On His 75th Birthday, Lavrov's Full Interview was Published

For the film Diplomacy as Life. I prefer it honestly.

The number of notices Sergey Lavrov received wishing him a grand 75th Anniversary went on for webpage after webpage at the MFA’s website. I extend my best wishes too and hope he reconsiders writing his memoirs. The interview published today by Russia’s MFA is the full text of the partial one it published on 2 March 2025 I reported here. It was with Krasnaya Zvezda media that’s making a film, Diplomacy as Life. I prefer it honestly. As I reported, the first video was 23-minutes while the video of the full interview is 54-minutes; so, the total content will be more than doubled. The one thing I’ve never seen Mr. Lavrov do is rant whereas Western “diplomats” rant all the time—Rubio is quite the ranter as is Waltz and Hegseth. I’ve predicted Lavrov will retire when the SMO is completed; if he serves until Putin retires in 2030, he’ll be 80. IMO, he deserves a few years on his own while he remains able to enjoy them.

Question: Do you find time to do sports now?

Sergey Lavrov: On Sundays, yes.

Question: Is this football?

Sergey Lavrov: Football. Not as fast as it used to be, but nevertheless.

Q: Speaking of football, are you a team player? How important is the team in your work?

Sergey Lavrov: "One man in the field is not a warrior," President Vladimir Putin recently said in one of his conversations. But there is also a novel called A Warrior Alone in the Field. Of course, intelligence officers often carry out individual tasks.

Diplomats also have many situations when they have to act at their own risk, when there is no opportunity to inquire about the position of the leadership. Such situations happen.

Question: Could you tell us about such a situation? This is an interesting point, I have never heard of it.

Sergey Lavrov: In 1996, I was Russia's representative to the UN. (My American counterpart, Madaline Albright, allowed me to smoke at her residence, which was strictly forbidden under New York law.) The Cubans shoot down an American plane flying from Miami for provocative purposes and flying into Cuban airspace. The Americans are urgently convening the UN Security Council. It is three o'clock in the morning in Moscow. I understand that we need to show some flexibility here, on the one hand, and on the other hand, not to allow the passage of the text that will later be used to condemn the Cubans.

I will not go into details now. I do not remember them very well. But this is the text. It was adopted by consensus. Our Cuban friends are still thanking me for "that night." This is probably the most striking example.

Question: At the time when you worked at the UN, to what extent did you feel that (I am mainly referring to 1994-1996) the position of our leadership, which you broadcast, corresponded to your inner feeling of how Russia should be represented in the international arena?

Sergey Lavrov: On most issues, the position of the then Russian leadership was formulated in broad strokes. The agenda of the UN Security Council mainly included African problems, some Asian, Latin American and Caribbean problems.

At that time, our leadership paid attention, first of all, to the Western "vector." Work was carried out there in the context of relations between the Group of Seven and Russia. In 1994, Boris Yeltsin was invited to Naples. The leadership was focused on creating conditions for deepening partnership with the West. As it turned out later (or rather, it became clear quite quickly, but almost all our politicians and citizens could see this later), the "partnership" was like a "younger brother." We were assigned this role. This, of course, was a colossal mistake.

Now many Western analysts write about this in their memoirs that there was no point in expanding NATO, keeping Russia "on the sidelines." But the goal was to join the Group of Seven. Even in the 2000s, we did not refuse to continue working to develop cooperation with the West.

As for the UN, the largest "discord" in my memory during my work was in 1999, when Belgrade was bombed without any discussion in the Security Council. This gross violation of international law and obligations within the framework of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe continued for 78 days.

We must pay tribute to the fact that this adventure was categorically condemned by Boris Yeltsin. But that was already in 1999, when Ivan Ivanov was Foreign Minister. Before him, after Alexander Kozyrev, there was Yevgeny Primakov, our great teacher.

Starting with Yevgeny Primakov, our foreign policy actions began to undergo changes in the direction of multipolarity. It was not yet designated as such, but Yevgeny Primakov legalised it in the diplomatic lexicon, already formally advocating the promotion of the interests of a multipolar world.

There are many principles in the UN Charter. The West now sees only territorial integrity. There is the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the principle of respect for human rights, including linguistic and religious rights.

We are now drawing the attention of the West to the fact that when discussing any other problem - Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, India, Saudi Arabia or almost any country–-they have claims regarding human rights. At least, this was almost one of the key points for the Americans under Joe Biden. And with regard to Ukraine, human rights are not heard at all. Although Ukraine has passed laws (it is the only country in the world where such laws have been adopted) that prohibit one of the official languages of the UN in all spheres.

The guardian of the UN Charter, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is also silent. I have spoken with him many times. But this is a separate topic. The UN Secretariat has been privatised. To a large extent, there are citizens of NATO countries in all key areas (almost all). They are not ashamed of belonging to the alliance, contrary to Article 100 of the UN Charter, which requires them not to receive instructions from any government and to be impartial.

Continuing with relations with the West. In the early 2000s, we were interested in them. President Vladimir Putin pursued a policy and ensured that we became full members of the G8.

There were other areas that we formed to work with the West. This is, first of all, the OSCE. It has always existed. In addition, the Russia-NATO Council. At that time (when it was created and began to function actively) it had dozens of joint projects on combating terrorism, cooperation in Afghanistan and much more.

There was the Russia-EU format. It was a unique format. Summits were held twice a year. The European Union has never had this with anyone. More than two dozen different mechanisms were at work at the level of foreign ministries, their heads, economic institutions and ministries, transport, energy and humanitarian. There were four "common spaces" from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Summits were held, including in Khabarovsk, where Europeans arrived. There was the head of the European Commission, Josep Manuel Barroso, who came and walked along the embankment in Khabarovsk and admired how it was that it was 12 hours, and this was still Europe.

There was an impression that there was a chance to move forward. We were told that we had turned our backs on the West. No one turned away from anyone.

At the same time, we developed good relations with the People's Republic of China, India and Iran, helping it to achieve a fair deal on Iran's nuclear programme, with other Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Latin America. I will not enumerate everything. Even then, we began to act in the spirit of continuity from the point of view of Yevgeny Primakov's policy.

Multipolarity means that you should be interested in promoting some of your needs and requirements in the economy and in other areas (for example, security), but you never "close" yourself to a conversation with any country in the world. To listen–-this does not oblige anyone to anything. But often just ordinary contacts make it possible to reveal new areas of mutually beneficial cooperation. This is fully consistent with the UN Charter. I have already referred to it. I don't get tired of doing it. Many people say, let's write something "new" for the era of multipolarity.

The UN Charter is for the era of multipolarity. The key phrase is written there: "The UN is based on the sovereign equality of states." There is no need to invent anything: all the other principles and human rights that I have already mentioned.

The right of nations to self-determination was at the heart of the decolonization process, which began 15 years after the creation of the UN. It was then that the African peoples had already gained strength, and they clearly understood that the colonialists in London, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, and Lisbon did not reflect their interests and did not represent the population of the territories they formally ruled.

By the way, this principle was enshrined after decolonisation. It took a long time to prepare the negotiations and discuss what is more important – territorial integrity or the right of nations to self-determination? In 1970, we came to the conclusion and adopted a detailed Declaration on all the principles of the UN Charter and how they are interrelated. As for territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, we unanimously agreed at the highest level that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of states that respect the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. By virtue of this, they have a government representing the entire population living in a given territory.

Just as the colonialists did not represent the population of their colonies in 1960 (which is why this principle prevailed), so in Ukraine, after the coup d'état, they immediately said that they would abolish the status of the Russian language, and those who did not accept the results of the coup were declared terrorists. Since 2019, a series of laws have been "underway" exterminating the Russian language in all spheres. How can we say that this "group of putschists" represents the interests of the population of Donbass, Novorossiya, and even more so Ukraine?

Therefore, the UN Charter should not be touched. It is modern. It only needs to be respected and implemented. And not to say that when Kosovo declared independence without any referendum, it was the right to self-determination, and when Crimea held a transparent referendum with the participation of hundreds of European observers, parliamentarians and public figures, this is already a violation of the principle of Ukraine's territorial integrity. Duplicity, cynicism and hypocrisy are what we have to face.

To conclude our review of that period (I would like to emphasise once again, without ignoring all the other eastern and southern areas of our policy), we were "embedded" in a number of mechanisms of relations with the West, as with no other group of countries – with NATO, the European Union, and the G8. At that time, these were the most extensive mechanisms of cooperation in our foreign policy. There were bilateral commissions in other areas. We had and still have an annual meeting with the ASEAN countries. But there were no such structured government mechanisms embedded in the flesh. All this was sacrificed overnight for the fact that we refused to accept the coup d'état in Ukraine, which had been prepared by the West for a long time, in order to turn this country into a springboard for creating military threats to us, drawing it into NATO and much more.

We were not blind. Back in 2007 in Munich, President of Russia Vladimir Putin warned that although we are working with NATO, the European Union and the G7 (as a member of the G8), we should not be naïve and mistaken for those who do not understand or see anything. If we are equal, then let's work this way. We continued to do so. At numerous meetings, Vladimir Putin patiently explained to each country and partner from the Western camp what he meant when he spoke in Munich if someone did not understand something there.

Until the very last moment, we gave them a chance not to escalate into a hot conflict. In December 2021, we told them that you were "talking" about the Minsk Agreements and creating threats to our security, and that we should sign a European Security Treaty that would ensure it without any involvement of anyone in NATO. We were ignored.

Back in January 2022, I met with then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He said that NATO is not our business. They can only promise that the number of medium-range missiles they will deploy in Ukraine will be limited in a certain way. That's all. This is also hypocrisy, impunity, exceptionalism, superhumanity. And what did it all lead to?

It is not for nothing that President Vladimir Putin said at one of his major events last year that it will never be the same as it was before February 2022. That is, he hoped until February, already realizing the futility of these hopes. But he gave them a chance until the very last moment. Sit down at the table, let's agree on security, including the security of Ukraine, but in such a way that measures to ensure it do not undermine ours. It was all decided.

Now many politicians, former members of the government, social activists with "hindsight" (that is, they have something in common with a Russian peasant who is "in hindsight") say that they should have done it differently. But it turned out as it happened.

Our goals are clear, the tasks are defined, as they used to say back in the Soviet Union.

Question: Comrades, that's what you said. Speaking of 2022, everyone remembers that you had long talks with Antony Blinken. When did you realise for yourself, at what stage did you realise that it would not be possible to reach an agreement? How was the decision made that it was time to launch a special military operation? Another month passed between your talks with Antony Blinken.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, about a month. I hoped that reason and common sense would prevail. But hubris triumphed.

Not only plans to materially draw Ukraine into NATO, to create bases in Crimea, on the Sea of Azov—all these plans were there. But in addition to this geopolitical plan, hubris also played a big role. How so? They say—don't do it, but we will agree? I am not exaggerating. This is what they were guided by in the "naked" form. Mournfully. This is not common sense.

It is not for nothing that D. Trump is now constantly saying about any conflict, considering the position of America, that there must be common sense. What is the point of giving hundreds of billions to a losing Ukraine, whose regime does not have broad support? The country will certainly lose. If Europe wants to do this, then Washington's common sense dictates that it "step aside." Yes, the United States will be ready to help, to conclude economic agreements, but it was given enough weapons. And then there was ideologization. Hubris played a significant role in the tragic events that the West "ran into".

Question: Speaking about the current time. We remember that President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the ball is in their court. For many, the talks in Riyadh came as a surprise. What preliminary work did you carry out and when did you start it to make these talks happen?

Sergey Lavrov: There was no preliminary work. The presidents had a phone call at Donald Trump's initiative. President Vladimir Putin threw this ball to him in 2018 in Helsinki at a news conference after the World Cup (this ball was the official FIFA ball). Donald Trump caught it, twisted it and threw it to the members of his delegation who were sitting in front of him.

We all proceeded from the assumption that it was not Donald Trump who cut off relations, but Joe Biden, but this is one country. Donald Trump was well aware of this and called himself. Just the day before, he sent his close adviser to Russia for a detailed conversation. Then, during a telephone conversation, at his suggestion, we agreed to meet in Riyadh. We flew there 3 days after the telephone conversation. Therefore, there was no preparation. I mean bilateral. Of course, each "team" was preparing: at our Foreign Ministry, at theirs at the State Department.

It was a completely normal conversation between the two delegations. It is striking that this normality was perceived as a sensation. This means that during Joe Biden's term, our Western partners have managed to bring world public opinion to the point where it perceives a normal conversation as something out of the ordinary.

We will never think alike on every issue of world politics. We recognised this in Riyadh. And the Americans recognised it. In fact, they said it themselves. Where we see a convergence of interests, common sense suggests that it would be foolish not to use it to translate it into some practical activities and obtain mutually beneficial results. Where interests do not coincide (US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said this), it is the duty of the responsible powers not to allow this discrepancy to degenerate into confrontation. This is absolutely our position.

By the way, this is the format in which relations between the United States and China are built. They have a huge number of disagreements. The Americans are announcing many sanctions against China in order to suppress a competitor. Not so much as against us. The Americans and Europeans are imposing 100% duties on electric vehicles. This is just unscrupulous competition. But I return to the model of relations. Despite all these disagreements, the fact that from time to time the top leaders of the United States and China, ministers accuse the other side of some illegal actions, primarily in the economic sphere, but politics and security are also heard.

Read how Chinese ministers talk about the West's plans in the Taiwan Strait or in the South China Sea. This is a very sharp opposition. I understand the Chinese comrades when the West says that they adhere to the "one China" policy, which means that China is united and Taiwan is part of it. But having said that they are in favor of the "one China" policy, they are all saying that the status quo cannot be touched. And what is the "status quo"? This is an independent Taiwan. Therefore, there is a lot of cunning here.

It is not for nothing that a representative of the Chinese Ministry of Defence recently said that they are firmly in favour of a peaceful settlement, but do not rule out the use of military force if they are "led by the nose". Something like this. At the same time, the dialogue between Beijing and Washington has never been interrupted. I believe that this is exactly the model that should exist in relations between any two states. Especially between Russia and the United States, which, on the one hand, can find coinciding interests and do a lot of mutually beneficial things, and on the other hand, they are obliged not to lead to war in the event of a divergence of interests.

Question: Speaking of the United States, remembering how many secretaries of state have changed...

Sergey Lavrov: ... and the Secretary of State.

Question: Okay, let there be a secretary of state. Let's be politically correct from a grammatical point of view.

Sergey Lavrov: They do not have the same grammatical norms as we do. But isn't it offensive for a woman to be called in the masculine gender? The secretary of state is the masculine gender. In our story, just a secretary is a slightly different image. Well, all right, the head of the State Department.

Question: How did you manage to find a dialogue with constantly changing faces, given that the general "trend" of US policy in our direction is approximately the same all the time, and the faces are different?

Sergey Lavrov: The faces are different. We have already said, even when Donald Trump was first elected, that many of our politicians fell into euphoria. Now they are also falling into it.

The United States still has the same goal–-to be the first country in the world. Under Joe Biden, under Barack Obama and the Democrats in general, they tried to do this, subjugating everything and everything, paying for this support, as they pay for NATO, as they paid Japan and South Korea by creating outposts with the participation of NATO with nuclear components.

Donald Trump is a pragmatist. His slogan is common sense. It means (everyone can see this) a transition to a different way of doing business. But the goal is still "MAGA" (Make America Great Again). Now he has a new cap: "Everything that Donald Trump promised he has done." This gives a lively, human character to politics. It dehumanizes all the bureaucratic schemes to which we are accustomed. Therefore, it is interesting to work with him.

His team, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, are absolutely sane people in every sense of the word. They are talking on the basis that they do not command us, and we do not command them. Two serious countries sat down to talk about where they were going wrong and what their predecessor had messed up in four years, destroying all channels of contact without exception, imposing a number of sanctions, followed by the expulsion of US companies, and suffering losses of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Secretaries of State are changing. They probably also think: "How come, I came for two years, and this one is still there." This is probably what they say about me. I had normal working relations with all of Marco Rubio's predecessors (or rather, Antony Blinken). This was the case with Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.

Madaline Albright took over as Secretary of State before I became Minister, but we worked closely together. (She passed away not so long ago, and I sent my condolences to her family.) I had an excellent relationship with John Kerry. Until recently, we exchanged text messages, as well as with some of my former colleagues. But now it's a thing of the past.

One of my former colleagues (not John Kerry) sent his condolences in connection with the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, but he said that I should not report it publicly. This is what Joe Biden and all this European, Brussels, unelected bureaucracy have brought us to.

There is still a tradition of ASEAN meeting with its partners (the United States, China, Japan, India, Australia and Russia). Such meetings of foreign ministers are held once a year. Until recently, there was a tradition (it was broken off with COVID-19) when each delegation came up with a number for a gala dinner.

We were writing "kapustniki" all the time. This tradition was laid down by Yevgeny Primakov. Three years before my return from New York, together with Madaline Albright, he staged a "kapustnik" based on the plot of "West Side Story". He played a male character, and Albright sang the female part. There was something about it... There may be fraternity (even to a certain extent), but it was a rallying feature at the time. [Kapustniki are theatrical skits.]

It is another matter that such a warm atmosphere of communication did not help to overcome the most important, deep-seated contradiction, which was that NATO's constant advance to the East was unacceptable to us.

With Condoleezza Rice, we played a "kapustnik": there was our delegation, and she played (from the Americans) on the piano. I still have photographs: we are standing with her, she is sitting at the piano. There were useful, interesting, honest conversations, although we did not agree on everything. We "inspired" each other.

The same is true of Hillary Clinton. There was no frenzy that we saw (I will not name names) in the eyes of leading foreign policy members of the Biden administration.

With John Kerry, we have probably set records. One of our colleagues cited statistics. If we count meetings and telephone conversations, then in 2016 there were 60 of them. By the way, we have achieved a lot, including preventing a catastrophe in Syria.

In 2015, on the instructions of then-US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, we agreed on Syria's accession to the OPCW and the destruction of these weapons stockpiles. This was done. For this, the organisation received the Nobel Peace Prize. A year later, the West again began to say that the then President of Syria Bashar al-Assad had "not delivered" something, although the entire West voted that "the issue is closed." This dishonesty and attempts to cheat all the time cause nothing but regret, at least.

Question: Apparently, this has been going on for quite a long time, if not for the entire post-war history. During your work at the UN, you were in a constructive dialogue and signed joint documents with the American side. And they violated these agreements, what was announced, literally in a matter of months. This was the case with Kosovo and Iraq. A month before former Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech, you had a joint document with the US representative on the need to settle the dialogue, etc. How did you react to such things?

Sergey Lavrov: This has already become habitual. You are absolutely right. Attempts to cheat everyone and present their position as the only correct one continues.

This was the case even under US Secretary of State Colin Powell. We also worked closely with him. I am sure that he did not know what was in the test tube (what kind of white powder it was) that he shook at the UN Security Council and said that the then President of Iraq Saddam Hussein "did not live." He was simply framed by CIA officers.

I don't want to be anti-European. However, the current situation confirms the idea that many historians expound. Over the past 500 years (when the West was more or less formed in the form in which it has survived to this day, of course, with some changes), all the tragedies of the world originated in Europe or happened thanks to European politics. Colonization, wars, crusaders, the Crimean War, Napoleon, the First World War, Adolf Hitler. If we look at history retrospectively, the Americans did not play any provocative, let alone "incendiary" role.

And now, after Joe Biden's "term," people have come who want to be guided by common sense. They openly say that they want to end all wars and want peace. Who demands the "continuation of the banquet" in the form of war? Europe.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that "peace is worse than war for Ukraine now." British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who followed French President Emmanuel Macron to persuade US President Donald Trump not to end "this story" so quickly, and at the same time boasted that this year Britain would make its largest contribution in the form of weapons to Ukraine, that is, directly contradicting Donald Trump and stating that they would "pump up" the Kiev regime. President Emmanuel Macron is running around with some ideas, just like Keir Starmer. They say that so many thousands of peacekeepers are being trained and will provide air cover. This is also impudence.

First of all, no one asks us. President Donald Trump understands everything. He said that it is too early to say when there will be a settlement: "You can discuss this issue, but we will need the consent of the parties." He is behaving correctly.

This plan to send "peacekeepers" to Ukraine is a continuation of "instigating" the Kiev regime to go to war against us. These "guys" "trampled" on the Minsk Agreements. They admitted this quite recently. Their co-authors (our Western neighbours) were not going to comply with them, and by handing over their weapons, they brought to power "on their bayonets" first Petr Poroshenko and then Vladimir Zelensky. It was they who "instigated" him to make a 180-degree turn, although perhaps German Foreign Minister Anna Baerbock would have regarded it as 360 degrees.

Vladimir Zelensky turned 180 degrees from a man who came to power on the slogans of peace, on the slogans "Leave the Russian language, this is our common language, our common culture" (this is all on the Internet) and in six months turned into a pure Nazi and, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin rightly said, into a traitor to the Jewish people.

Just as they brought him to power "on bayonets" and pushed him forward, they now also want to prop him up with their "bayonets" in the form of peacekeeping units. But this will mean that the root causes will not disappear.

When we ask these "thinkers" what will hypothetically happen to the part that they will take under control, they answer that nothing–-Ukraine will remain there. I asked one "comrade": will the Russian language be banned there? He said nothing. They cannot utter words of condemnation of what happened. No other language has been subjected to such aggression. But imagine if French or German were banned in Switzerland, or English was banned in Ireland. Now the Irish there want to "slightly" self-determine. If they tried to ban English now, the entire UN would be "shaken" for all its "columns", demanding the condemnation of Ireland.

And here it is "possible." You tell them in the face, but they do not answer. This is exactly the same as I (it will be three years ago) publicly at UN meetings, and when I meet with the press, I ask them to help us get at least some information about Bucha (a tragedy that was used to impose sanctions on us). These scenes were shown by the BBC two days after not a single one of our military personnel was there. We are now asking for only one thing (I have already given up hoping for anything more): can I see the list of people whose corpses were shown on the BBC channel? I even publicly asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres about this at a meeting of the Security Council, and more than once.

The last time it was in September 2024, I was in New York for a session of the General Assembly. I had a final press conference, the entire world press was there (there were about seventy of them), and I said to them: "Guys, you are journalists, aren't you interested in professionally knowing what happened there?"

We have officially requested information from the UN Human Rights Office (they have a "mission on Ukraine" within this Office, which was not created by consensus, they did not consult with anyone) about the names of those people who were shown there already dead. There is no reaction at all.

And I also shamed the journalists. Then it was already 2.5 years after this tragedy, when this Bucha was shown by the BBC on the screen and on social networks. It was a "news explosion". "Three days and everything is over?" - I said, "Did they tell you that you need to be quieter?"

I know half of the journalists there well. They have been working there for a long time. Can't they send a journalistic request to the Ukrainians? No one does anything. The "team" has passed and that's it.

Question: Maybe they sent it, did not receive answers and calmed down?

Sergey Lavrov: Maybe.

Question: Paradoxically, for a very long time (probably from Georgia) we assumed and believed that Georgia was a "project" of the United States, that Ukraine was a "project" of the United States, but now it seems that the picture is changing. You have already mentioned the Old World, which is interested in this. So what is the reality? Is the United States really playing the role of a puppet of Europe there?

Sergey Lavrov: No, I don't. It's hard for me to guess here.

Of course, Georgia and Ukraine were mentioned at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. A Russia-NATO summit was also held there, during which President Vladimir Putin asked: "Why did you accept this phrase that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO?" Angela Merkel replied that they were "fighting" for this phrase because it was only indicating the goal. It does not imply the start of accession talks. This is such naivety. It was in April 2008 in Bucharest, and in June of this year, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to Georgia and "called" there. Then what happened happened.

No, the Americans were the "ringleaders". But this began after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they decided that the post-war world order was no longer based on the consent of the great powers, but on the decisions of Washington. This was a gross mistake. This US policy reached its apotheosis under the Democrats, when the ultra-neoliberals began to act with the methods of "color revolutions", including planning them for both Georgia and Ukraine in 2008.

No, the United States, of course, is not an errand boy. Donald Trump does not need this now. He wants to have influence where there is a benefit for America. Isn't this normal? In my opinion, it is normal.

Question: Absolutely normal. Looking back on 2008, I can note a rather interesting thing. You are always extremely correct in your statements. You are an example of diplomatic language. In 2008, if you look at the texts of your speeches, there was a gradation. Of course, you remained just as correct, but your wording towards our foreign partners (as they used to say at the time) became much harsher. Was it a conscious decision or a special transition to their language?

Sergey Lavrov: No, I am not. You know, we are professionals in diplomacy. At least, I am not making a decision (I will put it bluntly here). I am saying what I think not as a person who cares about the concept of honour, pride and conscience, but as a diplomat. In principle, this is not so far apart, because I believe that we have moral diplomacy.

They say that foreign policy is cynicism and deception. Probably, you need to be cunning somewhere. Yes, it happens. But I prefer to be honest. President Vladimir Putin is unequivocally a supporter of honest and direct diplomacy. This is how he spoke, he talks and is ready to talk with everyone, including Western countries, which are now accusing him of all mortal sins. The same Macrons, Scholz.

Question: Do the Russian and Chinese diplomatic schools coincide in this respect? Or are we closer to the West in terms of the manner of conducting the dialogue?

Sergey Lavrov: It is not my business to comment on the Chinese and Western diplomatic school.

The Chinese diplomatic school has never even allowed the thought of not talking to any country (especially with its neighbor) and closing the door in relations. And our neighbor in the form of the West (Europe) has done just that. This is not diplomacy at all.

Our diplomacy has always proceeded from our interests. And they lie in what is written in the Foreign Policy Concept: ensuring the most favourable external conditions in order to guarantee the country's security, opportunities for its socioeconomic development, and the growth of the well-being of citizens.

It would seem to be such a trivial thing, but it is true. If we understand that a country or bloc, such as NATO or the European Union, poses threats to us, we must do everything to avert these threats. Until February 2022, we tried to do exactly that: to deflect the threat diplomatically. They refused to recognise our legitimate interests. So diplomacy is about talking and being able to hear.

Question: I understand that you are probably being "given signals," but nevertheless. Throughout your diplomatic career, have you had the feeling that you are losing control over the situation?

Sergey Lavrov: Probably, when the Americans and their European satellites began bombing Belgrade in 1999, but we were ready for this, because they did not hide their plans to do so without any appeal to the UN Security Council. This is not a loss of control. We did not control this situation anyway. It was a planned operation. Just like when they began bombing Iraq under a false pretext (as they later admitted). Like water off a goose.

Therefore, it is better not to set impossible goals. And in such situations, when you have done everything to prevent aggression (as was the case in Iraq and Serbia). But then we "recouped" a little when they (the Europeans) ran to the Security Council and said: 72 days of war in Yugoslavia–-help. Then we helped to draw up a peace treaty, and when it was drawn up, they calmed down, and the war ended.

Now the peace agreements that were signed in that 1999 resolution, including the recognition that Kosovo is Serbia, that Serbs have the right to create law enforcement agencies and police in Kosovo, do not work, nothing is happening. 26 years have passed. They are trying to force them to simply swallow the humiliation and recognise Kosovo's independence. Why? Because the West declared it in 2008, so let's "listen".

Diplomacy is like life. Everything is not easy. But you have to live and work. [My Emphasis]

Lavrov has many more stories to tell, an hour isn’t anyway near enough time—days are required. But I’d like him to be less diplomatic in telling his stories. Once you’ve read him enough you can sense when he’s frustrated and would probably like to erupt. I wonder what he really thinks of UN Sec General Guterres and others I classify as rats? I suppose the first trick to learn is how to hide your loathing of someone you must deal with. Being honest, moral, ethical, playing by the rules, and acting nice doesn’t seem to be the proper way to deal with the West, at least at this point-in-time. I can’t help but wonder if Lavrov will have the same assessment of Trump’s foreign policy team at the end of his term as he does now. One question that wasn’t asked: In your life, who is the one person you had the hardest time dealing with? Another: Surely, you’ve received tokens and gifts from people and places you’ve interacted with and visited; do you have one you appreciate the most? Does Sergey Lavrov have any idea of his place in history, or does he not think of such things? My guess is the latter.

*
*
*
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!