Newest Lavrov Q&A

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the Republic of Zimbabwe

While Lavrov’s remarks about the relations between Russia and Zimbabwe are important, what most readers want is the latest info on Russia’s position, particularly in relation to what Macron has uttered. So, here’s just the Q&A portion of the presser that’s all about the Ukraine situation:

Question: According to media reports, from March 4 of this year, the United States will suspend military assistance to Ukraine until President Donald Trump decides that Kiev is demonstrating its commitment to peace talks. When, in your opinion, can military assistance resume? Should we expect changes in relations between the United States and Ukraine in the near future, especially given Vladimir Zelensky's attempts to apologize for the incident in the White House? What is Russia's attitude to the suspension of military assistance to Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: We have said more than once that the former head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, was right when he said, in his characteristic manner, that the conflict in Ukraine could be stopped very quickly, in two weeks, if only the supply of military aid to the Ukrainian regime was stopped. This is the answer to your question. We agree with this assessment.

It is another matter that Josep Borrell immediately added that this should not be done under any circumstances, because first it is necessary to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia, and only then dictate terms and measures to it. He seems to have held a responsible position. The naivety of such statements is understandable. Mr Borrell's "replacement" Kaja Kallas adheres to the same logic as most European countries. It is time to stop being amazed by their behaviour. They all say that now "peace in Ukraine is worse than war." It is necessary first to achieve an advantage "on the battlefield" and only then to "negotiate with a weak Russia."

However, now the task of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on the Russian Federation is not mentioned. French President Emmanuel Macron said yesterday in his lengthy rather nervous statement that the war must not be allowed to end with the capitulation of Ukraine. There is a long distance from the "strategic defeat" of Russia to the capitulation of Ukraine. At least they found the strength to go this distance.

As for the current situation with the provision of military assistance and the pause announced by the United States, and it has also been announced with regard to the provision of intelligence information. This confirmed what we have always said. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly noted that without the direct participation of the West, the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other countries that provide intelligence and help use the technology to use it to launch long-range missiles at our territory, the Ukrainians would not be able to do this. This is already a very important recognition.

I will not judge the prospects for the duration of this pause. We have the tasks set by President Vladimir Putin. All these years we have clearly said that we are always open to negotiations.

We welcomed the position of the Trump administration, who, unlike Biden's "team," said that he did not want war, but peace. We are also in favour of peace and are ready for an honest conversation, taking into account all the root causes of this conflict, including the main ones–-the security of the Russian Federation and guarantees that the North Atlantic Alliance will continue to "swallow" Ukraine as a territory that will then be "developed" to create permanent threats to the Russian Federation.

Mr Murvira reaffirmed that Zimbabwe understands the need to deal with the root causes, and not with some intermediate steps that will only be used again to escalate the Nazi Kiev regime with modern weapons to continue the war against the Russian Federation.

Question: Last night, President of France Emmanuel Macron said in his address to the nation that Russia had become a threat to France and to the whole of Europe. He also noted that it is worth starting discussions on the use of nuclear weapons in this country to protect the entire European Union. What do you think about Emmanuel Macron's statement about the threat from Russia and how dangerous do you think nuclear rhetoric is? Can these words of the French President be considered a threat to our country?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, this is a threat to Russia. If we are considered a threat, a meeting of the chiefs of general staff of European countries and Britain is convened, they say that it is necessary to use nuclear weapons, to prepare for the use of nuclear weapons against Russia – this is a threat.

Unlike his predecessors, who also wanted to fight against Russia–-Napoleon and Hitler–-Mr Macron does not act very elegantly. Because they said bluntly: we must conquer Russia, we must defeat it. Apparently, he wants the same thing, but for some reason he says that it is necessary to fight Russia so that it does not defeat France, that our country poses a threat to France and Europe.

From time to time, Emmanuel Macron proudly declares that he will definitely call President Vladimir Putin and talk to him. He has such opportunities, and no one forbids it. On the contrary, the President constantly emphasises his openness to contacts with all his colleagues. With regard to these, let's face it, stupid accusations against Russia of preparing a war against Europe and France. Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated, calling such thoughts delusional and nonsense. For any sane person, it is absolutely clear that Russia does not need this. We need to eliminate the root causes of the situation that the West has created in Ukraine to suppress, influence and wage war against the Russian Federation. This is primarily the expansion of NATO. US President Donald Trump and his team are well aware that this was the main root cause. This is being said publicly.

At a time when the Europeans, who for some reason decided that the United States betrayed their interests, are silent about all the root causes, the topic of NATO. On the contrary, they are trying to "cobble" within the alliance quite combat forces for deployment on the territory of Ukraine.

As for another root cause, which we constantly mention, that they legislatively exterminate the Russian language, the media, culture, and banned the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. No one in the West has said a word about this so far. Although on any other occasion, human rights are in the first place for the West.

An event has just taken place between the European Union and the Central Asian countries. There is little left there except human rights. Although in Central Asia, no one forbids speaking any language, neither Russian nor French. But in Ukraine, it has been banned. At the same time, clerks from Vladimir Zelensky's office say that they have "the most open democracy in the world." Europe is swallowing all this and is silent.

It was strange for me to hear that Mr Macron, in an aggressive manner, continuing the work of Napoleon, who wanted to conquer Russia, masking his true illusory intentions (there is no need to explain here), began to speak out and criticise President of Russia Vladimir Putin for constantly deceiving him. In this way, as if entering into a dialogue in absentia with US President Donald Trump. He clearly said that everything he agreed on with Vladimir Putin has always been implemented. French President Emmanuel Macron decided to follow the path of Vladimir Zelensky, who, while in the Oval Office, did not hesitate to lie and mentioned that Vladimir Putin had disrupted some "agreements" twenty-five times. This is what a man who came to power on the slogans of establishing peace and implementing the Minsk Agreements is saying. Then he began to declare that he would never fulfill them.

Emmanuel Macron also said that Vladimir Putin constantly violated everything that was said. In particular, it turns out that his accusation also applies to the meeting in Paris. In December 2019, the President of France chaired the Normandy Four summit with the participation of Emmanuel Macron himself, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. In December 2019, it was dedicated, as the French and Germans announced, to the task of saving the Minsk Agreements.

At that time, when we were preparing for this event in December 2019 at the Elysee Palace, we fully agreed on the final documents of this meeting at the expert level, at the ministerial level, on the basis of consensus. The first paragraph of the document stated that we agreed on the need to withdraw troops from the line of contact along its entire length. The document was agreed. When the leaders sat down and were given what the experts and ministers had agreed upon, Vladimir Zelensky said that he would not agree to this, would not withdraw troops along the entire line of contact, because then it would forever become the border. This is how he felt about the Minsk Agreements. He said that he could only withdraw troops at three points on the line of contact. Ukrainian representatives pointed to them. We had to agree. Although both Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel were unpleasantly surprised. But the character's ability to enjoy hospitality in his own way is well known.

I would like to add in retrospect that nothing has been done at any of the "points" that Vladimir Zelensky himself indicated as a place where forces can be withdrawn from the line of contact. The Ukrainians disrupted this agreement. The political part of the document adopted in Paris confirmed what was written in the Minsk Agreements: the need to legislate the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics by amending the Constitution accordingly. This was written down. A few days later, it became clear that Vladimir Zelensky was not going to do anything. Footage is available of how following the December 2019 summit in Paris, when the four leaders were sitting at the same table at a news conference, it was clear that Vladimir Zelensky was clowning and making grimaces during Vladimir Putin's speech, thereby showing his attitude to the document that had just been signed.

Now, in his "elated" speeches, he says that Russia did not comply with the Paris Agreements. The fact that then German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron spoke in Paris in 2019 about the need for this summit to save the Minsk Agreements was also a lie. After this summit, both then-French President François Hollande, who signed the Minsk Agreements, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel herself said that they were not going to implement anything. It was necessary to buy time to pump Ukraine with weapons. This means that she was lying when she called for "saving" the Minsk Agreements.

Naivety is not welcome in politics. We never intend to practice naivety again.

Question: Europe is discussing the idea of sending peacekeepers to Ukraine. Is Moscow still opposed to this? Or is there room for compromise?

Sergey Lavrov: We do not see any room for compromise.

This discussion is being conducted with an openly hostile goal. They do not hide why they need it.

French President Emmanuel Macron, with the support of British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, will soon take Vladimir Zelensky to Washington to bow. According to their plan, it is necessary to suspend hostilities for a month, at least in the air, at sea and in relation to energy facilities. And during this time, "these troops" should be deployed in parallel with agreeing on the terms of peace.

First of all, if you have sent troops into the territory, then you probably no longer want to agree on some conditions, because you are creating facts "on the ground".

Second, the Trump administration, answering journalists' questions, commented on this situation in such a way that such things, especially if they are trying to be called "peacekeeping forces," should be discussed and agreed upon by the parties. Neither Emmanuel Macron, nor Kier Starmer, nor other supporters of sending troops to Ukraine even mention this.

We will consider the presence of these troops on Ukrainian territory in the same way as we considered the potential presence of NATO in Ukraine. Whatever "flags" this operation is used to cover (the European Union, the national flags of troop-contributing countries), no matter what chevrons (up to Bandera) are glued to the sleeves of the uniform, they will still be troops of NATO countries. For some reason, the Irish have already expressed their readiness to send their contingent (they are not allowed outside the North Atlantic Alliance), Canada (where without it), Australia. The "company" is going to be interesting.

We will categorically not just observe this kind of action. I would like to say again that this will not mean an allegedly hybrid, but a direct, official and undisguised involvement of NATO countries in the war against the Russian Federation. This cannot be allowed. Especially against the backdrop of yesterday's nervous statement by French President Emmanuel Macron that Russia is a threat to Europe. If this is the case, then troops should be sent against this threat.

From the very beginning of the special military operation (back when there were talks in Belarus in 2022, then in Istanbul, they practically agreed, endorsed and initialed a document that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson later banned and Vladimir Zelensky obediently agreed) we have always been told (and Emmanuel Macron says) that it is impossible for the talks to go on without Ukraine. That Russia and the United States will agree on something, while Ukraine and Europe will stand aside. They say that nothing can be done without Ukraine and Europe. Not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine.

All this time, various forums that the West has been actively promoting and organising to discuss Vladimir Zelensky's "peace formulas" and "victory formulas" (he has now come up with a new initiative under a new name) have in fact been discussing Russia without Russia. This is colonial, neocolonial thinking. Simply put, this is rudeness, which they consider a normal way of behaving: not a word without Ukraine, and without Russia – for God's sake.

Recently, British Prime Minister Kier Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron boasted that they would put something on paper, explain to Vladimir Zelensky that he should accept it, and then go to US President Donald Trump to have him approve it. And after that, all this will be presented to President Vladimir Putin. How is this from the point of view of diplomatic etiquette? I understand that etiquette is a conditional matter. In real diplomacy (even here I will say "decency" rather than "etiquette"), decency has long been trampled upon by the West, so there is nothing surprising in this.

I hear sensible voices, including within NATO and the European Union, who understand that Emmanuel Macron may take completely thoughtless actions in order to save his reputation, which has been hopelessly trampled on inside France. [My Emphasis]

All NATO forces entering Ukraine will be treated as enemy forces. The European elites have swallowed their propaganda whole—that Russia is the aggressor—and are now choking on its toxicity. For them, 2014 never happened, nor were the Minsk agreements ever enacted and turned into UNSCR 2202, which France and UK voted for. Trump was involved in pumping weapons into Ukraine during his first term then watched them fail to bring victory to Ukraine and had the gall to admit NATO has lost the war it began in 2014 against Russia during his campaign. The Europeans don’t have the courage to admit their failure and demand that more Ukrainians die for their vanity. The European attitude is great for Trump whose Narrative seeks to absolve the Outlaw US Empire for its guilt in starting the war of aggression against Ukraine and its ethnic Russian population in 2014 and the fact that it has lost that war. Trump seeks to remove the Empire from participation without admitting defeat or that it started the mess. Repairing relations with Russia is something that needed to be done to lessen the chance of nuclear war. But the negotiations to end the conflict must occur between Russia and Ukraine as I’ve explained along with Russia. I must agree with Lavrov’s closing paragraph that Macron’s remarks were all about his political drowning within France.

For negotiations to start, someone legitimate must be named by Ukraine and the no negotiation edict rescinded. And as Russia has stated, its SMO will continue until a satisfactory agreement that solves the roots of the conflict is attained. That’s the reality Europeans are denying with all their might.

*
*
*
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!