Lavrov's UN Presser Post OIC & UNSC Meetings

Lavrov conducted a press conference after his meeting with the OIC and UNSC appearance. He also announced the shootdown of the Russian plane transporting Ukraine POWs who were to be exchanged which Kiev knew all about. Given what we’ve already seen on the battlefield and in a previous deliberate strike on a POW concentration close to the front last year, it appears that the Kiev Junta has its own version of the Zionist Hannibal Doctrine—murdering their own troops so they don’t become POWs and used for exchanging for Palestinian prisoners, thus proving their Naziness. Now for the Q&As; all emphasis mine:

I salute all those who continue to take an interest in Russian foreign policy and our work at the United Nations. We wanted to go straight to questions and answers, but I have to start with another fact of the Kiev regime's use of terrorist methods.

On the morning of January 24 at 11:15 (Moscow time), a terrorist act was committed, as a result of which a Russian Il-76 transport aircraft was shot down near the Belgorod region, which was carrying out a flight to transport 65 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the Moscow region to Belgorod. They were accompanied by three Russian officers and a crew of six. Everyone died. Ukrainian prisoners of war were taken to the Belgorod region to carry out an exchange agreed between Moscow and Kyiv. Instead of taking place, the Ukrainian side from the Kharkiv region struck this aircraft with anti-aircraft missiles. It became fatal.

We have already requested an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council at 15:00 New York time. We hope that the French presidency will fulfil its responsibilities in good faith and schedule a meeting as soon as possible. I don't want a repeat of the story of April 2022: after the staging in Bucha, where the bodies of people (whose names we still cannot get) were shown, the British presidency, which was then in charge of the UN Security Council, refused to convene a meeting for three days. I hope that our French colleagues will not follow this path and will convene an urgent meeting of the Security Council today at 15:00.

Question: The majority of the international community agrees that a two-state solution is the only way to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. During your meetings in New York, did you get the impression that there is a chance for concerted action by all parties, including Tel Aviv, towards a two-state solution? What are the possible time frames for starting such a discussion? What options are available if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to object to this?

Sergey Lavrov: We discussed this in detail at the UN Security Council meeting, where more than 70 delegations spoke (and continue to speak). There is no other way but to implement the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly on the establishment of a Palestinian State on the principles that were universally endorsed at the time: the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as its capital, and ensuring the viability of a Palestinian State that would live in peace and security side by side with Israel and all other countries in the region.

This task was first set in the late 1940s. For many decades, the obligation to create a Palestinian state was "muddled" and attempts were made in every possible way to "dissolve" it in some "half-hearted" initiatives. If the same "history" repeats itself now, then we will again "sow the grapes" of another conflict and there will be outbreaks of violence.

Most UN members understand this. I have met with many Arab countries. We have just had a big meeting with all the ambassadors representing the member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Everyone is determined that there should be a formal decision on the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as the start of negotiations, which should be accompanied by neutral, effective mediators.

The Quartet of international mediators no longer exists. The U.S. did everything it could to undermine its work by announcing that it would mediate on its own. Everyone knows what this has led to. We will firmly advocate that the initiative to establish a mediation mechanism that will prepare (ideally) an international conference on the question of Palestine should be taken by the countries of the region, especially the member States of the League of Arab States.

But the first step (I spoke about this yesterday and today with the OIC countries) is absolutely necessary to make efforts to restore Palestinian unity, so that all the factions that exist in them and those who work with them from abroad come together and declare the restoration of the unity of the Palestinian people as a solid foundation for a future state. Without this, all the schemes floating around in behind-the-scenes conversations are unviable. They are only aimed at creating the appearance of change in Gaza without uniting it with the West Bank under a single state, keeping the Palestinian side divided and not united again, and buying time. We are concerned about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that there is no talk of creating a Palestinian state.

In any case, a settlement is possible only through the negotiation process. We hope that those who have influence on the Israeli side (more than we have, for example) will fulfill their function and ensure Tel Aviv's conscientious participation in the negotiation process. We will strive to achieve this.

Question: Going back to the monstrous situation with the Il-76. Do you think Kiev did this deliberately? What goals does Ukraine pursue by committing such actions and terrorist acts?

How could it be (and could it be) that the U.S. did not know about the impending Hamas attack? Moreover, it was prepared for a year with the use of heavy weapons. What are your thoughts on this? In general, how does the situation in the Middle East affect the domestic political situation in the United States and the upcoming elections?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the downed Il-76 military transport aircraft and the reasons why the Ukrainian side committed this criminal act, we are now establishing the facts. The first reports that appeared were that after the plane crashed after shelling from anti-aircraft guns, the Ukrainian side announced another victory of the "valiant" armed forces of Ukraine. But as soon as it became known that this was a flight carrying prisoners of war for an exchange (and officials of their military department could not have been unaware that this was being prepared), Ukrainian propaganda immediately began to "sweep under the carpet" bravura reports about their victories and try to come up with other explanations.

Let me say it again. We've just received this information. It is being checked. For this purpose, we insist on convening a meeting of the Security Council today, where the Ukrainian side could tell how everything happened.

With regard to the events in the Gaza Strip and the crisis trends that have developed there. We talked a lot with all my interlocutors, in particular in Moscow, when the joint delegation of the Arab League and the OIC arrived, about how it "exploded." Remember that two weeks before October 7, 2023, US National Security Adviser John Sullivan said in an interview that the situation in the Middle East had never been so calm in the past 20 years. It was spoken. This has to do with whether the American side knew or had any signals.

There are many conspiracy theories. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack (which we condemned), there was talk inside Israel that the Israeli special services and security agencies could not have been unaware of this. It was said that the United States, which monitors every point of the globe through its satellites, and the Middle East especially closely, could not fail to notice the movement of a large number of people, equipment and drones that were being prepared to carry out a terrorist act.

I hear the same thing as you. Such reasoning appears in the public sphere. No one has seen the evidence. I don't want to speculate as to whether this is true or not.

Question: What is Russia's assessment of the case initiated by South Africa at the International Court of Justice regarding Israel's genocide in Gaza?

Sergey Lavrov: The International Court of Justice will perform its functions. As you know, Ukraine accuses Russia of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and has also appealed to the International Court of Justice. About 40 Western countries, in violation of all precedents, "registered" on the Ukrainian side. Therefore, there is no doubt that this process will be extremely politicized.

We know that all judges have a duty to be impartial. Except for ICC judges, who have their own "rules". The International Court of Justice has always had a high reputation. Let us hope that it will be guided by the letter of international law, including international humanitarian law and the judicial system. We don't want to get involved.

In this regard, I recalled that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was recently in the Middle East. He was asked the same question and said that South Africa's lawsuit against Israel in the International Court of Justice for its actions in the Gaza Strip diverts the attention of the world community from the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Allegedly, attention is being paid, but it is "distracted".

We do not see any attention on the part of Washington, except for attempts to "blurt out" the situation and in any way prevent the adoption of a direct and unambiguous decision with the UN Security Council on the cessation of hostilities. They are trying to use language that effectively gives carte blanche to continue the collective punishment of the Palestinians.

See. The Court has its own duties and a statute that sets out its powers.

Question: Russia has sent tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Do you intend to use these weapons on the territory of Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: It takes a long time for you to get the information. This happened six months ago. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko explained everything from the very beginning.

The United States and its allies are taking steps to modernize nuclear weapons located in five NATO countries in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The military personnel of these five states are being trained in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. When the Americans wanted to put the topic of tactical nuclear weapons at the center of our discussion of strategic stability, we tried for many years to ensure that all their tactical nuclear weapons were returned to the United States. At least because its location in Europe is of a strategic nature for us – it is very close to our borders. They categorically refused.

At that time, we said that since we could not fully understand why they were modernising their arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons (again, given that Washington refuses to "withdraw" these weapons to its territory), Russia, at the request of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, would transfer some of its tactical nuclear weapons to be deployed on the territory of the Republic of Belarus. Everyone knew about it.

The West tried to stir up hysterics, saying that it can do it, but we can't. The Americans have consistently missed all opportunities to avoid escalation. They destroyed almost all the treaties. They refuse to bring their tactical nuclear weapons within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they have not yet violated.

Question: There is no evidence that the United States has deployed tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine or Belarus. Only Russia does this because it wants to defend its territory.

Sergey Lavrov: I did not say that the Americans are deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine. They have been keeping their nuclear weapons on the territory of five NATO member countries for a long time, for many decades. Citizens of these states are trained in the use of nuclear weapons. That's what I said.

I have already mentioned the mentality of our American, Anglo-Saxon and other Western colleagues who believe that they can do anything. They say that why should Russia and Belarus agree on anything – they are not "democratic" countries. It's a sad mentality. Soon it will hinder the development of humanity. You can't live on a neo-colonial approach all the time and use neo-colonial practices in the spirit of "I can do anything, but you can't."

Question: What evidence does Russia plan to present that there were indeed prisoners of war on the downed plane? Aren't you worried that the international community won't believe you?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not at all worried that it may not believe it. As I have already said, the international community, represented by Western representatives and the media, has already proved its discredited position.

Bucha has already been mentioned today. At the beginning of April 2022, your colleagues from the BBC showed you the central street of Bucha, from where Russian servicemen had left three days earlier. The mayor of the city regained his powers and proudly announced it. Three days later, the BBC suddenly shows the corpses of people on the main street of the city. We were accused of this and additional sanctions were imposed on us. Soon it will be two years since we ask you to at least publish the names of the people whose bodies were demonstrated, among other things, in a report by the BBC, which, as the author of that sensation, could have been interested in establishing the truth.

We don't really care if the international community (by which you mean the West and, above all, the Anglo-Saxons) believes us. "The truth the eyes." Therefore, they avoid an honest conversation and answering direct questions in every possible way.

If we talk about the BBC and the "point of its location", this also applies to the poisoning in Salisbury. We have not yet been able to receive a single response to the official inquiries (there were more than 40 of them) from the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, to which the British royal authorities are obliged to respond in accordance with both international treaties and a bilateral convention.

And in this case, ask your Ukrainian colleagues. They must have already learned something from "their own". I can't promise you from afar that the Ukrainians will confess. But they know for sure that there were servicemen there.

Do you believe that? With all due respect to the BBC, I'm not too concerned about that.

Question: You mentioned the words and actions of your US colleagues in the Middle East. Given that the Israeli authorities are rejecting a two-state solution, as they once again announced last week, do you think the United States still has influence on Israel on the issues of a ceasefire or a two-state solution? In your opinion, how does U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East contribute to the current situation?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot speculate on how relations between the United States and Israel are developing. These are their bilateral contacts.

I can only confirm that, like the majority of those present, we read information in the US media about how the debate is going on here within the administration, how to make Israel more accommodating and more constructive. I don't know how it will end.

There's the president, his national security advisers, the secretary of state, and a great many of their deputies. I don't know how true all the speculations are. I'm not going to dive into that either.

As for the current crisis. The consequences of U.S. policy in the region are understood in roughly the same way. None of the adventures that Washington has undertaken in recent decades, citing its "core security interests" 10,000 miles across the Atlantic (where it faced threats to its security), has resulted in a situation in which the country under attack would be better off. Some countries are virtually non-existent.

For example, Libya. Its statehood has been completely destroyed. Everyone knows how shamefully American diplomacy tried to justify aggression by completely failing with its "material evidence."

After the invasion of Iraq, the Islamic State emerged. When the United States dissolved all structures of the Baath Party, including the army, Saddam Hussein's officers, in order to preserve the ability to earn a living for their families, massively joined the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and formed its core.

Al-Qaeda had also recently emerged. This happened as a result of the US invasion of Afghanistan. And their aggression against Syria led to the creation of Jabhat al-Nusra, now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

We know that in Syria, they are trying to establish a quasi-state of the Kurds on the bases illegally established by the Americans in the east of the country, thereby creating an explosive problem on a regional scale. And there, the Americans continue to communicate with individual Islamic State militants, who are rehabilitating, training and, at the behest of their American masters, participating in a number of operations and terrorist acts far beyond the Middle East.

The U.S. is telling everyone that it will deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict itself. They put an end to the activities of the Quartet of international mediators and took over everything. We can see how it ended. This is another example of a situation where in the case of American leadership, we get a tragedy.

Question: How do you assess the process of normalisation of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia? Will Russian peacekeepers leave the Karabakh region in 2025, as defined by the trilateral agreement of November 9, 2020? ?

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin personally played a decisive role in stopping the war in November 2020 and in coordinating several trilateral (Armenian-Azerbaijani-Russian) documents at the highest level. They set out the key parameters for a settlement, including the delimitation of borders, the unblocking of trade and transport routes, and the signing of a peace treaty. Relevant structures have been created at the level of deputy prime ministers of the three countries, dealing with the economic side of the issue.

Recently, we have seen that after all these agreements have been reached, our Western colleagues have decided that it is somehow wrong that Russia is making progress in this area. They began to lure Armenians and Azerbaijanis to Brussels, Paris, Washington, and Prague. By the way, in the Czech Republic in 2022, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed a document stating that he recognises the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within the 1991 borders. It came as a surprise to us. Prior to that, various options for a final solution to the problem of the status of Karabakh were discussed, but the Prime Minister of Armenia did it on his own. Since then, the question of the status, of what Karabakh is, has been closed.

We do have peacekeepers there, even after everyone recognized Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory. This issue no longer concerns the Armenian side. This is a matter of bilateral relations between Russia and Azerbaijan. The presidents discussed this topic, they agreed that at this stage, the presence of Russian peacekeepers plays a positive role in strengthening stability and trust in the region and facilitating the return of Karabakh residents who want to do so.

Question: Israel recently offered a two-month ceasefire in exchange for the release of all hostages, but Hamas categorically rejected this.

You also mentioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his statements about rejecting the two-state solution. But just yesterday, the Hamas leader also unequivocally stated the impossibility of a two-state solution, calling it a "Zionist entity." In their charter, they call for the destruction of the Jewish state. Could you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: There are proposals to "take a break for two weeks or two months" and to return the hostages, and "the other" side says that they will return them, but not all of them. There is bargaining going on, which distracts from the essence of the problem. And it must be an immediate ceasefire.

One can argue as much as one wants about the fact that Hamas does not recognize the Jewish state and thus justify the continuation of the massacre in Gaza. If we pay attention only to the "surface" of what is happening, individual manifestations and do not see the horizon where a Palestinian state is bound to appear, such incidents will break out all the time.

We are interested in a long-term solution. Therefore, we insist not just on a promise to start negotiations on the establishment of the state of Palestine, but on such steps to be taken in practical terms and there is a clear timetable when they will be completed with the result demanded by the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.

The first step on this path (I spoke about this yesterday and mentioned it today at a meeting with Muslim countries) should be the restoration of Palestinian unity. It is up to them to figure out on what principles they will restore it. Without the unity of the Palestinian people, there will be no foundation for a Palestinian state, and there will be only pretexts to keep Gaza in some kind of special status (where someone will provide a security belt and buffer zones) and the West Bank separately, continuing to "hole" it like a sieve with illegal settlements, thereby casting doubt on the very concept of a single Palestinian state. You need to pay attention to these details.

As for Hamas's statements. Have you seen the IDF commanders' statements that the Palestinians are "animals," that "they cannot be counted among civilized people"? Some even said that every resident of Gaza automatically becomes an extremist when he reaches the age of three, because hatred of Israel is cultivated there. Whatever you call this process, when more than 70 years do not give the promised state... What do you think is being taught in schools, what is being told to children in kindergartens in Gaza for the third generation in a row? Probably, they are being told that injustice is being done.

Many years ago, I told my Israeli colleagues that the unresolved problem of the establishment of a Palestinian State is the single most important factor in the recruitment of extremists into the ranks of various organizations. They resented me at the time, but I'm still convinced of that.

If we miss the current moment, when everyone is worried about what is happening, and fail to advance a solution that ensures the interests of the Palestinians to have a viable, capable State while at the same time guaranteeing Israel's security (which is a key part of the task), we will miss a rare historic opportunity.

Question: Does the international community remember how organizations like Hamas came into being, and how they came into being in the first place?

Sergey Lavrov: We discussed this with representatives of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation today. They remember well how it all happened. Hamas was used to confront Fatah in Ramallah and to "balance" it. I don't want to go into details now.

In 2006, during the preparations for the elections in Palestine, I spoke with then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Our assessment of the situation was that it would be better to advise the Palestinians to postpone the elections. The "measurement" of the mood of the population of Gaza and the West Bank indicated that the popularity of those who advocated radical positions (in particular, Hamas) had increased dramatically. Condoleezza Rice disagreed and said that this is how democracy works: it goes as it should.

Quite recently, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, recalling that period, said that the Americans should not have agreed to hold elections in which Hamas won, and if they did, they should have done everything to ensure that those they needed won. This also has to do with the democratic structure of the world and the countries to which the Americans pay some attention.

Question: How do you assess the level of Russian-American relations? Where are they now? Are there prospects for their complete freezing, what can or will depend on this in the end?

Sergey Lavrov: The level is low. The point is low. There are practically no contacts, except to discuss the conditions for the functioning of our diplomatic missions in the United States and the work of their diplomats in the Russian Federation. Here, too, there are many attempts to gain unilateral advantages and accuse us of taking certain steps. Although they are well aware that the current story of the diplomatic presence began with Barack Obama's decision in December 2016.

Three weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration, the Democratic administration left a "gift" – they kicked out a total of 120 Russian people (with their families) from Washington. And in the American way, "noble": the date by which they were supposed to fly to Russia was determined in such a way that there would be no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. "Humane." Our employees, including those with young children, traveled more than six hours by bus to New York to board a plane to Moscow. It's not respectable for adults.

We didn't answer for a long time. When President Donald Trump came to the White House, his administration asked us not to react. They were outraged by the Democrats' move. We suggested to them that if they could remedy the situation, we would wait and see. They couldn't. No one has abolished the principle of reciprocity, otherwise the country will simply not be respected. In the summer of 2017, we apologized and responded in kind, "asking" the same number of American diplomats to leave Russia.

The Americans, as champions of cancel culture, have reversed what Barack Obama did. They begin all their current conversations by saying that we kicked out their people in the summer of 2017. But we did it in response. They don't work very honestly.

Question: Is it possible to freeze relations between the United States and Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: There are practically none. There is a tedious conversation about how the diplomatic missions of Russia and the United States should work, how many security officers the American ambassador should have. At the same time, our ambassador, according to the Americans, needs fewer employees to ensure his safety. I can't believe that these topics are being discussed.

Another topic that pops up from time to time is the American reminders that the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms exists, but Russia has "suspended" its implementation. Like, let's resume this work.

We have repeatedly replied that the treaty says that it was concluded and is based on the principles of indivisibility of security, equality and mutual respect. Everything else, including inspections of nuclear facilities, which the Americans need so much, stems from these principles. And they were "trampled" by the Americans. But those, with their characteristic national simplicity, say that "this is different."

For the United States, it does not matter that they are waging war with us in Ukraine, that they call Russia an enemy (in their doctrinal documents, our country is indicated as an enemy), that they have incited almost all of Europe against our state. Likewise, Napoleon rallied all of Europe against Russia, and Hitler recruited most European countries into the Wehrmacht and forced them to fight against the Soviet Union. In the same way, America has now gathered all of Europe under the "banner of the Nazis" (in the person of Vladimir Zelensky) and is very careful to ensure that no one takes any "steps aside."

At a news conference on the results of 2023 (January 18 of this year), I was asked whether an answer had been given to the unofficial US paper on strategic dialogue. We sent it at the beginning of January of this year. We have nothing to discuss with them now. We are committed to the "ceilings" on the types of weapons that are fixed in the START Treaty, but there can be no inspections. Moreover, there have already been cases when our strategic facilities were shelled by the Ukrainians with long-range weapons, which (I will say evasively) could not "fly" to these facilities if the Americans did not help modernize them.

Question: Are you concerned that North Korea will no longer seek unification with South Korea? Are the heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula causing concern for Moscow? Can you confirm that President of Russia Vladimir Putin will visit North Korea?

Sergey Lavrov: Relations between Russia and the DPRK are developing quite actively and steadily. We note that North Korea strives to be independent and "not dance to anyone's tune." We see how the United States, together with the Japanese and South Korea, is "cobbling together" a new military bloc that is increasing its military activity, and which is conducting unprecedentedly large-scale exercises with the openly declared goal of preparing for war with the DPRK.

For many years, we have promoted the idea of establishing a security zone and peace on the Korean Peninsula. It was enshrined as one of the objectives of the Six-Party Talks. But as such, it was ignored by the Americans under various pretexts: they say, it is too early to move on to such agreements, we need to think about it. This group to discuss mutually acceptable security guarantees and confidence-building measures has not begun to work.

At the same time, South Korea's rhetoric has sharply become even more aimed at Pyongyang. And in Japan, quite aggressive statements are growing. We are seriously talking about first having a representative office in this country, and then, most likely, NATO infrastructure. The Americans are actively "moving" both their military infrastructure and the North Atlantic Alliance to this region. It is rumored that the "triangle" of the United States, Japan, and South Korea will master cooperation in the nuclear sphere.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has made a statement that he will not unite with South Korea. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state. It is bad when not unifying, but divisive tendencies dominate and prevail. But the contribution to this already systemic process, which is observed in many regions of the world, is made, first of all, by those who consider themselves the "masters of the Earth", who believe that for 500 years they ruled the world as they wanted, lived at the expense of others, and this should continue to be done. This is a logic that completely ignores objective realities, in particular, the fact that the overwhelming majority of former colonies have become independent, have become aware of their national interests, want to strengthen their national, cultural and religious identity and are developing in such a way that the West is already lagging behind, at least the BRICS members.

It is necessary to respect the realities of the modern world, and not to think that if you are so strong, you have a dollar and you can "strangle" everyone with it: if you want, you will be disconnected from the SWIFT system, if you want, you will not give loans through the IMF and the World Bank. The United States itself imposed this on the whole world, and at one time it agreed to it. The Americans then began to grossly abuse their influence on these global mechanisms.

I'll give you an analogy from my childhood: when we went out for a walk in the yard after school, there were always younger guys and someone older. And the older guys sometimes tried to hurt the little ones. It was a shame, but then the little ones grew up quite quickly, and the issue was solved.

Question: In one of its headlines, the Bloomberg news agency says that Europe should "arm itself against the barbarians at its gates," that is, in fact, against Russia. A number of Western leaders claim that Russia will attack NATO countries in the next five years. Do you think that the leaders of Western countries are trying to incite their own populations to a possible "total" war against Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: We hear this kind of rhetoric all the time. I believe that this is not the case. There are intelligent people who have not only knowledge of history, but also an instinct for self-preservation. I heard that US President Joe Biden said something similar, warning that if Ukraine loses, Russia will immediately "go" to the Baltic states, Finland and other NATO countries. Similar statements were made by leaders of "lesser caliber" and not only in the United States.

He is inclined to believe in the intelligence of the American leadership. I see this as an attempt to solve the short-term problem with the allocation of money to Ukraine. They believe that Congress can be easily intimidated by this fairy tale, the fabrication that it will eventually compromise and decide on the allocation of $60 billion for Ukraine in a package with aid to Israel and some money for the equipment of the American border. I am convinced that those who say these things are well aware that this is nonsense. President of Russia Vladimir Putin commented on this story quite recently. I recommend watching his interview.

We have no desire, no military, no political or economic need to attack anyone. We would not have had the need to launch a special military operation if the West had not allowed the coup d'état in February 2014 and subsequently given carte blanche to the putschists, who immediately announced that they were canceling the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, calling the residents of Crimea and Donbass terrorists (people who refused to accept the results of the bloody anti-constitutional coup). All this happened with the support of the West.

The war unleashed against Donbass was stopped and the Minsk agreements were signed (the Germans and the French begged us, and the Americans also asked for it). They were approved in the next room, in the UN Security Council, unanimously. Back then, it all worked. It turned out that apart from President Vladimir Putin, none of the signatories had any intention of complying with them. They later confessed to it.

I am talking about the fact that the special military operation has become inevitable after many years of trying to convince the West of the danger of creating a direct threat from Ukraine directly on our borders: not 10,000 miles away (the Americans once said that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia are a threat to American interests), not across the ocean, but right on the borders of Russia, and on those lands. which were laid, developed, and developed by the Russians for several centuries, whose descendants now live there. And they were forbidden to speak Russian – this is a completely different situation.

It is a pity that some are trying to follow this path in Europe, trying to ban the Russian language and culture. This is unworthy of those who are proud of the high title of members of the European Union.

Question (retranslated from English): Elections will soon be held in Europe. Do you think that these elections and their results can change Europe's relations with Russia, perhaps in your favor?

Former US President Donald Trump said that if he returns to the White House, he will stop the war in Ukraine in a few days. Do you believe him? Do you think he can do it?

Sergey Lavrov: There are a lot of events and statements that appear daily in the public sphere that can be addressed with regard to the same question: do you believe it or do you not believe it? I don't want to play. I can't believe what hasn't materialized. See.

I doubt that the Ukrainian side will be ready for any settlement. President Vladimir Zelensky has already commented on Donald Trump's remarks quite impolitely. He has a rather boorish style, like the entire Ukrainian leadership. Do you remember that Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Oleksandr Melnyk called German Chancellor Olaf Scholz an "offended liver sausage." And what was Olaf Scholz's reaction? It's okay, it's okay. So rudeness is in their blood.

As for the elections to the European Parliament, I am not well acquainted with this "political organism". From time to time, we hear Russophobic statements and resolutions that are adopted there. No, I am not interested in and do not follow these elections. I think it is much more useful to look at which of the European countries, in the course of their national elections, seeks not to allow every European nation to be dissolved in this faceless bureaucratic Brussels apparatus. This is more interesting than looking at who and how will negotiate and reach deals on entering the European Parliament.

Question (retranslated from English): Diplomatic channels between Russia and the United States have been cut. In your opinion, what damage does the rest of the world suffer when there are no normal relations between your two countries? What needs to be done to normalise Russian-American relations?

Sergey Lavrov: Do I care that the rest of the world is suffering from the current state of Russian-US relations?

To answer this question, I would ask you to tell us what kind of pleasure the rest of the world enjoyed when we had more or less normal relations with America. What was it? Just in the abstract. Is it good that they talk to each other? You can specify what is happening now and how the rest of the world is suffering from it.

Apparently, we can say that many people are now raising the alarm about the growing escalation and bellicose rhetoric. No one wants a "big war". And not least for us. We have experienced "big" wars many times in our history.

But these actions are being taken by the United States. In the doctrinal documents of the United States and NATO, it is written that we are the main direct threat. And at the next stage, China is their main challenge. They carefully "write out" all these formulas.

I will say more, they are drawing neutral countries to themselves. Finland is already in NATO. It is not clear what she will gain there. In Sweden, apparently, the "process" has moved. Yesterday I met with Chief of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation Isaac Cassis. He assured me that they could (as they had done before) be intermediaries in any matter. I explained to him that the mediator should be neutral. Switzerland was famous not only for its military neutrality, but also in the broader sense of the word. This allowed Geneva to successfully be the European capital of the United Nations, to host various negotiation processes and thus contribute to the peaceful development of the Earth and its various regions. Cassis said they are still "always ready" and "at our service."

I drew his attention to the fact that they now have an agreed National Security Strategy, which will cover from 2024 to 2028. There are examples that are smaller than Russian-American relations. But these examples (like the one I have just quoted) reflect how systematically the "main guarantor of Western unity" hammers into the heads of even neutral countries the need to take anti-Russian Russophobic positions. It's sad.

Question: Have you had the opportunity to meet with former US President Donald Trump or representatives of his presidential campaign in New York over the past few days?

Sergey Lavrov: And you're talking about this again, aren't you?

Question (retranslated from English): Not yet.

Sergey Lavrov: Thank God. I haven't met him.

Question: We recently heard that the Eastern Sea Corridor between Russia and India is being created. How does Russia see the potential impact of such a corridor on trade relations with India? How will this affect the Pacific region?

Sergey Lavrov: This question needs a detailed answer. In short, we, like the overwhelming majority of countries on the Eurasian continent, are in need of new corridors that provide cheaper logistics and faster delivery of goods than is currently happening through the Suez Canal or around Africa. Everyone is interested in creating logistics transport chains that will not depend on the West, on those who systematically abuse their position in world trade and transport routes.

There is the North-South corridor, which will make it possible to deliver goods from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf quickly, efficiently and reliably. There is a plan to connect the ports of Russia in the Far East and India. There is the Europe-Middle East-India initiative. Western Europeans are promoting this topic. But for us, the priority is the North-South corridor, from which India will benefit directly. It will go through Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran and all the way to India. Pakistan is also interested in this.

There are many such discussions now. India is very interested in the Northern Sea Route. So is China. The Northern Sea Route, given the warming factor and the near prospect that it will be year-round, is a direct competitor to all other routes, gaining by one-third the time compared to the same route through the Suez Canal. We are discussing this with our Indian colleagues, of course, not through our ministry. This is done by the ministers of economy, finance, transport, and heads of government. But this is one of the main long-term tasks in our regional development.

Question: You recently mentioned the importance of cooperation between the Taliban and the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. You spoke about the need to create an inclusive government in that country. What did you mean by that? Please specify the interaction with the National Resistance Front. Yesterday you spoke about what is happening in the Red Sea in connection with the Houthis. Could you tell us more about this?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the Red Sea. There is direct, illegal aggression in violation of all the principles of international law. The participants and organizers of this aggression are lying when they claim that this is self-defence in accordance with the UN Charter. Our mission in New York has circulated a document (it is available) that summarizes all the arguments used by the British and Americans and shows that this is pure robbery, and not self-defense.

With regard to Afghanistan. We never withdrew our embassy from Kabul. It worked and continues to function there. We are in contact with the Taliban as with people who have real power in the country. But like all other members of the UN, we have not yet officially recognized the Taliban, as they have pledged to fulfill several conditions, including respect for human rights, especially for girls and women, promising to create an inclusive government. Inclusive not only in terms of ethnic origin. There are Uzbeks, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Hazaras in the Taliban government, but they are all politically Taliban. We are talking about ensuring not only ethnic and religious inclusivity, but also political inclusivity. There are former President Hamid Karzai, former chief executive Abdullah Abdullah and other secular figures who want to stay in their country, help it, and put it on a normal track.

As you know, in this case, the Americans also do not give away other people's money. The $9 billion could have been used to solve the acute socio-economic problems of Afghanistan, but they have "pocketed" it and do not explain anything about how and what.

As for the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. It is in the north of the country. They have a position that does not allow us to hope that they are ready to enter into a dialogue with the Taliban in the near future. But we must strive for this. They are all Afghans. We are actively advocating for this. But for this to happen, it is necessary that those who influence this National Resistance Front also encourage a peaceful approach, and not take for granted the occasional use of force.

Question: Do you think that the Middle East Quartet is "dead" and that Russia is playing an active role, given the recent events?

There are numerous reports that the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon are discussing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria. Can you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the Quartet. I have commented on this issue in detail in recent days. Including here in New York. For many years, probably since the Palestinian-Israeli settlement road map was approved (it was a long time ago), we have been advocating that representatives of the League of Arab States should take full part in the Quartet. Otherwise, this structure looked somehow "semi-colonial": the United States, Russia, the European Union, the UN and none of the Arabs. But we need to deal with the Middle East settlement.

Regrettably, it has only been possible to get the other members of the Quartet to agree to invite representatives of the League of Arab States from time to time. When the main discussion was over, they were simply informed what the "senior comrades" were talking about and whether they had agreed on anything. Now, when I mentioned that we are interested in a new effective mediation mechanism, I made a reservation that the countries of the regions should play a leading role in this mechanism. From my numerous conversations with these countries (Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, and other colleagues), I felt that they are ready to take on such a proactive role. It won't be easy. "Instincts" take a long time to die. The American "instinct" to decide all issues on its own and tell everyone who should do what, and whom, say, Mahmoud Abbas should single out as the "protector" of Gaza, these instincts have not disappeared.

We do not have a "conversation" with the Americans on the Middle East problem. However, collective efforts in support of regional states would be appropriate here. But everything is crossed out.

I believe that the new mechanism should be headed and consist of a core of regional countries. If they deem it expedient for Russia, China and other countries of the external circle to join these efforts, then this will be their decision. Probably, then everyone will have to come to an agreement, work in harmony and not try to launch any distracting schemes at the same time.

There has already been a withdrawal of troops from Syria once. When Donald Trump, as President of the United States, announced that they were leaving Syria, the leaders of the Syrian Democratic Forces immediately began to ask us, our servicemen, to help establish contacts with Damascus. A few days later, the U.S. "changed its mind" and the representatives of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurds, stopped asking us to help establish contacts with Damascus. They immediately returned to the American wing. It's not a matter of whether they leave or not. They're there illegally. Political forces among the Syrian Kurds, counting on the "American umbrella" and patronage, are making a morally and politically false bet.

Question: The Pentagon says it is ready to work with Turkey to help resolve the conflict in the Black Sea in the context of the Montreux Convention. Is it a question of abrogating this convention? Does President Vladimir Putin plan to visit Turkey in the near future?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the Pentagon's statement, as I understand it (I have not seen it), it seems that they have said that they will seek from Turkey to soften the "regime of the straits" compared to the current demands, when warships of non-coastal countries do not enter the Black Sea in the conditions of hostilities. These are the changes they want to achieve. If this is the case, then our Turkish colleagues have repeatedly told us that as custodians of the legacy of the Montreux Convention, they will be strictly guided by its provisions. I understand that Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin has returned to work. Perhaps that is why they have become so active now. I don't think they will succeed.

As for the visit to Turkey. I was also asked about my visit to North Korea. I can say that President Vladimir Putin has received invitations from the leaders of these two countries and from many of his other foreign partners. The schedule of his contacts is formed in the Kremlin by his administration.

Lavrov seemed a bit calmer and wittier at this presser than the CBS interview. According to info I saw it was aired on Tuesday, yesterday. Perhaps someone can confirm that. Again, the big issue is getting Palestinians organized politically. I would assume the Zionists and their backers will try to prevent that, just as they’ve delayed Palestinian Justice for generations. The French prevented a UNSC hearing on the Ukie murder of their own people. Info suggests the missiles used might have been French and that perhaps it was a French AD crew that did the deed thinking they were avenging their mercenary kin. But all that’s rumor for now. IMO, it’s possible Russian rhetoric regarding the Zionists is changing since Russia finally got all its people out of Gaza. We shall see as events move onward.

*
*
*
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!