Lavrov's Year in Review Presser

A veery long revealing read

It’s that time of year when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov presents his annual review of the previous year’s diplomatic accomplishments and provides predictions on how the current year will develop. His statements come from a position of strength Russia hasn’t had in many years when domestic support is combined with the global situation, so expect his rhetoric to be more forceful than in the past. The video available at the link shows the event lasted 2.75 hours. All emphasis is mine.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am glad to welcome you to our traditional meeting. It is held annually immediately after the New Year Christmas holidays. Congratulations to everyone who celebrates these holidays on the onset of 2024, which we all want to make better in every sense. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail.

Our plans for internal development are clearly outlined. The Government of the Russian Federation is actively working. Recently, President Vladimir Putin held several meetings with members of the Government in various areas to ensure the sustainable movement of our economy in the current conditions due to the aggressive illegal policy of the United States and its satellites. The task is clear – to get rid of any need to depend on production, sales, financial, banking and logistics chains, which are in one way or another controlled or are under the great influence of our Western colleagues. This course is clearly defined in the decisions that have been taken and will be taken.

On the foreign policy front, the main directions for the foreseeable future were also determined. In March 2023, President Vladimir Putin approved the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation in its new, radically revised version, based on the realities of the modern world. The West has proved its complete inability to negotiate and unreliable as partners in any undertakings. The majority of the world does not want to put up with such a selfish approach and wants to develop in full accordance with its national interests, with the interests of each country and with full respect for the principles of the UN Charter, starting with respect for the sovereign equality of the state. Since the adoption of the Charter in 1945, not a single foreign policy action of the West in the international arena has taken into account or respected the principle (as stated in the Charter) of the equality of all states, large and small, regardless of their values, religions and traditions in general.

On the foreign policy front, we have clearly defined guidelines for developing relations with those who are ready to do this on an equal, mutually beneficial and mutually respectful basis through a frank dialogue and negotiations aimed at finding a balance of interests, rather than decisions that correspond exclusively to someone's unilateral selfish plans, as is manifested in the overwhelming majority of cases in discussions in which the West, led by the United States, participates.

The past year has shown a rejection of the manners traditional for the Western hegemon, which rely entirely on its own selfish interests and do not take into account the opinion of everyone else. Yes, to rule the whole world for 500 years, without having any serious competitors for almost the entire period (with the possible exception of the Soviet period), probably contributes to getting used to the role of hegemon. But life is moving forward, new centers of economic growth, financial power, and political influence are emerging and have already strengthened, significantly outstripping the United States and other Western countries in their development.

I am sure that you are aware of our assessment of the development of relations with the People's Republic of China. It is the fastest growing economy along with India. Relations with China are going through the best period of their centuries-old history. For us, it is especially valuable that Xi Jinping paid his first state visit after his re-election as President of the People's Republic of China in March 2023 to Moscow. In turn, President Vladimir Putin visited China in October 2023 to participate in the third Belt and Road International Forum.

Relations of special and privileged strategic partnership with India are progressively advancing. Regular dialogue has also been established at the highest level, as well as contacts between sectoral agencies through foreign ministries.

If we are talking about our close circle, then, of course, these are the countries of the Middle East, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar. Of course, we are interested in developing relations not only through bilateral channels, but also with regional structures created by many of our partners. I am referring to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, the League of Arab States, ASEAN, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, etc.

We are taking our partnership with African countries to a truly strategic level. This was confirmed at the second Russia-Africa Summit, held in July 2023 in St. Petersburg.

An important stage in the development of our relations with the Latin American continent was the Russia-Latin America International Parliamentary Conference, which took place in the autumn of 2023.

We actively worked at the UN. The Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations has been established there and has been successfully operating for several years. Within its framework, joint statements on fundamental issues of world development are adopted. This group actively stimulates the work of the General Assembly as a whole, promoting joint initiatives, including Russian ones. We support the ideas of our partners in this new education.

I would like to note a very important event – the adoption at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly of a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Despite the tricks of the West, it was adopted by an overwhelming majority. But I would like to emphasize the fact that for the second time in a row, Germany, Italy and Japan voted against this document. The Axis powers, which, after their defeat in World War II, publicly repented for the crimes committed during that war and assured everyone that such a thing would not happen again. The fact that over the past two years these states have been voting against the resolution demanding the prevention of the revival of Nazism leads to serious thoughts and makes us think about the direction in which these ideological processes are developing, not only in these states, but also in the West as a whole.

We worked constructively in other formats as well. Here it is necessary to single out our closest allies. This applies to the Union State of Russia and Belarus, as well as to the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, within the framework of which we have promoted the tasks of ensuring stability in all its dimensions, including purely military, biological and, in general, protection against new challenges and threats, such as terrorism, drug trafficking and other types of organised crime. The Eurasian Economic Union has made important decisions aimed at deepening Eurasian integration, linking these processes with such projects as China's One Belt, One Road, interaction with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN and all other structures and countries located on our common, vast Eurasian continent.

This year, Russia took over the chairmanship of the CIS. We intend to continue the useful projects that were launched in 2023, including the projects established at the summit in Bishkek in the autumn of 2023. International Russian Language Organization. This initiative of Kazakhstan was approved by all members of the Commonwealth. The established organization is open to the participation of any state in the world. We know that the Russian language is popular on all continents, and we hope that there will be many interested participants in it.

I mentioned the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as an umbrella project in which, along with the Eurasian Economic Union and in the context of cooperation with ASEAN and other sub-regional organisations, we contribute to the objective and natural formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, which President Vladimir Putin spoke about at the first Russia-ASEAN summit. The outlines of such a partnership are already visible.

In the current circumstances, it is important to have an economic partnership that meets the interests of all countries of our common continent. God Himself commanded us to use these objective competitive advantages of being located in one space, and one that has been the locomotive of global economic growth for a long time. It will continue to play this role for many years to come. But in addition to mutually beneficial economic projects, it is important to ensure military and political security in Eurasia on this basis, regardless of other factors. We will advocate that this task should be solved by the countries of the continent without attempts by non-regional states to infiltrate these processes with their own "charter". We are convinced that the countries of Eurasia are quite capable of coping with all this on their own.

I have listed various regional structures, but there is also a supra-regional, global structure. It is called BRICS and symbolizes the wealth of a multipolar world. A particularly significant step towards strengthening the position of BRICS was the decision of last year's summit in South Africa to expand the number of BRICS members. Russia, which assumed the BRICS chairmanship on January 1, 2024, will pay special attention to ensuring that newcomers and new recruits organically fit into the common work and thereby contribute to the strengthening of positive trends not only within the association as such, but also in the international arena in the interests of the global majority. If we take into account that more than 20 (even closer to 30) countries are interested in rapprochement with BRICS, we see a great future for this association with a global membership.

We continued to give priority to protecting the legitimate interests and rights of Russian citizens abroad. You are well aware of how they are discriminated against in the countries of the "collective West". Many of you are writing about this, unlike your Western colleagues, who are increasingly trying to hide the truth about how journalists feel in countries of "established democracies" (pardon the expression). But in addition to the day-to-day problems faced by our citizens in the United States, Europe and other countries, emergencies, both natural and man-made, do not disappear.

Recently, we have been actively facilitating the evacuation of Russians and citizens of the CIS countries and some other states from the Gaza Strip. And a few months before that, from Sudan, where an internal conflict also broke out.

In terms of public diplomacy, I would like to highlight such a milestone in its development as the creation in March 2023 of the International Movement of Russophiles, an informal association of people living in different countries and continents and feeling spiritual and cultural affinity with Russia. The constituent assembly of the Movement was held. Its first full-fledged congress is scheduled for the first half of this year.

We will continue to promote the ideals of truth and justice in international affairs. We will do everything we can to make international relations more democratic. In this sense, our Ministry actively supports United Russia's initiative to hold an international inter-party forum of supporters of the fight against modern practices of neocolonialism in Moscow. This is a topical topic, given that the neo-colonialist essence, the essence of Western policy, is largely present in the current actions of the United States and its allies. Its meaning remains the same – to use the resources of others for one's own benefit, in one's own interests and to live at the expense of others. The upcoming Forum promises to be a very interesting and important event.

A number of major international events on the cultural agenda are being prepared in Russia. Among them is the World Youth Festival. There is very little time left before it starts. The Games of the Future are a combination of physical sports and eSports, sports games of the BRICS countries. Both games will be held in Kazan (the Games of the Future in February this year, and the BRICS Games in the summer of 2024).

The Intervision International Song Contest is being prepared. Many countries of the World Majority have shown interest in participating in it. We will do everything possible to ensure that all our guests who come to these and other numerous events fully feel the Russian cordiality and hospitality, as it was in 2018, when we hosted the final part of the FIFA World Cup.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm our openness to communication with media representatives in a variety of formats. I hope that the representatives of the Ministry present here do not deserve reproaches for avoiding talking to journalists. But other members of the Foreign Ministry's leadership, heads of departments, and our employees (especially when they travel as part of a delegation to international events) are simply obliged to talk about our work and make sure that our activities are clear and open. This is what we are striving for.

Question: Do you think that if elections are held in Ukraine this year, can a person come to power there who will be ready to talk to Russia? How important is Kiev's conclusion of a security agreement with London and, subsequently, with other G7 countries in the future settlement of the conflict? Does this mean that Ukraine will not have a neutral status?

Sergey Lavrov: To be honest, we are not very concerned about the "punctuation" observed in the context of the discussion of Ukraine's political life. The issue of elections "came up". We have heard that the West is urging Vladimir Zelensky to hold such elections, apparently hoping that the election campaign and the voting itself will make it possible to bring him into line with the West's interests. Because he's getting away with it more and more often.

Vladimir Zelensky has publicly announced that he will not organise any elections because there is a war going on. This resembles another staging and reflects solely the desire of this man and his "henchmen", who are well known to everyone, to hold on to power as much as possible. I see just such a desire.

The West would like to have more flexibility. Apparently, they have already realized that the much-hyped "blitzkrieg" with the ultimate goal of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia is all an illusion, and the situation has changed dramatically. First of all, in Western minds. They realized their mistake. It's hard to recognize. This is reflected in the fact that they are now looking for some external signals that will allow them to support Ukraine and, on the other hand, push Kiev to become more accommodating and obey its Western superiors. It is difficult for me to say to what extent this will be implemented.

As for the second part of your question, this story is not new. A few months ago, when there were "clashes" in the West over whether to admit Ukraine to NATO or the European Union. Not everyone was in favour, not everyone was happy, everyone was well aware that this was yet another completely senseless, irresponsible and risky step for European security. As a kind of "semi-finished product", the conclusion of bilateral agreements with individual Western countries was invented. I have heard about what is contained in the document agreed between Vladimir Zelensky and British Prime Minister Ronald Sunak. I did not see any legally binding provisions in his analysis, unless we consider as such Ukraine's obligations to ensure the defense of these islands in the event of an attack on the UK. Quite anecdotal. But on the other hand, it can be seen as a continuation of the genre of the Kvartal-95 Studio. Maybe now it will have a different name.

We do not object to the agreements that other countries conclude with Ukraine. But that doesn't change our goal at all. This was confirmed by President Vladimir Putin the other day. We will achieve the goals of the special military operation consistently and persistently. We will achieve them.

The West periodically sends some signals, and then they are reversed. We are philosophical about them. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia does not refuse to negotiate. He said this back in 2022, when, at the behest of Boris Johnson and other Anglo-Saxons, Kiev was forbidden to sign the already agreed settlement agreement with the Russian Federation. This story is well known. This happened back in April 2022. Speaking on this issue in 2022, President Vladimir Putin once again said that we are not refusing to negotiate. But those who refuse should understand that the longer they wait, the harder it will be to negotiate. Now we see the fulfillment of this prophecy. There is no hope that Russia will be "defeated." This has been said many times. Those who have not studied history (there are many of them in the West) and geography know little, they can fantasize about these topics. Or write another script for the aforementioned Kvartal-95. But it won't have anything to do with real life.

Question: First of all, let me wish you a Happy New Year and wish you and the Russian people victories on all fronts.

The U.S. is building "international political and military coalitions" that are committing aggression against Yemen and continue to support and encourage Israel in the genocide of the Palestinian people and in military actions against the peoples of Syria and Lebanon. What does Moscow think about these actions?

Sergey Lavrov: We have made numerous public statements with assessments of what is happening in the Middle East. Not only in the Gaza Strip, but in the Palestinian territories as a whole and around Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

Of course, the United States, together with the British and some of its other allies, violated and trampled on every conceivable norm of international law, including the UN Security Council resolution. It only called for the protection of commercial shipping. No one authorized anyone to bomb Yemen. In fact, just as no one authorized NATO to bomb Libya in 2011, there was a resolution announcing the creation of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory. It was understood that the Libyan Air Force would not fly. They didn't fly. There was not even a far-fetched excuse to use force there. But the country was bombed, turned into a "black hole". So far, no one has been able to put together a Libyan state. Huge numbers of refugees have flooded into Europe, from which it is suffering. And the Americans and the British are not suffering. Terrorists poured in the direction of central Africa, whom the West used to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

The same lawlessness can be observed in what is now being done with regard to Yemen. Everyone understands this. I would say that the exculpatory statements coming out of Washington look very pathetic.

The other day in Davos, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that all countries in the Middle East want the United States to have a presence in the region and want the United States to play a leading role there. It is difficult for me to judge to what extent the countries of the region want this. You have to ask them. But a few years ago, one country, Iraq, made a decision that said, "Dear Americans, thank you very much, you have visited us, your military bases have been here, let's finish this somehow and we will see you home." The Americans are simply not leaving.

More recently, Baghdad has again spoken about the unwillingness of the Americans to simply get out of there, although they have long been invited to leave. It is particularly sad that Secretary of State Antony Blinken also mentioned that only the United States can play a mediating role and can reach a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He talked about it. We hear and know about such "semi-closed" contacts involving the United States, Israel and individual Arab states. But all these contacts do not imply a direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis. They assume that "grown-up uncles" somewhere will agree on how the Palestinians will continue to live, and then they will be "presented" with it. It won't have any success. Only a direct dialogue that needs to be resumed. It was difficult, but progress was achieved with the support of the Quartet of international mediators. We have always advocated that representatives of the League of Arab States should be involved in the activities of the Quartet (the United States, Russia, the UN and the European Union). Unfortunately, this was blocked by the Americans and Europeans. And then the United States dissolved what they consider to be the Quartets and monopolized the entire mediation process.

By the way, back in September 2023, US National Security Adviser John Sullivan said that the situation in the Middle East has never been as calm as in the past couple of years. A month later, the conflict in the Gaza Strip erupted. It is necessary to rely on collective work, from which the United States has become unaccustomed. They are used to dictating.

On Tuesday next week, the UN Security Council will hold a special meeting on the issue. We plan to participate. I must go to New York for that purpose. There we will set forth our proposals, which are aimed precisely at the renewal of collective principles, and not at attempts to "solve" everything alone. And not only there. After all, the United States wants to advance its agenda around the world. See.

Probably, life should teach our Western colleagues. And the countries of the region must insist that they live here, and for them, the security of all the states located there is crucial. Probably, no one is going to ban the Soviets from the outside, but the final decisions should be made by the Party of Regions themselves.

The main direction of efforts should be the creation of a Palestinian state in full compliance with the decisions of the UN Security Council. A State that (as stated in those decisions) would be capable and exist in security and good-neighbourliness side by side with Israel and other countries in the region. Without that, no matter what happens, we will see a recurrence of the violence that is now taking place in Gaza. Without the establishment of a Palestinian state, its people will continue to feel disadvantaged and injustice. Generation after generation of young Palestinians will feel this injustice and pass it on to their children. We need to put an end to it. That point must be the establishment of a Palestinian state. I hope that the Israeli leadership will eventually come to this conclusion. So far, not everyone there considers this acceptable for Israel. As the saying goes, there's nothing you can do about it except to educate people. But without the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel's lasting security cannot be assured.

Russia has an interest in ensuring that Israel and its people live in security. It is our long-standing partner. Our country was the first to recognize Israel's independence. There are now about two million citizens who are also Russian citizens and immigrants from our country. Of course, we are not indifferent to this. We are ready to play an active role in ensuring a full-fledged settlement that will guarantee Israel's security in the context of the full implementation of the UN resolution on the Palestinian issue.

Question: There was information that last year the United States submitted some written proposals to Russia on launching a negotiation process on arms control. At that time, the Foreign Ministry confirmed that the issue of sending an official response to the American side was indeed being worked out. In the end, the answer was sent?

What prospects do you see? To what extent are they present today? Is it possible to resume dialogue with the United States on strategic stability issues? Is this appropriate now, is it useful given the current circumstances, in the context of the conflict with the West and against the backdrop of Washington's openly hostile policy?

Sergey Lavrov: Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the prospects for resuming strategic dialogue with the United States. This topic comes up every now and then in conversations and contacts with the media.

It is impossible to talk about these prospects seriously (as adults) in isolation from the general state of affairs in the field of international security and strategic stability. Today, there is an extremely negative trend in this area. This trend is getting worse. This is primarily due to the aggravation of the struggle around, without exaggeration, the historical processes that accompany the shift of the world order from a unipolar model to a polycentric world order.

The West, which has been in charge of all processes on Earth for 500 years, is now very fiercely resisting. We are witnessing this. He does not want to allow the transition to multipolarity. In doing so, it goes against the natural, objective course of history and tries to maintain global domination, which is slipping away. Moreover, in an attempt to contain these objective trends, the West does not limit itself in choosing the means of exerting pressure on those who do not accept these hegemonic habits and uphold the principles of equality enshrined in the UN Charter.

Instead, the West is trying to maintain unchallenged world domination. First of all, Washington is pursuing this line, but it is encountering an increasing number of obstacles. One of them is Russia, which has shown its determination not to allow its interests, the interests of a great power, one of the world's civilisational centres, to be infringed upon. In proportion to the firmness of our policy of defending our identity and our interests, the degree of hostility of the United States has also increased. Washington has embarked on an unrestrained expansion of the anti-Russian NATO bloc into the post-Soviet space, provoking a conflict over Ukraine.

As you know, we did not put up with the use of the Kiev regime as a tool to create direct threats to our security, and not somewhere across the ocean, but directly on the borders of our country. They did not put up with the use of the Kiev regime for a frontal attack on everything Russian: language, education, culture, people who had lived for centuries in the territories developed by their great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers and who had always remained Russian land, part of the Russian world. They wanted to turn Kiev into a tool for the destruction of this history, common memory and destroy any ties between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. This is also a direct threat to our interests.

In response to the measures we have taken to protect our interests and its "external contour," the United States has unleashed an all-out hybrid war in order to achieve the political and economic "strangulation" (let's call a spade a spade) of Russia and inflict the aforementioned "strategic defeat" on us on the battlefield. All this has been announced publicly.

We do not see the slightest interest of either the United States or NATO in agreeing to a fair settlement of the current Ukrainian conflict. They don't even want to hear about our concerns, they don't want to talk seriously about eliminating fundamental contradictions. On the contrary, the West is doing everything possible to escalate the Ukrainian crisis. This now creates additional strategic risks.

Former commanders of the US Armed Forces in Europe, Benjamin Hodges and Frank Breedlove, recently gave public advice to the Kiev regime that it is necessary to "bomb" Crimea to such a state that it will be impossible to live there. These are retirees. As for the current politicians, we know for a fact that the British are promoting the same advice, recommendations and even plans in their contacts with the Kiev regime. As usual, life doesn't teach you much. Previously, they said that they would support Kyiv "as long as necessary", now they are already saying "as much as possible". This is a nuance that reflects a slight change in the assessment of the situation. For God's sake. It's up to them.

A similar turn of events is Afghanistan. The Americans were there for 20 years. Is it "as much as they needed" or "as much as possible"? What did they achieve there?

Also Iraq, Libya - any countries in which the United States and its satellites have arranged adventures. Where has it gotten better? Where is the very democracy for the sake of which all this was started?

Ukraine, unfortunately, will face the same fate. Relying on the "master" without understanding that he thinks "only about himself, and not about you at all", you cannot expect that the interests of your people will be taken into account in any way. Not only "inciting" and pushing for the increasingly aggressive use of long-range weapons to strike Crimea in order to make it "unfit for habitation" and deep into the territory of the Russian Federation, but also the transfer of relevant weapons – this suggests that the West does not want any constructive solution that would take into account the legitimate concerns of the Russian Federation.

The destructive policy led by the United States has led to a profound, frankly speaking, degradation of Russian-American relations and a radical change in security circumstances compared to those that existed at the time of the conclusion of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Washington has simply discarded all the understandings and principles on which our countries once agreed to establish cooperation, including on arms control.

The preamble to the START Treaty reflects our agreement on our commitment to the principle of indivisibility of security, whereby no one strengthens his security at the expense of the security of another. The principle was trampled on in the context of the preparation and unleashing of the Ukrainian conflict. It also contains the commitment of Russia and the United States to build relations on the basis of trust and cooperation. What kind of trust can we talk about now? Everyone understands this very well.

In reality, the United States has long relied on achieving military superiority, sought to secure a "free hand," and step by step dismantled the entire system of arms control agreements: the Treaty between the United States and the USSR on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, the Treaty between the USSR and the United States on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, and the Open Skies Treaty. The same thing happened with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the New START Treaty itself, because the United States created unacceptable conditions for their implementation.

Let me remind you that it was the United States that froze the bilateral strategic dialogue, citing the unfavourable military and political background. In the fall of 2022, they canceled a round that we were willing to run.

Not so long ago, they suddenly remembered the importance of nuclear arms control again and began to send us, including in the paper you mentioned, some "signals" about their alleged readiness to resume dialogue on these issues. Moreover, it was proposed to separate the talks on strategic stability from the general military-political context. And he, as you can see every day, is irreconcilably hostile to us. They vilify us at every corner, call us an aggressor, demand that we go to the borders of 1991, leave behind the "poor", democratic Ukraine. We acknowledged that they are all doing this, but suggested that we sit down and talk about the specific issue of strategic arms limitation, the topic of strategic dialogue in general.

Some time ago, they raised this issue only in order to resume inspections and visit our nuclear facilities. At the same time, they supplied the Ukrainians with weapons, with the help of which the bases of our strategic bombers were shelled. These people don't even know basic decency. I am not even talking about a comprehensive understanding of national interests and what is possible in international negotiations. Even basic decency is not observed here. This does not surprise us.

It turns out that Russia is their enemy, they have declared us as such, but they are ready to talk about how they can look at our strategic nuclear arsenal again. Like, it's different. Their goal is clear: under the slogan of reciprocity, they will try to somehow ensure control over our nuclear arsenal and minimise the nuclear risks that arise as a result of military pressure on our country. In the West, there is more and more talk about the possibility of a direct clash between nuclear powers. There are fewer and fewer constraining factors in this regard. The Poles and the British are seriously talking about the need to train some NATO units to enter Ukraine and take up certain positions there. This is stated by the people in power.

We consider American ideas unacceptable. When talking about strategic stability, they do not hide their plans to bracket the non-nuclear component of the military confrontation, the non-nuclear forces. The goal is obvious – thereby consolidating the serious quantitative advantage that the "collective West" has in this area.

In the context of Washington's hybrid war against Russia, we do not see any grounds not only for additional joint measures in the field of arms control and strategic risk reduction, but also for any conversation with the United States on strategic stability in general.

For the future, we do not reject this idea, as well as the possibility (we have never done this) of political and diplomatic settlement of existing differences. But we firmly and firmly condition this possibility on the West's preliminary full-fledged renunciation of the malicious course of comprehensively undermining Russia's security and our interests, as well as demonstrative public disrespect for our fundamental interests.

Any hypothetical interaction on strategic stability in the future would require the United States to be ready to consider this topic, taking into account the entire interconnection of factors significant for strategic stability, and not only those aspects of it that are of particular interest to Washington. The Americans have never gravitated towards such a comprehensive consideration of the problems of strategic stability. Moreover, this cannot happen in the current conditions.

It will be necessary to resolve the critical security contradictions that NATO's eastward expansion brings. Let me remind you that we talked about this back in December 2021. In December 2021, we put forward specific proposals that could prevent the current conflict, thereby saving the European economy, which the Americans are now actively and effectively "drowning". But, as you know, our proposals were rejected.

As for the question of whether we informed the Americans about this. Yes. The ideas that I have just described in general terms were put on paper, as well as the written proposals submitted to us by the Americans, and we sent them in December 2023 [?]. We proceed from the assumption that there is no understatement on this issue.

Q: If you were asked to describe the results of China-Russia relations in 2023 in one or more words, what word or words would you choose and why? What do you expect from bilateral relations this year?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said in my opening remarks that Russian-Chinese relations, as our leaders have repeatedly emphasised, are going through the best period in their history. In a number of declarations adopted at the highest level, it was written that these relations are stronger, more reliable and more advanced than the military alliance in its previous understanding of the Cold War era.

In fact, this reflects the real state of affairs. There is no sphere of human activity where our relations with the People's Republic of China have not experienced a rapid upswing.

Economics. The $200 billion barrier set as the target was significantly exceeded last year. This trend will continue. It will be facilitated by the fact that at a time when the West is destroying all the foundations of the globalization it has promoted itself and resorting to sanctions and other illegitimate measures, we are switching to mechanisms for developing our trade and investment cooperation that will not be subject to any Western influence. In particular, over 90% of settlements were converted into national currencies. This process is underway with many other countries as well.

Mechanisms are in place not only from the summits of President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping. There is a mechanism for annual meetings of heads of government, within the framework of which preparatory work is carried out in five intergovernmental commissions headed by deputy prime ministers. We do not have such an extensive mechanism of cooperation at such a high level with any other party.

The structure of Russian-Chinese strategic cooperation and comprehensive partnership makes it possible not only to coordinate mutually beneficial projects being implemented, but also to provide constant support for the work necessary for their implementation.

Events in the field of culture, humanitarian and educational cooperation are held annually. I see these relations as having very good prospects in accordance with the guidelines set in March 2023 in the Russian Federation, when Xi Jinping came to Russia on his first visit since his re-election as President of the People's Republic of China, and in October 2023, when President of Russia Vladimir Putin attended the third Belt and Road International Forum as the main guest.

A number of events have already been agreed for this year, which will continue opportunities for dialogue at the highest and high levels in all areas of Russian-Chinese partnership and cooperation.

There are many words that can be used to describe our cooperation in excellent terms. I don't want to choose just one, or two, or three words right now. The exception, perhaps, is the word "friendship". Since ancient times, "the Russian and the Chinese are brothers forever." Back in the Soviet Union, there was such a saying. Maybe it was a bit artificial back then. Then the relationship began to develop far from for the better. At this stage, our citizens (and there are more and more of them) visit China as tourists or for business purposes, as part of cultural and educational exchanges. They share their impressions of communication not at the level of ministries or any other departments, but in the context of contacts with Chinese citizens. Russian citizens describe mutual sympathy in superlative terms.

We are now actively promoting cross-border ties between the neighbouring regions of China and Russia. It also contributes to positive trends.

Of course, there are economic and trade issues that need to be addressed. Everyone wants to negotiate more favourable terms. But always, in all cases, the interests of Russia and China come down to a common denominator as a result of the negotiations. This is a model for any other participants in the world communication to solve any issues.

Question: The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan have recently exchanged harsh statements. The "stumbling block" was the issue of communication between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. Baku demands that goods and people move along this route without checks, otherwise the border with Armenia will not be opened in any other place. Yerevan does not agree with such rhetoric. Can you comment on this? Won't such an exchange of harsh statements hinder the process of normalization of relations between Baku and Yerevan?

Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, in recent days, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan have touched upon the issue of establishing ties between the main part of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan in their public comments. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan once said that Armenia is categorically against the Zangezur corridor.

It has never been discussed in the framework of the agreements reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan (1,2,3,4).

In a statement signed on November 9, 2020, which stopped the war, it was said that all economic and transport links in the region would be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia guarantees the security of transport communication between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic in order to organize the unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions. The Border Guard Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation exercises control over transport traffic." This is a quote from the document that was signed in a trilateral format on November 9, 2020.

Nikol Pashinyan said that he wants the same conditions for transit through Armenia that will be used for transit from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through Iranian territory. Frankly, I didn't see any logic here. It is hardly appropriate to compare these routes.

Within the framework of the trilateral Working Group established in 2021 at the level of deputy prime ministers of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, it was agreed that while unblocking all ties and all routes, the countries through whose territory any such unblocked route passes, fully retain sovereignty and jurisdiction over us on their territory.

In the trilateral Working Group at the level of deputy prime ministers, back in June 2023, they agreed to resume such communication, first with rail transport. This was agreed upon and discussed by President Vladimir Putin in Yerevan when he was on a visit there. On the sidelines of the CSTO summit, I had a separate meeting with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. I remember very well how it was met very positively, but then everything "went away" again.

We are well aware that, unfortunately, such "rollbacks" from the agreements reached are not uncommon. I don't know what prevented the completion of these agreements on paper on the principles of opening traffic between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. We are well aware that the "good" advice of our Western friends is always present in the South Caucasus. They are sometimes perceived by one or another participant in the process. It is also well known that the Councils of the West are always aimed not at finding an agreement between the countries of the region on the basis of a balance of their interests, but at promoting their geopolitical goals.

I am convinced that there is no alternative to resuming such communication. Its parameters are enshrined in a trilateral agreement. The route passes through the sovereign territory of Armenia under the control of the border service of the FSB of Russia. In principle, the procedures for border and customs control at the entrance to Armenia from Azerbaijan and at the exit from Armenia to the Azerbaijani Nakhichevan were also agreed there.

Question: In recent days, the media have published a number of articles about possible, almost direct, talks between Russia and Ukraine. Moreover, Geneva is mentioned as a platform that could suit both sides. Is this true? Is Moscow ready for such a scenario?

Sergey Lavrov: Rumours are rumours. It is clear to everyone that it is not Ukraine that will decide when to stop and start talking seriously about realistic conditions for ending this conflict. This implies the rejection of Nazi ideology, Nazi rhetoric, racism towards everything Russian, and joining NATO. These are not some sky-high dreams, but indispensable conditions for preserving the Ukrainian people as independent, having their own identity, and not fulfilling someone's "orders" to bring Russia into a turbulent state.

We need to talk about this with the West. We have already mentioned today how in April 2022 he banned Ukraine from signing agreements. In the same way, the West is not interested in any negotiations starting now. It is definitely Washington that gives the command.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Davos that he does not see even the near prospect of negotiations not only on a settlement, but on a long-term truce in Ukraine. They don't want to talk about a settlement at all. Sometimes, according to Sigmund Freud, they have the topic of declaring a truce in order to "pump up" Ukraine with weapons. Just like they used the Minsk agreements.

In Davos, Vladimir Zelensky spoke in detail and with expression (not as vividly as in Kvartal-95) about the Minsk Agreements. He accused Russia and President Vladimir Putin personally of "stealing" 13 years of peace. He bluntly stated that after 2014 (of course, the "Moscow regime" started everything then, as they say, there was no coup, but the "annexation of Crimea" – everything is turned upside down), Germany and France tried so hard to agree on an interim solution in the form of the Minsk Agreements, and Vladimir Putin allegedly "spoiled" everything. It is astonishing how a man can say such things.

Everyone is well aware, first of all, that the Minsk Agreements were not an intermediate stage. They provided for the final "closure" of this problem and were approved by the UN Security Council. Secondly, as you know, they were not destroyed by Vladimir Putin. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande did not even try to make them work. Both admitted that they signed these agreements only to buy time and prepare Ukraine for war. These obvious facts have been voiced many times in the public space. They were analyzed, discussed, and commented on by many politicians and journalists.

Vladimir Zelensky is lying to the international community from the rostrum of the World Economic Forum in Davos. How can we talk to such people, especially since his decree prohibiting negotiations with Russia has not yet been lifted? Commenting on this issue, President Vladimir Putin said that the decree should be lifted first, and then we will see.

Question: In an interview with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, aggressive statements were made against Yerevan. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan called it a blow to the negotiation process, and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan said the dialogue had regressed. How do you assess the situation in the negotiation process between Yerevan and Baku? What is Russia's position on this issue?

Have you managed to solve the problems in relations between Russia and Armenia? Is there any progress?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement. We should not be shy about assessing the importance of the trilateral statements signed in 2020-2022 by the leaders of the three countries – Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan (1, 2, 3, 4). I have just mentioned one of them.

It is sad that there is still a practical thing that is beneficial for Armenia – the opening of the route through the Syunik region. With all due respect, I see the "reason" in Yerevan's position. I don't know who advises him. As soon as the European Union, France, Germany, and the United States realized that the Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijani process was yielding results in unblocking routes, delimiting the border, and preparing a peace treaty, they immediately began to intervene in these processes without being invited. They played the role of a "spoiler".

In 2003, the Russian Federation played a mediating role in the Transnistrian settlement. Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak was responsible for this area at the time. He agreed with Chisinau and Tiraspol on a memorandum, which became known as the "Kozak memorandum". The parties initialed it. In the morning, the signing ceremony was scheduled. But then-President of Moldova Vladimir Voronin called President of Russia Vladimir Putin and said that the European Union was prohibiting them from signing because something was not reflected there in the way it wanted. The agreement was between Tiraspol and Chisinau, not with the European Union. 20 years ago, the Transnistrian problem could have been settled. Just like seven years ago, the situation around Ukraine could have been resolved if the Minsk agreements had been implemented. But the West did not allow it.

I have reason to say that the West does not want to allow the agreements concluded between Yerevan and Baku with the mediation of Russia to take place. I have already given one example – the road through the Syunik region. It is Armenia that is now experiencing difficulties in opening the route, as it is written in the Trilateral Statement. Yerevan puts forward new requirements in terms of ensuring security along the route. It does not want Russian border guards to be stationed there, although this has been written down and signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. They don't want to have neutral customs and border controls, only themselves. This is contrary to what was agreed.

The issue of delimitation can also be considered. We offered our services, and the parties signed an agreement on the establishment of a delimitation commission, in which the Russian side will participate as a consultant. We were not invited. President of the European Council Charles Michel has already announced that the EU will be in charge of delimitation, although (if I studied geography correctly) neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan have ever been part of any association on the current territory of the European Union and cannot have any maps. The Russian Federation has them. This suits the parties, but not the EU and the United States, which want to delimit the border from overseas. They said that they somehow ended up with cards of the General Staff of the USSR and, they say, "Russians are not needed." It looks strange. They are adults, but they play the game of "who is more important" and who can score extra points in the international arena. It is sad that the interests of Western selfish aspirations interfere with the realization of the fundamental interests of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

As for Russian-Armenian relations. We have never been the initiators of a "cooling" in these ties. Yes, we remember how many of the current officials of Armenia, while still in the opposition, during various political processes and election campaigns, called for withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union. When Nikol Pashinyan came to power, we did not have the slightest impulse to distance ourselves from Yerevan in our relations. Everything developed in the same way as under his predecessors, in the economy, in the energy sector, in the social sphere and in military-political affairs.

In 2022, at a CSTO meeting in Yerevan (I personally participated in the talks), the ministers agreed on a document on sending the organization's observers to the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But Yerevan at the level of top officials said that it would not be able to sign it. Almost at the same time, an EU mission went there. This is the choice of the Armenian leadership.

The EU mission began to take an active interest in the work of our border guards stationed in Armenia and did not engage in confidence-building measures, but tried to "sniff out" what and where was happening, what Russia looked like, what it was doing there, what specific tasks it faced. This is also known.

We discussed this with our Armenian friends. It has been said many times that if the EU mission is closer to them, then why not invite a CSTO mission at the same time? We know their answer. It is in the sense that the Organization "disappointed" Armenia because it did not condemn Azerbaijan. But if we go through the history of the conflict to its beginning, then at each "turn" both sides will accumulate so many "actions" that clearly did not contribute to progress that we can go far.

Either we look for someone to blame and refuse the real opportunity that exists today to get assistance in strengthening the borders, or we work with our Western colleagues. Armenia has publicly stated that the CSTO has disappointed, so has Russia, and the West has not. This is the choice of the Armenian leadership.

In our society, in political science circles, in the media, there are opinions on this matter. They speak freely. For some, the Armenian government even declared a number of citizens of the Russian Federation persona non grata. An unusual development in relations between allies.

There was a story about the International Criminal Court. In a frank and friendly manner, we advised on how to ensure that the signing of the ICC statute achieves the goal declared as the main goal for accession, without taking this contradictory step. We are in contact and are always open to dialogue. Everyone knows that the West publicly declares the need to "remove" Russia from the South Caucasus. We have not heard any objections from Yerevan.

We proposed more actively developing the mechanism of cooperation between the three South Caucasian countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) and their three closest large neighbors (Russia, Turkey and Iran). Several meetings were held. Armenian representatives took part in it. Over time, this format will be promising, since it does not depend on the global geopolitical situation. It is free from the geopolitical "game" of maintaining hegemony, which Washington is now developing together with its colleagues from Brussels.

I would like to emphasize that we have a warm attitude towards the Armenian people. We are sure that history will put everything in its place. But we won't solve all the problems alone. I don't want to use a cliché – it takes two to tango. In Armenia, the dances are hotter.

Question: Russian officials have repeatedly noted the efforts of Moscow, in particular President Vladimir Putin, to normalise the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev recently said that it was Vladimir Putin, not French President Emmanuel Macron, who helped restore peace in the South Caucasus. Does this increase the likelihood that the agreement between Baku and Yerevan will be signed on the Russian platform? Will Moscow make any effort to neutralize the actions of the West?

The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed hope that Afghanistan will emerge from international isolation. The reason for this was the fact that Kazakhstan excluded the Taliban from the list of banned organizations. Does Afghanistan have a chance to get out of diplomatic isolation? Can a similar process begin with regard to Yemen? Including the recognition of the Houthis, since they have de facto controlled the capital and the main territory of the country for many years.

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the fact that President of Russia Vladimir Putin played a role in the reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan, not French President Emmanuel Macron. The agreement was signed by three leaders – Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. I have not seen Emmanuel Macron's signature. As well as other trilateral agreements – Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijani.

After these agreements began to be implemented, mechanisms were created to unblock routes, delimitation and a peace treaty. It was then that Europeans and Americans began to actively participate in this process. There was even an interesting point: in the documents signed in November 2020 and subsequently, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was characterized as the area of responsibility of the Russian peacekeeping contingent. There was an understanding between the leaders of the three countries that negotiations on the status still need to continue in order to finally agree on this issue.

Imagine our surprise when, in the autumn of 2022, at the conference of the European Political Community in Prague (where we and Ukrainians were not invited, but there were Armenians and Azerbaijanis), Emmanuel Macron and Charles Michel invited Yerevan and Baku to meet. Subsequently, they approved a document stating that Azerbaijan and Armenia recognize each other's territorial integrity in full accordance with the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration. That is, Karabakh within the borders of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.

We did not know that such an announcement was being prepared. When it was announced, they came to the conclusion (which was reported to Yerevan and Baku) that the issue of the status of Karabakh had been "closed" personally by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Emmanuel Macron was there. I can't fantasize anymore who played what role. But it is a fact that our Western colleagues want a peace treaty to be signed only on their territory. It is also a fact that Azerbaijan is ready to sign it on Russian territory, where efforts to end the conflict and build a system of interaction to resolve all issues began. I don't know how ready Yerevan is for this. Although the relevant signals have been sent to the Armenian capital for a long time.

As for Afghanistan, there is de facto power there. She is in control of the situation. Yes, there are pockets of tension and protest there, but in general, the Taliban control the government. The Russian Embassy is almost the only one that has never stopped working in Kabul. We have regular contacts with the Taliban, including on issues that need to be resolved in order for them to become a fully recognized government. This is, first of all, the fulfillment of one's own promises. The main one is the creation of an inclusive government, where not only ethnic Pashtuns and other groups are represented, but also political inclusivity. There are Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, but politically they are Taliban. In this regard, there is still opposition there: former President Hamid Karzai and former chief administrator Abdullah Abdullah are still alive. We actively recommend that the Taliban invite other forces to the ruling structure.

The second point that needs to be addressed. In the north of the country, there is the National Resistance Front. It is also necessary to "build bridges" with them. The process is not easy. Afghanistan has never been easy for anyone.

We are there. We did not lose touch with what was happening for a second. We are in contact with the de facto leadership. This helps us to work, including on the promotion of external formats that make it possible to develop recommendations for the Afghans: the Moscow format, the Quartet (Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran). I hope that the Pakistani-Iranian "exchange of pleasantries" will not complicate the work of this mechanism.

As for Kazakhstan's decision, Astana emphasized that the decision to remove the Taliban from the terrorist lists does not mean diplomatic recognition. It's all relative. Even in the UN Security Council, with regard to the Movement's figures included in the terrorist lists, there is a reservation that if we are talking about contacts regarding negotiations on a peaceful settlement, then this is allowed. I wouldn't go too deep into this topic. The main thing is the realities on the ground. They are such that the Taliban now control the main activity of Afghanistan.

In Yemen. After many years, contacts with the Houthis began at the initiative of Saudi Arabia. They began to produce results. It is difficult for me to say how realistic it is to resume negotiations and when this may happen. The most important thing now is to stop the aggression against Yemen. The more the Americans and the British bomb, the less willing the Houthis are to talk. This is the "style" of our Anglo-Saxon colleagues. It is important for them to "muddy the waters" everywhere and then see how they can play combinations that will promote the selfish interests of London and Washington from across the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean.

Question: This year marks the 80th anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, one of the most difficult and tragic periods of World War II. Russia has always strived to do everything possible to help and assist all prisoners of the blockade without exception. Recently, Rossiyskaya Gazeta published data that more than 50,000 people, including those living in the European Union, received money for the anniversary.

Germany maintains double standards when it comes to individual compensation. Under far-fetched pretexts, the FRG makes payments only to Jewish blockade survivors, who, of course, have every right to them. For many years, Berlin has refused to extend payments to the rest of the survivors of the blockade defenders and residents of the city. How would you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have been doing this for many years. When Berlin began to pay one-time compensation to Jewish blockade survivors, we were convinced that it was unfair. We drew the attention of our German colleagues to this.

At that time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was the current Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. We have discussed this with him many times. I explained to him that people suffered, died, helped each other regardless of what nationality. There were Russians, Tatars, Jews – a huge number of peoples. The answer was that Jews are paid because there is a law that obliges them to pay Holocaust victims. And the rest of those who died in Leningrad are not victims of the Holocaust.

The absurdity of such a statement of the question is obvious. I began to explain to him that the blockade was a unique phenomenon of World War II, the Great Patriotic War. There was no distinction between those who survived, ate cats, boiled shoes, buried people. We wanted to shame the Germans. It didn't work. In response, they only heard: since the Holocaust law allows payments, they do it. And if you pay those who do not fall into the category of "victims of the Holocaust", then they will receive appeals. I suggested that he make a separate law on the survivors of the siege of Leningrad, so that it would be absolutely clear. No one would even ask questions. No.

As a result, Berlin put forward the idea of creating a house for veterans of the blockade and a Russian-German cultural center in St. Petersburg, where various figures could meet and discuss. I replied that it would be good and useful for promoting our relations through civil society. But this does not solve the problem of blockade survivors. Even if they were satisfied with visiting these institutions, the overwhelming majority of survivors of the siege are not in St. Petersburg, but also abroad (primarily in the Baltic states, but not only). We had them in mind when we raised this issue with the Federal Republic of Germany. It absolutely doesn't work.

We even tried to encourage public organizations to talk to the Germans in their own way. We appealed to the European Jewish Congress and to Israel. They said directly that it would be in Tel Aviv's interests to show solidarity with those who, together with the Jews, survived in absolutely the same unbearable conditions. But there is no interest in promoting this topic either.

In addition, we found out that in some unimaginable way, veterans of the Blue Division, manned by the Spaniards and participating in World War II on the side of the Wehrmacht, including the blockade of Leningrad, receive payments from the German state. And our blockade survivors, whom they tortured, find themselves in such a situation.

In the ruling circles of the Federal Republic of Germany, historical amnesia is already progressing. The expositions at the memorial complexes dedicated to the end of World War II, as well as those designed jointly by German, Russian and Soviet experts, will be reformatted in such a way as to remove the Soviet-Russian trace in these events. This also applies to memorial complexes on the site of former concentration camps, and the famous German-Russian museum Berlin-Karlshorst, where the Act of Surrender was signed.

We are witnessing the degradation of the foundations on which post-war German society was built and acquired an identity that commanded respect in the world. Now those instincts are starting to break through. It's disturbing.

Question: It has become known that Germany is a third party in South Africa's genocide lawsuit against Israel. The German government commented: "In light of Germany's history and crimes against humanity during the Shoah, the German government is particularly committed to the UN Genocide Convention." Therefore, they "strongly and unequivocally reject the accusation of genocide leveled against Israel in the International Court of Justice." Germany acted as Israel's advocate, not as a neutral third party. In this regard, they are also criticized by Namibia, which was a victim of genocide in the early 20th century, condemned by the UN in 1985.

The Soviet Union and its peoples were the hardest hit by the attempts to implement the monstrous German "Ost" plan to kill or relocate 31 million people. Now we see how Nazism is increasingly being justified in Berlin. Your German colleague Angela Baerbock recently said that her grandmother's husband took part in the defence of Königsberg. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz believes that Germany is now on the "right" side of history.

Russia is the legal successor of the USSR. The multinational peoples of our country have suffered the heaviest sacrifices and have done the most to liberate Europe, including Germany, from fascism. What does Russia plan to do and what to oppose to European "trends"?

Sergey Lavrov: This reflects the degradation in Western society of the foundations that developed and had to be sacredly guarded after World War II. It is said that there has been a generation that does not remember its horrors. But this does not absolve the governments of Western countries, or any other governments, of responsibility for preventing not just oblivion, but a return to the ideologies that formed the basis for the preparation of World War II. We are upset by what is happening in Germany.

Germany has clumsily explained its decision to intervene in the International Court of Justice over South Africa's lawsuit against Israel. The explanation is really strange. They say that they themselves were participants and organizers of the genocide, so they will defend those who are accused of genocide. I don't see the logic here.

For us, it is of fundamental importance to ensure Israel's security in the context of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. But there are double (and even triple) standards. When Yasser Lapid was Prime Minister of Israel, he said all sorts of things about our special military operation: that it is unacceptable when weapons are used indiscriminately, when innocent civilians suffer, as if this is a war crime.

A few months later, another government in Israel, in response to widespread criticism for the indiscriminate use of heavy weapons and the unprecedented number of civilian casualties, especially children, said that "this is a tragedy of war." It was. In the two years of the special military operation, there has not been such a number of civilian casualties as there in three and a half months. But in one case it is a war crime, in the other it is a tragedy of war. We need to make up our minds.

There are laws of war that must be respected. There is international humanitarian law enshrined in a number of conventions. The Russian army, conducting a special military operation, strictly follows these rules and norms. We are targeting the facilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and related infrastructure and other facilities. It has long been known that the Ukrainians deploy their armed forces in civilian facilities and install air defense systems in residential areas. This happened on an ongoing basis. This means that their "manners" are such as to blackmail civilians, to make a "human shield" out of them. And this is categorically prohibited by international humanitarian law. The laws of war must be obeyed.

I have already mentioned what retired American generals and current British politicians advise Ukrainians to hit Crimea as actively as possible. Like, if nothing works out on the front line, then throw the Russians off balance, wipe Crimea off the face of the earth so that it is impossible to live there.

The Americans were periodically asked how they felt about the fact that they supplied long-range weapons, which were then used against civilian targets. John Sullivan and John Kirby, who represent the US National Security Council, said that the Ukrainians themselves decide which objects and targets to strike. That is, do what you want. Ukrainians do what they want. They, of course, are led by instructors, primarily Anglo-Saxons. We know that. When John Sullivan was asked about the operation in the Gaza Strip, are you not very embarrassed by the fact that your weapons are carrying out operations that have resulted in tens of thousands of people suffering, thousands of people killed and even more wounded? They replied that when they supplied weapons to Israel, they stipulated that they must be used in accordance with the laws of war and not harming innocent civilians. In our case, no such reservations are made. That is, Kiev (judging by official statements) is not required to comply with international humanitarian law. This is a double standard.

Back to Germany and other countries where Nazism is beginning to raise its head. You mentioned the fact that the inscription on the memorial in Dresden was erased. Although it did not even say that it was in memory of those who suffered from the Anglo-American bombings. The U.S. and Britain were not mentioned at all. And even then it seemed superfluous for the Germans to even indirectly remind their new masters (Washington, and now London) that there was a situation when the Anglo-Saxons simply inhumanely destroyed the city.

This is similar to the mentality of Japan. Another Axis power that fought against the Allies. In the Land of the Rising Sun, the history books now say nothing about who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, the corresponding chapter of school textbooks has the following double title: "The Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (and without any paragraph) Entry of the USSR into the war." Children are visually immediately led to certain conclusions.

In this regard, when the Japanese periodically circulate draft resolutions of the UN General Assembly condemning and commemorating the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they never mention that the United States did it. It's just that someone dumped it somewhere.

I remember when the monument in memory of the survivors of the siege of Leningrad was unveiled in Jerusalem, President of Russia Vladimir Putin took part in the event. French President Emmanuel Macron was also present. It was Holocaust Remembrance Day, commemorated on the day of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops. The Americans were represented by then-Vice President Mike Pence. It was a "terrific" performance. How they know how: with pathos in his American language, he began his speech and said that for many months, years people were tortured, killed, burned in furnaces in this terrible concentration camp, but on January 27, 1945, soldiers came and opened the gates. Just soldiers, not Soviet soldiers. But when an American says it, many people who are not very sophisticated perceive that they are, of course, American soldiers. This trend exists. How to deal with it? Only the truth. By proactively explaining, going to the people, in a variety of forms. There will be a Forum to Combat Contemporary Practices of Neoclonalism. I believe that the public could organise a similar forum to combat the revival of Nazism. We are ready to help with this.

To a decisive extent, this applies to what is happening around Ukraine. Mikhail Grigoriev and his associates show the essence of the Kiev regime. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Foreign Minister Angela Baerbock, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron say that they must support Ukraine until the "victory" because Ukraine is fighting and dying for their European democratic values. Do you have a conscience? Read the laws that have been passed to ban the Russian language, education, and everything Russian, and to encourage the ideology and practice of Nazism. Battalions with swastikas and SS division patches are marching through Ukraine. These are the European values now, if we are to believe the statements of European politicians. We need to fight this through official diplomacy, through people's and parliamentary diplomacy and, I very much hope, through the journalistic community.

Question: Let's discuss the issue of elections. You have been in office for quite a long time and are close to President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Do you think the special military operation in Ukraine will have an impact on the outcome of these elections?

In a few days, we will remember the victims of the Holocaust. This is the very day when Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz, where there were children and the elderly. Children and the elderly are now being held hostage in Gaza simply because they are Jewish. How will Russia facilitate their release? What is the relationship between Russia and Hamas, which many in the world consider a terrorist organization?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, the special military operation has long had a very positive impact on our domestic life. It has unprecedentedly united our society and contributed to its cleansing of people who did not feel their involvement in Russian history and culture. Some of them left, some stayed and began to think. But the overwhelming majority of society has rallied unprecedentedly.

We had the great satirist M.M. Zhvanetsky. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us. Among other brilliant sketches he wrote in the 1970s, he had this one. He had a monologue on the topic of the Soviet people. Mikhail Zhvanetsky said that our people need a big war to be truly united. Kind of even humorous. But there's a grain of truth in every joke.

The ferocity with which the West declared a hybrid war on us, the arrogance with which all our warnings were dismissed for many years, the proposals to agree on a security framework based on principles that had already been approved earlier, without NATO expansion – all this has been discarded. Like, it's none of your business. Relations between Ukraine and NATO – they say, don't bother!

Recently, former Czech President Viktor Klaus gave an interview and said that the war began in 2008, when NATO announced that Ukraine and Georgia would be in the alliance. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and I were also at the summit in Bucharest. I remember very well how Vladimir Putin asked Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French people: why did you do this? They replied that they had been asked to do so by the Americans and the British. Now they are "calling the tune" for Europe. Ashamed. There is a lot of talk from "continental Europe," including France, that the European Union will fight for "strategic autonomy." No one will give you this "strategic autonomy". I assure you.

The people of Russia are unprecedentedly united. Of course, what is happening around and during the special military operation, the heroism, dedication, and self-sacrifice demonstrated by the soldiers on the front line, their family members, who are in solidarity with their relatives, with our army, and who are doing everything in the rear to help achieve victory, have a healing effect on society.

Look at how our industry, not only military, but also civilian, has grown in the face of sanctions. A lot of factors related to the hybrid, all-round aggression of the West against Russia have played a role in us understanding how to live now. Any illusions, if they still existed from the 1990s, that "the West has now opened its arms to us" and "democracy will unite us all," have finally disappeared. You can't trust the West. He still wants only one thing – to live at the expense of others and to be (as he thinks) smarter than everyone else. Therefore, the impact is very positive.

As for your second question. I have already commented on January 27 and said how the West is trying to belittle or even erase from history the role of the Red Army in the liberation of Europe, the Jews, in the rescue of those who survived the Holocaust.

As for the Gaza Strip, the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack against Israel was immediately condemned. We do not have double standards with regard to terrorists. The West has. Now he is actively using ISIS cells in Syria in order to carry out acts of sabotage and attacks on the armed forces of the Syrian Arab Republic. When they decided to overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, the United States actively cooperated and paid the very groups that then went south to Central Africa, to the Sahara-Sahel region, and are still terrorizing these citizens. They know very well that al-Qaeda emerged after the American invasion of Afghanistan, ISIS after Iraq, Jabhat al-Nusra, which is now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, after the West declared war against Syria. It is well known that the West cooperates with these associations.

The attack on civilians, on the participants of the festival in the Gaza Strip, was unacceptable. Creepy footage. This is a brutal and heinous attack. We immediately condemned him. They proceeded from the assumption that Israel, as they themselves say, is the only democracy in the Middle East, and that it will respond as it should (in theory) democracy. However, with examples such as the United States and Britain, it is difficult to determine which of the means of warfare are acceptable for democracies.

Frankly speaking, the Israelis said in the statements made by their defence minister, army commander and a number of other ministers that the Palestinians are not people, but animals. Much like Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that "non-humans" live in Donbass. As Vladimir Zelensky said, these are not people, but "creatures." Like all sorts of Yermaks, Kulebs, Podolyaks, they declared that it was necessary to physically exterminate the "Russians". It's a terrible analogy. I understand that there are ultra-extremists in the Israeli government, and they do not express the position not only of the Israeli people, but also of the entire government of Benjamin Netanyahu. But this was voiced and nowhere in the West, in these "democracies", did it meet with any rejection. Nor was it rejected that there are no civilians in the Gaza Strip, and that all of them, since the age of three, have already been extremists. This was also heard, and no one reacted either.

When we said that it was necessary to stop the violence and create a Palestinian state, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, condemning the October 7, 2023 attacks, said that they did not take place "in a vacuum," Israel's Permanent Representative to the UN told him that the world organisation and the Secretary-General were accomplices of terrorism and that it was time to dismiss him.

Indeed, young people and children in Gaza are being born in conditions where the Palestinian state promised by the UN General Assembly for more than 70 years has not only not been created, but the chances of its creation are becoming more and more shaky and scanty. This policy is encouraged by the United States, which has monopolized initiatives in the Middle East. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated at the Davos forum that the United States will remain in charge and that the entire region allegedly wants this.

I remember that we had a lot of frank conversations with Israeli foreign ministers (in particular, Ali Lieberman and Tz. Livni) about a Palestinian state. I have said that, in our assessment, the lack of progress in the establishment of a Palestinian state is the single most significant factor fuelling extremism on the Arab street. They expressed skepticism. Like, no, "I'm simplifying," it's much deeper, it's Islamic fundamentalism. But life proves just the opposite. The longer the complete impasse in the establishment of a Palestinian state continues, the more difficult it will be to ensure the security of Israel and other Arab countries. This is what we are seeing. Now US President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Europeans are talking about the need to start moving towards the creation of a Palestinian state. They understand that without it, it is difficult to calm the situation. But starting a movement is not enough. We need to gather and create. Palestinians and Israelis must be brought to the negotiating table.

Israelis should not even be given the impression that because they suffered in World War II, they can do anything today. Yes, there was the Holocaust. This is a terrible crime. But there was also the genocide of all the peoples of the Soviet Union. They suffered no less. They were exterminated in various concentration camps, including in Leningrad together with Jews. According to this logic, everything should be possible for us now, everything is permitted. This is not suitable systematically if we want to preserve international law.

Let's get back to Ukraine. I have listed disgusting laws that contradict all European values – Russophobic, racist, neo-Nazi. Europe has not commented on them. He only declares that in the war with Russia, Ukraine defends "European values". Yes, the Europeans have commented on the law on national minorities. But only for one purpose: to remove all restrictions on the languages of the EU countries, and thereby leave only Russian in a completely discriminated position. I spoke with those colleagues whose languages are spoken in Ukraine, for which they fought, so that they could be freed from the restrictions imposed by the law on national minorities. In a conversation with me, they confirm that, they say, yes, they will definitely connect, but nothing happens. They don't care about the Russian language. Perhaps, on the contrary, they want the Russian language to be "corralled" and to gradually narrow the scope for its application. That's how Europeans are.

Why is this happening? Because Kiev is also allowed to do anything. This permissiveness is manifested in everything he does. There are things that Americans don't like. They are trying, without publicity, to make remarks, but in general, the permissiveness is complete. I have already given an example when they said that it is necessary to start the process of negotiations on Kiev's accession to the European Union. Serbia has been on the waiting list for decades, Turkey for about forty. And "this" doesn't have a queue, because he's a real Nazi. No one can say that, but if you look at the essence of the situation, it is. He can even torture and torture Americans to death in prison. Everyone took water in their mouths. Maria Zakharova has repeatedly commented on this. He can do anything.

Look at how they fuss when their citizens are arrested. Not a word at all. They didn't move their little finger. Draw your own conclusions. Permissiveness is the path to disaster. It has already happened in the brains of the current Ukrainian regime. That's where they lead their whole country.

Maria Zakharova: Since the Italian media spend so much time on the fight against neo-fascism. I think that they will soon have reports on neo-fascist demonstrations in the center of Rome. We have not yet seen these stories in the Italian media, but there is hope.

Question: During the Cold War, Soviet diplomacy resolved many complex issues. We can say that now its second round is underway. Large-scale NATO exercises are taking place, including on the border with Belarus. The maneuvers are allegedly seen as a key part of demonstrating to Moscow the alliance's readiness for war.

How will Russia and Belarus deter NATO aggression? How will the diplomats of Russia and Belarus act? Is it possible to somehow "mitigate" this conflict through diplomatic means?

Sergey Lavrov: God forbid. But if the suicidal logic prevails in the West, I assure you that the Russian and Belarusian peoples will defend their independence and their interests shoulder to shoulder. There is no doubt about it. We have all the necessary means for this.

As for diplomacy. I have already commented on Russian-US relations in the context of the Treaty on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. I don't see any room for diplomacy. When they turn to us, we respond. But depending on what is proposed, we look at whether it is in our interests or not.

Let me give you an example. In one of the major European (non-English-speaking) [France] countries, they invited our ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and began to tell him that our relations, of course, were "none" and unlikely to improve, but that Russia had strengthened its positions in Africa, in the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad. And there their positions were weakened. They say, let's meet and discuss how we can do something together here. I'm not kidding. Over-the-top cynicism. Like, you remain our enemy, we will "wet" you in the public space by all other possible methods. But you will help to strengthen our position in Africa in some way. There will never be such negotiations.

It's the same with the Americans. I have already told you that they said, "Let's discuss how, in accordance with the New START Treaty, they will inspect us on a reciprocal basis." Like, they understand that everything else is "darkness", "bottom". They say, let it remain as it is: we will criticize each other, "run over" each other. As for inspections of Russian nuclear facilities, they would like to talk. What are the Americans counting on? I have always proceeded from the premise that smart people work in diplomatic institutions. But it doesn't always work out that way.

In anticipation of something like this, which you have just asked, I took with me a "manual" that was given to us by our friends from the EU countries. It is about how to behave with Russian diplomats. It is common in every capital where there is a delegation of the European Union and an embassy of Russia. It must be strictly followed. It reads: "European diplomats should avoid bilateral contacts with Russian representatives, and attendance at any events organized by the Russian side is excluded. This rule also applies to festive receptions on the occasion of November 4, February 10 (Diplomat's Day), February 23, May 9 (I draw your attention to the issue of the fight against Nazism, it is forbidden to celebrate the victory in World War II) and June 12 (Russia Day). Russian diplomats cannot be invited to events and receptions organized by the governing structures and representations of the European Union, as well as the ministries of foreign affairs of the EU states. European diplomats are not prohibited from attending events of third countries in which the Russian side is expected to participate (Thank God). Perhaps participation in the joint photo shoot carried out by the organizers" (generously). At the same time, direct contacts with representatives of Russia should be refrained from. It is advisable to inform the host country in advance about the need to avoid the immediate proximity of the European and Russian delegations at joint photos and official meetings." Here is the answer to the question of how we assess the prospects for negotiations. You can't take a picture together! Really a lot of attention is paid to photography. The main consequence of the success of the meeting in Davos "on Ukraine" (as they are trying to present it) is that there were more people being photographed than at the previous meeting. These are all the criteria by which Western diplomacy evaluates its efforts.

Question: How do European sanctions affect the development of the Eurasian Economic Union?

Russia and Belarus have signed an agreement on the Union State. Last year, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev asked whether Kazakhstan could join it and what was needed for this. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko was not against it. Are there any plans to create a Union State not only between Russia and Belarus, but also with other countries of the former Soviet Union?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the measures taken in the Eurasian Economic Union in the current conditions. It is beyond my reach to list all the things that are discussed in detail at the meetings with President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. Everything is being done to ensure that in the key areas of our state (our security, the economy and the social sphere) we do not depend in any way on those who have proven their complete inability to negotiate and unreliable, as partners who can betray the economy at any time, just as they are ready to do at any time in politics and in life in general.

As for the Union State of Russia and Belarus, it is the flagship of the Eurasian Economic Union. It sets the tone for many areas of the Eurasian Economic Union's future work.

I have not heard of Kazakhstan showing any interest in joining the Union State.

Question: What is your opinion on Argentina's withdrawal from the BRICS speech?

How can relations with Latin America be strengthened this year? Despite the fact that you were in Latin America in 2023, how are relations strengthening not only with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries in the region? You have already spoken about parliamentary conferences. Maybe there is some other format that will strengthen relations with Latin America?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Argentina's statement. This is the sovereign decision of the country invited to join the BRICS. The invitation was under the previous government and the president. When it was sent to them, President A. Fernández said that the final decision would be made by the new president after the elections. Everybody knew that. They made that decision. This is not a refusal to join, but an explanation of why they are not ready for it now. That's how we took it. I think that when President Milley's government gets used to it and gets up to speed, they will be able to determine their position with good reason.

The popularity of BRICS is growing. About 30 applications have been received to establish some kind of relationship with this association. At this stage, we will concentrate on ensuring that the new members enter the common work as smoothly as possible, and we all continue to move forward.

In general, we have positive relations with most Latin American countries. We don't build these ties depending on where the "left" government is, where the "right" government is. It is necessary to work with all those who want to benefit from cooperation on a reciprocal basis of a balance of interests. They are the overwhelming majority.

In the past year, I have been not only to the countries you have listed. I've been to Brazil as well. Will go to Brazil again. The G20 ministerial meeting will be held there at the end of February. In connection with this trip, we plan to visit a number of other Latin American countries.

In addition, we have established contacts between Russia and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. There was a tradition of holding annual ministerial meetings between the Minister of Russia and the "troika" (or "four") of CELAC. The pandemic has interfered with this schedule. Now we are going to revive this practice.

I agree with you that the Latin America-Russia format deserves to develop not only in the parliamentary dimension, but also in the executive branch. We are working on it now.

Question: Do you think there will be a change in Washington's policy towards Russia after the US presidential election?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a question for me, but for those who will be elected by the American people with the understanding that the elections will be fair.

Question: This year our newspaper celebrates its 120th anniversary. You are also celebrating your 20th anniversary as Foreign Minister. In this regard, I would like to ask you about Serbia. What will be the fate (including the political one) for Kosovo? What will happen to the Western Balkans?

A month and a half ago, you were in Skopje. There, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other Western foreign ministers showed disrespect for you. You were ready to talk about peace so that there would be no escalation of the war. What is your role now? Are you ready to talk? I heard that you talked to them.

In order to talk to these people and for peace to reign, there is a proposal from our newspaper Belgrade. We suggest that you and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken come to Belgrade and start a dialogue.

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding Kosovo. President of Russia Vladimir Putin, and your humble servant, whenever we meet with the leadership of Serbia, say that we support and will support the position that the Serbian people and the leadership will choose. We see how the Serbs are being mocked.

As for the Kosovo problem, in 2013, with the mediation of the European Union, an agreement was reached between Pristina and Belgrade on the creation of the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo. Everything was written down there: what rights they have, how they organize their lives, ensure law enforcement functions, language, education, schools, churches. More than 10 years have passed, and nothing has changed. The impasse over the agreement, which the EU has touted as its greatest diplomatic achievement, has dragged on for a long time. There is nothing the EU can do. The only thing they have succeeded in doing is that the European Union came up with the idea of rewriting the agreement on the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo to please Prime Minister Aleksandar Kurti. They are rewriting it in such a way that the Serbs have no rights in the north of Kosovo. So that they are absolutely artificial, and the real power should remain with the Albanians. The European Union should be ashamed. Because in 2013 they were beating the kettledrums, which they say, we have achieved – the problem of Kosovo has been solved. Nothing of the kind. [Another Minsk Agreement Ploy.]

Now, just like on any other issue, when it is necessary to implement agreements, they are "working back" in favor of the party that is closer to them in this particular case. The Kosovo Albanians are closer to them. Because they have sworn allegiance and want to join NATO. Everywhere they want to "join" and will faithfully follow the instructions of the European Union. Only if the Albanian problem in the Balkans does not "explode" later.

I still don't know why the term "Western Balkans" is used. Why Western? There are no Easterners.

The Albanian factor is serious. You mentioned Macedonia. To this day, the speaker of the Macedonian parliament sits at a table on which the Albanian flag is hoisted. Macedonian is also somewhere else, but Albanian is nearby. But this is a separate topic.

As for Skopje and the OSCE ministerial meeting. I don't know if they ignored me, as you said. I think they just ran away. They left there before I arrived.

I don't see any problems in communication. A year and a half ago, at the G20 meeting in Indonesia, I represented President Vladimir Putin on his instructions. In the middle of the meeting, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, through his aide, offered to talk on the sidelines. I agreed and went out. We stood there for about ten minutes. I listened to what he said to me, then I answered him. I didn't hear anything new. There were again exhortations that Ukraine should be finished. Nothing new.

The fact of the matter is that when contacts are offered, there is almost always nothing new in diplomatic conversations compared to the public statements of our Western colleagues.

About the interview on your site. To be honest, I don't see much point. It won't be interesting. It will consist of slogans. I can imagine this, knowing Antony Blinken's speeches. A serious conversation should not be conducted in public. They are absolutely not ready for this, either politically or substantively.

Question: Fyodor Dostoevsky teaches us that "existence begins to exist only when it is threatened by non-existence." For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the Americans threw depth charges at our B-59 submarine. Its commander thought that war had begun and prepared a nuclear torpedo to strike at a group of American ships. Only chance prevented him from doing so.

In this regard, do you think the fact that the West rejected our security proposal of December 15, 2021, does not our entire situation slide towards a repetition of the Cuban Missile Crisis in option 2.0?

Sergey Lavrov: This topic has been discussed a lot lately on various talk shows and political science gatherings. It is one of the most striking. Our leading international affairs scholars are speaking out on this topic and writing treatises on what we should do in order to prevent a slide into nuclear war. To do this, it is necessary that elementary fear returns from the other side, because now they allegedly do not have it.

I see a few players here. If in the West each of those responsible for politics could speak out independently, I think the situation would be different, but they are all "built". They were "built" by the Americans and (to a very large extent) the British.

I cited examples when London literally incited Vladimir Zelensky to bomb any facilities in any part of the Russian Federation. When former US military officers who headed the US armed forces in Europe (B. Hodges and F. Breedlove) say that it is necessary to destroy all opportunities for life in Crimea so that there is no Russian fleet there. The Americans said this just the other day. It would be interesting to get into the head of these people. I would like to see if they are provocateurs or if they think that our knees are shaking. No one is pulling them off.

Everyone is saying that Vladimir Putin is threatening with a nuclear bomb, although this has never been said, unlike the Europeans and the Americans. The Germans said that Vladimir Putin should know that they and NATO also have nuclear weapons. Repeatedly. The British, their former prime minister, said that she would press the button without hesitation. But we should not be frightened. Many people know this. We need to read Winston Churchill more often. He has an aphorism about the Russian bear and how it should be treated.

An interesting way to end by citing Churchill. Lavrov was clearly being diplomatic in some of his answers, while in others he was an angry bear. Curious Q about Kazakhstan joining the Union State. Lavrov misspoke about dates a few times, one of which was corrected. The main point is the West is an active outlaw and the Global Majority demands its arrest. However, there’s no talk from Russia, China or any Global Majority nation that the West must undergo a “strategic defeat” in the manner the West aims to attain with Russia. We must recall that Lavrov’s #1 aim is to keep the peace, which is most exemplified by the West Asian situation. However, the only way to oust the West from hampering attempts at peace in the region is for the regional nations to not allow such interference and shoo the West away. And the new POV being advanced that Western hegemony is Neocolonialism is 100% correct. The balance of international power is shifting from the West to the Rest. In that regard, I highly suggest reading Pepe Escobar’s initial review of Emanuel Todd’s How the West Was Defeated, where some of Todd’s thoughts can be integrated into Lavrov’s words.

*
*
*
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!