Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya 24, Moscow, November 1, 2021
Question: Not so long ago, you said that Russia would not use ideology-based rules in its international diplomatic practices. What examples can you give to explain this to a layman in matters of politics?
Sergey Lavrov: It’s simple. Ideally, any society should obey generally accepted rules that have proved their efficacy and sensibility. Speaking about international life, the United Nations Charter is a book of collectively and universally coordinated rules. Later, when new members joined the UN, they accepted these rules in their entirety, without any exemptions, because UN membership requires that the Charter be ratified without any reservations. These rules are universal and mandatory for all.
With the age of multipolarity now dawning – and its emergence is an objective fact – new centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence have come into being. The multitude of voices is louder at the UN. A consensus or a vote are required in a situation where new solutions or rules have to be developed based on the UN Charter. In both cases, this work involves conflicting opinions and the need to defend one’s position and prove it is correct. Truth springs from argument and this is what this collective work is all about.
Conscious of the fact that its arguments are increasingly vulnerable because its policy is aimed at slowing down the objective formation of a polycentric world fully in keeping with the UN Charter, the collective West thinks it more beneficial for itself to discuss current issues outside of universal organisations and make arrangements within its inner circle, where there is no one to argue with it. I am referring to the collective West itself and some “docile” countries it invites from time to time. The latter are needed as extras and create a semblance of a process that is wider than a purely Western affair. There are quite a few such examples.
Specifically, they are pushing the idea of a “summit for democracy.” This summit will take place in December at the invitation of US President Joe Biden. To be sure, we will not be invited. Neither are the Chinese on the list of invitees. The list itself is missing as well. Some of our partners are “whispering in our ear” that they have been told to get ready: supposedly an invitation is in the pipeline. Asked, what they would do there, they reply that theirs will be an online address, after which a final statement will be circulated. Can we see it? They promise to show it later. So we have here the “sovereign” and his “vassals.”
The Summit for Democracy seeks to divide people and countries into “democracies” and “non-democracies.” Furthermore, my colleagues from a respected country have told me that they could infer from the invitation they had received that the democratic countries that were invited to attend were also divided into “fully” and “conditionally” democratic. I think the Americans want to have the biggest possible crowd to show that the Washington-led movement has so many followers. Watching who specifically gets invited and in what capacity will be quite amusing. I am certain that there will be attempts to reach out to some of our strategic partners and allies, but I do hope that they will remain faithful to the obligations they have in other frameworks instead of taking part in artificially concocted, one-off unofficial summits.
The same applies to the initiative Germany and France proposed two or three years ago. I am referring to the idea of an Alliance of Multilateralists. Asked, why should it be formed – after all, the United Nations, where all sovereign states are represented, stands at the pinnacle of multilateralism – they gave rather an interesting answer. According to them, there are many conservatives at the United Nations, who hinder the genuine multilateral processes, while they are the “forerunners,” they want to lead the van and show others with their example how to promote multilateralism. But this prompts the question: Where is the “ideal” of multilateralism? Allegedly, it is personified by the European Union, a paragon of “effective multilateralism.” Once again, they understand multilateralism as the need for the rest to accept the Western world’s leadership along with the superiority of Western “values” and other things western. At the same time, multilateralism, as described on the US dollar (E pluribus unum) and as embodied in the United Nations, seems inconvenient, because there is too much diversity for those who want to impose their uniform values everywhere.
Question: Is this a constructive approach?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course, not! Let me reiterate that this is how they understand the serious processes that are unfolding across the world against the backdrop of the emerging multilateralism and multipolarity. The latter, by the way, were conceived by God, for He created all men equal. And this is what the US Constitution says, but they tend to forget its formulas, when it comes to geopolitics.
There are other examples. The Dutch and the British are pushing the idea of a Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence. Why not do this at UNESCO? Why discuss this outside the organisation that was specifically created for dealing with new scientific achievements and making them available to mankind? There is no reply.
There are several competing partnerships, and the Media Freedom Coalition formed by Canada and Britain is one of them. The French, together with Reporters without Borders, promote the Information and Democracy Partnership. Once again, not everyone is invited to join it. Several years ago, Britain held the Global Conference for Media Freedom.
Question: Russia was not invited to attend, was it?
Sergey Lavrov: At first, there was no invitation, but then we reminded them that if this was a “global forum,” it was right to hear opposing points of views. But they did not invite us all the same.
Examples of this kind are not in short supply. Talking about these matters, there are mechanisms within UNESCO, which is fully legitimate and competent to deal with these issues. However, it gives a voice to others who may have a different view on media freedom compared to that of our Western colleagues. I think that this sets the international community on a path that is quite destructive, just like the attempts to “privatise” the secretariats of international organisations.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a case in point, since people from Western and NATO countries are fully in control of its Technical Secretariat. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) states that everything must be done by consensus. However, the Technical Secretariat obediently tolerates gross violations of the Convention. The Western countries vote for their decisions, which is completely at odds with the CWC, and claim that executing these is the Secretariat’s duty. By arrogating the right to pinpoint who is to blame for using chemical weapons, the Technical Secretariat takes over the functions of the UN Security Council.
The West has now instructed the Technical Secretariat to crack down on Syria, where many shady things and outright provocations took place over the past years. We exposed them and held news conferences in The Hague, where the OPCW has its headquarters, as well as in New York. We showed that the Technical Secretariat was being manipulated with the help of destructive and extremist NGOs like the White Helmets. I would like to note that we are starting to hear statements along these lines from heads of certain respected organisations. For example, some senior executives of the UNESCO Secretariat have come forward with the initiative to promote “values-based multilateralism.”
Question: And they are the ones who define these values, aren’t they?
Sergey Lavrov: Probably. The UNESCO leadership also represents a Western country and NATO. There is no doubt about this.
We do know that at the end of the day, behind all this talk on building consensus and having regard for the opinion of all countries, the collective West will set the tone. This has already happened more than once. The way the West views “values-based multilateralism” will shape its negotiating position.
At the same time, there is an effort to promote a “human rights-based” approach. If we look at the challenges the world is currently facing, there is security, including food security, as well as ensuring livelihoods and healthcare. This is also related to human rights. The right to life is central to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is being trampled upon in the most blatant manner, just like the socioeconomic rights. The United States has yet to join the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and has only signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the West is seeking to emphasise. Lately they have been focusing on the ugliest ways to interpret these rights, including on transgender issues and other abnormal ideas that go against human nature itself.
Question: You mentioned the humanitarian aspect, which is very important. The border crisis in Belarus. Refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries trying to enter the EU are being deported peremptorily. It is a serious crisis, and the problem has grown in scale. It concerns the border with the EU, which claims to respect human rights and the humanitarian rules. Can Russia mediate the settlement of this conflict? Can we influence the situation at all? And would there be any point?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t think that mediation is needed here. I do not see any violations of international law or obligations by Belarus. I have access to information about these developments, just as all the other stakeholders. According to this information, those who do not want to live in Belarus are trying to enter the EU from the territory of Belarus. Demanding that President Alexander Lukashenko and the Belarusian law enforcement agencies stop this would be contrary to international law, especially humanitarian law. The hysterical claims made in some EU countries that Belarus, supported by Russia, is deliberately encouraging these flows of refugees are unseemly for serious politicians. This means that they are aware of their helplessness, including in terms of international law, which is why they are growing hysterical.
Here is a simple example. You have said that the EU does not want refugees to enter its territory. I believe that it is not the EU but individual countries that do not want this. The situation is different across the EU in terms of the positions of individual countries and regions. There is no unity on this matter. Poland and Lithuania are pushing the refugees eager to enter their territory back to Belarus. I wonder how this is different from the recent developments in Italy. Former Interior Minister Matteo Salvini refused to allow refugees to disembark in Italy. He argued that there were several other EU countries along their route where they could request asylum. Salvini is likely to face trial for endangering the lives of those refugees, who had fled from the dire, catastrophic conditions in their home countries. What is the difference between the behaviour of the Baltic states and Poland and the decision for which the former minister is about to stand trial?
There are many other examples of double standards here, but just take a look at the identity of those refugees fleeing to Europe. They are Syrians, Iraqis and, recently, Afghans. People from the Sahel-Sahara region in Africa are trying to enter Europe via Libya. As we list the countries from which illegal migrants are exporting instability, we should not forget the reason behind the collapse of their home countries. This collapse has been brought about by Western adventurism. A case in point is the US adventure in Iraq, where tens of thousands of NATO troops and contingents of other countries eager to please Washington were later stationed in a cover-up ploy . Look at the aggression against Libya, and the failure of the 20-year-long war trumpeted as a mission to restore peace in Afghanistan. They attempted to do the same in Syria. As a result, several million people have been uprooted and are now trying to enter Europe from Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. This is our Western partners’ style. They regard any situation from a historical and chronological angle that suits them best. They launched devastating bombing attacks on Libya and Iraq. But after both countries were reduced to ruins, they urged everyone to assume a shared responsibility for the fate of refugees. We asked, why this should be a “shared responsibility?”After all, it was them who created the problem in the first place. They replied: “Let bygones be bygones.” There is no point looking back, they have awakened to the problem, and now it rests with us. Ukraine is another remarkable example of the logic of forgetting historical embarrassments.
Question: I would be remiss not to ask you about Ukraine. The situation there is escalating. Not so long ago, an officer, a Russian citizen,from the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) on Ceasefire and Stabilisation in Southeastern Ukraine was detained (in fact, kidnapped) on the demarcation line. The Ukrainian military have become increasingly active in the grey zone. With that in mind, how much longer can the Normandy format dialogue continue? Is a ministerial meeting being planned? How productive will this dialogue be?
Sergey Lavrov: I would like to revisit the diplomatic tactics of cutting off inconvenient historical eras and periods. How did it all begin? In our exchanges with our German or French colleagues who co-founded the Normandy format and the February 2015 Minsk agreements, they unfailingly maintain a “constructive ambiguity” with regard to who must comply with the Minsk agreements. We keep telling them: What ambiguity is there? Here, it is clearly written: Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk must enter into consultations and agree on a special status, an amnesty and elections under the auspices of the OSCE. This is clearly stated there. They say they know who plays the decisive role there. We reply that we do not know who else plays the decisive role there except the parties whom the UN Security Council has obliged to act upon what they signed. To their claims that we “annexed” Crimea, we say that, first, we did not annex Crimea, but rather responded to the request of the Crimean people, who had come under a direct threat of destruction. I remember very well the Right Sector leaders saying that Russians should be expelled from Crimea, because they would never speak, think, or write in Ukrainian. Everyone back then was telling me that it was a figure of speech. It was not. Recently, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky confirmed this when he said: If you think you are Russian, go to Russia. This is exactly the ideology proclaimed by the Right Sector immediately after the EU-guaranteed settlement document had been trampled upon in the morning by the same people who had signed it on behalf of the opposition with President Viktor Yanukovych. When you remind them of Russophobia, which instantly manifested itself among the putschists who seized power as a result of the coup, they say no, it is a thing of the past. They propose starting the discussion with the fact that the sanctions were imposed on us. This is an unsavoury approach.
I am disappointed to see such a decline in the Western negotiating and diplomatic culture. Take any hot item on the international agenda and you will see that the West is either helpless or is cheating. Take, for example, the alleged poisoning of blogger Alexey Navalny. This is a separate matter.
Returning to Ukraine and the Normandy format, indeed, the situation has escalated. There are attempts to create a provocative situation, to provoke the militia into responding and to drag Russia into military actions.
The Bayraktar drone incident is nothing short of a mystery. The Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said that this weapon was indeed used, while the Defence Minister claimed that nothing of the kind had happened. I think they are now pondering options to see which one will work better for them: either to show how tough they are having started bombing in direct and gross violation of the Minsk agreements, or to say that they are complying with the Minsk agreements and to propose to get together in the Normandy format. We do not need a meeting for the sake of holding a meeting. They are sending mixed messages through characters like Alexey Arestovich (he is some kind of a semi-official adviser), or head of the presidential executive office Andrey Yermak, or Denis Shmygal, or President Zelensky himself. But they follow the same logic: the Minsk agreements should not and must not be fulfilled, because this will destroy Ukraine. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Minsk agreements were created as a result of 17-hour-long talks precisely in order to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Initially, having proclaimed their independence, the new republics were even unhappy with us for encouraging them to find common ground with Kiev. Whatever the new authorities may be, Ukraine is our neighbour and a fraternal nation. After signing the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements in Minsk, the Russian Federation convinced representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk to sign this document as well.
Accusing us of destroying Ukraine’s territorial integrity is unseemly and dishonest. It is being destroyed by those who are trying to make it a super-unitary state while reducing the languages of ethnic minorities, primarily Russian, to the status of token tools of communication, and making education in Russian and other languages nonexistent. This is a neo-Nazi approach to society building.
As you may be aware, in April 2014, immediately after the Crimea referendum, former US Secretary of State John Kerry, former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, Acting Foreign Minister of the new regime in Ukraine Andrey Deshchitsa and I met in Vienna. We agreed on one page of a “dense” text to the effect that the United States, the EU and Russia welcomed the Kiev authorities’ plan to hold a nationwide dialogue on federalisation with the participation of all regions of Ukraine. It was approved. Truth be told, this document did not go anywhere, but it remains open information. It was made available to the media. That is, back then, neither the United States nor the EU wanted to make a “monster” out of Ukraine. They wanted it to be a truly democratic state with all regions and, most importantly, all ethnic minorities feeling involved in common work. Up until now, the Ukrainian Constitution has the linguistic and educational rights of ethnic minorities, including the separately stated rights of Russian speakers, enshrined in it. Just look at the outrageous things they are doing with the laws on education, languages and the state language. There is a law recently submitted by the government titled On State Policy during the Transition Period. It does more than just cross out the Minsk agreements. It explicitly makes it illegal for Ukrainian political, diplomatic and other officials to fulfil them. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe recently came up with a positive opinion about this law, which did not surprise us. This decision does not say a word about the fact that this law undermines Ukraine’s commitments under the Minsk agreements and, accordingly, Kiev’s obligations to comply with the UN Security Council resolution.
Question: If I understood you correctly, a ministerial meeting cannot even be prepared in this atmosphere.
Sergey Lavrov: Our German and French colleagues have been saying all the time: let’s preserve “constructive ambivalence” as regards who must observe the Minsk agreements. An EU-Ukraine summit took place literally two days after the telephone conversation of the President of Russia, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France, when Vladimir Putin said such law-making was unacceptable, including the destructive draft law on a transitional period. Following the summit, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky signed a statement a good quarter of which is devoted to the crisis in southeastern Ukraine. The top-ranking EU officials and the Ukrainian President officially stated that Russia bears special responsibility for this crisis because it is a party to the conflict. We immediately asked Berlin and Paris: so which is it: constructive ambivalence or this position? We were told that we shouldn’t be surprised because from the very beginning of the crisis in 2014 they proceeded from the premise that we ought to do all this. If that is the case, what was the point of signing the Minsk agreements?
Now they are trying to draw us in, citing President Vladimir Putin, who promised to organise the Normandy format at least at the ministerial level. We are not avoiding meetings. But promising to instruct Russian officials to work on this process, President Putin said that first we must fulfil on what we agreed in Paris in December 2019. The Kiev authorities were supposed to do everything the sides agreed upon then. They did not move a finger to implement the Steinmeier formula, determine a special status for Donbass, fix it permanently in the Ukrainian legislation and settle security issues.
A draft of this document was prepared when the parties gathered for this summit in Paris in December 2019. Its first item was an appeal by the Normandy format leaders for the disengagement of troops and withdrawal of heavy artillery along the entire contact line. President Zelensky said he could not agree to do this along the entire contact line and suggested doing it in three points only. Even the German and French participants were a bit perplexed because the aides of the presidents and the Chancellor coordinated the text ahead of the summit. Eventually, they shook their heads and agreed to disengagement in three points. Ukraine has not carried out this provision so far. Its conduct was indicative: it did not want to adopt a radical measure that would considerably reduce the risks of armed clashes and threats to civilians.
With great difficulty, the parties agreed on special measures in the summer of 2020. They signed a Contact Group document stating that any fire must not immediately trigger reciprocal fire. Otherwise, there will be an escalation. After each shelling, a commander of a unit that was attacked was supposed to report to the supreme commander. Only after his approval, the commander of the unit could open reciprocal fire. The republics included this provision in their orders but Ukraine flatly refused to fulfil it. Then, several months ago, it was persuaded to accept it and went along with this, implementing what was agreed upon a year ago. However, recently the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said that none of this was required: if you hear a shot, even into the air, you can go ahead and bomb the civilian population.
Question: Let’s move on to Central Asia, if you don’t mind. The Taliban coming to power is a daunting challenge to Russia and the post-Soviet Central Asian countries, which are our former fraternal republics. Are we ready to take up this challenge and how can we help our neighbours in Central Asia?
Sergey Lavrov: We saw it coming one way or another all these years while the Americans were trying to “stimulate” agreements between the Afghans. This was done, I would say, not too skilfully. I’m not hiding my assessment. The agreement that was concluded with the Taliban in Doha without the involvement of then President Ashraf Ghani was the last “diplomatic victory” as it was portrayed by the previous US administration. On the one hand, it gave rise to a hope that the Taliban would now be amenable to talks. On the other hand, there were many skeptical assessments, because the Taliban agreed to create some kind of common government bodies in exchange for a complete withdrawal of all foreign troops by May 1, 2021. Former President Ghani was outright unhappy with this since he realised that if this agreement was fulfilled, he would have to share power. Under all scenarios, he was unlikely to remain the number one person in the new Afghan government. So, he did his best to slow down the process. As a result, the Americans stayed longer. According to a number of US political analysts, this happened because Washington failed to withdraw its troops by the agreed deadline. The Taliban then decided they were free from any commitment to form a government of national accord.
However, this is a thing of the past, and we believe that the United States and those who stayed there for 20 years promising to make a model country out of Afghanistan must now get directly involved, primarily financially, to avert a humanitarian disaster. In this sense, we want to preserve historical continuity with its causal relationship.
An event that we held recently in Moscow with the participation of Afghanistan’s neighbours and other leading countries of the region and the SCO and CSTO-sponsored events that took place not so long ago in Dushanbe were aimed at urging the Taliban to deliver on their promises and the obligations that they made and assumed when they came to power. First of all, this is to prevent the destabilisation of neighbouring countries and the spread of the terrorist and drug threat from Afghanistan and the need to suppress these threats in Afghanistan itself, to ensure the inclusive nature of government in terms of ethnopolitical diversity and to be sure to guarantee, as they said, Islam-based human rights. This can be interpreted fairly broadly, but, nevertheless, it provides at least some benchmarks in order to get the Taliban to make good on its promises.
Humanitarian aid must be provided now. I see the Western countries making their first contributions. The issue is about distributing this aid. Many are opposed to making it available directly to the government and prefer to act through international organisations. We see the point and are helping to reach an agreement with the current authorities in Kabul to allow international organisations, primarily humanitarian organisations, to carry out the relevant activities. Of course, we will do our fair share. We are supplying medicines and food there. The Central Asian countries are doing the same. Their stability is important to us, because we have no borders with our Central Asian allies, and we have visa-free travel arrangements with almost all of them. In this regard, President Putin told President Biden in Geneva in June that we are strongly opposed to the attempts to negotiate with the Central Asian countries on the deployment of the US military infrastructure on their territory in order to deliver over-the-horizon strikes on targets in Afghanistan, if necessary. They came up with similar proposals to Pakistan as well, but Pakistan said no. Uzbekistan has publicly stated that its Constitution does not provide for deployment of military bases on its territory. Kyrgyzstan has also publicly, through the mouth of the President, announced that they do not want this.
Knowing the pushy nature of the Americans, I do not rule out the possibility of them continuing to come up with the same proposal from different angles. I heard they are allegedly trying to persuade India to provide the Pentagon with certain capabilities on Indian territory.
Refugees are issue number two, which is now being seriously considered. Many of them simply came to Central Asia on their own. These countries have different policies towards them and try in every possible way to protect themselves against these incoming flows. In Uzbekistan, special premises for the refugees have been allocated right outside the airport, from where they are flown to other countries and they are not allowed to enter other parts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Our Tajik neighbours are doing the same. They are also being pressured to accept refugees. They want to set up holding centres under strong guarantee that after some time the refugees will be relocated. The West rushed to beg the neighbouring countries to accept tens of thousands of refugees, each claiming that it was a temporary solution until the West gives them documents for immigration to Western countries.
Question: But it turned out it was for the long haul …
Sergey Lavrov: Thankfully, no one has agreed to that, at least not to the numbers the West was talking about. Of course, some refugees relocated there, and proper arrangements must be made with regard to them. The West said they needed “two to three months” to issue documents for these people and it was necessary to save them, since they collaborated with the coalition forces. But if you collaborated with these Afghans on the ground for a long time and employed them as translators and informants, you surely ran background checks on them. If, after they had worked for you for so long you were still unable to decide whether you could trust them or not, why are you then “dumping” them onto the Central Asian countries, which are our allies? This issue remains open.
As you may be aware, we have come up with a proposal for the UN to convene a conference to address the Afghan people’s pressing humanitarian needs. I think the message was taken, so we expect a more specific response will come.
This is wonderfully detailed and gives a lot of information on the various hot spots from the so-called rules based international order right through to Central Asia.
I think we can call this one Lavrov Unplugged!
Read slowly, and study.
Great comment Amarynth, Lavrov unplugged. Given the western exceptionalism posture, I cannot think of anything but as being a racist policy. I hope to see a day when this BS ends.
Great interview as always. This is a wonderful gem:
”I am disappointed to see such a decline in the Western negotiating and diplomatic culture. Take any hot item on the international agenda and you will see that the West is either helpless or is cheating. Take, for example, the alleged poisoning of blogger Alexey Navalny. This is a separate matter.”
Indeed, Russophobia stands out as the West’s only ”salvation” as it’s being confronted by a most capable Russian leadership which only has to state the facts at hand. Doesn’t require one iota of ideology.
To much talk, it’s time for concrete things. Stalin did not talk much. You live in Asia, Asia knows and respects strong leaderships and systems. Discipline. Not discussion clubs and empty rhetoric.This gives enough space to “individuals” to be used by the West. And one more thing, the Russian world means the Russian language in schools and institutions. In America, everyone speaks American English, and at home they can speak whatever they want. In America, there are yellow and red and black and white Americans. Whites may not like it, but it is so or otherwise there will be no America. That is the fate of great powers. China is behaving the same, and so are others. When Germany was created, there were many small different regions, as shown by the genetic map. Today they are all Germans. So lets not invent “hot water”, but rather stick to the smart things that the Tsar and Stalin left you.
Stalin and Lavrov actually complement each other: Stalin didn’t talk much, that is true, but he was an excellent and very productive writer The reverse is true of Lavrov.
Little Russia and New Russia are waiting. Kazakhstan is waiting. Same agreement as Belarus. I don’t think the Russians have anything to brag about if the contract has been on the table for 23 years. Waiting only buys time for the enemy. Time entry into Ukraine should be adjust with China etntry into Taiwan and Iran to Azerbaijan. There was a lot of wonder and talk. No matter how much you talk to the west, they won’t change. Their people too, it’s a zone of conformity. That is why some Serbs and Russians went there to live. To earn money and believe in their deity-Mammon. This constant need of the Russian leadership to present itself as bigger democrats than the Greeks is a bit irritating. At least for me.
Lavrov is an amazing diplomat. In this lengthy interview, he did not mention Ukraine or China a single time. What talent!
He does mention Ukraine. Did you really read the interview in its entirety?
Lavrov is a smart diplomat, intelligent, very polite etc..
The problem is diplomacy is over. It does not exist anymore in the so called ‘West’. Russia can and continues to be diplomatic with the vast majority of ‘ normal’ countries because they respect each other. Russia respects any country sovereignty even a very small island is respected and this is fine. But with the US/UK/EU/NATO bloc this is simply not possible anymore, that is a fact.
And when diplomacy does not reign anymore the W word follows.This is not Russia fault of course, but no reaction by these idiots is only seen as signs of weakness and they double down.
That the art of diplomacy died out in West doesn’t mean it is over in the rest of the world.
“The Summit for Democracy seeks to divide people and countries into “democracies” and “non-democracies.” Furthermore, my colleagues from a respected country have told me that they could infer from the invitation they had received that the democratic countries that were invited to attend were also divided into “fully” and “conditionally” democratic. I think the Americans want to have the biggest possible crowd to show that the Washington-led movement has so many followers. Watching who specifically gets invited and in what capacity will be quite amusing. I am certain that there will be attempts to reach out to some of our strategic partners and allies, but I do hope that they will remain faithful to the obligations they have in other frameworks instead of taking part in artificially concocted, one-off unofficial summits.”
I am sure that every nation, government, and leader in the world is waiting eagerly with baited breath for an invitation to America’s upcoming Summit for Hypocrisy.
It will be The Soiree of the Season!
And surely the hottest ticket in town.
All the cool kids will be there!
After all, America is the world’s leading democracy–even though many US presidential elections have been based on massive electoral fraud, voter suppression, and ballot stuffing galore.
And America stands for liberty–even though it is engaging in domestic spying by the FBI and NSA; Big Tech social media censorship, and vaccine mandates.
American Values™ are Universal Values.
All nations, governments, and civilizations must adopt these values—OR ELSE!
Thanks for this. Superb interview.
Sergei Lavrov has the ability to dissect complex issues, to lay bare the essentials and to thread them together.
The most important part is his assessment that multilateralism is well and truly on its way:
With the age of multipolarity now dawning – and its emergence is an objective fact – new centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence have come into being.
Those who pay attention to — pay attention, not become a disciple of — people like John Mearsheimer can probably make educated guesses of what the Hegemon’s moves will be regarding its ‘de-hegemonisation’ apart from those articulated by Sergei Lavrov, who makes matters so much clearer.
More blablabla, no action.Lavrov is too polite but the West does not care one second about what he says.
Diplomacy ‘à la papa’is outdated.
On the ennemy side, they are doubling down.
CIA chief visited Moscow to warn Russia over troop buildup near Ukraine, CNN says
The TV channel noted that during his official two-day visit this week, the William Burns also expressed concern that Russia is close to using its gas exports as leverage.
Only warning, threats, more sanctions, more weapons, nato fleet in the B Sea, US bases in Ukraine , more wars etc…
Two Republican congressmen urge Biden to send more arms to Ukraine
According to them, Biden should deploy a US military presence in the Black Sea to deter a Russian invasion
As everyone can see, Russians don’t give a sh*t for all the threats, warnings, sanctions, ‘concerns’, blablabla of the CNN either.
”More blablabla, no action”
I think the above amounts to plain projection, twice over:
1) war is coming submits a typical shallow blablabla comment without the needed action to actually read the interview.
2) Lavrov has been very much involved in thwarting the West’s fascist coup plans in Belarus, and is now driving the final nail in the coffin by proclaiming the Union state. I haven’t noticed what part, if any, war is coming has contributed to.
Bottom line: Lavrov makes appreciable difference. Internet warriors do not.
I’d rather pray for more Russian blablabla, because the day it stops will be a very loud one.
I’m not sure everybody realizes how lucky we all are that Russia is ruled by such patient souls as Lavrov, Shoygu and Putin. It’s also not given that the next generation of Russian leaders will display the same quality. Beware what you wish for.
Sorry buddy, but “War is coming” is right. This troika is an “inter / trans-national compromise” troika with whom russian sympathisers abroad are delighted. And I undesratnd why :)), as you sad. For many in the West, the time of truth will come, where they will have to make the final decisions. Many run away from it even though they know that day will come. To separate weeds from grain. When the Russian troika arrives, from the other side, many people of Russian world will be delighted. I believe that there will be such people even among the, Kazakhs or the Tajiks, along with the Malorussians and Novorussians. These three fit to mold of all those who whine on the portals against globalists and their plans, against lethargy of a world that watches what is happening and does nothing concrete. Hegemon won’t change with that. Russia, with the three you mentioned is doing, in my opinion, one fifth of what it can and should do with her potentials. Nobody in Russia should be interested in whether the internationals like it or not. This man has talked so much for so many years that only after he passed the North Stream he decide to speak up and tell the truth ?? At the cost of a destroyed Ukraine that will be rebuilt again by the Russian nation again ??? Or the Russians will leave them aside like a hole for the Nazis to rule with the American missiles there. First nationally, then internationally. Not the other way around. And then you will see how the Russian spirit will come to life and how the whining about Russia will stop. There is no fertile land and fruit without hard rain with thunder. The rain that is just pouring will give the same for weeks. The problem is that it will block the usefull time for many other things and could ruin more than you would get. One thing is the security of the investment, and the other is the empty rhetoric by which only shareholders benefit. For example, if the Russians finaly take Maruriopolis … why so many billions were spent on the bridge. To show the Masonic brothers that it is possible? Couldn’t those billions went to something more specific where they are really needed It is time for action what they have been promising the Russian man for years.
A most inspiring word salad put together there but, no: Putin/Lavrov/Shoigu are very much up to the task.
It’s quite clear that no matter what levels of success Russia attains, the trolls here would keep on moaning and groaning all the same. To them, listening faithfully to CNN and keep parroting the message of overwhelming Zionazi strength, resolve, and determination is easy and pleasurable. Reading an interview with people dedicated to facts and knowledge is beyond them.
This is not CNN only, this is an official US State dept statement.
Department Press Briefing – November 5, 2021
On Saturday, Suddeutsche Zeitung reported that Washington had appealed to the European Union collectively and several European states individually over the alleged build-up of Russian forces. Sources cited by the paper pointed to recent “extremely aggressive rhetoric” by Russian authorities, without elaborating, while the newspaper recalled President Biden’s request to German authorities at the G20 Summit in Rome to “increase pressure on Russia in connection with the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline”.
Terribly sorry: this submission is dedicated to an interview which Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, gave to the Russian news channel Россия-24. I understand this is totally anathema to you, but then you should not really be posting in this thread at all. As a minimum requirement — even for somewhat, well, less mature contributors — you are supposed to actually read the material and then opine upon it, preferably keeping track of the subject by explicit quotations. Your infatuation with the noises coming out of the CNN, the White House, and other like-minded piles of rubbish doesn’t help much in this regard.
war is coming, next time you want to quote a long State Dept briefing that contains only a snippet of what is under discussion here, cut ‘n paste your snippet and give the link and your commentary.
(What an incredible time waster that was!)
The last thing in the world, the U.S., wants is a war, especially a war against peer nations they are pushing the Russia China affair as a cover-up for their own short-sightedness playing mostly to their own domestic audience for they know that with the problems within their own countries it could lead to revolutions and civil wars, so no they will do the talk but not the walk and that’s etched in stone.
It seems to me you’ve linked us to way more blablabla than Lavrov could ever cope with.
You’ll let me disagree about the salad :)). I hope you are not angry that I touched your idols :)). In fact, I think that the elections were rigged. The marketing system sold to the world and the broad masses in Russia no longer holds water. When you compare the statistical success of the Emperor or Stalin with theirs, they are not up to their knees. Nor will they be there in ten years. Why? Because they are not allowed by the bosses from the top of the pyramid. They have sanctions from the Anglo-American and EU sc…um that block them. They have governors who do not listen to the central government. They have a law that forbids the death penalty. They don’t use enough russian knowhow in places they should (they dont stole it like Chinese) etc etc. From your comments before I am not sure are you a socialist or not, so I will try to show you something for end……. if Saker allows and I’m done .. watch these two videos and tell me what you see.
In one, I see children celebrating the victory over fascism, however Elvira, Sreder and Kudrin are sitting in their house. In the second serious men just as the comments below say. Those who were ready to go to hell and return. Nothing was difficult for such people afterwards. No offense, but the determination to do something from those then and today, especially in russian leadership is enormous. All the best
djoke, OK, I see nothing in your screed that has anything to do with the topic. But I see you taking an opportunity to complain about Russia internally.
Get to topic please. These other issues you can take to the Cafe and perhaps somebody there will cry with you – but I doubt it. Otherwise, wait till we discuss Russia’s internal affairs. You’re way off the mark here.
(Careful, I’m going to give you a quizz about the topic lol .. and then we will find out you did not read it or what?)
No need to respond to this. Just get closer to the subject under discussion.
Excellent catch 😄
So, so …CNN … says something….
Here’s where we recommend,
– by way of introduction:
“Before I start, here is the guy who is a big honcho at CNN on “climate and inequality”.
Drew is a writer and producer for CNN Digital covering the climate crisis, inequality and much more. He joined CNN in January 2014.
His educational (lack of) “credentials” are impeccable and fit perfectly for a work in such a sewer as CNN since he knows how to push keyboards and has a substantial experience, and I quote, such as: Wrote, produced and edited text and video stories for CNN.com’s reader empowerment-focused Impact Your World initiative. Pitched original story ideas for sponsored series. Produced and edited obituary packages for air on CNN networks… Helped launch and co-wrote “The Good Stuff,” CNN’s newsletter focused on reader empowerment and “feel good” stories. So, the guy is like really powerful and has all the required background,…”
– on the matter:
“…,but the combined West is in a full scale “warm” war against Russia and until the issue of Country 404 is resolved a lot remains to be talked about, because Russia DOES NOT want to feed this shithole. 404, however, is desperate to start some shit in a desperate attempt (on advice from its US and European curators) to get Russia involved, not understanding that such an involvement will mean a catastrophic end to 404’s statehood and utter demolition of its military, security and political institutions. I am 100% positive that Patrushev explained to Burns how this may end badly. I am pretty sure that was one of the main issues discussed in Moscow and Burns was, most likely, put on notice that once 404 decides to “go big”, Russia wouldn’t care how many American (NATO) military and “intelligence”instructors, who infest 404, will die in the first 30 minutes of Russia’s response.
Should he have one, he would have known that the only concern for Russia in 404 [Ukraine] is for it turning, an ongoing and accelerating process, into a complete shithole which in desperation may indeed commit suicide (including on the advice of Blain’s homeland) and unleash the war against Russia which it will lose very fast and severely but will accomplish only one thing, which Russia was avoiding for the last 7 years–taking this freak of a nation with its third world problems and hostile population on Russia’s balance.
“… should understand that:
1. Russia will talk with the devil himself if need be and Russians’ opinion of the modern American establishment is very close to a definition of the devil. If it reduces some tensions, sure. But…
2. Russia knows that the United States is non-agreement capable and effectively ungovernable and any word or document signed with the US is worthless, as are any US promises. If Rojansky, and Biden Admin, think otherwise–they are in for a surprise.
Do you understand now?
I really can not understand what Mr.Lavrov can not understand of the way of procedure of the “West”…
It was obvious, as they warn from their “series” ( where they warn years in advance of developing events to come…like “Utopia” warned us of the technosanitary dystopia in developing…) what the EU, a project of the US to end the sovereign nation states in Europe which could act in discordance of its policies, was going to be about…
The only remaining doubt ( dissipating for some paying attention at light velocity…), is whether current Russian elites were always aware of this and went along with it… as the joining in along with globalist totalitarian projects “ID2020” and “2030 Agenda” seems to confirm….
In this regard, comes to mind that comment by a senior strategist in the, considered at those years, “alt-blogs”, on the supervision by Mr. Andropov of the production of “Seventeen Moments of Spring”, and in what way the related dossiers on members of the III Reich highest echelons showed such “perfect arians”, obviating the human carnage this “perfection” was able to produce….
That Mr. Lavrov continues to show any kind of surprise, in spite of his increasingly dark expression contradiction this and giving idea of his increasing disgust, points to a need of continuous theater…with the probable aim of containing the equally increasing disgust of the Russian people in all orders….
These past days a KPRF candidate which was disputing Moscow City Mayor post, was detained on charges of furtive hunting….No idea whether the charges were proven true…
That people who opposes in one way or the other totalitarian new world order will start disappearing, as always has happened under any totalitarian rule in the wordl has been, is an understatement…
The elites seem to not having been able to invent another new way to manage the coming downfall in workers´ purchasing power and level of welfare produced by their missmanagement of the past two years and previous decades and current controled demolition of the previous system…
In the meantime, they play their usual “war games” …as the remaining way to achieve a bit of social cohesion they willingly dinamited through the apartheid states imposed on the poples during these two years….
On why the level of social cohesiveness, and thus enthusiasm in the fight, the betterment of the living conditions for the Soviet citizen the Bolshevik Revolution factually produced, will be difficult to equate this time, on why previous conflicts, like Syrian War lately, and Spanish Civil War in the past, acted as highly valuable training exercises for the Russian armed forces offering some advantage over its enemies, and, in general, on war strategy…
Lack of social cohesiveness, will, definitely, favour, this time, that the Russain elites try to avoid a kinetic war as if there was no tomorrow…Not to mention that, this time, they will not aim to fight and put an end to an economic system in which they participate…This is why deep contradictivons exist between the goals of the Russian elites and those of the population under their rule….A national idea, something that ties peoples of any condition and ideology, in such a vast country, this time is absent…as warned by an old strategist….time ago…
Lavrov is getting more and more blunt when talking about the words and actions (or lack thereof) of the West on the diplomatic front.
This is not a good sign. Is the West doing this deliberately or is it just an inability to deal with any situation where they do not et their way?
This can only lead to war or to chaos.
Q: Is the West doing this deliberately or is it just an inability to deal with any situation where they do not get their way?
A: Both, in fact. The West was founded on premeditated evil; this explains the deliberate acts of its subsequent track record. Since it was so successful over a course of half a millennium, evil became wholly ingrained into its psyche. Now that the West finally has hit the buffers, it is helpless and clueless as it is trying to prevail in a rapidly changing global environment; hence its inability that we see playing out right in front of us today.
”This can only lead to war or to chaos.”
Again: both of them. But this time around, it is the West’s 99% that will find themselves on the receiving end of raw elite contempt. With such incredibly inept scum employed in the field of politics, in the military, and in the media the West’s 1% is losing its clout externally which is passing over to abler and saner powers and leaderships in the ascendancy. Sergey Lavrov feels the brunt of fear and hatred this elicits among the losers, but he is confident of victory and peace as far as Russia and her allies are concerned.
‘Both in fact’.
Take a wider look at Russia’s own history. How many times the ‘evil West’, bristling with hubristic confidence, attacked Russia only to be routed and squandering their own resources, but learning nothing from their defeats at Russian hands. And that’s because their ‘inept’ and ignorant politicians, generals, economists didn’t do their homework, i.e. correctly assessing the capabilities, resources and internal force of the ‘Russian soul’, of the strength of Russia’s faith in her own destiny.
There is a revealing passage in the mostly overlooked Dostoevsky’s ‘The Adolescent’ (as much overlooked as his literary ‘testament’: “The Pushkin Speech”).
A debate between teenagers about Russia, where one of the interlocutors by the revealing name of Kraft uttered this ‘characterization’ of Russians: ””it’s all our friend Kraft, who is well known to us all for his character and the solidity of his convictions. From a very ordinary fact he has deduced a very extraordinary conviction that has surprised us all. He has deduced that the Russians are a second-rate people…”
“Third-rate,” shouted some one.
“A second-rate people destined to serve as the raw material for a nobler race, and not to play an independent part in the history of humanity. In view of this theory of his, which is perhaps correct, Kraft has come to the conclusion that the activity of every Russian must in the future be paralysed by this idea, that all, so to speak, will fold their hands and…”
“Let Russia be condemned to second-rateness, but we can still work and not for Russia alone. And, what’s more, how can Kraft be a patriot if he has ceased to believe in Russia?”
“Besides being a German,” a voice interrupted again.
“I am a Russian,” said Kraft”…… (I recommend to read all the Chapter 3, the whole novel from start to end – it’s an extraordinary book-, actually read Dostoevsky without the ‘Western’ ideological blinkers à la Berdyaev).
I always remind the (unheeded) warnings of Bismarck to the hotheads who believed that Russia could be defeated by the ‘nobler races’: ”It could be argued about this if such a war could possibly have the consequence that Russia, as Count Kálnoky puts it, would be “smashed”. Such a result, however, is beyond all probability even after the most brilliant victories. Even the most favorable outcome of the war would never result in the disintegration of Russia’s main power, which is based on the millions of actual Russians of Greek confession. These, even if separated by contracts, would always come together again just as quickly as the parts of a cut mercury body. This indestructible empire of the Russian nation, strong by its climate, its deserts and its lack of needs, as by the predisposition of having only one vulnerable border, would remain our born and in need of revenge opponent after its defeat, just as today’s France is in the West. This would create a situation of permanent tension for the future, which we can be forced to take on ourselves if Russia attacks us or Austria, but which I do not want to take on my responsibility voluntarily. In 100 years, three strong great powers have not succeeded in “smashing” a nationality in terms of the much weaker Polish ones. The vitality of the Russian will be no less tenacious; In my opinion, we will always do best to treat them as an elementary danger against which we maintain protective, but which we cannot eliminate”.
Hitler dismissed the warnings of Bismarck also. The rest is history. Who in his right mind can imagine that the ‘tranny’ West would ‘smash’ Russia and China? After WW2 (1962) the Marshal Montgomery stated the rules of war (in the House of Lords, no less): ”Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: ‘Do not march on Moscow’…Rule 2 is: ‘Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.’