Lavrov's UNGA Speech & Presser

Very long, essential read

There’s little need for introduction at this point as the prior articles documenting Lavrov’s actions ought to suffice. I will, however, provide Pepe Escobar’s words of outrage as expressed at his VK which many will share:

THE FINAL COLLAPSE OF THE UN

Let that sink in - slowly (it hasn’t, yet).

An unredeemable war criminal and psychopathic genocidal, violating scores of UN resolutions and facing an arrest warrant by the - avowedly dodgy - ICJ goes to the UNGA in NYC and orders, FROM INSIDE THE BUILDING, another war crime: wiping out an entire block in southern Beirut with AMERICAN bunker buster bombs. [And killing Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah]

As he addressed the UNGA, over half of the delegates staged a mass walkout. The hall was de facto nearly empty of real diplomats. The remaining audience was presented with yet another display of childish, IQ-impaired “maps” featuring the “blessed” - Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, UAE - and the “cursed” - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen.

A rabid, lowly interloper from Polish extraction - a total fake - passing judgment on ancient civilizations does not even qualify as gutter-level stupidity.

As I reflected upon it deep into the night in a rainy St. Petersburg, and comparing with what fellow analysts were mulling, the conclusion is inevitable: it’s time to get the UN out of Israeli/American territory and establish a HQ in a nation that really respects international humanitarian law.

This means it’s time for the politically emerging Global Majority to establish its own global, really united nations, organization.

Leave the racists to rot inside their own walls.

My comment at his VK: “Your outrage is shared by millions. Wang Yi and Lavrov speak today. Russia's MFA page shows an intensity level of sideline meetings I've never seen before. IMO, Samarkand would be an excellent, centralized location for the new UN venue. However, it may be required to completely reform the UN from Charter on up so numerous agencies can be redesigned so they're genuinely democratic and devoid of any hegemonic influence.”

Now for Lavrov’s UNGA Speech as translated from Russia’s MFA website:

Mr President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

A few days ago, a forum called the "summit of the future" was held within the walls of this building. Russia was sympathetic to the Secretary-General's idea of convening it, because the crisis of our Organization is deepening and something must be done about it. We honestly joined in the preparation of the summit. Although, to be honest, we did not have any special illusions. In the modern history of the UN, there have been many ambitious events that culminated in loud declarations that were soon forgotten.

The Millennium Summit in 2000 proclaimed the task of "liberating peoples from the scourge of war". A little more than two years later, the United States, at the head of a "coalition of the willing," invaded Iraq without a UN Security Council mandate under a ridiculous pretext, a country that is still reeling from the devastating consequences of this adventure.

The UN "World Summit" in 2005 declared a commitment to "the establishment of a just peace in accordance with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter." This "sacred obligation" did not prevent the United States and its allies from inciting the then Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili to unleash armed aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers in 2008. And three years later, NATO organized a military intervention in Libya, destroying its statehood and undermining the stability of neighboring countries.

In 2015, the UN Summit on Sustainable Development adopted ambitious plans to combat poverty and inequality. In fact, they turned out to be empty promises against the backdrop of the reluctance of Western countries to abandon the neocolonial practices of siphoning off the wealth of the whole world in their favor. See statistics on the fulfillment of promises to finance development in the Global South and the transfer of green technologies.

Like Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, the current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has put forward his initiative under the slogan of "resetting" global cooperation. A great slogan, who is against it? But what kind of global cooperation can we talk about when the West has trampled on all those "unshakable values" of globalization, which we have been told about for so many years from all rostrums, convincing us that they will provide equal access for all to the benefits of modern civilization. Where is the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, access to information, fair competition in markets under clear and unchanging rules? The Secretary-General is talking about global cooperation at the very moment when Western countries have unleashed a real sanctions war against a good half, if not most, of the world's states, and the dollar, which was advertised to us as the heritage and benefit of all mankind, has been crudely turned into a weapon.

For more than sixty years, the trade embargo against Cuba has been going on and the overwhelming majority of the members of the international community are demanding that it be lifted. In pursuit of the increasingly ephemeral goal of maintaining its dominance, Washington is blocking the normal work of the WTO on dispute settlement and the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, the structure of which has long failed to reflect the real balance of power in the world economy and finance. The West also wants to turn the UN into a tool for promoting its selfish attitudes. As the "summit of the future" has shown, there are growing attempts to erode the intergovernmental nature of the Organization. Long-overdue changes in the methods of staffing the Secretariat, the key posts in which are now actually occupied and "inherited" by representatives of the Western minority, are being restrained. If the Secretary-General is to call for a "reset" of global cooperation, then the Secretariat should promote unifying ideas, offer compromises, and not invent excuses for introducing narratives beneficial to the West into the work of the UN.

It is not too late to breathe new life into the UN. But this can be done not with the help of unrealistic summits and declarations, but through the restoration of trust on the basis of the Charter principle - the sovereign equality of all states. However, so far, trust has been undermined, including by the West's actions to create narrow formats that bypass the UN to resolve fateful issues, such as Internet governance or determining the legal framework for the use of artificial intelligence technologies. After all, these problems affect the future of all mankind, and they must be addressed on a universal basis, without discrimination and without the desire to achieve unilateral advantages. In other words, it is necessary to negotiate honestly, with the participation of all UN members, and not as the Pact for the Future was prepared – without a single plenary round of talks attended by all countries. Instead, the work was carried out under the control of Western manipulators. As a result, the Pact, not yet really born, has already joined the pantheon of beautifully worded declarations in English.

This, sad as it may seem, is the fate of the "products" of such world summits. However, the situation is no better with regard to the implementation of binding Security Council resolutions. Suffice it to mention the sabotage of decisions on the Kosovo settlement and the Dayton Accords on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The most egregious example is the almost 80 years of consensual resolutions on the establishment of an independent Palestinian State living side by side with Israel in peace and security.

There is no justification for the acts of terrorism to which Israelis were victims on October 7, 2023, but all those who still have a sense of compassion are outraged by the fact that the October tragedy is being used to inflict mass collective punishment on the Palestinians, which has turned into an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. The killing of Palestinian civilians by American weapons must end immediately. Humanitarian supplies must be delivered to the enclave, infrastructure must be restored, and, most importantly, the Palestinians' legitimate right to self-determination must be guaranteed and allowed to create a territorially contiguous and viable state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, not in word but in deed.

Another "screaming" example of terrorist methods as a means of achieving political goals is the inhumane attack on Lebanon by turning civilian technologies into deadly weapons. This crime must be investigated immediately. But even now it is impossible to pass over in silence the numerous publications in the media, including in Europe and the United States, testifying to one or another involvement and, at least, Washington's awareness of the preparation of a terrorist attack. We understand that the Americans always deny everything and will do everything to cover up the facts that have emerged, just as they did in response to irrefutable evidence of their involvement in the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipelines. These gas pipelines, by the way, were a perfect symbol of the "global cooperation" that the UN Secretary-General dreams of. As a result of their destruction, the competitiveness of the European Union in the world economy has been undermined for many years to the benefit of the United States. On the conscience of the West is also the "winding" of the truth about the organisers of many other heinous crimes, including the bloody provocation in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha in April 2022 and a series of poisonings of Russian citizens in Britain and Germany.

The UN Secretariat cannot remain aloof from efforts to establish the truth in situations that directly affect global security and must impeccably comply with Article 100 of the Charter, act impartially and avoid the temptation to play into the hands of individual states, especially those that openly call not for cooperation, but for dividing the world into a "blooming garden" and a "jungle" or "dining at the democratic table" and "finding themselves on the menu."

We must not forget about the "track record" of those who demand compliance with their "rules" from the rest of the world. The invasion of Afghanistan and the inglorious twenty-year stay of the well-known coalition there was accompanied by the formation of Al-Qaeda. A direct result of the aggression against Iraq was the creation of ISIS. The outbreak of the war in Syria gave rise to Jabhat al-Nusra (now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), and the destruction of Libya opened the floodgates for the penetration of terrorism into the Sahara-Sahel region and for millions of illegal migrants to Europe. We call on everyone who thinks about the future of their countries and peoples to be extremely vigilant about the new adventures of the inventors of those very "rules".

The methods of political assassinations, which have become almost commonplace, are extremely alarming, as happened again yesterday in Beirut.

The tragic and unacceptable developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict, in Yemen, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, Sudan and other "hot spots" in Africa reflect an indisputable fact: security can either be equal and indivisible for all, or it will not be for anyone.

For years, Russia has been trying to instill an understanding of this seemingly simple truth in the context of European security in the minds of Washington, London and Brussels, which are obsessed with complexes of their own exceptionalism and impunity. Although they initially promised not to expand NATO, and in 1999 and 2010 signed the official documents of the OSCE summits under a commitment not to ensure their security at the expense of others, in fact, the North Atlantic Alliance has been carrying out geopolitical and military expansion in Europe for three decades, trying to gain a foothold in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, creating direct threats to the security of our country. Now the same thing is happening in the Asia-Pacific region, where NATO infrastructure is "creeping in", and where narrow military-political blocs are being created to contain China and Russia, undermining the inclusive security architecture under the auspices of ASEAN.

At the same time, the West not only does not remember the "global cooperation" that our Secretary-General advocates, but openly harshly accuses Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea and Iran of creating threats to its dominance in its doctrinal documents. With regard to Russia, the goal of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on it has been declared: almost as London and Washington planned in May 1945, developing (even before the end of World War II) Operation Unthinkable to destroy the USSR. At that time, it was kept in the strictest confidence, but the current Anglo-Saxon strategists do not hide their plans. True, so far they expect to defeat Russia at the hands of the illegitimate neo-Nazi Kiev regime, but they are already preparing Europe to rush into a suicidal adventure. I will not talk here about the senselessness and danger of the very idea of trying to "fight to victory" with a nuclear power, which is Russia.

No less senseless are the incantations of Kiev's Western masters that there is "no alternative" to negotiations based on the notorious "peace formula." Defending this doomed ultimatum, the West does not hesitate to appeal to the UN Charter, demanding to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

I would like to remind you, including to my colleagues in the UN Secretariat, that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. The very first article of the Charter affirms the obligation to respect the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. This is what served as the international legal basis for the decolonization process (which, by the way, has yet to be completed, no matter how much the French, the British and other former metropolises resist this). And in 1970, the General Assembly unanimously decided in its Declaration that everyone should respect the territorial integrity of those states whose governments respect the right of peoples to self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living on the relevant territory. I would like to emphasise that this was a unanimous decision of the UN General Assembly after many years of difficult discussions. There is no need to prove that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kiev as a result of a bloody coup d'état supported by the United States and its allies in February 2014 did not and do not represent the Russian population of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya.

Western leaders, obsessed with the topic of human rights for any reason, are demonstratively silent about these rights in relation to the racist actions of their Kiev clients. In the light of such forgetfulness, I would like to remind you of another requirement of the same first Article of the UN Charter: to respect the rights and fundamental freedoms of every person, regardless of race, sex, language and religion. The rights of Russians and people involved in Russian culture were methodically exterminated after the coup d'état in Kiev. The Russian language in Ukraine is legally prohibited in all spheres - in education, the media, art, culture, even in everyday life. Recently, another law was adopted - on the ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These flagrant violations of the rights of Russians enshrined in the UN Charter, along with threats to the security of Russia and the whole of Europe, which comes from the Kiev regime and those who drag it into NATO, are the root causes of the current Ukrainian crisis. It is at their elimination that the special military operation that Russia is conducting in order to protect its security, the present and future of people on their ancestral land is aimed at.

We appreciate the sincere desire of a number of our partners to promote mediation initiatives with the best intentions. We respect their constructive focus on results, in contrast to Vladimir Zelensky's dead-end "peace formula." We call on our friends to take full account of the facts about the real causes of the current situation in their future efforts. Without their elimination, a just peace based on the UN Charter will not be achieved. A realistic settlement plan was outlined by President Vladimir Putin on June 14 of this year, when he once again convincingly demonstrated Russia's goodwill to reach negotiating agreements, the prospects for which were "overturned" by Kiev and its patrons as a result of the 2014 coup d'état, the disruption of the 2015 Minsk agreements and the 2022 Istanbul agreements.

The unprecedented level of arrogance and aggressiveness of Western policy towards Russia not only nullifies the very idea of "global cooperation" promoted by the Secretary-General, but also increasingly blocks the functioning of the entire system of global governance, including the Security Council. This is not our choice, and it is not for us to be responsible for the consequences of such a dangerous course. However, if the West does not stop, the heavy costs will be felt by everyone.

It is obvious to the world majority that confrontation and hegemonism will not solve any global problem. They only artificially hinder the objective process of forming a multipolar world order, which will be based on the equal rights of large and small nations, respect the value of the human person, the equality of men and women, and the right of peoples to determine their own destiny. All this is also a quote from the UN Charter. As well as the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, the confirmation of which, to the shame of UN members, was blocked by the United States and its satellites at the very "summit of the future" when the corresponding "pact" was adopted.

Speaking to the participants of the Fourth Eurasian Women's Forum in St Petersburg on September 18, President Vladimir Putin stressed the need to unite efforts in the name of sustainable development and universal, equal and indivisible security. The most complex problems faced by all mankind can only be solved together, taking into account each other's interests. The West must realize this and abandon neocolonial habits.

The Global South and East are increasingly asserting their rights to full participation in decision-making processes across the entire spectrum of the international agenda, which is becoming increasingly relevant in a situation where the West is systematically destroying the model of globalization it has created.

The role of interstate associations in Asia, Africa and Latin America is strengthening. Among them are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the League of Arab States, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and many others.

Contacts between regional integration structures are being established both among themselves and with the global association – BRICS, which creates opportunities for harmonising approaches to coordinating mechanisms for mutually beneficial cooperation and development that are not controlled by negative external influence and dictates.

All these objective processes will have to be taken into account in the activities of the G20, where the G7 can no longer "call the tune."

It is necessary to take a fresh look at the ways of ensuring security in various regions, drawing lessons from the sad experience of the functioning of NATO-centric models or Euro-Atlantic security models that the West has put at the service of its expansionist plans.

Russia has put forward an initiative to form an inclusive architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia, open – I would like to emphasise this – to all states and organisations of our common continent that are ready to work together to find generally acceptable solutions, using the interconnectedness and natural competitive advantages of a single Eurasian space. An international conference in Minsk, which opens on October 31 this year, will be devoted to this topic.

We do not fence ourselves off from dialogue with the West. In July of this year, at the suggestion of Russia, an open debate of the Security Council was held on the issue of building a more just and sustainable world order. We believe it is important to continue the discussion that has begun both at the UN and at other venues.

A fairer world order certainly implies an increase in the representation of the Global South in the UN Security Council. We reaffirm our position in support of the candidatures of Brazil and India, while at the same time making a positive decision on the well-known initiatives of the African Union. At the same time, of course, there can be no question of additional seats for Western countries, which are already overrepresented in the Security Council.

May 2025 will mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II, during which tens of millions of people, including 27 million citizens of all the peoples of the Soviet Union, became victims of the genocidal policy of the Third Reich. Such crimes have no statute of limitations, just as there is no moral justification for those who are trying today to whitewash Nazi executioners, collaborators and their current followers, whether in Ukraine, the Baltic states, Canada or other countries.

Today, the world is once again facing serious challenges that require joint efforts, rather than confrontation and a thirst for global domination.

Russia will always stand on the side of collective work, on the side of truth and law, peace and cooperation in the interests of reviving the ideals laid down by the [UN] founding fathers. This is the goal of the work of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, which was established at the initiative of Venezuela. Its objectives and principles remain fully valid. The main thing is that everyone, without exception, should be guided by these principles not selectively (choosing from a "menu"), but in their entirety and interconnection, including the principle of sovereign equality of states. Then, working in favour of forming an honest balance of legitimate national interests of all countries, we will be able to implement the UN mission written in the Charter: "To be a centre for coordinating the actions of nations." [My Emphasis}

Next is Lavrov’s Presser that followed his speech:

We are completing our work during the high-level week of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly. You had the opportunity to read my speeches, the results of multilateral events held within the framework of the G20, BRICS and other formats.

In total, my colleagues and I held 7 multilateral events and 28 rounds of bilateral conversations. During the meetings, we discussed all the main issues on the agenda in Russia's relations with the relevant states and looked at how the agreements of our leaders on bilateral and regional affairs are being implemented.

We paid great attention to Middle Eastern problems: the latest outbreaks of conflict in the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon, Syria, problems in Iraq, the situation with attempts to involve Iran in order to provoke a major war in the Middle East. We talked about the conflicts in the Sahara-Sahel region, Sudan, other parts of Africa, and Afghanistan.

We used this opportunity to convey our modern assessments of what is happening with regard to the Ukrainian crisis.

Our initiatives to form an independent architecture of Eurasian security, payment mechanisms that will not depend on the whims and ways of the West, and ideas to reform global institutions in order to reflect the real weight of the countries of the World Majority, the Global South and the East find a good response.

I would like to congratulate everyone on the International Day for Universal Access to Information, which is celebrated today. It was proclaimed by UNESCO in 2015 and enshrined the right of everyone to freely seek, receive and impart information.

In this regard, I want to tell you how this day is celebrated in Germany. It is reported that a married couple suspected of organizing the broadcast of several Russian television channels on the Internet has been detained in the country. According to the German customs office, the suspects are a 37-year-old German and his 42-year-old wife with Ukrainian citizenship. They face from one year in prison. On such a Day of "access" to information, the German customs congratulated people who wanted to freely distribute it.

Question (retranslated from English): Yesterday, former President Donald Trump met with Vladimir Zelensky. He promised that if he wins the elections in November, he will quickly resolve the issue of war. How would you comment on this? What do you think about this meeting?

Sergey Lavrov: Donald Trump said a few months ago that it would take him 24 hours to do this. Now the wording is different.

We will be glad to any initiatives that will lead to the desired result. And there can be only one – the settlement of this problem on the basis of eliminating the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. They are, first of all, that, despite the assurances given to us, NATO continued to expand, the West did not comply with its commitments, which were approved at the highest level in the OSCE and consisted in ensuring that no one strengthens its security at the expense of the security of any other country, and that no organisation in the OSCE area claims dominance.

NATO was doing exactly this – expanding its expansion, "swallowing" states, developing their territories with its military equipment and infrastructure. Ukraine was next in line. This created direct threats to the security of the Russian Federation. NATO's plans included creating military bases in Crimea, on the Sea of Azov and deploying their weapons there that would threaten our state. We could not allow this.

The security of the state is always important. It is needed not as some kind of abstraction, but as something that ordinary people need. Now UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his representative say that the position of the UN is inviolable, that it is in favour of resolving the crisis as soon as possible on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The head of the Secretariat needs to know the Charter in more depth and in more detail. I have just touched on this at the plenary meeting.

The most important thing for me in this document (and, apparently, the founding fathers of the Organization did the same) is that the first article proclaims the need to respect the rights of every person, regardless of race, sex, language and religion.

Our Western colleagues put human rights in the foreground for any reason or not. They did everything to exaggerate these rights in the Future Pact, to bring them to the forefront. It even says that the Human Rights Council should be endowed with some kind of authority that does not depend on Member States. But in the case of the Ukrainian crisis, the West does not remember about human rights at all.

I quoted the need to respect the rights of every human being, regardless of language or religion. I reminded the General Assembly today that the Russian language (from early childhood education to universities) has been legally exterminated in Ukraine. All media in Russian have either been expelled from Ukraine or closed. In the sphere of culture, books in Russian are thrown out of libraries, as it was in Hitler's Germany. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was banned. Moreover, the Constitution of Ukraine still states that the state ensures the rights of Russians and other national minorities, including education and so on.

We have not been able to get an answer from either the West or UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: why is everyone silent when so many initiatives on approaches to a settlement are floating?

The main thing is the problem of security from the point of view of the inadmissibility of Ukraine's entry into the North Atlantic Alliance or any other military bloc and the problem of human rights.

This is not about the territories, as Vladimir Zelensky is asking: they say, give them to us along the 1991 border. These are the true reasons.

If Donald Trump succeeds in repealing these laws that we are talking about, this will already be a step forward. This is easy to do. Go ahead and vote.

But there is one more point that no one mentions now. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly focused on it. Vladimir Zelensky's executive order banning talks with Russia is in force in Ukraine. Therefore, I cannot speculate on how they are going to establish the "process".

Our position is very clear. It is necessary to eliminate the root causes. Everyone knows about them.

Question (retranslated from English): Russia is in favour of a multipolar system and cooperation between the leading powers in order to make this world a little better. Do you think that a war in the Middle East, if Israel and its allies win, will weaken Russia and the Russian doctrine of a multipolar system? What can Russia do to ensure that this world continues to be built on the basis of cooperation between the major powers, without leaving one hegemonic power, primarily in the Middle East?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not talking about how the events in the Middle East, these (without exaggeration) tragedies, will or will not affect our positions in the international arena. We just want to save lives.

After the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, which we strongly condemned, 41,000 Palestinians and civilians have been killed and about 100,000 wounded in the Palestinian territories as a result of Israel's campaign to collectively punish the Palestinians, according to recent statistics. The numbers are still rising.

For comparison, after the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014, when the putschists who came to power declared people living in the east of the country terrorists and started, in fact, a civil war against them, over the past ten years, two and a half times fewer civilians died on both sides of the Ukrainian conflict than Palestinians in one year. This is an indicative statistic. And it continues to change. We are interested in an immediate end to this massacre.

The Americans closed all existing mechanisms to facilitate Middle East processes. First of all, this concerns the "quartet" of international mediators, which included Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU. Now the United States wants to monopolise mediation efforts and organises various formats: with our Jordanian, Egyptian and Qatari colleagues. But the Americans are still trying to manage all this themselves. It is the United States that prepares the papers that it shows to everyone and which it considers to be possible to end the conflict. But Israel increases its demands every time. What happened yesterday in Beirut is another political assassination. I heard that US President Joe Biden said that it was the right decision. This means that they have a slightly different attitude to how to behave in conflicts and what to be guided by. Do you remember how then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admired and laughed at the screen showing the bloodied President of Libya Muammar Gaddafi? Or her colleague Madeleine Albright, who, commenting on the processes initiated by the US aggression against Iraq, said that democracy was worth the deaths of 400,000 people. Everyone knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as the Americans claimed and the rationale for their invasion.

The United States wants to monopolize processes not only in the Middle East. They want to lead the "Indo-Pacific region" as well. Various bloc structures are assembled - AUKUS, Quad, "Four" (New Zealand, Australia, Japan and South Korea). The Philippines is also dragging the Quad into something similar. They have well-established activity. When they deal with regional problems, they think only about one thing – to maintain their hegemony and manage everything.

Russia has no such ambitions. It is inhumane to turn a blind eye to hundreds of thousands of victims, continuing to move towards the main goal - to remain in the post of hegemon.

Question: At this General Assembly, much has been said about reforming the UN. President of Finland Antonio Stubb also reflected on this topic and proposed excluding Russia from the UN Security Council. Is this possible? How should such proposals be treated?

Sergey Lavrov: The "hot Finnish guys" are a special people.

I have known A. Stubb well since he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland. After the end of the five-day war unleashed by Mikhail Saakashvili in South Ossetia against Russian peacekeepers, Alex Stubb visited Tbilisi and stopped in Moscow on his way back. Preparing for talks with our experts, he told me about his impressions of the meeting with Mikhail Saakashvili. There was an obscene adjective and a noun "lunatic". It is not difficult to guess what the adjective was. To my call to tell everyone what kind of person he was, he said that it was not worth it.

There are many stories from Scandinavian folklore. But I am more surprised by something else. A. Stubb wants to be "more" Ukrainian than the Ukrainians themselves. I know that the Kiev representatives are constantly talking about the illegitimacy of the Russian Federation, since the UN Charter says "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." I would like to note that the Charter also says "Republic of China" and not "People's Republic of China". Everything remained as it was when the UN was created, when Taiwan represented China. When the People's Republic of China restored its rights, when Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, became a member of the Security Council, they decided not to change anything, because everything is clear anyway.

I was more surprised by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who, speaking about the reform of the UN Security Council, said that "Europe is overrepresented." From it, France, Great Britain and the Russian Federation are among the permanent members in the Security Council. During yesterday's meeting with him, I asked him whether he really believes that we are "smeared with the same world" with London and Paris. He answered: "Well, who else are you?" Such an understanding of the geopolitical picture of the world leads to "serious" thoughts, given that this is the UN Secretary-General.

Question (retranslated from English): Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attended the UN building, a building built to maintain peace and security. Yesterday, during an attack on Beirut, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was killed. Will killing him stop Israel, or will he want to "continue" and take over southern Lebanon?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not the first political assassination. Do you remember the head of the Hamas Politburo, Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in the Iranian capital during the funeral ceremony of former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ismail Raisi? This is not just a political assassination, but a particularly cynical one. The Iranian consulate in Syria was also attacked, where Iranian citizens were also killed. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah has just been killed.

It seems to many (and me too) that Israel wants to create a pretext for directly drawing the United States into this war and is provoking Iran and Hezbollah in every possible way to do this. It seems to me that the Iranian leaders are behaving extremely responsibly. This needs to be properly assessed.

There are parallels with Ukraine here. Vladimir Zelensky is also doing everything to provoke the involvement of NATO countries in direct hostilities. Then he will just step aside and look at what he thinks will save him.

I don't think that's the right way to go. I am convinced that it is necessary to stop the bloodshed and abandon terrorist methods of settling political scores.

Question (retranslated from English): There is a widespread opinion among Hezbollah followers that Iran has abandoned them. And that all these slogans that "we will support Hezbollah, we will fight together with you" do not work. When the important moment came, Iran, as usual, watched through intermediaries and did not get involved in such events. Will the assassination of Khalifa Nasrallah lead to retaliatory measures from Iran?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think I have the right to comment on anything related to Iran's problems and interests. I cannot answer questions about what Iran is going to do. This is incorrect and impolite.

Question (retranslated from English): President Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly said that Russia is planning to attack Ukrainian nuclear power plants. How would you comment on this?

As you know, Brazil, China and other like-minded countries have created the Friends of Peace platform to mediate in the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Is Russia considering any peacekeeping plans for the Global South?

Sergey Lavrov: As for Mr Zelensky's statements, everyone has long been accustomed to his "impromptus". When he played on stage and voiced the written texts, he did better. "Impromptu naughty".

He stated that each point of the "peace formula" is based on the principles and norms of the UN Charter. Vladimir Zelensky boorishly described the Chinese-Brazilian initiative, saying that it was not clear why they had put it forward and that they wanted to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for it. He added that there are no different versions of the UN Charter for different parts of the world. There is no separate charter for the BRICS, the G7, Russia and Iran, China and Brazil. Vladimir Zelensky appreciated the well-intentioned efforts of our Chinese and Brazilian colleagues.

At the previous stage, we discussed their plans in contacts with our colleagues. I asked what the specific content of this initiative would be. In these Chinese-Brazilian points, all the words are correct – calls for peace, justice and the implementation of international law. No one argues with this. No one has yet told me how exactly they plan to move towards peace. This issue is still under consideration. The creation of a "Group of Friends" was announced, which did not include all the countries present at the meeting. The Group was established in New York at the level of permanent representatives. I do not know how seriously it is possible to deal with this issue from here, but I am sure that the permanent representatives are talented people. Let's see what they will bring into the world.

Most importantly, the Global Security Initiative put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping in February 2023 and dedicated to the settlement of any conflicts notes that it is necessary to agree on the elimination of the key causes of the conflict.

Its root causes in Ukraine lie in the involvement of the Kyiv regime in NATO. That goal remains on the agenda. Jens Stoltenberg and other representatives of the alliance regularly repeat this with enviable persistence. The second reason is human rights. The extermination of the Russian language, culture, education, and the canonical Orthodox Church. In Israel, no one has officially banned the Arabic language, and Vladimir Zelensky has banned Russian, although it is spoken not only by ethnic Russians, but also by the majority of the population of Ukraine.

Specific people at the level of permanent representatives who will be engaged in the concretization of this concept cannot ignore these arguments and root causes. They will have to be guided by the principles of the UN Charter not selectively, but in their entirety and interrelatedness.

Human rights are a principle of the UN Charter that has been grossly violated. Even the Ukrainian Constitution contains obligations to respect the rights of national minorities in all aspects. Interpreting the principle of territorial integrity, one cannot ignore its relationship with the principle of self-determination of peoples. In 1970, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a Declaration in which it decided that it was necessary to respect the territorial integrity of those states whose governments represent the entire people living in a given territory.

Why did everyone calmly accept the unilateral declaration of Kosovo as an independent state in 2008? The U.S. applauded the event, saying it was a manifestation of a nation's right to self-determination. In Kosovo, by the way, there were no military operations.

A few years later, in 2014, after the bloody coup in Ukraine, the fascists who seized power went to war in Crimea, and Crimea held a referendum. The Americans said that this is not allowed, since the principle of territorial integrity applies in this situation.

It is important that those who sincerely wish to help find a solution to this crisis understand the true causes. It is necessary to rely on the UN Charter in its entirety and the interconnection of its principles. This is my request, a message to those who will work in the Peace Group.

Question: Representatives of the separatists operating in Mali said on France 24 that they maintain contacts with Ukraine. How could Russia, as an ally of Mali, comment on the facts that there are contacts between those who are against the Malian state and Ukraine? What needs to be done to hold Ukraine accountable for this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have already commented on this situation. It has been proven by facts that Ukrainians are working with terrorist organizations that are fighting the legitimate government of Mali. Not so long ago, there was an attack on a group of Malian soldiers with a large number of killed. This was done by terrorists associated with Ukrainians.

This is not the only point on the planet. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is still in charge in Syria in the Idlib de-escalation zone. Ukrainians also have ties with them. They recruit militants to send them to the battlefields, or help them prepare provocations.

It is indicative that after the killing of Malian soldiers by terrorists, Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso appealed to the UN Security Council to condemn such activities of Ukraine. Two of these countries broke off diplomatic relations with it.

This is banditry. We will do everything to ensure that African countries that want to live by their own minds and choose their own development paths have support in ensuring security and defence capability. We are doing this.

Question (retranslated from English): I have a question about the Chinese-Brazilian initiative. Yesterday, the statement said that it takes into account the legitimate interests of the parties. This was said after your speech. Do you think this plan will allow us to get out of the current impasse? As you said, the root causes must be addressed. Are they clearly set out in yesterday's declaration?

Sergey Lavrov: Read what you have quoted and compare it with what I have just said. I did not see an action plan in the document, but only a statement of intent. This is a form - you need to fight for everything good against everything bad.

Many years ago, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was once again considered in the UN Security Council. At that time, the Quartet of mediators (Russia, the United States, the UN Secretariat and the European Union) developed a roadmap for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement through the creation of an independent Palestinian state. She was registered for one year. It fixed the steps that had to be taken every month. That was the plan. But it did not materialize. Otherwise, we would not have seen the war that is now unleashed in the Middle East.

My advice to the people who will be working in New York as part of the Friends of Peace group is to read the UN Charter. I spoke in as much detail as possible both at the plenary session and at the UN Security Council. Everyone has known this for a long time.

It began with a coup d'état in Ukraine. All these years we have been warning not to be "dragged in" to NATO, so that Russian citizens are not touched. Six months before the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview, answering a question about his attitude towards the people on the other side of the contact in Donbass who did not accept the putsch and against whom the Kiev regime began to fight, that "there are people, and there are creatures – individuals." Another time he said that if you feel involved in Russian culture and live in Ukraine, go to Russia. No one reacted to this.

Ukrainian Ambassador to Kazakhstan Pavel Vrublevsky, speaking in an interview, said that their main goal is to kill as many Russians as possible so that their children have less work to do. Did any of the journalists draw the attention of their readers to this? I don't remember.

This is a serious question. It is not enough just to take into account the interests. I don't understand only one thing: how did the French and the Swiss end up at yesterday's meeting? They actively advocate for Ukraine, demand their victory over the Russian Federation, supply long-range weapons and missiles. I asked my Chinese colleague. He said that they were begging very much. It was collectively decided to invite them as observers.

This group still has work to do. We are ready to help them with advice. The main thing is that they base their proposals on reality, and not take them from abstract conversations.

Question (retranslated from English): My question is a follow-up to what I asked last year. Could you tell us if there are any negotiations on Ukrainian children who were taken to Russia? You said that there are only about a hundred of them. But according to the ICRC, there are 19,000 of them, and as far as I understand, some countries like Qatar are mediators in this matter.

Sergey Lavrov: We publish such materials. Do you have a representative in Moscow?

Question (retranslated from English): No. I moved to another media outlet.

Sergey Lavrov: The information has been updated many times since our last meeting. I will not cite the figures again. But we invited many foreign journalists to special briefings.

Some time ago, facts appeared that many of the children (hundreds) who were on the lists of allegedly "abducted" by Russia were found in Germany. There are a lot of "guys" who suffer from non-traditional hobbies. This is not an easy question.

Maria Zakharova: We would like to reiterate our invitation in your new capacity to visit Russia and conduct interviews with officials. We are waiting for you.

Question (retranslated from English): Russia's sale of the S-400 to Turkey has created tensions in relations with the United States. Recently, a former Turkish minister suggested that Turkey could sell the S-400 to third countries, such as India or Pakistan. How will Russia react to such a potential sale of the S-400? What consequences will this have for Russian-Turkish relations?

Sergey Lavrov: The S-400 is a missile defence system. It was delivered to Turkey. I have nothing to comment on.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is an experienced statesman. On any issue, he makes decisions in the interests of his people and state.

The only "addition". Arms sales contracts have a column on the end-user certificate. In order for products supplied with such a certificate, which identifies the country that received these weapons as the end-user, to be able to do anything, the consent of the party that sold these weapons is required.

Question (retranslated from English): Former US President Donald Trump said that the war in Ukraine would not have started if he had been president. If he is re-elected, then it will end on the first day. How will Russia react to Donald Trump's offer of peace if he is re-elected? What conditions should be in place for Russia to agree to this?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Mr Trump. The war would never have started if...

I can also show a retrospective. February 2014. The then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and his opposition, which brought hundreds of people to the main square with Western money (there were endless protests there), signed an agreement that there would be early elections. And before they are held, a government of national unity will be created. This was guaranteed by Germany, France and Poland. In the morning, the opposition seized government buildings. We asked why they did it. German and French colleagues replied that democracy sometimes takes unpredictable "zigzags". The Americans said the same thing.

If that agreement had been implemented, Ukraine would have been within the 1991 borders, which Vladimir Zelensky is talking about. Who asked them to undermine their legitimacy? As long as this regime remains in power, it will be undermined. Crimea would then also remain in Ukraine. I want everyone to understand. This is if you follow the logic of "if".

If the Minsk agreements, which were signed a year later and enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution, had been implemented, then Ukraine would have been whole, but without Crimea. They lost Crimea when they brought bandits to power.

In April 2022, an agreement was reached in Istanbul between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators. If it had been implemented, Ukraine would still have retained part of the Donbass. But every time the agreement that Russia always agrees to breaks down, Ukraine becomes smaller.

As for the Istanbul agreements. The head of the Ukrainian delegation, Dmitry Arakhamia, recently gave an interview and admitted that the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came and said that no agreements were needed, and that they would supply weapons and money.

I have given you the facts. And if Ukraine continues to go its own way and uses some tricks to buy time, then it will not succeed.

I hope that our Chinese and Brazilian friends and those who have joined the Friends of Peace group will fully take into account the manners and habits of the current Ukrainian leadership and its endless attempts to deceive everyone into unstable ground.

Question (retranslated from English): President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan will take part in the BRICS and CIS summits in Russia in October 2024. Are there any meetings planned between the leaders of the two countries for new peace initiatives or talks with Russian participation?

Sergey Lavrov: As they say, everything depends on them ("It's up to them"). If they want to meet, as the ministers met here (in the United States) with the participation of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The Americans really want them to be dominant here, just as they are in the Middle East. It is important for them to show that they are the masters. If this suits our Azerbaijani and Armenian friends, then this is the choice of the respective leaders.

We are always ready to implement what we have agreed with our participation, starting from November 2020. Within two years, the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia met three more times (1, 2, 3). A trilateral working group has been created to unblock transport communications. There are mechanisms for delimitation of the border, etc. We are ready to fulfill all our obligations enshrined there.

Question (retranslated from English): A brief question about the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. What can Russia do to prevent these consequences from spreading to Syria and Iraq?

Sergey Lavrov: Let me reiterate that we want the UN Security Council to show its will and fulfil its functions. It has the tools to influence the party that does not comply with his decisions.

The Americans do not allow the UN Security Council to take such actions. For the same reason – they want to keep everything in their hands. The problems existing in the world no longer fit into one or even two hands. This is our answer.

They blocked all offers. The resolution that they themselves submitted for adoption was a "fraudulent move". The Americans said that Israel was ready to comply with it. It was a lie. We, foreseeing this, abstained and did not veto only because our Arab friends asked us to give it a chance.

As for how to prevent the conflict from spilling over into other countries. I have already answered. This is what we can and will do.

At the request of the legitimate government, our military contingent is in Syria to help ensure security. It will perform all its functions.

To reiterate, I have the feeling that there are those who want to provoke first Iran and then the United States and unleash a full-fledged war in the entire region.

Question (retranslated from English): Russia calls on Turkey and Syria to normalise relations. If this happens, how will it affect the Syrian Kurds?

Sergey Lavrov: We have had meetings on Syrian-Turkish normalisation. Last year, the ministers of defense and foreign affairs met as part of Russia-Iran-Turkey-Syria. Like the Astana "troika" on the Syrian settlement and the Syrian Arab Republic itself.

The meetings were positive. Recently we talked here with my Turkish colleague. I also spoke about this with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar Sabbagh. There are ideas on both sides that, in my opinion, should make it possible to resume this process.

Yes you are right. The Kurdish issue will be one of the main issues during these negotiations, along with the issues of curbing the risks of terrorism and ensuring border security.

There were precedents. There is the Adana Agreement of 1998, which is unlikely to be directly applicable now. But the concept laid down in it is quite feasible (of course, it needs to be adapted), which involves cooperation between Syria and Turkey in ensuring security on the border and suppressing terrorist groups.

A huge problem is the activities of the United States, which wants to do everything in its own way here as well. Ignoring the interests of Turkey and Syria, they are illegally on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic - on the left bank of the Euphrates. They have actually created a quasi-state there. They extract Syrian oil, harvest grain, sell it and use this money to support their "wards".

I am convinced that Kurdish organisations must categorically dissociate themselves from terrorism and finally understand that they have no other choice but to live as part of the Syrian state. At some stage, we were ready to provide our intermediary services, we met with their leaders. They know our position. We asked for help when President Donald Trump announced that they were "leaving" from Syria. Representatives of the Kurds came to us for a conversation. A few days later, the Americans said that they had changed their minds and were not going anywhere. And the Kurds lost interest. This is an opportunistic position that does not reflect a long-term vision of the future of the Kurdish people. They need to negotiate with Damascus. As far as I understand, our Turkish neighbours are ready to help in this.

Question (retranslated from English): After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of the ceasefire proposal, is it possible to implement Resolution 2735 in the context of the escalation in the region?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Resolution 2735. You are contacting the wrong address with a question about whether it is possible to fulfill it now. This is a question, first of all, for Israel. And to the United States too. They assured that this is a resolution that will sharply ease tensions and start de-escalation. They said that, serious people, they deceived all of us. I do not see Israel's desire to implement any peace plans.

Question (retranslated from English): A question about Ukraine. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the lifting of restrictions on the use of long-range missiles supplied by the West to Ukraine would be a declaration of war. As we understand, they are now close to announcing the lifting of these restrictions. Perhaps they will limit it to 20-40 kilometers, but this can happen.

Sergey Lavrov: I have already answered this question.

Question (retranslated from English): You have just said that you would like the UN Security Council to take responsibility for preventing a full-scale war in the region. What tools, in your opinion, could the UN Security Council use in light of the constant use of the veto, especially on Gaza? Should Chapter 7 of the UN Charter be considered?

Sergey Lavrov: I did say that the UN Security Council has the capacity. They include Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Although all UN Security Council resolutions must be implemented. This is stated in Article 25 of the Charter of the Organization. Chapter 7 is coercive for those to whom the requirements of the relevant UN Security Council decision are addressed.

For example, there is a demand to "put on the table" a resolution, to stop the supply of weapons in any conflict when the situation goes too far. Naturally, everyone understands that the Americans will veto this, as they did before.

We can propose sanctions against those who do not comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council. And this will also be vetoed. There are tools. We should not give up because the resolution is being blocked. It is not always possible to block painlessly for your reputation. Maybe this will give something. As we say, "water wears away a stone". The situation is difficult.

Question (retranslated from English): Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that Israel's "long arm" can reach everyone in the Middle East. Given the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, do you expect any prospects for a peaceful Middle East settlement?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already answered several times how we feel about what is happening. This must be stopped urgently.

Question (retranslated from English): Can Russia agree to expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council from 5 to 10 members? Could you comment on this topic?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the reform of the UN Security Council. I have not heard of the idea of making 10 permanent members. There are a lot of them "swimming".

Our position is well known – it is necessary to strengthen the Council exclusively at the expense of candidates from Africa, Asia and Latin America. There can be no increase in the number of Western countries and their allies (such as Japan).

Question (retranslated from English): Could you comment on the changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine that President Vladimir Putin recently announced? Is this a signal to the West? If so, what kind of message would Moscow like to send?

Sergey Lavrov: President Vladimir Putin has said everything. Everything is clear there without any exceptions.

When we say something publicly (especially President Vladimir Putin), we proceed from the assumption that those who are interested in our approaches hear it. How they understand this, it is not for me to judge.

When it becomes finally clear whether they will give Ukraine permission for long-range guns, then it will be clear how they understood what they heard.

Question (retranslated from English): The BRICS summit will be held in three weeks. Are countries from Latin America expected to participate? What is Russia's attitude to the political situation in Latin America?

Sergey Lavrov: Certainly not like the Monroe Doctrine.

We have a respectful attitude towards all our partners. Latin America is a powerful pole of the emerging polycentric world order. Now CELAC is getting a second wind after the President of Brazil L.I. Lula da Silva came to power. There are many initiatives, including those aimed at creating mechanisms that allow trade, cooperation, investment, without depending on what the United States controls through the IMF and the WTO.

As for the prospects for BRICS expansion. At this stage, all members consider it expedient not to make new decisions yet and to adapt our association of like-minded people to new circumstances. There were five of us, now there are ten. Of course, this requires some kind of habituation and smooth entry of new members into the work, taking into account the traditions that have developed over the years of the existence of the "five".

The summit in Kazan will consider the recommendations that were requested by the leaders in 2023 at the Johannesburg summit – to give proposals on what the modalities of the new category (of the BRICS partner countries) could look like, which will participate on a permanent basis, not as invitees, but as partners in almost most of the activities of our structure.

There are lists of such candidates. There will be about 20 people who want to become partners. More than a dozen want to maintain constant contacts, without necessarily acquiring the status of a partner. The decision is to be made by the presidents. It is not in my hand now to prejudge how they will agree. This will be announced.

Question: You mentioned Georgia in your speech today. How would you comment on the recent statements by Georgian officials that Mikheil Saakashvili started the war? Do you think any new agreements between Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are possible and realistic?

Sergey Lavrov: It is obvious that the current Georgian leadership honestly assesses the past. They said that they wanted historical reconciliation. In what form it can happen, it is up to the countries themselves - Abkhazia, South Ossetia - to decide. They are neighbors with Georgia. Some contacts are inevitable. If there is an interest on all sides in normalising these relations, ensuring non-aggression agreements, so that no one ever wants again, we will be ready to help (if the parties are interested).

The fact that Mikheil Saakashvili started the war was known to everyone, except, perhaps, our Western colleagues and Georgian President S. Zarubishvili.

Immediately after 2008, the European Union ordered an investigation conducted by the respected Swiss Giolo Tagliavini. The report on the results of this investigation clearly stated that it was Mikheil Saakashvili who started all this. There is no need to be surprised here.

Question (retranslated from English): Why did you mention Bucha? If I were a Russian official, I would try to ignore this massacre. And you included this topic in your speech at the UN General Assembly.

Sergey Lavrov: What surprised you? I talk about it every time.

I met with Antonio Guterres at a meeting of the UN Security Council in 2023, where he was present. And the year before that, in 2022.

Today is the International Day of Universal Access to Information. And you do not have access to information that openly "floats" on the Internet and social networks.

In Istanbul in April 2022, an agreement was reached that we would cease hostilities and sign an agreement with the Ukrainians. Even before it all failed, we were asked as a gesture of goodwill to withdraw troops from the outskirts of Kyiv, including the village of Bucha. We did so, thinking that we were dealing with decent people, not liars. But, of course, we were deceived.

There is a video on the Internet where, after the Russian troops left there, the mayor of this city proudly says on camera that they have regained control over their "small" homeland, that they are now the masters, there are no Russians there.

Two days passed. Suddenly, the team of the "glorious" BBC media agency shows television footage not somewhere in the basement, but on the wide central street of Bucha, where the bodies are laid. It was said that when the Russians were here, they were the ones who committed such a crime. Again, it was two days after we left there.

New sanctions were announced in connection with this "story". Since then, it has been useless to count on any investigation. We took the simplest path. We asked if it was possible to see the list of names of people whose corpses were shown on the BBC. There was a silence. I asked Antonio Guterres. I told him about it again yesterday. He replied that they would apply again. But they have already appealed to the Ukrainian regime. No one tells them anything. If he does not report, then there is something to hide. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also appealed at our request. No one tells anything. The issue is closed. President Joe Biden described it as a "massacre" and "Putin is a butcher." There is no mystery for us here. This is a provocation of the purest water.

Just like with Alexey Navalny. When he fell ill, and the Germans asked to give him to them for treatment, we immediately let their plane pass and he was taken away. Even the necessary aviation formalities were not observed. He was in a civilian hospital, where nothing was found on him. Then he was transferred to a military hospital, where they found this substance - Novichok. Later, he seemed to be cured, returned and died here.

While he was there, we asked the Germans to show tests proving that he had been poisoned with this substance. The Germans said that it was a secret, that they would give this analysis to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We went there. We were told that the Germans had forbidden them to show it to us. Doesn't anything seem strange to you here? When the uproar broke out after the death of Alexey Navalny, we once again reminded the Germans and asked if we could see what the test was and how he was treated before he returned to Russia. In response, there was complete silence.

The same applies to the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury. No information, despite official requests from our Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General's Office to their colleagues in Britain.

The media "foam" has been torn off, Russia has been blamed for everything, and then it disappears from the front pages and from the television screens. We know that. We will talk about Bucha and Alexey Navalny and demand the truth.

If you are interested, organize a journalistic investigation. Ask Ukrainians why you can't get these names. My friends, you are professionals. I hope you must be interested. Try to find out.

Question: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the other day that Russia and the United States should reduce their nuclear arsenals. Did he personally tell you about this at the meeting? Under what conditions is Russia ready to do this?

Sergey Lavrov: He did not tell me anything. I didn't hear him say that. He sometimes makes statements that clearly do not fit into the existing realities in the international arena.

We are not increasing our arsenal. This is once again confirmed by our official representatives. The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms is valid until 2026. We are guided by them, at least as long as this treaty is in force. We suspended our participation in it but said that we would comply with the levels and exchange some types of information with the Americans.

But, of course, it is not for the UN Secretary-General to decide such issues. I always want there to be fewer weapons. But there are realities. [My Emphasis]

There’s a great deal I could comment about, almost everything that’s been given emphasis. However, I think it ought to be clear that the SCF editorial I posted prior to this tells us why as does Lavrov in many instances:

Look into the roots of the problem/event and you’ll discover how to solve it if indeed it’s solvable.

SCF announced very clearly why the United Nations has failed as an institution—it was usurped from its outset by the Imperialist Western nations led by the Outlaw US Empire. And in the Levant’s case, also by the Genocidal Zionists, who are allied with the Imperialists—after all, the entire Palestinian ploy was an Imperialist program from its outset 200 years ago well before the modern resource base was discovered. Again, look to the roots.

Lavrov is a highly principled, responsible diplomat, who made it very clear that Russia’s position on the Levant is for the killing to cease now. He also explained why that desire Russia shares with most of the world is being blocked from happening—it’s the Outlaw US Empire yet again. I wonder if Biden would agree that his assassination would be perfectly okay given the crimes he’s committed. In his twisted mind, he’d probably say yes.

*
*
*
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!