Discover more from karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium
Lavrov's UNGA Speech, Documents & Presser
Amazing what can be said in 15 minutes
RT opted to headline this: “West has been ‘blinded’ by desire to ‘defeat’ Russia,” which was only one small portion of his overall speech. It was similar to his UNSC presentation but was very compressed and focused on the global rather than the specific Ukraine situation. RT went on to report these points:
Modern Western nations are outright rejecting the principle of equality in international relations, Lavrov said, adding that this translates into the West’s “total intractability” in any negotiations. The Europeans and Americans that are used to “looking down upon the rest of the world” are “making promises left and right, including … legally binding ones,” the minister said, adding that all these promises eventually end up being reneged-on.
“As Russian President Vladimir Putin put it, the West is now the real ‘empire of lies’,” Lavrov said.
Listening to the translation live clearly taxed the woman doing that work as Lavrov had a great deal to say within his allotted 15 minutes. Those in the hall gave him a very well deserved rousing applause when he finished.
Sputnikglobe has a much longer recap that provides better context as with these two examples:
“Having grown accustomed to looking down on the rest of the world, the Americans and the Europeans keep making promises and taking on obligations, including those of the written and legally binding variety, and then simply do not fulfill them. As Russian President Vladimir Putin previously said, the West is a veritable ‘empire of lies’,” Lavrov said….
“The declared goal is to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, and this obsession has completely blinded the eyes of irresponsible politicians who feel a sense of their own impunity, while at the same time losing an elementary sense of self-preservation,” Lavrov added.
IMO, the above remark was aimed at Joe Biden as well as some in the EU. Given the slow posting of the Russian transcript, I must say the Sputnikglobe report is very good. However, it’s possible MFA awaits the end of Lavrov’s presser to post both transcripts. Well, the first part is now finished, the UNGA speech transcript:
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Many speakers who have spoken before me have already expressed the idea that our common planet is undergoing irreversible change. A new world order is being born before our eyes. The contours of the future are built in struggle. Between the World Majority, which advocates a more equitable distribution of global wealth and civilizational diversity, and between the few who use neocolonial methods of subjugation to maintain their elusive dominance.
A kind of "calling card" of the "collective West" has long been the rejection of the principle of equality and total inability to negotiate. Accustomed to looking down on the rest of the world, Americans and Europeans often make promises, make commitments, including written and legally binding. Then they simply do not perform. As President Vladimir Putin noted, the West is a veritable "empire of lies."
Russia, like many other countries, knows this firsthand. In 1945, when Washington and London and Russia were working together to finish off the enemy on the fronts of World War II, our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition were already preparing plans for the military operation "Unthinkable" against the Soviet Union. And four years later, in 1949, the Americans developed Operation Dropshot to deliver massive nuclear strikes against the USSR.
These crazy plans remained on paper. The USSR created its own weapon of retaliation. Although it took the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. with balancing on the brink of nuclear war, so that the idea of unleashing it and the illusion of victory in it cease to be the basis of US military planning.
At the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union played a decisive role in uniting Germany and agreeing on the parameters of a new security architecture in Europe. At the same time, the Soviet, and then the Russian leadership, were given specific political assurances regarding the non-expansion of the NATO military bloc to the East. The relevant records of the negotiations are in our and Western archives. They are freely available. But these assurances of Western leaders turned out to be a hoax, and they had no intention of fulfilling them. At the same time, they were never embarrassed by the fact that by bringing NATO closer to Russia's borders, they grossly violated the official OSCE commitments made at the highest level not to strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of others and not to allow any country, group of countries or organizations to dominate in Europe in Europe.
In 2021, our proposals to conclude agreements on mutual security guarantees in Europe without changing Ukraine's non-aligned status were arrogantly rejected. The West continued to systematically militarize the Russophobic Kiev regime, which was brought to power as a result of a bloody coup d'état and was used to prepare for the unleashing of a hybrid war against our country.
Unprecedented since the end of the Cold War was a series of recent joint exercises by the United States and its European NATO allies, including the development of scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation. The task of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia was declared. This obsession has finally obscured the eyes of irresponsible politicians who feel a sense of their own impunity, while at the same time losing an elementary sense of self-preservation.
The Washington-led NATO countries are not only building up and modernizing their offensive capabilities, but they are also trying to transfer the armed confrontation to outer space and information space. A new dangerous manifestation of NATO expansionism is the attempt to extend the bloc's area of responsibility to the entire Eastern Hemisphere under the crafty slogan of "indivisibility of the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region." For this task, Washington creates military-political mini-alliances under its control, such as AUKUS, the US-Japan-Republic of Korea troikas, the Tokyo-Seoul-Canberra-Wellington quartets, pulling their members into practical cooperation with NATO, which is introducing its infrastructure in the Pacific theater. The undisguised focus of such efforts against Russia and China, on the collapse of the inclusive regional architecture that has developed around ASEAN, gives rise to the risks of a new explosive hotbed of geopolitical tension - in addition to the European one that has already been heated to the limit.
There is a strong impression that the United States and the "Western collective" completely subordinated to them decided to give the Monroe Doctrine a global projection. The plans are as illusory as they are extremely dangerous, but this does not stop the ideologists of the new edition of Pax Americana.
The world's minority is doing its best to slow down the natural course of things. In the Vilnius Declaration of the North Atlantic Alliance, the "growing partnership between Russia and China" is characterized as a "threat to NATO." Speaking recently to his ambassadors abroad, President Emmanuel Macron expressed sincere concern about the expansion of BRICS, regarding this event as evidence of "the complication of the situation in the international arena, which threatens to weaken the West and, in particular, Europe ...” There is a revision of the world order, its principles, various forms of its organization, where the West has occupied and occupies dominant positions. Here are the revelations: if someone somewhere gathers without us, makes friends without us or without our permission, then this is seen as a threat to our dominance. NATO's advance in the Asia-Pacific region is a "blessing", and the expansion of the BRICS is dangerous.
However, the logic of the historical process is inexorable. The main trend was the desire of the states of the world majority to strengthen sovereignty and defend national interests, traditions, culture and way of life. They no longer want to live under someone else's dictation, they want to be friends and trade with each other, but also with the whole world - only on an equal footing and for mutual benefit. Associations such as BRICS and the SCO are on the rise, providing the countries of the Global South with opportunities for joint development and defending their rightful place in the objectively emerging multipolar architecture.
Perhaps for the first time since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, there is a chance for genuine democratization in world affairs. This inspires optimism in all those who believe in the supremacy of international law and wish for the revival of the UN as the central coordinating body of world politics. Where they agree on how to solve problems together, based on an honest balance of interests.
For Russia, it is obvious that there is no other way. However, the United States and its subordinate "Western collective" continue to produce conflicts that artificially divide humanity into hostile blocs and impede the achievement of common goals. They are doing everything to prevent the formation of a truly multipolar, just world order. They seek to force the world to play by their notorious and self-serving "rules".
I would like to urge Western politicians and diplomats to carefully re-read the UN Charter once again. The cornerstone of the world order created following the Second World War is the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states - large and small, regardless of the form of government, internal political or socio-economic structure.
The West still considers itself superior to the rest of humanity, in the spirit of the notorious statement by EU diplomacy chief Josep Borrell that "Europe is a blooming garden, and everything around is a jungle." He is not embarrassed by the fact that in this garden there is rampant Islamophobia and other forms of intolerance towards the traditional values of all world religions. Acts of burning the Koran, insulting the Torah, persecuting Orthodox clergy and other mockery of the feelings of believers are literally put on stream in Europe.
The West's use of unilateral coercive measures is a flagrant violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states. In countries that have become victims of illegal sanctions (and there are more and more of them), it is well known that restrictions hit primarily the most vulnerable segments of the population. They provoke crisis phenomena in the food and energy markets.
We continue to insist on an immediate and complete end to the United States' unprecedented trade, economic and financial blockade of Havana and the absurd decision to declare Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism. Washington must, without any preconditions, abandon the policy of economic strangulation of Venezuela. We demand the lifting of unilateral US and EU sanctions against the Syrian Arab Republic, which openly undermine the right to development. Any coercive measures that circumvent the UN Security Council must end, as well as the West's practice of manipulating the Council's sanctions policy to put pressure on those who are undesirable.
Obsessive attempts to "Ukrainize" the agenda of all international discussions, pushing into the background a number of unresolved regional crises, many of which drag on for years and even many decades, have become a blatant manifestation of the selfishness of the Western minority.
Full-fledged normalization in the Middle East cannot be achieved without resolving the main issue - the settlement of the protracted Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the basis of UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia at one time. The Palestinians have been waiting for more than 70 years for the state solemnly promised to them, but the Americans, who have monopolized the mediation process, are doing everything to prevent this. We call on all responsible countries to unite their efforts in order to create conditions for the resumption of direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
It is gratifying that the Arab League is gaining a second wind, activating its role in the affairs of the region. We welcome the return of Syria to the Arab family, the normalisation process that has begun between Damascus and Ankara, which we are trying to help together with our Iranian colleagues. These positive developments reinforce the efforts of the Astana format to promote a Syrian settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the restoration of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.
We hope that with the assistance of the UN, the Libyans will be able to qualitatively prepare for general elections in their long-suffering country, which for more than ten years has not been able to recover from the consequences of NATO aggression, which destroyed the Libyan state and opened the floodgates for the spread of terrorism in the Sahara-Sahel region and for the waves of millions of illegal migrants to Europe and other parts of the world. Analysts note that as soon as Gaddafi abandoned his military nuclear program, he was immediately destroyed. Thus, the West has laid down the most dangerous risks for the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime.
We are alarmed by Washington and its Asian allies whipping up military hysteria on the Korean Peninsula, where the US strategic potential is accumulating. Russian-Chinese initiatives to consider humanitarian and political tasks as priority are rejected.
The tragic development of the situation in Sudan is nothing more than another consequence of the West's failed experiments with the export of liberal democratic dogmas. We support constructive initiatives aimed at an early settlement of the intra-Sudanese conflict, primarily by facilitating direct dialogue between the warring parties.
Observing the nervous attitude of the West to the latest events in Africa, in particular in Niger and Gabon, it is impossible not to recall how Washington and Brussels reacted to the bloody coup d'état in Ukraine in February 2014 - a day after reaching an agreement on a settlement under EU guarantees, which the opposition simply trampled. The United States and its allies supported it, hailing it as a "manifestation of democracy."
The continuing deterioration of the situation in the Serbian province of Kosovo cannot but cause concern. NATO's supply of weapons to the Kosovars and NATO's assistance in building an army grossly violates the fundamental UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The whole world sees how the sad history of the Minsk agreements on Ukraine is repeating itself in the Balkans. They provided for a special status of the republics of Donbass. Kiev openly sabotaged them with the support of the West. So now, the European Union does not want to force its Kosovo protégés to comply with the 2013 agreements between Belgrade and Pristina on the creation of the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo, which has special rights to its language and traditions. In both cases, the EU acted as a guarantor of the agreements, and, apparently, their fate is the same. What the "sponsor" is, so is the result. Now Brussels is imposing its "mediation services" on Azerbaijan and Armenia, bringing destabilization to the South Caucasus together with Washington. Now that the leaders of Yerevan and Baku have settled the issue of mutual recognition of the sovereignty of the two countries, the time has come for a peaceful life, its establishment, and confidence-building. The Russian peacekeeping contingent will contribute to this in every possible way.
Speaking about the decisions of the international community, which remain on paper, we call for the completion of the decolonization process in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly and for an end to colonial and neo-colonial practices.
A vivid illustration of the "rules" by which the West wants to force the whole world to live is the fate of the commitments it made back in 2009 to provide developing countries with $100 billion annually. to finance programs in the field of adaptation to climate change. Compare the fate of these unfulfilled promises with the sums that the US, NATO and the EU have spent to support the racist regime in Kiev – an estimated $170 billion. over the past year and a half. Compare and you will understand the attitude of the "enlightened Western democracies" towards themselves with their notorious "values".
In general, it is time to reform the existing architecture of global governance as soon as possible. It has not met the requirements of the era for a long time. The United States and its allies should abandon the artificial restraint of the redistribution of voting quotas in the IMF and the World Bank, recognizing the real economic and financial weight of the countries of the Global South. The work of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body should also be immediately unblocked.
The expansion of the Security Council is also becoming more and more in demand - solely through the elimination of the underrepresentation in its composition of the countries of the World Majority - Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is important that the new members of the Security Council, both permanent and non-permanent, enjoy authority both in their regions and in such global organizations as the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
It is time to consider fairer methods of forming the UN Secretariat. The criteria that have been in force for many years do not reflect the real weight of states in world affairs and artificially ensure the exorbitant dominance of citizens of NATO and EU countries. These imbalances are further exacerbated by a system of permanent contracts that bind their holders to the position of host countries of the headquarters of international organizations, the vast majority of which are located in capitals pursuing Western policies.
A new type of association is called upon to reinforce the reform of the UN, where there are no leaders and followers, teachers and students, and all issues are resolved on the basis of consensus and balance of interests. This is, first of all, BRICS, which has significantly increased its authority following the summit in Johannesburg and has gained truly global influence.
At the regional level, there is a renaissance of organizations such as the African Union, CELAK, LAS, GCC and other structures. In Eurasia, the harmonization of integration processes within the framework of the SCO, ASEAN, CSTO, EAEU, CIS, and the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road" is gaining momentum. There is a natural formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, open to the participation of all associations and countries of our common continent without exception.
Positive trends, unfortunately, are contradicted by the increasingly aggressive attempts of the West to maintain dominance in world politics, economics and finance. It is in everyone's interest to avoid fragmenting the world into isolated trading blocs and macro-regions. But if the United States and its allies do not want to agree on making the processes of globalization fair, equitable, then the rest will have to draw conclusions and think about steps that will help not to make the prospects for their socio-economic and technological development dependent on the neocolonial instincts of the former metropolises.
The main problem is in the West, because developing countries are ready to negotiate, including at the G20 platform, as the recent summit of the association in India showed. The main conclusion of the report is that the G20 can and should be freed from politicization and given the opportunity to do what it was created for: to develop generally acceptable measures for managing the global economy and finances. There are opportunities for dialogue and agreements. It is important not to miss the moment.
All these tendencies should be fully taken into account in its work by the UN Secretariat, whose statutory mission is to serve the search for the consent of all member states under the roof of the UN, and not somewhere on the side.
The UN was founded at the end of World War II, and any attempts to revise these results undermine the foundations of the World Organization. As a representative of a country that made a decisive contribution to the defeat of fascism and Japanese militarism, I would like to draw attention to such a blatant phenomenon as the rehabilitation of Nazis and collaborators in a number of European countries, primarily in Ukraine and the Baltic States. It is particularly alarming that last year Germany, Italy and Japan voted against the UN General Assembly resolution on the inadmissibility of the glorification of Nazism for the first time. This unfortunate fact casts doubt on the sincerity of the repentance of these states for mass crimes against humanity during the Second World War and contradicts the conditions under which they were admitted to the UN as full members. We urge you to pay special attention to these "metamorphoses", which run counter to the position of the world majority and the principles of the UN Charter.
Today, humanity is again, as many times in the past, standing at a fork in the road. It depends only on us how history will develop. It is in the common interest to prevent a slide into a big war and the final collapse of the mechanisms of international cooperation created by generations of predecessors. The Secretary-General took the initiative to hold a "Summit of the Future" next year. The success of this endeavour can be ensured only through the formation of an honest and just balance of interests of all Member States, while respecting the intergovernmental nature of our Organization. At their meeting on September 21 of this year, the members of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter agreed to actively contribute to the achievement of such a result.
As Guterres said at a press conference on the eve of this session, "if we want peace and prosperity based on equality and solidarity, then leaders have a special responsibility to reach a compromise in designing our common future for the common good." A good answer to those who are trying to divide the world into "democracies" and "autocracies" and dictate only their neo-colonial "rules" to everyone.
And now we await the publication of the Presser transcript. Meanwhile, Lavrov in closing said:
At their meeting on September 21 of this year, the members of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter agreed to actively contribute to the achievement of such a result.
There were three documents produced at that meeting all in pdf thus the all caps: SPECIAL DECLARATION ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES; SPECIAL DECLARATION ON FOOD SECURITY; and SPECIAL DECLARATION ON DECOLONIZATION AND MODERN NEOCOLONIAL PRACTICES . None of these are very long at 5-6 pages each and greatly expand the points made by Lavrov. For example, from the first above is point #4:
We stress that these illegal measures, which affect the daily life of over one third of humanity, particularly of those in more vulnerable situations, in more than thirty countries around the world, constitute themselves into crimes against humanity and mass violations of human rights, as they clearly seek to deprive entire populations of their means of subsistence. We highlight, in this context, that unilateral coercive measures, given their wide scope, far-reaching nature and the ineffectiveness of the so-called “humanitarian exemptions”, generate untold suffering on entire peoples and can be as lethal as weapons used in conventional warfare, an unfortunate reality that demonstrate that they can be part of the means used to either induce, escalate and prolong conflicts worldwide. We note that unilateral coercive measures may also have a negative impact on peoples in countries different to those subjected to these measures.
The language used is straight forward and refrains from hyperbole despite the clear pounding of the fist on the table within the voiced denunciations. Again, these documents and many others that are produced and published for the world to read often don’t get any opportunity to be read despite their importance. Many readers of this substack are international, but the majority are from the English-speaking world, and in most cases their national media never publish such documents or link to transcripts of those they criticize as will certainly be the case with Lavrov’s speech, unless it’s completely ignored. It’s also clear the Group of Friends is realistic when it comes to the West ceasing to be outlaws and conforming to the UN Charter and ending its illegal sanctions regime as this document concludes with this statement:
We express our firm determination to make all possible efforts, mindful of the importance we attach to this matter, to have this item considered by the General Assembly of the United Nations on an annual basis.
That three permanent members of the UN Security Council are the primary law breakers on this issue means there’s no substantive way for the UN to enforce its Charter since any attempt via the UNSC will be vetoed and UNGA resolutions have no binding force or means of coercion to them. This situation has led many to say the UN needs to be reconstituted with the outlaw nations barred from membership until they conform to International Law. As things stand now, that will certainly result in the formation of two opposing Blocs; but then, that seems to be the direction the world’s heading anyway.
The presser transcript is now available as is its video. As the photo shows, the press room is rather full. One rhetorical element that’s new is referring to the Global South as the World Majority while relegating the West to the World Minority. This appears to be done to bolster the fact that the UN and other international structures are supposed to be democratic, which means the majority rules. So, first a short recap of the week and then the Q&As:
Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you for showing interest in the work of the Russian delegation. I am sure that you are familiar with the statements made at the Security Council meeting on September 20 and at the general political debate of the General Assembly today. Our task was to convey as clearly as possible our country's vision of the evolution of international relations and an understanding of what needs to be done so that the unprecedentedly accumulating problems are somehow resolved. First of all, through the search for mutual agreement on the basis of mutual respect for all states without exception.
Such a line is gaining great support from countries in the Global South. But it is resisted by the "collective West" - the world minority. In politics, economics, the information environment, culture and sports, they want to maintain their dominance or expand their hegemonic position by dishonest methods.
In contacts with our colleagues from Asia, Africa and Latin America, answering their questions, we spoke in detail about specific aspects of the current phase of the European security crisis. It arose as a result of the transformation of Ukraine into "anti-Russia" by the West for many years. This country was prepared to be "dragged" into NATO, the regime in Kiev, which came to power as a result of a coup d'état, was encouraged to create direct threats to the security of the Russian Federation on our borders and to exterminate everything Russian in Ukraine: in its laws, educational system, in the spheres of media and culture, etc.
The crisis of European security continues. We hope that politicians who are in the habit of noticing and analyzing facts will draw conclusions from what is happening. There are not many of them, but there are still a few left.
We see how firmly the countries of the Global South and the World Majority stand in the position of first of all ensuring their national interests. From this point of view, they do not want to join the anti-Russian sanctions and participate in any campaigns organized by the West, when they literally drive people to various events so that they speak out in favor of Ukraine and condemn Russia, accusing it of all sins.
We proceed from our national interests. All those who act in this way are promising partners of Russia. On the sidelines of the High-Level Week of the 78th UN General Assembly, I had more than 30 meetings. We discussed the prospects for bilateral relations with all our colleagues. There are many new interesting projects that we are ready to implement together with our friends on the basis of mutual benefit. We will continue to develop cooperation within BRICS. Separate meetings of the foreign ministers of BRICS, the SCO, the CSTO, and CICA were held. We hope that all these regional associations will actively support the UN reform process, adding more stability and legitimacy to it, including in the framework of the ongoing discussions on Security Council reform, which we support.
I don't want to solo anymore. Ready for questions.
Question: If the President of Ukraine repeals the law prohibiting contacts with Russia, will Moscow sit down at the negotiating table? Under what conditions? Should the UN be a mediator?
Do you think that the presidential elections in Russia could become an obstacle to peace talks until March 2024? How do you assess the "peace summit" announced by Ukraine against "Russian aggression"?
Sergey Lavrov: This question is easy to answer. It consists of assumptions and subjunctives. We are not guided by fantasies. Vladimir Zelensky has not yet rescinded his executive order. No one is going to give him engagements. He rushes around the world and asks for money, weapons, attention, etc. This is not in our rules.
We are guided by the "bare" reality: the President of Ukraine and all those who lead him in Washington, London and Brussels unanimously say that there is no other basis for peace than the "formula of Vladimir Zelensky". This "formula" can be described in different ways, but it is unrealizable. Everyone knows that. At the same time, they say that this is the only basis for negotiations, and in general Russia must be defeated "on the battlefield."
That's what we hear as facts. We conclude that no one wants to seriously show an understanding of what is happening. Including those who understand, but do not want to do it publicly. And in these conditions - since "on the battlefield", then let's [solve it there?].
Question: During his speech at the Security Council, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that Russia is allegedly abducting children from Ukraine. After that, you had the opportunity to talk to him. Was it possible to clarify what he meant and on what data it is based? How do you assess the bias of the person who heads the international organization, which was created, among other things, by Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: Many people were surprised by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' speech at the Security Council meeting. In addition to other untrue allegations about what is happening in Ukraine, he suddenly decided to make an extensive passage on the topic of missing, abducted, hidden children and those who are starved, etc.
It was especially surprising to hear about children. Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict Victoria Gamba visited Russia in May this year and spent several days in detailed discussions, meetings, and clarification of issues of interest to her. All the answers were given, including during a meeting with Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, with whom we are working closely.
When we heard what Antonio Guterres said at the UN Security Council, and then at the talks with him, among other issues, I asked on the basis of what facts he made such statements, because no references were given. I haven't heard the answer yet, but I asked him to give it. These are serious things.
It so happened that every year some new unanswered questions arise in relations with Antonio Guterres. When in 2022 the UN Security Council discussed another dimension of the Ukrainian problem, an accusation was made against Russia in connection with the tragedy in the village of Bucha. By that time, six months had passed, and I said into the microphone that we were unsuccessfully trying to figure out what happened there. To begin with, we want to get a list of the names of those people whose bodies were shown to the whole world and caused another surge of anger, sanctions lists, etc. He said that no one can give us an answer. We appealed to different structures. In the presence of all members of the Security Council and other UN member states, I asked Antonio Guterres to use his capabilities and authority to do a not very difficult thing – to get a list of the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. We still have nothing. As well as explanations on a number of other issues, starting with the "poisoning" of the Skripals. No documents are presented. "Poisoning" A.Navalny - Germany declares that it will not allow his tests to be seen. The OPCW says they have results, but Berlin forbids them to show it. Why?
You would ask. Make the journalistic investigation of the events "fresher" than the assassination of former US President John F. Kennedy (which also cannot be fully investigated). Nevertheless, they were used by the West to create a certain atmosphere in international discussions and brazenly use fakes to promote solutions that have nothing to do with reality and prospects for implementation.
The Malaysian Boeing was shot down in July 2014 A simple question that is also impossible to get an answer. When the investigation began, Russia gave data from satellites and radars. Ukraine said their radars were not working that day. The U.S. said U.S. satellite data confirms that the Russians did it, but they won't give it to anyone. A court in the Netherlands, considering the issue, said that there is confirmation from the United States, their data from satellites. When asked by lawyers where they were, they replied that this was secret data. Washington did not provide them, but The Hague, they say, has no reason not to believe him. In addition, 13 prosecution witnesses remained anonymous and were not shown to anyone. Not like in Bucha (I hope they are all alive), but there are no names who were shown. Witnesses on the Boeing also do not have names.
Returning to the issue of children. We expect Secretary General Antonio Guterres to justify his statements. He shall act on behalf of the UN Secretariat as Chief Administrative Officer, as written in the UN Charter. Without departing from Article 100 of the Charter, which states that all employees of the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary General, must work impartially, neutrally, without receiving instructions from any government. We are waiting for answers.
Question (retranslated from English): You mentioned Ukrainian children. The number of children taken out of Ukraine, according to Kiev, the International Criminal Court and the prosecutor's office, is about 19,000. Several hundred were returned. I can show you videos with specific examples and interviews of children who were saved. When does Russia plan to meet with Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict Victoria Gamba to start discussions on the return of children?
Sergey Lavrov: I have just said that the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Victoria Gamba, was with us and spent several days where the children taken out of the conflict zone are located. We continue to be in contact with her.
I've seen the different videos you're talking about. We know how these videos are shot and made. In Bucha, they also showed a video of corpses lying. So what?
We have repeatedly disseminated information about what is really happening to children. Regarding your video. I will definitely ask our Mission to send you the materials that we have repeatedly distributed, including to the UN, explaining that a list of all children without parents is available (unlike the bodies in Bucha). There is a list of living children and coordinates on how to contact those who will be ready to transfer these children to parents or close relatives if they show up. This is a thing that has been explained many times. Be sure to send you materials.
Question (retranslated from English): But I'm not talking about Bucha, I'm talking about the children on the list...
Sergey Lavrov: I have just said it. You probably weren't listening. Unlike Bucha (where no one tells us the names), we showed the names of living children (thank God) to everyone a long time ago. We are waiting for one of their relatives to show up and confirm that they are related. Then they will immediately pick up the child. The bulk of these people are those who lived in orphanages, whom their parents transferred there for various reasons. When the special military operation began, we took them to a safe place. But we have never hidden the names of the children who were taken out and the place where they are. We have always invited and continue to invite parents, if they show up, to come and pick up their children. You would go there yourself, talk to the children. From here it is not so clearly visible.
Maria Zakharova: I would like to tell CBS that a press conference by Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova is scheduled for October 16. We invite you to participate personally. You will be able to ask all questions. If you first send some materials, she will be happy to comment on them. [This is no typo; Maria was present at the presser as the video shows.]
Question: It is said that the time has come to restore mutual trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This week we saw accusations against Armenia, anti-Russian protests in Yerevan. Has Russia lost its influence in the region or is it decreasing, given the military conflict in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: It is not for me to judge. It is immodest to say that in this region our influence is increasing, while in the other it remains the same. It's up to you to decide. Much is becoming clear now before our eyes.
It is a fact that in Armenia, as well as in a number of other countries of the former Soviet Union, there is a powerful lobby in the face of a layer of non-governmental organizations created (including through many Western foundations) that promote the interests of the United States and its allies (they are to undermine Russia's influence there). There are many such organizations there.
When there were previous unrest, Mr. Nikol Pashinyan opposed the previous government and demanded justice, all this was manifested. We treat this as artificially whipped up passions. We know who is interested in this and who is in charge of it. Unfortunately, the Armenian leadership periodically "adds fuel to the fire" itself.
For example, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, under the auspices of the European Union, signed a document stating that they recognize each other's territorial integrity within the 1991 borders, which means that all of Nagorno-Karabakh is Azerbaijan. All.
By the way, when signing this document under the auspices of the European Union, they forgot to write there that it is necessary to ensure the rights of Karabakh people as a national minority. When there were attention-grabbing discussions in Armenian society (they have recently unfolded again) about how all this happened, who gave Karabakh to whom and who did not, the chairman of the Armenian parliament was not ashamed to declare that Vladimir Putin gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan back in November 2020, when we signed agreements to end the 44-day war. Those agreements (if you are interested in this topic) said that Karabakh is the area of responsibility of the Russian peacekeeping contingent. The implication (this was discussed during the talks) was that the status of Karabakh was postponed and would be considered later. Therefore, after Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed that Karabakh is Azerbaijan, to accuse us of doing this...
Unfortunately, there are many such politicians there. We roughly understand their biography. We have a strong conviction that the Armenian people remember our common history, and connect their history with Russia and other friendly countries. First of all, the countries of this region, and not those who come from overseas.
Question: Could you explain what is the purpose and value of Russia's continued participation in the UN, given the fact of isolation and the existing criticism from international organisations (including the UN) due to the fact that the Russian side violated the basic principles, including territorial sovereignty?
Sergey Lavrov: Since our last meeting, CNN's questions have become even easier.
I work because there is something to do here. If you want to describe insulation, describe. You observe our delegation, how we spend our time, who we meet, what we do, what multilateral events we attend.
We work with those who respect themselves and who will never betray their national interests, because they were "poked" at them from Washington.
We know how the Americans travel around the world and forbid them to meet with our diplomats and Russian representatives in general.
I will say this: the United States is a great power. This is clear to everyone. But to run around like that and threaten everyone just to show their obsession with dominance is shameful for a great power to do such things.
We work with those who are ready to interact with us. To be honest, I didn't get bored. Yesterday I started work at 8 a.m. and finished at 8 p.m.
Question (retranslated from English): About the Black Sea initiative. Your Western colleagues accuse Russia of using food as a weapon, but do not want to continue negotiations on a "deal". What will be Russia's response? Have you spoken with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres about this?
A year has passed since the Nord Stream gas pipelines were blown up. We see a general silence in connection with this fact. Is the UN embarrassed to express concern about this? Do you have any new data?
Sergey Lavrov: The Black Sea Initiative consisted of two parts. It was a "package" that was the result of negotiations. It reflected all the interests of the parties, coupled with the interest of other participants. But if the Ukrainian part of the "package" was carried out quite efficiently and quickly, then the Russian part was not implemented at all.
At the same time, several times (while the Ukrainian part of the "initiative" was still functioning), these corridors in the Black Sea, which our sailors opened for the safe passage of dry cargo ships with grain, were used several times to launch surface drones to strike at Russian ships. We have warned several times. It hasn't been stopped.
But the main reason we pulled out of this deal and it ceased to exist was that everything that was promised to us turned out to be a hoax.
I respect the efforts of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Secretary-General of the United Nations Commission on Development and Trade (UNCTAD) Robert Greenspan. They are genuinely trying. But neither the return of Rosselkhozbank to the SWIFT system, nor the solution of the problems of unhindered entry of Russian ships into ports (primarily Mediterranean and other European ones), nor the solution of the problem of insurance, which "jumped" four times, nor a number of other things, did not happen.
The Ukrainian part of the "package", signed in 2022, contained a commitment to restore ammonia supplies in the context of expanding fertilizer exports. You all know that even before we withdrew from this "initiative", the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline was blown up. Just as in the case of Nord Stream, no one remembers this ammonia pipeline and is not going to investigate.
As for Nord Stream, this is another example (I can't list everything) of how the most important facts are swept under the carpet, how they prepare another lie in order to build their geopolitical schemes on it. This is on the list: Bucha, Salisbury, AA Navalny - all there. Nord Stream and the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline too. These are the most serious things.
Returning to the grain "history". We continue to work with both Antonio Guterres and Robert Greenspan. But I was a little surprised when the Secretary-General, in an interview on the eve of the General Assembly, began to say that he was still pushing for the implementation of the Memorandum between the UN and Russia in order to start using this channel for the export of Russian fertilizers and grain. But in all its actions, it does not leave the restriction regime for an inch and does not violate the regime of unilateral sanctions illegally imposed on the Russian Federation by the Americans and their Western allies. This is an indicative answer. He realizes that there is nothing he can do. For more than a year, he was given to make it clear that he would not even think that sanctions would be eased for the implementation of this part of the "package". He is looking for some artificial ways to circumvent sanctions, admits that he is working within their framework.
Hence there is not Rosselkhozbank, but some of its branches in Luxembourg, which does not even have a license to conduct banking operations, attempts to negotiate on a one-time basis about bank transfers with some American banks. That is, what we were offered means the following: tomorrow we will resume the Ukrainian part of the deal, and we will try to discuss yours for another couple of months and reach a solution.
Question: As a follow-up to the Black Sea initiative. You mentioned UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' letter. Will Russia agree to the resumption of the "deal"? If the proposals related to the connection of Rosselkhozbank to SWIFT are accepted, are you ready to agree with the Secretary General?
Sergey Lavrov: I have already replied about the UN Secretary-General's letter. He himself described his proposals as being built not with the aim of obtaining exemptions from sanctions, but somehow not to violate these sanctions, but at the same time to find some "ways".
You mentioned the branch of Rosselkhozbank in Luxembourg. Antonio Guterres said that we would agree that if the Ukrainian part of the "deal" is opened "tomorrow", then this branch will be connected in two months. First, it doesn't even have a banking license. Secondly, it is already idle and is in the process of closing. This shows how "deeply" UN experts delve into the essence of the issue.
Question: Will Russia send even more peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh?
Sergey Lavrov: Our peacekeepers there are now helping contacts between Karabakh representatives and Azerbaijani officials. They met on September 21 of this year. Our peacekeepers are present there, based on the fact that their role is important for building trust, so that the Karabakh people, especially at first, feel safe.
How long and how many peacekeepers will be required - these issues are resolved on the spot, "on the ground".
Question: Is it fair to say that Russia has officially rejected UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' proposals contained in this letter?
Sergey Lavrov: If you definitely want to write some nasty stuff and you like the word "rejected", then this is your choice. You are welcome. We have explained to the Secretary-General why his proposals cannot work. We do not reject them. They are simply unrealizable on their own. Write the truth next time!
Question (retranslated from English): As for the recent strikes on Crimea. A U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was spotted in the area. This suggests that Washington may have provided data for the strike. In addition, there is President Joe Biden's promise to send ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. At what point will the United States become a party to this conflict? When will this become a direct conflict with the United States without a "proxy" in the form of Ukraine? When will Washington be involved?
Sergey Lavrov: There are legal norms according to which a country is defined as a direct participant in hostilities. Western states try in every possible way to avoid and not remember them. They are actually fighting against us with the hands and bodies of Ukrainians. All those present here, who are at least a little interested in the huge flow of information and analytical materials going on in connection with the Ukrainian situation, know very well that the Americans, the British and many others are fighting. They do this by providing more and more weapons.
Today, in my speech at the general political discussion of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly, I cited figures - how much has now been invested - at least $ 170 billion has been invested in Ukraine alone against the background (these statistics are available) promised, the volumes and terms that were given by Western countries to Africans and other states in need of assistance, primarily in terms of development and resolving issues, related to climate change. Close cannot be compared.
Look at how loans are made to developing countries at the IMF, the World Bank, and even the International Development Association. Ukraine was given loans for almost 700 percent of its quota. No one has ever done this. And the country's significant debt was allowed not to be paid until 2027, and such quick and preferential decisions have never been made in relation to any other country.
Armaments are clear. Instructors are similar. They teach in Poland, Germany, Britain. We know that they work in large quantities on the territory of Ukraine. There are, of course, many mercenaries there. A significant part of whom are career officers. The status of a mercenary allows you to avoid crossing the very legal line.
Information from satellites. We read statements about the position of I. Musk and his company "Starlink". Military satellites are in full swing. Reconnaissance aircraft (primarily American and British) are also in the air. They not only aim at the target, but also monitor where our air defense is working from in order to "help" next time.
You can call it whatever you like. They are directly at war with us. We call this a "hybrid" war. But this does not change the matter.
Question: In your speech to the UN General Assembly, you mentioned that a multipolar world order is emerging. Will it make the world a safer place, or will it lead to an arms race and a new Cold War?
The United States always says that if the Ukrainians stop fighting, then Ukraine will no longer exist. Does Russia recognize Ukraine's sovereignty?
Sergey Lavrov: Back in 1991, we recognised Ukraine's sovereignty on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which it adopted when it left the USSR. The Declaration contains a lot of good things, including the fact that they will respect the rights of national minorities, Russian (it is directly mentioned there) and other languages. Then it all became part of their Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence, one of the main points for us was that Ukraine would be a non-aligned country, would not join any military alliances. In that version, under those conditions, we support the territorial integrity of this state.
They had a mini-coup back in 2004, the Americans "dragged" illegally, forcing the Ukrainians to hold a third round of elections, not provided for by the Constitution, for the presidency of "their" person. Even then, we communicated well with them, worked normally.
I understand that I have been explaining "badly" all these months. Both yesterday and September 21 of this year, I also explained badly. The second coup d'état happened a day after the signing of the settlement agreement, according to which early elections were to be held. The next morning, the opposition occupied all the administrative buildings. When we began to call the guarantors of this agreement in the person of France, Poland and Germany, we were somehow not very clearly told that sometimes democracy takes on such "unusual" forms.
First of all, these "democrats", who carried out a coup and killed more than a hundred people, announced that they would cancel the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. They immediately announced a campaign of armed militants in the Crimea to seize the Supreme Council of Crimea. These people simply stood up to defend their homes, language, traditions. A referendum was held. Then Crimea immediately joined Russia.
Against Donbass, as soon as they held referendums, Kiev threw combat aircraft, tanks. Cities and towns were bombed. All this disgrace was stopped a year later by the signing of the Minsk agreements. Last year, all those (except President of Russia Vladimir Putin) who signed them – former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former French President Francois Hollande, former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko – said that they were not going to do anything, they needed time to give weapons to Ukraine against Russia.
We are often told (UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres) that it is necessary to implement the resolution on Ukraine, because the UN General Assembly adopted it. Ok. If you take this logic, do it. Why, then, are the resolutions on many other issues, including on decolonisation, on Mayotte and the Chagos Archipelago, not being implemented? Why is Britain evading the implementation of the UN General Assembly resolution on the Malvinas Islands? If we take the resolutions that we know about, what methods of pressure our Western colleagues pushed, they all voted. A good third of countries did not support them. And the resolution to which I now wish to refer was adopted with absolute unanimity, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It says both about sovereignty and territorial integrity: everyone is obliged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory. To be respected, you must respect your population.
Our esteemed UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in one of his speeches that the principle that opens the UN Charter "We are the peoples..." means democracy that rulers must have the consent of those they rule.
The UN General Assembly once said that it would respect the territorial integrity of those who represent the entire population living on its territory.
In fact, a war was started against Donbass and Crimea. How can we say that the putschist government represents the people or the people of the territories that held a referendum on joining the Russian Federation in 2022?
We have no problems with the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It was destroyed by those who carried out and supported the coup, whose leaders declared war against their own people and began to bomb them.
Question: How will DPRK President Kim Jong-un's visit affect bilateral relations with Russia? What do you plan to discuss during your visit to North Korea in October?
Are there any special reasons why you did not listen to the speech of the President of Ukraine at the UN Security Council meeting?
Sergey Lavrov: Following the visit of DPRK President Kim Jong-un to the Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin made comments to the media. He spoke about the areas of cooperation that were discussed and agreed to develop and supplement. In accordance with the agreements of the presidents, we will build my talks in Pyongyang, which may take place next month.
As for Vladimir Zelensky's speech. I know what he can tell. By the way, he was not "in shock", not cheerful. Everyone knows what he's going to say. Why waste time? I have my own things to do. 33 bilateral meetings were scheduled. They were much more useful.
Question: A few days ago, US Permanent Representative to the UN Larrie Thomas-Greenfield spoke about the principles of the United States, priorities in upholding international law and the principles of the UN Charter. At a press conference, she was asked a question about the Golan Heights. She reiterated that the countries support UN Security Council Resolution 497 regarding the recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. I would like you to comment on this policy of double standards.
Continuing this theme. Every time I ask a question about the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves, just as it applies to other peoples who are facing the problem of external domination and colonialism, it comes to a two-state solution to the issue, many say about the example of M. Gandhi, that it is necessary, they say, that Palestine should follow in his footsteps. But M. Gandhi was supported by billions of people, unlike the Palestinians, who were "pressed against the wall." Do the Palestinian people have the right to resist Israel's occupation and external domination?
Sergey Lavrov: There are resolutions of both the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Palestinian issue. We want everyone to be guided by these resolutions.
As for the first part of your question. I will read the text, and then you will tell me. "Donbas is very important for Russia's security. But as long as Vladimir Zelensky is in power in Ukraine, as long as NATO is there, NATO-backed militia groups, and Vladimir Zelensky's regime itself – all of them pose a significant threat to Russia's security. Control over the Donbass in this situation, I think that this issue is of great interest to Russia's security. Legal issues are something else. Over time, if the situation in Ukraine changes, then it will be possible to look at it. We haven't come close to that yet." And this is US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in an interview with Walter Blitzer on February 8, 2022. He replied: "Leaving aside legal issues, as a practical matter, it is important for Israel's security. As long as Bashar al-Assad is in power in Syria, as long as Iran is present in Syria, rebel groups supporting the Bashar al-Assad regime pose a significant threat to Israel's security. As a practical matter, control of the Golan issues remains important to Israel's security. Legal issues are something else." Here is the answer.
Question: Yesterday you met with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Iraq Fayez Hussein. Russian companies operate in Iraq and Kurdistan. The Government of Iraq cannot pay its debts under U.S. sanctions. How will you deal with this issue with the Iraqi government, while the United States refuses to conduct exemptions under sanctions?
You have good relations with the Kurdistan region of Iraq and the Iraqi government. The governments of Iraq and Kurdistan have certain differences. Do you have any interactions with both sides to overcome disputes and disagreements? Do you have any contacts with them?
Donald Trump said that if he returns to the White House, he will be able to quickly resolve the Ukrainian crisis. What do you think about it?
Sergey Lavrov: Donald Trump or those who will help him do this.
The first question is: what if Vladimir Zelensky cancels the decree? We do not engage in such "fantasies" and do not come up with some hypothetical situations in which we will have to work. We work in the real situation that has developed. There is a Nazi regime in Kiev, which forbade negotiations with us. Before it was banned, negotiations were held in March and April 2022. But two days later, Bucha "took place", because, I think, someone in London or Washington did not want this war to end.
Read what Senator McConnell said about the fact that support for Ukraine is not charity, but an investment in the American military-industrial sector, encouraging the entire West to invest in the production of weapons in the United States, thereby increasing its influence on Europe and preparing for a confrontation with China. They tell all this frankly. So I don't know who will be able to do what there.
I would like to emphasise that we were not just ready, but agreed to talks, reached an agreement in April 2022. And they said - only "on the battlefield."
Therefore, when we are now told "negotiations" ... President of Russia Vladimir Putin commented on this and said clearly that we are ready for negotiations, but we will not consider any proposals for a ceasefire. Because we have already considered it once, and they deceived us.
As for the oil companies. They work, they continue to work. The process of finding a solution is already underway that will make Russian-Iraqi relations independent of anyone in Washington or any other capital where people who imagine themselves to be masters of the world have come to power.
We welcome the dialogue between the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region. When I was in Iraq the last time, I visited Erbil. It seemed to me that the mood in both Baghdad and Erbil was in order to solve problems. We are for it. How exactly to negotiate. It is necessary that the representatives of these groups, and the Kurds, the government, themselves look for a compromise.
Question: I would like to quote what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in the Security Council: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of the UN Charter and international law. It exacerbates geopolitical tensions. It threatens regional stability, increases the nuclear threat, and poses a threat to a multipolar world."
You know that the emphasis of this General Assembly is on sustainable development, but not all goals are achieved. Isn't this war a diversion of resources from the sustainable development agenda?
Sergey Lavrov: Only it is not the war that is diverting attention, but the West is doing everything to divert attention from the problems that it has been creating for many years in the global economy, including in the food and energy markets (even before COVID-19). I will not go into details. We have spoken many times.
They want to reduce all the problems of world development to the fact that there is a war going on. And not to the fact that they announced sanctions, do not allow the supply of our food, fertilizer and energy. Not because they forbid. A group of countries gathers and Westerners necessarily begin to obsessively demand from them that they begin to condemn Russia.
There was a Latin America-EU summit. What does Russia have to do with it? We held the Russia-Africa Summit. We did not condemn anyone in the final declaration. And these "guardians of democracy" simply ruined everyone's nerves there. We caused physical fatigue in order to condemn us in the final documents. That's what it's all about. They want to reduce all the problems to us, to Russian actions in Ukraine. They can't do it.
The Group of Twenty has just met in India. I believe that there is an objective text not only on Ukraine, mentioned once, but in general on the geopolitical situation. All conflicts need to be considered, and not concentrate only on what they are interested in.
We have just talked about Palestine. We know what's going on there. How the Americans want to do everything so as not to create a Palestinian state. And no one cares much about this topic, except for our colleague, who asked a question on this topic.
As for the real situation. There were cries about this "Black Sea initiative" that now everyone will "die". First, the Ukrainian part that worked, where only 3 percent of the grain supplied to the markets went to poor countries included in the list of the World Food Program. All of them are in Africa. 48 percent ended up in the European Union. The rest goes to countries with upper-middle incomes, which have money and can buy everything themselves. We will compensate for these 3 percent that came to Africa during the period of the Ukrainian part of the "initiative". Exactly these volumes. We'll even add "from above".
What am I drawing attention to? These cries of crisis, famine, "grain as a weapon" are heard. Has anyone looked at the statistics of world food markets? Prices, after they rose slightly, have now reached the level of 2021. Let's not forget that Ukrainian grain is offered in abundance to EU countries. Many of these countries do not want to buy it because they have their own farmers, they do not need competition that can ruin them. The European Commission spends tens of billions of dollars on Ukraine. Now she has again promised 50 billion for three years. This is the grain that Ukraine wants to sell, and the EU countries do not want to buy because of competition, let the European Commission buy it and send it to Africa. Why have 2022 thousand tons of fertilizers that Africans need been without movement in the northern ports of the EU countries, in the Baltic States, in Amsterdam, since 260? We said that you arrested them, violating all conceivable trade norms, but we give these fertilizers to African countries for free. It took 6 months for the first batch of 20 thousand tons to go to Malawi. Another 3 months for 34 thousand tons to get to Kenya. Now we cannot send 34 thousand tons to Nigeria. The rest is still "lying" there, no one is doing anything. No one asks them at press conferences why they keep the fertilizers that developing countries need. They are already rotting. Look at the statistics of what is happening in the food market and the fertilizer market in general. Much will become clear.
Question: Our BRICS ally Saudi Arabia has said it may acquire nuclear weapons in response to the Iranian threat. What is Moscow's attitude to such statements?
Sergey Lavrov: I heard that it was said that if Iran had nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would also be forced to think about it. I treat this as a statement of fact. No one on the planet wants the emergence of new nuclear states.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly affirmed that there is no such intention. Their spiritual leader even issued a fatwa accordingly. We proceed from the assumption that they will not have a bomb. And Iran's neighbors will not be tempted to follow this path.
Question (retranslated from English): Next week, Moscow will host a meeting of the Moscow format consultations on Afghanistan. What are your expectations from this event?
Does Russia, like China, plan to send an ambassador to Kabul?
A couple of days ago, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the following at a meeting of the UN Security Council: "Russia is using Iranian drones to carry out attacks against civilians in Ukraine. This is a violation of the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231." How would you answer that? Given the new "deal" between the United States and Iran. Do you think negotiations on the JCPOA can begin?
Sergey Lavrov: This is not a question for me about the Iran deal. I hope you will have the opportunity to ask the British, French and Germans, who have already stated that on October 18, the requirement of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 regarding Iran's missile programs that have nothing to do with the nuclear program expires. They were included in the resolution in order to reach a compromise. The Iranians went for it. All restrictions on missile affairs expire on October 18. Already, London, Paris and Berlin have announced that they will comply with these restrictions in their national capacity.
Does it cause you anything? How should Iran react to such things? On the one hand, the agreements reached a little over a year ago on the text of the resumption of the JCPOA are lying motionless, because the Europeans are not in a hurry. On the other hand, this "quirk" about the refusal to comply with the UN Security Council resolution in terms of ending sanctions on missiles. On the third hand, you have to be pragmatic. Westerners honestly do not want to resume what was approved, worked, what the American administration took and closed. They again want to deceive everyone and come up with something additional - it's not fair. There was a resolution. The West, the Americans canceled it. None of the Europeans protested. Then they began to come back and do not do it very cleanly.
Do not forget also that elections are coming soon in America. I don't know how the next administration will react to the JCPOA.
At the expense of the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan. It will gather not in Moscow, but in Kazan. We look forward to discussing how neighboring countries can help Afghanistan overcome the current difficulties.
I did not understand your question about when we will send the ambassador to Kabul. He never left there. As he worked, he continues. And so does our embassy.
About drones. Today, we have already listed the statements of various figures, both national and international, which are not based on any facts. At least the facts have not been presented to anyone. The Iranians have commented many times about these drones. They asked to show at least one who would prove that it was theirs. I cannot comment on such statements. Mr. Antony Blinken announces many things a lot, with enthusiasm and pathos. He announced that the end of the post-Cold War era had come. Now everything should be run by the Group of Seven, which will do good not only for its peoples, but also for the peoples of the rest of the world. If they obey. We can discuss this.
Question: I would like to ask you about our diplomacy's efforts in Africa. You have held a number of meetings with your African colleagues. How did they go in general? What, in your opinion, is the reason for the growing interest of African countries in Russia? How does our approach differ from the approaches of other major geopolitical players in the region?
Sergey Lavrov: The talks were constructive and fruitful. First of all, we discussed the tasks that need to be implemented in order to implement the decisions of the Russia-Africa summit held in July this year in St Petersburg.
Naturally, each country has its own bilateral agenda. There are two main areas: trade as such and joint investment, infrastructure projects, as well as in the field of education, culture, medicine and healthcare. In many countries, there is an understanding that we come not just to develop natural resources, export and process them at home, but to create the foundations of their own economy, which will produce added value, thereby increasing their GDP.
President of Uganda Mr Museveni spoke at the Russia-Africa Summit. He cited interesting statistics on the global coffee market, which is estimated at about four hundred and sixty billion dollars. per year. From this money, Africa receives about $ 2.5 billion, because they sell coffee beans to multinational corporations, who fry them, process them, grind them, package them and deliver them. This is a vivid and illustrative example of how Africa continues to be used as a source of resources like colonial times.
All our plans are aimed at the development of modern technologies. We are talking with many countries about the deployment of ground facilities of our GLONASS satellite navigation system, the creation of facilities through Rosatom, including non-energy facilities, such as nuclear medicine, the use of nuclear technology in agriculture, as well as infrastructure projects and the construction of railways. A number of countries have established laboratories for the detection and control of infectious diseases. You can list for a long time. Of course, this is education. A large number of Africans study with us. Including many at the expense of our budget. I don't know how Western countries talk to Africans, but I guess it's a little downhill. We never do this, and purely in human terms, in my opinion, the methods of our communication with them appeal to them.
Question: During his speech at the UN Security Council this week, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that many people are wondering whether Russia is interested in extending the Black Sea deal. Do you have any information on this topic? Is there any information about the talks between Turkey and Russia on this matter?
Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Mr Guterres' statement. I can't be responsible for this or that mood at one time or another of the day. On the merits, I have already explained all this in detail today.
We were lied to and forced by the UN Secretary-General to fall into the delusion that the West was about to do something. They have long said bluntly that they will not ease sanctions to help the export of Russian fertilizers and grain. They stated this directly. Antonio Guterres himself recently said that he was not violating sanctions, but was looking for ways to implement them. It turns out that the UN Secretary-General will comply with the sanctions, but at the same time look for approaches to ensure that the West has mercy and, as an exception, does something somewhere.
This is not our question. This was described in detail today to the UN representatives. My deputy, S.V. Vershinin, is working with R. Greenspan and will continue with Mr. M. Griffiths. They know everything. We did not come up with the proposals that the UN Secretariat included in the original text of the initiative. They listed it all. None of this was done.
Let me remind you once again that in principle, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that as soon as everything that is written in the Russian part of the package works, the Ukrainian part of the UN Secretary-General's initiative will resume on the same day.
Maria Zakharova: Thank you. We have to go back to our "isolation" and "isolate" ourselves from you.
Given the temerity of the Western media, Ms. Zakharova’s parting sentence was quite correct.
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!