Lavrov's Chat with Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson and Mario Naufal
The suspense of waiting several days for this to be posted is now relieved. Judge Napolitano has his own English video at his site that will be released by the time I’m done editing the transcript. The MFA’s video is Russian voice-over, making is hard to understand. The chat/interview lasted 90 minutes and was reported to be very amicable and informative. Hard to say if anything new will be disclosed. Will need to read to answer that question:
Question: Mr Minister, it is an honour for me to talk to you. My first question after I spoke with the people of Moscow. The perception of the United States has changed dramatically. They have a completely different description of the United States under President Donald Trump. Do you think the United States has fundamentally changed culturally? And not just perception? And also Americans' perception of Russia and President Putin?
Sergey Lavrov: I think that what is happening now in the United States can be described as a return to normality. The United States has always been a country of two major parties that are fighting with each other, replacing each other in the White House. But the division that has occurred over the years that I have had the opportunity to work in the United States (since 1981 I have been on several long business trips) is absolutely striking in comparison with the current time. The main distinguishing feature of the Democrats from the Republicans was more or less taxes, abortions, things that were part of ordinary Christian life within the framework of traditional values. All politics was built on a dispute with each other, but within the framework of values that everyone accepted.
With the advent of neoconservative (mainly neoliberal) ideas, the gap has become deeper and wider. Its apogee was the first election of Donald Trump to the presidency. It was a surprise for him then. He admitted that he had not even prepared much. Now he is ready. This is obvious. Only 49 days have passed since he took office, and we can already see the rich agenda that he presented to the public.
I believe that this break was primarily due to the departure from the Christian values of the then ruling Democratic Party. Through the endless promotion of the LGBT+ agenda (the organization is recognized as extremist, its activities are banned on the territory of Russia by the decision of the Supreme Court of 11/30/2023). One toilet for all genders.
I was once in Sweden, where an OSCE meeting was taking place. It was in a stadium that had been converted into a ministerial meeting. I needed to freshen up, and then I saw a sign for a public toilet. I asked the person who accompanied me, "Is it male or female?" I would not want any of my friends to experience something like this. This is one of the small examples of how this difference is manifested.
But the Midwest of America, the so-called industrial belt (the "rust belt") was not ready to accept these "values." However, the fanatical persistence with which they were implanted among citizens prompted many to come to the realization that they were unacceptable. That is why they supported Donald Trump.
So we are talking about a return to "normality" in the form in which we understand it. We are Orthodox Christians. Our values are generally similar. Although now Catholicism is increasingly deviating towards new trends. They are incomprehensible and unacceptable to us.
It is a fact that a normal administration has come to power, which does not profess anti-Christian ideas. However, this provoked a real explosion in the media and in the political arena around the world. Which says a lot.
When we met in Riyadh with US Secretary of State Mark Rubio, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and US Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East Stephen Witkoff, they said that they wanted normal relations in the sense that the basis of US foreign policy under the Trump administration was the protection of US national interests. This is an absolute that is not subject to discussion.
At the same time, Americans understand that other countries also have their own national interests. And with these states, which have their own national interests and do not want to follow the lead of others, they are ready for serious negotiations.
Obviously, the United States and Russia are states whose national interests will never be identical. They cannot coincide completely, even by 50%. But when they do coincide, in such situations, we, as responsible politicians, must do everything to develop these similarities, to put them into practice, so that they develop for the benefit of the parties, be it economic or infrastructure projects or something else.
There was also a "message". When interests do not coincide or contradict, responsible countries must do everything to prevent these contradictions from escalating into confrontation. Not to mention a military confrontation that would have catastrophic consequences for other countries.
We told them that we fully share this logic. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has this approach to the implementation of our foreign policy. From the very moment he became president, he has invariably emphasised in his contacts that we do not impose anything on anyone and strive to find a balance of interests. In other words, the logic is absolutely the same.
You know, some would say that Russia is now changing, turning away from the East, China, India, Africa. This is an illusion. To be honest, euphoria has no place in foreign policy.
Let me give you an example. For many decades, China has been developing relations with the United States based on the formula I have just cited. They sometimes criticise each other, which we have no objection to. In modern diplomacy, a new language is being mastered in general. However, the dialogue between these countries has never stopped. They say, "Hands off Taiwan" and "Hands off the South China Sea." But at the same time, they continue to meet and talk. This is the same approach, the same logic that the Trump administration is now using in its relations with the Russian Federation. And this is the only right approach.
I don't know two people whose views would coincide 100%. The same applies to relations between states. There are countries that can have a significant impact on the fate of the whole world, because they are military nuclear powers and bear special responsibility on their shoulders. They should not "shout" at each other, but instead sit down at the negotiating table and communicate. Something like cowboys in Hollywood movies: "You know that I know that you know that I know that I know what you want to tell me."
Question Napolitano: Mr Minister, it is a great honour for me to be here. I wish you a happy birthday in advance. You have a special date ahead of you. Soon after you, I will also celebrate my birthday. No, not on the same day. Later. We are the same age. Thank you very much for inviting me.
I want to talk to you about NATO and, in particular, about the reaction of the Russian Foreign Ministry to the betrayal by the alliance. How will the Foreign Ministry perceive if and when the United States withdraws from NATO?
Sergey Lavrov: This is a long story about illusions, hopes and disappointments in a partnership that grew into rivalry, and then into confrontation and hostility.
I will not repeat here the story of how US Secretary of State John Baker and others promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move an inch to the East. Then they changed their promise because the GDR and the FRG had reunited. This was legally enshrined on paper. Now they claim that there was no legal obligation not to expand NATO. Of course, if you believe that it is only possible to give legal obligations in court, then you definitely need a clear legal framework. But if you are a person of dignity and honour, then when you give political assurances, you are obliged to fulfill them. When Germany was reunited, it was a legal document recorded in the 2+4 format. It said that the GDR would become part of the Federal Republic of Germany and thus become part of NATO. But it was recorded that no infrastructure of the North Atlantic Alliance would be deployed on the former territory of the GDR. They are still violating this. At present, they are deploying NATO command structures on the former territory of the GDR (in East Germany). The leader of the USSR, M.S. Gorbachev, believed that he had been given his word of honor. It was with great disappointment that we noted how NATO first accepted East Germany into its ranks, and then, by 2004, expanded even further to include the three Baltic republics that were once part of the Soviet Union. Then this expansion continued, absorbing more and more countries that wanted to become members of the alliance.
In 1997, Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov proposed establishing contacts between NATO and the Russian Federation. The Russia-NATO Founding Act was adopted, based on equality, mutual respect and cooperation in various fields, including against terrorism and illegal migration.
On this basis, the Russia-NATO Council was established, through which 80-90 projects are implemented annually. In particular, there was a cooperation programme on Afghanistan. The Americans used Russian helicopters, paid for them, and we serviced them. Helicopters created back in Soviet times were best suited to Afghan conditions, to fight terrorism and counter the illegal drug trade.
But NATO expansion continued. This was back in the era of Boris Yeltsin's presidency. Yevgeny Primakov has already taken up the post of Prime Minister of Russia. In 1999, the OSCE summit was held in Istanbul. Boris Yeltsin took part in it. Meetings were held with his colleagues from the United States and European countries. They decided to dispel any fears about NATO and its future plans. It was necessary to adopt a strong political declaration on the indivisibility of security. This is how the Istanbul Declaration was adopted, which states that each country can choose its allies, but no country has the right to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. And most importantly, no country, group of countries or organisations in the OSCE can claim a dominant role. NATO did the exact opposite.
The start of the special military operation, which, as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated, was a forced step, because all other attempts and alternatives to turn the current situation in a positive direction failed. Almost ten years after the coup d'état in Kiev, which took place the day after the signing of the agreement guaranteed by the Germans, the French and the Poles. It was about the need to hold general elections within five months, and a government of national unity was to be formed for this transitional period. However, the day after the signing of this agreement, government buildings were seized, they went to the Maidan and announced that they had created a new "government of winners." Winners and national unity are different things. I hope that a government of national unity will be created in Syria, although it is still dangerous there.
Be that as it may, let's go back to Ukraine. These people came to power as a result of a coup d'état. The first thing they announced was the abolition of the status of the Russian language. Then they sent militants to storm the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea. Then they called the citizens of southern and eastern Ukraine "terrorists" who dared to say that since these people came to power during a coup d'état, they refused to follow their instructions and asked to be left alone. They were declared "terrorists" and an "anti-terrorist operation" was launched against them. Against their own citizens. This led to a war that ended in February 2015 with the signing of the Minsk Agreements. Now the President of France is trying to interpret this as if Vladimir Putin did not want to comply with them. It was quite an amusing speech on the part of Emmanuel Macron (which, by the way, also concerned NATO), because he said that France would be able to "protect" everyone with its three or four nuclear warheads.
But then we spent 17 hours of continuous talks in Minsk. The Minsk agreements were signed. After they were signed, they were supported by the UN Security Council. An interesting point. When we completed the talks, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko, with the support of French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said that he would not sign this document until it was signed by the separatists, as he called them. The heads of the two self-proclaimed republics (Donetsk and Lugansk) were also in Minsk, but in a different hotel. They said that they would not sign this document because it was agreed without them. This document provided for the territorial integrity of Ukraine with the granting of a special status to these two small territories. They had already declared their independence and could not betray the people who trusted them. We had to persuade them to sign this document, which really spoke of a special status within Ukraine, of the Russian language, of the right to approve the candidacies of prosecutors and judges appointed to these regions. All this had to be enshrined in the Constitution, and the exact wording had to be agreed directly between Kiev and the two republics. This became part of the Minsk agreements approved by the UN Security Council. Soon after they came into force, the Germans, the French and the Ukrainians started saying that they had never spoken to the "separatists".
French President Emmanuel Macron was in Moscow just a couple of weeks before the start of the special military operation. At a news conference, and then during the notorious telephone conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, which he himself made public, Emmanuel Macron told President Vladimir Putin that he could not insist that the "legitimate government of Ukraine" agree to negotiate with the "separatists." The President of Russia objected to this, noting that they came to power as a result of a coup d'état and should be grateful to all of us for trying to somehow legitimize this whole situation and this country. We should not forget that the Minsk agreements directly state the need for a direct dialogue with those leaders whom they call "separatists."
The way the French and Germans behaved is shameful. In the end, those who signed on behalf of Ukraine, Germany and France–-Petr Poroshenko, Angela Merkel and François Hollande–-said in an interview (now in retirement) that they had never intended to implement these agreements. They just needed to buy time to pump Ukraine with weapons. NATO played a key role in this Ramstein process, led by the United States during the Biden era. Now, as I understand it, the Americans want to "transfer" it to the British. The Europeans do not stop their efforts. On the contrary, they are building them up and demanding more and more support, becoming more persistent and, I would even say, nervous.
The question of whether NATO can survive without the United States has arisen from these considerations. I do not think that the Americans will withdraw from NATO. At least, US President Donald Trump has never even hinted that this could happen. But he said bluntly that if NATO member countries want the United States to protect them and give security guarantees, then they should pay as much as necessary. It is still necessary to discuss how much is needed—2.5 or 5%. He also said that those who meet the criteria for the share of GDP that should be contributed to the NATO budget will receive security guarantees from the United States.
But Donald Trump does not want to provide them to Ukraine, led by Vladimir Zelensky. He has his own view of the situation, which he regularly and directly states. This war should never have started. Ukraine's accession to NATO is a violation of its Constitution, a violation of the 1991 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, on the basis of which Ukraine was recognised as a sovereign state. This happened for several reasons, including the fact that it spoke of the non-aligned and neutral status of the state. It also confirmed and enshrined that all the rights of Russians and all other ethnic minorities must be respected. All this can still be found in the Constitution of Ukraine, despite the fact that a number of laws adopted at Bankova Street since 2019 have led to a complete legal ban on the Russian language: in the media, education, culture, and in everyday life. If you come to a store and ask the seller to help you in Russian, he may demand that you speak the "right" language. This is what happens.
The situation changed when the Ukrainian regime included "NATO membership" in the Constitution, while maintaining the guarantees of national minorities. They said that NATO and the EU are the future of Ukraine. When they first started talking about it, the European Union still retained some semblance of economic unification, but now it has completely lost this characteristic. "Führer Ursula" is mobilizing everyone for the remilitarization of Europe. They are talking about some incredible money. Many people think that this is a ploy to divert the attention of the population from tens and hundreds of billions of euros spent without proper audit during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and during the provision of assistance to Ukraine. All this is currently being discussed.
The EU has lost its independence, its economic importance. A representative of the German government said that they would never restore gas supplies through the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, because, they said, they had to get rid of dependence on Russian gas. But this was the basis for the prosperity of the German economy. Now Germans pay four to five times more for gas than similar industries in the United States. German business is moving there.
Europe is being deindustrialised. They are ready to sacrifice all this just for the sake of achieving an ideological goal – "victory" over Russia on the battlefield. They spoke about the need to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia. Now they are saying that they will not accept the surrender of Ukraine. What a turnaround. This is a change. This, as German Foreign Minister Anna Baerbock said, is a "360-degree turn."
The European Union is no longer a peaceful economic project. They want to have their own army. As for the future of NATO, there are voices about creating their own military alliance, "their own NATO", since the United States does not want to actively interfere in European affairs. This is a game in development. Some statements are aimed at "testing the waters", seeing a reaction from the other side of the ocean.
On January 10, 2023, the EU and NATO signed a Joint Declaration on Cooperation, which subordinated the EU to the North Atlantic Alliance, giving it the so-called mobility: NATO troops can use the territory of non-NATO states that are members of the EU. If such states still remain. Austria, Ireland... In fact, it is not so important, because they always "think east".
As for the "peace-loving" people, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that Ukraine is now weak, it is not treated fairly, so peace is worse than war for it today. And so she said. She called for pumping Ukraine with weapons again, and then, they say, this will undermine Russia's position and, they say, it will be clear what to talk about. The head of the German Federal Intelligence Service, Bruno Kahl, recently said that it would be bad for Ukraine and Europe if the war ended before 2029, or better yet, in 2030.
US President Donald Trump insistently demanded that Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office answer the question why he did not want to hold talks. Vladimir Zelensky tried to evade the answer. Of course, the new US administration is concerned (to put it mildly) about the violations that were committed during the Biden era: the Pentagon's supply of weapons to Ukraine without control over where this money went. Elon Musk is trying to do this. We do not get any pleasure from this. After all, these are the Biden administration, Ursula von der Leyen and her commission, the British, who regularly accuse Russia of corruption and human rights violations and who start discussing any international problem with human rights. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. South Africa, they say, violated human rights by adopting a law on land. There are several formats of interaction between the West and Central Asia, and human rights are always a priority.
In Ukraine, where the Russian language has been eradicated legally and physically (a special agency makes sure that this legislation is fully implemented), no one except us has ever mentioned human rights. Now Hungarians and Bulgarians have begun to raise this issue, because they also have their own minorities in Ukraine. This country was created mainly by Joseph Stalin after World War II. Borders were drawn in the same way as the colonial powers did in Africa.Look at the map of Africa. The borders are simply drawn along a ruler. In the case of Ukraine and its neighbours, the situation is different. There was an individual approach, but there was also a division by nation.
After the coup d'état, when we began to talk with the then President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko, he promised that he would never allow a war between the Ukrainian army and the citizens of Eastern Ukraine. He then promised that they would be faithful to their obligations to ethnic minorities.
We had serious discussions on federalisation with then-US Secretary of State John Kerry, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, and Acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andriy Deshchytsia. This was in April 2014, and we had serious discussions. No one mentioned Crimea. The matter had already been resolved. We drafted a document (the Geneva Statement of April 17, 2014). It said that the heads of Ukrainian regions should jointly discuss how to continue living in a state that used to be unitary, but that the rights of minorities should also matter. That was 2014, and then everyone "forgot" about it.
Vladimir Zelensky also came to power under the slogan that he would implement the Minsk Agreements. A few months after his inauguration, he said completely different things: that they were a unitary state, that there would be no special status, that he did not talk to the "separatists," and so on.
Another lie that the French President voiced in his recent pathetic statement concerns the meeting in December 2019 in Paris between Emmanuel Macron, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. Allegedly, the Germans and the French convened it to save the Minsk Agreements. The preparatory work culminated in the development of a consensus document coordinated by experts and ministers of the four countries. Then it was presented to the presidents and the Chancellor. It spoke about the need to disengage forces on the line of contact: first in the three districts and then along the entire length of the line of contact. This was agreed. When we showed it to the leaders, everyone was satisfied. However, Vladimir Zelensky said that he could only agree to try to do this in the three "experimental" areas, and not along the entire line of contact. No one could understand why, but he insisted. The main thing is that he never withdrew troops even in these three places. Hostilities continued.
And then NATO intervened in this. NATO, of course, supplied weapons, intelligence. This continues to this day. The Americans announced that they were withdrawing (perhaps temporarily, or maybe not) their instructors and experts who helped guide high-tech missiles, but other countries weren’t leaving.
One more point about NATO. Previously, they were proud to be a defensive alliance. The only thing they care about is the protection of the territories of member states. In 2022, at the summit in Madrid, then-Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that they needed to be more active in the Indo-Pacific region. When asked by a journalist that the alliance used to talk only about protecting the territories of member states, Jens Stoltenberg said that yes, of course, and added that now threats to the alliance come from the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, etc.
The organisation has begun to build its own non-inclusive blocs: "troikas", "quads", "aukus". They contributed to the creation of the Indo-Pacific Quartet (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea) and developed their cooperation with Japan and South Korea. Nuclear elements are already being involved and discussed in joint exercises with South Korea. As far as I know, the alliance plans to open a representative office in Tokyo or on one of the Japanese islands. They are trying to "pull" some countries out of ASEAN and include them in "closed clubs" with limited membership. The Philippines and Singapore are prime examples.
The concept of security has been developed by ASEAN for many decades and included everyone on an equal basis, including neighboring countries: China, the United States, India, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. ASEAN is based on consensus, but now this principle has been significantly undermined. This coincided with a period when we began to rethink our own security and Eurasian security (Eurasian, not European).
On each continent–-in Africa and Latin America–-there are organizations of a continental scale: the African Union, CELAC (in Latin America and the Caribbean). Only Eurasia, the largest, most prosperous, developed and richest continent, does not have its own continent-wide organization.
All of Russia's attempts to become part of any process of security cooperation have been linked to Euro-Atlantic schemes: the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council. The EU will soon become Euro-Atlantic, too. None of this has worked.
We are now trying to discuss, without imposing anything on anyone, the vision of the Eurasian continental architecture, without anticipating the form, but just to sit down and talk about the basis for the openness of this hypothetically possible architecture for all countries of the continent. Let them keep NATO or the OSCE, if they want to. However, there are the EAEU, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN. There is the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation–-not very active, but still. The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf is now normalizing its relations with Iran. And we are contributing to this.
Most of this subregional activity is economic. It would be great if we joined forces and organised a division of labour in order to save money and effort to harmonise economic plans. President of Russia Vladimir Putin called this the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Perhaps in many years it will become the material basis for a certain security architecture that will not and should not be close to the western part of the continent.
Question: I am not sure that I trust my own country. I know that the Russian government is quite sincerely seeking a diplomatic solution.
I am concerned about what I continue to hear from people in important positions. I remember how the United States cynically developed relations with China in 1972 under then-President Richard Nixon. This was done with the obvious aim of trying to drive a wedge between the USSR and China. I know that Edward Colby, who will be the third highest-ranking person in the US Department of Defense (is a candidate for the post of Deputy Secretary of Defense). They see China as an enemy and believe that they can divide relations between Russia and China and again use (not you personally, Mr Minister) Russia as a wedge against China. This is nonsense. Unlike the United States, the Russian government takes its agreements seriously and adheres to them.
What do you think will be Russia's approach to this trick on the part of the United States? On the one hand, they extend a hand of friendship to you, but at the same time they do not give up their desire to destroy your country, as well as to cynically use you against the Chinese.
Sergey Lavrov: We have already gone through this. You mentioned 1972, when US President Richard Nixon wanted relations in this "triangle" to be as follows: relations between the United States and China, and between the United States and the USSR, should be better than relations between Moscow and Beijing.
This is quite an interesting philosophical construct. But the current situation is radically different. We have never had such a good and trusting relationship with China in the long term that it enjoys the support of the people of both countries. The Americans know that we will never violate our legal, but also political, obligations that bind us to China.
Of course, we have problems and difficulties in our relations. In many respects, they are explained by the sanctions, because companies want to avoid such a "punishment". Some very promising logistics and infrastructure projects in Siberia have been postponed. But we are not in a hurry. The Chinese are especially never in a hurry. They always look "beyond the horizon". This is the national mentality. We respect this.
Probably, I will not reveal a secret that when Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden met in Geneva in June 2021 (it was at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic), a brief conversation took place in the presence of only foreign ministers. Joe Biden said at the time that he was beginning to rethink the absolutism of democracy because countries with authoritarian governments are coping with the COVID-19 pandemic much better than the United States. They say that each state has its own freedom of action, they decide whether to vaccinate or not. But, according to Joe Biden, China and Russia have coped with this challenge much better than other countries.
This is a philosophical discussion. Guided by the same logic, one can speculate whether four or maybe even two years are enough to cope with such challenges. Especially given the complex, modern, sophisticated technologies that require restructuring sectors of the economy. If the midterm elections are lost, Congress will not allow the implementation of the plan.
I think the answer is this: each country should independently determine its fate and future. This is fully consistent with the UN Charter, which refers to the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs.
I will cite one example: Afghanistan. The experiment in imposing democracy has completely failed because the centuries-old habits, customs, and unwritten rules of this civilization have been completely ignored. One should be very careful about any imposition. D. Trump has already announced his desire to organize a meeting of three countries--the United States, China and Russia—to discuss nuclear weapons and security issues. We are open to any format based on mutual respect, equality and rejection of predetermined decisions. If our Chinese friends are interested, the decision is theirs.
But this does not negate the importance of the Russian-American dialogue on strategic stability. Donald Trump and his administration have repeatedly expressed interest in resuming such discussions. President Vladimir Putin, in turn, said that this is an area for which we bear special responsibility in light of the fact that the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-III) expires in a year.
This is an approach that is in stark contrast to the previous one, which was followed by the Biden administration. They said, "Let's resume the implementation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty." But allow us to visit some of your nuclear facilities. We replied to them: "You have declared us enemies and declared your desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia." They replied that this was the case, but that this did not rule out tactical and technical visits.
As I said at the very beginning, Donald Trump's position is that, no matter what differences we have, we must not allow them to escalate into war. And if there are coinciding interests, then we should not miss the chance to turn it into something practical and useful.
Question: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that we are entering an era of a multipolar world. You said that the Chinese and, to some extent, the Russians always look "beyond the horizon" and ignore short-term events. In the future, do you think (perhaps I am a little ahead of events, but) is it possible in the next ten years not only to normalise relations between Russia and the United States, but also, possibly, to create an alliance between our countries? This question is of concern to many people.
Sergey Lavrov: Historically (this is deeply rooted in our mentality), "alliance" means that you unite against someone. Multipolarity, which Marco Rubio recognised, is different.
How can you recognize multipolarity without taking into account such great countries as China, India, Africa as a huge continent, Latin America as a whole, Brazil and a number of other players?
Multipolarity, in my opinion, will continue to develop for a long time. Perhaps it will take an entire historical era. This is only my vision. This multipolar world can consist of superpowers in terms of their size, economic weight, and military power, especially nuclear power. Of course, countries such as the United States, China and Russia can all be classified in this category.
Other, smaller players can also participate in the multipolar world through sub-regional structures. For example, ASEAN, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, the League of Arab States. African Union. The latter, by the way, became a permanent member of the G20 at the summit in 2024. We are for it.
The G20 is a format that is now proving its usefulness not only in financial and economic terms, but also in political terms. It can play a positive role in the process of establishing a multipolar world.
We still see the remnants of hostility, but the rule of consensus is in force. Voting is not held there. That is why this format is more promising compared to the UN General Assembly. Every time they fail to achieve something in the UN Security Council, they turn to the UN General Assembly, where they put on a whole show with accusations, with voting, etc.
But Secretary of State Marco Rubio is not the only one who talks about multipolarity. Speaking about the root causes of the crisis, Donald Trump spoke about NATO, I have already mentioned his words. We insist that any approach, any attempt to get closer to a solution to the Ukrainian crisis, any initiative (most of them are very vague) should be focused on eradicating the root causes of the conflict.
Donald Trump confirmed that one of the root causes was the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance, which posed a threat to Russia's security. By the way, in the new realities after January 20 of this year, I would like to emphasise that the importance of Ukraine for Russia's security is many times greater than the importance of Greenland for the security of the United States.
The second aspect of the root causes of the conflict. I have already mentioned the eradication of the Russian language, media and culture, the ban on opposition parties and some opposition media outlets, even though they write and broadcast in Ukrainian, the murders and disappearances of journalists, not to mention war crimes against people in Donbass immediately after the coup d'état. These people were called "terrorists." All this grossly violates the UN Charter, which states that everyone must respect the rights of everyone, regardless of race, gender, language or religion. This is Article 1 of the UN Charter.
I spoke with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. I drew the attention of journalists to the UN when I came there and held news conferences. I also drew the attention of journalists to a number of topics that were used by the West to condemn Russia as a "notorious criminal." It all started in July 2014 with the downing of Malaysian Boeing MH17.
The trial was held with the participation of only one face-to-face witness, 12 others were not presented. Their names are unknown. But the jury said that their testimony could be relied on and they confirmed their words. So the case is still very murky.
The case of the poisoning in Salisbury and the fate of the Skripals. Our official appeals to the British authorities with questions about the fate and whereabouts of Russian citizens are completely ignored. The British made a scandal, blamed us and used this situation to toughen sanctions. And then they "forgot" about this incident.
The same applies to the situation with Alexey Navalny, who died in prison while serving his sentence. A couple of years earlier, he was treated for alleged poisoning in Russia. Less than 24 hours after the poisoning, he was taken to Germany, where he was treated. This is an interesting story. We asked the Germans questions. After all, he is our citizen, and we would like to know the truth about what happened to him. They said that the civilian hospital did not find anything, so he was sent for treatment to a military hospital in the Bundeswehr, where, as we were told, a substance called Novichok was found in his blood. We asked to see the test. This is completely natural: he is our citizen, and we are accused of mistreating him. We were told that they would not provide us with this information because we could find out what level of expertise they had in the field of biological agents. Therefore, they will pass on all information to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
We turned to this organisation and reminded them that we were also members of this organisation, and the German side said that it was now your responsibility. We were confirmed that the Federal Republic of Germany had given them this information, but on the condition that they would not show it to us. This is so childish, but at the same time tragic.
I have repeatedly asked many Western journalists in public why they, being professionals in their field, do not want to know the truth about a man whom the West has made a martyr against the "evil" Russian Federation. Do you want to know what really happened to him, how and with what he was treated, including in Germany, before he returned to Russia?
And one more recent case. Bucha. As a gesture of goodwill for the signing of the Istanbul Agreement in April 2022, we withdrew from several settlements on the outskirts of Kyiv. Two days after we left this settlement, the BBC showed the central street of Bucha with corpses neatly laid out along the entire route on both sides of the road. Of course, there was a wave of indignation. We insisted on an investigation. But so far, no one cares about it. We want to know the names of the people whose bodies were shown by the BBC.
I raised this issue publicly twice at the UN Security Council in the presence of the Secretary-General, as well as during personal meetings with him. We sent official requests to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was no response. Twice in New York, I raised this issue with all foreign correspondents, appealing to their professional duty. In vain.
Speaking about human rights and the sincerity of our Western friends. Europe and the UK want all this to continue. The way they received Vladimir Zelensky in London after the scandal in Washington shows that they want to raise the stakes and are preparing something to push the Trump administration to take aggressive actions against Russia. We take a philosophical approach to this. We know what we are doing.
What is most striking is their obsession with peacekeepers. French President Emmanuel Macron says let's stop the war, "peacekeepers" will be deployed in a month, and then we'll see what to do next.
First of all, this is not what is required to end the war that the West is waging against us through the Ukrainians through the direct participation of their military. We are aware of this. If NATO enlargement is recognised, at least by Donald Trump, as one of the root causes, then the presence of NATO troops under any flag and in any capacity on Ukrainian soil is the same threat to us.
Question: Will you accept this under any circumstances?
Sergey Lavrov: Under no circumstances. No one is talking to us. They continue to claim that there is nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, but they are doing everything against Russia without Russia. When US President Donald Trump was asked about peacekeepers, he replied that it was too early to discuss this, but usually the consent of all parties is required. Why should we agree to a peacekeeping force or some kind of peacekeeping group? They want such a force to consist of countries that have declared us an enemy. Will they come there as peacekeepers?
Second. We are talking about the rights and fates of people who live not only in the liberated territories, but also in the territories under the control of the Kiev regime. Most of them speak Russian. They grew up on Russian culture and want their children to know and learn Russian. I asked whether the law or its parts banning the Russian language will be repealed in the territory that will remain of Ukraine. There is no answer. See.
Hence another question: will they leave a monument to S. Bandera, who collaborated with Adolf Hitler and was convicted in absentia by the Nuremberg Tribunal? This monument was shown to the Israeli Foreign Minister for the first time. He said that he had never suspected that such a thing could happen.
It turns out that the rest of Ukraine would have preserved this monument and the ban on the Russian language, would have organized marches, torchlight processions with the symbols of SS divisions. Then, with all due respect, it would not have been a "peacekeeping" unit, a group or a force that maintains peace. It would have been a part that supports and protects the Nazi regime. And so on endlessly. This is completely unacceptable.
Question: Can I ask about the Gaza Strip? President of Russia Vladimir Putin expressed indignation over the genocide in Gaza. What is the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry if the Netanyahu regime attacks Iran? The Prime Minister of Israel has publicly made such a threat.
Sergey Lavrov: We have always had good relations with Benjamin Netanyahu. Vladimir Putin has always emphasised that it is impossible to resolve the issue without the creation of a Palestinian state and without reliable security guarantees for Israel.
Both states were created by a resolution of the General Assembly in 1948, I do not remember the exact wording, but the essence is that the condition for the creation and existence of one state was the creation and existence of the second.
Now, everyone who talks about the need for a Palestinian state is talking about the 1967 borders, which are very different from the 1948 borders, which were supposed to be the borders of Israel and Palestine. If you look at the map now, the 1967 borders are "space" compared to what they are, and the West Bank is all dotted with Israeli settlements.
I have seen numerous reports that the Israelis have decided to annex the West Bank in a "special" way, taking full control of it, not expelling Palestinians, but concentrating them in a few municipalities. Not in the camps, but in the municipalities.
Question: Is Iran part of the current talks? Do the peace talks on Ukraine include other geopolitical issues? Are Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump talking exclusively about Ukraine? Or could the topics include other geopolitical interests of Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: We discussed the situation in the Persian Gulf, as well as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme. We are in favour of restoring the original programme that the Americans abandoned during Donald Trump's first presidency. There are some contacts with Europeans as well. We are in favour of resuming the format envisaged by the original deal approved by the UN Security Council (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and China) and Iran. We will see how everything goes.
But worryingly, there are some signs that the Americans would like this new deal to be accompanied by political conditions under which Iran undertakes to undergo checks confirming that it does not support groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. I don't think this option will work.
All the countries of the Persian Gulf have influence beyond the borders of their kingdoms, emirates. In North Africa, they are implementing quite a lot of humanitarian and economic programs. They act as intermediaries. For example, Sudan. The internal crisis in this country is being solved in one way or another by some players from the Persian Gulf. Therefore, I believe that a situation in which everyone, except Iran, will have the right to exert influence on other countries in the region, is an unrealizable scenario.
Question: How would you comment on President Putin's statements in June 2024 regarding the terms of a settlement for the start of talks with Ukraine? My vision of this is that President Vladimir Putin's position has remained unchanged. As far as I see it, yours is the same as that of the President. The same was said by your deputy, Sergey Ryabkov. But I think that there are people in the West who believe that you are saying one thing, but in fact you have different views.
Sergey Lavrov: Let them be mistaken. Our conscience is transparent and pure. Not because we rarely use it. But because we have been burned many times. But in the context of this particular crisis, we know what needs to be done in order not to compromise that would endanger people's lives.
We are not talking about territories, but about people who have been stripped of their history by law. Even before the start of the special military operation, when the war continued in violation of the Minsk Agreements, Vladimir Zelensky was asked in an interview in September 2021 what he thought about the people on the other side of the contact line. He said (all this can be found on the Internet) that there are people and there are "individuals." Then he added that if someone living in Ukraine feels that he is part of Russian culture, he advises them to leave for Russia and get out of Ukraine for the sake of their children, for the sake of the future of their grandchildren. And this is being said by a man who, just a few years earlier, as an actor and then running for president, called for an end to the "attack" on the Russian language. These words of his are available in the recording.
The sequence of these events has forced us to focus entirely on achieving results that would benefit the people and save them. There are those who say that we must return Ukraine to the borders of 1991 and that Russia must "leave."
Territories are important only because people live on them. And those living on these lands, which Vladimir Zelensky wants to return, are the descendants of those who built Odessa, other cities, ports and roads for hundreds of years, who developed these lands and were connected with the history of this land.
By the way, UNESCO, under enormous pressure from Ukraine, announced that the center of Odessa is now a World Cultural Heritage Site. The city deserved it. But the decision was announced a week after the demolition of the monument to Catherine the Great, the founder of Odessa. It was demolished and thrown away. And UNESCO just continued to behave as if nothing had happened.
I will give a brief chronology of events. There were two candidates in the 2004 elections. One was "pro-Russian", the other was considered "pro-American". He was married to an American political scientist. In the second round of the 2004 elections, a pro-Russian candidate won. But the crowd, incited mainly by Europeans, demanded a revision of these results. Under enormous pressure, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine decided to hold a third round, which is not provided for by the Constitution of this country. The Constitutional Court expanded the constitutional procedures without any right. As a result, the pro-Western candidate V.A. Yushchenko won. Well good. There was no "Maidan", no revolution, no one incited anyone to anything.
In the next presidential election, Viktor Yanukovych won. It was a fair victory, and no one doubts it-–a candidate who was considered pro-Russian. Then, in 2013, Viktor Yanukovych (maybe even earlier, but in 2013 it culminated) began negotiations with the EU on the conclusion of the Association Agreement. This became known.
It is impossible to hide this. Our experts began to explain to our Ukrainian colleagues that if they conclude an agreement with the EU, they will have to introduce zero tariffs on many goods. And Ukraine already has zero tariffs with Russia, because there is a free trade zone in the CIS. But we have protective duties on the EU, which we agreed on when we joined the WTO. Therefore, a situation may arise when European goods, against which we have agreed on protection, will calmly enter Ukraine. And since there is no customs border between Ukraine and Russia, we will have to close the border.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin even suggested that the European Commission, which was then headed by Josep Marc Barroso, sit down together–-the EU, Russia and Ukraine–-and see how we can settle these differences so that no one suffers. Jean-Marc Barroso replied that it was none of your business, we were not discussing your trade with Canada. Do what you want.
Then Viktor Yanukovych asked to postpone the signing of this Association Agreement and said that he needed more time to understand how best to overcome these problems. This was the trigger for the Maidan. It was well prepared–- hundreds of tents of the same model, the same colour, everything was the same. This coup d'état reached its culmination in February 2014, when Germany, France and Poland were mediators in the talks between the legitimate president and the opposition. This is how it began.
They reached an agreement, which, as I said, was thwarted the next morning, when the opposition announced that they were now in power, a government. If they had fulfilled the agreement that they signed with the help of the Germans, the French and the Poles, Ukraine would now be exactly where they wanted it to be, within the 1991 borders, including Crimea. But they decided not to wait, because they would have had to wait five months for early elections, which would have been won by them. Because the electorate in Ukraine has been heavily manipulated by USAID. The figures that are now emerging and that President Donald Trump voiced in Congress... After this coup d'état, Victoria Nuland said that they had done a lot for the victory of democracy in Ukraine. She said about this particular revolution that they spent five billion dollars.
Then there were the Minsk agreements. If they had fulfilled them, Ukraine would still have been within the 1991 borders, but without Crimea. Because Crimea was never mentioned during the Minsk talks. Everyone understood that it was a clean, honest vote of the people. There were hundreds of Western observers, not official, but members of parliament.
In April 2022, Russian-Ukrainian talks were held in Istanbul. And now French President Emmanuel Macron says that Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to impose something on Vladimir Zelensky at that time. This is another lie of Emmanuel Macron. Because the document that was initialed by us and the Ukrainians was prepared by the Ukrainian side. We accepted it. It was quite straightforward: no NATO, no military bases, no military exercises. Instead of NATO, guarantees are provided by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany and Turkey. And the list of guarantors was open to everyone who would like to join. These guarantees do not apply to Crimea and the part of Donbass that was controlled by Russia at that time. The Ukrainians initialed these principles. It was their decision. And these principles were initialed. On their basis, the treaty was developed. Then the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered the Ukrainians not to sign and to continue fighting.
Just as the head of the German Federal Intelligence Service, Bruno Kahl, is now saying that they should not stop until 2029.
Therefore, if they had cooperated and implemented their own initiative, they would still have the borders of 1991 without Crimea, without any part of Donbass.
Every time they cheat, they lose. This process continues.
Question: They say that you are the Clemens von Metternich of the modern era. But I think this is wrong. I must say that Clemens von Metternich was the Sergei Lavrov of his era. [My Emphasis]
Russian perceptions of the Outlaw US Empire were the surprise for me. IMO, Christian values were never adopted, mouthed yes, but lived no. Which came first: Neoliberalism or Neoconism? IMO, the entire Anti-Communist Crusade was a Neocon affair along with all the crazy plans to destroy the USSR with Nukes that were initially started by Winston Churchill in 1945, Churchill being the Lead Neocon. Indeed, both philosophies are European in origin. That Trump was elected again only because of D-Party ideological idiocy only touches the surface. Those idiocies were easily corrected, but now people are only now awakening to the deeper ideological moves Team Trump will now try to enact that are core features of the Heritage Foundation Libertarian Billionaire ethos and dreams of Grover Norquist.
Russians are perplexed by the West’s seeming inability to listen, which is reflected in all the denials of Russia’s right of legal access to the evidence of many events its accused of. It’s GHW Bush and Wolfowitz coming together to announce a New World Order that doesn’t include Russia or China as active participants: Don’t worry what we promised the Russians; they don’t matter anymore—what we say goes! And that attitude is still present within the Outlaw US Empire. We just saw it in yesterday’s theatre. As if it wasn’t clear already, Lavrov again stated that Russia is prepared to go all the way to the SMO’s logical end, and IMO it must to denazify Ukraine and liberate all Russian-speakers that want to be liberated. The Odessa crap I saw as a big slap in the face to all Russians.
One problem Trump has is the war DID start in 2014—it was an act of aggressive war waged on Ukraine and its people by the Outlaw US Empire led by Obama’s regime but prepared ever since 1945 when Nazism was preserved by that same Empire in Ukraine and disseminated globally. The Empire clearly used its own brand of Nazis to carry out the Maidan attacks, the Coup, and the ensuing War that immediately commenced, which also suggests the Ukrainian military was already compromised and allied with the Nazis. How else to explain the lack of a revolt by the military at the outset? All of the above has a legal aspect to it since the waging of Aggressive War was deemed THE #1 War Crime because it enables all the war crimes that follow. A large plurality exists within Russia for a Nuremburg 2.0 and likely within the Ukrainian polity—Russia didn’t cause the war. The Outlaw US Empire and its NATO allies were all involved along with the Nazi Junta. Those are the primary criminals needing arrest and trial. No such questions on that key topic were asked and Russia hasn’t said anything major, although its prosecutor’s office and courts are continually trying and sentencing those war criminals it has in custody and others in abstentia as weekly announced by Maria Zakharova in her briefings.
IMO, Lavrov made it clear that it’s the Outlaw US Empire that must change its ways. Russia is ready for that but is wary about the longevity of such a thaw in relations. There are already hints that the “Men in suits wearing black sunglasses” have already entered the picture as Simplicius suggests at the end of the free portion of his latest pay article and have persuaded Trump to alter course. That this chat occurred prior to that event IMO would have changed its content somewhat. I will suggest those that have the time and inclination to revisit the Carlson interviews of Putin and Lavrov primarily to note the continuity, consistency and steadfastness of Russian policy.