Lavrov's 2022 UNGA Debate Speech

The current transcript is machine translated from Russian. The link has the MFA supplied video. There's also this video by UN Media. Lavrov's speech is extremely well crafted as if he were a Prosecuting Attorney. His use of Truth and Facts undermined the lie filled speech by Biden and those of his vassals. This and Lavrov's UNSC Statement are gems requiring action. IMO, they complement Putin's two speeches, particularly his Mobilization Speech where he vowed to end Neoliberal Parasitism. IMO, the terms of confrontation are set. Either global justice is established, or global tyranny or utter destruction will reign. Lavrov's speech:

Dear Madam President,

Dear colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

We meet in a difficult, dramatic moment. Crisis phenomena are growing and the international security situation is rapidly deteriorating.

Instead of an honest dialogue and a search for compromises, we have to deal with disinformation, crude dramatizations and provocations. The West's line undermines trust in international institutions as organs for the reconciliation of interests and in international law as a guarantee of justice and protection of the weak from arbitrariness. Negative trends in a concentrated form we observe in the walls of the UN, which appeared on the ruins of German fascism and Japanese militarism and was created with the aim of promoting the development of friendly relations between its members and preventing conflicts between them.

Today, the question of the future of the world order is being decided – this is clear to any unbiased observer. The question is whether it will be an order with one hegemon forcing everyone to live by its proverbial "rules", beneficial only to him. Or will it be a democratic, just world – without blackmail and intimidation of undesirables, without neo-Nazism and neocolonialism. Russia firmly chooses the second option. We call on us to work with allies, partners, and like-minded people to make it a reality.

The unipolar model of world development, which served the interests of the "golden billion", whose superconsumption for centuries was ensured by the resources of Asia, Africa and Latin America, is becoming a thing of the past. Today, the formation of sovereign states ready to defend national interests leads to the formation of an equal, socially-oriented and sustainable multipolar architecture. However, objective geopolitical processes are perceived by Washington and the ruling elites of Western countries that are completely subordinate to it as a threat to their dominant position.

The U.S. and its allies want to stop the flywheel of history. Once, having proclaimed victory in the Cold War, Washington elevated itself almost to the rank of messenger of the Lord God on Earth, who has no obligations, but only "sacred" rights to act with impunity – as well as anywhere else. Any state can be declared a zone of such actions – especially if it has not pleased the self-proclaimed "masters of the world" in some way. We all remember how, under far-fetched pretexts, aggressive wars were unleashed against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, far from the American shores, which claimed many hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. In any of these countries, have the legitimate interests of the West really been affected? Did they ban English or the languages of other NATO member countries, the Western media, culture? Did they declare the Anglo-Saxons "inhumans" and use heavy weapons against them? What are the results of US adventures in the Middle East? Improving human rights and the rule of law? Stabilization of the socio-political situation? Growth of well-being of the population? Name the country in which Washington intervened by force and where life has become better as a result.

Trying to revive the unipolar model under the slogan of "rules-based order", the West is imposing "dividing lines" everywhere in the spirit of bloc confrontation: "either with us or against us." The third is not given, no compromises. Continuing the thoughtless course towards the expansion of NATO to the East, the approach of the military infrastructure of the bloc to the borders of Russia, now the United States has set the task of subordinating Asian spaces. At the June NATO summit in Madrid, what it calls a "defensive" alliance proclaimed the "indivisibility of euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security." Under the slogan of the Indo-Pacific strategies, closed formats are being created that undermine the entire open and inclusive regional architecture that has developed around ASEAN for decades. In addition, they started a "game with fire" around Taiwan, promising it military support.

Obviously, the notorious "Monroe Doctrine" is gaining global reach. Washington is trying to turn the entire globe into its "backyard." An instrument of coercion of dissenters is illegal unilateral sanctions, which for many years have been adopted in violation of the UN Charter and are used as an instrument of political blackmail. The cynicism of this practice is obvious. Restrictions hit the civilian population, preventing access to essential goods, including medicines, vaccines, food. The United States embargo against Cuba, which has lasted for more than 60 years, is a glaring example. The UN General Assembly has long and persistently demanded its immediate abolition by an overwhelming majority. The Secretary-General, whose responsibilities include promoting the implementation of the decisions of the General Assembly, should pay special attention to this problem. He also has a special role in mobilizing efforts to overcome the food and energy crises that broke out due to the uncontrolled money emission in the US and the EU during the pandemic and the irresponsible unprofessional actions of the European Union in the hydrocarbon markets. Contrary to elementary common sense, Washington and Brussels exacerbated the crisis situation by declaring an economic war against Russia. As a result, global prices for food, fertilizers, oil and gas are rising. We welcome the efforts of the Secretary General, which contributed to the conclusion of the Istanbul Agreements on July 22 this year. In the meantime, ships with Ukrainian grain for the most part do not go to the poorest countries, and the financial and logistical obstacles created by the United States and the EU on the way to Russian exports of grain and fertilizers have not been completely removed. We have been reminding for several weeks that 300,000 tonnes of fertilizers have been detained in European ports. For a long time we offer to transfer them free of charge to the needy countries of Africa, but the European Union does not react.

Official Russophobia has acquired unprecedented, grotesque proportions in the West. They no longer hesitate to openly declare their intention not only to inflict a military defeat on our country, but also to destroy and dismember Russia. In other words, to achieve the disappearance from the political map of the world of too independent geopolitical magnitude.

In what reality have Russia's actions in recent decades infringed on the interests of opponents? Maybe we cannot be forgiven for the fact that thanks to the position of our country, the military-strategic "détente" of 1980-1990 became possible? That we once voluntarily dissolved the Warsaw Pact, depriving NATO of its raison d'être? Did you support the reunification of Germany without any conditions and contrary to the position of London and Paris? They withdrew the armed forces from Europe, Asia, and Latin America. They recognized the independence of the former Soviet republics. Did you believe the promises of Western leaders not to expand NATO "an inch" in the eastern direction, and when the process went on, agreed to actually legitimize it through the conclusion of the NATO-Russia Founding Act? Maybe we violated the interests of the West by warning it about the unacceptability of approaching the threatening military infrastructure close to our borders?

The arrogance of the West and American exceptionalism became particularly destructive after the end of the Cold War. Back in 1991, the deputy head of the Pentagon, P. Wolfowitz, in a conversation with the commander of the joint forces of NATO in Europe, W. Clark, frankly admitted that after the end of the Cold War, they could use their military without fear of punishment ... And that they have five, maybe ten years to clean up these surrogate Soviet regimes like Iraq and Syria until a new superpower emerges that can challenge them. I am sure that someday we will find out from someone else's memoirs, how the American strategy was built in relation to Ukraine. However, Washington's plans are already obvious.

Perhaps we cannot be forgiven that, at the request of the United States and the EU, we supported the agreements of the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych with the opposition on the settlement of the crisis in February 2014? The agreements, which were guaranteed by Germany, France and Poland, were trampled the next morning by the leaders of the bloody coup d'état, who humiliated European mediators. The West just threw up its hands and silently watched as the putschists began to bomb the east of Ukraine, where they refused to recognize the results of the coup d'état, how its organizers elevated to the rank of national heroes Nazi henchmen involved in the brutal ethnic cleansing of Russians, Poles, Jews during the Second World War. Were we supposed to put up with Kiev's policy of totally banning the Russian language, education, Russian media and culture with demands to expel Russians from Crimea, declaring war against Donbass, whose inhabitants both then and the current Kiev authorities proclaimed not people, but "beings" through the mouths of their top leadership?

Could it be that Russia violated the interests of the West by playing a key role in ending the hostilities unleashed by Kiev neo-Nazis in eastern Ukraine, and then demanded the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council in February 2015, but was buried by Kiev with the direct participation of the United States and the EU?

Over the years, we have repeatedly proposed to agree on the rules of coexistence in Europe based on the principle of equal and indivisible security, affirmed at the highest level in the OSCE documents. In accordance with this principle, no one would strengthen his own security at the expense of the security of others. We made the last proposal on the need to make these agreements legally binding in December 2021, to which we received an arrogant refusal.

The inability of Western countries to negotiate and the Kiev regime's continuation of the war against its own people left us with no choice but to recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics and launch a special military operation to protect Russians and other residents of Donbass and eliminate the threats to our security that NATO has consistently created on the territory of Ukraine, in fact, on our borders. The operation is carried out in pursuance of treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Russia and these republics on the basis of Article 51 of the UN Charter. I am sure that in our place any sovereign, self-respecting state that is aware of its responsibility to its own people would do this.

Now the West has thrown a tantrum over the referendums taking place in the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions of Ukraine, but the people living there are only reacting to what the head of the Kiev regime, V.A. Zelensky, recommended to them in one of his interviews in August 2021. Then he advised everyone who feels Russian, for the benefit of their children and grandchildren, to "go" to Russia. Residents of these regions are now doing so, taking with them their lands, on which their ancestors lived for centuries.

It is very clear to any unbiased observer: for the Anglo-Saxons, who completely subjugated Europe, Ukraine is only expendable material in the fight against Russia. NATO declared our country an immediate threat on the way to total US domination, and identified China as a long-term strategic challenge. At the same time, the "collective West", led by Washington, sends a frightening signal to all other countries without exception - the next one can be anyone who dares to disobey.

One of the consequences of the "crusade" declared by the West against undesirables is the progressive decline of multilateral institutions, which are turning the United States and its allies into tools for realizing their selfish interests. This line is imposed in the UN, the Human Rights Council of the Organization, UNESCO and other multilateral structures. In fact, the OPCW has been privatized. Fierce attempts are being made to prevent the creation of a mechanism within the framework of the BTWC to ensure the transparency of hundreds of military-biological programs of the Pentagon around the world, including along the perimeter of the Russian borders and throughout Eurasia. The fact that these programs are by no means harmless is evidenced by the inexorable facts revealed on the territory of Ukraine.

We see an assertive line towards privatising the UN Secretariat and introducing neoliberal discourse into its work that ignores the cultural and civilizational diversity of the modern world. In this regard, we urge that attention be paid, as required by the UN Charter, to ensuring equitable geographical representation of Member States in the structures of the Secretariat, preventing the dominance of one group of countries.

An intolerable situation has developed around Washington's failure to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement between the Secretariat and the US government regarding the obligations of the "host country" of the United Nations headquarters to ensure normal conditions for the participation of all member countries in the work of the UN. The Agreement also assigns responsibilities to the Secretary-General. Inertia is unacceptable here.

The efforts of individual countries, which undermine the prerogatives of the Security Council, are a matter of concern. Of course, both the Council and the UN as a whole should be adapted to modern realities. We see prospects for democratising the work of the Security Council exclusively – I would like to emphasise this – by expanding the representation of african, Asian and Latin American countries. We particularly note India and Brazil as key international players and worthy candidates for permanent membership in the Council, with the obligatory simultaneous improvement of Africa's profile.

Today, more than ever, it is important that all Member States unequivocally, without reservations, reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations as the first necessary step towards restoring collective responsibility for the destiny of humankind.

It was for this purpose that in July 2021 the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter was created, co-founded by Russia and which already includes about two dozen countries. The Group's objective is to ensure strict adherence to universal norms of international law against harmful unilateralism. We call on all those who share this position to join. In this context, the Non-Aligned Movement, BRICS, SCO and ASEAN have significant positive potential.

Our Western colleagues, aggressively imposing their understanding of democracy as a model for organizing the life of society in all countries, categorically do not want to be guided by democratic norms in international affairs. A recent example is the situation around Ukraine. Russia has substantiated its position in detail, and it has been doing this for several years). The West has declared its opposition to it. It would seem that let the rest of the members of the world community decide for themselves what position they should take: for some, for others or for a position of neutrality. It seems that this is how it is supposed to be in democracies, when opposing politicians defend their point of view and agitate the population, but the United States and its allies do not give anyone freedom of choice. They threaten and twist the arms of anyone who dares to think for themselves. They demand threats to join the anti-Russian sanctions. They are not good at it, but it is obvious that this kind of action by the United States and its satellites is not a democracy, but a pure dictatorship, at least an attempt to impose a dictatorship.

There is a persistent impression that Washington and the Submissive Europe are trying to preserve their elusive hegemony exclusively by forbidden methods. Quite often, the methods of diplomacy are replaced by illegal sanctions against strong competitors in the economy, sports, the information space, cultural exchanges and, in general, in the sphere of contacts between people. Taking the same problem with visas for delegates to international events in New York, Geneva, Vienna, Paris is also a desire to eliminate competitors, to prevent alternative points of view in multilateral discussions.

I am confident of the need to protect the UN, to cleanse the World Organisation of everything confrontational and superficial, to restore its reputation as a platform for honest discussions to find a balance of interests of all member states. It is this approach that guides us in promoting our national initiatives at the UN.

It is of fundamental importance to achieve a comprehensive ban on the placement of weapons in outer space, which is the goal of the Russian-Chinese draft international treaty under consideration by the UN Conference on Disarmament.

Particular attention should be paid to the tasks of protecting cyberspace, including the coordination within the framework of the Open-ended Working Group of the General Assembly of agreements on ways to ensure international information security, as well as the development of a universal convention on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes on the basis of the Special Committee.

We will continue to support the Office of Counter-Terrorism and other UN counter-terrorism bodies.

We will continue to promote the dynamic development of relations between the UN and the CSTO, the CIS and the EAEU in order to combine efforts in the Greater Eurasia space.

Russia calls for intensifying work to resolve regional conflicts. We consider it a priority to overcome the impasse in the creation of an independent Palestinian state, restore the statehood of Iraq and Libya destroyed by NATO aggression, neutralize threats to Syria's sovereignty, establish a sustainable process of national reconciliation in Yemen, and overcome the difficult NATO legacy in Afghanistan. We are striving to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme in its original form and to ensure a just and comprehensive settlement of the problems of the Korean Peninsula. Numerous conflict situations in Africa require the abandonment of the temptation to make them the subject of geopolitical "zero-sum games" and the consolidation of external players in support of the initiatives of the African Union. Of concern is the situation in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Us and the EU are stubbornly working to destroy the international legal framework embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Dayton Peace Agreement.

Madam President,

In an era of change, it is human nature to seek support and solace in the wisdom of predecessors, whose lot fell no less ordeal. As former UN Secretary-General Hammarskjöld, who remembered the horrors of World War II, aptly put it: "The UN was created not to bring humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell." These words are more relevant than ever. They appeal to all of us to realize our individual and collective responsibility to create the conditions for the safe and harmonious development of future generations. Political will is needed for all to do so.

We are ready for such honest work and are convinced that the stability of the world order can be ensured only through a return to the origins of UN diplomacy based on the key statutory principle of true democracy – respect for the sovereign equality of states.