Multipolarism--Lavrov & The Primakov Readings

Further expansion of yesterday’s essay is provided by Sergey Lavrov’s speech and answers to questions posed to him at today’s Tenth Primakov Readings Session where his portion of the program lasted just under two hours. Lavrov’s speech contains some critical information about the formation of Multipolarism that was omitted from yesterday’s essay yet clearly enhances it. A slight digression is required given the release of Julian Assange from Prison, flight to freedom and embrace by his family in Australia. Here are two short excerpts from Pepe Escobar’s excellent report of that event that link to the present discussion:

Edward Snowden had already noted that “when exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.”

Criminals such as Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo, former Trump Secretary of State, who had planned to kidnap and kill Julian when he was head of the CIA….

The whole drama teaches the whole planet everything one needs to know about the absolute control of the Hegemon over pathetic UK and EU.

There’s much more that illustrates the vast chasm between what’s idealized in the UN Charter and its associated legal mechanisms and what the Outlaw US Empire does and intends. In a comment elsewhere, I noted Gitmo is still open and holds innocents, some for over 20 years now very similar to what Zionists do to Palestinians. So, as you read on integrate what Lavrov’s saying with the overall global condition and understand why it’s crucial for Humanity to institutionalize Multipolarism and use it as the tool to beat down hegemony for all time.

Dear Alexander Alexandrovich,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Your Excellency,

Friends

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak at the 10th anniversary Primakov Readings. Politicians, experts, diplomats, scientists, public figures from many countries of the world have traditionally gathered at our authoritative discussion platform. This is a reflection of the existing demand for a free discussion of the problems of our time, as well as a sign of the deepest respect for the memory of Yevgeny Primakov.

This year we are celebrating the 95th anniversary of the birth of Yevgeny Primakov. He left a political, scientific, diplomatic legacy, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. Amazing perspicacity, versatile experience - all this helped him predict the key trend of world development for decades to come. In the early 1990s, it seemed to many that the "end of history" had come, and now there would be unipolarity "forever and forever." But it was at that time that Yevgeny Primakov formulated and actively promoted the concept of multipolarity, which was absolutely revolutionary at that time.

He also did this as Minister of Foreign Affairs, which he took up in early 1996. At that time, few foreign partners were ready to subscribe not only to this concept, but also to the fact that it was necessary to think about it. In this regard, I would like to express special gratitude to our Chinese colleagues and friends. Even then, they largely shared Primakov's ideas and thought in the same direction.

In 1997, the commonality of approaches between Russia and China was recorded in the Russian-Chinese Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order. The words are familiar, but when they sounded in 1997, they caused an ambiguous reaction. It was the first foreign policy document in history on the topic of multipolarity. [The link is to its archived English version.]

The current situation on the world stage fully confirms that Yevgeny Primakov is right. The contours of a more just, multipolar, polycentric architecture are taking shape before our eyes. This objective process has noticeably accelerated with the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.

The formation of multipolarity is based on the desire of peoples to ensure their rights, to recognize the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world. This is due to the objective trends of strengthening the positions in the economy and geopolitics of the states of the Global South, the Global East and the World Majority as a whole.

Those who analyze international events cannot ignore the fact that a wider range of countries in Eurasia, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America are striving to pursue an increasingly independent foreign policy. Gradually, not without difficulty, they are freeing themselves from the influence they continue to feel from the Western minority, which still pursues exclusively its own selfish interests and seeks to continue to live at the expense of others, as it was in the colonial era and largely continues today. The principle of "regional problems – regional solutions" is becoming more relevant. An increasing number of countries, regions and organisations support it and raise their voices together with us in support of the democratisation of international relations.

The wisdom of Yevgeny Primakov is confirmed by the course of the last decades of world history, which is cyclical in its own way. If we apply a retrospective analysis, multipolarity periodically arose in international life as a natural phenomenon. In 1648, as a result of the Peace of Westphalia, a kind of multipolar system was formed, based on the principles of European balance and state sovereignty. Let us not forget the Yalta-Potsdam system created as a result of World War II, which was also based on the principle of multipolarity. The permanent members of the UN Security Council included five victorious powers. They were called upon (signed to this in the Charter of the Organization) to bear special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

If we turn to other aspects of world history, it teaches that the desire of any countries to attain global hegemony and ensure unconditional military-political dominance invariably turned into tragic consequences for this state itself and its rulers.1 Not to mention disasters and catastrophes on a global scale as a consequence of hegemonic policies. Let us recall how many human lives were taken by the criminal adventures of Napoleonic France and Hitler's Germany, undertaken in the vain hope of achieving European and world domination, while "crushing" the whole of Europe and directing united forces, first of all, against our country.

Each multipolar era has its own characteristics and is unique in its own way. The current period is no exception. Its fundamental difference is in the global coverage of the world system – in the presence of non-European, non-Western centers of power and development. These are the beneficial consequences of the decolonization process that began in the middle of the last century with the participation of the Soviet Union.

Today, Russia, together with like-minded people, is advocating its speedy completion and at the same time promoting a new strategic initiative aimed at freeing the developing world from modern manifestations of neocolonialism.

This was the topic of a forum convened in February of this year by the United Russia party with partners from the ruling and other parties of the World Majority countries. As a result, it was decided to create a permanent Movement "For the Freedom of Nations!" [Link in English] The fact that the global balance of power continues to change not in favor of the West is also recognized in the capitals of Europe and the United States. But the correct conclusions and correct conclusions of political scientists have not yet been embodied in the practical readiness of the states of the "collective West" to arrange relations with other participants in international communication on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and, in general, on the basic principles of international law.

The impression is that the ruling elite in the United States has not learned the lessons of its many foreign policy and military failures in recent years. She remains blindly committed to the belief in American exceptionalism (they convince each other of this every day). As has happened many times in history, this is based on illusions. There is no doubt that the policy of maintaining hegemony at any cost is doomed to failure. Even if in the foreseeable future the United States remains one of the world's centers (most likely, it will), this does not mean that this will happen within the framework of preserving the American-centric world order.

Yevgeny Primakov in his book "Russia in the Modern World. Past, Present, Future" noted: "The distinction between the special role of the United States in a multipolar system and a unipolar world order, in which the United States is supposedly the only center, is not taken into account by those who formulate American foreign policy." This is the difference between leadership and dictatorship. The aspirations and trends that can be traced in the practical policy of the Biden administration are not new. Whether it is the deliberately failed ideas to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia or the naïve desire to contain Moscow and Beijing at the same time, and now also the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The absolutely non-independent, servile position of the leaders of large, respected European states, which have rich traditions of autonomous behavior in international affairs and awareness of their own national dignity, looks like a relatively new phenomenon. Speaking at our Ministry on June 14 of this year, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said: "Sometimes one gets the impression that the ruling European politicians and representatives of the European bureaucracy are more afraid of falling out of favour with Washington than of losing the trust of their own people, their own citizens."

The United States is already openly shifting all the costs of the fight against Russia to its European vassals, allowing its military-industrial complex to earn. They are "hooking" European economies on expensive liquefied natural gas from overseas, in fact, forcing European businesses to transfer enterprises there in order to reduce costs. This is already happening on a fairly large scale.

Berlin deliberately refused to cooperate with our country in mutually beneficial energy cooperation. This makes a serious contribution to accelerating the process of Germany's loss of the status of an industrial superpower. By the way, this is not my assessment, but a quote from the February review of the Bloomberg agency. All this by all indicators lowers the German economy down in the list of the world's leading economies.

Chancellor Angela Merkel was also forced not to "turn on" the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Their construction was already being completed and it was possible to run gas through separate lines. I know from reliable sources how she resisted, said that it would be expensive to buy liquefied natural gas, because it was necessary to build regasification terminals. She was told that for the sake of a good cause - the fight against "Russian authoritarianism" (this was before the special military operation) - she must make sacrifices. They proposed to raise taxes. Allegedly, the German taxpayer will endure everything.

In the new conditions, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Washington just a few days after the Nord Stream explosions. After meeting with US President Joe Biden in the Oval Office, he shamefully ran away from journalists without saying a word. He understood that he would inevitably be asked the question: what is his attitude to this act (we say terror, they are sabotage)? After the start of the special military operation, German Foreign Minister Anna Baerbock (a representative of the German elite) was told that raising taxes in order to help Ukraine wage war is not well perceived in society. She answered absolutely seriously, saying that she understands that her voters are suffering hardships, but they must be patient so that the West saves Ukraine from Russia. Recently, Olaf Scholz said something in the same vein when he was informed about the declining popularity of Germany's position on Ukraine in German society.

We are interested in only one thing: that threats to Russia's security do not come from the western direction. Our interest was much broader, more comprehensive, but the West is not ready for mutually beneficial, equal cooperation. Its inability to negotiate has already been recognized by everyone. When the Westerners need to do something on orders (in this case, from Washington), they break any agreements and violate international law. Having seen how much the West is not ready for honest cooperation, and having realized that at this stage this is impossible, we are interested in only one thing – that threats to Russia's security do not come from there. Our neighbors at the western tip of Eurasia could become one of the centers of the emerging multipolar world order. Someday they will come to their senses and understand the complete deadlock and counterproductive for themselves of the course that they are pursuing under the dictation of Washington.

In his speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14, President Vladimir Putin said: "If Europe wants to preserve itself as one of the independent centres of world development and the cultural and civilisational poles of the planet, it certainly needs to be on good terms with Russia, and most importantly, we are ready for this." I hope they did. But I repeat: at this stage, our absolute priority is to stop any threats to our security from this very Europe, where Europeans are not at all in charge.

The attempts of the historical West to perpetuate unilateral advantages and solve its problems at the expense of the states of the world majority also explain its policy of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia in Ukraine and removing a competitor. Westerners want to "punish" Russia. And by our example, to intimidate everyone who pursues or is going to pursue an independent foreign policy, puts national interests at the forefront, and not the whims of the former colonial metropolises.

All these "attempts" have no prospects and are already bringing the opposite effect to what was expected. The inadequate, embittered reaction of the West to Russia's actions to protect its legitimate interests has strengthened the understanding in the international community that, in the end, no one is immune from the expropriation of assets in Western jurisdictions and other "cowboy" actions against them when even the slightest independence appears.

The United States and its allies have for decades promoted the assumption that globalization is the good of all. Allegedly, it reduces costs, increases profits, ensures the growth of the well-being of the population, and it is only necessary to trust market forces, fair competition, respect the sacred right of property and the presumption of innocence. Everyone was convinced of this. I remember how the White House made statements that the dollar is not American property, but a common property, the energy of the world economy, and everyone benefits evenly and equally.

We saw how these incantations, solemn, pathetic words were suddenly sacrificed to the line in order to punish Russia in this case. But any can be the following. The world majority is increasingly and actively reducing its dependence on Western currencies. To this end, it is taking practical steps: new transport corridors are being laid, mechanisms of foreign trade operations that are not controlled by the West are being formed, and alternative production and supply chains are being formed. A new infrastructure is being created, including cooperation in the field of education, culture and sports, because the West has tried and is trying to take these areas exclusively under its control and use them in its neocolonial interests.

If, against this background, the ruling circles of the West continue to destabilize the situation in the world (they are doing this), then the question arises: how should everyone else live further? How can we avoid dangerous rivalry and establish a mutually respectful interstate dialogue, primarily between the key centres of globally important decision-making? We clearly see this issue. I will try to formulate our approaches.

The UN and its Security Council, as well as the principles of international communication enshrined in the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, the right of peoples to self-determination, and respect for sovereignty, were an indispensable platform for joint work even in the darkest years of the Cold War. All these principles are more relevant today than ever. But they should not be carried out selectively, "pulling out" from the Charter, as from a menu, what someone likes at the moment, but in their entirety and interconnection.

We cannot accept the fact that the absolutely open and transparent expression of the will of the residents of Crimea was rejected by the Westerners under the pretext that it allegedly violated territorial integrity. In Kosovo, without any expression of will, the West decided to declare the creation of an independent state, destroying the territorial integrity of Serbia. Without blinking, it was stated that the principle of free self-determination of peoples was applicable there. There are many such examples.

Life does not stand still. We need to continue efforts to reform the UN and adapt it to today's multipolar realities. This is not easy, given that over the years the West has managed to subordinate almost the entire Secretariat of the Organization. But this is a fact. If we talk about the main UN bodies, the balance of forces and interests today is different than 80 years ago, when World War II ended. Reform of the Security Council is overdue. It is important to understand that the only step in this reform should be to eliminate historical injustice and expand the presence of Asian, African and Latin American countries in this body. The West is already strongly overrepresented there.

We are in favour of making the most of the unifying potential of the G20, which includes the G7 countries (which have long become not the most influential club) and dynamically developing world centres, primarily the BRICS countries and their like-minded countries. It is important that this platform (unlike the UN, it is not universal) includes the world's leading economies and the leading countries in terms of political influence. This is also a "test" for the West, to what extent it will be able to mutually respect and equally look for a balance of interests in this format, and not "push through" its approaches, which in the G20 boil down to the crudest attempts to Ukrainise everything and everything.

In 2023, the G20 summit adopted the Delhi Declaration, which thwarted Western attempts and stressed that there are many conflicts in the world (if we talk about geopolitics). And the overwhelming majority of them were unleashed in the interests or with the direct participation of Western countries. On this basis, to be honest, let's talk.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that BRICS is growing, enjoying more and more authority and attraction from the world's majority countries. With the accession of five members, our overall capacity has increased significantly. When discussing the problems of the world economy, the G20 is ready to solve them on the basis of the specific real weight occupied by the G7, on the one hand, and the BRICS countries, on the other.

If this is how the activities of international monetary and financial trade institutions are approached, then the reform of the voting system in the International Monetary Fund should have taken place long ago. It is artificially restrained by the United States, which seeks to keep its package of votes at a level that allows it to veto any decisions. For the same reasons, since 2011, the United States has blocked the work of the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement body, when it realised that the PRC was "beating" its competitor in the US "field" and according to their rules in economic terms and was absolutely natural to appeal to the WTO with the relevant complaints. The Americans blocked the appointment of new members of this body. There is no quorum. Since 2011, the WTO has been helpless in the face of aggressive protectionism and discriminatory policies of the United States and its allies.

In addition to BRICS as a global association that attracts the leading countries of the World Majority, the role of regional structures is also growing. We are especially interested in Eurasia. Among them, I would like to note: the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the SCO, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS. We have long been pursuing a policy of ensuring that all these structures interact with each other. Contacts have been established there, joint events are being held in order to harmonise their programmes and projects in the direction of what President Vladimir Putin called the Greater Eurasian Partnership. This is a promising economic, macroeconomic and geo-economic project. In the current conditions, when the problems of military and political security are becoming more and more acute, it is important to promote in Eurasia the tasks of creating a regional security system that meets the interests of all and is based on equal principles that respect the position of each state.

The European security system that has dominated our multilateral approach to world affairs in recent decades, including in the late 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was based on Euro-Atlantic logic. For example, the OSCE - European countries, the United States and Canada. It is obvious to everyone that Washington did everything to ensure that the Western European part of the OSCE obeyed it and promoted its line. There was the Russia-NATO Council. First of all, Yevgeny Primakov, who personally participated in its creation and the formulation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act, placed big bets on it. It was also built in the Euro-Atlantic paradigm. The Council had mechanisms for combating terrorism, cooperation on the settlement in Afghanistan and much more.

We have developed particularly extensive cooperation with the European Union: four common spaces, about 30 sectoral dialogues, meetings on a regular basis, two summits a year, etc. I attribute Russia's former ties with the European Union to the Euro-Atlantic security system, because the EU has long ceased to be independent in the full sense of the word. At least, after the coup d'état in Ukraine, Crimeans voted, and Donbass said that it would not accept the putschist government. Since then, everything has been destroyed, and the European Union has become more of a conduit for U.S. interests.

Therefore, we are talking about the Eurasian system. Back in February of this year, in his Address to the Federal Assembly, and on June 14 of this year at our Ministry, President of Russia Vladimir Putin reaffirmed the need to create Eurasian collective security, which should become the property of this richest and largest continent, which is the centre of world development, but on the other hand, it should not be closed off from other regions. Not in the sense of "launching" external players into this system, who will immediately put their "feet on the table" and will try to lead. We are talking about other continents: the African Union, CELAC, ASEAN (part of Eurasia) and other structures. Realizing the need to take their fate into their own hands and rely on their own development models and the interests of the people, they will establish contacts with each other.

In this sense, BRICS can play the role of an "umbrella" that is ready to help harmonize integration processes in various regions at the global level. They must be "cleansed" of the intrigues and adventures of "external players". NATO, through Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, says that they are still a defensive alliance and defend the territory of member states. But at the same time, Euro-Atlantic security and, as they say, "Indo-Pacific" security are inseparable and indivisible. Therefore, in order to protect the territory of the North Atlantic Alliance, they allegedly need to deploy infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region, "drag" some of the ASEAN countries, Japan, South Korea into their bloc formations (such as AUKUS) – that is, to again rule in the eastern part of our Eurasian continent. Just as they are doing now in its western part.

Our policy is non-confrontational. It is not aimed at undermining anyone's interests, but at defending the legitimate interests of all countries in Eurasia. This approach is consistent with Chinese President Xi Jinping's global security initiative, which is also based on the principle of equality and indivisibility of security.

During last year's chairmanship of the CSTO, the Republic of Belarus took the initiative to hold a conference on Eurasian security. The idea was voiced to develop a Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, which proposes to formulate the framework principles of the Eurasian architecture based on the basic norms of international law, the UN Charter, to outline the strategic contours of multipolarity, multilateralism that would reflect the new geopolitical realities.

We discussed this in Minsk with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, Foreign Minister Sergey Aleinik and the heads of the chambers of the National Assembly (1, 2). As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said when he took office as head of state on May 7, our goal and task at the working level is to continue working together with our partners in Eurasian integration and other sovereign development centres to form a multipolar world order and an equal and indivisible security system.

That goal is shared by the vast majority of countries in the world. The policy is based on respect for the right of peoples to decide their own destiny and the desire to base international relations on broad and equal interstate cooperation. The concepts of great power rivalry, the artificial division of countries into "democracies" and "autocracies" (which the West is trying to "throw" into discussions) do not reflect the aspirations of the world majority and should be consigned to oblivion.

Question: For the first time this year, we did not have a panel on European affairs at the Primakov Readings, and you paid a lot of attention to this. For many years, the journalistic term "Finlandization" of Europe has been in use. You can treat it differently, but it was clear what was behind it. In my opinion, today we are seeing a kind of "Estonianization" of Europe, including taking into account the results of the latest appointments in the EU bodies. Could you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: I spoke a lot not so much about European affairs as about Eurasian affairs. I tried to explain why there was a tilt towards the European part of Eurasia. By the way, he was sincere in the last years of the Soviet Union and in the first decade and a half of the Russian Federation's existence.

Why are we no longer satisfied with it? The partners that we have formed in the structures of the OSCE, the Russia-NATO Council and the European Union have turned out to be unsuitable, unscrupulous and incapable of negotiating. At a click from overseas, they did everything to undermine our legitimate interests and not fulfil their obligations.

This is in a nutshell why we are now focused on implementing the concept of further development together with our neighbors and like-minded people in the Eurasian context. This does not exclude the involvement (when they come to their senses, "get sick" of their greatness) of our neighbors in the western part of the continent.

As for the "Finlandization" of Europe. I remember this period. This was one of the manifestations of a kind of euphoria that arose after the end of the Cold War. Like, all friends, everywhere abandoned ideology. We remember how foreign specialists worked in most of our government institutions, in the Central Bank, how decisions were made, including on privatisation. All this, of course, was a stage, if not humiliation, but to a certain extent we were "stepping on the throat" of our own "song", our own pride. The then Russian leadership believed that "abroad will help us."

Yevgeny Primakov's accession to the post of Foreign Minister and his further work in the Government played a turning point in the public consciousness. He did much to revive in our society a sense of his own identity, history, and his own mission for Eurasia. He promoted multipolarity, it was he who created the RIC troika (Russia, India, China). It is not so common now (through no fault of ours), but there are plans to assemble this format. RIC is the progenitor of BRICS, so Yevgeny Primakov's case lives in this context.

The "Finlandization" of Europe did not take place. The Americans did not allow Europe to become an independent player, relying on the principles of neutrality, although there were NATO member countries there. But at that time, the term "Finlandization" meant that NATO cooperated with Russia honestly and did not pose a threat to each other. Now "Estonianization". The most ardent Russophobes have already been identified as future heads of EU structures. This is sad. French President Emmanuel Macron was famous for talking about "strategic autonomy." They say that they will decide everything themselves and become an independent player. This only causes a sad smile.

Question (retranslated from English): Globalisation has already given rise to several blocs. You see how it affects these blocs, how economic globalization is the result of the fact that the question of the use of weapons arises. How do you see globalization in the future? Is there a chance that peace can be restored, stability can return, and we can return to normal globalization?

Sergey Lavrov: In my opening remarks, I touched on this issue. The globalization that the United States built and in which everyone else believed, including our country at the initial stage, has been destroyed. All its mechanisms, postulates, "sacred cows" on which it was based were sacrificed in order to defeat Russia "on the battlefield".

You are absolutely right when you said that sanctions are also used against other states, including to prevent countries from overtaking America in technological terms. Look at how all channels of access to modern technologies for China are now being blocked. That won't solve anything. It will only postpone the inevitable. The inevitability is that China will do whatever it needs to do, just as Russia will do whatever it needs to do. I am convinced that India is also capable of doing everything it needs for development, if suddenly you also fall out of favor. This is possible.

Globalization is now going through a period of fragmentation. The emphasis is shifting to regional cooperation. I spoke about Eurasian trends, where the reference points of the Greater Eurasian Partnership are being formed, including not only structures in the post-Soviet space, but also associations such as the SCO and ASEAN. Let's not forget the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. It is also part of Eurasia and its members are actively working in the economic sphere with numerous partners in the neighboring expanses of Eurasia, including in Central Asia and the Russian Federation.

In Africa, we see a renaissance of national consciousness and a desire to get rid of the neocolonial dependence of the West. When the second Russia-Africa Summit was held in 2023 in St Petersburg, President of Uganda Y.K. Museveni vividly described the current neocolonial practices using the example of the global coffee market. It is estimated at about 450 billion euros. The lion's share of coffee beans is produced in Africa, but of these 450 billion euros, 25 billion remain in Africa, and the rest goes to Europe and other countries that buy raw materials, roast and grind. The struggle for this added value, which Africans are deprived of, is now very active among them. I think this movement will grow.

The same applies to Latin America and the Caribbean. One of the first initiatives of Brazilian President Lula da Silva, who won the regular elections in Brazil, was a proposal for CELAC to develop its own currency. This was considered too radical an idea, technologically difficult to implement at this stage. Nevertheless, President Lula da Silva made a proposal within the framework of BRICS. It was supported. Last year's summit instructed finance ministers and central banks to prepare a proposal for alternative payment platforms for this year's summit. I remember how Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi participated in the formulation of such an instruction in Johannesburg.

So much has already been said about de-dollarization that I do not want to repeat myself. The dollar "dropped" its reputation. This, by the way, was noted by Donald Trump in one of his recent speeches, who accused the Biden administration of destroying faith in what American dominance in the world is based on. Very indicative and frank.

India is also now engaged in the process of regionalization of various approaches. The QUAD (USA, Japan, Australia, India), as our Indian friends always emphasize, is of interest to New Delhi primarily from an economic, financial and investment point of view. Admittedly, there are attempts to drag the QUAD into some military and political projects (exercises, maritime security). We all understand the purpose of these exercises to "practice safety". The United States itself is setting an example when it tries to meddle in the affairs of our common region and creates various "troikas" and "fours". Now they are trying to expand AUKUS by connecting New Zealand and Japan. A "troika" (the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan) is being created with openly aggressive designs against the DPRK. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this at the end of his visit to Pyongyang.

In general, this is an attempt by the Americans and the British, who are active here, to prevent the natural and independent formation of economic structures in Eurasia by the countries of the continent. They must keep an eye on these natural processes. I have already quoted NATO Secretary General Jens Stolteberg that they ensure their security, but it depends on everything they will do in other regions.

NATO is moving infrastructure to the Asia-Pacific region. Exercises between the Americans and the South Koreans are already being held with elements of development or with the "legend" of nuclear confrontation. They do not want to leave the countries of Eurasia, as the British say, to their own devices, but want to "keep an eye on". It is clear that this is politics. The geopolitical struggle (this has always been the case) will last for a long time. Maybe we will not see the completion of this process. But it is a fact that this line of control from across the ocean of everything that is happening everywhere is now opposed to the line of uniting the efforts of the countries of Eurasia themselves.

At the recent meeting of BRICS foreign ministers in Nizhny Novgorod, we discussed this issue in detail. India was represented by the Deputy Minister for External Affairs. The trends that I am trying to briefly describe are felt by everyone. Many share and understand as the need to push these trends, help them strengthen and come to life as soon as possible.

Question: Could you tell us about the direction and priorities for the further development and alignment of the Silk Road Economic Belt between China and the EAEU in Greater Eurasia?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already listed the organisations working in Eurasia. The Chinese project "One Belt, One Road" is also among the centers of initiative development. On this topic, the PRC and the EAEU signed intergovernmental agreements on the conjugation of the development of the Belt and Road Initiative, on the one hand, and the development of integration under the umbrella of the Eurasian Economic Union, on the other.

In our contacts with the People's Republic of China on the development of Eurasia, we do not limit ourselves to these aspects only. China is a member of the SCO. It also has its own relations with other integration associations, including ASEAN. Together with China and India, we are working (if we talk about the development of Eurasian infrastructure) to increase the efficiency of the Northern Sea Route. There are plenty of projects in Eurasia so that the countries of the region themselves can actively use their natural, God- and geographically given competitive advantages. They are trying to lead us astray, they are trying to compete with us from afar. That's life.

Question (retranslated from English): The Middle East is a region where Russia has had its own interests for many years, a unique position in this region, given its relations with Arab countries, Turkey and Iran. Speaking about the situation in the Gaza Strip and the escalation of hostilities in southern Lebanon, how do you view the situation? What is Russia's role in this? Russia has always had its own vision of regional security. Given what is happening in the Gaza Strip, did this somehow affect your forecast of the future in the Middle East?

Sergey Lavrov: What we are witnessing not only in the Gaza Strip, but in the territories of the Palestinian National Authority as a whole is a tragedy. We immediately condemned the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023. We also categorically opposed the methods by which the Israeli leadership decided to fight terrorists, violating all conceivable norms of international humanitarian law.

You are right to say that we have good relations with Israel. We have always defended the need to ensure Israel's security in any situations that have developed in this region in the context of the implementation of UN decisions on the creation of a Palestinian state. But I was extremely dismayed when Israeli government officials, the Minister of Defense, the Secretary of the Security Council, and other members of the government began to say that these methods are quite justified. One of the Israeli military leaders said in response to the call of the international community to spare civilians in the Gaza Strip that there are no civilians there, they say, they are all terrorists from the age of three. These are terrible words. We reacted to them.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, condemning the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, took the liberty of saying that we should not forget that the terrorist attack did not happen in a vacuum, referring to the long decades during which the right of the Palestinians to their own state, proclaimed more than once by the UN General Assembly, was blocked and ignored, and the territory that was allotted for a Palestinian state was shrunk like "shagreen leather." Now, if you look at what Palestine really controls, it is difficult to imagine how what is called a state can be formed on these "pieces of land."

They are trying to convince us that Israel cannot do criminal things. They say that the very fact that these are Israelis, the Jewish state, proves that they, as victims of the Holocaust, are now defending a just cause. We hear such statements.

I had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the State of Israel Y. Katz. We had a detailed and honest conversation with him. I hope that they will hear the voice of the overwhelming majority of countries in the world, which assess the demands of the Israeli leadership that no one even dare to contradict what they are doing. They want to crush Hamas, which means destroying the Gaza Strip and creating a "buffer zone" there, asking Egypt and some other Arabs to "install" a multinational team there.

The double standards that are now manifesting themselves are very revealing. Long before the start of the special military operation, when we, together with our allies and strategic partners in the UN and other multilateral venues, continued to uphold the principles that underlie our initiatives (the resolution on the inadmissibility of the glorification of Nazism), Israeli Ambassador to Kiev Mikhail Brodsky was asked at a news conference about his attitude towards Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and other leaders of the UPA-OUN. He said that in Israel they are condemned, but they understand the reasons why the Ukrainian people treat them the way they do. We asked for comments in Tel Aviv. We were told that it was M. Brodsky who "almost spoke on his own behalf." But the spoken word in this case is not a lie.

I cite statistics, including those voiced in contacts with the Israelis. The operation in Gaza has now been going on for eight months. But for comparison: during the six months of the operation in the Gaza Strip, about 35 thousand Palestinian civilians were killed (now more). In six months, there were more than twice as many wounded. The number of civilians who have become victims of the war in Donbass on both sides (not on one side, but on both sides – both the Donbass militia and the Ukrainian armed forces) in 10 years is one and a half times less than the Palestinians died in six months.

All the pathos of our Western colleagues is aimed at inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia. They want to stop Russia, they demand to go to the borders of 1991. This is said by serious, adult people. That's funny. Try to start talking about the creation of a Palestinian state. If this remains on the agenda of the international community (as it should be, because there are decisions that need to be implemented), look at the situation on the ground. What territories does the Palestinian National Authority currently control in the West Bank? Even a timid attempt, supported by Egypt and Russia, to adopt a UN Security Council resolution declaring full Palestinian membership in the world organization was thwarted by the United States. US President Joe Biden said that in principle, of course, Palestine should become a member of the UN, but this decision cannot be unilateral. What does this mean? What else should someone allow when the vast majority of UN countries vote for it? Does one person think that there should be some kind of parallel action? These are the same double standards.

As for Russia's actions. Long before the current tragedy, we were promoting the goal of Palestinian unity. Over the past 10 years, we have repeatedly gathered all the Palestinian factions in Moscow, persuaded them to unite their efforts, their positions and speak with a single voice in negotiations with Israel. These negotiations should be direct. They must be resumed. They could not overcome the contradictions between Fatah on the one hand and Hamas on the other. But the rest of the smaller factions took one or the other position.

Last year, as a follow-up to our policy of restoring Palestinian unity (which is necessary at least to "repulse" the argument that is often put forward: what kind of peace talks are there when the Palestinians do not have a single voice), we invited the Arab countries, as well as Iran and Turkey, to cooperate. Countries that influence different Palestinian factions and do so in different ways. We suggested that these external sponsors of Palestinian organisations work out a common position without any nuances and tell the Palestinians that they all support them and want them not to "play with the nuances" of their approaches. Like, now there are approaches without nuances. They are united – unite.

In the context of this idea, the Palestinian factions were again invited in February of this year. For the first time, they adopted a joint statement that they want to unite on the basis of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization. As soon as this happened, Western countries, which are also trying to play a role in this process (and not always a plausible one), immediately began to think for the Palestinians about how they should organize life in the Gaza Strip after the end of the military operation. Again, they want to decide everything for the Palestinians.

You are absolutely right. There is now a risk of violence spilling over into Lebanon. This has already been announced by the Israeli leadership, and some demands have been put forward. I hope that the international community, including Israel's main allies, will realize the absolute harmfulness of such approaches. The Israeli operation was initially announced in the Gaza Strip. But no less actively and no less harshly dealt with the Palestinians in the West Bank of the Jordan River. This included violence on the part of Israelis who had moved to the settlements. This is a difficult situation. In the end, it is necessary to sit down at the negotiating table and see what a Palestinian state should be like, who has committed what violations of resolutions over the past decades, and how the situation on the ground has changed. This is a complex process. We cannot do without the goodwill of all parties, primarily the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the UN Security Council (all its permanent members). We will continue to seek justice and, above all, the cessation of hostilities.

Remember, when in the spring it was first possible to adopt a resolution that called for a ceasefire for the period of the holy month of Ramadan, the Americans did not use a veto for the first time. US Permanent Representative to the UN L. Thomas-Greenfield said they missed this resolution and abstained. But, they say, proceed from the fact that it is not binding. Few people comment on this, but Article 25 of the Charter states that Security Council resolutions must be implemented by all. That applies to any resolution, not just Chapter 7. I think that the fact that Ms Thomas-Greenfield "launched this idea" will come back to haunt in many cases when the United States will demand that someone comply with UN resolutions.

The United States lost this right altogether when Donald Trump said that he would not comply with Resolution 2231, which approved the agreement on the settlement of the Iranian nuclear problem. It won't be and that's it. Although for many years they have been composing this resolution, this plan. When you hear from the United States that Russia is violating some resolutions, immediately remember how they behave with regard to the resolution on Iran, with regard to the resolution on Iran that I mentioned and previous resolutions on the Palestinian issue. Those who want to continue to present themselves as a democratic example and a negotiable member of the world community should be more careful here.

Question (retranslated from English): Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi will visit Moscow in July. How important do you think his visit is for Russia?

I participate in the Primakov Readings and see different views here. It is said that India is now leaning more towards the United States. There are such opinions in Russia. You yourself recently spoke about relations between Russia and China, about close cooperation and partnership. In recent years, economic ties between China and the United States have grown. Trade between the European Union and China has also grown despite the COVID-19 pandemic. How do you view the growing partnership between China and the West in the light of relations between Russia and China?

Sergey Lavrov: You asked me to tell us how we view the situation in the Russia-India-China triangle.

As for the visit of President of India Narendra Modi, it also fits into our strategic foreign policy. India is one of our key priorities. Relations between Russia and India are qualified accordingly in official documents. At first, they were called strategic partnerships. Then, at the suggestion of our Indian friends, they began to be called a privileged strategic partnership. Then, again at the suggestion of New Delhi, the current formula was established – a special privileged strategic partnership. We want this term, this qualification, to continue to be the essence of our joint work and interaction.

India is one of our oldest strategic partners, starting from gaining independence and later, when we contributed to the formation of the Indian state, economy, armed forces, and tried to do everything to calm the situation between India and Pakistan as much as possible.

I have already mentioned today that if we take a more modern era, it was Yevgeny Primakov who spoke in favour of the triangle of Russia, India and China (RIC) becoming the symbol of a multipolar world, its core. After the BRICS was formed, there was little talk about RIC, because BRICS is a much more impressive "event". But, strange as it may seem, the architecture of contacts within the framework of RIC, including meetings of foreign ministers, continued to work. In total, we held about twenty of them. Recently, our joint work has slowed down a little. First there was the coronavirus infection. Then there were the well-known problems on the border between India and China.

We still believe that in such tense moments it is much more useful to talk to each other. About a year ago, it was proposed to assemble a "troika" of RIC. Recently, we returned to this idea again. But so far, our Indian friends believe that the situation on the border must first be fully resolved. We understand. But the desire to maintain tripartite cooperation is evident in both Beijing and New Delhi. I am convinced that we will all benefit if this "troika" develops common approaches and strives to ensure that we take common positions on the key problems of the Eurasian continent and on the global agenda.

Frankly speaking, the West wants exactly the opposite. He wishes that the Troika will never strengthen its solidarity or take joint positions. He wants to blur it in every possible way, including using it.

You mentioned that China is increasing its trade with the West, with the United States. China has now begun to slightly reduce its gold and foreign exchange reserves stored in dollars. These are details. We can talk about this separately later. It is also obvious that the United States is trying to draw India into an anti-Chinese project. Everyone understands what we are talking about.

I spoke a lot with my Indian counterpart and friend, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. He has repeatedly publicly answered journalists' questions about why India, when there is a war in Ukraine, buys several times more oil and everything else from Russia than it was before. He replied that, they say, dear friends, it is better to calculate the income in your pocket, and how much you buy Russian oil. They say, let me be responsible for my country. It is important to do what is in the interests of our economy. If everyone on this planet had positioned themselves in this way, I think that Washington's pressure would not achieve the results that it sometimes does.

As for China's trade. Both China and India (let's be honest) want to achieve some kind of calming of the situation in the world economy, without questioning the basics and mechanisms of globalization that were laid down by the Americans, as well as the role of the dollar, which many still want to rely on. In bilateral trade with China, 90% is already paid in rubles and yuan. With India, somewhere closer to 60%, trade is paid in national currencies. This is a serious choice. Both the People's Republic of China and India are much more deeply involved in the Western system of globalization in terms of the volume of financial, investment, trade agreements and much more. But it is a fact that both China and India, like us, understand the discriminatory nature of the West's actions.

I gave examples of how you, the Chinese and other BRICS members are not allowed to take positions in the IMF that would reflect the real economic and financial weight of our countries. How the WTO has been blocked for thirteen years, a body that was created to consider disputes and make fair decisions.

I have no doubt that both China and India, as well as most other countries, understand this. We do not put forward any conditions for India to change its foreign policy priorities. This country wants to achieve mutually beneficial results in contacts with all countries. We want this too. At one time, we were involved in this system. Then, in response to our long-term warnings about the fallacy and tragedy of the policy of NATO expansion and the involvement of Ukraine in it. We have no choice but to ensure our security, the fundamental interests and the security of the people whose ancestors lived for centuries in Donbass, in Novorossiya, developing these lands, equipping them, building cities, factories, ports and ships with a special military operation. They wanted to cross out all this.

I cannot help but conclude the Ukrainian topic with what the West is now saying about all its "inventions". A Swiss conference, then another conference. Some Arab countries are trying to persuade them to accept some new "khural". Read, they write that everyone must comply with international law, respect the UN Charter and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Why only territorial integrity? I have already spoken about the right of a nation to self-determination. Once upon a time, there was talk about how the principles of territorial integrity and the right of a nation to self-determination were combined. In 1970, after many years of negotiations, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the Declaration on Principles in Relations among States. This is a multi-page document. In the part we are talking about, it is said that everyone is obliged to respect the territorial integrity of those states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and represent the entire population living in a given territory.

I am tired of drawing attention to this at many public events. After the coup d'état, those who came to power announced the abolition of the status of the Russian language, declared those who live in Crimea and Donbass terrorists. Did the Ukrainian "government" formed by the putschists represent the interests of the citizens of the east of their country after that? Of course not. Let's not forget that since then, Ukraine has passed laws that banned everything Russian: education, the media. Cultural events were banned. Even in a domestic situation in a store, if the seller wants, he will hand you over to the policeman if you address him in Russian. This is to say that all these "conductors" around Ukrainian affairs urge us to respect the UN Charter, but highlight only territorial integrity, forgetting about what I have just said. They also forget about Article 1 of the Charter, which speaks of human rights, so beloved by those who are now initiating all these "gatherings" in Ukraine.

This is being said in a context that is completely unacceptable to them. It says that all countries are obliged to respect human rights, regardless of race, gender, language and religion. This is also part of the UN Charter. Few people remember this. Language and religion are like a knife in the throat of the West. We sometimes have informal contacts between political scientists. They all tried to "sell" us that, they say, let's stop the war, look at the Korean version. Our guys asked them that, they say, hypothetically, imagine that some kind of compromise will be reached on the end of hostilities. How will you feel about the laws that have been adopted in Ukraine to destroy everything Russian and to glorify the Nazis? The answer was "interesting". That they, they say, are not going to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ukrainian state. That is, the Nazis are given a "license" to continue killing everything Russian.

Therefore, the countries that are invited, "invited" to these "gatherings" should ask such questions. There are many of our friends there. Some are present so that they are left behind and not required to impose sanctions against Russia, which they do not want and will not do. Others out of a sincere desire to turn this process back to normal. They say that they will not accept anything without Russia, they refuse to sign. All this shows the weighty nature of what is happening and the understanding of the world majority of this fundamental nature.

Through you, I would like to make an appeal for the future, when they once again invite, to go, but ask these questions about the principles of the UN Charter that neither the West nor the Kiev Nazi junta wants to see point-blank.

Question (retranslated from English): The last time we spoke was two years ago at the Eastern Economic Forum. Since then, we have also discussed the possibility of opening a gas pipeline. After that, we saw that these gas pipelines were blown up. You mentioned both Yalta and Potsdam. Do you agree that a new order is needed and that Germany should also be involved in this treaty? We understand what the situation will be like if Germany sends troops to the theater of operations. I would like to see relations between Russia and Germany like this when a peace treaty is found. Could you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: Since the time of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Americans have been saying publicly that Ukraine should not be allowed to be part of Russia, because Russia and Ukraine are a great power, and without Ukraine, Russia is an "easy prey." In the same way, since even more ancient times, the Anglo-Saxons did not want Russia and Germany to cooperate and combine their comparative advantages, bearing in mind our untold resources and German technology. This line has now reached its apogee.

The Ukrainian aggression, the use of Ukraine to attack the Russian Federation, in addition to weakening Russia itself and hoping that a revolution would be provoked here, was also aimed at suppressing Europe's ability to compete with the United States. You see what is happening in the German and French economies. A year ago, the French, through French Economy Minister Benjamin Le Maire, complained that the cost of electricity for business was four times higher than in the United States. Everything else you know how it is all done.

Let me remind you of the psychological aspects of Russian-German relations. We have never had a negative attitude towards Germany. When the war ended, and columns of captured Germans were escorted through the streets of cities and villages, grandmothers who had lost children, grandchildren, husbands, came out and treated them with bread and water. As our great poet said, "He also called for mercy for the fallen." This is probably part of the Russian soul, nature. There was never any malice towards those who fought with you. Then the war ended, and they were defeated. Then there was the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany ("2 + 4"), the Treaty on the Final Settlement. I will not recall the meeting between Helmut Koll and Mikhail Gorbachev, which was a surprise for the Germans, because they asked for fifteen times less money than was allocated for the GDR to become part of Germany. There were many different things. Even these mistakes were dictated by the fact that "history is over", the whole world is now one, we are all friends, universal values, etc. This is already part of the story.

I remember the 2015 Munich International Security Conference. This is happening after the reunification of Crimea with Russia. I am asked from the audience how you can comment on the aggressive seizure of Crimea. A German who was a member of the Bundestag asks. I will not mention his name now. I said that it was the desire of the people of Crimea to become part of the Russian people again. The desire is as natural as the desire of the German people to unite. Although there were nuances, at least with East Germany. But we were in the forefront, if not the most active supporters of German reunification. The Anglo-Saxons had doubts. I said that we understood the aspirations of the German people and hoped that you understood the aspirations of the Russians. This deputy stood up, hysterically "neighed" and shouted to the whole hall that I did not dare to compare them. Even then there was a bell that not everyone in Germany had a correct understanding of the difficult, but at the same time glorious history that connected us for many centuries.

Now it is offensive to hear accusations from the current "traffic light coalition", where everyone considers it their duty to blame Russia for everything and everything at every corner. In April of this year, when economic woes, including those of Europe and Germany, were discussed. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that they know that business is suffering from anti-Russian sanctions, but they need to support Ukraine. Firstly, he said, it is about protecting the world order, and secondly, "it was Russia that stopped gas supplies, not us." This is a direct quote, I could not resist and wrote it out. How can you be so humiliated? I have already said that when these explosions took place, Olaf Scholz was in Washington. He did not say a word in public, he was afraid to go out to journalists, to explain what happened and what he himself thinks about it. When we asked to take part in the investigation, because this is Russian property, we were told no, they (Denmark, Sweden, Germany) will figure it out themselves. There will be a national investigation. Denmark and Sweden have already said that they have completed the investigation. And how did it end? Nothing. Germany, in response to our next official note with a request to tell something, is silent. Our requests to the UN Security Council to create some kind of transparent procedure, because it was an attack on global energy security (everyone understands this very well), do not achieve anything.

In general, the West likes to "mess up", create some kind of provocation, and then shove it "under the carpet" after they have already removed the propaganda "foam and cream". We still cannot understand what happened to Alexander Litvinenko in a London hospital in 2007. The process of investigating the poisoning and his death was classified. No one shows the documents to anyone yet. The same applies to the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and Yulia Skripal. None of the British officials show us anything.

When Alexey Navalny arrived in Germany in 2020, he was examined in a civilian hospital and nothing was found, as well as in a civilian hospital in Omsk. Then something was found in the Bundeswehr hospital and we were told that he was poisoned with some substances from the Novichok family. We asked to show what we were accused of. They replied that they would not show us anything, and the results would be sent to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We went there. Director General Francois Arias, who is notorious for his predilection for following Western interests, said that they have nothing to show us. They say that the Germans forbade them, saying that this is only for the OPCW (which is controlled by Washington). So far, no one has shown us anything. As soon as Alexey Navalny died earlier this year, everyone immediately screamed. We reminded him again that since you, dear friends, care so much about his health, show him what you found there. They don't want to.

Not to mention Bucha. April 2022 The city has been in the hands of the Ukrainian army for two days. Our units have been withdrawn from there, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said this more than once. For two days, the city has been in the hands of the Ukrainian authorities. Suddenly, the mayor of the city shows the wide central street on a BBC camera, all littered (or rather laid) with corpses. He says that this is a crime of the Russians. A new package of sanctions is immediately introduced in the European Union. All sorts of American philippics and angry condemnations are heard. Since then, we have not been able to get the names of the people whose corpses were shown to the world through the BBC. (The most objective media, this is how it calls itself). Nobody knows the names. I raised this issue twice at the UN Security Council, looking into the eyes of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. This is such a war crime. They made unfounded accusations, but they do not show the facts. I asked the UN Secretary-General to ask the Ukrainian leadership to show the names of these people. Nothing happens. Therefore, staging, as a method of Western foreign policy, is a well-known thing. And as before, the world community is "fooled" by such unpretentious tricks.

We must restore normal relations with Germany at some point. But everything will depend on Germany. We will not run after anyone anymore. We had all the opportunities to cooperate mutually beneficially, enriching each other in every sense, but they were crossed out in one day. This is sad, but it is a fact. We proceed from it.

Question: How do you see the role of people's diplomacy in associations such as BRICS, the SCO and the European Union?

Sergey Lavrov: The EU has stopped working with us and is acting only from a position of ultimatums, blackmail, sanctions and threats. Diplomacy, as such, has disappeared from the arsenal of foreign policy methods of the West.

In this situation, it is necessary to maintain contacts through people's diplomacy with sane, normal representatives of the Western public (be it political parties, movements and municipalities). I have already said that it is wrong to think that we have designated unfriendly countries. This term means that unfriendly leadership is in power in a particular country. This does not mean that we have declared the entire nation unfriendly and do not want to communicate with representatives of the people on the party, parliamentary, or any other line. Not at all.

In this regard, it is necessary to promote people's diplomacy not only within BRICS and the SCO, but also through joint projects in the people's diplomacy line within these organizations. It is always necessary to keep in mind the projection externally, on the interaction of these public structures with colleagues in other countries that are not members of BRICS, the SCO, or the EAEU. We will only welcome this. I regularly meet with non-governmental organizations. When you have the next forum, the Foreign Ministry will be happy to take part in it.

Question: You have talked a lot about the fact that Europe is now reducing its economic potential, including due to the fact that it is abandoning our energy resources – gas, oil and so on. Will there be any political changes, taking into account the decline in economic potential, which, among other things, will affect the social sphere and ultimately lead to the resumption of economic cooperation with Russia? Because Europe, if we look at the interests of people, people, residents, it is certainly interesting, profitable and necessary. It is also beneficial for us, because the same pipeline gas, the closest sales channel is Europe. When, in your opinion, will these relations resume and what is needed for this?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already touched on this topic in part. We did not initiate the severance of our ties. In principle, the behavior of the West is unprecedented. There have been many situations in the world when various conflicts have acquired a global dimension. Moreover, in situations that are absolutely not justified by the national interests of those who instigated these conflicts. USA-Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Ten thousand miles from these places. What is the connection to ensuring the security of the United States? No. Bloodiest battles. Immeasurably more people have been killed and wounded than as a result of the Ukrainian situation. Germany and France condemned the actions of the Anglo-Saxons in Iraq. But there are no "interruptions" of economic cooperation. No one has taken any "shots in the foot" economically and financially. No one could have thought of it. No one called on anyone to declare a boycott of US goods or Hollywood films. Have mercy.

When Iraq and Yugoslavia were attacked, what was the American interest there? The same one that we are now witnessing in connection with the penetration of the United States and NATO into the east of the Eurasian continent. I just wanted to be there, to be in charge, to create some situations that would allow me to catch a "fish in troubled waters". We all know that. In Iraq or in Yugoslavia, did anyone ban the American/English language? Did they cancel education in English, as they did in relation to the Russian language in Ukraine? No.

I once asked how the English would behave if the English language were banned in Ireland. This is about the same thing in its effect on minds. It does not occur to anyone. Or in Switzerland, German or French would have been banned. No, that's different. But Russian is allowed.

When we ask them: will they achieve the restoration of the rights of the Russian language from their "clients" after the crisis is over? They answer that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine and are not going to do so. Therefore, Europe is "built". I will not guess when it will end and how.

We are absolutely open to dialogue based on the recognition of realities, first of all, including territorial realities enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rejection of discrimination against everything Russian in Ukraine, the glorification of the Nazis and the transformation of Ukraine into a normal secular state. These are all absolutely achievable and, I would say, not maximalist requests. These are the minimum things that should ensure both the normality of Ukraine and the security of the entire European region. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that we are ready for dialogue. But, first, Vladimir Zelensky himself has banned this dialogue. Second, Europe has rallied around the dead-end and ultimatum "Vladimir Zelensky formula." Return to the borders of 1991 in order to kill Russians, taking back Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Yesterday, Adviser to the Head of Vladimir Zelensky's Office, Mikhail Podolyak, said that "all Crimeans are civilian occupiers." That is, initially, Russians living in Crimea and living all these years are considered occupiers because they wanted to leave the Nazi regime and return to Russia.

Let the West itself go berserk. I don't know how to call his condition correctly. Let him finally realize that he has his own interest, and that he should not be a tool in the hands of Washington. Ukraine – yes. For the current regime, it is a "worthy role" to be a tool in the hands of Washington. And for Europe, it is humiliating. When they are "ripe", let them come to us, depending on how our Eurasian integration will develop (and I am sure it will be rapid and deep), depending on what the interests of our economy will be, we will listen to what they will come to us with, and we will be ready to respond. [My Emphasis]

Footnote 1—There’re problems with the translation of this sentence as the paragraph’s overall context points to the solution I’ve provided, not what’s alluded to in the transcript, which is the polar opposite, illogical and not something Lavrov would say.

I would add that the Multipolar formation also got a big boost from the 7 October 2023 Al-Aqsa Flood operation and the Zionist’s genocidal reaction.

Lavrov is clearly tired of repeating himself so often, but he remains steadfast and upholds the notion of an educator that there are no dumb or stupid questions. Yes, the Q&A drifted far from the topic of Multipolarism, although Lavrov tried to frame his answers to allow for some connection to be made. The notion that there are only unfriendly governments not unfriendly nations is crucial as people-to-people connections are key to improving relations and advancing Multipolarity.

Will Lavrov be honored in a similar fashion as his predecessor and mentor Primakov? I do hope he writes a memoir where he reveals more of his personal thoughts about the events he’s lived through and those he’s had to interact with.

*
*
*
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!