Lavrov on Europe's Colonization by the Outlaw US Empire

In his interview with NTV today, Lavrov was asked a multipart question that allowed him to speak about the current nature of relations between the Outlaw US Empire, the EU, and the wider world that provides further backing for the conclusion that Dr. Hudson, myself, and others have reached about the very sorry state of the EU. All emphasis is mine:

Question: Now there is an event (as the organizers persistently reminded me) that is an alternative to Davos in terms of the level of problems discussed.

I would like to start with the "hottest". It seems that the West is now trying to find a way out of the Ukrainian situation. Judging by European statistics, fewer and fewer people there support sanctions and sanctions pressure, because they are beginning to suffer from the "boomerang". On the other hand, there are Americans and Britons who insist on continuing the war "until victorious." The way out of the situation can be different. Now Kiev says that the negotiating position is too weak, as they are trying to move them to negotiations. They would like to strengthen this position.

Today O.Scholz, E.Macron and M.Draghi came to Kyiv and met with V.A.Zelensky. Before the meeting, they said that they would persuade him to return to negotiations. The last time the Europeans also came, the whole process stalled in our country. On the other hand, now Kiev is preparing to get really heavy weapons and calls it a turning point, strengthening its negotiating positions.

In your opinion, is this not the receipt of real heavy weapons and people trained already trained a provocation that will turn the situation into a dangerous non-negotiating direction?

Sergey Lavrov: You have raised many issues. I cannot but comment on some of the points.

First, don't offend SPIEF by comparing it to Davos. Davos has long degenerated into a structure that promotes exclusively the interests of the West. They have already stopped pretending that Davos provides a platform for dialogue between all key players. Secondly, you said that the West thinks about how to solve its problems and it does not care about the problems of others. It's more complicated than that. It solves the problem for the United States, which led the movement and declared itself the master of the world (this is a unipolar world order), and everyone else must obey.

NATO has always been obedient to the United States. Now the EU has practically raised its "hands up". French President Emmanuel Macron is still trying to defend his slogan of the EU's strategic autonomy, but no one supports it anymore. The Germans were completely resigned, perhaps even happy, that the United States took over the management of Europe, ensured security, or rather, took on the further expansion of its military presence, so that Europe would never think about any autonomy. But simultaneously with the solution of this strategic long-term task formulated by the United States, the West is forced to take measures that damage it today. The same sanctions you mentioned. The slogan "defeat Russia on the battlefield" comes from the mouth of the chief diplomat of Brussels, not to mention the Anglo-Saxons, who have long stated this and continue to say this. That says a lot.

W. von der Leyen, as President of the European Commission, has publicly stated that the next step to increase sanctions should include a ban on the purchase of Russian gas, because all other measures have already been exhausted.

Everyone is well aware of the mood in Europe and the demands not to do so in order to avoid the problems that will inevitably arise if they stop buying Russian gas. Remember how at the recent Summit of the Americas, modestly held in Los Angeles, almost a third of the countries in the region boycotted it. The presidents and prime ministers of many Latin American and Caribbean countries said that the United States and Canada (two other participants in this Summit) spent more than fifty billion dollars. for Ukraine in just a few months, basically arming it. The amounts allocated by the United States to help countries and regions, including in the fight against the pandemic and the food crisis, are minuscule in comparison with these volumes.

The West wants to ensure leadership in the United States for all eternity, including not only Europe, but also the Asia-Pacific regions (AUKUS, QUAD are being created), contain China and isolate Russia. It's a global approach. NATO already has a global lockdown. About this, Jens Stoltenberg publicly said that they are an organisation that should take responsibility for global security. To the question of what NATO is. They assured us that they were a defensive alliance and were exclusively engaged in the protection of the territory of the member countries. All of this has long been buried, as is the claim that missile defense is aimed at deterring North Korea and Iran. Everyone already understands what kind of missile defense it is and who it is aimed at. In order to achieve this strategic goal, the West, firstly, is ready to "hurt" its citizens for the sake of geopolitical ambitions, and secondly, it forces everyone else to act according to the same principle, resorting to direct blackmail, threats, ultimatums or all sorts of low-grade steps and methods.

It is hardly possible to say that the West solves its own problems, and it does not care about the problems of others. He just cares about the problems of others, because for those who did not have problems, the West creates them.

Long before the special military operation, which was a hopeless decision in the face of complete sabotage of the Minsk agreements under Donald Trump, my colleague Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Africa and publicly in his speeches called on the cameras, live, that Africans should not cooperate with either Russia or China, because both Russia and China allegedly trade with them out of their greedy motives. and they (the Americans) selflessly trade with them. They say, therefore, Africans need to reorient themselves. At that time, no one remembered any Ukraine, except by sabotaging the Minsk agreements.

As for the Minsk Agreements. German Chancellor Friedrich Scholz recently said that they must ensure that Russia admits defeat, that Russia's goals of "seizing Ukraine" will not be achieved and that we must force our country to sign agreements that will guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. Chancellor O. Scholz was a little late, because the agreements that guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its sovereignty were called the Minsk Agreements. They were approved by the UN Security Council and implied a special status for Donbass as part of a united Ukraine. That's what they're all about. They were buried by President Zelensky with the active "support" of Germany and France (who were their co-authors) and with the active support of the United States did everything to "appease" Zelensky in his Russophobia. "The train is gone" about the agreements that Chancellor O. Scholz had in mind.

Further on in the interview, Lavrov's answer again brings up Europe's Colonial status:

Lavrov: As for the EU. This is no longer an economic forum, not the community for which everything was started. This is an exclusively geopolitical project, which is being crushed and has already been practically crushed by the United States. I've already mentioned this. Talk of a military component of the EU that would be independent of NATO and the United States has been going on for a long time. As a result, they degenerated into interaction with the same NATO. The two organizations worked out a "compatible mobility" plan a few years ago, under which non-NATO EU members made their territory available for the movement of NATO troops and weapons. This is actually one of the main forms of military-political alliance.

Now the European Union has quite harshly and loudly proclaimed the requirements for everyone who wants to join the European Union, so that they at the stage of candidacy, the implementation of the so-called chapters of the agreement on preparation for membership, they will join any foreign policy action of the European Union, first of all (this is now being publicly stated) to anti-Russian sanctions. What is prepared for candidates for EU membership is not economic benefits at all, it is submission to geopolitical ambitions and, ultimately, following the policy of establishing a unipolar world under the command of Washington.

What happened with my failed visit to Serbia is further proof of that. When Macedonia and Montenegro refused to provide their airspace, we expressed our attitude to this in contacts with the European Union structures in Brussels. They, without even blushing, said that this was the sovereign decision of these countries and they had nothing to do with it. Two days later (apparently, their left hand there did not know what the right hand was doing), the representative of the EU foreign policy service, P. Stano, said that they welcomed the decision of Montenegro and Macedonia, which, as candidates for EU membership, followed their instructions.

The entire interview is about Geopolitics. What's above are those portions that relate to the issue of Europe becoming the servant of the Outlaw US Empire far more so than ever before--not even in the decade following WW2, although the plans were then being laid to accomplish what we now witness. As with every Lavrov interview, it becomes a primary source for academics, such as historians like myself. Much more is discussed with what is clearly a very well informed journalist who isn't promoting an adversarial position; and for that reason, what's revealed is much richer and useful. What follows is the remaining machine translation of the interview's Russian transcript without any further emphasis or correction by me and will include the above three paragraphs for context:

Question: What about the supply of heavy weapons?

Sergey Lavrov: I hope that in addition to politicians who irresponsibly demand to supply Ukraine with everything it wants, there are military people who understand what is at stake and understand the risks involved. V.A. Zelensky asks to be given long-range weapons that he will not attack targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. Does he consider Crimea to be the territory of the Russian Federation? Donbass is the territory of the LPR and the DPR? About the Kerch Bridge, one of his "talking heads" (or whatever they talk about there) has already made a threat. We have a responsible army. All these threats are taken "on note". There is no smoke without fire. I am convinced that all these plans will fail completely.

It does not hurt to look closely at what is already happening with the weapons available in Ukraine: "stingers", "javelins". They are already on the "black" market. They surfaced in Albania, Kosovo. This is openly stated. Sold "at a discount". The process of mastering the "black" market is underway. They will return largely to where they came from in Ukraine.

As for multiple launch rocket systems, the question is more complicated. At this stage, US President Joe Biden said that they would supply ammunition with a limited range, but nothing can be ruled out. We are ready for this. I assure you.

Question: Now from the point of view of the "European project2 it is clear that the Europeans usually said that they are beyond geopolitics, that the EU is an economic union. Now the discussion about whether to give Ukraine membership has intensified. Georgia said they were more ready.

Sergey Lavrov: I would give her membership in the membership, that's for sure.

Question: There is a drought in Moldova now. They're asking for help. But as a result, they are given help only for weapons. Doesn't this look like an attempt to organize a "second front" when we have our peacekeepers in Transnistria? They are sandwiched between Ukraine and Moldova. It looks like a rather dangerous situation, shaking up everything that concerns Moldova.

Sergey Lavrov: You are certainly right.

As for the EU. This is no longer an economic forum, not the community for which everything was started. This is an exclusively geopolitical project, which is being crushed and has already been practically crushed by the United States. I've already mentioned this. Talk of a military component of the EU that would be independent of NATO and the United States has been going on for a long time. As a result, they degenerated into interaction with the same NATO. The two organizations worked out a "compatible mobility" plan a few years ago, under which non-NATO EU members made their territory available for the movement of NATO troops and weapons. This is actually one of the main forms of military-political alliance.

Now the European Union has quite harshly and loudly proclaimed the requirements for everyone who wants to join the European Union, so that they at the stage of candidacy, the implementation of the so-called chapters of the agreement on preparation for membership, they will join any foreign policy action of the European Union, first of all (this is now being publicly stated) to anti-Russian sanctions. What is prepared for candidates for EU membership is not economic benefits at all, it is submission to geopolitical ambitions and, ultimately, following the policy of establishing a unipolar world under the command of Washington.

What happened with my failed visit to Serbia is further proof of that. When Macedonia and Montenegro refused to provide their airspace, we expressed our attitude to this in contacts with the European Union structures in Brussels. They, without even blushing, said that this was the sovereign decision of these countries and they had nothing to do with it. Two days later (apparently, their left hand there did not know what the right hand was doing), the representative of the EU foreign policy service, P. Stano, said that they welcomed the decision of Montenegro and Macedonia, which, as candidates for EU membership, followed their instructions.

Q: And what do they say "off the record"? Diplomats, they are one thing to communicate publicly, but another thing ...

Sergey Lavrov: They don't say anything "off the record".

Question: But at one time (they don't remember), Yevgeny Primakov deployed the plane over the Atlantic in order to protect them and stop the bombing of Yugoslavia. And now they are "turning" your plane around.

Sergey Lavrov: It was not the Serbs who "deployed" the plane.

Question: Nevertheless, these are the Balkans.

Sergey Lavrov: At the same time, there is Deputy Prime Minister Zmad Mikhailovich, who made a strange statement, allegedly I asked for it myself, and they did not want to see me in Belgrade. She said that "if Sergey Lavrov says that he is a friend of Serbia, we should not have even thought about coming here when we are under pressure to adopt sanctions against Russia."

Question: I don't follow her logic a bit...

Sergey Lavrov: If you are a friend, do not come to us, because your visits will irritate the West. That's it.

Question: Then I am your friend, but it turns out that you are not my friend. Then a chain is built.

Sergey Lavrov: It's hard for me to say. She was answered by the Minister of Internal Affairs A. Vulin. He clearly explained how to communicate and address friends. But, returning to the European Union, if Ukraine is provided with a "road map" to prepare for membership, this will mean only one thing, that the European Union is once again ready to "turn a blind eye" to all its criteria that have always existed for candidates and is ready to be guided solely by geopolitical considerations. When, since the mid-2000s, they expanded at the expense of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and they were all accepted into NATO, we asked them: why are they doing all this? The Baltic countries were then not ready for an alliance. At that time, the European Union was quite neutral in terms of its focus towards Russia. We were told that these three Baltic countries and Poland were experiencing a "Soviet occupation", as they put it then, they had formed "phobias". These countries will now accept into NATO and they will calm down, will be calm for their security. It was exactly the opposite. Not only have they not calmed down, but they are dragging the entire North Atlantic Alliance into Russophobia, speculating on the rule of consensus, on the principle of solidarity. This is the loudest aggressive Russophobic minority in this alliance: both in the European Union and in NATO. A minority that dictates its own rules and its own rules to everyone.

Question: I remember their promise: "If we accept the Balts into NATO and the EU, they will be your goodest neighbors."

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, that's exactly what we were told.

Q: To be honest, at first I thought it was a "duck." But today the Americans are commenting in a positive way: Boris Johnson wants to organize a kind of "ring" in which Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Britain will be an anti-Russian front. How serious is that? Or is it a political game?

Sergey Lavrov: Their whole "process" is a mixture of play and serious intentions. Games, of course, are bigger. And there are a lot of dramatizations. Here we have in Europe and in the Western world processes that resemble the "Club of the Merry and Resourceful", "Kvartal 95". There, everything is staged and played out as if by notes. Sometimes, however, they are fake, even from the point of view of their logic. But there are serious productions. Take the same Bucha, a dramatization of the negotiations that "failed" after Istanbul. They themselves have signed that they do not want these negotiations. It is still unclear to us what kind of instruction Vladimir Zelensky receives from his masters in Washington and London and what alliances they are going to create. If Boris Johnson promotes this initiative, it is clear that it is aimed against Russia. He has no other ideas. But it is also aimed at the EU. They say that they have left the EU and will now drag to themselves countries that do not want to put up with the policy of "Eurogrands", which still retain some reason and periodically call for negotiations, for agreements, for building a security architecture with Moscow. But they, too, are pulled over by the "younger comrades". President Emmanuel Macron recently said that they should negotiate with Russia on major issues of architecture in Europe and in no case should Russia be humiliated. A day later, Czech Foreign Minister J. Lipavsky said that President Emmanuel Macron did not understand what he was talking about. That is, he refuted the call not to humiliate Russia. That's the mentality of these people. The Czech Republic will fully fit into this alliance, which is being built by Boris Johnson.

You asked about Moldova. They are clearly trying to make a second Ukraine out of Moldova. The "consumer" approach on the part of the current Moldovan leadership is very indicative. They say that they will start joining the European Union, then they say that they will see what they are promised there, then, they say, they will decide whether they should stay in the CIS. And other statements: the Russians should give them again a discount on gas compared to those contracts that were signed, postpone payments. Begging by and large and extortion. They play in such a way that if we don't do it, they will go to Europe faster, and if they do, they will still go, but slower. That's kind of how I read these signals. I can assure you that the majority of the Moldovan population understands all this very well. Especially in Transnistria, in Gagauzia. The European Union is "working" rudely, forcing these candidates not yet even to open a "second" front.

They and Georgia tried to play out the same scenarios and open a "second" front there. To the credit of the current Georgian leadership, they do not succumb to these "visits". There are examples when countries are guided by the interests of their national development, people, economy. We'll be watching closely. The EU's approach to Moldova (and the Americans spend the day and night there, a whole series of high-level delegations went there) says only one thing: they want to "imprison" this country in an anti-Russian way.

Q: It looks like this. The position of the Georgian leadership in this regard looks surprisingly wise and, most importantly, stable. They hold on despite the pressure.

Sergey Lavrov: They are thinking about their own interests. If Moldova thinks about merging with Romania, "returning to the Motherland" (as they say), this is quite different.

Question: A Georgian friend called from there and quoted an interview with the Georgian president when they shouted: "What are you doing? Why don't you "fit in" with the sanctions?" she turned and said, "I save your son. We don't want to fight." This is a worthy position, don't you agree?

Sergey Lavrov: Is this Salome Zurabishvili?

Q: Yes. In this regard, I would like to ask about friends, enemies and national interests. A vote was held in the UN General Assembly. We see the breakdown. Don't you think that countries have come under tremendous pressure, and we see an unrealistic alignment of what is happening?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course. We don't think so. We know for a fact. Ambassadors who work in New York (I have a good relationship with many of them when they held less important positions; now our representative and his deputy work closely with friends) in private conversations admit what "tricks" are being used by the West. To the point that they remind a particular ambassador, tomorrow, they say, a vote and let him not forget that he has an account in Citibank and his son or daughter is studying at Stanford. That's to the point.

Question: Remember this famous case: in 2003, before the bombing of Saddam Hussein, the NSA asked the British to wiretap members of the UN Security Council who were supposed to vote on the operation against Iraq in order to blackmail them in much the same way. It's a similar scenario. It's strange that the techniques don't change. It seems that the world is already multipolar, somehow you need to navigate.

Sergey Lavrov: Human nature is unchanging. The way you were born, that's how you stay.

Question: Now, when it comes to a multipolar world, Russian sanctions have accelerated this process. When we want to be one of the poles of a multipolar world, we understand that in this situation it is not only a right and a force, it is a duty. Because those who are attracted to this pole will wait for security, money, resources.

Sergey Lavrov: We do not set a goal to become one of the poles of a multipolar world. We state an objective reality. This world is formed objectively by itself. All the current "attempts" of the West are aimed at "restraining" this objective historical process. How can you say that it is necessary to reform the World Trade Organization so that it meets the interests of the United States and Europe? This is said by official members of the government.

China, which (as I have already said) has become a leader in the global economy in recent years (we can confidently say this), has achieved these results by playing by the rules set by the West. Both the international monetary and financial system and the world trading system are all rules that met the interests of the West at that time. The PRC on their field, according to their rules, beat those who wrote these rules. That is why they began to say that it is necessary to reform the Bretton Woods institutions in such a way that they reflect the interests of the United States and Europe.

They suggested playing by those rules. China agreed and beat them. Take the World Trade Organization. For many years, the Americans have blocked the appointment of members of the dispute settlement body. There's no quorum. This organ does not work. All the complaints that are absolutely legitimate, based on the facts, the PRC sent to this body against the United States, which discriminates against China and violates WTO rules, lie without movement, since the United States does not want to admit that it violated its own rules. They want to write new ones. And the reform of the WTO is proclaimed as aimed at ensuring the interests of the United States and Europe.

Question: The next thing they want is the reform of the UN Security Council.

Sergey Lavrov: The reform of the UN Security Council has been discussed for almost 30 years. It wasn't started by them. They are trying to use it to expand the presence of the West in this body. We are strongly opposed. Now, of the fifteen members of the UN Security Council, six represent the West, and when Japan is elected there, consider that seven. In this regard, we believe that the only goal of the reform is to increase the representation of developing countries. We have already said that India and Brazil are strong contenders. At the same time, it is imperative to increase the representation of the African continent. When we are told that Germany and Japan deserve it, we answer that their inclusion in the UN Security Council as permanent members will not add any value to this body and does not carry anything additional. It will be an obedient majority of Western countries. Countries that are ready to add value are developing countries. That's what we need to focus on. Here we have a complete coincidence of positions with the PRC.

Question: About China today, the Americans said that because they are friends with us and support us in every possible way, they are on the "wrong" side of history. Sounds nice, don't you agree?

Sergey Lavrov: Neocolonialism, rudeness. All together. Largely in order to contain China, they are courting our strategic partner India, trying in every possible way to speculate on the problems existing in Indian-Chinese relations. Created the "quartet" QUAD (USA, India, Japan, Australia). Our Indian friends, where I visited a couple of months ago, see, understand and refuse any form of cooperation related to military affairs. Therefore, they separately created AUKUS, where Japan and Korea will be drawn in, they are trying to split the ASEAN countries and accept them in one form or another into this alliance. The true attitude of the United States to India: recently, US Deputy Secretary of State Sherman said that it is necessary to help Indian friends understand what their interests are.

Question: Finally, someone will explain what the national interests of a country of 1.5 billion people are.

Sergey Lavrov: Of course. Recently, US Secretary of Defense Leo Austin said that they have not yet decided how to punish India for buying Russian S-400 systems. Until they decided.

As for the independence of Europe, the same Leo Austin noted at one of the conferences that they would increase the military presence in Europe, but they have not yet decided whether it will be permanent, rotational or rotational-permanent. He does not say that europe has not yet been negotiated. Like, they didn't decide, and when they do, Europe will do what they order.

Question: We have all just seen how in Los Angeles Joe Biden tried to demonstrate his leadership at least on his continent. Even there, nothing worked. Everyone understands that the unipolarity led by America is weakening. Our partners also see this. How can we find a balance between India, China, and our interests? That's a tough question for us right now.

Sergey Lavrov: Many political scientists talk about agony, that we should be afraid of the United States, because it is almost a driven beast. This is an exaggeration. I would not underestimate Washington's ability to shamelessly push its interests by any means. This reflects the understanding that objective processes go in a different direction than in perpetuating a unipolar world.

We are always open to such a dialogue. It is not for nothing that President Vladimir Putin proposed a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to discuss serious issues related to the need to reform the international system. We emphasize that it is necessary to reform general international relations in order to return to the origins, namely to the UN Charter, which proclaimed that the organization is based on respect for the sovereign equality of states. He assumes just that. And in practice, in the policy of the West, all this is implemented in a completely different way. There is no question of any sovereign equality of States. If the West respected its obligations under the UN Charter on the need for the sovereign equality of states as a principle of international relations, it would not now run around the world, would not force to impose sanctions against Russia, but would give sovereign countries the opportunity to sort it out for themselves. Russia announced what it was doing (after years of trying to reach out to agreements on security guarantees without NATO expansion), explained everything in detail. And you will explain your position. Let each side, as an adult, compare these positions and make its own choice, for whom it is for the "reds", or for the "whites", or it is "in the middle" and wants to observe neutrality. They don't let anyone do that. Moreover, the demand to join the anti-Russian sanctions against countries such as India, China, Turkey, Egypt is a complete misunderstanding of what elementary respect means in international relations.

Question: You are kind of incomprehensible. Sherman told you that she would explain to India what respect means in international relations. And you want to explain everything. She will come and explain to them.

Sergey Lavrov: You caught me, I confess.

Question: Summing up our conversation, you do not think that what is happening in Ukraine, which was the result of a real misunderstanding of our fears and our requirements for a single and indivisible security for all on the continent, launched a certain "chemical" process that as a result brings to the surface everything: that in Latin America, the Persian Gulf, Asia, passionaries have absolutely matured, ready to find their place in the new system; that the West is playing by refuting its own rules. Now everything that was created in the Yalta-Potsdam system or after 1991 is being tested.

Sergey Lavrov: That's right. Only you said that they show a misunderstanding of our interests. They understood them perfectly well all these years, when we said that the principle of the indivisibility of security, to which they all signed, should be translated into a legally binding form. They knew exactly what we were talking about. But they answered that it would not happen. Allegedly, they proclaimed it as a political slogan and are not strongly connected with this. But they can give legal security guarantees only within the framework of NATO. Their position deliberately provoked the countries (which, perhaps, would like to remain in a neutral status), not allowing them to adopt pan-European guarantees of a binding nature, and forced everyone to think about how to knock on the door of NATO.

As for the fact that the "chemical" process is launched, and all the "foam" pops up, and it becomes clearer who, how and what is concerned. Yeah, I guess it is. The countries are aware that what is happening is not only and not even so much about Ukraine, but about the world order and the place of each of the states in this world order, about whether it will be respected, whether it will be able to independently resolve issues related to the basic interests of its people, or it will obediently listen to V. Sherman and her ilk, who will explain to them, what are their core interests. That's what we're talking about. Our contacts with the vast majority of countries in the developing world say that these reflections are at an advanced stage.

Q: So, we'll wait for everything...

Sergey Lavrov: Waiting is a passive position. We try to support these reflections by showing on the facts what exactly is happening.

Question: Our turn to the "non-West". Are there already positive results there? Do I understand correctly?

Sergey Lavrov: We did not turn anywhere. We have always worked in the West, in the East, in the North and in the South. The West has ceased all contacts. Objectively, we are working with the East, as we have worked, expanding contacts with it, as we have expanded. In absolute terms, these contacts are growing. In relative terms, Europe has disappeared from our priorities.

Question: They themselves have become sick people in Europe.

Sergey Lavrov: This is a very apt expression.

Question: Thank you very much.

Sergey Lavrov: And you don't get sick.