Lavrov's Presser Reviewing 2022 While Anticipating 2023 Part One
Today marked another annual tradition of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs where the FM orates about the past year's events and takes questions from the press. The following is a machine translation of the original Russian transcript and unmodified by any emphasis on my part. The transcript proved too long for VK so I had to break it into two parts.
Dear colleagues,
Good afternoon!
By tradition, we meet at the beginning of the new year to talk about the results and events of the past. It was very difficult, to some extent unique. Deep trends in geopolitics and in the international aspirations of the leading states, which had been maturing for decades, were manifested.
Our Western colleagues sought to make Ukraine and everything that is happening around it the main media, political and economic event, accusing the Russian Federation of causing all the troubles of the world economy. I will not dwell on the refutation of these statements. Statistics, including from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and other international structures, convincingly suggest that the crisis was brewing long before the start of the special military operation. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly cited data describing how negative phenomena in the global economy began, primarily as a result of the selfish position of the United States and its allies.
What is happening now in Ukraine is the result of many years of preparation by the United States and its satellites for the beginning of a global hybrid war against the Russian Federation. Nobody hides it. If you read unbiased Western figures, including political scientists, scientists, politicians, you can see this. Just the other day there was an article by Columbia University professor J. Bremmer. He wrote: "We are not in a state of Cold War with Russia. We are in a "hot war" with Russia. NATO is not directly fighting it. We are fighting through Ukraine." Quite a frank admission. That conclusion lies on the surface. It is strange that they are trying to refute it in some way. Recently, President of Croatia Zmitri Milanovic said that this is a NATO war. Frankly, honestly. A few weeks ago, Kissinger (before calling for Ukraine's admission to NATO in the last article) clearly wrote that what is happening in Ukraine is a clash, a rivalry between two nuclear powers for control over this territory. It's pretty clear what we're talking about.
Our Western partners are disingenuous when they deny and "foam at the mouth" prove that they are not at war with Russia, but only help Ukraine cope with "aggression" and restore territorial integrity. The volume of support clearly indicates that the West has put a lot on its war against Russia. That's understandable.
The events around Ukraine revealed the implicitly maturing desire of the United States to stop seeking to strengthen its position in the world by legitimate means and move to illegitimate methods of ensuring its dominance. Everything goes into play. The mechanisms created by the West, led by the United States and considered sacred, have been destroyed (not because we see in Ukraine). The free market, fair competition, free enterprise, inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence – all that was based on the Western model of globalization collapsed overnight. Sanctions are applied against Russia and other "undesirable" countries that contradict these postulates and mechanisms. It is clear that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow they can be used against any state that in one way or another will not recklessly carry out American orders.
The European Union has completely submitted to American dictates (needless to say). The apotheosis of this process, which was formed over several years, was the signing on January 10 of this year of the Joint Declaration of NATO and the EU on Cooperation. It explicitly states that the alliance and the European Union have the task of using all political, economic and military means in the interests of the "golden billion". That's exactly what it says – in the interests of one billion citizens of NATO and EU countries. The rest, in the words of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy J. Borrell, are "jungles" that prevent the "flowering garden" from developing. Therefore, they need to be reformatted, adjusted to their needs, turned into colonies of a new type and ruthlessly pumped out resources from there by new methods. The means are known: demonization, blackmail, sanctions, threats of force and much more. Now the West's line on the destruction of traditional ties of historical partners in different regions, their fragmentation and destabilization is more noticeable. We see this in the Balkans, in the post-Soviet space, especially if we analyze the actions of the United States, its "clients" and "helpers" in Central Asia, in Transcaucasia.
Everything that is happening around Ukraine has matured for a long time. In 2004, there was the first "Maidan". Then, for the first time, European officials said that Ukraine should choose whether it is with the West or with Russia. Since then, this "either-or" has been consistently promoted in Western policy towards the region. Those who chose the "wrong or" and expected that his historical ties, family ties, traditions and religious beliefs connect him with the Russian Federation (although he or she lives in Ukraine), at first more or less delicately, and in the end ruthlessly "grinded", excluded from political life, applied criminal prosecution measures to them. This included the murder of recalcitrant journalists and politicians, the closure of media outlets that did not reflect the "official" point of view. The creation of a police, Nazi state was in full swing. Now it is, in fact, completed with the "blessing" of the West. Alternatives "either with the West or with Russia" were needed in order to identify those who are not with the West, but against it. They began to be actively punished.
Returning to the declaration of NATO and the European Union. Interesting document. The two structures have been declared "an alliance of democracies against autocracies in the face of global rivalry." A deliberately confrontational agenda has been proclaimed for the whole world. At the same time, Europe has lost its independence. The joint declaration directly puts the Europeans in a subordinate position in relation to the North Atlantic Alliance. Contains their commitment to serving American interests in the geopolitical containment of Russia and China. The declared goal (it was known to everyone, but now once again documented) is to achieve the global superiority of the alliance led by the Americans.
NATO is not limited to organizing the life of the European continent. Since the Madrid summit in June 2022, the global responsibility of the military bloc has been proclaimed, especially in relation to the Asia-Pacific region, which NATO calls the Indo-Pacific region. It is clear that there is an attempt to flirt with India in order to introduce additional difficulties into relations with the PRC. The slogan of the indivisibility of security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region has been declared. Pun. Since the 1990s, the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council have written down an oath of allegiance to the principle of the indivisibility of security. It meant equal security for each state and an obligation not to strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of others. Now the term itself has been taken out of context, it has been given a new meaning – the indivisibility of the interests of NATO and the Indo-Pacific region. The difference is noticeable.
In the "Indo-Pacific region", as westerners call it, a course has been taken to create a bloc architecture against Russia and China. To this end, the mechanisms and formats of cooperation that have been created around ASEAN for decades on the principles of equality, the search for consensus and a balance of interests are being consistently destroyed (although they prefer to remain silent about it). Instead, they assemble military blocs. The clearest example is AUKUS. This is the Anglo-Saxon bloc in Asia (it includes the United States, Great Britain and Australia). Japan is being actively drawn in. Prime Minister F. Kissida's recent visit to Washington ended with a reaffirmation of this course. Japan is once again on the path of militarization. As far as I understand, it is necessary to change the articles of the constitution that prevent this. The process has begun.
I will not talk in detail about the actions of the West in other geopolitical areas. Today we consider the position of the United States and the West to be the main problem that creates difficulties in all azimuths. In short, it goes something like this. Washington's policy of dictate in international affairs literally means the following: Americans are allowed everything they want and wherever they want (at least on the other side of the Earth). What they think is necessary, they will do. Everyone else cannot do anything without American consent, even in response to direct security threats that the United States itself creates on the borders of countries.
Just as Napoleon mobilized almost all of Europe against the Russian Empire, just as A. Hitler captured, put most European countries "under arms" and threw them against the Soviet Union, the United States formed a coalition of almost all Europeans who are members of NATO and the EU, and through Ukraine "by proxy" is waging war against our country with the same task - the final solution of the "Russian question". Hitler wanted to finally solve the "Jewish question."
Now Western politicians (not only from the Baltic States, Poland, but also from more "sane" countries) say that Russia must suffer a strategic defeat. In some publications, political scientists are actively arguing that it is necessary to decolonize Russia. Like, again our country is too big and "interferes". Just the other day I read an article in the Telegraph, which calls for the liberation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, leaving Karelia, Koenigsberg and the Kuriles for negotiations. Clearly, this is a tabloid. We read the yellow press forcibly, because sometimes it pops up on the front pages of the news.
There are many such statements, including among our non-systemic opposition. None of the Western politicians refute this. French President Emmanuel Macron, in addition to his project of the European Political Community, which is directly proclaimed as a format where all Europeans, except Russia and Belarus, will be invited, put forward a new idea – to convene a conference of European states. I proposed to invite eu members, Eastern Partnership member states (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), Moldova and Ukraine. I doubt that Belarusians will be invited. But I would like to draw your attention to the EU, the Eastern Partnership countries plus, I draw your attention to emigrants from Russia who are engaged in active political activities abroad. It is stipulated (not in Emmanuel Macron's presentation, but in subsequent comments) that certain regions of Russia that "seek to maintain ties with Europe" can be invited to the conference of European states. I think it's clear what I'm talking about. The situation is not at all black and white, as Western colleagues are trying to present it, but reflects the course towards global domination, unquestioning subordination of everyone and everything under the threat of "punishment".
None of the Western politicians talk about anything but sanctions. Recently, in Davos, W. von der Leyen once again threatened Russia and Belarus with new sanctions. Like, they know what to introduce, how to "strangle" the Russian economy so that it falls into recession for decades. That's what it's all about. There is such an expression – masks are dropped. For many years, the UN Security Council discussed sanctions against a particular country that violated international law and its obligations. Each time, the Westerners, who initiated certain measures, swore that it was not about sanctions that would punish the peoples and the population, but "against the regimes." Where are these exhortations now?
Sanctions against Russia are openly declared as aimed at ensuring that the people make a "revolution" against the current leaders of our country. Here, no one observes or gathers any decency. Nevertheless, this reaction, a frenzied attempt by all means, true and false, forbidden methods to ensure the dominance of the United States and the rest of the West (which Washington has completely crushed under itself), reflects the understanding that historically they are acting against the objective course of events and, in fact, are trying to stop the formation of a multipolar world. This is happening not by the decision of some "offices on the Potomac River" or in some other capital, but in a natural way.
Countries are developing economically. Look at China and India (our strategic partners), Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, many countries of the African continent. There, the potential for development, taking into account the colossal reserves of natural resources, is enormous. New centers of economic growth are being formed. The West is trying to prevent this, including by speculating on the mechanisms created to serve its interests within the framework of the globalization it has created. Here, the role of the dollar as a reserve currency is one of the main ones. Therefore, within the framework of our contacts between the SCO, BRICS, the CIS, the EAEU, in cooperation with the associations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, we are trying in every possible way to build new forms of interaction so as not to depend on the West and its (now it is already clear) neocolonial methods. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke frankly and clearly about this. The methods are used only to plunder the rest of the world in the new conditions. Together with our reliable partners and friendly countries, we are building such forms of interaction that will benefit us. They will not be able to be influenced by those who want to subjugate the whole world.
These are my assessments of the past year. The main thing is that the processes that this year saw did not originate yesterday, but many years ago. They will continue. It will take time to form a multipolar world, to finalize the relations necessary for democracy, justice and the principle of the UN Charter (respect for the sovereign equality of all states) to reign in the world. The UN Charter is a good foundation. When it was adopted, it was a revolutionary document. Unfortunately, all the right principles were distorted by the West. On his part, there was no respect for the principle of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes. Many hundreds of times since the creation of the Un, the United States has used its military overseas. In most cases, in gross violation of the Charter of the Organization.
The process of forming a multipolar world order will be long. This will take a certain historical epoch. We are in the midst of this process. Sometimes the direct participants of events of this scale are not immediately visible, so constant contacts with each other, the exchange of assessments, impressions are very valuable for us. This applies not only to our partners in foreign countries, but also to our colleagues from the media. Your observations and the questions you want to ask are useful to us.
Question: How do you assess the chances that this year it will be possible to organize negotiations between Russia and the leading Western countries led by the United States on Ukraine? What security issues in the context of the Ukrainian settlement would Russia like to put on the negotiating table? Do you assume the possibility that this year the active power phase will be stopped?
Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the active phase of force. Our military has repeatedly commented on these issues. President of Russia Vladimir Putin personally confirmed once again that the special military operation has non-fictional and not just "taken from the ceiling" goals, but determined by the fundamental and legitimate interests of the security of the Russian Federation, its position in the world, primarily in our immediate environment.
In Ukraine, as in any other territory bordering the territory of the Russian Federation, there should be no military infrastructure that poses a direct threat to our country, discrimination, persecution against our compatriots. By the will of fate, they turned out to be citizens of the Ukrainian state, but they want to preserve their language, culture and traditions, to educate their children in these traditions in full accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, which states that it guarantees the free use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities. The Russian language is specially highlighted there. This Constitution remains in force.
We sent to the media materials listing the articles of the Constitution and then the specific obligations of Ukraine under international conventions, as well as a voluminous list of laws that were adopted in violation of the Constitution and international obligations of the Ukrainian state. I was surprised by the interview of the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky to ZDF in October 2022, he reasoned that if Russia is allowed to win, then other big countries will decide that they can also "do it". And there are enough such countries on different continents. Therefore, they will supposedly "strangle" the small ones and share everything else among themselves. Volodymyr Zelenskyy stressed that he is for a different scenario: when everyone on the planet will know that regardless of where he lives, he has the same rights and is also protected as any person in the world. This was stated by a man who in November 2021 (the year before) said that "individuals" live in the east, not people. And even earlier in August of the same year, Vladimir Zelensky noted that if any of the citizens of Ukraine feels Russian and thinks in Russian, wants to remain Russian, then for the sake of the future of his children and grandchildren, he needs to go to Russia. It was the same man who now stated that he dreamed that everyone would be equal and everyone could live the way he wanted. It is clear that these "beautiful" words are given out for the needs of the West, but all this "strongly" characterizes the current regime. It is understandable why we cannot abandon the basic objectives of a special military operation.
As for the prospects for negotiations. This has already been discussed and considered dozens of times. I don't want to repeat the obvious facts. Starting in March 2021, we supported Ukraine's request for negotiations. Moreover, we have finalized the draft settlement proposed by this country. But Ukraine was "slapped on the hands" and said that it was too early. Since then, after the spring of 2022, all summer until the beginning of autumn, Western officials have repeatedly said in every way that it is too early to start negotiations. The country needs to be given more weapons so that it can start negotiations from a stronger position. Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said bluntly the other day that "arming Ukraine is the way to peace." Mr Zelensky himself puts forward some absolutely absurd ten-point initiatives, where everything that is possible is piled up: food, energy and biological security, the withdrawal of Russian troops from everywhere, repentance of the Russian Federation, tribunal and condemnation.
Negotiations with V.A. Zelensky are out of the question. Because he legally forbade negotiations with the Russian government. All this Western chatter about them being ready and we're not is all from the evil one.
You asked what is the prospect of negotiations between Russia and the West on the Ukrainian issue. We will be ready to respond to any serious proposals, consider them and make up our minds. So far, we do not see such proposals. We hear incantations in Western capitals that "not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine." This is all nonsense. In fact, the West decides for Ukraine. They also banned Vladimir Zelensky from reaching an agreement with Russia at the end of March 2022, when such an agreement was ready. So, the West decides. He decided without Ukraine for Ukraine, which is not the time. Now they are saying the same thing: that they need to get more weapons and exhaust the Russian Federation.
I don't know who is doing military planning there. There was a meeting between CIA Director William Burns and SVR Head Sergei Naryshkin. This meeting was proposed by US President Joe Biden, and President of Russia Vladimir Putin agreed. It happened. No revelations were made there.
The West, in the sporadic, rare contacts that occur at one level or another, basically does not say anything that would go beyond its public speeches. Our position on this matter is well known. Talking to the West only on Ukraine is pointless. He is using Ukraine to destroy the security system that has existed in the Euro-Atlantic region for many years and was based on the principles of consensus indivisibility of security, the solution of all issues through dialogue and cooperation. The embodiment of these ideals was the OSCE, which the West is now intensively "burying", just as it practically "buried" the Council of Europe. Organizations created for dialogue and the search for consensus and compromise are now being used to promote the very course of total domination of the United States (and under them the rest of the West) in everything and everywhere. To talk to us that we will "come up with something" with Ukraine, and everything else will be theirs? No. An honest conversation will be needed.
I think that at this stage we do not need to take the initiative in those areas that the West itself "closed", including as it did in the Council of Europe, which everyone was so proud of. Moreover, there are several dozen conventions in the Council of Europe where it is not required to be a member of the Council of Europe, but it is allowed to participate in them. Here too, the West has decided to abolish Russia and build discriminatory obstacles to the participation of our representatives in the work of the relevant bodies of these conventions, which are open to non-members of the Council of Europe. In this situation, unacceptable conditions are put forward for the participation of our representatives in the review activities. In such circumstances, we will not put up with this. Recently, for this reason, they withdrew from the Convention against Corruption. This does not mean that we have stopped fighting corruption, but that we do not want to sit on the "side chair" in the relevant body and listen to Western notations in the event that we are infringed in our even procedural rights. I can give you examples for a long time.
Question: There is an opinion among many Europeans that Russia did not show its best by deciding to go to military action. Thus, it acts like the rest of the imperialist countries, like the US. They bombed almost half of the planet, violating international law, in order to seize a certain territory. Similar criticism is often heard in Greece, Cyprus and the Balkans, as they are also victims of such policies. You are one of the best experts on this issue. It is said that there are threats in the Aegean Sea from Turkey against Greece. How would you argue with that position?
Sergey Lavrov: I will not argue. I'll just state my opinion. You said that Russia did not show its best qualities when the special military operation began. That's an interesting formulation.
We showed our "best qualities" after the Soviet Union disappeared. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said this many times. In 2001, after his election as president, one of his first foreign visits was to Germany, where he spoke at the Bundestag in German. Thus, Vladimir Putin personally "fit in" into the historical reconciliation between Germany and our country. This reconciliation took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. It was reconciliation at the state and official level. Vladimir Putin personally "invested" in this historic reconciliation between Russians and Germans. Let us not forget that Germany became united, primarily thanks to the Soviet Union. Because the other victorious powers, to put it mildly, did not want this very much.
We were ready and for a long time showed our best in terms of respecting international law and finding solutions that will work for the benefit of all of Europe and all of humanity. He gave the example of the first Ukrainian "Maidan" (2004), when official Europe said that Ukraine should choose: it is with Europe or with Russia. This was three years before Vladimir Putin's Munich speech. At that time, we hoped that reason would prevail and Europe would understand that nato should not be constantly deceived and moved east despite the promises made. This cannot be done not only contrary to verbal promises, but also to the commitments recorded in the OSCE. No one strengthens their own security at the expense of the safety of others. No Organization in the OSCE area can claim a dominant role. It's written down. This is signed, among other things, by the heads of state of Greece, the United States and Russia. The same formula that no one should claim dominance in Europe is written in the documents of the NATO-Russia Council at the highest level.
If you think that recklessly advancing the alliance in spite of our official protests is the fulfillment of that commitment, then we can hardly understand each other here. I am convinced that you do not think so and understand perfectly well what is being said. You said that we also behaved like the rest of the imperial countries. Yes. We are now called an empire again. I leave these terms to the discretion of specialists and professionals.
We are a country where a huge number of nationalities live, where almost three hundred languages are represented, where almost all world religions are represented, where there is respect for the national traditions of each of the peoples. We, as a multinational and multi-confessional country, have been developing for more than one hundred years. Unlike Western colonial practices, they never suppressed the peoples who were part of the Russian Empire and did not destroy them, did not throw them into a kind of "melting pot" so that they all lost their identity, identity and all became "Americans, on one face." They didn't succeed, as you can see lately. All those who joined the Russian Empire preserved their manners, traditions, identity, customs and languages.
As for the seizure of territory and the fact that we have the same "instincts" as the Western empires. The United States invaded foreign territory about three hundred times. In most cases, either because someone from the Americans was offended – this regularly happens in Central America, in the Caribbean, or the goal was to eliminate threats to peace and security. For example, Hussein allegedly had weapons of mass destruction. It turned out to be fiction later. Libya, where they wanted to destroy Muammar Gaddafi, who seemed to them not a democrat, but a dictator. Both Iraq and Libya were destroyed. Prosperous countries that lived very well in terms of socio-economic situation. Yugoslavia decided to break up the Balkans, including to please Germany, which did not even wait for the EU to work out a single line, and recognized Croatia and Slovenia. Thus, it made the process irreversible and cut off all opportunities to somehow recreate a confederal or some other format between the Balkan countries. Serbia resisted that the Balkans should submit to the West. What was done to Serbia? Joe Biden, as a senator, a year before the start of NATO's aggression against Serbia, in 1998 stated that he was in favor of bombing Belgrade, proposed to send American pilots and blow up all the bridges across the Drina River, to seize all their oil reserves. As you can see, all the demands of Senator Joe Biden were fulfilled a year later, in 1999. Time magazine at the time came out with the cover: "Forcing the Serbs to make peace. A massive bombing attack opens the door to peace." Nothing. No tribunals. No one thought about it.
As no one remembered any tribunals, when the United States invaded Syria without any legitimate reason and began to compare with the land of the city. For example, the city of Raqqa was completely destroyed. Dozens, hundreds of corpses lay there for months without any care. Yes, the international community there, Médecins Sans Frontières and Reporters Sans Frontières said something somewhere. But there was no question of any tribunals. And when the International Criminal Court suddenly decided to investigate the data on the commission of war crimes by the Americans in Afghanistan, the United States told the ICC that it would put them all under sanctions and take away their money, which was in American banks. That's it. This high body of international justice simply fell silent. You can, of course, compare.
But we were protecting our safety. From Ukraine, they made a springboard for an attack on Russia, undermining our interests. In the Sea of Azov, it was planned to build naval bases, primarily Anglo-Saxon ones. It's a serious thing.
Secondly, the humiliation of Russians, to whom the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees their rights, is unacceptable, because they are our compatriots. They associate with us the protection of their legitimate interests guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. And the Western-inspired coup d'état in 2014 in no way provoked even an attempt to establish a national dialogue in Ukraine. The West unequivocally sided with the regime, which immediately proclaimed its anti-Russian goals, its commitment to the principles of the theory and practice of Nazism when they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk. No one is investigating these crimes. There are no tribunals. No one even thinks of creating them. When this war against those who did not accept the coup d'état was stopped, the Minsk Agreements were signed. You know how Germany and France, together with Petr Poroshenko, all three signatories (except President Vladimir Putin), said that they did this in order to buy time, so that the Ukrainians could supply more weapons, so that they would be better prepared for the next phase of the war. How's that?
Do you think we haven't shown our best here either? We were the only ones who sought to implement these "unfortunate" Minsk agreements. Everyone else was a cheater in this situation and followed the advice of the Americans.
As for the fact that Greece and Cyprus also suffer from this. I don't know what they suffer more from. We have always been close friends with the Greeks and with the Cypriots. The metamorphosis that occurred with the leadership of both countries was noted.
Everyone knows how the forces were accumulated in order to launch a hybrid war against us. I can't even imagine that people who hold the posts of prime ministers, presidents of European countries, and even more so countries that have long historical ties with the Russian Federation, do not know the facts or do not know how to analyze them. The conclusion I draw from the positions taken by European countries, including Greece and Cyprus, is that they have been forced, or have willingly accepted, to submit to American dictates. All of Europe is "built" by the United States. No one will allow Europe to talk about any "strategic autonomy" anymore. A year ago, US Secretary of Defense Leo Austin, when there was a discussion about the need to send more AMERICAN troops to Europe and was asked whether it would be on a permanent or rotational basis, replied that they would decide in Washington. No one will ask Europe.
We have drawn conclusions for ourselves, and, of course, we will continue to draw them against those who so quickly, helpfully, supported the aggression against the Russian Federation.
Someday this war will end. We will still stand up for our truth. But I can't imagine how to continue to live. Everything will depend on what conclusions Europe draws.
Question: After the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, we all see that this is a real confrontation between the "collective West" and Russia and beyond. Small countries in the region, including Georgia, find themselves in a difficult situation. Constant radical attacks by american-controlled political and media groups that try to instill immoral and perverse values of Western norms of behavior. It's alien to our culture and identity. Thus, the West is trying to undermine the cultural sovereignty of small countries and gain control over them. The ultimate goal of this cynical policy of the globalists is to sacrifice these small countries in favor of their political interests. A sad example, unfortunately, is Ukraine. Georgia and other countries in the region face the same danger. Under these conditions, the question arises whether Russia has a clear strategy against the destructive cultural expansion of the West and whether this implies cooperation with countries that can be natural allies in the defense of conservative values.
Sergey Lavrov: This is a very broad question. We just talked about Ukraine. Yesterday there was a special meeting of the UN Security Council, convened on our initiative and devoted to the threats to international peace and security arising from the policy of the Kiev regime in the field of human rights, national minorities, including religious rights.
Cultural presence and counteraction to negative trends through the preservation of traditional values is directly related to religion and to the activities of the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches. In Ukraine, this is not an instrument of Russian influence, but an institution for preserving traditions, history, passing on these traditions from generation to generation, being destroyed, banned, and clergymen are subject to arrest, deprived of citizenship - these are the methods by which the West is waging war for the affirmation of its values.
We are forced to respond in kind in cases where our journalists, political scientists, politicians, who are known and able to carry the truth in foreign audiences, are "brought down" under sanctions. We have to reciprocate. It's not our choice. Even during the Cold War, Soviet and American scientists regularly met and discussed topical issues of our time. Now there is practically no such possibility. I am sometimes timidly approached through completely unofficial channels by some of the representatives of the political thought of the West and asked whether it is possible to organize some kind of seminar somewhere on neutral territory so that "yours" and "ours" can come. No one had asked about it before. One institute agreed with another institute. Now our Western partners who participated in these exchanges are simply frightened. They were hounded quite badly.
I have great respect for the position of the Georgian Orthodox Church, which defends these values. In general, we have no problems with the Georgian people.
There was a story in 2008 related to the fact that again NATO played a role when in April of the same year at the summit of the Alliance in Bucharest a declaration was adopted that Georgia and Ukraine would be in NATO. And US Secretary of State Catherine Rice came to Georgia a month before he gave the order to bomb Tskhinvali and the peacekeepers' positions. M.N. Saakashvilli obviously "had emotions. He decided that it was all an indulgence.
It took the Ukrainians a little longer for the Bucharest "impulse" to reach the consciousness of people who decided to expel everything Russian from their territory. We are in favour of Abkhazia and South Ossetia building relations with Georgia. There are dialogue mechanisms in which we also participate. Quite a long time ago, the Georgian side put forward a project for joint economic activities in order to build confidence. These are all useful things. True, now the Western participants of the "Geneva discussions" between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia (these are the European Union, the UN, the OSCE, the United States) are trying to make this format of dialogue a hostage to what is happening around Ukraine. This is indecent, unprofessional and means that they condition their tasks in a particular region with their own political grievances and whims.
I am glad that our contacts between people and Georgia are actively developing. In 2022, Georgia's GDP grew by 10%. Largely due to tourism and trade relations with the Russian Federation. I hope that we will soon be able to resume direct flights.
We see how Georgia and all other countries will experience pressure from the West, which publicly demands to join the sanctions against the Russian Federation. The fact that a small country and its government have the courage to say that we will be guided by our own interests, the interests of our economy - this causes respect.
Question: You just said that the masks were dropped by the West. How would you comment on President of Finland Sauli Niinistö's rather frank statement on new year's day, when he compared the Russian Federation to the brutal Nazi regime?
In Soviet times, they often talked about imperialism, colonizers, and now these words are heard more and more often. New terms have also appeared - "neoliberalism", "globalism". For 30 years, these words have been heard from the mouths of Georgy Zyuganov and the Communist Party of Russia, and now from your mouth and the President of Russia. How could you determine who Russia is facing today? Are these concepts relevant today and have they gone down in history?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the New Year's speech and another recent interview with President of Finland Sauli Niinistö. Just as in the case of Greece and Cyprus, we proceeded from the fact that Finland for many years was a model of friendly relations between states. Ever since it was called "coexistence of countries with different socio-political systems". I was surprised by the speed with which Finland (like Sweden) abruptly changed its rhetoric. Apparently, there is a change of position behind this, or it was so anti-Russian, it was just well camouflaged with beautiful phrases about the need for a pan-European home, respect for the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. They even talked about the expediency in 2025 to convene a summit in Helsinki dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the creation of the OSCE. I don't know. Of course, I was surprised by these statements. S.Niinistö directly compared that just as J.V. Stalin attacked Finland, so V.V. Putin attacked Ukraine. Just as J.V. Stalin in Finland and V.V. Putin in Ukraine will lose." To be honest, a rather primitive monologue. But the allusions to Nazi Germany reflect the fact that Mr. S. Niinistö often thinks about it. It seems to me that the Finns should remember history well, as well as the fact that they (in fact) were not at all innocent victims of the processes that took place before the Second World War and after its beginning. It is a pity that everything that has been created in Europe (and in many respects the leading role of Finland) is now collapsed overnight to a large extent by the efforts of Finland itself. But we're neighbors. You can't change that. Finland is so zealously and with pleasure rushing to NATO and says that this will guarantee its security. But, as we said, we will have to draw conclusions from the accession of Finland and Sweden (if it takes place) to the alliance and we will take appropriate military-technical measures on our side of the border.
I didn't mention neo-imperialism. Your neighbor said that we behave like other imperial powers. It's a matter of taste. As for colonial habits, President Vladimir Putin spoke about this. This is a real assessment of what the West is trying to do. Colonialism is when you capture someone and live at their expense. But you can capture in different ways. In the 17th century, slaves were stuffed into a ship, and you can subordinate to yourself, to your will all the plans, programs of this or that country or this or that structure, as the Americans are now doing with the European Union. Iceland is not a member of the European Union. You're in luck. The EU has now completely lost its independence. This is essentially an attribute of NATO. In the European Union, public statements that they are discriminated against are "breaking through". French Economy Minister Benjamin Le Maire said that it is necessary to somehow encourage the Americans to be more attentive to their interests, because industry in Europe pays 4 times more for gas than industry in the United States.
In general, the transition to liquefied natural gas "for a long time", despite the price fluctuations that we are still observing, means a serious increase in the cost of production in Europe. It is funny that many years ago the Europeans began to demand from us not to sign long-term contracts, but to switch to spot pricing. Now that the Ukrainian events have begun, and the Europeans have decided to look for new sources of energy, they began to negotiate in Qatar. The emirate said "with pleasure", please, the contract is 15 years minimum. The Europeans went to negotiate with the United States. Yesterday I read a message that the Americans said that we will give you a good price, but only within the framework of long-term contracts. Therefore, reliability, the ability to have a stable perspective, is more important than following zigzags on a particular exchange every day. But European industry is already starting to move to the U.S. Some political scientists, including Western ones, say that one of the goals of everything that is happening around Ukraine is a sharp decline in Europe's competitiveness. This is a step towards reducing the competitiveness of China and other rivals in world markets.
Of course, colonialism is fully manifested in relations with developing countries. Look where U.S. investment is going. They are necessarily accompanied either by some political demands or by the deployment of American troops. I don't see much difference. I know that many scientists are already studying this phenomenon of colonialism in the new conditions, this is not even neocolonialism. In terms of goals and objectives in its purest form, colonialism. Subjugate and use resources to their advantage.
Question: Diplomacy has a large number of tools, primarily the word. In your opinion, in 2022 in the world of diplomacy, which word was the most tragic, which one that gives hope and what word the whole world should hear today.
Sergey Lavrov: This is a lyrical question. We think more about specific things, to describe what we do, we would ask you.
The word "war", I'm not afraid to say it. What is happening is our response, which, as the President said, maybe should have been done a little earlier. This is the answer (he was not late) to the hybrid war that was unleashed against us. Under the slogan of which, in a variety of variations, the West is now advancing its agenda. The word that gives hope is "victory." And the third word. I think the word "victory." Those who want to hear the word "negotiations", unfortunately, do not want them themselves and in every possible way manipulate this term in order to prolong this war against Russia as long as possible.
Question: What place do the Arab states occupy in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation? Have priorities for these countries been revised in 2022?
Sergey Lavrov: The Arabs are our long-standing and loyal friends. We maintain regular contact both bilaterally and with the League of Arab States and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. Yesterday I held a regular meeting with all the ambassadors of the member countries of the League of Arab States. In May 2022, he was at the headquarters of the League of Arab States in Cairo. He spoke there in front of all member countries.
I see an understanding of our position. This is far from being about Ukraine, but about the struggle for a new world order between those who believe that it should be completely subject to their "rules", which imply the dominance of the United States and its satellites and those who want the world order to be democratic.
I've said this many times. Western countries constantly demand democracy from everyone, but they mean exclusively the internal structure of a particular state. At the same time, of course, you do not have the right to even ask questions about democracy in the United States. There are studies about how the last elections went there: the dead were elected, one congresswoman received twice as many votes as in her precinct registered voters, voting by mail and much more. You can't do that. As soon as you start talking to them about the democracy of international relations, they leave. They don't want that. They need "rules" in the world. Not international law, which ensures democracy, where every country is sovereignly equal, but "rules" where they dictate everything. The NATO-EU declaration says: in the interests of the "billion". The "jungle" must be protected and used in a colonial way.
None of the Arab countries joined the sanctions, despite unprecedented, brutal, unceremonious and self-deprecating pressure from the West. When I was in the League of Arab States, before I spoke, the Secretary-General of LAS told me that a delegation of Western ambassadors had come to them three days before my arrival and demanded that my statement be cancelled.
When they received a polite answer that this is impossible, because the Arab League is friends with Russia. Then they demanded that after my speech, each of the members of the League of Arab States stand up and condemn the Russian aggression. To which they also received a polite reply that each country has its own position, and they determine it themselves. And the third request, I think the most humiliating for the West, at least not to be photographed with me. I'm not kidding.
Then the Secretariat staff "put" all this "on paper" and sent it to all embassies for information that they had received such a demarche. I don't want to say that I was somehow flattered by this, but for the sake of history, I will note that after this speech (it lasted more than an hour), I was asked to take a separate photo with each of these ambassadors. It's a small thing, but one that would take remarkable political courage in many other countries, particularly in Europe.
Our relations with the Arab world are developing on an upward trajectory. Of course, we must take into account in trade and economic relations illegal sanctions, the "agony" that we are now witnessing from those who lead the international monetary and financial system. We are building new supply chains that are protected from these "colonizers". We are increasingly moving to settlements in national currencies. We have many global projects. A nuclear power plant and an industrial zone with Russian participation are being created in Egypt. A lot of projects in Algeria. There are long-term plans with Morocco. They exist with almost all African countries. There are intergovernmental commissions on trade and economic cooperation with Arab countries. At the level of foreign ministries, we have a Russian-Arab cooperation forum. For a couple of years, because of the pandemic, we couldn't meet in person. Now we are discussing with the headquarters of the League of Arab States the holding of a regular ministerial meeting either in one of the countries of the region at the discretion of our partners, or we are always ready to host it in the Russian Federation.
Speaking about the Arab world, it is impossible not to mention the obvious dissatisfaction of our colleagues with the fact that the West, daily demanding something on Ukraine, does not do anything at all on the Palestinian problem. It is deeply disappointing that both Palestine and the Libyan settlement, which, after the West destroyed Libya, is neither shakily nor "treading water". Problems remain on Iraq. All this and other problems of the region for the West are of secondary, or even third-rate importance in comparison with the fact that it is necessary to exhaust Russia and inflict a strategic defeat on it.
Our colleagues see that we have a different position. We appreciate it. We are not weakening our efforts on the Palestinian issue, Syria and the Libyan settlement. On Iraq, we plan to have high-level contacts with our Iranian colleagues. It is important not to consign these conflicts to oblivion. In particular, the Palestinian one is the oldest unresolved conflict on earth. The UN Secretary-General could be a little more active as one of the members of the quartet of international mediators to promote this agenda.
Question: You remembered the city of Raqqa and the predatory, aggressive policy of the United States, which turned this city into ruins. Illegal, unjust and unilateral sanctions against the Syrian people, the occupation of part of the Syrian land prolongs the crisis in Syria, exacerbates the living conditions of the Syrian people. How would you comment on the violation by the United States and its satellites of international and humanitarian law against the SAR and the ban on the return of refugees to their historical land?
Sergey Lavrov: We can talk about this for a long time. Sanctions are unacceptable. This is yet another example of how western rhetoric that their sanctions do not affect ordinary people is a lie. Sanctions are precisely aimed at making people worse off and rebelling against their governments. Such an obvious, banal thing.
There are humanitarian exceptions. Look at the amount of humanitarian aid that is coming into Syria. If we start from the parameters that the UN considers necessary and what actually comes to Syria, then this is about half. One of the worst indicators among all humanitarian programs.
The West really does not want refugees to return to Syria. Even the UN Refugee Agency a few years ago distributed a special questionnaire in the Syrian refugee camp in Lebanon, which directly led to the fact that it is bad and better to stay in Lebanon in Syria. We made a scandal. They apologized to us. The questionnaire was removed. All this shows how the "international communities" treat refugees.
The reason is political. The West really wants that when it comes to these elections (although the Syrian Arab Republic held its own elections without any Western interference), they will at some stage be able to impose some "huge elections" with the participation of refugees. They know how in refugee camps to ensure the "right" vote in favor of the opposition they feed. The thing is obvious and unsightly.
The Americans realized that it is pointless to "nurture" some Juan Guaido for Venezuela and it is necessary to work with those who have the mandate of the people. Now the same trends are manifested with regard to President Bashar al-Assad. The Americans and the Syrians have closed contacts on prisoners of war. Other countries, including Turkey, have advocated normalizing relations with Damascus. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he was ready to meet with President of the SAR Bashar al-Assad. They asked us to help. A meeting of the defense ministers of Turkey and Syria was held with Russian assistance, and a meeting of foreign ministers is being prepared. Arab countries either did not leave Syria, leaving their embassies there, or returned them there. For example, the UAE, a country with a wealth of mediation experience, is increasingly using it for good. We appreciate that. Life will force us to consider all these issues on the basis of realities, and not from some ideal picture that someone there draws in their geopolitical constructions.
But one of the main problems is Idlib. It is imperative that the agreements on the inadmissibility of keeping terrorists there be implemented. Also in the northeast, where it is necessary to establish contacts between the government and the Kurds. We understand the concern of our Turkish colleagues about this problem, their irritation, the fact that the United States, on the contrary, wants to use the Kurds in order to, firstly, create a quasi-state in eastern Syria, and secondly, so that the Kurds fulfill Washington's instructions and constantly create some irritants in the region.
My colleague, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recalled that russia signed a Memorandum with Turkey in 2019, according to which we pledged to facilitate the Kurds to cooperate, move away from the Turkish border by a certain distance by analogy with the Adana Security Agreement between Turkey and Syria in 1998. Correct. That's a tough question. But we had other agreements with the Turks besides the northeast. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed a protocol on Idlib. According to it, Turkey pledged to separate the opposition cooperating with the Republic of Turkey from Jabhat al-Nusra and its other incarnations, so that terrorists could not feel free. In 2020, we agreed on joint Russian-Turkish patrolling of the M4 road to Aleppo. We haven't been able to do that yet, either. Therefore, it is necessary to continue to strive for the implementation of the agreed tasks. They fully remain relevant.
An important role is played by the issues of economic reconstruction of Syria. The West is trying with all the truths and untruths to preserve the channels for the supply of humanitarian goods without the control of Damascus across the Turkish border to Idlib. We have now left only one such item and only on condition that the legitimate methods of delivery of humanitarian aid, defined by international law, that is, through the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, will increase and opportunities for financing early recovery projects will be "revealed". That is, to supply not only food and medicines, but also to repair hospitals, schools, to provide water supply, energy supply. We were not just promised this, but a UN Security Council resolution was adopted. It, among other things, was actively supported by the Americans. For the second year in a row, we have seen very little progress. This is also a task that the UN should be more active in addressing.
Question: Relations between Russia and the United States are not in the best condition. From Russia's point of view, what should Washington do to return relations to the previous level? To what extent do such tense relations between Russia and the United States prevent the resolution of other crises, for example, in Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iran?
Sergey Lavrov: When two influential countries do not cooperate, and for the most part do not even talk to each other, this always affects their ability to help solve this or that international problem, where joint efforts are required. This is an objective factor. What does it take for this relationship to bounce back? "Norm" is such a "concept". Because it wasn't going to be. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said that there will no longer be such relations between Russia and NATO and the West as they were in the past.
We said a long time ago that there will no longer be a situation where they lie to us, sign documents, and then refuse to comply with them. Such was the case with the declaration of the NATO-Russia Council, the OSCE Istanbul Declaration, the OSCE declaration adopted at the Astana summit in 2010, the agreement on the settlement of the crisis in Ukraine in February 2014 (guaranteed by Germany, France and Poland), the Minsk agreements, not only signed by Germany and France, but also unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. The West was not even going to fulfill all these agreements. We were simply lied to in the face by signing these solemn commitments at the level of presidents and prime ministers. So we stopped taking our word for it even earlier.
Why do we take our word for it? In Russia, there was such an order when merchants agreed on something, they did not sign anything, they "hit" their hands and that was it. If you haven't complied, no one will respect you. We were weaned from this after we promised not to expand NATO. Then we began to write political and even legally binding documents. The Security Council resolution on the Minsk agreements is a legally binding document. Now we are being urged that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine and fully implement the UN Charter. It states, by the way, that all UN members are obliged to comply with Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine was sabotaged and did not allow to resolve the conflict so that there would be no new suffering in the framework of current events. That's an obvious thing to me.
Our Western "friends" some time ago "passed" the decision of the UN General Assembly that every time someone uses a "veto" in the UN Security Council, the General Assembly should hold a meeting on the same topic within ten days and listen to what the motives for its use were. We agreed. We have nothing to hide. We always explain all our votes and voting decisions.
But another question arises: why does the UN General Assembly not want to consider the issue of resolutions that no one vetoed, they were adopted, but no one implements them? For example, resolutions on the Palestinian settlement. They were also adopted in the UN Security Council, among them there are unanimous resolutions. Forgot about them. In the General Assembly, when Palestine is discussed, they lament non-compliance. And it does not occur to anyone to specifically convene a meeting and ask why they did not comply with the resolution approving the Minsk agreements on Ukraine. Or rather, it comes, but no one needs it. Instead, they discuss some completely phantasmagorical ideas about the creation of a "tribunal", some kind of "mechanism" for reparations from the Russian Federation. Let. Whatever the child does... But all these tribunals are needed by Ukrainians and their patrons no more than tribunes, from where they shake the air. Nothing else.
We did not "destroy" relations with the United States. After the meeting between US President Joe Biden and President of Russia Vladimir Putin in Geneva in June 2021, where they confirmed the Gorbachev-Ronald Reagan formula that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, it should never be unleashed, and we actively promoted this. The Americans agreed. We must pay tribute to the fact that the Joe Biden Administration, unlike the Trump Administration, immediately supported this idea, which allowed us in January 2022 to make the same statement about the inadmissibility of nuclear war (on our initiative) on behalf of the leaders of all five nuclear powers. Their second agreement was the beginning of a strategic dialogue on what could replace the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms, which is now in force and expires in early 2026. Two rounds of meetings were held in July and September 2021, it was more or less clear in which direction to move further, organizational forms of further discussion were discussed (this is also important). Suddenly, after September 2021, the Americans interrupted this strategic dialogue. Now they're saying we need to resume. We didn't tear it up. In none of the areas of our contacts and interaction were we the initiators of the termination. The U.S. did it. We are not going to "run" after them and say "let's be friends again". They know that we are serious people and will always respond seriously to serious treatment. US President Joe Biden asked President Vladimir Putin to have SVR Director Sergei Naryshkin meet with CIA chief William Burns and the meeting took place. It was quite serious, useful, although it did not bring any breakthroughs. In itself, a serious mutually respectful dialogue, rather than a meeting to accuse all mortal sins, is always helpful. So it's not up to us.
Question: In continuation of the topic of relations with the United States, we would like to clarify whether there is an understanding in what time frame the new US ambassador will arrive in Russia? How much can we see today the prospect of resuming the work of the diplomatic mission in the issue of issuing visas to Russians? Is the Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, ready to stimulate dialogue with the United States in this area?
Sergey Lavrov: I don't know when the new ambassador will arrive, she has already passed the hearings and completed all the formalities. It's up to the American side to decide. She has an agreman. There are no obstacles on our part to her arrival.
As for the conditions in which embassies operate. Just as in the case of the previous question, we have never taken any action to obstruct the work of diplomats. All that we are now witnessing was started by Nobel laureate Barack Obama in December 2016, 3 weeks before D. Trump's inauguration. Barack Obama, leaving the White House, decided to petty harm his "successor": he took away our property, "kicked out" our diplomats. It was petty, unworthy of a man called the President of the United States.
After that, representatives of D. Trump called us and said that D. Trump is not yet president, but they believe that this was done incorrectly. The Americans were confident that we would respond. They asked to wait for D. Trump to "come" to the White House, and, they say, they will somehow try to "settle" everything. We took a break. It's been six months. He wasn't allowed to "settle" anything, even if he wanted to do it. We had to respond by expelling diplomats and imposing a special regime on a couple of American properties in Moscow. After that, they began to resent: how so, out of the blue, we kicked them out. This is not a "flat place", it has already been strongly "marked" by Barack Obama to begin with. That's how the chain reaction went.
Right now, we don't have parity. The ratio of diplomats is seriously in favor of the United States. The overall figure, which is the same for us and for them, in our case includes employees of the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN, who have nothing to do with bilateral relations between Russia and the United States. Otherwise, they should not have been "counted" in this parity. And they count. Let me remind you that this is 140 people. Here, the Americans have a serious "head start". When they "cry" about it, there is no one to issue visas. Don't believe it. We have 140 fewer people on bilateral foreign missions. We did not stop issuing visas, we did not send any American citizens to get visas to Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua. Could. But we're not petty. We try to be serious people.