Lavrov's Interview with Russia 24 TV Channel and RIA Novosti

Since no time constraint was placed on this interview and the subject being Lavrov, it's quite long and might need two parts as some have needed before due to VK's article length constraints. TASS provides a good review for those not wanting to wade through it all, although such recaps always omit important passages.

Question: The first question is probably not a professional one at all, but a human one. At the same time, it concerns millions, if not billions of people. When will it all end?

Sergey Lavrov: I can't say that this is the only way I live. Because diplomats, military personnel, those guys who solve the most important tasks of ensuring our independence, the interests of our culture, people who want to be part of Russian culture, probably do not think when it will end.

They are driven by the desire to do their work clearly and quickly, minimizing losses. And the more actively we support them morally and politically, the more effectively we explain what is happening from the point of view of geopolitical games, the sooner the world will realize that it is necessary to finish it. We are witnessing not even attempts, but a persistent persistent line of the West, led by the United States, to never finish all this. Until they consider that any threats to their hegemony have been eliminated.

At this stage, we are acting in the same way as our Western colleagues promised: there must be victory on the battlefield. This is their formula. It was they who refused to negotiate, forced the Kiev regime to withdraw from the negotiation process, and at the very moment when, at the end of March 2022, it was possible to end it by political means.

But Kiev was not allowed. Since then, no one has even tried to convince the Kiev regime of the need to negotiate. No one objected when by his decree V. A. Zelensky banned negotiations with the Russian Federation. No one "rebuked" him when he repeatedly, being in a "high" state, declared that he did not understand who makes decisions in Russia, with whom to talk (if it comes to that). Apparently, this is "Freudian". He himself feels like a non-independent figure, understands that he is being manipulated. We all want this to end. But what is important here is not the time factor, but the essence, the quality of the results that we will provide for our people and people who want to remain part of Russian culture, and who for many years, with the encouragement of the West, the Kiev junta deprived of everything Russian.

In addition to the laws that were passed under Petro Poroshenko and then under Vladimir Zelensky: the ban on Russian education, Russian media, and Ukrainian media in Russian (all of them were closed), the arrests of deputies who somehow showed a desire to seek agreements with the Russian Federation, and decisions allowing administrative fines to be imposed on foreign citizens. For those who do not use the Ukrainian language in everyday life (in shops, clinics), the Commissioner for the protection of the state language, T. D. Kremen, recently took the initiative to ban interpersonal communication in Russian. (A husband and wife together in the kitchen drinking tea and some (as we used to say) "snitch" may well demand to open a criminal case against them). Good "prospects" at the top of this regime.

Question: This is all rather hypocritical. For example, the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy banned the Russian language. First in the walls of this oldest educational institution, now in all the others-this is the plan. But for some reason, children who speak Russian are literally snatched up on the streets, kidnapped, and sent to the army. That is, it is possible to fight for the "square" without Ukrainian, but otherwise it is not. This is the right to bear arms, to defend one's homeland, and a high duty – there are no contraindications for Russian speakers here. Interesting.

But every international process has its own internal logic. We talk about the end, we imagine it somehow. But so far, it is not visible at all, since the conflict is escalating. It is not clear where to stop, the frames are not visible. Heavy weapons are already being delivered. We are talking about missiles. What should I prepare for?

Sergey Lavrov: We proceed from objective realities. First of all, from those that are enshrined in our legislation, the Constitution. Four new territories, two people's republics and two oblasts, joined the Russian Federation as a result of the referendum. There are no questions here. The fact that the West cannot "calm down" and, as in the infamous fairy tales, gets more and more "stuck" in a certain substance (in a swamp) with each step, plays an important role and affects the course of the operation. If we are now trying to move the artillery of the Ukrainian armed forces to a distance that will not pose a threat to our territories, then the longer-range weapons are delivered to the Kiev regime, the further they will need to be moved away from the territories that are part of our country.

This escalation (You are absolutely right) like a snowball, it began with helmets for Ukrainian servicemen, then small arms appeared, and now they are talking about airplanes. German Chancellor Franz Scholz "swears" that this will never happen, but he is known for his ability to change positions quickly enough. O. Scholz said that NATO will never fight against Russia, and his Foreign Minister A. Burbok said that they are already "amicably" fighting against Russia. Pentagon spokeswoman S. Singh said that there is nothing wrong if Kiev starts bombing the Crimea. They either turn themselves on or don't understand what they're talking about.

O. Scholz once said that the current crisis began with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He doesn't even listen to his predecessors, because even former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that back in 2015, when the Minsk agreements were signed, no one was going to implement them. If you do not recognize that it was then that the seeds of the crisis were sown, then you must be a politician who refuses to see the truth. But 2015 is also not the most important cut-off date. Let us recall the coup d'etat of 2014, which also took place despite the guarantees placed on the document on the settlement and holding of early elections by the Germans, French and Poles. The next morning, these guarantees were trampled underfoot, and an openly Nazi regime, including the Svoboda party, came to power. There was one O. Ya. Tyagnibok (not seen for a long time), who in those years was registered as a neo-Nazi by many European countries. There were slogans: "we must kill Russians, Jews and Poles." They made a bet on such people, just as they made a bet on neo-Nazis from the Azov, Aidar and other battalions. Now they are diligently withdrawing all information that these structures were considered extremist and terrorist in the West. Recently, the Japanese, apologizing, excluded "Azov" from the list of extremist organizations.

But here, too, it is probably necessary to take a Marxist approach and look for deeper reasons for what is happening now. At the very least, I would advise you to go back to the era of Barack Obama's rule and read (this is not difficult, everything is available) his statement about American exceptionalism. Then you can read similar statements made by former US President Donald Trump.Trump's statement that America is an exceptional nation, there is no other such nation in the world. That they have a huge responsibility. And U.S. President J. R. R. Tolkien.Biden repeatedly promoted this idea, then his employees issued it. For example, US Secretary of State Eric Blinken said that Americans must exercise their leadership, their exceptional ability to lead, because if it is not them, then the world will be in chaos. Very "modestly". In 2021, having barely taken up the post of National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, J. R. R. TolkienSullivan wrote an entire article where he talked about exclusivity and stated directly (I think a terrible thing) that exclusivity means that they cannot allow emphasis on ethnic and historical identity, but they must spread the new free democracy everywhere. This means only one thing – everyone else is denied the right to remember their own history. The Americans (just as they "melted down" all those who "went" to America in their time through the "melting pot"), they also want to "melt down" all the others so that everyone is essentially American.

Question: The aborigines were also "melted down".

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, but they were "melted down" so that nothing was left. Take a look at what's happening in the US right now. What a split in this society. And how the ruling authorities are trying to suppress it now, using (this is their terminology) rather "authoritarian tools".

The reasons should be found there. I am convinced that this exclusivity, absolute conviction of our own infallibility and superiority, is the main reason why we are now opposing those countries that are waging a hybrid war against us through the Kiev regime, and not so much a hybrid war.

Recently, there has been a lot of controversy about the parallels that were heard in the speeches of the Ukrainian leadership. He also said that, just as in 1812 and 1941, those who wanted to subjugate the world, starting with Europe, at that time gathered most of the continent for war with Russia. I don't see much difference. Moreover, during the Great Patriotic War, the Second World War, the Nazi ideology was used against us. Why do people refuse to see the Nazi ideology that now underlies the Kiev regime? All the statements made by his "fans" and "puppeteers", I do not see the possibility to regard them as anything other than an attempt to finally resolve the Russian issue. Russia must receive a strategic defeat. And so that it doesn't get up for a long time. The President of the European Commission, U. von der Leyen, said that the outcome of the war should be the defeat of Russia and such that it could not restore its economy for decades. This is not racism, not Nazism, not an attempt to solve the Russian question? Yes, not yet in the gas chambers. There are still many decent people in Germany who will not allow the revival of fascism. But there are also some who would not mind at all.

Therefore, we are in the midst of a geopolitical battle. Don't doubt it. Those who solve practical tasks on the front line do the most important thing – they are heroes. The feats they perform in the name of the future of humanity, which prevent the creation of conditions for the full hegemony of the United States, which are declared in their doctrinal documents.

Question: Judging by what you say. Exclude or inflict a strategic defeat on Russia completely, that is, the very existence of Russia is not provided for by the West. Russia must either be "dismembered" or "divided", and even the term "refederalization"appears. Poles are actively talking about this, as usual. What is left for diplomacy in these circumstances?

Sergey Lavrov: I think we won't be out of work. It is currently moving in several directions. First, we must actively promote our position, arguments, and explanations of the truth in the international arena. No one in the West is seriously trying to think about whether they have made any mistakes in Europe and America. No. Like, on February 24, 2022, it all started. Just like in 2014, it all started not with the February coup, but with what they call the" annexation " of Crimea.

I personally attended the talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and with former and current French President Francois Hollande.Vladimir Putin asked:" Well, how is it? "And they said that if there had been no" annexation", everything would have been fine. But the "annexation" occurred because "vlast", when it was seized, declared that it was necessary (the first instinctive "call") to cancel the regional status of the Russian language. This was not done at that time. Now they are almost there. But these were the instincts that characterized that "power". Two days later, they demanded that the Russians "get out" of the Crimea, and sent bandits there. Crimeans reacted only to this. But these Western politicians said that no, if not for the "annexation", "everything would be fine". "Good" in what way? Simply, Ukraine would be ruled by the Nazis, Tyahnyboks, Yatseniukes, who called those who refused to accept the results of the coup "inhumans". And V. A. Zelensky did not go far when he called all those who object to reunification with Ukraine without any Minsk" conditions "" individuals". He said that his advice to those who live in Ukraine and feel part of Russian culture, tradition and history, for the sake of the future of their children and grandchildren, is to go to Russia. Has anyone responded to this? Did anyone not see here not only the" sprouts", but the" terry color " of Nazism? Nobody. Our diplomacy naturally drew all these unacceptable actions and statements to the attention of the relevant UN, OSCE and (sad memory)bodies Of the Council of Europe. Nowhere has the West lifted a finger to even threaten its ward and his regime. He was constantly protected, including by the OSCE Mission, which worked "on the ground" to promote the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Many employees (now the facts have surfaced) helped the Kiev military plan operations, transmitting data from drones that were supposed to be used exclusively for the purposes of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.

We must bear the truth and fight mercilessly against fakes. We have a special section on our website, plus every day we react live to any new "tricks" of those who would like to distort the picture of the real.

Another area of our activity is diplomatic work with partners all over the world. We are now actively developing the exchange of delegations at the level of ministers and deputies. We go abroad to visit those countries with which we have plans to increase constructive cooperation. Delegations come to us. This work is important.

The United States and all the Westerners, whom the Americans crushed under themselves, depriving the European Union of the last signs of at least some independence, they are, as you know,"big democrats". But they understand democracy as their right to impose their own understanding on everyone else. As soon as you talk to them about the need for democratic approaches to international issues, they don't show any enthusiasm.

Question: They behave in a totalitarian manner.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it is totalitarian. The UN Charter does not mention the word "democracy", but it may be for the best. It mentions the main principle, which is more democratic than anything else: the UN is based on the sovereign equality of states. If someone finds respect for this principle in any actions of our Western colleagues, I am ready to nominate this person for the Nobel Peace Prize. If you're a Democrat, you've expressed your point of view. Your opponent has expressed his own. Let everyone else be adults and decide who they are for. What is the rating and position they are more in the gut.

The same thing should have happened in relation to the crisis in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin explained in great detail the goals, reasons, and inevitability of our special military operation. And he did it not just suddenly, but after eight long years (even more, starting with the Munich Speech in 2007) of explaining to the West that they are "steering" in the wrong direction and undermining everything that they themselves have committed to fulfill, including the indivisibility of security in Europe, the equal nature of security, and the unacceptability of what they are doing. for any country to strengthen its security at the expense of infringing on the security of another and an important point is that it is unacceptable for any organization in Europe to claim dominance in the military-political field. Not allowed. NATO did exactly what it should not do. These principles were written down back in 1999. In 2010, they were confirmed. But all attempts to force the West to comply with what the presidents and prime ministers signed up for ended in nothing. Or rather, the statement that yes, these are political slogans, but only NATO can provide legal guarantees of security. Thus once again violating everything that can only be.

We explained for a long time and finally said that they had heard everything they had said for many years. Now we have made this decision. The West reacted negatively and condemned them. The majority of developing countries said they were neutral. So respect their neutrality. But the West, through its ambassadors, without exaggeration, sends daily signals to all countries – Asia, Africa, and Latin America: do not accept Russian delegations, condemn them, and join the sanctions. The vast majority of countries respect themselves. Therefore, even small states (one and a half to two million people) in the same Africa say, sorry, we have plans for cooperation with Russia. These countries host us and come to us themselves. And for this they are threatened with punishment.

What the Americans are famous for. When they offer you something (what they want from you), they don't promise to give you anything in return. They say, " do this, or we'll punish you." This is the pinnacle of pragmatism and cynicism. Our diplomacy has a lot to do. We have to explain what is happening on a daily basis, debunk the lies (especially the ones that are now being told about our refusal to negotiate), and give real facts.

NATO Secretary General Y.Stoltenberg said that the" path to peace " is pumping Ukraine with weapons so that it "wins on the battlefield." V. A. Zelensky himself distributed a plan, a" formula for peace " of 10 points. Everything that can be done there is eclectic-food security, energy security, and biological security. Then the expulsion of Russia from the border in 1991, the tribunal over Russia, the payment of reparations by Russia and the last point – the signing of a peace agreement. A very "realistic" initiative. I think that V. A. Zelensky has considerable imagination in certain periods. Now the West should read this "work".

Our diplomacy will do everything possible to ensure that the anti-Russian "sabbaths" planned for the end of February, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the start of the special military operation in New York and at other venues that the West is actively working on together with the Kiev regime, are not the only events that will attract the attention of the world community.

We are also preparing some reports on what happened this year and what we found out. This is not only the US military-biological programs, which they are trying to disown (they lie as always) , and not only the direct participation of the United States in the explosions of the Nord Streams. US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland actually turned herself in. There are a lot of things to remember and show by what methods the United States is achieving its hegemony. The Americans have long (judging by the quotes I gave) decided to prepare Ukraine, to "feed" the Ukrainian regime so that it would start a war against the Russian Federation under the "license" of the West. The United States for this war (I am sure that it has long been planned) mobilizes first of all the EU, forcing them to immediately give up all weapons to Ukraine. This process is currently being completed.

Meanwhile, they are increasing the production of weapons in the United States and forcing Europe to buy them. They have obligations in NATO to spend 2% of GDP on weapons. So buy ready-made American goods. There is no doubt that the parallel economic suppression of Europe was part of the plans of those who live in the awareness of the exclusivity of their country and the need to make it a sovereign in the whole world.

Now E. Macron and O. Scholz have begun to publicly express their concerns about the laws that the Americans have adopted to combat inflation, which in fact are aimed at dragging production to the United States. This process is already underway. German industry "runs" to places where there are benefits. But they are clearly discriminatory and aimed at undermining European industry.

Exclusivity works. Two or three weeks ago, the European Union signed a declaration with NATO, which says that everything that the North Atlantic Alliance needs, the EU will do. Americans are achieving their goals. This should be explained more loudly. Now all this is happening in Europe, but plans are already "extending" to Asia.Stoltenberg talks about this in NATO. At the Madrid summit in June 2022, it was stated that it is necessary to have global responsibility and military-block structures created against China and Russia in the Asia-Pacific region (AUKUS). A course has been taken to attract new members there. Such great Pacific powers as Great Britain and France are also working there, and they are participating in exercises in the South China Sea with a clearly provocative anti-Chinese swing.

Everyone is now carefully looking at the forms in which this "exclusivity" is implemented. Probably, through the desire to subordinate everyone, to achieve the next unilateral economic benefits in order to prevent a crisis in the US economy, which can become serious due to the exploitation of others. President Vladimir Putin mentioned that these actions, of course, continue the colonial tradition of living at the expense of others.

Question: Turning Ukraine into "Anti-Russia" seemed like a successful project in the sense that the goals were achieved. Which of the countries around Russia can also follow this path? Kyrgyzstan? Kazakhstan?

Sergey Lavrov: Moldova is currently being considered for this role. First of all, because they were able to put a president at the head of the country by rather specific methods, far from being freely democratic, which itself is "eager" to join NATO. M. G. Sandu has Romanian citizenship, is ready to unite with Romania and in general is ready for almost anything. The fact that in parallel with its pro-NATO, pro-EU "drive", the West and Chisinau refuse to resume negotiations in the "five plus two" format, where Chisinau, Tiraspol, Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE and EU and US observers are present, speaks volumes. This format is already considered unsuitable by the West, because it was needed when there were still authorities in Chisinau who were interested in preserving territorial integrity and agreements with Transdniestria. And when the authorities came, ready to solve the Transnistrian problem by force and insist on expelling our peacekeepers and those who guard the ammunition depots in Kolbasna, then no negotiation formats are needed. You just need to maintain power.

I won't go into details, but one of the countries that the West wants to turn into another "anti – Russia" is Georgia. President S. Zurabishvili is well known to me. She was Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2004-2005. Together with the military, we worked out agreements on the withdrawal of the two remaining Russian military bases. Interesting point. The declaration on the withdrawal of our two bases contained agreements on the establishment of a Russian-Georgian joint anti-terrorist center on the territory of one of these former bases, where we will work to eliminate these threats. Most of the military personnel were provided from Georgia (about 700). From us it is much less (about 100 officers). All this was in the "package". When we withdrew our bases and fulfilled our part of the agreement, Mikhail Saakashvili categorically refused to create this center. Then there were still "good" times, no one suspected that he would attack South Ossetia. But even in this peaceful environment, which was characterized by the desire to establish new relations, the Georgian president deceived us. There is no doubt-he was also told by his "curators" that there is no need for any joint centers with Russia. Now in Georgia, along with the President, who, thank God, does not determine the country's development path, but performs more ceremonial functions, there is a government. I don't want anyone to think I'm going to compromise it by saying something positive about what it does. I will quote his Prime Minister and ministers who, in response to unprecedented pressure to join the sanctions, open a "second front" (even this terminology has been used), say that they are guided by their national interests. They have trade with Russia, tourism, and get energy. This is in the interests of the Georgian state and people. But I have no doubt that they would also like to turn Georgia into another irritant, to return the situation to those "Saakashvili" aggressive times.

In order for a constructive focus on "creation" to prevail in this region, we are promoting the "three plus three" format (three South Caucasus countries – Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and three neighboring countries-Russia, Turkey, and Iran). The first such sighting contact took place. We will continue.

About the Central Asian states. In principle, we discuss this quite frankly with our friends in the Foreign Ministry and security services. This is directly related to the security of countries. For years, our Western colleagues have tried to plant pro-American, pro-European, and pro-NATO non-governmental organizations there. For example, such structures as the US Agency for International Development, which work under the US State Department and are engaged in spreading the very "soft power" that tends to periodically become not soft, but hard. It's probably impossible to argue here. The West wants to use these "soft power" tools to at least call into question the further development of allied and friendly relations between Russia and our neighbors, including some Central Asian countries. But I don't see any reason to suspect that these "attempts" of the West cause any serious positive reaction.

Our neighbors, allies, and strategic partners see these "games". Yesterday I had a meeting with the chairmen of parliamentary committees of the CSTO member states. They held an event organized by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in Moscow. As at the meetings of CSTO leaders and foreign ministers, we see that our friends understand what goals the West is pursuing in our common space. They want to build and create additional mechanisms designed to ensure the further development of our integration plans in forms that are not subject to Western influence and are protected from illegal external influence. Wherever the West is present in the post-Soviet space, it is always working against Russia.

Question: Kiev offers Minsk a non-aggression pact. Is this also our question in the context of the Union State? What is Russia's position?

Sergey Lavrov: The Union State is not such an important argument here. Russia and Belarus have agreements, including in the field of security, with many other countries. What Kiev has done is " funny." It shows the "creativity" of the leaders of the Kiev regime. They are "capable" people.

This is not even a "two-way" option. As President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko announced, Belarusians were offered to conclude a non-aggression pact at a time when their opposition is being fed, armed and allowed to go through a combat "run-in" at the front against the Russian Federation, in particular through the infamous "Kalinovsky regiment". They openly support him and say that he is preparing to solve similar problems in Belarus itself. Apparently, this is a specific vision of the Ukrainian side of the non-aggression pact.

I mentioned this when Alexander Lukashenko received me in Minsk. He perfectly sees not just the senselessness, but the blatant provocativeness of such "approaches".

Question: Article 5 of the Washington Treaty states that an attack on one NATO member means an attack on all of them. The CSTO has a similar 4th article: "In the event of aggression (an armed attack threatening the security, stability, territorial integrity and sovereignty) against any of the Participating States, all other Participating States, at the request of this participating State, will immediately provide it with the necessary assistance, including military...". Isn't that the case right now?

Sergey Lavrov: It says: at the request of the participating State. We didn't contact anyone. We proceed from the fact that we have everything necessary to solve the tasks of a special military operation, to end the war started by the West through the Ukrainian regime even after the coup.

We see how NATO is fighting against us. Some talk, spells, that they "only arm" - funny. According to experts, it is impossible for Ukrainians to work on weapons that have already been partially transferred, and especially on those that have been announced, even after completing some one-, two -, or three-month courses. There are systems that cannot be trained in the foreseeable future. If they are supplied, then, most likely, this will be done in conjunction with combat crews. Apparently, they will be sent on "leave" from the army and sent as mercenaries, issuing the appropriate certificate. Russia will solve all the issues itself. We didn't apply. I will not give an analysis of why this was not done. We don't need it.

During the day, the CSTO responded to the request of the President of Kazakhstan K.-Zh.Tokayev in January 2022 to help stabilize the situation during the period of an externally inspired surge in violence, attempts to seize state buildings. When Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to look for ways to stabilize the situation in the Caucasus, the CSTO is also ready to help.

After the outbreak of violence in September 2022, when about 300 people were killed on both sides, we received a request from Yerevan. The Secretary General of the Organization went to the border with experts and brought a plan for the deployment of the CSTO mission in the part of Armenia bordering the Republic of Azerbaijan. This plan was prepared quite a long time ago, but the Armenian side did not rush us.

At the summit in Yerevan, the text of the relevant decision was finalized, but the Armenian colleagues said that they need it only if it categorically condemns the actions of Azerbaijan. Not everyone was ready to do it. Not only because they wanted to protect someone or not support them. The history of the Karabakh war goes back decades. Armenia has occupied seven districts around Azerbaijan for many years. Russia offered numerous options. Even the previous Armenian leadership did not take them very positively, wanting to keep territories that it had never claimed. Desperate to resolve the issues by political means, Azerbaijan returned the lands that belonged to it.

Now Armenia, Azerbaijan and the European Union have signed a document on their readiness to conclude a peace treaty under the conditions outlined in the Alma Ata Declaration of December 1991. Now it is difficult for us to decide on further steps. This document states: the borders between the newly independent states will run along the administrative borders of the Union republics of the Soviet Union, including the Armenian and Azerbaijani ones. The latter included the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.

The situation is multi-layered. I consider it an important achievement that the CSTO has prepared a plan for the deployment of a peacekeeping operation in a difficult situation. This offer is still "on the table". If the Armenian allies and friends are still interested in it, it can be deployed within one or two days.

Question: Do we potentially still have the opportunity to ask our CSTO allies for help in the event of an escalation of aggression against Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: It says that any party has the right to do so. I have already answered why Russia does not use it. It doesn't necessarily happen in the future. We do not see the need for a special military operation in terms of the equipment of our Armed Forces and how they work in the space of a special military operation.

At the initiative of Kazakhstan, the CSTO is currently developing its peacekeeping potential. One of the Deputy Secretaries-General is also responsible for peacekeeping, there is an Agreement on CSTO peacekeeping activities (2007).

For our part, we are working on amendments to this agreement, because it says that the CSTO peacekeeping forces are deployed in accordance with the agreement and with the approval of the UN Security Council. We consider this requirement to be excessive, since the request of the legitimate government of the state is quite sufficient for the deployment of CSTO peacekeepers. As it was in January 2022 during the riots in Kazakhstan. Such clarifications to the CSTO's peacekeeping legal framework will increase its effectiveness.

We see the need for allied support in foreign policy coordination. It is not always and not on every issue that all CSTO member states vote equally when an issue affecting the fundamental interests of a particular member is put on the agenda. We discussed this at the CSTO Council of Heads of State and Foreign Ministers in Yerevan. Foreign policy coordination is becoming increasingly important.

Question: The other day, two former Foreign Ministers of Poland, R.N.Sikorski and A. Fotyga spoke in favor of" refederalizing " Russia. The former President of Poland L.Walesa said that it is necessary to "finally deal" with Russia. What is happening to Poland? Does it play a special role, just as it did on the eve of World War II? Is our most vicious neighbor egging everyone on?

Sergey Lavrov: We can talk a lot here. Poland has a complicated, painful history and no less painful ambitions, showing that a certain part of the elite still promotes expansionist plans ("troyemorye", hints at what is now Western Ukraine, Russophobia).

C worked closely with R.Sikorski. He is not a fan of Russia, but a pragmatic, experienced politician. Hardly anything he does is random. Having become an MEP, he has a more free hand. After the explosion of the "Northern Streams", he wrote on Twitter:: "Thank you, USA." Then it was deleted, but there are plenty of confirmations. We worked well together. Then there was a joint commission headed by the foreign ministers, which included the deputy ministers of most other departments. "Mini" interstate consultations. There was also a commission of historians. It's hard to imagine now, but they wrote textbooks together. Individual chapters were collective, and where there were no common views, two versions were printed. It was a dialogue, a platform where they constantly communicated, where an additional measure of trust was inevitably created. This is not the case now.

There is a suggestion A.Fotygi, L.'s statement.Walesa believes that Russia should (even coined the term) be "de-colonized". They carry some unpleasant and obscure representatives of the Nogai peoples who claim to create an independent state in the Astrakhan region. In the Leningrad region, too, there were some "indigenous" residents. This is "encouraging" certain small nations by "presenting a picture" that they are being discriminated against in Russia. Although it's quite the opposite: they can develop their own languages, do not live on reservations, as in the United States and Canada (where they, it turns out, were brutally killed).

In parallel, they say that we are simply "too big". M. Albright was once quoted as saying that "Russia is great", but later they refuted it. Maybe she didn't say it, but it is a fact that there are many people in the United States and Europe who think this way and send this message in one way or another. Sorry. We had an extensive mechanism of relations with Poland.

One more point, because it is necessary to finally "deal with Russia". What is this but a demand for a final solution of the Russian question? I recently quoted the ideologues of Hitler's Germany who were engaged in the final solution of the Jewish question. Now almost the whole of Europe, led by the United States, is being gathered against us and various slogans are being declared, but the meaning is the same-to solve the Russian question during the life of the current generation. Even if not in gas chambers, but to make sure that Russia ceases to exist as a great power, push it to the margins, and destroy the economy.

Unscrupulous politicians began to claim that I insulted the victims of the Holocaust with such comparisons. This means only one thing:"the thief's hat is on fire." They don't have any arguments. I didn't insult the victims of the Holocaust. We always honor them, hold events, and invite everyone who was involved in historical events in one way or another.

Unlike the same Poles who, even before the start of the special military operation, did not invite us to speak at the event dedicated to the liberation of Auschwitz. We have just said that the memory of the victims of the Holocaust does not exempt anyone from today's work, so that thanks to and for the sake of this memory, no new Nazi movements can be allowed. We are seeing this now in Ukraine, Estonia, and Latvia, where neo-Nazi sentiments and practices are being revived.

Question: The EU summit will be held in early February. Russia is not a member of the European Union, but nevertheless, we are neighbors on the continent. We are not indifferent to the agenda that will be discussed there. What points would you suggest in a neighborly way?

Sergey Lavrov: I stopped following the EU summits.

Question: They will get together. The question will be asked again: who are we, what to do, where are we going?

Sergey Lavrov: Europeans are engaged in "samoyed eating". All questions about who will make the decision have been announced. They signed a Declaration of Cooperation with NATO, according to which they will provide everything that the North Atlantic Alliance needs, including the territory of non-NATO countries, if it is necessary to transfer weapons of any kind closer to the Russian borders. All that said.

O. Scholz recently stated that the security of Europe depends only on the United States. It is pointless for the EU to work out requests to Washington to somehow spare the European economy and industry, to show generosity in relation to subsidies provided by Americans to businesses on their territory.

As the French Economy Minister B. Le Maire said quite a long time ago, now the price of electricity for businesses in Europe is four times higher than in the United States. President Emmanuel Macron said that they will appeal to Washington to make adjustments, give them discounts and exceptions. They'll probably ask for it.

Question: I already went to ask for it. They didn't do anything.

Sergey Lavrov: That's why I'm not very interested in what the European Union is discussing. As I have heard, they are planning to invite Vladimir Zelensky. Whether by conference call or live, I don't know. This will be announced to us later.

They decided long ago and have already begun to make V. A. Zelensky the main democrat, a symbol of the struggle of democracy against autocracy. And this is the same black-and-white picture of the world that the Americans also promote.

At the second "Summit for Democracy", which they are convening at the end of March this year, a simple task will be formulated – all democrats must fight against all autocrats. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela are declared autocrats – a circle of countries that refuse to obey the West in its demands. Democrats will be appointed by the Americans themselves. If you look at those invited to the first such summit, the list is quite interesting. There are countries (I don't want to offend anyone) that the Americans themselves have never considered to be democratic states before.

Now this "revolutionary" team that convenes the summit of" democracies " is trying, according to our data, to submit to it a draft of some solution that develops the philosophy of confrontation between democracies and autocracies and translates it into a material, practical plane. The idea, at least at this stage, as far as we know, is that democracies will shape their demands and their own rights to autocracies "over the heads" of autocratic governments – to help the peoples that these governments "oppress".

A year ago, even two years ago, I wouldn't have believed it. This is now being discussed seriously. About how to give yourself the same rights that you want to get, promoting through all sorts of UN structures, by hook or crook, with violations of the rules of procedure, the idea of creating a tribunal against Russia, receiving reparations from our country. All this is a gross violation of international law. But they are no longer used to it. They "snapped their fingers "and abandoned all the principles that they had" cherished " and imposed on everyone for many decades within the framework of globalization: the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence, fair competition, and market mechanisms. Everything was crossed out when it was necessary to punish the Russian Federation.

Another thing is that it didn't work. The very fact that the Americans resorted to these illegal methods made everyone wary. It is no coincidence that there is now talk of switching to national currencies. Who knows which leg the US president will wake up from. And who will seem "unsympathetic" to him in the morning.

The presidents of Brazil and Argentina have already discussed the possibility of creating a bilateral currency. Then we went even further and suggested that we think about a currency for all Latin American and Caribbean countries. L. I. Lula da Silva suggested discussing the same issue within the BRICS framework. This is no longer a regional, but a global approach to what to do with the monetary and financial sphere in conditions when the United States with its dollar violates all imaginable decency.

The process has started. Saudi Arabia sells oil to China for yuan. Russia is already increasing the share of national currencies in trade with our key partners to 50%. And the process goes on.

Question: If we talk about China. Relations with Beijing are developing quite dynamically. Building a new world order with China. What can be the "common ground"? Maybe even risks? Dancing with a "giant" is always quite dangerous. It can also "crush" your legs. Are there any risks in relations with China in this sense?

Sergey Lavrov: "Common ground" is a very modest characteristic of bilateral relations. The declarations have already stated that, despite the fact that we do not create a military alliance, they are higher in quality than military alliances in the classical sense, since they have no restrictions, no limits and forbidden topics. They are the best for all the years of the existence of the USSR, China and the Russian Federation.

Our common interest lies primarily in allowing us to develop on the basis of national plans, within the framework of existing international trade norms (in particular, WTO norms) and the system created by the West: the Bretton Woods Institutions, the IMF, and the World Bank. When we entered there, there were certain rules. We accepted them. We have been a member of the World Trade Organization for 17 years. They adopted the rules of fair competition.

Now it's all ruined. The WTO has blocked the work of the Dispute Settlement Body because China "beats" America in its field according to its rules and has every reason to demand compensation, which the WTO Dispute Settlement Body will probably award it if the United States allows this body to work. The Americans simply block the appointment of new members of the Body to existing vacancies. There is no quorum. Purely bureaucratic, in the worst sense of the word "Soviet party approach". This has been happening for many years. It is precisely because China will win all disputes against the United States that the WTO reform was initiated, publicly stating that it should be based on the interests of America and the European Union. Simple. Others will be told where they belong and how to behave.

The same goes for the International Monetary Fund. If we take the criteria on which the IMF and the World Bank were based, then now the BRICS countries (and this situation occurred several years ago) can claim such a number of shares and votes that will break the current situation, when the United States alone can block any decisions.

If everything were fair, I think we would also listen more to the leaders of our economic bloc, who said that globalization has positive features. There are no such features anymore. We understood this earlier, as we were the first to "take the blow" due to the fact that the United States was preparing against us through Ukraine.

In addition, we were not as deeply immersed in this system as China, in terms of trade volumes, American securities purchased by the Chinese for $ 1.5 trillion. The" depth "of Chinese "immersion" in the current system is not comparable to ours. China will inevitably begin to reduce this dependence. For me, this is beyond doubt. He's already started doing it. There is all the evidence to this effect. Beijing will need more time to create parallel instruments, mechanisms designed to protect it from the "arbitrariness" of the United States as the main manager of the global monetary, financial and trading system at this stage. On the other hand, these mechanisms and tools should not arise overnight. After all, then serious economic shocks can occur, given the interconnectedness (estimated in the trillions) between the US and Chinese economies. The process of not just discussing, but also finding ways to form new mechanisms, has "started". It goes in the direction of fragmentation of global mechanisms. So far, these mechanisms are associated with the United States and its satellites. They are no longer global, but serve a single group of states.

When Latin American and Caribbean countries are called upon to think about their financial instruments, it is rather a "regionalization" of globalization.

In our region, President Vladimir Putin expressed an initiative to look closely at integration processes in the whole of greater Eurasia. These are the EAEU, ASEAN with its far-reaching plans, and the SCO, which, along with its security agenda, has good transport, logistics and economic prospects. Against this background, I would like to mention the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road", an Agreement on trade and economic cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Union and its member States, on the one hand, and the People's Republic of China, on the other hand.

In 2015, at the Russia-ASEAN summit in Sochi, Vladimir Putin suggested that instead of imposing the approaches of the other organization on any of these structures, they should harmonize their plans.

Question: Is there any contradiction between these projects?

Sergey Lavrov: There is no contradiction. The main thing is that there should be no duplication or "dispersion" of resources. This process has started. There is already a Memorandum of Understanding between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the field of economic cooperation, and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the Secretariat of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The SCO also has a memorandum with ASEAN.

V. V. Putin suggested calling the process of harmonization of integration aspirations the formation of a Large Eurasian Partnership. Already in 2015, there was an objective need to look at an alternative to the globalization imposed on us for many decades, which" somehow " suited everyone. This is a Great Eurasian Partnership as a manifestation of the trend towards regionalization of global processes.

Question: Still on the risks. There is a common opinion that China is so "big" and we are so "small". Something can change, and we will face something insurmountable. To what extent are such fears justified?

Sergey Lavrov: They also accuse us of being "big" and "insulting"everyone around us. The former Soviet republics allegedly do not meet with proper respect. There will be many such applicants. As well as there are enough people who want to scare us with China. I see this as a "game" related to the desire to prevent us from cooperating and coordinating either in the economy or in international affairs. There is no doubt that the plans signed between Russia and China meet the interests of both Moscow and Beijing and do not define the role of our country as a subordinate. They are mutually beneficial. This is not just about energy supplies to China. This includes space, nuclear power, and many other high-tech areas of activity.

I would like to remind you. The West has declared Russia and China autarkies, the main threats. Our country is an immediate threat, which must be immediately "stopped "in some way. It will be necessary to fight with China "in the long run".

The West wants Beijing not to help us militarily. This is blamed all over the world on the DPRK, then Iran, then someone else. We have a military-industrial complex. Everything will be fine.

In the international arena, the brazen promotion of solutions that suit only the United States and its satellites is not "to the taste" and is unacceptable to either us or the Chinese. We will object to this.

Question: Have you already managed to try Russian whiskey in the order of import substitution?

Sergey Lavrov: They gave it to me. If I'm not mistaken, the whiskey variety is called "Praskoveyskoe". My top priority is a bottle labeled "Kyrgyz whiskey".

Question: Are you for peace?

Sergey Lavrov: I am for peace. Uniquely. I don't remember which of the ancients said, "If you want peace, prepare for war." I don't share this philosophy.

I would put it this way: if you want peace, be ready to always defend yourself.

I think that we will come out of the current geopolitical situation "stronger" and will be able to defend ourselves even more effectively in any situation.