For us, this approach, which the Americans call "compartmentalization" (i.e., "Russia is an enemy, but we need something from it"), is absolutely unacceptable. Especially when the United States and its allies continue to provoke an escalation of the crisis around Ukraine, making no secret of their intention to "inflict a strategic defeat on Russia."

We do not abandon the very idea of arms control. However, any hypothetical dialogue in the future on ways to minimize the conflict potential and the parameters of further coexistence with the West will be possible only on the basis of equality and mandatory respect for Russia's fundamental security interests and fundamentally new geopolitical realities. In the absence of readiness for this on the part of the United States and its allies, any reasoning on this topic will have no prospects.

Question: How, in your opinion, can relations between Moscow and Yerevan develop in the future, taking into account the difficulties that have arisen in the dialogue over the past few months? How do you assess the expediency of the further presence of Russian military bases in Armenia and the prospects for cooperation between the republic and NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, official Yerevan, having succumbed to the persuasion of the Westerners, is trying to reformat its foreign policy. It is exchanging the time-tested alliance with Moscow not even for concrete assistance from the West, but only for vague promises. In order to justify the course of a strategic turn, they are trying to blame Russia for all the troubles of the republic, including the loss of Karabakh. We have repeatedly spoken about Russia's concerns in public – there is no point in reiterating the unfriendly steps of the Armenian authorities.

Armenia has been and remains a strategic partner in the South Caucasus. We are convinced that all difficulties are temporary and will be overcome if there is political will. It is the sustainable and systematic development of Russian-Armenian relations that meets the fundamental interests of the peoples of our two states, who have common values and a common cultural code.

Trade and economic ties and sectoral dialogue between Moscow and Yerevan are developing at an impressive pace. This is the foundation for the relations between the two countries, as well as the most important assistance for the stability of the Armenian economy and the well-being of the Armenian population. The rapid growth of the republic's GDP in recent years is largely due to cooperation with Russia and Yerevan's membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. On December 14-15, the 22nd session of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation co-chaired by the Deputy Prime Ministers was held in Yerevan. Next year, Armenia will chair the EAEU. We wish our colleagues success.

Armenia is now facing a number of challenges. Moreover, it will not be possible to stop them with the help of Western players. The U.S. and the EU, unlike Russia, do not seek to bring peace and stability to the republic and the South Caucasus as a whole. Their task is completely different – to squeeze out Moscow and other regionals, to create a new hotbed of tension after the Balkans, the Middle East and Ukraine. The way out of the difficult situation is obvious – to implement the trilateral agreements of Yerevan, Baku and Moscow at the highest level.

We consider the arguments on the expediency of the 102nd Russian military base on the territory of Armenia to be harmful. The agreement on its deployment there was signed on March 16, 1995, based primarily on the national interests and the common task of our states to strengthen stability in the South Caucasus. Today, our military is a key element in ensuring peace in this region.

Recently, Yerevan has been developing cooperation with NATO and its individual member states. This year, Armenia took part in several dozen events with the alliance. It continues to modernize its armed forces according to NATO standards, the military republics are trained in a number of states of the North Atlantic bloc.

This is a matter of concern for us. We have repeatedly drawn the attention of our Armenian colleagues to the fact that the true goal of NATO is to strengthen its positions in the region and create conditions for manipulation according to the "divide and rule" scheme. I hope that Yerevan is aware that the deepening of cooperation with the alliance leads to the loss of sovereignty in the field of national defense and security.

Question: At the end of this year, the situation in the Middle East deteriorated dramatically, and the African continent was extremely restless in the summer. Does Russia expect an escalation of the situation in a number of other regions in the coming year? Where are the greatest risks?

Sergey Lavrov: The world continues to be in turmoil, and one of the reasons is that the ruling circles of the West provoke crises thousands of kilometers away from their borders in order to solve their own problems at the expense of other nations.

Remember the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq under the false pretext of the presence of weapons of mass destruction there, the collapse of Libyan statehood, and the intervention in Syria. This includes the unleashing of an armed conflict in Eastern Europe through the expansion of NATO and the transformation of Ukraine into an anti-Russian bridgehead. The most recent is the aggravation of the situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Conflict nodes exist in other regions as well. You mentioned Africa, but there is also Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula. The Americans openly encourage separatist tendencies in Taiwan in defiance of repeated warnings from Beijing that this runs counter to China's fundamental interests.

It can be said that at a time when the West is clinging to its elusive dominance, no one is immune to its geopolitical intrigues. And this understanding is growing in the world. We feel this in the course of communication with partners in the international arena. Most of them agree with us that sooner or later our Western colleagues will have to accept the realities of a multipolar world, and then all issues will be resolved on the basis of a balance of interests. However, until then, the crisis development is likely to continue.

Now we have the much longer interview with Ria Novosti and Channel 24 TV:

Dmitry Kiselev: What do you see as Russia's main diplomatic victory in 2023?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult to single out a single event. I believe that our victory was not only and not so much diplomatic. First of all, it is "forged" on the front line, in the zone of a special military operation.

But without the rear, without popular support, the results would certainly have been different. All our people, our entire leadership, headed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, are ensuring progress. It is evident and progressive, it is reflected in the results on the line of contact, the results of hostilities and the economy, which President Vladimir Putin spoke about just recently, noting that its growth this year is expected to be at least 3.5% against the backdrop of falling GDP growth in Europe, including in Germany, which was the locomotive of the European economy.

The main thing is that almost the entire country, all segments of society have worked and continue to work for victory. When we launched the special military operation, the West began to gloat that Vladimir Putin wanted to stop NATO expansion. Now the alliance is expanding to Finland, Sweden is next in line. Probably, for them, it is some kind of self-soothing, to convince themselves that everything was "right". But that's not what they wanted. The main goal was not to expand NATO, but to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia. This was the meaning of the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Back in 2015, US President Barack Obama spoke of tearing our economy to shreds. Now they are witnessing the opposite effect of their policy on the weakening and even "dismemberment" of Russia. Many idle "pike vests" abroad began to talk about this, too.

As a result of this hybrid war of the entire "collective West" against Russia, unleashed by the hands, bodies and all other "components" of Ukrainian society against us, with the use of modern Western weapons, Russia has become significantly stronger this year. The unity of our people has increased significantly. I am sure that this is not what they wanted, but just the opposite, the separation of the country, protests against the special military operation. The sanctions were supposed to stir up the people and raise protest waves. And they have achieved the unity of the country and the people.

Dmitry Kiselev: Do diplomats feel this?

Sergey Lavrov: We feel it. Moreover, we are actively involved in this. On the outer contour, everything that happens is the subject of difficult discussions.

The overwhelming majority of states, the world majority, have not joined the sanctions, but are not yet able to truly raise their voices in the discussions. But there is a growing realization that this can happen to anyone, and that any country can become the target of American, European and other sanctions of Washington's allies. No one knows that America won't like it the next morning. In recent years, the U.S. has disliked the fact that Ukraine was a neighbor of Russia, which sought to build a normal working relationship with its neighbor. They began to "drag" it into the European Union under the slogan "either with us or with Russia." This either-or is not going away.

Look at Serbia. They are now being told the same thing: "Let's join the sanctions against Russia, give up Kosovo, recognize it as fully independent, then we will accept you into the European Union."

Dmitry Kiselev: And if not, then a coup d'état.

Sergey Lavrov: They tried to stage a coup d'état.

I would like to note (since you have already paid attention to this) how the Western community, represented by the European Union, reacted to the last elections. The United States accused the Serbian authorities of using "stuffing" and bribing voters during the local elections. This was said from Washington and was heard on the same day that the campaign to remove Donald Trump from the election began. That's what the ruling elite wanted. This has already caused waves of indignation in the United States itself. But this means nothing to the US administration. They are allowed to do anything. They will do whatever they want and dictate to others. Many countries understand this.

More and more states are telling us that they are with us. They understand that a long process of establishing a multipolar world has begun, they will help with deeds, sometimes they will be forced to "excuse themselves" a little (sorry for the rude expression) so that they are not pestered too much. This is a serious trend.

The West's desire to teach others is not limited to Africa, Latin America, and even Serbia, a small European country.

Recently, Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel visited Beijing. I was shocked when Ursula von der Leyen said in an interview on the sidelines of this visit that the European attitude towards China will be determined by how it behaves in Ukraine. I couldn't imagine such impudence. Yes, they are used to talking to their former colonies, to some "average" countries that are financially dependent on the European Union and other Western states. But to talk like that with a great power, with the world's largest economy, with a country with thousands of years of history, culture and traditions... This says a lot about the manners of the modern European bureaucracy.

Dmitry Kiselev: We will return to this topic later. After all, we are talking on New Year's Eve. How would you define Russia's main diplomatic tasks in the coming year?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, we must continue to provide external, active, offensive support for the special military operation. This task has been set by President Vladimir Putin. He himself is leading efforts to work on the foreign policy front. Our tasks in this regard are a priority.

Everything else is also subordinated to the task of ensuring an objective perception of Russia abroad. It's always been that way. In the context of the special military operation, our confrontation with the West, including on the economic and sanctions front, an objective explanation of our actions is of particular importance.

The key areas that have been significantly adjusted (and some have been redefined) are reflected in the Foreign Policy Concept, which was approved by the President of Russia in March of this year. It makes an unequivocal emphasis on the priority of developing relations with the world majority, and not with those countries that have publicly declared us an adversary. (Some even called us an enemy, like US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, an official.) If so, we are ready for any eventuality. More than once they tried to conquer and subdue us.

In line with this emphasis on the global majority, on those who are ready to work with us honestly, mutually beneficial and with mutual respect, including in the economy, politics and security, our chairmanship next year is of central importance. There are two of them: one in the CIS, the other in BRICS.

I will not talk at length about the CIS, about the importance of our inner circle, allies and strategic partners. There is a chairmanship programme that is based on the experience gained in the post-Soviet space. There is every reason to believe that the CIS will continue to increase its positive dynamics in all spheres of its activities in the coming year.

Of course, our BRICS chairmanship has a global dimension. Its membership doubled following the summit in Johannesburg in August of this year, and from January 1, 2024, we will have to ensure the smooth entry of "new recruits" into our work in the newly doubled composition of member states. It covers the sphere of politics in the international arena, international security, economics, culture, education (universities cooperate with each other) and, increasingly, the field of sports.

The BRICS Games, events to create their own film awards, and the revival of the Intervision Song Contest are planned, but not in the former Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, as it was, but in BRICS Plus. Almost all countries will have the opportunity to participate in this competition.

The most important thing is the economy and finance. At the summit in August of this year, the BRICS countries clearly outlined the task (the main initiator of which was President of Brazil Lula Lula da Silva) for central banks and finance ministers to submit recommendations on alternative payment systems. Everyone is tired of the dollar, which is becoming an instrument of influence, undermining the legitimate competitive positions of countries in different regions, interfering in internal affairs, and regime change.

Brazilian President Lula Lula da Silva has proposed thinking about alternative means of payment for all of Latin America. But in addition to this regional initiative, it has a global offering. It is being developed in BRICS. By the next summit in October 2024 in Kazan, the ministries of finance and central banks should submit such a proposal.

It is about safeguarding and protecting the world economy from those who for many years, after the colonial era, tried to preserve elements of it in the sense that they wanted to continue to live at the expense of others. They imposed their model of globalization on everyone, in which many believed. The market economy, fair competition, the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence – all this was introduced by the West as global values. In the same way, the Americans constantly stressed that the dollar is the reserve currency not of the United States, but of the whole world, the most reliable safety net against any troubles. When they had to solve the general (as they believe) task of weakening Russia, undermining our position in the world, without hesitation, without hesitation, all these principles were discarded, and a real war began.

This conclusion has been made very firmly for everyone. Now the formation of the global economic system will take different paths.

We understand that our Chinese friends have ten times more trade with the United States and the European Union than the Russian Federation. But it is decreasing, while our trade with China has grown by almost 30%. It exceeded the $200 billion mark ahead of schedule (now it is about $230 billion). By the end of the year, statisticians will "finish" the final results.

I want to say the following. China has outmaneuvered the United States on its "field," on the basis of the norms of globalization imposed by the United States and used by the Chinese. In general, we worked on these principles after the Soviet Union disappeared, everyone thought that the era of general prosperity had begun, that now everyone is "a friend to man, a comrade and a brother."

The U.S. has seen China rise. Washington's stated goal was that no country should be stronger than America in any area of human endeavor. That is, total hegemony. This is the official ideology. Americans began to discriminate against Chinese goods. China has been filing lawsuits with the World Trade Organization, a dispute settlement body, for years. For many years, this body has not been able to consider them, because the United States has blocked the work of this mechanism, preventing the election of new members to replace those who withdrew. Basically, there is no quorum, such a simple combination. This is one example, of which there are many. The United States is ready to use such methods.

The movement towards a more equitable economic world order is unstoppable. At the BRICS summit, a clear task was set, a demand was put forward – to give the members of the BRICS and other developing countries that have "risen" economically and financially quotas in the IMF and the World Bank, which reflect their real economic weight. They don't want to. This is yet another manifestation of how the United States is distorting its own principles of fair competition.

We can talk about these tasks for a long time. They will be solved not only during the next year, but also for many years after.

Dmitry Kiselev: We can see changes in the Ukrainian track. What to expect? What are you preparing for as diplomats?

Sergey Lavrov: To the fact that the goals set will be realised: demilitarisation and denazification. There's no getting away from it. We are actively working with developing countries. Especially in the context of the fact that the West is really changing its tactics now. Maybe he is even thinking about "refining the strategy". Because if Russia's "strategic defeat" is a strategy (pardon the tautology), then it has failed miserably. Everyone understands this. There are some "calls" and whispers, like, why don't you meet someone who would be ready to talk in Europe. And to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine.

They used to boast of the position of "not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine." There are "approaches" and leaks in the Western media that the West now wants to look for some ways out of this situation. But ways that would still make it possible to declare the "victory" of Ukraine. These are idle officials to whom it is important to report (as was the case in some bureaucratic structures of the Soviet Union in the past), to "report" the five-year plan in three or four years. In most cases, this was the case, but often it was "fraudulent". In my opinion, what the West is doing now is very similar to the worst examples of "fraud" that our country has ever known. Moreover, they are trying to "rub" these "glasses" clumsily. It is clear what they want – to get out of this very difficult state as soon as possible, into which Europe was driven primarily by the United States, which has disrupted the European economy, has risen very seriously at the expense of Europe, dragging industrial production there, providing their industry with energy resources 4-5 times cheaper than the prices imposed on the Europeans for their liquefied natural gas, instead of pipeline gas, after they blew up our pipelines. And they've done it before. You need some way out "without losing face" or a way out that allows you to at least convince yourself that you have not "lost" your face. That's how I see it.

Part of this "tactic" that has changed is the launch of the "Copenhagen format", created in June 2023. The goal was to force them to subscribe to Vladimir Zelensky's "peace formula". It is a figment of a sick imagination. Whatever is written in the form of "vignettes": food security, energy security, most importantly – Russia, go to the borders of 1991, give up Crimea, Donbass. And in general, they were going to arrange an "exclusion zone" around Russia, where a demilitarized zone would be declared on the territory of the country itself, and many other things.

When developing countries began to attend these events, we asked them why they needed it. Don't they understand that this is a "dummy" at best? We were told that everyone understands this. This was said by everyone who was invited there from among the World Majority. But they wanted two things. The first is to listen to what they have to say and how serious such a denouement of the conflict can be. Secondly, they wanted to explain that nothing good would come of it until there were direct negotiations with the participation of Russia. Not only was Russia ready for such talks, but we practically agreed (President Vladimir Putin recently confirmed once again).

Given our good relations, I can say that another meeting took place ten days ago: the G7 plus the leading developing countries. Not all of the world's majority countries participated. Some declined the invitation. The meeting was held in complete secrecy. Nothing was reported about her anywhere. No leaks were reported.

Dmitry Kiselev: But you know.

Sergey Lavrov: We know. Those who took part in this meeting from among our close allies and like-minded people, they did not promise anyone to keep any secrets from us on an issue related to the Russian Federation. We agreed to hold another meeting in January 2024, and a whole "peace summit" in February, where they will "approve" Vladimir Zelensky's "peace formula".

What we are told is confirmed by various sources. The West is talking about "Vladimir Zelensky's 10 points" – not a step to the side, not to the left, not to the right, not back, only forward. Approve them as they are. Speaking in Russian, such a "wiring" (sorry for the jargon). Like, here are the 10 points. If you don't like the cordon sanitaire around Russia, take food security. Like, we understand.

Then they will say that so many countries are participating, one has taken such an "innocent point", the other has taken a second "innocent point", for example, nuclear security, and all together, therefore, support a return to 1991.

When we talk to the countries that are invited to these "get-togethers" and those that remain outside the framework of this process, but are interested in how this crisis will be resolved, we explain to them a simple thing.

What does 1991 mean? This means that Ukraine remains within the borders that were formed at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. President Vladimir Putin recently reiterated that part of this process was Ukraine's adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly stated that there is no NATO, everyone is equal, the rights of minorities and much more.

Now, Vladimir Zelensky is saying, "Give me these lands." A lot has happened since 1991. A series of laws have been adopted, starting with the "period of Viktor Yushchenko" and continuing with the "period of Petr Poroshenko" and "the period of Viktor Zelensky". This is a post-coup campaign. The Russian language is banned in all spheres. To this day, the Constitution of Ukraine states that the rights of Russians and other national minorities are guaranteed and described in detail in education, culture, upbringing, and in almost all spheres. In gross violation of the Constitution, the adopted laws prohibit all this. Local acts were added to the laws. For example, a couple of months ago, Viktor Klitschko banned the use of the Russian language in any sphere in Kiev's cultural, social and everyday life. However, most of them still speak Russian. This reflects the true authority of the Ukrainian regime and all its "slogans".

There is a selection of quotes on how Ukrainian officials think about Russians. After the coup d'état, former Prime Minister of Ukraine Oleksandr Yatsenyuk said that they were "subhumans." Later, Petr Poroshenko said that their children would study in schools and kindergartens, while children in Donbass would sit in basements. Even before the start of the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky was asked what he thought about the people who live in Donbass and demand the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. He said that there are people and there are "beings." They say that if you are in Ukraine, a Ukrainian citizen, but you feel that you are involved in the Russian language, Russian culture, you should go to Russia. This was said in August 2021.

Therefore, those who are now "inviting" the rest of the world to support the demands to return Ukraine to the borders of 1991 are demands for genocide.

Dmitry Kiselev: On Monday, Vladimir Putin actually called the war a civil war. It's been heard. And Russians and Ukrainians are one people. This means that we are the largest divided nation in the world (analogous to East and West Germany). Now there is a struggle for unification. This is a historic process. Moreover, President Vladimir Putin defined the geographical boundaries of this by saying that the western regions of Ukraine have historically tended to be Western countries. And those countries don't mind either. He said that we would not object, but we would not give up what was ours. That is, in fact, the meaning of what is happening is much broader than the originally set goals of the special military operation: denazification and demilitarization. It is a historical unification of a divided people. How else can this process be perceived? Isn't that right?

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely. We felt this tragedy when the Soviet Union collapsed, and overnight, overnight, in the morning, more than twenty-five million people felt themselves abroad. It was the CIS space. At that time, everyone proceeded, as they swore in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, as they swore in December 1991 in Almaty, that we are brothers forever, there are no artificial obstacles for us to live and communicate in the same language. Yes, in different countries, it happened, but in the same civilisational and historical space. It was all there.

The process of destroying this ideology of brotherhood and unity began in Ukraine. A lot of evidence has been published about how the Americans and the British began to "warm up" especially actively since 1993 and what it all came to.

I would like to return to the end of the answer to the previous question. It has to do with what we're talking about now. Secretary of the Security Council of Ukraine Alexander Danilov and all sorts of Yermaks and Podolyaks are declaring that they will take Crimea. Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine Konstantin Budanov said again not so long ago that Crimea would be taken away, but that there would probably be several hundred thousand people there...

Dmitry Kiselev: I think there are millions there.

Sergey Lavrov: A lady said a million.

Dmitry Kiselev: "There's a lot of work to be done, there are millions of these wrong people."

Sergey Lavrov: People speak Russian. "We will eradicate all this from you", "we will kill the Russians".

That's how it's described. It is an objective fact, as you quoted from President Putin's statements, that this is one divided nation. The overwhelming majority of the population in Ukraine has always spoken Russian, read Russian books, watched Russian films, and developed Russian culture. Some actors of the comedy genre did not "get out" of Russia, performed in Russian in Russian shows, performances and other games. These are the people who now, including the president of Ukraine, are talking about the destruction of everything Russian.

Recently, Vladimir Zelensky decided to say something in Russian and asked to be reminded. The entire "network" community is watching how a few years ago he spoke in principle in the spirit of the script of "Servant of the People", saying: "Leave the Russians behind, this is their language, live normally." They say that he is a Jew himself, his native language is Russian, and he is a citizen of Ukraine. Why can't he return to this principled line? He betrayed his people. Even both of their own people.

In expressing this idea, President of Russia Vladimir Putin emphasised that we lived normally when Ukraine was faithful to the Declaration of State Sovereignty. It spells out a non-aligned status and fraternal relations with neighbors. We've seen that they seem to be trying to follow these principles. President Vladimir Putin even recalled how under Viktor Yushchenko people found ways to communicate and make friends. For all its "Western" orientation, we did not have crises and rejection, which was artificially implanted in the minds of a new generation of Ukrainian politicians from Washington, London and other capitals.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has been saying for a long time, "We will not give up what is ours." Recently, he recalled the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, where a declaration was adopted that stated that Georgia and Ukraine would be in the North Atlantic Alliance. This summit was followed by the Russia-NATO summit. I was there. President Vladimir Putin asked then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel why they did this, because they said it would never happen. She replied that it was George W. Bush who "pressed" her, but they had won. Because what is written has no legal force – it is a political promise. Vladimir Putin clarified that he had a legal promise. It turned out that this would be if Georgia and Ukraine were officially opened the "doors" and provided with an action plan for membership, which is already a bureaucratic document. It is necessary to tick each column as the curators give the go-ahead for this or that reform. Vladimir Putin said that they were mistaken.

At the Russia-NATO meeting, the President of our country asked in the presence of everyone: why did they do this? He began to explain how fragile the statehood of Ukraine is: how it was created, how it happened when the western regions became part of the Soviet Union, how it was necessary to make sure that they were close to the Russian people and traditions. Everything was explained. The message was that by doing so, the alliance was undermining a delicate balance. Western and Eastern Ukrainians lived in the same state, but even the holidays were different. In the west of Ukraine, by that time, they stopped celebrating May 9, and began to celebrate the birthdays of Stepan Bandera, R. Shukhevych and the creation of the Ukrainian insurgent army. In the East, May 9 will never be forgotten. NATO should understand at least these semantic things.

After that, they began to spread information in the media that President of Russia Vladimir Putin had allegedly said that Ukraine was an artificial entity and that it should be destroyed. Great is the ability to express a thought in the way that your masters expect from you. President Vladimir Putin admitted at the time what we are witnessing in western Ukraine. Poles are looking there, Budapest is outraged by the way the Ukrainian government treats Hungarians living in Transcarpathia. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó regularly express their indignation and demand the return of education in the Hungarian language, which is being cut off there. It's the same with the Romanians.

Here's another example. A coup d'état took place in Ukraine. Crimea rebelled and repelled the attempts of "thugs" with bats and guns in their hands to seize the Supreme Council of Crimea, and held a referendum. Donbass also said that it wanted nothing to do with them and declared independence. It was only a year later that we persuaded the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics to sign the Minsk agreements. After the Crimean Spring, when hostilities were still going on, the Kiev regime declared Donetsk and Luhansk residents terrorists, launched a punitive anti-terrorist operation, and bombed cities (including Lugansk). At the end of April 2014, then-US Secretary of State John Kerry proposed a meeting in Geneva. He was accompanied by the head of European diplomacy, the British Catherine Ashton, and the Ukrainian acting head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oleksandr Deshchytsia (he later left as ambassador to Poland).

We talked absolutely normally. We agreed on a one-and-a-half-to-two-page document (and I was not even the author of many of the provisions), which proclaimed the task of federalizing Ukraine and starting the process of preparing a federal treaty with the participation of all heads of Ukraine's regions without exception. This was perceived as a natural thing on the part of John Kerry and K. Ashton. The document was not adopted. But Washington and London understood that at that time this was a way out of the situation, so that a chain reaction would not be created there and everything would not go downhill.

Federalisation as a principle was categorically rejected, and to a greater extent by Vladimir Zelensky. Petr Poroshenko signed the Minsk Agreements, and federalisation was clearly visible there – the special status of Donbass was to be reflected in the Constitution of Ukraine. What is this, if not federalization? Then Vladimir Zelensky deceived French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In December 2019, the Normandy Four met in Paris and agreed on a document that stated exactly what was the reason for the lack of progress, namely, the need to grant a special status to the DPR and LPR and enshrine it on a permanent basis in the constitution.

Vladimir Zelensky signed it. And a few years later, when the special military operation had already begun, the head of his office, Oleksandr Yermak, said that the President of Ukraine had "fooled" everyone so that they would leave him behind, and he was engaged in business (senior comrades helped). I wanted to buy time.

Question: Don't you have the feeling that Germany is demonstrating "black ingratitude" towards Russia? After all, it was thanks to Moscow that East and West Germany were able to unite. Now Germany is obstructing the process by sending tanks with crosses.

Sergey Lavrov: You could call it that. But when someone shows "black ingratitude" to someone, then people with conscience are ashamed and even fall asleep with difficulty. The people involved in the leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany do not have such a feeling.

We can talk for a long time. Yes, we played a decisive role in the reunification of Germany. The Anglo-Saxons didn't want it at all. We were reluctant to do this, fearing the revival of Germany as the largest and most powerful power in Europe, and especially fearing that we would establish normal relations with the FRG. And so it was. This served as the basis for Germany's economic prosperity.

More from memories. In February 2015, the Munich Security Conference was held. At that time, it was still trying to claim objectivity, inviting a wide range of public opinion to various events. Now it is already "pumping brains" on Western "yeast". There are no alternative "institutions" there. And in 2015 there were.

I spoke a week and a half before the Minsk agreements and almost a year after Crimea returned to Russia. A German member of the European Parliament (I don't remember his name) asked why we "annexed" Crimea. I replied that if we were to have such a conversation, we should remember the fate of the German people when they were divided. He laughed hysterically to the whole hall, trying to get the audience going. The meaning of the intonation of the hysteria was, like, how dare I compare the fact that the Germans have exercised their right, and we have allegedly taken away the non-Russian Crimea from the Ukrainians.

Strikingly. This is 2015, the best of times, when Germany had economic advantages at our expense that allowed it to maintain the highest standard of living. It was then that they set the refugee allowance at a level that now causes outrage among German pensioners.

Question: What have the Americans done to Europe and Germany? If this continues, where will the European Union end?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't see a bright future in the European Union (in the good sense of the word). In others, they have already determined their future.

Americans are very cynical. They have developed a psychology that is sometimes called "island", like Britain. Even the British are the backbone of the people who have migrated to America. They "cleansed" it of the indigenous population, drove its remnants into some reservations. This insular mentality is reinforced by the fact that there are no serious security threats around them other than those they create for themselves.

There is this feeling that everything is in order "overseas", somewhere there you can "fish in troubled water". Therefore, now we will "muddy" this water there and see how to derive some benefit.

It started with Vietnam. They proclaimed that they wanted capitalist democracy in this country, not communist power. Then Iraq, Libya. But everyone knows all this. Serbia is on everyone's lips.

It's the same with Ukraine. They believed that Europe would be responsible for American interests. Even Donald Trump, when he said that they need to think more about themselves. Even under him, this "deep state", which ensures the work of the US administration, still set Europe up to believe that, even if they keep fewer troops there (but they are responsible for the "clearing", so we should not relax), that they will still ensure the dominance of the "golden billion" in all parts of the world. They have it. Only a serious internal American problem or upheaval can bring them to their senses. So far, this infallibility and superiority are overflowing. This was especially evident in the actions of the democratic administration and in the desire to subjugate not only the whole world, but also their own country in violation of their own constitution. Right now, this could lead to some pretty interesting problems inside the U.S.

Question: Europe is clearly deteriorating as a result of this kind of alliance. The British magazine The Economist ranks the German economy twenty-seventh in the world. When was it even happening? Economic growth is less than in Russia. It's all kind of strange. What, then, lies ahead if they behave like this?

Sergey Lavrov: You remember how German Foreign Minister Angela Baerbock said four months ago during her speech at the Forum 2000 in the Czech Republic, when economic problems were already beginning to manifest themselves (what should they do, their living standards were falling, the middle class was going bankrupt, deindustrialisation was taking place, and business was going to America) that "no matter what my German voters think, I want to keep my promise to the people of Ukraine." She didn't even try to build logical connections.

Question: Not so long ago, Josep Borrell introduced himself as European Defence Minister. Now he says that he is not only the chief diplomat, but also the Minister of Defense of Europe.

What kind of people "rule" in general? How do you assess the staff there?

Sergey Lavrov: To be honest, it may not be diplomatic, it is a pathetic impression. In terms of professionalism. We worked with this team of the European Commission and Josep Borrell's service for a couple of years before they broke off relations after the special military operation. To put it mildly, I wasn't impressed at all.

Already in Europe, in Hungary, Slovakia and in some other countries (in Hungary and Slovakia the leadership, and in other countries there are more and more parliamentarians and opposition politicians) the question is being asked: why is the European Union and the twenty-seven countries governed by presidents and prime ministers elected in national elections by the will of their peoples led by the European Commission, which no one has elected? Its composition is the subject of undercover bargaining among the leaders of the EU countries. The argument that they are elected, so they have the authority to agree on who will work in this European Commission, is incorrect. They have a rule that everything is equal, just like under communism. Therefore, each member of the European Union is obliged to have a European Commissioner. This is where trade, combinations, compromises, and deals begin, as a result of which gray personalities sometimes infiltrate the European Commission.

When this structure is headed by such an authoritarian figure as Ursula von der Leyen, who announces many decisions without consulting anyone, it causes internal contradiction and protest. It also only adds to the problems of the EU, because it has enough natural and, above all, economic problems due to the policy of the Americans and sanctions against Russia. There are also internal squabbles that will escalate.

Question: Our time is coming to an end, but we still have an important issue to deal with – the Gaza Strip. Israel has already announced that the war will last for months. Hamas is allegedly being destroyed.

Although the Americans have been flirting with him for a long time. A year ago, you even wrote an article in Izvestia about all sorts of stagings. What was the result? Was this also a staged Hamas attack on Israel? How should we perceive all this? Some even think that the destruction of the Gaza Strip is a special operation in order to dig a parallel Suez Canal from the Gulf of Eilat through the Negev desert. It's three hundred kilometers there. With modern technology and money, it's not difficult. What was that? What is the essence of this geopolitical process?

Sergey Lavrov: There are a lot of conspiracy theories now.

Just a few days ago, our television and social networks once again reported by a Western media outlet, Western journalists and researchers (I think Samuel Hersh also published this) that the entire Israeli leadership had been warned by intelligence a year before October 7 of this year about a large-scale terrorist attack being prepared.

I cannot assume (if this is true) that no preventive measures have been taken. Moreover, I know to what extent the Israeli army and its security forces are able and always ready to carry out preventive strikes.

This reminded me of another conspiracy theory, when the Twin Towers were attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, followed by the outbreak of war in Afghanistan and the announcement of the "Greater Middle East" project.

There were other, less bloody conspiracy theories, such as the moon landing. So far, no one has been able to calm down completely. Although, it would seem that in all three cases such a number of people should have known about what was happening. This is still unclear. Strangely.

I don't even want to admit that normal people can sacrifice hundreds of their fellow citizens in order to have some pretext, or to trample on a terrorist organisation that they hate and want to completely eradicate it, or to get some economic and logistical benefits.

You said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Hamas must be destroyed in its entirety and as a military force. It's like demilitarization. He also said extremism must be eradicated in Gaza. It's like denazification. Moreover, it is not very clear to me why the previous Israeli government, when Yasser Lapid was Prime Minister (before that he was Foreign Minister and then became Prime Minister), reacted in such a way to the start of our special military operation. His reaction was surprising to me. Like, how dare Russia use force against the civilian population, annexed Ukrainian territories.

It wasn't fair. We talked about it. I don't know how he analyses and describes the events now, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite numerous critical statements from all over the world and the fact that he found himself in a serious situation, he did not and does not allow himself to make any statements regarding Russia. I had two telephone conversations with President of Russia Vladimir Putin (1, 2). The Israelis, as well as the Egyptians, helped us evacuate our citizens who were taken hostage or simply wanted to leave the Gaza Strip.

We need to be very careful about our shared history with Israel. And first of all, to the history of the fight against Nazism. This is the main thing that unites us historically. It's the foundation of our genetic code, if you will.

The Holocaust and the extermination of the multinational Soviet people are things of the same order apart from numbers. 6 million people – the Holocaust and more than 20 million people – the peoples of the Soviet Union.

A year ago, the Israeli ambassador to Kiev remained silent at a news conference on Holocaust Remembrance Day, when asked what he thought about the fact that Ukraine glorifies Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and other Nazis, and uses and reveres these symbols. He was asked if this meant that Israel had changed its attitude. He said "no" and said that to the Israelis, they were still Nazis, unacceptable, and that would be forever. But, they say, Ukraine has a complicated history. I understand why Ukrainians treat these figures and political structures in such a way. Now that's scary.

Dmitry Kiselev: What are the main trends in international development today?

Sergey Lavrov: The emergence of a multipolar world. It is also called a polycentric world. The concept is old. It was formulated by Yevgeny Primakov when the RIC group (Russia, India and China) was created. With the addition of Brazil, it became the BRICs. Then South Africa turned it into the BRICS. Now it is turning into a "ten". And another 27 countries are "standing in line" to obtain at least the status of a partner state. Because it is impossible to "blow up" the membership 5 times in such a period. We will gradually introduce the BRICS culture into global politics.

When multipolarity was discussed at the previous stages, many people, including our scholars and experts, expressed fears that if there is not a bipolar world, which provided rigid, albeit negative stability, but stability, if there is no unipolar world, which tried to replace the bipolar one after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, but did not succeed, what about this multipolarity, which reflects the emergence of new centers of economic growth, will not succeed. military force, political influence, the world will descend into chaos, and there will be no organizing principle. It seems to me that the fears are unfounded.

After the collapse of American globalization (first it was affected by the pandemic, when the chains were disrupted, then the anti-Russian campaign, sanctions destroyed everything that was once a single world economy), the natural process of regionalization is underway. We have the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN. Partnerships have already been established between the three organizations. This is the prototype of the continental Eurasian system of cooperation. Security issues discussed in the CSTO, the SCO and the CIS are being brought under the economic base. This is also where the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road" goes. There is an agreement with the EAEU.

In other regions, there is the African Union and subregional structures in Africa. In Latin America, CELAC includes all Latin American countries. There are also subregional structures on this continent. ALBA, which was created by Venezuela, CAIS, MERCOSUR.

These are the structures that really take the main responsibility for their development and try to coordinate their external relations. In the way they are developing now, there is also a desire to get rid of excessive dependence on the dollar. This is what multipolarity is all about, when not only and not so much countries (Brazil, India, China, and Russia will always be independent poles), but also associations of smaller, medium-sized and even small countries become poles. Regionalization organically fits into the trend of BRICS enlargement, which provides a grid linking sub-regional and regional processes. It won't end this year.

Dmitry Kiselev: A polycentric world is one thing, and the trend towards de-dollarisation is two.

Sergey Lavrov: It goes hand in hand.

Dmitry Kiselev: What about an unlimited arms race? Is this a trend? In fact, it is going on.

Sergey Lavrov: If we look at the Americans, their appetites, the latest data on their military budget, and look at the preparations that are underway in and around the Taiwan Strait, they certainly do not abandon the use of force to resolve problems that they consider their own.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said they would develop dialogue with China and act from a position of strength to manage the rivalry. They have a "position of strength" everywhere.

We started talking about Asia and the South China Sea, where the Americans are trying in every possible way to undermine the dialogue between China and ASEAN, to create some new formats subordinate to them, and to meddle in their own business. Now China and the United States are setting up meetings, the military seems to have met.

China is constantly outraged by what the Americans are doing to Taiwan. Most recently, a representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that if the Americans recognize the "one China" principle, it is unacceptable to supply weapons and pump weapons into a state that does not exist (Taiwan).

The U.S. position is also very interesting and disingenuous: it recognizes the "one China" principle, but says that the status quo must not be violated. It makes sense. The status quo is what China calls an unacceptable treatment of Taiwan as an independent state. Sly speeches have always distinguished our Western colleagues.

We always try to tell the truth, to be straightforward. This is especially necessary in the current environment, when everyone needs to know who is who, who is worth what, and who is striving for what. We strive to implement the most important principle enshrined in the UN Charter. It says respect for the sovereign equality of states.

Telling the truth often comes across as a lie when the information zone controlled by the West is flooded with lies since it’s contradictory—what George Seldes was told before WW1: You Can’t Print That—as your reporting goes against the government narrative as Seldes’s continued to do for the vast majority of his life as a journalist. Lavrov’s article for Izvestia mentioned and linked above needs to be translated and provided to readers. I’d append it to these interviews, but that would make this way too long. I’ll combine it with Putin’s meeting with Novatec’s CEO which is my next project.

*
*
*
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!