MARIO NAWFAL: Mr. Minister, it’s a pleasure to speak to
you Sir. The first question I have, as I speak to people here in Moscow -- there’s a perception that the
U.S. has changed, they are describing the U.S.
completely differently under President Trump. Do you think the U.S. as a culture,
not only the perception but do you think has it fundamentally changed and their
perception of Russia and President Putin?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: I think what is going on in the United States is a return to
normalcy.
The United States has always been the country of two big parties who competed
between themselves, who changed ownership of the White House. But the division
during my years in the United States which is starting from 1981, I've been
there several times serving for a long period, compared to that time, the
division now is absolutely striking. On that occasion the main dividing line
between the Democrats and the Republicans was more taxes, less taxes, abortions,
things which would be part of a normal Christian life and within this
Christianity values, the entire politics were built. Arguing with each other but
within the values which everybody accepted.
With the introduction of neoliberal ideas, neocon ideas but mostly neoliberal
ideas, the divide became deeper, wider and the culmination was the first
election of President Trump. Which he himself admitted was a surprise to him and
he wasn't really getting ready. Now he is ready. And it is clear -- 49 days yet,
and such a rich agenda is already thrown into the public domain.
So, this split is motivated first of all by the departure from Christian values
by the leadership of the Democratic party, in my view, by promoting without any
limits the LGBTQ, whatever comes next, you know I mean one WC for any gender.
I once found myself in Sweden where the OSCE was conducting a ministerial
meeting and it was in a stadium specially arranged for the ministerial meeting,
and I wanted to go out and I saw a WC sign, and I asked the guy who was
accompanying me whether this was a gents or ladies. He said "everybody." I don't
want any of my friends to experience this themselves.
So, this -- and this is just of course a tiny manifestation of those -- of those divisions. But the
-- America as we [video skips at source] -- Rust
Belt -- Rust Belt -- Rust Belt. America is of course not very much keen to embrace those values.
And the persistence with which -- you know, fanatic persistence with which those values were
brought, promoted to the population
certainly made quite a number of people to decide for themselves that this is
not what they want and they supported Donald Trump.
So it's back to normalcy as we understand normalcy. We are Orthodox Christians.
The values are basically the same though Catholicism now is more and more
deviating toward the new trends which we cannot understand and which we would
not accept.
But the fact is that a normal Administration without any, you know, unchristian
ideas came to power and the reaction was such an explosion in the media, in the
politics all over the world is very interesting and very telling. When we met, I
hope I don't reveal any secret, in Riyadh with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz and
Steve Witkoff they suggested the meeting and they said, look, we want normal
relations in the sense that the foundation of the American foreign policy under
the Donald Trump Administration is the national interest of the United States.
This is absolute and without any discussion. But at the same time, we understand
that other countries also have their national interest. And with those countries
who have their national interest and don't play into the hands of somebody
else's interest, we are ready to have serious discussion. It is very well
understood they told us that countries like the United States and Russia would
never have their national interest the same. They would not coincide maybe even
50 or less percent. But when they do coincide this situation, if we are
responsible politicians, must be used to develop this simultaneous and similar
interest into something practical which would be mutually beneficial, be it
economic projects, infrastructural projects or something else. And then another
message went: but when the interests do not coincide and contradict each other
then the responsible countries must do everything not to allow this
contradiction to degenerate into confrontation, especially military
confrontation which would be disastrous for many other countries. We told them
that we fully share this logic. It’s absolutely the way President Putin wants
and does conduct our foreign policy. He always, since he became President,
underlines in his contacts that we are not imposing anything on anyone and that
we are looking for a balance of interest. Same logic absolutely.
Some people would say, oh, Russia is now changing and is turning away from the
East, from China, from India, from Africa. It's an illusion. Euphoria is not
what should be guiding us in foreign policy.
By the way, China for decades has relations with the United States based exactly
on the formula which I just described. They sometimes call each other names
which we don't mind. I mean we also in modern diplomacy are using to get the new
vocabulary but they never interrupted the dialogue.
They would say, hands off Taiwan, hands off South China Sea. But let's meet and
talk. It's the same approach, the same logic which is now accepted by the Trump
Administration and in its relationship with the Russian Federation. I think it's
only right.
There are no two persons who would be 100% alike and the same with countries.
The countries who can seriously influence the fate of the world militarily, the
nuclear powers in particular, of course they have special responsibility, Not to
shout at each other but to sit down and talk. More or less like it was handled
by cowboys in many of the Hollywood movies: “He said that you know and I know
that you know that I know and what are you going to tell me”.
ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Mr. Minister, pleasure to be here. An early happy birthday to you. You
have a special birthday coming up. I have the same one shortly afterwards. We
are not the same day but shortly after. We are both the same age. We are born in
the same year. Thank you for inviting us here.
I want you to talk to us about NATO and the reaction in the Foreign Ministry to
the treachery of NATO, and how the Foreign Ministry will view it if and when the
United States leaves NATO?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Well, it's a long story of course and it is a story about
illusions, beliefs, disappointments about partnership degenerating into rivalry
and then confrontation and animosities.
Well I wouldn't recite the story about how Jim Baker and others promised to
Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't move an inch to the East, and when they had
to modify this offer because GDR and West Germany were merging, it was agreed on
paper legally. Now they say that there is no legal obligation not to expand
NATO. Fine, if you can only implement your promise by court then of course you
need legal obligations all over you. But if you are a person of dignity, a man
of dignity, if you agreed on something by political commitment you have to
deliver.
But at that time when Germany was reunified it was written in the legal paper
this “2+4 process” that the GDR would become part of Federal Republic of Germany
and thus would become part of NATO, but there would be no NATO infrastructure
whatsoever on the former GDR's territory. They are backtracking on this one now.
They are deploying some NATO command in East Germany. But Mikhail Gorbachev
believed that this was a serious promise, a serious commitment. Then we were
very much disappointed to watch how NATO not only accepted, admitted East
Germany, but by 2004 the NATO expansion included the three Baltic republics,
former republics of the Soviet Union. Then this ball was rolling, picking up
more and more contenders - those who wanted to become NATO members.
Foreign Minister Evgeny Primakov in 1997 suggested to have some understanding
between Russia and NATO. The NATO-Russia Founding Act was negotiated, which was
about equality, about mutual respect, about cooperation in various fields,
against terrorism, against illegal migration. Actually on that basis NATO-Russia
Council was created which was running like 80 to 90 projects annually. There was
a cooperative program on Afghanistan -- the Americans would get the Russian
helicopters, we’ll pay for them -- we would service them on the ground. The
Soviet-made helicopters were the most appropriate for the Afghan conditions.
Counterterrorism, fighting drug trafficking. And then the expansion continued.
It was still Boris Yeltsin. Evgeny Primakov already became Prime Minister. In
1999 there was an OSCE summit in Istanbul. President Boris Yeltsin went there.
They had meetings with his colleagues from the United States, European capitals.
They decided to allay any fears about what NATO is and about what NATO further
plans are, they had to adopt a strong political declaration on indivisibility of
security. They adopted the Istanbul Declaration which says each country has the
right to choose alliances but no country has the right to strengthen its
security at the expense of the security of others and therefore - the most
important paragraph - no country, group of countries or organizations in the
OSCE area could ever claim dominance. NATO was doing exactly the opposite.
So now, after the beginning of the special military operation, which as
President Putin repeated stated was a decision because all other attempts, all
other alternatives to bring things into some positive dimension failed for ten
years after the illegal coup in Kiev, in violation of the deal signed the night
before and guaranteed by the Germans, French and Poles. The deal was about a
five months period to prepare for general elections and in the meantime a
government of national unity would rule, and the next morning the opposition
took government's buildings, went to the crowd in the “Maidan” and said,
congratulate us, we created the government of the winners. Winners and national
unity - it's slightly different. I hope it will be national unity in Syria but
so far it is really a dangerous place. But in Ukraine when these people who came
to power through the coup, their first statement was that they would cancel the
status of the Russian language. Their first action was sending armed fighters to
storm the Crimean Parliament. When they called “terrorists” the citizens of
Eastern and Southern Ukraine who said, guys, wait a minute. You came to power by
an illegal coup. We don't want to take any orders from you. Leave us alone. And
they said, oh you are “terrorists” and started army operation against their own
citizens. Thus launching the war which ended in February 2015 by signing the
Minsk Agreements, which President Emmanuel Macron tries now to interpret as
something which President Vladimir Putin didn't want to implement.
It was really a very funny speech by President Emmanuel Macron, it also relates
to NATO by the way, because he was saying, ok, let them live and I will protect
all of you with my three or four nuclear bombs.
But on that occasion we spent 17 hours non-stop in Minsk. The deal was agreed,
and after that, well, I am deviating from NATO but you would understand, after
the deal was agreed and it was endorsed by the Security Council, and a very
interesting moment. When we finished negotiations Petr Poroshenko with support
of Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel said that he would not sign this paper
unless it is signed by the “separatists”, as he called them. The heads of the
two self-proclaimed republics, Donetsk and Lugansk, were in the same city of
Minsk in another hotel. They said they would not sign this because it was
negotiated without them and this was a document providing for the territorial
integrity of Ukraine with just a special status given to these two tiny
territories to be frank. They had already proclaimed independence, they cannot
betray their people. It took us some persuasion to make them sign this paper
which indeed said: special status inside Ukraine, Russian language, the right to
be consulted when prosecutors and judges are appointed for these municipalities
but their rights must be consolidated in the Constitution and the exact language
must be negotiated directly between Kiev and these two places. It's part of the
Minsk Agreement endorsed by the Security Council. Very soon after it was
enforced, the Germans, the French and the Ukrainians themselves started saying:
“We never talked to the separatists”.
Emmanuel Macron when he came to Moscow just weeks or so before we started the
military operation, he was at the press conference and then during this infamous
phone conversation with President Vladimir Putin which he, the President of
France, leaked, he was saying that, Vladimir, you cannot insist on this
legitimate government agreeing to talk to the separatists. And President Putin
was objecting saying this government came to power as a result of a coup. Let
them be grateful to all of us that we are trying to legitimize this entire
situation and this entire country. But don't forget that the Minsk Agreements
bluntly say -- direct dialogue with those whom you call “separatists”.
It's a very shameful way which the French and the Germans behaved. Eventually
those who signed on behalf of Ukraine, Germany and France, Petr Poroshenko,
Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande being retired already, stated in an
interview: “We never intended to implement this we just needed to buy time to
push more weapons into Ukraine”. And of course NATO was playing a key role.
This Rammstein process led by the United States during Joe Biden’s time, now the
Americans want to give it to the Brits, I understand. But the Europeans do not
stop their efforts. On the contrary, they kind of increase them and call for
more and more support, becoming more and more emphatic and I would even say
nervous. The question whether NATO can survive without the United States is, I
understand, motivated by these observations.
I don't think the Americans would drop from NATO. At least President Trump never
hinted that this might be the case. But what he did bluntly say was that if you
want us to protect you, to give you security guarantees, you pay what is
necessary. It's still to be discussed what is necessary: two and a half, five
percent, anything in the middle. But he also said that to those who fulfill the
criteria of the percentage of GDP to be contributed to NATO, then the United
States would guarantee that they are safe and secure. But he doesn't want to
provide these security guarantees to Ukraine under Zelenskyy.
He has his own view of the situation which he bluntly presents every now and
then, that this war should never have started -- that pulling Ukraine into NATO
in violation of its Constitution, in violation of the Declaration of
Independence of 1991, on the basis of which we recognized Ukraine as a sovereign
state. For several reasons including that this Declaration was saying no NATO,
no blocs, neutral status. Another thing which this Declaration also confirmed
and solidified - all rights of Russian and all other national minorities are to
be respected. Which by the way is still in the Ukrainian Constitution in spite
of the fact that the series of laws they passed since 2019 culminated in total
legal prohibition of the Russian language in media, education, culture. Even in
day to day life. If you come to a store and ask the store attendant to be
assisted in Russian he or she might tell you to speak the “right” language. Such
issues happen.
And of course this was a very different situation since then they included the
NATO membership into the Constitution while keeping the national minorities'
guarantees. They declared that NATO is the future of Ukraine. The European Union
also. When they started saying these things, the European Union still kept some
resemblance of an economic grouping. Now it lost it altogether. And Fuhrer
Ursula is mobilizing everybody to re-militarize Europe. Some unbelievable sums
of money are being mentioned. Many people think that this is a trick to divert
attention of the population from those dozens and hundreds of billions of euros
which have been spent during the COVID days and during the assistance to Ukraine
without proper auditing. It's a discussion which is being raised.
The EU also lost its independence and its economic meaning. Because when a
German government spokesman says, no, no, no, no, we would never restore this
gas pipeline - Nord Stream 2 - because we have to get rid of the dependence on
the Russian gas. But this was the basis for the German economy, for prosperity
of the German economy. They pay now 4-5 times more than similar industries pay
for gas in the United States. Business is moving to the U.S., the
de-industrialization of Europe is taking place. They are ready to sacrifice all
this just for the sake of achieving the ideological goal of “defeating” Russia.
They were saying in the battlefield Russia must be strategically defeated.
Now they say, we would not accept capitulation of Ukraine. It's a change. A
change almost 360 degrees as Annalena Baerbock says. But the European Union is
no longer a peaceful economic project. They want their own army. Speaking of the
future of NATO there are voices: “Ok, if the United States doesn't want to be
actively involved in European affairs, let's have our own NATO, our own military
alliance”. But this is the game and process.
Some statements are intended just to test the ground what will be the response
from the other side of the ocean. I think one and a half years ago, the European
Union signed an agreement with NATO which basically subordinated the EU to the
North Atlantic Alliance providing this ‘mobility’. In other words NATO
equipment, NATO troops can use the territory of a non-member, non-NATO EU
states. If there are such states still left. Austria, Ireland. But it is not
that important because they always think eastward and, to say, for peace-loving
people.
The Prime Minister of Denmark said that these days Ukraine is weak, Ukraine
cannot be fairly treated now, therefore for Ukraine today, peace is worse than
war. She said this. Let's pump Ukraine with weapons again and when we have
shaken the Russian position then let's see whether we can talk.
The chief of German intelligence, a couple of days ago, said that it would be
bad for Ukraine and for Europe if the war ends before 2029 and 2030 even better.
Yes, they say these things.
When President Trump was interrogating President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office
asking him many times, ‘you don't want to negotiate?’, Zelenskyy was trying to
avoid an answer. Of course they are very much concerned about irregularities,
let me put it very mildly, during the Joe Biden era with Pentagon supplies to
Ukraine without the possibility to see where this money went. Elon Musk is
trying to do this. We are not taking any pleasure from this but this is about
governments, the Joe Biden Administration, Ursula von der Leyen and her
Commission, the Brits who regularly accuse Russia of corruption, of violating
human rights and who basically, whatever international issue they discuss, start
with human rights. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba of course, Nicaragua, South Africa now
violated human rights by passing a law on land, Central Asia. There are several
formats between the West and Central Asia - human rights are on top, everywhere.
But on Ukraine where the Russian language has been exterminated legally and
physically, here is a special agency to watch for this legislation to be fully
implemented, nobody ever mentioned human rights except us. Now Hungarians,
Bulgarians start raising this issue because they also have their minorities in
Ukraine, which were carved up mostly by Stalin after World War II, cutting
through basically like colonial powers did in Africa. Look at the African map.
Just by a ruler they draw the borders. In the case of Ukraine and its neighbours
it's different because it was individually carved out but divided nations, yes.
And therefore after the coup when we started talking to Petr Poroshenko, when he
was pledging that he would never allow a war between the Ukrainian army and the
Eastern citizens of Ukraine. He was saying that they will be faithful to their
commitments regarding national minorities.
Federalization was very seriously discussed between myself, John Kerry,
Catherine Ashton who was the EU foreign policy boss at that time and the guy
whom Kiev delegated. It was in April 2014, and we seriously discussed. Nobody
mentioned Crimea. It was a done deal already.
We developed a paper saying that there must be some gathering of the heads of
the Ukrainian regions and they have to discuss how to continue to live in a
state which used to be a unitary state but the minority rights mattered. It was
2014 then everybody forgot about this.
Zelenskyy, who also came to power under the slogan that he would implement the
Minsk Agreements. Less than a few months after he was inaugurated he was saying
very different things: we are a unitary state, there would be no special status.
I don't talk to separatists and so on and so forth.
Another lie which Emmanuel Macron said in his recent pathetic statement was
about the meeting in Paris in December 2019, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel,
Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Zelenskyy, which the Germans and the French convened to
save the Minsk agreements. There was a preparatory work which culminated in a
draft document agreed by experts, by ministers of the four countries that they
presented to the Presidents and chancellor. There was consensus. It said that
there would be disengagement at three areas on the line of contact immediately
as the beginning of disengagement of forces along the entire duration of the
line of contact. Agreed. When it was shown to the leaders everybody was
satisfied. Zelenskyy said, “no, no no. I can only agree to try to do this in
three experimental areas, not along the entire line of contact”. Nobody could
understand why, but he insisted. But the main thing is, that he never disengaged
even at these three locations and the military activities continued.
So when NATO comes into it, I remember that it was about NATO, well, NATO was
certainly providing him with weapons, with intelligence data. It continues until
now. Americans announced that they are withdrawing maybe temporarily, maybe not,
the instructors and experts who helped guide high-tech missiles. But others
remain there.
One more thing about NATO. NATO used to be proud that they are a defensive
alliance. The only thing which concerns them is to defend territories of the
member states. A couple of years ago at the summit in Madrid the then Secretary
General Stoltenberg already said we need to be more active in the Indo-Pacific
region. He was asked by a journalist, but you insisted that you are about
defense of your territories he said, Yes, absolutely. But the threats to our
territories now emanate from the South China Sea, from the Strait of Taiwan. And
so on and so forth.
NATO started building there, non-inclusive blocks, “troikas”, “quads”, AUKUS.
They encouraged this Indo-Pacific Quartet, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the
Republic of Korea, they developed their cooperation with Japan and South Korea.
Joint exercises with South Korea and the nuclear elements are already involved
and discussed. They are planning to open, as far as I understand, an office of
NATO in Tokyo or on some of the islands. They are trying to pull some ASEAN
countries out and to bring them into these “limited membership closed clubs”.
The Philippines is case in point. Singapore is case in point.
The concept of security which was developed by ASEAN through many decades and
which included the participation of everybody on an equal footing including
China, the U.S., India, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea,
this concept, based on consensus, is now being undermined quite considerably.
Which is very interesting because it coincided with the period when we started
rethinking our own security and Eurasian security. Exactly Eurasian, not
European.
Each continent, Africa, Latin America, they have continental-wide organizations:
African Union, CELAC in Latin America and Caribbean. Only Eurasia, the biggest,
the most prosperous, the most developed and rich continent doesn't have a
continent-wide organization.
All attempts of Russia to be part of some security cooperation process were
about Euro-Atlantic schemes: OSCE, NATO-Russia. EU became Euro-Atlantic very
soon. It didn't work.
So what we are now trying to discuss -- not imposing anything on anybody –is a
vision of Eurasian continental architecture without prejudging the shape, but
just to sit down and to talk on the basis of openness of this hypothetical,
eventual architecture to all continental countries. Let them keep NATO, if they
so wish, let them keep OSCE but there are Eurasian Economic Union, Organization
of Collective Security Treaty, Commonwealth of Independent States, ASEAN. There
is an organization of the countries of South Asia. Not very active but still.
There is Gulf Cooperation Council by the Arab monarchies who are now normalizing
their relations with Iran. And we promote this.
So all these sub-regional developments, most of them are economic and it would
not hurt if we unite these efforts, organize a division of labor to save money,
to save effort to harmonize the economic plans. President Putin called it Great
Eurasian Partnership. Who knows, maybe many years from now it would be a
material basis for some security architecture which must not be close to the
Western part of the continent. Well, this is not very brief, but...
LARRY C. JOHNSON: You know, I'm not sure I trust my own country. I know that the Russian
government is quite sincere in looking to pursue a diplomatic solution. What
troubles me, and it's something that I continue to hear now from people in
significant positions just as the United States cynically developed a
relationship with China in 1972 under Nixon. It was for the express purpose of
going after then the Soviet Union, they wanted to make sure that they split them
apart.
I have heard several people, and I know that this Elbridge Colby who is going to
be like the number three person in the Department of Defense that they see China
as the enemy and they believe that they can split Russia from China and again,
use you (not you personally, Mr. Minister, but the country) as a wedge against
China.
Now, I try to say that's foolishness because unlike the United States the
Russian government takes its agreements seriously and adheres to them. So, how
do you think, you know, what will be Russia's approach in juggling this, let's
call it a subterfuge by the United States. To on the one hand offer you a hand
of friendship but at the same time, they have not released their desire to
destroy your country and to also use you cynically against the Chinese.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Well, we have been through this. As you mentioned, in 1972 when
President Richard Nixon wanted the relationship in this triangle to be like
this. The relations between the U.S. and China and the U.S. and Russia both must be
better than the relations between Moscow and China. A combination.
Well, it's a nice philosophical construction. But the current situation is
radically different. We never had the relations with China which were that good,
that confidential, that long-term build and that would be enjoying support of
the peoples of both countries.
The Americans know that we would not betray our commitments, legal commitments,
but also, you know, the political commitments which we develop with the Chinese.
We have problems, we have difficulties in our relations mostly because of the
sanctions, because the companies want to avoid being punished.
Some of the very promising logistical, infrastructural projects in Siberia are
being delayed. But we are not in a hurry and the Chinese, of course, are never
in a hurry. They always see over the horizon. This is the national character and
we respect this.
Actually, again, I wouldn't reveal a secret when President Joe Biden and
President Vladimir Putin met in June 2021 in Geneva. It was in the middle of
COVID-19 pandemic, coronavirus what have you. In a brief discussion with only
the foreign ministers present Joe Biden said, you know, I start rethinking the
absolutism of democracy because the countries who have authoritarian rulers they
cope much better with the COVID infection than we do. In our case, each state
has some kind of leeway and they decide to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. China
and Russia, he said, acted better than many others. But this is a philosophical
discussion.
You can argue in the same logic whether four years is enough for doing something
long term, especially with this modern, very complicated, sophisticated
technologies which require re-tuning of sectors of economy and whether four
years is enough or maybe even two years because if you lose mid-term elections
the Congress would not allow you to deliver.
I don't know. I think the answer is let each nation choose its destiny, its
future. It will be exactly in line with the United Nations Charter which says
sovereign equality of states, no interference.
One example -- Afghanistan. The democratic experiment failed completely. It
totally ignored the centuries -- old habits and unwritten rules of this
civilization. So we would be very much cautious regarding any imposition. And
President Trump is already saying about a meeting “at three”: U.S., China, Russia.
He mentioned that he would like to discuss nuclear weapons, security issues.
We would be open to any format which is based on mutual respect, on equality, no
prejudged solutions. If our Chinese friends would be interested it would be
their decision. But this does not negate the importance of Russia-U.S. dialogue on
strategic stability and the interest in resuming such discussions was expressed
repeatedly by Donald Trump and his people.
President Vladimir Putin, in response, said that it is the area where we have
special responsibility, especially since in one year the START III Treaty would
be expiring. So it's a very different approach than the Joe Biden Administration
used to promote. They were saying, let's resume the implementation of the START
Treaty and let us visit some of your nuclear sites. We told them, guys, you
declared us enemies. You declared the goal to inflict strategic defeat on
Russia. They said, yes, but this does not preclude some tactical and technical
visits.
President Trump's position, as I said at the very beginning is that whatever
differences we have, don't allow them to degenerate into a war and whatever
interests come the same way don't waste the chance to develop this into
something practical and useful.
MARIO NAWFAL: It seems, and Marco Rubio said it himself we're walking into a
multipolar world and you said the Chinese, and to an extent the Russians as
well, you always look at the horizon and ignore short-term developments.
So in the horizon, do you think (I know I'm getting ahead of myself) there's a
possibility in the next, let's say, 10 years of not only normalization of
relations between Russia and the U.S. but back to an alliance between the two
countries in the next ten years? That's something already people are talking
about.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: The alliance means, at least historically and this is deeply in
our mentality means, that you are allied against somebody.
Multipolarity, which Marco Rubio recognized, is different. How can you recognize
multipolarity without recognizing such a giant as China, such a giant as India,
Africa as a continent, Latin America, Brazil and quite a number of others.
Multipolarity, in my view, would be evolving for quite some time. It's a
historic epoch, probably and it would, that's my vision, it could be composed of
superpowers by the size, by the economic weight, by the military might
especially nuclear. Certainly U.S., China, Russia fit into this category. Those
who are not as big they can participate in a multipolar world through their
sub-regional structures: ASEAN for example, GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council),
League of Arab States. The African Union, by the way, received the status of
full member of G20 last year. League of Arab States wants the same, we are in
favour.
G20, by the way, is the format which is now proving to be not only financially
and economically useful, but also politically. It might play a very positive
role in the process of multipolarity. Yes, there are still remnants of
animosity, but the rule of consensus is there. They don't vote, therefore they
are more promising than the United Nations General Assembly who every now and
then, whenever somebody cannot get something from the Security Council they go
to the General Assembly and they stage a show with votes, with accusations and
so on and so forth.
But not only Marco Rubio spoke about multipolarity. Donald Trump spoke about
NATO, as I referred to his repeated statements. That this was one of the
reasons. We insist that any approach, any attempt to approach the Ukrainian
crisis, any initiative, and most of them are very vague should concentrate on
the root causes of the conflict. And Donald Trump confirmed that one of the root
causes was NATO expansion which created a threat to the Russian security. I, by
the way, would like to emphasize in these new circumstances after January 20,
that the importance of Ukraine for the Russian security is many times bigger
than the importance of Greenland for the U.S. security.
And the second issue about root causes. I also referred to the extermination of
the Russian language, media, culture prohibition of opposition parties,
prohibition of some opposition media even published in Ukrainian language and
operating in Ukrainian language, murder and disappearance of journalists not to
mention the military crimes, war crimes against the people in Donbass
immediately after the coup when they called them terrorists. And all this
grossly violates the UN Charter which says everybody must respect human rights
of every person irrespective of race, gender, language or religion. It's on top.
It's Article 1 of the UN Charter.
I've been calling upon the Secretary General of the United Nations. And I was
challenging the journalists in the United Nations. Whenever I visit, I have a
press conference. By the way, I also challenged those journalists on quite a
number of things which were used by the West to condemn Russia like the worst
criminal, starting with the downing of Malaysian Boeing MH17 on July 2014. The
trial was held with only one witness being present in person. 12 other witnesses
were not presented. Their names are not known. But the jury said that they are
reliable and they confirmed the suspicion. So it is still very murky.
The case of Salisbury poisoning, Skripals. Official notes to the United Kingdom
authorities asking questions about the fate and whereabouts of Russian citizens
totally ignored. They raised hell, they accused us, they used this to increase
sanctions. And then they forgot about this.
The same is true about Alexey Navalny who died in prison serving his term. But
who was, a couple of years before that, treated after alleged poisoning in
Russia. He was taken in less than 24 hours to Germany. And he was treated in
Germany. It's an interesting story. We were asking questions. He is our citizen
and we wanted to know the truth, what happened to him. The Germans said that the
civilian hospital did not find anything. And he was treated in the military
hospital of Bundeswehr. Where, they told us, they found “Novichok”, this
substance in his blood. We asked to see the test. It's only natural. He is our
citizen. We are being accused of maltreating him. They said, no, we are not
giving this to you because you might find out what level of expertise we have in
biological substances. And we are giving this to the Organization on the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We went to this organization and said, look,
you are our common entity and the Germans said that it is now your property.
They told us, yes, they gave it to us but on the condition that we would not
show it to you. It's childish, but it is tragic at the same time.
And repeatedly, publicly I asked many Western journalists. Why don't you, being
a journalist, want to know the truth? And a person who was made a martyr by the
West against the Russian Federation, Evil, you don't want to know what happened
actually to him and how he was treated, and with what was he treated in Germany
before he came back to Russia.
And the last one, Bucha. Two days after, as a goodwill gesture for the sake of
signing the Istanbul deal in April 2022 we withdrew from a couple of villages in
the outskirts of Kiev. And two days after we left this place, Bucha, BBC team
broadcast the main street with corpses neatly laid along the route on both
sides. We still, and of course there was an outcry, we insisted on
investigation. Nobody cared about investigation until now. We want to get the
names of the people, just the names of the people whose bodies were shown by
BBC. I raised this issue twice publicly in the Security Council in front of the
Secretary General. I raised it with him. We sent a formal request to the High
Commissioner on Human Rights of the United Nations. No response. And twice I
raised the issue in New York in front of all foreign correspondents just
appealing to their professional drive to no avail.
And speaking on human rights and on the sincerity of our Western friends. Europe
and the UK they certainly want this to continue. The way they received Zelenskyy
in London after the scandal in Washington, it's an indication that they want to
raise the stakes and they are preparing something to pressure the Donald Trump
Administration back into some aggressive action against Russia. We are
philosophical about this, we know what we are doing.
But I am mostly amazed with this peacekeepers obsession. Peacekeepers President
Macron says, let's stop. In one month peacekeepers would be deployed. Then we'll
see what to do next.
First, it is not what we say is required for the end of this war which the West
waged against us, through Ukrainians with their direct participation of their
military. We know this. If NATO expansion is recognized, at least by Donald
Trump as one of the root causes then the presence of the troops from NATO
countries under any flag, in any capacity, on Ukrainian soil is the same threat.
MARIO NAWFAL: You won't accept it under any conditions?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Under any conditions. Nobody is talking to us. They keep saying
nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine but they do everything about Russia
without Russia.
Trump, by the way, when asked about peacekeepers he said, well, it's too early
to discuss this, but normally you need the consent of the parties. Why should we
give consent to the peacekeeping force or peacekeeping group even, not force. So
they want force, composed of the countries who declared us an enemy and they
would come as peacekeepers?
And the second thing is the rights and the fate of the people who live not only
on the liberated territories but on the territories under the control of the
regime. They also, most of them, speak Russian. They were brought as part of the
Russian culture and they want their kids to know Russian and to learn Russian.
My question was whether this law or several pieces of law prohibiting Russian
language whether this would be cancelled on the territory which would be left of
Ukraine. There is no answer. We'll see later…
And if you'll see later, another question whether you would still keep this
monument to Bandera who collaborated with Hitler and was accused, convicted by
the Nuremberg tribunal in abstentia. And this monument, for the first time the
Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs was shown and he said, I never suspected
that this was the case. So the rest of Ukraine would keep this monument and
would keep the prohibition of Russia would stage the torchlight marches with
insignia from SS divisions. Then, with all respect this would be not a group, a
force keeping peace. This would be a group keeping and protecting the Nazi
regime. And this is absolutely a non-starter -- non-starter.
ANDREW NAPOLITANO: May I ask you about Gaza? President Putin has expressed outrage at the
genocide in Gaza. What will be the position of the foreign ministry if the
Netanyahu regime attacks Iran as Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly
threatened?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Fortunately we used to have good relations with the prime
minister Netanyahu.
President Putin is always underlining when he speaks about this region that the
solution is impossible without a Palestinian state and without a reliable
security arrangement for Israel.
The two states were created by the decision of the General Assembly in 1948. And
the decision basically conditioned the creation and existence of one state
against the creation and existence of another.
Now, everybody who wants a Palestinian state speaks about 1967 borders. Which is
very different from 1948 borders which were supposed to be the borders of Israel
and of Palestine. If you take a look at the map now -- 1967 borders is like a
galaxy compared to what you have and the West Bank is all in settlements.
The latest development I saw so many reports that Israelis decided to annex in a
specific way the West Bank by taking it under total control without sending
Palestinians out but concentrating them in several municipalities (not in
camps).
MARIO NAWFAL: Is Iran part of the current negotiations as well?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: On?
MARIO NAWFAL: On the peace
negotiations when it comes to Ukraine does that include --
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: On Ukraine?
MARIO NAWFAL: -- other geopolitical
issues?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: On Ukraine?
MARIO NAWFAL:
Yes, as -- as President Putin and President Trump are talking, is it purely about
Ukraine or could it include other geopolitical interests for Russia?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Well, we...discussed the situation in the Persian Gulf.
We discussed the joint comprehensive action program on the Iran nuclear issue.
We are in favor of restoring the original program from which the Americans
dropped during the first Trump government. There are some contacts on the
European side.
We would be in favor of resuming the format which developed the original deal
endorsed by the Security Council (which is France, Germany, UK, U.S., Russia,
China) and Iran.
We'll see how it goes. But what is worrying is that there are some indications
that the Americans would like this new deal to be accompanied by political
conditions, insisting that there should be some verifiable arrangement for Iran
not to support groups in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, anywhere, which I don't
think is going to fly. Look, all countries in the Gulf have influence beyond the
borders of their kingdoms, emirates, Northern Africa. They undertake quite a
number of humanitarian, economic programs. They mediate a lot.
Sudan, for example. The domestic crisis in Sudan is being handled one way or
another by some players in the Gulf. So to say that everybody has this right to
project influence except Iran, I don't think it's realistic.
LARRY C. JOHNSON: What about President Putin's statement in June 2024 regarding the
conditions for a settlement or even to start negotiations with Ukraine. And my
reading of it has been President Putin's position has been the same. Your
position has been the same as the President's. It's been also by the vice
minister Sergey Ryabkov has said it. And yet I think there are some in the West
that perceive that you don't really mean what you say.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Let them be misguided. You know, our conscience is very clear and
clean. And it is clean not because we use it seldom. It's because we have been
burning our fingers so many times that on this particular crisis we know what
must be done and that we would not compromise the way which would compromise the
fate of the people. It's not about the territories, it's about the people who
were deprived of their history by law.
When Zelenskyy was asked in September 2021, long before the operation, in an
interview when the war was still going on in violation of the Minsk agreements,
by an interviewer what he thought about the people on the other side of the line
of contact. And he said (it's still on the Internet, you can see it), you know,
there are people and there are species. And if anybody living in Ukraine feels
that he or she is a part of Russian culture my advice to you, for the sake of
your children, for the future of your grandkids go to Russia, get out of
Ukraine.
And this was the man who only a few years before that while being an actor and
then when running for presidency, he was saying, stop attacking the Russian
language. He was on record.
But the sequence of events which made us absolutely concentrated on achieving
the results which would be in favor of the people, which would be saving the
people. Those who speak, well, we have to bring Ukraine back into 1991
territory. Russia must get out. Territories are important only because people
live on these territories. And the people who live on the territories which he
wants back are descendants of those who for hundreds of years were building
Odessa and other cities on those very lands who were building ports, roads, who
were founding those lands and who associated with the history of this land.
By the way, UNESCO announced, under huge pressure from Ukraine that the center
of Odessa is now the site of world cultural heritage, which it deserved. But the
decision was announced one week after the monument to Catherine the Great, the
founder of Odessa, was toppled and thrown away. And UNESCO just went on as if
nothing had happened.
Just a brief sequence of events. In the 2004 elections, the two candidates - one
is considered pro-Russian, another is considered pro-American. He is married to
some American politolog ist. The second round of elections in 2004, the
pro-Russian candidate wins. But the crowd, instigated by the Europeans mostly
demands reconsideration of these results. And under huge pressure, the
Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopts a decision to hold a third round which is
not provided for in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court expanded, without
any right, the constitutional procedures. Then the pro-Western candidate wins,
Mr. Viktor Yushchenko. Fine, there was no Maidan, no revolution, nobody was
instigating people to do it.
And then at the next Presidential elections the candidate who was considered
pro-Russian, Mr. Viktor Yanukovych, is winning in a very clean way. Nobody
challenges him. But then, Mr.Yanukovych in 2013 (maybe even earlier, but in 2013
it culminated) started negotiations with the European Union on getting an
association agreement. And it became known. You cannot hide such a thing.
And our experts started explaining to Ukrainian colleagues that if you go to the
association status with the European Union you get zero tariffs on many items.
And you, Ukraine, have zero tariffs with us because the Commonwealth of
Independent States has a free trade area. But we have quite a protection in our
trade with the European Union which we negotiated when we were joining the WTO.
So it might be a situation whereby European goods from which we negotiated some
protection would be flowing into Ukraine. And there is no customs border between
Ukraine and Russia. So we would have to close this border. Then we even
suggested to the European Commission who was headed by Jose Manuel Barroso at
that time President Putin proposed to him, let's seat the three of us EU, Russia
and Ukraine, and see how we can handle these discrepancies so that nobody
suffers. Mr. Barroso said, none of your business, we don't discuss your trade
with Canada. You do what you want.
And then President Viktor Yanukovych asked for postponement of the signature of
this association agreement. He said, I want to understand this better, how we
can handle it.
This was the trigger for that “maidan”. Well prepared, hundreds of tents of the
same make, the same colour, the same everything And this “maidan” culminated in
February 2014 when Germany, France, Poland negotiated between the legitimate
President and the opposition. And that's how it started. And they reached a
deal, which as I said was disrupted the next morning when the opposition said,
we are now the power, the government. Had they delivered on the deal which they
signed with the help of the Germans, the French and the Poles Ukraine would be
exactly, by now, where they wanted it to be -- 1991 borders, including Crimea.
They decided to be impatient, because had they waited five months for the early
elections. They would have won, because the electorate in Ukraine was very
heavily ‘massaged’ by USAID. And the figures which are popping up now, and which
Donald Trump was reading out in Congress…Victoria Nuland actually said, after
this coup, that we did so much for democracy to win in Ukraine. We spent five
billion dollars, she said this, for this particular revolution.
So then there were Minsk Agreements. Had they delivered on the Minsk agreements,
they would still have been in 1991 borders, minus Crimea. Because Crimea was, it
was never mentioned during the Minsk negotiations, everybody understood that
this was a very clean, fair vote of the people. There were hundreds of Western
observers, not official, but from MPs.
April 2022, Istanbul. President Macron said that President Putin tried to impose
something on Zelenskyy. It's another lie by Macron. Because the paper which was
initialed by us and Ukrainians, was prepared by Ukrainians. And we accepted
this. It was very straightforward: no NATO, no military bases, no military
manoeuvres. Instead of NATO, guarantees are provided by “Permanent Five” plus
Germany, plus Turkey, and the list is open. Anybody who would like can join the
list of guarantors. And these guarantees do not cover Crimea and the part of
Donbass which was controlled by Russia at that time. And these principles were
initialed and there was an agreement to develop a treaty paper on this basis.
Then Boris Johnson said, don't do it, continue to fight.
Just like the head of German intelligence now says that we cannot stop until
2029. Maybe they want to sit out Donald Trump?
So had they been cooperative and had they delivered on their own initiative,
they would still have 1991 borders, minus Crimea, minus some part of Donbass.
UNIDENTIFIED:
They should have taken the deal.
UNIDENTIFIED:
Of course they should have.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV Every time -- Every time they cheat, they lose. And the process continues.
LARRY C. JOHNSON: You know, it's been said that you're the
Metternich of the modern era,
but I think that's wrong. They should say that Metternich was the Lavrov of his
era.1
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: [signaling
conclusion of the interview]Thank you very
much. Thank you.
1
Not to bemoan the fact, but had Johnson
modified his diction just a bit the interview would have ended on a more
engaging, if still over-flattering,
antimetabole.
To wit: "It's been said that Lavrov is the
Metternich of the modern era...but
it could be even better said that Metternich was the Lavrov of his
era."
Original Text, Audio, Video Source:
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (https://mid.ru/en/)
Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement
Video Note: Audio enhanced, color adjusted, frame interpolated
from 25fps to 60fps
Page Updated: 3/15/25
U.S. Copyright Status:
Used in compliance with these terms as stated on the
Russian Foreign Ministry Website: "Materials on the website of the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs are generally accessible and open for non-commercial
use (personal, family, education, research, etc.).
Their reprinting, as well as any quoting in the mass media is allowed only with
a reference to the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a
source of the information.
Web mass media must insert a hyperlink to the respective page on the website of
the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
