Part Two: Lavrov at the Antalya Diplomatic Forum: The Presser

Of the many, I sorta like this photo.

The Presser is Part Two of the Gym’s coverage of the Antalya Diplomatic Forum and took place on 2 March. Again, this event lasted just over an hour, so it’s a long read, and as usual the Russian video is available at the link. It will be interesting to see the difference in the questions posed and answers given from yesterday. As usual, all emphasis is mine:

Good afternoon

We are completing our participation in the Antalya Diplomatic Forum. This is a relatively new political science format initiated by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Last year, unfortunately, we were unable to meet due to the devastating earthquake in Turkey, which required the concentration of all efforts to overcome its consequences and help the victims. At that time, Russia was among the first countries to lend a helping hand. We sent search and rescue teams, construction materials, and provided humanitarian assistance.

This year, we are catching up. A very representative conference. More than a hundred countries are represented, including at the level of heads of state and government. There are many participants at the level of foreign ministers. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank our Turkish colleagues for their hospitality and warm welcome.

We took advantage of our participation in the conference and held special panel meetings with my participation, where we drew the attention of the international community to the consequences of the policy pursued by the "collective West" led by the United States in blatant disregard for the principles of the UN Charter. First of all, the principle of respect for the sovereign equality of all States.

The West is using the current international situation to push through the "rules" on which, according to them, the world order should be based, and which, in fact, when you begin to analyze them, mean only the desire to continue to act by neocolonial methods, to live at the expense of others. We see this in the events unfolding in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, including the East China Sea, and other regions of the world.

We are convinced that the global majority, which is increasing its weight in all senses – in the global economy and politics – understands the need to return to the origins and principles of the UN laid down by the founding fathers, which the West is now simply not only ignoring, but also grossly violating.

I hope that the discussion was useful. All other panel events, the plenary session at which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke, also stressed the need to rethink where we are and how we treat our international obligations.

The UN is not a bad organization. I would like to stress once again that its Charter contains all the principles necessary to ensure justice in international relations. Those who until recently had a decisive weight in the world economy and in technological development have decided that in order to maintain their elusive dominance, they need to manipulate international law. In my opinion, this is the main problem today. Such manipulations must cease and the equality of States must be effectively ensured.

In addition to the events of the forum, which I have just mentioned, bilateral meetings were held, including with King Mswati III of Eswatini and the foreign ministers of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Serbia and Slovakia. Intensive schedule. I think all this is useful. We discussed a wide range of issues with each of my colleagues, bilateral relations and cooperation in the international arena.

Question: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that he is ready to provide a platform for talks between Moscow and Kiev. Does Russia intend to take advantage of this platform?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a question for us. It is asked periodically, including to President Vladimir Putin.

We have confirmed for the umpteenth time (the question has been asked more than a dozen times) that Russia has never refused to negotiate. An example of this is the Istanbul Agreements of April 2022. As the chief Ukrainian negotiator and head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada Dmitry Arakhamia admitted, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came to Kiev and forbade the Zelensky regime to implement these agreements and told them to continue fighting.

Since then, there have been no serious requests to us for negotiations. I am referring to serious proposals that are really aimed at ensuring the legitimate interests of the parties involved. There are none. For many years, people tried to achieve the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and then, in desperation, declared their independence and held a referendum on joining the Russian Federation. No one has ever wanted to take their legitimate interests into account. When they were still part of the Ukrainian state, first the regime of Pyotr Poroshenko and then the regime of Vladimir Zelensky, as if implementing the directives of the coup d'état of February 2014, banned them from using the Russian language in education, in the media, in culture and in everyday life. No one mentions these aspects of the problems, the misfortunes of specific people whose rights were exterminated by law and who were often simply physically liquidated, in any of the documents or initiatives discussed in this regard.

In the Istanbul agreements, this topic was spelled out – ensuring the rights of these people, stopping attacks on the Russian language and the policy of "Nazification" (if you will) of the life of their country. Perhaps Boris Johnson did not like this, forbade signing this treaty.

We have no lack of goodwill. We see its absence on the other side. Not so much goodwill, but a lack of understanding of what is happening. On the other side, we continue to note the desire to achieve Russia's defeat "on the battlefield."

Suffice it to mention the latest statement by Lloyd Austin, the head of the US Pentagon, that in the event of Ukraine's defeat, NATO will be forced to act against Russia, and French President Emmanuel Macron's statement on the possibility of sending ground troops to Ukraine. When his staff tried to reinterpret what he had said that he had been misunderstood, he later reiterated that he was not renouncing his thoughts. These trends in the West among the Western leadership negate all assurances that they are interested in some kind of political settlement. This is not the case.

There is plenty of evidence that the West is moving towards a military solution. Despite the fact that even more facts show the complete failure and deadlock of such a course. But they continue to pursue their militaristic line with a tenacity worthy of better use.

Question: Yerevan said that the Armenian authorities are discussing the expediency of the presence of Russian FSB border guards at Yerevan's Zvartnots airport. How would you comment on these statements? What is the expediency and necessity of such actions by the Armenian side now?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot confirm these reports. However, this fits well into the logic of the positions that the Armenian leadership is now expounding – Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Alen Simonyan and other figures.

It is stated that everything that has happened between Armenia and Russia since 1991 was a mistake. The same logic is used to assess the activities of the CSTO, which allegedly did not fulfill its obligations to Armenia. Hence the statement of officials that in September 2020 it was Russia that provoked Azerbaijan's attack on Armenia and other characteristics of our country as guilty of everything and everything, including the betrayal of the people of Karabakh. This is nothing more than (let's call it what it is) a lie. It is quite obvious to anyone who is interested in what has been happening in recent years.

The question arises as to why this blatant lie is being implanted in the consciousness, firstly, of the Armenian people themselves, and, secondly, in the consciousness of those who observe the ongoing processes from the outside, "rub their hands" and do not hide their desire to "remove" Russia from the South Caucasus region. These are the same political engineers who are used to running the world from their apartments, and who have never done anyone any good in any part of the world.

Look at the list of American adventures over the past 50 years – Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Where has it gotten better? States have been destroyed, and the socio-economic well-being that was characteristic of, say, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has been destroyed. Where have the goals declared by Washington and its allies been achieved?

Even a small country close to the Americans, Haiti, which they have been "looking after" long before the creation of the UN (they began to do this a hundred years ago). It is still the poorest country, dirty, with a huge crime rate, where there are always some "squabbles". The Americans have already tried several times to involve the UN Security Council in order to restore elementary order there. Recently, they have even been pushing the idea of sending peacekeepers from Kenya there. I would like to stress once again that they have been doing this for a long time, and they are not succeeding. We have our own idea of how useful the "infiltration" of the Americans, British, and Europeans in the South Caucasus region will be, based on facts and previous experience. Other countries of the South Caucasus region and its neighbors also understand this.

But you see, for some reason, Armenia believes that it is necessary to build one's life not in cooperation with its closest neighbors and peoples who are historically in solidarity with you, but with those who oppose your friends.

Question: In recent weeks, we have seen an intensification of contacts between Baku and Yerevan. A few days ago, a meeting was held at the European platform in Berlin. Has the Azerbaijani side informed Russia that these talks are being prepared and that it is going to take part in them? And did you talk about this with your Azerbaijani counterpart yesterday at a bilateral meeting?

Sergey Lavrov: We have a regular dialogue with our Azerbaijani colleagues. They reaffirm their readiness to resolve all issues in accordance with the trilateral statements (1,2,3,4) adopted between Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia at the highest level.

As for the unblocking of all communications in the region, the delimitation of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan with the consultative assistance of the Russian Federation and the preparation of a peace treaty, we are providing assistance to our colleagues in all three areas. We have Ambassador-at-Large Igor Khovayev, who worked in both Yerevan and Baku. Most recently, he visited the capital of Azerbaijan again. As for the visit to the Armenian capital, our colleagues in Yerevan have not yet confirmed it, which reflects the trend I have just mentioned.

We are aware of the meetings held between the ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan under the auspices of various Western figures. The last time it was under the auspices of German Foreign Minister Angela Baerbock. I asked my Azerbaijani colleague about his impressions when I met with him. I'd rather keep his answers to myself.

Progress, in my opinion, will depend on how honestly the trilateral agreements of the top leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are implemented. To reiterate, the statements made by the Armenian leadership on a daily basis make us think about what is really happening and how it should be taken into account in our practical steps.

Question: At one time, we played a major role in the liberation of Germany from Nazism and later in the destruction of the Berlin Wall (although it may not have been beneficial to us to some extent). Now we are witnessing another scandal, when it is officially confirmed (at least in dozens of media outlets) that German officers wanted to strike at the Crimean Bridge with Taurus, seriously discussed this and again recalled the Luftwaffe. How will our relations with Germany change in connection with this conversation? Isn't this a betrayal and, given all the factors (what you mentioned, French President Emmanuel Macron's threats, US Defence Secretary Lloyd's words), how real is a direct clash with NATO rather than a hybrid?

Sergey Lavrov: Now this topic has taken on a new role. Germany is changing. A few years ago, long before the special military operation, before the Bundeswehr officers were talking about how to bomb Russia, I had the opportunity to share our assessments of the evolution of the positions of the German elites at one of the press conferences. That was around the time when, under pressure from the United States, the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which had not yet been blown up, were not put into operation, their activation was postponed, and it was clear to everyone that the Americans did not want gas to flow through these routes at all.

At that time, we had regular consultations with our German colleagues in various departments of the foreign ministries on bilateral relations, relations in the context of EU development, European security and many other topics.

In particular, we once again raised the question of what was wrong in Berlin when, having provided payments to the survivors of the siege of Leningrad of Jewish origin, to all other siege survivors – Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, representatives of many other peoples of the USSR who found themselves in the city that was completely blockaded, who together with the Jews suffered, died, ate cats, boiled rawhide in order to somehow satisfy their hunger – the Germans did not make payments. To this, we were told that the Jews were victims of the Holocaust and that everyone else was not. Does this lead to any thoughts, references?

I think this is a dangerous logic that the Germans tried to apply. Of course, we do not forget our blockade survivors. On the instructions of President Vladimir Putin, they regularly receive special payments and are given attention. The Germans tried to get away with a promise to create a medical rehabilitation center and organize a "meeting house" for the blockade survivors among themselves, with young people. Both of these promises were never fulfilled. I doubt that the current leadership of Germany will agree to this.

A polyclinic is a good thing. But the blockade survivors are "scattered" throughout the rest of Russia. They live not only in St. Petersburg. There are many of them outside of Russia as well. However, if you live in any country and have survived the blockade, but you are not a Jew, the German state does not owe you anything and does not give you anything.

Conversations with the Germans on these topics showed a simple idea (they did not state it head-on, but it was clearly voiced in their statements). The implication is that they, the Germans, have already paid for everything, they have paid off everyone for World War II, and they don't owe anything to anyone else. The events that gave rise to your question confirm this trend.

I don't know how the situation will develop further. Recently, we have witnessed facts that have revealed the confrontation between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the Bundeswehr, some cunning plans of the Bundeswehr, which have become clear due to the publication of this record about how carefully they are preparing an attack on the Crimean Bridge, on other facilities, primarily ammunition depots, and most importantly, how they want to deceive everyone so that they do not think about them, but the Americans and the British, because they are already there.

Screaming self-exposure. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French and Ukrainian presidents Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko admitted at the same level, only in the military sphere as in the political sphere, that no one was going to implement the Minsk Agreements.

The situation clearly indicates that the "war camp" in Europe is still strong. If anyone had any doubts (over the past couple of months, there have been many analytical materials that people seem to be beginning to understand the senselessness, futility and harmfulness of continuing to "incite" Ukraine to military action), then the latest statements by French President Emmanuel Macron, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, and the conversation between German generals indicate that the "party of war" does not want to change its course to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia on the battlefield. We understand that.

Question: Bloomberg, citing its sources, reported that Germany, France and the European Central Bank are extremely cautious about the confiscation and use of Russian assets, fearing a backlash that Moscow may do the same with European assets in Russia. Are we really ready for this? Can we do that? How can these measures affect foreign companies and the business partnership of the remaining foreign companies with Russian companies?

Sergey Lavrov: There have already been comments on this. Recently, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that we would definitely respond. We have the opportunity not to return the funds that Western countries kept in Russia. They were frozen in response to the seizure of Russian state reserves. There can be no doubt that we will act in a mirror manner. Let's see which line they choose.

Now the Westerners are discussing how not to confiscate the bulk of the money that was seized because of possible precedents. The Western judicial system may not have completely lost its conscience and may rule in favor of Russia. They come up with various modifications of theft. They say, let's not touch these billions, we are "spinning" these funds in our banks, but we will get a profit and take it for ourselves. It's still stealing. Everyone understands this.

Our Western colleagues should think seriously before once again crossing out the principle of inviolability of property. There have already been cases of confiscation of the property of Russian companies and individuals in the United States and Europe.

Question: This week, Swiss Foreign Minister Islamas Cassis said that a peace initiative by the BRICS countries, including China and Brazil, is being considered in Switzerland as part of the planned conference on Ukraine. What does Russia think about this statement and the actions of the Swiss side?

Sergey Lavrov: I have read reports about what Swiss Foreign Minister Ignais Cassis said in recent days, with whom I met a month ago in New York, where we took part in UN Security Council events. Then he told me that Switzerland understands that without Russia all this is meaningless and useless. I replied that if Bern understands this, then why did it hold another meeting in the Copenhagen format in Davos on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum? Cassis explained his decision by the need to get up to speed on the situation, to prepare, that now they will propose to hold a peace conference in Switzerland, aimed at finding mutually acceptable agreements. I told him that we do not see any prospects, because those who are really in charge of Ukraine and the processes taking place there will not allow anyone to change the orders coming to Kiev. And they lie in the fact that there is no alternative to Vladimir Zelensky's "peace formula" on Russia's "capitulation". This has been said many times, at the highest level, and recorded in numerous documents. Of course, if the West wants to retreat and "lose face", then in politics this is always welcome, if it helps to achieve peace.

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin touched upon this issue in an interview with Tucker Carlson and stressed that the West must understand (and many have already understood this) that they made a mistake in Ukraine and let them correct it themselves. We will not prevent them from doing so in a way that makes them feel that they have "saved face". Now we can't even see anything like that.

I was surprised by the latest statements by Swiss Foreign Minister Igios Cassis. He said there are about ten peace plans for Ukraine, most of them secret. It seems to me that this statement alone shows that he is not very immersed in the essence of what is happening. His next "announcement" was about his desire to involve the BRICS countries in a peace conference, to which Russia would not be invited again. Although he understands that it is pointless to meet without Russia.

Vladimir Zelensky dotted the i's and crossed the t's when he said that Ukraine supports Switzerland's plans to convene a peace conference without Russia, and that it is necessary to approve the final plan at the conference, which will be supported by all participants, and then, he says, we will invite Russia, but not for negotiations. So, for another ultimatum. If Switzerland doesn't understand what kind of game they are being dragged into, then let them try. We don't rely heavily on Swiss services.

Due to its neutrality, Switzerland has traditionally been a venue for peace conferences and a country that has helped in every possible way to reach compromises and agreements in negotiations. It lost it a long time ago, not only by joining all anti-Russian sanctions and supporting Ukraine in various ways, but also by joining the first ranks of sanctions (and sometimes even moving ahead of them) against the Russian Federation. I said this honestly to my colleague when we spoke in New York. I hope he understands that.

Question: Earlier, with the participation of Russia and Iran, the process of normalising relations between Syria and Turkey was launched, and a number of meetings were held both between the military departments and at the level of foreign ministers. Is there any progress in the negotiation process between Damascus and Ankara at the moment? Are there any plans for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the two countries with the participation of Russia and Iran in the near future? Today, the Turkish media reported that a meeting between the presidents of Turkey and Syria may take place in Moscow in the near future with the mediation of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. Is that really the case? Are preparations underway for this meeting?

Sergey Lavrov: There are a lot of ideas floating around in the media right now. We reaffirm our interest in facilitating the normalisation of relations between Syria and Turkey. It was launched a year and a half ago at the level of the security services and the military. Our Iranian colleagues also joined it.

The Syria-Turkey-Russia-Iran format has been preserved. Several meetings were held, including one at the level of foreign ministers. It is roughly clear what approaches the parties have to find a common ground for normalising relations. We have been working on this and continue to do so.

But now practical steps are impossible because what is happening in the Gaza Strip and other Palestinian territories directly affects all participants in this process. I am referring to the bombing by the Americans of certain facilities belonging to pro-Iranian forces, as well as Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Of course, this cannot but divert attention from building relations between Syria and Turkey and affects our ability to help this process with Iran.

As for the bombing of facilities that the Anglo-Saxons declare pro-Iranian. There was an interesting question that was asked to US President Joe Biden after they bombed Iraq and Syria, saying that these were Iranian "proxies" and therefore a legitimate target. He was asked if the United States blamed Iran. He responded, of course, that Iran is a party to these illegitimate, illegal processes because it supplies weapons to these groups.

An analogy with Ukraine immediately arises. The West tells us that they only supply weapons to Ukraine and are not at war with Russia. You can take US President Joe Biden's "formula" that Iran is a "direct participant" in these processes because it supplies weapons, and apply it to Ukraine. The same. It's exposure and self-confession.

Question: NATO continues to expand. Finland and Sweden became members of the North Atlantic Alliance. How will Russia ensure its security?

Sergey Lavrov: It was surprising to see how quickly Finland and Sweden exchanged their neutrality, which had served them faithfully for many decades and ensured their reputation in the modern world, for joining the NATO bloc. Moreover, at the stage when the alliance has taken an openly aggressive and hostile position against the Russian Federation.

Long decades of good neighborliness have gone to waste. Stockholm has already concluded an agreement with Washington, according to which the United States and its armed forces have the right to do whatever they want in Sweden: visit, create any facilities, etc.

The conclusion about our security is that an organizational decision has already been made to create the Moscow and Leningrad Military Districts. Additional weapons will be deployed there, adequate to the threats that may appear on the territory of Finland and Sweden.

Question: When will the conflict in Ukraine end?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, when Ukraine (which will remain in our memory, it is too early to judge) observes the elementary norms of international law, including respect for human rights, national minorities, etc.

We have announced our goals. In his Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin once again confirmed that these goals remain fully relevant. We do not want to see the destinies of the Russian people living in the lands of their ancestors ruined, so that they are forbidden to live as they wish in accordance with their traditions, religion and culture, so that they are even subjected to extermination. We are fighting for these people and will continue to fight until they are safe and their rights are fully respected.

It was precisely because they were oppressed and exterminated in Ukraine that the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions voted to leave this neo-Nazi state. To leave them there would be a crime for us.

A question was asked about the reunification of Germany. But in reality, it was the absorption of the GDR by the Federal Republic of Germany. I had a lot of friends in the GDR, we communicated quite freely, they moved around and we went to those parts. They told us that we, of course, were their friends, but we betrayed them and gave them away as disenfranchised guests, freeloaders. They say that they depend entirely on the will, generosity, and mood of the West Germans. In terms of development, the economy and the social sphere lagged behind for a long time, and there were problems with employment in eastern Germany.

One can argue with this point of view, because in the end the GDR was led by people who agreed to the scheme that formed the basis of the agreements on the future of Germany. You could also call it a betrayal. We remember how it happened. Indeed, not very joyful.

But we have no right or opportunity to betray the Russian people in Donbass and Novorossiya. We'll never do that.

Question: Israel's brutality against civilians in Gaza has increased recently. How will the situation develop? Many believe that the peace process is at hand, but we do not see any prospects. How can peace be achieved in this region?

Sergey Lavrov: A real tragedy is taking place in Gaza, with no end in sight. There are many initiatives to put an end to hostilities, to declare at least a humanitarian but permanent ceasefire, to give people the opportunity to "come to their senses", return to normal living conditions, and receive humanitarian and medical assistance.

But the statements of the Israeli leadership reaffirm that they do not change their goals – to completely "cleanse" Gaza and eliminate Hamas. Although even Western representatives wonder how this can be done 100%. Moreover, Israeli generals and ministers say that everyone in Gaza is Hamas, i.e. it turns out that it is necessary to destroy all the inhabitants. One of them even said that children born in the sector become extremists by the age of three. By this logic, there really may be no one left there.

We are also concerned that on the eve of the holy month of Ramadan, an operation is being prepared to clean up Rafah, where two thirds of the entire population of Gaza has gathered, fleeing violence in the rest of the Strip. If the clean-up of Rafah begins, a huge number of refugees will go to Egypt, and Cairo has repeatedly stated that this is unacceptable. This would be de facto ethnic cleansing.

There are statements that the Gaza Strip should be a buffer zone for Tel Aviv. The Israeli leadership has said that it is not about the creation of a Palestinian state, but about ensuring the security of the Jewish state of Israel. This is 100% contrary to all UN decisions, common sense and the principles of justice. It only means that the Palestinians can be thrown out of the land where their ancestors lived and all their rights are disregarded. In addition to Gaza, serious events are taking place in the West Bank, where raids by the Israeli army against Palestinians have become more frequent. So it's still in full swing.

In response to the question "Can Russia help normalise the situation?" the Americans, through one of their official representatives, said that Moscow could not effectively promote a Middle East settlement, saying that it did not have such capabilities. Which again leads to the question of when and what did the Americans do effectively in the Middle East? Including Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli relations in general. What is the efficiency? Is it that they recognised the Golan Heights as Israeli territory in violation of the UN Security Council resolution? Or that they disbanded the Quartet of international mediators, which dealt with the fundamental issues that need to be resolved for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Let them give an example where they have achieved effective results.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is now engaged in diplomacy – he has traveled throughout the Middle East several times over the past five months. Behind-the-scenes meetings are held with the participation of the Americans (either in Paris, or in Doha, or elsewhere in the region). Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, Qatar, the UAE – in various combinations – are attracted there. All this is being done in a rather non-transparent manner.

The leaked information suggests one thing: it is not at all about eliminating the causes of periodic outbreaks of violence in the Palestinian territories and in the Middle East as a whole. As far as I understand, they are working out a plan for a ceasefire, at least temporarily, how many hostages to exchange for how many Palestinians are in Israeli prisons, and how to deliver humanitarian aid. Yes, it is important.

The Arab countries have made it clear to the Americans that they will not invest in the reconstruction of Gaza if they once again "drag down" the goal of creating a Palestinian state. According to our information, the Americans and some other Western countries are now toying with the idea of simply declaring that Palestine has become the 194th member of the United Nations. Palestine will have a permanent representative with all the same rights as the rest of the UN membership. A beautiful "announcement" to divert attention to the propaganda effect. "On the ground" try to leave everything as it is.

If this is the effectiveness (which the Americans would like to see) of diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, it will not change anything. Everything will remain in an explosive state, as it was in recent decades, when it was periodically implemented in practice in severe forms.

We are convinced that a Palestinian state is not a whim, not just a UN decision. Without its implementation, it will be impossible to stop the violence in the Middle East and calm the Arab "street" that sees injustice and how this injustice is being perpetuated.

We have long advocated that the Palestinians first restore unity among all the factions in Gaza and the West Bank. First of all, we call on Fatah and Hamas to unite and reconcile on the terms contained in the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It is first and foremost important from the point of view of the unity of the Palestinian people, as it recognizes the State of Israel. If all Palestinians were united on this platform, there would probably be no pretext for blocking the resumption of direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Until recently, our Israeli colleagues said that they were in favour of negotiations, but there was no single negotiator on the other side, they were fragmented and did not know what they wanted. We consider it necessary to take this step as soon as possible.

The divisions between the Palestinian factions are deep. Recently, not for the first time, we invited all of them to Moscow. Everyone has arrived. As I was told, it was a useful conversation.

Here in Antalya, I spoke with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Compatriots of the State of Palestine Radiz al-Maliki. He received a report from his colleagues on how their Moscow meeting went. He noted with satisfaction that the communiqué signed by all Palestinian factions recognized the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organization. If that is the case, and we need to understand and study the final statements, then that would be an important step. Palestinian unity is something that the Palestinians can do on their own, without looking back at anyone.

We will continue to make our modest efforts to implement the decisions of the UN Security Council, and not to pretend that we respect them.

Question: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has announced the temporary suspension of Armenia's participation in the CSTO. Didn't it come as a surprise to you? What steps can Russia take in response to Yerevan's behavior and its policy in this direction?

Sergey Lavrov: Did they write it down for you, as you have just read it out?

I have already touched upon what is happening in the South Caucasus. We regret that the Armenian leadership has apparently made a conscious decision to consistently pursue a policy of deteriorating relations with the Russian Federation and blaming Russia for everything that happened to Nagorno-Karabakh. It's not allied.

In addition to the fabrications that I have already quoted, one of the main accusations is the statements of Armenian officials that it was Russia that in September 2020 pushed Azerbaijan, as they said, to start a war. These are thankless assessments. It was Russia that stopped this war. It could have stopped much earlier, when the Azerbaijanis had not yet taken Shusha. But then Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, in response to President Vladimir Putin's appeals, said that they would fight to the end. Again, we could have stopped much earlier. There were options that made it possible to return Azerbaijani refugees to Shusha, keeping this city as part of Karabakh. But this is a past stage.

The statement that the Collective Security Treaty Organization "abandoned" Armenia in trouble is also not true. The CSTO, in response to Yerevan's request, sent its mission of experts to study the situation on the ground. After their return, they proposed to deploy a peacekeeping observer mission on the Armenian territory on the border with Azerbaijan.

At the meeting of the CSTO foreign ministers in Yerevan in November 2022, on the eve of the CSTO summit, we agreed textually, verbatim, to the last comma, on the text of the mandate of the CSTO peacekeepers on Armenian territory. We did it until late in the evening. Everyone confirmed that the document was ready. In the morning, it was submitted for approval by the heads of state of the CSTO Summit as an agreed document between the ministries of foreign affairs and defense. Everyone was in favor. However, Nikol Pashinyan, who chaired the CSTO summit meeting, said that this document does not suit Yerevan because the organisation did not come out with a sharp condemnation of Azerbaijan's actions.

At about the same time, the European Union offered to deploy its observers in Armenia. Nikol Pashinyan immediately agreed, although the EU has never condemned Azerbaijan.

We asked why there was such a different attitude. We were told that we, as allies, had a duty to condemn. And they are not allies, and you don't have to condemn them. That's how I feel about those conversations.

I can cite many additional examples. The Armenian leadership decided to rely on non-regional countries that are courting Yerevan and promising to help it in all its troubles, as long as Armenia "breaks" relations with Russia and the integration structures created in our common region. The West does not hide this. This is its main goal in relations with the countries of Central Asia, Armenia and any other states of the post-Soviet space. Our allies and friends are well aware of this and are faithful to their commitments. The Armenian leadership decided to make different decisions. We cannot forbid them from making any statements or announcements regarding our future relations.

At the end of the day, everyone must rely on the opinion of their peoples. If this is the opinion of the Armenian people, then let it be a new policy of the Yerevan authorities. It takes political courage to say that since 1991 Armenia has taken the wrong course in its relations with Russia. If this is the assessment of the entire Armenian leadership, based on the opinion of the people, then it makes it necessary to revise many things in Russian-Armenian relations.

We are waiting for official confirmation of what the final decision will be. The Armenians say that the CSTO will de facto "freeze", but if they want, they will de jure "freeze" and leave. According to them, they are still interested in the EAEU, because, they say, they get something from there. The picture is not very pretty.

We would like our Armenian colleagues and partners to decide for themselves how they are going to continue to live and implement the agreements that bind us in various integration structures on a reciprocal basis.

IMO, Pashinyan has sold his soul. Certainly not a carbon copy of yesterday’s panel session. I must very decidedly disagree with Lavrov and Russia’s policy in Palestine. There’s a very large accumulation of evidence sine the outset of Zionism that its project requires Genocide, and that has repeatedly been voiced by the current Zionist leadership and confirmed by polling the Zionist populace. That the Palestinians were divided and that circumstance used as an excuse by the Zionists not to negotiate is 100% bogus because it was the Zionists who divided them. Lavrov and Russia are such fastidious objective historians that I find it close to incomprehensible that they have no clue about the Zionist reality. This blind spot hurts Russian credibility. It sincerely makes it difficult to support Russian initiatives elsewhere. Lavrov himself notes the identical nature of the genocidal polices of the Kiev Nazis towards Russian speakers and Zionist policies towards all Palestinians. If he sees that, then why the hell is there a policy blind spot?

On Germany, there’s been some discussion of the 2+4 Treaty that provided for the joining of the Soviet sector—East Germany, the DDR—to the three reconstituted sectors which had become West Germany, the FRG. The export of German weapons to Ukraine is a direct violation of that treaty as would export of the Taurus missile, yet there’s been no mention or question to Lavrov about that issue. Is it being treated the same way as all the broken OSCE Treaties on the indivisibility of security and promises to not expand NATO? That somewhat makes sense if that’s the case as Russia isn’t going to reoccupy the territory of the former DDR.

No mention of Moldova or Transdniestria. The Haiti example is excellent and hideous as it exposes the sort of Colonial Master the Outlaw US Empire was and is, and what Europe should now expect since it’s now the Empire’s newest collective colony, which is what Pashinyan and Sandu so desperately want to join—or subject themselves to would be more accurate. What will Russia do when those two governments don’t respect the will of their citizenry when they get voted out of office?

That the conference was productive is good, but many questions remain. Humanity must rid itself of hegemony and establish global peace for the first time in modern history. That goal will be difficult since the hegemonic forces don’t want that outcome; they want to continue to plunder and rape and generate chaos. I know the idea of Bloc Politics is scorned by Russia and China, but the reality is the world’s already breaking into two distinct camps and two Blocs will emerge, although the Multipolar Bloc will be an independent, not lock-step arrangement. How long that will last once the new international financial/commercial system gets going is unknown but will be at least one generation.

*
*
*
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!