Sergey Lavrov's Remarks & Media Answers at the Diplomatic Club, Moscow, 15 May

Quite a lengthy interaction thanks to the usual fine detail Lavrov provides.

As Lavrov notes in his opening remarks, The Diplomatic Club was an ongoing annual event prior to the Covid-19 crisis and languished until yesterday. The event is about an hour and twenty minutes long, so be prepared for a long read.

Dear Colleagues,

Your Excellency,

Friends

I am happy to welcome you on the wonderful occasion – the resumption of the work of the Diplomatic Club.

We have been using this format for quite a long time. It was very popular. Then the pandemic began. After the pandemic, there was inertia. And when the special military operation began, we introduced the practice of meeting the Minister with ambassadors to explain our actions in connection with the Ukrainian crisis. Eight such meetings have already taken place (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). The next one is planned for the very near future.

I am glad that we are now resuming the full-fledged work of the Diplomatic Club, which will be devoted to the consideration of all the problems of interest to you, including with the involvement of our expert community, academics, cultural figures, artists and, of course, representatives of the Russian regions. I am glad to see here the Governor of the Nizhny Novgorod Region Georgy Nikitin, who pays a lot of attention to the external factors of the development of his region and the strengthening of ties in the context of our foreign policy.

We are also interested in the involvement of those who work with the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy. It was on this platform that the traditions of the Diplomatic Club were born. I would like to thank Acting Rector Sergey Shitkov, all the other organisers, and, of course, VEB.RF for the opportunity. Russian business is also a very important part of your work here in the Russian capital. And we will do everything we can to ensure that business diplomacy allows you to better understand the tasks set before you by your leaders and to determine the most effective ways to implement them.

I want to make a brief introductory speech, and then there will be an interactive dialogue–-this is the most interesting thing in terms of communicating with the audience.

Contrary to all the forecasts of futurologists, the profession of a diplomat remains in demand. We are more and more convinced of this. Yes, they say that artificial intelligence is stepping on its heels. But the heels of a diplomat are strong, and it is certainly not the "Achilles' heel" in our body. If you are a normal diplomat, then no artificial intelligence can replace your natural intelligence, intuition, experience and erudition. The erudition of artificial intelligence is a little different; we have come across it.

Creative solutions can only be found by a living person with erudition experience. This is what diplomacy is all about. There are a huge number of such solutions today-–inventive, creative, based on stable principles, on a balance of interests so that crises do not break out again later. Everyone is now hearing about Ukraine in connection with the intrigue unfolding in Istanbul literally in these hours and minutes. But let's not forget about the tragedy of Gaza, the tragedy of the Palestinian territories in general, and other problems in the Middle East, which were created as a result of the absolutely reckless and aggressive policy of NATO countries, which resort to armed force without any hesitation, when they dislike something or someone.

Remember how they destroyed Iraq, and then it turned out that they destroyed it in vain, because there were no weapons of mass destruction there. What to do? In his memoirs, Tony Blair lamented and that's it. Libya was destroyed simply in order to take revenge on Muammar Gaddafi for his independent policy and at the same time to hide the well-known facts that he financed one of the candidates in the presidential elections in France. This candidate, who later became president, was very reluctant to disclose the facts that he received money from a foreign country. There are a huge number of such examples. All this was done under the pretentious statements about the need to protect democracy, human rights and much more.

In addition to the ongoing direct crises, I would also like to mention Yemen and the problem the West has with the Houthi movement. There are other situations that require negotiation skills. Take the Iranian nuclear programme and a number of other problems that arise in the process of geopolitical transformation of the world, geopolitical struggle, when ambitions collide. Take what is happening now in the Asia-Pacific region, which, in order to give its policy a clear anti-Chinese orientation, the West has begun to call the Indo-Pacific region, hoping thereby to additionally gain the opportunity to pit our great friends and neighbours, India and China, against each other. This is the policy of "divide and rule" (President of Russia Vladimir Putin recently recalled it again).

As for the Asia-Pacific region, there are important geopolitical spaces, one of them is Central Asia. Many diplomatic processes are now underway around it. I think the Central Asia + 1 format has already exceeded a dozen-–there are so many people who want to develop relations with our Central Asian friends.

Take what is happening in and around Southeast Asia. Our Western colleagues, as in any other part of the world, want to play a major role here and undermine the central role of ASEAN, which suited everyone for many decades and was based on the formation of a unifying space by the ASEAN countries and their dialogue partners in the fields of politics, military cooperation and defence. All this was based on the rules that were invented and approved by the ASEAN members themselves. All dialogue partners, when they joined this format, solemnly promised to comply with these rules.

The rules of consensus and the rules for finding common ground–-our Western colleagues are slowly pushing all this aside and are trying to lure some ASEAN members into openly confrontational rather than unifying formats–-various troikas and quartets. The leaders of the NATO secretariat are already seriously declaring that, as an alliance to protect the territories of member countries, they are forced to deploy their infrastructure in Southeast Asia, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and so on, because it is from there, allegedly, that direct military threats to the alliance countries are now emanating. The fact that these are, to put it mildly, fantasies, and not very decent, do not even need to be proved.

Of course, there are also regional processes. I mentioned the Iranian nuclear programme, but there are processes between all the coastal states of the Persian Gulf–-Iran and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, which includes six Arab monarchies. There are also processes of normalization of relations between them. We welcome this as well.

If we take our Eurasian continent, where great civilizations continue to exist—Chinese and Indian. Now the Ottoman civilization is also being revived. We hope that the process of this revival will be harmonized with other sub-regional trends, so that all these processes conditioned by thousands of years do not contradict each other but are embodied in a kind of "cohabitation". There are no other continents like Eurasia where so many civilizations coexist and preserve their identity and relevance in the modern era.

At the same time, Eurasia is the only continent where there is no continental-wide structure. In Africa, there is the African Union, which is our great friends. Yes, there are also sub-regional formats, but above them there is a continent-wide African Union. There are also many sub-regional integration processes in Latin America and the Caribbean, but there is also a continental, region-wide one–-the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). There is nothing like this in Eurasia. There is a need for such a unifying process, including in order to harmonize the interests of many large, truly great powers and civilisations. Until now, such processes have been observed only in the western part of Eurasia, and all of them, in fact, were based on the Euro-Atlantic concept. These are NATO, the OSCE, which was created as a Euro-Atlantic structure. This is the European Union, strange as it may seem. Let me explain now.

Of course, the European Union was created for completely different purposes. It was created in order to unite efforts, promote more effective economic development of European countries (it is easier to do this together) and through the acceleration of economic development to solve social problems that post-war Europe experienced in abundance. But in recent years, the European Union has also become a Euro-Atlantic "construct" because everything it does is coordinated with the North Atlantic Alliance. A couple of years ago, the Declaration on Cooperation between NATO and the EU was signed, in which the European Union provides its capabilities, including territory, transport infrastructure and everything that may be needed, to NATO, if, for example, they want to transfer more troops and military equipment to the borders of our country. This is openly discussed.

As for the rest of the Eurasian continent, there was a useful initiative by the first President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to create a Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. This initiative was actively developed. Now, after many years when Kazakhstan headed this structure, Azerbaijan chairs this meeting, and the process of transforming this meeting into an organization is underway. This is a manifestation of the very tendency towards unification. We welcome it. But in the end, we should still talk about moving towards the creation of a continent-wide structure, as is the case in Africa and Latin America. Maybe it should not be called an organization. A continent-wide process. The main thing is that it should be open to all countries of Eurasia without exception. Not only for the European or only Asian part of the continent, but for all countries and associations that have a clearly defined Eurasian context.

The process is not easy, but you always have to start somewhere. Typically, this kind of thing starts with thinking. We are very grateful to our Belarusian friends. A couple of years ago, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko initiated the annual Conference on Eurasian Security. Two have already taken place (1, 2), the third is due this fall. The conference will be annual. In the context of these discussions, Russia, together with Belarus, proposes to start developing a Eurasian Charter on Multipolarity and Diversity in the 21st Century, inviting, I stress, all countries located on the Eurasian continent without exception, including the western part of Eurasia, when our colleagues of "that space" (from the western part of the continent) are ready to talk not "through the lip", as they have been doing recently. not condescendingly, without the rudeness that they regularly allow themselves in relation to Russia and other countries, but will be ready for a conversation on the basis of the principles that they signed up to when they joined the United Nations.

The main principle is the sovereign equality of states. And all the other principles of the Charter are absolutely adequate and relevant. The only trouble is that the West either does not comply with them at all, as in the case of the sovereign equality of states, or observes, as we say, "as God wills," that is, when it is convenient for it, it pulls out one principle, completely forgetting about the others. With regard to Kosovo, everyone knows, they said that this is the self-determination of the Kosovo people. With regard to Crimea, they said that this is a violation of territorial integrity. And why is this not self-determination? There was a referendum in Crimea, but there was no referendum in Kosovo. With regard to Ukraine, our Western colleagues, as well as some non-Western ones, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, with whom I spoke several times, continue to say that we are in favour of resolving the crisis on the basis of the UN Charter and Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Well, you are the Secretary-General, and you should probably read the Charter in its entirety. Where is the principle of self-determination, which came in handy in Kosovo and which was recognised as absolutely modern and applicable by the International Court of Justice, which said that the secession of a part of a state into an independent entity does not necessarily require the consent of the central authorities? This is written. The Secretary-General must not forget about the principle of self-determination, especially since he represents a country that used to be a metropolis. And the process of decolonisation, liberation from the oppression of the metropolis, was based on the international legal principle of self-determination of peoples.

Back in 1970, the UN General Assembly stated that yes, everyone should respect the territorial integrity of states, but those states whose governments observe the principle of self-determination of peoples and, by virtue of this, represent the entire population living on the corresponding territory. Did the metropolises in the middle of the last century represent the peoples of the African continent? Of course not. And the peoples decided that since everything coincides here, there is the right of nations to self-determination, there is justice in the end, and the authorities that did not suit the colonial peoples ceased to be such.

Who can say that the government that came to power in Ukraine in 2014 as a result of a coup d'état represented the people of Crimea, Donbass, and now represents the people who have professed Russian culture for centuries, whose ancestors founded these cities, plants, factories, ports, and who have now been declared the "non-indigenous" people of Ukraine, who have banned the Russian language in all countries? Where is at least one voice from the Western camp? After all, when the West considers any situation when they speak at the UN, or simply during other events, no matter what country you take–-Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Iran, any country–-human rights are necessarily present in the morals that the West constantly reads.

For interest, starting in 2014, go online and leaf through everything you can look through. If you find at least one statement by at least one Western leader criticising human rights in Ukraine. Probably, our friends from Hungary consistently defend the rights of the Hungarian national minority, make such statements, while those who imagine themselves to be the leaders of the "free world"–-France, Britain, Germany, not to mention Poland and the Baltic states-–never. And the European bureaucracy, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and others like her, when we call for the implementation of the principles of the UN Charter, including the requirement to respect human rights regardless of race, gender, language and religion, and language and religion are exactly what is categorically prohibited by law in Ukraine, when we say, "Influence your "clients", at least when they wake up in the morning still able to hear something, demand that they repeal these laws, and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and other figures say that Ukraine defends European values. That's all. This means that Europe is in favour of Nazism, because it flourishes in Ukraine and is legitimised in the holidays dedicated to collaborators who fought on the side of Nazi Germany.

Why am I saying this in such detail? Many people have been fussing in Europe now, especially about the meeting in Istanbul. I will conclude with what I started with. At first, Vladimir Zelensky made some statements that he "demands that President of Russia Vladimir Putin come in person." He is a pathetic man. Everyone understands it, except for himself and those who are "puppeteering" them. His "senior comrades" explained to him that he should not behave so stupidly, that negotiations are needed.

Over the past three or four days, the West has pushed back the word "truce". We have explained it in detail. French President Emmanuel Macron gave an interview three days ago, he said that we need talks, meetings, but they must do everything to ensure that the truce is the main thing, and Ukraine must approach the talks from a position of strength. This is an elementary answer. This is a sincere admission of why a truce is needed. In order to pump up Ukraine, so that it prepares for negotiations from a position of strength.

French President Emmanuel Macron has explained that this is not what this is all about. The Americans supported our President's proposal that talks should be given a chance. No one guarantees that everything will go smoothly and without problems. On the contrary, there will definitely be problems, as happened three years ago in Istanbul, when the initialed principles were ready to be put on a treaty paper, and the British forbade the Kiev regime to continue this process, which could have ended with a settlement. And now Britain is leading Vladimir Zelensky through the jungle of world politics. A British Prime Minister's National Security Adviser has already been seconded to Vladimir Zelensky so that he does not blurt out anything unnecessary and does not completely bury his reputation and the reputation of those who train him.

They say that something needs to be done quickly, because the United States wants to achieve results. They have much more to do than just Ukraine. The simplest result is to declare that not even because there is a war going on, not because Ukraine is under pressure from anyone, be it the West, China, Brazil, Africa or another country or group of countries, but because there is a UN Charter that says about human rights, including language and religion, that there is a series of conventions on the rights of national minorities to which Ukraine is a party. These are conventions both under the auspices of the UN and under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Among other things, there is also the Constitution of Ukraine, which stipulates the obligation of the state to respect the rights of Russians (highlighted separately) and other national minorities and is listed in education, in the media, everywhere.

Why did the Western "curators" of the Kiev regime not advise, or even insist, that they announce the abolition of all laws that violate the UN Charter, international conventions and the Constitution of Ukraine itself? That would be the result. This would cost nothing to either the Americans or the Europeans. Washington always promotes the slogan of "human rights." And here we need to return the regime to normality. This is not a concession. This is the fulfillment of what you signed up to and at one time they believed you.

I said more than I planned. Let's move on to interactive mode.

Question: We have talked a lot today about the impact of soft power through the prism of tourism. The question will be as follows. Patriotic tourism is not the history of the past, but the present. I would like to know from you, perhaps the Russian Foreign Ministry has projects to attract new visitors to our main museums? Because our Western partners, as we know, claim that they gained the upper hand in World War II. And we did it. We were the first in space. I visited the Atom Museum, and it is a chic and innovative museum. We would like our foreign partners to understand and realise that it is Russia that is the technical and cultural "engine" for the whole world. And through the prism of our modern museums, such as the Atom Museum, the Center for Cosmonautics and Aviation, we would like the whole world to know about us as an engine that directs our world to a bright future.

Sergey Lavrov: It seems to me that any ambassador is objectively interested in ensuring that the citizens of his country, especially the leaders of his country, know more about the history of the state in which they are accredited.

There are many representatives of the diplomatic corps here. As far as I understand, they are well aware of the importance of this work, in addition to the fact that it is interesting for a normal person to get acquainted with history. But this is also important in order to apply this knowledge later.

History repeats itself, and not necessarily in the form of a farce. Sometimes it repeats itself in the form of a lesson from which you can draw some ideas for today. It is difficult for me to come up with ideas right away. If you have ideas on how to organise special events for ambassadors, we have a practice–-we do not offer to go to museums collectively, but we do offer trips around the country. We regularly announce a route several times a year. Interested ambassadors form a group. There are meetings with the leadership of the regions, visits to enterprises that form the basis of the economy of a particular region of the Russian Federation, and mandatory acquaintance with the beauty and sights.

I hope that patriotic tourism is not only monuments related to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, but also the history of our people, which is embodied in a variety of forms: in architecture, in painting, in nature.

A year ago, Governor of Nizhny Novgorod Georgy Nikitin and I held a meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers. They will never forget what they saw in Nizhny Novgorod.

I have not been there for a long time and was inspired by how it is being transformed, and carefully. It is becoming modern, but it does not lose its antiquity and spirit, which permeates nature, churches and many other facilities in this part of Russia. Therefore, we are all for it. If there are any hints on how we can stimulate the diplomatic corps more based on your experience, go ahead, please.

Before the start of the conference, I was told that the collection of the Nizhny Novgorod Treasury will be replenished, Mr. Dudakov kindly shows some of it here. Of course, this will also be such a "magnet".

Question: At the beginning of your presentation, you mentioned artificial intelligence. There are many questions. I would like to propose, perhaps, to talk about this within the framework of the Club, because I feel that the issue is not only about the illiteracy of artificial intelligence, but in the clash of the vision of my generation with the younger one.

It would be interesting if some experts could talk about this, because I share your vision on diplomacy and artificial intelligence.

Sergey Lavrov: I also catch myself thinking that time is ticking, and today's young people (and not only young people) and children perceive everything differently. For them, many things that seemed fantastic to us at their age are like semolina porridge in the morning - it is impossible to do without them.

If we talk about how generations create new ways of life, then who knows, maybe today's children who "discover" iPhones, smartphones, Huawei in kindergarten as if they were at home, and we say (when elderly people meet, discuss young people and say), they say, it's not the same now, the grass used to be greener, and the water was wetter, and in about 50 years, today's boys and girls will meet and talk. Like, yes, in our time, intelligence was artificial, and now there is nothing at all.

This is an important topic. I can tell you that in our Ministry we have a Department of International Information Security that deals with cybersecurity, but this is "narrower" than artificial intelligence. We want to reform this department. We have planned a special meeting of the Foreign Ministry Collegium within a month and a half. Now my employees are preparing it.

This must be borne in mind. Because it also touches on such fateful topics as security and development of the state. It is not for nothing that President of Russia Vladimir Putin said at an economic forum a couple of years ago that the one who will be ahead in promoting artificial intelligence in practical areas will be the leader.

I think there will be several such countries. But it should be used in diplomacy. Because earlier, when I started my career, I had to "run" through the corridors. The typist typed something for you, God forbid, she made a mistake somewhere. It was necessary to cover it up, type it again. Of course, working with a live typist is better than working with any artificial intelligence, this must also be admitted. But the process was long and drawn-out. Now everything is instantaneous. And the speed in finding what you need, it should be appreciated and this process should be improved in every possible way.

But when you get what you need, I mean facts from past history, from something fresh, for example, how the Ukrainian crisis developed, now you often have to remind the French, Germans, and British, who are blatantly lying.

French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking not so long ago (a month ago), said that Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to comply with the Minsk Agreements. Even what happened a couple of years ago, when his predecessor admitted that he was not going to implement anything, is being turned upside down. But it is important to get these facts, to refresh your knowledge by pressing a button, without having to climb through files, flip through thousands of pages. Then, when you have received or refreshed these facts, your head should work.

Question: I know what Russia's contribution to sports, culture and science is. I do not understand what Russophobia and the West's hatred of Russia are. We see that Russophobia or hatred is already a symptom. What do you think is this behaviour or approach?

It is clear that they look at us Africans as an "inferior" race. And you are white-skinned, you look like them. You are smart, you develop science and sports. Why is there such hatred for you? I want to understand.

Sergey Lavrov: There are many opinions on this matter.

I have mentioned some historical examples. Napoleon, the great emperor of France, gathered almost all of Europe into his army to attack the Russian Empire. How it all ended is known.

After the First World War, they say, Germany was offended, it was humiliated, seeds were sown so that it began to take revenge. It doesn't matter how it happened, but it is important what came out of it. It turned out again, like Napoleon's. They gathered almost all of Europe under the banner of the Third Reich and attacked the Soviet Union. And everyone attacked. Both the Spaniards and the French took part in the siege of Leningrad, not only the Germans, but almost all the leading European countries that surrendered to Hitler and did not defend their fatherland, drank coffee on the Champs-Elysees.

There were great people in France, whom we recently recalled: Charles de Gaulle and those who led the Resistance. In November 2024, we celebrated the next anniversary of the great Normandie-Niemen Regiment. All this should be appreciated. These were people who, contrary to the then authorities of their countries, went to the Resistance. It was they who defended the national pride of the same France.

Now we see almost the same thing. The Biden administration has also united all of Europe (it has added its satellites in Asia to this association: Japan, South Korea – those whom they consider obedient executors of their will) and has directed all these states against Russia. First of all, of course, in the form of financing the Kiev regime and supplying it with the most modern weapons, including for strikes deep into Russian territory. All this is also happening under Nazi slogans. The most "experienced" combat units, as they say, of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the Nazi battalions–-Azov and Aidar (recognised as terrorist and banned in the Russian Federation). They are now "raising their heads" and Vladimir Zelensky is afraid of them. And they openly wear Nazi chevrons, flags and tattoos. Torchlight processions continue in Ukraine in honour of the birthdays of Sergey Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and other traitors who shot Russians, Poles and Ukrainians themselves. When we say "denazification", we also mean this.

And why is this happening? Why is the West so restless in inflicting a "strategic defeat" on us on the battlefield? Perhaps they do not like the fact that Russia is independent.

Now Europe and the United States are diverging in their views. The Trump administration, of course, also wants to make America only great and only number one. Any administration in the United States will promote this position. The current administration has at least returned to "normality", when no matter what the contradictions, politicians, and even more so diplomats, are obliged to talk. Even when there were absolutely irreconcilable contradictions during the Cold War, there was always a dialogue. And then US President Joe Biden simply "chopped him off." And after him, the whole of Europe obediently followed the lead. And relations were broken off not diplomatically, but practically.

I was amazed when "new ideas" were discussed a year ago during the Biden administration. There were some events in the European Union, regular summits and meetings of foreign ministers. They adopted some texts on Ukraine.

Previously, we had Russia-EU summits twice a year. And we regularly (every six months) held meetings with EU ambassadors. (Just as we meet with the ambassadors of the African Union, soon we will have events through Latin America, Asia, the CIS, our closest neighbors). We invited all the EU ambassadors and a representative of the European Council to a special meeting to meet with the Foreign Minister to talk about Ukraine and ask any questions. They collectively refused. Not because I am so proud or touchy, vulnerable. When you work in any country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs invites you for a free conversation, then you are not an ambassador, you just... (I know a few words, but...) This is a disgrace for any diplomat. Therefore, we are not communicating with them now. They do not communicate with us either. Sometimes, when a specific topic is "suspended".

Returning to your question, historians will probably answer it for a long time. There have been many wars in our Russian history, which in the overwhelming majority were not started by us. But in all those wars that came to us from the East (the most famous was the Tatar-Mongol yoke), we could somehow negotiate in a humane way. And in the end, we agreed. It was about the same with the Russian-Turkish wars.

I just thought that a lot of blood was shed from the eastern flank, but in the end, they somehow achieved a mutually respectful balance, and the "guys" on the left did not calm down. They have recently confirmed again that they felt the disunity that is beginning to appear between the United States and Europe, and not only because of Ukraine, but simply because the Trump administration, first of all, wants to remove obstacles to mutually beneficial economic cooperation with Russia. We are not against it if it is really mutually beneficial and honest.

At a recent meeting with members of the Delovaya Rossiya (Business Russia) National Organisation, President of Russia explained the conditions under which those who have left the Russian market can return. Of course, we will not do this to the detriment of Russian business. Nevertheless, we are ready for this. And US President Donald Trump is interested in this, as well as in developing normal, mutually beneficial ties in the economy, finances and logistics with any country.

Apparently, a visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE is proceeding successfully. In addition, the Trump administration itself says that it has other priorities: the Iranian nuclear programme, relations between the Arabs and Israel, and China, which the United States has declared in its doctrinal documents to be the "main challenge," a challenge to Washington's goal of always being number one, so that no one is stronger in anything, neither in the economy, nor in finance, nor in military affairs. Therefore, European affairs seem to be fading into the background. Representatives of the Trump administration have even said this publicly, saying that they have proposed this, and if you don't want to, then you don't need to, let Europe deal with it itself, and they say they have other things to do, that they have other and more important things to do.

There is ample evidence that neither Berlin, nor Paris, nor Brussels, especially London, want any peace in Ukraine at all. They decide that if the United States withdraws from active support (by the way, this will be projected onto NATO as well), then Europe needs to think about itself somehow. French President Emmanuel Macron has already come up with some kind of "European army" and is ready to put his nuclear warheads in a "common cauldron." In this situation, according to our information, they are still talking to each other directly: "Europe's mobilisation against Russia must not be stopped" In this sense, Ukraine is an invaluable tool. There are a lot of mercenaries there, and instructors and active servicemen of the armies of NATO countries are working under the guise of mercenaries. Now they still want to "deliver" stabilisation forces there.

We have already explained many times that this will be absolutely unacceptable for Russia, and they continue to promote all this. We have such a word—"run into trouble".

The day before yesterday, French President Emmanuel Macron said in an interview with TF1 that they should not enter into a direct clash with Russia, otherwise there will be a third world war, and they do not want it. Therefore, they are allegedly not on the front line, but on the territory of Ukraine, a little further. This, according to him, will deter Russia, because it wants to defeat Ukraine and attack Europe. This is said by the president and not just of some country formed yesterday, but by the president of a country with a centuries-old history, culture, tradition. Trouble.

We also have such an expression, but it is impossible to understand it intellectually.

Question: We are working closely with the legislative and executive branches. And just as an initiative, I have now seen that there is a request from friendly countries (Africa and not only) in the field of tourism. You have just mentioned the need to take diplomats to the regions. This can be given a deeper meaning. And, perhaps, as an option, to make it a more planned action, interaction, a more full-fledged "cross-pollination", to revive the Coordinating Council for Tourism under the Government, which would already include, for example, diplomats... No, it won't work?

Sergey Lavrov: You need to go into diplomacy. You started with such a simple issue as diplomats' trips around the country, but you want to lobby your interests in the Government.

Question: First of all, countries have a request to see how tourism works in Russia and start B2B (business to business) interaction. I know this because I gave lectures at RSUTS in 2024 just for BRICS representatives. I know this issue from the inside. Today I heard from my colleagues that there is such a request. Some work is already underway. Perhaps we should just make it a more planned, measured agenda, which will already be integrated...

Sergey Lavrov: The Ministry of Economic Development is in charge of tourism. We do not deal with these issues but provide the best working conditions for diplomats (ambassadors and their employees) in the Russian Federation as much as we can. We are interested in them knowing more about our country. This is our niche.

Question: I understand. When they go to the regions, I would like them not only...

Sergey Lavrov: Do you want them to say that it is necessary to create a Ministry of Tourism?

Question: Not really. So that they learn more about the potential. For diplomats, this can be like a door to their business.

Sergey Lavrov: "Diplomats' business" is not a very correct combination.

Question: No, for the business of their country.

Sergey Lavrov: The governor will consider it a pleasure and an honour to ensure the programme of his visit. It is his interest to show the potential of the region. From this point of view, there is no shortage of resources.

Question: This year marks not only the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, but also the 80th anniversary of the UN. This organisation has a great anniversary. We know that you have worked at the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN for a long time. What would be your three wishes to the hero of the day in this situation?

Sergey Lavrov: I wanted to say "survive," because there was a scandal recently when the latest statistics from the UN Secretariat were published. The situation with the contribution. The UN budget is $3.72 billion. per year. And the debt, unpaid contributions that should have already been transferred but not paid, are more than half of this amount. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres or his official representative was asked what to do now, whether the UN would close. And he confidently said that it would not close, that they would be "squeezed." By the way, there is room for "tightening" there, as in any bureaucracy.

I remember when Benjamin Boutros-Ghali was Secretary-General, he received a head of state. They entered the territory where the building of the UN General Assembly and other intergovernmental bodies stands. And next to it is a "pencil case"--a 38-storey high-rise building where the Secretariat is sitting. The head of state, who was in this territory for the first time, asks how many people work in this building? The answer was: "about half." This is a joke from life.

As in any bureaucracy, there is room to shrink and save more efficiently. Especially now. We have just talked about artificial intelligence. This saves a huge amount of time.

It is wrong to "cut" the UN's capabilities. The main debtor is the United States–-about $3 billion, if we also take into account the arrears of peacekeeping operations (they have a separate budget). Russia is in third place in terms of arrears to both the regular budget and peacekeeping operations. Not because we are undisciplined, but because the sanctions imposed by Joe Biden's "group" prohibit the transfer of contributions to the UN. I have been reminding Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of this for the third year in a row. He shrugs his shoulders. It is also sad when the Secretary-General cannot ensure that a country, especially a host country that is obliged to contribute in every possible way to the normal functioning of the UN, blocks a sovereign country from transferring its contributions, which are due by law.

My friend Antonio Guterres and I had several problems. For example, then US President Barack Obama seized our diplomatic property at the end of 2016. We appealed to the General Assembly's Committee on Relations with the Host Country and presented the facts. There were also complaints against the Americans that the United States, as the host country, was obliged to ensure the work of all delegations. They restricted diplomats from leaving New York, and then even somewhere in New York they began to cut routes, a step to the left, a step to the right, and there will be some sanctions. We brought all this to the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, and it accepted the recommendation to the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps, including the possibility of arbitration. And he has not wanted to go to arbitration for nine years, although he has a direct instruction from the Committee on Relations with the Host Country.

I had a lot of questions. The simplest was the tragedy in Bucha near Kyiv, which the West used as one of the factors to disrupt the agreements between Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 and used to introduce a new package of sanctions. To this day, no one knows how the investigation ended. I have already spoken about this publicly many times, and we specifically asked the UN Human Rights Council (it has a "special commission" on Ukraine) to give us any information. Deathly silence. We know that they have some information, but they are categorically forbidden to disclose it. This means that they receive instructions from individual governments, not from collective UN bodies.

"The last cry of despair." Several times in public at the UN Security Council, in the presence of all delegations, I asked the Secretary-General, who was also in the room, whether he could at least help to obtain a list of persons whose bodies were shown by BBC journalists, who happened to be "very convenient" in this suburb of Kiev, and about whom no one else knows anything.

I will say more, the last two times in New York I held press conferences, and all the world's media were represented there. I addressed them. Dear colleagues, a journalist usually likes to dig deeper, to get to the very roots of a case, but here everything is on the surface. Can I get the names of the people whose corpses were lying there, neatly laid out along the road? No one reacted in any way. Does it make you think? Of course.

Now the Malaysian Boeing. The day before the arrival of Prime Minister of Malaysia A. Ibrahim, who was on our visit, the International Civil Aviation Organisation issued a document on the results of the investigation into the Malaysian Boeing plane crash in July 2014. This means that the leadership of this structure distributed the report, made it public before the Board of Governors got acquainted with it. It does not take into account anything that we have repeatedly noted: that Ukraine refused to respond to numerous requests to provide radar data (the fact that it was obliged to close the airspace and did not close it–-everyone knows this). This topic is omitted altogether, although we have provided data, including primary data from radars. The United States refused to provide satellite data, although they accused us and sent the relevant materials to this investigation team, stressing that the guilt of the Russian side was proven by the data that they have from satellites. And the investigation (in the final report) says that the United States said that it had data confirming the guilt of the Russian side, but did not provide it, but they believed it. A dozen and a half witnesses were questioned. Of these, only one was interviewed in person. No one saw everyone else. This is anonymous testimony included in the report. As A. Schwarzenegger in his favorite role said: "Trust me". I won't say anything more. And a lot of other inconsistencies that are in no way explained.

The UN Secretariat has been privatised. There are more than a hundred posts of Deputy Secretaries-General. The overwhelming majority of them are devoted to sectoral, secondary topics, which may be important, but do not provide access to direct control of the Secretariat's structures. The positions that provide such a way out are the Secretary General, a citizen of Portugal, a NATO member country.

There is a Under-Secretary-General, a representative of the African continent. She has certain functions, but this is not direct management. The Secretary General (a NATO country), the most important post is Deputy for Political Affairs (USA), Deputy for Peacekeeping Operations (France), Deputy for Humanitarian Operations, this is also money, the dispatch of rescuers, the transfer of humanitarian aid (Britain), the Deputy for Security of the entire UN system and its projects on the ground (Canada). The Deputy for Counter-Terrorism is the Russian Federation, but this is a very specific area. The Deputy for Socio-Economic Affairs is the PRC, this is also an important post, but it is limited to the non-political aspects of managing UN structures. A couple of years ago, we advocated starting the process of revising the criteria on the basis of which the Secretariat is formed, so that the size of the economic potential would not be the main one, as it is now (if in terms of GDP, then, of course, the West would still have an advantage), but that the formation of the Secretariat should be based on the rule enshrined in the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states. How people are hired, so that it does not depend on whether you are a man or a woman, transgender (as is now the case in Europe), so that there is a certain percentage, whether you can do it or not, whether you know it or not, whether you want it or not.

Question: At this moment, the Russian delegation is on its way to talks in Istanbul. Perhaps it has already reached the venue. What are the main theses with which we went to the talks? Ukraine has staged a real show around this event in recent days. Do you see a possibility that they may eventually be disrupted? What results of the talks, if they take place, will Moscow be satisfied?

Sergey Lavrov: I spoke about this at the very beginning. President Vladimir Putin has spoken about this many times. I will not even repeat myself. In June 2024, speaking at the Russian Foreign Ministry, he outlined our entire position. It is not the need to agree on a truce in order to pump Ukraine with weapons again and "incite" it to continue the war, but to ensure a long-term, sustainable settlement that fairly reflects the security interests of all parties involved. To do this, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes of this conflict. We have been warning for many years not to create these root causes, bearing in mind what the group of putschists who came to power in Kiev after the coup d'état in 2014 were doing: first, creating threats to Russia's security by drawing NATO infrastructure into the territory of Ukraine (NATO actively wanted this). And the second thing that the putschists were doing was the extermination of the Russian language, Russian culture, and everything that connected Ukraine and Russia in one way or another.

Denazification also fits into the second part of the answer. What the Zelensky regime is doing with regard to everything Russian is pure Nazism. And demilitarisation, because, as I have already said, among the root causes were NATO's plans to develop the territory of Ukraine, bases were planned to be created on Ukrainian territory, and naval bases in Crimea were planned even before the coup d'état. Coup d'état was supposed to implement these plans in the Sea of Azov. All this happened. The question of what military capabilities Ukraine will have is far from idle. There can be no talk of any foreign military presence here.

As for the prospects. Diplomacy is not about guessing, but about doing it. This must be done professionally. And professionally does not mean shouting into the microphone like Vladimir Zelensky, demanding that President of Russia Vladimir Putin "come here personally," but do real things. [My Emphasis]

Nowadays at almost every venue Lavrov repeats the same basic formula. Yes, there were a few non-formulaic questions which were welcome, but most of the talk was about Ukraine. And even there, not everything was covered. The issue with the UN Secretariat is very important as he’s not performing his duties to the point of refusal. It’s the “privatization” that motivates many to believe the UN Charter is a dead letter and the organization useless. Lavrov doesn’t believe that although as you read, he concedes many problems exist. In his opening, Lavrov notes that most problems arise “when ambitions collide,” and later notes “Washington's goal of always being number one,” which is an ambition that’s constantly clashing with the entire world because the Outlaw US Empire seeks that status at the expense of all other nations. Like Nazis and Zionists, the American elite think they’re exceptional when nothing’s exceptional, especially people. Someone may possess an exceptional talent but that doesn’t make that person an exceptional human. IMO, Lavrov’s answer about the generational differences relative to AI was very humble and quite correct for today’s younger generation when they reach Lavrov’s 75 years of age will marvel at the technology at that time and must about the simpler days of youth. His answer makes me wonder if someone gave him a Russian version of Alexa.

My last observation is about Russophobia and denazification. Lavrov didn’t touch on the initial reason for anti-Slavness’s roots in religion, nor do many others despite its massive importance given what was transpiring from 800-1200AD. That was also when the roots of Exceptionalism were planted in Europe in the Vatican’s corrupted version of Christianity, its megalomania and pleonexia. Nazism is just an extremist ethnocentric version of exceptionalism, much like the Vatican’s about 1050 as it went about eliminating all other forms of Christianity from the known world—a quest that appears to finally have ended. Europe’s Class System was created anew by the Church’s Feudal System, and from there we have all those instruments, ways and means Bastiat denounced as the control system devised by that Class system that remains in force today. So, yes, Nazism is very much a part of European Values as we see from the behavior of Europe’s Class System and its controllers. And this leads to the Russian SMO goal of denazification, for as we see it’s not just the Nazis within Ukraine, but the Nazis within the Western World—including the Outlaw US Empire. This issue alone IMO is why the negotiations were framed by Russia as a continuation of those aborted in 2022. One last item: Has anyone seen a published report quoting Zelensky or the Rada having repealed his no negotiation edict? I haven’t.

*
*
*
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!