Two Lavrov Interviews: Argumenty i Fakty 8 October and CBS's “60 Minutes” 11 October

These are both machine translations from the Russian transcripts. First is Argumenty i Fakty, sorry no video, followed by CBS's program “60 Minutes” where there's a video available at that link. No corrections or emphasis provided by me:

Question: One of the hottest topics of recent days has been the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. Former Polish Foreign Minister Roman Sikorski openly thanked the United States for the incident. Secretary of State E. Blinken assured that such an accident is "in no one's interests." In your opinion, who could benefit from this?

Sergey Lavrov: This situation is unprecedented. Critical infrastructure was damaged as a result of the incident. Serious damage has been done to Russia's interests and Europe's energy security. Now it is important to conduct an objective, comprehensive investigation with the participation of our country and to establish the true causes of what happened.

Obviously, among the main victims are Russia and Germany. For Gazprom, what happened is a huge problem. After all, both lines of Nord Stream 2 were filled with gas and were ready for pumping.

The answer to the question of who benefits from such a development of events is obvious. First of all, the United States and its suppliers of expensive overseas LNG, interested in forcibly displacing competitors from the European gas market. I will refer to President Vladimir Putin, who in his speech on September 30 of this year stated the perpetrators of the sabotage, in fact, directly pointing to the Americans: "It is obvious to everyone who benefits from this. Whoever benefits, he did, of course."

The refusal of Sweden and Denmark to allow the Russian side and the gas pipeline operator to investigate the sabotage is also indicative, while in response to the willingness expressed by the Americans to "join the process", there were no objections.

Question: The accession of the DPR, LPR, Zaporizhzhya and Kherson regions to Russia is a settled issue. But in Kiev, as in the West, they do not intend to recognize the results of referendums and are going to continue to win back these territories. Experts are increasingly talking about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Armed Forces of Ukraine if Ukrainian attacks cannot be stopped by conventional means. Is Russia really ready to take such an unprecedented step? And how does Moscow feel about Washington's warnings that this will cause "catastrophic consequences" for it?

Sergey Lavrov: In the context of the crisis around Ukraine, it is the Americans and their allies who are actively trying to introduce nuclear rhetoric into public circulation.

Let me remind you that shortly before the start of the special military operation, speaking at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, V. Zelensky called Ukraine's refusal of nuclear weapons, which remained on its territory after the collapse of the USSR, a mistake. After that, Western politicians turned to "nuclear" rhetoric. Remember, for example, how easily during the election campaign, the current British Prime Minister promised, if necessary, to press the "red button".

But the Westerners are distorting everything, trying to present the case as if Russia is voicing nuclear threats and that it can use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Various manipulations and outright lies are used. However, everyone has long been accustomed to this.

Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin and Russian officials have repeatedly explained that our policy on nuclear deterrence is purely defensive in nature. The hypothetical use of nuclear weapons is clearly limited to extraordinary circumstances within the scenarios defined in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation and the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence. These are, as we say, open documents. Anyone can read them.

I would also like to stress that Russia remains committed to the statement of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States of January 3 this year, which confirmed the postulate on the inadmissibility of nuclear war. In accordance with this document, approved at the highest level, it is necessary to prevent any armed conflict between countries possessing nuclear weapons.

As for loud statements about certain consequences for Russia, such a language of threats, of course, is unacceptable. We completely leave them to the conscience of the relevant Western politicians. They do not intend to discuss with them on this topic, it is clearly useless.

Question: Some of our allies, for example, Kazakhstan and Serbia, have also announced their non-recognition of the results of the referendums. How important is it for Russia that these plebiscites are recognized by other countries? Could this be the subject of diplomatic negotiations?

Sergey Lavrov: Little time has passed since the referendums were held and their results were announced. Our foreign partners will need time to understand the new geopolitical realities. We will not rush anyone. For us, the priority is the realization of the results of the free expression of the will of the inhabitants of the liberated territories in accordance with the fundamental norms of international law, primarily the right of peoples to self-determination.

The important thing to understand here is this. The question of the relationship between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, after many years of debate, was resolved in the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law of 1970, which confirms the inviolability of the territorial integrity or political unity of states, provided that they have governments representing all the people living in the territory.

We know what severe oppression the Kiev regime subjected the Russian and Russian-speaking population to after the 2014 coup.

The question of the compliance of referendums with the Constitution and the legislation of Ukraine does not affect their qualification under international law. Let us recall the decision of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo in 2010. According to it, in the exercise of the right to self-determination, a territory is not obliged to apply for permission to declare its sovereignty to the central authorities of the country. So a precedent was set.

It should also be borne in mind that the first referendums on the independence of the DPR and LPR were held immediately after the coup in Kiev and the subsequent repressions against their residents. Remember that then in Ukraine they strengthened the "clamping" of the rights and freedoms of national minorities, began to actively oust the Russian language from all spheres of life, persecute Russian activists, eliminate opponents of the authorities, put pressure on parishioners of the canonical Orthodox Church. Then, after the Minsk agreements were reached in February 2015, the issue of international recognition of the independence of the republics was not raised for eight years. If Ukraine fulfilled its obligations under the "Package of Measures", one could talk about the existence in the DPR and LPR of conditions for the realization of the right to self-determination within the state in which they were at that time.

But Kiev sabotaged Minsk. And not only sabotaged, but also set a course for the violent suppression of Donbass. With the connivance of the West, the regime established a blockade of Donbass, stopped paying pensions and social benefits, made it impossible to conduct normal economic activities, and prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid. All this created unbearable living conditions for the population. And, of course, they were incompatible with the realization of the right to self-determination of Donetsk and Luhansk residents within the same country with Kiev.

Similarly, the population of the Zaporizhzhya and Kherson regions was deprived of any prospects for self-determination inside Ukraine as a result of the military campaign unleashed by Kiev (including indiscriminate rocket attacks on residential areas, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, etc.).

We are absolutely confident in the correctness of our cause and the validity of the steps taken. Our assessments and arguments, which we will continue to share with international partners, are quite obvious, and many of our interlocutors share them.

Question: The European Union and the United States regularly adopt new packages of anti-Russian sanctions. And what is Moscow preparing in response? Do our "partners" still have any "calluses" that can be pressed?

Sergey Lavrov: We are already accustomed to the fact that Western countries are constantly preparing some anti-Russian measures. When there is no reason, Washington will definitely come up with it, and everyone else simply follows in the fairway set by the Americans.

So referendums in the liberated territories are used only as another pretext to increase pressure on our country. We, in general, did not expect that it would be different.

Of course, we have every opportunity to protect our national interests. If necessary, we will use them in full force. Those who speak to Russia in the language of sanctions should remember that so far we have been rather restrained in responding to acts of economic aggression, but our patience is not unlimited.

Tearing the Russian economy to shreds, as Barack Obama passionately wanted, did not work. And it won't work. Everything that they wanted to provoke in our country begins to happen in their home. In a number of European countries, there is a sharp increase in prices, a drop in incomes, and a shortage of energy resources. Political scientists are talking about the growing threat of social explosions. The usual benefits of civilization turn into a privilege for Europeans. This is the price that ordinary citizens pay for the Russophobia of their politicians.

But that's in the West. We, in Russia, will strengthen our economic and technological sovereignty, build alternative financial and logistics chains for servicing foreign trade transactions. We will continue to strengthen cooperation with partners in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, who, like us, stand for equal cooperation and against the politicization of trade and economic ties.

Question: Lithuania recently decided to cut off the Kaliningrad Region from Russia, preventing the transit of goods. If there was a concept of "international rudeness" in diplomacy, would we be dealing with it? No bilateral documents provide for such a restriction on transit, but we tolerate it – why? Is there a way to put an end to this?

Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, Vilnius is showing considerable zeal, creating new obstacles to transit to the Kaliningrad Region and back. To characterize such illegal actions, of course, you can pick up different epithets.

The main thing is that there is a violation by the European Union and Lithuania of their political obligations to Russia, as well as the Russia-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1994 and the Russia-EU joint statements of 2002 and 2004.

We are consistently achieving full normalisation of both freight and passenger transit. Some progress has been made in resuming the delivery by rail of goods subject to EU anti-Russian sanctions. This somewhat reduced the severity of the problem of life support in the Kaliningrad region, but no more than that. A systematic solution to all emerging issues is necessary. These include bank payment for transportation services on the territory of Lithuania, removal of obstacles for the transportation of perishable products, restoration of the previous parameters of passenger transit by rail.

We are not supporters of confrontation, we prefer dialogue. But we cannot not react to the restrictions imposed. Therefore, on September 29, a Presidential Decree was signed banning the implementation of international road transport in Russia by foreign operators of those states that have imposed restrictions on our individuals and legal entities. Any new attacks will also not go unanswered. No one should have illusions.

Question: Washington and its allies threaten secondary sanctions against countries that do business with Russia. How significant is this problem now? From your point of view, how is the redirection of Russian trade and economic interests to the East developing? Can the West's threats limit trade with our partners? Shouldn't we build more pragmatic relations with countries that we consider friendly today? If, for example, preferential conditions are created for them, then demand reciprocal preferences?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, we take into account the threat of secondary sanctions from the United States at all stages of our work with constructively minded foreign partners. We build cooperation with them based on mutual interests and mutual benefit. No restrictive measures interfere with these objective processes that reflect modern realities.

For example, our trade turnover with China for 8 months of this year increased by almost a third, and with India for six months of this year - by 120%. This growth is due not only to the growing prices for the raw material component of our exports, but also to the expansion of the range of traded products. And this is quite natural – many foreign economic operators from friendly countries seek to replace the niches formed after the withdrawal of Western companies from the Russian market.

As for the organization of preferential regimes for mutual trade with friendly countries, each case is individual and requires careful expert study. And not only through the relevant departments, but also with our partners in the EAEU, since such issues have been transferred to the supranational Eurasian level. In addition, we should not forget that economic cooperation with non-Western states is built on the basis of WTO rules. And they provide Russia with a certain set of advantages in the field of foreign trade.

Question: It is obvious that the Asia-Pacific region is of great importance for Russia today. Who are our real partners there? The Asia-Pacific region is not only China, but also such states as Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world in terms of population), Malaysia, the Philippines, and finally, our long-standing good ally Vietnam. We hear practically nothing about cooperation with them, as if they are not on the Russian foreign policy agenda. Or is it?

Sergey Lavrov: Today, the centre of global politics and economics is shifting from the Euro-Atlantic to Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region. Relations with the Asia-Pacific countries, including Southeast Asia, have noticeably intensified in many areas.

The most indicative from this point of view is Vietnam. During his visit to Hanoi in early July, he was personally convinced of the serious attitude of the top leadership of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to strengthen the bilateral comprehensive strategic partnership.

Many types of domestic products are supplied to the Vietnamese market, including fertilizers, fuels and lubricants, metals, and food. The implementation of major oil and gas projects in both Vietnam and Russia continues. By the end of the year, the enterprise for the assembly of domestic vehicles of the GAZ brand should reach full capacity. Humanitarian exchanges are gradually being restored. The issue of holding the Days of Russian Culture in Vietnam is being worked out. The number of Vietnamese receiving education in the universities of our country is not decreasing. Since the pandemic, interregional ties have been revived.

Or take Indonesia, for example. In June, President Widodo paid a working visit to Moscow, and telephone conversations between the leaders of our two countries were organized in April and August. Prospects for cooperation in the fuel and energy sector, ensuring food security were discussed in detail. On the agenda are issues of infrastructure construction, construction of nuclear power plants and non-energy application of nuclear technologies, cooperation in the field of peaceful space. In the first six months, trade increased by more than 1.5 times.

Cooperation with other countries in the region is also progressing. In September, on the sidelines of the VII Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, President Vladimir Putin met with Prime Minister of Myanmar Min Aung Hlaing.

In August, as part of my working visits to Naypyidaw and Phnom Penh, very substantive talks were held with the heads of Government and foreign ministers of Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. In September, my Thai colleague Dmitry Pramatvinai visited Moscow.

Despite unprecedented pressure from the West, the states of Southeast Asia, with the exception of Singapore, did not impose any restrictions on cooperation with Russia after the start of a special military operation. I think this is a convincing evidence of the partnership nature of our ties.

From the field of view of journalists often falls such a significant aspect of Russia's interaction with some countries of Southeast Asia as a dialogue between Muslim organizations, although many interesting events are also taking place here. Thus, the Malaysian Foundation "World Islamic Economic Forum" supported the initiative to organize in 2023 in Kuala Lumpur a field meeting of the Strategic Vision Group "Russia – Islamic World", timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary of President Vladimir Putin's visit to Malaysia. In June, Jakarta warmly received a delegation of Russian Muslims headed by a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, the head of the Spiritual Assembly of Muslims of Russia A.R. Krganov. We are optimistic about the prospects for deepening cooperation in the supply of domestic halal products to the states of the region.

Question: When voting at the UN on the Ukrainian issue, Russia is essentially supported by the largest countries in Latin America – Mexico, Brazil, Argentina. And in practical terms, this is reflected, are our ties with this region developing? Can we offer them something and they can offer us?

Sergey Lavrov: For us, Latin America is a friendly and very promising region. With its states, Russia is connected by multifaceted relations that have developed over more than a century and a half. A political dialogue has been established, which continues today, despite pressure from the United States and the EU. For example, on the sidelines of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly, I had meetings with the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, ministers from Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama. We talk and I'm sure we hear each other.

Therefore, it is natural that none of the Latin American countries joined the anti-Russian sanctions – neither in 2014 nor now. And our trade with the region in the first six months of this year increased by 27% compared to the same period last year and approached $11 billion.

The volume of trade with Brazil, the leading partner in the region, increased by 50.6% in January-May compared to the same period in 2021. Among the largest partners in Latin America are the other countries you mentioned – Argentina and Mexico. And we are ready to further develop relations with them, as well as with all our Latin American friends, to the extent that they are ready for this. Our approach here is absolutely sincere, we do not put them in front of a choice – "with whom to be". We did not have our own "Monroe Doctrine" and do not have them. We are for equal, mutually beneficial cooperation on a pragmatic, de-ideologized basis. For building bridges, not building walls.

We continue to assist Latin Americans in ensuring their food and energy security. Deliveries of our fertilizers do not stop - only in January-June, Russian companies shipped them in the amount of $ 3.7 billion.

Question: At one time, the Cuban Missile Crisis, despite all the risks, provided the world with peace for quite a long time. The United States and the USSR reached the limit of aggravation in relations, and then went to their "corners" and began to play by certain rules. Can this history repeat itself?

Sergey Lavrov: The main problem is that the Americans have actually trampled on international law and the unwritten taboos in diplomatic practice that have existed for decades. Contrary to geopolitical realities, the United States is trying to "crush" the rest of the world community under itself, to force everyone to live by the "rules" that they themselves invent.

Russophobic U.S. elites think irrationally, pushing the White House toward an open confrontation with Russia. In fact, we are talking about a reckless policy of escalating international tension.

Is it possible to break this "vicious circle"? Yes of course. To move forward, Washington needs to work seriously on its mistakes and abandon its claims to world domination. It would also be worth drawing conclusions from the failures of our attempts to interfere in our internal affairs.

We understand that the realization of the new alignment of forces in the world is not easy and painful for the United States. But the sooner they begin to reckon with the geopolitical reality, the less they will "break wood" and the better the objective process of forming a more just and democratic polycentric world order will go.

“60 Minutes”

Question: The main question of concern to the whole world is whether there will be a nuclear war.

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that our nuclear doctrine provides for exclusively retaliatory measures designed to prevent the destruction of the Russian Federation as a result of direct nuclear strikes or strikes by other weapons that threaten the very existence of the Russian state. The answer is exhaustive.

I hope that those who constantly speculate on the topic of nuclear war, the "organization" by the Russian Federation of "provocations" using weapons of mass destruction, will realize their responsibility.

Question: There is indeed a lot of speculation. The Americans endlessly "roll out" their calculations, who will die first, who will die second, how many people will be killed on the first or second day, in a month. Do we have similar calculations? Will anyone survive? Do we assume that there is some chance to stop? It felt like everything was already there, the last thing left was to press the button. Everything else we've already seen.

Sergey Lavrov: I would advise the Americans and their satellites, but not only them, but also our analysts and political scientists engaged in such "exercises", to show maximum responsibility in their public statements.

Just yesterday, on a respected electronic resource, I saw "calculations" of what you are asking about. They draw an "interesting" conclusion: the real numbers predicted in the event of, God forbid, a nuclear conflict will be much smaller than those with which we were previously frightened. I think this is absolutely irresponsible journalism. I hope that journalists and political scientists will not play such games and play along in the West to those who would like to escalate the rhetoric to the limit, and there, they say, we will see.

I appeal through you with such an appeal to all those who are interested in this situation and topic and try to cover it in the public space. No need to artificially heat it up.

Question: Of the recent events, Vladimir Zelensky's conversation with Joe Biden is an important subject. The US president for the first time promised Ukraine modern air defense systems. Your colleagues and diplomats commented on this statement and said that it makes the United States of America a party to the conflict. What changes the status of "party to the conflict" for the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not know how the supply of other types of weapons that the United States has been supplying to Ukraine for many months, or even years, differs from the transfer of air defence equipment. What exactly distinguishes air defense from other types of weapons and thereby makes the Americans a party to the conflict? It seems to me that de facto the United States has long been involved in this war, not only arming Vladimir Zelensky and his regime, but also providing Kiev with intelligence data from satellites, not only from several dozen military, but also from a couple of hundred commercial satellites, which are now put in the service of military plans to support the neo-Nazi regime.

In this context, our long-standing initiative to prevent an arms race in outer space is becoming even more relevant, but this is a separate issue. There is more and more convincing information that the Americans not only help to recruit mercenaries to participate in hostilities in Ukraine, but also attract career servicemen of the US Armed Forces, as well as the armies of a number of European countries for permanent work "on the ground": assistance to the calculations of gun complexes, MLRS complexes of the HIMARS type in their use in hostilities. We do not have one hundred percent evidence of this, but the evidence is multiplying, and, I think, in the West itself, they are already beginning to understand that they are going a little further than they were going.

Q: If they go a little further than they intended, is there a chance to stop? Does official Moscow have an understanding of the "red line" that the Americans will not follow? According to the feelings of a simple man in the street, Americans are ready for anything. They are wildly delighted with our strikes on Ukraine yesterday. They sit far away, rubbing their hands, they like that they have infuriated us, as they probably think. When will we sit down at the negotiating table? What will be that critical point? I don't mean us – Russians and Ukrainians, but us – Russians and Americans? Are there any secret communication channels where we talk, discuss that everything has reached the limit, then only a catastrophe?

Sergey Lavrov: We sat at the negotiating table with the Ukrainian delegation until the end of March, when an approach to the settlement was agreed in Istanbul on the principles proposed by the Ukrainians in that situation. They suited us at that time, but the negotiations were terminated by direct order from Washington and London.

This war is being ruled by the Anglo-Saxons, who are in full control of Zelensky's regime. Poles and Balts are trying to join them. Since then, the Ukrainian President has repeatedly stated that he is not going to negotiate with the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin, and recently introduced such a ban by law. We never asked for a negotiation. The Istanbul Round of talks has completed a process initiated at the request of Ukraine. The Russian side responded positively to the proposal to enter into a dialogue, but its initiators stopped it by shouting from across the ocean or from London.

We hear statements by US figures, including White House spokesman John Kirby, my colleague Ellen Blinken, and other members of the US Administration, saying that they are wholeheartedly open to negotiations with the Russian Federation and are in favour of a political settlement of the current situation in and around Ukraine, but Russia ("so bad") refuses offers to make contact.

I can immediately say that this is a lie. We have not received any serious proposals to establish such contact. Some not very serious approaches were made, to which we also did not respond negatively, but proposed to formulate specific proposals. With them, some persons came to us through indirect contacts, but in this case we did not receive any clear explanations from anyone. Don't lie. We were taught in kindergarten that lying is not good. Apparently, americans do not have kindergartens as developed as they were in the Soviet Union and now in the Russian Federation.

Question: If Vladimir Zelensky forbade himself to sit down at the negotiating table with us, does it mean that we are going to the end in terms of the Ukrainian operation? Where is the end? To Poland? How do we understand this if he doesn't want to talk to us?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not rule out that as he forbade himself, he will forget about it later, depending on the mood in which he gets up in the morning and what he does. Or he will be ordered from Washington or London. He will say "yes!" and figure out how to explain it all so as not to lose face. V.A.Zelensky is an artist. Now there are many artists on the other side, those who control and manipulate it, they all play noble knights outraged by the actions of the Russian Federation and its military during a special military operation. They seem to forget that for many years, starting with the maidan coup, none of them even darted when they burned almost 50 people alive in Odessa. Now, after the thousands of people killed by Vladimir Zelensky from Western weapons in Donbass, behind irrefutable evidence of gross violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes in terms of the treatment of prisoners - they were simply killed with their hands tied behind their backs with shots to the head, and then dumped in dug holes - there is nowhere to turn away. The West is playing a game called "I don't see anything, I don't hear anything" if Vladimir Zelensky does it.

When Russia, as President Vladimir Putin explained yesterday, no longer being able to tolerate the crimes and terrorist attacks of the Kiev regime, finally responded seriously, everyone immediately began to play with condemnation, including, to my great regret, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. In other situations to which I have referred, he kept a deathly silence, showing nothing of his excitement and concern. Yesterday, after the actions taken by the Russian army, A. Guterres suddenly became worried. This once again underscores the fact that something is wrong with the UN. The West is trying to "privatize" the United Nations. The Secretary-General, being the chief administrative officer, as it is written in the UN Charter, is obliged to know his business, and not to play along with certain political forces. He should do everything not to take sides. We'll talk about that later.

As for the limits of the tasks that we set during our special military operation, the President outlined them, they do not change and will be achieved. Ukraine should not be a terrorist state threatening its own citizens, a racist country whose president declares that those who feel Russian and want to speak Russian, let them go to Russia. It should not be a state that is allowed to do anything. Such permissiveness crosses all boundaries and leads to the murder of journalists, politicians, deputies of the Verkhovna Rada and much more. We cannot allow Ukrainian citizens who consider themselves Russian or Russian-speaking to be deprived of this right.

It is not only about the residents of Donbass, as you understand, but also about how Ukrainian nationalists treat peaceful citizens. Look at what is happening now in the areas of Kharkiv and partially Zaporozhye regions, where they entered after our participants in the military operation regrouped.

We cannot allow Ukraine to pose a permanent threat to the security of the Russian Federation. I am referring to joining NATO and deploying weapons on the territory of Ukraine that would pose such a threat.

The neo-Nazi roots of the current regime, which have been unleashed in fertile post-Maidan soil, pose a serious problem. It also needs to be addressed. I have no doubt that without the eradication of Nazism in Ukraine, it will be difficult for us to continue to resolve the issues of coexistence on the large European continent.

I have doubts about Europe's position. If we talk about the Nazis, then under German Nazism, A. Hitler united most of the countries of Europe under his banners in order to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. Now approximately the same group of countries with some variations supports V.A. Zelensky, who, of course, is not A. Hitler. It does not determine actions against the Russian Federation. He is ordered to take concrete steps. Nevertheless, the banners under which the new "Nazi International" gathered are the same. These are the banners of the SS divisions and the swastika, which they have not only on their flags, but also sweeps through the cities of Ukraine. This is the swastika that adorns the bracelet of the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine, General V.F. Zaluzhny. All the bodies of these people (we see this in those who have been captured) are covered with tattoos of the very era that they consider the ideal and the "heroes" of which they idolize. This Nazism, it turned out, existed for many decades after the Cold War in a latent state, while Europeans blissfully uttered the incantation about the "common space of the Atlantic to the Urals", about common human values, about the fact that we are now friends and no one will separate us. It all instantly flew off like a varnish coating. It turned out that this racism is far from latent, but the most open and everyday, if you look at how our citizens are treated in Europe, and listen to what the same Balts, Poles and not only them say about Russians. The same Russophobic statements are allowed by respectable politicians in France, Germany and other countries. This is a task that we will not solve in one day. It creates serious, major, serious problems for the future of Europe.

Question: We think this task is insoluble. We see that even the United States recognizes the terrorist attack against journalist Dmitry Dugina, committed by Ukraine, the terrorist attack against the Crimean bridge was committed by the Ukrainian special services. Washington and the New York Times write about this and much more. We see a Nazi from Azov, M. Zhorin, who shamelessly posts videos of the executions of civilians in Kupyansk in the public domain. How so? It still turns out that in the eyes of the West, the terrorist state is Russia. Can't we open their eyes to the essence of the Ukrainian regime?

Sergey Lavrov: I think they understand everything very well. There is "another" game in order to eliminate Russia as an independent entity on the geopolitical scene. Without exaggeration, they embarked on all the hardships. They pile up lies after lies in order to fool, dupe, debilitate their public opinion and form its "sharpening" against Russia, and then, referring to the same public opinion formed by them, explain their Russophobic policy and the need for its further promotion and activation. Direct and indirect signals are sent to countries such as China and India that, they say, in vain they are friends with Russia, because "its days are numbered." A sad description of the "abilities" of these politicians and their knowledge of history, understanding of what Russia and the Russian people are.

You mentioned the forced US admission that Dmitry Dugina was killed in a terrorist attack prepared by the Ukrainian special services. It is not good to say that the Ukrainians did not consult with the United States. They wouldn't give that advice. Immediately, as if in "compensation", the European Union in the next sanctions list announces sanctions against her father, A.D. Dugin, for wanting to kill him, but it turned out that her daughter was injured. These people don't have any scrupulousness about what they do. Considerations of decency, honesty to themselves about what they do, do not bother them at all.

About the Crimean Bridge, you said that the United States also recognized that this was the work of the Ukrainian special services. I read the statements of some politicians in Germany who doubt (as they said) the version proposed by the Russian Federation. We can talk for a long time about the extraordinary events taking place in recent years, and about the versions that seem plausible to the West. Now, for example, they spoke about the Crimean Bridge: they saw an act of sabotage and terrorism that took place there, but they do not fully trust the Russian Federation.

As for Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, westerners also do not seem to trust us, because they do not want to allow us to participate in the investigation. Let me remind you that Nord Stream 1 is 51% of our property, and Nord Stream 2 is fully the property of Gazprom PJSC. Yesterday, a representative of the Swedish government said that they are conducting a preliminary investigation together with the Danes, the Germans, but the Russians will not be allowed there. They investigate the damage caused to our property, but they keep us aside and do not want to show us anything, so that we, God forbid, do not find out the truth. There was a report that American experts would participate in the process of processing the data that they receive there. That's a double standard.

Similarly, it was in July 2014, when the Malaysian Boeing MH17 was shot down. Holland, Australia and Belgium, together with Ukraine, which then did not close its airspace, created an international Joint Investigation Team, but did not invite Malaysia, which owned this Boeing. She was called only five months later, when they in their "circle" together with the Ukrainians reached an oath agreement that this "four" (Australia, Holland, Belgium and Ukraine) does not give out any information from their "circle" until there is a full consensus on what this information can be. These are our Western partners' approaches to honest investigations.

I am not even talking about the investigation, which remains a secret behind seven seals - what happened in Salisbury in 2019, when we were accused of poisoning the Skripals. What happened to A.A. Navalny is a dark story. Neither in this case, nor with the Skripals, nor with A.A. Navalny we are provided with the results of the investigation. They do not talk about the formula of the substance found in their bodies. The Germans and the same Swedes who have allocated their laboratory for the study of A.A. Navalny analyzes refuse to give it to us. The Germans admitted that they found poisonous substances not in a civilian clinic, but in the laboratory of the Bundeswehr. Where does the Bundeswehr get such knowledge? Germany has long announced that it has complied with the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Germany did not have any of these substances left. A huge number of questions.

Returning to our topic, I proceed from the fact that we must consistently, without losing our temper, promote our truth and demand it from those who cover up the neo-Nazi terrorist regime in Kiev.

Question: About our Turkish partners, who are partners and supplies Bayraktars to the Ukrainians. Recently, a warship was launched. Now there are many leaks, in particular from the Turkish media, regarding the fact that some "huge" grandiose negotiations are being prepared, where there will be no Ukraine, but there will be Moscow, Washington, Paris, Great Britain, Berlin. Ostensibly a "big deal." Can you confirm or deny? Are there any such discussions? If there's a "big deal," what's good for us?

Sergey Lavrov: I read exactly the same as you did. This has been published and "proclaimed" in electronic and other media. This is not the first time that our partners have publicly announced initiatives, drawing attention to it, and only then they begin to see who will react how. It is obvious to me that if our Turkish colleagues think about this, they will have a great opportunity to raise such questions this week during the meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who will be attending events in Astana together. We didn't hear anything else other than public announcements.

I agree that traditional diplomacy involves the reverse order of actions. When you have something serious in your head and you believe that it can bring some result, you first secretly consult with potential participants in your initiative. If there is a positive response, you already decide how to promote it in the media space. If you read and take for granted what the Turkish press writes, it seems that, according to the Milliet newspaper, this idea of R.T. Erdogan was pumped by the Americans and it seems that the Turks received a semi-positive "nod" there.

I can't say anything more about that. We will listen to any suggestions. I talked about this at the beginning of our interview. We are ready to listen to everyone and everything, but we cannot say in advance that this or that process will lead to a result. We must first understand what is being proposed and what is the content of the initiatives that are spreading so quickly and loudly in the public space.

Question: Will presidents of Russia and the United States Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden meet at the G20 summit?

Sergey Lavrov: It has been said many times that we never refuse to meet. If the proposal comes, we will consider it. Everyone thinks that there is already a signal of readiness on the part of Joe Biden. Such confidence is based only on his phrase "we will see" in response to the question whether he will meet with Vladimir Putin in the future. This is more for journalistic analytical fabrications than for real politics.

Question: It is clear that there is no technical possibility to deprive Russia of the right to veto in the UN Security Council. But something is also being done "out of lawlessness". Are preparations underway to deprive us of this opportunity? What do we oppose? How important is that to us now?

Sergey Lavrov: I think that the UN is important for everyone. No matter how critical one may be of the serious negative processes taking place in the Organisation, including in terms of privatisation of its Secretariat and subordination to the Western agenda, nevertheless structurally, conceptually, in terms of international law, from the point of view of the principles laid down in the UN Charter, this is the best thing that humanity has been able to invent.

Attempts continue to further aggravate the situation in the United Nations, to use it at this stage in a Russophobic manner, and subsequently to apply the same mechanisms, techniques and methods against other "undesirable" powers. This goes beyond all the decorum that used to exist in diplomacy, including during the Cold War.

As for attempts to deprive Russia of the right of veto, there is already a broader question: can we remain in the UN Security Council? As always, Ukrainians have been brought to the fore, saying that in 1991 there was no decision that Russia was the successor state of the Soviet Union. Like, a Soviet representative just entered, in front of him a sign with the inscription "USSR" was changed to "Russian Federation". As one of the arguments, they cite the fact that the UN Charter, which lists the permanent members, still says "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Yes, this is true, but it also reflects the unanimous decision taken in December 1991 with the participation and support of the permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council and all UN members without exception. It is impossible for the Kiev regime to somehow outplay it "retroactively". Let me remind you that in the 1970s, the People's Republic of China regained its rightful place. Representatives of Taiwan left the UN, and came from the PRC. Then, too, the list of permanent members was not changed in the Charter. It still says Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan.

You can go far in such research. In particular, Ukraine became a member of the UN, a founding member of the Organization, only thanks to the Soviet Union and the perseverance of J.V. Stalin. In the negotiations on the creation of the UN, he sought to ensure that the Soviet republics also joined it, including Ukraine and Belarus. If we cling to some historical features, then today's Ukraine is not a member of the UN. It entered as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Those who, for lack of more serious arguments, are trying to play such games, I would advise you to calm down and do real things, and not "suck out of your finger" stupidity.

Let's abstract from anti-Russian approaches, although they will continue. There is a good example of the reform of the UN Security Council. Some time ago, we vetoed an anti-Russian resolution on the Ukrainian issue. Then the West made a special decision that every time a country uses a veto in the Security Council, it should explain its motives at a special meeting of the General Assembly. This is a desire to once again create a scandalous situation, to mobilize their supporters to say some things condemning the Russian Federation. We agreed, we have nothing to hide. They have already explained why the veto was used. Today and tomorrow at the UN General Assembly we will explain why we oppose the resolution condemning the holding of referendums. It completely ignores the right of the oppressed residents of eastern Ukraine to self-determination. We will explain this at a meeting of the UN General Assembly.

Another interesting story. It was suggested that, at that meeting, before adopting a text condemning the results of referenda, the General Assembly, in full accordance with its procedures, should agree to vote on the resolution secretly rather than openly. I'll explain why. The Americans, together with the Anglo-Saxons and the European Union singing along with them, have terrorized most of the developing countries. They threaten to deprive them of aid, subject them to sanctions, freeze the bank accounts of ambassadors voting in New York, do some things about their children studying at US universities. I'm not exaggerating, I know it firmly. I talked to my friends, with whom I worked for many years in New York.

It is important for the Americans to show "huge" support for Ukraine. They want all delegates to raise their hands in public after such threats and methods of blackmail. Washington needs to see who is reacting how. Secret ballot is a democratic procedure, but it does not suit them. Despite all the unacceptable methods of "processing" representatives, most of them have a conscience and understanding of what is really happening in Ukraine and around it, what the West is trying to do in this regard in an attempt to maintain its dominance and domination by all means, the time of which is running out forever.

It is cowardice to allow every State to express its opinion freely. What kind of democracy? They squeeze it all in the inner plane, saying that it is necessary to build a party life one way or another. US President Joe Biden convened a "summit for democracy" in 2021. A new one cannot be held until the end of 2022, they plan to hold it for January-February 2023 If you look at the list, the criterion for the invitation is loyalty to American democracy. I will say even more – at this stage of the US Democratic Party. The UN wants to do the same. "Explain" how to vote, for whom, what words to pronounce, write "cheat sheets". The European Union makes manuals for all its members, from which in public statements it is impossible to depart either to the left or to the right.

On a more serious topic, reform of the UN Security Council is overdue. Of the 15 members of the Security Council last year, six, and in the future (taking into account the re-election of non-permanent members) there will be seven Western countries. That's almost half. It's no good. It's not a representative composition. The chronic underrepresentation of developing countries must be addressed by increasing the number of members from Asia, Africa and Latin America. No "additions" are required from the West. I gave the figures – seven out of fifteen represent the "collective West". It's "not going through any gates."

Back to the veto. A few years ago, the French proposed to agree that the permanent members would voluntarily limit their veto power and would not use it when it comes to gross massive violations of human rights, international humanitarian law, war crimes. In order to conduct a sane dialogue, we have asked for clarification of the situations in question and who will determine whether a situation constitutes a gross mass violation. This should be done by a court, tribunal or un Security Council. The circle has closed. I don't want to give cynical examples here. But let's say they say 100 people killed – this is a massive violation of human rights. And when there are 99 dead, can the veto be used? It's not a serious approach.

The veto was established in the UN Charter not to provoke one or another permanent member to use it, but to stimulate agreement among all. The West is now doing exactly the opposite. Knowing full well that we will use the veto, they throw in a resolution condemning Russia, drafted in unacceptable, boorish terms. Then they will accuse us of abusing this right. A simple "two-piece". As the saying goes, "simplicity is worse than theft."

The French revived their idea again. They are trying to "frown" at developing countries, which "by the simplicity of their soul" can support the noble call not to use the right of veto when people die. These are Jesuit attempts with unsuitable end goals.

Question: "When will peace come?" Is the specter of de-escalation already haunting Europe?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't know. How long did the specter of communism haunt Karl Marx until it prevailed? This is a historical fact. Easy to verify. I hope we will be more successful and faster.