In Georgia, the attempt at a color revolution is apparently currently taking place, because the government there does not follow the anti-Russian course desired by the West and has neither imposed sanctions on Russia nor supply weapons to Ukraine. Georgia is very important for the West in the fight against Russia because it is another country directly on Russia's borders with which you can cause problems for Russia.
The law on foreign agents, with which Georgia wanted to restrict foreign influence on its policy, must serve as a hanger for attempted color revolution. Although the Georgian government has withdrawn the law, the demonstrators supported by the West want to continue demonstrating.
On this - and on the parallels in Ukraine in 2014 - the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was interviewed in the big interview and I translated the questions and his answers.
Began the translation:
Question: I would like to start with a question about the latest news. The situation in Tbilisi: The government has met virtually all the demands of the demonstrators without setting any restrictive conditions without demanding any concessions from the demonstrators. Nevertheless, we hear that the protests will continue. The demands of the demonstrators are getting louder and louder. It is beginning to resemble the Kiev Maidan of 2014. What's going on? And how far do you think it can still go?
Sergei Lavrov: It is very similar to the Maidan in Kiev. There is no doubt that the law on the registration of non-governmental organizations that receive 20 percent of their budget from abroad was only a pretext to start the attempt at a violent change of power.
If you take the law yourself and compare it - as many political scientists have done in recent days when the unrest in Tbilisi began - it "fade" compared to the way the activity of non-governmental organizations in the USA, France, India and Israel is regulated. You can watch it all.
A violation of the law in the USA can be punished with a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison. In Georgia, the amounts are incomparably lower: about 9,000 US dollars and no criminal prosecution. (Note d. Over: Western media conceal this, but laws on foreign agents are an invention of the USA, which already enacted the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1938)
Despite the fact that some European countries have much stricter standards on this issue, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, explained without batting an eyelid, that the law promoted by the Georgians, the ruling party "Georgian Dream", contradicts European values and blocks Georgia's accession to the EU. The hypocrisy is obvious.
The government, the governing coalition and the governing parties have finally announced that they will withdraw this law, as I have heard, and release about 170 arrested agitator. And this despite the fact that there is video evidence of the violence they have exercised. These are violations of all democratic norms and should be prosecuted. Nevertheless, the government has released them. And the opposition said without even taking a deep breath: No, you only met us in the first question, and now you are resigning.
The position of the West, as well as that of the US State Department, which explains in a pathetic tone that such an attitude towards civil society is unacceptable, makes you smile. These are exactly the "rules" that the West is talking about. We speak of international law, but he speaks of "rules" on which the world order can be based. In Georgia, the opposition may not only do what it wants, but should even do it, while in Moldova protests against the current government are condemned. Because the opposition in Georgia represents the interests of the West, while the opposition in Moldova represents other interests, and the government and the president of the country represent Western interests.
Literally before our eyes, two similar situations unfold with protests. The protests in Tbilisi were anything but peaceful. As you could see, the demonstrators overturned cars and used tear gas and smoke bombs. I can't remember that this was the case in Chisinau. Even if it was a similar action, the attitude is fundamentally different. In my opinion, all countries around the Russian Federation should draw conclusions from how dangerous it is to be drawn into the zone of responsibility that is of interest to the USA. This zone now extends to the whole world. We have already talked about it. It is no coincidence that the USA and its NATO allies, when they comment on the events in Ukraine and our military operation, demand a strategic defeat of the Russian Federation on the battlefield and thus expressly acknowledge that it is an existential conflict. The interests of the West in global security, the prospects for its hegemony under the leadership of the USA and the prospects for its dominance in world affairs depend on its outcome.
Question: It seems to me that what is happening in Tbilisi is similar to the events in Kiev in 2014 in another respect. In Kiev, there was a government led by President Yanukovych, which, contrary to the accusations, was by no means an ally of Russia. They said that they wanted to associate with the EU and choose the European way. Don't you think it's like a "half pregnancy"? The countries, the governments in the post-Soviet area that have chosen this path into the "transatlantic area" have already given up a large part of their sovereignty. It was difficult for them to protect themselves, and they themselves limited Russia's ability to come to their aid.
Sergei Lavrov: Definitely. I even start with 2004 and not with the Maidan in 2014. In 2004, there were again problems with the election in Ukraine. Even then, the so-called pro-Russian forces opposed those on whom the West relied.
I still remember well how EU officials and foreign ministers of these countries publicly called on Ukrainian voters to decide who they want to be with: with Russia or Europe. The rhetoric of the "either-or" has been heard since 2004, when our relations with the EU were almost unclouded: plans for common spaces were outlined, social and economic integration were seriously discussed, agreements on facilitation and the subsequent transition to visa-free travel began to take shape, a common area of security and economic development from the English Channel to Vladivostok and so on.
The philosophy "with us or with Russia" has been cultivated by the EU since the beginning of the geopolitical situation after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly commented on this in talks and interviews. In 2013, Ukraine was on the verge of concluding an association agreement with the EU. At that time, we were not informed about the negotiations, although Russia had extensive trade, investment and other economic relations with Ukraine. The Ukrainian friends, the Yanukovych government, were not pro-Ukrainian at all. They were busy establishing close association relationships with the EU.
Question: She was certainly not pro-Russian.
Sergei Lavrov: No, of course not. You negotiated with the EU without informing us. We knew they were negotiating. But our polite and delicate requests to exchange assessments were ignored. Russia did not want to "spread sand into the gear", not to grant "permission" or take on the role of the "hegemon". The thing is that the negotiations were about the things that were regulated by our relations with Ukraine in other formats, within the CIS, where a free trade agreement was in force.
We asked questions. If you "set zero" all tariffs in trade with the EU, as the press wrote, while we also have none, then there is a problem. We do not have zero tariffs with the EU, but we have very serious protective tariffs, which we negotiated for seventeen years during the negotiations on accession to the WTO.
Finally, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his employees have recognized that this could be a problem and that Russia, if no measures are taken, would simply close the border with Ukraine for the duty-free import of goods, otherwise the electricity from the EU, against which we protect ourselves in the WTO, would flow in. And during the Eastern Partnership Summit in autumn 2013, Yanukovych asked that the signing of the agreement be postponed.
Previously, we had spoken out in favor of expert consultations in the three-way format Russia-Ukraine-EU Commission in order to put our existing trade regulations with Ukraine and the EU as well as the plans of Brussels and Kiev on the table for signature. Barroso, the then president of the EU Commission, arrogantly declared that this is none of our business because the EU is not interested in Russian-Canadian trade and rejected an expert meeting.
After Yanukovych recognized the severity of the negative trade and economic consequences of signing the association agreement with the EU, which was not coordinated with Russia and the CIS Free Trade Area, he asked the Eastern Partnership summit to postpone the process. That was the trigger for the Maidan.
Question: I remember how outraged the Lithuanian heads of government were: "How now? Despite his shortcomings, we are ready to talk to Yanukovych. And he behaves so wrong."
Sergei Lavrov: You let him enter the "decent society."
Question: Exactly. Let's look at the conflict in Ukraine. From the point of view of the "collective West", his attitude towards Ukraine is a matter of course today. I don't have to tell you that this violates the American diplomatic tradition. The first US president, George Washington, categorically warned the US against interfering in European conflicts that are not directly involved with American interests. Many other American presidents have said the same thing.
Let's stop who is right in the dispute over Ukraine. It is clear why this is an existential problem for Russia. Why is the "collective West" so indignant and "it on its hind legs"? Was there really something in Ukraine that was very important to the West, or were they waiting for a pretext to "go to the throat" Russia that has become a convenient target to demonstrate this anger and unity?
Sergei Lavrov: I think there are both reasons. They waited for a pretext to "go to the throat" of Russia and for the right moment to do that. Russia began to be perceived as an too independent actor. We gained economic strength, not as much as China or India, but we are still among the leading economies. We have a serious moral and political position on the international stage. We comment on the most important questions of the developing countries from the position of justice and the criticism of the system that the West wants to maintain in the postcolonial era, according to the principle that it wants to live at the expense of others.
I did not answer the previous question about Georgia. The events in Georgia are "orchestrated" from the outside and are of the same kind. It is the desire to create an "at" at Russia's borders, and this in a country where the current government - like the Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych in 2013 - thinks primarily of the economic interests of its state and refuses to join the anti-Russian sanctions. Their motivation lies not in the fact that they are pro-Russian politicians, but in the fact that economic and trade relations with the Russian Federation - our gas supplies, their deliveries of wine, cognac, "Borjomi", agricultural products - make up the lion's share of the revenue of Georgian foreign trade. They do not want to do without it, although they are forced to sacrifice their national interests. Both were by no means pro-Russian governments, but they thought for themselves and did not do what they were told.
I reminded how the Americans convince: "You have to do this and that." To the question "What do we get for it?" usually follows the answer: "In return, we will not punish you." I don't see an equal, mutually beneficial exchange, no mutual agreements.
Russia has really been declared an existential, immediate "threat" that must be removed in the shortest possible time. China is declared as the next threat - so far with the phrase "a long-term, permanent challenge of the West in the world." The Russian Federation has so far taken precedence in the plans, rhetoric and actions of the West. At the same time, the sanctions wars against China have begun, in particular the ban on China's access to all materials and technologies that could help Beijing make "breakthroughs", such as semiconductors, microchips and more. They are aware of this. It is certain that the sanction pressure on China will only increase. This was practically announced.
End of translation